Muslim views on Jesus

[exchemist]

Nevo, Koren, Puin, etc.

Another school of thought starts with John Wansborough, and numerous others influenced by him. Patricia Crone, Guillaume Dye, etc.

It's not really that important as I was only noting that there are scholars who disagree and I'd already named some.



No doubt you are well aware of what it is

This is really very interesting. I had no idea of any of this.

For any other interested readers, here is a (very short) Wiki article on Wansborough and his ideas: John Wansbrough - Wikipedia

 

[Augustus]

This is really very interesting. I had no idea of any of this.

For any other interested readers, here is a (very short) Wiki article on Wansborough and his ideas: John Wansbrough - Wikipedia

In very general terms, there are 2 broad revisionist theses regarding the Quran:

1. Some of its content predates Muhammad, generally viewed as being part of Syriac Christian lectionary.
2. Some of its content post-dates Muhammad and reflects later editing of the text over the next 100-200 years

Examples:

The Qur'an and its Hypertextuality in Light of Redaction Criticism (The Qur'an and its Hypertextuality in Light of Redaction Criticism)
Guillaume Dye

This paper argues that the application of the tools and methods of Redaction criticism to the Qur'an can yield extremely fruitful results.
Studying, more specifically, surah 19 (Maryam), it shows that this surah displays several layers of composition. The earliest layers are described as a "text of convergence" with Christians. It is shown that all the details of the text have their source in written, liturgical and popular Christian traditions, most specifically those related to the Jerusalem Marian liturgy of the early 7th century. Analysing the profile of the author shows that this surah was most probably composed after the conquests by a Christian monk who "converted" to the faith of the newcomers, or put his pen at their service. It also show that Q 3:33-63 is later than the early layers of Q 19:1-63, and that Q 19:34-40 was added to Q 19 later than the composition of Q 3:33-63.
This raises interesting questions about the chronology and composition of the Qur'an. Solutions to various specific riddles in surah 19 are also suggested.

J. Wansbrough and the Problem of Islamic Origins in Recent Scholarship: A Farewell to the Traditional Account
J. Wansbrough and the Problem of Islamic Origins in Recent Scholarship: A Farewell to the Traditional Account [2012] / Book Chapter



I'm not necessarily making the case that either of these views are correct, I'm generally agnostic on the issue as I'm not knowledgeable enough to evaluate the claims sufficiently.

I've read a lot of stuff on this and at first you tend to go "Wow, that really explains it!". Then you read something else equally persuasive that points out, often highly technical, reasons why it is wrong. It's very much the more you know the more you realise that you don't know.

One person might say Quran is an etymon of the Syriac qǝryānā, “reading of Scripture in Divine Service”, whereas someone else might make the case that this is unlikely to be true, and I don't have the linguistic knowhow to judge between the arguments.

So while it's interesting, I'm not going to pretend I know the definitive answer.

 

[paarsurrey]

This is really very interesting. I had no idea of any of this.

For any other interested readers, here is a (very short) Wiki article on Wansborough and his ideas: John Wansbrough - Wikipedia

John Wansbrough's research as mentioned in Wikipedia is not reasonable.

Regards

__________________
[6:113]وَ کَذٰلِکَ جَعَلۡنَا لِکُلِّ نَبِیٍّ عَدُوًّا شَیٰطِیۡنَ الۡاِنۡسِ وَ الۡجِنِّ یُوۡحِیۡ بَعۡضُہُمۡ اِلٰی بَعۡضٍ زُخۡرُفَ الۡقَوۡلِ غُرُوۡرًا ؕ وَ لَوۡ شَآءَ رَبُّکَ مَا فَعَلُوۡہُ فَذَرۡہُمۡ وَ مَا یَفۡتَرُوۡنَ ﴿۱۱۳﴾
And in like manner have We made for every Prophet an enemy, evil ones from among men and Jinn. They suggest one to another gilded speech in order to deceive — and if thy Lord had enforced His will, they would not have done it; so leave them alone with that which they fabricate —
[6:114]وَ لِتَصۡغٰۤی اِلَیۡہِ اَفۡـِٕدَۃُ الَّذِیۡنَ لَا یُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ بِالۡاٰخِرَۃِ وَ لِیَرۡضَوۡہُ وَ لِیَقۡتَرِفُوۡا مَا ہُمۡ مُّقۡتَرِفُوۡنَ ﴿۱۱۴﴾
And in order that the hearts of those who believe not in the Hereafter may incline thereto and that they may be pleased therewith and that they may continue to earn what they are earning.
[6:115]اَفَغَیۡرَ اللّٰہِ اَبۡتَغِیۡ حَکَمًا وَّ ہُوَ الَّذِیۡۤ اَنۡزَلَ اِلَیۡکُمُ الۡکِتٰبَ مُفَصَّلًا ؕ وَ الَّذِیۡنَ اٰتَیۡنٰہُمُ الۡکِتٰبَ یَعۡلَمُوۡنَ اَنَّہٗ مُنَزَّلٌ مِّنۡ رَّبِّکَ بِالۡحَقِّ فَلَا تَکُوۡنَنَّ مِنَ الۡمُمۡتَرِیۡنَ ﴿۱۱۵﴾
Shall I seek for judge other than Allah, when He it is Who has sent down to you the Book, clearly explained? And those to whom We gave the Book know that it has been sent down from thy Lord with truth; so be thou not of those who doubt.
[6:116]وَ تَمَّتۡ کَلِمَتُ رَبِّکَ صِدۡقًا وَّ عَدۡلًا ؕ لَا مُبَدِّلَ لِکَلِمٰتِہٖ ۚ وَ ہُوَ السَّمِیۡعُ الۡعَلِیۡمُ ﴿۱۱۶﴾
And the word of thy Lord has been fulfilled in truth and justice. None can change His words; and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.
[6:117]وَ اِنۡ تُطِعۡ اَکۡثَرَ مَنۡ فِی الۡاَرۡضِ یُضِلُّوۡکَ عَنۡ سَبِیۡلِ اللّٰہِ ؕ اِنۡ یَّتَّبِعُوۡنَ اِلَّا الظَّنَّ وَ اِنۡ ہُمۡ اِلَّا یَخۡرُصُوۡنَ ﴿۱۱۷﴾
And if thou obey the majority of those on earth, they will lead thee astray from Allah’s way. They follow nothing but mere conjecture, and they do nothing but lie.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 6: Al-An`am

 

[Terry Sampson]

@Augustus

And there's Ibn Warraq:

• Ibn Warraq - Wikipedia
  • Ibn Warraq is the pen name of an anonymous author critical of Islam. He is the founder of the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society and used to be a senior research fellow at the Center for Inquiry, focusing on Quranic criticism. Warraq is the Vice-President of the World Encounter Institute
• Ibn Warraq: Historical Methodology and Dogmatic Islamophilia - Inârah

 

[exchemist]

In very general terms, there are 2 broad revisionist theses regarding the Quran:

1. Some of its content predates Muhammad, generally viewed as being part of Syriac Christian lectionary.
2. Some of its content post-dates Muhammad and reflects later editing of the text over the next 100-200 years

Examples:

The Qur'an and its Hypertextuality in Light of Redaction Criticism (The Qur'an and its Hypertextuality in Light of Redaction Criticism)
Guillaume Dye

This paper argues that the application of the tools and methods of Redaction criticism to the Qur'an can yield extremely fruitful results.
Studying, more specifically, surah 19 (Maryam), it shows that this surah displays several layers of composition. The earliest layers are described as a "text of convergence" with Christians. It is shown that all the details of the text have their source in written, liturgical and popular Christian traditions, most specifically those related to the Jerusalem Marian liturgy of the early 7th century. Analysing the profile of the author shows that this surah was most probably composed after the conquests by a Christian monk who "converted" to the faith of the newcomers, or put his pen at their service. It also show that Q 3:33-63 is later than the early layers of Q 19:1-63, and that Q 19:34-40 was added to Q 19 later than the composition of Q 3:33-63.
This raises interesting questions about the chronology and composition of the Qur'an. Solutions to various specific riddles in surah 19 are also suggested.

J. Wansbrough and the Problem of Islamic Origins in Recent Scholarship: A Farewell to the Traditional Account
J. Wansbrough and the Problem of Islamic Origins in Recent Scholarship: A Farewell to the Traditional Account [2012] / Book Chapter



I'm not necessarily making the case that either of these views are correct, I'm generally agnostic on the issue as I'm not knowledgeable enough to evaluate the claims sufficiently.

I've read a lot of stuff on this and at first you tend to go "Wow, that really explains it!". Then you read something else equally persuasive that points out, often highly technical, reasons why it is wrong. It's very much the more you know the more you realise that you don't know.

One person might say Quran is an etymon of the Syriac qǝryānā, “reading of Scripture in Divine Service”, whereas someone else might make the case that this is unlikely to be true, and I don't have the linguistic knowhow to judge between the arguments.

So while it's interesting, I'm not going to pretend I know the definitive answer.

Yes, understood.

 

[Augustus]

And there's Ibn Warraq:

• Ibn Warraq: Historical Methodology and Dogmatic Islamophilia - Inârah

The most (in)famous would be those associated with Inarah:

Those associated with Inarah in Saarbrucken, Germany tend to be among the more extreme fringes of the revisionist movement.

While some of their ideas are accepted in more mainstream scholarship, it is generally considered they go too far and beyond what the evidence can support (although they, of course, would dispute this).

 

[Terry Sampson]

@Augustus

Ahh, ... right. Point taken.

I note that historians and religious-text scholars working on the histories of Judaism and Christianity and their scriptures are able to write and move about with freedom, and that Islamic and Qur'anic "revisionism" has been slow to gain ground. I wonder why that is?

 

[paarsurrey]

@Augustus

Ahh, ... right. Point taken.

I note that historians and religious-text scholars working on the histories of Judaism and Christianity and their scriptures are able to write and move about with freedom, and that Islamic and Qur'anic "revisionism" has been slow to gain ground. I wonder why that is?

Because they start with a wrong line of investigation so they tumble down with wrong results.

Regards

 

[Wasp]

@Augustus

Ahh, ... right. Point taken.

I note that historians and religious-text scholars working on the histories of Judaism and Christianity and their scriptures are able to write and move about with freedom, and that Islamic and Qur'anic "revisionism" has been slow to gain ground. I wonder why that is?

I guess Muslims don't think God's words need to be "revised", I wonder why that is..

 

[paarsurrey]

I guess Muslims don't think God's words need to be "revised", I wonder why that is..

There is no need to revise G-d's Word - Quran. We Ahmadiyya Muslims don't find an iota of need to revive Quran. Why should it be revised, please?
Those who subscribe to other world-views/religions/no-religions and they are happy with them, they may revise their world-views/religions/no-religions on their own accord, if they like, we have no objection. Right, please?

Regards

 

[exchemist]

I guess Muslims don't think God's words need to be "revised", I wonder why that is..

Presumably the same reason a lot of Christians on this forum are convinced every word in the bible is literally true and not in any need of interpretation.

 

[exchemist]

There is no need to revise G-d's Word - Quran. We Ahmadiyya Muslims don't find an iota of need to revive Quran. Why should it be revised, please?
Those who subscribe to other world-views/religions/no-religions and they are happy with them, they may revise their world-views/religions/no-religions on their own accord, if they like, we have no objection. Right, please?

Regards

Scholars are free to revise the Quran too if, they like. It is not the exclusive property of anyone.

 

[paarsurrey]

Scholars are free to revise the Quran too if, they like. It is not the exclusive property of anyone.

It will be an exercise in futile. Quran is Word of G-d to Muslims, so it will be an interference with Islam Religion. It will not be acceptable to Muslims the world over.I don't figure they will do an exercise in futility. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Presumably the same reason a lot of Christians on this forum are convinced every word in the bible is literally true and not in any need of interpretation.

Bible OT+NT both are already revised with Quran-the Word of G-d. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Jollybear]

No, you gave quotes attributed to Jesus, according to various New Testament accounts. But muslims rely on other scripture.

If it came later, that does not automatically make it inferior. After all, Christians rely on the New Testament, which came long after the Old Testament of the Jews.

So we have three rival sources of scripture in the Abrahamic religions, don't we?

You seem unable to see how things may look from another person's point of view.

Oh boy.......im not discounting the old testament.

Also, if we assume (although theres arguments that are made) the New Testament contains Jesus words, then it makes sense that the NT is right and the koran is not.

Also, the koran came about 500 years later.

Who knows better? The ones closest to the events or the ones further from it? Its the former.

 

[firedragon]

Nevo, Koren, Puin, etc.

Another school of thought starts with John Wansborough, and numerous others influenced by him. Patricia Crone, Guillaume Dye, etc.

It's not really that important as I was only noting that there are scholars who disagree and I'd already named some.



No doubt you are well aware of what it is

Well. If you are looking for lists of people's names or critics you very well know anyone can search for them and post them here.

But if you have you studied them? If not why do you accept them? Is it because of your bias? If you have studied them, state what their thesis is and why you agree.

One by one. First you quoted Christoph Luxemburg.

1. Who is he what is his background?
2. Whats his thesis and why is it correct?

Lets wait and see if you resort to not addressing the questions.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

The OT (85% of the bible) is based on the Torah, the first 5 books of the bible are almost identical clones

The first 5 books are identical clones?

Sorry sis. You cannot be more further from the truth. Read it critically.

The where did you get this figure of 85% of the bible is based on the Torah? 85% out of 34 (without the pentateuch) books is 30. What are the 30 books you are speaking of and what is the analysis to say they are all based on the "Torah"

 

[firedragon]

One person might say Quran is an etymon of the Syriac qǝryānā

1. Sister languages are always borrowed. And the thesis is absurd.
2. What is the Hebrew word for reading? How similar is that? So what is the dismissal strategy based on that?
3. Does any arabic word that sounds like an Aramaic word become an Aramaic word and therefore doubtful to have a linguistic origin of the mid 7th century? For example the word sperm is taken from Greek, what does that prove about a book written in the 21st century in English?
4. Think. This guy takes an arabic word and changes the nokath around to make it a Syriac word. Its so nonsensical like taking the word "bad", replacing "a" with an "o" and making it "bod".
5. Based on the Nokaths he makes a claim that some words "must be" borrowed from Syriac. This idea is wrong. And even if it is borrowed, this is how languages work.

What does any of this have to do with Quran being authored by several authors?

Provide specific details if you can.

 

[firedragon]

@Augustus

Ahh, ... right. Point taken.

I note that historians and religious-text scholars working on the histories of Judaism and Christianity and their scriptures are able to write and move about with freedom, and that Islamic and Qur'anic "revisionism" has been slow to gain ground. I wonder why that is?

Not really. Muslim scholars have been working on this since time immemorial, you are making an assumption. Every single name mentioned of a so called "scholar" (Which most of you haven't even read but quote for convenience) are borrowing from their work. Just because you dont know, doesn't make your assumptions true.

 

[firedragon]

I note that historians and religious-text scholars working on the histories of Judaism and Christianity and their scriptures are able to write and move about with freedom,

You mean now! But people were persecuted for it earlier. All religions have done that. So being bias will hinder your scholarship.