Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination?
>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 anI agree that this is possible. However, my main point concerns the
>comment. In my view there is no conclusive case for a genealogical link
>in this case, especially not in the direction you suggest.
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 theHere's a rough translation: So all those generations from Ibrahim to
>reproduce all the plunder of k?
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
e-mail : jgvalentin@...
> Well, a look at Jullicher shows me that in fact the sign khi-rho followsIt may be a place for checking beyond Julicher. I'll try to rememebr
> iesu. So in fact it's iesu christi. Both you and I were wrong ;-)
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