Syriac Source-Material For Islam’s Holy Book

FOOTNOTES:

{1 The Himyarites of southern Arabia were Jewish, Christian, and another form of monotheism known as Rahman-ism.  Who was this godhead, Rahman?  Unsurprisingly, he was a moon-god; and his name meant “The Merciful”…which turned out to be the most common appellation for the Koran’s protagonist.  As it so happens, the Himyarite language (Sabaic, language of the Sabaeans) was also Semitic–though it seems to have fallen out of use at some point around MoM’s lifetime.  But no matter: the moniker’s ultimate origins were in Aramaic…which means it would have come to the region via Syriac intermediaries.  For more on this subject, see Gordon Darnell Newby’s “A History of Jews In Arabia From Ancient Times To Their Eclipse Under Islam”, Michael Philip Penn’s “Envisioning Islam: Syriac Christians and the Early Muslim World”, Patricia Crone’s “Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam”, and the sources listed in footnote 13 below.}

{2  A clue that “The Way” was considered neo-Judaic by its earliest followers is that they were still referred to as (part of) “Israel”–as in Luke’s “Acts of the Apostles” (2:22).  The opening passage of the original Gospel (that of Mark) invokes premonitions from the Book of Isaiah.  Later in that first chapter, we are told that Jesus of Nazareth even preached at a synagogue (at Capernaum).}

{3  “But wait,” comes a retort.  “Why would the Mohammedans have based their liturgical language on Syro-Aramaic when most of the Syriac sources were Christian–a religion with which the Mohammedans disagreed?”  This would be analogous to a Romanian denying the Latin roots of his language because his Faith is (Koine-Greek-oriented) Eastern Orthodox rather than (Latin-oriented) Roman Catholic.  Another version of this objection might be: “Why would the Mohammedans have derived their material from Syriac sources when those sources where Christian?”  This would be like a Roman Catholic wondering how his religion, the liturgical language of which is Latin, derived its material from sources that had been composed in Koine Greek–which was the language of the heathens who worshipped the Olympian pantheon!  There is nothing odd about any of this.  Chinese Buddhists are Buddhist even though Classical Chinese had nothing to do with any of the Prakrit languages (and vice versa).  They do not insist that therefore Siddhartha Gautama’s native tongue must have been Chinese.  The only comparison with the kind of Reality-denial we encounter in Islamic apologia is with hyper-dogmatic Jews who refuse to recognize that Abraham–insofar as he existed at all–would have spoken some variation of Ugaritic (the Semitic language of the Amorites), which predated their own liturgical language by over a millennium.}

{4 Note that the version of the Book of Esther that was translated into Coptic was not from the original Hebrew, but from the Koine Greek–which itself had discrepancies. When the Dalmatian (Illyrian) writer, Jerome of Stridon [Pannonia] composed the Latin Vulgate version c. 400, he incorporated tidbits from the Koine Greek version (the Septuagint) as he saw fit.  As in most cases, subsequent versions were a bespoke melange of tid-bits–hand-picked to suit the didactic purposes of the time.  Some of the narrative embellishments found in Islamic lore likely came from the Targum Sheni [Second], a Syriac elaboration of the Book of Esther that was riddled with apocrypha.  Here’s the kicker: In Muslim sources, the legendary Sabaean queen is often referred to as “Bilqis”.  Bilqis?  Who’s that?  Well, THAT was the name of the figure to whom a temple IN YEMEN was affiliated: the Sabaean temple at Awwam, which was dedicated to the deity, “Al-Maqah”.  The site was also known as the “Mahram Bilqis” [sanctuary of Bilqis]…which explains why “Bilqis” may have come to be a stand-in moniker for the legendary “Malikah” of Saba.  Tellingly, elsewhere, the queen is simply referred to as “the woman who was the queen of Saba”–indicating that early expositors were unaware of her given name…which explains why later scribes opted for “Bilqis”.}

{5  For this, we can reference the Syriac writings of Ishodad of Merv from the 9th century.  This Infancy Gospel seems to have derived much of its material from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the Infancy Gospel of James.  Tellingly, the Syriac “Infancy Gospel” has often been re-labeled (read: MIS-labeled) the “ARABIC Infancy Gospel” so as to obfuscate the fact that the material existed at the time IN SYRIAC, not in CA; as CA had not yet been fully-developed.  That Islamic apologists felt the need to engage in such obfuscation (when citing the source) reveals that there was a concerted effort to elide the fact that the material on which MoM (and the authors of the Koran) based their perorations was in Syriac (i.e. NOT in the liturgical language, which they deigned to assert was god’s native tongue).  The motivations here are obvious: Were these scribes NOT to do so, they would have had to concede that the language MoM spoke was, in fact, not CA.  The implication of this would have been that their designated messenger could not have possibly been delivered revelations in CA.}

{6  The Mohammedan re-vamping of the Syriac legend of Alexander the Great included the spurious claim that he was Muslim.  In the relevant Koranic passage (18:84-98), Alexander was not referred to by his actual name, but rather in the manner in which he happened to appear on coins that were in circulation at the time: as a man with horns.  Hence the Koranic appellation “D[h]u” of “Qarnain” (rendered “Dhu’l-Qurnayn”).  Again, we find that the Koran’s authors’ impression of things was limited to that of nescient Arabians in the Dark Ages–hardly a mark of sagacity, let alone of omniscience.  Surely, had the author been all-knowing, he would have simply referenced this important historical figure by name.  Another example of a naming foible is that of the prophet “i-D-R-S”, who is assumed in conventional Islamic exegesis to be a reference to Enoch.  However, it is more likely that the authors of the Koran were referring to a magical figure (“An-D-R-S”) about whom they would have learned from the Syriac version of “The Romance of Alexander” (which had been rendered from the original Greek by the 3rd century A.D.)  The Syriac version would have proliferated in the region over the course of the following centuries, on through MoM’s lifetime.  (Incidentally, “The Romance of Alexander” may have also been the source of the Koranic moniker for Alexander the Great: “Dhu’l-Qurnayn”.)  Again we must ask: If god had meant Enoch in this passage, why didn’t he simply refer to him as “Enoch”?  Upon further inspection, we find that it is unlikely that “i-D-R-S” was a reference to Enoch, as there ALREADY WAS a moniker for that particular prophet in CA: “Akhnuk”.  And if it had been an attempt to reference the Abrahamic patriarch, “Enos[h]”, it would have been rendered “Anush” or “Yanish” in CA.The only alternative is the aforesaid character in the Syriac source.  Interestingly, “An-D-R-S” may have well been an oblique reference to the mythic “Hermes Trismegistus” as found in the Syriac “Hermetica” during the same period–most notably in the “Tabula Smaragdina” [Emerald Tablet]…and, later, the “Book of Balinas the Wise [On The Causes]”.  We know this is a plausible explanation for the identity of “Idris” because the “Emerald Tablet” (along with the “Book of Balinas the Wise”) was eventually rendered in CA.  That it was rendered in CA means the material was seen as sufficiently important to Islamic expositors that it needed to be rendered in their religion’s liturgical language.  Sure enough: In the Koran (19:56-57), “Idris” [ibn Yard ibn Mahla’il] is considered the oldest Abrahamic prophet (after Adam).  Who was he?  The fabled “An-D-R-S” in Syriac sources.}

{7  This lurid leitmotif (men of Faith thrown into a fiery furnace by a despotic Babylonian ruler, only to emerge unscathed) is also found in the tale of Shadr-Ak[u], Mesha-Ak[u], and Abed-Nergal / Abed-Nabu (alt. “Shadrach”, “Meshach”, and “Abd-Negu”)…who’s names were rendered in Hebrew as Hanan-i-Yah, Misha-El, and Azar-i-Yah.  (After all, a hero couldn’t be named “servant of Nergal”!)  This tale eventually made into the (Syriac) Book of Daniel (ref. chapter 3).  The mistake of mistranslating “ur” as “fire” (and thus as “furnace”) instead of “city” seems to have also occurred in Biblical references to an Egyptian “city of iron” as a FURNACE of iron (as a symbolic appellation for Egypt).  In any case, the term eventually made its way into the Septuagint as “kaminos” (Koine Greek).  Such mis-translation was not uncommon.  A similar etymological flub occurred with “young maiden” (later rendered “virgin”) and the forbidden “fruit” (later rendered “apple”).}

{8  The Nicene version of Christianity was primarily based on Pauline theology (the version propounded by Saul of Tarsus), whereby Jesus of Nazareth was deemed the son of god (that is: the literal incarnation of the Abrahamic deity).  Pursuant to the Council of Nicaea (commissioned by Emperor Constantine in 325), it became the official creed of the Roman Imperium; and continued to be promoted for the remainder of the 4th century–a cause spearheaded by the zealot, Athanasius of Alexandria.  It should be noted that Christianity started out as “The Way”, a neo-Judaic sect founded by Jesus, which was likely similar to the group that came to be dubbed the “Essenes”.  The most notable evidence comes from the Ebionites [“those who are poor”]–a version of neo-Judaism that considered Jesus of Nazareth a mortal prophet.  Though it was likely most in keeping with the teachings of the historical Jesus, this humble, communitarian sect was eventually eradicated; as it was the (proto-Christian) Pauline Christology that prevailed, and was eventually adopted as the official version of the Faith by the Roman imperium.  Athanasius’ dream would come true; and the Nicene creed would eventually become the Empire’s MANDATORY religion pursuant to the Edict of Thessalonika, issued by Emperor Theodoseus in 380.}

{9  Docetism was initiated by Serapion of Antioch in the late 2nd century.  It was based on the supposition that Jesus’ “Passion” was illusory–a claim rationalized via an account of the Passion found in the (Syriac) Gospel of Peter.  The theory of illusory crucifixion (ref. 4:157-158) was also put forth in the Epistle of Barnabas and the Gospel of Basilides–both of which had also circulated in Syriac during Late Antiquity.  This was roughly in keeping with the (Syriac) Nestorian account of the Passion, whereby Jesus “was with us as long as he willed until god raised him to heaven.”  Accordingly, the Basilidians believed that it was Simeon of Cyrene who actually perished on the cross (in his place).  Incidentally, the Epistle of Barnabas was also the source of the “Good Shepherd” leitmotif (i.e. the “Shepherd of Hermas”), an idiom which served as the basis for Docetism–whereby it was supposed that Jesus HIMSELF was merely an apparition.}

{10  The location of the wall likely corresponded to a place in Dagestan known as the Derbent pass; which is typically correlated with Darial Gorge.  The place was referred to as “Dar-i Alan” [Gate of the Alans] by the Persians and as “Porta Caucasica” / “Porta Cumana” by the Greeks.  In the 1st century, the Jewish historian, Josephus recounted the legend of Alexander the Great having built a giant iron gate at this fabled gorge in the Caucuses mountains.  Clearly, those who wrote the legends of this key means of ingress (into the Middle East from the Eurasian Steppes) did not have the faintest idea about the wider geography of the region (i.e. that there existed land east of the Caspian Sea, offering ingress via Persia).  For more on this, see footnote 11 below.}

{11  In Islamic lore, the more fantastical version of the tale was started by Caliph Al-Wathiq in the 840’s.  It invoked the timeless trope: Hordes of faceless barbarians lurking beyond the frontiers, waiting to strike; waiting to bring with them Armageddon.  As the story goes, this iron barrier was erected across a mountain pass in order to keep this vaguely-defined nemesis at bay indefinitely; or at least until they finally breached the massive rampart as a precursor to the End Times.  Thus we are expected to believe that this menace-to-humanity was held back by a wall built between two mountains somewhere in central Asia (beyond the land of the Maeotians).  Are we to suppose, then, that for THOUSANDS of years, it never occurred to “[y]Ajuj and Majuj” to go around the mountain?  Apparently not.  For according to Mohammedan lore, MoM himself was under the impression that, before his own death, the wall had ALREADY been breached, and these Satanic forces were already on their way–an anecdote recounted in the Hadith of both Bukhari and Muslim.  (See footnote 10 above.)  This indicates that MoM believed the End Days were immanent. {20}  In c. 842, at the behest of Caliph Al-Wathiq, “Salam the Interpreter” embarked on a quest in search of the fabled wall.  This excursion was recounted by the Persian writer, Ubaydallah ibn Abdallah ibn Khordadbeh of Jibal (in his “Kitab al-Masalik w’al-Mamalik”; Book of Roads and Kingdoms).  We know this legend was taken seriously throughout Dar al-Islam, as during the Late Middle Ages, Muslims were STILL searching for the fabled wall.  Comically, in the 14th century, Ibn Battuta confused it for the Great Wall of China.  As mentioned, the city of Dar-Band [Persian for “blocked gateway”; now dubbed “Derbent”] came to be the prime candidate; warranting the moniker “Bab al-Hadid” [iron gate].  For more on this legend and its influence on Mohammedan lore, see “Gog and Magog in Early Syriac and Islamic Sources” ed. Emeri van Donzel and Andrea Schmidt.}

{12 Such accounts were also probably lifted from the “[Infancy] Gospel of James” and “pseudo-Ambrose”, both of which were circulated in Syriac throughout the Middle East.  Also note that account of the holy family’s flight to Egypt found in later Islamic lore curiously resembles the account found in the aforesaid (Syriac) Gospel of “pseudo-Matthew” more than it resembles the account found in the canonical Gospel of Matthew (2:13-23).}

{13  Over the last century, extensive work has been done on this matter–starting with Richard Bell’s “The Origin Of Islam In Its Christian Environment” (1926) and Charles Cutler Torrey’s “The Jewish Foundations Of Islam” (1933).  For further reference, see: Patricia Crone’s “Hagarism: The Making Of The Islamic World” (1977); J. Wansbrough’s “The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History” (1978); J. Spencer Trimingham’s “Christianity Among The Arabs In Pre-Islamic Times” (1979); Crone’s “Meccan Trade And The Rise Of Islam” (1987); Reuven Firestone’s “Journeys In Holy Lands: The Evolution Of The Abraham-Ishmael Legends In Islamic Exegesis” (1990); Albrecht Noth’s “The Early Arabic Historical Tradition: A Source-critical Study” (1994); Michael Lecker’s “Muslims, Jews And Pagans: Studies On Early Islamic Medina” (1995); Robert Hoyland’s “Arabia And The Arabs: From the Bronze Age To The Coming Of Islam” (2001);  Robert Hoyland’s “Seeing Islam As Others Saw It” (1997); Robert Hoyland’s “Arabia and the Arabs: From The Bronze Age To The Coming Of Islam” (2002); Jonathan Berkey’s “The Formation Of Islam: Religion And Society In The Near East” (2003); “The Qur’an In Its Historical Context”; ed. G.  Reynolds (2008); Gordon Newby’s “A History Of The Jews Of Arabia” (2009); Amira El-Zein’s “Islam, Arabs, And The Intelligent World Of The Jinn” (2009); and Neal Robinson’s “Islam: A Concise Introduction” (2013).  Also reference Robert Hoyland’s “The Jews Of The Hijaz In The Qur’an And In Their Inscriptions” in “New Perspectives On The Qur’an: The Qur’an In Its Historical Context” ed. Gabriel Said Reynolds” p. 91–216 (2011).  In sum: preeminent scholars in this field include Gunter Luling, Peter von Sivers, Patricia Crone, Robert G. Hoyland, and John Wansbrough.  Also worth consulting are works by F. De Blois, J. Gnilka, F. Van der Velden, S.H. Griffith, and the renown Swedish scholar, Tor Julius Efraim Andræ.}

{14  Regarding the tale of Cain and Abel, we might also note the Koran’s anecdote about a crow / raven discovering the burial site of Abel (5:31).  This tid-bit seems to have also come from sources that would have been available ONLY in Syriac.  Specifically, it would have come from material found in the recensions of the Aggadah known as the “Midrash Tanhuma”; as well as from the “Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer”.  The source-material for both of these works predated MoM, and likely proliferated in the region (esp. due to the prevalence of Syriac-speaking Talmudic scholars in Mesopotamia at the time).  The key point is that this particular anecdote (about the crow) cannot be found in the canonical scripture; and–like the other tales discussed in this section–must have come from sources that were likely not found in the original Hebrew texts OR in the Koine Greek texts; but instead EXCLUSIVELY in Syriac texts.  That is: It MUST have been based on sources that came from a time and place wherein Syriac was the predominant language.  Koranic material on Cain and Abel seems to have also been taken from the (Syriac) “Targum” of Jonathan ben Uz-i-El.  Of course, one might also suppose that this information REALLY DID come directly from the Abrahamic deity; and that those who compiled the (earlier) canonical sources (in Classical Hebrew) were simply not made privy to such accounts.  Or one might suppose that their original testimonials DID include this tid-bit, and so had existed in a bygone era, but had since been lost.  But it would still be a massive coincidence that these newer sources (the material of which happened to be circulating in the Middle East during the time Mohammedan scripture was being composed) suddenly included such unique anecdotes…after such a lengthy epoch during which they could not be found.  How is it that they suddenly re-appeared; and re-appeared only in SYRIAC?}

{15  It is especially notable that some early Christian sects did, in fact, worship Miriam as divine–notably the Collyridians, who were denounced by Epiphanius of Salamis for their deification of Jesus’ mother.  One might also note the various Gnostic Christian sects that posited a female divinity–as found in the “Pistis Sophia” and the “Apocryphon of John”.  The various Marian sects that cropped up in Late Antiquity–and during the Middle Ages–are enumerated in my essay on “Pilgrimage”.}

{16  The parallels are striking.  In the Koran (38:36-38), we are told about the powers of wind-demons being harnessed to perform tasks.  There are other similarities.   For example, MoM is said to have had a magical, engraved ring.  Lo and behold, the ToS tells of Solomon having a magical, engraved ring (used to, among other things, summon demons to do his bidding).  Also in the ToS, we find demons depicted as black dogs.  Hence the association of black dogs with demons in Islamic lore.}

{17  References to this Syriac work can be found in the Epistle of Barnabas, the oldest manuscripts of which are found in the “Codex Sinaiticus” (4th century) and the “Codex Claromontanus” (6th century), both of which were themselves circulated in Syriac.  The Jewish Apocalypse of Ezra (a.k.a. the second “Book of Esdras”; alt. 4 Ezra) was probably more well-known amongst Arabian Bedouins than many of the canonical books of the Hebrew Bible. (See footnote 28 below.)  The mis-impression–as stated in 9:30, and reiterated in Bukhari’s Hadith–that Jews and Christians believed Ezra to be the son of god seems to have come from an Abrahamic sect in Himyar–as attested in the writings of both Al-Tabari and Al-Qastallani.  Final note: “Uzayr” did NOT correlate to the Egyptian god, Osiris (sometimes rendered “Usir” / “A[u]sir”), as some of the more mendacious Islamic apologists have contended.  Such a claim is little more than special pleading–an evasion bordering on self-parody.  Clearly, the authors of the book were talking about something JEWS (allegedly) believed…which, of course, had nothing to do with the (derided) Egyptian pantheon.}

{18  John Wansbrough concurs that the Syriac version of Abrahamic lore suffused Hijazi culture during the time of MoM…and even into the 8th century, when the “Recitations” were still being curated.  (Bear in mind that the first CA dictionary, the “Kitab al-Ayn”, had only just been compiled at the end of the 8th century.)  Wansbrough goes a step further, though, proposing that Syriac material saturated the Middle East to the degree that it trumped any influence that the indigenous (Arabian) pagan theology may have had on the gestating Mohammedan movement.  Wansbrough therefore conjectures that the character of MoM himself (qua “Rasul Allah”) may have been a post-hoc fabrication, an Ishmaelite patriarch contrived so as to rationalize the emergence of a newfangled Abrahamic Faith–imbuing the movement with a distinctly Ishmaelite (i.e. Arabian) pedigree.}

{19  For more on this, see Gabriel Said Reynolds’ “The Qur’an In Its Historical Context” and “New Perspectives On The Qur’an”, both from the Routledge Studies series.  Other resources include those enumerated in footnote 13.}

{20  At any given point in history, many are apt to entertain the notion that they are teetering on the cusp of history.  This impression is found in most Messianic movements.  A discuss this phenomenon in my essay, “Brink Porn”.}

{21 Note that Aphrahat exercised enormous influence over the region; and his strident advocacy for “khitan” [circumcision] may explain the mandate for the practice that would eventually wind up in the Sunnah.  This is telling, as almost all other Christians had spent the previous six centuries DE-emphasizing circumcision.  Such a reversal makes sense insofar as it was SYRIAC liturgy that held the most sway in the region during the formulation of the Sunnah.}

{22  The (Aramaic) “Harklean” version of the Gospels (named after the mono-physite theologian, Thomas of Harqel), was compiled in Alexandria, Egypt in Late Antiquity.  This is not to be confused with the Syriac version of the Gospels done by the mia-physite theologian, Philoxenus of Mabbug (a.k.a. “Xenaias”) in the Levant during Late Antiquity.  The “Diatessaron” was an even earlier Syriac version of the Gospels (compiled by the Syriac scribe, Tatian of Adiabene in the 2nd century).  Other early Syriac versions include the “Evangelion Dampharshe” (comprised of the “Curetonian Gospels” and the “Sinaiticus”), which dates back to the 4th century.  What we are primarily concerned with here is the “P[e]shitta” (Syriac for “Common” / “Simple”), which included BOTH the Old AND New Testaments (minus the Epistles and the Book of Revelation).  For it was the Peshitta that was used by the (dyo-physite) Nestorians–whose ministry proliferated in the Middle East at the time (during the life of MoM, and during the period Mohammedan lore was coalescing).  Other than the Peshitta, the “Rabbula Gospels” (an illuminated Syriac version of the scriptures created c. 585) may have been influential in the region during MoM’s lifetime.}

{23  Derivative material was not unique to Mohammedan lore.  Indeed, the phenomenon has occurred in many other cases throughout the Abrahamic tradition.  It might be noted that much of Judaic lore was derived from Canaanite antecedents.  For example, Psalms 92:10 and 145:13 are ripped directly from the (Ugaritic) “Baal Cycle”, where Baal is simply transplanted with the Abrahamic deity.  Even the Mosaic covenant was inspired by the covenant between Assyrian King Esarhaddon and King Baal of Tyre in the early 670’s B.C. (ref. the amulets from Hadatu).  And the seventh day also seems to have been an auspicious time in Canaanite theology.  We even find an admission of the Judaism’s derivative nature in the Book of Joshua (“Has this not been written in the Book of Jashar?” 10:13) as well as in Numbers (“As it was said in the Book of the Wars of the Lord” 21:14).  Finally: Second Chronicles notifies us that its account is taken from the records of “Shemaiah” and “Iddo” (12:15).  I explore Abrahamic parallels with antecedent lore in my series on “Mythemes”.}

{24  The “Conflict of Adam and Eve With Satan” even became a classic text in (Ethiopic) Ge’ez; and eventually appeared in ancient Armenian lore as well. This tract was likely the basis of the idea that “The Fall” was Adam’s fault, not Eve’s: a signature feature of the Islamic version of Genesis. This work seems to have been related to two other apocryphal works that circulated in Syriac at the time: “The Apocalypse of Moses” and “The Testament of Adam”.}

{25  Throughout most of MoM’s life, Athanasius Gammolo was the Patriarch of the Eastern (Syriac) Church.  But it was Athanasius’ successor, “Mor” Yuhannon III of Antioch (a.k.a. “John of the Sedre”) who ended up corresponding with the Rashidun caliphs in their native language: Syriac.  According to the archeological / textual record, people in the region did not start using CA until the 9th century (a matter that will be explored in the next essay).  We might wonder: If Yuhannon III conducted correspondence with the Rashidun caliphs, might it have been the case that either HE or THEY had to translate from a different language?  Such an exigency is conceivable; but there is no evidence for it.  For more on this, see footnote 26 below.}

{26  Athanasius Gammolo’s “Kataba d-Res Melle” [Book of World History] includes one of the best documentations of the conquests by the Arabs during the 7th century.  Tellingly, it makes no mention of a holy book used by the Ishmaelites; nor of ANY text written in a distinctly Arabic language. (!)  Nor do ANY OTHER Syriac writers of the 7th century make any such references (to either the Koran or to CA).  Indeed, chroniclers like Marutha of Tagrit, Isaac of Nineveh, John of Daylam, etc. would have surely made SOME reference–at SOME point in their careers–to such a book AND/OR to such a language had either existed at the time.  This is especially so considering the fact that Ishmaelite hegemony was one of the most pressing matters of their day (and surely the hot topic of conversation).  Such silence on such a matter (having to deal with another language) ONLY makes sense if the Ishmaelites spoke (roughly) the same language as they themselves spoke.  The absence of any mention of a holy book at the center of the movement can only possibly mean that such a book was still in-the-making.}

{27  Theodore bar Konai is notable for having composed a (Syriac) treatise on the Old and New Testaments: “Kataba d-Eskoliyon” [Book of the Commentaries] (a “scholion” is an extensive collection of in-depth annotations).  Interestingly, those commentaries were composed during the very time that the Koran was beginning to take form: the 8th century.}

{28  The arch-angel, “[n]Ur-i-El” [Light of god] features prominently in the Second Book of Esdras; and is one of the angels mentioned in the Syriac “Book of Protection”.  “Uriel” also appears in the “Book of Enoch”, the “Apocalypse of Peter”, and the “Life of Adam And Eve” (see footnote 29 below)…all of which were originally written in the precursor to Syriac: Aramaic.  Interestingly, manuscripts of the “Book of Protection” include illustrations of the angel, Gabriel, mounted on a flying white horse.  This should ring some bells.}

{29  The “Life Of Adam And Eve” dates from the 1st century; and was eventually translated into Koine Greek, Coptic, Masoretic Hebrew, Vulgar Latin, Armenian, Georgian, and Old Church Slavonic.  Tellingly, it was never rendered in Arabic.  The only explanation for this: By the time Arabic had become a language unto itself, there was no longer any demand amongst Arabs to translate such a work.  Had CA existed before the 8th century, there can be no doubt that there would have also been a version of the “Life Of Adam And Eve” in Arabic.}

{30  While the Hebrew version seems to be descriptive (a simple acknowledgement of difference), the Koranic version seems to be prescriptive (to each his own).  Either way, the statement does not constitute a clarion call for tolerance; as it in no way countermands the exaltation of the in-group.  The Hebrew passage is a matter of alterity; the Koran version is more an expression of resignation: “It’s YOUR soul on the line.  It’s not MY problem.”}

{31  This goddess (Atarsa-ma’in / Attar / Athtar[t]) was later rendered “Alilat” / “Al-Lat”; as attested in Hismaic / Safaitic and Palmyrene / Nabataean inscriptions.  She was the feminine counterpart of the Semitic god, “El”; and effectively the Arabian rendering of the Assyrian goddess, Ishtar (a.k.a. “Astarte”).  There were major temples to her at Petra, Palmyra, Hatra, Emesa, and Hawran (ref. Jan Retso’s “The Arabs In Antiquity”).  An Arabian shrine existed for her at Ta’if (primarily for the Banu Thaqif)…which was destroyed in a raid by Abu Sufyan ibn Harb c. 630.}

{32  In Jeremiah 19:6, there is reference made to the “valley of slaughter”, which likely referred to a historical event, not an eschatological description.  The Book of Isaiah refers to it as “the burning place” (30:33 and 66:24): “Topeth”.  The Aramaic was “Gehanna”, while the Mishnaic Hebrew was “Ge-Hinnom”.  The Septuagint renders the term “Ennom”; while the Greek New Testament opts for “Geenna”.  The Latin Vulgate rendered the term “gehennae” / “gehennam” (as it was used in the Synoptic Gospels).  The valley was clearly associated with death, and even with the Canaanite god, Moloch (who was worshipped at a location referred to as “Topeth”).  Elsewhere, writers opted for the Hellenic terms, “Tartarus” and “Hades”.}

{33  There is a problem with this (purported) correction of Abrahamic scripture (namely: the Torah, Book of Psalms, and Gospels).  For it is at the same time a validation of that scripture (as it originally existed) AND a correction of what it eventually came to be (in corrupted form).  Yet the Koran makes appeals to such books as they existed AT THE TIME.  The problem for Islamic apologists is that we have records of such material as it existed in the 7th century.  We are thus presented with both a confirmation and repudiation of extant scripture from MoM’s point of view—a quandary that I address in Appendix 3 of my essay, “Genesis Of A Holy Book”.}

{34  Barring the Targum on the Book Of Esther, there were no Aramaic / Syriac Targum-im composed for the “K-T-B-im” [Writings].  The Targum on the Torah is the “Targum Okelos”.  The Targum on the “Nabi-im” [Prophets] is the “Targum Jonathan ben Uziel”.  That is the material with which Syriac-speakers would have been familiar at the time.  The oldest Syriac renderings of the Bible seem to be comprised solely of the New Testament—as with the “Diatessaron” from c. 170, then the edition by Ephrem of Nisibis from the 4th century (dealing with the “Peshitta”).  The Codex Sinaiticus Syriacus (which served as the basis for the Curetonian Gospels; a.k.a. the “Evangelion Dampharshe”) is from the late 4th / early 5th century.  Other codices of the “Peshitta” include the Codex Phillipps 1388 as well as the British Library’s Add MS 12140, 14448, 14455, 14459, 14466, 14467, 14470, 14479, and 14669: all of which are New Testament texts from the 5th or 6th century.  The illuminated “Rabbula Gospels” are also from the 6th century.  The early Mohammedans would probably not have been familiar with the Book of Revelation; and their knowledge of Luke’s Book of Acts and the Pauline letters would have also been rather limited.  Hence, when they thought of the New Testament, they would have primarily had the “Injil” in mind.  This explains the delimited scope of the appropriation.}

{35  Meanwhile, in the “Zardusht-Nama”, there is a tale of Zoroaster himself ascending into the heavens and visiting hell (where he encounters Ahriman).  Also, in the (Aramaic) Book Of Enoch, the titular protagonist goes on a magical journey to both Heaven and Hell.}

{36 For more on this, see S. H.  Griffith’s “Christian Lore And The Arabic Qurʾan: The Companions of the Cave in Surat al-Kahf and in Syriac Christian Tradition” (2008), Bartlomiej Grysa’s “The Legend Of The Seven Sleepers Of Ephesus In Syriac And Arab Sources: A Comparative Study”, as well as Witold Witakowski’s analysis in the Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary Of Syriac Heritage.}

{37  The city was an Edomite stronghold during the Iron Age.  The Nabataeans established it was their capital as early as the 4th century B.C.  The Occidental version of the name, “Petra” was coined by the Byzantines.  This is not a translation of the Nabataean name for the city: “Rakmu” / “Rakemo” / “Rekem”.  Rather, it is simply the Greek lexeme for “rock” (basis for the name, “Petros; Anglicized to “Peter”).  The Syriac term for “rock” would have been “Kepha”.  That’s why the apostle, “Peter” is simply a revamping of the Aramaic “Kephas”: the nickname that JoN gave to his follower, Shimon (Aramaic for “he who hears” or “he who is heard”; Anglicized to “Simon”).}

{38  An excellent account of this was provided by Michael Philip Penn in his “When Christians First Met Muslims: A Sourcebook Of The Earliest Syriac Writings On Islam” and its follow-up work, “Envisioning Islam: Syriac Christians And The Early Muslim World”.  Penn makes the point that, in its earliest era, Muslims (that is: participants in the Mohammedan movement) intermingled with other Syriac-based Abrahamic communities—inter-marrying, co-governing, and even fighting alongside each other.}

{39  So long as civilians were deemed to be fellow “people of the book” and did not engage in “fitna” (disruption; i.e. subversion of Islamic authority), they were allowed to subsist unmolested—that is, pace the “jizya” (tax on non-Muslims).  This conciliatory protocol (limited to confessors in the Abrahamic tradition) was roughly in keeping with verse 256 of Surah 2—as well as Surah 109—in the Koran.  Those who had the most difficulty persisting in their Faith were pagans, Mandaeans, Manichaeans, and Zoroastrians; and, of course, later: the Buddhists and Hindus of the Far East.  The early Mohammedans primarily had an ax to grind with the Byzantines (Romans) and the Sassanians (Persians) insofar as those two groups were imperial adversaries.}

{40  During Late Antiquity, some Syriac writers referred to the Arabs as “[m]Hagraye” (Hagarenes / Hagrites), named after the mother of Ishmael.  (The other terms for Arabs were “Saracens” and “Ishmaelites”, both of which were used during the Middle Ages.)  But the primary Syriac exonym for Arabs in Late Antiquity was “Tayyaye”, as they were generally associated with the Banu Tayy [alt. “Ta’i”] of Al-Hirah (that is: by fellow Syriac speakers who were not Mohammedans / Ishmaelites).  This label was used by the 7th-century Armenian historian, Sebeos of Bagratunis—who, incidentally, was one of the first to refer to an Arab cynosure known as “Mahmet”.  Why the Banu Tayy?  That Arab tribe had recently become ascendent within the Gassanids, Tanukhids, and Lakhmids.  Moreover, they seem to have been the most prominent tribe amongst the Sahabah / Salaf (the first Mohammedans).  The Byzantines referred to the Arabs by the Greek term, “Sarakenoi” [“easterners”]; which was Romanized to “Saraceni” (Anglicized to “Saracens”).  The Persians referred to the Arabs as “Tazi”; which prompted the Chinese to refer to them as the “Dashi”.  With respect to Faith, the most common exonym used for “Muslims” was “Mohammedans”.}

{41  Gods like the storm- / sky-god, “Baal Shamin” (Hadad / Teshub); the sun-god, “Yarhibol” / “Malak-Bel”; and the moon-god, “Aglibol” were worshipped farther to the north, in Palmyra.  It’s worth noting that the primary Nabataean god, Dushara [Lord Of The Mountain] was born of a virgin mother—a goddess who was worshipped at a cubic shrine, known as the “Kaabu”.  Interestingly, another deified figure was known as the “K-T-B[a]” [the writer].  The key point here is that Syriac Christianity had a significant presence in Petra.  The city even had its own Nestorian bishop.  So Abrahamic lore was not unknown to the Nabataeans.}

{42 For further insights into the lore surrounding the Meccan cube, see “The Early Arabic Historical Tradition: A Source Critical Study” by A. Noth; as well as “Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World” by M. Cook and Patricia Crone.  I explore alternate theories about the “Kaaba” in my essay: “The Meccan Cube”.}

{43  The illusory crucifixion narrative is actually rather interesting.  Recall that the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, was reticent to condemn JoN; so he gave the disgruntled crowd the option of condemning someone in JoN’s place.  In the original Koine Greek sources, BOTH alternatives happened to be named “Iesous” (the Hellenized version of the Aramaic name, “Yeshua”): one was designated “Messia[c]h” (meaning “anointed one”), while the other was designated “Bar Abba[s]” (meaning “son of the Father).  It was the former who was crucified, not the latter.  It is possible, then, that there were TWO men named “Jesus” on trial—one who claimed to be a son of god, one who claimed to be “Rex Iudaeorum” [king of the Jews].  While the former was a common Judaic trope (alt. “son of man”), the latter would have been seen as heretical by the Pharisees and as treasonous by the Roman authorities.}