19

THE ARABIC VERSION OF THE

APOCALYPSE OF BARUCH:
A CHRISTIAN TEXT?

Fred Leemhuis
Faculteit der Letteren, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen,
Oude Kijk int Jatstraat 26, 9712 EK Groningen, The Netherlands

Many mysteries still surround the Arabic version of the Apocalypse

of Baruch, even though our edition shed light on quite a few
problems and obscurities. In the introduction to the edition and
elsewherei we argued that the Arabic manuscript is a translation of a
Syriac manuscript which must have been closely related to the Milan
Syriac manuscript, and assessed its importance for a better
understanding of the unique Syriac text, and speculated on the
possible date of composition of the Arabic version. Obviously
additional problems remain to be discussed.
Many interesting questions until now receiving only inadequate
answers, have to do with the origin of the Arabic version and the
milieu wherein it was created. Part of the problem is caused by the
simple fact that the outer sheet of the first quire of the manuscript is
missing. Thus there is no title page and the colophon gives no further
information. The main problem however lies in a number of
probably interrelated peculiarities:
1. The translators apparently not more than passable
knowledge of Syriac;
2. The translors apparently limited familiarity with both the
Old and the New Testaments;

3. The translators apparent use of Koranic phraseology.

Presently these peculiarities will be dealt with in more detail, but
first it should be stressed that the Sinai manuscript in which the
Arabic version of the Apocalypse of Baruch is preserved appears to
be a rather mechanically executed copy, such as may have been
produced in a scriptorium. This of course could have been the
20

scriptorium of a monastery. The same or the same kind of writing is

found in the Arabic version of 4 Ezra which is bound together with
the Apocalypse of Baruch, but which perhaps is an independent
manuscript as may be concluded from the fact that the numbering of
the quires starts anew. We may safely conclude that the Sinai
manuscript is a copy from an older one. Copying mistakes do occur
that are due to misreadings of an older Kufic ductus2 and some of the
missing parts are probably due to the fact that lines of the original
were skipped.3 In fact, in some cases a skipped line or skipped words
have been added in the margins in what appears to be a different
hand. All this means that, apart from the fact that the manuscript
was preserved in the Monastery of St. Catherine, we do not have
external evidence that could point to the background of the
translator. It also means that we must try to detect internal evidence
that may provide us at least with some clues about a probable
background of the translator and/or the people the translation was
intended for. Let us therefore look more closely at the three above
mentioned peculiarities.
On the whole the translator appears to render the general meaning
of the Syriac. That is to say, the meaning of straightforward and not
too long sentences generally is conveyed adequately. However, when
things are more difficult, for instance in longer and more complex
sentences, a remarkable vagueness is quite often found, this
imprecision conveys the impression that the translator actually did
not make more than a random guess at what was really meant by the
Syriac. This phenomenon in fact is so general that one example may
suffice here. In the final Epistle, the Syriac of 81.4 may be conveyed
in English as:

And the Mighty One did according to the multitude of his mercies
and the Most High according to the magnitude of his compassion
and he revealed to me a word that I might be comforted and he
showed me visions that I might not be further sorrowful and he
made known to me the mysteries of the times and the coming of the
periods he showed me. -

The Arabic version of the same passage may be rendered as

follows:
Then my Lord the Mighty One, whose mercy encompasses
everything in vast grace and compassion, showed to me and made
me see things so that I would not grieve. And he explaincd to me
what will be at the end of times and what will come at the
termination of this world.
 21

Of course, this is a sort of translation which may not even be called

paraphrastic anymore; it is too vague and partially misses the point.
To this kind of shortcomings on the level of the sentence other
phenomena may be added in the sphere of idiomatic expressions and
terminology. In the introduction to the text edition examples have
been given of a number of literal translations of Syriac idiom into
Arabic, lists of special terms in the Arabic text wich deviate from the
Syriac, and expressions and phrases the translator obviously did not
know.5 These again appear to point in the same direction: either the
translator did not adequately understand the Syriac, or he did not
master enough Arabic to render adequately his understanding of the
Syriac. In the light of what follows the former seems to be more
plausible.
The translator shows a lack of knowledge of both the New and the
Old Testament. Of course, it may be argued that in the text of the
Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch only indirect Christian influence is
visible. In at least two places the Syriac wording appears to allude to
New Testament passages: in 3.3 to Phil. 1.23 and in 21.20 to 2 Pet.
3.9. In the edition we preferred the explanation that these allusions
were not yet present in the Syriac text used by the translator,6 but on
second thought I wish now to stress the possibility that the translator
glossed over these allusions, simply because he did not recognise
them. This possibility certainly must not be discarded.
Anyhow, where quotations from and allusions to the Old
Testament are concerned the translators ignorance is striking. The
most striking is not that some Old Testament names are mangled:
King Zedekiah becomes our friend the king (8.5), gold of Ophir
becomes pure gold (10.19), Jeroboam becomes Rehaboam (62.1).7
That the phrase a crown with great glory (15.8) alludes to Isa. 28.5
and 68.3 was apparently not realized, also that the consolation of
Zion (44.7) refers to Isa. 51.3 and 19. Abrahams traversing of the
halves of the sacrifices (4.4), a reference to Gen. 15.10, apparently
meant nothing special to the translator; he omitted the halves and
the translation of the literal quotation from:Isa. 49.16 in 4.2 simply
misses the point.8
While the translator lacks knowledge of the Bible, he is familiar
with Koranic phraseology. The translation of the above mentioned
phrase a crown with great glory is a case in point, because it is
translated by al-naim al-muqim, the enduring bliss, an expression
that, without the article, is also found in the Koran (sura 9.21). But
there is more. Not only such noteworthy typical islamic formulas like
22

the complete basmalla (78.1)9 and as-salfmualaikum wa rahmatu-

llah (78.2), but even whole phrases occur which suggest a familiarity
with the Koran that is, to say the least, better developed than the
translators familiarity with the Bible. In the notes on text and
translation of the text edition the conspicuous instances have been
mentioned such as: alladhi zvasiat rahmatuhu kulla shai (81.4) =
whose mercy encompasses everything (cf sura 7.156 and 40.7); and
wa-anta al-uibidu 1-,hayyu lladh la yamfitu wa-la mu aqqiba Ii-
bukmih (21.10) = You are the Only One, the Living who does not die
and whose decision cannot be repelled (cf sura 25.58 and 13.41).
Five other such cases were easily determined: 14.13, 14, 15.2, 42.4,
77.7 and 83.3;io but upon a reexamination of the text additional
candidates which at least have a familiar Koranic ring probably will
be met with, like the phrase in 72.2: fa-tati tdifatun minhum wa-
tuqtalull tifatun minhum and then a group of them will come
=

and a group of them will be killed&dquo; (cf sura 9.66). In fact many
items of the list of special terms in the Arabic text which deviate from
the Syriacl3 must in the first place be considered as belonging to an
Islamic idiom.
Originally I thought that the use of such Koranic phraseology
should be explained as an indication of the relatively early date of the
translation: dating back to a time that Christian Arabic had not yet
developed its own specific idiom.14 This, of course, seemed to be the
more probable because it matched the fact that the text shows an
abundant and fairly consistent use of the internal passive. This may
still be a good explanation, but as it occurs to me now, it does not
sufficiently take the first two peculiarities into account. Especially
the fact that a Christian translator who must have been at least
relatively well educated should not really be familiar with the Bible
struck me as somewhat odd. Certainly, many reasons may be found
to explain this oddity, but taking all three above-mentioned
peculiarities into account I would now venture the possibility that
the translator was not a Christian.
Already at an early date Muslims were familiar with and
translated not only works of the philosophers and the antique
sciences,15 but also writings of other religions which seemed of
interest to them, as at least may be gleaned from the Fihrist of Ibn al-
nadim, who mentions Ahmad ibn Abd Allah ibn Salam who, in the
time of Harun al-Rashid, translated part of a book of the Abrahamite
Sabians, and who moreover actually translated the Suhuf, the
Thora, the Gospel and the books of the prophets and the disciples
 23

from Hebrew, Greek and Sabian into Arabic.i6 It is not improbable

that these books of the prophets and disciples included pseudepi-
graphical apocalyptic writings. After all, interest in apocalyptic
writings was not something exclusively Christian. Without more
data it is rather difficult to point to any group in particular, but a
plausible suggestion is easily given.
For the second half of the ninth and the first half of the tenth
century, which seems to be the period in which the translation of the
Apocalypse of Baruch came into being, one should consider the
sphere of the Isamiliyya as a probable milieu where such translations
were sought after. The description of the coming of the era of the
Messiah in the Apocalypse of Baruch (chs. 70-74) could easily be
coupled with ideas about the coming of the Nlahdi in pre-Falimid
times. Other themes, like Baruchs occultation in 76.2 were probably
easily recognized by Ismailis. I will not try to pinpoint a specific
group, because I am not sufficiently at home in the writings and ideas
of the different Shiite groups. However, it is certain that the Ikhwan
al-Safa very much valued the writings of earlier prophets. One of
their leaders, the qcz4i al-Zandjani, for instance, is specifically
accused by the famous Mutazilite qcz4f Abd al-Djabb8r al-
Hamadham to have copied asfr al-awwalfn (= stories of the
ancients) and that others helped him with it. 17
Even when one is not thoroughly familiar with the Epistles of the
Sincere Brethren and Loyal Friends, the value they attach to the
writings of earlier prophets becomes clear from almost every part of
the RasiI. The prophets are, according to the Ikhwan, to be valued
even more than the philosophers, because the religion of the prophets
is one, whereas that of the philosophers is not.18 The prophets are to
be valued highly, because of their obedience to the angels in writing
down in the revealed books the inspiration and announcements they
received.l9 With the revealed books are meant: the Torah, the
Gospel, the Koran, and the Suhuj2O of the prophets.21 The study of
these is fitting for the initiates who have attained a high degree of
wisdom and who are thoroughly versed in the sciences of religion so
that they may know the secret meaning of the creation of the first
earthly Adam, the purposes of matters that have gone by with the
times, and what is to be expected in the future, like the abiding in
&dquo;limbo&dquo;, the revivification and the resurrection, as well as the
essence of the descending levels of the Fires.22 That they apparently

really did know the texts about which they wrote seems clear; there
are, according to Y. Marquet, quotations and stories taken from the
24

Hebrew Bible~3 as well as from Rabbinic texts; there are also

borrowings from the New Testament (Christian influence is, in any
case, very strong)o24
This is, ofcourse, no proof that the Ikhwan al-Safa, their
predecessors or any other similar group or sect did know, did make,
or did order a translation of the Apocalypse of Baruch. But it does
not seem unlikely. There seems to be no reason why this particular
Jewish apocalypse, which was transmitted in a Syriac Christian
form, could not have been of interest for at least certain groups of
Arabic-speaking Muslims. Anyhow, we know for certain that the
great theologian and historian al-Iabari, who lived in Baghdad at the
time that the history of the Ismaili movement appears to begin,
recorded a piece of an Ezra legend which clearly evokes 4 Ezra 14.18-
49.25 Moreover, he, as well as the historian and geographer al-
Masd a generation later, transmitted the information that
Jeremiahs scribe Baruch, the son of Neriah, was known to have
composed writings of his own.26
A problem with the suggestion that the Arabic version of the
Apocalypse of Baruch may after all be of Muslim origin is the
question of the language. If it is not a Christian text then its language
is not (early) Christian Middle Arabic, although morphologically and
syntactically it very much looks like it. And if the phraseology and
not the contents of a text should be the criterion that decides whether
a given Middle Arabic text is Muslim or Christian then we are really
getting into trouble, because we considered Koranic phraseology to
be a characteristic of early Christian Arabic translations.27

NOTES

1. F. Leemhuis, A.F.J. Klijn, G.J.H. van Gelder, The Arabic Text of the
Apocalypse of Baruch. Edited and translated with a parallel translation of the
Syriac text (Leiden, 1986); Leemhuis, The Mount Sinai Arabic Version of
the Apocalypse of Baruch, Actes du deuxième congrès international détudes
arabes chétiennes. Khalil Samir, S.J. (OCA, 226), Rome, 1986, pp. 73-79.
2. Esp. reading f ā for t
k ā cf. Arabic Text, p. 5; and
ā and wau for l,
d
Leemhuis, Mount Sinai Manuscript, p. 75.
3. As in 19.1, see Arabic Text, p. 35.
4. As in 52.1, see Arabic Text, p. 77.
5. See Arabic Text, pp. 7-9; see also Leemhuis, Mount Sinai Manuscript,
p. 76.
 25

6. See Arabic Text, p. 6.

7. As Bogaert rightly remarked in his review. Salbanassar is already
called so in the Syriac, though in the Arabic version he has become king of
the Amorites (62.6). See P.-M. Bogaert, review of the text edition in Le
Muséon 100 (1987), pp. 420-21.
8. See further the introduction to the edition, pp. 8-9.
9. Van Koningsveld suggested that this formula indicates that we have
here the beginning of an independent work. His suggestion was based on the
combination of the basmalla and the fact that in the Arabic version the
Epistle begins with kadh ā fi-l-kit which he took to mean thus it was
ā ā
h ā
nk
b
[found] in the Book. However, from 77.17 and 19 it becomes clear that both
b and sah
ā
kit fa apparently refer to the same thing: the Epistle of Baruch. Cf.
ī
P.Sj. van Koningsveld, An Arabic Manuscript of the Apocalypse of Baruch,
JSJ (1974/5), p. 206.
10. See the notes on text and translation in Arabic Text.
11. This is what was meant in the edition. In the MS the punctuation is as
is given in note 159 on p. 107.
12. I now think that a reading fa-yub ā minhum fa-tuqbalu
ā tifatun
ā minhum =and a group of them will be refused and a group of them
t
ifatun
will be refused and a group of them will be accepted, should be preferred.
13. Arabic Text, pp. 7-8.
14. Ibid., pp. 4-5; and Leemhuis, Mount Sinai Manuscript, p. 75.
15. See for instance G. Endress, Die Ubersetzungen wissenschaftlicher
und philosophischer Literatur ins Arabische, Grundriß der Arabischen
Philologie, Band II Literaturwissenschaft, ed. H. Gätje, Wiesbaden, 1987,
pp. 416-31.
16. Ibn al-Nadim: al-Fihrist, ed. G. Flügel, vol. 1, Leipzig, 1871, pp. 21-
22.
17. Abd al-Djabbār b. Ahmad al-Hamadhānī, Kit
b tathb
ā t dal
ī il al-
ā
nubuwwa, ed. Abd al-Karīm Uthmān, Beirut, n.d., p. 611.
18. Ras il ikhwan al-
ā wa-khull
saf
ā n al-waf
ā , ed. Dār Sādir, Beirut,
ā
1957. Vol. IV, pp. 180-181, in the 48th Epistle (the 7th of the 4th section) on
the manner of missionary propaganda, which by Y. Marquet is considered to
be the oldest of all the Epistles and to date back to before the victory of the
Fatimides in 909 CE. See Y. Marquet, Ihwân al-Safâ, Ismailiens et
Qarmates, in Arabica, vol. 24, 1977. P. 234.
19. Ras il, vol. 3, p. 454 in the 42nd Epistle (the 1st of the 4th section) and
ā
passim.
20. Pl. of by the Ikhwan
hifa (leaf of a) book. The use of the term suhuf
ā
sa
is in accordance with the Koran where it is used to denote forerunners of the
Koran (e.g. sura 53.36). It is in this respect not without interest that the
Epistle of Baruch five times is indicated with sah
fa, and not with the more
ī
neutral kit
b, as it is another five times.
ā
21. See vol. 4, p. 180 in the 48th Epistle (the 7th of the 4th section) and
passim.
26

il, vol. 3, pp. 511-512, in the 42nd Epistle (the 1st of the 4th
22. Ras
ā
section). On p. 512 the Psalter is added to the standard list.
23. An example I came across speaks for itself: In vol. 4, p. 294, in the 52nd
Epistle (the 11th of the 4th section) whole phrases of the story of Saul and
the witch of Endor appear to be taken directly from 1 Samuel 28.
24. Y. Marquet, Ikhwān al-Safā, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, new edition,
Leiden 1960, vol. III, p. 1075.
kh 1/269-270. This was already pointed out by B. Heller in
25. Tabarī, Tar
ī
1904 (see Uzair, Handwörterbuch des Islam, ed. A.J. Wensinck, J.H.
Kramers, Leiden, 1941), p. 779.
26. Tabarī, Tarikh 1/1116. Tabarī depended on Ibn Sad as his isnād
clearly indicates. However, in the edition of Beirut, Baruch is spelled as
rakh, Ibn Sad, Al-tabaq
u
B t al-kubr
ā , ed. Dār Sādir Beirut n.d., vol. 1,
ā
p. 57. G.J.H. van Gelder drew my attention to Masdī, Mur ī al-dhahab,
d
ũ
ed. Meynard/Courteille/Pellat, vol. 3, p.6. § 1445. It may well be that
Masūdi depended on Tabarĩ, but the name Baruch is spelled with ā like in
the Arabic Baruch Apocalypse. In all three cases, however he is ibn Nariya
and not ibn Nardja (or Narkha) as in the Sinai MS. As an addition to the
note on 21.1 in the text edition (p. 143) it may be said that the misreading of
an unpointed ā as a unpointed kh
y in early Arabic writing is not at all
ā
implausible so that the spelling of Baruchs patronymic in the Sinai MS may
be another copying mistake.
27. See note 14 above, and H. Staal, Mt. Sinai Arabic Codex 151, I,
Pauline Epistles, transl., coll. (CSCO, 453), Louvain, 1983, p. V. I am
inclined to consider the possibility that the manuscript leaf of about 830 CE
that I mentioned in note 10 on p. 75 of Leemhuis (Mount Sinai Manuscript)
has at least partial Muslim origins. The Psalter is called ū
mushaf da al-nabi
d
and it is said to contain prophecies about the Messiah, al-mun
n, his son
ī
fiq
ā
Abi Shālum and Talut and Djālut.