2,856
edits
Dhul-Qarnayn and the Alexander Romance: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) (The consensus has strongly shifted towards a mid sixth century dating for the Neshana.) |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 195: | Line 195: | ||
==Relationship with the Syriac Legend== | ==Relationship with the Syriac Legend== | ||
The parallels between the Syriac Legend and the Qur'an detailed above are quite striking. As to the question of dependency, Van Bladel has argued that the Syriac Legend is a direct source for the Quranic account.<ref name="VanBladel"/> Tommaso Tesei | The parallels between the Syriac Legend and the Qur'an detailed above are quite striking. As to the question of dependency, Van Bladel has argued that the Syriac Legend is a direct source for the Quranic account.<ref name="VanBladel"/> Tommaso Tesei concurred with van Bladel's thesis, though allowed for the possibility that they shared a common source.<ref name="Tesei2013">Tommaso Tesei (2013) [https://www.academia.edu/10863446/ The Prophecy of Dhu-l-Qarnayn (Q 18:83-102) and the Origins of the Qurʾānic Corpus] Miscellanea arabica 2013–2014: 273-90</ref> He argued that, while the final part of the legend concerns Alexander's battles with the Persian king and is an allegory of the bloody conflict between Byzantines and Sasanids with a propaganda purpose to glorify Heraclius (important in dating its final redaction), it is clear that in the rest of the story, there are indeed multiple streams of earlier elements, which it shares with the Qur'an. Crucially, these appear in the same order in both versions. Tesei argued that while this sequencing could go back to a common source, he found it more plausible that the Syriac legend originated the particular composition, agreeing with van Bladel's argument that Alexander's journeys are intended to form the shape of a cross, and adding his own hypothesis that the story originally involved a failed attempt to reach paradise, removed in order to better glorify Heraclius (note that Tesei later revised some of his earlier views and now dates the Syriac Legend to the 6th century; see below). The elements pre-dating both the Qur'an and Syriac legend by many centuries include folklore found in earlier Christian and Jewish writings. Parallels to the ancient Epic of Gilgamesh and the Biblical story of Gog and Magog can be clearly identified in the story as well. | ||
===Epic of Gilgamesh=== | ===Epic of Gilgamesh=== | ||
| Line 230: | Line 230: | ||
===Dating the Syriac Legend=== | ===Dating the Syriac Legend=== | ||
Representing the old prevailing view, Dr. Reinink, a Near East philogist and scholar, influencially dated the legend to the early 7th century as a piece of pro-Byzantine propaganda, its purpose probably being to win the separated Syrian Christians back to a union with the church at Constantinople. | Representing the old prevailing view, Dr. Reinink, a Near East philogist and scholar, influencially dated the legend to the early 7th century as a piece of pro-Byzantine propaganda, its purpose probably being to win the separated Syrian Christians back to a union with the church at Constantinople. In this view, its final redaction, was composed by a Mesopotamian Christian probably in Amid or Edessa, in 629-636 CE after the victory of the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius over the Sasanian king Khusrau Parvez.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://books.google.com/books?id=PtxOXRlPMA0C|title= Gog and Magog in Early Eastern Christian and Islamic Sources|publisher= BRILL|author= Ed. Emeri J. van Donzel, Andrea Barbara Schmidt|page= 18|date= 2010|archiveurl= |deadurl=no}}</ref> | ||
Stephen Shoemaker has discussed the arguments of Reinink, van Bladel and Tesei's early writings on the topic, but argues that "it would appear that in its current form the Legend almost certainly updates an older version of the Legend that was composed in the early sixth century". In his view the hypothetical earlier version would incorporate the main elements of the story up to the first ex-eventu prophecy of the 514-515 CE Sabir Hun invasion mentioned above, which was circulating in the sixth century. Shoemaker states that "a clear majority" of scholars take this view, though Renink's view that the Legend represents a new composition of the 7th century "presently enjoys relative acceptance". Shoemaker notes that unlike Reinink, van Bladel at least attempts to explain the presence of the first prophecy, which holds no importance to the narrative (van Bladel suggests that it served as a verification for 7th century listeners to trust the later prophecies), though like Tesei, he is unconvinced in light of Czeglédy's findings mentioned above. For this and reasons of timing, he finds it most likely that the Quran depends on a 6th rather than 7th century version of the Legend.<ref>Stephen J. Shoemaker, [https://www.google.de/books/edition/The_Apocalypse_of_Empire/w9FwDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA79&printsec=frontcover The Apocalypse of Empire: Imperial Eschatology in Late Antiquity and Early Islam], University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018, pp. 79-86</ref> | Stephen Shoemaker has discussed the arguments of Reinink, van Bladel and Tesei's early writings on the topic, but argues that "it would appear that in its current form the Legend almost certainly updates an older version of the Legend that was composed in the early sixth century". In his view the hypothetical earlier version would incorporate the main elements of the story up to the first ex-eventu prophecy of the 514-515 CE Sabir Hun invasion mentioned above, which was circulating in the sixth century. Shoemaker states that "a clear majority" of scholars take this view, though Renink's view that the Legend represents a new composition of the 7th century "presently enjoys relative acceptance". Shoemaker notes that unlike Reinink, van Bladel at least attempts to explain the presence of the first prophecy, which holds no importance to the narrative (van Bladel suggests that it served as a verification for 7th century listeners to trust the later prophecies), though like Tesei, he is unconvinced in light of Czeglédy's findings mentioned above. For this and reasons of timing, he finds it most likely that the Quran depends on a 6th rather than 7th century version of the Legend.<ref>Stephen J. Shoemaker, [https://www.google.de/books/edition/The_Apocalypse_of_Empire/w9FwDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA79&printsec=frontcover The Apocalypse of Empire: Imperial Eschatology in Late Antiquity and Early Islam], University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018, pp. 79-86</ref> | ||
====Strong shift towards a 6th century dating==== | ====Strong shift towards a 6th century dating==== | ||
===== | =====Tommaso Tesei's revised analysis===== | ||
In 2023, | In 2023, Tommaso Tesei revised his earlier opinions (see above) in a detailed and well received book ''The Syriac Legend of Alexander's Gate: Apocalypticism at the Crossroads of Byzantium and Iran''.<ref>Tommaso Tesei, ''The Syriac Legend of Alexander's Gate: Apocalypticism at the Crossroads of Byzantium and Iran'', Oxford University Press, 2024</ref> His analysis finds that the ''Neṣḥānā '' (i.e. the Syriac Legend) was composed in the mid 6th century during the reign of Justinian, with a later redactor interpolating a short prophecy under the reign of Heraclius. He presents a detailed case which has pursuaded a number of prominent academic scholars including Sean Anthony.<ref>After being asked on x.com on 22 Dec 2023 "Do you find Tesei's dating of the Neshana compelling?" [https://x.com/IanCook321/status/1738002406947029450 (see here)], [https://x.com/ShahanSean/status/1738009790163664896 Sean Anthony replied] "Yes, but it's the whole package, not merely the redating." An account on x.com is needed to view the full thread.</ref> | ||
Firstly, the author of the | Firstly, the author of the Neṣḥānā has detailed geographical knowledge of the regions of Roman Armenia and its political matters in the 6th century, including the raiding of the area by the Sabir Huns at that time (Alexander's first prophecy, about the year 826 AG /515 CE).<ref>Ibid. pp. 17-20</ref> Tesei argues that the 2nd prophecy about the year 940 AG / 629 CE must be missing some words, as grammatically, it doesn't make sense, and in any plausible reconstruction cannot be about glorifying Heraclius (it was, after all, his Kok Turkic allies who invaded), but rather is an interpolation representing the redactor's hopes that these Huns (who invaded in 629 CE) and the Persians will destroy each other. He further argues that the 826 AG / 515 CE prophecy immediately preceding it makes most sense if composed in a 6th century setting in which there were repeated Sabir Hun invasions, since the text mentions a flaw in Alexander's wall - it is secured to the ground with bolts that have gaps large enough for tunnelling footsoldiers to pass through. This feature, Tesei argues, undermines van Bladel's belief that the entire text has a single author and was occasioned by the 629 CE Hun invasion. Van Bladel has argued that the fulfilled 515 CE prophecy was included merely to lend credence to the 2nd genuine prognostication. As Tesei points out, invasions due to Alexander's flawed defensive wall a century earlier and which played no role in the eschatological drama would be a highly dysfunctional choice to lend credence to Alexander's 2nd prophecy.<ref>Ibid. pp. 30-40</ref> | ||
Tesei also notices an important point about the first prophecy, which actually begins by prophecising an even earlier Hun invasion which subjugated the Romans and Persians, with the shooting of arrows, and returned to their own land. This is a reference to the Hun invasions of 395 CE, but the author seems unable to date it in his prophecy, unlike the much less significant 515 CE (826 AG) invasion. It is understandable that an original author writing within a few decades after the 515 CE invasion would be able to date it precisely, but could only mention without a date the much more significant invasion that had occurred more than a century earlier in 395 CE. It is less likely that an author could correctly date that relatively minor invasion if he was writing the entire | Tesei also notices an important point about the first prophecy, which actually begins by prophecising an even earlier Hun invasion which subjugated the Romans and Persians, with the shooting of arrows, and returned to their own land. This is a reference to the Hun invasions of 395 CE, but the author seems unable to date it in his prophecy, unlike the much less significant 515 CE (826 AG) invasion. It is understandable that an original author writing within a few decades after the 515 CE invasion would be able to date it precisely, but could only mention without a date the much more significant invasion that had occurred more than a century earlier in 395 CE. It is less likely that an author could correctly date that relatively minor invasion if he was writing the entire Neṣḥānā more than a century after 515 CE. Moreover, the elders speaking prior to the prophecies describe the exact territories where the 515 CE Sabir Hun invasions took place and the kinds of damage caused, which suggests the author had likely witnessed their devastation.<ref>Ibid. pp. 41-42</ref> | ||
Also significant are two 6th century writers, John Malasas, who associated the 515 CE Sabir Hun invasion with the Caspian gates, and John of Ephesus, who mentioned the invasion of Gog and Magog (but not the gates) in his own eschatological prophecy.<ref>Ibid. p. 43</ref> | Also significant are two 6th century writers, John Malasas, who associated the 515 CE Sabir Hun invasion with the Caspian gates, and John of Ephesus, who mentioned the invasion of Gog and Magog (but not the gates) in his own eschatological prophecy.<ref>Ibid. p. 43</ref> | ||
A major indication of a 6th century context for the | A major indication of a 6th century context for the Neṣḥānā is Alexander's negotiation with Tubarlaq, King of the Persains after defeating him. Alexander extracts peace terms including tribute, and having done so, then agrees to military and financial cooperation in defending the Caucasus passes against Hunnic invasion. Tesei argues that this reflects popular concerns, apparent in various 6th century Byzantine writers who sought to assuage them, regarding the deals their own side had made with the Sassanids, as well as the latter's unreasonable demands about sharing security costs. These writers, and their own side's negotiators, had been anxious that peace payments to the Persians should not be perceived as tribute. The Byzantines had also resisted any linking of such payments to demands to share the financial or military cost of defending the Caucasus passes. In the Neṣḥānā, Alexander's cooperative agreement reflects the kind of non extortive, mutual assistance pacts these writers claimed had supposedly occurred in the past between the two empires. It ceased to be a hot topic and was never raised again with the Fifty Year Peace deal of 562 CE in which the Sassanid demands were dropped as they agreed to secure the Caucasus themselves and the Byzantines to never invade.<ref>Ibid. pp. 52, 57-59</ref> | ||
Yet another specifically mid 6th century context in the | Yet another specifically mid 6th century context in the Neṣḥānā is identified by Tesei in the otherwise puzzlingly detailed role of the Egyptian blacksmiths. Details of the story serve to justify Byzantine rule over Lazica, close to the Caucasian passes: Both were said to be of Egyptian origin and became vassals to the Neṣḥānā's Alexander/the Byzantine empire without paying tribute but only customs duties. The Neṣḥānā's blacksmiths provide 7,000 men to help Alexander, the same number that Justian sent to aid the Lazis in their 547 CE anti-Persian uprising. The Lazis were also seen as useful non-Persian allies to defend the Caucusus from the Huns. These mid 6th century political concerns are given a historic parallel in the Neṣḥānā's story of Alexander.<ref>Ibid. 59-67</ref> | ||
The rest of Tesei's book argues that various aspects of the Alexander-Tubarlaq story in the | The rest of Tesei's book argues that various aspects of the Alexander-Tubarlaq story in the Neṣḥānā do not fit an early 7th century Heraclius context, but rather reflect the writer's criticisms of Justian's agreements with the Sassanids, while also mocking the latter through the character of Tubarlaq. The story also served to counter specific propaganda from the Syriac Christian leadership, particularly Mar Aba, who interpreted sacred history in ways favourable to their Sassanid rulers. Ultimately, the Neṣḥānā's prophecies aim to raise hopes among Syriac Christians that universal rule will transfer to the Romans in the eschatological grand scheme of things. | ||
=====Muriel Debie's analysis===== | =====Muriel Debie's analysis===== | ||
In 2024 Muriel Debie, a historian of the Syriac world, similarly dated the Ur-text of the | In 2024 Muriel Debie, a historian of the Syriac world, similarly dated the Ur-text of the Neṣḥānā to the sixth century. Her main reason is that with changing threats, the wall defensive systems against the Huns mentioned in the text had lost their importance after the mid sixth century, and the importance of a Greek (Roman)-Persian mutual defence treaty against the Huns similarly reflects the early sixth century situation. She also argues that the wall construction techniques mentioned in the text are evidence for an earlier dating.<ref>Muriel Debie (2024), ''Alexandre le Grand en Syriaque: Maitre des lieux, des savoirs etdes temps'' (Alexander the Great in Syriac: Master of places, knowledge and times), Les Belles Lettres<BR />For machine translated English of the relevant pages, see [https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/comments/1g0naod/muriel_debie_on_the_dating_of_the_syriac/ this Reddit/r/AcademicQuran thread].</ref> | ||
===Dating the Qur'anic Verses=== | ===Dating the Qur'anic Verses=== | ||