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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 6 , Nov 19, 2010
    View Source
    • 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.