The prophecy of Ḏū-l-Qarnayn (Q 18:83-102) and the Origins of the Qurʾānic Corpus

Transcription

1 Tommaso Tesei, Van Leer Jerusalem Institute The prophecy of Ḏū-l-Qarnayn (Q 18:83-102) and the Origins of the Qurʾānic Corpus 1.1. Introduction 1 One of the most singular characters of 7 th c. Middle Eastern literature is the pious king Alexander of Syriac apocalypses. In several texts, Alexander the Great is described as the mythical founder of the Byzantine Empire and as the recipient of prophecies concerning the end of times. The most ancient of these Syriac apocalypses is a prose work composed around 629 and entitled Neṣḥānā d-leh d- Aleksandrōs, the victory of Alexander 2. This text must have been quite widespread in the years immediately following its redaction. In fact, it was known and used as source by the author of a Syriac metrical homely (mēmrā) falsely ascribed to Jacob of Sarug and composed before Furthermore, the eschatological vision and ideology expressed in the Neṣḥānā inspired the authors of two other Syriac apocalypses written in the second half of the 7 th c.: the sermon on the end of the world of Pseudo-Ephrem 4 and the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius 5. 1 My thanks to Gabriel Said Reynolds, Guillaume Dye, Nicolai Sinai and Christopher Melchert for their comments on different versions of this article. 2 Syriac text and English trans. in Wallis-Budge 1889: (trans.), (text). French trans. in Bohas 2009: Syriac text and German trans. in Reinink 1983 (text: vol. 1; trans.: vol 2). English trans. in Wallis-Budge 1889: Syriac text and German trans. in: Beck 1972: vol. 1, (text), vol. 2, (trans.). French trans. in Bohas 2009: Syriac text and German translation in Reinink 1993b (text: vol 1; trans.: vol. 2). French trans. in Bohas 2009: For a discussion of the dates of composition of these texts and 273

2 274 TommasoTesei As has long been recognized by scholarship, the story told in the Neṣḥānā also displays strong similarities with the narrative concerning Ḏū-l-Qarnayn at vv of sūrat al-kahf. The first scholar to notice the relationship between the Syriac and the Qurʾānic accounts was Nöldeke, who considered the former to be the source of the latter 6. Despite its very important implications for the study of the Qurʾān, Nöldeke s hypothesis has long been forgotten (or ignored) by scholars. Only recently van Bladel has re-examined the relationship between the two texts in light of new outcomes about the date and context of composition of the Neṣḥānā 7. Through a thorough analysis van Bladel highlights the numerous elements shared by the stories told in the two texts. As the Alexander of the Syriac work, the protagonist of the Qurʾānic account travels at the two edges of the Earth before reaching the place where he builds the wall against Gog and Magog. In both texts, the construction of the eschatological barrier is followed by the emission of a prophecy about events concerning the end of times. Other specific details of the Qurʾānic story match precise correspondences with elements found in the Syriac work. Still more significantly, the common points between the two stories always appear in the same order. When comparing the two texts, it clearly appears that in both of them the same story is described by following the same narrative structure. At the end of his analysis van Bladel infers that the size and precision of these common elements can be explained only by identifying the Neṣḥānā as the source of the Qurʾānic passage 8. According to him, the other two possible explanations, i.e., that either the Syriac work depends on the Qurʾānic pericope or the two texts refer to a common source, are both to be dismissed. While agreeing with van Bladel s analysis, it seems to me that its outcomes require to be corroborated by further arguments. In the following pages I will present some evidence about the connection their mutual relationships, see the several works published by G. J. Reinink (1983: vol. 2, 1-10; 1992 ; 1993a ; and above all 2003). 6 Nöldeke 1890: In fact, the Syriac text is to be traced back to the thirties of the 7th c. and not to the first quarter of the 6th as Nöldeke thought (see Czeglédy 1957: esp. pp ; Reinink 2003:155-65). It should be noticed that contrary to Nöldeke, van Bladel also considers vv. 18: as belonging to the original core of the Qurʾānic story of Ḏū-l-Qarnayn (van Bladel 2007a). 8 In another article van Bladel also points out that early Arabic traditions refer to elements of the Neṣḥānā that are not evocated in the Qurʾānic account (van Bladel 2007b).

3 The prophecy of Ḏū-l-Qarnayn (Q 18:83-102) and the Origins 275 between the two texts that, as far as I know, had not yet been noticed. Furthermore, I will reexamine the question about the nature of this philological link, and more precisely whether being direct or indirect. The analysis will also extend to the mēmrā by Pseudo-Jacob of Sarug, that as the Qurʾānic pericope on Ḏū l-qarnayn is in turn connected to the Syriac Neṣḥānā The Narrative Structure of the Neṣḥānā The story told in the Neṣḥānā is articulated in three main parts (henceforth addressed to parts 1, 2 and 3). In part 1, Alexander undertakes a journey until reaching the edges of the Earth. He first meets a sea of fetid waters (yamā saryā) which he unsuccessfully attempts to cross. Then he reaches the place of the sunset, where he and his troops enter the window of heaven. Following the Sun s night path, they arrive at the place of the sunrise 9. In part 2, Alexander travels until the region of the Caucasus. Here, he meets local people who complain about the incursions of the Huns, among whose leaders are Gog and Magog. Alexander commands his followers to build a wall against the Huns and, once the task is achieved, he announces a prophecy which he orders to be engraved upon the door of the wall. The prophecy predicts the future incursion of the Huns and other events to come at the end of times. In part 3, Alexander engages a conflict with the king of the Persians Tūbarlaq, whom he eventually defeats. After stipulating an armistice, Alexander goes to Jerusalem where he establishes his throne. The story told in part 3 is an allegory of the bloody conflict between Byzantines and Sasanids that went on during the first three decades of the 7 th century. This part of the Neṣḥānā is to be considered as a genuine product of its author, who retro-projects contemporary events in accordance with a specific propagandistic agenda, whose aim was to glorify Heraclius victory over the Sasanians and to support his religious policy in the re-conquered territories 10. The conflict between Alexander and the Persians told in part 3 is paralleled by a similar episode in the mēmrā of Pseudo-Jacob, while it is absent in Q 18: On this curious way of travelling, its antecedents in the Epic of Gilgamesh and its reflection in the Qur anic story of Ḏū-l-Qarnayn, see: van Bladel 2007c. 10 Cf. Reinink 2003: ; id. 2002:

4 276 TommasoTesei Contrary to part 3, in parts 1 and 2 the author has re-elaborated previous traditions. As for part 1, several elements of the story of Alexander s travels are reminiscent of the Epic of Gilgamesh 11. Other echoes of the ancient Babylonian poem are to be found in different versions of the story of Alexander s quest for immortality, that are preserved in previous and contemporary sources: the recension β of the Alexander Romance (text L: II, 39-41), the Babylonian Talmud (Tamīd, 32b) and, interestingly, the mēmrā of Pseudo-Jacob 12 and the Qurʾānic passage immediately preceding the story of Ḏū-l-Qarnayn (e.g., Q 18:60-82) 13. The presence of these elements outspread among various Alexander stories and related traditions points to the existence of a late antique version of the Epic of Gilgamesh where Alexander had replaced the ancient hero as protagonist. The fact that the most striking reminiscences of the Epic occur in the Neṣḥānā and in the mēmrā suggests that the literary legacy of the Babylonian poem were particularly vivid in the Alexander traditions circulating in the Syro- Aramaic world. The story told in part 1 of the Neṣḥānā must have been drawn by this kind of previous traditions. As for part 2, it is very probable that the story of the wall against Gog and Magog also circulated before the redaction of the Neṣḥānā, even if the latter contains the oldest extant attestation. A possible connection between the Biblical motif of Gog and Magog and a tradition about iron gates built by Alexander already occurs in the work of Josephus though being bare of any apocalyptic connotation. Other possible hints to the story of Alexander s wall are found in the 11 The connection between Gilgameh s and Alexander s stories was first noticed by Meissner (Meissner 1894). The same issue has recently been examined by Henkelman in an excellent and detailed article (Henkelman 2010). Some insightful remarks by van Bladel in van Bladel 2007a: 197, n. 6. See also my previous study in Tesei On this episode within the poem of Pseudo-Jacob see the discussion below. 13 This passage evokes the episode of Alexander s fortuitous discovery of the source of life. However, the story told in these verses has as protagonist Moses instead of Alexander. In a very influential article, Wensinck identifies the Epic of Gilgamesh among the (three) sources of this Qurʾānic pericope (Wensinck EI 2 : 935). Thus, he indicates a number of gilgameshian echoes in Q 18: However, it is likely that rather than directly deriving by the Babylonian epic, these echoes passed in the Qurʾān through the mediation of the traditions concerning Alexander that Wensinck himself recognizes as one of the sources of Moses story. A very confused (and confusing) discussion about the relationship between Q 18:60-82 and various texts concerning both Alexander and Gilgamesh is found in Wheeler On the possible reasons of the replacement of Alexander by Moses and, more generally, on the way the Qurʾān evocates the Alexander story of the water of life, see my recent study in Tesei forthcoming.

5 The prophecy of Ḏū-l-Qarnayn (Q 18:83-102) and the Origins 277 works of Jerome where, as in the Neṣḥānā, Gog and Magog are identified with the Huns - and Isidore of Seville 14. Even if it is not possible to determine in which form the story circulated in earlier times, it seems that also part 2 of the Neṣḥānā is based on previous traditions. It is also evident that the story of Alexander s wall was originally separated from the previous episode of the Syriac work. This clearly appears when considering the discrepancy between the geographical data present in the two moments of the narration. In fact, we move from a passage from a mythical geography, filled with fantastic and odd elements, to a concrete one where we can clearly recognize sites of the Caucasian region. The version of the story of Alexander s wall that the Syriac author included in the Neṣḥānā probably originated in that geographical area. It is important to observe that the narrative sequence of the stories in parts 1 and 2 has no antecedents in previous extant sources. In other words, previous texts containing elements of the story in part 1 (i.e., the above mentioned passages from the Alexander Romance and from the Babylonian Talmud) do not contain any element of the story in part 2. In much the same way, the passages from Josephus, Jerome and Isidore that possibly allude to antecedents of the story in part 2, do not mention any elements of the story in part 1. By contrast, the same combination of two originally independent traditions is found in two sources contemporary to the redaction of the Neṣḥānā: the mēmrā of Pseudo-Jacob and the Qurʾānic pericope on Ḏū-l-Qarnayn. These texts feature the same way of combining the two pre-existing traditions: the episode of the wall against Gog and Magog always comes behind that about Alexander s journey at the edges of the Earth. Not only the two Syriac sources and the Qurʾānic pericope evocate the same stories, but they also share the order in which previous traditions are organized in the narration. It is also noticeable that the three sources reflect how previous materials have been re-worked. This clearly appears when considering the passages of the three texts dealing with the episode of the Fetid Sea (ʿayn ḥamiʾa in the Qurʾānic account, cf. v. 86). In part 1 of the Neṣḥānā, Alexander travels at the edges of the Earth to see what the heavens are based on and what encircles the whole creation. However, his desire is frustrated by the impossibility 14 On the possible references of the myth of Alexander s wall in these sources see: van Donzel & Schmidt 2010: See also: Czeglédy 1957:

6 278 TommasoTesei to cross the Fetid Sea. In a following passage (in part 2), the wise men of the Caucasian region tell Alexander that God encircled Paradise with the Fetid Sea - also named as Ocean (ūqīanūs) - so that men could not approach the holy place. The idea of a Paradise located across an encircling ocean was quite widespread during Late Antiquity. Nevertheless, it is significant that in the Neṣḥānā this ocean coincides with the Fetid Sea that Alexander fails to cross. It is plausible that in a previous version of the story it was not the desire to explore the edges of the world that pushed Alexander to pass over that empoisoned ocean, but rather his intention to reach Paradise. It should be noticed that the story of Alexander s attempt to enter Paradise is recorded in the passages of the Alexander Romance and of the Babylonian Talmud mentioned above. Actually, the Neṣḥānā also contains a clear allusion to this episode: God made four rivers to go forth from the Paradise of Eden. As He knew that men would dare to go up these rivers to enter Paradise, He drew them inside the earth and brought them through valleys, mountains, and plains [ ] As for Paradise, He surrounded it with seas, rivers, and the ocean, the Fetid Sea, so that men cannot get close to it, nor can they see where the rivers have their source [ ] 15. Given the context, it is almost impossible not to take this passage as referring to the story of Alexander s unsuccessful journey to Paradise. In particular, the text seems to evocate elements also reported in the Babylonian Talmud, where the hero tries to reach the holy place by following the course of one of its rivers. Furthermore, it is significant that the Neṣḥānā credits the Fetid Sea with the function of preventing people to enter Paradise. In fact, this represents another hint that Alexander s aim to cross the poisonous waters was originally connected to his intention of reaching the immortal land. Thus, the philological evidence shows that in the Neṣḥānā an episode about Alexander s journey to Paradise has been cut off from the narration. Now, it is important to notice that this same editorial choice is reflected in both the mēmrā of Pseudo-Jacob and Q 18: In fact, both texts feature the event of the Fetid Sea without mentioning the 15 Syriac text in: Wallis-Budge 1889: 206.

7 The prophecy of Ḏū-l-Qarnayn (Q 18:83-102) and the Origins 279 original development of the narrative concerning the journey to Paradise The Relationship Between the Texts What has so far emerged is that the Neṣḥānā, the mēmrā of Pseudo- Jacob and the Qurʾānic pericope on Ḏū-l-Qarnayn reflect how preexisting traditions have been re-worked and combined in a single narration. Since it is improbable that three authors made the same choices independently from each other, one may assume that a philological link is implied. Now, the crux is to determine whether the editorial process reflected in the three texts is peculiar to one of them, the other two being influenced by its narrative structure, or is to be ascribed to a previous author whose work provided a common model. The first possibility to be dismissed is that Q 18: be the source of the other two texts. In fact, there is no compelling reason to assume that the Qurʾānic account was already in circulation before the composition of the Neṣḥānā and the mēmrā 16. However, even assuming that it was, it still remains unlikely that a Syriac Christian author from North Mesopotamia (i.e., the place where both Syriac works have probably been composed 17 ) had knowledge of such tradition at a time when the Qurʾānic literary material was hardly known outside the Early Muslim community. Furthermore, because of its very nature, the narrative in Q 18: could difficulty have provided a model for the authors of the Syriac apocalypses. In fact, as is typical of Qurʾānic narratives, the account on Ḏū-l-Qarnayn is highly allusive and implies references to previous and more developed traditions. Van Bladel reasonably observes that if the author of the Neṣḥānā had used Q 18: as source, then the Syriac text would have to be seen as a highly expanded version of the Qurʾānic account, which would then need to be understood as an attempt to explain the cryptic Qurʾānic story with rationalizations drawn from stories about Alexander. However, the Syriac text contains no references to the Arabic language the type of which one might expect to find if its purpose was to explain an Arabic text 18. This same observation can 16 The problems of chronology of Q 18: will be discussed in the second part of this article. 17 Cf. Reinink 2003: Van Bladel 2007a: 189.

8 280 TommasoTesei be extended to the case of the mēmrā, whose author either might hardly have drawn elements on Q 18: To consider the mēmrā of Pseudo-Jacob as the source of the Neṣḥānā and the Qurʾānic account is also unlikely for several reasons. With regards to the relation between the two Syriac sources, Reinink observes that no scholar has seriously considered the possibility that the Legend [i.e., the Neṣḥānā] is dependent on the Poem [i.e., the mēmrā]. And indeed, the very fact that the Legend represents a consistent and coherent story, containing materials that are lacking in the Poem, makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to assume the Poem s priority over the Legend 19. At the same time, it is not possible to postulate the dependence of Q 18: upon the mēmrā. In fact, the Qurʾānic story of Ḏū-l-Qarnayn features elements and episodes that occur in the Neṣḥānā but not in the homily of Pseudo- Jacob. For instance, Ḏū-l-Qarnayn s promise of punishment of the wrongdoers at v. 87 parallels the execution of the evil-doers in the Neṣḥānā 20, while a similar episode is lacking in the mēmrā. Furthermore, Ḏū-l-Qarnayn s travels along the sky-ways (asbāb) correspond to Alexander s journey on the Sun s night path described in the Neṣḥānā 21, though any reference to this odd way of travelling is missing in the work of Pseudo-Jacob. The things being so, the philological link among the three texts can be explained only by four possible hypotheses, simplified in the following graphic: Vorlage Vorlage Neṣḥānā mēmrā Neṣḥānā mēmrā Q 18: Q 18: Hyp. 1 Hyp Reinink 2003: On this common point between the two stories see: van Bladel 2007a: Cf. ibid.: 182; van Bladel 2007c.

9 The prophecy of Ḏū-l-Qarnayn (Q 18:83-102) and the Origins 281 Vorlage Neṣḥānā Neṣḥānā Q 18: mēmrā Q 18: mēmrā Hyp. 3 Hyp. 4 Let us now analyze these four possibilities case by case. A first difficulty with Hyp. 1 emerges when considering elements that do not simultaneously appear in all of them. As already observed, the two Syriac sources present an episode which is absent in Q 18: (i.e., Alexander s victorious campaign against the Persians) while, by contrast, the Neṣḥānā and the Qurʾānic story feature elements lacking in the mēmrā. Now, if the three texts shared a Vorlage, one might expect that Q 18: and the mēmrā also presented exclusive common points at the exclusion of the Neṣḥānā. Nevertheless, this is not the case. The only possible exclusive common element is represented by the episode of the quest for the water of life, that occurs in the mēmrā (between parts 1 and 2) and in the Qurʾānic pericope preceding Q 18: (i.e., Q 18:60-82). In this case, the implication would be that the hypothetical Vorlage featured the episode of the water of life and that this episode was preserved in the mēmrā and in the Qurʾānic account but not in the Neṣḥānā. However, this view involves several difficulties. Above all, this would imply the original unity of the two consecutive Qurʾānic pericopes in Q 18:60-82 and 18: This implication is not impossible, since sūrat al-kahf presents a stylistic and thematic coherence. However, even in this case the situation would remain problematic, for Q 18:60-82 appears as an independent narrative separated from the one concerning Ḏū-l-Qarnayn. Furthermore, it might be noticed that the story also presents strong differences with the version of the episode of the source of life told in the mēmrā, the most evident being the presence of Moses instead of Alexander as protagonist. Of course, one may speculate that the author of the long

10 282 TommasoTesei Qurʾānic passage (i.e., 18:60-102) drew material from the hypothetical Vorlage, that he used this material to elaborate an independent account about Moses and that he put this account aside the one on Ḏūl-Qarnayn which he had derived from the same source. This is a complex explanation, but not an impossible one. However, the possibility that the Syriac and the Qurʾānic authors took the episode of the water of life from a common source still remains improbable. What really makes it difficult are the several elements suggesting that rather than deriving from a possible Vorlage, the episode in the mēmrā has been interpolated by the Syriac author. Reinink has convincingly argued that Pseudo-Jacob inserted the story of the quest for the immortality with the specific homilitic purpose of showing that eternal life does not belong to this mortal and woeful life, but to the coming age of the eternal kingdom of heaven. 22 The episode of the water of life told in the mēmrā actually appears as an elaboration of a more ancient version of the story. 23 The Syriac author has combined this episode with other sources he used, among which the Neṣḥānā occupies a prominent position. The possibility that the Syriac text provided a model for the mēmrā had already been envisaged by Nöldeke, who argued the former to be the source of the latter. While other scholars have claimed, by contrast, that the two Syriac texts descend from a common source, 24 Reinink has definitively demonstrated that Pseudo-Jacob composed a metrical version of the Neṣḥānā as a reaction to its propagandistic and political issues. This happened in a context of doctrinal disputes, where Monophysites affirmed their communal identity against Heraclius religious policy of ecclesiastical unification. 25 Going back to the four hypotheses formulated above, we can dismiss both Hyp. 1 and 2, since the two Syriac texts do not share a common source. Now, the extant (and more important) question to be answered is whether a Vorlage lays behind the philological link 22 Reinink 2003: In my Phd dissertation I have exposed further evidences that prove that the episode of the water of life is interpolated. In fact, the narratological analisis shows that Pseudo-Jacob has modeled an earlier version of the story after narrative patterns found in the Neṣḥānā more specifically in the episode of the execution of prisoners at the Fetid Sea. I plan to present these evidences in a coming article where I will analyze the late antique developments of the legend of the water of life. 24 See the synopsis provided by Bohas in Bohas 2009: Reinink 2003:

11 The prophecy of Ḏū-l-Qarnayn (Q 18:83-102) and the Origins 283 between the Neṣḥānā and Q 18: (Hyp. 3) or if the Syriac text is the direct source of the Qurʾānic pericope (Hyp. 4). Concerning Hyp. 3, in his study van Bladel observes: the only way to posit a common source is to assume that everything held in common between the Qurʾānic account and the Syriac Alexander Legend [i.e., the Neṣḥānā] could have been written for and would have made sense in an earlier context. 26 Van Bladel particularly focuses on the prophecy about the incursion of Gog and Magog emitted by Alexander/Ḏū-l-Qarnayn in the two accounts. Referring to Reinink s studies, he stresses that the Alexander prophecy in the Neṣḥānā was composed with the specific purpose to serve as a pro-heraclius propaganda in the historical milieu of CE. According to him, since the Qurʾānic story refers to the same prophecy, the possibility of a common source is to be dismissed. With van Bladel s own words: If Alexander s prophecy was composed just for this purpose at this time, then the correspondence between the Syriac and the Arabic, which contains the same prophecy reworded, cannot be due to an earlier, shared source. 27 Actually, this is the most critical point of van Bladel s analysis. In fact, some elements suggest that also in this case the author of the Neṣḥānā has re-elaborated pre-existing materials, among which a previous form of Alexander s prophecy. A key element of the prophecy told in the Neṣḥānā is the prognostication about two future incursions of the Huns from behind the wall erected by Alexander. The time of these incursions is clearly indicated by two dates: 826 AG (i.e., Anno Graecorum or Seleucid era), corresponding to CE, and 940 AG corresponding to CE. As has long been noticed by scholars, both predictions are vaticinia ex eventu that refer to the incursion of the Sabirs in CE and that of the Khazars around 627 CE. In the Neṣḥānā these nomadic populations from Central Asia are addressed to with the collective designation of Huns. To refer to real historical events as having been foretold in ancient times is a typical device of apocalyptic texts. Through these vaticinia the author wants his reader to identify the nomadic invasions predicted by Alexander with those really occurred in the immediate past. The reader is thus brought to consider the prophecy as reliable, since some of its predictions appear as having already been 26 Van Bladel 2007a: Ibid.:

12 284 TommasoTesei accomplished. Once achieved the reader s trust, the author passes to the elaboration of a real prognostication about the future that expresses his own expectations about the developments of sacred history. In this overlapping between fiction and reality, the second date referred to in Alexander s prophecy performs a crucial role as it represents the starting point of the real prognostication of the author. Now, it should be noticed that the function of prediction of the first Huns invasion is much less clear. According to van Bladel, this invasion, which holds no importance in the narrative, serves just as a key for the contemporary audience of the text that they can use to verify the accuracy of the second, more elaborate prophecy, associated with a later date 28. This reading is not entirely satisfactory. Czeglédy more convincingly argues that the Syriac author used a previous form of the prophecy and he adapted it to the contemporary historical context by adding the reference to the second date. Indeed, there is evidence that a prophecy about the invasion of the Huns/Sabirs in CE already circulated in the years preceding the redaction of the Neṣḥānā. Czeglédy draws the attention to a passage of the Lives of the Eastern Saints by John of Ephesus (d. 586 ca.), who was an inhabitant of the Caucasian region touched by that nomadic invasion. In his work he reports about a revelation (gelyānā) predicting the arrival of the Huns 29. By the mid of the 6 th century, when John was writing, the nomadic populations of Central Asia had constantly been identified with the Biblical Gog and Magog and sometimes connected with the motif of Alexander s gates though no prediction about their coming from behind the wall is ever mentioned by previous authors. On these grounds, it is conceivable that the motif of Alexander s prophecy reported in the Neṣḥānā already took shape some decades before the composition of the Syriac apocalypse. It is likely that the author of the latter has adapted to contemporary events a previous tradition foretelling the invasion of the nomadic population. In that case, the reference to 826 AG would represent a legacy of the earlier stage of the prophecy, while that to 940 AG would be an indicator of the more recent development elaborated by the author. Now a question arises: if a previous version of the prophecy existed, could 28 Ibid.: John of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern Saints: 78. It is a bit surprising that van Bladel does not acknowledge this source. In fact, the reference to the passage from John of Ephesus occurs in Czeglédy s article that van Bladel mentions in his bibliography.

13 The prophecy of Ḏū-l-Qarnayn (Q 18:83-102) and the Origins 285 have been included in an early text that already featured the narrative structure and the editorial choices later reflected in the Neṣḥānā and Q 18:83-102? Put in different terms, could the pre-existence of the Alexander prophecy on the Huns be an argument in favor of Hyp. 3, that is, of the presence of a Vorlage behind the Syriac and the Qurʾānic texts? Commenting on the passage of John of Ephesus quoted above, Czeglédy infers: We can hardly interpret this very important date in any other way than by supposing that, in the lifetime of John of Ephesus, that is, in the middle of the 6 th century, the Syriac apocalyptic Legend concerning Alexander was already in existence 30. This view presents several problems. It should first be observed that Czeglédy does not clarify what does he exactly mean by the Syriac apocalyptic Legend concerning Alexander and, in particular, whether he considers this supposed early stage of the legend (henceforth referred to through the acronym SESL) to have included only the episode of the wall against the Huns or also the other narrative components found in the Neṣḥānā (i.e., those in part 1). The second view seems to be implied, since Czeglédy considers the SESL to be the model used by both authors of the Neṣḥānā and the mēmrā 31. It follows that, if these two works were independent re-adaptations of a previous tradition, all elements they share must have necessarily already occurred in their source. In this case, the SESL must have featured much the same episodes later occurring in the Neṣḥānā and in the mēmrā. Nevertheless, as noticed above, to trace the two Syriac texts back to a common source does not appear as a suitable explanation for the link between them. Actually, the passage of John of Ephesus examined by Czeglédy provides us only with a case for an earlier stage of Alexander s prophecy on the Huns. And also in this case the evidence is less compelling than the Hungarian scholar suggests. In fact, no reference to Alexander or to the eschatological barrier is mentioned in John s report. It may well be that the author of the Neṣḥānā adapted a previous prophecy on the Huns, that arose because of their identification with the Biblical Gog and Magog but that was originally independent from the motif of Alexander s wall. This is far from being impossible as no prophecy on Gog and Magog preceding the redaction of Neṣḥānā 30 Czeglédy 1957: Ibid.:

14 286 TommasoTesei features the motif of the eschatological barrier 32. That said, the possibility that in the middle of the 6 th century the prophecy on the Huns was already set in the framework of the story of Alexander s wall is a concrete one. But, the only thing we can reasonably infer with the available data is that an early version of the episode existed and that the author of the Neṣḥānā re-adapted it to the needs of his narration. Nothing suggests that in earlier times the story of Alexander s wall and the related prophecy had already been linked to the other narrative components featured in the Neṣḥānā. Pace Czeglédy, there is no evidence that the Syriac author drew a unique account from a previous text. Actually, there are good reasons to think that he rather derived different episodes from independent sources and that he pasted them together in a new original narrative. It should be noted that the way that these pre-existing stories are combined in the Neṣḥānā is well explained when considering the agenda of its author. Van Bladel makes an insightful remark about the four directions toward which Alexander travels in the Neṣḥānā. In fact, the various episodes are put together in order that Alexander s travels trace a cross on the whole world. Van Bladel quite convincingly relates this symbolic evocation to the hopes about a future Byzantine cosmocratic empire that the author of the Neṣḥānā expresses in his work 33. Political and ideological reasons also offer a satisfactory explanation for the episode which we have seen to have been excluded from the narration that is, the one concerning Alexander s journey to Paradise. In fact, this omission acquires its full meaningfulness when considering what the character of Alexander represented for the composer of the Neṣḥānā. As Reinink has shown, the Syriac author aims to create an Alexander-Heraclius typology: the reader must understand the glorious gesta accomplished by the former in the past as being repeating in the present by the latter. Thus, Alexander becomes the classical example of the ideal Christian emperor, who considers and fulfills his wordly task in conformity with God s will and with God s assistance 34. From this perspective, it becomes clear that the author of the Syriac apocalypse had substantial reasons to cut the episode of the journey to Paradise off from his 32 Cf. van Donzel & Schmidt 2010: chap.s 1 & Van Bladel 2007a: Reinink 2003: 162.

15 The prophecy of Ḏū-l-Qarnayn (Q 18:83-102) and the Origins 287 work. Indeed, in the Neṣḥānā the attempt to reach Paradise is envisaged in strongly negative terms, as it clearly appears from the passage quoted above. Therefore, it is quite reasonable to think that the author of the Syriac work preferred to omit an episode that could put his hero in an embarrassing position. Thus, the author of the Neṣḥānā appears as the most plausible actor responsible for the process of pasting together and cutting out episodes within and from the narration. His editorial choices are reflected in the Qurʾānic story of Ḏū-l-Qarnayn. The Qurʾān presents the account in the same way it is presented in the Neṣḥānā and omits the very episode which the Syriac author excluded from the narration. 1.4 Conclusions Putting the elements emerged from this investigation aside those of van Bladel s study, it seems to me that we have enough compelling evidence to consider the Neṣḥānā as the source of Q 18: (hyp. 4, among the four previously formulated). Nonetheless, a further argument can be adduced to strengthen this view. As Reinink has shown, the Neṣḥānā played a key role in the diffusion of the legend of Alexander s wall in the 7 th c. literary circles of the Middle East 35. Several sources testify the considerable success the Syriac work enjoyed in the years immediately following its redaction in 629 CE. Between 635 and 640, Pseudo-Jacob used it as a source in the composition of his metrical homily. Few more decades later, both Pseudo-Ephrem and Pseudo-Methodius referred to the story and to the ideology contained in the Neṣḥānā to elaborate new concepts of sacred history in response to the rise of Islām. It is very difficult to believe the presence of a related tradition in the Qurʾān to be unrelated to the wide circulation that the Neṣḥānā was enjoying in the very same years of the emergence of the Muslim community. As I will show elsewhere, the introduction of the story of the wall against Gog and Magog in the Qurʾān s theological discourse must be related to the lively process of re-interpretation and re-adaptation of the contents of the Syriac work in the decades following its composition. 35 Cf. Reinink 2003.

16 288 TommasoTesei Bibliografia John of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern Saints, ed. E. W. Brooks (Patrologia Orientalis 17.1) E. Beck, Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers, Sermones III, CSCO 320, 321, Script. Syri 138, 139, Louvain, 1972, Louvain, 1972, 2 voll. G. Bohas, Alexandre syriaque, ILOAM, Lyon, M. Casari, La fontana della vita tra Silvestro e Ḫiḍr: Alessandro e Costantino a confronto, Medioevo romanzo e orientale Macrotesti fra Oriente e Occidente. IV Colloquio Internazionale, Vico Equense, ottobre 2000: Atti, Rubbettino Editore srl, Catanzaro, 2003, K. Czeglédy, The Syriac Legend Concerning Alexander The Great, AOASH 7 (1957), S. Gero The legend of Alexander the Great in the Christian Orient, Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library Of Manchester, 75 (1993), 3-9. S. Griffith, Christian Lore and the Arabic Qurʾān: the Companions of the Cave in Sūrat al-kahf and in Syriac Christian tradition, in G. S. Reynolds, ed., The Qur ān in Its Historical Context, Routledge, New York, 2007, W. Henkelman, Beware of Dim Cooks and Cunning Snakes: Gilgameš, Alexander, and the Loss of immortality, in R. Rollinger, B. Gufler, M. Lang and I. Madreiter, eds., Interkulturalität in der Alten Welt. Vorderasien, Hellas, Ägypten und die vielfältigen Ebenen des Kontakts, Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden, 2010, B. Meissner, Alexander und Gilgamos, éd. Druck von A. Pries, Leipzing, T. Nöldeke, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Alexanderromans, Denkschriften derkaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, philosophisch-historische Klasse, 38, R. Paret, Un parallèle byzantin à Coran XVIII, 58-81, Revue des Études Byzantines 26 (1968), G. J. Reinink, Das syrische Alexanderlied, Die drei Rezensionen, CSCO 454, 455, Script. Syri 195, 196, Leuven, 1983, 2 voll.

17 The prophecy of Ḏū-l-Qarnayn (Q 18:83-102) and the Origins 289 Alexander der Große und der Lebensquell im syrischen Alexanderlied, in: E.A. Livingstone, Studia Patristica, vol. XVIII, 4, Kalamazoo-Leuven, 1990, Ps.-Methodius: A concept of history in response to Islām, in A. Cameron et L. I. Conrad, eds., The Byzantine and Early Islāmic Near East I: Problems in the Literary Source Material, Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islām 1, Darwin, Princeton, 1992, Pseudo-Ephraems Rede uber das Ende und die syrische eschatologische Literatur des siebten Jahrhunderts, Aram 5 (1993a), ; Die syrische Apokalypse des Pseudo-Methodios, CSCO 540, 541, Script. Syr. 220, 221, Louvain 1993b, 2 voll. Heraclius the New Alexander. Apocalyptic Prophecies during the Reign of Heraclius, in G. J. Reinink & B.H. Stolte, eds., The Reign of Heraclius ( ): Crisis and Confrontation. Groningen Studies in Cultural Change, 2, Peeters, Leuven, 2002, Alexander the Great in the Seventh-Century Syriac Apocalyptic Texts, Byzantinorossika 2 (2003), ; Alexander der Große und der Lebensquell im syrischen Alexanderlied, in: E.A. Livingstone, Studia Patristica, vol. XVIII, 4, Kalamazoo-Leuven, 1990, G. S. Reynolds, Le problème de la chronologie du Coran, Arabica 58 (2011), T. Tesei, Survival and Christianization of the Gilgamesh Quest for Immortality in the Tale of Alexander and the Fountain of Life, RSO 83 (2010), The Chronological Problems of the Qurʾān: The Case of the Story of Ḏū l-qarnayn (Q 18:83-102), RSO 84 (2011), (forthcoming). Some Cosmological Notions from Late Antiquity in Q 18:60-65: The Qurʾān in Light of its Cultural Context, JAOS K. van Bladel, The Alexander Legend in the Qur ān 18:83-102, in G. S. Reynolds, ed., The Qur ān in Its Historical Context, Routledge, New York, 2007a, The Syriac sources of the early Arabic narratives of Alexander, in H. P. Ray, ed., Memory as History: The Legacy of Alexander in South Asia, Aryan International, New Delhi, 2007b,

18 290 TommasoTesei Heavenly Cords and Prophetic Authority in the Qurān and its Late Antique Context., BSOAS 70 (2007c): E. J. van Donzel; A. B. Schmidt, Gog and Magog in Early Eastern Christian and Islāmic Sources. Sallam's Quest for Alexander's Wall, Leiden, Brill, E. A. Wallis-Budge, ed., The History of Alexander the Great, being the Syriac Version of the Pseudo-Callisthenes, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, A. J. Wensinck, al-k H aḍir, in: Encyclopédie de l Islām, Deuxième Edition, E. J. Brill, Leiden, B. M. Wheeler, Moses or Alexander? Early Islāmic exegesis of Qur ān 18: 60-65, JNES, 57.3 (1998)