In answer to the video "How Could Allah Give Mary A Son? Tawhid Dilemma Ep. 8"
On the surface, the Quran and the Bible agree on that part of Jesus' story. But in reality they dont because one narration comes from God and the other doesnt. Firstly in the Quran it says the RUH/the breeze, the immaterial entity sent by Allah, tamathala laha/lit. he transformed to Mary, as a well made human being. He then breathed into her part of his own self that she might conceive Isa 21:91.
Contrast this subtle Quranic wording with the crude depiction made in the NT of the holy ghost (a trinitarian deity) coming upon Mary and overshadowing her like a man getting ready to copulate Lk1:35.
Now we get to the crucial point, which is Jesus' given matronym "son of Mary". Although others in the Bible were referred to with matronyms such as Shamgar son of Anath, "son of Mary" isnt a known name in the Christian world, while it is in the Muslim world. The Gospel writers had no interest in tracing Jesus' genealogy through Mary since it goes against Jewish law. Secondly, their object was to fulfill the HB's tribal requirements for the messiah. To that end they invented 2 (conflicting) genealogies through an adoptive father, Joseph. Jesus was thus described with the patronym "son of Joseph".
In the process, they made flaws in both genealogies cancelling any legitimate claims to the throne of the King Messiah (see the Jeconia curse, among other blunders).
The Quranic matronym "son of Mary" carried several deep implications, besides being simply an appellation. In 3:45 the angels give Mary the news that she will soon conceive of a child. This information in itself doesnt indicate anything special, unless it was given to a barren old lady with an equally barren old husband, as in Sara's case who was consequently incredulous at the angelic declaration 11:71-3. Mary would have naturally understood she would conceive in a normal way and there wouldnt have been any reason for her to be surprised at the news 3:47,19:20-1. But by adding the information that the future child will be named "son of Mary", among other names, the angels were telling her he would be born without the agency of a father, in a miraculous way. In semitic tradition a person was identified by the father's name so nothing could have been more striking in the psyche of a woman of the time to be told that her son will not be identified by his affiliation to a male, but to a woman.
This miraculous conception is a sign not only Jesus would be known by, but also his mother and the name "son of Mary" implies exactly that; she would jointly share this sign with him forever as both of their names will be mentioned together
23:50,21:91"and made her and her son a sign for the worlds".Jesus as well as his mother were chosen to be made jointly, "A" single sign of the power of the Maker and Creator over all things. So from a Quranic perspective, that miracle equally sets Mary and Jesus apart from humanity. Before discussing the implications of this sign, it is worthwhile noting that by honoring Mary in such a way and joining her name to that of one of the most illustrious individuals to have walked the earth, God has defeated in His final revelation and until the resurrection, the slanderous talk of some among her contemporaries and those that followed, who wanted to put a stain on her and abase her.
As regards the sign, it consists in demonstrating how the resurrection of bodies isnt a difficult task to God. We deem it impossible for a female to give life without the necessary biological process yet God did it, so just as He easily creates life in conditions we think are impossible then similarly He is able to bring the dead back to life even if the conditions make it unfeasable from our perspective. The rejection of the concept of resurrection by many Jews of the time adds to the relevancy of that miracle. One can even argue that Jesus was given the greatest evidence for resurrection among God's prophets who all equally stressed the importance of that tenet to their people.
This is because Jesus is the only explicit case in the prophetic history where a human's birth did not result from mating. The Quran doesnt even state that Adam was born in such a way, ie that he was not the result of sexual reproduction.
Other miraculous births are recorded in the Quran, including around the time of Jesus as was the case for the prophet John/Yahya. But they primarily served the purpose of a reward and were not meant to be disclosed and shared openly other than within the circle of the people concerned. Jesus' birth not only was different than all others in its prominence because as already said, intercourse between a man and a woman did not even precede it, but also because it was primarily meant as a sign for all of humanity. As a testimony to this, the Quran uses a linguistic subtlety, showing again and again how it uses words surgically in order to maximize the impact. There is a slight different wording between God's answer to Mary
3:47"Even so Allah creates what he pleases"and to Zakariya
3:40"Even so does Allah whatsoever He pleases".The nuance -creates vs does- lies in that the miracle of a child born of a virgin is definitely more striking than a child born to a couple, even if barren. It must be kept in mind the Quran was recited in the form of speech, publicly and instantly as it came to the prophet, with no chance a re-editing and modifying, and the 2 verses are very closely located. How would one, let alone a known illiterate without any background in poetry or any form of oral eloquent speeches, instantly and naturally make such a distinction in a flowing discourse?
The NT writers firstly wanted Jesus to be traced up to King David to fulfill the criteria for the Messiah's lineage. But Jesus had no father as both the Bible and Quran agree, hence the introduction of an adoptive father, Joseph. Now Jesus had to be known under the patronym "son of Joseph" in his community, instead of "son of Mary" as affirmed in the Quran. In addition to providing a fabricated lineage, they were now, in their eyes, "protecting" Mary's public image and that of Jesus. She was now engaged before her pregnancy and married when she delivered, not, as the Quran says, completely alone when she met God's messenger, as well as all throughout her pregnancy, including when she secluded herself to deliver the baby.
According to the Greek writers, the virgin birth was a secret yet this particular miracle was, according to those same writers that base themselves on the infamous mistranslation of Isa7:14 in the Greek Septuagint, one of the most crucial fulfilments of HB prophecies. This "secret" virgin birth supposedly was among the signs the Israelites had to know from the very beginning to identify the awaited savior
Isa7:14,Matt1:22"All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel".It is no surprise that in his purported letters, Ignatius the bishop of Antioch and supposed disciple of the apostles declares that Mary's virginity and child bearing were secrets only made known to the world through a "star".
This is not to mention the cultural ignorance of the non-Jewish Greek writer who penned the story.
A Hebrew wedding is celebrated in two parts. In ancient times, the interval between the two ceremonies could take up to several weeks in order to allow time for the new home to be arranged. But to avoid secret encounters between the newly wedds who could not hold their urge to come together, the wedding ie the second ceremony was arranged at the earliest possible opportunity. It is clear from Deut22:23 that a girl described as "betrothed" to a husband already has the status of a legally married woman which is why a newly-married couple normally consummate their union immediately after their betrothal ceremony to complete it and make it legally valid and binding. This makes it all the more absurd to paint Mary as "bethroted" prior to her pregnancy.
The fact is that this non-existent virgin birth prophecy of the HB was inserted into the NT narrative retrospectively. From a theological viewpoint, Christians needed to solve the problem of having the perfect, sinless human sacrifice born of a human mother, while all humans are sinful in nature and that they pass on that depravity to their progeny. They thus neglected and forgot the true purpose of that miracle, and assumed that the object of the virgin birth was to guarantee Jesus would be born without the inevitable sinful stain. Back in these times people didnt know that women contribute just as much if not a bit more (in terms of genetic material) to the formation of a baby than men did. And so by believing that women were a mere passive vessel, in the absence of a human father Jesus would necessarily be free of original sin. The particularities of Yahya/John and Jesus' births, do not make any of them different or special than other human beings in terms of their physical nature. Neither were these miraculous circumstances necessary to accommodate the false notions retrospectively applied to them. For example Jesus did not need to come from a virgin to circumvent human depravity, something Jesus never even spoke of. Neither did Jesus need to combine the immaterial/RUH of Allah, with the material/human mother so as to assume his dual human/divine nature. All humanity has exactly this same dual aspect as Jesus, without any of us being divine.
Jesus had to be known, according to the NT writers themselves, as special since the very beginning, yet not only was the virgin birth obscured to the people through the absurd introduction of a husband but the NT also repeatedly says how the young Jesus was completely unknown in any particular way prior to his ministry in adulthood, see Matt13 for example.
The absurdity doesnt end here, the same NT that tells us his people knew nothing special about him prior to his ministry also tells us of all the wonderful signs and wonders surrounding his first moments as an infant, the celestial signs that prompted both friends and foes to look for him even from outside Palestine, people such as the Magi coming "from the east" to worship the newly born "king of the Jews". Signs of the messiah's impending rise were supposedly so obvious that king Herod, fearing for his throne, began slaughtering all male infants born in Bethleem at that particular time. Mary was prompted to flee with her son to Nazareth to hide and protect him Matt2.
Part of the NT establishes the fact that it was well known in and outside Palestine that the awaited savior had come, and countless people identified him with Jesus since his youngest days. Elizabeth for instance refers to Mary as "mother of my Lord" as she saw her pregnant Lk1. Shepherds, informed by the angels, rushed to Bethleem to see the newly born messiah. After confirmation
Lk2:17"they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them".Anna, the daughter of Penuel as well as Simeon recognized in the newly born Jesus the awaited savior and told others about him Lk2. Both rabbis and laymen at the Temple were astonished at the child Jesus' display of wisdom and knowledge. And yet we read elsewhere that nobody knew of the virgin birth miracle, neither was Jesus known as anything special prior to adulthood.
This last incident at the Temple is preceded by the improbable scenario of Jesus' parents travelling from Jerusalem where they had attended Passover, back to their hometown of Nazareth and only noticing after a day's walk that the little Jesus had been left behind. So they return to Jerusalem, and only find him after 3 days search. Astoundingly, the NT writers also paint Mary and Joseph, the very ones who witnessed first hand the virgin birth, as completely ignorant of what Jesus meant when he stated that he
"must be concerned with the affairs of my Father".Jesus made that statement in response to Mary's scolding him because of his disappearance Lk2:42-50. Did Mary and Joseph suddenly forget all the miraculous signs and fame surrounding his infancy just 12 years after his birth, as if they had never heard of them and their obvious implications as regards his identity? In another context, Mary, who gave birth to him miraculously, and his brothers James and Jude even thought he had gone mad Mk3.
The Quran, far from copying the above NT absurdities, says the virgin birth was a miracle made known to all. It would be foolish to provide a miracle of virgin birth, while the woman supposed to carry the child is married. For an unmarried woman, in addition known for her piety and chastity, to show up with her own baby would immediately attract the eyes of an entire community upon her, maximizing the impact of the absolving speech of the infant Jesus at once, as vividly and eloquently described in sura Maryam. None would have spontaneously came to her had she been married prior, nobody would have inquired because there would have been no scandal of a woman dedicated to worship in God's temple suddenly showing up with a child.
According to the NT depiction, the married Mary now has to prove the virgin birth miracle by going out of her way and pleading repeatedly to the unsuspecting community. It would have been inefficient and debasing. In the Quranic version of the story, the blessed Mary did not need to utter a single word to defend her innocence, preserving her honor and avoiding her the difficulty of having to argue and dispute with a crowd, and neither did the child need to be overexposed so as to repeat his speech senselessly.
The protection of the virgin birth reaches such an extent in the Quran and in such eloquent and intricate details, that whenever Jesus is quoted as addressing the Israelites, he does not once call them "my people" or "my nation" as other Israelite prophets like Moses are quoted as saying in the Quran. Jesus always calls them "Bani Israel" because they, contrary to him, could trace their lineage up to Israel from their fathers, which wasnt his case. Jesus had no worldly father, neither one involved in his conception, nor the made up one of the NT whom the writers needed to create a messianic lineage.
Son of Mary is an appelation used by those that testify to the miraculous circumstances of Jesus' birth, contrary to those calling him by the patronym of the NT.
While the Quran does agree on certain points with the NT just as it does with the HB in other instances the Quran corrects the errors that have crept into these Books and further adds unknown, obscured or forgotten information. If Muhammad was copying from them, then one has to explain how the very subtle differences, which are loaded with meaning, let alone the major differences are there in the Quran.
No comments:
Post a Comment