Subject: tc-list Mt 27.53 Jerusalem vs. Holy City in Arabic

From: Jean VALENTIN <[email-masked]>
Date: Dim, 7 Dc 97 04:17:51 +0100

Just a few lines about what I find while typing the text of Sinai Arabic 
69, one of the oldest mss of the Melkite Arabic version of the XIth 
century.

As you know, most texts are reading here "the holy city" (thn agian 
polin), while several diatessaronic witnesses have "Jerusalem".

My Arabic ms has a peculiar text, I would like to know if it's possible 
to interpret it - I mean, if it's possible to detemine which of both 
texts it follows.

Sinai Arabic 69 reads (in Arabic): Bayt al-Maqdis, which is to be 
translated "the House of the Sanctuary". To which of both texts does it 
correspond?

Arguments in favor of the "canonical" variant:
- Both have the notion of holiness, and this Arabic name, though not 
closely, seems to follow the usual text (can have been "suggested" by it 
to the translator).
- Jerusalem is usually translated "Urushalim" in this ms. It is the first 
time I meet "Bayt al-Maqdis" in this ms.

Arguments in favor of the diatessaronic text:
- Bayt al-Maqdis is the usual designation of Jerusalem in Christian 
Arabic texts from Palestine, probably derived from hebr. Beyt ha-Miqdash 
or Beyt ha-Qodesh (the Temple) via the Aramaic Beyt Maqdesha.
- Bayt al-Maqdis is used in Ms Sinai Arabic 151, one of the oldest Arabic 
translations of the Acts. There (in Acts 1.4 for example) it translates 
"Jerusalem". But in this ms, the translation "Urushalim" appears also 
(e.g. in Acts 1.8), so the situation is not very different except for the 
Vorlage that is always Ierosolyma in Ms 151.

Another argument in favor of the canonical variant, is that, given the 
wide dissemination of this version, it is probably the version of 
Ibn-al-Fadl, known to us as having produced an Arabic version of the 
Gospels that became the official one in the melkite church. Ibn-al-Fadl 
was not a Palestinian, he was from Antioch, so probably he would have 
been less prone to use this typically Palestinian expression for 
Jerusalem. On the other hand, even if it's his version, the influence of 
earlier vocabulary can never be totally excluded.

I think in such a case I should suppose that ms 69 follows the usual 
Greek text, but I would reserve a small possibility for the diatessaronic 
variant, because I've already met with many variants coming from very 
different traditions. And I would wait to see if I meet more examples of 
Bayt al-Maqdis in this Arabic version. Would you agree with this choice?

Thank you for your advice and suggestions,

Jean V.

_________________________________________________
Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique
e-mail: [email-masked]
_________________________________________________
"Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est 
inutilisable"
"What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable"
"Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar"
_________________________________________________

---

From: "Roderic L. Mullen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 23:32:46 -0500

For what it's worth, some members of the Samaritan community in Nablus refer
to the site of their former temple on Mount Gerezim as "Beyt Miqdash," so at
least in that case of present usage it doesn't mean Jerusalem.

I think your point that Arabic Ms. 69 usually uses "Urusalayim" to translate
Jerusalem is a powerful internal argument in favor of "bayt al-miqdas"
representing the canonical text.  A full study of the text would, as you
suggest, give greater certainty on this point.  Of course, that's just my
own opinion.  --Rod Mullen

---

From: [email-masked] (U. Schmid)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 17:53:29 +0100

>polin), while several diatessaronic witnesses have "Jerusalem".

As far as I know only two western diatessaronic witnesses have "Jerusalem":
The 13th century Middle Dutch "Liege Harmony" and the 13th century Middle
High German "Himmelgarten Fragments". No witness of the eastern branch has
been brought forth so far. According to Bill Petersen's recent discussion
of the general problem (see his _Tatian's Diatessaron_. Leiden 1994, esp.
chapter 7: Using the Diatessaron, pp. 357-425) the mentioned reading would
not count under the (reasonably) secure diatessaronic readings because it
lacks eastern support.

>time I meet "Bayt al-Maqdis" in this ms.

This, I consider a very strong argument. It makes me wonder what your ms
reads in Mt 4.5 (in case it is extant)? Note, the Greek Ms 566 states in a
marginal gloss to Mt 4.5 that TO IOUDAIKON (a Judaic-Christian Gospel)
reads EN IEROUSALHM (cf. Aland's Synopsis ad locum). The above mentioned
"Liege Harmony" also reads "Jerusalem" in this case (the "Himmelgarten
Fragments" are not extant), but cf. Lk 4.9!

[snip]

>Bayt al-Maqdis in this Arabic version. Would you agree with this choice?

Your "very different traditions" would be interesting to know in some more
detail. Are there more readings that could be paralleled with diatessaronic
witnesses?

Ulrich Schmid,
Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies

---

From: Jean VALENTIN <[email-masked]>
Date: Mer, 10 Dc 97 17:24:41 +0100

>detail. Are there more readings that could be paralleled with diatessaronic
Ulrich,

I'm very busy this week so I ask you to wait until next week for a few 
examples.

Greetings,

Jean V.