In answer to the video "Jesus is The Messiah of The Muslims - Tawhid Dilemma Ep 14"
At the annunciation of Jesus' future birth in 3:45-9,19:16-21 (both suras speak of the same incident while relating different, complementary information) the angels, in a soft and eloquent manner, instead of directly dropping upon Mary the heavy information that she would conceive of a child, tell her that God gives her the good news of a statement from Himself, meaning that what will follow can only be great and positive, that statement being
"his name is al massih, Isa, son of Mary, honoured in this world and the hereafter, and he is among those brought near".
This delicate introduction, considerate to her emotions, not only made her understand through the designation "son of Mary", that she would be the one bearing the child, but also reassured her, uplifted her because of his lofty descriptions. The 3 appellations given do not necessarily imply that she would refer to him with all 3, and neither does it give a time frame for when each of those names will be used (at birth, during or after his life), rather that these will be names he will be designated by, in full or in part, whether by her or others, at some point in time.
The Quran, as is clear from the above wording, refers to his names, among them al massih. Although originally a title, Christ/massih, when applied to Jesus gradually became equivalent to his proper name, even when preceded by the definite article, and this is undisputed, since the Apostolic age and shortly after his supposed Resurrection, whether in modern or ancient usage, even in secular termminology. This is because the title meant little or nothing to the non-Jews who formed very early on after his death, the bulk of the Jesus movement. The familiar Christos to them, quickly morphed from a title into a name for the godman.
It is even a common last name nowadays, as is the case with "messiah". Although names in most Western languages are rarely preceded by the definite article, it is very common in Semitic languages (as with the Arabic al qurtubi, al ghazali, al hariri, al fayed, al jarrah etc), of which Jesus' Aramaic tongue was part of, to use it before a proper name
"One of the extraordinary features of Paul’s writings is that he uses the word “Christ” almost as though it were a proper name. As a Jew, Paul knew very well that the word was not a proper name, and that it was the Greek translation of “Messiah”, the Hebrew word meaning “anointed”. … The character and function of the Messiah were by no means as clearly defined as later Christian re-interpretation of the Jewish texts has led people to believe, but one thing is clear: the “Messiah” was selected by God to play a particular role in his plans for his chosen people Israel. It is often suggested that the way in which Paul uses the word “Christ” shows that it had very quickly taken on the character of a name, and that its original meaning had been forgotten. Strangely, Paul uses the word as a title rather than as a name only once – in Romans 9:5. Gentiles, it is argued, would not have understood the significance of the word. Perhaps not, but it is Paul who is writing and he certainly understood its significance! For the first Christians, who were all Jews, the term would have been full of meaning." (Morna Hooker – Professor Cambridge).
This means that very early on, it became detached from any theological meaning except within the Christian fold. Al massih was connected to his name, because he had a following that believed, just like with many presumed messiahs, that he would fulfill the requirements laid down in the HB. Because of the anticipation for a salvific figure to come soon, many interpreted his sayings and actions as qualifying him for the potential position. The difference however between Jesus and other messianic claimants, is that his following managed to survive long enough, eventually taking on the pagan institutions and pagan population, perpetuating the association between Jesus and his honorific messianic title in such a forceful way that not only did it become a proper name, but it became the first time that it was used as such upon someone.
As already noted the story of Jesus as a prophetic figure calling for repentence and Torah observance, issuing eschatological messages, was not a unique one in first-century Judaea. There were other prophetic religious figures from Galilee with a following before their arrest and/or execution by the Romans, among them John the Baptist. What made the Jesus sect stand out was Paul's focus on converting gentiles, preventing it from being just another Jewish sect. Torah observance was abandoned, Jesus became a divine messiah as a result of his necessary death. This is a typical reintepretative process that disillusioned followers of a charismatic leader go through after his passing. This allows them to keep their distinction from the larger group as well as credibility in the face of critics. Had they maintained the same original narrative (Torah observance, awaiting the ushering of the messianic end of times) it would make Jesus' death irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Worse, it would paint him as a failed messiah.
The Quran treats the title "al massih" as a name because it is an objective, historical reality. Further, the verse doesnt only say that his "name" is al massih, it continues with a first name and matronym. It is only then natural to assume, in the absence of explicit indication to the opposite, that the Quran is only refering to a proper name with "al massih/christ" just as "Isa" and "son of Mary" are proper names. As a side note, among the opinions quoted by al Qurtubi
"And it has been said that al-Maseeh is a proper name for ‘Eesaa which is not derived from anything; that Allah named him with it. So according to this, the name ‘Eesaa can be substituted for al-Maseeh just as ‘him’ and ‘him’ can substituted for one another"
No comments:
Post a Comment