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

Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination?

Expand Messages
  • Jean Valentin
    ... Well, a look at Jullicher shows me that in fact the sign khi-rho follows iesu. So in fact it s iesu christi. Both you and I were wrong ;-) ... I agree that
    Message 1 of 32 , Dec 31, 1969
    • 0 Attachment
      >a. According to Juelicher k reads "usque in adventum iesu".
      Well, a look at Jullicher shows me that in fact the sign khi-rho follows
      iesu. So in fact it's iesu christi. Both you and I were wrong ;-)

      >b. The "recapitulative" in b and c could have been taken over from an
      >exegetical
      >comment. In my view there is no conclusive case for a genealogical link
      >with k
      >in this case, especially not in the direction you suggest.
      I agree that this is possible. However, my main point concerns the
      parallel between k and the Arabic ms. The behavior of b and c is not so
      important in that respect, the point is that a quite visible latin
      variant is parallelled in the East.


      >c. What about the entire v.17 in k and your Arabic manuscript? Does the
      >latter
      >reproduce all the plunder of k?
      Here's a rough translation: So all those generations from Ibrahim to
      Dawud (are) fourteen generations. And from Dawud to the deportation of
      Babil (are) fourteen generations. And from the deportation of Babil to
      the coming of the Christ (are) fourteen generations. (17) And the birth
      of the Christ was in this manner...
      Have you noticed another syro-latin variant: the omission of "Jesus" from
      the beginning of v. 18.


      >d. What about a Latin *Vorlage* of your Arabic manuscript?
      Of course I asked myself the question! But it seems very unlikely to me,
      given that several mistakes done by the translator are explained much
      better when postuylating a Syriac "Vorlage". I'll name a frequent one:
      nouns that are in the singular while the Greek text has a plural, or the
      contrary. The origin of the confusion is the "seyome", the double point
      that Syriac uses to indicate the plural. As you know, the two mss of the
      old syriac version quite frequently omit that sign, and all we have to do
      is guess if the word is singular or plural. The Arabic translator had
      such a manuscript had to guess too, because of that reason, and often
      decided in a way that was different from the Greek text. This feature is
      explained most easily from Syriac, as latin doesn't raise any doubts: it
      has no need of diacriticals as it has desinences that clearly indicate
      whether a noun is singular or plural.
      There are other similar, linguistic, reasons why I think that a Syriac
      "Vorlage" explains the most naturally the genesis of that Arabic version.
      More to come when I publish my thesis (give me some five to seven years
      :-)

      >
      >Just a few thoughts...


      _______________________________________________________________
      Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique
      tel. 32-2-280.01.37
      e-mail : jgvalentin@...
      _______________________________________________________________
    • D.C.Parker@bham.ac.uk
      ... It may be a place for checking beyond Julicher. I ll try to rememebr to look in the Tischendorf and OLBT editions when I m near them. Dr D.C. Parker
      Message 32 of 32 , Jul 14, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        > Well, a look at Jullicher shows me that in fact the sign khi-rho follows
        > iesu. So in fact it's iesu christi. Both you and I were wrong ;-)

        It may be a place for checking beyond Julicher. I'll try to rememebr
        to look in the Tischendorf and OLBT editions when I'm near them.


        Dr D.C. Parker
        Reader in New Testament Textual Criticism and Palaeography
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.