tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post1168719081047153626..comments2023-10-20T07:28:50.948-07:00Comments on Better Bibles Blog: Lindisfarne Gospels 4Wayne Lemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-80428643864872013682007-03-05T12:09:00.000-08:002007-03-05T12:09:00.000-08:00I mentioned stauros because that is the context of...I mentioned stauros because that is the context of the tau ro in the Unicode document - it is a ligature and makes sense that tau ro would be a common combination of letters.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I think that there is a continuity with using the cross before a bishop. I will look in the manuscript again for that.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-12110970944946559272007-03-05T10:41:00.000-08:002007-03-05T10:41:00.000-08:00However, the question is rather what did the Lindi...<I>However, the question is rather what did the Lindisfarne scribes think they were writing - chi rho or tau rho. The problem with tau ro is that it doesn't function as the initial letters for stauros, so I don't see how tau ro could become an alternate symbol for a cross.</I><BR/><BR/>Clearly tau-rho is not an abbreviation for <I>stauros</I> in Greek, still less for <I>crux</I> in Latin, the language of the Lindisfarne gospels. It is at least possible that it became a symbol for the cross originally in Coptic speaking Egypt, and spread across the Roman empire as such, even as far as England by the late 4th century (the Bagshot jet ring). Such a spread would have been feasible in the 4th century in a way which it never would have been in any succeeding centuries.<BR/><BR/>I note by the way that the use of the rho cross before a personal name (of one of the Evangelists, not of Christ) is reminiscent of the modern British practice of writing a cross (sometimes typeset as a plus sign "+", sometimes as a dagger "†") before the name of a bishop, at least of the Church of England. I suspect that there is a continuity of usage there, with this cross being a simplified version of the Lindisfarne rho cross. But this would need some investigation.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-2426861129510403972007-03-04T15:54:00.000-08:002007-03-04T15:54:00.000-08:00Peter,This is my authority and reference,Michelle ...Peter,<BR/><BR/>This is my authority and reference,<BR/><BR/>Michelle P. Brown is curator of illuminated manuscripts at the British Library. She has lectured internationally, has taught for the University of London on history, art history and palaeography and is a co-founder of the Research Centre for Illuminated Manuscript Studies at the Courtauld Institute.<BR/><BR/>She writes about the lettering for Lucas vitulus,<BR/><BR/>If you then look in the lettering itself you can find at the very top left written in letters of gold, a chi-rho, the symbol of Christ, the first two letters of Christ in Greek and then the words lucas and vitulus, the calf, again symbolising the fact that the evangelist and his gospel are representatives of Christ and actually symbolise part of Christ's ministry.<BR/><BR/>She writes this about the sign which I called the chi rho.<BR/><BR/>(Sorry, my comments are out of order since I deleted one.)Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-41750373329941195822007-03-04T15:51:00.000-08:002007-03-04T15:51:00.000-08:00I have revised Lindisfarne 3 to add this informati...I have revised <A HREF="http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2007/03/lindisfarne-3.html" REL="nofollow">Lindisfarne 3</A> to add this information about Michelle Brown. <BR/><BR/>In the Unicode proposal we see the abbreviation of stauros (cross) with a tau ro, so we know the symbol certainly exists. <BR/><BR/>However, the question is rather what did the Lindisfarne scribes think they were writing - chi rho or tau rho. The problem with tau ro is that it doesn't function as the initial letters for stauros, so I don't see how tau ro could become an alternate symbol for a cross. I would like to see more on that. <BR/><BR/>I would agree there are two separate symbols but for the Lindisfarne scribes they are variants of the same symbol.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-58894446615035888242007-03-04T15:10:00.000-08:002007-03-04T15:10:00.000-08:00Yes, the chi rho has a long history as Contantine'...Yes, the chi rho has a long history as Contantine's labarum which I wasn't going to go into, but I am glad you mentioned it.<BR/><BR/>However, I am confidnet that the upright cross with rho is a chi-rho and was described as such in one of the resources I read on the Lindisfarne manuscript. I just can't find it at the moment.<BR/><BR/>But obviously I am not the only one with <A HREF="http://www.ncdisciples.org/chirho.jpg" REL="nofollow">this confusion</A> if it is one. <BR/><BR/>If it is not a chi rho in the manuscript preceding the name of the gospel writers what would you suggest - that the scribes had put in a tau rho. No, I think they are the same symbol, but I will look up my original reference. <BR/><BR/>IMO they are the same symbol but are considered as two different ones by non-experts. ;-) But I am not sure.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-18814113531680240512007-03-04T14:27:00.000-08:002007-03-04T14:27:00.000-08:00the symbol called the chi-rho in the Lindisfarne m...<I>the symbol called the chi-rho in the Lindisfarne manuscript</I><BR/><BR/>Who calls it this? Your main image in post 4 is of course of the Greek letters chi and rho separately. But the first symbol on each line of the images in post 3 is not a chi-rho symbol, although chi and rho appear separately in the first of these images.<BR/><BR/><I>a range of forms, all called chi-rho</I><BR/><BR/>Who is actually calling all these forms chi-rho, apart from <A HREF="http://www.gungywamp.com/" REL="nofollow">The Gungywamp Society</A> which seems to be a decidedly questionable group? I agree that the "St Andrew's Cross" is commonly called a cross, but not officially.<BR/><BR/>See also the description of the Coptic tau ro symbol as "probably an original ligature of the two letters <I>tau ro</I>" in <A HREF="http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n2636.pdf" REL="nofollow">this Unicode proposal</A>, page 4; the originally proposed name COPTIC CAPITAL LETTER RO WITH STROKE was apparently, and sensibly, changed to COPTIC SYMBOL TAU RO, i.e. "⳨".<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that we have two distinct signs here, which are confused only by non-experts. But then I don't claim to be an expert myself.<BR/><BR/>According to <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labarum" REL="nofollow">Wikipedia</A>, the chi-rho symbol is also known as the "labarum".Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-45202991835729735182007-03-04T12:44:00.000-08:002007-03-04T12:44:00.000-08:00I believe that Saint Andrews cross has the chi for...I believe that <A HREF="http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/2613/index.htm" REL="nofollow">Saint Andrews cross</A> has the chi form and is encoded as such in unicode, although it is officially called the saltire.<BR/><BR/>I think that you have separated out these symbols into different categories according to their form, whereas reality is a lot more fluid. There is an overlapping of form and meaning between the tau, the chi and the cross. IMO<BR/><BR/>But in modern mathematics we are not allowed to do that. Although 2+2=2x2, 3+3 does not equal 3x3.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-45043699970485674102007-03-04T12:21:00.000-08:002007-03-04T12:21:00.000-08:00First, surely there is no relationship between old...<I>First, surely there is no relationship between old Semitic taw and Greek chi and its relative Latin "x".</I><BR/><BR/>That is my point. They are just marks that happen to look alike and in some cases are interpereted in like manner. <BR/><BR/>The taw, represented as either x or +, was a mark or a brand, and the + is the crismon of the Greek church. The crismon was called a 'seal' by the early church. There is an association, which I cannot define and may very well be complete happenstance. I won't disagree with that. <BR/><BR/>However, the upright symbol which is called the Coptic tau-ro, is very similar to the symbol called the chi-rho in the Lindisfarne manuscript. I simply see that the symbols for cross and chi and tau are so basic, so elemental that they have become confused with each other. <BR/><BR/>These <A HREF="http://www.gungywamp.com/sw_winter_2003_image006.jpg" REL="nofollow">different forms</A> are all identified as the chi-rho. This is not an authoritative source but it does illustrate a range of forms, all called chi-rho. And no I do not think that the names in unicode are significant, they are just pragmantic handles. <BR/><BR/>This is a compilation of instances of these symbols. I am not trying to outline an historic development. Far from it. But throughout history these symbols recur and are multivalent.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-82647862220074758722007-03-04T10:51:00.000-08:002007-03-04T10:51:00.000-08:00The greatest danger is that we will read into this...<I>The greatest danger is that we will read into this mark, x or +, either too little or too much.</I><BR/><BR/>I think you are reading too much into it. First, surely there is no relationship between old Semitic taw and Greek chi and its relative Latin "x". Rather, it is Greek tau and Latin "t" which are derived from Semitic taw, and indeed Latin "t" still has the cross shape in some fonts. Chi was added to the alphabet by the Greeks, but is probably a variant of ksi which is derived I think from Semitic samekh.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile Greek chi is usually symbolic of Christ, not of the cross on which he was crucified. The upright crosses you showed in part 3 may represent the cross of Christ, but I don't think they are chis or X's. Indeed they are more like Coptic "tau ro" than "khi ro", but sometimes without the ro part, and the Coptic names used in Unicode are significant.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.com