17-09-2016, 11:00 AM
I am afraid that Rich has confused something there. He writes:
However, the signature is Marci's while the main text of the letter is from the scribe. (It could also be one of his students). The main text of the two letters are made up of many, many words, and these are different words between the two letters, so they could not have been overlaid.
That makes the whole point a moot point.
Quote:6: The “Signature” & Date: It has long been known that the “signature” of Marcus Marci is not by him, as it seems to be different on his other, earlier letters. This has been explained by the fact that Marci was very old, and ill at this point, and some scribe wrote and signed the letter for him. But interesting to me is the almost pantographic ability of this scribe…
However, the signature is Marci's while the main text of the letter is from the scribe. (It could also be one of his students). The main text of the two letters are made up of many, many words, and these are different words between the two letters, so they could not have been overlaid.
That makes the whole point a moot point.

