It is frequently assumed that there is no basis for Jesus/Isa being in any way divine in the Quran or Islamic thinking. However Jesus is called a Kalimah "Word" from Allah (Sura 3:39, 3:45 and 4:171), and also said to be a Ruh "Spirit" of Allah (Sura 4:171, 21:91 and 66:12). These are unique to Jesus not said of any other Prophets including Muhammad himself. The Quran also affirms Jesus alone among all humans to have been without Sin, never touched by Satan. It is possible to argue the Quran gives Jesus a divine quality, but wants to keep it compartmentalized from the Human. Here is a Christian website talking about the implications of these titles.
https://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/5c.html
Some background on the Nestorians.
http://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2018/04/nestorianism-and-church-of-east.html
The Quran speaks very highly of Mary the mother of Jesus, being the only Woman mentioned by name in the Quran. But the Quran also condemns the Mary worship that had already developed among many Christians. In one verse doing so in a way that has caused people to think it's confused on what the Trinity Doctrine is. Since the Quran repeatedly affirms Jesus as Al-Masih (The Messiah/Christ) it could be said that the Quran supports Mary as the Christokos but not Theotokos.
Bahira aka Sergius is a monk said to have influenced Muhammad, who's sometimes speculated to have been a Nestorian. And sometimes so is the relative of Muhammad I talked about in the Ebonite post.
Here is an article arguing that much of the Quran could be flawed Arabic translations of Aramaic Christian Liturgy.
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2012/12/the-christian-origins-of-islam
I don't think all of it is though, many of the Median Suras were definitely the sayings of a man who's made himself king of his own little kingdom trying to rewrite how Arabian society functions. This theory also suggest they were being critical of Miasyphite and Monophysite theology which the Nestorians certainly were.
Nestorius strongly taught Divine Impassability which is also part of Islamic theology.
But speaking of possible Aramaic origins for the Quran. The Aramaic Peshita renders Jesus name as Eshu and God as Alaha. Isa isn't the only way the Quran's form of Jesus name has been transliterated into English, Esa has also been common. So maybe this name coming from Eshu rather then any Greek or Hebrew text could explain why the Quran doesn't render the name of Jesus the same way most Arabic Christians do.
It is also a misunderstanding that leads people to think the Quran says Jesus didn't die.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_Jesus'_death#Earliest_reports
The interpretation that these verses are about saying Allah took his life and not that he was killed by whatever appeared to be the physical cause of his death, also makes sense in a Christian context, just look at John 10:17-18.
On the subject of the Quran seemingly knowing only one Gospel. There was said to have been an Aramaic harmonized Gospel written by the heretic Tatian, and there exists a text of what is believed to be an Arabic translation of that Harmonized Gospel.
Or Muhammad could have been combining Nestorian ideas with the ideas of some Hebraic-Christian groups and just used only an Aramaic version of Matthew or maybe Mark, or possibly John. But I think Luke would be the least likely.
But speaking of possible Aramaic origins for the Quran. The Aramaic Peshita renders Jesus name as Eshu and God as Alaha. Isa isn't the only way the Quran's form of Jesus name has been transliterated into English, Esa has also been common. So maybe this name coming from Eshu rather then any Greek or Hebrew text could explain why the Quran doesn't render the name of Jesus the same way most Arabic Christians do.
It is also a misunderstanding that leads people to think the Quran says Jesus didn't die.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_Jesus'_death#Earliest_reports
The interpretation that these verses are about saying Allah took his life and not that he was killed by whatever appeared to be the physical cause of his death, also makes sense in a Christian context, just look at John 10:17-18.
Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.Jesus is saying He lays down His Life, no one else could kill him.
On the subject of the Quran seemingly knowing only one Gospel. There was said to have been an Aramaic harmonized Gospel written by the heretic Tatian, and there exists a text of what is believed to be an Arabic translation of that Harmonized Gospel.
Or Muhammad could have been combining Nestorian ideas with the ideas of some Hebraic-Christian groups and just used only an Aramaic version of Matthew or maybe Mark, or possibly John. But I think Luke would be the least likely.
Some sources say Nestorius and some of his friends were exiled to Petra in Arabia in 435 briefly before later going to Egypt. Flavian II of Antioch would also be banished to Petra after being accused of Nestorianism.
Chris White has shown how Islamic Eschatology derives from ideas popular in Eastern Christian Eschatology during the same centuries.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOULuQdve-M
Chris White has shown how Islamic Eschatology derives from ideas popular in Eastern Christian Eschatology during the same centuries.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOULuQdve-M
The Book of The Bee is a Nestorian text that clearly proves the Nestorians for a long time believed in that same basic model of Eschatology.
I don't think even the earliest form of Islam would have been in proper Communion with the Church of the East however. Muhammad definitely broke with proper Nestorian thinking in many ways. Especially his denial of the Fatherhood of God. I disagree with many aspects of how David Wood chooses to deal with Islam, but his Psychology of Islam/Faith of the Fatherless series of videos I do think are pretty good.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVQDuplCV7iZkSqORRYgaDEaG67nYGQHG
Now I want to state that I believe Muhammad existed. However I've learned some interesting facts about history studying those saying he didn't. I have come to agree with Robert Spencer (author of Did Muhammad Exist?)'s theory in that I think Islam was originally a sect of Christianity and remained so till at least the early 700s, and the Quran wasn't really written down in a form like we now know until about then, and continued being edited even after that. (Spencer is also someone who's politics I don't agree with.)
But there is room for a Historical Muhammad in that, if he was originally just like many charismatics calling themselves Prophets today, then those who followed his movement wouldn't have made it about him at first. And I'll agree that the word Muhammad may have originally been a title applied to Jesus or perhaps many prophets and not necessarily the Quran's author as an individual. But it's often forgotten that the official view of Islamic history doesn't claim Muhammad was his birth name.
But I've already discussed on this Blog how The Quran says Israel belongs to the Israelites. So that's a problem for Spencer saying the entire Quran was the political agenda of an Empire that had already ruled Israel for a century or two.
Here are two YouTube videos on the subject I watched.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6bBeyaRjac
His debate with David Wood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXf7uP9lhE8
Now my reasons for believing Muhammad existed are not what David Wood's main reason is. I'm not impressed by the "Criterium of Embarrassment" because I'm an aspiring writer myself, so I know that if I'm gonna invent a character I won't make him flawless, especially if I want him to seem plausible. If I was gonna create a fictional Prophet in the style of an Old Testament Prophet, I'd look at how flawed the Old Testament prophets were and imitate that.
On the subject of "the Satanic Verses", it could be that Sura was originally a Pagan Arabic Prayer predating even the presumed time of Muhammad that this new Monotheistic Arabic Empire appropriated. And after the reference to the goddesses was edited out people later sought to invent a story to explain there being two versions of the Sura.
I think Muhammad existed first because of the Doctrina Jacobi, it was written between 636 and 640 AD depicting events supposed to have happened in 634 AD. It refers to an unnamed Prophet among the Arabs. Now some want to use this against the historicity of Muhammad, saying this Prophet is alive still after Muhammad traditionally died (632 AD) and implying he was personally part of the Arab invasion of Palestine. But it doesn't matter if the details don't line up, it proves a charismatic Arab Prophet was known to have precipitated the Arab invasion of the Eastern Roman Empire. This is a fictionalized account so of course it may get some things wrong. And there is also a 5 year discrepancy on the traditional date of King Arthur's death, his existence isn't doubted because of that discrepancy but because of no reference that is this contemporary, since I think an Arthur did exist it'd be hypocritical of me to question the existence of Muhammad on these grounds. Of course it could be the "Prophet" himself is here being confused with the second or third Calif.
And a second witness is the seventh Century Armenian Bishop Sebeos a couple decades latter, he mentioned a Mahmed by name. But these sources do not depict him as starting a whole new religion, but present him as advocating for an already existing Abrahamic Faith. Sebeos also mentions Umar(Amrh) by name as well as Mu'awiya.
And then there is the Chronicle of 741, which was written sometime between that year and 750. It refers to Muhammad by name, but says he lead an Arab rebellion within the the Eastern Roman Empire, and says he was only called a Prophet posthumously by his followers. And it's the first written down reference to the name of Mecca, but strangely places Mecca in Mesopotamia.
http://www.academia.edu/6485616/_The_Chronicle_of_741_
I actually think the Mesopotamian Mecca of that reference could be Karbala, which the fourth Shiite Imam said was a more ancient Holy Place then the Kaaba.
The second reason is because of the evidence I've been convinced of that the original Mecca was actually Petra. A theory proposed by Dan Gibson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOxZl60MyqE
There are other theories proposing a different location for the Mecca of Muhammad's life. I first watched this video from Tom Holland. He doesn't say exactly where he places it here but I know elsewhere he proposes Avdat in modern Israel south of Beersheba.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDQh2nk8ih4
And this article proposing a Sinai Peninsula location. It depends on Mt Sinai and Kadesh being traditionally placed there. I don't think that's where Biblical Sinai or Kadesh was, but them being believed to be there was firmly entrenched by Muhammad's time, or at least Sinai was.
http://www.christianhospitality.org/resources/original-christian-quran-online/content/original-quran15.html
Josephus identified Petra with Kadesh, a fact often cited by Jabal El-Laws supporters. I've grown increasingly unsure where I place Sinai or Kadesh, but I know it's East of the Gulf of Aqaba. And it is reported that one ancient name for the Kaaba was Al-Qadis. Maybe this can re-contextualize Velikvosky's reason for identifying Kadesh with Mecca?
Diodorus Siculus possible allusion to the Kaaba also places it in northern Arabia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecca#cite_note-38
The references to Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat in the biography of Muhammad also support a more northern location. They were Nabatean goddesses, not well known that far south in Arabia outside their association with stories from Muhammad's life. And they're not limited to the controversial Satanic Verses story either. David Wood also loves to mention an account where someone tells someone to "suck the Clitoris of Al-Lat".
It is also said that at some point (sometimes said to be 400 years before Muhammad, sometimes seemingly far older then that) a Hubal idol was placed on top of the Kaaba. Hubal was also a Nabatean god.
And there is even Ancient evidence for something being called a Kaaba in Petra.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaabou
I don't know if Dan Gibson would agree with Tom Holland's view that the Mushrikun of the Quran were Monotheists not Pagan Polytheists. But in the context of combining those views, I could see the Miaphysites and/or Chalcedonians being called Mushrikun by Nestorians easily. And the Ghassanid Arabs who controlled much of northern Arabia in Muhammad's time were predominately Miayphysites. (But I could also see the Ghassanids being called Sabians because of their Yemenite origins.) The Coptic Church was also Miayphsite.
A recently discovered site in Petra could very well be the exact site of the original Kaaba.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upOPc0Yl12M
I don't think even the earliest form of Islam would have been in proper Communion with the Church of the East however. Muhammad definitely broke with proper Nestorian thinking in many ways. Especially his denial of the Fatherhood of God. I disagree with many aspects of how David Wood chooses to deal with Islam, but his Psychology of Islam/Faith of the Fatherless series of videos I do think are pretty good.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVQDuplCV7iZkSqORRYgaDEaG67nYGQHG
Now I want to state that I believe Muhammad existed. However I've learned some interesting facts about history studying those saying he didn't. I have come to agree with Robert Spencer (author of Did Muhammad Exist?)'s theory in that I think Islam was originally a sect of Christianity and remained so till at least the early 700s, and the Quran wasn't really written down in a form like we now know until about then, and continued being edited even after that. (Spencer is also someone who's politics I don't agree with.)
But there is room for a Historical Muhammad in that, if he was originally just like many charismatics calling themselves Prophets today, then those who followed his movement wouldn't have made it about him at first. And I'll agree that the word Muhammad may have originally been a title applied to Jesus or perhaps many prophets and not necessarily the Quran's author as an individual. But it's often forgotten that the official view of Islamic history doesn't claim Muhammad was his birth name.
But I've already discussed on this Blog how The Quran says Israel belongs to the Israelites. So that's a problem for Spencer saying the entire Quran was the political agenda of an Empire that had already ruled Israel for a century or two.
Here are two YouTube videos on the subject I watched.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6bBeyaRjac
His debate with David Wood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXf7uP9lhE8
Now my reasons for believing Muhammad existed are not what David Wood's main reason is. I'm not impressed by the "Criterium of Embarrassment" because I'm an aspiring writer myself, so I know that if I'm gonna invent a character I won't make him flawless, especially if I want him to seem plausible. If I was gonna create a fictional Prophet in the style of an Old Testament Prophet, I'd look at how flawed the Old Testament prophets were and imitate that.
On the subject of "the Satanic Verses", it could be that Sura was originally a Pagan Arabic Prayer predating even the presumed time of Muhammad that this new Monotheistic Arabic Empire appropriated. And after the reference to the goddesses was edited out people later sought to invent a story to explain there being two versions of the Sura.
I think Muhammad existed first because of the Doctrina Jacobi, it was written between 636 and 640 AD depicting events supposed to have happened in 634 AD. It refers to an unnamed Prophet among the Arabs. Now some want to use this against the historicity of Muhammad, saying this Prophet is alive still after Muhammad traditionally died (632 AD) and implying he was personally part of the Arab invasion of Palestine. But it doesn't matter if the details don't line up, it proves a charismatic Arab Prophet was known to have precipitated the Arab invasion of the Eastern Roman Empire. This is a fictionalized account so of course it may get some things wrong. And there is also a 5 year discrepancy on the traditional date of King Arthur's death, his existence isn't doubted because of that discrepancy but because of no reference that is this contemporary, since I think an Arthur did exist it'd be hypocritical of me to question the existence of Muhammad on these grounds. Of course it could be the "Prophet" himself is here being confused with the second or third Calif.
And a second witness is the seventh Century Armenian Bishop Sebeos a couple decades latter, he mentioned a Mahmed by name. But these sources do not depict him as starting a whole new religion, but present him as advocating for an already existing Abrahamic Faith. Sebeos also mentions Umar(Amrh) by name as well as Mu'awiya.
And then there is the Chronicle of 741, which was written sometime between that year and 750. It refers to Muhammad by name, but says he lead an Arab rebellion within the the Eastern Roman Empire, and says he was only called a Prophet posthumously by his followers. And it's the first written down reference to the name of Mecca, but strangely places Mecca in Mesopotamia.
http://www.academia.edu/6485616/_The_Chronicle_of_741_
I actually think the Mesopotamian Mecca of that reference could be Karbala, which the fourth Shiite Imam said was a more ancient Holy Place then the Kaaba.
The second reason is because of the evidence I've been convinced of that the original Mecca was actually Petra. A theory proposed by Dan Gibson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOxZl60MyqE
There are other theories proposing a different location for the Mecca of Muhammad's life. I first watched this video from Tom Holland. He doesn't say exactly where he places it here but I know elsewhere he proposes Avdat in modern Israel south of Beersheba.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDQh2nk8ih4
And this article proposing a Sinai Peninsula location. It depends on Mt Sinai and Kadesh being traditionally placed there. I don't think that's where Biblical Sinai or Kadesh was, but them being believed to be there was firmly entrenched by Muhammad's time, or at least Sinai was.
http://www.christianhospitality.org/resources/original-christian-quran-online/content/original-quran15.html
Josephus identified Petra with Kadesh, a fact often cited by Jabal El-Laws supporters. I've grown increasingly unsure where I place Sinai or Kadesh, but I know it's East of the Gulf of Aqaba. And it is reported that one ancient name for the Kaaba was Al-Qadis. Maybe this can re-contextualize Velikvosky's reason for identifying Kadesh with Mecca?
Diodorus Siculus possible allusion to the Kaaba also places it in northern Arabia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecca#cite_note-38
The references to Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat in the biography of Muhammad also support a more northern location. They were Nabatean goddesses, not well known that far south in Arabia outside their association with stories from Muhammad's life. And they're not limited to the controversial Satanic Verses story either. David Wood also loves to mention an account where someone tells someone to "suck the Clitoris of Al-Lat".
It is also said that at some point (sometimes said to be 400 years before Muhammad, sometimes seemingly far older then that) a Hubal idol was placed on top of the Kaaba. Hubal was also a Nabatean god.
And there is even Ancient evidence for something being called a Kaaba in Petra.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaabou
I don't know if Dan Gibson would agree with Tom Holland's view that the Mushrikun of the Quran were Monotheists not Pagan Polytheists. But in the context of combining those views, I could see the Miaphysites and/or Chalcedonians being called Mushrikun by Nestorians easily. And the Ghassanid Arabs who controlled much of northern Arabia in Muhammad's time were predominately Miayphysites. (But I could also see the Ghassanids being called Sabians because of their Yemenite origins.) The Coptic Church was also Miayphsite.
A recently discovered site in Petra could very well be the exact site of the original Kaaba.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upOPc0Yl12M
Josephus in Antiquities Book IV Chapter 4 section 7 refers to Petra as the Metropolis of the Arabians, Metropolis is a combination of the Greek words for Mother and City so the Qur'anic title "Mother of Cities" is an equivalent title. Later in chapter 7 Josephus also tells us an alternate name for Petra was Arecem which also occurs in the Koran.
Going back to how this effects the main point of this post. The closer we get to the immediate outskirts of the Eastern Roman Empire, the more likely it is Nestorians could have had a presence.
Isaac of Nineveh was an ethnically Arab Nesotiran Bishop who lived from 623-700 AD, mostly in Mesopotamia after it had all been conquered by the Arabic Empire. He never discuses Islam in his writings at all.
Back to the Word of God as a title of Jesus in the Quran. Since the links I've provided in this post provide much documentation of how the Quran has been changed. Maybe originally this title was said with more of a definite article then how it reads now.
My goal is not to smear either the Quran or Nestorians by associating one with the other. While I do strongly disagree with the final product of the Quran on a lot of theology, I have come to think my own understanding of how the Divinity and Humanity of Christ relate may be a little Nestorian. But the Quran is the result of a Nestorian theology that was distorted over time.
Going back to how this effects the main point of this post. The closer we get to the immediate outskirts of the Eastern Roman Empire, the more likely it is Nestorians could have had a presence.
Isaac of Nineveh was an ethnically Arab Nesotiran Bishop who lived from 623-700 AD, mostly in Mesopotamia after it had all been conquered by the Arabic Empire. He never discuses Islam in his writings at all.
Back to the Word of God as a title of Jesus in the Quran. Since the links I've provided in this post provide much documentation of how the Quran has been changed. Maybe originally this title was said with more of a definite article then how it reads now.
My goal is not to smear either the Quran or Nestorians by associating one with the other. While I do strongly disagree with the final product of the Quran on a lot of theology, I have come to think my own understanding of how the Divinity and Humanity of Christ relate may be a little Nestorian. But the Quran is the result of a Nestorian theology that was distorted over time.
No comments:
Post a Comment