Dear Mr. LEAVENWORTH and Dr. SERIKOFF,
There are two reactions I have to this, without knowing the identity of this work:
1. Dr. ALESSANDRO BAUSI at Univ. Hamburg and his disciples are able to quickly determine the language of the intermediary or vorlage of an Arabic translation, by looking at "markers" in the Arabic, such as the spelling of proper names, syntactic particles, and the like. Is this the kind of evidence from which it "appears to have been a translation from a Syriac version of the original Greek"? Or was that a determination that was made 100 years ago?
2. With the advent of the TLG over the last 40 years, a growing portion of Late Hellenistic scholars have come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as "Koine Greek". (Pace, Father GIGNAC.) I have a hadith from LUDWIG KOENEN, dating from the late 1990s, that he had learned to never say that some Greek word was "koine", or even was peculiar to early Christian literature, if he had not first checked the TLG.
3. Mr. LEAVENWORTH: "Classical Arabic", among Arabists, is generally deemed to be Ummayyid & Abbassid Arabic, and one of my professors thought that it stopped with the Ummayyid period. Thereafter, it is "Medieval Arabic". I wonder how many people on this NASCAS thread believe that they have seen a "Classical Arabic" translation of any Christian work. I realize that perhaps you meant "classical" in contradistinction to "Modern Standard", but I thought that I ought to at least alert you to the terminology which Arabists use. With that being said, the Lion's Share of Oriental Christian scholars on this "list serve" are well-grounded in the topic of medieval Arabic renderings of Greek Christian works.
Best wishes, WSH