Revisiting the Neṣḥānā

The Alexander Neṣḥānā is a composition in Edessene Syriac, assuming the flat earth of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Kevin van Bladel in 2007 famously noted its parallels with the latter part of sura 18. Taha Soomro in 2020 contested this.

A reread of these texts is more than welcome. I wish I'd read this critique at the time. As for Soomro, he's associated with a "Yaqeen Institute" and had a BA as of 2020 (same degree I got in 2024). Anyway I am unaware that any peer-review has been done upon this particular essay... so I arrogate to myself the position of "peer", for this purpose.

The world of Neṣḥānestān is encircled by Oceanus, with the one heaven supported above somehow. Van Bladel has read this world's Alexander as a predecessor to the very-real Heraclius, that Iran-humbling hero of the AG 940s (our 630s). Alexander, as world-conqueror, had done the sign of the Cross over all the civilised world, leaving Gog and Magog behind the Darband which Alexander built first. Heraclius might not boast to be that good - but he's got some years left in him, and may rank himself at least the peer d-Alexander. (If I may.)

Soomro reads Alexander's journey differently. Where Heraclius visits "Alexandria", Soomro - correctly - understands that a Syrian might not have Egypt's Alexandria in mind. The real Alexander, as he went on, had planted several of these cities. One such existed at Issus. Soomro cites Dumper (2007), 175 that Issus' Alexandria was still vital in the tenth century AG. Also Alexander must go toward the India for the Oceanus (as in history). That is implicit-at-best in the Neṣḥānā itself although is clearer in its less-famous poetic (memrā?) sequel. Given that, says Soomro:

To assign cardinal directions to the Legend’s journey,
Alexander goes south to Mt. Sinai,
then slightly west to Egypt,
then vaguely east to the Fetid Sea,
and then west or northwest to Armenia,
and then finally west once more to his home.

This isn't cruciform.

On van Bladel's behalf, I would say that the ambiguity of direction comes from the motive to make Alexander, son of Zeus, into a forerunner of the Christian King. The author knows how the real Alexander traversed the world. But the author is himself a believer in Ezekiel, maybe even in the Revelation. The author wants you to interpret otherwise than what happened. The sequel will refuse so to interpret, intending to humble Heraclius some; so is free to specify that Ocean lieth east. But does sura 18 so interpret?

Also problematic, at best, is to assume that sura 18 rested on the full Qurān, or at least on the full Qurānic intent, at its own time of composition. Muslims themselves know that more suwar are on their way, some of which may well abrogate sura 18. Soomro is aware of sura 13's invisible pillars, which he works around, so he might at least suspect 18>13 as I suspect. But he cites Tabataba’i and Mirsadri adducing suras 31 and 51. I personally think 18 precedes these too, and I don't see where Tabataba’i and Mirsadri made real arguments otherwise. They probably appealed to Islamic tradition - but nonMuslims can't assume that, and Soomro is writing to a skeptical audience himself. (Soomro himself can hardly take the Qurān's flat earth at face value.)

As nitpick - creation-encompassing waters are not in fact absent from our Qurān, which contains sura 11, which plants Allāh's throne atop them. For sure, 18 could >11 too. Even so, sura 18 assumes a world journey for its Qurān-worthy protagonist Dhū'l-Qarnayn. If the spring of ḥāmiya be noncosmic, why is it sharing a term with sura 101's hell?

BACKDATE 7/10