4.0217 Codex (2/43)

Elaine Brennan & Allen Renear (EDITORS@BROWNVM.BITNET)
Mon, 25 Jun 90 17:40:59 EDT

Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 4, No. 0217. Monday, 25 Jun 1990.


(1) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 90 12:08 GMT (21 lines)
From: Don Fowler <DPF@vax.oxford.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: 4.0213 History of the Codex?

(2) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 1990 09:51 IST (22 lines)
From: Marc Bregman <HPUBM@HUJIVM1>
Subject: Re: 4.0213 History of the Codex?

(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 90 12:08 GMT
From: Don Fowler <DPF@vax.oxford.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: 4.0213 History of the Codex? (1/26)

The standard work on the introduction of the codex is C. H. Roberts and
T. C. Skeat The Birth of the Codex london 1983, though many areas remain
controversial. But one should be very careful about excessive
technological determinism. There is a lot of re-evaluation going on of
the notion of orality and its effects in Greco-roman culture, and a
growing scepticism about the sort of stuff Havelock and others pushed
out. The development of literary scholarship as we know it - a concern
for exact wording, even down to questions of punctuation and
accentuation - took place in the Greco-roman world in the 3rd C B.C.E.
when scrolls were the norm. That was also the period when the order of
works was fixed for many authors. But try asking a Sanskritist about
the way Panini and the other grammars were (indeed are) discussed orally
and you will see that the question of respect for the word and literacy
are much more complicated than fanatics like Ong make out. There's a
huge bibliography.

Don Fowler.
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------29----
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 1990 09:51 IST
From: Marc Bregman <HPUBM@HUJIVM1>
Subject: Re: 4.0213 History of the Codex? (1/26)

In reply to George Aichele's remarks on the history of the Codex. I
would appreciate a more complete reference to Sandmel's suggestion that
the transition to the Codex represented a rejection of the "oral Torah".
I would also like to mention my own humble contribution to this
discussion. In my article "An Early Fragment of Avot deRabbi Natan from
a Scroll", Tarbiz 52:2 (1983), 201-222 [Hebrew with extensive English
Abstract] I assembled what information was then available for use of the
Scroll format for recording non-Biblical materials (i.e. "oral torah").
I also suggested that the replacement of the tetragrammaton with various
pious abbreviations was related to the transition from the hallowed
scroll format to the less sacred codex format. Since that time some
additional material has been published by Peter Schafer and Malachi Beit
Arie. Also Menachem Haran of the Hebrew University Bible Dept. has
published a number of articles (at least some of which also appeared in
the journal Tarbiz) on the subject of the scroll format. If this is of
interest, I will try to get together a more detailed bibliography.

Marc Bregman, Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem (HPUBM@HUJIVM1)