Pre-quranic Nasara
Ayman
> very likely many Arabian christians were some sort of
> jewish-christians, collectively called Nazarens.
Agreed.
> but Ebionites do not fit the
> description of the Nasara in the Qur'an. the Elchassites do. they
> had a Trinity of the Father, Mary and Jesus, as in the polemics
> in the Qur'an. this is argued quite convincingly by de Blois:
> School of Oriental and African Studies. Bulletin (i.e. BSOAS)
> Vol. LXV Part 1 2002
> Nasrani and hanif : studies on the religious vocabulary of
> Christianity and of Islam
> FRANÇOIS DE BLOIS pp 1-30
The Nasara are never described as being Trinitarians. Read 5:72-73
carefully, you will see that the term Nasara doesn't occur there. The
passage condemns as rejecters/"kuffar" Monophysites (5:72) and
Trinitarians (5:73).
On the other hand, 9:30 describes the Nasara are "mushrikeen" (setting
up partners) for claiming that Jesus is son of The God. The Ebionites
fit this description because they rejected the Trinity and emphasized
the humanity of Jesus so 5:72-73 is not directed towards them. Another
group that fits the description is the Nestorians of that time.
> also the Meccan christians seem to have blended in with
> the pagans, since there was no revolution instigated by
> them similar to that of Muhammad.
There was no such thing as Mecca, let alone Meccan Christians, at the
time.
> also reports of a
> picture of Mary in the Ka`ba is consistent with this.
No pre-quranic or early post-quranic evidence of that.
> also the pagans themselves seem to have become familiar
> with most biblical accounts, as the Qur'an refers to
> them without fully recounting them.
The pagan population was probably a minority by that time surrounded by
a sizeable majority of Christians and Jews.
The great reading is primarily addressing common people ("umiyyun") who
can't read or write the religious language of the elite. Those are
average Christians, Jews, and pagans. For example, 2:78 makes it clear
that there are "ummiyyun" from the descendents of Israel.
> they accused
> Muhammad of rehashing old stories meaning they were
> familiar with them. so some pagan - christian - jewish
> symbiosis seesm to have taken place.
The place where the prophet was sent seems to be a cosmopolitan place
with the three social groups co-habiting. This completely rules out
Mecca. The reference to the place as "um al-qura" (6:92, 42:7) is more
likely to fit the cradle of civilization somewhere along Mesopotamia. So
places like Hira in Western Iraq are more likely candidates. Not
surprisingly, independent early sources refer to Hira as the seat of the
Arab kingdom.
> Ebionites, Elchasites and other sects took refuge in Arabia and
> Persian territory where the Byzantine authorities couldn't reach them.
> so many christians there must have been very unorthodox.
Agreed.
> again you don't have any evidence of what the *arabian* christians and
> pagans thought.
There are pre-quranic reports critical of heretic Christian sects who
lived in Arabia such as Nestorians, Ebionites, etc. None of those
reports say that those sects approve of such pagan customs. Certainly
since those reports are critical of those sects, they would have taken
this as an opportunity to further discredit them by saying that they
approved of or participated in such pagan rituals.
Also, you are missing the fact that Christians in Northern Arabia were
largely Arab Christians. This is evident from inscriptions bearing Arab
people names that were found on recycled rocks reused to build a church
at Umm Al-Rasas in Northern Arabia. This suggests that the church was
built in an area where Arabs lived and that it was catering to Arab
parishioners. So despite the formal religious inscriptions in the church
being in Greek, the parishioners seem to have been Arabs.
Even more interestingly, there are two leaves of parchment bearing a
part of the Septuagint text of Psalm 78 (LXX, 77) with an Arabic
explanation in Greek transliteration. The fragment was first published
in Violet B. Ein zweisprachiges Psalmfragment aus Damascus and was
recently restudied by M.C.A. Macdonald who has demonstrated that it
dates to the pre-Islamic period.
Now the question is why is the text a Greek transliteration of Arabic
and not directly an Arabic text? I think that two deductions can be
made:
1. The clergy doing the reading knows Greek (since it is in Greek
letters).
2. The audience for the explanation is Arabic speakers.
In all likelihood, this parchment was used in sermons to pre-quranic
Arab parishioners. Hence, the Greek speaking clergy put footnotes in
Arabic transliteration so that they can use it to explain to Arab
listeners.
So what we notice is that Greek was the "sacred" religious Lingua Franca
of Arab Christians. M.C.A. Macdonald also notes that it was only in
exceptional circumstances, and to make a clear cultural point, that an
Arabic version was added to the Syriac and/or Greek as at Zebed (AD 512)
or Harran (AD 568). [M.C.A. Macdonald, Reflections on the linguistic map
of pre-Islamic Arabia, Arab. arch. epig. 2000: 11: 28–79]
See also:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/zebed.html
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/harran.html
So those Christians of Northern Arabia were very much Arabs and the
abundant Christian manuscripts and inscriptions from Northern Arabia do
reflect their beliefs even though those evidences were not in Arabic but
were in other languages such as Greek and Syriac.
2:78 talks about the descendants of Israel. So here we have the term
"umiyun" encompassing the descendants of Israel who were either Jews or
Christians. This again confirms that "ummi" versus "those given the
book" is not a religious or literate versus illiterate division but is a
social division of religious elite versus common people. Interestingly,
according to Lisan Al-Arab, "not knowing the book except "amany"" means
"except recitation". Lisan Al-Arab further explains that Arabs used the
expression "someone who "yatamana"" to mean "when someone said what he
doesn't know". This would be the situation that Arab Christians would be
in as they listened to the Greek recitation of the Bible from the
manuscript described above.
According to 2:78, much like the many sectarians today who don't know
Arabic and instead of using a translation recite the Arabic reading
behind their religious elite like a parrot without understanding what
they are saying, Jewish and Christian Arabs recited their books in a
foreign language without understanding what it means. Those Arabs
probably recited the book in a foreign language and not in their own
language because they thought that this foreign language was somehow
sacred. Because they didn't understand the religious texts, in all
likelihood they blindly followed the religious elite. The great reading
changed all that!
Peace,
Ayman
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin
Yusuf B Gursey
Ayman wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > very likely many Arabian christians were some sort of
> > jewish-christians, collectively called Nazarens.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > but Ebionites do not fit the
> > description of the Nasara in the Qur'an. the Elchassites do. they
> > had a Trinity of the Father, Mary and Jesus, as in the polemics
> > in the Qur'an. this is argued quite convincingly by de Blois:
> > School of Oriental and African Studies. Bulletin (i.e. BSOAS)
> > Vol. LXV Part 1 2002
> > Nasrani and hanif : studies on the religious vocabulary of
> > Christianity and of Islam
> > FRANÇOIS DE BLOIS pp 1-30
>
> The Nasara are never described as being Trinitarians. Read 5:72-73
the Athanasian concept of the Trinity is not directly addressed.
what is described is more like Tritheism.
> carefully, you will see that the term Nasara doesn't occur there. The
naSra:niyy pl. naSa:ra" is just the classical arabic word
for christian, any christian, with its cognate surviving in
Maltese. masi:Hiyy is realtively late,
late 11th cent. - 12 cent. CE
> passage condemns as rejecters/"kuffar" Monophysites (5:72) and
> Trinitarians (5:73).
Monophysites are Trinitarians, but they felt they were
consolidating the Trinity itself by emphasizing the divinity
of Jesus.
>
> On the other hand, 9:30 describes the Nasara are "mushrikeen" (setting
> up partners) for claiming that Jesus is son of The God. The Ebionites
> fit this description because they rejected the Trinity and emphasized
fit what description?
Ebionites rejected the sonship of God, and they also
rejected the Virgin Birth, which the Qur'an accepts.
Ebionites are not in the picture. their Trinity
was somewhat vague. they seem to have reduced the
other Persons to angels.
> the humanity of Jesus so 5:72-73 is not directed towards them. Another
> group that fits the description is the Nestorians of that time.
fits what description?
Nestorians are also Trinitarians, but make a distinction
between Jesus on Earth and the heavenly Christ.
well, roughly, since I don;t knwo the details well enough,
ABE seems to
>
> > also the Meccan christians seem to have blended in with
> > the pagans, since there was no revolution instigated by
> > them similar to that of Muhammad.
>
> There was no such thing as Mecca, let alone Meccan Christians, at the
> time.
then just for the sake of argument "Central Hijaz".
>
> > also reports of a
> > picture of Mary in the Ka`ba is consistent with this.
>
> No pre-quranic or early post-quranic evidence of that.
whether or not this fits your rules of evidence, notice
how I worded it. AFAIK some writers seem to claim to have seen
it.
>
> > also the pagans themselves seem to have become familiar
> > with most biblical accounts, as the Qur'an refers to
> > them without fully recounting them.
>
> The pagan population was probably a minority by that time surrounded by
> a sizeable majority of Christians and Jews.
there is no evidence of churches or appointment of bishops etc.
to central arabia.
>
> The great reading is primarily addressing common people ("umiyyun") who
> can't read or write the religious language of the elite. Those are
well, away from the religious langauges of those of scripture.
paganism was in arabic.
> average Christians, Jews, and pagans. For example, 2:78 makes it clear
> that there are "ummiyyun" from the descendents of Israel.
>
> > they accused
> > Muhammad of rehashing old stories meaning they were
> > familiar with them. so some pagan - christian - jewish
> > symbiosis seesm to have taken place.
>
> The place where the prophet was sent seems to be a cosmopolitan place
> with the three social groups co-habiting. This completely rules out
the Qur'an hardly describes a cosmopolitan place, since the polemics
are hardly against mainstream christianity. which mainstream
christian sect (i.e. excl. the Elchasites, which are not a
mainstream christian sect) has Mary as the consort of God?
which sets up three gods? why no mention of christians eating
pork? this is the point of the article by de Blois (which you seem
not to have read), that the Qur'an is consistent with a place
like central arabia *away* from mainstream christianity.
> Mecca. The reference to the place as "um al-qura" (6:92, 42:7) is more
> likely to fit the cradle of civilization somewhere along Mesopotamia. So
> places like Hira in Western Iraq are more likely candidates. Not
> surprisingly, independent early sources refer to Hira as the seat of the
> Arab kingdom.
any pretense of independence of the kingdom was put
to an end in 600 - 602 CE by the Sasanids. the Lakhmids
were a sattelite of the Sasanids. any religious or social
upheaval there woudl have been duly noted and swiftly
delt with by the persian authorities. moreover,
zoroastrianism is mentioned only in passing in the
Qur'an, which would have played an important role
around Hira.
Mesopotamia was also a seat of jewish scholarship,
so you wouldn't find jews there who considered
Ezra as the Son of God (at least not literally)
either.
that Muhammad came from around Hira is not
considered by any serious or half serious
historian. that the Qur'an came from there
has now a small and dwindeling following,
with those that subscribe to that dissociating
the Qur'an from Muhammad, attributing it a
post-conquest date, and not attributing it
any divinity (needless to say).
BTW you really seem obsessed with any half-baked
polemical theory cocnerning Islam. you take
them at face value and just add a twist,
that somehow "real" Islam is consistnet with them.
>
> > Ebionites, Elchasites and other sects took refuge in Arabia and
> > Persian territory where the Byzantine authorities couldn't reach them.
> > so many christians there must have been very unorthodox.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > again you don't have any evidence of what the *arabian* christians and
> > pagans thought.
>
> There are pre-quranic reports critical of heretic Christian sects who
> lived in Arabia such as Nestorians, Ebionites, etc. None of those
Nestorians were hardly a fringe "heretical" sect. they use the same
canon as other syrian rite sects, and BTW are Trinitarian as well.
moreover, they were once quite widespread in Asia.
> reports say that those sects approve of such pagan customs. Certainly
> since those reports are critical of those sects, they would have taken
> this as an opportunity to further discredit them by saying that they
> approved of or participated in such pagan rituals.
the Qur'an would not critisize their participation in rituals
the Qur'an or Muhammad approved of. that paganism as well is
a distortion, albeit a gross one, of the original monotheistic
religion, and thus may contain certain "correct" features is
part of muslim belief. you may or may not agree with it.
at any rate, those christians wuith a modus vivendi with
hijazi pagans need not have neccessarily belonged to an
unorthodox church. in Haiti, many catholics reconcile their
beliefs with voodoo. its how about their personal
practices, not their official church doctrine.
>
> Also, you are missing the fact that Christians in Northern Arabia were
no denying that.
> largely Arab Christians. This is evident from inscriptions bearing Arab
> people names that were found on recycled rocks reused to build a church
> at Umm Al-Rasas in Northern Arabia. This suggests that the church was
that's not in "Northern Arabia" but modern Jordan, i.e. in what is
termed greater Syria.
> built in an area where Arabs lived and that it was catering to Arab
> parishioners. So despite the formal religious inscriptions in the church
> being in Greek, the parishioners seem to have been Arabs.
there is no doubt about that. it just doesn't happen to be
the group under question.
>
> Even more interestingly, there are two leaves of parchment bearing a
> part of the Septuagint text of Psalm 78 (LXX, 77) with an Arabic
> explanation in Greek transliteration. The fragment was first published
they are actually arabic glosses in greek script. i.e. the
words are translated word by word, without forming sentences.
from the description offered.
> in Violet B. Ein zweisprachiges Psalmfragment aus Damascus and was
> recently restudied by M.C.A. Macdonald who has demonstrated that it
> dates to the pre-Islamic period.
>
> Now the question is why is the text a Greek transliteration of Arabic
> and not directly an Arabic text? I think that two deductions can be
> made:
to assimilate arab christians into Byzantine society. the same reasons
that early interlinear Qur'an translations of a similar nature some
centuries later have the target language (usually persian or turkic)
written in the arabic script and not in the native scripts (in those
cases pahlavi or uighur).
writing in arabic script and encouraging arab national pride
and potentially an arabic canon was not in the interests
of the byzantine empire.
>
> 1. The clergy doing the reading knows Greek (since it is in Greek
> letters).
or syriac or sabaic or ethiopic. perhaps even palestinain christian
aramaic, used by jewish christians
> 2. The audience for the explanation is Arabic speakers.
>
> In all likelihood, this parchment was used in sermons to pre-quranic
> Arab parishioners. Hence, the Greek speaking clergy put footnotes in
> Arabic transliteration so that they can use it to explain to Arab
> listeners.
it's a study guide for arab christians aspiring to become
integrated into the church.
>
> So what we notice is that Greek was the "sacred" religious Lingua Franca
that the canon of the byzantine church was in greek hardly needs
proof. but the syrian rite was also tolerated, and arab
christians were influenced by this, as the greek loanwords
show a filter of syriac and syriac loans are much more
common in arabic.
greek was official and syriac widespread in arabic speaking
byzantine areas. in Mesopotamia, and along coastal areas
of eastern and southern arabia, syraic was the language
of christianity. in Najran, it seems to be Sabaic from
the inscriptions, possibly also ethiopic.
central arabia is simply a blank as far as christianity
is concerned.
> of Arab Christians. M.C.A. Macdonald also notes that it was only in
> exceptional circumstances, and to make a clear cultural point, that an
> Arabic version was added to the Syriac and/or Greek as at Zebed (AD 512)
> or Harran (AD 568). [M.C.A. Macdonald, Reflections on the linguistic map
> of pre-Islamic Arabia, Arab. arch. epig. 2000: 11: 28-79]
>
> See also:
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/zebed.html
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/harran.html
>
> So those Christians of Northern Arabia were very much Arabs and the
no one is denying that "Northern Arabian Christians were Arabs",
it's beside the point.
but the places you just mentioned are in Syria.
and rather irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
> abundant Christian manuscripts and inscriptions from Northern Arabia do
from greater Syria.
but all this is irrelevant to the topic at hand.