Re: Phoenician, Fraktur etc

From: Mark E. Shoulson (
Date: Fri May 28 2004 - 09:08:21 CDT

  • Next message: Andrew C. West: "Re: Vertical BIDI"

    Simon Montagu wrote:

    > Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
    >> 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.
    > "Who are meant by Idiots? Said R. Hisda: The Samaritans."
    > This passage does make me wonder if there wasn't something like a
    > political motive for disunification 2,000+ years ago, and the Old
    > Hebrew script was avoided for sacred texts just because the Samaritans
    > used it (even though the translation of "Hediotim" by "Idiots" is
    > probably too strong)

    "Idiots" *is* too strong; "hediot" is more like "the common folk, the
    hoi polloi" (yes, I know there's a double article there). As for
    politics, well, there certainly was no love lost between the Jews and
    the Samaritans back then, and it's quite possible (or likely) that this
    was a motivating factor in discrediting the Old Hebrew script: to
    strengthen the distinction between the two.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 28 2004 - 09:09:20 CDT