Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJames Hastings Dictionary of the NT: Dalmanutha
Subjects in this Topic:
DALMANUTHA.—Mar_8:10 only. The textual and geographical problems involved in this name have not found as yet a satisfactory explanation. After the feeding of the 4000, Jesus embarked with His disciples, and came, according to Mat_15:39, åἰò ôὰ ὅñéá ÌáãäáëÜ (TR [Note: R Textus Receptus.] ) or ÌáãáäÜí (all critical editions); according to Mar_8:10 åἰò ôὰ ìÝñç ÄáëìáíïõèÜ .
In Mt. the variations are few and unimportant, except the difference between Magdala and Magadan. For ὁñéá we find occasionally ὁñéá , ὁñç (with following ἁìáãäáëὰ ), ὁñç . Cod. D [Note: Deuteronomist.] places ôῆò before the proper name. ÌáãáäÜí is the reading of à BD (B3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] - ᾶí ), Ìáãåäἁí of à c; the Old Latin has Magadan, Mageda, -am, Magidam; Vulgate Magedan; syrsin îðøï , cur îðøåï , pal îðøéï , pesh îðøå (Magdu; so also the Arabic Tatian). Most uncials and cursives ÌáãäáëÜ ; CM 33. 102, etc., ÌáãäáëÜí .
In Mk. ôὰ ìÝñç is replaced by ôὰ ὁñéá in D Ó .
In Mk. ôὰ ìÝñç is replaced by ôὰ ὁñç in N.
In Mk. ôὰ ìÝñç is replaced by ôὸ ὁñïò in 28, syrsin; but in the latter the addition of a dot makes the plural; syrcur is missing; B has the spelling Äáëìáíïõíèá , 474 ÄáìáíïõèÜ , 184ev ÄáëìïõíïõèÜ ; Vulgate Dalmanutha (with unimportant variations); arm. Dalmanunca. But this is now replaced by:
ÌåëåãáὁÜ (not ÌáäåãáäÜ as read by Stephanus) in D*.
ÌáãáéäÜ (not ÌáãáäÜ as printed by Tischendorf) in D1 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] .
ÌáãåäÜ in 28, 81.
ÌáëäáëÜ in 1, 13, 61, 69, etc.
Syrsin îðøï , syrpal îðøì , Got. , Old Lat. , -an, -am, Magidan. It is a natural supposition that in Mk. all readings differing from ìåñç Äáëìáíïõèá are due to assimilation to Mt., perhaps under the influence of Tatian. The confusion of ὁñéê and ὁñç ( ὁñïò ) must be very early, and has its parallels in many passages of the OT, from Jos_11:16; Jos_15:11 to Eze_11:10, Mal_1:3. On its occurrence in syrsin see especially Chase, Syro-Latin Text of the Gospels, p. 97, esp. n. [Note: note.] 2, where he justly remarks: ‘This reading of the Sinaitic raises two questions: (a) Was there an early Greek Harmony of the Gospels?… (b) What is the relation of Sin. [Note: Sinaitic.] to Tatian?’ On the Cod. 28 which supports the reading of syrsin, see WH [Note: H Westcott and Hort’s text.] ii. 242 (‘which has many relics of a very ancient text’).
That Magadan, not Magdala, is the true reading in Mt. is probable (independently of the witness of MSS [Note: SS Manuscripts.] ) on internal grounds; for it is difficult to explain how a name like Magdala, which was well known through Mary Magdalene, should have become Magadan. The introduction of both forms into MSS [Note: SS Manuscripts.] of Mk. points to the fact that there were several stages in the revision of our MSS [Note: SS Manuscripts.] . Both the readings, Magadan and Magdala, may, however, go back to the same Heb. îðøì , as is shown by Jos_15:37, where B has Ìáãáäὰ Ãáä for ÌáãäÜë Ãáä of A. Even for Dalmanutha such an explanation has been attempted by Dalman (Gramm. p. 133; change of ã into, and transposition of syllables ÄáëìáíïõèÜ from Ìáãäáëïõèἁ = îðøìåú . But in the 2nd ed. p. 168 he has left out this note and all references to this word).
That ôὰ ὄñéá in Mt. and ôὰ ìÝñç in Mk. are almost identical expressions, is shown by Mat_15:21 åἰò ôὰ ìÝñç Óéäῶíïò êáὶ Ôýñïõ compared with Mar_7:24 åἰò ôὰ ὅñéá (TR [Note: R Textus Receptus.] ìåèüñéá ) Ôýñïõ ( êáὶ Óéäῶíïò ), and by the fact that in the OT 4 of the 11 Heb. equivalents for ὅñéïí ( éã , îåì , ôàä , ÷õ ) reappear among the 22 Heb. equivalents of ìÝñïò . The next supposition is therefore that Magadan (or Magdala) in Mt. = Dalmanutha in Mark. But how is this possible?
Many explanations have been started. The one proposed by Dalman may be dismissed at once, as it is given up by himself; cf. also Wellhausen’s remarks on it (Ev. Marci). Lightfoot and Ewald derived Dalmanutha from öìîåï by the supposition of an Aramaic or Galilaean pronunciation. Keim (of Nazara, English translation iv. 238) explained it similarly as ‘Shady Place.’ Schwarz (Das heilige Land, p. 189) derived it from the cave Teliman ( îìéñàï ), which cave, however, according to Neubauer, was in the neighbourhood of Herod’s Caesarea. J. W. Donaldson (Jashar: fragmenta archetypa carminum Hebraicorum, editio secunda, 1840, p. 16) suggested: ‘ Äáë - istud residuum esse veri nominis ÌáãäáëÜ scil. îðãìÎàì , ìáíïõèÜ autem repraesentare pluralem vocis îָðָä pars, portio, quam in Graeco ÌÝÑÇ conversam habemus.’ A similar idea was struck out independently by R. Hams (Codex Bezœ, p. 188) and the present writer (Philologica Sacra, p. 17; ExpT [Note: xpT Expository Times.] ix. 45), that Dalmanutha is the transliteration of the Aramaic equivalent of åἰò ôὰ ìÝñç , which by some form of dittography took the place of the proper name. Against Harris see Chase, Bezan Text of Acts, p. 145, n. [Note: note.] 2; and against the whole suggestion, Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 66 f. Dalman doubts whether îְðָçָä in Aramaic meant anything else but ‘portion.’ But in the Syriac Bible at least it is frequently used for the allotted portions of land (Jos_14:2; Jos_15:1, Isa_57:6). N. Herz saw in the word an Aramaized form of the Greek ëéìÞí ‘harbour’ (ExpT [Note: xpT Expository Times.] viii. 563, ix. 95, 426). Others, finally, give no explanation, and consider Magadan and Dalmanutha as the names of two different places near each other, neither being very well known. But this leads to the topographical problem.
Eusebius in his Onomasticon has but one paragraph on a name beginning with M immediately after names from the prophet Jeremiah (Mephaath, Maon, Molchom, 48:21, 23, 49:1). It runs (in Klostermann’s edition, p. 134 [= Lagarde, OS p. 282]):
Ìáãåäἀí (Mat_15:39). åἱò ôὰ ὁñéá Ìáãåὸáí ὁ ×ñéóôὸô ἐôåäÞìçóåí , ὠß ὁ Ìáôèáῖïò , êáὶ ὁ ÌÜñêïò äὲ ôῆò ÌáãåäÜí ìíçìïíåýåé , êáὶ ἐóôé íῦí ἡ Ìáãåäáíὴ ôåñὶ ôὴí Ãåñáóἀí .
In Jerome’s translation:
‘Magedan, ad cuius fines Matthaeus evangelista scribit dominum pervenisse, sed et Marcus eiusdem nominis recordatur, nunc autem regio dicitur Magedena circa Gerasam.’
The unique MS, in which the work of Eusebius is preserved, writes ÌáãáéäÜí (as D*) and ÌáãáéäáíÞ . Eusebius may have been reminded of the name by the occurrence of Ìáãäþëù beside ÌÝìöéò in Jeremiah 51 (44):1, which he quotes a few lines before (ed. Klost. p. 134, l. 15). At all events it follows from the entry, that Eusebius did not find Dalmanutha in his text of Mark, and that he sought the place on the eastern side; but Gerasa seems too far from the Lake, unless we are to suppose that it had some sort of enclave on its shores.
A strange identification is that with the ‘Phiala’ Lake mentioned by Josephus BJ 1ff. x. 7 as one of the sources of the Jordan. See the Maps published by Röhricht, i. (ZDPV [Note: DPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins.] xiv. 1891):
‘Hunc fontem Josephus appelat Phialam, Marcus Dalmanicha, Mattheus Magedan, Saraceni Modin. Hinc est verus ortus Jordan; unde palcae hic missae recipiuntur in Dan subterraneo meatu ductae.’
Furrer (ZDPV [Note: DPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins.] ii. 59) identified Dalmanutha with Khân Minych, which name he connected with mensa (the table where Jesus sat with the Twelve, first mentioned in the Commemoratorium, a.d. 808), and this with (Dal)manatha; but see against this Gildemeister (ib. iv. 197 ff.). Thomson (LB [Note: The Land and the Book.] 393) suggests a ruined site up the Yarmûk half a mile from the Jordan called Dalhamia or Dalmamia (Robinson, BRP [Note: RP Biblical Researches in Palestine.] iii. 264, ‘Delhemiyeh’); Tristram, a site one and a half miles from Migdel; Sir C. Wilson, a site not far from the same. The aged Prof. Sepp in a recent paper, ‘Die endlich entdeckte Heimat der Magdalena’ (Volkerschau, iii. 3, pp. 199–202, 1904), argued for Miqdal Gedor or Magdala Gadara, a Jewish suburb of Gadara (Jerus. [Note: Jerusalem.] Erubin v. 7). Wellhausen has no doubt that it must be sought on the eastern shore, in the neighbourhood of Bethsaida (Mar_8:22), if this town itself did not belong to it. For he holds Mar_8:9 b, Mar_8:10 to be identical with Mar_8:13, the object áὐôïýò of ἀöåßò in Mar_8:13 being the ὄ÷ëïé , not the Pharisees, and ðÜëéí he regards as a harmonistic insertion. He believes that Mar_8:13 originally followed immediately upon Mar_8:22 êáὶ ἔñ÷ïíôáé åἰò ÂçèóáéäÜí .
Thus not even the geographical problem is solved. If the suggestion on the origin of Dalmanutha, as put forward by Donaldson, Harris, and the present writer, were to turn out correct, it would have important consequences for the Synoptic Problem. For then this reading cannot well have had its origin in oral tradition, but presupposes a written (Aramaic) document as the basis of our Second Gospel.
Literature.—A collection of Notes on ‘Dalmanutha’ left by Gildemeister (ZDPV [Note: DPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins.] xiv. 82); the monograph of Martin Schultze, Dalmanutha: Geographisch-linguistische Untersuchungen zu Mar_8:10, Oldesloe, 1884; A. Wright, NT Problems, p. 71; Henderson in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible ; G. A. Smith in Encyc. Bibl.; Sanday, Sacred Sites of the Gospels, p. 22 f.; Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, ii. 2 (1905), p. 79 [warns against identification with Eddelhemiye, gives as reading of the Arm. Dalmanoun, and claims for the reading Dalmanutha, which is not recognized by the old texts (syrsin D, Old Lat. Ulf.), an Egyptian origin].
Eb. Nestle.