Their lies have been exposed !

And they say: 'Tales of the ancients which he has caused to be written...' (Qur'an 25:5)

------------------

Is The Qur'anic Story Of Solomon & Sheba From The Targum Sheni? 

The Targum doesn't pre date rather post dates!

1. The First Targum, The Antwerp and Paris polyglots give a different and longer text than the London. The best edition is by De Lagarde (reprinted from the first Venice Bible) in "Hagiographa Chaldaice," Leipsic, 1873. The date of the first Targum is about 700.
2. Targum Sheni (the second [Targum]: date about 800), containing material not germane to the Esther story. This may be characterized as a genuine and exuberant midrash.^[16]

In the case of the Targum Sheni, the internal evidence is used to date the final redaction which is put in end of the seventh century or the beginning of the eighth century:

The date of the work cannot be determined exactly. The view of S. Gelbhaus that it belongs to the amoraic period, in the fourth century, is disproved by the fact that it contains later material. P. Cassel dates it in the sixth century and explains its mention of Edom to be the rule of Justinian (527-565). However, this view of Edom can also apply to other periods. A basis for dating was also found among the accusations made by Haman: "They come to the synagogue... and curse our king and our ministers." This statement is regarded as an allusion to the suspicion that Jews combine a curse with the prayer said in the synagogue for the welfare of the kingdom. Since this prayer is thought to have been composed in the eighth century it is conjectured that the Targum Sheni postdates that century. L. Munk puts its date still later, in the 11th century, but he gives no proof. It seems that the most acceptable view is that which places its composition at the end of the seventh or the beginning of the eighth century, a view that is strengthened by its relationship to the Pirkei de-R. Eliezer. Regarding its relationship to the Targum Rishon, there are features common to both Targums, but there are also many differences, and there are many aggadot in the Targum Rishon not included in the Targum Sheni. The view of P. Churgin may be accepted that they are two independent compositions.^[17]

Therefore, the "source" of the Qur'an had actually been dated to a post-Islamic period when they appeared in their final form. As was stated earlier, the theme is consistent with other missionary efforts - a poor job of examining the sources results in the shooting of one's own foot, and Tisdall's had the word "absurdity" written all over it. A brief observation may be offered on the question of the Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer. This work was redacted in its final form after the advent of Islam.
It should be mentioned that Munk in his book Targum Scheni Zun Buche Esther (1876, Berlin) argued for a late 11th century dating of the Targum Sheni by pointing out that one-fourth of the Targum Sheni contains Aggadic material which is present in the folklore of earlier nations such as Solomon's throne, Solomon's dominance over the spirits and animals and the Queen of Sheba's visit to the Solomon. Gelbhaus (Das Targum Scheni Zum Buch Esther, 1893, Frankfurt a. M.), who on the other hand dated the Targum Sheni to the fourth century, attributes these stories originally to a the "larger" and the non-existent (?) Targum Rabbah (?), since they are no longer extant in the rabbanic literature.^[18] There is a clear contradiction in the positions of Munk and Gelbhaus on the issues of the stories of Solomon and Sheba. The common theme appears to be that the stories of Solomon and Sheba as mentioned in the Targum Sheni are not to be seen in the rabbanic literature. The writer of the article in Encyclopaedia Judaica points that:

Outstanding among the stories interwoven into the Targum Sheni is the variegated description of Solomon's throne (1:2)..... Some of these motifs are also found in the Koran (27:20-40), and it has been suggested that the author [of Targum Sheni] also made use of Arabic sources.^[19]

Similarly Edward Ullendorff says:

In the Jewish sources the combined narrative of Kur'an and Muslim commentators can first be traced in the 8th (?) century Targum Sheni to Esther where we find a most elaborate version of this story. This is further embellished in the 11th (?) century Alphabet of Ben Sira...^[20]

Edward Ullendorff argues that even though the Qur'an and its commentators have preserved the earliest literary reflection of the Queen of Sheba story, there is a little doubt that the narrative in the Qur'an is derived from a Jewish midrash. This assumption is based on another assumption that the Qur'an, by default, adopted the midrashic stories. As expected, the name of (non-existent?) Jewish midrash is conspicuously absent. Now that we have dealt with the issues of compilation of the sources, 
---------------------------

The Story Of Abraham And Idols In The Qur'an And Midrash Genesis Rabbah 

Midrash Genesis rabbah doesn't pre date rather post dates!

 Dating Genesis RabbahOrientalist and others are eager to show that the Qur'an has some how "borrowed" stories from various sources, but they fail to establish the reliability and integrity of these textual sources. The precarious nature of the midrashic and other Jewish religious writing and their late redaction is well known among the modern scholarship and Genesis Rabbah is no exception. The Jewish Encyclopaedia notes:

It is difficult to ascertain the exact date of the actual editing of the Bereshit Rabbah (i.e. Midrash Genesis Rabbah); it was probably undertaken not much later than that of the Jerusalem Talmud. But even then the text was probably not finally closed, for longer or shorter passages could always be added, the number of prefatory passages to a parashah be increased, and those existing be enlarged by accretion. Thus, beginning with the sidra Wayishlah, extensive passages are found that bear the mark of the later Haggadah, and have points of connection with the Tanhuma homilies... In the concluding chapters the Bereshit Rabbah seems to have remained defective.^[13]

Similarly, the Soncino edition of Genesis Rabbah says:

Genesis Rabbah is a Palestinian work,... its editing took place sometime after the redaction of the Jerusalem Talmud. Zunz holds that it was collected and edited in the 6th century CE. But even then the text was subject to accretions, and from Vayyishlach we find extensive passages bearing marks of the later day Haggadah. In Vayyigash the commentary is no longer verse by verse, while much of Vayechi was probably drawn from the Tanhuma homilies.^[14]

In other words, the exact textual character of Genesis Rabbah as a whole is uncertain, including the story of Abraham and idols that appears in Genesis Rabbah.^[15]
There are chapters in Genesis Rabbah that have undergone extensive changes. Some of the commentary found in there have been drawn from the Tanhuma homilies. Tanhuma homilies themselves had been complied in the second half of ninth century CE.^[16] Given the very composite nature of the book, it is very easy to imagine how difficult it is to reconstruct the original text of Genesis Rabbah:

The task of reconstructing "a text as close as possible" to be the original Bereshit Rabba, however, is exceedingly difficult. We do not have basic information about the origin of the document. Who produced it? Was it a man or a group of men? Was this man (or men) a creative author or a mere mechanical compiler, or was he a combination of both? Without such information, statements concerning the intention of the author-compiler or the purpose of the document must remain speculative...^[17]

The problem is further aggravated by the precarious nature of Jewish religious writings - where strict methods for their transmission did not existent:

The second difficulty in establishing the "original" stems from the flexibility of scribes in copying the text of Bereshit Rabba. In contrast to the rigidly prescribed rules for copying the Bible, no standards existed for copying rabbanic documents. Scribes changed or added to the text almost at will. In addition, the scribes of some manuscripts other than Vat. 30 alternated from one exemplar to another while copying (contamination). Contamination of the textual tradition makes it nearly impossible to construct a reliable pedigree for the manuscripts of Bereshit Rabba.^[18]

The earliest manuscript of Genesis Rabbah is Vat. 30. which dates some 400-500 years after the advent of Islam. Although this is considered the "original" text, there is no reason to believe that the text existed in this form throughout its lifetime. Scribes could have redacted the text by adding and subtracting new material, errors could have been introduced etc:

Although Vat. 30 as a whole represents the archetype of the original Bereshit Rabba, there is no reason to expect that every letter, word, or phrase mirrors the original. Five centuries intervened between the creation of Bereshit Rabba and the composition of Vat. 30. During this period mistakes due to scribal error or ignorance entered the exemplars from which Vat. 30 itself was ultimately descended. In addition, scribes may have made some minor alterations to the text, to clarify a difficult reading, or to reword a passage to fit contemporary linguistic usage. The other manuscripts of Bereshit Rabba are needed to reconstruct the text of the original where Vat. 30 is damaged, lacking or incorrect, and to set the record straight where the reading from Vat. 30 has been questioned. The relationship of the other manuscripts to each other is useful in describing the later development of the text as a whole and in establishing the text and versions of the major additions which do not appear in Vat. 30.^[19]

In other words, the earliest manuscripts available that help us reconstruct the "original text" of Genesis Rabbah are late and appear after the advent of Islam. The manuscript tradition of Genesis Rabbah is also non-uniform. To establish that Genesis Rabbah was indeed the source of the Qur'anic account of Abraham and idols, one has to clearly establish its textual stability in addition to presenting manuscripts that pre-date Islam. The absence of such evidence leaves the polemical arguments on very shaky grounds much like the text of Genesis Rabbah.
4. Genesis Rabbah & Talmud YerushalmiIt has been speculated that Genesis Rabbah was composed not much later than Talmud Yerushalmi (the Jerusalem or Palestinian Talmud) and that they both are related. Recently, Hans-Jürgen Becker had convincingly argued that both Talmud Yerushalmi and Genesis Rabbah have an unstable and incomplete textual character and that they can be extended arbitrarily.

Applying these theoretical reflections to the significant test case of the intertextual relationship of Genesis Rabbah and Talmud Yerushalmi, we must consider, above all, the incomplete and open character of the macroforms. Genesis Rabbah and Yerushalmi are in principle incomplete because, as commentaries on another text, they can be arbitrarily extended; their orientation is external. These macroforms are also in principle open because most of the texts that are ordered in such a way can be integrated into a different literary context, regardless of their "original" formal framework. The boundaries of the texts then must be regarded as flowing and not at all rigid. Both phenomena, the incompleteness and openness, are not mere theoretical possibilities, but are in fact demonstrable factors of the text - and tradition-history of Genesis Rabbah and the Yerushalmi. Their incomplete character shows itself already on the level of the text history, partially attested to by the manuscripts and printed editions. The difference in degree between the so-called text "recensions" of Genesis Rabbah in MS Vatican 60 and MS Vatican 30, or in the case of the Yerushalmi, between the glossed and unglossed Leiden manuscript Or. 4720, cannot be explained one-sidedly as partial losses of text material; rather they are the result of extensive expansions at various stages of the text's transmission. This tendency manifests itself at a rather late stage when the Yerushalmi macroform was extended with Bavli-traditions as witnessed in the London Sirillo manuscript Or. 2822, as well as when the Genesis Rabbah macroform is extended with additions from Yerushalmi and midrash (for instance, from Tanhuma), as witnessed in the earliest printed editions.

Furthermore, it is impossible to overlook the many points of contact between the two collective works; they attest to the openness of their textures. The numerous parallel traditions demand the construction of models which would be able to explain the reciprocal dependencies and influences. It can be said with certainty that the tradition histories of both collective works were closely interwoven. In fact, they developed in such close proximity to one another that MS Vatican 30, one of the oldest and the most important of Genesis Rabbah textual witnesses, explicitly indicates in three places that text material "from the Yerushalmi" should be inserted. B. M. Bokser has shown that in one of these cases the manuscript refers to a Yerushalmi text whose redaction differs from the redactions of all Yerushalmi manuscripts and editions known to us. From this, one may conclude that the document "Yerushalmi" was still in a period of growth when, according to common opinion, it should already have undergone its final redaction long ago.^[20]

Keeping in mind the unstable textual character of both Talmud Yerushalmi and Genesis Rabbah, it is not possible to assign a particular point of time when both the texts assumed their "final" form. Hence dating on the basis of allusion to historical personalities, for example, is useless. Therefore, it is meaningless to say that Genesis Rabbah was "composed" in 6th century CE.

The problem of relative chronology exist for these sources, as well as for the collective works. This is the fundamental problem because the "dating" of the documents in relation to one another assumes, theoretically, a definite point in time when one work was completed and could be used by the others. Such a moment is unascertainable, however, because the documents did not undergo a comprehensive, "once and for all" final treatment. Instead, they (or, mostly, only parts of them) materialized as texts through the independent work of many scribes and editors over a long period of time. Accordingly, the earliest text witnesses known to us (usually manuscripts and editions from the Middle Ages) are different in scope, deviate considerably from one another, and above all, do not fit into a linear redaction process. For this reason, it appears arbitrary to place Yerushalmi or Genesis Rabbah as entire edited works at, say, the end of the fourth century. Such a dating is not securable on the basis of form - or redaction - critical analysis, but only on the basis of texts' contents (i.e., through the names of the rabbis, or the allusion to historical events or personalities).

The contents of the texts, however, upon which the generally accepted dating supports itself, remains questionable criteria and are burdened by uncertain factors so long as the impression which they give cannot be verified through literary-critical observations. ... Redaction-critical research provides no basis by which to date a supposed final redaction of these tractates [i.e., Genesis Rabbah and Bavot] in relation to the final redaction of the rest of the Yerushalmi. At best, one may hypothesize that the compilation of amoraic traditions based on the Mishnah of the Bavot commenced prior to the compilation of amoraic traditions based on the other Mishnah tractates. But just as the documents Yerushalmi and Genesis Rabbah were not suddenly completed in the middle of the fourth century, so the Bavot tractates were not suddenly completed in the middle of the fourth century. Both dating which Neusner uncritically accepts from Lieberman and other, unnamed authors, do not take into consideration the dynamic of the redaction processes that formed Yerushalmi, and Neusner's own method is unable to compensate for this dynamic. Consequently, Neusner should have followed the pattern of Arnold Goldberg's form-critical studies of rabbanic literature and foregone dating attempts, thereby dispensing with the illusion of an historical analysis of the Yerushalmi as a document produced in the second half of the fourth century.

Further, Hans-Jürgen Becker says that the redaction characteristics of Talmud Yerushalmi [i.e., the Jerusalem Talmud] shows that the current edition that is available today dates very late compared to the supposed "date" of redaction.

Every dating of Genesis Rabbah and the Yerushalmi implies a completion of their redaction and a beginning of the work of copyists. The differentiation between copyists and redactors in the case of rabbanic works is, however, simply not helpful. Moreover, upon more careful consideration we realize that the transition from redaction to copying proves itself to be quite fluid: the copyists are frequently also redactors, and the redactors are always simultaneously copyists. As late as the sixteenth century, the first Yerushalmi commentator, Sh. Sirillo, complains that he can't trace a single "orderly" manuscript of the Yerushalmi. Consequently, he feels compelled to produce his own Yerushalmi text on the basis of fragments, collections, and quotations. The Sirillo manuscripts attest to his own redacting of, and simultaneously commenting on, this text over a rather extended time period. Totally inadequate is the infrequently suggested sequences of events according to which it was first the redactors and then later only copyists who respectively transmitted the documents. We should rather say that revised and copied texts were later re-revised and re-copied. .. The first Venice edition of the Yerushalmi is the result of an intensive redaction by the primary glossator of the Leiden manuscript. Through extensive additions, deletions, rearrangements, and alterations, this glossator redactor worked on the manuscript which (according to the colophon by its scribe Yehi'el b. Yequti'el) was itself a revision of its draft copy. What is today available to us as the textus receptus of the Yerushalmi is a product of the Middle Ages (Venice, first edition, beginning of the sixteenth century) with a great number of further textual alterations from the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries (the editions of Cracow and Krotoshin, respectively).

Comparing it with the edition of Genesis Rabbah by Theodor and Albeck, Hans-Jürgen Becker says that the text which Theodor and Albeck produced never existed in any point of time before. In other words, this itself is a redacted text.

The Genesis Rabbah text of Theodor and Albeck (1929), which is today widely used for research, is based upon the London manuscript of Genesis Rabbah and Levicticus Rabbah (probably twelfth century). This text was emended ("corrected") by the editors based on the manuscripts and was supplemented according to MS Vatican 30. The end-product is a Genesis Rabbah text which never before existed. Albeck, the redactor, clearly expressed his intention to present the final, conclusive version of Genesis Rabbah. Relevant evidence of the traditional history of Genesis Rabbah and Yerushalmi includes datable manuscripts and archaeological findings. Such evidence does not attest to "the work" Genesis Rabbah or Yerushalmi, however, but only to specific textual shapes of (mostly only parts of) these works, shapes whose redactional characteristics sometimes deviate considerable from each other. They therefore do not assist with the establishment of a literary-critical dating of the works, but rather attest to their instability.

------------------------

Midrash Numbers Rabbah & Haman In The Qur'an

The Qur'anic association of Haman with the Pharaoh of Egypt has invited a great deal of criticism among certain Western scholars and Christian apologists. According to them, Haman belongs to Persian history as depicted in the book of Esther in the Old Testament, long after the time of Moses. Thus it is believed by these scholars and apologists that the mention of Haman during the time of Moses is an anachronism in the Qur'an.^[1]Consequently, they claim that Prophet Muhammad copied and in some cases altered the Biblical material when composing the Qur'an. A substantial part of their argument rests on the unproven premise that since the Bible has been in existence longer than the Qur'an, the Biblical account is intrinsically correct, as opposed to the Qur'anic account, which is necessarily inaccurate and false. The charge of a Qur'anic anachronism concerning the mention of Haman during the time of Moses has been refuted elsewhere and it was shown that the biblical book of Esther is historically unreliable to make the charge stick.
In this paper, we will deal with the claim that the Prophet Muhammad's error of making Haman contemporary with Korah (Qarun in the Qur'an) may have come from the Midrash Numbers Rabbah (also called Bemidbar Rabbah) where Haman is mentioned alongside Korah as having been a rich man. The earliest scholars to make such a claim were Abraham Geiger^[2] and Josef Horovitz.^[3] Subsequently, this claim was repeated by N. A. Newman.^[4]
2. Dating Midrash Numbers Rabbah
Let us first begin by quoting the relevant material from Midrash Numbers Rabbah which was allegedly the "source" of the Prophet's "confusion" resulting in his mention of Haman alongside with Korah. The midrash says:

So also two rich men arose in the world, one in Israel and one among the nations of the world - Korah in Israel and Haman among the nations of the world - and both of them were destroyed from the world.^[5]

Midrash Numbers Rabbah mentions Haman alongside Korah but it is equally clear that they belong to different nations of the world. Furthermore, the midrash writer does not even hint that they were both contemporaries! As to who exactly is in error here is obvious; it is simply a misreading on the part of Horovitz and Newman which resulted in them making erroneous claims.
Even more devastating for their argument is the dating of Midrash Numbers Rabbah. This midrash consists of twenty three chapters. The first fourteen are essentially different from the following nine. The two parts may have been connected probably at the beginning of the 13th century CE. This dichotomy has resulted in scholars concluding that they are composed to two different authors.^[6] Our concern here is with one of the chapters from last nine, i.e., the second part of the midrash. This part of Midrash Numbers Rabbah is essentially the Midrash Tanhuma, as shown by Benveniste in 1565 CE.^[7]
What about the dating of this midrash? Zunz pointed out that Midrash Numbers Rabbah is hardly older than 12th century CE.^[8] As for the second part of Midrash Numbers Rabbah, the Encyclopaedia Judaica states:

The view accepted by the majority of critical scholars is that Numbers Rabbah II, which is apparently the second half of a complete Midrash whose first half, which served as original basis, was lost, was compiled in the ninth century, like most of the Tanhuma Yelammedenu Midrashim.^[9]

A detailed discussion about the dating of Midrash Tanhuma, accessing a broad range of Judaeo-Christian textual scholarship including specific reference to the nature of the manuscript evidence, is given elsewhere. It is sufficient to state that this midrash is dated to the 9th century CE as noted earlier.^[10] Unless the above-named critics are proposing a new theory of redaction criticism^[11] whereby a post-edited writing(s) can become the source of a text that antedates it, it is difficult to imagine (not to mention impossible) a post-Islamic source that has undergone redaction to be the alleged source of "Muhammad's confusion", that of placing Haman contemporary with Korah. Interestingly, the earliest manuscripts of the Midrash Numbers Rabbah date only from the 15th century CE.
3. Conclusions
It was claimed by Horovitz that Muhammad's alleged error of making Haman contemporary with Korah may have come from the Midrash Numbers Rabbah where Haman is mentioned alongside Korah as having been a rich man. Upon investigation, it was seen that such a position was untenable. Firstly, although Midrash Numbers Rabbah mentions Haman alongside Korah, it clearly states that Haman and Korah belong to two different nations of the world. It would be difficult for anyone to conclude that they were contemporaries in Egypt. Secondly, the second part of Midrash Numbers Rabbah is based on Midrash Tanhuma that dates from the 9th century CE. This post-Islamic dating refutes the position that Midrash Numbers Rabbah was the "source" of Prophet's alleged error.
And Allah knows best!
----------------------

On The Sources Of The Story Of Cain & Abel In The Qur'an
The Targum doesn't pre date rather post dates!

What Did Tisdall & Geiger Say About The Borrowing?

Since Ibn Warraq and the missionaries insist that the Qur'anic story of Cain and Abel is borrowed from the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, it is fitting to examine Geiger and Tisdall's remarks on the matter.

Geiger only makes a passing remark of the conversation mentioned in the Jerusalem Targum and the Qur'an. Moreover, he makes no claims regarding similarity and copying:

... the matter of the conversation is given so differently in each case that we do not consider it worth while to compare the two passages more closely.^[13]

In his unabridged edition The Original Sources Of The Qur'an, Tisdall has the following to say:

A conversation, or rather argument, between Cain and Abel is mentioned in the Jewish legend both in the Targum of Jonathan and in the Targum of Jerusalem... The resemblance between this narrative and that given in the beginning of the foregoing quotation from the Qur'an is not striking.^[14]

The above passages reveal an interesting dilemma. If both Geiger and Tisdall both agree that the Qur'anic story of Cain and Abel is markedly different from one another, and that it can't be the source of the Qur'an, then why have Ibn Warraq and the missionaries so eager to claim that the Qur'anic narrative is borrowed from the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan?

2.2 The Dating Of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan

The next logical line of inquiry is to consider the final date of redaction for the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, whether it was after the advent of Islam or before. Michael Maher writing in 1992 in the introduction to his translation of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan says:

Although Ps.-J. certainly contains ancient traditions, many recent authors argue that this Targum received its final form after the Arab conquest of the Middle East. D. M. Splansky believes that Ps.-J. dates from the ninth or tenth century. His main arguments may be summarized as follows: The reference of Aisha and Fatima in Ps.-J. Gen. 21:21 should not be seen as an insertion. The source of the midrash could not have originated before 633 CE at the earliest. Ps.-J. makes use of PRE [i.e., Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer] and both Tanhumas, a fact which points to the ninth or tenth century as the time of Ps.-J.'s compilation. The way in which Ps.-J. presents the midrash about Abraham's refusal to bless Ishmael in Gen. 25:11 betrays an anti-Moslem polemic, and the reference to the blemish of Ishmael and the blemish of Esau in Ps.-J. Gen. 35:22 can best be explained against the background of a world divided between Arabs and Christians. There are possible indications in other texts in Ps.-J. (e.g., Gen. 16:12; 25:13; 49:26; Num. 7:87) that they date from a time after the Arab conquest. The precise reference to calender matters in Ps.-J. Gen. 1:16 shows that this Targum was written in the second half of the ninth century at the earliest.

Shinan has also stated his conviction that Ps.-J. depends on PRE and that it is the work of an author-editor who was active in seventh or eightn century. Le Déaut affirms that the final redaction of Ps.-J. could not have taken place before the eighth century. Cook's examination of language of Ps.-J. leads him to conclude that there are a number of indications which place Ps.-J. after the Muslim conquest of the East. J. A. Foster, on the basis of the language of Ps.-J., states that this Targum may date from the eighth or ninth century. The findings of these and other scholars who have dedicated special studies to both the content and the language of Ps.-J. allow us to accept with confidence the view that this Targum in its final form cannot be dated before seventh or eighth century.^[15]

In fact, as early as 1905 The Jewish Encyclopedia had already pointed out that Targum Pseudo-Jonathan:

... is not earlier than the seventh century; for it mentions Ayeshah (`A'ishah) (or, according to another reading, Khadija [Hadijah]) and Fatima, the wife and daughter of Mohammad, as wives of Ishmael, who was regarded as Mohammad's ancestor.^[16]

The post-Islamic redaction of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan had been briefly alluded to by Torrey, from whose book Ibn Warraq quotes extensively; but he fails to notice this critical point.^[17]

Summing up, this Targum redacted after the advent of Islam. We do not know how the process of redaction proceeded; whether it was redacted by multiple authors or whether there was a single author-redactor. It is accepted that the present text of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is a result of much editing and reediting.^[18] Importantly, the only surviving manuscript of the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is the British Library Additional MS 27031 and is dated to the sixteenth century. On folio 231b, there is a signature of the censor, Dominico Gierosolomitano, with the date 1598. The editio princeps of Pseudo-Jonathan was printed in Venice in 1591 by Asher Forins for the publishder Juan Bargadin. There are significant differences between the British Library manuscript and the editio princeps.^[19]

If Ibn Warraq and the missionaries claim that the Qur'anic story of Cain and Abel is borrowed from the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan or Jerusalem Targum, then they carry the burden of proof to establish the integrity of the latter texts. It has already been mentioned that the final redaction of the Targum took place after the advent of Islam and that the the matter of conversation between Cain and Abel in the Qur'an and in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is strikingly different.

-----------------

The Qur'anic Material Allegedly Borrowed From Pirke De-Rabbi Eli`ezer

STORY OF CAIN AND ABEL

A GOLDEN CALF THAT LOWS

MOSES' "LEPROUS" HAND

PHARAOH'S REPENTANCE & BECOMING A "MUSLIM"

Pirke De-Rabbi Eli`ezer doesn't pre date rather post dates!

 Dating Pirke De-Rabbi Eli`ezer: A Chronological Investigation

The writers who have claimed that Pirke de-Rabbi Eli`ezer was indeed the source of many Qur'anic stories that are listed above, have more or less tacitly assumed that Pirke de-Rabbi Eli`ezer pre-dates Islam.^[35] However, it had been deduced by Leopold Zunz more than 110 years ago (some 13 years before Tisdall wrote his book The Original Sources Of The Qur'an) that parts of Pirke de-Rabbi Eli`ezer points to the coming of the messianic age for the year 729 CE.<sup>[36]</sup> Furthermore, an examination of another contemporary source from Tisdall's time reveals that Pirke Rabbi de-Eli`ezer was already considered to be a post-Islamic composition. The Jewish Encyclopaedia published in 1905, the same year as the publication of Tisdall's book, states under "Pirke de-Rabbi Eli`ezer":

Josh was the first to point out that in the thirtieth chapter, in which at the end the author distinctly alludes to the three stages of the Mohammadan conquest, that of Arabia, of Spain, and of Rome, the names of Fatima and Ayesha occur beside that of Ishmael, leading to the conclusion that the book originated in the time when Islam was predominant in Asia Minor. As in ch. 36, two brothers reigning simultaneously are mentioned, after whose reign the Messiah shall come, the work might be ascribed to the beginning of the ninth century, for about that time the two sons of Harun al-Rasid, El-Amin and El-Mamun, were ruling over Islamic realm.^[37]

In recent times, Strack and Stemberger say that Pirke de-Rabbi Eli`ezer:

... appears to have originated in the eighth or ninth century... It alludes repeatedly to Arab rule, especially in the stories about Ishmael, as whose wives Aisha and Fatima are named (chapter 30). In the same chapter the Dome of the Rock on the Temple site is also known, and the joint rule of the two brothers is mentioned...^[38]

The view of the late compilation of Pirke de-Rabbi Eli`ezer is also echoed in the Encyclopaedia Of Islam. While dealing with the story of al-Samiri in the Qur'an, it says:

Regardless of how the story [of al-Samiri] came about, the Kur'an appears to present the earliest record of this midrashic development; aspects of it which are found in the Jewish sources (e.g., Pirke De-Rabbi Eli`ezer and Tanhuma) would seem to date from after the rise of Islam.^[39]

According to Geiger, Tisdall and others, Muhammad "composed" various accounts found in the Qur'an using a source that had not yet been compiled until hundreds of years after his death! 
Abraham Geiger was not aware of chronology and redaction criticism of the Jewish literature which led him to draw erroneous conclusions concerning the alleged borrowing of Jewish material into the Qur'an. His book Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgenommen? has also been the subject of recent criticisms by scholars such as Norman Stillman for its exaggerated view of the Jewish influence on the Qur'an. Concerning the story of Cain and Abel in the Qur'an and the attribution to Pirke de-Rabbi Eli`ezer as its possible source, Stillman says: 

... [Geiger's book] did tend to give exaggerated view of the Jewish contribution to the Qur'an. Many of the traditions that he cites are in oriental Christian as well as talmudic and haggadic literature. Our chronology of rabbanic literature is better today than in Geiger's, and many more texts - Muslim, Jewish, and Christian - have since being published. In the light of this we know now that in some instances what was thought to be a Jewish haggadic influence in an Islamic text might well be quite the reverse. The Pirqe de Rabbi Eli`ezer, for example, would seem to have been finally redacted after the advent of Islam.^[40]

He advises us in his conclusion:

In conclusion, it should be emphasized that one should be extremely cautious about assigning specific origins to the story discussed here - or for that matter, any other story in the Qur'an.^[41]

The late redaction of Pirke de-Rabbi Eli`ezer is also confirmed by the specialists of midrashic studies who generally agree that the earliest citation of this work is found in the near contemporaneous 9th century writings of Pirkoi Ben Baboi,<sup>[42]</sup> a Babylonian talmudic scholar who was a pupil of a pupil of Yehudai ben Nahman<sup>[43]</sup> who was the Ga'on of Sura between 760–764 CE. A chronological list of the Ga'ons of Sura can be extrapolated from the epistle of Sherira Ga'on (906–1006 CE), which was addressed to the scholars of Kaitwan wherein he recounts the history of the Babylonian academies.<sup>[44]</sup>
Interestingly, Sherira dates the appearance of Muhammad at the onset of the Ga'onite period. The famous Jewish historian Avraham Ibn Da'ud (c. 1110 – c. 1180 CE) dates the appearance of Muhammad to the Savora'ite period. Ibn Da'ud even provides a precise date for the appearance of Muhammad, being the year 4372 "after creation" which corresponds to c. 611 – c. 612 CE.<sup>[45]</sup> The date provided by Ibn Da'ud corresponds closely with two important events in early Islamic history – that of Muhammad declaring himself to be the final Prophet of God in c. 610 CE and the invitation to Islam he proclaimed to the general public in c. 613 CE at Mount al-Safa.<sup>[46]</sup> Appearing to reconcile both the above views, Joseph Sambari, a 17th century Egyptian chronicler dates the appearance of Muhammad at the point where the Ga'onite and Savora'ite periods converge.<sup>[47]</sup>
Therefore, based entirely on Jewish historical records originally written beginning around 1000 years ago, the writings of Pirkoi Ben Baboi can be dated at least 200 years after the time of Muhammad. Pirkoi Ben Baboi is also considered to be the earliest writing to contain a citation of Pirke de-Rabbi Eli`ezer. As for the manuscripts of Pirke de-Rabbi Eli`ezer, the earliest one dates from the 11th century CE and this work has come down to us in various editions. When these pieces of information are combined we can observe that the missionaries, apparently working in a different time dimension from the rest of academia, are guilty of propagating factually incorrect information, casting doubt on their ability to engage seriously with the subject matter in hand.
Acknowledging the flawed scholarship of Geiger, Tisdall and the numerous authors that uncritically adopted their conjectures, the missionaries retract their original argument that Pirke de-Rabbi Eli`ezer is a source of the Qur'an and in doing so posit another incredulous claim:

... However, Pirke is not a work of new material, written from scratch at that later time but mainly a collection of old traditions many of which are also found in the Talmud and midrashic sources (before Muhammad).

The missionaries claim (unsupported, of course) that material contained in Pirke de-Rabbi Eli`ezer is found in sources "before Muhammad" (c. 571– 632 CE); not surprisingly, they are silent by the way of examples. The missionaries' argument has some serious drawbacks. Firstly, Pirke de-Rabbi Eli`ezer is not a midrash in the real sense, but should be classed within the genre of "rewritten Bible" and in no case can it be attributed to Rabbi Eli`ezer ben Hyrcanus (80–118 CE). The book may simply have been named after Eli`ezer because it begins with him. However, since some manuscripts do not contain these two chapters, it is also possible that they were only subsequently connected with this work. Yet this in turn would have to have occurred at an early date, since the Genizah fragments already attest the present chapter numbering.^[48] Secondly, Pirke de-Rabbi Eli`ezer contains almost no names of amoraim and falsely attributes sayings to many tannaim.^[49] Given these facts, it would be difficult to find out which traditions are "older" in this pseudepigraphic work, especially those which are allegedly the "sources" of the Qur'an.
------------------

Is The Source Of Qur'an 18:60-65 The Epic of Gilgamesh?

Stressing the difference between the Qur'an and the Qur'anic commentaries that use the the elements present of the Epic of Gilgamesh that surface in the Alexander stories, Wheeler adds that:

Instead of considering the Epic of Gilgamesh and Alexander stories as being confused in the Qur'an, along with a number of theodicy stories, it is preferable to uncover how and to what end the commentaries make use of elements of these earlier stories in their interpretation of Q 18:60-102. By interpreting Q 18:60-102 in light of these extra-Qur'anic stories, the commentators are able to show how Islam includes earlier stories and revelations. This approach, on the one hand, allows the commentaries to contend that these earlier stories are part of the revelation included in the Qur'an. On the other hand, the commentaries are in a position to claim that their interpretations of the Qur'an are necessary in order to understand the rich and comprehensive character of what would otherwise be enigmatic passages. Keeping in mind the distinction between Q 18:60-102 and the commentaries on these verses, it is possible to begin to uncover not the sources for the Qur'an, but the sources to which the commentaries make allusions in their interpretations of the Qur'an.^[17]

The Junction Of The Two Waters
Wensinck has already admitted that there is no connection between  the madjma` al-bahrayn or "junction of the two seas (or rivers)" with Gilgamesh's "mouth of the rivers" or with the Alexander stories. Let us summarise the issue of the waters and the difference between the various accounts:^[18]

• In the Epic of Gilgamesh Utnapishtim is said to reside at the "mouth of the waters." The Akkadian phrase ina pi narati has also been understood to mean the "head of the waters," signifying the junction and source of the waters flowing from Dilmun, the Sumerian equivalent of the Garden of Eden. Both of these water sources are associated, in different contexts, with the Garden of Eden, although in the Epic of Gilgamesh the water at the "mouth of the waters" is not considered to grant immortality. 
• In the Alexander stories the water is supposed to be located at or flow from a source in the Garden of Eden. 
• In the Qur'anic commentaries, the expression madjma` al-bahrayn ("the junction of the two waters") is understood in variety of ways. Some of them contain allusions to elements from the Gilgamesh Epic and Alexander stories; some consider it to be the meeting place of Mediterranean Sea (i.e., "Roman" Sea) and Indian Ocean (i.e., "Persian" Sea). The meeting place of the two waters was identified with the "Garden of Eden".  Is this from the commenraries or opinions? 

Wheeler says that the Qur'anic exegesis were not familiar with the name of Gilgamesh, though they were familiar with certain elements of the Gilgamesh story, notably Gilgamesh's journey to Utnapishtim. It is possible that in late antiquity and beyond, the Gilgamesh story was known through the medium of the Alexander stories and that the figure of Alexander represented Gilgamesh.^[19]

3. Conclusions

It was claimed by Wensinck that specific elements in Qur'an 18:60-65 were borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh such as the "meeting place of the two waters"  and the supposedly immortal "servant of God". Wheeler pointed out that the connection seen by Wensinck are not based on Qur'an 18:60-65 but on the information attributed to these verses in the Qur'anic commentaries.
Wensinck does not make any distinction between the Qur'an and its commentaries. The commentaries give no indication of being aware of the Epic of Gilgamesh. It is most likely that the Qur'anic commentaries used elements present in the Epic of Gilgamesh (which surfaced in the Alexander stories) along with the stories associated with the Sa`b Dhul-Qarnayn to explain Qur'an 18:60-82.

-----------------------

Is The Qur'anic Surah Of Joseph Borrowed From Jewish Midrashic Sources? 

Midrash doesn't pre date rather post dates!

Dating The Jewish Sources

1. Midrash Yalkut Shimeoni: More than a century ago, Zunz pointed out that the Midrash Yalkut Shimeoni had been compiled in the 13th century CE by Simeon ha-Darshan.^[10] This dating is still accepted today. The Encyclopaedia Judaicasays:

Yalkut Shimoni, the best known and most comprehensive midrashic anthology, covering the whole Bible. Some scholars (S. J. Rapoport, etc.) claimed that its author and compiler was Simeon Kara, the father of Joseph Kara and a contemporary of Rashi, but A. Epstein showed that there is no basis for this view. He proved that the Simeon mentioned by Rashi is not the compiler of Yalkut and attributed it to a Simeon ha-Darshan, who lived in 13th century.... Zunz dated the Midrash to the 13th century based on the facts that Nathan b. Jehiel of Rome, Rashi, and other 12th century scholars did not know the Yalkut, its use of sources which date at the earliest from the end of the 11th century.... Not all of Zunz's arguments are valid.... but Zunz's view as to its date prevails...^[11]

Similarly Epstein inclines to agree

... with Zunz that the author of the Yalkut flourished in the early part of the thirteenth century.^[12]

2. Midrash Ha-Gadol: It is the largest of all the midrashic collections. Concerning the dating and the nature of composition The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia says:

Midrash Hagadol ("The Great Midrash") a midrashic compilation to the entire Torah... was apparently completed in 14th cent.... Unlike the compiler of the Midrash collection Yalkut Shimeoni, the editor of Midrash Hagadol does not gives his sources.... In many instances the legends and expositions in the text are very similar to those recorded in Mohammedan sources.^[13]

It is universally regarded that David b. Amram of Aden (Yemen) was the author of Midrash Ha-Gadol. David b. Amram is usually dated in the 13th century.^[14]

3. Sefer Ha-Yashar: According to the Encyclopaedia Judaica Sefer Ha-Yashar was

... probably written in the 13th century.^[15]

Some scholars like J. Dan have suspected that this work was composed only at the beginning of the 16th century in Naples. In support of this idea J. Genot cites the description of Joseph as a Jewish astronomer at a Gentile court, the use of the astrolabe, and contemporary influences on biblical narratives. The Venice edition of Sefer Ha-Yashar appeals to a 1552 printed edition of Naples, which, however, apparently never existed.^[16] Concerning the contemporary influences on Sefer Ha-Yashar, Zunz points out the existence of various Arab names in it.^[17]

4. Midrash Tanhuma: A detailed discussion about the dating of this book is given elsewhere. It is sufficient to say that this Midrash is dated to the 9th century CE.^[18]

5. Midrash Genesis Rabbah: Very briefly, although scholars had claimed that this Midrash was edited in the 6th century CE, it has now been shown that the text of this Midrash was horribly unstable even when in the Middle Ages.^[19]Hence, there is no way of identifying what actually constituted the "original" text. There are chapters of Vayishlach, Vayigash, Vayechi etc. that have gone through extensive changes and have been drawn from Tanhuma homilies. Tanhuma homilies themselves were complied in the ninth century CE as stated above.

4. Conclusions

Geiger and others claimed that the Qur'anic story of Joseph, in certain parts, can only be "understood" using the Jewish Midrashic literature. It is clear from the above discussion that Midrash Yalkut, Midrash Ha-Gadol, Sefer Ha-Yashar, Tanhuma and Midrash Genesis Rabbah are either late compilations or are textually unstable. They all reached their final form a few hundred years after the advent of Islam. The implicit assumption of the "understanding" of "incoherent" Qur'anic account by using the Midrashic sources is that these Midrashic sources existed before the advent of Islam and that the Prophet did not the comprehend the story of Joseph properly is untenable. What is interesting is that the Muslim commentaries had crystallised much earlier than much of the Jewish Midrashic literature. Further, there is at least one Midrash (Ha-Gadol) that had incorporated the Islamic sources in its material. It is quite obvious that one cannot use sources that came a few hundred years after the advent of Islam to explain the Qur'anic narrative. The textual instability as well as the absence of pre-Islamic manuscripts of the Midrashic sources make it impossible to determine the precise nature of the text itself. Furthermore, after a detailed discussion about the Midrashim used to "understand" the Qur'an, Macdonald says that:

Moreover we cannot say with certainty. Nor is it wholly convincing to maintain that his [i.e., the Prophet's] information was derived from Jewish traders.^[20]

And that speaks quite well of the whole "understanding".

-------------------

On The Sources Of The Qur'anic Dhul-Qarnayn

Another post date not pre date!

Dating The Christian Legend Attributed To Jacob Of Serug

The dating of the Christian Legend was based on the study of its internal evidence. At the end of the text there is a mention that on the passing of 826 years, the Huns will break forth and will subjugate peoples:

And king Alexander fetched [an engraver] and inscribed upon the gate: "The Huns shall go forth and conquer the countries of the Romans and of the Persians, and shall cast arrows with...., and shall return and enter their won land. Also I have written that, at the conclusion of eight hundred and twenty six years, the Huns shall go forth by the narrow way which goes forth opposite Halôrâs, where the Tigris goes forth like the stream which turns a mill, and they shall take captives the nations, and shall cut off the roads, and shall make the earth tremble by their going forth. And again I have written and made known and prophesied that it shall come to pass, at the conclusion of nine hundred and forty years,.... another king, when the world shall come to an end by the command of God the ruler of creation

This passage is considered by all students to be of fundamental chronological importance. If we compute according to the Era of the Seleucids, the successors of Alexander (i.e., from 311), then 826-311 yields a year of 515 CE; which was the date of the great Sabir invasion.^[10] This vaticinatio ex eventu (i.e. a prophesy or predication after the event) is prophesied in the Christian Legend. Considering this vaticination (prediction or prophesy),  Nöldeke held the view that the Christian Legend was composed about 515 CE.

What about the second prediction or prophesy of the inscription: the 940th year? The year 629 CE (i.e., 940-311) corresponds to the Greek Era of 940. Nöldeke held it to be a genuine vaticination (prediction or prophesy). He even admits that the Khazars, the allies of Emperor Herakleios, invaded Armenia through the Caucasus in 627 CE. This date however, argues Nöldeke, did not refer to the beginning of the campaign (as the Legend would have us suppose), but rather to the conclusion of a protracted Byzantine-Persian war. Therefore, in Nöldeke's opinion, the date 940 of the Greek Era (= 629 CE) is purely arbitrary, as it should naturally be in the case of a genuine vaticination.

Hunnius has convincingly argued against Nöldeke's sixth century dating of Christian Legend. He showed that certain parts point to the Khazar invasion of 629 CE - i.e., seventh century.^[11] Czeglédy, using Kmoskó's thesis, also argued that the Christian Legend and metrical discourse of Jacob of Serugh came into its final form after 628 CE and that this argument is conclusive: 

... it is all the more regrettable that Kmoskó's expositions, which settle the dispute, were not published earlier than a few years ago, and even then only in extracts. Kmoskó has a whole series of arguments to prove that both the metrical Legend and the prose text of the same contain unmistakable references to the war of Khosrav II and Herakleios. Hence both variants, in their present forms, contain variant of the Legend that came into being as an adaption definitely after 628. Kmoskó's arguments are surely conclusive. An adaption of this kind is a natural phenomenon in apocalyptic literature: after the passing of the date foretold in the latest vaticination, the subsequent adapters inserts new prophecies into the text.^[12]

This identification only gives us the date 628 CE as terminus a quo (a point of origin or a first limiting point in time). The text gives no date by which to fix the terminus ad quem (a final limiting point in time). Similarly Gero says:

Several features of the text [i.e., the Christian Legend] also occur in the Koranic narrative - the famous horns of Alexander, the journey to the west and then to the east, and of course the central theme of the gate, which will be opened at an apocalyptic Endzeit by divine command. But although this has been proposed by Nöldeke and often repeated since, the work also does not qualify as a direct source for the 'two-horned' Alexander of the Koran, at least not in its present form; recent investigations indicate an ex eventuknowledge of the Khazar invasion of Armenia in A.D. 629.

The prose legend (neshânâ) was then in turn the literary source of the Syriac metrical homily discourse attributed to Jacob of Sarug (sixth century) in the manuscripts. The poem, however, was actually written in the seventh century, shortly before the Muslim conquest of Mesopotamia and Palestine.^[13]

Sir Wallis Budge indicated a long time ago that the Christian Legend had been re-worked and is burdened with additions, and that this work is that of Jacob of Serugh is improbable: 

This composition appears to be an abbreviated form of which known to us is that given in the metrical discourse on Alexander attributed to Jacob of Serugh; both these works, in turn are based upon chapters xxxvii-xxxix of the second book of Pseudo-Callisthenes according to Muller's greek MS. C. The Christian Legend has been burdened with many additions, evidently the work of the Christian redactor, which have no connexion whatever with the story. On the other hand many passages, as, for example, the account of his descent into the sea in a glass cage, have been entirely omitted. The names of the places which are given us freely in this legend seem to indicate that it was drawn up at a very late period; that it is the work of Jacob of Serugh is improbable.^[14]

--------------------------

Arda Wiraz Namag (Iranian "Divina Commedia") And The Prophet's Night Journey 

This lie from Christians post dates doesn't pre date Islam!

Dating Arda Wiraz NamagBefore making a claim of borrowing, it would be a good idea to see the textual stability and dating of the sources. Ibn Warraq accepted Tisdall's dating without even undertaking investigation into the nature of the textual source. It is well-known that the Zoroastrian sources like the Rabbanic literature underwent many redactions and that they were finally redacted a few hundred years after the advent of Islam.
There are two historical persons mentioned in Arda Wiraz Namag: Âdurbâd î Mâraspandan,^[10] the famous Dastur and minister of Shapur II (309-379 CE) and Weh-sâpûr,^[11] the famous Môbad in the time of Khosrow I (531-579 CE).^[12] It is interesting to note that Arda Wiraz Namag says Wiraz was also called Weh-sâpûr:

.... from three one named Wirâz, it is so that some called him Weh-sâpûr.^[13]

Did the author(s) of Arda Wiraz Namag know these two historical personalities? Vahman says that the author(s) of Arda Wiraz Namag:

.... had no historical knowledge about the time when they lived.^[14]

This would mean that the story may have originated any time after 579 CE. The dating of Arda Wiraz Namag had been a case of controversy because of the mention of these two historical persons. Walter Belardi had dated this book before the third century establishment of the Sasanian state.^[15] His argument is that the names Âdurbâd î Mâraspandan and Weh-sâpûr are perhaps the work of a later interpolator.^[16] He also goes to an extreme by claiming that the whole of Chapter I, 1-20, is a later day literary forgery.^[17] However, such position has not gained currency. Due to uncertainity and lack of evidence Vahman takes a middle path unlike Belardi. He opines that may be "their names were interpolated to credit the authenticity of the book. Or perhaps these priests were remembered with respect and honour at the time when the book was edited...". It appears that this is the most accepted view among the scholars as will be seen below. David Flattery and Martin Schwartz have relied (and so the missionaries!) on Belardi's dating even though they concede that the extant version of the book is late and can be dated to ninth century CE.^[18]Hence the obvious conclusion here is that we do not know the terminus a quo of Arda Wiraz Namag.
If it is the "first redaction" that is important than the final redaction (in the redaction criticism it is the other way around!), Vargo did not show what the "first redaction" actually contained. Obviously, he can't show what he has not got! Gignoux says the following about the problems facing literary critics concerning the Zoroastrain writings including Arda Wiraz Namag.

It is known that the whole of the Pahalvi literature was written tardily, roughly speaking after the Muslim conquest, and that it however transmitted extremely old traditions to us, from Sasanide and even pre-Sasanide times.... One also needs remark that the handwritten tradition in Iran was never regarded as a rigid data, untouchable and final from where successive rehandlings which the texts underwent, and that poses the literary critic problems that need to be solved, in what concern us in particular is that of the dating of the various draftings..... A particularly significant example of the transmission of a text for the Pahalvi literature, is the book of Arday Viraz.... Like also indicated by Ms. Boyce, in the work already quoted, this book underwent many rehandlings, and in the final drafting, the introduction was written subsequently to the Muslim conquest. But the adaptation of the text for purposes of a religious propaganda at the time, when Mazdaism had to be upheld against the attacks of Islam, does not seem to have been the last. Certain linguistic facts, with savior the presence of well characterized "persianisms", attest that the text still seems to have undergone rehandlings in the 10th or 11th centuries and that the final drafting of the text such as it was preserved to us - insofar as, as one saw, one can speak about final drafting - could be extremely late.^[19]

Similarly Encyclopaedia Iranica says:

The Arda Wiraz-namag, like many of the Zoroastrian works, underwent successive redactions. It assumed its definitive form in the 9th-10th centuries AD, as may be seen in the texts frequent Persianisms, usages known to be characteristic of early Persian literature.^[20]

In other words, Arda Wiraz Namag underwent many redactions before it came into its final form after the advent of Islam in 9th-10th centuries CE. Mary Boyce argued along similar lines by saying:

In its surviving form it is a prose work, written in simple, direct style; and an introductory chapter indicates a date after the Arab conquest. This late redaction was made in Pars, and is probably one of the 9th/10th century literary products of the province.^[21]

Fereydun Vahman, the translater of Arda Wiraz Namag, also asserts:

The introductory chapter indicates a date after the Arab conquest and was apparently written in Pars. It is probably one of the 9th or 10th century literary products of the province. A linguistic analysis supports this view.^[22]

Gignoux did a literary study of Arda Wiraz Namag and reached a conclusion that Arda Wiraz Namag had reached its final form in 10th or 11th century CE.^[23] Nevertheless, it appears that the general consensus among the scholars is that Arda Wiraz Namag came into its final form between 9th-11th centuries CE. Hence the terminus ad quem of Arda Wiraz Namag is between 9th-11th centuries CE.
It is not surprising to see that scholars dating this work say:

.... when it was set down is unknown.^[24]

Vahman believes that this story may have originated when the Persian Empire declined or after its downfall as suggested by the introductory chapter.^[25] This is the period of emergence of Islam and it was rise of Islam that brought an end of the Persian Empire. So, if Vargo is interested in the first redaction of Arda Wiraz Namag he has to live with the hard fact that it is not known and is more likely during the rise of Islam.