Friday, June 18, 2004
Backtracking:
Thursday, June 17, 2004
I wrote to Arthur H. Borman (director of the 1993 comedic film, And God Spoke) and asked about the lettering on the tablets in his film. He responded: “The truth is, the tablets don't have ancient Hebrew written on them. Our prop guys actually had quite a sense of humor and carved out backwards English letters on the Styrofoam prop tablets. There is never a close up of the tablets readable in the film, so no one ever noticed. If they did, however, they would have discovered that, if you really study each letter, one of the tablets spells out the sentence: HELP BEING HELD CAPTIVE IN TABLET MAKING FACTORY. Therefore, I don't think that would be much help for you.... But thanks for your question.
Monday, June 14, 2004
I read of a talk given on April 20, 2004 by writing systems expert (and author) Peter T. Daniels titled, "The Handwriting of the Lord: What did the Ten Commandments Look Like?" I asked him what he said. He told me that he come to the conclusion that “we haven't the slightest idea what the tablets looked like…One thing I can say for sure, if the Decalogue was written in Hebrew, it
didn't look like the script used in The Ten Commandments; if we date the Exodus ca. 1200, the script shown is from quite a few centuries later.”
Thursday, June 3, 2004
I asked Robert Reed about an illustration at: http://www.jaars.org/museum/alphabet/people/moses.htm, which the site states is from the book,The Alphabet Makers. I asked for the name of the artist and a better image. He provided the image and stated that he thought the artist was Katherine Voigtlander.
I found that the text wraps the way text in the ANE wrapped and, again like other artifacts from that area and period, is mostly "full-justified." The text appears to be taken from the passages beginning at Exodus 20:2-17 but, unlike most illustration of the tablets, carries the full text rather than some sort of truncated or abbreviated version. Because of this, however, not much of it fits on the visible tablet. In fact, there are only two commandments visible. This begs the question as to whether this was a conscious decision, and if so, upon what was such a decision based. The text of the Bible states that the words were written on both sides, and one interpretation has it that this means on a total of four sides, rather than merely the faces of both tablets. This would imply that either less would be written on each than is customarily shown, or one tablet was merely a copy of the other. The illustration suggests the former rather than the latter. In addition, there are a few letters missing or different, and I wondered if that was intentional.
The script itself appears to be most similar to Phoenician of the 7th through 9th Centuries BCE, rather than Proto-Canaanite or Proto-Sinaitic of earlier times more commonly associated with the various dates of the exodus from Egypt. I wonder, too if this was a conscious decision,
Monday, May 24, 2004
Micha Berger, on the Avodah Mailing list (volume 8, number 105, Monday February 4, 2002)
Mentioned that he felt that the luchot could have been ruby.
He noted to me: “The Mekhilta on 34:1 says that G-d commanded Moshe to quarry the stone for the luchos from a gem found under his tent. The question is how to translate the
word for the type of gem”
When I asked if it could have been “ruby colored” (red), he stated: The Mechilta uses the word ‘sanpirion’, thus the usual identification with sappire. However, the Hebrew for sappire is ‘sapir’, and that's the word used in the text to describe the first tablets. Ruby and sapphire are both corundum, so it's plausible to identify red corundum (ruby) with a word similar to sapphire. Some translate sapir as ‘blue marble’. It's a matter of identifying a biblical Hebrew word for a stone that has no further description.”
Thursday, June 17, 2004
I wrote to Arthur H. Borman (director of the 1993 comedic film, And God Spoke) and asked about the lettering on the tablets in his film. He responded: “The truth is, the tablets don't have ancient Hebrew written on them. Our prop guys actually had quite a sense of humor and carved out backwards English letters on the Styrofoam prop tablets. There is never a close up of the tablets readable in the film, so no one ever noticed. If they did, however, they would have discovered that, if you really study each letter, one of the tablets spells out the sentence: HELP BEING HELD CAPTIVE IN TABLET MAKING FACTORY. Therefore, I don't think that would be much help for you.... But thanks for your question.
Monday, June 14, 2004
I read of a talk given on April 20, 2004 by writing systems expert (and author) Peter T. Daniels titled, "The Handwriting of the Lord: What did the Ten Commandments Look Like?" I asked him what he said. He told me that he come to the conclusion that “we haven't the slightest idea what the tablets looked like…One thing I can say for sure, if the Decalogue was written in Hebrew, it
didn't look like the script used in The Ten Commandments; if we date the Exodus ca. 1200, the script shown is from quite a few centuries later.”
Thursday, June 3, 2004
I asked Robert Reed about an illustration at: http://www.jaars.org/museum/alphabet/people/moses.htm, which the site states is from the book,The Alphabet Makers. I asked for the name of the artist and a better image. He provided the image and stated that he thought the artist was Katherine Voigtlander.
I found that the text wraps the way text in the ANE wrapped and, again like other artifacts from that area and period, is mostly "full-justified." The text appears to be taken from the passages beginning at Exodus 20:2-17 but, unlike most illustration of the tablets, carries the full text rather than some sort of truncated or abbreviated version. Because of this, however, not much of it fits on the visible tablet. In fact, there are only two commandments visible. This begs the question as to whether this was a conscious decision, and if so, upon what was such a decision based. The text of the Bible states that the words were written on both sides, and one interpretation has it that this means on a total of four sides, rather than merely the faces of both tablets. This would imply that either less would be written on each than is customarily shown, or one tablet was merely a copy of the other. The illustration suggests the former rather than the latter. In addition, there are a few letters missing or different, and I wondered if that was intentional.
The script itself appears to be most similar to Phoenician of the 7th through 9th Centuries BCE, rather than Proto-Canaanite or Proto-Sinaitic of earlier times more commonly associated with the various dates of the exodus from Egypt. I wonder, too if this was a conscious decision,
Monday, May 24, 2004
Micha Berger, on the Avodah Mailing list (volume 8, number 105, Monday February 4, 2002)
Mentioned that he felt that the luchot could have been ruby.
He noted to me: “The Mekhilta on 34:1 says that G-d commanded Moshe to quarry the stone for the luchos from a gem found under his tent. The question is how to translate the
word for the type of gem”
When I asked if it could have been “ruby colored” (red), he stated: The Mechilta uses the word ‘sanpirion’, thus the usual identification with sappire. However, the Hebrew for sappire is ‘sapir’, and that's the word used in the text to describe the first tablets. Ruby and sapphire are both corundum, so it's plausible to identify red corundum (ruby) with a word similar to sapphire. Some translate sapir as ‘blue marble’. It's a matter of identifying a biblical Hebrew word for a stone that has no further description.”
