Book Review: The Pauline Epistles in Arabic: Manuscripts,Versions,and Transmission by Vevian Zaki

The Pauline Epistles in Arabic (2022) is the revised version of Vevian Zaki’s PhD dissertation, which she defended at Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich in 2019. It is a detailed study of the transmission history of the Pauline epistles in Arabic (henceforth PEA) in the Near East, Egypt, and Europe. As Zaki rightly observes, the history of the PEA has its own distinctive character, although it overlaps with the transmission history of the Arabic Bible in general. The study is motivated by a number of research questions: “What are the manuscripts of the PEA? What are the extant versions of the PEA represented in these manuscripts? What happened to these versions during their transmission, both on philological and historical levels? In whose hands were these versions circulated, both within the communities that translated them and outside these communities?” (3). These questions are not only meant to explore the linguistic reality and socio-cultural conditions that produced these versions, but also the circumstances which ensued due to their dissemination and reception among different communities, including Arabic-speaking Christians, Muslim audiences, and European scholarly circles that had an interest in the PEA for different reasons.

The book falls into three parts comprising eleven chapters. The first part includes seven chapters covering the classification of the versions of the PEA which were translated from or influenced by Greek, Syriac, Coptic, and Latin sources. The versions with unidentifiable origins are covered in one chapter. The second part traces the transmission of the PEA outside the Arabic-speaking communities that produced them. Chapter 8 covers the Muslim reception of the PEA and chapter 9 looks into the historical transmission and reception of the PEA in Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In part 3, Zaki narrows down the research focus, offering an in-depth discussion of the translation strategies in the PEA. A case study is provided of the translation of the Letter to the Philippians in MSS London, BL, Or. 86 12 and Vatican, BAV, Ar. 13. Chapters 10 and 11 focus on these particular manuscripts, their available editions and English translation, with a detailed analysis of the translation strategies used.

A couple of observations about the corpus of the study and its time frame may be in order. The inventory of PEA manuscripts identified by the author contains 323 manuscripts, all listed with their details in appendix A. Ninety manuscripts from the list predate 1500. To access these manuscripts, the author used various archives and collections, including the Sinai collection at St. Catherine’s Monastery in Sinai and the European collections (the Vatican library, the Bodleian library in Oxford, Cambridge University library, the British Museum, and the Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris). The manuscripts in these collections come mostly from the Near East, with around 20 per cent produced in Europe. European scholars in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries produced their own copies of these manuscripts to help them in learning and teaching Arabic (206). Around 50 per cent of the manuscripts of the PEA are found in collections in Egypt (excluding the Sinai collection), primarily Coptic collections, such as the ones in the Coptic Museum, the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate, and a number of Coptic monasteries, in addition to a few Catholic manuscripts in the Franciscan Centre (207). In chapter 7, Zaki meticulously analyses the distribution of these manuscripts in their different geographical locations of origin and the historical periods in which they were produced. Based on the distribution of these manuscripts in time and place, two peaks in the production of PEA can be identified: one extends from the thirteenth to the fourteenth centuries, and the second emerges in the eighteenth century. Both peaks were related to activities by the Coptic church and Coptic lay people to produce Arabic Bible translations from Coptic sources (200).

The 323 manuscripts represent fourteen versions of the PEA. As Zaki’s nuanced analysis demonstrates, these versions are not totally independent translations, as they show some overlap with each other for historical reasons. To answer the above research questions in connection with such an exceptionally complex corpus as the PEA, the author uses an approach that combines philology, New Testament textual criticism, and history (4). The corpus is restricted to versions of the PEA which contain the continuous text of the epistles and which date from before the sixteenth century. Manuscripts containing liturgical books and lectionaries of the epistles are excluded for pragmatic reasons. They are, nonetheless, a huge corpus that requires a separate study (19).

The Greek-based PEA are the focus of chapter 2. They are in various versions “which have survived and been adapted over the centuries” (87). Although the earliest manuscripts of the Greek-based PEA are not dated, evidence suggests that they go back to the ninth and tenth centuries. All the Greek-based PEA show varying degrees of Syriac influence, the strongest of which is identifiable in Arab^Gr2 and Arab^Gr4 (88). Arab^Gr3 is the only Greek-based version which survived (that is, which continued to be copied) beyond the thirteenth century. This version also seems to have enjoyed a special status in its community, judging by the number of manuscripts which contain it and which have survived.

Chapter 3 looks into PEA of Syriac origin. Like the Greek-based versions, PEA of Syriac origin come from the ninth century. A number of Arabic versions of Pauline epistles show the influence of Syriac, and especially of the Peshitta; one of these is Arabic^Syr1. An important manuscript of this version is Sinai Arabic 151. There are features that make this manuscript of special importance. First, it is one of the oldest manuscripts of an Arabic translation of the Bible that we know of, being dated 867. Secondly, we know the name of the translator, Bishr ibn al-Sirrī, and the location where it was produced, that is, Damascus. Sinai Arabic 151 shows some influence from the Islamic lexicon, including the Basmalah بسم الرحمن الرحيم bismi ’llāhi ’l-raḥmāni ’l-raḥīm “In the name of Allāh, the most merciful, the most compassionate” before the opening of 1 Corinthians. Another Syriac-based Arabic version which made extensive use of Islamic terminology is Arab^Syr2, which has “certain peculiarities that mark it as a translation that would be most easily understood by Christians who lived in an Islamic context” (117). This version is “full of Qur’ānic terms, epithets, and phrases, and even contains some rhymed passages in Qur’ānic style” (ibid.). This gives this version a particularly Islamic flavour. ¹ One example is the use of all the forms of the Arabic root كَفَر kafar “disbelieve,” which is widely used in the Qur’ān. First Corinthians 1.18, for example, “describes those who do not believe in the cross as kāfirīn hālikīn ‘perishable unbelievers’” (ibid.). Moreover, the qur’ānic epithets that follow the name of Allāh (also widely used in daily Islamic discourse) such as تبارك وتعالى tabārak wa-taʿālā or له الحمد lahu ’l-ḥamd are commonly used in this version. Zaki contends that these expressions “do not add meaning to the biblical verses,” although they provide the text with an Islamic flavour. Similar examples in this version include the rendering of Rom 9.5; 13.6; 1 Tim 1.17; and Heb 6.17 (118).

Above the lexical level, Arab^Syr2 uses whole phrases from the Qur’ān. For example, Q Āli ʿImrān 3.179 uses the phrase أجر عظيم ajr ʿaẓīm to mean “mighty wage,” and the same expression is used in translating 1 Cor 9.1 where Paul says, according to the Syriac version on which this translation is based, “I have a reward”—this is translated as فلي في ذلك أجر عظيم falī fī dhalika ajrun ʿaẓīm “so I have in that a mighty wage” (118). Similarly, Rom 3.5b-6 reads, according to the Syriac version, “May it not be! Otherwise how shall God judge the world?” This is rendered into Arabic as:

معاذ . ما بظلام للعبيد. فكيف يدين العالمين؟

maʿādh allāh. mā allāhu biẓallāmin lilʿabīd. fakayfa yadīnu ’llāh alʿālamīn?

May it not be. God does no injustice to the servants. Otherwise, how God shall judge the worlds?

As Zaki observes, “the added text corresponds closely to the phrasing of Q Fuṣṣilat 41.46, which reads وما ربك بظلام للعبيد wamā rabbuka biẓallāmin lilʿabīd ‘nor is thy Lord ever unjust (in the least) to his servants’” (118).

A few observations on Arab^Syr2 seem worth highlighting. First, this version appeared in three recensions, in at least two ecclesiastical contexts, and in all these forms and settings, “it maintained its textual extensions and Qur’ānic terminology” (119). Secondly, this version did not survive after the twelfth century, based on the manuscript evidence (ibid.). According to Zaki, this might be due to the textual extensions and the overly Islamic flavour of the language. However, this version remains a clear example of what Zaki describes as “the high acculturation of its Christian translator” as “it indicates the translator’s knowledge of and ability to recite the Qur’ān and to use its text fluently” (119). As for its skopos, Zaki argues that it was likely meant “to equip a Christian reader to understand and preach the Bible in a language which was familiar in his or her Islamic context” (ibid.).

The PEA based on Coptic sources are covered in chapter 4. Three versions of the PEA were contributed by the Coptic church. One key feature of these versions is their tendency to “build on older versions.” Another distinctive feature of the Coptic-based PEA is their tendency to be preceded by one or more introductions. These introductions cover some or all of the following topics: “the life story of Paul the Apostle before and after his conversion; the death of Paul; his reasons for writing to the churches; the OT quotations in each epistle; the division of the Epistles in the Coptic, Syriac, and Arabic traditions; and interpretations of the difficult vocabulary” (146). Coptic-based manuscripts are also known for their special design and style of production. In addition to the introductions, other features are identifiable, including Coptic sigla that divide the text of each epistle and marginal references to OT quotations.

In addition to versions from Latin and other unidentified sources, Zaki devotes a whole chapter (chapter 8) to the reception of the PEA among Muslims. Many portions of the Bible were widely quoted in works by Muslim polemicists. However, Paul was the least quoted. Citations from Paul cover most of the epistles, including Hebrews. ² Only Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, and Philemon were not cited in the manuscripts studied by the author. The versions quoted by Muslim polemicists seem to have been influenced by the Peshitta, as different instances of Syriacisms are identifiable. Quotations from Paul’s epistles by Muslim polemicists show contradictory perceptions of Paul. While he was seen as the “great distorter of Christianity” by these polemicists, his work was cited to support the Islamic concept of توحيد tawḥīd “monotheism” (265). As observed by Zaki, accusing a biblical book “of being altered or even abrogated, while at the same time using it to support Islamic doctrines” was not unusual among Muslim polemicists (ibid.). This kind of quotation was used to question the divinity of Christ. Other Pauline verses were quoted to highlight the humanity of Christ, such as Eph 1.15-17 which states that God is the god of Christ. These verses were quoted by al-Ghazālī (four times), al-Jaʿfarī (twice), and al-Būṣayrī (266).

The PEA were copied and reproduced in Europe for scholarly reasons, that is, for learning and teaching Arabic and for understanding the philological nuances of the Hebrew Bible, given the linguistic affinities between Arabic and Hebrew. Most of the European editions of the PEA were based on Arab^Syr3, including widely circulated editions of the New Testament like Thomas Erpenius’s edition (1616). European scholars’ perception of the PEA was shaped by the Syriac influence on the widely circulated versions, and these were the versions which were seen as the standard to be imitated. Arab^Syr3, and to a lesser extent Arab^Gr3 (which was itself partly influenced by Syriac sources), “were repeatedly printed and reprinted by different institutions, for different denominations, with different agendas” (306). The standardization of PEA versions in Europe, however, eclipsed other earlier Arabic versions of Pauline epistles which arrived in Europe later. As a result, these versions were underestimated.

The sample analysed in part 3 of the book is meant to demonstrate the translation strategies employed by the translators of the PEA. Zaki conducts a close reading of Philippians in a number of manuscripts of the PEA. Zaki’s unique abilities in New Testament Greek, Arabic philology, and New Testament criticism serve her analysis of the translation in a very productive way. Chapter 10 presents the manuscripts to be analysed, offering translation into English along with some paratextual information. A close analysis of the translation strategies used is presented in chapter 11. Going through different samples, Zaki concludes that a number of strategies were used, ranging from the literal to the free. One key challenge that faces the scholar when analysing these manuscripts is identifying the Vorlage on which the version is based (i.e., Greek, Syriac, or Coptic). The Greek text should always be included in this process.

Zaki’s groundbreaking study of the history of transmission, translation, and reception of the PEA has a number of strengths. One of these is her understanding of the socio-cultural and historical contexts of the church traditions in which these translations were produced. Her acute attention to text-critical issues, as well as the philology of Arabic, Coptic, and Syriac, enriches her analysis and yields interesting conclusions. On top of the challenges involved in having access to these manuscripts and visiting archives, there is also the challenge of reconstructing the contexts where they were produced, disseminated, and received. Zaki’s study has without doubt paved the way for more studies in an under-researched field.