Fri Nov 22 20:03:33 1996

From owner-tc-list  Fri Nov 22 20:03:33 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id UAA26628; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 20:02:42 -0500
Date: 23 Nov 96 01:59:41 +0100
Subject: Two variants of Sinai Arabic 71
From: "Jean Valentin" 
To: "TC-LIST" 
X-Mailer: Cyberdog/1.2
Message-Id: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1975

While typing the text of my manuscript (Sinai arabic 71), I fall again on
one of these large omissions of this Arabic version.

The whole verse of Mk 7.34 is omitted. Well, I've look in the Greek
editions (NA, Soden, Tischendorf, Legg etc) and found not one ms where it
happens. Neither in the versions or in the Harmonies. I failed to find this
verse in Ephrem's quotations though, but it doesn't prove anything as there
are many other verses that aren't cited by Ephrem...

So, I wouldn't make much about it, but here's why I nevertheless write a
little note: the text reads very well without that verse! And this makes me
think to another passage where the same happens, and it's Mt 23.26.

The picture is a little different in Mt 23.26. It's also missing in Sinai
arabic 71. But here there is more: 
(1) In this verse, Jesus speaks to the Pharisees in the singular (Farisaie
tyfle), while in the whole chapter he uses the plural. So this verse is
kind of a break in the style of the passage.
(2) Some textual witnesses were aware of this anomaly, and corrected to the
plural - if my understanding of the correction is right. They are: the two
old syriac mss, the georgian Adysh ms (geo.c), the georgian pre-vulgate
(geo.abde), the diatessaron in Arabic and the Persian harmony. And, in the
West, there's the old latin manuscipt c.

I'm not thinking my Arabic version has a more original text than the rest
of the tradition! It has very often _the_ shortest text, and probably the
translator, his carelessness and his insufficient knowledge of Greek are
the main reasons behind this.

But if those variants were found in a Greek manuscript or in a few older
eastern and western versions, it would become interesting...
Any thoughts?

(Sinai arabic is a ms of the Xth century, which is early for Arabic. It has
only kept the text of Mt 23.3-Lc 8.2 on 49 folios of parchment. When
variants existing in greek can be recognized, they are in agreement with
codex Koridethi).

Back