| PaleoJudaica.com A weblog on ancient Judaism and its context E-mail: paleojudaica-at-talktalk-dot-net ("-at-" = "@", "-dot-" = ".") |
|
Saturday, April 24, 2004 MORE ON UNICODE AND THE MAC. Paul Nikkel e-mails: In regard to the post today about unicode fonts on the Mac. You may be happy to know that the Mac OS does indeed support unicode fonts, at least since Mac OS 8.5. The area where problems occur is in various applications, for instance, MS Office. Of course MS Office is horrible for any work in Hebrew as the right-to-left text support is basically non-existant. The solution is to use another word processor. If you're working on a Mac you probably know of these programs but I'm on a roll typing now and it's hard to stop... Nisus Writer was the popular alternative in Mac OS 9, they updated to OS X with Nisus Writer Express. However, NWE is based on an entirely different platform and should not be considered the same as the original Nisus Writer for OS 9. The most popular alternative for OS X is Mellel which is fairly full-featured and has excellent font support (including unicode). And Jan-Wim Wesselius e-mails: [T]he article by David Instone-Brewer about Unicode is unfortunately off the mark with regard to the Mac (only for OSX, that is). Especially Mellel (http://www.redlers.com/) does a very good job as a Unicode word-processor with all kinds of extras and a surprisingly low price-tag ($ 30). And the standard browser, Safari, handles websites with Unicode Hebrew very well also, as far as I can see. Okay, thanks guys. I can see that my hope of being able to ignore the issue (or at least of being able not to feel guilty about ignoring the issue) was in vain. Mac user take note: you can use Unicode. Also, readers, do have a look at Paul's blog and website Deinde. He has more to say on Unicode and the Mac there. (If there's a way to link to individual posts on his site, I couldn't find it.) posted by Jim Davila | 2:42 PM REVIEW of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ: I finally saw the movie last night. Overall it was a good, gripping story, well acted, and with reasonably convincing sets, special effects (especially trauma-simulation), etc. Since, as usual, I seem to be among the last in the western hemisphere to see the film, I will try to concentrate on points I haven't seen made before. Languages: I could follow 50-60% of the Aramaic and somewhat less of the Latin. The mistakes in both have been covered at length here, so I won't say more about them. There was a fair mixture of Hebrew in the Aramaic, which evidently was Fulco's way of simulating "street Aramaic." Well, his guess is as good as mine. The Aramaic of the Dead Sea Scrolls has some Hebrew mixed in, but not much. The Aramaic words and phrases transliterated into New Testament Greek may also have some Hebrew. Speaking of Greek, it's strange that the sign on the cross only had the Latin inscription and one in Aramaic (the latter was definitely Aramaic, not Hebrew, and it said "King of the Jews, Jesus of Nazareth"). For all the claims of historical veracity, this was an obvious change from what the Gospels say (John 19:20). I can't help thinking there's some pre-Vatican II, pro-Latin Mass agenda here. (I'm pro-Latin too in general, but not at the expense of presenting the linguistic situation of the first century as it actually was.) Violence: I think I was over-prepared for the violence. It was overdone, but not as much as I expected. A couple of weeks ago I saw the 1978 version of Dawn of the Dead and I thought that was more graphic and more disturbing, although the injuries were not as realistic. I think the violence in The Passion was both exaggerated and sanitized. On the one hand, I don't believe that anyone could take that amount of flogging and then get up again and walk for any distance, let alone do so carrying a heavy cross. Jesus would have gone into shock during or just after the flogging and would not have been of much use after that. Given the level of sanitation, nutrition, and medical care at the time, he probably would have died from the flogging alone. (Any physicians out there want to comment here?) On the other, despite the realistic wounds, it was unrealistic that Jesus kept all his teeth through those beatings. I suspect this was because Caviezel would have looked less manly and noble with half his teeth knocked out. (Incidentally, overall I thought that people had too many teeth for the period. No toothpaste or dental floss back then.) Nevertheless, the level of realism was far higher than usual for film media. Consider, for example, season 2 of 24, in which Jack Bauer undergoes implausibly mild torture by supposedly desperate men in a big hurry, he goes into cardiac arrest, yet he still manages to rise from the dead - without the help of a miracle! - and save the day. At least The Passion didn't involve that kind of cartoon violence. According to the Gospels, Jesus died on the cross in just a few hours, which does imply that the beatings must have been severe. Still, there were too many gratuitous additions to the violence, e.g., the beatings starting at the arrest, the tossing-over-the-bridge scene, the crow pecking out the eyes of the unrepentant thief). The level of gore in The Passion is not my cup of tea, but it's Gibson's movie and his artistic statement, not mine. Although I said I was over-prepared for the violence, I should add that I had some pretty violent nightmares last night (including one in Dawn-of-the Dead zombie-land), so the movie clearly affected me more than I realized consciously. The Crucifixion: Mark Goodacre has been arguing lately that we don't actually know whether the nails went through the wrists rather than the palms during crucifixion and that it's possible that, if the arms were tied firmly to the crossbeam, the nails could have gone through the palms. He may well be right on both counts. According to John 20:25-27 Jesus' hands were nailed rather than tied, but it's unclear whether it was through the palms or the wrists. All that granted, the physiology of the crucifixion in this movie just does not work. Look closely at the ropes that tie Jesus' arms to the cross. They are tied fairly loosely, enough to immobilize the arms in order to get the nails in, but not enough to support his whole body. If he had been nailed through the palms, the nails would torn through the hand rapidly from the weight of his body. On top of that you have the stretching of his arms to the point, presumably, of dislocation during the nailing. The pull on the hands would have torn the nails out. Then too, there's the whole business of toppling the cross over to turn the bottoms of the nails down and then turning it back again, then dropping it into the hole. The crucifixion scene in the movie is physically impossible. Was the movie anti-Semitic? Overall, I would say no. Both Jews and Romans are generally presented as bloodthirsty and barbaric, but there are noble exceptions among both. That said, Gibson did pick up some pretty disturbing themes I wish he had left out. In particular, the extra violence of the arrest party, the visions of the Jewish children morphing into demons, and the demon baby were gratuitous and just sat the wrong way. Also, although I don't see an intention to be anti-Semitic, I do worry about how much it will confirm people who are already anti-Semitic in their views. But I'm not sure how much this is really Gibson's problem. Historical issues: The movie has quite a few historical errors, most of which have been well covered elsewhere. I have to say I winced when I saw the quotation from Isaiah 53 being dated to 700 BC at the beginning. Nothing like putting in a mistake in the first few frames to set the tone. Also, there was confusion over hand-washing before meals, which was a ritual act, not a hygienic one, and which was followed by some Jews but evidently not Jesus and his followers (Mark 7:1-4). Mama Mary's making Jesus wash his hands before lunch and the disciples washing theirs before the Last Supper are anachronisms. They didn't know about germs back then. (As an aside, I did think that the people looked realistically unwashed.) Despite all that, there was a real effort at least much of the time to get the historical background right. The contrast with other movies and television films is striking. British readers may have seen the final episode of the police drama Murder City on ITV last Thursday evening. It involved an ancient codex written in some pre-cuneiform(!) language that was given some Lovecraftian-sounding name. The codex contained the true primal religion that disproved all current religions and this religion was followed by a fanatical, murderous, underground cult with Protocols-of-Zion-level tendrils of power insinuated throughout the world. That's the sort of tripe film-media usually dish out when they try to do history (the movie Stigmata is another example) and Gibson does deserve some credit for rising well above that. Still, I wish he had worked with an advisory team of specialists, and I hope he does that if it's true that his next movie will be on the Maccabees. Miscellaneous: Why does Satan look so much like the Grim Reaper in Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey? ![]() In sum: Movies about ancient history are usually dreadfully poorly done. By that standard, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ was pretty good. UPDATE (25 April): Mark Goodacre comments here. And more here. posted by Jim Davila | 11:52 AM DEAD SEA SCROLLS ARTICLE: The Richmond Times-Dispatch has a survey article on the Dead Sea Scrolls: "Ancient words of early Judaism - Scholars discuss the impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls, authors" It's basically accurate, although it's a little too confident of the Essenes-as-a-monastic-community-on-the-shore-of-the-Dead-Sea interpretation of the evidence and it plays down the differences between the the Qumran biblical texts and the Masoretic Text a little more than I would. But still, a good piece. Excerpt: Except for a tour bus now and then, the hot and arid hills above the west shore of the Dead Sea are lifeless and quiet.posted by Jim Davila | 7:51 AM Friday, April 23, 2004 I'VE JUST COME from seeing Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Finally. Initial reaction: for a movie, it was pretty good. Better than I expected. More later - I hope tomorrow. posted by Jim Davila | 11:11 PM TYNDALE TECH ALERT: David Instone-Brewer of Tyndale House has sent out another of his useful e-mails on subjects pertaining to computing and biblical studies. This one is on "Greek and Hebrew Fonts - Unicode and older" and can be found on his web page by following the link. This message is very helpful: it seems to tell pretty much everything you need to know to install and use Unicode fonts. Unfortunately for me, one of the things I needed to know (well, really, the one thing I needed to know) is that Unicode isn't available for the Mac at present and may not be for the foreseeable future. That's disappointing, but at least it lets me ignore Unicode and think about other things. Thanks David, and keep up the good work. UPDATE: Mark Goodacre has comments that will be useful to PC users. UPDATE (24 April): Guess what? It's not that simple. Mac users go here for more. posted by Jim Davila | 2:11 PM LARA CROFT (a.k.a. Angelina Jolie) is Alexander the Great's mother. Now that explains a lot, doesn't it? (Via Rogue Classicism.)
![]() APOCRYPHA WATCH: Susanna, the Apocryphal addition to the Book of Daniel, has been mentioned in the media a couple of times recently. This Washington Times essay, which argues against a Constitutional amendment for victims' rights, uses the story of Susanna as an illustration of the importance of witness sequestration: The VRA would also vitiate the truth-finding objective of trials by injecting victim concerns that could undermine the impartiality and reliability of verdicts. The amendment would require judges in jury selection, evidentiary rulings, or jury instructions to "consider the victim's safety, interest in avoiding unreasonable delay, and just and timely restitution from the offender." It would permit victims who intend to testify to avoid sequestration, a customary requirement to foil the tailoring of witness stories. Sequestration has been celebrated by an icon in the law of evidence, however, as "one of the greatest engines that the skill of man has ever invented for the detection of liars in a court of justice." And this article in the Seattle University Spectator describes a painting in the Frye Art Museum: It dawned on me that I hadn�t visited the free Frye Art Museum since last fall and a new exhibition had opened on April 10, so I jumped on my longboard and headed to 704 Terry Avenue.posted by Jim Davila | 9:38 AM Thursday, April 22, 2004 THE CYRUS CYLINDER is being loaned to Tehran by the British Museum and the Mullahs are not happy about it. Anders Bell at Phluzein points to the following article (which is also run by the San Diego Union Tribune with a milder title):
The description of the Cyrus Cylinder in the article is a little too enthusiastic. The Cylinder doesn't promise the freeing of all slaves; that idea never would have occurred to anyone in antiquity. (You can read a translation of the whole thing here.) Still, I can see why the Mullahs don't like it: no terrorizing the populace; no detaining foreigners against their will; bringing relief to dilapidated housing (one thinks of Bam); honoring all religions. Can't have all that, can we? posted by Jim Davila | 10:37 AM OPERATIC CROSSOVER ARAMAIC: In the more than 20 years since the death of Klaus Nomi, the closest the modern rock world has come to having an opera-quality singer is probably Lisa Gerrard, formerly of Dead Can Dance. In addition to composing acclaimed movie scores, such as the ones for The Insider and Whalerider, Gerrard has released three �solo� albums, the latest of which is Immortal Memory (4AD). Gerrard�s distinctive and rich contralto vocals envelop the 10 songs on which she collaborated with composer Patrick Cassidy. Singing in Aramaic, Latin and Gaelic, Gerrard embodies the kind of passion for which Mel Gibson can only mutter unanswered prayers. More here. posted by Jim Davila | 9:25 AM DEVER LECTURES ON SOLOMON: If you happen to be in Omaha, don't miss this. Lecture to examine history, myth of Solomonposted by Jim Davila | 9:21 AM Wednesday, April 21, 2004 STORY AS HISTORIOGRAPHY: On the Bible and Interpretation website, Leo Sandgren defends the telling of fictionalized stories set in the biblical period as a historiographic enterprise. It sounds hard to pull off, but an interesting idea. In some ways it resembles the idea of using counterfactual history to help make sense of history that actually happened, which is what chapter three of my book - which I'm currently writing - sets out to do. The Shadow of God: Stories A few excerpts: � �� When one writes a book that is commonly done in a given field of study, one has to justify why (besides publish or perish) one is writing yet another book to compliment the others already out there. But when one writes a book that is not done, or rarely done, one has to justify why it should be done at all. The Shadow of God, which may be characterized as a work of �historical imagination,� falls into the latter category, covering six centuries of Jewish history, from the Babylonian exile to the destruction of the Second Temple, in 15 stories, each centered on a historical event. There are summaries of the stories, but a summary of a story isn't the same thing as the story. Any chance of putting one of the actual stories online? That would be a good advertisement for the whole book. posted by Jim Davila | 10:43 PM THE RESPONSE TO THE AAR PETITION: For nonmembers, here is the full text of the response of the AAR Board of Directors to the AAR Joint Meetings Petition to AAR Board of Directors, sponsored by Karen King and Elaine Pagels. It was sent out to members last night by e-mail. April 20, 2004 My take: Mark Goodacre points to a FAQ about the decision put up by the AAR Board in July. The FAQ is somewhat informative but, crucially for me, neither it nor the e-mail message quoted above address the failure of the Board to lay out the two alternatives, stay-with-joint-meeting vs. hold-separate-meetings, before the full membership of the AAR for a vote. Note the following from the FAQ (my emphasis): October 2000. The Planning Committee surveyed AAR Members concerning the future of the Annual Meeting, receiving responses from little more than 10% of members. To the question, �Please indicate the importance to you of meeting jointly with SBL,� a majority of respondents preferred the joint annual meetings, but an overwhelming majority complained about the meeting�s size, the cuts in programming, and the meeting sites (inconvenience, shuttles, loss of camaraderie, fewer and fewer viable cities). The 2000 survey results were evidently equivocal and not a sufficient indicator for the decision. Likewise for the straw polls. It looks as though there was considerable dissatisfaction with the crowding and inconvenience etc. in the meetings (I share this) but that a majority wanted a different solution than disconnecting the meeting from SBL. I agree with the majority on that too. The King-Pagels petition indicates that at least 2900 members agree with me. Given that the petition was informal and spread by word of mouth, I would guess that an actual official vote would have found considerably more support for this position. If there had been a vote and we had lost (and, frankly, I doubt we would have), I would accept the decision and reevaluate my own connection with the AAR accordingly. (I am a joint member; my main focus is the SBL but I do go to AAR sessions too. I can't afford to go to both meetings and, if I have to choose, I'll choose the SBL. I'm not sure at the moment whether it's worthwhile to maintain my AAR membership if there's no joint meeting. There seem to be quite a few like me.) But the decision was not made by a democratic process and it is not clear that it reflects the will of the majority of the members. This whole thing strikes me as rather similar to the issue of the European Constitution with which we're wrestling on this side of the pond. Prime Minister Blair has finally (rightly) agreed to a referendum in Britain to decide the question for the British. Far-reaching decisions of this sort should not be made by bureaucracies, no matter how many consultants they hire. Vox populi, vox Dei. The response of the Board of Directors is not satisfactory. With respect, this is not over yet. posted by Jim Davila | 4:28 PM DR. DAVID STERN, Ruth Meltzer Professor of Classical Hebrew Literature, is one of six University of Pennsylvania faculty who have just received a prestigious Guggenheim Fellowship: These fellowships, for which there were more than 3,200 applicants, are awarded annually for distinguished scholarly achievement and exceptional promise for future accomplishment. They include substantial stipends and are among North America's most prestigious research awards. This year, 185 individuals from 87 institutions received fellowships. Congratulations to Dr. Stern, Dr. Talya Fishman (who is working in medieval Jewish studies), and to all the other Fellows as well. posted by Jim Davila | 9:25 AM THE OTTAWA EXHIBITION Ancient Treasures and the Dead Sea Scrolls has come to an end. Visits to the Canadian Museum of Civilization were up by 20% while it was there. Congratulations to the Museum for a very successful exhibit. posted by Jim Davila | 9:23 AM Tuesday, April 20, 2004 THE JOURNAL OF RELIGION AND SOCIETY has a special edition (vol. 6, 2004) on Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Contents:
There are also some unrelated articles and book reviews. Heads-up, Carla Sulzbach. UPDATE: Mark Goodacre has more. posted by Jim Davila | 9:21 AM Monday, April 19, 2004 WACO ANNIVERSARY: Eleven years ago today, the siege of the Branch Davidians came to its fiery and tragic end in Waco, Texas. Mark Goodacre points to a chapter in a book entitled Why Waco? Cults and the Battle for Religious Freedom in America, by James Tabor and Eugene V. Gallagher, which tells how it might have come out differently. Many years ago, Tabor was kind enough to send me a prepublication copy of parts of their book so I could use the material in my Apocalyptic and Gnostic Literature course. It's hard to imagine how the authorities could have done a worse job of dealing with David Koresh and his followers. And they should not be allowed to forget it. What Might Have Been Excerpts: The Waco situation could have been handled differently and possibly resolved peacefully. This is not unfounded speculation or wishful thinking. It is the considered opinion of the lawyers who spent the most time with the Davidians during the siege and of various scholars of religion who understand biblical apocalyptic belief systems such as that of the Branch Davidians. (13) There was a way to communicate with these biblically oriented people, but it had nothing to do with hostage rescue or counterterrorist tactics. Indeed, such a strategy was being pursued, with FBI cooperation, by Phillip Arnold of the Reunion Institute in Houston and James Tabor of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, one of the authors of this book. Arnold and Tabor worked in concert with the lawyers Dick DeGuerin and Jack Zimmerman, who spent a total of twenty hours inside the Mount Carmel center between March 29 and April 4, communicating directly with Koresh and his main spokesperson, Steve Schneider. Unfortunately, these attempts came too late. By the time they began to bear positive results, decisions had already been made in Washington to convince Attorney General Janet Reno to end the siege by force. As we will show, those officials briefing her had decided on the CS gas option and were determined to get her approval, despite her caution and better judgment. The authors have a web page on the book here. On it, inter alia, is a link to Koresh's unfinished magnum opus, Exposition of the Seven Seals, which, incidentally, I assigned as a reading toward the end of the above-mentioned course, and a commentary by Tabor and Philip Arnold. Mark Goodacre has more here. My thanks to Mark for the reminder of the anniversary. UPDATE (20 April): David Nishimura comments over at Cronaca. posted by Jim Davila | 8:23 PM ARAMAIC RULES! The California team with the Aramaic jackets won first place at the academic decathlon in Idaho. Three-peat's oh so sweet (Los Angeles Daily News) I have to admit I'm having trouble retroverting that back into Aramaic, but whatever. Congratulations to the El Camino Real High School team for winning the competition. posted by Jim Davila | 9:31 AM Sunday, April 18, 2004 UPDATE ON SETH SANDERS'S ESSAY: I've been meaning to note for some time that Rebecca Lesses pointed to a link to notes that go with the essay. posted by Jim Davila | 4:38 PM MORE ON THE MESS in Akron surrounding the From the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Forbidden Book exhibition. This is an A.P. article, although I haven't found it yet outside the Akron Beacon Journal: Trustee helps sort ownership in religious artifacts exhibitposted by Jim Davila | 9:18 AM MORE ON THE LANGUAGES of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. This morning the Scotsman has an article, "Gibson's Christ film is all Greek to me, says language expert", in which "Edinburgh author" Peter Burnett is interviewed. The only Peter Burnett I can find who fits this description is a children's author who won an award for his writing a couple of years ago. Excerpts: Burnett, who studied Hebrew and Aramaic at Glasgow University, says the Romans in Jerusalem would have spoken Greek, the empire's common tongue, and not Latin. I'm afraid that last sentence is incorrect. First, it is not entirely clear that the transliterated words in question are Aramaic rather than Hebrew. There are textual variants as well as differences between Matthew's and Mark's renderings and the words could be taken as a mixture of the two languages. Second, the passage is misquoted: it's "My God, my God," not "Lord, Lord" (Matthew 27:26; Mark 15:34). Third, and more importantly, there are other words transliterated in the Greek New Testament which are clearly Aramaic, such as talitha koum in Mark 5:41 and maranatha in 1 Cor 16:22. Also, it's worth noting that Jesus may have known some Greek (whether he did or not is debated by specialists) and that we have quite a bit of Aramaic in the Dead Sea Scrolls which is roughly contemporary with Jesus and which must be fairly close to the Aramaic he spoke.) The Romans may well have spoken Latin among themselves, although they would have used Greek when talking to the locals. Once again, the journalistic mind baffles me. Why does the Scotsman go to a children's author to get authoritative information on the languages of first-century Palestine when there are people in Scotland who really are experts on the subject? Ahem. (And not just me, although this is directly in my line of research. Timothy Lim, Peter Hayman, and Richard Bauckham are all in Edinburgh or within a few miles.) posted by Jim Davila | 9:13 AM TODAY IS YOM HASHOAH - Holocaust Memorial Day. This Palm Beach Post article, "New word to replace Holocaust wins favor," discusses the current controversy over whether "Holocaust" should be dropped in favor of "Shoah" (which is a Hebrew word meaning "destruction"). Excerpts: The knock against "Holocaust" is twofold. Many object to the word, derived from ancient Greek, because it translates as "burnt offering" -- in the sacrificial religious sense, according to select scholars. And that leads to a horrific connotation when speaking of the atrocities committed against the Jews, who were often driven to the gas chambers, then cremated. How could their fiery end be considered a sacrifice? Myself, I don't have strong feelings either way. The main thing is, once you've settled on the term, to define it clearly so people know what you're talking about. The first argument strikes me as stronger than the second: "holocaust" did mean a "whole burnt offering" to God in biblical Greek, which is the wrong connotation for Auschwitz. But, at the same time, usage trumps etymology, and the twentieth-century usage was more complicated. The second argument strikes me as weak: whatever term is chosen, some people are going to apply it to their own cause, no matter how inappropriately. A thoughtful article, well worth reading in full. UPDATE (19 April): The Am ha-Aretz blogger e-mailed me to draw attention to this post. It appears that the Israeli Knesset has changed the date of Yom HaShoah this year, making it begin on the evening of the 18th through this evening (the 19th). posted by Jim Davila | 8:04 AM |
|
|||