medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
>> I think it all hinges on the technical term used to describe Joseph in
>> the Greek NT.
>I rather think that the discussion as it has proceeded so far hinges both on the plausible meanings of _tekton_ in a first-century Palestinian context and
how the English-language words used to convey those meanings are construed.
In other words, it all hinges on the technical term used to describe Joseph. How English construes it, or the latin for that matter, is rooted in the meaning of
the original word.
Beyond that, as I said, the discussion hinges on the meaning of the term. How was it used in the Greek of the period. At long last, two people have ponied
up references to how it was used. Now that we have those references, much greater clarity is provided. It seems that the term is not particularly specific,
thus the precise trade of Joseph is somewhat ambigous. My curiosity is rather satisfied.
>> While I cannot speak to the 1st C. classification of
>> professions (used
>> loosely in this context)
>A pity, as considerations of such classifications in contexts other than those of the immediate writer/reader community of the New Testament are unlikely
to be persuasive in this instance.
Obviously.
>I do know that by the Middle Ages
>> professions/skilled trades, etc. were pretty clearly stratified and if
>> one used a specific term to
>> describe someone's trade, it pretty narrowly described that trade.
>Do you know this or do you merely believe it to be true? I know no such thing. I do know that there were trade organizations in antiquity called
_collegia_. I have also read, in writings of people to whom I give some credit (e.g. Joseph P. Byrne, s.v. "Guilds", in Christopher Kleinhenz, ed., _Medieval
Italy: An Encyclopedia_ [Routledge, 2004], I, 476-79), that the evidence for the survival in Italy of these _collegia_ after late antiquity is both very thin and
geographically quite limited and that guilds such as those of which you speak emerge in Europe only after the year 1000. Even if you use ca. 1000 as your
starting date for the Middle Ages (some do), your assertion that _by_ the Middle Ages such stratification already obtained requires more than your sayso to
make it credible.
This is again, precisely the type of referenced information I was looking for. I'll add these to the list of books to track down.
Beyond that, I gravely doubt anyone wants to ask existential questions about knowledge, knowability and such. We read, we postulate, we discover new
information, we re-postulate. Even if we were there, how much would we really "know" about any given subject?
And, yes, what I "know" on the matter is post-11th C. based on various contracts, guild charters, etc. which, as you "know" become increasingly common
into the Renaissance. How widely do they apply? Lack of documentation is not proof of non-existence. Documentation does not prove universality of
practice. So, how much do we really "know?" Kind of like saying all Renaissance artists were of the caliber of a Donatello because Donatello's work
survives. Even then, we don't always "know" its Donatello. . . the fun goes on.
>> Beyond that, I would point out that in modern circumstances, while a
>> carpenter might build cabinets, he almost never does professionally
>> and would not be
>> described as a cabinetmaker or jointer.
>And the probative value of that utterance is?
Because someone mentioned that in modern times carpenters might do work other than build houses.
>> I grew up with carpenters and
>> come from a long line of people engaged in woodworking. Some built
>> houses for a
>> living, some did not. Most did other types of woodwork, but none did
>> more than one trade for a living. While it is risky to extrapolate
>> from modern
>> stratification to a 2000 year old situation, it does offer some
>> context for speculation, particularly when there is a long history of
>> consistency. Thus are the
>> principles of anthropology based (you can learn about past
>> civilizations/cultures based on the behaviours of modern socieities
>> which have similarities).
>You can _conjecture_ about the remote past on the basis of more recent similarities. How often you can actually learn something that is true through such
a procedure alone is another matter.
True. Yet how many anthropological theories about, say, the caves at Lauscaux have been built on that?
>In this particular case, for the similarity you adduce to be persuasive, it must also be shown a) that the population of first-century Nazareth and its
immediate environs was probably large enough to sustain both carpentry and other types of woodworking as separate trades and b) that such separation of
the woodworking trades existed in contemporary or nearly contemporary Palestine outside of the major cities.
Actually, as you may have guessed from my comment concerning knowability of any knowledge, I don't actually adduce anything to be persuasive. I merely
postulate based on recollection of information presented by sources considered at one time or another as reputable, offer a thesis, and see what happens.
The questions and citations you provide go a long way to furthering the means of further discerning the "facts" of a subject, insofar as they (or anything) is
knowable.
>
>>
>> The Medieval guilds pretty strictly stratified the trades into their
>> various categories. While it is true that the panel painter may have
>> done jointery work, he
>> appears to have been more likely to farm out jointery work to those
>> skilled in those areas. Jointers, it seems, based on evidence from
>> both Italy and Upper
>> Germany, constructed everything from altars to icon panels, to chests,
>> etc. They, in turn, relied on a different profession to go out into
>> the forest and
>> harvest trees, etc.
>_Vide supra_ for the evidentiary problem with the early Middle Ages and thus for such a generalization as "the Medieval guilds" _tout court_.
Very true! Well noted.
>> Yes, it is true that it was not uncommon for forest encampments of
>> woodworkers to include a variety of professions, but each was farly
>> well delineated.
>> Even family names reflect these delineations. Zimmermann was a house
>> builder (literally "room-man) or carpenter in our thinking.
>> Hoelzemann was less
>> clearly defined as anyone who worked with wood, although its likely it
>> was primarily a jointer.
>
>What evidence is there to sustain a view that first-century Greek-speakers conceptualized these matters in the same way as considerably later German-
speakers?
I was hoping you might enlighten me in that regard. What sources provide insight into the 1st Cento situation? As noted, I am not particularly conversant in
that era.
>> So, yes, there was some nuance, but a technical term like tekton would
>> - it seems - be unlikely applied to someone engaged in a general
>> woodworking
>> profession, or to someone who built homes.
>Gee, one of the English-language equivalents (perhaps _the_ first) for _tekton_ in its first meaning in the Liddell-Scott-Jones is "carpenter". The smaller
_An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon_ based on an earlier edition of Liddell and Scott glosses _tekton_ in its first meaning as "any worker in wood, esp.
a carpenter, joiner." Absent a showing that these standard scholarly lexica are mistaken here, it seems rather that _tekton_ _would_ be applied to
someone engaged in a general woodworking trade, or to someone who built homes.
And, in the end, enlightenment! Well referenced and exceptionally useful. Certainly a sop to the earlier suggestion (prior to mine) that tekton mainly meant
"jointer". I'll add this tome to my wish-list from Santa ;-))
>Best again,
>John Dillon
Yourself as well! Thanks for the excellent direction. This is what makes things fun ;-)
George (reasonably convinced that he probably exists, but hoping that thought is not the foundation of Being)
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|