The Majdal

The Majdal is a... well, it is a mess. At least two versions have survived in synopsis.

We are fortunate that each public-domain first shot at publication, by Gismondi, firstly dealt with the interesting bit - the Patriarchs - and secondly did its translation into a Western language, namely O-Level Latin. The "other" part came first 1897, credited to ʿAmr and Ṣalībā; this was "prior'ed" 1899, to Mari. Here I am attempting Bo Holmberg's thesis (pdf).

Holmberg promised, with Samir Khalil Samir and Youssef Habbi, to continue to edit the full Majdal, presumably the "Mari" part. Samir poked his head up 2011 to report that Habbi had died before even starting and that Holmberg was continuing with his part. More East-Christian vapourware! to go with Scott-Moncrieff's English Ishoʿyahb. Please, Mar-Emmanuel; do not deny us the full Bar Penkaye.

Georg Graf's "history of Christian Arabic literature" (GCAL in German, II.201f.) claimed the Majdal(-ayn) as, in this part, a cleanup of Siʿrt's mishmash as pertinent to the Catholicoi. Siʿrt, presently, only exists I think in Addai Scher's publication and (faulty) translation - also French, and dependent upon Gismondi. Siʿrt was itself dependent upon the AD tenth-century Melkite Constans Loukides (Qusta bin Luqa), who wrote in ʿArabi; although Siʿrt also had access to direct Suryaya material, mostly Oriental. Yesterday I found the Majdal in parallel with at-least questionable lore in Addai Scher's Siʿrt; dependence upon Siʿrt would explain this. It would also absolve Scher's Siʿrt from the distrust heaped upon Mingana's Arbela - we can forgive Scher for glossing the French, as long as he never glossed the Arabic without footnote.

If we ignore Gismondi for "ʿAmr" then Mari came from a seven-chapter (-volume) work; Ṣalībā, from a five-volume work. The former was from MS Vatican ar. 109 (which Assemani knew, and is bad); aided by a copy therefrom in Paris (BNF ar. 190, which Holmberg mismarked "ar. 109" at first) and both via a sideline from Mosul. For the latter, five-volume work: MS Vatican neophyt. 41. Assemani here had an inferior MS, ar. 110, which Graf disliked and which the Vatican hasn't posted online; meanwhile Holmberg has misfiled the good MS, "neof. 54". Sigh.

For Mari, Holmberg cites [BNF] ar. 190 most - which Butrus held as the oldest survival. Holmberg let Butrus' claim stand so as to trash Butrus' general argument, that this is autograph. It is no such thing. Elsewhere Holmberg argues it isn't even oldest although, it does stand as the best-preserved.

This one along with Vat. ar. 109 actually continue the Patriarchal part of Majdal [past Mosul?]. Holmberg will allow "Mari bin Sulayman" only as applicable to this continuator, perhaps as a corrector to earlier parts - but Holmberg doubts this, or at least doubts Mari did any good. Holmberg prefers to pin ʿAmr bin Matta as the original author but to date him to the AD eleventh-century.

The five-volume work is, then, Ṣalībā's original composition but, yes, AD 1332. Holmberg does not think Ṣalībā used ʿAmr as Mari outright extended ʿAmr. If Ṣalībā looks like ʿAmr, that is only because both used Siʿrt. Or so I gather.

As you can see, where I was competent to check Holmberg, I found two spaces where he misfiled manuscripts and one space where he hinted at something his thesis doesn't even believe (contra Butrus, "for the sake of argument" would have sufficed). This makes me worry about the remainder.

But onto the two Majdal transmissions. Siʿrt although post-Qusta and pre-ʿAmr infamously ends at an Ishoʿyahb who isn't Ishoʿyahb II. This leads to suspect that one may reconstruct Siʿrt: on Ishoʿyahb III, plus George, plus Ṣalībāzeka - by way of synopsis between these strands. It would be nice to have a critical Majdal for this project, but for us Siʿrtis we only need Gismondi.