Wednesday, August 4, 2021

"MS" is not short for "autograph"

JP Monferrer-Sala in 2011 published a study of Pseudo-Athanasius as he read it in Arabic. The Vatican kept it as the 99v-111v part of Arabic #158. I have to say, this article is rough. The essay starts by dating the "MS" to AH 96 / AD 715 with a link to Hoyland Seeing Islam, 285.

It happens that I have read Seeing Islam several times. I've consistently rated it as my favourite book... ever. I didn't remember Hoyland dating this Arabic MS so early. As I look it up, I can confirm. Hoyland was cagey enough on speculating as to Pseudo-Athanasius' autograph. Looking around for Vat. ar. 158, the date I find (admittedly for other folios herein) is AD 1356/7 by Thomas Mahalli. Interesting year, I must say.

I think Monferrer-Sala meant to say "the autograph" or maybe "the base MS". I suggest that authors only use "MS" where we own the actual strip of paper. Any preserved MS is rarely the autograph; Zuqnin is famous (or should be) for being an autograph.

I am letting Monferrer-Sala off the hook on this one, since I much doubt he intended what got published; he seemed in 2011 not to own English as his first language. As I keep saying, this is why we have editors and I'm more inclined to pin this slip on them.

As to why MS-v.-autograph matters - I'm interested in when this Coptic original (Monferrer-Sala is well aware it was Coptic, using a Sahidic Bible) got translated into Arabic. I am trying to get my head around its translator's familiarity with Qurânic tropes. AH 96 / AD 715 is super-early in Islamic development. It's rather early for Copts using Arabic for their own use, as with Pseudo-Athanasius.

No comments:

Post a Comment