Subject: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination?

From: Jean Valentin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mar, 13 Jul 99 22:56:33 +0200

>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 an 
>exegetical 
>comment. In my view there is no conclusive case for a genealogical link 
>with k 
>in this case, especially not in the direction you suggest.
I agree that this is possible. However, my main point concerns the 
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 the 
>latter 
>reproduce all the plunder of k?
Here's a rough translation: So all those generations from Ibrahim to 
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
tel. 32-2-280.01.37
e-mail : [email-masked]
_______________________________________________________________

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:08:28 +0000

> iesu. So in fact it's iesu christi. Both you and I were wrong ;-)

It may be a place for checking beyond Julicher.  I'll try to rememebr 
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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:08:51 +0000

Dr D.C. Parker