A Further Note on [Isa.sup.[subset]].

• Author: Bellamy, James A.
• Position: Brief Communication - Koranic name for Jesus

Latest research shows that [Isa.sup.[subset]] derives from al-Masih and not from Maiyya.

I recently published in JAOS 121 (2001): 1-6, a study in which I proposed emendations and/or explanations for seven Koranic names which had so far eluded identification. Among these was the name [Isa.sup.[subset]], the name used in the Koran for Jesus. I proposed (p. 6) to emend [ySy.sup.[subset]] to msyy, and read masiyya, which I took to be the Greek Messias, without the nominative ending. I now feel obliged to reject this emendation in favor of another which is better supported by the external evidence. I now think that [Isa.sup.[subset]] is a corruption of the Arabic alMasih, from which the definite article was dropped when the prophet rejected the regular name for Jesus, [Yasu.sup.[subset]].

Readers will be quick to point out that this goes against Arabic usage in which al-Masih always takes the definite article. But it is precisely this anomaly, I believe, that caused the corruption. First I will emend the text and then go on to discuss the anomaly.

First of all, as we did for masiyya, we emend [ayn.sup.[subset]] to mim and divide the four minims into sin and [ya.sup.[contains]; then we emend the final [ya.sup.[contains]] to final [ha.sup.[contains]]. A minor drawback to the last emendation is that mistaking final [ha.sup.[contains]] for a final [ya.sup.[contains]] is apparently quite rare. (1) The rarity of the mistake, however, should not influence our decision on [Isa.sup.[subset]]. Good sense in textual emendation takes precedence over palaeography, so we do not have to decide which of the two emendations is easier to accept, but whether it makes more sense for Muhammad to have gotten the name from Greek or Arabic. Obviously, the better case can be made for Arabic.

The best argument for Masih is, however, that we now have only one word to deal with, and do not have to assume that the Prophet vacillated between Greek and Arabic. The form without the definite article, which turned into [Isa.sup.[subset]], is obviously Jesus' name, since we find it with the vocative particle ya, in 3:55, and 5:110, 112, and 116. Al-Masih is his title; this despite 3:45 where we find both together: inna llaha yubashshiruki bi-kalimatin minhu ismuhu l-Masih [Isa.sup.[subset]] bnu Maryam (We give you good tidings of a word from him, his name is the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary). Here al-Masih must be a gloss, since it is not really his name. One cannot say in Arabic...