Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] The New Testament

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: rochelle altman <willaa AT netvision.net.il>
  • To: "b-hebrew-lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The New Testament
  • Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:06:02 +0200

Karl,

You seem to expect ancient Sumerian and Akkadian and Ugaritic and Phoenician and Moabite and Hebraic, and Aamaic, etc. as well as Greek and Latin and Greco-Latin vcrnacular writing systems to follow modern standards.. Is that not to denigrate the ancients as "primitive"??

The attitude towards documents that you call "modern" where the format
was unimportant but the content is, is derived from the thinking found
in Tanakh and New Testament. That makes it unique among ancient
attitudes towards writing.

This is quite a claim that is completely contrary to the concrete evidence. Concrete examples, please. FROM the original texts, please.

KR:
>That does not mean that individuals following that attitude were not influenced by the attitude that
>existed among the Greeks, Romans, etc., but that they did not consider themselves bound by >them.

RISA:

Ever hear of Arius and Athanasius? That was fourth century. You are aware, of course, of the fighting between rival religious parties as well as within religious parties. Surely you are aware that each religious party had an identifying script.

As a result I find your argument that the differences in writing style
between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus reflect different political factions
vying for power within the ancient church a theory that is less than
convincing.

I am sorry if the evidence undercuts.presuppositions, but the massive evidence across five-thousand years is concrete and visible. Then, after your peculiar and exceptionally rude last response, I no longer even try to convince you; I am writing this reply for others

Every time there is a change of power structure there is a change to the official identifying script
This is quite visible in the Hebrew and Aramaic scripts among the DSS. let alone both before the DSS and after..The changes in the designs of cuneiform scripts is an early example, a modern one is the enforced change on German scripts by a ruler with Imperial ambitions.

However, I have no problem with the concept that those differences reflect different geographical locations.

Good of you.What about the different canons. Just locale? Nothing to do with religious affiliation., right?

I have heard the theory that these are the only remaining copies of the "Great Bibles"
that Constantine ordered to be placed in all churches,

Sigh, and just how many of those "great bibles" do these folks think were produced. Later instances of ordering large books (e.g., AElfred's ordering translations of Gregory's "Pastoral Care") to be reproduced and in every church usually end up with perhaps three or so copies. It was only with the printing press that such grandiose schemes, for instance, the book of common prayer, could be implemented.

in which casemany would have been hastily done, using materials of uncertain
quality locally available. As a result, many of these "Great Bibles"
early on would have been recognized as less than stellar examples of
the copyist's art.

Please! Both the Siniaticus and the Vaticanus are written on superior parchment. Both are written in formal bookhands. Both are carefully laid out on the leaves.

When open for reading, the Vaticanus imitates the shape and size of an official proclamation on a wall tablet in the Greek hierarchy of shape and sizes. The Siniaticus imitates the shape and size of formal Imperial documents on papyri..

The script of the Vaticanus is archaized, sans serif, and imitates Classical (4th BCE) Greek scripts. The script of the Siniaticus adds Roman serifs and imitates Greco-Roman designs.

Where do you find any evidence that they were supposed to be "inferior" productions?

Because this attitude that you call "modern" is also an ancient one,

Sure. The Atticists tried it on Greek -- didn't take effect for more than 500 years -- just take a look at the documents in the Epigraphic Museum or the Archaeological Museum in Athens some day. . The Augustinians tried it on Latin. Took **1600** years to finally take effect.

Peoples fight for their identity; the design of a script is the ancient "national" flag of identity.-- whether we are talking about ethnic groups or religious parties.Still is, if you bother to read Jack Goody's (anthropological) works. Do note that the so-called "Rashi" script is the reason for the change in the ta'amim and nikkud. It's a compact script with minimal leading. The earlier notation systems required large leading.The compact leading required a redesign of the notations. The Rashi script, though is merely a slight change in design of an identifying script, turning a large bookhand into a compact, condensed bookhand. It did not eliminate identity.Nor is it used everywhere.

Unless you have a brutal dictator who enforces change by death, as, for example, in the 20th-century, to effect a change to a people's writing system takes centuries. The technique is called "classicization"; the name of the game is "standardization." It finally took hold in the English speaking world during the Commonwealth; took the printing press to help it along. Orthography, though... that's really very modern. And that has taken 300 years to sort of enforce. Modern. You bet! We are the heirs of the late 17th- and 18th-century Classicists. The Internet is rather quickly throwing the "Enlightenment" standardization out the window this time around. Just another round in the same old dance. What else is new?

albeit a minority ancient one, therefore early corrections of
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus could be just that, corrections.

The early corrections were made by the original scribes; they are corrections. The later ones, some are, some aren't. AS I SAID!!!

Karl W. Randolph.


Dr. Rochelle I. Altman


On 10/23/06, rochelle altman <willaa AT netvision.net.il> wrote:

>Peter,
>
>I a, perfectly aware of the fact that most are papyri gragments. Schmuel
>was going on about the Siniaticus, no?

[snip]





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page