Talk:Bukhtishu

• "Persian" is not necessarily an ethnic designation. The name "Persia" was the official name of Iran before 1935. However, "Iran" also was used as far back as 300BCE.
• A lot of people spoke Syriac then. It was a major lingua franca of western Sassanid Persia, according to sources. Even Mani (prophet) wrote his books in Syriac, as was the Sassanid civil code. But Pahlavi was also the major language. But even pahlavi has direct influences of Aramaic.
• Donald Hill specifically says "Nsibin" (in today's northwestern Syria) to be part of the Persian Empire in the Sassanid age. Ive givn the details of the reference.
• It is relevant because
  Gondeshapur
  was an institution founded in the Sassanid age, not Abbasid age. The Bikhtishus were the main transmitters of that heritage.

Regardless, I've already added all the information proposed by User:Aziz1005 to expand the article.--Zereshk 21:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I got your point, I wish all other users can explain the way you explain and do not take things offensively. I Came from Syria and I know people who still can speak Aramaic and Syriac there are a lot of similarity in these languages and other Middle Eastern languages in particular Arabic Hebrew (Semitic languages) and perhaps Persian. Also In fact all Middle Eastern languages & people have affected each other thus you can not say that there is a pure ethnic group or language. Thanks again Zereshk --Aziz1005 03:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following was written by Ibn Sina in his book the Canon of Medicine:

بختيشوع بن جبرائيل بن بختيشوع كان سريانياً نبيل القدر

So, Ibn Sina said ibn jibrail was Syriac.

Anyways, The old manuscript is from the 13th century. It has nothing to do with these Bukhtishu's, Unless something is mentioned in the article about this guy who lived in the 13th century with a source stating that he is a scion of this famous family.

Last thing: Did the Bukhtishu's speak Persian?

--Lanov 05:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can add this info as well, if you give a bit more details on the page numbers and print edition. Persian language in those days was not the same language of Persian today. So we have to be more precise in the nomenclature. The Bukhtishus probably spoke Syriac, Greek, Hindi, Pahlavi, Khuzi, and some form of Arabic.--Zereshk 18:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page number is 1294 from an electronic edition of the Canon of Medicine from alwaraq.net. Also

Phillip Hitti states that the Bakhtishus are Syrian in his book The Near East in History: A 5000 Year Story page 248. About the manuscript of manafi el-hayawan, is it related to those Bakhtishus? I don't think so. --Lanov 02:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

We must be careful in distinguishing سوری from سریانی. I'll check on the Hitti book when I visit the library in a few weeks. But regardless, everyone agrees that they were undoubtedly Syriac speaking. So there is no question about that. The manuscript however belongs to one of their descendants. So it is relevant.--Zereshk 05:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. Also, he might mean that he followed the Syriac Orthodox Church.

I'm afriad that saying manafi el-hayawan was written by a member of the famous family of Bakhtishu is based on your original research. If you have source saying that he is one of them that would be great. As a matter of fact, M Meyerhof in his article An Arabic Compendium of Medico-Philosophical Definitions mentioned that 'UBAID-ALLAH IBN JIBRA'IL IBN BAKHTISHUI' is "the last descendant of the well-known family of Bakhtishu" and if you have a look at the third page of the article you can see that he that he died in 1058, which is very far from 1297. --Lanov 13:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)--[reply]

Ubaidullah was the last of the Bukhtishu line of physicians. This doesnt mean that they did not have children, and their family line all of the sudden died out. The author of the Manafi obviously wasnt a physician. We can mention this in the article.--Zereshk 19:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't have a source, i.e. it's really your original research. If no sources are provided I will remove the pic. --Lanov 21:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should take time to investigate things a bit further instead of jumping to delete information. The author of manafi al-hayawan was also from Ahwaz, as it is stated here:

"...كتاب « منافع الحيوان » لابن بختيشوع الاهوازي..."

Furthermore, this is what Iran's Cultural Heritage Center for Documentation says about the Manafi al-Hayawan:

يكي از قديمي ترين كتب خطي كه در حال حاضر موجود است و صفحات آن مصور شده است كتاب «منافع الحيوان» است كه دركتابخانه «مورگان» Morgan در نيويورك حفظ مي شود با شماره M.500 به آن داده شده است اين كتاب مربوط به حيوانات است و به اصطلاح امروز مي توان آن را كتاب «حيوان شناسي» ناميد. اصل آن در تاريخ 330 هجري به دستور خليفه المتقي در بغداد به وسيله پزشك «ابن بختيشو» نوشته شده. غازان خان پادشاه ايلخاني به عبدالهادي نامي دستور داد آن را به فارسي ترجمه كند و نقاشاني كه نامشان زير كارشان قيد نشده صفحاتي از آن را مصور كرده اند و همين نسخه است كه امروز در كتابخانه «مورگان» در نيويورك حفظ مي شود و قديمي ترين كتاب مصور است كه در ايران نوشته شده و امروز به دست ما رسيده است. مقصود اين نيست كه پيش از آن كتابي در ايران مصور نشده است بلكه قديمترين كتابي است كه از ميان نرفته و اكنون موجود است

Translation: "One of the oldest surviving illuminated handwritten books is the "Manafi al-Hayawan" kept at the Morgan library in New York. It is one of the earliest books on animals. The original of this book was written in 330 after Hijrah (940CE) by the orders of the Caliph al-Muttaqi in Baghdad, and was written by the physician Ibn Bakhtishu. The version kept in New York is an edition that was copied off of the original later on during the Ilkhanid era and by the orders of

Ghazan Khan

and by Abdul-Hadi Nami with the aid of various illustrators..."

I ask other editors to verify my translation. Then we can add this information to clarify the ambiguity.--Zereshk 23:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Great job. --Lanov 00:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a book that says this family was Church of the East. Why is there a dispute about what type of Christianity they followed? I would like to clean up this page. GoutComplex (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]