Comments on: Jesus in the Qur'an (Part 2) http://patmccullough.com/2008/09/24/jesus-in-the-quran-part-2/ a blog exploring Christian origins, biblical studies, social/cultural history, method, education and the journey through academia Mon, 05 Sep 2011 20:53:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Patrick George McCullough http://patmccullough.com/2008/09/24/jesus-in-the-quran-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-653 Patrick George McCullough Wed, 03 Dec 2008 01:16:52 +0000 http://pgmccullough.wordpress.com/?p=449#comment-653 Thanks for your comment, <b>Mark</b>. I'm actually from New England and I spent some time as a Unitarian Universalist myself in my teenage years (just before I became a fundamentalist Christian for two years!). I'm happy to have you visit! I agree with you and Harper's Bible Dictionary that the full-fledged doctrine of the Trinity cannot be found in the New Testament. As a historian, I recognize the development of the tradition. This statement in itself does not mean that the Trinitarian doctrines from the councils is wrong, but I do think many Christians have to think a bit more critically about where they find their Trinitarian theology. Jesus doesn't walk around spouting fourth century doctrinal statements, nor do any of the NT authors. I would, however, like to qualify your quotation of 1 Cor. It appears that you're grabbing 1 Cor 11:3 from the Good News Translation, which is not a reliable translation for this kind of biblical study. It is a dynamic equivalent translation and thus is something closer to a paraphrase. The Greek term there is <i>kephale</i>, which literally means "head." "Head" means no such thing as "supreme over." That translation is motivated, I suspect, more by the desire to make the husband "supreme over" the wife than by a commitment to sound translation. Kephale means something more like "source" than a head that is an "authority"--thus harkening back to the Genesis 2 story perhaps (see also verse 12). Even if the quote from 1 Cor 11 is a bit off the mark, though, your quote from John is an excellent example of the point. Thanks for your comment, Mark. I’m actually from New England and I spent some time as a Unitarian Universalist myself in my teenage years (just before I became a fundamentalist Christian for two years!). I’m happy to have you visit! I agree with you and Harper’s Bible Dictionary that the full-fledged doctrine of the Trinity cannot be found in the New Testament. As a historian, I recognize the development of the tradition. This statement in itself does not mean that the Trinitarian doctrines from the councils is wrong, but I do think many Christians have to think a bit more critically about where they find their Trinitarian theology. Jesus doesn’t walk around spouting fourth century doctrinal statements, nor do any of the NT authors.

I would, however, like to qualify your quotation of 1 Cor. It appears that you’re grabbing 1 Cor 11:3 from the Good News Translation, which is not a reliable translation for this kind of biblical study. It is a dynamic equivalent translation and thus is something closer to a paraphrase. The Greek term there is kephale, which literally means “head.” “Head” means no such thing as “supreme over.” That translation is motivated, I suspect, more by the desire to make the husband “supreme over” the wife than by a commitment to sound translation. Kephale means something more like “source” than a head that is an “authority”–thus harkening back to the Genesis 2 story perhaps (see also verse 12).

Even if the quote from 1 Cor 11 is a bit off the mark, though, your quote from John is an excellent example of the point.

]]> By: Rev. Mark Worth http://patmccullough.com/2008/09/24/jesus-in-the-quran-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-652 Rev. Mark Worth Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:40:42 +0000 http://pgmccullough.wordpress.com/?p=449#comment-652 Patrick, Thanks for your thoughtful take on Jesus in the Qur'an. Yes, it seems clear to me (a Unitarian Universalist) that Jesus is subservient to God in the New Testament, as you point out. Other examples might be "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28) and "God is supreme over Christ" (1 Corinthians 11:3). As Harper's Bible Dictionary admits, "The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament." A few years ago I audited a course on Islam and the Qur'an at Bangor Theological Seminary. The professor, who is a Muslim, assumed that the Trinity was taught in the New Testament. I believe it is not. Thanks again for your thoughtful analysis. Patrick,
Thanks for your thoughtful take on Jesus in the Qur’an. Yes, it seems clear to me (a Unitarian Universalist) that Jesus is subservient to God in the New Testament, as you point out. Other examples might be “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) and “God is supreme over Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:3). As Harper’s Bible Dictionary admits, “The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.” A few years ago I audited a course on Islam and the Qur’an at Bangor Theological Seminary. The professor, who is a Muslim, assumed that the Trinity was taught in the New Testament. I believe it is not. Thanks again for your thoughtful analysis.

]]> By: Patrick George McCullough http://patmccullough.com/2008/09/24/jesus-in-the-quran-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-651 Patrick George McCullough Fri, 26 Sep 2008 01:10:37 +0000 http://pgmccullough.wordpress.com/?p=449#comment-651 Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Monophysitism <i>is</i> "the Christianity that elevated" the divine nature of Jesus (more so than the "orthodox" position of the church councils). I am trying to say that the brands of Christianity that Muhammad ran into colored his opposition. The Monophysites emphasized the divinity of Christ so much that they said it was his only nature to the exclusion of his humanity. Perhaps the Qur'an responds to that overt emphasis on the divine so that it emphasizes Christ's humanity to the exclusion of the possibility of divinity. So, I believe we're saying the same thing, no? Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the Monophysitism is “the Christianity that elevated” the divine nature of Jesus (more so than the “orthodox” position of the church councils). I am trying to say that the brands of Christianity that Muhammad ran into colored his opposition. The Monophysites emphasized the divinity of Christ so much that they said it was his only nature to the exclusion of his humanity. Perhaps the Qur’an responds to that overt emphasis on the divine so that it emphasizes Christ’s humanity to the exclusion of the possibility of divinity. So, I believe we’re saying the same thing, no?

]]> By: steph http://patmccullough.com/2008/09/24/jesus-in-the-quran-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-650 steph Fri, 26 Sep 2008 00:52:36 +0000 http://pgmccullough.wordpress.com/?p=449#comment-650 I think the divine elements are just as likely to be rejected strongly because he knew of the Christianity that elevated them. I think the divine elements are just as likely to be rejected strongly because he knew of the Christianity that elevated them.

]]> By: Patrick George McCullough http://patmccullough.com/2008/09/24/jesus-in-the-quran-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-649 Patrick George McCullough Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:55:30 +0000 http://pgmccullough.wordpress.com/?p=449#comment-649 <b>Steph</b>, Thanks for the comment. Well, I'm not "so sure" to be honest. This is basically conjecture based on what I have read. I am by no means an expert on the Qur'an or Islamic origins. But if Muhammad had interaction with these types of Christians, they would certainly color his understanding of Christianity. Perhaps the divine elements of Jesus would have been rejected anyhow, but maybe it was rejected so strongly <i>because</i> of the emphases of the sort of Christianity that was known to Muhammad. Again, I'm not certain, but it seems likely to me. Steph, Thanks for the comment. Well, I’m not “so sure” to be honest. This is basically conjecture based on what I have read. I am by no means an expert on the Qur’an or Islamic origins. But if Muhammad had interaction with these types of Christians, they would certainly color his understanding of Christianity. Perhaps the divine elements of Jesus would have been rejected anyhow, but maybe it was rejected so strongly because of the emphases of the sort of Christianity that was known to Muhammad. Again, I’m not certain, but it seems likely to me.

]]> By: steph http://patmccullough.com/2008/09/24/jesus-in-the-quran-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-648 steph Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:13:17 +0000 http://pgmccullough.wordpress.com/?p=449#comment-648 what makes you so sure that the Qur’an is coloured by interaction with Monophysites or Nestorians. Is it not possible that the non human aspects of Jesus were rejected without their influence? what makes you so sure that the Qur’an is coloured by interaction with Monophysites or Nestorians. Is it not possible that the non human aspects of Jesus were rejected without their influence?

]]> By: Jesus in the Qur’an (Part 1) « kata ta biblia http://patmccullough.com/2008/09/24/jesus-in-the-quran-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-647 Jesus in the Qur’an (Part 1) « kata ta biblia Wed, 24 Sep 2008 22:26:15 +0000 http://pgmccullough.wordpress.com/?p=449#comment-647 [...] Jesus in the Qur’an (Part 2) [...] [...] Jesus in the Qur’an (Part 2) [...]

]]>