Colophon in Sinai Arabic 166

[Duane McCrory]

Dear fellow NASCAS scholars,

I was wondering if someone might be able to help me with the colophon in Sinai Arabic 166. There is a screenshot below of the text or you can also find it at https://sinaimanuscripts.library.ucla.edu/catalog/ark:%2F21198%2Fz1gx5w7b.

Atiya’s catalogue only has part of the colophon starting with the last word on the first line you can see above. He has: 

العشر الاخير من شهر ربيع الاخر سنة ثلثين وتسعمايه

Starting with the beginning of the same line, here is my transcription:

من التلاميذ والقديسين وكتب العشر

الاخير من شهر [ربيع] الاخر سنة ثلث وتسعماية

I agree with most of what he has, but do not see the full word ربيع, which is attached to the previous word. That is probably the only word it could be, but I am open to suggestions on other words. That is less important than the year. I think the first part of the year is ثلث, but he has ثلثين. The letter above the end of ثلث is و, and is part of وتسعماية. Comparing it to the middle word of the line above, والقديسين, if the word were ثلثين it probably would have pointing underneath and the end of the last letter would have gone below the line instead of staying on the line. This would change the date to 903 AH / 1497 CE instead of 930 AH / 1524 CE.

If possible, could someone please take a look and let me know if you have any suggestions as to what you think is the correct reading? If you want to look at the image on the library website, it is on Folio 267br. There are two folios with the number 267 and it is on the recto of the second one.

Thanks for your help in advance.

Best,

Duane McCrory

PhD candidate, University of Birmingham

[Luke Yarbrough]

Dear Duane,

The flourish on the ligature connecting the words you read as وكتب العشر indicates that the word في is embedded between them. This is a common abbreviation in scribal hands. So I would read وكتب في العشر...

Also common is to indicate the month ربيع by writing a retroflex ـر in the word شهر. So I do find Atiya's reading of the month convincing.

You might be right about the year. I wouldn't necessarily put much stock in the comparison to الفديسين; dates in colophons (and in Arabic documents) have a shorthand of their own that often departs paleographically from the hand in the main text. But I agree with you that if it were ثلثين, one would expect an additional tooth and/or a more pronounced bowl for the final letter.

You might find it useful to pore over Karabacek's useful reading of document dates, from Das Arabische Papier.

Best,

Luke

[Mohamed]

Hello,

Aside from how this should be read, on a codicological and paleographical basis, the manuscript would belong rather to the tenth century than either the fifteenth or sixteenth. It sure is one splendid manuscript.

Regards

[Duane McCrory]

Dear Luke,

Thank you so much for the very helpful information and sharing the article with me. I do not have many difficult colophons like this one and have a difficult time with the abbreviations in Arabic. Thanks also for your assessment on the year.

Best,

Duane

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "North American Society for Christian Arabic Studies" group.
To post to this group, send email to nas...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
nascas+un...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/nascas?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "North American Society for Christian Arabic Studies" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to nascas+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nascas/54e6aeb8-a2ec-4779-b84e-f59b05f3f96an%40googlegroups.com.

[Duane McCrory]

Hello,

Thanks for your assessment of the manuscript. I was wondering if it might be possible that it belonged to the tenth century like you mentioned. The Sinai Manuscripts website lists it as twelfth century, but it is unclear why since there is a colophon with a specific date. I would expect that even though it is a Christian manuscript since the scribe is using the Islamic month that the year would also be according to the Islamic calendar. The rest of the manuscripts I have examined mentioned what calendar system they are using for the year and usually give the equivalent. For instance, those that date according to the Coptic calendar, usually expressed as للشهداء الاطهار, also give the equivalent date usually expressed as للهجرة.

Are there instances of mixed dating, i.e. using the name of the month from one calendar but the year from a different calendar system?

Best,

Duane

From: nas...@googlegroups.com <nas...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Mohamed <apol...@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2025 at 12:46 PM
To: North American Society for Christian Arabic Studies <nas...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [nascas] Re: Colophon in Sinai Arabic 166

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "North American Society for Christian Arabic Studies" group.
To post to this group, send email to nas...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
nascas+un...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/nascas?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "North American Society for Christian Arabic Studies" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to nascas+un...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nascas/b96bfc5b-71f2-4cf1-b333-3d7edea41a49n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alexander Treiger]

Hello Duane and All,

Just a few quick notes. When Mohamed suggested a 10th century date, I presume the underlying assumption was that it's 903 from the birth of Christ (i.e., something reasonably close to our AD era). There are problems with that: this is a manuscript on paper, and paper is hardly ever used in Sinai Christian Arabic manuscripts before the mid-10th century. Also, the AD era was not used at the time, and neither was the Melkite Incarnation era discussed by Samir. There are some instances of an Alexandrian Incarnation era that I discuss in my article "New Works of Theodore Abu Qurra", but it never appears in colophons. The hand also doesn't look like the 10th century to me. (There is a great study on early Christian Arabic hands by Miriam Hjälm: "A Paleographical Study of Early Christian Arabic Manuscripts".) All in all a 10th-century dating, especially if it be early 10th century, looks extremely unlikely to me.

The 12th century date comes from Kamil's catalogue. Apparently, Kamil didn't notice the colophon and dated the manuscript approximately based on paleographic considerations. The UCLA site simply reproduced the date from Kamil's catalogue.

It is in principle possible to have a mixed date, where the month is given according to one system and the year according to another. This doesn't happen a lot, but occasionally it does; however, it's usually the Hijri year that is given with the month (or the liturgical season) indicated using another system, not the other way round. Looking through my notes here are some examples:

Sinai ar. NF Perg. 9 is dated to Friday, the fourth last day of November 354 AH [which would convert to Friday, 29 November 965 AD].

Berlin, SBB Ms. or. oct. 1108 is dated to the middle of the Great Lent 438 AH [which would convert to 1047 AD].

Sinai ar. 434 has two dates one of which is Saturday, 11 February 533 [AH] [which converts to 1139 AD].

Sinai ar. NF Paper 56 has the date of 15 Baramhāt 805 [AH] [which converts to 1403AD] – possibly this is the date when the manuscript was consulted rather than copied.

So assuming "903" is to be understood according to another era, the Anno Martyrum is the only plausible solution. 903 AMart = 1186/7 AD. I'm not saying this is the correct date - I'm just looking at different possibilities.

In my view, 903 AH (=1497 AD) is still the likeliest scenario. I would consider a 10th-century date very unlikely. If the manuscript is demonstrably earlier than the 15th century, then perhaps 903 AMart = 1186/7 AD is the solution, which corresponds neatly to Kamil's approximate date.

It would be helpful if Mohamed could tell us more about the reasons for early dating.

Happy New Year, everyone!

Alexander

--
Dr. Alexander Treiger
Professor
Religious Studies Programme - Dalhousie University
atre...@dal.ca / http://dal.academia.edu/AlexanderTreiger

* * * New publication: The Church Fathers in Arabic Translations (Leiden: Brill, 2025)

https://brill.com/display/title/71210

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nascas/CWLP265MB588389CEF969C48283C11E16E7BDA%40CWLP265MB5883.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Dawn Childress]

Hi, all.

Alexander is correct - we use the Kamil dates by default for manuscripts that have not been catalogued/described under the SMDL project yet (thus far we've focused on Syriac parchment manuscripts under an NEH grant). There has been some work to document colophons in the Arabic manuscripts and to update origin info accordingly --- which we will be adding to the website in early 2026, but Arabic 166 wasn't included. I am happy to update the description with a colophon transcription/translation and any attested names, dates, and places when ready.

Cheers,

Dawn Childress

Sinai Manuscripts Digital Library

[Mohamed]

Hello,

Having not studied the manuscript, what was expressed by me was solely a first impression, not an assessment. Yet these two latter messages make a good occasion to mention the following.

The paper of Miriam kindly referred to by Alexander reminds also of another paper of Alexander, his Christian Arabic: A classified bibliography, which is a good asset, would be a great one once amplified to form a comprehensive bibliography on Christian Arabic studies in parallel to the Comprehensive Bibliography on Syriac Studies. Despite the perceived great efforts it should take, it is a desideratum.

The presence of Dawn is also an occasion to mention that the online viewer of Sinai Manuscripts (UCLA) would benefit from updates where the index designates which folio contains the colophon and the search engine is developed to allow users to search for dated manuscripts. I could do this only manually, by starting my search from a dated manuscript, then setting other search criteria.
As for manuscripts whose dates should be checked against colophons, the dates of the following Arabic manuscripts could also benefit from a check: 4, 116, 307, 702.

Best wishes

[Duane McCrory]

Hello Alexander and all,

Happy New Year to everyone and thanks to all of you for your helpful information, including confirming that the Sinai Manuscripts Digital Library is using Kamil’s catalogue for the dates.

Thanks, Alexander, for the articles you mention and the examples as well. I was already inclined to go with the 903 AH (=1497 CE) date, and you have confirmed for me that mixed dating systems is rare.

Best wishes,

Duane

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nascas/cfe8bb95-5b27-400a-8406-d81fe0c336b6n%40googlegroups.com.