Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Qur'anic studies today
Yesterday at 04:26 PM

Hi everyone and this is m...
Yesterday at 12:54 PM

Month of Return to Allah
by akay
May 20, 2019, 09:59 AM

Freely down loadable Boo...
May 18, 2019, 03:16 AM

شهر العودة إلى الله
May 17, 2019, 03:46 PM

Sufism
May 17, 2019, 11:17 AM

Hi everyone
May 07, 2019, 07:08 PM

Hello Everyone in Oxfords...
May 07, 2019, 07:07 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Qur'anic studies today

 (Read 282191 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 201 202 203204 205 ... 225 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6060 - March 15, 2019, 07:45 PM

    Quote
    what Muslim tradition?  which Muslim tradition dear Marc?? Who Authorizes which Muslim tradition is correct Tafsir for Quran verses dear Marc??


    The Muslim tradition is that which is codified in the following genres of literature: sira, hadith, tarikh, and tafsir.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6061 - March 15, 2019, 11:15 PM

    What do we learn from this? What we already knew and that is that parts of the Quran are inspired by a Christian tradition, parts by the Jewish tradition. Can we expect a single author or group of authors to have known both sufficiently well to produce the Quran? Or should we look at different groups each from a different tradition and their papers were merged at a later stage?


    For me, it was merged at a later stage but we might never know.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6062 - March 15, 2019, 11:54 PM

    When one sees the codex Parisino-petropolitanus, 45% of the Quranic text,  dated as far back as the late 7th c. or early 8th c. would you say that the 60% remaining was written later and merged with the 45% dispersed in Paris, Russia and England?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6063 - March 16, 2019, 06:25 AM

    merging of the Quran:

    Here again is the reliability of the C14 dating very important. Seen these results coming in ( https://www.islamic-awareness.org/quran/text/mss/radio.html) how is the late date still tenable? On top of that, if canonisation was that late, the rasm would have been adapted to be more intelligible and fit the empirical needs better.

    concerning the completeness (see table 11 https://www.islamic-awareness.org/quran/text/mss/hijazi.html), the missing verses in Surah 2 and the blancs of some higher nummer surahs catches the eye. I dont think that is just coincidence.

    oh Surah 111 is missing in the list! Could it have been added later?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6064 - March 16, 2019, 10:31 AM

    The incompleteness of manuscripts has nothing to do with ‘merging of texts.’ Manuscripts are usually incomplete for a number of reasons, some being the possibility that the remaining text is lost, destroyed, decayed, yet to be found, etc. A very common phenomenon that is hardly surprising. One can see the same in Biblical manuscripts and other manuscripts, too. The Quran is no exception. By the time of CPP’s production, the consonantal skeleton had reached closure and the corpus was no longer open to any further additions. Most scholars agree on this point, revisionists and non-revisionists alike. Speaking of ‘merging of texts’ in relation to CPP is thus inaccurate and anachronistic. As to the question of dating, CPP is a late seventh-century manuscript, possibly eighth century. Asking why such a late date in light of C14 results of other manuscripts is wrong. This dating is derived from a meticulous analysis based on codicological and paleographical grounds. On this point, too, most scholars agree, although some might prefer dating it, as I alluded to above, to the eighth century. Furthermore, the question assumes the reliability of C14 results, when that has not been established. Matter of fact, more than half of these C14 results are completely wrong. A case in point example of this is, as it does relate to CPP, the C14 dating of Mingana 1572a. And yet, despite the very early dating, it turned out to be wrong based on an analysis of its orthography and variant readings. Other factors were considered, too, if I remember correctly.

    I presumably misunderstood what you guys were saying, so I apologize
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6065 - March 16, 2019, 10:43 AM

    The dialog between Allah and ibliss is recounted in 4 different suras but, though it relates to the same event, you have 4 different narratives. Therefore :

    - either the author(s) drew from the same source and decided to build these divergent narratives on purpose,

    - or we have here the merging of 4 different texts

    The same pattern repeats itself for other events too (e.g. the dialog between Lot and the people of Sodome and Gomorrha).

    As the muslim tradition itself speaks of different codexes then a merger at a later date than the writing of the texts involved is the likely option. And like Magrhaye said, C14 is irrelevant here.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6066 - March 16, 2019, 11:18 AM

    The incompleteness of manuscripts has nothing to do with ‘merging of texts.’ Manuscripts are usually incomplete for a number of reasons, some being the possibility that the remaining text is lost, destroyed, decayed, yet to be found, etc.


    Some words...
    I read here or elsewhere that the fact that these manuscripts are incomplete signify that they are really incomplete, and that they are not parts of complete manuscripts. View from now, one supposes that CPP  one have is complete, but one have none evidence of that in reality.

    Quote
    A very common phenomenon that is hardly surprising.

     

    Maybe. But the specific conditions of the emergence of the Quran has only a few things to do with those of other Scriptures.


    Quote
    One can see the same in Biblical manuscripts and other manuscripts, too. The Quran is no exception. By the time of CPP’s production, the consonantal skeleton had reached closure and the corpus was no longer open to any further additions. Most scholars agree on this point, revisionists and non-revisionists alike.

     

    I read scholars. But (fortunately!) what most of them think (or not) is not an argument for me to be convinced.

    Quote
    Speaking of ‘merging of texts’ in relation to CPP is thus inaccurate and anachronistic.


    One does not have a complete manuscript before the 9th c.
    Quote
    As to the question of dating, CPP is a late seventh-century manuscript, possibly eighth century. Asking why such a late date in light of C14 results of other manuscripts is wrong. This dating is derived from a meticulous analysis based on codicological and paleographical grounds.

     

    For me, nor codicological and palaeographical can indicate really something apart end of this or middle of that century.
    Ink cannot be dated.

    Quote
    I presumably misunderstood what you guys were saying, so I apologize


    I was asking to Marc if he thought that the 45% of CPP (supposing that it was 100% of the Quran texts at its time)  had been merged with later Quran texts written after.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6067 - March 16, 2019, 11:39 AM

    Quote
    I read here or elsewhere that the fact that these manuscripts are incomplete signify that they are really incomplete, and that they are not parts of complete manuscripts. View from now, one supposes that CPP  one have is complete, but one have none evidence of that in reality.

     

    I believe Déroche has provided reasons for supposing CPP was a complete codex. Will double-check and get back to you.

    Quote
    Maybe. But the specific conditions of the emergence of the Quran has only a few things to do with those of other Scriptures.


    True. I was only drawing superficial and broad comparisons relating to textual criticism that is common to other texts as well.

    Quote
    I read scholars. But (fortunately!) what most of them think (or not) is not an argument for me to be convinced.


    What the majoritarian position is is not proof in and of itself, yes, but it does, however, mean something when most relevant experts agree on a certain topic based on the relevant data. We all appeal to experts and what the majority of experts believe all the time. I was not committing a fallacy, in other words. Besides, you yourself agree that the Quran was codified by the end of the seventh century.

    Quote
    One does not have a complete manuscript before the 9th c.


    We do have complete manuscripts. Tons of them. What we don't have is complete codices prior to the ninth century.

    Quote
    For me, nor codicological and palaeographical can indicate really something apart end of this or middle of that century.


    Did not quite get what you were trying to convey. You are surely not claiming that codicology and paleography when dating manuscripts, right?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6068 - March 16, 2019, 11:57 AM

    manuscripts:

    Manuscripts can be incomplete because of wear and tear and by accident. But they also can be incomplete compared to what we have now bc not all was there in the beginning. Difficult to know or be sure of what is what.

    1/Déroche: He says a lot, but would like to hear it in short determining arguments. Just believe Déroche is not good enough for me.

    2/Muslim empire was powerful from the beginning. If the book was that central, why wasnt the Utmanic manuscript preserved?

    3/ This is also a probability question. A lot of partial manuscripts are preserved. Why eg is Surah 2 so incomplete   https://www.islamic-awareness.org/quran/text/mss/hijazi.html Less than 40 percent is preserved.

    4/ Some codeci have a non-traditional Surah order. Indication of Quran showing flexibility not only in order but also in content?

    5/ the later (short surahs) are missing quite a lot. Was it easier to slip in an extra Surah at the end of the Quran than at the beginning?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6069 - March 16, 2019, 12:49 PM


    I believe Déroche has provided reasons for supposing CPP was a complete codex. Will double-check and get back to you.


    Ok.

    Quote
    What the majoritarian position is is not proof in and of itself, yes, but it does, however, mean something when most relevant experts agree on a certain topic based on the relevant data. We all appeal to experts and what the majority of experts believe all the time

     

    One should take that into account. But a majoritarian position must not as such convince. It, I think, must be suspected one way or another, maybe more than a single one. "Suspected" here means a bigger examination. That is my method.

    Quote
    Besides, you yourself agree that the Quran was codified by the end of the seventh century.


    What you mean exactly  by "codified"?

    Quote
    We do have complete manuscripts. Tons of them. What we don't have is complete codices prior to the ninth century.


    CCP is a codex. That different folios, reunited or not from different provenances can be reunited in an artificial Utmanic codex is another thing. I'm not even sure of that... You have sources?
    In any case what count (for me...) is the codex.

    Quote
    Did not quite get what you were trying to convey. You are surely not claiming that codicology and paleography when dating manuscripts, right?


    For me, nor codicological and nor palaeographical  patterns can indicate really something about a manuscript/codex  date,  apart end of this  century or middle of that century.

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6070 - March 16, 2019, 02:03 PM

    The Muslim tradition is that which is codified in the following genres of literature: sira, hadith, tarikh, and tafsir.

      "....Muslim tradition is codified.........."  ....  says..Mahgraye

    what traditions? Codified by who?  when   dear  .Mahgraye?? ......  that was the question to Marc  ON THAT PARTICULAR 5 VERSES SURAH..

    Tafsir when and by whom?? 800 AD?  1000AD??  1200 AD ..or  if you come all the way to 20th century ..  that tafsir  from Maududi?? or tafsir  yeezevee      or Tarikh-i  yeezevee   in 21st century ??

    what  sira, what hadith are we talking about dear Mahgraye ??

     Imam Malik hadith? Sahih Bukhari  hadith??   did you read through any hadith  books dear Mahgraye?/

    how about starting with hadith_qudsi.

    When  we have Quran  why  not explore that in detail?? 

     Why run in circles  with silly Muslim traditions  from Turkey.. Persia.. Afghanistan..Pakistan..India..Bangladesh ..Indonesia .. Sudan...etc etc..Muslim  traditions.. ??  




    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6071 - March 16, 2019, 05:24 PM

    A paper co-authored by Gallez ; it blames the fall of the sassanian empire by the anti-christianism feelings of khosroes II and he fact the persian empire lent his heavy cavalry to the chinese at a time where they were needed against the Arabs.

    All those claims need a thorough review to assess them, especially the anti-christiniasm as Khosroes II 's favourite wife was Christian and the paper doesn't detail the events leading to the slaughter of christians during the capture of Jerusalem.


    https://www.academia.edu/38559530/Lexpansion_du_primo-islam_antichristianisme_et_erreur_strat%C3%A9gique_pr%C3%A9cipitent_lempire_sassanide_vers_sa_ruine

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6072 - March 16, 2019, 05:30 PM

    Yeezevee, I don't think you really had a look at Gabriel Sawma's work hence your confusion ; he didn't work on the origins of Islam ; he just says the Quran was badly translated from Aramaic so he wrote a book about how the Quran should be read and he explain how Aramaic allows him to do this reconstrcution of the true (for him) meaning of the Quran.

    I don't think I  need to read him dear Marc_S...  watching his words in this tube i posted as response to you is enough for me..

    And I would NOT say  "Quran was badly translated from Aramaic" .. at best what one can say is ."Aramaic  bible  stories were NOT properly represented"  .IF. IF WHOLE QURAN WAS ARAMAIC STORY

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6073 - March 16, 2019, 06:43 PM

    Quote
    One should take that into account. But a majoritarian position must not as such convince. It, I think, must be suspected one way or another, maybe more than a single one. "Suspected" here means a bigger examination. That is my method.


    I think we agree.

    Quote
    What you mean exactly  by "codified"?


    When the consonantal skeleton finally reached closure and the corpus no longer was open to further editions—that is, the date of the Qurʾān’s codification and the establishment of the ne varietur text.

    Quote
    CCP is a codex. That different folios, reunited or not from different provenances can be reunited in an artificial Utmanic codex is another thing. I'm not even sure of that... You have sources?


    I think we do agree on this point as well. What I was trying to say was that we do have complete manuscripts but no complete codex—that is, a complete Quran, earlier than the third/ninth century (Jonathan E. Brockopp, “Islamic Origins and Incidental Normativity,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 84 [2016], p. 35; accepted by all textual critics.). Keywords: complete and codex. For sake of clarity, take H.S. 44/32 as an example. H.S. 44/32 is a proper codex. However, it is only 99% complete. This does not mean that there were no complete Quran before H.S. 44/32 or that the missing portions did not exist. But the Quran as compiled in a codex was achieved under Abd al-Malik, for instance.

    Quote
    For me, nor codicological and nor palaeographical  patterns can indicate really something about a manuscript/codex  date,  apart end of this century or middle of that century.


    If I understood you correctly, you are only claiming that one cannot date a manuscript precisely, in terms of giving exact years, via codicology and paleography, apart from general remarks such as the beginning or end of the seventh or eighth century. I don't think I have something specific to say apart from that I one might perhaps give a broad time window.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6074 - March 16, 2019, 07:24 PM

    Maghraye,

    Please expand on this H.S. 44/32 codex. What is estimated date, which part is missing?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6075 - March 16, 2019, 07:28 PM

    H.S. 44/32 (second quarter of the 2nd/8th century CE—that is, between 661 and 750 CE). Of the original manuscript, which would have included 500 folios, 402 folios (99%) are currently extant. The two missing folios are said to have included Q 5:78 and 17:17–33. These verses are, however, accounted for in other contemporary manuscripts.

    I think the date range is inaccurate but the text is accurate.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6076 - March 16, 2019, 07:31 PM

    H.S. 44/32

    Not on islamic awareness page?

    But anyway, by 700 we (I) expect it to be complete...
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6077 - March 16, 2019, 07:31 PM

    Here it is: https://www.islamic-awareness.org/quran/text/mss/topkapi.html
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6078 - March 16, 2019, 07:46 PM

    Quote
    But anyway, by 700 we (I) expect it to be complete...


    Of course. Everyone agrees on this.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6079 - March 16, 2019, 08:26 PM

    When the consonantal skeleton finally reached closure and the corpus no longer was open to further editions—that is, the date of the Qurʾān’s codification and the establishment of the ne varietur text.


    There is (for me...) an hermeneutical issue  about the concept of "the consonantal skeleton finally reached closure". What does that really mean? One have for example the Saana palimpsest. What have we got here? Changing of word. Words of the  Utmanic vulgate replaced by their more or less synonyms. What does that mean? Can one says that the SP attests of a time where the rasm (I do not deal with sura order here...) was fluid for example? The question is in a paradigm that I simply do not share. I think that the exemplar the scribe(s)  of the  SP had before their eyes was in so poor condition, that he needed to replace words that he cannot read, with the help of the context or previous parts. For me, that does not mean that the rasm was fluid according to this paradigm  and how it is posed by scholars, as the only one attestation of this, lies only to the SP. So this matter (for me) is far from settled, because "fluid" means that there was additions, but one does not have any attestation of "additions". And ( yawn...) what one sees in the SP are (for me) not.
    On the other hand, I consider that the rasm is far more ancient than thought. And that the "additions" which have taken place --end and beginning of sura, see Dye  "Réflexions Méthodologiques..."--, are not done between 650-700. But before, and better, can be part of the original script! You see, there are  (for me...) many questions not answered...
    Quote
    But the Quran as compiled in a codex was achieved under Abd al-Malik, for instance.


    Is the SP was not one? One does not know that really... it could have been one... the possibility exists...
    Quote
    If I understood you correctly, you are only claiming that one cannot date a manuscript precisely, in terms of giving exact years, via codicology and palaeography, apart from general remarks such as the beginning or end of the seventh or eighth century.


    You have perfectly understood. That is my issue with codicology and palaeography.

     
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6080 - March 16, 2019, 08:41 PM

    Altara,

    Date of rasm:

    Different scholars (bonnet-Emyard, Gallez) see the rasm as an actual account of events with biblical references added to it. Events from the "conquests"beginning 7th C.  That really is in accordance with the early C14 dating.

    I still dont accept the explication "half of C14 is wrong". I keep the possibility of the early date open as long as I dont get a good explanation how we can know they are wrong.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6081 - March 16, 2019, 11:00 PM


    Quote
    Different scholars (bonnet-Emyard, Gallez) see the rasm

    For me, rasm=Quranic consonantal text.

    In this perspective:

    Quote
    Different scholars (bonnet-Emyard, Gallez) see the rasm as an actual account of events with biblical references added to it. Events from the "conquests"beginning 7th C.


    I consider that they're wrong.

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6082 - March 17, 2019, 03:32 PM

    Quote
    There is (for me...) an hermeneutical issue  about the concept of "the consonantal skeleton finally reached closure". What does that really mean? One have for example the Saana palimpsest. What have we got here? Changing of word. Words of the  Utmanic vulgate replaced by their more or less synonyms. What does that mean? Can one says that the SP attests of a time where the rasm (I do not deal with sura order here...) was fluid for example? The question is in a paradigm that I simply do not share. I think that the exemplar the scribe(s)  of the  SP had before their eyes was in so poor condition, that he needed to replace words that he cannot read, with the help of the context or previous parts. For me, that does not mean that the rasm was fluid according to this paradigm  and how it is posed by scholars, as the only one attestation of this, lies only to the SP. So this matter (for me) is far from settled, because "fluid" means that there was additions, but one does not have any attestation of "additions". And ( yawn...) what one sees in the SP are (for me) not.


    What I meant was when the Quran was compiled into a codex, which would be the time when the consonantal skeleton fixed, and the corpus, that is, the content of the Quran, was no longer added to or retracted from. Very simple. You have to models: Uthman or Abd al-Malik. Or, when did the so-called Uthmanic recension really take place, under Uthman or Abd al-Malik? You prefer the latter. As to the San'a palimpsest, it is the exemption that proves the rule. It is a non-Uthmanic manuscript and some of its variants correspond to some so-called Companion codices.

    Quote
    On the other hand, I consider that the rasm is far more ancient than thought. And that the "additions" which have taken place --end and beginning of sura, see Dye  "Réflexions Méthodologiques..."--, are not done between 650-700. But before, and better, can be part of the original script! You see, there are  (for me...) many questions not answered...


    Sure. But when was it all finished? As you say, these addition are post-Muhammadan, and have nothing to do with the coficiation of the Quran, as Dye says himself.

    Quote
    Is the SP was not one? One does not know that really... it could have been one... the possibility exists...


    I don't understand. SP is non-Uthmanic.

    Quote
    You have perfectly understood. That is my issue with codicology and palaeography.


    Thanks.



  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6083 - March 17, 2019, 03:46 PM

    SP:

    Do we have good info what it is? How many  verses, how many pages?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6084 - March 17, 2019, 03:48 PM

    Some additional pages were found. But see Sadeghi's articles.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6085 - March 17, 2019, 04:56 PM

    What I meant was when the Quran was compiled into a codex, which would be the time when the consonantal skeleton fixed, and the corpus, that is, the content of the Quran, was no longer added to or retracted from. Very simple. You have to models: Uthman or Abd al-Malik. Or, when did the so-called Uthmanic recension really take place, under Uthman or Abd al-Malik? You prefer the latter.


    Yes. I thinks that the so-called Uthmanic recension, as such, has never existed.

    Quote

    As to the San'a palimpsest, it is the exemption that proves the rule. It is a non-Uthmanic manuscript and some of its variants correspond to some so-called Companion codices.


    I do not think so. The SP being only one codex form of the others QCT which were circulated before the official Malik one.
    Quote
    Sure. But when was it all finished? As you say, these addition are post-Muhammadan,

     I consider that the rasm is far more ancient than thought and has no relationship with the frame Mecca/Medina/Kaba/Muhammad/Abu Bakr/Utman


    Quote
    and have nothing to do with the codification of the Quran, as Dye says himself.

     And that the "additions" which have taken place --end and beginning of sura, see Dye  "Réflexions Méthodologiques..."--, are not done between 650-700, i.e in the frame Mecca/Medina/Kaba/Muhammad/Abu Bakr/Utman because it has never existed, but before, and better, can be part of the original script! You see, there are  (for me...) many questions not answered...

    Quote
    I don't understand. SP is non-Uthmanic.


    I hope you will. Wink

    Quote
    Thanks.


    NP.




  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6086 - March 17, 2019, 06:21 PM

    Quote
    in order to show the Quran,does back up this "temple rebuilding", Gallez quote 2:127 but he quotes 2:127 like this Abraham and Ishmael will rebuild the foundations of the House; so it sounds like a prophecy to tie up with his Judeo-Nazarene theory and explain that this is how the Arabic text should be read.


    So it seems, yes. His argument is that the verb yarfaʿu is used in the imperfect tense (i.e.“unaccomplished”), and should be read in the future tense – that is, the so-called “foundations of the House” are yet to be erected. The verse signifies, for him, the alliance between the Judeo-Nazarene's and the Arabs, where Abraham represents the former and Ishmael the latter, for the purpose of rebuilding the Most Holy in Jerusalem. A systematic analysis, according to him (and others, too), reveals that the word al-bayt and the expression bayt al-ḥarām identifies the Most Holy in Jerusalem. This particular identification has been argued for by a handful of scholars, including Bonnet-Eymard, Hawting, Crone, Gallez, and prior to them, by Smith, Speyer, Goitein, and Rubin, in the case of “house” mentioned in Q 2:127, where they cite the Old Testament as support.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6087 - March 17, 2019, 07:05 PM

    And I think, having this passage in hand, the leaders of the 637 Arab armies have ordered to build, since they are sons of Ishmael, on the Temple Mount like their eponym ancestor did with Abraham. Arab privates obey as all armies do; they build the stuff on Temple Mount because their leaders ordered tot do so.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6088 - March 17, 2019, 07:14 PM

    Thanks. Perhaps I am reading too much into your comment, but are you implying that there was a central base of sorts for the Arabs that had given the order to rebuild the Most Holy in Jerusalem? Or are your simply saying that the leaders of the armies there had uttered the command and so the Arabs obeyed? Furthermore, it seems that you don't agree with Gallez that the verb should be read in the imperfect tense, implying that the foundations are yet to be built. Am I correct? Lastly, do you agree that the al-bayt and bayt al-ḥarām refer to the Most Holy in Jerusalem?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6089 - March 17, 2019, 07:35 PM

    Mohammad-Ali Amir-Moezzi:

    Quote
    First of all John 14:25‒26 that most exegetes have understood as referring to the Paraclete-Holy Spirit announcing the Parousia: “I have told you these things while I remained among you; but the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit that the Father shall send in my name, it is him who will teach you everything, and who will remind of all the things I told you”. Then, John 15:26, where the Paraclete is said to witness the coming of the Messiah: “When the Paraclete will come, whom I will send to you on behalf of the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify on my behalf”.

     

    Accompanying footnote:

    Quote
    The function of “witness” of the Paraclete, born most probably from a synoptic tradition (see Matthew 10:19‒20 = Marc 13:11‒12 = Luke 21:16) seems to find a striking parallel with the Quranic verses 48:8‒9 if, following Denise Masson and Edouard-Marie Gallez, one identifies “the messenger”(rasūl) of verse 9 with Jesus Christ (especially by putting this verse in parallel with 4:171: “The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him”): “Surely We have sent thee [Muḥammad] as a witness, good tidings to bear, and warning (shāhidan wa mubashshiran wa nadhīran)/ that you may believe in God and His Messenger …” (D. Masson, Le Coran, vol. 1, commentary of verse 4:136 and 171 and vol. 2, commentary of verse 48:9; Gallez, Le messie et son prophète, vol. 2, 355‒356). Indeed, the second person singular of verse 8, clearly distinguished from the “messenger” of verse 9, has posed a problem for the commentators who wished to identify both with Muḥammad. On the question of intentional confusion between grammatical persons in the Qurʾān see A.-L. de Prémare, Aux origines du Coran, 106‒107.


    And lastly:

    Quote
    Thus, in the “Judeo-Christian” messianic context, the title of “Paraclete” attributed to Muḥammad would have meant the announcer of the Parousia, the advent of the second coming of Jesus Christ.


    To my untrained eyes, this sounds very convincing.
  • Previous page 1 ... 201 202 203204 205 ... 225 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »