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

Re: tc-list Mt 27.53 Jerusalem vs. Holy City in Arabic

Expand Messages
  • Jean VALENTIN
    ... Ulrich, I m very busy this week so I ask you to wait until next week for a few examples. Greetings, Jean V.
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 31, 1969
    • 0 Attachment
      >Your "very different traditions" would be interesting to know in some more
      >detail. Are there more readings that could be paralleled with diatessaronic
      >witnesses?
      >
      Ulrich,

      I'm very busy this week so I ask you to wait until next week for a few
      examples.

      Greetings,

      Jean V.



      _________________________________________________
      Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique
      e-mail: jgvalentin@...
      _________________________________________________
      "Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est
      inutilisable"
      "What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable"
      "Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar"
      _________________________________________________
    • Jean VALENTIN
      Just a few lines about what I find while typing the text of Sinai Arabic 69, one of the oldest mss of the Melkite Arabic version of the XIth century. As you
      Message 2 of 4 , Dec 31, 1969
      • 0 Attachment
        Just a few lines about what I find while typing the text of Sinai Arabic
        69, one of the oldest mss of the Melkite Arabic version of the XIth
        century.

        As you know, most texts are reading here "the holy city" (thn agian
        polin), while several diatessaronic witnesses have "Jerusalem".

        My Arabic ms has a peculiar text, I would like to know if it's possible
        to interpret it - I mean, if it's possible to detemine which of both
        texts it follows.

        Sinai Arabic 69 reads (in Arabic): Bayt al-Maqdis, which is to be
        translated "the House of the Sanctuary". To which of both texts does it
        correspond?

        Arguments in favor of the "canonical" variant:
        - Both have the notion of holiness, and this Arabic name, though not
        closely, seems to follow the usual text (can have been "suggested" by it
        to the translator).
        - Jerusalem is usually translated "Urushalim" in this ms. It is the first
        time I meet "Bayt al-Maqdis" in this ms.

        Arguments in favor of the diatessaronic text:
        - Bayt al-Maqdis is the usual designation of Jerusalem in Christian
        Arabic texts from Palestine, probably derived from hebr. Beyt ha-Miqdash
        or Beyt ha-Qodesh (the Temple) via the Aramaic Beyt Maqdesha.
        - Bayt al-Maqdis is used in Ms Sinai Arabic 151, one of the oldest Arabic
        translations of the Acts. There (in Acts 1.4 for example) it translates
        "Jerusalem". But in this ms, the translation "Urushalim" appears also
        (e.g. in Acts 1.8), so the situation is not very different except for the
        Vorlage that is always Ierosolyma in Ms 151.

        Another argument in favor of the canonical variant, is that, given the
        wide dissemination of this version, it is probably the version of
        Ibn-al-Fadl, known to us as having produced an Arabic version of the
        Gospels that became the official one in the melkite church. Ibn-al-Fadl
        was not a Palestinian, he was from Antioch, so probably he would have
        been less prone to use this typically Palestinian expression for
        Jerusalem. On the other hand, even if it's his version, the influence of
        earlier vocabulary can never be totally excluded.

        I think in such a case I should suppose that ms 69 follows the usual
        Greek text, but I would reserve a small possibility for the diatessaronic
        variant, because I've already met with many variants coming from very
        different traditions. And I would wait to see if I meet more examples of
        Bayt al-Maqdis in this Arabic version. Would you agree with this choice?

        Thank you for your advice and suggestions,

        Jean V.

        _________________________________________________
        Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique
        e-mail: jgvalentin@...
        _________________________________________________
        "Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est
        inutilisable"
        "What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable"
        "Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar"
        _________________________________________________
      • Roderic L. Mullen
        For what it s worth, some members of the Samaritan community in Nablus refer to the site of their former temple on Mount Gerezim as Beyt Miqdash, so at least
        Message 3 of 4 , Dec 6, 1997
        • 0 Attachment
          For what it's worth, some members of the Samaritan community in Nablus refer
          to the site of their former temple on Mount Gerezim as "Beyt Miqdash," so at
          least in that case of present usage it doesn't mean Jerusalem.

          I think your point that Arabic Ms. 69 usually uses "Urusalayim" to translate
          Jerusalem is a powerful internal argument in favor of "bayt al-miqdas"
          representing the canonical text. A full study of the text would, as you
          suggest, give greater certainty on this point. Of course, that's just my
          own opinion. --Rod Mullen

          At , you wrote:
          >Just a few lines about what I find while typing the text of Sinai Arabic
          >69, one of the oldest mss of the Melkite Arabic version of the XIth
          >century.
          >
          >As you know, most texts are reading here "the holy city" (thn agian
          >polin), while several diatessaronic witnesses have "Jerusalem".
          >
          >My Arabic ms has a peculiar text, I would like to know if it's possible
          >to interpret it - I mean, if it's possible to detemine which of both
          >texts it follows.
          >
          >Sinai Arabic 69 reads (in Arabic): Bayt al-Maqdis, which is to be
          >translated "the House of the Sanctuary". To which of both texts does it
          >correspond?
          >
          >Arguments in favor of the "canonical" variant:
          >- Both have the notion of holiness, and this Arabic name, though not
          >closely, seems to follow the usual text (can have been "suggested" by it
          >to the translator).
          >- Jerusalem is usually translated "Urushalim" in this ms. It is the first
          >time I meet "Bayt al-Maqdis" in this ms.
          >
          >Arguments in favor of the diatessaronic text:
          >- Bayt al-Maqdis is the usual designation of Jerusalem in Christian
          >Arabic texts from Palestine, probably derived from hebr. Beyt ha-Miqdash
          >or Beyt ha-Qodesh (the Temple) via the Aramaic Beyt Maqdesha.
          >- Bayt al-Maqdis is used in Ms Sinai Arabic 151, one of the oldest Arabic
          >translations of the Acts. There (in Acts 1.4 for example) it translates
          >"Jerusalem". But in this ms, the translation "Urushalim" appears also
          >(e.g. in Acts 1.8), so the situation is not very different except for the
          >Vorlage that is always Ierosolyma in Ms 151.
          >
          >Another argument in favor of the canonical variant, is that, given the
          >wide dissemination of this version, it is probably the version of
          >Ibn-al-Fadl, known to us as having produced an Arabic version of the
          >Gospels that became the official one in the melkite church. Ibn-al-Fadl
          >was not a Palestinian, he was from Antioch, so probably he would have
          >been less prone to use this typically Palestinian expression for
          >Jerusalem. On the other hand, even if it's his version, the influence of
          >earlier vocabulary can never be totally excluded.
          >
          >I think in such a case I should suppose that ms 69 follows the usual
          >Greek text, but I would reserve a small possibility for the diatessaronic
          >variant, because I've already met with many variants coming from very
          >different traditions. And I would wait to see if I meet more examples of
          >Bayt al-Maqdis in this Arabic version. Would you agree with this choice?
          >
          >Thank you for your advice and suggestions,
          >
          >Jean V.
          >
          >_________________________________________________
          >Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique
          >e-mail: jgvalentin@...
          >_________________________________________________
          >"Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est
          >inutilisable"
          >"What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable"
          >"Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar"
          >_________________________________________________
          >
        • U. Schmid
          ... As far as I know only two western diatessaronic witnesses have Jerusalem : The 13th century Middle Dutch Liege Harmony and the 13th century Middle High
          Message 4 of 4 , Dec 8, 1997
          • 0 Attachment
            On Sun, 7 Dec 1997, Jean Valentin wrote:

            >Just a few lines about what I find while typing the text of Sinai Arabic
            >69, one of the oldest mss of the Melkite Arabic version of the XIth
            >century.
            >
            >As you know, most texts are reading here "the holy city" (thn agian
            >polin), while several diatessaronic witnesses have "Jerusalem".

            As far as I know only two western diatessaronic witnesses have "Jerusalem":
            The 13th century Middle Dutch "Liege Harmony" and the 13th century Middle
            High German "Himmelgarten Fragments". No witness of the eastern branch has
            been brought forth so far. According to Bill Petersen's recent discussion
            of the general problem (see his _Tatian's Diatessaron_. Leiden 1994, esp.
            chapter 7: Using the Diatessaron, pp. 357-425) the mentioned reading would
            not count under the (reasonably) secure diatessaronic readings because it
            lacks eastern support.

            >My Arabic ms has a peculiar text, I would like to know if it's possible
            >to interpret it - I mean, if it's possible to detemine which of both
            >texts it follows.
            >
            >Sinai Arabic 69 reads (in Arabic): Bayt al-Maqdis, which is to be
            >translated "the House of the Sanctuary". To which of both texts does it
            >correspond?
            >
            >Arguments in favor of the "canonical" variant:
            >- Both have the notion of holiness, and this Arabic name, though not
            >closely, seems to follow the usual text (can have been "suggested" by it
            >to the translator).
            >- Jerusalem is usually translated "Urushalim" in this ms. It is the first
            >time I meet "Bayt al-Maqdis" in this ms.

            This, I consider a very strong argument. It makes me wonder what your ms
            reads in Mt 4.5 (in case it is extant)? Note, the Greek Ms 566 states in a
            marginal gloss to Mt 4.5 that TO IOUDAIKON (a Judaic-Christian Gospel)
            reads EN IEROUSALHM (cf. Aland's Synopsis ad locum). The above mentioned
            "Liege Harmony" also reads "Jerusalem" in this case (the "Himmelgarten
            Fragments" are not extant), but cf. Lk 4.9!

            [snip]

            >I think in such a case I should suppose that ms 69 follows the usual
            >Greek text, but I would reserve a small possibility for the diatessaronic
            >variant, because I've already met with many variants coming from very
            >different traditions. And I would wait to see if I meet more examples of
            >Bayt al-Maqdis in this Arabic version. Would you agree with this choice?

            Your "very different traditions" would be interesting to know in some more
            detail. Are there more readings that could be paralleled with diatessaronic
            witnesses?

            Ulrich Schmid,
            Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.