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

'Caesarean' reading in Arabic diglot at Mark 13:6

Expand Messages
  • bucksburg
    Minuscule 91 is Paris, National Library Gr. 219--containing the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse complete, with commentary. But Hikmat Kachouh cites it in
    Message 1 of 6 , Nov 17, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Minuscule 91 is Paris, National Library Gr. 219--containing the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse complete, with commentary. But Hikmat Kachouh cites it in support of a singular (Arabic) reading in Mark 13:6--

      "The expression (O XPISTOS) is found only in jA1[=GA#211] and agrees with the following manuscripts: W È f13 28 61 91 115 255 299 565 700 1071 b c g2 l vg(mss) cop(sa,bo) geo(b) arm Cyp"

      This data set looks pretty solidly Caesarean (along with some coincidental convergence), but from what list do you suppose he got 91, as it doesn't even contain the Gospels?

      Daniel Buck
    • ayman
      From Legg Apparatus
      Message 2 of 6 , Nov 18, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        From Legg Apparatus

        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "bucksburg" <bucksburg@...> wrote:
        >
        > Minuscule 91 is Paris, National Library Gr. 219--containing the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse complete, with commentary. But Hikmat Kachouh cites it in support of a singular (Arabic) reading in Mark 13:6--
        >
        > "The expression (O XPISTOS) is found only in jA1[=GA#211] and agrees with the following manuscripts: W È f13 28 61 91 115 255 299 565 700 1071 b c g2 l vg(mss) cop(sa,bo) geo(b) arm Cyp"
        >
        > This data set looks pretty solidly Caesarean (along with some coincidental convergence), but from what list do you suppose he got 91, as it doesn't even contain the Gospels?
        >
        > Daniel Buck
        >
      • TeunisV
        Mill ad Mk 13,6: Post eimi addunt o Xristos Mont [=61], Colb. 2 [=28], Per. [=91], L [=69]. Kuster added Paris. 6 [=69]. In Mill s ed. of Kuster, 1710,
        Message 3 of 6 , Nov 18, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Mill ad Mk 13,6:
          Post eimi addunt o Xristos Mont [=61], Colb. 2 [=28], Per. [=91], L [=69]. Kuster added Paris. 6 [=69].
          In Mill's ed. of Kuster, 1710, Prolegomena, #1506, p. 167, is a description of the ms Per. Bernard Montefaucon sent Mill variant readings from a ms of the monastery S. Taurin in Evreux. According to Mill the ms formerly belonged to the cardinal Perron. So the siglum Per.
          We do not know where the ms is now. Hort suggested to Gregory by letter it is ms 299, now in Paris (Par. Nat. Gr. 177). See Gregory's Prolegomena to Tisch8 and Textkritik ad ms ev 91.
          Per is given the nr. ev 91 in the lists of Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz, Gregory. In the revision of Gregory's list nr 91 was desolate, so it was possible to use the nr for another ms.
          From Griesbach's apparatus, 1827 3rd ed. Schulz: eimi + o Xristos 13. 28. 61. 69. 91. 115. 124. Mt 12 [=255].

          Teunis van Lopik Leidschendam, NL

          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "bucksburg" <bucksburg@...> wrote:
          >
          > Minuscule 91 is Paris, National Library Gr. 219--containing the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse complete, with commentary. But Hikmat Kachouh cites it in support of a singular (Arabic) reading in Mark 13:6--
          >
          > "The expression (O XPISTOS) is found only in jA1[=GA#211] and agrees with the following manuscripts: W � f13 28 61 91 115 255 299 565 700 1071 b c g2 l vg(mss) cop(sa,bo) geo(b) arm Cyp"
          >
          > This data set looks pretty solidly Caesarean (along with some coincidental convergence), but from what list do you suppose he got 91, as it doesn't even contain the Gospels?
          >
          > Daniel Buck
          >
        • TeunisV
          Correction: Paris. 6 = 13, of course. Teunis
          Message 4 of 6 , Nov 18, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Correction:
            Paris. 6 = 13, of course.
            Teunis

            --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "TeunisV" <tvanlopik@...> wrote:
            >
            > Mill ad Mk 13,6:
            > Post eimi addunt o Xristos Mont [=61], Colb. 2 [=28], Per. [=91], L [=69]. Kuster added Paris. 6 [=69].
            > In Mill's ed. of Kuster, 1710, Prolegomena, #1506, p. 167, is a description of the ms Per. Bernard Montefaucon sent Mill variant readings from a ms of the monastery S. Taurin in Evreux. According to Mill the ms formerly belonged to the cardinal Perron. So the siglum Per.
            > We do not know where the ms is now. Hort suggested to Gregory by letter it is ms 299, now in Paris (Par. Nat. Gr. 177). See Gregory's Prolegomena to Tisch8 and Textkritik ad ms ev 91.
            > Per is given the nr. ev 91 in the lists of Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz, Gregory. In the revision of Gregory's list nr 91 was desolate, so it was possible to use the nr for another ms.
            > From Griesbach's apparatus, 1827 3rd ed. Schulz: eimi + o Xristos 13. 28. 61. 69. 91. 115. 124. Mt 12 [=255].
            >
            > Teunis van Lopik Leidschendam, NL
            >
            > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "bucksburg" <bucksburg@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Minuscule 91 is Paris, National Library Gr. 219--containing the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse complete, with commentary. But Hikmat Kachouh cites it in support of a singular (Arabic) reading in Mark 13:6--
            > >
            > > "The expression (O XPISTOS) is found only in jA1[=GA#211] and agrees with the following manuscripts: W � f13 28 61 91 115 255 299 565 700 1071 b c g2 l vg(mss) cop(sa,bo) geo(b) arm Cyp"
            > >
            > > This data set looks pretty solidly Caesarean (along with some coincidental convergence), but from what list do you suppose he got 91, as it doesn't even contain the Gospels?
            > >
            > > Daniel Buck
            > >
            >
          • bucksburg
            ... The expression (O CRISTOS) is found only in jA1[=GA#211] and agrees with the following: W Theta f13 28 61 299? 115 255 299 565 700 1071 b c g2 l vg(mss)
            Message 5 of 6 , Nov 18, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Buck wrote (corrected):

              >> Minuscule 91 is Paris, National Library Gr. 219--containing the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse complete, with commentary. But Hikmat Kachouh cites it in support of a singular (Arabic) reading in Mark 13:6--

              The expression (O CRISTOS) is found only in jA1[=GA#211] and agrees with the following: W Theta f13 28 61 299? 115 255 299 565 700 1071 b c g2 l vg(mss) cop(sa,bo) geo(b) arm Cyp<<

              There's more to the story here. He goes on,

              Manuscripts jA2, jA4 and jA5 replace 'almasih' with 'ana' and read 'qaayalin ani ana ana' (=EGW EIMI) and follow most Greek manuscripts. . .

              But 'qaayalin ani ana ana' does not equal LEGONTES OTI EGW EIMI. EGW EIMI is typically translated in the Arabic NT as "ana hua," which corresponds to the English "It is I" or "I am he." Thus the dittography here is not only nonsensical in Arabic ('saying(pl) that-I I-am I-am')--the first person singular is actually indicated three times running--it points to a deliberate substitution for an Arabic jA version original of 'qaayalin ani ana almasih' (saying that I am the Christ).

              LEGONTES OTI EGW EIMI has proved difficult to translate. Taking English as an example, Tyndale 1526 through KJV 1611 read "I am <i>Christ</i>." Even as recently as 2004 the NLT translates it as 'I am the Messiah,' with a footnote conceding that the (received) Greek reads 'I am.' Most others translate it as "I am he," with the 'he' italicized by those that still utilize that convention. But no modern version in any language is going to read along the lines of "I am I am," with or without the 'he'. This was a deliberate correction from the Byz Greek text without any subsequent smoothing of the Arabic found elsewhere in jA and here in other families. That is, unless a Syriac ms could be found with a cognate reading, which would push the original correction back into that vorlage.

              Metzger (JBL 64 #4) and others have pointed to hints of a Caesarean vorlage for Arabic families a or k, but this would indicate the same for family jA (the above mentioned mss are the only ones in jA extant for Mark 13:6). It would be interesting to see if we could find anything in the Syriac that corresponds to this dittography.

              Daniel Buck
            • TeunisV
              Do not forget to have a look at Mk 13,5. On this site we just talked about answering/saying and issues of harmonization/assimilation of shorter texts in Mark.
              Message 6 of 6 , Nov 19, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Do not forget to have a look at Mk 13,5. On this site we just talked about answering/saying and issues of harmonization/assimilation of shorter texts in Mark. We do see comparable strings/combinations of witnesses in the variant units in Mk 13,5 and 13,6. In both cases assimilation from Mt is indicated by several textual critics. The question is to know when the assimilation occurred. For example: over and over again we have to consider the background of the f13 text. Many times the text is like Byzantine. In some cases even the text is accomodated to mid-Byzantine lectionary customs. And then there are occasions f13 is not Byzantine and not liturgical adapted, so qualified as Caesarean.
                An extra complication is that in the case of Mk 13,6, o Xristos, the assimilation or harmonization can be repeated in several stages. By copyists of the Greek text; by the old translators who translated the short text and added for the readers' convenience (the) Christ and the same in modern translations.

                Teunis van Lopik

                --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "bucksburg" <bucksburg@...> wrote:
                >
                > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Buck wrote (corrected):
                >
                > >> Minuscule 91 is Paris, National Library Gr. 219--containing the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse complete, with commentary. But Hikmat Kachouh cites it in support of a singular (Arabic) reading in Mark 13:6--
                >
                > The expression (O CRISTOS) is found only in jA1[=GA#211] and agrees with the following: W Theta f13 28 61 299? 115 255 299 565 700 1071 b c g2 l vg(mss) cop(sa,bo) geo(b) arm Cyp<<
                >
                > There's more to the story here. He goes on,
                >
                > Manuscripts jA2, jA4 and jA5 replace 'almasih' with 'ana' and read 'qaayalin ani ana ana' (=EGW EIMI) and follow most Greek manuscripts. . .
                >
                > But 'qaayalin ani ana ana' does not equal LEGONTES OTI EGW EIMI. EGW EIMI is typically translated in the Arabic NT as "ana hua," which corresponds to the English "It is I" or "I am he." Thus the dittography here is not only nonsensical in Arabic ('saying(pl) that-I I-am I-am')--the first person singular is actually indicated three times running--it points to a deliberate substitution for an Arabic jA version original of 'qaayalin ani ana almasih' (saying that I am the Christ).
                >
                > LEGONTES OTI EGW EIMI has proved difficult to translate. Taking English as an example, Tyndale 1526 through KJV 1611 read "I am <i>Christ</i>." Even as recently as 2004 the NLT translates it as 'I am the Messiah,' with a footnote conceding that the (received) Greek reads 'I am.' Most others translate it as "I am he," with the 'he' italicized by those that still utilize that convention. But no modern version in any language is going to read along the lines of "I am I am," with or without the 'he'. This was a deliberate correction from the Byz Greek text without any subsequent smoothing of the Arabic found elsewhere in jA and here in other families. That is, unless a Syriac ms could be found with a cognate reading, which would push the original correction back into that vorlage.
                >
                > Metzger (JBL 64 #4) and others have pointed to hints of a Caesarean vorlage for Arabic families a or k, but this would indicate the same for family jA (the above mentioned mss are the only ones in jA extant for Mark 13:6). It would be interesting to see if we could find anything in the Syriac that corresponds to this dittography.
                >
                > Daniel Buck
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.