Parallels Between the Qur'an and Late Antique Judeo-Christian Literature

The Qur'an famously records that doubters dismissed its verses as "tales of the ancients", and used to approach Muhammad with the allegation. These verses occur in the Meccan surahs, where his message was largely rejected by the inhabitants. One instance appears in surah 8, after the migration and battle of Badr in 2AH, though the previous verse is recalling the persecution in Mecca.

A notable example, Quran 25:5, has unbelievers accusing the Qur'an of “making ancient tales written” (iktatabaha) that were recited (i.e. dictated) to him or that people assisted him with inventing falsehood. Modern academic scholars "virtually unanimously" agree that the Quran does not describe the Prophet as illiterate, contrary to the Islamic tradition.^[4] The idea that Muhammad was illiterate was a later reinterpretation of a word in certain verses in order to negate charges of borrowing (see Muhammad and illiteracy).

Similar verses are Quran 16:24, Quran 26:137, Quran 68:15 and Quran 83:13. Sometimes such remarks are attributed to those who doubted resurrection (Similarly Quran 27:67-68 and Quran 46:17):

The Qur'an itself records allegations of influence by a non-Arab:

The evidence is that Quranic tales were already familiar to its critics. That at least some of these tales of the ancients were Judeo-Christian tales and not that of the fanciful Quranic “Arabic/Arabized” fairy-tales of Jinns, Houris and the like is apparent from the context of these verses, particularly those doubters who at the same time dismissed the idea of resurrection, and the charge that another nation had supplied these tales (meaning the Jews and possibly also Sabeans and Christians--nations such as the Byzantine Empire at the time were associated with certain religions such as Chalcedonian Christianity).

There is a sahih hadith narrated from Abu Huraira that the Jews used to explain the Torah in Arabic to the Muslims Sahih Bukhari 6:60:12, and the Quran itself (especially Surah Imran) is concerned that some people of the book were trying to lead the believers astray. Many academic scholars have further noticed that the eliptical and homiletic way many of the stories are told in the Quran indicates that their basic outlines must have been in circulation already, common knowledge to its listeners. Some even suspect that the stories were already circulating in Arabic.

Attributing vectors of transmission to individuals is a somewhat speculative endeavour, though there is significant evidence from the sahih hadiths that Muhammad initially converted to Abrahamic monotheism under the influence of a Hanif known as Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail. Meir Jacob Kister wrote a short academic article about this tradition. He quotes Alfred Guillaume who called it "a tradition of outstanding importance" as "it is the only extant evidence of the influence of a monotheist on Muhammad by way of admonition". Kister then details several versions of the tradition through different chains of narration (including in Sahih al-Bukhari, shown below), each of which convey the same essential message that Muhammad was converted to Abrahamic monotheism by Zayd, with minor differences. Commentators were very uncomfortable with the idea that Muhammad may have at one time eaten meat sacrificed to idols of even made such an offering himself. Kister considers the version which is most explicit on that point to be the earliest layer.^[5]

Of note in another hadith is how Zaid is said to have learned of the Hanif religion (Abrahamic monotheism) in Syria from a Jew and a Christian without identifying himself as being of either confession:

Even the prohibition of female infanticide was inspired by Zaid according to the tradition below.

Zaid’s religious principles adopted by Muhammad

In Ibn Ishaq's Sirah, Zaid is said to have composed a poem after leaving Mecca. The poem mentions among other things: .

1. the acknowledgment of the Unity of God.
2. the rejection of idolatry and the worship of Al-Lat, AI-'Uzza' and the other deities of the people.
3. the promise of future happiness in Paradise or the "Garden".
4. the warning of the punishment reserved in hell for the wicked.
5. the denunciation of God's wrath upon the "Unbelievers".
6. And also, the application of the titles Ar Rahman (the Merciful), Ar Rabb (the Lord), and Al Ghafur (the Forgiving) to God.

Moreover, Zaid and all the other Hanifs claimed to be searching for the "Religion of Abraham."^[6] Besides all this, the Qur'an repeatedly, though indirectly, speaks of Abraham as a "Hanif", the chosen title of Zaid and his friends (for example, Quran 16:123).

Even the Muslim method of prayer may have originated from Zaid, as Ibn Ishaq wrote that he prayed by prostration on the palm of his hands.^[7]

The non-Arab who was accused of teaching Muhammad the Qur'an (Quran 16:101-104) is not mentioned by name, but there are many candidates in the sira.

According to Professor Sean Anthony, from the ninth century Christian polemics attributed Muhammad's religious knowledge to his trading travels outside Arabia. In the eight century, Christian writers said Muhammad reputedly learned from an Arian monk (an archetypal heresy at that time), or a Syriac Christian monk known as Sergius Bḥyrʾ. The second word Bḥyrʾ was a monastic title meaning tested / elected / renowned, but in later writings was treated as a personal name, Bahira, and legends about him were subsequently picked up by Muslim writers.^[8]

The case for Sergius does not seem very convincing. Perhaps the strongest evidence of the non-Arab's identity is another name mentioned in the Sira:

This source specifically names the foreigner to be Jabr, slave of B. al-Hadrami.

Then there is this sahih hadith that specifically informs us that Muhammad learned from a Christian:

This Christian who taught Muhammad is not named in the sahih hadiths. However, Ibn Warraq, citing Waqidi, names him as ibn Qumta.

Waqidi [d. 207 AH D/823 CE] who says that a Christian slave named Ibn Qumta was the amanuensis of the prophet, along with a certain ‘Abdallah b. Sa‘ad b. Abi Sarh, who reported that "It was only a Christian slave who was teaching him [Mohammed]; I used to write to him and change whatever I wanted."^[10]

Regardless who this foreigner who taught Muhammad was, it is clear that this highly specific charge was leveled against the Qur'an, and the aforementioned verse is intended to answer this very specific objection. That this foreigner existed is real: the Qur'an itself alluded to him by saying, ‘the tongue of him at whom they hint is a non-Arab’. Again, this strongly indicates that there was in fact such a foreigner who may have influenced the "clear Arabic tongue" of the Qur'an.

That this foreigner is alleged to have taught Muhammad Judeo-Christian tales is alluded to when one follows the apologetic against this complaint in Surah 16. What follows Quran 16:103 is a discussion of how Allah revealed the religion of Abraham, the Resurrection, the Everlasting Life, Judgment Day, prohibition of meat of swine and non-halal slaughter, and other practices given to the Jews.

In short, verse Quran 16:103-104 is nothing more than the Qur'an's attempt to answer the charge that he learned the Jewish/Christian religion from a foreigner (very possibly Jabr). He was the Muslim who first came up with the excuse that the similarities between the Judeo-Christian religion and the Qur'an are due to the three scriptures sharing the same source, which he named as Allah.

Thus, beyond what seems to have been a general circulation of Judeo-Christian stories (and the Quran attesting the presence of and complaining about the people of the book), there are various individuals from whom Muhammad may have heard these tales, beginning with Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail and from Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, to Jabr and the un-named Christian of Sahih Bukhari 4:56:814.

Muslim Views

In apologetic and theological literature, Muslim scholars generally follow the Qur'an in denying that Muhammad was influenced by the "legends of the ancients", citing some of the following points:

1. There were no Arabic copies of the Judeo-Christian literature available to Muhammad.

This argument ignores the Qur'an itself. which claims the charges were that Muhammad heard what was recited to him Quran 25:4-6 or that he learned them from a foreigner Quran 16:103-104. Thus, the existence or otherwise of Arabic translations in Muhammad’s time is an irrelevancy. Moreover, epigraphic and historical evidence from the the time points to an Arabia which was awash in Greek and Syriac literature, and in which knowledge of both the Syriac and Greek alphabets were widespread, and both of these were used to write Arabic along with the Hismaetic and Safaitic scripts.^[11]

2. There was no center of Judaism and/or Christianity in Mecca or the Hijaz in Muhammad’s time.

As the Islamic literature itself shows Muhammad was accused of repeating ‘tales of the ancients’ from individual Jews and Christians, some of whom we may know by name, there is no need for Muhammad to learn from centers of Judaism or Christianity. Surah Imran is in large part concerned with people of the book leading the believers astray. However, whether or not there were any Christians proselytizing in Mecca or other localities is irrelevant: all it takes is one Christian individual (as in Sahih Bukhari 4:56:814) for Muhammad to learn from. Moreover, modern scholarship has shown through inscriptions inter alia that the Arabian peninsula at the time of the prophet was thoroughly Christianized.

3. There is no evidence that Muhammad borrowed these tales even though there were Jews and Christians in the region.

The evidence is laid out on this page and forms a vibrant area of academic study known as source criticism. The charges of borrowing are in the Qur'an and they are easily proven. The evidence is to be found in the hadiths and sirah in addition to the Qur'an. Even according to the Islamic tradition itself, individuals who taught Muhammad the Judeo-Christian tales were named.

4. The Jews were in Medinah and the Christians were in Najran and Yemen.

There is debate among academic scholars as to the extent of Christian presence around Mecca and Medina specifically. Given the limited evidence so far available, and the internal evidence in the Quran that its audience were familiar with the stories therein and the numerous complaints about the people of the book, some academic scholars such as Stephen Shoemaker have posited that these materials first circulated in a location further to the North with a greater Christian presence. On the other hand, specific Jews and Christians do seem to have been present in Mecca, for instance Jabr the Christian slave. Waraqa, Khadijah’s cousin also lived in Mecca, and so did the Hanif Zaid bin ‘Amr.^[12]

It is even possible that the Ka’ba contained a biblical quote:

There were also eye-witness reports that figures of Mary and Jesus were in the Kaaba narrated from Muslims who died in the early 2nd century.^[13] Even according to a hadith, the Ka’aba may have contained pictures of Abraham and Mary (similarly, see Sahih Bukhari 4:55:571):

It seem to be the case that, in actuality, there were Jews elsewhere outside of Yathrib and surrounding areas of Northern Hijaz. So far, there is limited evidence of a small number of Christians present in Mecca.^[14]

5. The Qur'an contains stories absent in the Judeo-Christian scriptures, thus the charge of borrowing is erroneous.

As documented in detail in this article, a great number of non-Biblical stories in the Quran are now known to have antecendents in late antique Jewish and Christian apocrypha and exegesis. This is rather suggestive that all or almost all Quranic examples have such an origin. This conclusion would naturally extend to imply that Biblical stories were similarly circulating in the environment in which the Quranic materials were first composed.

Qur'anic Account

The Qur'anic version of the Noah's flood story describes the flood waters as boiling from an oven. This element is not found even in more ancient versions of the story (Epic of Gilgamesh, Atra hasis, and Ziusudra).

Note that in his translation, Yusuf Ali mistranslates the Aramaic loan word for the oven (alttannooru ٱلتَّنُّورُ)^[15] as "fountains". The Arabic verb translated "gushed forth" (fara فَارَ) means "boiled" in the context of water in a cooking pot^[16], as well as in the other verse where it is used, Quran 67:7. Here is Pickthall's more accurate translation:

Midrash Account

The ultimate origin of this story element appears to be a highly tenuous rabbinical exegesis of Genesis 8:1 in the Babylonian Talmud, based on a word in an unrelated verse that means heat or wrath (Esther 7:10).

This exegesis seems to have become a cemented part of the story in Talmudic accounts. Regarding Quran 23:23-50, Reynolds observes, "This may reflect midrashic tradition - for example, in Leviticus Rabbah (which dates from around the period of Islam's origins) - mentioned by Speyer (BEQ, 103) that the flood waters were hot: 'R. Johannan said, "Every single drop [of rain] which the Holy one, blessed be He, brought down on the generation of the Flood, He made to boil in Gehinnom" (Leviticus Rabbah 7:6). Similar is a tradition in the Talmud: 'With hot passion they sinned, and by hot water they were punished.' (b. Sanhedrin 108b; see Geiger, Judaism and Islam, 86)."^[17] The midrash in Sanhedrin 108b is also found elsewhere in the Talmud, such as Tracate Rosh Hashanah as follows:

The Qur'an parallels a passage in the Talmud, specifically a rabbinical commentary in the Book of Sanhedrin.

Talmudic Mishnah

Qur'anic Verse

The salient points are:

• a. The Qur'an itself admits to Judeao-Christian origin of this story with the phrase, 'We decreed (katabnā) for the Children of Israel…’

  This word katabnā كَتَبْنَا is from the same Arabic root as kitāb, meaning book, as in 'People of the Book', and the verb kataba literally means he wrote. It is used a few verses later (wakatabnā) in Quran 5:45 regarding some things that are certainly in the written Torah, and in another example Quran 7:145 it is used for Allah writing on the stone tablets. Lane's Lexicon includes 'prescribed', 'ordained' among its definitions for this verb ^[18], though it is likely that this usage arose from royal decrees and legal rulings being written down. In some other verses exactly the same word is translated 'We have written'. It is quite obvious that the author believed that this 'decree' was in the law book of the Jews, the written Torah.

• b. The Sanhedrin parallel is not in the Torah as it is merely a rabbinical commentary on Cain’s murder of Abel, derived from the use of the plural, "bloods", in Genesis 4:10. It is a Mishnayot – a teaching of a Jewish sage, and not from the biblical tradition as such but rather an extension of it.

• c. The Qur'anic verse relates to the story of Cain's murder of Abel Quran 5:27-31, as does the Sanhedrin parallel.

Muslim Objections

Some Muslims (e.g. Dr Saifullah) claim that the parallelism is inexact, as the Sanhedrin 37a should be limited to ‘whoever destroys a single soul of Israel’. They claim that since the Qur'an lacks this reference to the 'single soul of Israel' but instead, generalizes the injunction to any soul, then the charge of parallelism has failed.

Problems with this argument

1. Dr Saifullah's argument that the two stories are not exact copies doesn't hold water, since stories usually change in transmission.
2. "of Israel" is absent in some manuscripts of this passage in the Babylonian Talmud, and we don't know which version Muhammad might have heard.
3. The commentary also appears in the Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 4/5, which omits the phrase, ‘of Israel’. There is no evidence that Muhammad had to rely on the Babylonian Talmud and not the Jerusalem Talmud, even though the former is considered more authoritative. Joseph Witztum is even more emphatic that "of Israel" is merely a secondary reading.^[19]

Prima facie - this is a clear-cut case of the Qur'an taking a story from apocryphal literature as scripture, since Sanhedrin 37a is from the "oral" Torah and therefore not part of the original biblical canon. There is no other explanation for the phrase, ‘We decreed / have written’ (katabna) in the verse-- it appears the Qur'an considers this apocryphal tradition to be on the same level as the biblical canon. The claim that it is lost because the Torah is corrupted stretches credulity because the parallelism exists in the Talmud, and it is unlikely that something lost from the Torah should find its way almost unchanged into the Talmud as a commentary of a narrative (i.e. a mishnayot). If the Rabbi had in mind a verse in the Torah that has since been lost, he would not have quoted verbatim from Genesis 4:10 ('it is written...'), but then when making his main point not quoted directly this hypothetical lost verse. It is not a law, despite being in the Talmud (Oral Law) but a commentary by a Jewish sage, who explains his reasoning.

Thus the use of the word "katabna" / decreed / ordain / prescribe / write something was used for a commentary written by a Jewish Rabbi. The conclusion seems to be that the Qur'an sees this tradition as being on the same level as the Bible, or else is not aware that it does not in fact stem from the Bible.

Qur'anic Account

The Qur'an tells the story of how Allah sent a raven to show Cain how to bury Abel.

Jewish Folklore

This story of the raven and the burial of Abel has led many scholars to the conclusion that the Qur'an integrated Jewish folklore because this account is not in the Old Testament or the Torah, though there is uncertainty. It used to be supposed that a Jewish source known as Pirke de-Rabbi Elizer was a precursor to the story (there, it is Adam who learns from the raven how to bury his son). As Witztum notes however, Pirke de-Rabbi Elizer has been demonstrated to be a post-Islamic midrash, sometimes reflecting Islamic tradition so that it is not clear which tradition influenced the other.^[20] A more likely antecendent for the Quranic story which is supported by many scholars is the Midrash Tanhuma, particularly the Tanhuma Yelammedenu, which existed in some form by the sixth century CE.^[21] There, it is Cain who learns how to bury his brother, like in the Quranic version, although from two birds instead of one raven (Tanhuma Bereshit 10).

Wiztum comments that "Since the bird tradition is found in several rabbinic sources and versions it is hard to deny the possibility that ultimately its origin is indeed Jewish." Nevertheless, he argues that the Quranic version is earlier than those we find in Jewish sources, including the Tanhuma which most probably continued evolving long after the Quran appeared. While the story is present in the Tanhuma-Yelammedenu version of the Midrash Tanhuma, it is absent in its parallel version, the Buber Tanhuma. The details in the Quranic version are also simpler, and the extra details in the Tanhuma may reflect similar considerations as occured to Quranic commentators. Witztum concludes, "Is it possible that the midrashic sources reflect tafsir traditons in this instance? Perhaps."^[22]

On a more concrete connection regarding the Cain and Abel verses, Reynolds remarks, "In Genesis the two brothers do not speak to each other at all [...] The conversation between Cain and Abel is close to that found in the Palestinian Targums, such as Targum Neofiti.^[23]

Reynolds points the reader to Witztum, who notes how early Jewish sources supposed that Cain invited his brother to an open plain, some even speculating on possible arguments they may have had there. Witztum quotes such a developed dialogue found in Targum Neofiti, noting that similar dialogues are preserved in other targums of which we have surviving fragments. Scholars have noticed how Q. 5:27 may reflect Targum Neofiti where Abel replies to Cain that his sacrifice was accepted because his deeds were better. Similarites between certain Arabic words in the Quranic version and the Targum have also been noted.^[24] Targum Neofiti has received datings ranging from the 2nd century BCE to the 2nd century CE.^[25]

However, there are also differences: In the Targum, Cain does not announce his intention to kill his brother (he just kills him after they argue), and it lacks Abel's passivity to the threat.

Witztum fills this gap using certain Syriac sources. As Reynolds summarises, Witztum shows that "the Qurʾānic dialogue is related to a series of Syriac texts which describe the dialogue between Cain and Abel". These include a "'Syriac Dialogue Poem on Abel and Cain' (dated by S. Brock to 'no later than the fifth century'", "an unpublished Homily on Cain and Abel by Isaac of Antioch (d. late fifth century)", and the "Life of Abel of Symmachus (fl. late fifth to early sixth century)". Interestingly, Abel's passivity in the Quran to the threat from his brother reflects the latter two Syriac sources, in which Abel's arms are outstretched and explicitly described as a depiction of the crucifixion of Jesus on the cross.^[26]

In the Syriac Dialogue Poem, we see Cain's direct murder threat to his brother, as in the Quran:

Witztum quotes further stanzas from the poem about the acceptability of offerings, which are reflected in the end of verse 27 of the Quranic passage ("Indeed, Allah only accepts from the righteous [who fear Him].":

Witztum cites other stanzas from the same poem which are somewhat reflective of Abel's passivity in verses 28-29 of the Quranic passage. He finds closer parallels on this point in the other Syriac sources mentioned above.^[29] Also very important is that there are various lexical correspondances between the Arabic and Syriac vocabulary used in the Quranic passage and its Syriac precursors.^[30]

The Quran tells a story in which Abraham converts to monotheism after pondering the heavenly bodies and realising that Allah has power over them all. This is in fact a development of a Judeo-Christian exegetical tradition inspired by a couple of Biblical verses.

Reynolds notes that this passage develops a Jewish and Christian exegetical tradition, in turn inspired by Genesis 15:4-5 where God tells Abraham that his descendants will be as numerous as the stars, and Deuteronomy 4:19 where the people of Israel are told not to worship the heavenly bodies.^[31] An early form of the story is found in the Book of Jubilees (generally dated not long before the Dead Sea Scrolls, c. 100 BCE, among which fragments of the book are found, and contains contemporary ex-eventu prophecies). Here, Abraham had turned to the stars, moon and sun, seeking in them signs of rainfall for the coming year:

In the Apocalypse of Abraham, which Reynolds describes as "a work of Jewish origin, generally dated to first or second century AD", Abraham narrates in his own voice that he thought these heavenly bodies were gods but changed his mind because they set at night or could be obscured by clouds. This is noticably closer to the Quranic version.

Reynolds also cites the Apocalypse of Abraham 4:3-6 in relation to Quran 26:69-93, a passage where Abraham tries to convince his father to forsake idols.

The Quran contains the following story about Abraham admonishing his people for their worship of idols (see also Quran 6:74 and Quran 37:83-89). This has a strong parallel in Jewish Midrash and apocryphal literature.

Qur'anic Account

Midrash Account

Regarding these verses and citing Genesis Rabbah 38:13, Reynolds remarks, "The Qurʾān refers here to a Midrashic tale found in several sources, including Genesis Rabbah, set during Abraham's childhood."^[34]

Examination of both Accounts

The claim is that this parallelism originated from the Midrash as an invention of a Rabbi:

This story is a well known illustration credited to Rabbi Hiyya in the 2nd century CE at the start of the passage; it is recorded in the Midrash Rabbah Genesis and all authorities agree that it was never meant to be considered historical, even by the audience for whom it was composed (this is true of midrashic literature generally, whose story additions were not treated by the Rabbis as actual historical events, in contrast to the way Biblical stories themselves were regarded).^[3]

The Quranic account of Abraham and the idols commences in Quran 6:74 where Abraham is quoted as saying "Takest thou idols for gods?" and this theme is then expanded in Quran 21:51-71. It is exactly the same theme of the Midrashic legend where Abraham takes issue over the idols of his father.

The Shared Themes in the Midrashic Account

The Midrashic account is given here and the Qur'anic equivalent can be found in the verse numbers in the brackets:

• Abraham's father accused of being an idolater: "Terah (Abraham's father) was a manufacturer of idols" ie. He was an idolater. (52)

• "He once went away somewhere and left Abraham..." (57)

• Abraham breaks all the idols except the biggest: "So he took a stick, broke them, (the idols) and put the the stick in the hand of the largest." (58)

• "When his father returned he demanded, 'What have you done to them?'" (59) (In the Quranic account this demand is made by his father and the people.)

• Abraham claims: "Thereupon the largest arose, took the stick, and broke them." (63)

• Abraham is seized and delivered up for judgement: "Thereupon he seized him and delivered him to Nimrod." (64) (The Quran does not mention by name who was to punish Abraham.)

• Abraham is saved from the fire: "When Abram descended into the fiery furnace and was saved..." (69)

All the above points are unique both to the Qur'anic and mythical midrashic accounts. They do not appear in the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians.

Muslim Objections

In 2002 Dr Saifullah and the Islamic-awareness team sought to disparage the above evidence.^[35] These objections have in turn been addressed by others.^[36] In summary:

Objection 1: Existing manuscripts of the Bereshit Rabbah (i.e. Genesis Rabbah) post-date the origin of the Quran and additions (i.e. in the parashiyyot) and alterations may have been made to the text of the Bereshit Rabbah after its redaction in the sixth century CE.

Redaction does not mean the date of origin of the text. The Abraham and the idols story is not in the parashiyyot but the Noach. This story is not in Freedman and Simon's list of chapters which do not really belong to Genesis Rabbah.

In any case it is not asserted that the Qur'an copied from the Bereshit Rabbah, rather its author heard this Judeo-Christian story from others, possibly Jews and Christians. The Bereshit Rabbah is merely evidence to date this particular Judeo-Christian story. There are other Judeo-Christian sources as listed below, so a different text may or may not have been the source of the parallel.

Objection 2: Judeo-Christian sources of the same story are different, thus the original paralleled story cannot be ascertained.

Historical evidence from various sources evidence a pre-Islamic date for most of the story elements found in Bereshit Rabbah. The Book of Jubilees (a 2nd century BCE elaboration on Genesis) mentions Abraham’s dislike of idol worship and that he burned down the house of idols (a Rabbinic interpretation of Genesis 11:28), though not that he smashed them. The Babylonian Talmud has Nimrod casting Abraham into the fire. Jerome in the 4th century CE mentions how the Rabbis interpret Genesis 11:28 as per the Book of Jubilees as well as that Abraham was cast in the fire for refusing to join the Chaldeans in worshipping it (like Genesis Rabbah).^[37] See the next section for more discussion on the fire element of the story.

Moreover, Dr Saifullah's team (and his respondants) were apparently unaware of the Apocalypse of Abraham, a work of Jewish origin, generally dated to the first or second century CE. The opening of this work has Abraham's father tasking Abraham with selling some smashed idols. Seeing them in pieces and tipped over, Abraham realises that the idols have no power of their own.

It is clear the story of Abraham disdaining idol worship, destroying idols, and being thrown into the fire pre-dates Islam in various Judeo-Christian sources (for more on the fire element of this story, see the next section below). It is not necessary to come to the conclusion that the Qur'an copies out of these texts, but rather that it draws from sources with similar narratives. The Judeo-Christian sources listed are merely evidence of the antiquity of this story. Thus, a story invented by Rabbi Hiyya in the 2nd century CE managed to find its way into the Quran as a historical narrative.

Qur'anic Account

At the end of the Quranic passage quoted in the previous section above, Quran 21:68-71, Allah saves Abraham from the fire. Similarly, see Quran 29:24 and Quran 37:97-98.

Midrash Account

This is believed by academic scholars to derive from a Rabbinic reinterpretation of the city named "Ur of the Chaldeans" in the biblical book of Genesis. In the centuries before Islam, Jewish Rabbis began to interpret "Ur of the Chaldeans" in Genesis 15:7 as "fire" of the Chaldeans (for example, Reynolds cites Genesis Rabbah 38:13 (quoted in the previous section above) as well as the Babylonian Talmud, Peshahim 118a).^[38] This Jewish reinterpretation is also mentioned by Jerome in the 4th century CE.^[37] "Ur" has the same consonantal structure as the Hebrew word for fire. Various elaborate legends subsequently arose, building on this idea that Abraham was saved from a fire. The Book of Jubilees (a 2nd century BCE elaboration on Genesis) from the biblical apocrypha contains the earliest form of the legend, in which Haran is burned to death trying to save the idols set on fire by his brother Abraham (a Rabbinic interpretation of Genesis 11:28).^[39].

However, "Ur of the Chaldeans" is mentioned four times in the Hebrew Bible, and in some of those verses it is unambiguously clear that the phrase refers to a place: Genesis 11:28, Genesis 11:31, Genesis 15:7, and Nehimiah 9:7. Indeed, Ur was a real Sumerian city that has been excavated by archaeologists, although it was ruled by the Chaldeans only from the 7th century BCE. The biblical anachronism may be explained if the majority of Biblical scholars are correct to believe that the written books of the Torah were a product of the Babylonian captivity (c. 6th century BCE), based on earlier written sources and oral traditions, and that it was completed with final revisions during the post-Exilic period (c. 5th century BCE).

In the Bible Abraham is told by God to sacrifice his son Isaac and is stopped at the last moment. The Quran mentions that Abraham and his son Ishmael raised the foundations of a house (elsewhere described as an inviolable sanctuary) where the attempted sacrifice of the latter was to take place.

The origin of this story has been discussed by Joseph Witztum in his article The foundations of the house. He argues that the Quranic scene reflects a number of post-Biblical traditions building on Genesis 22 where Abraham goes to sacrifice Isaac. In later exegetical traditions, Abraham builds an altar for the sacrifice and Isaac willingly offers himself for slaughter. By the time of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 1:227 (1st century CE), Isaac even helps in its construction. In the 4th to 5th centuries several (mostly Syriac) Christian homilies take up this motif. Then a 6th century CE Syriac homily by Jacob of Serugh on Genesis 22 describes them as building not just an altar but a "house" (Syriac: bayta), like in the Quran (Arabic: bayt), which replaces Isaac here with Ishmael. Witztum also argues that the Quran transfers this imagery, originally associated with Jerusalem, to Mecca.^[40] The clearly late development of the idea that Abraham build a sacred house together with his son in order to sacrifice him there undermines the idea that there is any history to the story.

Unlike in Genesis 37:31-34, Jacob is not fooled by the fake blood on Joseph's tunic presented by his brothers. Citing Pseudo Narsai and Balai (fl. early fifth century), Reynolds observes that "Jacob's prescience in the Qurʾān reflects traditions in a number of Syriac texts."^[41] He refers the reader to Joseph Witzum, Syriac Milleu p. 209, who details the various theories of the Syriac authors as to how Jacob knew it was not Joseph's blood. Witzum surmises the reason why the Syriac tradition did not follow Genesis: "it seems likely that this was intended to redeem Jacob’s honor. Instead of being a gullible old man, he is sharp as ever".^[42]

Unlike in Genesis 39:11-20 where Potiphar believes Joseph is guilty of seducing his wife, the Quranic Joseph in vindicated as Potiphar accepts the torn shirt as proof that Joseph did not try to do so. The idea that Potiphar in fact knew Joseph was innocent was apparently created by Jewish and Christian exegetes (e.g. Genesis Rabbah 87:9) in order to explain what they thought to be a light punishment, imprisonment. The manner in which Joseph's innocence is proven (his torn tunic) is in Syriac Christian sources e.g. Narsai (Homily on Joseph 2:279) and Pseudo Narsai (541-42).^[43] Significantly, Reynolds notes that "This element is missing from Jewish sources."^[44]

The origin of the motif seems to be commentary on the story. Witztum quotes as an example, Philo (d. 50 CE). It can be seen that this is just Philo's own reasoning, not put in the mouth of Potiphar:

Qur'anic Account

The Qur'anic story that Satan was expelled from Heaven for defying Allah’s command that the angels prostrate to Adam has an antecedent in a pre-Islamic Jewish tale which itself was an elaboration of a Rabbinic exegesis. The Quran is closest to the Syriac Christian versions from which it takes numerous details. The Bible does not contain this tale.

This story recurs several times in the Qur'an, for instance:

Apocryphal Account

Regarding Quran 7:11-12, Reynolds comments that the story of angels prostrating before Adam, which is not in the Bible, emerged from Rabbinic speculation on Psalms 8:4-6 ("what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them? You have made them a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honor. You made them rulers over the works of your hands; you put everything under their feet"). He cites as an example the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 38b:^[46]

The story of Satan refusing to prostate/worship (sajada) Adam is found in the apocryphal ‘Life of Adam and Eve’, a first to fourth century Jewish Hellenistic work. Some authorities date it to the first century CE based on the absence of the Christian concept of original sin and the influence of the story on the Ebionites.^[47]

Reynolds notes that Satan's desire to plot against Adam in the above passage is because he was cast out for refusing to worship him. Reynolds cites a parallel in Quran 2:34-36, though a stronger parallel is Quran 7:13-18 (especially v. 16 where Satan expresses his motivation).^[48]

Regarding Quran 7:23-25 where Adam pleads for forgiveness and mercy, Reynolds comments on another parallel with this apocryphal work: "The idea that God forgave Adam is found in the Life of Adam and Eve". He cites Life of Adam and Eve Armenian version, trans. Anderson and Stone, 28:2-4. Note that in Quran 2:37 and Quran 20:122 it is clearer that Allah forgives Adam after his plea.

Another important set of parallels is found in the Cave of treasures, dating to the sixth century CE.^[49][50] It was written in Syriac by Christians from earlier Jewish sources and contains another version of the prostration story which is even closer to the Quranic version. The sequence of events in the Quran and many details are as found in this work.

Reynolds observes: "In the Syriac Christian work Cave of Treasures - as in the Qurʾān (v. 12) - the angels prostrate before Adam, but the devil refuses to do so, with the explanation that he is made from fire while Adam is made from dirt". Reynolds here cites "Cave of Treasures [Oc.], 2:12-13, 22-25, and 3:1-2". Reynolds notes in one of his other books that this "marks a distinct development in the narrative of the devil's rebellion. According to the Life of Adam and Eve, the devil's excuse for not worshipping Adam is that he was created first. In the Cave of Treasures, however, the devil's excuse is that he was created from fire, while Adam was created from dirt. It is this tradition that is reflected in the Qurʾān: 'I am better than he is. You created me from fire. You created him from clay.' (Q 7.12; cf. 15.33; 17.61; 38.76)."^[51] An earlier source for this element, known as the Questions of Bartholomew, was originally written in Greek by a Christian and has been variously dated from the 2nd to 6th century CE (Sergey Minov's opinion is 2nd-3rd century). It closely follows the Life of Adam narrative, but after Michael tells Satan to worship Adam, Satan replies, "I am fire of fire, I was the first angel to be formed, and shall I worship clay and matter?".^[52]

Witztum (crediting Beck) notes that Quran 7:13-18 has the same sequence of events as Cave of Treasures 3:3-9, with Adam and his mate placed in the garden and told not to approach the tree immediately after Iblis is banished.^[54]).

Regarding Quran 7:19-22 where Adam and Eve eat from the tree, Reynolds notes that "Syriac texts including Cave of treasures and Ephrem's Hymns on Paradise (following Rev 12:9), and unlike most Jewish texts, puts Satan there" (in Jewish tradition, Satan is not identified with the serpent in Genesis^[55]). Furthermore, "Like the Qurʾān , the 'Oriental' version of the Cave of Treasures makes no mention of the 'tree of the knowledge of good and evil' but rather connects the sin of Adam and Eve with the 'tree of life'. It does so to make a parallel between the one tree of life and the one cross of salvation (Cave of Treasures [Or], 4:2-5; on this see Witztum, Syriac Milieu, 81-83[...]"^[56]

According to Reynolds, Allah's command to "Go down" in the Quranic verses "reflects the cosmological vistas of Syriac Christian sources in which paradise is on top of a cosmic mountain, above the earth, and thus has God cry out 'Go down'."^[57] See also Tommaso Tesei's article Some Cosmological Notions from Late Antiquity in Q 18:60–65 for a probably more accurate interpretation of the cosmography, such that Syriac authors like Ephrem, who refers to paradise as being at a great height, had in mind that paradise was beyond the world-encircling ocean, and was the source of the great rivers on earth, as reflected also in for example Quran 88:10 and the common Quranic phrase "gardens from beneath which the rivers flow".^[58]

The Qur'anic story of Satan refusing to worship or prostate before Adam has distinct antecedents in pre-Islamic Jewish and Christian sources including elements that were added in stages over the centuries. It would appear that this post-biblical legend has been extensively incorporated into the Islamic scriptures, without an apparent understanding of its origin.

According to Reynolds, "The idea that God first created the Jinn from fire (v. 27) reflects Christian texts such as the Cave of Treasures that speak of the creation of the devil from fire (and have him already present at the creation of Adam)."^[59] See the discussion in the previous section above on the prostration of Iblis, which quotes the Cave of Treasures where he states that he was created from fire and spirit.

In the Quran, the angels are at first wary of the creation of Adam. Allah then teaches Adam "the names" (in the Biblical book of Genesis God brings the animals to Adam so he can name them) and challenges the angels to match this knowledge. They are reminded of their place when they are unable to answer, whereas Adam is able to do so.

In the Bible, Genesis 2:19-20, God allows Adam to name all the animals and there is nothing more to that part of the story. The angelic element of the Quranic narrative derives from a similar account originating in the exegesis of a Rabbi:

The Quran contains four short stories from the Christian lore of late antiquity, some of which seem to have been popular in the Syriac speaking region. The traditional account about the revelation of Surah al-Kahf in the sira literature is somewhat at odds with this context. According to Ibn Ishaq's biography of Muhammad, he was challenged by Jews from Medina to answer three questions about the young men who disappeared in ancient days, the mighty traveller who reached the eastern and western ends of the world, and the spirit (a question about the spirit is actually answered in Quran 17:85-87, not Surah al-Kahf).^[60]

The seven sleepers of Ephesus

Academic scholars consider the story of the sleepers of the cave in Quran 18:9-26 to be derived from a famous Christian legend, known as The Seven Sleepers of Ephesus. In 2023, Thomas Eich published his finding that the specific version of the tale found in the Quran overlaps significantly with the version taught by Theodore of Tarsus which can be situated in a 7th century Palestinian context. For a detailed discussion, see the main article.

Moses, his servant and the fish

The story of Moses and his journey to the end of the world, with his servant and a miraculously escaped fish in Quran 18:60-64 is almost unanimously considered by academic scholars to be derived from a legend about Alexander the Great in the Alexander Romance tradition (Pseudo-Callisthenes), an episode known as the search for the water of life. This tale is also found in the Jewish Talmud and the early 7th century CE Syriac metrical homily (memre) about Alexander (also known as the Song of Alexander, or Alexander Poem).

The Syriac metrical homily also features the episode of Alexander enclosing Gog and Magog behind a wall, derived from the slightly earlier Syriac Alexander Legend, and which occurs in the Dhu'l Qarnayn pericope, discussed below. It cannot be a coincidence that, like surah al-Kahf, the Syriac homily has both stories, perhaps providing a clue to the content of their ultimate common source. See the Water of Life section in the main article for a more detailed discussion, including relevant quotes from the Syriac homily.

Moses and al Khidr

The story of Moses and al-Khidr occurs in Quran 18:65-82. A J Weinsink (d. 1939) proposed that it was derived from the story of Elijah and Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, though more recent scholarship has shown that the latter is late and heavily influenced by the Islamic tradition. More successfully, Roger Paret identified a significant Christian parallel that may predate the Quran.^[61] It is an example of a genre of literature known as "theodicy" (dealing with the theological problem of evil).

Paret identified this parallel in a popular (though not authoritative) version of a late sixth or early seventh century CE collection of middle eastern monastic tales, the Leimon (in its original Greek, or Pratum Spirituale in Latin, which translates to Spiritual Meadow) of John Moschos (d. 619 CE). This version includes a set of supplementary stories, published by Elpidio Mioni, which are now generally considered not to have been penned by Moschus and include the Quranic parallel. They do nevertheless appear to originate from Palestinian monastics of the 7th century according to Sean Anthony, likely added by one of Moschus' Palestinian disciples.^[62] The basic structure of the story is identical to the Quranic passage, and has many similarities of detail though also differences.

A wandering ascetic is upset by notions of divine justice demonstrated to him by an angel before the events are explained to him. Like the Quran, the story involves three perplexing acts by the divine servant followed by an explanation to his exasperated companion, the second and third of which have obvious similarities to the Quranic pericope: In order to spare his father's salvation, a boy is killed who would have grown up commiting evil; and in a town where no-one would offer them hospitality, a wall containing hidden treasure on the verge of collapsing is repaired without asking for payment.

Quran 18:65-82 (Moses and al Khidr):

The Spiritual Meadow of John Moscus (d. 619 CE), Mioni 6 (for images of the translation see footnote^[63]):

Dhu'l Qarnayn

The Quranic story of Dhu'l Qarnayn is narrated in Quran 18:83-101, and is perhaps the most famous example of an intertextual relationship between the Quran and a non-biblical legend. Academic scholars consider the Quranic pericope to be closely connected to the Syriac Alexander Legend, which has Alexander the Great voyaging to the ends of the earth to see where the sun goes, before securing the Huns (including Gog and Magog) behind an iron wall. The story seems to have received a final redaction between 629-636 CE, though there are reasons to believe an original version was composed in the sixth century CE. The legend of Alexander enclosing Gog and Magog behind a iron barrier is first found several centuries earlier in the works of the Jewish historian Josephus. For a detailed discussion, see the main article.

Qur'anic Account

The Bible canon does not contain the episode of Mary, Jesus and the palm tree, which first appears in the apocrypha and later in the Qur'an.

Gospel of Pseudo-Mathew

Quranic verse 19:22-26 is a clear parallel of the account found in the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. In this account Jesus has already been born, but he is still a baby during the flight to Egypt. The family are hungry and thirsty, resting under a palm tree. As in the Quran, Jesus performs the miracles of making the palm tree drop fruit and a stream appear beneath it.

Dating issues and an earlier Syriac source

The dating of this Latin apocrypha is of uncertain date, with the oldest surving manuscript dating to around 820 CE. In 2011, Michael Berthold identified that one of its sources is the Pseudo-Ambrosian Life of Saint Agnes, which is used by another work around 690 CE so this source is earlier than that. St. Agnes is thought to have lived some time from the 5th to 7th century. Other more speculative arguments suggest an earliest date of the mid sixth century for Pseudo Matthew. Considering all these insights from other scholars, Brandon Hawk gives it a date range of 550 - 800 CE.^[64]

Fortunately, Stephen Shoemaker has identified a precursor of the Mary palm tree story in a set of early 5th century CE texts (at the latest) known as the Dormition of the Virgin, for which we have later fifth century CE Syriac manuscript fragments as the earliest textual witnesses. This version was widespread throughout the Byzantine Near East by the end of the sixth century CE.^[65] In this version, the infant Jesus commands the palm tree to bow down and provide fruit, as in Pseudo-Matthew, but it is already located by a stream rather than the stream being a second miracle as in Pseudo-Matthew and the Quran. Nevertheless, this is proof enough that the story was developing in the region well before the 7th century CE.

Leto in Greek mythology

Suleiman Mourad has traced the development of this story in the Qur'an and Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew through Greek and Latin literature. He writes:

The story of the baby Jesus speaking is found in Q 19:29-31 and Q 3:46 (similarly Q 5:110).

Reynolds remarks, "The reference in verse 46 to Jesus' speaking 'to the people in the cradle' (cf. 5:110, 19:29) refers to a tradition found in the Latin Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (likely written in the early seventh century".^[67]

For a discussion of the dating for Pseudo-Matthew, and an earlier 5th century CE source with much the same story, see the section on Jesus, Mary and the Palm Tree above. That 5th century source (at the latest) is the Dormition of Mary, which relates that Jesus miraculously spoke to his father at the age of 5 months when the family were thirsty:

A different story found in the Arabic Infancy Gospel (also known as the Syriac Infancy Gospel), is sometimes cited as a possible antecendent of the Quranic tale that Jesus spoke in infancy. However, academic scholars tend to doubt that it is pre-Islamic. The Arabic Infancy Gospel combines elements from the Childhood of the Saviour, Protoevangelium of James, and Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew.

See also the sirah passage quoted in the section below about Jesus and the Clay Birds, in which three Christians are narrated as having informed Muhammad that Jesus spoke in the cradle as well as other miracles.

Qur'anic Account

According to the Qur'an, Jesus (with the permission of Allah) created a clay bird which he blew into and brought to life.

Apocryphal Account

Reynolds remarks on this parallel: "The miracle of Jesus' creating a bird (or birds) from clay, and his bringing it to life with his breath (cf. 5:110) is known from the apocryphal Childhood of the Saviour (second century AD; commonly, and erroneously, referred to as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas). In the Christian context, the point is to have Jesus create a living being in the way God creates Adam (Gen 2:7)"^[69] The Childhood of the Saviour survives primarily through a few Greek manuscripts, but was also translated at an early time into other languages including Syriac. The following is from a critical edition of the Childhood of the Saviour based on the best manuscripts by Tony Burke, Professor of Early Christianity, York University, Toronto (the opening attribution to the apostle Thomas is ommitted in his translation because the earliest textual witnesses are anonymous).

A similar story appears in the Arabic Infancy Gospel (also known as the Syriac Infancy Gospel), combining elements from the Childhood of the Saviour, Protoevangelium of James, and the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. However, the dating of that version is disputed and academic scholars tend to doubt that it is pre-Islamic.

Muslim Apologetics

This parallelism has never been explained by Muslim apologists except to use it to perversely claim that the Bible is corrupted. They argue that the original Bible contained the apocryphal story of Jesus making and animating clay birds, and that the Qur'an was merely correcting a wrongful exclusion of these apocrypha from the canon.^[70]

Interestingly, the sirah itself narrates how Muhammad, far from receiving these stories from Allah (via the angel Jibreel/Gabriel), heard it from three Christians. Saifullah & Azmy of Islamic-awareness write more on this here. While the narrative seems to serve a mixture of apologetic and polemical purposes, as well as a kind of "occasion of revelation", it could possibly reflect some historical memory of Muhammad learning from regional Christians about their religious traditions.

The parallelism between the Qur'an’s ‘Jesus animating clay birds’ verses and the apocryphal story is strong, suggesting a very mundane and earthly source of the Qur'an's revelation here. As to the historical reliability of the document itself, there are various reasons why the apocryphal stories in the Childhood of the Saviour are not included in the canon; These apocrypha contain verses that contradict the canonical Gospels and their late date reveals itself both in style and substance.

God, Jesus and Mary: The Trinity?

In Surah 5 al-Ma'idah, the Qur'an apparently responds to a strange version of the Christian Trinity:

This alternative formulation of the trinity is present even more clearly in Quran 5:72-75, which makes no mention of the holy spirit and takes measure to disprove the divinity of Jesus and his mother by pointing out that they, like normal human beings, also ate food.

This seeming mistake about the Christian trinity, a well established doctrine for centuries by this point, has long been one of the great riddles of the Qur'an (though in 2022 an interesting solution was proposed by Klaus von Stosch, discussed further below).

Muslim Apologetics about the Collyridians

Orthodox Muslim scholars tend to explain these verses by appearling to the heretical Arab Christian sect of the Collyridians, which were described in the 4th century CE and possibly may have survived into Muhammad’s time, so the Quran was specifically addressing their understanding of the Trinity.

Reynolds notes that Epiphanius (d. 403 CE) in his Panerion refers briefly to a group of women in the Arabian desert who worship Mary as a godess and offer her cakes (in Greek, collyrida; hence they were known as Collyridians).^[71] Epiphanius of Salamis (a saint in both the Nicaean Orthodox churches and the Catholic Church) was a 4th-century Christian arch-heresy hunter and defender of Christian orthodoxy. This is what he has to say about them:

According to Epiphanius, the Collyridians seem to merge pagan goddess-worship with Christian Mariolatry. They had female priests and, interestingly for purposes of this study, seem to have been found in Arabia. It's important to remember that this is one of dozens of heresies mentioned by Epiphanius, and this is the only mention extant of them. Epiphanius doesn't give any indication of how many people actually followed this heresy, and it's not possible to know how long after his time they lasted exactly. It's also not possible for us to know how accurately this section actually describes their beliefs, since we have no extant writings from them; it is possible that Epiphanius is exaggerating here and they did not actually worship Mary as a god.

Edward Gibbon in 'the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' [Chapter 50] states that they were still in existence in the seventh century (without providing any corroborating evidence). One explanation is that Gibbon's simply took the clear parallelism of verse 5:116 with Collyridianism to mean they were present during Muhammad’s day.

As to the purpose of verse 5:116, the most plausible explanation is clearly that it was a polemic against real or imagined Christian belief in the trinity. Whether or not the Collyridians still existed at Muhammad's time or before is not knowable from the extant evidence, but if it is a reference to this sect, either by mistake or over-generalization the Qur'an does seem to apply this polemic to all Christians as a whole, whereas at most this belief was extremely marginal within Chrisitanity.

See also the sirah quoted in the section about Jesus and the Clay birds below.

Byzantine theological debates and war propaganda

Klaus von Stosch proposed at the 2022 conference "Unlocking the Byzantine Qur'an" an explanation for the hitherto unexplained and unusual Quranic phrases regarding Mary and the Christian trinity in Surah 5 al-Ma'idah, which are not found in earlier surahs but make a late appearance here in the Quran. Regarding the perculiar formulation "They have certainly disbelieved who say, 'Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary'" (verses 17 and 72), Stosch points out that a hot theological debate in 6th century CE Byzantine Christianity was whether it was correct to not only say Christ is God, but also that God is Christ.

Regarding "They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three" (verse 73), Stosch points out that a liturgy propogated across the empire by the emperor Justinian had introduced the phrase "One of the Holy Trinity" (albeit applied to Jesus, not God) in order to smooth over the differences in the above mentioned debate, and was in use as a creedal formula in Alexandria even during Muhammad's prophetic career.

Regarding the argument that he and his mother "both used to eat (earthly) food" (verse 75), some Byzantine theologians had proposed that because Christ was without sin, his body was incorruptible and he had no need for food. Moreover, relics relating to Jesus and Mary had recently been credited as saving Constantinople from a seige by Khosrow in 626 CE and were therefore considered indestructable (surah al Ma'idah dates to 630 CE or after the conquest of Mecca). Another phrase in verse 17 also appears to be a response to this imperial propaganda: "Say, 'Then who could prevent Allah at all if He had intended to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, or his mother or everyone on the earth?'". A letter had been sent throughout the empire by the Byzantine emperor Heraclius blaming Khosrow's defeat on his opposition to Christ and Mary. Stosch argues that "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?" (verse 116) is a Quranic critique of what it sees as the Byzantines turning Mary into a Godess of war.^[72]

However, this last proposal seems somewhat insufficient since the verses (especially 5:72-75) very much read as though the author believed Mary was being worshipped as part of the Christian trinity, not a godess alongside it. It could be that the imperial news and propaganda had become corrupted by the time it penetrated Arabia, giving the impression that Mary was now being worshipped as part of the trinity by the Byzantine Christians.

Qur'anic Account

The Bible, unlike the Qur'an, is silent on Mary’s birth, upbringing and relationship with Zachariah. The following is what one finds in the Qur'an:

The salient points are:

• The child Mary was given into Zachariah’s care by her mother, and kept in a sanctuary (possibly in dedication to God).

• Zachariah was astonished that she did not need human help in feeding herself. Some supernatural occurrence explained her daily sustenance.

• Zachariah speaks to God who told him of John. Zachariah is incredulous due to the physical condition of him and his wife.

• Mary’s husband was decided by the drawing of lots.

Apocryphal Accounts

Reynolds observes, "The Qurʾān follows closely here the Protoevangelium of James, a Greek Christian work written in the late second century and translated into Syriac in the fifth century". He further notes, "The manner in which the Qurʾān has Mary's mother commend Mary and her 'descendents' (i.e. Jesus) to God's protection from the devil may allude to the Christian doctrine that Mary and Jesus were free from sin."^[73] Regarding verse 37 in which Mary has a miraculous source of food, Reynolds notes that the Qurʾān also here follows a tradition found in the Protoevangelium of James 7:2 to 8:1.^[74].

Regarding verse 44 in which things were cast to determine who would look after Mary, Reynolds notes that Islamic tradition related this as casting pens (Quills). However, citing the Protoevangelium 9:1, Reynolds remarks, "In fact the Qurʾān is following the chronology of Mary's life as found in the Protoevangelium. The contest is over who will marry Mary, and it involves not pens but rods, or reeds. The Arabic aqlām comes from the Greek kalamos (and it is a kalamos, "reed," that soldiers put in the right hand of Christ in Mat 27:29"^[75]

Various later apocrypha partly based on the Protoevangelium also contain the relevant story elements.^[76]

Excerpts from the Protevangelium of James

The story of Mary’s upbringing in the Temple under the supervision of the High Priest Zachariah, and the choice of Joseph as Mary’s husband by the drawing of lots, is not told in the Bible but in various apocrypha. The Qur'an’s parallelism of this story casts suspicion as to its provenance. These apocrypha are clearly later Christian writings pre-dating Islam, and the oldest, the pseudepigraphal Protevangelium, dates to the second century CE. On stylistic and theological grounds, the Protevangelium has long been considered apocrypha. Thus, these details of the Qur'anic story should not be taken as historical detail but rather as Christian legend which, by merit of its wide circulation, entered into the Qur'an.

Qur'anic Verse

The Torah tells the story of Korah (or Korach) and his rebellion against Moses (Numbers 16:1-35). This story was later embellished by Rabbinic exegetes and replicated in the Qur'an where Korah is transliterated to Qaaroon.

Talmudic Account

Reynolds comments regarding this passage, "The reference to Korah's possessions (Num 16:32-33) was taken by Jewish exegetes as a sign that he had grown rich: 'the keys of Korah's treasure house were a load for three hundred white mules' (b. Sanhedrin 110a). One tradition in the Babylonian Talmud (b. Peshahim 119a) attributes Korah's riches to a treasure left by Joseph."^[77]

Jewish scholars have noted that the story of Korah’s wealth is not told in the Torah or Mishnah but by sages. Professor Avigdor Shenan says that the Sages present Korach, among others things, as an extremely wealthy man and the phrase “as wealthy as Korach” is used even today.

Professor Shenan also noted that the Jewish sages had two theories about how Korah acquired his wealth.

Here is Professor Shenan’s conclusion about the wealthy Korah story:

Thus, it can be seen that there is little or no basis in the Bible for Korah to be assumed a wealthy man, especially since he fled with Moses during the Exodus. It is unlikely, although Jewish tradition has it, that the Hebrews would have fled in haste from a vengeful Pharaoh and his army carrying a load of treasure. Rather this idea, included in the Quran, about Korah being so wealthy that the keys to his treasure house themselves were so heavy that they required a large number of bearers is credited in the Talmud to Rabbi Levi; a third century Haggadist who lived in Palestine.

Qur'anic Account

In four passages, the Quran says that the mountain was raised over the Children of Israel when they were given the covenant.

See similarly Quran 2:93 and Quran 4:154.

Midrash Account

Michael Graves has argued in a detailed article on the theology of these passages that the Quran deploys the motif that the mountain was literally raised over the Israelites for its own theological purposes, to destabilize Judeo-Christian concepts of divine election and to emphasise the need for all people to show reverant awareness of Allah. Moreover, he explains why academic scholars understand the idea to have come about from Rabbinic exegesis of a verse in the biblical book of Genesis.^[79]

Graves explains that in Exodus 19:17 Moses brings the people out of the camp to meet God, and the people take their place beṯaḥtîṯ hāhār, which is usually taken to mean, “at the foot of the mountain.”

He notes that beṯaḥtîṯ is an unusual way to say "at the foot of", the root word typically meaning "under", and this particular form of the word is unique in the Hebrew Bible. Graves observes that:

Graves notes that the Talmud ascribes the interpretation to R. Abdimi b. Hama, a fourth century Rabbi. He quotes the tradition as reported in the Babylonian Talmud, Tracates Shabbat 88a and Abodah Zarah 2b:

Reynolds notes an additional point regarding Quran 7:171-174: "On the term translated here as 'canopy' (Ar: zulla), Yahuda (284) argues that it means something closer to a jar (inverted)."^[80] If correct, that would suggest an even closer fit to the talmud quote above.

Citing and quoting the Babylonian Talmud, Gitten 68, Reynolds notes, "Behind this passage is a midrashic tale found in the Babylonian Talmud according to which the demon Ashmedai, who had been subdued by Solomon, tricks Solomon into removing his chains and handing over his ring. Ashmedai swallows Solomon, casts him far away, takes Solomon's likeness, and takes his place on the throne (eventually Ashmedai is recognized because of his stockings which he wore to cover his roosterlike feet). Solomon returns to Jerusalem in the guise of a beggar, which may explain the humility ascribed to him in these two Qur'ānic verses."^[81]

Reynolds notes that behind these verses is a legend found in the Talmud (Babylonian Talmud Gittin 68a-b) about demons who help Solomon build the Jerusalem temple (the Arabic word for elevated chamber in v. 13 is the same as is used for the Jerusalem temple sanctury in Quran 3:37-39). ^[82] It appears to stem from an idosyncratic exegesis on Solomon's words in Ecclesiastes 2:8.

Qur'anic Account

The story of the Queen of Sheba is an ancient one, dating back to the Old Testament (1 Kgs. 10:1-10 and 2 Chr. 9:1-12). Josephus also makes mention of the Queen of Sheba, as does the Qur'an, which interestingly embellishes the Old Testament account with the episodes of the hoopoe and the Queen of Sheba exposing her legs.

Below is the Quranic account of the story:

Targum Sheni

Regarding the above passage, Reynolds cites the Targum Sheni 1:1-3 (also known as The Second Targum of Esther).^[83] The Targums were translations (in this case, Aramaic) of the Hebrew scriptures, often with significant exegesis, paraphrase, or additional tales interwoven with the text.

A few verses earlier, Quran 27:16-17 also has a parallel at the start of the same Targum Sheni passage. Reynolds remarks that "The Qurʾān's declaration that Solomon was taught the 'speech of the birds' (v. 16) and that his army included 'jinn, humans and birds' (v. 17) reflects the Second Targum of Esther (the date of which is disputed, but may date originally from the fourth century AD; On its relationship with the Qurʾān see BEQ, 390-91; 393-98)."^[84] However, it must be cautioned that the date of the Targum Sheni (Second Targum of Esther) is extremely uncertain. It has received various datings from the 4th to 11th centuries AD (as Reynolds also mentions), though certainly in its final redaction includes material which post-dates the lower end of that range.^[85]

Dozens of details correspond between this passage and the Quranic verses when they are compared:

One cannot be too dogmatic about this parallelism, as the dating of Targum Sheni is not beyond doubt. Nevertheless, it is likely that the story of the Queen of Sheba pre-dates the Qur'an as the Targum is mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud. It is also clear that the post-Quranic dates often ascribed to Targum Sheni are that of the final redaction and not necessarily that of the Queen of Sheba myths.

Reynolds comments, "The question of Pharaoh's survival appears in an opinion found in the (late fourth century AD) Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael (cr. Gavin McDowell):

"And the waters returned and covered the chariot etc. [Exo 14:27]. Even Pharaoh, according to the words of R. Judah, as it is said, 'The chariots of Pharaoh and his force, etc.' [Exo 15:4]. R. Nehimiah says: Except for Pharaoh. About him it says, 'However, for this purpose I have let you live' [Exo 9:16]. Others say that in the end Pharaoh went down and drowned, as it is said, 'Then went the horse of Pharaoh, etc.' [Exo 15:19]. (Beshallah 7)"^[87]

According to Reynolds, Jacob's instruction to his sons to enter through different gates rather than one is a Midrashic tale found in Genesis Rabbah 91:6 "Do not enter through one gate."^[88]

In two verses the Quran states that Allah created every living thing from water:

It is significant that the first of the two verses, 21:30, is explicitly about the creation of the world. Reynolds notes an earlier parallel taught by the Syriac church father Ephrem (d. 373 CE). He writes, "[...] Ephrem, who explains that God created everything through water: 'Thus, through light and water the earth brought forth everything.' Ephrem, Commentary on Genesis, 1:1-10)."^[89] Ephrem's comment is in the context of the Genesis creation story, much like the first Quranic verse, 21:30. Ephrem says that when heaven and earth were created there were no trees or vegetation as it had not yet rained, so a fountain irrigated the earth. Tafsirs say that when the heaven and earth were separated rain fell so that plants could grow. There is also a similarity with Ephrem in the other verse (24:45), which mentions creatures that move on two, four or no legs. Ephrem explains that as well as the "trees, vegetation and plants", the "Scripture wishes to indicate that all animals, reptiles, cattle and birds came into being as a result of the combining of earth and water".^[90]

Surah 71 consists entirely of the preaching of Noah and his supplications to Allah.

Reynolds remarks that "The Qur'ānic character of Noah is quite unlike that of the Noah in Genesis, who does not speak a word until after the flood." Citing the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 108a, he observes that "[his preaching] is also suggested by a passage in the Talmud:

"The righteous Noah rebuked them, urging, 'Repent; for if not, the Holy One, blessed be He, will bring a deluge upon you and cause your bodies to float upon the water like gourds, as it is written, He is light [i.e., floats] upon the waters. Moreover, ye shall be taken as a curse for all future generations.' (b. Sanhedrin 108a)"

Reynolds further notes, "It is also prominent in the Syriac fathers, several of whom report that Noah preached to his people for a hundred years before God finally sent the flood." citing for example the Syriac authors Nasai, "On the Flood", 33, II. 227-30 and Jacob of Serugh, Homilies contre les juifs, 70, homily 2, II. 37-40.^[91]

The Bible briefly mentions Noah's wife in one verse without further comment (Genesis 7:7), "And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood." Regarding the Quranic verse which speaks of her negatively, Reynolds briefly considers the possibility that the Quran has extended to their wives the parallelism between Noah (though not his wife) and Lot found in the New Testament (2 Peter 2), but then comments, "However, it is important to note that already in the pre-Islamic period certain groups had developed hostile legends about Noah's wife." He cites Epiphanius (d. 403 CE), Panarion 2:26, which relates the Gnostic belief that she was not allowed onto the ark, having burned it down three times before the flood.^[92]

Reynolds comments, "On this passage cf. Exodus 2:7-9. The Qurʾān's declaration (v. 12) 'We had forbidden him to be suckled by any nurse' (v. 12) reflects a tradition in the Babylonian Talmud that Moses (from whose mouth would come forth the word of God) refused the impure breasts of the Egyptian women:

Then said his sister to Pharaoh's daughter, Shall I go and call thee a nurse of the Hebrew women? Why just 'of the Hebrew women'? - It teaches that they handed about to all the Egyptian women but he would not suck. He said: Shall a mouth which will speak with [God] suck what is unclean! (b. Sotah 12b)"^[93]

The same verb for holding (amsaka) appears in Quran 22:65 and Quran 35:41 with regard to Allah holding the sky from falling to earth.

In his 2023 academic book on Quranic cosmology, Julien Decharneux observes that the 6th century CE Syriac Christian writer Jacob of Serugh repeatedly used birdflight as an illustration of the concept of remzā ("[The remzā] is, both in Narsai and Jacob, the medium through which God’s power operates."^[94])

A very close similarity with Q. 16:79 can be seen in this homily:

A more elaborat passage makes the parallel with the Quranic concept clearer:

Just as the Quran uses the same verb to say that Allah holds up the birds and the heavens (as noted above), Jacob uses the concept of remzā (God's action in the world) also for the firmament.