Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament
DALMANUTHA.—Mark 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 Matthew 15:39, εἰς τὰ ὅρια Μαγδαλά (TR [Note: R Textus Receptus.] ) or Μαγαδάν (all critical editions); according to Mark 8:10 εἰς τὰ μέρη Δαλμανουθά.
In Mt. the variations are few and unimportant, except the difference between Magdala and Magadan. For ὁρια we find occasionally ὁρια, ὁρη (with following ἁμαγδαλὰ), ὁρη. Cod. D [Note: Deuteronomist.] places τῆς before the proper name. Μαγαδάν is the reading of אBD (B3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] -ᾶν), Μαγεδἁν of אc; the Old Latin has Magadan, Mageda, -am, Magidam; Vulgate Magedan; syrsin מנרן, cur מנרון, pal מנרין, pesh מנרו (Magdu; so also the Arabic Tatian). Most uncials and cursives Μαγδαλά; CM 33. 102, etc., Μαγδαλάν.
In Mk. τὰ μέρη is replaced by τὰ ὁρια in DΣ.
In Mk. τὰ μέρη is replaced by τὰ ὁρη in N.
In Mk. τὰ μέρη is replaced by τὸ ὁρος in 28, syrsin; but in the latter the addition of a dot makes the plural; syrcur is missing; B has the spelling Δαλμανουνθα, 474 Δαμανουθά, 184ev Δαλμουνουθά; Vulgate Dalmanutha (with unimportant variations); arm. Dalmanunca. But this is now replaced by:
Μελεγαὁά (not Μαδεγαδά as read by Stephanus) in D*.
Μαγαιδά (not Μαγαδά as printed by Tischendorf) in D1 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] .
Μαγεδά in 28, 81.
Μαλδαλά in 1, 13, 61, 69, etc.
Syrsin מנרן, syrpal מנרל, Got. , Old Lat. , -an, -am, Magidan. It is a natural supposition that in Mk. all readings differing from μερη Δαλμανουθα are due to assimilation to Mt., perhaps under the influence of Tatian. The confusion of ὁρικ and ὁρη (ὁρος) must be very early, and has its parallels in many passages of the OT, from Joshua 11:16; Joshua 15:11 to Ezekiel 11:10, Malachi 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. מנרל, as is shown by Joshua 15:37, where B has Μαγαδὰ Γαδ for Μαγδάλ Γαδ of A. Even for Dalmanutha such an explanation has been attempted by Dalman (Gramm. p. 133; change of γ into, and transposition of syllables Δαλμανουθά from Μαγδαλουθἁ = מנרלות. But in the 2nd ed. p. 168 he has left out this note and all references to this word).
That τὰ ὄρια in Mt. and τὰ μέρη in Mk. are almost identical expressions, is shown by Matthew 15:21 εἰς τὰ μέρη Σιδῶνος καὶ Τύρου compared with Mark 7:24 εἰς τὰ ὅρια (TR [Note: R Textus Receptus.] μεθόρια) Τύρου (καὶ Σιδῶνος), and by the fact that in the OT 4 of the 11 Heb. equivalents for ὅριον (יד, מול, פאה, קץ) reappear among the 22 Heb. equivalents of μέρος. 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 צלמון 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 (מליסאן), 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: ‘Δαλ- istud residuum esse veri nominis Μαγδαλά scil. מנדל־אל, μανουθά autem repraesentare pluralem vocis מָנָה pars, portio, quam in Graeco ΜέΡΗ 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 εἰς τὰ μέρη, 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 מְנָחָה in Aramaic meant anything else but ‘portion.’ But in the Syriac Bible at least it is frequently used for the allotted portions of land (Joshua 14:2; Joshua 15:1, Isaiah 57:6). N. Herz saw in the word an Aramaized form of the Greek λιμήν ‘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]):
Μαγεδἀν (Matthew 15:39). εἱς τὰ ὁρια Μαγεὸαν ὁ Χριστὸτ ἐτεδήμησεν, ὠί ὁ Ματθαῖος, καὶ ὁ Μάρκος δὲ τῆς Μαγεδάν μνημονεύει, καὶ ἐστι νῦν ἡ Μαγεδανὴ τερὶ τὴν Γερασἀν.
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 Μαγαιδάν (as D*) and Μαγαιδανή. Eusebius may have been reminded of the name by the occurrence of Μαγδώλω beside Μέμφις 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 (Mark 8:22), if this town itself did not belong to it. For he holds Mark 8:9 b, Mark 8:10 to be identical with Mark 8:13, the object αὐτούς of ἀφείς in Mark 8:13 being the ὄχλοι, not the Pharisees, and πάλιν he regards as a harmonistic insertion. He believes that Mark 8:13 originally followed immediately upon Mark 8:22 καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς Βηθσαιδάν.
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 Mark 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].
Visit Our Sponsors