DominO123 Posted July 27, 2003 Report Share Posted July 27, 2003 (edited) OK! This is not linked with the genocide(unlike my other researchs), but I though it is facinating. Concordance and Texts of the Armenian Version of IV Ezra by Michael E. Stone, Israel Oriental Society, 1971. I have been searching this past week, works about the Armenians in Israeli studies, so I came accross some interesting finding. I am not interested with this Bible thing story, but some may be interested. I didn't knew where to post it, in Language or Religion, since it is about religion, but it is as well linked with language. I know that parts of it are unworthy without the rest of the book(the key it gives to understand the rest), but I post it, because I found it funny to see an Israeli school trying to decipher an Armenian work. Ah and it is a book of over 300 pages. (Note: the images are in form of hyperlink, because there is a limit of number of images on each posts). INTRODUCTION Recent studies and advances in the investigation of the Armenian apocrypha in general and of the Fourth Book of Ezra in particular have thrown new light on the Armenian version of this work. 1 The present volume is designed to provide a concordance of the Armenian version of IV Ezra, in order to facilitate continuing studies in these areas of research, as well as to provide a supplement to the existing concordance of the Armenian Bible, which does not contain this work. 2 Furthermore, being of limited length, this book offered a good opportunity to try to solve the various technical problems of dealing with an Armenian text on a computer. Transliteration Since it proved to be beyond the means at our disposal to adapt the printer of the computer to the Armenian script, it was necessary to work in transliteration. Various technical difficulties were involved in advancing the material from manuscripts written in Armenian script to the final computer print out in transliteration. The system of transliteration was based on that adopted by the Revue des Etudes Arméniennes, but changed somewhat to bring it within the limits of the diacritical points which can be produced on a computer's printing apparatus. This method by which the mechanical printing of the transliteration was achieved on the computer printer was first developed by Zion Busharia in connection with a project of Professor Z. Ben Hayyim involving the transliteration of Samaritan script. The final result, it is hoped, is readily legible and comprehensible. A table of transliteration will be found at the end of this Introduction. Choice of Text Types In a previous study, the writer demonstrated that two major text types were represented in the sixteen Armenian manuscripts of IV Ezra known to him at that time ( 1968). One is to be found in Erevan, MS No. 1500 and the other in all other manuscripts. 3 The discovery of two further copies of IV Ezra in New Julfa, Iran, has caused no revision of these conclusions. 4 Stemmatic analysis of a large sample of text, somewhat under one half of the book, uncovered no unambiguous relationships existing between the text forms preserved in the manuscripts of the second type: almost all were found to preserve texts conflate to a greater or lesser extent. 5 Moreover, the relationship existing between Erevan, MS No. 1500 and this second text type proved to be equally complex. The outcome of this is that it is impossible on this basis to prefer one of the two text types to the other. 6 In short, neither Erevan, MS No. 1500 nor the manuscripts of the other type can be taken alone as a textual basis, nor is it feasible to establish a meaningful overall stemma, or even a limited one, within the second group. 7 Yet, the problems lying in the path of the establishment of an eclectic text which might serve as a basis for the concordance or, indeed, for a future critical edition, are too great to make this a practicable alternative. The Armenian version of IV Ezra is too different from those preserved in other languages, its translation practices too little known, and the character of many of its variants such that any eclectic text would be largely arbitrary, else it would have to contain so many bracketed and alternative readings as to be incoherent. 8 This practical consideration leads directly to the conclusion that the textual base should be diplomatic in character, but since it is impossible to show the intrinsic superiority of either of the two text forms, two parallel texts must be given, one of Erevan, MS No. 1500 and one of a select manuscript of the other type. As to the text of Erevan, MS No. 1500, there is of course no problem, but the question immediately arose of the mode of selection of the second text type. Theoretically, for a critical edition, the question is not of crucial importance, for the variae lectiones of the remaining manuscripts will be presented in the apparatus. In fact, both for a concordance and for a text edition, if the most original text form cannot be isolated, then at least as typical a text as possible should be chosen. This was achieved by selecting the manuscript which displayed both the least number of unique variants and also the least number of occurrences of variants in small groups. This procedure is, of course, no guarantee that the manuscript selected is more original than any other (to the contrary -- a manuscript at the head of a stemma could be expected to show a not inconsiderable number of unique and small group variants). It does assure, however, that the manuscript stands somewhere in the center of the stemmatic pattern and is fairly typical of its family. As far as a text edition is concerned, the choice of a text of the above character leads to the greatest economy in the critical apparatus. Since, most of the time, it falls together with the majority of manuscripts, naturally it follows that the number of cases in which the other manuscripts vary from it is as limited as possible. For the concordance, it is naturally desirable that it be a concordance of the text which will serve for a future edition. Since, therefore, no clear basis can be found for discriminating between the manuscripts of the second type, the considerations adduced above at least guarantee that the text is as typical as possible of its type. Choice of Base Manuscript for Concordance The decision to base the concordance on two manuscripts raised a number of problems. It is clearly desirable to record all the words found in both manuscripts. At the same time it is not justifiable to give two complete concordances. In spite of the numerous variations existing between them, these are two forms of one text and not two independent translations. The material common to them far outweighs that in which they differ. One text, therefore, served as a base text for preparing the concordance, and the additional words from the other were added to it. The text chosen as the base text was that of Jerusalem, MS No. 1933, the text selected from the second group. The reason for singling out this manuscript in preference to Erevan, MS No. 1500, was technical. The spelling and orthography of Erevan, MS No. 1500 show numerous peculiarities, a feature not uncommon in thirteenth century manuscripts. 9 Since it was desired to make as little change as possible to the text of the manuscript as it appears, it was simplest to use as the base text that ma nuscript which has the most standard spelling. It should immediately be stressed that this choice makes no substantial difference, since all words found in both manuscripts are given. Purely a matter of convenience is involved. The desire to give as standard a spelling as possible was the primary motive for the choice, although it did lead to all cases of appearing as , since manuscript A ( Jerusalem, manuscript No. 1933), is a seventeenth century copy with seventeenth century spelling practices. http://turkeydenial.250free.com/1.jpghttp://turkeydenial.250free.com/2.jpg Erevan, MS No. 1500 was then compared carefully with Jerusalem, MS No. 1933 and all places where it showed a different word were marked for inclusion in the concordance. It should be stressed that only different words, that is different lexical items, were marked and not variant forms of the same word. Thus of Erevan, MS No. 1500 over against of Jerusalem, MS No. 1933 would be marked, but of the one over against of the other would not be brought into account. 10 http://turkeydenial.250free.com/3.jpghttp://turkeydenial.250free.com/4.jpghttp://turkeydenial.250free.com/5.jpghttp://turkeydenial.250free.com/6.jpg The Texts Preceding the concordance, the texts of both manuscripts are printed in full. They are provided with verse and chapter divisions, following those of the Latin version, for sake of convenience. Where there is a long addition in the Armenian version, this has been subdivided into vss 16A, 16B, 16C, etc., for ease of reference. In the text of Erevan, MS No. 1500, those words or phrases which have been included in the concordance are surrounded by asterisks. The full text of this manuscript has been provided so that morphological variants, which are not noted in the concordance, can be readily found. The Concordance The entry for each word is given in the normal form of dictionary citation. Each of the different forms in which the word occurs then follow, in alphabetical order by the Armenian alphabet. Forms exhibiting spelling differences are listed as separate forms. Forms with a preposition or other inseparable prefixes are shown separately. Following each form, a list of occurrences is given. Those cases in which the occurrence is in Erevan, MS No. 1500 are marked by the letter H in parentheses following the verse reference and they are listed after all the occurrences in manuscript A. Where certain phrases have been treated as single units from the point of view of the concordance they are listed following the other forms, under the appropriate entry. Cross references are provided under the entries of the other words which compose the phrase. Thus, the phrase is listed under the entry MIT and a cross reference is provided at the entry ACEM. http://turkeydenial.250free.com/7.jpg At the end of each entry is to be found a total of all occurrences. Cases in which a word occurs as part of a compound phrase listed under another entry are not included in its statistical total but its occurrence is indicated by a cross reference. Inseparable prefixes occur twice, once with the word to which they are prefixed and one under their own entry. Words from manuscript H with prefixes are divided into three types. Those cases in which both word and prefix vary from those found in manuscript A are treated like prefixed words in A. Those in which the word varies and the prefix does not, are to be found only under the entry of the word. Those in which only the prefix varies may be found listed only under the entry of the prefix. Proper names are given in a separate list following the body of the concordance. The vowel u is printed u and not ow. It occurs, however, at the appropriate place for ow in the order of the alphabet.All forms with an alternation of the endings -- EK + ̇IN/ -- EK + ̇EAN are entered under the form in -- EK + ̇IN. The Computer The concordance was prepared at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Computation Center, using a CDC 6400 electronic computer. The text was punched on an IBM 029 punch machine. The entire deck of the text was fed into a CDC card reader which transferred the data onto a magnetic tape, subsequently all processing of this data was carried out on the tape. The final form of the concordance was printed on a CDC 512 printer. Spelling Adjustments In manuscript H, whose spelling, as observed above, shows great peculiarities, certain regularization of spelling was made both in the text which is printed and in the forms as they appear in the concordance. The following should be noted: the manuscript consistently writes e for ea which latter has been restored throughout, the manuscript consistently writes w for ow (u) when followed by a vowel and ow (u) has been restored throughout, the manuscript consistently writes hrštak for hreštak which latter has been restored. The following peculiarities have been left: e where conventionally e would be expected in view of which the abbreviation tr has been resolved as ter, er as erusalem, and il as israel, a final and medial in hiatus, instead of ay, o final, instead of ay, spellings such as ǝndrel for ǝntrel. Homonyms A number of homonymous entries are to be observed. These have been assigned serial numbers and are separate entries. They are: The forms , when they express possession are always attributed to the entries IM, K + ̇O, MER, JER. All other types of occurrence are listed under the entries ES, DU, MEK + ̇, DUK + ̇. possessive is listed under IWR 2, otherwise under IWR 1. "but" http://turkeydenial.250free.com/8.jpg "other" http://turkeydenial.250free.com/9.jpg reflexive http://turkeydenial.250free.com/10.jpg possessive http://turkeydenial.250free.com/11.jpg "to be, stand" http://turkeydenial.250free.com/12.jpg "or" http://turkeydenial.250free.com/13.jpg "will" (noun) http://turkeydenial.250free.com/15.jpg negative http://turkeydenial.250free.com/16.jpg "one" http://turkeydenial.250free.com/17.jpg "with" http://turkeydenial.250free.com/18.jpg "garment" http://turkeydenial.250free.com/19.jpg "who ?" http://turkeydenial.250free.com/20.jpg exclamation http://turkeydenial.250free.com/21.jpg preposition http://turkeydenial.250free.com/22.jpg "footstep" http://turkeydenial.250free.com/23.jpg The forms , when they express possession are always attributed to the entries IM, K + ̇O, MER, JER. All other types of occurrence are listed under the entries ES, DU, MEK + ̇, DUK + ̇. possessive is listed under IWR 2, otherwise under IWR 1. http://turkeydenial.250free.com/24.jpghttp://turkeydenial.250free.com/25.jpg Statistical Details The following statistical summaries were reached with the aid of the computer. The texts processed continued a total of 13,802 words in MS A and 701 additional words in MS H. These words were grouped under 1446 entries of which 59 contain words only encountered in MS H and 1151 words only encountered in manuscript A. Critical Signs [ ] change introduced into text of MS by second hand or editor [ ] (in texts) corruption (in concordance) corruptionhttp://turkeydenial.250free.com/26.jpg * * words of MS H included in the concordance ∣ end of verse ∣ ∣ end of page of manuscript NOTES: 1 See the writer's articles: "Some Features of the Armenian Version of IV Ezra," Le Muséon 79 ( 1966), pp. 387-400; "Some Remarks on the Textual Criticism of IV Ezra," Harvard Theological Review, 60 ( 1967), pp. 107-115; "Manuscripts and Readings of Armenian IV Ezra," Textus 6 ( 1968), pp. 48-61. In the first of these the character of the version is discussed, while the latter two discuss some of its specific textual problems and characteristics. 2 The position of IV Ezra within the Canon of the Armenian Bible is an ambiguous one. There is no solid evidence for its appearance in the list of Biblical books before the time of Mechitar of Ayirivank and Arakel of Siunik in the thirteenth-fourteenth centuries. Subsequent to that time, of course, its position was still not firmly established. On IV Ezra in the Armenian tradition see: Michael E. Stone, "The Apocryphal Literature in the Armenian Tradition," Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Vol. 4, No. 4 ( 1969), pp. 63-69. The book was not included by Astuacaturyan in his Concordance of the Armenian Bible, published in Jerusalem in 1895. 3 See on the texts: Stone, Textus, 1968, pp. 51-57 where examples of the readings of Erevan 1500 and their implications are discussed. 4 On readings of Erevan 1500 and its general character in other books see: Ch. Burchard , Untersuchungen zu Joseph und Aseneth ( Tübingen 1963), pp. 28-31. See also Stone. Revue Biblique 77 ( 1970), pp. 259-260. Some brief details of the New Julfa manuscripts may be found in S. Ter Avetissian, Katalog der Armenischen Handschriften in der Bibliothek des Kloster in Neu-Djoulfa ( Haupt-Katalog der Armenischen Handschriften, Vienna 1970). This catalogue lists two manuscripts containing IV Ezra: No. 1, dated 1662; Catalogue, pp. 1-6 and No. 2 written before 1642, , Catalogue, pp. 7-9. Photographs of both of these are at the writer's disposal. A third copy is apparently contained in No. 3, XVII century, Catalogue, p. 10. 5 Naturally, once conflation has been detected in a given group of text forms, it is impossible to discern in which of them the conflation has actually taken place. Therefore, although it is possible to reach a stemma which indicates the main lines of relationship existing between the text forms and to list separately the lines of conflation which have occurred, such a stemma does not enable the investigator to discount the evidence of any given manuscript on purely stemmatic grounds. See in detail: V. A. Dearing, A Manual of Textual Analysis ( Berkely and Los Angeles, 1959). 6 In other words, each major text type preserves readings not found in the other, and which are to be found in the other versions of IV Ezra. See further: Stone, Textus, 1968, pp. 51-61. 7 But see n. 5 above. 8 The problem is particularly acute in IV Ezra because of the differences existing between the Armenian and the other versions. It is quite possible that for other translated books it would be possible, by comparison with the other versions, to reconstruct something approximating to the original translation. These observations are made quite apart from the scholarly discussion on the relative merits of "diplomatic" or "eclectic" texts. Even were one to desire to write an eclectic text of Armenian IV Ezra, it would be a very arbitrary procedure because of the inherent difficulties indicated here. On the relationship between Armenian and the other versions, see: Stone, Le Muséon 1966, pp. 390-395; H. T. R., 1967, 109f., 112-114. 9 For equal peculiarities in the Erznka Bible ( Jerusalem, MS 1925), see: Michael E. Stone , The Testament of Levi ( Jerusalem 1969), 19-21. 10 In general, as a guide for entries, the Venice Dictionary of 1836 was used and the forms listed were checked against that work. There were, of course, many problems which had to be resolved and these decisions were made with the primary aims of convenience and accuracy (as well as consistency) in mind. It should further be observed that although all the additional lexical items found in the second text were included, no indication is given as to whether these are additions or substitutions. While, in many cases, it is clear that all one is faced with is a variant, little different from the other reading, the point at which a variant becomes an alternative reading, or an alternative reading a completely different form of text, is not a clear one. Indeed, on theoretical grounds the very distinction between a variant, little different from its parallel, and an alternative reading or a different text is almost impossible to draw. Given a different plan of work, it might well be possible to draw up, with the aid of a computer, complete lists of all the points at which the two texts differ and word equivalations insofar as they can be discerned. Such an attempt was made, by hand, for "repetitive variants" as they were called, in the writer's Testament of Levi (note 9, supra), pp. 197ff. But there it was found that to be of value such a list should not only indicate items of vocabulary, but morphological, syntactical and even scribal phenomena. Be this as it may, it was found to be impracticable to make the necessary distinctions and judgements in all the cases involved, and indeed, the borders between an addition and a substitution, to take the simplest distinction, could not be fixed clearly in all cases, nor could it always be decided which word corresponds to which. This being so, all such matters were excluded from the concordance. This means, of course, that no indication is given under the entry of a word for Jerusalem 1933 what word corresponds to it in Erevan 1500, at points where these two differ. The reverse is also the case. Edited July 27, 2003 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.