tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7687886961771238263.post4916923562664873701..comments2023-12-28T14:51:34.281-05:00Comments on Notes on Arab Orthodoxy: +Georges Khodr on St. John of DamascusUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7687886961771238263.post-24898039657502434992017-09-24T18:11:24.611-04:002017-09-24T18:11:24.611-04:00Daniel Pane,
So, the most recent and by far most ...Daniel Pane,<br /><br />So, the most recent and by far most detailed scholarly examination of John of Damascus and his family is an article written by Sean Anthony, where he argues that the modern scholarship identifying St John with the bureaucrat Mansur ibn Sarjun is mistaken and he was in fact Mansur's son. So, Yuhanna ibn Mansur. In Syriac and Arabic liturgical texts, so far as I can tell, he's always called "bar/ibn Mansur", so Anthony's argument is consistent with tradition.<br /><br /><br />You can read the whole article here: <br />https://www.academia.edu/7793025/_Fixing_John_Damascene_s_Biography_Historical_Notes_on_His_Family_Background_Journal_of_Early_Christian_Studies_23.4_2015_607-627<br /><br />Samn!https://www.blogger.com/profile/14142811721903345946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7687886961771238263.post-12355925885863675802017-09-22T01:36:26.140-04:002017-09-22T01:36:26.140-04:00I have a confusion about st john's secular nam...I have a confusion about st john's secular name. Was it "mansur ibn sarjun" or "Yuhanna ibn mansur ". Could you give me more elaborate explanation about this? As far as I know most orthodox sources state it is the former while the western opted for the latter.Mansur, CSEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18043878338020045180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7687886961771238263.post-91115103054265082302009-12-12T13:48:55.154-05:002009-12-12T13:48:55.154-05:00One thing I find strange about St. John's &quo...One thing I find strange about St. John's "Fount of Knowledge" is that, for all its comprehensiveness in other areas, it doesn't really have anything about ecclesiology.The Jester of Qihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06015274629532918121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7687886961771238263.post-16698714464872245892009-12-09T19:14:37.385-05:002009-12-09T19:14:37.385-05:00Yeah, there's a bunch of different conventions...Yeah, there's a bunch of different conventions for what to do when mentioning a hierarch in English, none of which are anything other than awkward-- I don't like the full-name capitalization on visual grounds, unless I could use small caps, which I'm too lazy to discover. The + before the name seems pretty common, though it might be a misappropriation of how hierarchs sign their names....? <br /><br />I think when you want to indicate that someone is dead, the t-looking-thing goes after the name, but I may be wrong about that....<br /><br />I thought about just always saying 'Sayyidna Georges' but for some reason I thought it might sound affected.Samn!https://www.blogger.com/profile/14142811721903345946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7687886961771238263.post-28692093257393093762009-12-09T18:51:40.017-05:002009-12-09T18:51:40.017-05:00By putting the + in front of Metropolitan George&#...By putting the + in front of Metropolitan George's name, you give the impression that he's deceased! But I suppose it's better than the annoying custom of capitalizing the hierarch's name, which I find rather pretentious.Collatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12349546405426930030noreply@blogger.com