this is the book which was written by fr. Samuel elsoriany ( للمهتمين بالدراسات القبطية مصباح الظلمة فى ايضاح الخدمة طبعة _ it is found in vol2...chapter 16 (صلاة عشية) page 170.. ...i want to know if this sentence is found in (paris مصباح الظلمة) or (opsala مصباح الظلمة)
-i want to know also if you have read in any manuscript that states (reading the 7 thotokiat and the four hoosat in kiahk) before the (1550)...
Paris Arab 203 does not have the sentence in question. The Upsalla manuscript (which is O. Vet 12) does have the sentence. The Paris manuscript is older and Fr Samuel elSoriany's Shiheet manuscript is a copy of the Upsalla manuscript.
I don't know how to answer your other question. I don't know of any other manuscript that speaks of Kiahk praises (7&4) before 1550AD other than the Upsalla manuscript you directed me to.
Fr. Samuel's Scetis manuscript is not necessarily a copy of Uppsala. The two manuscripts may be two independent witnesses of a single recension of Ibn Kabar's work. This could be mean that Ibn Kabar's work has two main types with all manuscripts copying it falling into one of these two types. However, it could also mean that on this particular point we are seeing ritual development in how the midnight vigil in Kiahk was celebrated. Oftentimes these types of manuals are "living documents", receiving updates by scribes to reflect contemporary practices. Perhaps 7&4 was not a thing when Paris 203 was copied or in the location it was copied but it was at the time and/or location where Uppsala (and any other MS with the same info) was copied.
A good study may be to take a comprehensive look at all manuscripts of the Lamp and to take note of their substantial ritual differences (if any). Then we can come up with a taxonomy of this group of manuscripts (a family tree of the manuscripts if you will). This family tree would not depend only on each manuscript's date of copying, but on where it was copied (it's a good assumption that a manuscript reflects local practice), and the relative dating of the rites described (many times practices far from Cairo/Scetis are older traditions even if the manuscript itself is younger).
This would be great because typically scholars citing Ibn Kabar rely either on the Paris manuscript or Uppsala (or the Villecourt articles publishing the French translation of the text) without giving much consideration to later manuscripts. This is not the best method, since it ignores that every manuscript is important and reflects a specific time and place. We do the same with liturgical manuscripts, where we do not just study the earliest ones, but anything we can find even until the 19th century.
Comments
_ it is found in vol2...chapter 16 (صلاة عشية) page 170..
...i want to know if this sentence is found in (paris مصباح الظلمة) or (opsala مصباح الظلمة)
-i want to know also if you have read in any manuscript that states (reading the 7 thotokiat and the four hoosat in kiahk) before the (1550)...
- thanks for your kindness..
Fr. Samuel's Scetis manuscript is not necessarily a copy of Uppsala. The two manuscripts may be two independent witnesses of a single recension of Ibn Kabar's work. This could be mean that Ibn Kabar's work has two main types with all manuscripts copying it falling into one of these two types. However, it could also mean that on this particular point we are seeing ritual development in how the midnight vigil in Kiahk was celebrated. Oftentimes these types of manuals are "living documents", receiving updates by scribes to reflect contemporary practices. Perhaps 7&4 was not a thing when Paris 203 was copied or in the location it was copied but it was at the time and/or location where Uppsala (and any other MS with the same info) was copied.
A good study may be to take a comprehensive look at all manuscripts of the Lamp and to take note of their substantial ritual differences (if any). Then we can come up with a taxonomy of this group of manuscripts (a family tree of the manuscripts if you will). This family tree would not depend only on each manuscript's date of copying, but on where it was copied (it's a good assumption that a manuscript reflects local practice), and the relative dating of the rites described (many times practices far from Cairo/Scetis are older traditions even if the manuscript itself is younger).
This would be great because typically scholars citing Ibn Kabar rely either on the Paris manuscript or Uppsala (or the Villecourt articles publishing the French translation of the text) without giving much consideration to later manuscripts. This is not the best method, since it ignores that every manuscript is important and reflects a specific time and place. We do the same with liturgical manuscripts, where we do not just study the earliest ones, but anything we can find even until the 19th century.