Wednesday, March 31, 2004
I write… I wait weeks… I get a response that doesn’t answer the simple question, so I write… I wait… and I get another response that still doesn’t answer the question. And I repeat the process several more times. And so it has gone since September 2003—over five months.
So I took a close look, came to my own conclusions, and sent them out, suggesting that if I did not hear otherwise, I would assume they correctly reflected the facts. I received a response later the same day! But, again, not an answer to the original question, nor a statement addressing my conclusions—merely a directive to research the Talmud.
So, I responded that I had already done that research and it did not apply to my original question. I considered the discussion on this topic closed unless and until I received a comment address my conclusions. And that’s where it stands.
So what was the point? The correspondent in question had published an illustration of the Declogue tablets that copied the layout and text from the 1956 film, The Ten Commandments—including the omissions. And then cropped of the arches on top so the illustration would conform to Talmudic opinion. But, in so doing, hacked off a word from the top of each tablet!
I had simply asked what the source(s) for the illustration was.
So I took a close look, came to my own conclusions, and sent them out, suggesting that if I did not hear otherwise, I would assume they correctly reflected the facts. I received a response later the same day! But, again, not an answer to the original question, nor a statement addressing my conclusions—merely a directive to research the Talmud.
So, I responded that I had already done that research and it did not apply to my original question. I considered the discussion on this topic closed unless and until I received a comment address my conclusions. And that’s where it stands.
So what was the point? The correspondent in question had published an illustration of the Declogue tablets that copied the layout and text from the 1956 film, The Ten Commandments—including the omissions. And then cropped of the arches on top so the illustration would conform to Talmudic opinion. But, in so doing, hacked off a word from the top of each tablet!
I had simply asked what the source(s) for the illustration was.
DeMille has struck again!
...or so it seems.
Another copy of the 1956 tablets, but with a twist: The rounded tops have been chopped off to confirm to the talmudic understanding of the shape. In the process the first lines on each tablet were removed. (Because it's the 1956 tablets, the commandment about not taking the Lord's name in vain is missing.) Still, it's the first time I've seen a rendering of sapphire tablets.
...or so it seems.
Another copy of the 1956 tablets, but with a twist: The rounded tops have been chopped off to confirm to the talmudic understanding of the shape. In the process the first lines on each tablet were removed. (Because it's the 1956 tablets, the commandment about not taking the Lord's name in vain is missing.) Still, it's the first time I've seen a rendering of sapphire tablets.
