The Alexander Romances, although often believed by critics of Islam as being the source of the Quranic Dhul Qarnayn, has an unclear date of composition, spanning between the 4th and 16th centuries. That is why it is legitimate to speculate that the borrowing charge against the Quran has less ground to stand on than the reverse, with the various authors of the romances actually inspiring themselves throughout time by the Quran and its comentaries.
The Alexander Romances is thought to be based on the lost Greek writing called Pseudo Callisthenes whose closest copy is a 5th century Armenian translation. What is of concern to Islam critics are the shallow and far fetched similarities between the Quran and the Syriac translation, of which no manuscript exists prior to the 18th century, and in which by the way Alexander is never given the title "two horned".
As to the 14th-16th century Ethiopic translation in which he is called "two horned", besides being irrelevant in trying to establish the title by which Alexander was known around the time of the revelation of the sura in 620, it is important noting that this work contains the authors' interpretative opinion and is based on earlier Arabic translations.
But back to the Syriac translation which is of main interest to the accusers.
Although originally believed to have been finalized towards the mid 7th century CE, this Syriac legend of Alexander ends with a passage about the gates built by Alexander and stresses parallels between him and Heraclius, the Byzantine Emperor. More importantly this same passage retrospectively "prophecizes" the invasion of the Huns in 515 CE and the coming of Heraclius in 629 CE, leading scholars to assume the passage is a later addition, written as a Byzantine propaganda shortly before the Muslim conquest of Syria around 634CE. It additionally speaks of an independent and major Arab Kingdom which can only be equated with the early Caliphate. In that conquest the Persians are contrasted with the Sassanids, and the Greeks with the Romans. This pushes the finalization of the passage to post date the revelation of sura Kahf pre-620CE. (as a side note even if one would be to assume the sura is Medinan then the onus is on him to prove it post dates the finalization of the Syriac romance).
Similarily and towards the late 7th century, a Syriac Christian adaption of the Alexander romance, called the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius, was written as a response to the Muslim invasions equating Gog and Magog with the Muslims. Other factors have led scholars to push the final composition of the passage further to between the 8th and 15th century, as it was clearly reshaped as a means by which the author sought to console, through parallelisms, the Christians who had lost Constantinople to the Ottomans.
In short besides the Armenian translation which was itself reedited in the 13th century, all other versions have their earliest manuscripts post dating the Quran by centuries. This means that all these texts were written in an Islamic environment, including the Armenian translation, which could have affected the later development of the Alexander Romances.
Now although late manuscripts themselves arent problematic, they become so when one attempts establishing a borrowing claim from text to text. Besides the proven additions, it is impossible to determine what the Syriac text looked like towards its earliest potential time of inception, in 629CE. Even if one takes this earliest estimate, it still leaves the Syriac author with long enough time to be exposed to the Quranic Dhul Qarnayn, again revealed pre-620, orally or textually, integrating the Quranic elements so as to fit and embelish the Christian agenda as was done a few decades later in Pseudo-Methodius.
Even Josephus and Jerome's respective works with short passages alluding to a wall built by Alexander are known evolving texts and their earliest manuscripts post date the Quran by hundreds of years, and were both finalized when Pseudo-Methodius had gained sweeping influence accross europe. Finally, there exists zero proof that the similarities between the romances and Dhul Qarnayn were in oral circulation all over the middle East and Europe prior to the revelation of sura kahf circa 620CE while plenty evidence exists pointing to the finalization of all available versions of the romances, more particularily the passages with Quranic similarities, after the revelation of the sura and the spread of Islam.
Even if for argument's sake these traditions were in circulation, then it would still do nothing to undermine the Quran's authenticity. All these sources draw on earlier lost sources, as shown earlier, with the life stories of Cyrus the Great being the main inspiration.
And once more, similarities doesnt entail borrowing. One first has to establish that the supposed (illiterate) author of the Quran had access to the similarities. One then has to explain how he cherry picked among a long list of books and traditions, besides other philosophies and thought systems, to form a well knit, flawlessly intricate narrative in its literary form that left the masters of eloquence of the time dumbfounded, as well as depth of contents that has not finished unravelling its subtleties.
Why wasnt the source ever exposed nor came out to denounce him, leaving him reap the fruits of their labor. How wasnt this source detected given the largely exposed lifestyle of the time, the open circumstances in which the prophet lived and received revelation, as well as many other factors, not the least being that the Quran never claims to be relating something unknown in that particular narrative, repeatedly says it is a revelation in a long tradition of revelations.
This means the superficial similarities might be remnants of revealed truths that eventually found their way into these apocrypha. In those writings from which the Quran supposedly draws, one can many times see how the superficial similarities are poorly weaved into the fabric of the story. The apocryphal writer, or his source, was aware of certain elements of the story but poorly integrated them in the whole account.
This is precisely why the Quran refers to itself as the Muhaymin (Guardian), when talking about the textual and oral traditions contemporaries to it. It points out major mistakes in them, filters the Truth from falsehood
21:24"this is the reminder of those with me and the reminder of those before me".
The Quran confirming the past scriptures, as well as any tradition, oral or written, in which divine truths still remain 2:41, means that the principles taught by Muhammad come from a common source, which Muslims believe is the Source of creation, and can be found throughout these textual and oral traditions. This is pointed to in the common phrase "musaddiqan lima bayna yadahi". With the passage of time these traditions were burdenned with additions, suffered from corruption and/or neglectful transmission. The Quran then acts as a criterion that distinguishes truth from falsehood.
Therefore, and for argument's sake, to Muslims, it is irrelevant whether a story bearing similarities with a Quranic passage was even in circulation during and before Islam. It is even less relevant to Muslims whether the similarities were cannonized in the Bible or not. By what standard is the current Bible canon more reliable than the apocrypha? And what proof is there that the unknown Bible compilers rejected these traditions based on these points common to the Quran? Does the current Bible canon even claim to relate every single aspect of the life of its Biblical characters? Is it quiet possible that during the tumultuous process of transmission of the Bible, more particularily the HB which was lost at least twice as recorded in the Bible itself, some parts of the overall transmitted traditions were retained by the editors charged with reconstituting the lost text, and who reflected their own socio-cultural background in the process? Could they have been Selecting what was appropriate for their storytelling purposes and what was not? Of course from a secular viewpoint, the Quran, as a later text, is irrelevant in determining the authenticity, original versions or actual beliefs of those who originated or penned the previous oral and written traditions, canonized or not. But then so is the NT irrelevant in determining those matters from the HB, just as within the HB itself parts are far removed in time and space from other parts, making certain books insignificant when exploring these matters from earlier or later books. However, as soon as one introduces the divine into the equation, then all groups Jews-Christians-Muslims are equal in their claims as regards the authority of one scripture over another. The only factor from a non-secular view point enhancing one claim over another, would be the group with the most authentic, contradiction-free scripture.
In today's mainstream academia, no Islamicist asserts the Quran was influenced by the textual and oral traditions of its milieu, let alone copies from them. Simply because there is no possibility to know whether the human mind who supposedly authored the text had access to those traditions or understood them. What academics do at most, is present what they see as similarities, without disregarding or minimizing the vast differences. On the other side of the spectrum are Judeo-Christian religious zealots and apologists whose methodology and ideas are vastly inherited from their medieval peers' polemical writings. In order to enforce their untenable, unproven claims of borrowing, they retrospectively cherry pick convenient snippets from within larger stories that have very little to do with the corresponding Quranic passages. Then, not only do they disregard the significant differences loaded with theological meanings, but go on magnifying the tiniest similarities to the maximum so as to serve their paradigm. In the process, they inadvertently attribute to Muhammad an encyclopediac knowledge of texts and traditions, as well as an army of unseen informants from a variety of backgrounds and cultures following him around. This weak methodology can be applied to any thought system so as to build up a case for plagiarism.
The Judeo-christian scriptures themselves relate, through the successive prophets and inspired personalities, different stories that were known to the addressees. This doesnt mean their statements were inspired by these traditions floating around. Rather, the common truths found between these traditions, and the statements of the prophets come from God. There is a myriad of similarities between the HB and stories, texts, inscriptions, including the Ugaritic mention of Adam and Eve, the Mesopotamian myth of Gilgamesh where he is cheated of immortality by a snake who eats a plant (had Gilgamesh eaten it, it would have made him immortal. The elements are the same but play out differently). There are other such myths circulating in Babylon where the Israelites spent a long time in exile, of a hero tricked out of immortality through the device of a plant/food. One could extend the parallelism with the laws of Hammurabi, or the global flood, among many examples, all predating Moses' supposed writing of the Torah. Some of these similarities might be due, as in the Quran, to being remnants of ancient truths partially preserved by these different cultures. But other biblical parallels with predating writings and traditions obviously are copies of unsophisticated legends floating in the region. The oldest and original account of creation in the Bible isnt found in Genesis but in Isaiah, Job or the Psalms. God in these crude stories divides the seas and fights off aquatic monsters. The same is found in the Ugaritic tablets and in a language very similar to Hebrew, with the myth that creation began when the storm god Baal vanquishing the god of the sea Yam and his sea monster-serpent-dragon helpers. Isa27:1 has a very close wording to what a Canaanite says about Baal
"When you killed Litan, the fleeing serpent, annihilated the twisty serpent, the potentate with seven heads".
One shouldnt forget that the canonization of the Bible was a long and controversial process, influenced by men with doctrinal bias, and that the current Biblical text is far from being a valid criterion of what truly constitutes divine knowledge from purely human invention.
