The Text of Philippians 3.12 in the Gothic Translation: Paul Not Already Deemed Righteous?

The Gothic translation of Paul’s Letter to the Philippians contains a reading in which Paul claims he is not already deemed righteous (ni . . . ju garaihts gadomiþs sijau, Phil 3.12). In light of this, the Gothic version has been included as a textual witness to the so-called justification clause, a variant reading scholars have labeled “intriguing,” “very interesting,” “striking,” and “astounding.” However, no scholarly attention has been devoted specifically to the Gothic version of the justification clause of Phil 3.12. This article fills that gap. The author gives attention to this text as it appears in the surviving Gothic manuscripts and discusses two of its noteworthy features. Both features contribute to the wisdom of exercising caution before dismissing the reading as a representative of a secondary insertion into the earliest Greek text of the Pauline Letters.

The Justification Clause of Philippians 3.12: Past and Current Appraisals of a Striking Variant Reading

A minority of witnesses to the text of Phil. 3.12 (e.g., P46, GA 06, 010, 012, Irenaeus [Latin Translation], Ambrosiaster) attest to a reading in which Paul claims he has not yet been justified (or made/found righteous [δικαιόω]). Scholars have labeled the reading ‘intriguing’, ‘very interesting’, ‘striking’, and ‘astounding’. Yet, in spite of such lofty descriptors, little extensive attention has been devoted to this textual issue. All but a handful of scholars who have addressed the reading have denied it a place in the initial text. However, its attestation in P46, the high potential for parablepsis, the difficulty of explaining the reading as a later insertion, and its coherence with Pauline references to final justification at the last judgment have resulted in reassessments of the issue in more recent scholarship. This article provides an overview of past and current scholarly appraisals of the reading and offers some suggestions for future research.

The Demystification of Magic in the Tafsīr al-Manār: An Analysis of the Exegetical and Homiletic Devices Used in the Discussion ‘Mabḥath al-siḥr wa-Hārūt wa-Mārūt’

The two angels Hārūt and Mārūt are mentioned together with the prophet Solomon in the ‘magic pericope’ of Sūrat al-Baqara (Q. 2:101–103). Rashīd Riḍā and his mentor Muḥammad ῾Abduh rejected the folkloric, mythical legends that surrounded the two angels Hārūt and Mārūt and the image of Solomon as a magus-like figure, seeing it as a threat to the rational interpretation of the Qur’ān. In his exegesis, Tafsīr al-Manār, Riḍā includes a relatively substantial tract denouncing magic and its use, entitled Mabḥath al-siḥr wa-Hārūt wa-Mārūt. This article will provide an analysis of exegetical and homiletic features used in this section, focusing on four areas: (i) elements of homiletic antisemitism; (ii) the invocation of personal experience; (iii) the use of lexicology to demystify Qur’ānic references to magic; and (iv) the use of a variant reading to demythologize the story. The aim of this article is to explore the ways in which the rejection of magic is articulated and which homiletic and exegetic tools Riḍā uses to support his position. A final section will explore the modernist movement’s relationship with biblical studies and the influence that it may have had on the interpretation of myth in the Tafsīr al-Manār.

Peranan Hadith dalam Ilmu Taujih Qiraat: Analisis Terhadap Kitab Hujjah al-Qiraat Karangan Ibn Zanjalah

Taujih qiraat is a knowledge that discusses the meaning and justification in the Qur'anic variant reading (qiraat). Scholars of this field often refer to fundamental aspects in Arabic language such as grammar, phonology, morphology and semantic aspects in explaining the meaning and justification of the variation in Qur`anic reading. However, in certain circumstances some scholars also refer to hadith as a source in their explanation and description. Thus, this study discusses the role of hadith of the Prophet SAW in this field of knowledge, by making the book of Hujjah al-Qiraat written by Ibn Zanjalah as a study material. The study was conducted using content analysis methods, by performing an observation on the hadiths used in the Hujjah al-Qiraat, which were then analyzed descriptively to identify the role of these hadith in explaining the meaning and justification of the variation in Qur`anic reading. Among the important findings of this study is; the role of hadith in this knowledge is seen from three aspects, namely it describes the meaning of a qiraat, strengthens the existence of a qiraat directly and also strengthens the existence of a qiraat indirectly. The study also found that the role of hadith is relatively small, compared to the number of Qur`anic words that recited with various readings, and some of the hadiths were not found in the major hadith books, but most of these hadiths are supported with other hadiths as a syawahid (auxiliary).

Menyoal Kritik Orientalis terhadap Qirā’at: Studi Kritis terhadap Pemikiran Arthur Jefrey Mengenai Ragam Bacaan Al-Qur’an

Arthur Jeffery (1892-1959) was an Australian orientalist who was quite influential in the 20th century. He is well known for his philosophical thoughts on the Qur’an. He even wanted to restore the al-Qur’an text based on Ibn Abī Dāwud al-Sijistānī’s Kitab al-Maṣāḥif which is thought to have recorded readings (qirā’at) in several counter-manuscripts - rival codices. This article examines his thoughts on the variety of reading (qirā’at) of the al-Qur’an. The method used is descriptive-qualitative. From the study conducted, it was found that the following results were: 1) Arthur Jeffery considered that the Mushaf ‘Uthmānī which had a dot and a diacritical mark was a factor in the birth of the variety of reading for the al-Qur’an. According to him, this is a free opportunity for readers to mark themselves according to the context of the verse they understand, 2) Arthur's thought is natural because he uses a text-critical study approach to the Qur’an - as a method. it was used by the Orientalists of the Bible. 3) the use of text-critical studies of the Qur’an as done by Arthur is a fatal basic mistake, because after all the process of transmitting the Koran in the early Islamic century was an oral tradition, so the accusations made by Arthur about qirā’at It is easy to argue with, 4) The use of the term variant reading - by orientalists including Arthur Jeffery is considered a failure by Islamic thinkers in representing the meaning of qirā’at, because it implies uncertainty about the truth of the qiraat itself. So that al-A’ẓamī prefers the term multiple reading, because it is more in accordance with the historical facts of the al-Qur’an transmission which accommodates many dialects of Arabic society.

Textual Criticism, Translation Studies, and Symmachus’s Version in the Book of Job

The late second century CE translator/reviser Symmachus took a very different approach to the versions of his predecessor Aquila. His renderings do not appear to have survived in Jewish circles but were much admired by early Christian scholars, thanks to their preservation in Origen’s Hexapla. However, for textual critics of the Hebrew Bible Symmachus’ free approach has limited his value since his readings cannot be easily retroverted, unlike those of Aquila or Theodotion. In the case of the book of Job, although Symmachus’ “transformations” (to use a term from Descriptive Translation Studies) differ in nature from the freedoms observed in OG Job, while rejecting the narrow isomorphism of Aquila and Theodotion he nevertheless adheres quite closely to his Hebrew Vorlage. This offers the possibility of identifying elements significant for textual criticism in his rendering, including variant reading traditions or a different consonantal text.

Alexander's Metaphysics commentary and some scholastic understandings of automata

In this article, I argue that Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas read a certain passage of Aristotle's Metaphysics on the nature of metaphysical curiosity in a way that is inconsistent with the earlier reading of the same passage by Alexander of Aphrodisias. The passage has to do with Aristotle's use of mechanical automata as a metaphor for kinetic mimesis in his metaphysics. The result of the variant reading of the passage in question is that these Scholastic readings emphasize universal causality as a vehicle of “wonder banishment” in metaphysics at the expense of recognizing the key metaphysical principle that Aristotle is suggesting. Such readings actually turn out to be difficult to maintain with the example of mechanical automata that Aristotle employs. I argue that the absence of the availability of Alexander's commentary to Albert and Aquinas contributes to their variant and inconsistent reading. There are three main parts and a conclusion. Part I discusses the passage from Aristotle's Metaphysics in question, which I call the thaumata passage, as well as Alexander's commentary on it. Part II discusses the unavailability of Alexander's commentary to Albert, Aquinas and their predecessors. Part III discusses the variant scholastic readings of the thaumata passage and how these readings, which take Aristotle's mechanical automata as chance occurrences result in an emphasis on wonder banishment through universal causal reasoning that is inconsistent with the example Aristotle uses in the thaumata passage. By way of conclusion I suggest that even had Alexander's commentary been available to Aquinas, he would have understood the passage as more akin to remarks on magic than to metaphysics.

Aparatus Kritik Mustofa Al-Azmi pada Arthur Jeffery tentang Polemik Mushaf Ibnu Mas'ud

Western scholars, often called, the orientalists somehow develope their Islam and or Quranic study based on their own methodology regardless the metholology achieved by muslim scholars. One of them was Arthur Jeffery. He explained his findings on Quranic codification made by muslim generation at that time had disconsidered variant readings of Quran. But Uthman proclaimed Jeffery Unified that variants by burning other codice and material belong to the prophet champanion. In the name of Ibnu Masud he found, actually such variants became indication of unautheticity of Uthman codice. Following the way of Jeffery thought, of course, muslim understanding on the Quranic autheticity will be disrupted. The muslim however mostly will confuse whether the naration on Usthman codice valid or not. The naration made by Jeffery on what he called as Ibnu Masud codice however will distructed the established understanding. In countering so, Mustofa al-Azmi came with bright explaination that the Quranic study belongs to Jeffery lack of muslim tradition i.e. strong transmission of Hadith. Mustofa al-Azmi sharply responded Jeffery by explaining three issues. Firstly, he told the weakness methodology of Jeffery on the different arrangement of surah belong to Ibnu Masud codice. Secondly, He refuted Jeffery’s misleading in the omitting three surah in codice belonged to Ibnu Masud. The third, the correction to Jeffery’s claim that he found difference or variant reading of Ibnu Masud codice from our codice that referred to Uthman codice. The way Mustofa Al Azmy refuse Jeffery it is the critical aparatus or textual apparatus of Mustofa al-Azmi.