Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: MT 28 in Sinai Arabic 28

Expand Messages
  • Jean Valentin
    Woops, my subject line doesn t show the correct number for the manuscript!! So sorry! Of course, it was in Sin arb 71 and not 28 (probably an internal
    Message 1 of 3 , May 2, 1997
      Woops, my subject line doesn't show the correct number for the manuscript!!
      So sorry! Of course, it was in Sin arb 71 and not 28 (probably an internal
      harmonization - we learn about Tc from our own mistakes... :-)

      On Sam 3 Mai 1997 0:52, Jim West <mailto:jwest@...> wrote:

      > >- v.7: "from among the dead" is an aramaism. We find it also in sy.s,
      > >sypal and several other Arabic versions. It's not obligatory to
      > >conclude that it reveals an aramaic/syriac vorlage though, as this
      > >version is in a dialectal Arabic quite influenced by aramaic.
      > >
      > would not the fact that Arabic and Aramaic are semitic languages also
      have a
      > bearing on this apparent semitism quite apart from any putative Vorlage?
      In fact, many Arabic versions tranlsate simply "from the dead". I don not
      think this might come from tranlsating too litterally from Greek. The
      general level of correction of a version is indicative. For example, the
      so-called "alexandrian vulgate" which is in a very correct literary Arabic
      has "from the dead" (min al-amwaat).
      Arabic is a semitic language indeed. Nevertheless, it is a south-western
      semitic language.By that I mean this: Hebrew and Aramaic are north-west
      semitic languages, and learning one when knowing already the other is quite
      easy as they are close to each other in their means of expression. But then
      if you want to learn Arabic, it takes much more effort. It has a much more
      elaborated and subtle grammar than its northern sisters. For example, greek
      LEGWN cannot be translated by a participle in nhebrew or syriac. We should
      use wayyomer in hebrew, or wa-amar in syriac. In Arabic, it is perfectly
      correct to use a participle in the accusative-adverbial qaa'ilan (though
      wa-qaala, equivalent to the hebrew and syriac forms, would be correct too).
      You see, Arabic has quite a much richer vocabulary and syntax. A very
      souple and complex language, compared to which hebrew and aramaic are quite

      > >note: after this verse, we have no more old syriac witness.
      > >
      > Is this because there are no Syriac texts which contain the rest? Or
      > no more old ones?
      I mean by this that sy.s, the only vetus syra ms for this chapter, stops

      > >- v.9: Sin. Arb. 71 doesn't have the byzantine addition at the
      > >beginning of the verse (ws de eporeuonto apaggeilai tois maqhtais
      > >autou). In this respect, it goes with Aleph-B, D, Theta, fam 13 in
      > >greek, and several versions (sy.p latin sypal geo-Adysh-Tbeth-Opiza
      > >and armenian-vulgate).
      > Again, the Byz redactors at work?
      This is a question that people who work on the greek mss should answer...

      > >- v. 11: strangely, the "elders" have replaced the high priests.
      > >Probably one of the many blunders of the translator.
      > Unless the terms are synonymous?
      Normally, the presbuteroi of the greek are rendered by this word
      (mashaa'ikh), while the high priest have another one (rusa al-kahunna).
      This is really a deviation from the usual vocabulary of the translator.

      > >- v.18 Sin. arb. 71 doesn't have the harmonization from Jn 21.20 found
      > >in Theta, syp, geo-Adysh and armenian-vulgate.
      > Jean, does this Arabic ms have a great number of harmonizations?
      There are quite a lot, specially those we find in Theta and, surprisingly,
      the middle-egyptian version (mae). I work very few in the coptic area, so I
      don't know what this is suposed to mean.

      > >- v.20: "AND to the end of the world": the addition of "and" isn't
      > >found in Greek, but we have it also in sypal geo-Tbeth-Opiza and in
      > >many other Arabic versions.
      > >
      > Could this simply be because of a desire for a "smooth" translation?
      Possibly indeed. I don't want to rush on the possibility of variants when I
      know that my translator is rather free in his renderings. But the alliance
      of georgian and arabic versions is usual, that's why I don't want to
      exclude totally that there might have been a 'kai' in some lost greek ms.

      > Jean,
      > excellent work! thanks.
      > Jim

      Thank you for this encouragement!

      Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium
      email : jgvalentin@... /// netmail : 2:291/780.103
      "Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est
      "What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable"
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.