From: Mark E. Shoulson (email@example.com)
Date: Thu May 27 2004 - 22:10:19 CDT
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
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t08/t0805.htm for some Talmudic
discussion of the matter.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 27 2004 - 22:10:58 CDT