Quranic Studies Taking a Note from Biblical Studies?
In his lecture today, Prof. Bartchy referenced an intriguing article in the NY Times about current study of the Qur’an. The Qur’an is considered by Muslims to be the very words of God, spoken through the prophet (peace be upon him) who spoke the words of God for his companions to transcribe verbatim. For Muslims, then, the Qur’an represents the actual words of God–without a hint of human authorship: the final revelation of God. Prof. Bartchy often says that many Christians (namely, conservative Evangelicals) wish the Bible was the Qur’an. That is, many Christians wish that the Bible was wholly God’s word without any human influence.
Those of us who believe in the authority and inspiration of the Bible, but also engage in true critical scholarship, must be honest about the humanity which drips from every holy page. By accepting the Bible’s (divinely inspired) humanness, I am able to tackle difficult questions of history while also living my life in accordance with the divinely inspired message of the text. This position may make me a liberal to my more conservative Evangelical friends, while it makes me a conservative to my more “secular” friends. However you categorize it, this is the sort of position that is uber-controversial for devoted Muslims to hold when related to the Qur’an.
But are things changing a wee bit at a time? A recent conference at the University of Notre Dame, “The Qur’an in Its Historical Context,” represents a burgeoning intellectual movement seeking to apply critical research to the Qur’an. The site describes the conference as “a major international conference addressing the most recent theories, controversies, and discoveries in the field of Quranic Studies.” It builds off an earlier conference held at Notre Dame, intending to be “a unique forum for a discussion of the historical circumstances in which the Quran was formed, and of its relationship to earlier literature, notably the Bible.” A glance at the conference schedule reads like sessions in the program book for SBL.
Nicholas Kistof’s NY Times article makes an interesting parallel to critical scholarship of the Bible:
“We’re experiencing right now in Koranic studies a rise of interest analogous to the rise of critical Bible studies in the 19th century,” said Gabriel Said Reynolds, a Notre Dame professor and organizer of the conference.
The Notre Dame conference probably could not have occurred in a Muslim country, for the rigorous application of historical analysis to the Koran is as controversial today in the Muslim world as its application to the Bible was in the 1800s. For some literal-minded Christians, it was traumatic to discover that the ending of the Gospel of Mark, describing encounters with the resurrected Jesus, is stylistically different from the rest of Mark and is widely regarded by scholars as a later addition.
Likewise, Biblical scholars distressed the faithful by focusing on inconsistencies among the gospels. The Gospel of Matthew says that Judas hanged himself, while Acts describes him falling down in a field and dying; the Gospel of John disagrees with other gospels about whether the crucifixion occurred on Passover or the day before. For those who considered every word of the Bible literally God’s word [i.e., objective historical truth], this kind of scholarship felt sacrilegious.
This is my favorite bit from the article:
One scholar at the Notre Dame conference, who uses the pseudonym Christoph Luxenberg for safety, has raised eyebrows and hackles by suggesting that the “houri” promised to martyrs when they reach Heaven doesn’t actually mean “virgin” after all. He argues that instead it means “grapes,” and since conceptions of paradise involved bounteous fruit, that might make sense. But suicide bombers presumably would be in for a disappointment if they reached the pearly gates and were presented 72 grapes.
This point gets at the profound task that Quranic (or biblical) scholars have to undertake. An otherwise harmless word study has profound implications for how religious followers understand and act upon their faith. With Bartchy, I think this parallel has profound pedagogical relevance when teaching critical biblical studies to committed Christians.
Jesus in the Qur'an (Part 2)
( . . . continued from part one)
We can also recognize that Muhammad (peace be upon him) had contact with perhaps not-so-orthodox Christianity. When the Qur’an denies the Trinity, is it the same thing as the “official” Christian doctrine of the Trinity? The Qur’an is set within its historical and cultural context. Not only is the Qur’an colored by Arab interaction with Monophysites or Nestorians (for example), but it also appears to reference later non-canonical works, such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The Qur’an seems to refer to a story of Jesus giving life to birds that are made of clay (Sura 3:49; 5:110), which can be found in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (4:2). The fact that both the NT and quranic understandings of Jesus are historically and culturally conditioned is in itself a bridge (even if that bridge will be little traveled–since people in both faiths often feel uncomfortable with [and even deny] the historical setting of their sacred texts).
Even if the christology of the Qur’an and the New Testament greatly differ, we should note that the Qur’an has an overwhelmingly positive depiction of Jesus. We should expect as much when we note that the quranic Jesus is in many ways a forerunner to Muhammad, as perhaps John the Baptist is to Jesus in the NT. Jesus brings a new sacred text to the world (the Qur’an has Jesus writing the Gospels rather than simply being written about in them). Jesus is a messenger of God who faces persecution for his message. The quranic emphasis on Jesus humanity is to demonstrate that Jesus pointed the way to God through his miraculous signs.
People often use the Gospel of John as a point of discord between the quranic Jesus and the biblical Jesus. I would like to suggest that John offers a unique point of contact. Like the Qur’an, John depicts Jesus as an agent or messenger of God, pointing the way to God through miraculous signs. What do the Johannine Jesus’ signs reveal? The first sign that Jesus performs—changing water into wine—is described as “revealing his glory” (2:11), which harkens back to the prologue’s proclamation that “we have seen his glory,” that is the glory “as of a father’s only son” (1:14). Jesus’ glory does not come from humans (5:41), nor does he seek his own glory (8:50), but his glory comes from God alone (5:44; 8:54). In a question that seems particularly relevant to the Qur’an’s monotheistic concerns, Jesus asks, “How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God?” (5:44).
Though the Gospel of John may suggest the pre-existence of Jesus (“In the beginning was the Word . . .”), both John and the Qur’an have Jesus directing people to God through signs as God’s messenger. The Quranic emphasis that Jesus is able to do miraculous signs by the “leave of Allah” (Sura 3:49; 5:110) is fully in tune with the Jesus of John, who says, “I do nothing on my own, but I speak these things as the Father instructed me. . . . for I always do what is pleasing to him” (8:28, 29).
Though the subordination of the Son to the Father is later denied as heretical by the church, many NT texts seem to suggest such a relationship. Luke’s depiction of Jesus is not simply as the Christ, but as God’s Messiah (Lk 9:20; Acts 3:18). In the transfiguration, God declares that Jesus is “my chosen” (Lk 9:35, cf. Acts 3:20). The testimonies of Acts proclaim that Jesus is God’s servant (Acts 3:13, 4:27). Like John (“the one who sent me is with me,” John 8:28), Luke acknowledges that God is with Jesus (Acts 10:38), empowering him to do the work of God (“deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you,” Acts 2:22). While they do not show the same sort of agency, Mark and Matthew espouse themes of apparent subordination, for example, in knowledge of the coming eschaton: “But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Mk 13:32; Matt 24:36).
So, we can see some interesting thematic connections between the NT Jesus and the quranic Jesus. Some like to highlight the titles used for Jesus in the Qur’an as showing similarities in thought, but that is generally a non-starter as the meanings of the titles seem quite different. “Messiah,” for instance, seems to simply be borrowed from the Christian use of the term, “Christ Jesus.” Rather, I think it is interesting to note the “messenger” quality of Jesus in both sacred texts and also to remember all the difficult nuances of historical and cultural settings of these texts.
Jesus in the Qur'an (Part 1)
My final course for Fuller was an introduction to Islam. For my final paper, I had to look into the portrait of Jesus in the Qur’an and look for points of common ground with the NT Gospels. Instead of focusing on negative contrasts, we were to “evaluate the quranic Jesus and suggest how it can serve as a bridge for interpreting the biblical Jesus” and to look for “areas that might suggest bridges for discussion between Muslims and Christians.” For the record, I’m a little iffy on using the quranic Jesus to “interpret” the biblical Jesus, or vice versa for that matter. Each account serves completely different purposes in history and culture. Finding bridges for discussion on the other hand, is quite helpful. Before the project, I knew next to nothing about Jesus in the Qur’an. I’d like to summarize what I’ve learned and hope to get (unheated) responses from folks who know more than me.
Many Christian apologists will be quick to point out that the Jesus of the Qur’an is no more than human (e.g., Sura 43:59) and is rejected as a member of the Trinity (e.g., Sura 5:73). They will highlight the fact that Jesus does not actually die in the Qur’an and thus he is not resurrected (Sura 4:157). Non-dead people do not need to be raised from the dead, after all. From the Christian perspective, it seems the quranic account of Jesus skips the death and resurrection and jumps immediately to the ascension of Jesus (Sura 4:158). Sure, Mary gives birth to Jesus as a virgin in the Qur’an, the Christian apologist might say, but the Qur’an does not make the connection between the virgin birth and Jesus’ divine nature as Christian theology does.
But right now, we’re trying to make a bridge between the Bible and the Qur’an. One of the first steps in the process, is realizing the nature of the New Testament and how primitive “Christian theology” is within it, compared to the later statements of church councils. We do not have a full blown doctrine of the Trinity within the New Testament, although I will allow that there may be hints of the beginnings of such thought. In this comparative exercise, we should be aware of whether we are talking about the doctrines of Christ later formulated with great precision by the church or the interpretations of Jesus found within the NT documents.
(See part two . . . )
-
Elsewhere . . .- Blog titles beginning with "A" to "Z" on your reader Mark Goodacre
- Of making many books there is no end Chris Brady
- Free Online: The Liddell-Scott Jones Lexicon S and C
- Does Higher Criticism Attempt to “Destroy the Bible”? II agathos
- Steven J. Friesen and the Identity of Satan’s Throne in Pergamum alan
- Does Higher Criticism Attempt to “Destroy the Bible”? agathos
- Bloomsbury buys Continuum Mark Goodacre
- Imperial America Peter J. Leithart
- C.F.D. Moule on the Birth of the New Testament d. miller
- Responding to Kostenberger (with comparisons to Marshall) Jeremiah
-
As a member of RevGalBlogPals, I am committed to building a supportive online community for women clergy, women church professionals, and women in religious life.
Research assisted by: