Andrew Persson, Bible Translation Consultant, SIL International (retired)
Abstract
The gospels as they appear in Vatican Arabic Manuscript 13 are widely believed to represent the earliest extant Bible translation in Arabic, and it has been claimed that this translation dates from before the rise of Islam. However, there are wordings and passages that point to the original translator working in an Islamic milieu and show him reacting to it. Some of these reactions are quite startling and may tell us something about the translator’s aims and situation.
From a thorough analysis of Matthew’s Gospel in this translation it is seen that there are echoes of Islamic style and terminology. It also seems that some of its wordings were designed to clarify Christian teaching in an Islamic context or to avoid unnecessary offense to Muslims. Yet in other places elements have been introduced which resemble a polemic against Islam. The evidence thus points to this translation having originally been made for the benefit of Arabic-speaking Christians living in the context of a newly ascendant Islam.
Thank you for your paper. What might be the reasons why Matthew was translated first, rather than Mark which scholars tell us was written before Matthew. I would be interested to know from you whether you ran across other resources (other than Trimmingham,1979) on Christianity among Arabs before Islam.
Thank you, Rafael. The use of "First Gospel" in the title of my paper was not intended to imply historical priority over Mark. It was actually a pun, since Matthew is often referred to as "the first gospel" as it comes first in the NT canon, and at the same time the version I am writing about is reckoned to be the first gospel translation in Arabic. I understand that the question of Marcan/Matthean priority is still hotly debated among Biblical scholars.
Regarding other material on pre-Islamic Christianity among Arabs, I'm not an expert on that subject, but I do know that Hoyland has written some things about it. One article is in the Bibliography to my article, and another is: Hoyland, Robert, “Mount Nebo, Jabal Ramm, and the status of Christian Palestinian Aramaic and Old Arabic in Late Roman Palestine and Arabia”; in Macdonald, M.C.A. et al., The development of Arabic as a written language …; Oxford, Archaeopress, 2010
Thank you for this wonderful paper. I think it would be nice for a future project would to compare this Arabic manuscript with the Arabic translation of Tatian's Diatessaron about a couple of centuries later to see how the Arabic translations might have evolved within an Islamic context.
Thank you Andrew for this careful study of Vatican 13. The presence of what has been called "Islamic" vocabulary, diction, and style in both Christian and Jewish translations (esp. Saadiah) has been noted by a number of scholars. In the case of Saadiah, in particular, it seems that these features were not really to engage Muslims whether polemically or otherwise, as they were reflecting the language used by the Jewish communities that used the text(s). I'm wondering if a few theoretical perspectives might be useful in this regard. First, the concept of essentialism, especially religious essentialism. With the coming of increased tensions between East and West, and especially the Crusades, there was strong motivation to create boundary markers, distinct practices and identities, and so there developed the sense of "Christian" and "Muslim" language. At the early date of Vatican 13, we don't see the hardened boundaries that came later. Rather, I think what we see happening here is certain translators using "common language" in Arabic, a language largely influenced by the Qur'an, but also by other Islamic texts. This leads us to another theoretical perspective, that of intertextuality. It seems that Vatican 13, but also translations like Vatican 17/18/Leiden MS2378, Pethion's translation, and many others, were creating texts that were in conversation with the broader world of Arabic texts that they lived in, many of which were penned by Muslims.
Sidney Griffith in his book "The Bible in Arabic" notes how certain developments such as the Crusades, Christian conversion to Islam and the “growing intrusion of Western Christians into Arab Christian life” meant that Arab Christians turned to the West, and “gradually Western thinkers became their philosophical and theological conversation partners, diverting their attention away from Baghdad, Damascus or Cairo and toward Rome, Paris or London. A certain cultural alienation from an earlier Islamo-Christian ethos was the result.”
I think what you are uncovering in your paper is this "common language" ethos and language that existed in some circles before the cultural alienation and even "clash of civilizations" that came later.
Thank you, Larry, for your two comments. I was originally interested in the unusual translation features of this version, but the first purpose of this paper was to establish that it was not, as some have suggested, a pre-Islamic translation of the gospels. If that had been the case it would open up a whole new aspect to the question of gospel influences in the Qur'an. However, in the context of this present conference I think it is very interesting to see how even someone translating the gospels into Arabic read them in the context of Islam and allowed that reading to influence his translation. Maybe this is the beginning of the "common language" you refer to.
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for your fascinating paper. You have provided a compelling argument for an Islamic context for the Gospel text contained in Codex Vatican, AR. 13 (VA13) as well as in the original exemplar of the translation. Reflecting on Kashouh’s thesis (2012), I was wondering if you have considered his hypothesis of four different scribes who were active at different periods in copying the codex? He identifies these anonymous scribes as Sa, Sb, Sc and Sd (Kashouh 2012: 145). Moreover, he postulates that a fifth anonymous scribe, Se, who seems to have made corrections to the text which were copied by Sa, was active in the transmitting process (Kashouh 2012: 145).
The interesting aspect concerning the scribes that may pertain to your analysis of references within the Islamic context as well as your conclusions, are the dates of scribal activity that Kashouh assigns to each scribe. The earliest parts of the text were copied by Sa in the early 9th century. Sa copied folios 15-46 (Mt. 10:27b - 26:17a); folios 55-56 (Mk. 5:19b - 6:9a); folios 83-86 (Mk. 6:9b - 7:12a); folios 57-64r (Mk. 7:12b - 10:29a), and folios 75-82 (Lk. 3:31 – 7:11). Sb working at the same time as Sa (early 9th century) copied folios 64v-74 (Mk. 10:29b – 16:8), as well as folios 87v-179 (Paul’s epistles and Hebrews). Sc who was active c. 10th century copied folios 1-6 (Mt. 1:1 – 6:18a). Sd who represents the latest layer of scribal activity, c. 12th century, was responsible for folios 7-14 (Mt. 6:18b – 10:27a) and folios 47-54 (Mt. 26:17b – 28:11) (Kashouh 2012: 145, ft. 47). Kashouh does not, however, assign a date to the scribal activity of Se, except to suggest that the corrections made to the text by Se were copied by Sa. Kashouh also notes a similarity in the handwriting between Se and Sb (Kashouh 2012: 145).
Since your reference in Mt. 4:6 was made, according to Kashouh, by Sc in c. 10th century, and your references including Mt. 8:16; Mt. 26: 44-45, 50; Mt 27:4; Mt. 26:29, and Mt. 27:3 were produced by Sd in c. 12 century, I wondered how might the dates of scribal activity nuance your analysis? Moreover, could it be suggested that the overt corrections to the text in Mt. 17:24 and Mt. 16:22-33 were produced by Se which were then copied by Sa, as proposed by Kashouh?
I agree with your refutation of Monferrer-Sala’s conclusions and thank you for a most thought-provoking paper.
Kind regards,
Ronel
Thank you, Ronel, for these very perceptive comments. You've hit right on my Achilles' heel! Arabic scribal techniques are way out of my field, and the matter of the four scribes, at least as presented by Kashouh, is something I really can't get my head round. Certainly, when I look at the MS (on DigiVatlib) I can see the four different hands very clearly, but I haven't yet understood how four scribes in different centuries could work on one codex, always neatly taking over from each other on a new folio or even on the verso. However, do note:
(1) This only affects the date and production of VA13. It has no effect on the dating of H, the original translation, -- which is what I'm primarily interested in. I'm currently working on a paper showing that the text of Matthew (and probably all 3 gospels) is uniform throughout, so all the scribes must have been copying from the same exemplar.
(2) Kashouh varies between referring to different scribes and different hands (writing styles), and he admits that scribes sometimes imitated the writing styles of earlier centuries, if that is what they were copying from.
Thank you, Andrew, for this impressive work of translation analysis. I am especially interested in the insights you draw concerning the apologetic and polemical motivations "H," or a later copyist, had in translating Matthew as he did: pastoral concern over those leaving Christianity for Islam, enhancing the dignity of Jesus, Jesus (not Judas) being in control during his arrest, avoiding phrases that emphasize Jesus's divinity, emphasizing how a prophet is despised in his hometown (a dig against the Prophet Muhammad?), and rebuking "sham laws" and false teaching (aimed at Islamic law). As I noted in Laura Hassan's paper, it seems to me that the motivation for reading (and translating) a text greatly colors how that text is understood (and passed on).
I'm curious to know if you've looked at other early Christian Arabic texts to compare these findings (i.e. apologetic and polemical uses), such as Sinai Arabic 154 from the monastery of St. Catherine's. Griffith thinks it could have been written as early as the 740s, although Samir Khalil Samir thinks a date of 770 more likely. The author uses Qur'anic quotations alongside scriptural testimonies to buttress his defense of the Trinity; in other words, the first discussions between Muslims and Christians had to do with the scriptures as they related to Qur'anic claims. But what I'd also like to note here (as it relates to your paper) is that the text is deeply Qur'anic, the Christian author having absorbed the Qur'an's cadences of worship and praise (for example, the opening prayer). If VA13 is a rough contemporary of Sinai Arabic 154 (as it appears to be), it might be helpful to further contextualize VA13's (or H's) awareness of the Qur'an.
Thank you, Steven, for your comments. Regarding other contemporary material, such as Sinai Arabic 154, I'm afraid I haven't investigated it. I'm very aware of the need for "the cobbler to stick to his last", so I try not to venture far beyond the actual Bible translations. It is wonderful how interest in the early Arabic versions has mushroomed in the last few years, and what I think is needed now is accessible and annotated editions of the MSS (as Staal did for Sin. Ar. 151) for those who don't want to struggle with the facsimiles. If I'm spared long enough I'd love to do something like that for VA13, and I sincerely hope that others will be able to research the connections to contemporary materials.
Thank you for your response, Andrew. Indeed, the challenge of deciphering the process of the different scribal hands is complex. I would be very interested in your work on the underlying uniform text of Matthew in H. I do believe that a uniform original exemplar in the sense of a clear translation strategy must have existed. However, it seems that the most strategic way to evaluate the translation of H would be through an indepth analysis of the passages in the most ancient portions of VA13. With this in mind, what is still interesting are the Qur’anic overtones, interpretive expansions and alternative renderings (cf Vollandt 2015: 66) in the oldest passages of Matthew as you have so clearly demonstrated.
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for your excellent presentation yesterday. I do believe that you are providing an invaluable contribution to the field of early Arabic translations of the Gospels since little, if any, attention has been given to the possible Qur’anic context of VA13. You have convincingly shown that there is indeed evidence of Qur’anic language in the translation of H contrary to what major scholars such as Kashouh (2012), Griffith (2013), Vollandt (2015) and Monferrer-Sala (2013; 2015) have indicated. Your study is also exciting for the possibilities it presents of gaining greater understanding of the broader translation movement of Biblical texts into Arabic in an Islamic context. I wish you well with your ongoing research.
Just a note on your disclaimer: Griffith (2013: 118 and ft.71) has indicated that Kashouh (see, Hikmat Kashouh 2007, “The Arabic Gospel Text of Codex Beirut, Bibliothèque Orientale, 430: Is it Recent or Archaic?” Parole de l’Orient 32, pp.105-121) has found evidence for the continuance of the Gospel translation in VA13 into manuscripts over the centuries and “even into modern times.”
Warm regards,
Ronel