Re: Phoenician, Fraktur etc

From: Mark E. Shoulson (
Date: Thu May 27 2004 - 22:10:19 CDT

  • Next message: John Cowan: "Re: Phoenician, Fraktur etc"

    James Kass wrote:

    >Peter Kirk wrote,
    >>Well, maybe the rules changed with time. And there does seem to have
    >>been a reluctance to write the name of God in the new-fangled Aramaic
    >>square glyphs. But I'm sure that basically the copyists considered that
    >>they were copying exactly the same string of characters, just using
    >>different glyphs for them. They certainly would not have considered this
    >>a change to the text, just a change in how it was represented on their
    >>equivalent of paper.
    >...has some good detail on the rules, but not their origin. And,
    >it doesn't really mention palaeo-.
    Just for some more confusion to add, I note that with the distaste later
    Pharisaic Judaism had for the Old Hebrew script, there comes a fairly
    well-accepted, if unsupportable, thesis that the Law was actually
    *originally* given in Square Hebrew ("Assyrian Script"), which was then
    changed/forgotten when Israel sinned, and later still restored. See for some Talmudic
    discussion of the matter.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 27 2004 - 22:10:58 CDT