This project will investigate a primary outside source concerning the early Umayyad state, and attempt to tease out from it an even earlier inside source.
The Hagarene takeover of Palestine did not prevent westerners from visiting the place and recording their experiences. One such pilgrim was a certain Frankish bishop by name of Arculf, who came to the Holy Land in 670 CE. Unfortunately for him, but fortunately for posterity, he was shipwrecked on the isle of Iona, where he dictated his experiences to Adamnan. Adamnan titled these memoirs, appropriately enough, De Locis Sanctis. He relates that the Jerusalem locals claimed the Caliph as a near-Christian.
MacPherson relates this as De Locis Sanctis's textual history:
The Venerable Bede prepared an abbreviation of it, which is also translated in this volume, and of which he inserted some portions in his history. In addition to the MSS. used by Dr. Tobler for his edition of the work, copies are found at the monastery of S. Germanus a Pratis (eighth century, probably the Corbey MS. used by Mabillon for his edition), at Berne (tenth century), at Rheinau (eleventh century), and at Salzburg (ninth or tenth century) (Reeves, pp. 8, 58). The first printed edition was published by Gretser, at Ingoldstadt, in 1619, from a MS. sent to him by Father Rosweyd `ex intima Holandia' (Proleg., p. 22). The text was again published, at Venice, in 1734, from better manuscripts, by Mabillon (Actt. SS. Ord. Bened., saec. iii., part 2).
The anecdote with which we are concerned runs as follows:
The whole people of Jerusalem bear witness to the truth of the narrative we now write. For on the testimony of several faithful citizens of Jerusalem, the sainted Arculf learned this statement which they very often repeated to him as he listened attentively: A certain trustworthy believing Jew, immediately after the Resurrection of the Lord, stole from His Sepulchre the sacred linen cloth and hid it in his house for many days; but, by the favour of the Lord Himself, it was found after the lapse of many years, and was brought to the notice of the whole people about three years before [this statement was made to Arculf]. That happy, faithful thief, when at the point of death, sent for his two sons, and, showing them the Lord's napkin, which he had at first abstracted furtively, offered it to them, saying: `My boys, the choice is now given to you. Therefore let each of you say which he rather wishes to choose, so that I may know without doubt to which of you, according to his own choice, I shall bequeathe all the substance I have, and to which only this sacred napkin of the Lord.' On hearing this, the one who wished to obtain all his sire's wealth, received it from his father, according to a promise made to him under the will. Marvellous to say, from that day all his riches and all his patrimony, on account of which he sold the Lord's napkin, began to decrease, and all that he had was lost by various misfortunes and came to nothing. While the other blessed son of the above-named blessed thief, who chose the Lord's napkin in preference to all his patrimony, from the day when he received it from the hand of his dying sire, became, by the gift of God, more and more rich in earthly substance, and was by no means deprived of heavenly treasure. And thus this napkin of the Lord was faithfully handed down as an heirloom by the successive heirs of this thrice blessed man to their believing sons in regular succession, even to the fifth generation. But many years having now passed, believing heirs of that kindred failed, after the fifth generation, and the sacred linen cloth came into the hands of unbelieving Jews, who, while unworthy of such an office, yet embraced it honourably and, by the gift of the Divine bounty, were greatly enriched with very diverse riches. But an accurate narrative about the Lord's napkin having spread among the people, the believing Jews began to contend bravely with the unbelieving Jews about the sacred linen cloth, desiring with all their might to obtain possession of it, and the strife that arose divided the common people of Jerusalem into two parties, the faithful believers and the faithless unbelievers.
Upon this, Mavias [Mu'awiya], the King of the Saracens, was appealed to by both parties to adjudicate between them, and he said to the unbelieving Jews who were persistently retaining the Lord's napkin; `Give the sacred linen cloth which you have into my hand.' In obedience to the king's command, they bring it from its casket and place it in his bosom. Receiving it with great reverence, the king ordered a great fire to be made in the square before all the people, and while it was burning fiercely, he rose, and going up to the fire, addressed both contending parties in a loud voice: `Now let Christ, the Saviour of the world, who suffered for the human race, upon whose head this napkin, which I now hold in my bosom, and as to which you are now contending, was placed in the Sepulchre, judge between you by the flame of fire, so that you may know to which of these two contending hosts this great gift may most worthily be entrusted.'Saying this, he threw the sacred napkin of the Lord into the flames, but the fire could in no way touch it, for, rising whole and untouched from the fire, it began to fly on high, like a bird with out-spread wings, and looking down from a great height on the two contending parties, placed opposite one another as if they were two armies in battle array, it flew round in mid air for some moments; then slowly descending, under the guidance of God, it inclined towards the party of the Christians, who meanwhile prayed earnestly to Christ, the judge, and finally it settled in their bosom. Raising their hands to heaven, and bending the knee with great gladness, they give thanks to God and receive the Lord's napkin with great honour, a gift to be venerated as sent to them from heaven; they render praises in their hymns to Christ, who gave it, and they cover it up in another linen cloth and put it away in a casket of the church.
MacPherson complains about this tale: "The narrative is interrupted by a long, and to the modern mind most useless, chapter as to the napkin that covered the head of the Lord in the sepulchre
".
Tolan points out, though, that the tale is not useless, but shows what Jerusalem
Christians were prepared to tell western Christian tourists. Tolan notes,
"King Mavias invokes Christ as 'saviour of the world'
", and "Not only does God intervene...
the good Saracen king calls up the miracle and professes his belief in Christ's roles as saviour
and miracle worker. In Muslim Jerusalem, under the shadow of the new mosque, it is the Jews who are
perceived as the threatening enemy, and the Saracen king as ally.
"
(pp. 73)
Note that the setting is entirely within Jerusalem. We know from the Maronite Chronicle that Mu'awiya visited there in ~660 CE.
This tale features "believing Jews" as the Christians in question. If Arculf had heard this from a general Christian community, like (say) Armenian pilgrims, then he would have not have laid so much emphasis on the Jewish character of these Christians.
It is likely this tale was an authentic legend of Mu'awiya's visit, told by the Jewish Christian community for the decade or so between that visit and Arculf's.
These ethnically Jewish Christians believed that Jesus died and was buried, and that his death imbued surrounding artifacts with magic powers. They also prayed to "Christ the Judge".
I cannot say if these were orthodox Christians. They did not say "son of God" nor "God" directly. But they did manage to avoid such ideas as, say, a docetic Crucifixion or that Jesus was a powerless martyr or that Jesus will play no part in the world to come. They were not Ebionites or proto-Muslims; they were "Jewish Christians" in the way of Jews for Jesus.
I would have to agree with Tolan, in that it should be of overriding importance to the history of Muslim-Christian relations that Jerusalem Christians counted this Arab caliph as one of their own. It should also interest students of Christianity in Jerusalem in the seventh century CE.
Any thoughts? e-mail me :^)
zimriel@sbcglobal.net2 Feb 2003: started. 10 Feb: comparison with the Amir's interrogation. 15 Feb: Sde Boqer not Ismailite. 27 Feb: 19:33 and the Dome. 9 August: divided from the Mu'awiya argument. 12 April 2004: it is past time this site said some stuff of its own; added a backup source in the 'Chronicle and also a section on the local "Jews for Jesus".