Controversy over the original source for the Koran, possibly Aramaic

[FelixC]

I just came across these articles that imply that the Koran may have started out as a Syrian Christian liturgy in Aramaic, originally used to bring Christianity to the Arabs, that was contextualized into separate religion from a core base by ater Muslims.


http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99jan/koran3.htm
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/7025?eng=y

has anyone ever heard of these ideas?

I think that suicide bombers would be rather surprised at not getting the virgins they expected, it would be quite a shock for these guys

"white grapes" = "huri"

*note to moderator, move to religious section if better fit, thanks

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I'm moving this to Comparative Religion since it's a scholarly discussion of a religious text rather than a philosophical discussion of religious beliefs. The issue of the original language of the Koran is important, but I think other related issues far outweigh it, so it will be better served by moving it out of Linguistics.

I'll start by saying I don't think much of Dr. Luxenberg's scholarship, as illustrated by his contention that Arabic did not exist as a written language in the 7th century CE. According to as mundane a record of secondary and tertiary scholarship as Wikipedia, Arabic did indeed exist as a written language as far back as the second century CE, and there's a certain continuity to writings in the ancestral language, Ancient Northern Arabian, a thousand years earlier. By the 4th century CE poetry was being written in Pre-Classical Arabic, the Arabic alphabet as we know it (really an extended abjad with an incomplete set of vowels) was in use, and written Arabic appears to have been gaining ground in pre-Islamic Arabia, a region somewhat larger than the modern Saudi state. It's not at all remarkable to suppose that Mohammed, who was attempting to found a new Arab society, would have written in the language of the Arabs rather than Aramaic, the language of the foreign empire that had ruled the region for a millennium or more, since the days of Darius I.

Nonetheless the criticisms of the tradition surrounding the origin of the Koran are reasonable and are echoed in the non-Islamic world, as they are said to have been within the Islamic world before orthodoxy settled in. I'm no Koranic scholar and I can't read a word of Arabic, but over the years I've encountered a few reports that Muslim Arab historians who can easily understand the oldest written documents in Arabic occasionally lapse into candor when puzzling their way through the Koran and wonder aloud, "what the heck is this sentence supposed to mean?"

Luxenberg apparently speaks for some people who think it reads like an awkward translation from another language. Aramaic would be the logical suspect since it's the language that was most widely known in the Middle East at that time, including the non-Arab Middle East. Even into the early centuries of the Ottoman Empire, Aramaic was a major spoken and written language in the region. There are still about half a million people in several countries who speak it and they refuse to allow it to become marginalized, even establishing it on the internet.

Luxenberg suggests that the Koran is like the New Testament: entirely apocryphal. That there was no source document for the creation of Islam, so it was created retroactively, long after the characters in the stories were too dead to argue.

I think we need someone with more knowledge of this subject to weigh in on it. Someone more likely to find this thread in Comparative Religion than in Linguistics.

 

[FelixC]

1. I'm moving this to Comparative Religion since it's a scholarly discussion of a religious text rather than a philosophical discussion of religious beliefs. The issue of the original language of the Koran is important, but I think other related issues far outweigh it, so it will be better served by moving it out of Linguistics.
2. I'm no Koranic scholar and I can't read a word of Arabic, but over the years I've encountered a few reports that Muslim Arab historians who can easily understand the oldest written documents in Arabic occasionally lapse into candor when puzzling their way through the Koran and wonder aloud, "what the heck is this sentence supposed to mean?"
3. Luxenberg apparently speaks for some people who think it reads like an awkward translation from another language. Aramaic would be the logical suspect since it's the language that was most widely known in the Middle East at that time, including the non-Arab Middle East.
4. Luxenberg suggests that the Koran is like the New Testament: entirely apocryphal.
5. That there was no source document for the creation of Islam, so it was created retroactively, long after the characters in the stories were too dead to argue.
6. I think we need someone with more knowledge of this subject to weigh in on it. Someone more likely to find this thread in Comparative Religion than in Linguistics.

FR; thanks for your discussion
1. there seemed to be several areas where this idea could have been posted, I hope that some people here can shed some light on this
2. I find that curious; if it was originally given by Mohammad, the Koran should have been in common everyday 7 Century Arabic?
3. so, it might have had an original Aramaic core, that had been translated into Arabic?
I have heard that the Koran is not authoritative when translated into other languages, could this be the reason why?
4. not sure how you mean this, a break in the tradition, between the originators & the adapters or modifiers into Arabic culture?
5. no source documents? could the change from pre-Christian be the missing link? lets say that the early Nestorian priests had died, their early Arabic adherents would want to carry on, but the liturgy was in Aramaic. could this have happened to early Chrisitians who did not know Latin?
6. does anyone here at Sciforums know Aramaic?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

2. I find that curious; if it was originally given by Mohammad, the Koran should have been in common everyday 7 Century Arabic?

You need to learn more about the Arabic language. "Modern Arabic" is a spectrum of dialects. The language normally used in broadcasts and other situations where people from different regions need to understand it is a formalized idiom based on a much older form of the language. The written language is not as different from its 7th-century version as the spoken language is. Besides, the so-called scholars quoted in the article (and other scholars with better credentials) maintain the the Koran was finalized in its current form a couple of hundred years after Mohammed.

3. so, it might have had an original Aramaic core, that had been translated into Arabic?

From the standpoint of linguistics and anthropology, that is not an unreasonable hypothesis. Nonetheless, as I stressed above, even as far back as the seventh century, Arabic existed as a written language and could reasonably have been used for this purpose.

I have heard that the Koran is not authoritative when translated into other languages, could this be the reason why?

That's more properly a religious question than a linguistic question. It comes from the orthodox notion that the Koran is the actual word of God, who is alleged to have spoken directly to Mohammed in Arabic. Since translation of anything between any two languages can't help but lose at least a few nuances, translating the Koran into Farsi, Urdu or English would of course lose some of its God-given truth.

4. not sure how you mean this, a break in the tradition, between the originators & the adapters or modifiers into Arabic culture?

When I said that the New Testament is apocryphal, I meant that literally. There is absolutely zero credible evidence that any of the stories in it were first told in the early decades of the first century CE when Jesus is alleged to have lived. The Romans were compulsive, bureaucratic recordkeepers and Jesus would have been the most newsworthy story that occurred in their entire history, yet there's nothing at all about him in their archives. It's quite likely that the "gospels" were woven together out of folktales, bedtime stories and linked to subversive anti-Roman propaganda, along the lines of the heavy political symbology in "Alice in Wonderland" and "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz." Which, fortunately, have not yet evolved into religions.

5. no source documents? could the change from pre-Christian be the missing link? lets say that the early Nestorian priests had died, their early Arabic adherents would want to carry on, but the liturgy was in Aramaic. could this have happened to early Chrisitians who did not know Latin?

I'm losing your train of thought. The New Testament was written in Greek, still the language of scholarship, especially in the eastern lands of the Roman Empire. My remark about "no source documents" is my insulting suggestion that both Christianity and Islam might not be based on actual historical events, but were cobbled together after the time period of which they speak.

6. does anyone here at Sciforums know Aramaic?

That would be remarkable but I'd be happy to see them step forward. I have lots of questions.

 

[FelixC]

1. I'm losing your train of thought. The New Testament was written in Greek, still the language of scholarship, especially in the eastern lands of the Roman Empire.
2. My remark about "no source documents" is my insulting suggestion that both Christianity and Islam might not be based on actual historical events, but were cobbled together after the time period of which they speak.
3. That would be remarkable but I'd be happy to see them step forward. I have lots of questions.

FR, thanks for your comments & ideas

I'll try to answer a few of your comments
1a. I was supposing what would be the consequences if several Arabs had been taken under the tutelage of Aramaic speaking Christian monks (using Aramaic documents to teach catechism, but translating into Arabic as the language of instruction), Mohammad would be one of those pupils, & as claimed is illiterate in both Aramaic & Arabic, then something happens to the monks (they die or are recalled to Syria). Mohammad still feels called to continue, using only memory would try to recite what he had learned, but form this new religion of Islam instead, probable???
1b. the Assyrian & the Aramaic speaking churches say otherwise, they say the NT was originally in Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke during His ministry (that the NT was originally in Greek may be a Western bias?)
my guess is that majority of commoners were Aramaic speakers, with some being bilingual(merchants/tradesmen) & even less trilingual; Aramaic, Greek & Latin (the ruling class)

2. found this possible (close to) contemporary Byzantine reference to Mohammad (2 years after his death)

There is no doubt that Mohammed existed, occasional attempts to deny it notwithstanding. His neighbours in Byzantine Syria got to hear of him within two years of his death at the latest; a Greek text written during the Arab invasion of Syria between 632 and 634 mentions that "a false prophet has appeared among the Saracens" and dismisses him as an impostor on the ground that prophets do not come "with sword and chariot". It thus conveys the impression that he was actually leading the invasions.

Mohammed's death is normally placed in 632, but the possibility that it should be placed two or three years later cannot be completely excluded. The Muslim calendar was instituted after Mohammed's death, with a starting-point of his emigration (hijra) to Medina (then Yathrib) ten years earlier. Some Muslims, however, seem to have correlated this point of origin with the year which came to span 624-5 in the Gregorian calendar rather than the canonical year of 622.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed_3866.jsp

3. I posted an inquiry in Linguistics, lets see if anyone does?

 

[BenTheMan]

There is absolutely zero credible evidence that any of the stories in it were first told in the early decades of the first century CE when Jesus is alleged to have lived.

This is an aside, but I feel that you're not quite correct here. Fragments of some of Paul's letters (those which can be ascribed to him) date from the second century CE, where they were already fairly well organized and circulated as a complete set (Papyrus 46). This is coupled with the fact that there is very little opposition to the notion that there was a Paul, that he lived in the first half of the first century CE, and that he did write at least some of the letters which we take as the New Testament.

In terms of the Gospels, the first three (and, possibly, the gnostic Gospel of Thomas) are pretty universally accepted by biblical scholars to be derived from an older text which has been lost, but which dates from the mid first century CE. The oldest copies of the Gospels are from the sixth century, which is probably the source of some contention, but older references to these works can be found, which firmly establish there existence before this date.

Of course, I'm not pointing this out with the aim of establishing some greater legitimacy to Christianity than to Islam, or to try and make the claim that the New Testament is the word of God (any more so than the Koran). Rather, I feel that you're misrepresenting the consensus. I'm sure you know all of this, but you are in the minority if you doubt the existence of a Jewish Rabbi called Jesus and a religious figure called Paul in the first century CE.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

I'm not a scholar in this area of archaeology/history, but I believe Ben the Man is factually correct. While it is curious that earlier Roman records don't reference Christianity, I believe that that is possible because there was an active effort to eradicate it [feeding early Christians to the lions and all], and it was instead an anti-government movement that eventually became politically expedient to remake the Roman empire as a 'Christian' empire. But that's just my surmise based on a more casual reading of Roman history.

 

[swarm]

Paul possibly existing doesn't get you a Jesus because Paul never knew any Jesus. He just made it up on the road one day per his recounting of the tale.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Yeah, he was just going around killing his fellow jews if they said they believed in Jesus, then had a change of heart, as per his recounting of the tale.

 

[swarm]

There were a lot of "Jesuses" going around at the time, so there was plenty of fodder.

I often wonder how being a psychopathic persecuter of early jesus freaks got him the job founder of the faith.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

There were a lot of "Jesuses" going around at the time, so there was plenty of fodder.

Jesus is the Latin form of Yehoshuah (or Joshua), a common Hebrew name--from a character who has his own book in the Bible. Its meaning is "Yahweh (God) is salvation."

 

[CheskiChips]

I know a little Aramaic. But it's in a Jewish context.

יְהוֹשֻׁעַ = "Yehosha"
Which is not...
יהושוע "Yehoshua" which is the modern "Joshua" counterpart. I am unsure if Joshua as a name evolved on its own or what happened here...but the original is not the latter.


In this case coming from the 3 letter root (As all Hebrew words do) ישע meaning "save" or in a present tense ישועה "Salvation"

In either case...the definition by Fraggle Rock is over-zealous and includes incorrect misinterpretation.


Further Joshua (Of Tanakh) is often referred to as בנה which means "Understanding." Not usually (if ever) as intending to mean "Salvation", rather that's an understanding that's derived to say that "Understanding brings Salvation". Ironic, since Jesus didn't seem to have "understanding" of Law.


===

On original topic. Arabic is more like Aramaic than Hebrew. Hebrew is nothing like Aramaic...however.... Later Aramaic writings included Hebrew words and simultaneously (and far preceding) Greek words were founded on Hebrew words. Look no further than Tammuz, a Sumerican God whose month of mourning became a month in Babylonian. Which was later a month in Hebrew as a way of devising a calender system. The same worship practices of Tammuz were that of Adonis in Greece, Adon literally (and confirmed) coming from the word in Hebrew meaning "Lord".

"Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz. Then said he unto to me, 'Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these." —Ezekiel 8:14-15

Mentioned in Ezekiel discussing the way Greek / Babylonian influences had penetrated the Jewish homeland and it had become rampant with foreign beliefs.

There was definite interchange. It's highly likely that Greek terms entered the Arabic dialect, they never entered the Hebrew lexicon since Hebrew was not the primary language spoken by Jews.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

יְהוֹשֻׁעַ = "Yehosha"

You missed the qubutz under the shin. That's the vowel U, so it is indeed Yehoshua.

I am unsure if Joshua as a name evolved on its own or what happened here...but the original is not the latter.

Wikipedia deals very explicitly with this detail in its article on the name Joshua:

The original Hebrew name Yehoshua יהושע often lacks a Hebrew letter Vav (ו) after the Shin (ש), allowing a misreading of the vocalization of the name, as if Yehoshea (יְהוֹשֵׁעַ), and indeed his name was Hoshea before his namechange to Yehoshua by recommendation of Moses (Numbers 13:16). Nevertheless, the use of a mater lectionis was an orthographic innovation, and although the use of two Vavs is well attested as יְהוֹשׁוּעַ (for example, Deuteronomy 3:21), traditional orthography tended to avoid the second Vav as too intrusive when spelling Yehoshua. The name Yehoshua` in Hebrew means "Yahweh is Salvation," "Yahweh delivers" or "Yahweh rescues" from the Hebrew root ישע, "to deliver," "to be liberated," or "to be victorious."

On original topic. Arabic is more like Aramaic than Hebrew. Hebrew is nothing like Aramaic.

Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic are all classified as Central Semitic languages. However, Hebrew and Aramaic are in the Northwest Central group whereas Arabic has the Arabic Central group all to itself. Still, languages evolve at different speeds so two that are closely related might end up with fewer similarities than two that are more distantly related. English and German are both West Germanic languages, but since changing so profoundly after the Norman Invasion, the vocabulary of Modern English has less in common with Modern German than German has with Swedish, a North Germanic language.

It's highly likely that Greek terms entered the Arabic dialect, they never entered the Hebrew lexicon since Hebrew was not the primary language spoken by Jews.

Since Hebrew was a liturgical language for more than 2,000 years, it was artificially insulated from outside influence.

 

[FelixC]

1. I know a little Aramaic. But it's in a Jewish context.
2. Arabic is more like Aramaic than Hebrew. Hebrew is nothing like Aramaic...however.... Later Aramaic writings included Hebrew words and simultaneously (and far preceding) Greek words were founded on Hebrew words.
3. There was definite interchange. It's highly likely that Greek terms entered the Arabic dialect, they never entered the Hebrew lexicon since Hebrew was not the primary language spoken by Jews.

CC: thanks for responding:
1. exactly how much Aramaic do you understand?
2. do you understand Arabic too?
3. I would think that since the Hellenistic influence was strong in the whole area (because of the Seleucids & later Romans), that the Jewish establishment did their best to keep out the Gentile influences, after the desecration of the Temple & the subsequent Maccabees Revolt. it must have been scandalous to have Greek-style gymnasiums in Judah

 

[EdgeHead]

You know, I think Joe Smith may taken a page from Mohammad. The origins are very similar.

Then again, all religions rip off each other. So now big surprise there.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Then again, all religions rip off each other.

Not exactly. Jung says that all religions are collections of the same archetypes, instinctive beliefs that occur in all societies in all times, preprogrammed in our synapses by DNA. Some archetypal instincts are survival traits from an ancient era whose dangers we can imagine but no longer need defenses against. Others are simply the random results of genetic drift.

Read one of Jung's popularizers like Joseph Campbell, for his studies of cultures too widely separated by time and geography to have influenced each other, yet which eerily show the same motifs in their art and legends.

This is the basis for religious faith. A belief we are born with is older than and feels more "true" than one we acquire by observation, learning or reasoning.

 

[Gustav]

crap
the apparent mind/body dichotomy has to be experienced to be known
there is nothing instinctual about it
one learns thru experience that dna is like an ass ready to be ploughed

an experience hopefully contextualized by "observation, learning or reasoning."

/snicker

I'm no Koranic scholar and I can't read a word of Arabic, but over the years I've encountered a few reports that Muslim Arab historians who can easily understand the oldest written documents in Arabic occasionally lapse into candor when puzzling their way through the Koran and wonder aloud, "what the heck is this sentence supposed to mean?"

ja
i still puzzle over swallowing shit, hook, line and sinker
all the world's a stage?

speak american, goddammit!

Luxenberg suggests that the Koran is like the New Testament: entirely apocryphal. That there was no source document for the creation of Islam, so it was created retroactively, long after the characters in the stories were too dead to argue.

I think we need someone with more knowledge of this subject to weigh in on it. Someone more likely to find this thread in Comparative Religion than in Linguistics.

with regards to christianity, lightbeing obliges ...

Haru “Horus” is symbolic of the Rising Son. Jesus is also symbolic of the rising son. Jesus was the son (sun) who died (set) on the cross by crucifixion and he will resurrect (rise) according to the Christians. When the son came down and apparently sets or dies into the darkness and he raises or resurrects back to life. It is the story of the Christian’s God Jesus.

What religious fanatics don’t realize is that if the sun shuts down that would be the end of life as you know it. This is what Egipt teaches about the sun: If I say I worship the sun, people say oh that’s sun worship. I know that. The reason why I say worship the sun, s-u-n and laugh at you who worship the son, s-o-n is because my sun is an obvious provider. If my sun doesn’t come up in the morning, we can chalk it. Jesus (the son) went to sleep 2,000 years ago, has not gotten up yet, and you all are still doing fine. Yet you are still waiting for your son to rise. If my sun doesn’t rise each day, it’s over for Jesus and you. Now with this reasoning, I can live without your son. Can you live without your son? Can you live without my sun? The answer is simply NO.

If you look throughout Egyptian history, you see that many of the characteristics of Horus existed long before 2,000 years ago, and parallels that of Jesus of 2,000 years ago. For instance it is said:


Jesus performed the miracle of turning five loaves of bread in one case and seven in another to feed the many multitudes of people.
to
This ties in with Horus who makes seven loaves of bread for Osiris to live by.

Yashua is in the desert and being tempted by the Devil, who said to him, “If he was the son of God, turn a stone into bread.”
to
The stone of the desert is symbolic of Set.

As the child Horus comes to the Earth, then enters matter or becomes flesh. He is born as the word of his father who becomes Seb, who consort is Nu whose other name is Meri.
to
Which is the same as Jesus coming down to Earth as the word of God in the flesh having and adopted father of Joseph (Seb) and Mary his mother.

Jesus said “I and the father are one. He that seeth me, seeth him that sent me.”
to
Horus is the father seen in the son.

Jesus claims to be the son in whom the father is revealed.
to
Horus was the light of the world. The light that is represented by the symbolic eye. The son of salvation.

Yashua is called the ‘Good Sheperd’ with the lamb or kid on his shoulder.
to
Horus was the good shepherd who carries the crook upon his shoulder.

Jesus is called the Lamb of God, the bread of life, the truth and the light.
to
Horus is called the Lamb of God, the bread of life, the truth and the light.

Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.
to
Horus is was baptized by Anupp the Baptizer.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the ‘House of Bread.’
to
Horus was born in Annu, the ‘Place of Bread.’

Jesus the Christ.
to
Horus the Krist.

The star in the east that indicated the birthplace of Jesus.
to
The star, as announcer of the child Horus.

The blind man given sight by Jesus.
to
The blind mummy made to see by Horus.

Jesus walking on water.
to
Horus walking on water.

THE LIST GOES ON AND ON. This is just to give you clear overstanding that the Jesus of your bible came from the Egyptian diety of Horus, and Christianity came from the various stories from Egypt. The story was just reiterated as most stories in your bible are. They are stories from old tablets such as the Enuma Elish, and the Giglamesh Epic. The names were just changed, in different cultures. In fact, the names of the bible aren’t even names, they are titles. For example the story of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the bible is just the story of ANU, Antum, and Iyd in the Enuma Elish. The story of Cain and Abel in the bible is just the story of Osiris and Set in the Egyptian records.

source: The Body Parts Of God
by Kayti - Sent Hotep known as Shandra Stubbs
student of Egipt

more

 

[Michael]

It's pretty obvious that the Egyptian civilization and myths would have a profound impact on later myths.

As for the original source of the Qur'an it MUST be Biblical myths - why the f*ck else do the same stories show up in the Qur'an?!

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

It's pretty obvious that the Egyptian civilization and myths would have a profound impact on later myths. As for the original source of the Qur'an it MUST be Biblical myths - why the f*ck else do the same stories show up in the Qur'an?!

You guys are having a hard time grasping the concept of archetypes. Of course Gustav is hopeless because he gets a kick out of making an iconoclastic impression in language that is barely comprehensible. But the rest of you should take a course in Jung or at least rent a Joseph Campbell DVD.

These things really do pop up independently because they are programmed inside of us.

 

[Gustav]

wrong!!

/giggle