‘Then she brought the baby to her people, carrying him. They said: “O Mary (Maryam)! Indeed you have brought a thing an unheard mighty thing. O sister of Aaron (Harun)! Your father was not a man who used to commit adultery, nor was your mother an unchaste woman.’ 19:27-28
Islam critics often point out that the fact that Mary, mother of Jesus, is called the sister of Aaron (brother of Moses) is proof that the Qur’an can’t be from God, as this is a mistake. Scholars have several plausible explanations for this though. When the Qur’an calls Mary ‘sister of Aaron’ it isn’t meant literally. It could simply refer to her noble lineage as in calling Jesus ‘son of David’.
There is a tradition in the Arabic language in which family references like ‘son/sister/brother of’ simply mean ‘from the tribe of’.
There is another explanation too. Aaron’s sister, who was also called Maryam, like Jesus’ mother, was known for her virtuousness and piety. By calling Jesus’ mother ‘sister of Aaron’ it refers to the two Maryams having in common that they were both virtuous and pious women. It is used in defending her against the accusations of unchasteness.
I used to have a neighbour who often played football with his young son in the garden. Sometimes you could hear him shout ‘come on Gary Lineker’ to his son, ascribing to him the qualities of the great player. In a way this is not dissimilar to the way Aaron’s sister is referred to in this Qur’an verse.
Peace and blessings.
2.87We gave Moses the Scripture and We sent messengers after him in succession. We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear signs and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit….
sample logic really!!
//moses-a lot of messengers-jesus
another verse..
57.27We sent other messengers to follow in their footsteps. After those We sent Jesus, son of Mary: We gave him the Gospel and put compassion and mercy into the hearts of his followers…..
//many messengers-jesus
another verse..
5.44We revealed the Torah with guidance and light, and the prophets, who had submitted to God, judged according to it for the Jews. So did the rabbis and the scholars…
//torah(moses)-many prophets who had submitted to God and rabbis and scholars-
lets go to the next verses.. same ch
5.46We sent Jesus, son of Mary, in their footsteps, to confirm the Torah that had been sent before him….
//torah(moses)-many prophets who had submitted to God and rabbis and scholars- Jesus in their footsteps.
not jesus and his uncle moses
It is possible that Jews used to call Mary the sister of Aaron because she was incomparable in piety to the other Aaronites of her time. Alternatively, her parents gave her the name Mary because they expected her to live up to the same standards as the actual sister of Aaron, and this was known in the community.
There is another complexity involved which is that Amram (Imran) is the name of the father of Moses(as).
So, there is a Mary in history who has Aaron(as) as her brother and Imran(ra) as her father.
Kmak: It is possible that Jews used to call Mary the sister of Aaron because she was incomparable in piety to the other Aaronites of her time. Alternatively, her parents gave her the name Mary because they expected her to live up to the same standards as the actual sister of Aaron, and this was known in the community.
Evidence?
Doesn’t extricate you out of your problem. This is Christian language. Not of Mary’s people. Quran probably took it from chrch Christianity or from Arab own way of speaking, long after Jesus time. Another historical problem.
It’s not a problem according to contemporary scholars.
Give the evidence. This “Mary sister of Aaron” is Christian church language. Not from the book of the jews. It is anagronosim.
Connor: Give the evidence.
Evidence of what? That contemporary scholars don’t consider Q 19.28 an error? Sure. See Suleiman Mourad’s ‘Mary in the Quran’.
Not saying it’s an error in that sense. Mourad says kts It’s an allegory. But It’s a Christian church way of thinking and writing message, “Mary, sister off Aaron”. Christian church came later than Mary. It came from Christianity. Not The Jews in Marys time. The Quran makes the people of Mary use Christian language but Christianity did not exist in Mary’s time. Even Mourad says that the Mary sisterr of Aaron was especially use because it talks about her growing up in the temple. Story found in Christian apochryphal protogospel of James. This text is a much later Christian text than Jesus. Also even Mourad says Mary Quran traditionare found in Christian extracanonical sources. They tell of a christiann apocryphal Mary. Not an historical Jewish Mary. It’s a historical problem. And It’s anachronistic.
Connor: It’s a historical problem. And It’s anachronistic.
Okay, so what is the historical account of the reaction of Mary’s contemporaries to her giving birth as a virgin?
@ Connor
1. What is your roof it came after 1st Century Jews?
2. From what we know from the NT text this is a common way off describing people’s lineage for example Elizabeth. You have two in the Bible:
A. Elizabeth, Aaron’s(as) wife:
“Aaron married Elisheba, daughter of Amminadab and sister of Nahshon, and she bore him Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar.” (Exodus 6:23)
B. Elizabeth “daughter of Aaron”
“In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah. And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.” (Luke 1:5)
So other than bias, why can’t we conclude the same thing is happening in the Quran?
Kmak: Okay, so what is the historical account of the reaction of Mary’s contemporaries to her giving birth as a virgin?
Something else than Christian reaction. Point is the tradition is Christian and and much later than Mary because Christianity came much later than Mary. So it cannot be historical, does not fit. The later Jews didn’t tell stories of Mary. So give evidence it came from Jews people of Mary or from their right time an period first century or maybe contemporary scholars say so.
The Quran has later Christian Mary and people of Mary not historical Jewish Mary. Even Mourad says little historical value so it is allegory and some Mary stories in Quran found in Christian extra canonical or apocryphal sources later than Mary. There’s a historical problem here.
Connor: There’s a historical problem here.
It is a historical problem only if the contemporaries of Mary reacted differently from what is presented in the Quran. So I’ll ask you once again, what did the contemporaries of Mary actually say when she presented baby Jesus before them?
Kmak: It is a historical problem only if the contemporaries of Mary reacted differently from what is presented in the Quran. So I’ll ask you once again, what did the contemporaries of Mary actually say when she presented baby Jesus before them?
I don’t know what they said or if they said anything at all. But they would not say anything from Christian origin, because that was not exist and they were Jews. So we have a problem and you need to give evidence from history.
Even Mourad says little historical value so it is allegory and some Mary stories in Quran found in Christian extra canonical or apocryphal sources later than Mary. There’s a historical problem here.
@ Connor
How is the onus on him when you’re the one claiming a “historical problem”?
He made first claim with no evidence. When he give name of scholar the scholar says is the Mary stories in Quran are found bible and Christian apocrypha extrabiblical and have no historical value so it is allegory. Mary stories and “Mary sister of Aaron” people in Quran is found Christian legend of temple. Quran makes Mary of Christian apocrypha and Bible. But in Mary’s time there were no Christians. So he needs to give source. He gives scholar source but he’s against him. Contemporary scholars are against him. Like the other said its Mary of seven century not first century. It’s another historical problem.
If I remember correctly, Reynolds (The Qur’an and Its Biblical Subtext?) and other scholars have have argued that the idea of Mary sister of Aaron is probably not so much a statement of history, to be taken literally, but rather is an expression of literary typology. Perhaps someone can remember the correct references.
Yes, there’s some scholars who said that, but I don’t think dr. Reynolds is in agreement with them.
@ Marc C
In reference to ‘sister of Aaron’ as an expression of literary typology, refer to ‘The Islamic Jesus: How the King of the Jews Became a Prophet of the Muslims’, By Mustafa Akyol page 120-122 below:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=3xCxDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=Mustafa+Akyol+sister+of+aaron&source=bl&ots=8xk98B7-5I&sig=ACfU3U3_X1pAwVXhCOaXgwxpozs1wl8dfg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjtza6FlcLpAhX69nMBHW0MAAUQ6AEwB3oECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=Mustafa%20Akyol%20sister%20of%20aaron&f=false
Thank you for the reference Omar. I haven’t read Aykols book, do you recommend it?
It’s not a mistake. It’s simply an unhistorical legend, a made up story.
The Quran takes many unhistorical Christian legends as true stories. Tweaks them here and there and we got ourselves a nice story.
@ Bashar
I think there’s a mistake the Quran doesn’t take from Luke’s 3 “wise men” tale or “Night of the Innocents”.
Bashar: The Quran takes many unhistorical Christian legends as true stories. Tweaks them here and there and we got ourselves a nice story.
How come the Christians of Najran didn’t accuse the Quran of containing ‘unhistorical Christian legends’? How come early Christian polemics on Islam don’t say the Quran contains ‘unhistorical Christian legends’? How come contemporary Christian scholars of the Quran such as Sidney Griffith do not say the Quran contains ‘unhistorical Christian legends’?
Yes, there’s a mistake. There is no story in Luke or anywhere else in the Bible of “3 wise men”. But there is an unhistorical Christian legend in the Quran about Mary’s childhood and Jesus’ speaking from the craddle.
Yes there’s mistake. Sidney Griffth and other scholars do say there are unhistorical Christian legends in the Quran such as the cave and sleepers of pagan origins as a simple google search shows on page 116
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Qur_an_in_Its_Historical_Context.html?id=LKt8AgAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y
Ahh yes, the time-time honored apologetic approach of verbal abuse and deflecting to the Bible, when it is pointed out that an unhistorical Christian legend is included in the Quran according to a source I didn’t bring up to begin with but a Muslim did.
John 20:30 Therefore **many other signs** Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are **not written in this book**
Commentaries:
Rich Cathers – “Scholars have concluded that the gospels only record about 50 days of Jesus’ ministry in all the combined gospels. Yet Jesus’ total ministry of 3 ½ years comes to about 1080 days. That means that we only have record of 4.6% percent of Jesus’ ministry. Imagine the teaching, conversations, and ministry we’ve never heard about.”
Calvin – comments on many other signs – “If the Evangelist had not cautioned his readers by this observation, they might have supposed that he had left out none of the miracles which Christ had performed, and had given a full and complete account of all that happened. John, therefore, testifies, first, that he has only related some things out of a large number; not that the others were unworthy of being recorded, but because these were sufficient to edify faith”
Bashar: Bashar: Yes, there’s a mistake. There is no story in Luke or anywhere else in the Bible of “3 wise men”. But there is an unhistorical Christian legend in the Quran about Mary’s childhood and Jesus’ speaking from the craddle.
What is the historical account of Jesus’ childhood?
Bashar: Yes there’s mistake. Sidney Griffth and other scholars do say there are unhistorical Christian legends in the Quran such as the cave and sleepers of pagan origins as a simple google search shows on page 116
According to Griffith, the sleepers of the cave were a part of the ‘Syriac homiletic and liturgical tradition’. Looks like the Syriac Christians did take this story seriously.
Who care if they did. It”s a legend of pagan origin. Griffith says it’s a legend so you’re wrong.
I owned and have read Griffith book, “The Bible in Arabic: The Scriptures of the “People of the Book” in the Language of Islam”, I don’t think what Griffith meant when he refer to “legend”, that it did not happen.
Here is the quote from his book:
If some written/oral Aramaic/syriac tradition, which were similar with Quranic expressions, did not make into NT canon, it does not make it untrue according to Islam. We dont believe the canonisation of the NT in any way a divine commission.
Perhaps you also misunderstood what is a Legend. Encyclopaedia of Britannica define legend as
So a legend does not have to be fairy tale. And We see this as a supernatural / miraculous event (karamah) by God permission to show his wonders.
Bashar: Who care if they did.
Who cares what you think? You’re just some random internet troll.
@ Bashar
Oh wow, we have a bunch of ways to show you don’t know what you’re talking about, how exciting:
1. “There is no story in Luke or anywhere else in the Bible of “3 wise men”.
Oh well I’ll just leave this here (I will admit I made a mistake between both legendary tales and it was “Matt” (aka we don’t know who the heck this is))
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Magi
However “Luke” is just as unhistorical with his “censure of the whole world”
2. I am not familiar with any tale in the Quran of Mary’s childhood. I think you meant to say a story involving her mother when she was pregnant. Since you claim “borrowing” quote both text side by side.
3. Thank you for showing you didn’t read Griffth’s work:
A. He does NOT say the origin is pagan. So I believe that’s enough to show you don’t know what you’re talking about.
B. He states:
“The Qur’an does not borrow from, or often even quote from these earlier texts. Rather, it alludes to and evokes their stories, even sometimes their wording, for its own rhetorical purposes. The Arabic Qur’an, from a literary perspective, is something new. It uses the idiom, and sometimes the forms and structures, of earlier narratives in the composition of its own distinctive discourse. It cannot be reduced to any presumed sources.” (pg 116)
http://almuslih.com/Library/Reynolds,%20G%20(ed)%20-%20The%20Qur%E2%80%99%C4%81n%20in%20its%20Historical%20Context.pdf
C. What is your proof the story is “unhistorical” and what are you using to determine that?
D. We never claim to be “unique” so another story of a people involving God is no big deal to us. It would be no different than saying what happened with Abraham(as) or Noah(as).
Very exciting indeed. You already showed in a bunch of ways, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
1. There’s no story of “3 wise men” in Luke, Matthew or anywhere else in the Bible.
2 I said the legend is of pagan origin. Griffith says it’s a Christian legend. https://books.google.com/books?id=xd_iwgEACAAJ&pg=PA7&hl=da&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false page 132 and 133
3. Thank you for showing you didn’t read Griffth’s work. Here’s what he says on page 116 and 117:
“The legend of the “Companions of the Cave” or the “Sleepers of the Cave” is a good example of Christian lore current in the Syriac homiletic and liturgical tradition prior to the rise of Islam, to which the Qur’an alludes and portions of which the Qur’an includes in its own narrative for its own purposes, addressing its own Arabic-speaking audience who are presumed to be familiar with the details of the legend. For the present purpose it seems best first of all to recall the setting of the references to the legend of the “Companions of the Cave the Qur’an, then to discuss the forms in which it circulated among Christians in Syriac in pre-Islamic times, and presumably also in Christian Arabic folklore, and then to examine the recollection of the details of the legend as it survives in the earliest extant Syriac homiletic text which includes it.”
Hi Bashar, where is in the book that says seven sleepers is of pagan origin? I can not find it from your link.
From what Griffith book is it?
From these quote nothing indicate that Griffith believe “Sleepers of the Cave” was unhistorical or did not happen. He writes:
Im familiar with Griffith work, what he meant was the Qur’anic expression may have immediate Aramaic/Syriac background in Qur’an own milieu. It does mean it is unhistorical.
Hi Eric,
It’s on page 132 and 133. It was from a Greek myth.
Griffith, is from the article linked to.
When Griffith says: there are “Christian legends” to “…which the Qur’an alludes and portions of which the Qur’an includes in its own narrative…” i assume he means what he says. Christian legends are included in the Quran. This was the answer to KMAK. When someone says he takes it as a myth or a legend I assume he means it is unhistorical. Had he meant it was historical he would have said so and not called it legend.
Im afraid there is confusion on your part, nothing in page 132- 133 in the book you share , mentione 7 sleepers is of pagan origin.
It basically says: seven christians who suffer from persecution during pagan times.
No, a legend does not necessarily mean a unhistorical fairy tale, not especially in christian context as Griffith is subscribed to. Legends may describe history in fantastic terms including supernatural event but it does mean it did never happened.
@ Bashar
One of use DEFINITY doesn’t know what he’s talking about:
1. There’s no story of “3 wise men” in Luke, Matthew or anywhere else in the Bible.
Links with emphasis for the blind:
“The Bible story of the THREE WISE MEN, FROM THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, is also known as the biblical Magi or the Three Kings. This Bible story regards a group of scholarly foreigners who traveled to visit Jesus after his birth, bearing gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. ”
https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-stories/three-wise-men.html
“The THREE WISE MEN, also known as magi, were men belonging to various educated classes. ”
https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/what-were-names-three-wise-men
Magi, Kings, or Wise Men?
The Greek word μαγοι (mάgoi) is translated as “WISE MEN” in the NKJV, KJV, and ESV, while the NASB and NIV use the word magi. Originally, the word often referred to a class of Persian WISE MEN, and possibly priests, who were interpreters of special signs, particularly in astrology….
The book of Matthew contains the account of the WISE MEN:
Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, WISE MEN from the East came to Jerusalem, saying “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.” (Matthew 2:1–2)
The original meaning of mάgoi is likely in view here—wise men who interpreted special signs”
https://answersingenesis.org/holidays/christmas/we-three-kings/
It’s okay I know that must be embarrassing. But wait there’s more!
2. ” I said the legend is of pagan origin. Griffith says it’s a Christian legend.”
Oh so no scholarship said this just the recess of your butt. Got it. So because both stories mention people slept for a long time they are the same story lol? Even your source doesn’t make this link it told the story of one and said probably the best known similar story in the Western world of people sleeping is this. As noted I guess in your mind you think Rip Van Winkle is inspired by both tales as well. It’s okay just read slower next time so you don’t get confused.
3. Thank you for showing you didn’t read Griffth’s work.
No, I haven’t read it and never claimed to as it wasn’t my source you see? (Wow! I know!) As noted by Eric just because its miraculous event doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. This would again be no different than Moses(as) splitting the sea or Jesus(as) healing a leper.
@ Eric
Yeah I was hoping he didn’t misread that that’s why I said he must think that because there is a story somewhere about people falling asleep for a long time that means EVERY story of people falling a long time in sleep is inspired by it.
You’re so much fun. You responded presumptuously to me, that I don’t know what I’m talking about and all, and now you go all out of your way to not actually quote from the Bible itself? Why did you quote from every other source than the Bible itself? Is that because you have now once more been exposed as not knowing what you are talking about? Have you actually read the Bible that you make so many mistakes and not wanting to quote it?
First off, in Matthew and not in Luke is there a story of magi. Second, no number is given for the magi, but many believe there were a whole lot more of them. The tradition of the number three is from the three gifts given and comes from later interpretations. If you had studied just a tiny bit, you would have known. I don’t mind you don’t know about the Bible, but to respond so arrogantly is plain ole silly if you haven’t studied it.
Yep, the Christian seven sleepers legends probably developed slowly from Greek and other antique myths and legends. A legend is a legend and the Christian legend is included in the Quran just as Sydney Griffith said. KMAK found the right paragraph because he actually read the whole page and Griffith was his “source”, though he actually contradicted his claim. If you want to make such far out apologetic excuses that legend is fantastic history and that Griffith subscribes to this being historical have at it. I know, the academia world of Griffith is densely populated with scholars who believe and argue that legends such as the seven sleepers are historical.
Arrivederci signore e grazie
@Bahshar
I think you misrepresent Griffith position, as I said Im familiar with Griffith works, his main thesis was to resist the conclusion of some scholars that the presence of Biblical and traditional Christian material in the Qur’an is necessarily evidence of literary or oral borrowing. Griffith argues that the Qur’an content do not simply to repeat the Christian version. Rather it provides a thoroughly Islamic reflection on the miracle of the cave:
@ Bashar
Yes, this is quite entertaining:
1. “…now you go all out of your way to not actually quote from the Bible itself? Why did you quote from every other source than the Bible itself? Is that because you have now once more been exposed as not knowing what you are talking about? Have you actually read the Bible that you make so many mistakes and not wanting to quote it?”
My apologies I didn’t know this was the Bible as I said previously when quoting from the Answering Genesis link:
Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, WISE MEN from the East came to Jerusalem, saying “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.” (Matthew 2:1–2)
So now that we see you’re clearly suffering from dyslexia let’s continue:
2. “First off, in Matthew and not in Luke is there a story of magi. ”
Oh you mean like I alreay said I made a mistake in? Let’s me go ahead and repost to further demonstrate that dyslexia:
“Oh well I’ll just leave this here (I will admit I made a mistake between both legendary tales and it was “Matt” (aka we don’t know who the heck this is))
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Magi
So now that we’ve knocked that out the way
3. “Second, no number is given for the magi, but many believe there were a whole lot more of them. The tradition of the number three is from the three gifts given and comes from later interpretations. If you had studied just a tiny bit, you would have known. I don’t mind you don’t know about the Bible, but to respond so arrogantly is plain ole silly if you haven’t studied it.”
I’m not responsible for following every new invention your religion makes every couple of years. Simple questions, is the tale commonly known as the “Three Wise Men”? And did you know what was being referred to when I said it the first time?
4. “Yep, the Christian seven sleepers legends probably developed slowly from Greek and other antique myths and legends”
Once again where is the proof for this claim? I’m sorry to tell you but your butt is not a source. Again using this “logic” so did Rip Van Winkle. Again, almost none of the biblical text is “historical” and if you’d like to argue this show me a source other than the NT that:
A. Mentions Matt’s zombie parade
B. Has in Jewish Law that claiming to be the “Son of God” or the “Messiah” is blasphemy
C. Highway Robbers are crucified
You’re simply saying “I believe in this but…uh…yeah that must be a legend”, Again why can I not turn this around on Moses(as) splitting the sea or Jesus(as) resurrecting the dead then?
And the battle continues. And with battle I mean bashar is getting spanked.
Eric
I think that is misrepresentation as I never said the Quran simbly to repeat the Christian legend. Christian legend which the Quran includes are Griffith’s own words. Quoted above. And that still doesn’t change the fact the origin is a Christian legend now included in the Quran and completely unhistorical. The Christian legend included in the Quran was told it in their own “Islamicization’ way to fit what they wanted to say to their own people in their historical and geographical frame, just like Griffith says.
@ Bashar
“Ahh yes, the time-time honored apologetic approach of verbal abuse and deflecting to the Bible, when it is pointed out that an unhistorical Christian legend is included in the Quran according to a source I didn’t bring up to begin with but a Muslim did.”
Oh get over yourself. You have yet to prove anything as “unhistorical” other than you think (despite no evidence) that it developed from paganism. What are we supposed to “refute” you simply saying that a story is “unhistorical”? List your proofs that the story is and we can move on. Once again your butt does not decide the universe.
Ah yes, please supply us with more specimens of that fine language, rhetorical flourishes, artful and superb argumentation such as “Once again your butt does not decide the universe”.
So tell me why anybody should believe a Christian legend, now included in the Quran, found in various versions and forms before Islam, of people sleeping in a cave for hundreds of years and that nobody takes as historical? Do you have any historical evidence? Did the sleepers write down the story perhaps? Did they report the story so others wrote it from what they heard from their own mouths? Were their names recorded in a trustworthy manner and preserved in historical archives? Did they perhaps pass on physical objects such as clothes, shoes, purse, coins, personal items etc. we can examine?
@ Bashar
Well one has too find some way of entertainment when dealing with simpletons. Again why can I not apply this same standard to pretty much every Biblical story (that you take as “historical”) again? 🤔🤔🤔
@ Bashar
Oh and as I thougjt about how to prove how much bs you’re spewing. If I bring a mass attessted early source of Muhammad’s (saw) miracles would you accept that it happened? How eager I await your reply…
The historical evidence for the Christian legend will do as I asked, instead of deflecting all over the place.
@ Bashar
@ Bashar
Not deflecting you see? Why? The reason is:
1. If you use this criteria you’ve presented and I apply this to Muhammad’s (saw) miracles then we can conclude he is a prophet who spoke with God and so there’s the end to that. God said it and so I win.
2. If you say no, then we can conclude even if you had the information you requested you still would’ve made an excuse and not believed and were this arguing for the sake if arguing. And thus I win again.
So since its Eid I’ll defer to you in how would you like to give me “the w” today?😊😊😊
@ Bashar
Oh and silly ol me I forgot as you must’ve mentioned it why can’t apply your same standards to the Bible again? 🤔🤔🤔
Ah yes, once more that superb line of argumenation instead of answeing the questions and supplying the evidence requested.
“you still would’ve made an excuse and not believed and were this arguing for the sake if arguing. And thus I win again.”
If that helps you feel better, no problem.
@ Bashar
Oh well you wouldn’t have believed if you had the information and so there’s no point. And so with that being said, I believe you used some Italian earlier. Forgive me as I don’t speak the language but I can give your poor hypocritical argument my condolences in Latin:
Requiece in pace
Funny guy, insults others for being dyxlexic and then goes on to misspell a Latin phrase.
Deflecting to the Bible and tapdancing all around instead of anaweing a simple queestion.
@ Bashar
How clever it only took you a few days to finally come up with that huh.
PS
In my defense that was spell check.
Still doing the tapdance around?
How about answering the simble question?
@ Bashar
Why would I? You just said you still wouldn’t believe it if you had it. Don’t make much sense to do that to me.
Why do you keep the tap dance going instead of giving straight answers? There’s a Christian legend of sleepers included in the Quran. Just answer and the evidence for why anybody should believe this legend is historical instead of deflecting and not answering. Setting preconditions shows you’re afraid to answer. Simble answer and evidence will do.
@ Bashar
Again explain the logical reason to answer something that a person said they wouldn’t believe in regardless.
@ Bashar
Not interested sorry.
“Nobody takes as historical” is an oversimplification. Why is it and until today it is remembered in the calendars (August 4th and October 22nd) of the Latin, Syrian, Maronite, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian, and Orthodox churches?. Also we currently have just over two hundred manuscripts in which this story is retold (Jourdan, La tradition, p44) Western Modern scholars like A. Allgeier, I. Guidi, B. Heller, Th. Nöldeke, V. Ryssel, A. Krymski, M. Huber, P. Peeters and E. Honigmann etc., debates not on the historicity of the story but the origins of this information, whether it is Greek or Syriac.
Honigmann (Honigmann, Ernst. “Stephen of Ephesus and the Legend of the Seven Sleepers.” Patristic Studies (1953): 125-168) defended the possible historicity of the account of the Seven Sleepers with considerable ingenuity following the archaeological and literary evidence, he asserts that “the results of the archaeological investigations in the famous cave prove conclusively that the Ephesian legend must be based on some real historical event, the time as well as the place of which can be fixed with great exactness“
You give wrong impression of the scholars you by saying scholars “debates NOT on the historicity…” (“your emphasis”). The debate of those scholars is what was first Syriac or Greek story of the Christian legend. It’s a literary and language issue. Not the historicity of the Christian legend which obviously those scholars were incredulous: That’s exactly what Honigmann says fr where you:
“From the time of Cardinal Baronius to this day no credence has been given to this strange story; some critics spoke of ‘deception and forgery’ “.
You are not representing correctly too loose with the evidence. Honigmann from a grotto with Christian and pagan pottery that Christians connected with the legend of sleepers. At best this is evidence when where the legend began and some vague points of contact of historical background, but it doesn’t actually prove or say anything about the events. If you want to prove the historicity of such fantastic claims you need to present accurate evidence not vague. Also, Honigmann says it may be they tried to make others believe the story was true or it was accepted by “a high ecclesiastical dignitary, in a kind of enthusiastic self-deception” and the story. Even Honigmann’s speculative reconstruction is made many times from much later medieval Christian versions of the legend he is forced to conjecture with few evidence go back in time. And even with all his “ingenuity” according to Honigmann it is still a legend though he conjectures, there might be historical points that gave rise to the Christian legend which he attempts to isolate or lay bare.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Oa45KQy1aKkC&pg=PA229&dq=fleith+mise+en+doute+depuis+le+cardinal+baronius&hl=eng&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=fleith%20mise%20en%20doute%20depuis%20le%20&f=false
And still if one completely accepts everything speculations and conjectures in the literature, archaeology and history calculations from Honigmann it would come to more like 180-190 years not 309 like in the Quran. It doesn’t add up. Please stop misrepresenting sources as if they support Quran when they obviously don’t and a simble google search easily debunks.
Hi Bashar,
This exactly the point Not the historicity… not sure about “incredulous”, does not say it.
It is hard to keep up with you, can you write something more concise. Also I can not pull anything out from the link you presented. Is it a direct quote from Honigmann?
How can archaeologist could determine the exact time those sleepers in the cave?. But lets take those 180-190 years (can you give the source pls), something miraculous had happened thus it is not a ahistorical.
Thanks
@ Bashar
Nothing has been “debunked” as you:
1. have yet to prove the story “unhistorical”
2. are shown to use a hypocritical methodology
3. already stated no matter what you see you will not believe it.
The closest thing you have is the time and place where the legend was nvented maybe as a self delusion as political religious propaganda weapon..Even I grant everything it still contradicts the Quran because it is 184 years and not 309 years. Even with all this accepted. You need to come up with hypothesis from literature, history and arcaeology like Honinann that sipport what you say. So please give your proof so we can examine.
@ Bashar
I’m sorry is this directed at me or Eric?
You stew
Hi Eric,
You pulled from the website: “Modern scholars like A. Allgeier, I. Guidi, B. Heller, Th. Nöldeke, V. Ryssel, A. Krymski, M. Huber, P. Peeters and E. Honigmann etc., debates NOT (“your emphasis”) on the historicity of the story but the origins of this information, whether it is Greek or Syriac”. You give the wrong impression. All the scholars lived before or contemporaneously with Honigmann and took granted the legend is unhistorical. That’s the quote from Honigmann I linked to. That’s exactly what Honigmann says also in the website you pulled from: “From the time of Cardinal Baronius to this day no credence has been given to this strange story; some critics spoke of ‘deception and forgery’”.
Honingmann’s argument is to sebarate legend from history, so we can find how the legend arose using history, archaeology and literature. He is saying that in some time and place the legend claim of sleepers began to circulate maybe as pious political and religious self- deception or propaganda. Even if you accept everything Honigmann says, the claim that began to circulate was about 184 years connecting from the historical archaeological information and then contradicts the 309 in the Quran. That’s mentioned in the website I linked to and also in the website you pulled from.
I am sorry but I am confused, from website? which website?, link pls? I dont think I pulled any of those from any websites.
Sorry for the confusion again, but which is the link which says that ?
@ Bashar
I’m confused when did I say any of this?
That was directed to Eric, he said that. There’s something with the comment section. The comment to you is above.
To Eric
I’ll post the link though you go on claiming that
“I dont think I pulled any of those from any websites.“
As that was not the only thing you pulled from the website and there can be no doubt about it, let me get this clear so there are no excuses when I post the link . You did not pull list of scholars + plus other quotes stuff from the website but wrote that yourself? That’s why I said anybody find itwith simble google search.
“All the scholars lived before or contemporaneously with Honigmann and took granted the legend is unhistorical. That’s the quote from Honigmann I linked to”
“Sorry for the confusion again, but which is the link which says that ?”
I will post the link again and I was quoting Honigmann saying nobody in the period he gives believed historicity of the legend.
But before I post the link again, let me get it steaight. Do you question that too?
@ Bashar
Is this the post directed at me:
“The closest thing you have is the time and place where the legend was nvented maybe as a self delusion as political religious propaganda weapon..Even I grant everything it still contradicts the Quran because it is 184 years and not 309 years. Even with all this accepted. You need to come up with hypothesis from literature, history and arcaeology like Honinann that sipport what you say. So please give your proof so we can examine.”
When did I state any of this?
Still doin’ the tap dance? So your’e afraid to answer why we should believe a Christian legend now in the Quran? Just give the evidence why anybody should believe it’s historical and we will see if it makes sense.
@ Bashar
Not a tap dance it’s just stupid to do so. You just said even if you saw the info you wouldn’t believe it. So it would be dumb on my part to continue.
Still doing those tap dancing moves? Nobody ever said that. You were deflecting by going to something else. I just said stick to the Christian legend in the Quran we’re talking about. Stop doing the dance around and just give the evidence why anybody should believe the Christian legend in the Quran is historical and we’ll see if it makes sense.
@ Bashar
You just said even seeing the things you requested you’d still argue it doesn’t make sense.
I saw a hypothesis that if true only gives a background of time and place for the legend. Its likr saying there was a legend of st george and the dragon and the princess. Now you find the man was peter who lived in in a certain time and place, who had a fight with a bear he slayed And we say this is how the legend was came to be. And even we are generous and examine everything, granting they could sleep hundreds oy years, granting every conjecture to make it work Honingmann we still find only 184 years not 309 years. So please, you come up sith a new hypothesis of history literary texts, atcheology that support you.
Mary growing up in the temple, being miraculously fed by angels, the palm tree birth narrative, Jesus speaking from the cradle, … all these are late legends found in various late apocryphal Christian sources with virtually no historical credibility. Nothing of this stuff is found in the earliest historically reliable sources.
@ Giuolo
There are no “early reliable sources”. Also weren’t you banned (again)?
Dude you can believe what you like. But we know that historians reject the Quranic legends for historical Jesus studies for valid scientific reasons. This stuff is relevant in context of late antiquity, not the first century c.e.
@ Giulio rules
Okay then just list the “early reliable sources” to me as I’ve never heard of them before and would like to read them.
Your literalist inerrantist belief leaves you with egg on your face just like any Christian bible thumper
“Dude you can believe what you like. But we know that historians reject the Quranic legends for historical Jesus studies for valid scientific reasons. This stuff is relevant in context of late antiquity, not the first century c.e.”
exactly right. its no more about legends are history because nobody accepts this. its about how legends and stories were tweaked for late antiquity. like bannister says the jesus stuff in the quran makes jesus not a first century jew but a seventh century argument for islam.
Yep quranic legends as history is dead as a dodo in 21 century
@ Lance aka Giuolio
Still waiting for those “early reliable sources”
@ Giulio rules
Really, that was the best you got? So what are the “early reliable sources” Giulio that are leaving me embarrassed?
Knocking to see if the Ebola virus is home…
“Early sources”? Queue Jeopardy theme…
Stew, the virus doesn’t seem to be home. Leave a message at the beep. He’ll get back to you as soon as he finds something on Google that is to his liking.
@ QB
Oh okay that makes sense one sec
@ Giulio rules
(Beep)
Hey, Giulio a few days ago you said quote:
“Mary growing up in the temple, being miraculously fed by angels, the palm tree birth narrative, Jesus speaking from the cradle, … all these are late legends found in various late apocryphal Christian sources with virtually no historical credibility. Nothing of this stuff is found in the earliest historically reliable sources.”
As if you knew what you were talking about. So I asked what were the “early historical sources” you were claiming so the good people at home could see them and it’s starting to appear you weren’t aware the reality is we have at LEAST a 30 year “dark age” followed by a bunch of random religious propaganda from anonymous people who never met Jesus(as) so none of it is “early” or “reliable”. If you could hit me back for clarification about these “early reliable sources” you speak of, as I think you might have found a major archaeological discovery. Alright so just hit me up, later.
@ QB
Alright, I left something he’ll get back to us because I don’t think he’s realized what he’s discovered.
@ QB
Oh okay that makes sense. I’m having issues on the site though as I can’t leave posts on this page.
@stewjo004
Sorry you have been experiencing problems. For some reason WordPress kept deleting your comments 🙁
@ Lance Legends and Giulio
Hey, you guys know a really easy way to prove your point? Instead of riding each other so hard, there’s the danger of pulling a muscle, why don’t you list those “early reliable sources”. It’s starting to look like you both don’t know what you were talking about are just making claims.