andrewcriddle wrote:The text in translation (Agapius Pseudo-Hegesippus) seems particularly uncontrolled. It might be better to limit the discussion to Greek sources only.
In an exercise of this nature, where the object is to make an argument based on what is NOT mentioned, the use of Arabic versions may involve risks not attached to other versions; not even to Syriac.
As some will know, some years ago I created an English translation of Agapius, from the French version in the Patrologia Orientalis, with the idea of promoting wider interest in the work, and in Christian Arabic literature in general. I have more recently been creating an English translation of his 10th century contemporary Eutychius, in much the same manner, and for the same reasons.
What impressed me most in both cases was the presence of storytelling and dialogue. I am not a specialist, but the material seemed clearly introduced, anachronistic, and invented.
Now I have not enquired into the sources for both histories, so I do not know to what extend these features might be present in other texts in the same period in other languages. But I do wonder whether these are characteristics of Arabic historical literature?
This is, after all, the period of the "Thousand and One Nights". We are in a period where the word we render "philosopher" is "hakim" - he may also be a "doctor", or just a learned man, or maybe even a magician. We are not in the ancient world, or anything like it.
I also noted in Eutychius (aka Sa`id ibn Bitriq) definite signs of the suppression of ideas which might be unwelcome to Muslim readers. This may affect Agapius (or Mahboub ibn Qustantin, as we may call him here) also.
Arabic Christian histories also seem prone to expansion by later readers. Several exist in more than one version; one much larger than the other. This is where Pines made the mistake with Al-Makin, of presuming that material about Josephus in Al-Makin "must" be borrowed from no longer extant versions of Agapius. But if we look at Eutychius, we do have portions of the autograph; and the vulgate text of it has been expanded all over the place.
I have no idea how all this affects the argument, as I have not looked at Ben's marvellous table of witnesses with attention. But may I make a plea for considerable caution in using this language group for studies where verbal exactitude is required? It seems unlikely to me, based on my limited knowledge of the area, that the texts will bear this.
All the best,
Roger Pearse