The Syriac Origins of Koranic Text

APPENDIX:

The Koran has undergone a metamorphosis since its earliest days in Kufic script.  So it comes as no surprise that, over the course of the Middle Ages, numerous versions of Islam’s holy book came into existence.  Naturally, there have been different editions for different countries as the epochs progressed.  Let’s look at a dozen of the most notable:

• The Andalusian Koran (based on Warsh an-Naafi’s narrative chain): 10th century *
• The Persian Koran (most written in Pahlavi; others in eastern Kufic): 11th century **
• The Latin Koran: 12th century ***
• The (Kara-Khanid) Turkic Koran: late 12th / early 13th century
• The (Almohad / Marinid) Berber Koran (written in the Maghrebi script): 13th century
• The Ilkhanid Koran of Khan Uljeitu: 14th century
• The (Bihari) Indian Koran: 14th century
• The (Bahriyya) Mamluk Koran of Sultan Baybars: 14th century
• The (Burji) Mamluk Koran of Sultan Faraj: 15th century
• The (Mughal) Indian Koran: 16th century
• The (Diwani) Ottoman Koran: 16th century
• The Chinese Koran: 17th century

In the 11th century, the Seljuk Turks were using eastern Kufic for their Korans.  By c. 1300, the Seljuk Empire seems to have adopted the Naskh script, yet had retained eastern Kufic for chapter / verse designations.  The first Urdu, Bangla, and Javanese Korans weren’t created until the 19th century. ****

Each was composed according to the exigencies of the place and time (language, culture, geo-politics, and the interests of the rulers).  The differences are primarily a matter of stylization (rather than of substance).

It is quite remarkable that ANY of these alternate versions of Islam’s holy book have survived, considering that there would have certainly been a concerted attempt to systematically eradicate any and all texts that were different from the “official” version.  (This is especially striking when it comes to the ten EARLIEST manuscripts listed in the preceding essay.)

{*  Another Andalusian Koran, written in the Maghrebi script, was created in the 12th century.}

{**  There are claims—likely apocryphal—about the Samanid king, Mansur commissioning a translation in Pahlavi in the late 10th century.  In the 11th century, the Persian writer, Khwajah Abdullah Ansari of Herat [Khorasan] and his student were composing “tafsir” [commentaries] in Pahlavi. (!)  Tellingly, Persian Korans continued to be written in Kufic script into the 12th century.  Starting in the 12th century, many illuminated manuscripts came out of Persia—the most famous of which was the illuminated Koran of the Persian prince, Baysunqur ibn Shahrukh, produced in the 15th century.}

{***  The first Latin Koran was done by Robert of Ketton during his time in Pamplona c. 1143 (modified by Theodor Bibliander in 1550).  This served the basis for subsequent translations into other European languages—notably: Italian by Andrea Arrivabene in the 16th century and Castilian (Spanish) by Juan Andrés y Morell in the 18th century.  The former was used to create Salomon Schweigger’s German translation in 1616.  The first English translation was done by Scottish cleric, Alexander Ross of Aberdeen in 1649.  George Sale then did a translation in 1734.  Sale’s edition was the one Thomas Jefferson used (after he was prompted to procure a copy of Islam’s holy book while contending with the Barbary pirates).  The first widely-esteemed English translations were done by Marmaduke Pickthall and Abdullah Yusuf Ali in the 1930’s.  Interestingly, a Turkish translation was not done until the 1930’s (by Muhammed Hamdi Yazir), as the literary language of the Ottoman Empire had been Persian.}

{****  Though the Samudera Pasai Sultanate was established in Sumatra in the 13th century, there is no record of a Koran specific to Indonesia until the Javanese version.  The Malacca Sultanate on the Malay peninsula was established in the 15th century.  But it was not until the demise of the (Hindu) Maja-pahit dynasty in Java that Islam achieved supremacy in the region.  In the 1520’s, the Sultanate of Demak re-christened Sunda Kelapa as “Jayakarta”; and the rest was history.  The Padri uprising against Dutch colonialism in Sumatra (esp. in Minangkabau) in the 19th century—though unsuccessful—likely set the stage for the Javanese and Bahasa editions of the Koran.}

*  *  *

Postscript:

There remains some question about how, exactly, the transition was made from Syriac to CA (and, concomitantly, the Nabataean alphabet to the earliest distinctly Arabic script: Ma’il); and what may have occurred in the relevant circles.  During this transition period (much of which is lost to history), it is clear that there was extensive interaction between Syriac expositors (primarily Nestorians) and the early Mohammedans.  This would have surely had nontrivial effects on the latter.

In adducing the evidence, it becomes apparent that Mohammedan theologians developed modes of religious apologia (the so-called “ilm al-kalam”) from their interactions with (Syriac-speaking) Christian theologians who operated in intellectual centers like Basra and Baghdad–especially during the 8th and 9th centuries.  (See the work of M. Cook.)  As we’ve seen, the primary location for the development of Arabic was Kufa; hence the Kufic script serving as the orthographic intermediary between Nabataean / Estralanga and Ma’il.

Gabriel Bokhtisho of Gondeshapur [Bet(h) Lapaṭ] made contributions to the Syriac version of Origen’s “Hexapla” in the late 8th / early 9th century.  Interestingly, the “Syro-Hexapla” was originally composed by Paul of Tella [in Osroene].  That would have occurred during MoM’s early ministry in Mecca.  Clearly, there continued to be a pressing need–across the Middle East–to render the Septuagint in Syriac for centuries after MoM’s lifetime.

Syriac Patriarch, Timotheos I provided an account–IN SYRIAC–of his dialogue with the caliph, Al-Mahdi in early 9th century.  Those Syriac letters were only later translated into Arabic.  Timotheos I even went so far as to move his residence from Seleucia-Ctesiphon to Baghdad, where he could engage in discussions at the caliph’s court.  The famed debates were widely disseminated.  He recounted his conversations with the court scholars in several of his Syriac letters.

(For more on this matter, see Alphonse  Mingana’s “The Apologia of Timothy the Patriarch Before the Caliph Mahdi” from 1928.  Also see S. H.  Griffith’s “The Syriac Letters of Patriarch Timothy I and the Birth of Christian Kalam in the Mu‛tazilite Milieu of Baghdad and Basrah in Early Islamic Times” in Syriac polemics, Studies in Honour of G. J. Reinink; ed. W. J. van Bekkum, et. al.; 2007.)

During the 9th century, even Christians who composed some material in CA were Syriac-speaking scholars who opted to learn the new liturgical language of the Ishmaelites in order to engage in apologia and debate.  This was the case with major figures like Melkite writer, Theodoros Abu Qurra; Jacobite writer, Habib ibn Khidma Abu Raʾita; and Nestorian writer, Ammar al-Basri.  One of the first to start translating Syriac works into CA was Hunayn ibn Ishaq of Hirta [al-Hira] in the late 9th century.  As mentioned earlier, Hasan bar Bahlul would compile one of the first comprehensive Syriac-Arabic dictionaries in the 10th century.  That the need for such a glossary did not arise UNTIL the 10th century is quite telling.  (Had CA been in common usage since the 6th century, this delay would have been inexplicable.)

Starting in the 9th century, Arabic became the lingua franca in the Middle East; and so the go-to language for most writers–as attested by, say, the “Apocalypse Of Peter” (a.k.a. the “Ru’ya Butrus” [Vision Of Peter]; the “Kitab al-Magall” [Book Of Rolls]; see Footnote 60 above).  From then on, throughout the Muslim world, for most people the only alternative would have been Masoretic Hebrew (for Jews), Pahlavi (for Persians), Manichaean and Sogdian (for those living on the Silk Road), or Oghuz (for Seljuk Turks).  Only Syriac Christians (e.g. Chaldeans and Nestorians) continued to use some form of Syriac script (whether Estrangela, Madnhaya, or Serta); and even then only for liturgical purposes.

From the late 8th- to the mid-11th centuries, Syriac-speaking Christians played an integral role in the so-called Graeco-Arabic translation movement, centered in Baghdad.  In the late 9th / early 10th century, Syriac Christians like Abu Bishr Matta ibn Yunus of dayr Qunna and Yuhanna ibn Haylan were the teachers of the famed Abu Nasr al-Farabi.  In the 10th century, the most prominent philosopher in Baghdad was the Syriac Christian thinker, Yahya ibn Adi–who was a student of Al-Farabi.  And one of HIS students, Isa ibn Zur’a (another Syriac Christian who embraced Greek thought) ALSO earned renown in Baghdad.

By the beginning of the 11th century, Christians in the region were finally composing works in Arabic.  Notably: Syriac prelate, Elijah of Nisibis opted to compose his response to Ya’qub ibn Ishaq al-Kindi’s 9th-century “The Art of Dispelling Sorrows” in CA.  (However, Elijah still composed his magnum opus, the “Chronography” in Syriac.)

And in the 13th century, it was normal to compose major works in both Syriac and CA–as attested by Syriac thinkers like Abdisho bar Brkho of Sinjar [Beth Arbaye] and Bar Ebroyo.  By then, it had become de rigueur for scholars in the region to be bi-lingual in these two languages.

The interaction was, of course, a two-way street.  Medieval Syriac chronicles (notably: that of Mikho-El “Rabo” of Melitene, from the 12th century) incorporated the narratives of earlier Syriac chroniclers (esp. Dionysius of Tel Mahre).  They even included tales of MoM and descriptions of the Mohammedan creed.

But things would not remain so.  For over the course of the (European) Renaissance, it became increasingly apparent to Islamic apologists that the Syriac origins of CA (and of Islam ITSELF) must be elided in order to propound the myth that CA was god’s language…and that the ARABIC Koran was a verbatim transcript of god’s final message to mankind…which meant that MoM would have needed to have spoken CA…which would have entailed CA being the lingua franca of the region at the time…which meant that Syriac must NOT have been.

By the modern era, the systematic obfuscation of the Syriac basis for the Ishmaelite creed had taken its course.  What we are left with, then, is not so much a “just-so” story as it is a “just-not-so” story: a contrived history–a SACRED history–of Islam that is more apocryphal than it is historical.