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 . . . )
Been lacking my New Testament inspiration this quarter
If I needed any confirmation that New Testament and Christian origins are “my thing,” here it is. My current quarter contains no such classes and I’m feeling the energy drain. I feel like the extrovert without her crowd or the introvert without his quiet place. A few other factors may be playing a role. For example, I’m at the end of a three year program with the knowledge that a new program will be starting in the fall. Perhaps I have a little bit of senioritis. The remaining few months of my Fuller Seminary degree are at risk of being a “lame duck” moment.
And yet, out of mist of my final seminary moments rises a great opportunity. My future adviser, Scott Bartchy, has invited me to come to a lecture of and a dinner with the legendary New Testament scholar, Robert Jewett (here is his vita). Dr. Jewett is visiting UCLA to give a lecture in Bartchy’s Paul seminar, after which Bartchy, Jewett, the four others in my program and I will be sharing dinner. Jewett most recently published his massive commentary on Romans for the Hermeneia series, but he’s also authored some other interesting books, including Captain America and the Crusade against Evil:The Dilemma Of Zealous Nationalism (with John Shelton Lawrence, a frequent writing partner) and the Saint Paul at the Movies series. I’m always hooked with a New Testament scholar talks about “civil religion.” They know what makes this Anabaptist heart beat faster.
With this opportunity, I have had a boost back into more exciting studies for me. It also comes as a realization that, yes, I’m on the right path. If New Testament and Christian origins gets me revved up, then I should probably stick to it!
Hey, I know, let's blame it on the Jews…
Yesterday a friend of mine, who had just come back from an interfaith retreat and had picked up a cold, said, “The Jews made me sick.” Well, she was sitting in between two Jews, both with bad colds, at a dinner during the retreat and she happened to pick up what they had. But, given all the reading that I’ve been doing about the history of New Testament scholarship, it was almost a parody of some of the sadder moments in NT research. NT scholars throughout history have so often (and so easily) “blamed” the Jews for some theological problem they had.
For example, I have read in a few sources about how William Whiston (1667-1752), famous as the translator of Josephus’s works, demonstrated this tendency in dealing with the problem of Old Testament prophecy fulfillment in the NT. One of the major concerns for the early post-Reformation researchers in biblical studies was the fulfillment of prophecy. Alongside miracles, for them it was an indicator of the Bible’s divine origin. By Whiston’s time, however, much of the research on the “literal” sense of the putative “prophecies” in the Hebrew Bible was showing that these seemed to be misused by the authors of the New Testament. Read in their proper and “literal” or “plain sense” context, these were not prophecies at all, but mostly referred to historical events from their own historical situation.
Whiston’s solution? Blame it on the Jews! The early Christians used the original Hebrew texts appropriately, according to Whiston, attentive to their “literal” meaning. But then Jews, in reaction to Christian interpretations, went back and changed their own sacred Scriptures so that the literal meaning would not support the Christian claims of prophecy fulfillment.
I don’t doubt that there was back and forth between Jews and Christians and there was, at some point, some sort of “parting of the ways” between the two. I don’t doubt that such a parting led to the tweaking of some teachings on both sides of the equation (although, I’d imagine it was quite heavier on the Christian and anti-Judaism side of things). But to suggest that Jews would actually corrupt their own Scriptures to spite Christian interpretations, and to make this suggestion just so that Christians can hold onto a threatened belief in prophecy fulfillment . . . That’s just ridiculous.
-
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: