The Qur'an in its historical context (pdf - Islam and Christian-Muslim ...

THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE QUR’AN
serves as an important example of a hypothesis that must be considered in light
of the confusion of Muslim exegetes.
Historical background for Luxenberg’s hypothesis
Still more recently another researcher, Jan Van Reeth, 104 supports the idea of a
“Syriac and Aramaic connection.” He emphasizes that the Qur’an’s use of Injil in
the singular could reflect a desire, with ancient roots in early Christianity, to
reestablish the unity of the message of Jesus. Faced with the criticism of Celsus
(followed later by that of Porphyry, the Emperor Julian, the Manicheans, and
plenty others), “Marcion (ca. 85–160) et Tatien (ca. 120–73) ont tenté de répondre
en présentant un texte évangélique unique et en reconstruisant la vraie séquence
des événements.” 105 If Muhammad (or one of his informants or collaborators, in
theory) had been familiar with the integrated Gospel, the Diatessaron, it is clear
that, as far as he knew, the Diatessaron had probably been composed in Syriac. 106
Having said that, it is not easy to know which Gospel text Muhammad could
have been familiar with. However, there are a few rare direct references in the
Qur’an to the Gospels. Thus Q 48:29: “Such is their likeness in the Torah and
their likeness in the Gospel – like as sown corn that sendeth forth its shoot and
strengtheneth it and riseth firm upon its stalk, delighting the sowers – that He may
enrage the disbelievers with (the sight of) them. God hath promised, unto such of
them as believe and do good works, forgiveness and immense reward.” This text
combines two Gospel pericopes – Mark 4:26–7 and Matthew 12:23 – the same
amalgam that the Diatessaron makes, seen for example in the Middle-Dutch
translation thereof, done in the thirteenth century from a lost Latin translation,
and in the Arabic translation thereof. 107
Van Reeth applies the same treatment to the passages of the Qur’an which
pertain to the infancy of Mary (Q 3:35–48), John (Q 19:3), and Jesus (Q 3:37;
19:22–6), showing again that “le Coran témoigne de la tradition du Diatessaron.” 108
He does the same again with the Docetist version of the Crucifixion of Jesus
(Q 4:157), but in this case he refers to Angel-Christology (cf. G. Lüling), notably
that of the Elkesaites, declaring: “Plutôt qu’un simulacre que Dieu aurait
façonné et substitué au Christ pour être crucifié à sa place, il s’agit originalement
de la forme humaine que Dieu a instaurée pour Jésus au moment de
l’incarnation et dans laquelle sa personne transcendante et angélique pouvait
descendre.” 109
Even if the Diatessaron does not explain all of the Qur’anic particularities on
the life of Jesus, Van Reeth makes the following conclusion: “En se référant au
Diatessaron comme l’avait fait Mani avant lui, le Prophète Muhammad pouvait
souligner l’unicité du message évangélique. En outre, il s’inscrivait dans la
longue lignée de Marcion, de Tatien et de Mani. Tous ont voulu (ré)tablir le vrai
Évangile, afin d’en atteindre le sens original. Ils se croyaient autorisés à faire de
travail d’harmonisation textuelle parce qu’ils s’assimilaient au Paraclet que Jésus
avait annoncé.” 110
99