al-Makin [Girgis] ibn al-`Amid, Century XIII, al-Magmu` al-Mubarak 'The

blessed collection,' a universal history. [Martino Diez' translation of Girgis'

paraphrase of the T.F. as in ms. Paris ar. 4729 in Studia Graeco-Arabica 3 (2013)]
Roger Pearse's blog: http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/
March 28, 2009: Manuscripts of the [universal] history [al-Magmu` alMubarak (The blessed collection] of al-Makin [Girgis] ibn al-`Amid (1206
after 1280)
The 13th century Arabic Christian chronicle of George Al-Makin or Ibn Amid has
never been published in full, or translated into any other language. However it
contains a version of the so-called Testimonium Flavianum, based on that in
Agapius. Some access to this text is desirable, therefore. Its a big text, in two
halves [the first half covers pre-Islamic history, and part two covers post Islamic
history] . The first need is to get hold of copies of manuscripts.
This has drawn my attention before. I ended up ordering copies from a Paris
manuscript, which cost a lot and turned out to be wretchedly poor quality; too poor
to be usable. Ive gone back to them, and well see if they will send me something
useful.
In the meantime a scholarly friend has been going through this, listing the sections
and how long they are, so that we can get an idea of contents. The poor state of
the Paris microfilm has become very apparent during this process.
According to Georg Grafs Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur, vol. 2,
p. 349, the following manuscripts exist of the first half [covering pre-Islamic period]:
Vatican arab. 168 (16th c.). 215 folios.
Borg. ar. 232 (in Karshuni, 1659 AD)
Paris ar. 294 (14th century) of which I received so poor a copy at so very high a
price
Paris ar. 4524 (1672 AD; sehr fehlerhaft)
Paris ar. 4729 (19th century). 176 folios.
Bodleian ar. 683 (Pococke 312 = DCLXXXIII). 170 folios. AD 1591. Catalogued
here.
Bodleian ar. 773.
Bodleian ar. 789.
Gotha ar. 1557 (karshuni, 1661 AD)
Breslau, Stadtbibliothek ar. 18 (ca. 1270 AD) Graf leaves it unclear whether this is
merely extracts of two lives.
Munich ar. 376, by the same copyist as the Oxford ms.
Vienna or. 884.
St. Petersburg or. 112 (1672)
Cairo 572 (1685)
Coptic patriarchate 1103, 1 (1876)
Sarfeh syr. 16/4 (karshuni)
Sbath 1938 (13th century) but only pp. 155-168 so is an extract.

Manuscripts exist of the second half [covering the Islamic period], as does a printed
text, Thomas Erpenius Historia Saracenica (1625) with Latin translation.
Paris ar. 295 (1854) breaks off at 1023 AD I got a somewhat better microfilm of
this.
British Library ar. 282, I (17th century)
Bodleian ar. (Uri) 715, 735.
Leiden or. 758
Leipzig university or. 643 (17th century), containing fragments on 1123-1259 AD.
Beirut 6 and 7 (18th century)
St. Petersburg As. Mus. ar. 161 (but probably copied from Erpenius, as several
other copies are)
I need to have another go at getting manuscript copies from the Vatican. Last time
my email was ignored. I dont know that the Bodleian has changed its policy of
charging the customer vast prices for full-colour images, but only supplying him
low-grade monochrome derivatives. Being poor, such a policy amounts to
prohibiting access. But it may be possible to obtain images from some of the other
institutions.
Isnt it odd, what a struggle it is to just obtain access?
UPDATE (16th Dec. 2013). I have added some notes from Martino Diez, Les
antiquities greco-romaines entre al-Makin ibn al-`Amid et ibn Khaldun, Studia
Graeco-Arabica, 3, (2013) 121-140.
December 10, 2013: Diez on al-Makin and the Testimonium Flavianum
Just a quick note to signal an important article: Martino Diez, "Les antiquites
greco-romaines entre ibn al-`Amid et Ibn Khaldun. Notes pour une histoire de la
tradition,["] in: Studia Graeco-Arabica 3 (2013), 121-140 (Online here). (In this and
what follows, dont presume I have every letter just correct: WordPress wont allow
me to!)
The abstract tells it all:
The Coptic [nationality] Historian al-Makin Girgis ibn al-`Amid (1206
after 1280) is the author of a universal history known as al-Magmu` alMubarak (The blessed collection). This work is divided into two parts: a
section on pre-Islamic history, still unpublished, and a summary of Islamic
history, edited by Erpenius in 1625 and completed by Claude Cahen.
The article analyzes the two recensions of the first part of the Magmu`
through the comparison of three manuscripts, in particular as regards the
sections on Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine history. After discussing the
particular version of the Testimonium Flavianum which can be found in the
longer recension of the Magmu`, the article traces the fortune of al-Makin in
subsequent Islamic historiography, especially al-Qalqaandi, al-Maqrizi
and Ibn Khaldun.

Al-Makin is the big unpublished Arabic Christian history. His version of the
Testimonium Flavianum in the first half of al-Makins work was referenced by
Shlomo Pines in his well-known article on the subject, when discussing Agapius,
but a look at the French translation of Agapius reveals that Pines must have used
Al-Makins version extensively.
The article is in French, but promises to be very interesting! Watch this space!
Update (16th Dec. 2013): I had not realised that the article was online. Ive added
the link, and also corrected a typo in the title.
December 16, 2013: The two recensions of al-Makin
There are quite a number of manuscripts of the history by the 13th century Coptic
historian al-Makin ibn al-`Amid. I have listed these in a previous post here. Diez,
in his important article on the subject[1] has obtained copies of three of the
manuscripts. This is no small feat in itself, as I can bear witness myself after
attempting it. Indeed a look at the prices on the Bodleian website today was quite
enough to dissuade me from trying to obtain a copy of any of their manuscripts! I
have commented before on the corruption involved in charging huge sums for
reproductions of public-owned manuscripts.
Diez obtained somehow copies of the following:
Vatican ar. 168. (16th c.)
Bodleian ar. 683. (AD 1591) (=Pococke 312)
Paris ar. 4729 (19th c.)
He writes:
Investigation shows that the three manuscripts belong to two different
recensions. One, the shorter, is present in ms. Vat. ar. 168 and in Pococke
312, and the other, longer, preserved in ms. Paris BNF ar. 4729. The exact
relationship between the two recensions seems, on first sight, difficult to
establish.
The existence of two families of witnesses was already highlighted by Gaston
Wiet in a long note to the History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria.
The French researcher proposed to call the first family the vulgata and
assigned to it most of the witnesses, notably Paris BNF ar. 4524, Vat ar.
168 and 169, Borg. ar. 232, and Pococke 312.
All the same, Wiet noted the existence of a second family,
completed and retouched using [the Annals of] Eutychius, such as
ms. Paris ar. 4729. This manuscript reveals that its copyist had
literary, confessional and chronological concerns: the material of alMakin is treated very freely. But the modifications at bottom
belonging to the Chronicle [of al-Makin] have not been invented by

the copyist. It is obvious that he worked with a copy of the Annals of

Eutychius before him.
For Wiet, therefore, the vulgata is the original work of Ibn al-Amid, while
ms. Paris ar. 4729 (which we will refer to as the expanded recension)
represents a later elaboration, contaminated from other sources, notably
Eutychius, and not without literary ambitions.
In reality the relations between the two recensions are more complicated.
That they are both fundamentally the same work is clear, because of the
existence of the same rubrics for people (166 in both recensions), but it is not
always the expanded recension that completes the vulgata. It is not
uncommon for the reverse to be the case. Taken together, the differences
are not marginal, especially in certain sections such as the introduction, or
the history of Alexander. The key to understanding this is supplied by the
author himself in his preface.
[Here Diez gives a transcription of the incipit from all three manuscripts and
portions of the preface; unfortunately without translation, so of course I
cannot follow it.]
Then:
The text clearly shows that the vulgata represents an abridgement
(muhtasar) of the chronicle, made by the author himself. He states, in fact,
that, after completing a first version of his work, he came into possession of
new sources (on the origin of the world, the shape of the world, on the
patriarchs, on the kings of Persia) which enriched the treatment of certain
periods. However the work was already too long, and someone, to whom it
was not possible to say 'no' (someone who sought to make his request
accepted and to assist in the pursuit of his desire) asked Ibn-al `Amid to
make an abridgement which contained all the best known events. And this is
exactly what is called the vulgata of Ibn-al `Amid.
He then explores what the expanded edition is. Is it indeed the original version,
or a longer version, enriched with further information before being condensed? He
argues that it is the former; this is, indeed, the original version produced by alMakin. He notes that the titles and explicits of the copies indicate something
again this is not translated so I cant say what that is! and then details differences.
Diez does not seem to deal with the question of contamination from Eutychius,
however.
If both versions are indeed by the [same] author, any future edition and translation
needs to include both. But clearly there is more work to be done.
[1]Diez, "Les antiquites greco-romaines entre ibn al-`Amid et Ibn Khaldun.
Notes pour une histoire de la tradition," in: Studia Graeco-Arabica 3 (2013),
121-140. Online here.
December 16, 2013: The Testimonium Flavianum in al-Makin

The so-called Testimonium Flavianum of Josephus has provoked extensive

discussion down the years, not all of it either measured or even sensible. One
witness to the text is the Arabic versions. These were handled in a rather mangled
way in 1971 by Shlomo Pines,[1] who introduced the world to their existence in
the World History of Agapius (a.k.a. Mahbub ibn Qustantin), the 10th century
bishop of Hierapolis. Pines made use of the CSCO edition, which rather misled him,
and proposed that this version of the Testimonium preserved features corrupted in
the Greek as it now stands.
Part of Agapius work is extant only in a single damaged manuscript in Florence.
But the CSCO editor of Agapius, Louis Cheikho,[2] believed that his text was
quoted at length by the 13th century Coptic writer al-Makin Ibn-al `Amid, and so
included extracts from the latters unedited work in an appendix. Pines made use
of the latter on the basis that this was Agapius. But the actual text of Agapius
is given in the Florence manuscript. What al-Makin says may now be considered,
since Diez has kindly edited and translated the text for us.[3]
It is as follows:

In English:
And likewise Josephus the Hebrew says in his writings on the Jews: in those
days, there was a wise man named Jesus. He lived a good life, distinguishing
himself by his learning, and many people, as many Jews as of other nations,
became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to crucifixion and death. But
those who had become his disciples did not cease to be so, and affirmed that
he had appeared to them three days after the crucifixion and that he was
alive. Perhaps he was the Messiah of whom the prophets speak.
The text is preserved only in the expanded recension of al-Makin, which may or
may not be the original version of the text (see here). It appears towards the end of
the life of Jesus, where the expanded edition includes a series of quotations from

pagan authors on the subject of the events on and following Good Friday. (These are
probably I say this without seeing them taken from collections of sayings,
gnomologia, that circulated in the Arabic world.)
Diez edits the text from the single manuscript of the expanded recension
accessible to him, ms. Paris BNF, arab. 4729, where it appears on folio 108r,
lines 1-6. Pines [on the other hand] made use of Paris BNF ar. 294, f.162v163r.[4]
As Diez rightly remarks, a study of the other witnesses to this recension of the text
of al-Makin is necessary before much more is done.
[1]S. Pines, An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its
Implications, Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Jerusalem, 1971.
[2]Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 65 (Scriptores arabici 10),
Beirut 1912.
[3]M. Diez, "[Les antiquites greco-romaines entre ibn al-`Amid et Ibn
Khaldun. Notes pour une histoire de la tradition,]" Studia Graeco-Arabica 3
(2013), 221-140, esp. 134-5.
[4]Pines, p.6-7, n.6.