The text is similar to that published by Daniel Potthast: Die andalusische Übersetzung des Römerbriefs in Collectanea Christiana Orientalia. 8. 2011. P.65‒108. Nevertheless it seems to be slightly "orientalized".
Yes this was also my observation: humarec.org/index.php/continuous-publica...e-arabic-translation
This also similar to the text in Vat. Lat. 12900.
My next step is now to focus on the differences. Was it "orientalized" or "de-orientalized" at the time when the Madrid BN 4971 was made?
A complete comparison with Vat. Lat. 12900 will be helful.
Thanks for your remarks that are always very helpful.
Yes, I understood this by the choice of the extracts )) Judging by the plate in Specimina Codicum Latinorum, Vat. Lat. 12900 is in a very bad condition and some passages are scarcely readable, but now it is more easy.
On comparison of the two sub-versions one may note that مجتبى as applied to a person seems to be superior to منتخب and the latter may be a misreading by a Sicilian scribe especially if the first folios of the forlage were damaged.