3,528
edits
Historical Errors in the Quran: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→The singular Pharaoh: Revised based on recent posts on AcademicQuran reddit. Reduced amount of content contrasting with "The King" is this is often contested as a strong analogy as it isn't a foreign loan word.
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) (→The singular Pharaoh: Revised based on recent posts on AcademicQuran reddit. Reduced amount of content contrasting with "The King" is this is often contested as a strong analogy as it isn't a foreign loan word.) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
31 They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah, and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.}} | 31 They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah, and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.}} | ||
Academic scholars in the past have theorized that the statement derives from the high esteem in which the Biblical Ezra was held in the Talmud (though not as the "son of god"), or from the angel | Academic scholars in the past have theorized that the statement derives from the high esteem in which the Biblical Ezra was held in the Talmud (though not as the "son of god"), or from the angel Azazel in 1 Enoch (a non-canonical Jewish apocalyptic text)<ref>Gabriel Said Reynolds, ''The Quran and Bible: Text and Commentary'', New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2018, pp. 307-8<BR />Reynolds notes that according to one opinion cited in b. Sanhedrin 21b, "''Had Moses not preceded him, Ezra would have been worthy of receiving the Torah for Israel''".</ref> while others have simply inferred that the verse is an example of the thematic assumption in the Quran that humans tend to repeat the same religious mistakes, in this case transferring a Christian concept onto the Jews.<ref>Nicolai Sinai, ''The Qur'an: A Historical-Critical Introduction'', Edinburgh University Press, 2018, p. 201</ref> | ||
====Identification as R. Eliezer==== | ====Identification as R. Eliezer==== | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
[[w:Eliezer ben Hurcanus|Eliezer ben Hurcanus]] (ʾEliʿezer, d. 2nd century CE), known as Rabbi Eliezer or Eliezer ha-Gadol ("the Great") is the 6th most commonly mentioned sage in the Mishnah, a 3rd century CE written compilation of Jewish oral traditions which was the first written work of Rabbinic literature. The Mishnah claims its traditions were handed down orally from Moses on Mount Sinai. This concept, later termed "oral Torah" is first seen around the 1st century CE. | [[w:Eliezer ben Hurcanus|Eliezer ben Hurcanus]] (ʾEliʿezer, d. 2nd century CE), known as Rabbi Eliezer or Eliezer ha-Gadol ("the Great") is the 6th most commonly mentioned sage in the Mishnah, a 3rd century CE written compilation of Jewish oral traditions which was the first written work of Rabbinic literature. The Mishnah claims its traditions were handed down orally from Moses on Mount Sinai. This concept, later termed "oral Torah" is first seen around the 1st century CE. | ||
Rabbis revered R. Eliezer with great legal authority. A 5th century Palestinian Rabbinic text has | Rabbis revered R. Eliezer with great legal authority. A 5th century Palestinian Rabbinic text has God himself quoting the future Rabbi's legal interpretations to Moses on Mount Sinai and promising that this "righteous one" will be born in Moses' lineage.<ref>Pesikta des Rav Kahana 4:7-8.<BR /> | ||
See at 21 minutes in [https://youtube.com/watch?v=W3Pj8fVo7Y0 Zellentin's presentation]</ref> A later text of uncertain date adds that on this occasion the voice of god stated "R. Eliezer my son said...". | See at 21 minutes in [https://youtube.com/watch?v=W3Pj8fVo7Y0 Zellentin's presentation]</ref> A later text of uncertain date adds that on this occasion the voice of god stated "R. Eliezer my son said...". | ||
<ref>Tanhuma Ḥukat (Chukat) 8-9 (Warsaw), part 2, folio 79a quoted at 26 minutes in [https://youtube.com/watch?v=W3Pj8fVo7Y0 Zellentin's presentation]</ref> | <ref>Tanhuma Ḥukat (Chukat) 8-9 (Warsaw), part 2, folio 79a quoted at 26 minutes in [https://youtube.com/watch?v=W3Pj8fVo7Y0 Zellentin's presentation]</ref> | ||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
Zellentin points out both possibilities. Early Muslims gave the rival prophet Maslamah the insulting diminutive Musaylimah, while on the other hand Ali's sons were called Hasan and Husayn.</ref> | Zellentin points out both possibilities. Early Muslims gave the rival prophet Maslamah the insulting diminutive Musaylimah, while on the other hand Ali's sons were called Hasan and Husayn.</ref> | ||
The next verse (Q. 9:31) criticises the authority accorded by Jews to their scholars. Building on an observation by Saqib Hussain, Zellentin argues that this is further evidence that 'Uzayr | The next verse (Q. 9:31) criticises the authority accorded by Jews to their scholars, just as the Christians do with theirs and with Jesus. Building on an observation by Saqib Hussain, Zellentin argues that this parallel structure with the previous verse is further evidence that 'Uzayr refers to a rabbinic figure.<ref>At 28 minutes in [https://youtube.com/watch?v=W3Pj8fVo7Y0 Zellentin's presentation]</ref><ref name="SidkyZellentin">The argument was further developed in a presentation by Hythem Sidky with Zellentin [https://event.fourwaves.com/iqsa2025/abstracts/94a52e0d-1e00-470c-a5fc-484fb862df96 Once again on ʿUzayr, the Son of God] (2025)<BR/> | ||
Their draft paper of the same title is also available online (submitted to the Journal of Quranic Studies)<BR/> | |||
Zellentin and Sidky describe the Quranic accusation of deification as hyperbolic, though certainly not entirely baseless. They also variously describe its polemic as taking some poetic license, and as giving a simple, historically well-founded message.</ref> | |||
====Historical accuracy of the polemic==== | ====Historical accuracy of the polemic==== | ||
Assuming this identification is correct, it has also however been pointed out that "son of god" did not denote any kind of quasi-divine status in Judaism but rather is common language in the Hebrew Bible. In [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Chronicles%2028&version=NIV 1 Chronicles 28:6] Solomon is chosen to be God's son. In the Babylonian Talmud (compiled 6th century CE) and wider tradition, a voice from heaven calls several other Rabbis "my son", including Yishmael ben Elisha,<ref>[https://www.sefaria.org/Berakhot.7a.4?ven=hebrew|William_Davidson_Edition_-_Vocalized_Aramaic&lang=bi Berakhot 7a] - Sefaria.org</ref> and Hanina ben Dosa.<ref>[https://www.sefaria.org/Berakhot.17b.4?lang=bi Barekhot 17b], [https://www.sefaria.org/Taanit.24b.14?lang=bi Taanit 24b], and [https://www.sefaria.org/Chullin.86a.5?lang=bi Chullin 86a] - Sefaria.org</ref> The heavenly voice in each case uses the same phrasing formula as for Rabbi Eliezer in the Jerusalem Talmud.<ref name="SidkyZellentin" /> | |||
It may be that Q. 9:30 means no more than that the Jewish scholars (particularly those who follow the Jerusalem Talmud) are like Christians and disbelievers of old in terms of applying "son of god" language to a revered figure, and in ascribing legislative authority to such a man or men which in monotheism belongs to Allah alone (Q. 9:31). | It may be that Q. 9:30 means no more than that the Jewish scholars (particularly those who follow the Jerusalem Talmud) are like Christians and disbelievers of old in terms of applying "son of god" language to a revered figure, and in ascribing legislative authority to such a man or men which in monotheism belongs to Allah alone (Q. 9:31). | ||
On the other hand, others have noted the vehemence with which Q. 9:30 polemically puts Jews in similar company to Christians in calling a man the son of god. It says they both imitate the saying of those who disbelieved in the past, invokes Allah's destruction on them and is astonished at their delusion. This may indicate that the author thought Jews called R. Eliezer | On the other hand, others have noted the vehemence with which Q. 9:30 polemically puts Jews in similar company to Christians in calling a man the son of god. It says they both imitate the saying of those who disbelieved in the past, invokes Allah's destruction on them and is astonished at their delusion. This may indicate that the author thought Jews called R. Eliezer the son of God in a more literal sense. It would be an easy mistake to make or could be deliberate exaggeration. Significantly, the end of Q. 9:31 accuses both the Jews and Christians of failing to worship only one god and of shirk (associating partners with Allah). This may suggest a theological parallel between Christian worship of Jesus and an imagined quasi-divine Jewish reverence for R. Eliezer. | ||
Ironically, the Quran itself unwittingly credits rabbinic interpretations as divine revelation. The most famous example [[Parallels_Between_the_Qur%27an_and_Late_Antique_Judeo-Christian_Literature#Whoever_kills_a_soul_it_is_as_if_he_has_slain_mankind|occurs in Q. 5:32]]. Some critics also argue there is a double standard in the polemic since {{Quran|33|36}} gives legal authority to Allah and Muhammad, and due to the traditional Sunni reliance on his sunnah as recorded in hadiths. | Ironically, the Quran itself unwittingly credits rabbinic interpretations as divine revelation. The most famous example [[Parallels_Between_the_Qur%27an_and_Late_Antique_Judeo-Christian_Literature#Whoever_kills_a_soul_it_is_as_if_he_has_slain_mankind|occurs in Q. 5:32]]. Some critics also argue there is a double standard in the polemic since {{Quran|33|36}} gives legal authority to Allah and Muhammad, and due to the traditional Sunni reliance on his sunnah as recorded in hadiths. | ||
| Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
{{Quote|{{Quran|20|85}}|“( Allah) said; ‘We have tested thy people in thy absence: the Samiri has led them astray’.” }}{{Quote|{{Quran|20|87}}|They said, ‘We did not fail our tryst with you of our own accord, but we were laden with the weight of those people’s ornaments, and we cast them [into the fire] and so did the Samiri.’}}{{Quote|{{Quran|20|95}}|“( Moses) said, ‘What then is thy case, O Samiri?’”}} | {{Quote|{{Quran|20|85}}|“( Allah) said; ‘We have tested thy people in thy absence: the Samiri has led them astray’.” }}{{Quote|{{Quran|20|87}}|They said, ‘We did not fail our tryst with you of our own accord, but we were laden with the weight of those people’s ornaments, and we cast them [into the fire] and so did the Samiri.’}}{{Quote|{{Quran|20|95}}|“( Moses) said, ‘What then is thy case, O Samiri?’”}} | ||
=== | ===Pharaoh as the name of a single Egyptian ruler=== | ||
One of the most prominent characters in the Quran is Pharaoh (fir'awn<ref>Pharaoh classical Arabic dictionaries - [http://arabiclexicon.hawramani.com/search/%D9%81%D8%B1%D8%B9%D9%88%D9%86 فرعون]</ref>) in the story of Moses. Historically, Pharaoh was a title held by many rulers of Egypt and there are two in the Biblical Moses story (the first during his infancy). As noted by Gabriel Said Reynolds,<ref>[https://x.com/GabrielSaidR/status/1676918663767523331 x.com post by Gabriel Said Reynolds] - 6 July 2023</ref> the Quran in contrast has a single antagonist throughout the story. Furthermore, the Quran consistently treats fir'awn as his name rather than a title. | |||
{{Quote|{{Quran-range|28|8|9}}|And the family of Pharaoh picked him up [out of the river] so that he would become to them an enemy and a [cause of] grief. Indeed, Pharaoh and Haman and their soldiers were deliberate sinners. And the wife of Pharaoh said, "[He will be] a comfort of the eye for me and for you. Do not kill him; perhaps he may benefit us, or we may adopt him as a son." And they perceived not.}} | |||
The term “Pharaoh,” or parʿo, means “Great Palace/house” in ancient Egyptian | The term “Pharaoh,” or parʿo, means “Great Palace/house” in ancient Egyptian. The word came to be used metonymically for the Egyptian king under the New Kingdom (starting in the 18th dynasty, c. 1539–c. 1292 BCE), and by the 22nd dynasty (c. 943–c. 746 BCE) it had been adopted as an epithet of respect, but it was not the king’s ''formal'' title.<ref>[https://www.britannica.com/topic/pharaoh Pharaoh Entry] - Britannica | ||
</ref> Silverstein (2012) notes that it is an idiosyncratic Biblical usage to refer to the ruler of Egypt in this way – as | </ref> Silverstein (2012) notes that it is an idiosyncratic Biblical usage to refer to the ruler of Egypt in this way – giving as an example just as one nowadays might say that “the White House” has issued a statement when referring to the US president.<ref>[https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203813539-26/qur%CA%BE%C4%81nic-pharaoh-1-adam-silverstein ''The Qur'anic Pharaoh'']. Adam Silverstein. Taylor and Francis. | ||
Found in: | Found in: ''pp. 467 - 477, New Perspectives on the Qur'an. The Qur'an in its Historical Context 2''. Edited By Gabriel Reynolds. Edition: 1st Edition. First Published 2011. ImprintRoutledge. | ||
DOI <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203813539</nowiki> | DOI <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203813539</nowiki> | ||
eBook ISBN9780203813539 | eBook ISBN9780203813539 | ||
</ref> | </ref> So the Qur'an takes its understanding from the Biblical Pharaoh rather than Egyptian one.<ref>Ibid. p. 467.</ref> | ||
However the Bible understands “Pharaoh” to be a regal title | However, the Bible nevertheless understands “Pharaoh” to be a regal title held by multiple rulers during the times of Joseph and Moses, whereas the Qurʾān in contrast takes Firʿawn to be a more sharply defined historical character.<ref>Ibid. p. 468</ref> The Bible calls each of the various rulers “Pharaoh” in the Pentateuch, while some later rulers are mentioned as: "Pharaoh [name], King of Egypt", for example in [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jer+44.30&version=NIV Jeremiah 44:30]. | ||
According to academic scholars, the Quranic understanding of Pharaoh as the character's name is also evident from the fact that fir'awn is grammatically an Arabic diptote, like all other personal names in the Quran, and never appears with the definite article (unlike for example al-Malik, the King), even in construct. | |||
This is sometimes countered by noting a small number of other foreign words loaned into Arabic: Caesar (قيصر), Khosrow (كسرى), and Tubba' (تُبَّع), though these originated as personal names and became titles/adopted names of successive rulers. Foreign titles such as al-Baba (the Pope) or al-Najashi (from Negus, the Abbysinian word for King) generally take the definite article and are not diptotes in Arabic. Even Caesar, Khusrow and Tubba' would in some contexts take the definite article or appear in construct clearly as titles. With the Quranic firʿawn though, this is never seen in any verse. | |||
The reader is left with the strong impression that firʿawn is his name and not a title held by multiple rulers. In {{Quran|40|24}} he even appears in a list of names: "Pharaoh, Haman and Qarun". Similarly, {{Quran-range|28|8|9}} quoted above mentions "Pharaoh and Haman and their soldiers" as well as the "family of Pharaoh" (ālu fir'ʿawna). The ālu [name] structure is used for many other personal names in the Quran such as ālu mūsā (family of Moses) in {{Quran|2|248}}. | |||
{{ | |||
The | Historian Sean W Anthony explains this point: ''It's a relatively simple inference. The Qur'an only calls the enemy of Moses "Pharoah" and *never* calls him the "pharoah of Egypt", "one of the pharoahs", etc. Also one has the phrase آل فرعون like آل موسى, etc. This is consistent w/ usage of "Pharoah" as a name in hadith, too.''<ref>X.com post by Sean Anthony [https://x.com/shahanSean/status/1676710677988212743 here] and [https://x.com/shahanSean/status/1676716789688877057 here] - 5 July 2023</ref> | ||
The Quranic mistake was shared by some prominent Christian preachers before Islam such as Gregory of Nyssa (d. 394) who made the same mistake.<ref>Gregory of Nyssa, ''[http://www.newhumanityinstitute.org/pdf-articles/Gregory-of-Nyssa-The-Life-of-Moses.pdf Life of Moses 1.24].'' | |||
'''Pharaoh (for this was the Egyptian tyrant's name)''' attempted to counter the divine signs performed by Moses and Aaron with magical tricks performed by his sorcerers.</ref> It is also sometimes written this way in the Syriac Bible (the Peshitta - believed to be published 2nd century CE.)<ref>Peshitta verse [https://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?verse=Acts+7:13&font=Estrangelo+Edessa Acts 7:13]</ref> such as in Acts 7:13, and in the 6th century Syriac ''Cave of Treasures'', so Muhammad would not be the first to make the mistake, but rather could have simply heard it this way to begin with (see [https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/comments/1rpwmq6/pharaoh_is_a_name_in_the_quran_not_a_title/ here] for further academic discussion and details). | |||
===Nabatean rock tombs at al-Hijr as homes and palaces from before the time of Pharaoh=== | ===Nabatean rock tombs at al-Hijr as homes and palaces from before the time of Pharaoh=== | ||
The Qur'anic narrative concerning Thamūd contains several major historical inaccuracies: | The Qur'anic narrative concerning Thamūd contains several major historical inaccuracies: | ||