| 词条 | The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran |
| 释义 |
| name = The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran | title_orig = Die Syro-Aramäische Lesart des Koran | translator = | image = SyrioAramaicReadingOfTheKoran.jpg | caption = | author = Christoph Luxenberg | illustrator = | cover_artist = | country = Germany | language = English | subject = Qur'anic studies | genre = Non-fiction | publisher = Hans Schiler Publishers | release_date = 1 May 2007 | media_type = Print (Hardcover) | pages = 352 | isbn = 3-89930-088-2 | dewey= 297.1/22 22 | congress= PJ6696 .L8913 2007 | oclc= 124038162 }} The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran: A Contribution to the Decoding of the Language of the Koran is an English-language edition (2007) of Die syro-aramäische Lesart des Koran: Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Koransprache (2000) by Christoph Luxenberg. The thesis of the book is that the text of the Quran was substantially derived from Syriac Christian liturgy, arguing that many "obscure" portions become clear when they are back-translated and interpreted as Syriacisms. While noticeable Syro-Aramaic influence on the language of the Quran is taken as undisputed in this work, Luxenberg's thesis goes beyond mainstream scholarly consensus and was widely received with skepticism in reviews. ThesisThe work advances the thesis that critical sections of the Quran have been misread by generations of readers and Muslim and Western scholars, who consider Classical Arabic the language of the Quran. Luxenberg's analysis suggests that the prevalent Syro-Aramaic language up to the seventh century formed a stronger etymological basis for its meaning.[1] {{quote|Contrary to the earlier assumption of a dialect of Arabic spoken in Mecca, the present study has shown that, insofar as the Arabic tradition has identified the language of the Koran with that of the Quraysh, the inhabitants of Mecca, this language must instead have been an Aramaic-Arabic hybrid language. It is not just the findings of this study that have led to this insight. Namely, in the framework of this study an examination of a series of hadith (sayings of the Prophet) has identified Aramaisms that had either been misinterpreted or were inexplicable from the point of view of Arabic. This would lead one to assume that Mecca was originally an Aramaic settlement. Confirmation of this would come from the name Mecca (Macca) itself, which one has not been able to explain etymologically on the basis of Arabic. But if we take the Syro-Aramaic root Km (ma, actually makk) (lower, to be low) as a basis, we get the adjective akm (mäkkä) (masc.), atkm (mäkktä) (fem.), with the meaning of "(the) lower (one).{{sfn|Luxenberg|2007|p=327}}}}A notable trait of early written Arabic was that it lacked vowel signs and diacritics which would later distinguish e.g. ب, ت, ن, ي, and thus was prone to mispronunciation. Arabic diacritics were added around the turn of the eighth century on orders of al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, governor of Iraq (694–714).{{cn|date=May 2017}}. Luxenberg claimed that the Quran "contains much ambiguous and even inexplicable language." He asserts that even Muslim scholars find some passages difficult to parse and have written reams of Quranic commentary attempting to explain these passages. However, the assumption behind their endeavours has always been, according to him, that any difficult passage is true, meaningful, and pure Arabic, and that it can be deciphered with the tools of traditional Muslim scholarship. Luxenberg accuses Western academic scholars of the Qur'an of taking a timid and imitative approach, relying too heavily on the work of Muslim scholars. The book's thesis is that the Quran was not originally written exclusively in Arabic but in a mixture with Syriac, the dominant spoken and written language in the Arabian peninsula through the eighth century. {{quote|What is meant by Syro-Aramaic (actually Syriac) is the branch of Aramaic in the Near East originally spoken in Edessa and the surrounding area in Northwest Mesopotamia and predominant as a written language from Christianization to the origin of the Koran. For more than a millennium Aramaic was the lingua franca in the entire Middle Eastern region before being gradually displaced by Arabic beginning in the 7th century.{{sfn|Luxenberg|2007|p=9}}}}Luxenberg remarked that scholars must start afresh, ignore the old Islamic commentaries, and use only the latest in linguistic and historical methods. Hence, if a particular Quranic word or phrase seems "meaningless" in Arabic, or can be given meaning only by tortuous conjectures, it makes sense – he argues – to look to Syriac as well as Arabic. Luxenberg also argues that the Quran is based on earlier texts, namely Syriac lectionaries used in Christian churches of Syria, and that it was the work of several generations who adapted these texts into the Quran we know today. His proposed methodology
"Plausibility", "judging" and "making sense" of single word involves looking at occurrences of the same word in more obvious Koranic passages, and looking at Aramaic apocryphal and liturgical texts, which were carried over almost verbatim into the Koran. Word analysisQuranAccording to Luxenberg, the word qur'an ("reading, lectionary") is a rendition of the Aramaic word qeryan-a, a book of liturgical readings, i.e. the term for a Syriac lectionary, with hymns and Biblical extracts, created for use in Christian services. Luxenburg cites the suggestion by Theodor Nöldeke "that the term Qorān is not an inner-Arabic development out of the synonymous infinitive, but a borrowing from that Syriac word with a simultaneous assimilation of the type fuʿlān."[3] HuriThe word houri, universally interpreted by scholars as white-eyed virgins (who will serve the faithful in Paradise; Qur'an 44:54, 52:20, 55:72, 56:22) means, according to Luxenberg, white grapes or raisins. He says that many Christian descriptions of Paradise describe it as abounding in pure white grapes. This sparked much ridicule and insult from the Western press who allege that "suicide bombers would be expecting beautiful women and getting grapes."[4] KhatamThe passage in surat al-Ahzab that has usually been translated as "seal of the prophets" means, according to Luxenberg, "witness". By this reading, Muhammad is not the last of the prophets, but a witness to those prophets who came before him. Aya analysisThe Quranic passage in surat an-Nur, 31 is traditionally translated as saying that women "should draw their veils over their bosoms" (Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translation, Text, Translation and Commentary).[https://web.archive.org/web/20081208035237/http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/024.qmt.html] It has been interpreted as a command for women to cover themselves, and is used in support of hijab. In Luxenberg's Syro-Aramaic reading, the verse instead commands women to "snap their belts around their waists." Luxenberg argues that this is a much more plausible reading than the Arabic one. The belt was a sign of chastity in the Christian world. Also, Jesus puts on an apron before he washes the disciples' feet at the last supper.[5] ReceptionLuxenberg's book has been reviewed by Blois (2003),[6] Neuwirth (2003)[7] and following the English translation by King (2009) [8] and Saleh (2011).[2]The most detailed scholarly review is by Daniel King, a Syriacist at the University of Cardiff, who endorses some of Luxenberg's emendations and readings and cites other scholars who have done the same, but concludes: {{quote|Luxenberg's meta-theory of Qur'ānic origins is not proved by the evidence he sets forth in this book. That certain of the Qur'ān's expressions and words (as well as broader ideas and themes) are of Christian origin is well founded, and should in general be sufficient to explain the data presented here without needing recourse to either of the two more radical theories he espouses, namely that the Qur’ān was in origin no more than a Christian lectionary, and that the language which it is written is an 'Aramaic-Arabic hybrid'. More must be offered to convince anybody as to the mechanisms by which such a strong cultural and linguistic contact could have occurred.[9]}}{{dead link|date=December 2018}}The conclusion of King's article summarizes the most prominent reviews of Luxenberg's work that have been published by other scholars. The Quran is "the translation of a Syriac text," is how Angelika Neuwirth describes Luxenberg's thesis – "The general thesis underlying his entire book thus is that the Quran is a corpus of translations and paraphrases of original Syriac texts recited in church services as elements of a lectionary." She considers it as "an extremely pretentious hypothesis which is unfortunately relying on rather modest foundations." Neuwirth points out that Luxenberg doesn't consider the previous work in Quran studies, but "limits himself to a very mechanistic, positivist linguistic method without caring for theoretical considerations developed in modern linguistics."[7] Blois (2003) is particularly scathing, describing the book as "not a work of scholarship but of dilettantism" and concluding that Luxenburg's "grasp of Syriac is limited to knowledge of dictionaries and in his Arabic he makes mistakes that are typical for the Arabs of the Middle East."[6] Saleh (2011) describes Luxenberg's method as "so idiosyncratic, so inconsistent, that it is simply impossible to keep his line of argument straight."[2]{{rp|51}} He adds that according to Luxenberg, for the last two hundred years, Western scholars "have totally misread the Qur'ān" and that, ad hominem, no one can understand the Qur'an as "Only he can fret out for us the Syrian skeleton of this text."[2]{{rp|56}} Summing up his assessment of Luxenberg's method, he states: {{quote|The first fundamental premise of his approach, that the Qur'ān is a Syriac text, is the easiest to refute on linguistic evidence. Nothing in the Qur'ān is Syriac, even the Syriac borrowed terms are Arabic, in so far as they now Arabized and used inside an Arabic linguistic medium. Luxenberg is pushing the etymological fallacy to its natural conclusion. The Qur'ān not only is borrowing words according to Luxenberg, it is speaking a gibberish language.[2]{{rp|55}}[10]}}Saleh further attests[2]{{rp|47}} that Luxenberg does not follow his own proposed rules.[11] Richard Kroes in a review on Livius.org{{year needed|date=February 2016}} describes him as "unaware of much of the other literature on the subject" and that "quite a few of his theories are doubtful and motivated too much by a Christian apologetic agenda."[12] Patricia Crone, professor of Islamic history at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, in a 2008 article at opendemocracy.net refers to Luxenberg's work as "open to so many scholarly objections" and "notably amateurism".[13]References1. ^{{cite news|last1=Stille|first1=Alexander|title=Scholars Are Quietly Offering New Theories of the Koran|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/02/arts/scholars-are-quietly-offering-new-theories-of-the-koran.html|work=The New York Times|date=2 March 2002}} 2. ^1 2 3 4 5 Walid Saleh, The Etymological Fallacy and Quranic Studies: Muhammad, Paradise, and Late Antiquity in: The Qur’an in Context, ed. Angelika Neuwirth, Brill (2011). 3. ^Theodor Nöldeke, Geschichte des Qorâns (1860), cited in Luxemburg (2007), p. 70. 4. ^{{cite news|title=Virgins? What virgins?|publisher=The Guardian|date=2002-01-12|url=https://www.theguardian.com/saturday_review/story/0,,631332,00.html }} 5. ^The Virgins and the Grapes: the Christian Origins of the Koran {{Webarchive|url=https://swap.stanford.edu/20090417191145/http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=7025&eng=y |date=2009-04-17 }} 6. ^1 Review by François de Blois Journal of Qur'anic Studies, 2003, Volume V, Issue 1, pp. 92-97. 7. ^1 "Qur'an and History - A Disputed Relationship. Some Reflections on Qur'anic History and History in the Qur'an", Journal of Qur'anic Studies, 2003, Volume V, Issue I, pp. 1-18 (excerpts at islamic-awareness.org) 8. ^{{Cite web|title = King, Daniel "A Christian Qur'an? A Study in the Syriac Background of the Qur'an as Presented in the Work of Christoph Luxenberg," JLARC 3, 44-71 (2009)|url = http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/share/research/centres/clarc/jlarc/contents/King%2520A%2520Christian%2520Qur%2527an.pdf|website = School of History, Archaeology and Religion|accessdate = 2015-12-17}} 9. ^{{cite journal|last1=King|first1=Daniel|title=A Christian Qur’ān? A Study in the Syriac background to the language of the Qur’ān as presented in the work of Christoph Luxenberg|journal=Journal for Late Antique Religion and Culture|date=2009|volume=3|page=71|url=https://publications.cardiffuniversitypress.org/index.php/JLARC/article/view/132/130}} 10. ^(Italics in source) 11. ^Saleh additionally states that "The etymology of a word is a poor indication of what it means in a new context." He refers to Paul V. Mankowski's Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew (Winona Lakes: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 1–13 and quotes M O'Conor's article "The Arabic Loanwords in Nabatean Aramaic" JNES 45 (1986), 215: "[T]he fundamental difficulty of all intra-Semitic language study: there is a common stratum of vocabulary and grammatical structure which makes it impossible to assign many words and formants to a particular language. Op cit, p. 55. 12. ^{{cite news|author=Richard Kroes|title=Missionary, dilettante or visionary?|publisher=Livius.org |url=http://www.livius.org/opinion/Luxenberg.htm }}{{year needed|date=February 2016}} 13. ^{{cite web | last = Crone | first = Patricia | title = What do we actually know about Mohammed? | url=http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed_3866.jsp | accessdate = 2009-03-27 | date = 31 August 2006 }} Bibliography
External linksAcademic press
Popular press
2 : Quranic studies|Islamic studies books |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。