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

tc-list Mk 1.6 Tree blades and herbs

Expand Messages
  • Jean Valentin
    Just discovered this variant in an Arabic ms of the XIth century, ms Sinai Arabic 106.. According to the standard Greek text, John the Baptist ate locusts and
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 31, 1969
    • 0 Attachment
      Just discovered this variant in an Arabic ms of the XIth century, ms Sinai Arabic 106.. According to the standard Greek text, John the Baptist ate "locusts and wild honey". So is it also in most manuscripts of this Arabic version on which I'm working, except this one.

      Here it is written that John "ate tree blades and herbs" (wa-yaakul atraaf ash-shajar wa-ahsheesh). Notably, from the copy of the ms in my possession, it can be clearly seen that it is a correction: the original text of the ms (probably the one we find in the other mss) is erased and replaced by these words. To those interested, I can try to send a scanning of that page.

      Is this reading diatessaronic? I hesitate. From a footnote in Boismard's "Le Diatessaron de Tatien à Justin" (p.75) I learn that Syriac fathers quoting the Diatessaron read in it that John ate "milk and honey".

      Nevertheless, the reading of my Arabic ms is strictly vegetarian. Locusts are animals. Milk and honey are derived or produced by animals. On the contrary, tree blades and herbs have no connection whatsoever with animals. This sounds like a very strict encratism.

      Now the questions are: why would a corrector of the XIth century or later, probably working in the scriptorium of the very orthodox Mount Sinai monastery, bother to introduct such an idiosyncratic reading (did forms of encratisme survive for such a long time in monastic circles?), and where would he have taken it from?

      Any insights?

      Jean V.

      Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique
      e-mail : jgvalentin@...
    • Carlton Winbery
      While making a list of words that occur in the LXX but not in the GNT I discovered that OURWN in Accordance (at 1 Sam. 25:34) is parsed as Nom. fem. plur. gen
      Message 2 of 4 , Dec 25, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        While making a list of words that occur in the LXX but not in the GNT I
        discovered that OURWN in Accordance (at 1 Sam. 25:34) is parsed as Nom.
        fem. plur. gen of OURA. In the other occurances of this participle in the
        LXX Accordance parses it correctly. Here it should also be parsed as a
        pres. act. ptc. nom. masc. sg. as it is the subject of the passive verb.
        Due to this incorrect parsing, Accordance also leaves it out when you look
        for the occurrances of this word in the LXX.

        I have no idea what I will do with such a list except share it with Greek
        students who can't afford Liddell, Scot, Jones.


        Carlton L. Winbery
        Fogleman Professor of Religion
        Louisiana College
        Pineville, LA 71359
        winberyc@...
        winbery@...
      • Prof. Ron Minton
        On Fri, 25 Dec 1998, Carton Winbery wrote:... ... When I find this sort of thing, I try to send the info in to be corrected in the next edition. When Hans
        Message 3 of 4 , Dec 26, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          On Fri, 25 Dec 1998, Carton Winbery wrote:...
          > discovered that OURWN in Accordance (at 1 Sam. 25:34) is parsed as Nom.
          > fem. plur. gen of OURA. In the other occurances of this participle in the
          > LXX Accordance parses it correctly. Here it should also be parsed as a
          > pres. act. ptc. nom. masc. sg. as it is the subject of the passive verb.
          > Due to this incorrect parsing, Accordance also leaves it out when you look
          > for the occurrances of this word in the LXX.
          > I have no idea what I will do with such a list except share it with Greek
          > students who can't afford Liddell, Scot, Jones.


          When I find this sort of thing, I try to send the info in to be corrected
          in the next edition. When Hans parsing guide came out, I found a number
          of errors just by checking a few books. I suggest you finish your project
          and share all corrections with Gramcord.

          Ron Minton
          5379 North Farm Road 179
          Springfield, MO 65803
          (417)833-9581
        • William L. Petersen
          Re Jean Valentin s note: There is a well-known variant here in the Judaic-Christian gospels. Depending upon which edition you use, the fragment may be
          Message 4 of 4 , Dec 26, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            Re Jean Valentin's note:

            There is a well-known variant here in the Judaic-Christian gospels.
            Depending upon which edition you use, the fragment may be attributed to the
            GHebrews, GNazoraeans, or GEbionites. I don't recall the reading exactly
            (I'm on the road at the moment, and away from my sources), but it is
            usually attributed to GHebrews, as I recall, and has "oil-fried cakes"
            instead of "locusts"--and this has usually been taken to be an Encratite
            variant, and also evidence for a Greek origin of the GHebrews (the two
            words are very similar in Greek). Check out Klijn's *Jewish Christian
            Gospel Tradition* (SuppVigChr 17) or any NT Apocyrpha
            (Henneck-Schneemelcher, or Elliott).

            However: to the best of my knowledge, there is no obvious Diatessaronic
            reading here. Note that Boismard (cp. my comments on the work you cite in
            *Tatian's Diatessaron,* pp. 348-356) refers to Syriac Fathers (if your
            recitation of his evidence is correct), not the Diatessaron; check
            Plooij's edition of the Liege Harmony, which will give any significant
            variants.

            --Petersen, Penn State University.


            At , you wrote:
            >Just discovered this variant in an Arabic ms of the XIth century, ms Sinai
            >Arabic 106.. According to the standard Greek text, John the Baptist ate
            >"locusts and wild honey". So is it also in most manuscripts of this Arabic
            >version on which I'm working, except this one.
            >
            >Here it is written that John "ate tree blades and herbs" (wa-yaakul atraaf
            >ash-shajar wa-ahsheesh). Notably, from the copy of the ms in my possession,
            >it can be clearly seen that it is a correction: the original text of the ms
            >(probably the one we find in the other mss) is erased and replaced by these
            >words. To those interested, I can try to send a scanning of that page.
            >
            >Is this reading diatessaronic? I hesitate. From a footnote in Boismard's "Le
            >Diatessaron de Tatien à Justin" (p.75) I learn that Syriac fathers quoting
            >the Diatessaron read in it that John ate "milk and honey".
            >
            >Nevertheless, the reading of my Arabic ms is strictly vegetarian. Locusts
            >are animals. Milk and honey are derived or produced by animals. On the
            >contrary, tree blades and herbs have no connection whatsoever with animals.
            >This sounds like a very strict encratism.
            >
            >Now the questions are: why would a corrector of the XIth century or later,
            >probably working in the scriptorium of the very orthodox Mount Sinai
            >monastery, bother to introduct such an idiosyncratic reading (did forms of
            >encratisme survive for such a long time in monastic circles?), and where
            >would he have taken it from?
            >
            >Any insights?
            >
            >Jean V.
            >
            >Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique
            >e-mail : jgvalentin@...
            >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.