good to see you again. excellent summary.

any comments on the manner in which the letters end?

-bc

the bread joke is an inside joke from a colleague of ucla. it was adopted as a socio-linguistic code for, among other things, those who are compelled to keep a vigilant eye on things while making careful notes. as you know if you read enoch, there are many watchers, and while some are named, most are not ; -)

-bc

There is one significant point of difference: In letter #3, Norman Golb, while obviously promoting his own point of view, uses diplomatically polite language to show respect and soften his approach – ‘I would be most grateful’ and ‘cordial good wishes’ etc. The most negative word is ‘dismayed,’ which I think of as a common euphemism for “mad as hell,” but is still restrained.

The Dworkin letter also uses the word “dismayed” but otherwise lacks any of the collegiality or diplomatic phrasing of the Norman Golb letter. Much of the letter is a recital of facts or claims in academic language, but these are larded with emotionally laden words that convey a lack of respect for any other view. The author is ‘stunned’ and refers to ‘the *anger* that I and other informed people are now feeling towards your Museum’ – an ‘institution *ostensibly* devoted to “educating” the public.’

The “Carlos Gadda” email is a similar combination of academic prose and emotional zingers – “distinctly misleading” and “radical defender of the disputed Qumran-Essene theory” who *inappropriately* *misled* the public. There is no room in Gadda/Dworkin’s prose for honest disagreements over interpretation of the evidence, only rhetorical overkill and the assumption that anyone who disagrees with him must be corrupt, dishonest, and probably part of some vast evil conspiracy.

When “Charles Gadda” posted similar material on the Internet Infidels Board, I tried to make him see that this language was more likely to start a fist fight than a useful discussion where he might have a chance of persuading anyone to his point of view. He actually toned a few things down, and I figured I was dealing with an undergraduate who had yet to learn the basics of effective communication. I was stunned myself to learn that he has a PhD in comparative literature and a law degree.

So, in summary, this is possibly a “scribal school” with some common texts and some borrowing of key phrases, but I see two different writers, or at least two different personas.

It should be noted that I’m going to largely ignore the specifics of the content itself as I am almost wholly unfamiliar with the field, and will focus more on the structure.

Upon a cursory initial perusal, it seems highly likely that the second and third letter were written by the same person, based largely on the commonalities in sentence construction. I’m thinking specifically of how the writer uses clauses as well as the % mix of active-to-passive sentence construction. This is surprising since those two letters are ascribed to different authors.

Upon a second quick look, I’d hazard a guess that the first letter was also the same author, but that he took more time writing it, as it has less clause use and the sentences are better constructed. It could be that he or she was simply paying more attention to cloaking his style in the first letter.

It is clear that the grandest hierophany of them all is when bread went on pilgrimatge to the Horns of Hattin.