Q 97 paper by D. Beck.

1« Previous thread | Next thread »
- Artisio
- Member
- offline
Q 97 paper by D. Beck.
OP - July 10, 2015, 09:37 AM

Interesting paper.

https://www.academia.edu/13853915/The_Annunciation_of_S%C5%ABrat_al-Qadr_Celebrating_the_Incarnation_of_the_Deity_Q_97_
First quote :

Quote
For Qur’ānic studies, the Meccan exegetical device has little determinate content beyond its intended function of forcing exegesis within a Hijazi prophetic biography. It produces pseudo-explanation. One can find ancient paganism or contemporary Christianity in Mecca, as the interpretive occasion requires; the interpretive framework generates the desired answer, just as Luxenberg tends to find linguistic or o rthographic Syriacisms as required. These are problems of circular method. Breaking the circle requires a broader analytical approach.
- countjulian
- Member
- Call Me Snake
- offline
Q 97 paper by D. Beck.
Reply #1 - July 10, 2015, 04:24 PM

That paper is by our very own Zoatar, it's been posted here before. The early draft versions recieved input from me, Hassan, and zimriel inter alia.

إطلب العلم ولو في الصين

Es sitzt keine Krone so fest und so hoch,
Der mutige Springer erreicht sie doch.

I don't give a fuck about your war, or your President.
- Artisio
- Member
- offline
Q 97 paper by D. Beck.
Reply #2 - July 10, 2015, 04:38 PM

Ah ! Ok i did not know that. Ive not finished yet the reading.
- Zaotar
- Pub Regular
- offline
Q 97 paper by D. Beck.
Reply #3 - July 10, 2015, 06:53 PM

Yep that's mine, hope you enjoy, and please let me know what you think!
- Artisio
- Member
- offline
Q 97 paper by D. Beck.
Reply #4 - July 10, 2015, 10:34 PM

Well it's interesting especially the sight, that i follow, about what you call the "incarnation". But for me the sura (and the corpus) is not a christian text which was interpoled and after "forgotten" by the islamisation and reinterpreted as the night of the Ramadan.
1) It is a fragment : we do not have it all
2) You're right, it is about the conception/creation of Jesus but view from the authors theological POV which is not a christian one.That's why i recuse the term "Incarnation" and say cocneption/creation.
3) The identification between Muhammad and Jesus is not specific : Muhammad is every prophet ; as he is everybody he is no one : Muhammad has never existed, he's a blank figure , tainted with his predecessors.
- Zaotar
- Pub Regular
- offline
Q 97 paper by D. Beck.
Reply #5 - July 11, 2015, 04:14 PM

Thanks for your thoughts Artisio. There is indeed an argument that Q 97 is a fragment of a now-lost larger text, but it's impossible (I think) to say whether that's true or not, or what the larger text may have said. Q 97 is not logically fragmentary ... it can stand on its own, and does not overtly refer to preceding or following text ... so it's not necessary that it was an excerpt, but it's certainly possible that you are right. These short and fragmentary Qur'anic texts must have been used in some fashion when they were first composed, and it seems very likely they were part of longer recitations or liturgy that is now lost to us, but this is hard to puzzle out at present.

I would disagree on (2) if Christian is understood 'loosely' .... the author uses Syriac Christian concepts to describe how Jesus was conceived, and the text doesn't diverge in any way from orthodox Christianity in that regard. That is to say, nothing about Q 97 is inconsistent in any way with Nativity Hymn No. 21. It is certainly possible the author had a subjective POV which could be just about anything; we don't know, all we can determine is what the text itself says, and the text is perfectly consistent with Christianity. So beliefs about the author's POV must be imposed on it, extrinsically, based on extrinsic arguments and presumptions -- they may still be valid, but they are not text-dependent.

With (3) I agree about the anonymity and 'generic' typology that is typical of the Qur'an, prophecy is a sort of overarching theological concept that is only weakly given any specific character for any particular prophet. There is very little of any individual personality to any of the Qur'anic prophets. But I would say we need to be careful to distinguish the Qur'anic rasul from the historical Muhammad and in turn distinguish them from the Muhammad of Islamic tradition ... these are all distinct and different concepts/entities.

Part of my conclusion about Sitz im Leben, and I hope it comes across, is that it is indeterminate from the text, and the text should be analyzed as independently as possible from its supposed context -- because the fact of the matter is that there could be many different contexts, and we just don't have enough evidence to be dogmatic about any particular one at the present.
- Artisio
- Member
- offline
Q 97 paper by D. Beck.
Reply #6 - July 11, 2015, 05:52 PM

Quote
if Christian is understood 'loosely'

It is not.

Quote
It is certainly possible the author had a subjective POV which could be just about anything; we don't know,

Yes, the view developed in the corpus : Jesus is a mere man, but created by God like Adam with his Spirit . And he is the word of God, like Moses, Solomon, Hud, etc. Word of God means nothing else than telling the message of God. That's the trick of the authors in which all fall... In Christian ears , it means God. But not in the mouth of the authors...

Look at the text : what the expression "word of god" bring to Jesus apart itself ? Nothing... it's totally empty !
So why they write it ? Haha ! To trick their public, to seduce them, that's all.
For them it means nothing. Like "masiah". Nothing.
Quote
So beliefs about the author's POV must be imposed on it, extrinsically, based on extrinsic arguments and presumptions -- they may still be valid, but they are not text-dependent.

The author shares the beliefs of the corpus : which are intrinsic , not extrinsic. And they share some belief of Christianity, of course... since they consider themselves as the true believers against Christianity...

Quote
With (3) I agree about the anonymity and 'generic' typology that is typical of the Qur'an, prophecy is a sort of overarching theological concept that is only weakly given any specific character for any particular prophet. There is very little of any individual personality to any of the Qur'anic prophets. But I would say we need to be careful to distinguish the Qur'anic rasul from the historical Muhammad and in turn distinguish them from the Muhammad of Islamic tradition ... these are all distinct and different concepts/entities.

There is no historical Muhammad. There's only the Quran with a blank figure inside and a story beside : creation of the authors.
1« Previous thread | Next thread »