Hi, Dave,
[snip]
>This is interesting to me, as I was recently (and quite privately)
>musing over the subject of published editions of works vs copied
>documents (albeit wrt synoptic gospels and the NT Pauline corpus).
>Could you be more specific?
Sure, but it takes around 5 pages, condensed yet -- in a write-up
that may be available on-line fairly soon. On the other hand, some
of the critical information on 1QSa is given in part 3 of the "Some
Aspects of Writing Systems" article on-line at ORION. An example of
the authoritative script (the class) is shown in the part 2 of the
same article. The font of 1QSa is the commerical cursive font (the
mutation of the script class) and is a perfect example of a non-
authoritative font. It actually is very straightforward and usually
easy to determine the status of a document and whether it is dictated
or copied.
>Are you talking about the kind of quick classification (inferences)
>that might be used as initial/working hypotheses to ferret out the
>true situation through a dialectic process?
No. I am talking about the concrete and visible hierarchies of sizes,
formats, and scripts that can be, and have been, tracked from Sumer and
Akkad down the millennia. The DSS are in the direct line of transmission.
The hierarchies of sizes and formats we see in the DSS were used by the
early Christians. In addition, the early Christians incorporated many of
the Semitic graphs of the BCE periods into their symbol sets as variant
forms.
>Also, just what specific characteristics make a document an
>Authoritative/official products of an authoritative writing room, or
>an Edition created by an individual for their private (or
>family/group) use, or a Bookshop production?
Again, I mention some of the markers in the "Some Aspects" article. A
somewhat more detailed, although highly condensed discussion, is in the
above mentioned write-up. The whole thing may be summarized as:
Authoritative ("chancery") -- Large size, correct format under
the current ruling power, wide margins, multiple hands but
carefully conformed, "offical" script. Content is "Law" (in
any sense).
Private copy: Smaller size, different format from original according
to the correct hierarchy for an edition under the current ruling
power, narrow margins, single hand, irregularity both in writing
and orthography, "unofficial" (cursive) script. Content might be
anything, but "law" is more common than literature.
Bookshop: Smaller sizes, correct format under the current ruling power,
margins depend upon quality, multiple hands, conformation of script
depends on quality, script "unofficial" and depends on quality (i.e.
cursive bookhands for Class 1, commercial cursive for Class 3) but
orthography usually regular. Content, literature.
>I am not trying to be
>argumentative or anything like that, but you are being a tad vague
>as if these things are well known (and hence the other participants
>should have "done their homework" and already know these things).
Some aspects of these things are addressed in the "Some Aspects" and "The
Report on the Zoilos Inscription" articles -- both of which are available
on-line at ORION. Other points are mentioned in the on-line lecture for the
pseudepigraphy discussion at the St. Andrews site. While I am not conceited
enough to expect people to read what I write, although condensed, the
"homework" is there and available. So...
>At least as it relates to Greek or Latin literature, including NT
>documents, produced in various ways for various purposes in and
>around the 1st century CE (based on what I have read of D. Trobisch,
>_First Edition of the NT_ and H. Gamble, _Books & Readers_), it
>does not appear that provenance can be so neatly classed by "size
>(of document?), format (roll vs codex?) and script employed." Can
>the situation really be any more certain wrt Hebrew or Aramaic
>documents?
Let's take this in pieces. First, we have a dual tradition in the West:
by the third BCE the hierarchies of script, format, and sizes had solidified
into two primary streams: Semitic and Greco-Roman. (With an inordinate
number of affiliated but adjusted-to-locale-conditions sub-streams.) Second,
as mentioned in the "Zoilos Report," there are material reasons for the
diversity between the Ptolemaic and the Seleucid hierarchies of sizes. Third,
after the Roman conquest, the Egypto-Greco tradition was influenced by the
Etrusco-Roman tradition, while the Seleucid tradition remained essentially
unchanged. Fourth, by the fourth century the two primary Christian streams
divided into North African-Semitic and Alexandrian-Roman.
Next, language does not identify a people, script does. The conventional
approach is that if a document is in Greek or Latin, the document is,
therefore, in the direct line of the Greek or Latin tradition. This happens
to be erroneous. (See the condensed discussion in the on-line lecture. I
have a _very_ detailed discussion in Chapter 4 of _Absent Voices_.) In fact,
very few of those early NT fragments are in the direct line of transmission
of Greek or Latin scripts and fonts. The scripts and fonts tell us that we
are looking at diverse groups and people.
Further, I have yet to find an early NT fragment that is not a private
edition. "Authoritative" editions, that is, actual "official" versions of
bibles that contain what is considered "canonical" by one Christian party
(but not another) do not appear until the 4th century CE. Hence, I am
afraid that prior to these early codices "the" NT did not exist, not even
for one party. Please note that the term "canon" during the 4th century can
only be applied on a party basis -- and does not cross party lines. (We may
also note that there was no such thing as "the" Vulgate" until after the
Council of Trent in 1546.)
Now, format. A book is a book, whether in clay tablet, scroll, or codex form.
Format goes by other names -- layout or mis-en-page. The tablet prototyped
the format of the scroll and the scroll prototyped the format of the codex.
To this day, quality books use the same hierarchies of formats, scripts,
and sizes as determined back at Akkad and carried forward by the scroll and
early codex. The proportions of white space to writing area has not changed
in more than 2500 years. Which hierarchies were -- and are -- used depend
upon whether a people received Christianity from the North African-Semitic
or the Alexandrian-Roman traditions. (By following the hierarchies, we can
trace the movements of early Christianity. There were, in fact, 5 primary
streams of dissemination to the West.)
BTW the Orion articles I mentioned can be found at orion.mscc.huji.ac.il
while the St. Andrews stuff is at www.st-and.ac.uk.
Cheers,
Rochelle
Oops, before I forget. I made a mistake in calculating the original size of
11QPs in the "Some Aspects" article. Instead of 26.2 cm in height, that
should read 30.8 cm. Shucks, now who can I blame for my own error? I know,
I'll blame the mistake on my old pocket calculator. <Grin>
--
Dr. Rochelle I. Altman, co-coordinator IOUDAIOS-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For private reply, e-mail to "Rochelle I. Altman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web
site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
