And I thought I was having a bad day...
Isn’t it a daily occurrence here for “some clown” to rush in and smash a font?? [/puzzled look]
That's why I avoid the critique section.
Hmm. What kind of a font IS a baptismal font? I'm assuming it's somewhat similar to a wedding font (some sort of a script or caligraphic face) but I dunno...
A baptismal font is a basin to hold water. It has nothing to do with type.
>a basin... It has nothing to do with type.
Not quite. A font or 'fount' of type is originally one pouring of a font or basin full of molten lead, used to cast a set of letters.
William, of course you are correct in the common origin. But the clown wasn't bashing type.
I was so expecting this to be a Comic Sans gag.
Of course, that's what was engraved on the baptismal font. It all makes sense now :)
offending religious feeling…
There's something to add to my to-do list.
Ken: I was attempting humor. I know what a baptismal font actually is...
William: Naw. If the thing had been engraved with comic sans, it would have been struck with a lightning bolt by God himself LONG ago.
>I was attempting humor. I know what a baptismal font actually is...
I thought you must be joking but then noticed that you were a student so started to worry.
This isn't as funny as when I posted the story about hundreds of sheep being stolen a few months ago, but at least there is a clown.
Sorry. Didn't notice the irony mark. Now it all makes sense.
That is too bad about the baptismal font..but considering that "In the beginning was the Word" - if one takes that literally, which font would have been used?
Given my feelings toward organized religion…Arial.
>Given my feelings toward organized religion…Arial.
Hebrew · Female
Feminine form of Ariel: Sprite; lion of God. A biblical alternate name for Jerusalem.
Simon, I suspect that that etymology is bogus. The alternate name for Jerusalem is Ariel, not Arial, according to my Hebrew dictionary. And the female of lion, Ari, is Arieh. And 'goddess' is 'ela', not 'al'. Aria may be an Aramaic form, I'm not sure. Maybe someone with good Hebrew can enlighten us.
>“In the beginning was the Word” - if one takes that literally, which font would have been used?
I take it you mean what script, as printing hadn't been invented. The Mishnah (about 200 BCE-200) says that a bunch of miraculous stuff in Genesis was created in the twilight of the 6th day, just before creation was finished. This includes script, letters, the stylus, and the actual writing on the tablets of the Ten Commandments--which awaited discovery by Moses many centuries later. The writing on the stone would have been in either Aramaic (language of Abraham) or some Egyptian dialect, as they may not have understood Hebrew, which developed from the language of Canaan. Of course this account would not be accepted by Christians, but that's as close as you're going to get to an answer to "In the beginning was the Word". Of course that's Christian phrase--actually originally Stoic, but by this point you've lost interest :)
I always took that at its word, that the concept of God etc. did not exist until language evolved.
I was just thinking, that could be a good name for a font " Clown Busted"
>I was just thinking, that could be a good name for a font ” Clown Busted”
I like it! Plenty of material for the type specimen here...
> A biblical alternate name for Jerusalem.
> The alternate name for Jerusalem is Ariel
the name is used as a symbolic (poetic style, melitsa) name for: 1. the Altar (mizbaeach; Yehezqel/Ezekiel 43: 16);
2. Jerusalem ( Yesha'yahu/Isaiha 29:1-2) ;
More font mayhem?
Maybe the clown was from Fonty Python's Flying Circus?
>Maybe the clown was from Fonty Python’s Flying Circus?
I thought the writers guild was on strike!
Chris is a member of the Lollypop Guild, for the record.
I was always a sucker for sweets :-)
Bill: “In the beginning was the Word”. Of course that’s Christian phrase—actually originally Stoic...
The original Greek is Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, and although 'word' is the traditional English translation of λόγος in some respects it isn't a very good translation. Aristotle and other classical authors use λόγος to mean 'sentence'.
In the beginning of John's gospel, λόγος very obviously refers to the second person of the Holy Trinity, i.e. to Christ. You only have to read the rest of the sentence and the following sentences for this to be perfectly obvious. Λόγος is a kind of title and a way of saying that the Son comes from the Father as the word/sentence comes from the mouth of the speaker, i.e. that the two are as inseparable as speaker and utterance.
The particular formulation Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος is Christian, leaning on Greek terminology from Hellenistic philosophy but, more importantly, consciously referencing passages in the Jewish scriptures e.g. Genesis 15 and 1 Samuel 3, that refer to 'the word of the Lord' in ways that indicate a distinct person.
James: I always took that at its word, that the concept of God etc. did not exist until language evolved.
How is that 'taking that at its word'? What about the rest of the sentence? What about the following sentence? The phrase occurs in the midst of a huge book that begins with the premise that all things were created by God, which is a pretty good clue that this phrase is not a comment on the the linguistic basis of an abstract concept of God. What the beginning of John's gospel is saying is that both the Father and the Son were present 'in the beginning': Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
Note, by the way, that Greek verb used here is in a conjugation -- imperfect active indicative -- that has no direct parallel in English. The traditional 'In the beginning was the Word' isn't a very satisfactory translation, because it doesn't capture the sense of that conjugation. A more accurate, if less rhetorically dramatic, rendering would be 'In the beginning the Word was being'. The imperfect active indicative conjugation indicates an action in the past 'in progress' as it were, i.e. at the creation the Word already existed. The Greek makes explicit the Christian belief that the Son precedes creation, is himself uncreated and, as the rest of the sentence makes plain, is consubstantial with the Father.
I majored in Silly Walking at University.
How is that ’taking that at its word’? What about the rest of the sentence? What about the following sentence? The phrase occurs in the midst of a huge book that begins with the premise that all things were created by God, which is a pretty good clue that this phrase is not a comment on the the linguistic basis of an abstract concept of God. What the beginning of John’s gospel is saying is that both the Father and the Son were present ’in the beginning’: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
Thanks for a serious response to my attempt at humor. I am often amused at sacred works that encode multiple meanings into a text. As you might have suspected I was aware of the general gist of the Bible. What I find a bit of delight in is that if we proceeded from a premise that there was no diety directing affairs we could find this verse, the preceding verse, and the one that follows to be essentially true. I believe the "God is light" verse carries some of the same nuances.
John, on "logos" as alluding also to Stoic and other Greek ideas, that is what St. Augustine held, as have many other Christians following him, and I think it is likely--though not that the Greeks were proto-Christians, as many medieval Christians held. I read that in the 20th century people have tried to find ancient Hebraic sources, such as you mention, as referring to concepts similar to the Greek 'logos' but frankly that is forced, and not credible for things that were written down before the Greek conquest of Judea (332 BCE, IIRC).
In the passages you refer to, the Hebrew of 'word of the Lord' (devar YHVH) in itself does not imply any "distinct person", as you seem to think. 'Devar' has many meanings in Hebrew, including 'thing' and 'declaration' or 'utterance', as well as 'word'. For example, the "Ten Commandments" are called in Hebrew, in the Torah, "aseret devarim", the ten "words", meaning ten statements or utterances.
"Devar YHVH" is an extremely common phrase in the Hebrew Bible, occurring 270 times. (I just did a search--aren't computers wonderful!) It is regularly used to refer to any message from God to a prophet. You can of course read it as some secret code intended by God to refer to Jesus, unknown to the writers who wrote it down or readers until the time of Jesus. But it's by no means the plain meaning of the text.
You should be aware that it is irritating for Jews to be told by Christians who do not know Hebrew what the Hebrew really says, when there is a continuous 3000 year history of interpretation by people who could read the text in the original. Unfortunately many of the polemical Christian readings of the Hebrew Bible are downright dishonest. If you are interested in the literature debunking these tendentious interpretations, by people who know the Hebrew text very well, you can see, for example, the work of https://Tovia Singer, a current Orthodox Rabbi who has specialized in unmasking these fraudulent polemics. I find this guy amusing as he sounds just like the comedian Jackie Mason--he has tapes, but I'm sure the book will do. You should know that many Christian scholars who do indeed know the Hebrew text do not find this stuff credible either.
Thanks for the tip William, Tovia Singer is at the top of my list now.
I find it a healthy practice for designers never to enter into theological discussion. We're just not good at it. :P
I guess you're new to typophile? :-)
How is it possible that a thread with a violent clown and a terrible yet topical pun in the title could not to lead to a stimulating theological discussion?
God only knows, Russ :-)
Wow- I did not realize that type could be that stimulating! As for God's font to each his own. It may have to be in something like Phoenician, or if you are an atheist then its Arial (from Shakespear's The Tempest, not the Bible), but for an atheist clown then its Comic Sans. When Abraham arrived in Jerusalem it was already a well-established city with a powerful king - it was called Ur-Salam (city of peace- but I am sure John will find a better translation from some forgotten tongue), hence the Hebrew Ur-Shalom. Ur? Isn't that in Mesopotamia? Maybe God's font is in cuneiform ?