Subject: tc-list Mk 1.6 Tree blades and herbs

From: Jean Valentin <[email-masked]>
Date: Ven, 25 Dc 98 16:41:28 +0100

Just discovered this variant in an Arabic ms of the XIth century, ms Sinai Arabic 106.. According to the standard Greek text, John the Baptist ate "locusts and wild honey". So is it also in most manuscripts of this Arabic version on which I'm working, except this one. 

Here it is written that John "ate tree blades and herbs" (wa-yaakul atraaf ash-shajar wa-ahsheesh). Notably, from the copy of the ms in my possession, it can be clearly seen that it is a correction: the original text of the ms (probably the one we find in the other mss) is erased and replaced by these words. To those interested, I can try to send a scanning of that page.

Is this reading diatessaronic? I hesitate. From a footnote in Boismard's "Le Diatessaron de Tatien à Justin" (p.75) I learn that Syriac fathers quoting the Diatessaron read in it that John ate "milk and honey".

Nevertheless, the reading of my Arabic ms is strictly vegetarian. Locusts are animals. Milk and honey are derived or produced by animals. On the contrary, tree blades and herbs have no connection whatsoever with animals. This sounds like a very strict encratism.

Now the questions are: why would a corrector of the XIth century or later, probably working in the scriptorium of the very orthodox Mount Sinai monastery, bother to introduct such an idiosyncratic reading (did forms of encratisme survive for such a long time in monastic circles?), and where would he have taken it from?

Any insights?

Jean V.

Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique
e-mail : [email-masked]

---

From: Carlton Winbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 20:36:16 +0400

While making a list of words that occur in the LXX but not in the GNT I
discovered that OURWN in Accordance (at 1 Sam. 25:34) is parsed as Nom.
fem. plur. gen of OURA. In the other occurances of this participle in the
LXX Accordance parses it correctly. Here it should also be parsed as a
pres. act. ptc. nom. masc. sg. as it is the subject of the passive verb.
Due to this incorrect parsing, Accordance also leaves it out when you look
for the occurrances of this word in the LXX.

I have no idea what I will do with such a list except share it with Greek
students who can't afford Liddell, Scot, Jones.

Carlton L. Winbery
Fogleman Professor of Religion
Louisiana College
Pineville, LA 71359
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

---

From: "Prof. Ron Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 10:23:18 -0600 (Central Standard Time)

On Fri, 25 Dec 1998, Carton Winbery wrote:...
> students who can't afford Liddell, Scot, Jones.

When I find this sort of thing, I try to send the info in to be corrected
in the next edition.  When Hans parsing guide came out, I found a number
of errors just by checking a few books.  I suggest you finish your project
and share all corrections with Gramcord.

Ron Minton
5379 North Farm Road 179
Springfield, MO 65803
(417)833-9581

---

From: "William L. Petersen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 20:51:42 -0600

Re Jean Valentin's note:

There is a well-known variant here in the Judaic-Christian gospels.
Depending upon which edition you use, the fragment may be attributed to the
GHebrews, GNazoraeans, or GEbionites.  I don't recall the reading exactly
(I'm on the road at the moment, and away from my sources), but it is
usually attributed to GHebrews, as I recall, and has "oil-fried cakes"
instead of "locusts"--and this has usually been taken to be an Encratite
variant, and also evidence for a Greek origin of the GHebrews (the two
words are very similar in Greek).  Check out Klijn's *Jewish Christian
Gospel Tradition* (SuppVigChr 17) or any NT Apocyrpha
(Henneck-Schneemelcher, or Elliott).

However:  to the best of my knowledge, there is no obvious Diatessaronic
reading here.  Note that Boismard (cp. my comments on the work you cite in
*Tatian's Diatessaron,* pp. 348-356) refers to Syriac Fathers (if your
recitation of his evidence is correct), not the Diatessaron;  check
Plooij's edition of the Liege Harmony, which will give any significant
variants.

--Petersen,  Penn State University.

At , you wrote:
>Just discovered this variant in an Arabic ms of the XIth century, ms Sinai 
>Arabic 106.. According to the standard Greek text, John the Baptist ate 
>"locusts and wild honey". So is it also in most manuscripts of this Arabic 
>version on which I'm working, except this one. 
>
>Here it is written that John "ate tree blades and herbs" (wa-yaakul atraaf 
>ash-shajar wa-ahsheesh). Notably, from the copy of the ms in my possession, 
>it can be clearly seen that it is a correction: the original text of the ms 
>(probably the one we find in the other mss) is erased and replaced by these 
>words. To those interested, I can try to send a scanning of that page.
>
>Is this reading diatessaronic? I hesitate. From a footnote in Boismard's "Le 
>Diatessaron de Tatien à Justin" (p.75) I learn that Syriac fathers quoting 
>the Diatessaron read in it that John ate "milk and honey".
>
>Nevertheless, the reading of my Arabic ms is strictly vegetarian. Locusts 
>are animals. Milk and honey are derived or produced by animals. On the 
>contrary, tree blades and herbs have no connection whatsoever with animals. 
>This sounds like a very strict encratism.
>
>Now the questions are: why would a corrector of the XIth century or later, 
>probably working in the scriptorium of the very orthodox Mount Sinai 
>monastery, bother to introduct such an idiosyncratic reading (did forms of 
>encratisme survive for such a long time in monastic circles?), and where 
>would he have taken it from?
>
>Any insights?
>
>Jean V.
>