Parallels Between the Qur'an and Late Antique Judeo-Christian Literature: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Parallels Between the Qur'an and Late Antique Judeo-Christian Literature (view source)

Revision as of 23:59, 24 December 2022

1,738 bytes removed ,  24 December 2022
no edit summary
[checked revision][checked revision]
(Starting a major rewrite of existing sections and many new sections will be added)
No edit summary
Line 239: Line 239:
===Jewish Folklore===
===Jewish Folklore===


This story of the raven and the burial of Abel has led scholars to the conclusion that the Qur'an borrowed Jewish folklore because this account is not in the Old Testament or the Torah. In the Jewish folklore it was Adam who noticed the raven burying a dead bird and that gave him the idea to bury Abel. Thus, the parallelism isn’t with the person who did the burying but with the raven providing the idea of burial in the ground.  
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.<ref>Joseph Witztum, ''Syriac Millieu'', p. 116</ref> 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.<ref>Myron B. Lerner, "The works of Aggadic Midrash and Esther Midrashim" in Eds. Sefrai et. al. (2006) [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Aed5DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA150 The literature of the Sages: Second Part] Netherlands: Royal van Gorcum and Fortress Press, p.150</ref> 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).
{{Quote|Tanhuma Bereshit 10 in S. A. Berman, Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu: An English Translation of Genesis and Exodus from the Printed Version of Tanhuma-Yelammedenu with an Introduction, Notes, and Indexes (Hoboken, 1996), pp. 31-32|After Cain slew Abel, the body lay outstretched upon the earth, since Cain did not know how to dispose of it. Thereupon, the Holy One, blessed be He, selected two clean birds and caused one of them to kill the other. The surviving bird dug the earth with its talons and buried its victim. Cain learned from this what to do. He dug a grave and buried his brother. It is because of this that birds are privileged to cover their blood.}}
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."<ref>Joseph Witztum, ''Syriac Millieu'' pp. 117-122</ref>


'''Four sources of this Jewish folklore usually cited:'''
==Abel's words to Cain==
On a more concrete connection regarding the Cain and Abel verses, Reyolds 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''.<ref>Gabriel Said Reynolds, ''The Qurʾān and Bible'' pp. 197-198.</ref> He 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 Abel's response to Cain in the Targum 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.<ref>Joseph Witztum, ''Syriac Millieu'' pp. 125-28</ref> Targum Neofiti has received datings ranging from the 2nd century BCE to the 2nd century CE.<ref>Shepherd, Michael B. (2008) [https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1297&context=biblical_and_ministry_studies_publications Targums, the New Testament, and Biblical Theology of the Messiah] Biblical and Theological Studies Faculty Publications. 294. https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/biblical_and_ministry_studies_publications/294</ref>


*the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel
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.


*the Targum Yerushalmi I (aka Targum Jonathan or the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan)
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.<ref>Reynolds citing Joseph Witztum, ''Syriac Millieu'', pp. 125-152</ref>


*the Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer
In the ''Syriac Dialogue Poem', we see Cain's direct murder threat to his brother, as in the Quran:


*the Midrash Tanhuma.
{{Quote|''Syriac Dialogue Poem on Abel and Cain'', stanza 13<ref>Joseph Witztum, ''Syriac Millieu'' p. 129</ref>|(Cain) Says Cain: Since the Lord has taken delight<BR />
in your sacrifice, but rejected mine,<BR />
I will kill you (qāṭelnā lāk): because He has preferred you.<BR />
I will take vengeance on His friend.
}}


Only two are true. The Targums do not carry this story and the claim that they do is a misreading of Tisdall.  
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].":
{{Quote|''Syriac Dialogue Poem on Abel and Cain'', stanzas 14 and 16<ref>Joseph Witztum, ''Syriac Millieu'' p. 31</ref>|(Abel) Abel replies: What wrong have I done<BR />
if the lord has been pleased with me?<BR />
He searches out hearts and so has the right.<BR />
to choose or reject as He likes.<BR />
[...]<BR />
(Abel) in all offerings that are made<BR />
it is love that He wants to see,<BR />
and if good intention is not mingled in,<BR />
then the sacrifice is ugly and rejected.}}


It would be more correct to claim that the raven burial story in the Qur'an find its predecessor in Jewish folklore, which has also been preserved in the Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer, and the Midrash Tanhuma. This is because there is no evidence that the Qur'an copies from these texts as such, but rather takes the broad outlines of the story
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.<ref>Joseph Witztum, ''Syriac Millieu'' pp. 132-33</ref> 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.<ref>Joseph Witztum, ''Syriac Millieu'' pp. 143-44</ref>
 
{{Quote|Jewish legend related by Pirqey Rabbi Eliezer, chapter XXI, quoted by Abdiyah Akbar Adul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim. |"Adam and his help mate were sitting weeping and lamenting over him [Abel], and they did not know what to do with Abel, for they were not acquainted with burial. A raven, one of whose companions had died, came. He took him and dug in the earth and buried him before his eyes. Adam said, 'I shall do as this raven.' Immediately, he took Abel's corpse and dug in the earth and buried it."}}
 
Tisdall quotes from the same source in a slightly different translation:
{{Quote|[http://www.muhammadanism.com/Tisdall/sources_quran/p062.htm W. St-Clair-Tisdall, Souces of Islam]|"So also in the book Pirke Rabbi Eleazer, we find the source of the burying of Abel as described in the Coran, there being no difference excepting that the raven indicates the mode to Adam instead of to Cain, as follows:- Adam and Eve, sitting by the corpse, wept not knowing what to do, for they had as yet no knowledge of burial. A raven coming up, took the dead body of its fellow, and having scratched up the earth, buried it thus before their eyes. Adam said, Let us follow the example of the raven, and so taking up Abel's body buried it at once.<ref>[http://answering-islam.org/Index/C/cain_and_abel.html CAIN AND ABEL] - Answering Islam</ref> }}
===Muslim Objection===
 
*'''Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer'''
 
Saifullah, Ahmed and Karim of Islamic-Awareness claim that Jewish scholars have known for quite some time that Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer is post-Islamic and that it cannot possibly be attributed to Rabbi Eliezer, quoting as evidence:
 
{{Quote||“The Jewish Encyclopedia published in 1905 (same year as the publication of Tisdall's book) under "Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer" informs us that: Josh was the first to point out that in the thirtieth chapter, in which at the end the author distinctly alludes to the three stages of the Mohammadan conquest, that of Arabia, of Spain, and of Rome, the names of Fatima and Ayesha occur beside that of Ishamel, leading to the conclusion that the book originated in the time when Islam was predominant in Asia Minor. As in ch. xxxvi, two brother reigning simultaneously are mentioned, after whose reign the Messiah shall come, the work might be ascribed to the beginning of the nineth century, for about that time the two sons of Harun al-Rasid, El-Amin and El-Mamun, were ruling over Islamic realm.... In no case this work be ascribed to R. Eliezer (80-118 CE), since he was a tanna, while the book itself the Pirke Abot is quoted.”<ref>M S M Saifullah, Mansur Ahmed & Elias Karim - [http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBCandA.html On The Sources Of The Story Of Cain & Abel In The Qur'an] - Islamic Awareness</ref>}}
 
They claim that since the final redaction occurred after the advent of Islam, it cannot be the source of the raven burial story. There are two difficulties with this claim:
 
*final redaction does not mean the stories contained in the Pirke were composed after the advent of Islam. Redaction means ‘making something suitable for publication – including editing, compilation etc.’ or the act of putting something in writing (i.e. that had already existed prior to the writing);
 
*new evidence suggests the original dating of the Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer is erroneous.
 
According to Andrew Vargo of answering-islam:
 
{{Quote||“They (i.e. Saifullah and co) also omitted a point that was made in another response to "Islamic Awareness" - that there are at least two ancient manuscripts of the Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer. The ancient Vienna manuscript, which has only in recent years been translated into English, shows every evidence of being pre-Islamic.”<ref>Andrew Vargo - [http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/cain-abel2.htm Responses to Islamic Awareness] - Answering Islam</ref>}}
 
===Midrash Tanhuma===
The general scholastic view is that Midrash Tanhuma is also known as '''Tanhuma Yelamdenu''', although some scholars believe they are different manuscripts.
 
In an effort to discredit the Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer, the Islamic-awareness team cites the work of Norman A. Stillman, published in the Journal Of Semitic Studies, 1974, Volume 19. However, Stillman still supports the midrashic origin hypothesis:
 
{{Quote||Sidersky has rightly pointed out that the qur'anic version should be traced back to Midrash Tamhuma which reads:
"When Cain killed Abel, the latter's body lay cast aside for Cain did not know what to do. Then the Holy One (Blessed be He) sent him two pure birds, and one of them killed the other. Then he dug with his claws and buried him, and from him Cain learned. So he dug and buried Abel."<ref>Andrew Vargo - [http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/cain-abel.htm Responses to Islamic Awareness] - Answering Islam</ref>}}
 
Saifullah and co then challenged the dating of a version of the Midrash Tanhuma known as the Buber’s recension:
 
{{Quote||"There are a number of serious problems with the theory that Midrash Tanhuma is the source of the Qur'anic Cain and Abel narration. There is a much uncertainty concerning the first half of Midrash Tanhuma (which includes the story of Cain and Abel) coupled with the late date of its compilation in post-Islamic times (ninth century CE).
 
Are we to believe that a problematic text of the ninth century is the source of Qur'anic story? Such a theory is untenable. It may very well be the case that the Qur'anic story is the source of the Cain and Abel story in Midrash Tanhuma. Perhaps Stillman himself put it best:
 
Our chronology of rabbinic literature is better today than in Geiger's, and many more texts - Muslim, Jewish, and Christian - have since being published. In the light of this we know now that in some instances what was thought to be a Jewish haggadic influence in an Islamic text might well be quite the reverse.”}}
 
The recension date is not the same as the composition date. The contents of Midrash Tanhuma seem to pre-date Islam:
 
{{Quote||“The Midrash Tanhuma exists in several recensions, the most famous of which was edited by Shelomo Buber (grandfather of Martin Buber) in 1885. The date and provenance of this commentary on the Torah remains a mystery, though rabbinic authorities cited therein are mostly fourth century or earlier, and in general the scholarly community locates this compilation in southern Italy around the mid-eighth century.”<ref>Culbertson, Philip - [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3818/is_199807/ai_n8803696 Midrash Tanhuma]</ref>}}
 
Vargo introduced the fact that there are versions of the Midrash Tanhuma older than the Buber recension.
 
From Meyer Waxman in '''“A History of Jewish Literature”''':
 
{{Quote||“Besides the cycle of Rabba, i.e. Large Midrashim on the Pentateuch, there exists another Midrashic cycle on these books known as the Tanhuma-Yelamdenu-Midrashim. The first name given to it because of the numerous homiletic interpretations of verses quoted in the name of Tanhuma, the son of Abba, a famous Palestinian Agadist who lived towards the end of the fourth century. The second name of this cycle arises from the fact that a very large number of homilies open with the formula Yelamdénu Rabénu i.e. may our master teach us. It begins with a question in Halakah, and while the Halakic matter is dispensed with in a few words, the discussion turns to Agada and homiletic interpretation.
 
Of this kind of Midrashim, we have several versions: (1) An older Midrash which was known to the early scholars of Italy and France by the name Yelamdénu, but which is now practically lost except for a few fragments; (2) the printed Tanhuma; (3) the manuscript Tanhuma which was edited and published in 1883 by the late Solomon Buber. All three belong to one Midrashic cycle, and the Yelamdénu seems to have been the earliest, as collections of such homilies where the Halakah was joined to the Agada, inasmuch as the preacher was a teacher of both, existed in large numbers. It is these collections which served as the background and source books for the late Midrashim, the compilers of which drew upon them in abundance. For this reason, we find the homilies beginning with the formula, "May our master teach us," scattered through all Midrashic cycles such as the Tanhuma, Pesiktu (Sec. 84) and in the books of the Rabba (Sec. 82). The date of the Yelamdénu collection is, therefore, an early one and is probably contemporaneous with the Genesis Rabba, about the beginning of the sixth century C.E., and the place of origin, Palestine.”}}It is likely that the raven burial story in the Midrash Tanhuma (or the Tanhuma Yelamdenu) pre-date the advent of Islam. Buber’s version of the Midrash Tanhuma, although compiled in the mid-eighth century is generally believed to have sourced material from the fourth-century or earlier, while the Tanhuma Yelamdenu dates to the beginning of the sixth century. Thus the pre-Islamic Jewish folklore of the raven burial story is paralleled in the Qur'an and is likely its source.


==The Qur'anic Trinity==
==The Qur'anic Trinity==
Line 315: Line 277:
The Qur'an has its own version of the Christian Trinity:  
The Qur'an has its own version of the Christian Trinity:  


{{Quote| {{Quran|5|116}}|And when Allah will say: O Jesus, son of Mary, didst thou say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah? He will say: Glory be to Thee! it was not for me to say what I had no right to (say). If I had said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy mind. Surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen.}}  
{{Quote|{{Quran|5|116}}|
And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, '''worship me and my mother as gods''' in derogation of Allah'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden}}
 
This alternative formulation of the trinity is present even more clearly in {{Quran-range|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.
 
{{Quote|{{Quran-range|5|72|75}}|They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers. '''They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three'''; when there is no Allah save the One Allah. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve. Will they not rather turn unto Allah and seek forgiveness of Him? For Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. '''The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger''', messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. '''And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food.''' See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!}}


This seeming mistake about the Christian trinity, well established for centuries by this point, is one of the great riddles of the Qur'an. Note how this strange verse does not mention the Trinity, but has Allah asking Jesus whether he told the people to take him and Mary for gods beside Allah. To which, Jesus replied 'no, I did not; if I did you would have known about it anyway'.  
This seeming mistake about the Christian trinity, well established for centuries by this point, is one of the great riddles of the Qur'an. Note how this strange verse does not mention the Trinity, but has Allah asking Jesus whether he told the people to take him and Mary for gods beside Allah. To which, Jesus replied 'no, I did not; if I did you would have known about it anyway'.  
Line 327: Line 294:
'''1 - The heretical Christian sect of the Collyridians may have existed in Muhammad’s time and the Quran was specifically addressing their understanding of the Trinity.'''
'''1 - The heretical Christian sect of the Collyridians may have existed in Muhammad’s time and the Quran was specifically addressing their understanding of the Trinity.'''


The Collyridians are known chiefly through the work of 4th-century Christian arch-heresy hunter and defender of Christian orthodoxy Epiphanius of Salamis (a saint in both the Nicaean Orthodox churches and the Catholic Church). This is what he has to say about them:  
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).<ref>Gabriel Said Reynolds, ''The Qurʾān and Bible'' p. 218</ref>
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:  


{{Quote|{{citation|title=(Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 79) Frank Williams - The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III|ISBN=978-90-04-23312-6 (e-book)|year=2013|publisher=Brill|author1=Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 320)|editor=Frank Williams|url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Panarion_of_Epiphanius_of_Salamis/tKtzRNP0Z70C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=The+Panarion+of+Epiphanius+of+Salamis+Books+II+and+III.+De+Fide&printsec=frontcover|page=637-645}}|1,1 < Another > sect has come to public notice after this, and I have already mentioned a few things about it in the Sect preceding, in the letter about Mary which I wrote to Arabia. (2) This one, again, was also brought to Arabia from Thrace and upper Scythia, and word of it has reached me; it too is ridiculous and, in the opinion of the wise, wholly absurd...For as, long ago, those who, from an insolent attitude towards Mary, have seen fit to suspect these things were sowing damaging suspicions in people’s minds, so these persons who lean in the other direction are guilty of doing the worst sort of harm. In them too the maxim of certain pagan philosophers, “Extremes are equal,” will be exemplified. (5) For the harm done by both of these sects is equal, since one belittles the holy Virgin while the other, in its turn, glorifies her to excess. For certain women decorate a barber’s chair or a square seat, spread a cloth on it, set out bread and offer it in Mary’s name on a certain day of the year, and all partake of the bread–as I partially discussed in my same letter to Arabia. Now, however, I shall speak plainly of it and, with prayer to God, give the best refutations of it that I can, so as to grub out the roots of this idolatrous sect and with God’s help, be able to cure certain people of this madness...As Maker and Master of the thing [to be made] he formed himself from a virgin as though from earth—God come from heaven, the Word who had assumed flesh from a holy Virgin. But certainly not from a virgin who is worshiped, or to make her God, or to have us make offerings in her name, or, again, to make women priestesses after so many generations. (3) It was not God’s pleasure that this be done with Salome, or with Mary herself. He did not permit her to administer baptism or bless disciples, or tell her to rule on earth, but only to be a sacred shrine and be deemed worthy of his kingdom. (4) He did not order the woman called the mother of Rufus to advance < to* > this rank22 or the women who followed Christ from Galilee, or Martha the sister of Lazarus and [her sister] Mary, or any of the holy women who were privileged to be saved by his advent < and > who assisted him with their own possessions—or the woman of Canaan, or the woman who was healed of the issue of blood, or any woman on earth.}}  
{{Quote|{{citation|title=(Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 79) Frank Williams - The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III|ISBN=978-90-04-23312-6 (e-book)|year=2013|publisher=Brill|author1=Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 320)|editor=Frank Williams|url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Panarion_of_Epiphanius_of_Salamis/tKtzRNP0Z70C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=The+Panarion+of+Epiphanius+of+Salamis+Books+II+and+III.+De+Fide&printsec=frontcover|page=637-645}}|1,1 < Another > sect has come to public notice after this, and I have already mentioned a few things about it in the Sect preceding, in the letter about Mary which I wrote to Arabia. (2) This one, again, was also brought to Arabia from Thrace and upper Scythia, and word of it has reached me; it too is ridiculous and, in the opinion of the wise, wholly absurd...For as, long ago, those who, from an insolent attitude towards Mary, have seen fit to suspect these things were sowing damaging suspicions in people’s minds, so these persons who lean in the other direction are guilty of doing the worst sort of harm. In them too the maxim of certain pagan philosophers, “Extremes are equal,” will be exemplified. (5) For the harm done by both of these sects is equal, since one belittles the holy Virgin while the other, in its turn, glorifies her to excess. For certain women decorate a barber’s chair or a square seat, spread a cloth on it, set out bread and offer it in Mary’s name on a certain day of the year, and all partake of the bread–as I partially discussed in my same letter to Arabia. Now, however, I shall speak plainly of it and, with prayer to God, give the best refutations of it that I can, so as to grub out the roots of this idolatrous sect and with God’s help, be able to cure certain people of this madness...As Maker and Master of the thing [to be made] he formed himself from a virgin as though from earth—God come from heaven, the Word who had assumed flesh from a holy Virgin. But certainly not from a virgin who is worshiped, or to make her God, or to have us make offerings in her name, or, again, to make women priestesses after so many generations. (3) It was not God’s pleasure that this be done with Salome, or with Mary herself. He did not permit her to administer baptism or bless disciples, or tell her to rule on earth, but only to be a sacred shrine and be deemed worthy of his kingdom. (4) He did not order the woman called the mother of Rufus to advance < to* > this rank22 or the women who followed Christ from Galilee, or Martha the sister of Lazarus and [her sister] Mary, or any of the holy women who were privileged to be saved by his advent < and > who assisted him with their own possessions—or the woman of Canaan, or the woman who was healed of the issue of blood, or any woman on earth.}}  
Line 358: Line 326:


Considering all that has been discussed, it is reasonable to suggest that Muhammad heard of the Collyridian version of the Trinity and assumed that it were the standard Christian belief taught by Jesus himself. It probably didn’t occur to him that the Trinity was a doctrinal development of the early church or that the worship of Mary as a divinity long post-dated Jesus himself.
Considering all that has been discussed, it is reasonable to suggest that Muhammad heard of the Collyridian version of the Trinity and assumed that it were the standard Christian belief taught by Jesus himself. It probably didn’t occur to him that the Trinity was a doctrinal development of the early church or that the worship of Mary as a divinity long post-dated Jesus himself.
See also the sirah quoted in the section about Jesus and the Clay birds below.


==Jesus and the Clay Birds==
==Jesus and the Clay Birds==
Lightyears
Editors, em-bypass-2, Reviewers, rollback, Administrators
2,743

edits

Retrieved from "http://wikiislamica.net/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/135793"

Navigation menu