Christoph Luxenberg

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christoph Luxenberg is the pseudonym of a German-speaking Koran researcher whose identity is still unknown today (as of 2017). According to Luxenberg, he uses a pseudonym "because every academic textual criticism of the Koran also means a criticism of the political language used in Islamic countries".

background

Under the pseudonym, a treatise was published in German in 2000 with the title The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran - A Contribution to Deciphering the Koran Language , which was, among other things, supported by reviews in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung (2001) and the Zeit (2003) became known to the wider public. According to the preface, the work is the publication of a "fraction [s] of extensive investigations into the language of the Koran" and is intended to provide research with "impetus for an initial discussion of the methods and the resulting interpretations of the Koran text".

With his research approach, Luxenberg is a representative of the “ Saarbrücker Schule ”, which in turn is part of the revisionist school of Islamic studies , which largely propagates and applies the historical-critical method , the standard scientific method for analyzing historical texts.

The book

Luxenberg's study sees itself formally as a philological investigation that proceeds from the linguistic-historical approach and edits the Koran text with text-critical methods. In the discussion about the oral and written form of the early Koran tradition, Luxenberg assumes, in contrast to the traditional Islamic view, a lack of continuity in the oral part. Since Luxenberg starts from the fact that the early Koran manuscripts dispensed with both the diacritical points for the exact differentiation of the consonants (see Rasm ) and the vowel signs (see Arabic alphabet ), he assumes a misreading of numerous originally Aramaic (more precisely: Syriac ) Expressions expressed by later exegetes who no longer recognized them as such and who lacked the oral corrective. Consequently, it is a historical error to assume that the subsequent punctuation of the text is based on a reliable oral tradition.

Luxenberg assumes that potential transcription errors such as omissions, additions and reinterpretations, but also arbitrary or intended changes such as improvements and conclusions by analogy were made in these copies. As a result of these misreadings, according to Luxenberg, the many unclear passages in the Koran - the existence of which other scholars do not deny - were created. Using the following strictly heuristic working method, Luxenberg analyzes the Koranic text under a similar philological aspect as Alphonse Mingana at the beginning of the 20th century in order to arrive at a more conclusive understanding: Luxenberg first puts the Koranic text in its historical context; The text is based on the canonical version of the Cairo Koran edition from 1923/24. Then he looks for other semantic meanings of the Arabic expression (a), looks for a homonymous root in Syro-Aramaic or Syriac, the term is used inconsistently (b), undertakes a different reading of Arabic by changing the diacritical points (c), looks for another Aramaic root (d), translated back into Aramaic, looks for loan formations (e), consults Syrian-Arabic lexicons of the 10th century AD (f), reads real Arabic expressions according to the Syrian phonetic system (g) and decodes them via Syro-Aramaic syntax (h). When reading the manuscripts, Luxenberg basically follows lectio difficilior .

The Oriental indeed has long been fulfilling both Aramaic (language) as well as Christian, anti-trinitarian (content) influences on early Islam, but follows usually the core of the later Islamic representation of the Koran origins: it was said that the Koran in high Arabic by the prophet Mohammed, to whom the suras according to Islamic understanding had previously been revealed by God. Luxenberg, on the other hand, points out that according to the current state of knowledge, there was no Arabic literary language in the early 7th century ( only a few Arabic inscriptions in very simple language are available from late antiquity ), and instead assumes a Garschuni version of the Koran from, ie a template that was written in Syriac script in a very strongly Syro-Aramaic influenced Arabic. Luxenberg derives the Arabic word qur'ān  /قرآنvia a sound ascribed to the Prophet Mohammed qɘryān  /قرينfrom Aramaic qɘryānā ' lectionary ' and equates the Bible of the Syrian-Aramaic Christians with that "scripture" to which the Koran makes various references - just as the late antique lectionaries of the Christian churches refer to the Bible without identifying with it be.

Luxenberg therefore regards the assumption that the Koran was created in a unique act of creation or revelation through divine inspiration as a "historical error". Rather, the Koran itself testifies that certain parts are nothing more than the collection and transfer of older Christian (including Jewish) liturgical texts. Only through later revisions did this text become the High Arabic Koran, which still contains numerous traces of the Syro-Arabic Christian script. However, these were misunderstood and reinterpreted after their origins had been forgotten.

Luxenberg has elaborated his theses in contributions to anthologies on the beginnings of Islam, which he published together with Karl-Heinz Ohlig (see literature).

Some reinterpretations of the Koran

Luxenberg's approach led him to a number of his own interpretations of Quranic verses and suras:

  • He traces the word Koran back to the Syrian expression qeryana , which in the Christian liturgy denotes a lectionary , i.e. instructions for liturgy and sermon. The thesis is, as I said, that the core of the Koran goes back to the partly misunderstood translation of such a Syrian, Christian and anti-Trinitarian lesson, which contained hymns and excerpts from the Bible. This lesson had been translated into Arabic for the purposes of the mission . Precisely because of the similarity between the two Semitic languages ​​Syrian and Arabic, there were errors and misunderstandings, since similar and related expressions do not always mean the same thing. These were often retained when the text was later smoothed out and converted into a more elegant Arabic.
  • The Koranic phrase " hūr (in) ʿīn (in) ", which undoubtedly means only something like "white, eyed", but according to traditional Islamic interpretation refers to "white-eyed virgins" who are available to the believers in paradise (Koran 44 : 54, 52:20, 55:72, 56:22), according to Luxenberg actually means “white, jewel-like”, which is a common poetic reference to grapes in Syriac. In these passages, the Qur'an actually takes up the Christian idea of ​​paradise that has been familiar for centuries. There is therefore no mention of virgins anywhere.
  • Verse 31 of Sura 24 ( an-Nur ) forms the Koranic basis in Islam for the headscarf requirement for women. Literally the passage means: "They [the women] should beat their chumur (sing. Chimar خمار / ḫimār ) over their pockets", whereby the actual meaning of the chumur is unclear, but traditional, for example in the Qur'an commentary of the Tabari (around 900 AD). Chr.), Is understood as a headscarf. Paret translates as "they should pull their scarf over the slit (of the dress) that goes down from the neckline". Luxenberg, on the other hand, interprets chumur as a Syrian-Aramaic word meaning belt and interprets the passage as "they should tie a belt around their loins".
  • The passage in sura 33 ( al-Ahzab ), which speaks of a "seal of the prophets" and is traditionally related to Mohammed, does not understand Luxenberg in the traditional sense that "seal of the prophets" is the last prophet, but that it is the last who "seals" the truth of the prophets before him.
  • Sura 97 ( Al-Qadr ), which, according to traditional interpretation, relates to the night of the sending of the Koran, according to Luxenberg - as well as according to the Christian Bahira legend and according to the opinion of Richard Bell and Günter Lüling  - actually refers to the birth of Jesus at christmas .
  • In Sura 19 ( Maryam , Mariensurah), verse 24 is traditionally understood as follows: “He called to her from below: Do not be sad! Your Lord has made a trickle (sarie) (full of water) under you ”(translation by Paret). The meaning of the trickle (or the little brook) caused great difficulties for Islamic commentators of the Middle Ages. Luxenberg, on the other hand, reads here based on Syriac: "Immediately after her confinement he called out to her: 'Don't be sad: your master made your confinement legitimate'".

Academic reception of the Syro-Aramaic reading of the Koran

Although the public attention that Luxenberg's claims had attracted provided the impetus for further research in this direction, the work as such, the hypotheses it reveals and the methodology behind it has for the most part been rejected by the professional community. The main focus of the objections to Luxenberg's assertions is the accusation that Luxenberg's reading largely does not ensure a better understanding of the respective verses or terms; that the presentation for the theses brought out therein fades out fundamental historical and sociolinguistic aspects and discussions; that the work does not know how to deal with any questions resulting from the hypotheses it has put forward; that the author lacks an essential philological approach, d. This means that the relevant specialist literature is largely ignored; that Luxenberg often makes drastic linguistic (besides formal) errors; and that Luxenberg, in his search for Syrian original meanings of Koranic-Arabic terms, ignores the origins of the respective words in other languages ​​(including Hebrew and Ethiopian). However, individual reviewers know that the Syro-Aramaic reading of the Koran also has positive aspects.

'Indignation' is the word that most readily describes the majority of reactions to Luxenberg's study on the part of scholars in Arabic and Islamic studies […] Luxenberg's audacity has ranked for three reasons primarily: he makes a radical proposal about the early history of Islam , he is not a professional scholar of Islam, and he emends the text of the Qur'an.

“ Outrage is the word that best describes the majority of reactions to Luxenberg's work on the part of Arabic and Islamic studies […]. Luxenberg's audacity has caused a sensation [in the professional world] for three main reasons: He makes radical claims regarding early Islamic history, is not an expert on Islam, and tries to prepare the text of the Koran. "

- Devin J. Stewart

"For the most part [...] mainstream Koranic scholars have (understandably) continued their work with little more than the occasional glance toward the Luxenberg theory."

"In most cases [...] established scientists in the study of the Koran continued their work (understandably) without paying too much attention to Luxenberg's theory."

- Daniel King

While Corriente , for example, considers the person behind the pseudonym Christoph Luxenberg to be a specialist who is well versed in the respective scientific disciplines, de Blois, for example, assumes that this is indeed a dilettante who is not in proportion to the old Syrian as well as ancient Arabic language and doubts the academic suitability of the author for the intellectual endeavor brought about.

Angelika Neuwirth (2003)

Angelika Neuwirth - among other things, head of the Corpus Coranicum research project - sees Luxenberg's project as an "extremely arrogant hypothesis , which unfortunately is based on rather modest foundations." Luxenberg's methodology , which requires the factuality of this very claim to underpin his claim that the Koran was once Syriac , represent a circular argument. At the same time, the Syrian language (which is closely related to Arabic) has innumerable terms that would be analogous to the respective Arabic equivalent in terms of linguistic history - a fact that is often due to the close connection between the two languages ​​and from which not necessarily cultural Contacts could be inferred. Neuwirth criticizes Luxenberg's “ obsessive ” search for Syrian origins of Arabic terms on a linguistic basis, from which he also draws theological conclusions. In this context she refers to Luxenberg's conclusion that the Syrian qeryānā in the Arabic qurʾān  /قرآنnot just linguistically, but should prove the Syrian-Christian origins of the Koran. Furthermore, only a few of the examples listed by Luxenberg are actually worth mentioning. According to Neuwirth, Luxenberg was not interested in the language used in the Koran as a mixed language, as it would appear in the practice of the cult or as a specifically Meccan dialect: “[…] hybridity only serves [here] as a means of deconstructing the Qur'an in the sense of a true Holy Scripture or, in phenomenological terms, to dismantle the Holy Scriptures of Islam in the sense of a truthful reproduction of what its transmitter believes to have received from a supernatural source. ”Also ignore Luxenberg Parts of the Islamic scholarly discourse on Quranic issues - be it with reference to Jewish, pre-Islamic-polytheistic or Arabic-poetic influences - deal neither with religious-historical nor literary-scientific aspects of research into the Koran and are limited to a "very mechanistic - positivistic linguistic method or regardless of discussions developed in modern linguistics. Luxenberg's merit lies in the resurrection of the old question about the Syrian [basic] layer of the history of the Koran text [...] The task of a well-founded and reliable investigation of the Syrian components of the Koran has not yet been fulfilled. "

Claude Gilliot (2003)

According to Gilliot, Luxenberg's work was able to decipher numerous incomprehensible passages in the Koran. Among other things, he refers to his remarks on the 108th sura. (See below ) Although the detailed examination of the verses and terms dealt with by Luxenberg was ultimately the responsibility of research, this, as well as other examples, convinced Gilliot of the effectiveness and correctness of the approach presented.

Regarding the question of whether and to what extent Mohammed or his followers could have been in possession of Christian-Syrian documents, Gilliot emphasizes a traditional prophetic saying that Mohammed Zayd ibn Ṯābit (according to Islamic tradition the author of the codification of the Koran under the third caliph ʿUṯmān ibn ʿAffān ) had ordered to learn the Hebrew and Syrian languages ​​in order to be able to preach Islam to people outside the Arabian Peninsula. According to Gilliot, it is not far from the assumption that the Muslims could have been powerful in Syriac at the time the Koran was codified. Furthermore, Gilliot argues on the basis of a representation of the Mutazilite scholar Abu 'l-Qāsim al-Balsīs († 931) that Zayd was originally of Jewish faith and thus had access to the writings of the script owners. In conclusion, he notes in this connection the fact that Waraqa ibn Naufal - the cousin Ḫadīǧa bint Ḫuwaylids , the first wife of Muhammad - is also said to have been familiar with the holy writings of the Jews and Christians.

"Le Coran avant de devenir le texte que nous connaissons est passé par des avatars, y compris, en amont, par les informateurs de Mahomet, qui, à notre avis," reprennent de leur actualité "après le travail de Luxenberg"

“Before the Koran became the text we are familiar with, changes went through changes which, among other things, went back to the sources of Muhammad; Changes which, in our opinion, have become more explosive through Luxenberg's work. "

Federico Corriente (2014)

Federico Corriente (Semitist at the University of Saragossa ) considers Luxenberg to be a highly competent scientist with a “lively and provocative opinion”, whose attempt “a Syro-Aramaic reading of the Koran” is largely unsuccessful. The arguments presented by him on a philological basis could not displace the traditional viewpoints on the subject based on “solid historical and sociolinguistic data ”. Although his arguments are partly convincing, in the end his personal point of view and professional inclinations prevented him from delivering a balanced presentation that knows how to incorporate the existing scientific findings. Luxenberg seems to be an "undoubtedly experienced scholar" who is very familiar with the Syrian language and literature, has a remarkable knowledge of the Arabic language and is well versed in the scientific disciplines dealing with the Koran. But he disregards (according to Corriente possibly deliberately) historical facts with reference to the sociolinguistic situation of the ancient Islamic Arab world, as well as with regard to the history of the origins of Islam and the oral communication of Koranic content, as well as evidence from the comparative semistics from a “country that one Crossing of other Semitic as well as non-Semitic cultures was and "- contrary to the claims of Luxenberg - was" not only the backyard of Aramaic-speaking areas ". There is no reason to believe that a thoroughly Hejazi-Arabic dialect was not spoken in Hejaz in general, and in cities like Mecca in particular. Thus, one cannot assume that Mohammed did not speak the Arabic language and used it to convey the content of the Koran, whereby this also includes his (according to Corriente, mainly orally) contact with Christian monks on his pre-prophetic trade trips. In the context of the reliability of the oral transmission of the Koranic text, which would contrast Luxenberg's hypotheses, Corriente refers, among other things, to the oral preservation of poetic texts, for example, which was common in pre-Islamic times in the Arab cultural area at that time, which were also used to preserve and preach the Koran in one largely illiterate area was indispensable. This was also able to ensure that no linguistic changes in the recitation of the Holy Scriptures could have occurred. Luxenberg's attempt to undermine this oral tradition, including in the Koran, by making a drastic distinction between Koranic Arabic and the Arabic-poetic Koine , is in view of the substantial correspondence between the grammar and vocabulary of the Koranic-Arabic language and the language of pre-Islamic-Arabic Poetry untenable. Under these circumstances, it cannot be assumed that the Koran was created on a predominantly or exclusively Syrian-Christian basis.

Since Luxenberg's assertions on the history of the origins of Islam or on the contemporary linguistic situation of the Hejaz can not be substantiated by the sources we have, his individual reinterpretations of the respective verses are also doubtful and in most cases would not lead to a better understanding of the statements contained therein. In his assessment of these reinterpretations by Luxenberg, Corriente categorized them into three groups:

  • Cases where the Syro-Aramaic Reading lead to a better understanding of the verse and as a "positive contribution" ( " positive contribution ") could be considered - including Luxenberg's remarks on kauṯar -term the 108th Sure. (See below )
  • Cases in which Luxenberg's approach as such would not necessarily be wrong, but would not lead to a more understandable text - for example, his return from qaswara  /قسورةin 74:51 (after Paret: "mighty (lion)"; after Bobzin: "lion") to the Syrian qāsōrā (after Luxenberg: " weak, ailing donkey").
  • Cases that are simply wrong from a philological point of view.

Corriente divides the latter group into four subgroups:

  1. Cases in which Luxenberg interprets the Arabic designation of an indeterminate accusative with the alif -sufix as the originally Syrian determined noun form (- ā in the singular, - ē in the plural) - for example, his remarks regarding hal yastawiyāni maṯalan? ("Are the two the same as an example?") In 11:24 and 39:29. (See below )
  2. Cases in which, according to Luxenberg, this suffix was also used in the Arabic tāʾ marbūṭa (ة / - a ) - although this assumption makes sense with regard to the (grammatically feminine in Arabic ) term caliph (see also below ). But could malāʾika  /ملائكة / 'Engel' (plural) can in no way be traced back to Syriac, as this is an Ethiopian loan word ( mäla'əkt ).
  3. Cases in which Luxenberg's attempt to find a Syrian origin of the respective Arabic term led to changes in Corriente according to linguistically correct Arabic formulations - including the return of ḥawāyā  /حواياin 6: 146 (after Paret: "in the bowels (?)"; after Bobzin: "in the bowels"), which according to Luxenberg's statements without diacritical marks as ǧawāyē  /جوايا[sic] is to be read on the Syrian gawwā .
  4. Cases in which Luxenberg's focus on Syrian origins of Arabic terms led him to wrong assumptions - Corriente refers, among other things, to the term Hanif , which, according to him, refers to the Hebrew hānēf 'impious' and not (as Luxenberg claims) to the Syrian ḥenpā ' Heide ' goes back, as well as Luxenberg's assumption that Mecca is a Syrian loan word (there: mākkā , after Luxenberg: “in a valley”): In fact, the name goes back to the South Arabic mkrb .

François de Blois (2003)

The Orientalist François de Blois, currently (as of 2016) working in London, denies on the basis of his review of the work that the person behind the pseudonym Christoph Luxenberg is actually a scientist working in the field of ancient Semitic languages. The book is not a product of scientific work, but the work of a dilettante : It is about someone who “apparently speaks an Arabic dialect, has a decent but not perfect command of the old Arabic language, [and] has one for consultation Dictionary is sufficient knowledge of the Syrian language, but at the same time lacks any actual understanding of the methodology of comparative Semitic linguistics. ”To support this assumption, de Blois uses several examples to list the weaknesses in the (according to de Blois pseudo-) scientific approach of Luxenberg on the basis of several examples , including the following:

  • The formula contained in 11:24 and 39:29 hal yastawiyāni  /هَلْ يَسْتَوِيَانِ مَثَلًا؟[Note: Dual ] maṯalan? [Note: Tamyīz -Accusative] (after Paret : “Are the two to be equated with each other?”; In Luxenberg: “Are the two the same as an example?”), Whose last word Luxenberg traces back to the Syrian maṯlē (plural) and accordingly the passage with “are the two examples [note. de Blois': plural!] about the same [note. de Blois': Dual!]? ”; in modern High Arabic , according to Luxenberg, this would be hal yastawiyāni 'l-maṯalāni  /هل يستويان المثلان - "Most students of the Arabic language should already know in their first year that this is neither Old Arabic nor modern Standard Arabic, but simply a mistake." In addition, Luxenberg's alternative would not lead to any improvement in the Intelligibility of the corresponding Koranic passage.
  • The term dīn qiyam  / in 6: 161دين قيم, which Paret reproduces with “correct belief” and, according to Luxenberg's statements, is derived from the Syrian dīnā qayyāmā (according to Luxenberg to translate as “established, constant belief”) - With reference to this conclusion from Luxenberg, de Blois notes the fact that on the one hand that In contrast to the Arabic dīn, Aramaic dīnā does not mean 'belief' or 'religion', but simply 'judgment' and that, on the other hand, the Arabic term is not a Syrian loan word, but comes from the Middle Persian dēn .
  • The concept of the caliph ( ḫalīfa  /خليفة), which, according to Luxenberg's remarks , should be derived from the synonymous Syrian ḥlīfā - here de Blois insinuates a neglect of the question why in such a case, in the course of a phonetic transcription of the Syriac based on the Arabic script, the خ / ḫ instead of the in Arabic with the im Syrian word used letters identical ح / ḥ should have been used for the Arabic equivalent.

At the same time, de Blois accuses Luxenberg of poor philological access. The work also leaves unanswered where the old Arabic language we have received is supposed to come from, assuming Luxenberg's hypothesis. In addition, Luxenberg did not bring any really new findings to light: After subtracting any diacritical marks , the text of the Koran was indeed an "extremely unclear work" with almost endless possibilities for setting alternative diacritical marks and thus interpreting the resulting work. But (according to de Blois) every reader of Luxenberg's book should notice that his new reading is in fact not particularly more plausible than the traditional reading based on an old Arabic through and through. "It is a reading whose possible attractiveness lies solely in its novelty - or in other words: perversion - [and] not in the fact that it provides information about the meaning of the book or the history of Islam."

Martin Baasten (2004)

Martin Baasten from the University of Leiden sees Luxenberg's Syro-Aramaic reading of the Koran as an “interesting attempt to read the text of the Koran with a view to Syriac”, which delivers “some amazing results”. The work contains a wealth of creative ideas and interesting statements, whereby his suggestions often lead to a better understanding of problematic passages in the Koran. As a result, it has the possibility of having far-reaching influences on our current understanding of the Koran and represents a challenge in dealing scientifically with Islamic scriptures. In this regard, Baasten refers, among other things, to Luxenberg's effusions with regard to the terms al-kawṯar  /الكوثر, naḥara  /نحرas well as al-abtar  /الأبتر as part of the 108th sura:

“We have given you abundance [ al-kawṯar ].
Therefore pray to your Lord and offer [ wa-nḥar ]!
(Yes) it is your hater who is trimmed (or: tailless, i.e. without attachment (?) Or without offspring?) [ Al-ʾabtaru ]. (Or (as a curse): Whoever hates you should be clipped or tailless! "

- according to Paret

Kawṯar leads Luxenberg to the Aramaic kuṯārā 'constancy, persistence, steadfastness' ), (i) nḥar ( past tense form of naḥara ) in nḡar (German: "wait, persevere, persevere") and abtar in tḇar (German here: "defeated") back. This would result in an understandable text that "would fit perfectly into the context of an emerging religion":

“We have given you the (virtue of) perseverance [ kuṯārā ];
so pray to your Lord and persevere [ nḡar ] (in prayer);
your adversary (Satan) is (then) the vanquished [ tḇar ] "

- to Luxenberg

Luxenberg's return of the ʾaʿṭaināka contained in the first verse  /أَعۡطَيۡنَٰكَ / 'We have given you [...]' or aʿṭā  /أعطىOn the other hand, the Syrian ayti ' let come, bring' is not only problematic from a linguistic point of view, but also does not lead to a better understanding of the verb, which it claims to be unambiguous, and is therefore questionable.

Luxenberg's translation of verse 96: 2 and the corresponding name of the sura, according to which ʿalaq  /علق(after Paret: "embryo"; after Bobzin : "adhering" [noun]) goes back to the Syrian ʿālōqā 'clay' and thus the statement made in 37:11 that God made man out of "compact (or: sticky) clay" (according to Paret) would correspond to.

His claim that (i) qtarib  /اقترب(VIII. Tribe of qaruba  /قرب, German and a. 'Approach', 'come close') in 96:19 (according to Paret: “near you”) derives from the Syrian eṯqarraḇ (V tribe) (German: “to receive the Eucharist ”, “to participate in the Lord's Supper”) , on the other hand, is one of the statements that would not be tenable in this context: The (Christian) Arabic equivalent of the Syrian term already represents taqarraba (also 5th tribe).

Luxenberg does indeed make some mistakes (like the ones just mentioned), infer a Syrian origin of Arabic terms "even if this is not plausible from a historical-linguistic point of view" and shows a partly incomplete use of the relevant specialist literature. However, according to Baasten, these facts should not affect the value of this work in its entirety. Whether Luxenberg's more far-reaching assumptions of an Aramaic-Arabic mixed language in Mecca and an Aramaic original Koran are tenable remains to be seen in research.

Simon Hopkins (2003)

In a 2003 review of the work, Simon Hopkins attests Luxenberg a " reckless methodology " and cites several examples in this context, including Luxenberg's return of the in verses 16: 103 (after Paret in the sense of "alluding to something" ) as well as 7: 180 and 41:40 (according to Paret in the sense of "adopt a wrong attitude", alternatively "bring into disrepute") contained expression yulḥidūna  /يلحدونor laḥada  /لحدto the Syrian root lgz despite the fact (also mentioned by Luxenberg) that the latter is a loan word from Arabic that did not exist in the old Syrian language . The author's recourse to specialist literature as well as his interpretation of the Quranic verses discussed are arbitrary, with the former showing considerable gaps; a large number of the transcriptions of Syrian terms on the part of Luxenberg are incorrect. Furthermore, Luxenberg fails to provide a plausible historical context for his remarks about the actual origins of the Koran: So the questions remained, a) who the Christian inhabitants of Mecca, who are said to have spoken the Aramaic-Arabic mixed language of the original Koran text, more precisely be; b) the specific Syrian documents from which the Koran emerged; c) how originally Jewish elements found in the Koran are to be explained under such conditions; d) how the classical Islamic exegesis of the Koran as a whole is said to have misunderstood the Holy Scriptures of the Islamic religion to such an extent; e) how the early Islamic exegesis of the Koran was supposed to have come into possession of the Koran in the first place, unanswered. Although the Koranic text we have received is quite problematic, Luxenberg's work was unable to solve many, if not none at all, of these problems.

Fonts

monograph

  • The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran: A Contribution to Deciphering the Koran Language. Das Arabische Buch, Berlin 2000, ISBN 3-86093-274-8 ; 5th edition: Schiler, Berlin 2015, ISBN 978-3-89930-035-2 .

Essays

literature

On the academic reception of the work

  • Stefan Wild: Lost in Philology? The Virgins of Paradise and the Luxenberg Hypothesis . In: Angelika Neuwirth, Nicolai Sinai and Michael Marx (eds.): The Qurʾān in Context: Historical and Literary Investigations into the Qurʾānic Milieu . Brill, 2010. pp. 625-649, here: pp. 632-649
  • Walid A. Saleh: The Etymological Fallacy and Qurʾanic Studies: Muhammad, Paradise, and Late Antiquity . In: Angelika Neuwirth, Nicolai Sinai and Michael Marx (eds.): The Qurʾān in Context: Historical and Literary Investigations into the Qurʾānic Milieu . Brill, 2010. pp. 649-698, here: pp. 670-698
  • Daniel King: 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 . In: Journal for Late Antique Religion and Culture 3 (2009). Pp. 44–75, cardiff.ac.uk (PDF; 437 kB)
  • Devin J. Stewart: Notes on Medieval and Modern Emendations of the Qur'ān . In: GS Reynolds (ed.): The Qur'ān in its Historical Context . Routledge, 2008. pp. 225-248
  • Angelika Neuwirth: Qur'an and History - a Disputed Relationship: Some Reflections on Qur'anic History and History in the Qur'an . In: Journal of Qur'anic Studies 5 (2003/1). Pp. 1–18, here: pp. 8–10, islamspring2012.voices.wooster.edu (PDF; 3327 kB)

Reviews

  • Federico Corriente: On a Proposal for a “Syro-Aramaic” Reading of the Qur'ān . In: Collectanea Christiana Orientalia 1 (2014). Pp. 305–314, christoph-heger.de (PDF; 131 kB)
  • Review by Solomon Sara in: Theological Studies (2008). P. 1 f. ( Available online ; PDF; 95 kB)
  • Review by Martin FJ Baasten in Aramaic Studies 2.2 (2004). P. 268–272 ( available online ; PDF; 119 kB)
  • Review of Simon Hopkins in Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 28 (2003). P. 377–380 ( available online ; PDF; 367 kB)
  • Claude Gilliot: Langue et Coran: Une lecture syro-araméenne du Coran . In: Arabica 3 (2003). P. 381–393, here: P. 387–391 ( available online ; PDF; 117 kB)
  • Review by François de Blois in Journal of Qur'anic Studies 5 (2003/1). Pp. 92-97

Press reports

Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin

Reviews

From original homepages

From third parties

Some of the following reviews are no longer available on the websites of the relevant journals and can only be accessed via the Internet Archive . Their authenticity is therefore not guaranteed.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Michael Briefs: Controversy over the Koran interpretation ; Deutsche Welle, August 26, 2003.
  2. ↑ Mona Naggar: How Aramaic is the Koran? ( Memento from October 12, 2004 in the Internet Archive ) In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung , February 3, 2001.
  3. ↑ Jörg Lau : No Huris in Paradise . In: Die Zeit , No. 21/2003.
  4. ^ Luxenberg, 2007, foreword. P. 9 ff
  5. ^ Luxenberg, 2007, The applied working method. P. 23 ff
  6. ↑ Luxenberg, 2007, pp. 84-101.
  7. ↑ Jim Quilty: Giving the Koran a history: Holy Book under scrutiny ( Memento of May 20, 2007 in the Internet Archive ); The Daily Star; Lebanonwire, July 12, 2003.
  8. ↑ See Neuwirth (2003), p. 9 f .; Corriente (2014), p. 312; Stewart (2008), p. 240; King (2009), p. 48 f. and 68.
  9. ↑ Ibn Warraq: Virgins? What virgins? ; The Guardian , Jan. 12, 2002.
  10. ↑ See Saleh (2010), pp. 683-690
  11. ^ GS Reynolds (Ed.): The Qur'ān in its Historical Context . Routledge, 2008, pp. xi: (English): “There is little doubt that the pseudonymous work has been useful in sparking renewed attention to the relationship between the Qurʾān and the 'lingua franca' of much of the Middle East in the years when Islam was emerging [is meant the Syriac]. However, because of the hermeneutical and theological presuppositions underlying Luxenberg's work, and the lack of a clear understanding of how languages ​​function and develop, one wonders whether his approach is not muddying the waters rather more than clarifying them. "
  12. ↑ See Stewart (2008), p. 227
  13. ↑ King (2009), p. 74 (note 82). See also his summary of the available reviews of Luxenberg's work on pp. 72–74.
  14. ↑ Neuwirth (2003), p. 10: “ This is an extremely pretentious hypothesis which is unfortunately relying on rather modest foundations. ”
  15. ↑ Neuwirth (2003), p. 9. See King (2009), p. 51, 61 f., 67 (note 62) and 68 f.
  16. ↑ See Saleh (2010), p. 691
  17. ↑ See Wild (2010), p. 645 and Saleh (2010), p. 692
  18. ↑ See Saleh (2010), pp. 672–674, 682, 685 and 691 and King (2009), pp. 50, 63 and 69
  19. ↑ Neuwirth (2003), p. 9 f. See Corriente (2014), p. 312; Stewart (2008), p. 240; King (2009), p. 48 f. and 68
  20. ↑ Neuwirth (2003), p. 9. Cf. de Blois (2003), p. 96; Corriente (2014), pp. 309-311; Hopkins (2003), p. 380; Wild (2010), pp. 635, 637, 641-643; Stewart (2008), SS 227, 238, 241 f. and 244; King (2009), p. 67 f .; Jan Retsö: Arabs and Arabic in the Age of the Prophet . In: Angelika Neuwirth, Nicolai Sinai, Michael Marx (eds.): The Qur ʾ ān in Context. Historical and Literary Investigations into the Qur ʾ ānic Milieu . Brill, 2010, p. 285 (English): “The addition to the consonantal text of signs indicating vowels does not imply that its Arabic pronunciation was invented. These signs were most likely introduced to codify an already existing Arabic reading tradition. Both the consonants and the vocalized version are undoubtedly Arabic, not Aramaic, and the readings suggested by Luxenberg do not constitute an improvement of the text. "
  21. ↑ Neuwirth (2003), p. 10: “ […] hybridity merely serves as a means to de-construct the Qurʾān as genuine scripture, or, phenomenologically speaking, to de-construct Islamic scripture as the transmitter's faithful rendering of what he felt to have received from a supernatural source. ”See Wild (2010), pp. 639 and 643; King (2009), p. 64 f .; Saleh (2010), p. 672, 680 f., 683-685 and 692: “ Luxenberg's work is in the final analysis a Christian polemical tract. ”
  22. ↑ See Sara (2008), p. 2; Stewart (2008), pp. 226, 228 and 244; Saleh (2010), pp. 673 and 680
  23. ↑ See Saleh (2010), pp. 675 and 689-693
  24. ↑ See Stewart (2008), p. 228 and Saleh (2010), p. 673 f. and 682; Tilman Nagel: Mohammed. Life and legend . Oldenbourg-Verlag, 2008. p. 918, but: King (2009), p. 69
  25. ↑ Neuwirth (2003), p. 10: “ Luxenberg limits himself to a very mechanistic, positivist linguistic method without caring for theoretical considerations developed in modern linguistics. Luxenberg has the merit to have raised anew the old question of the Syriac stratum of Qurʾānic textual history […] But the task of a profound and reliable study of the Syriac elements of the Qurʾān is still waiting to be fulfilled. "See Wild (2010), p. 635
  26. ↑ Gilliot (2003), p. 388
  27. ↑ Gilliot (2003), p. 389. See Baasten (2004), p. 269 f .; Corriente (2014), p. 310; Hopkins (2003), p. 379; Tilman Nagel: Mohammed. Life and legend . Oldenbourg-Verlag, 2008. p. 918
  28. ↑ a b Gilliot (2003), p. 390
  29. ↑ Gilliot (2003), p. 390 f.
  30. ↑ Gilliot (2003), p. 392
  31. ↑ Gilliot (2003), p. 392, with reference to his Les “informateurs” juifs et chrétiens de Muhammad. Reprise d'unproblemème traité par Aloys Sprenger and Theodor Nöldeke . In: Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 22 (1998). Pp. 84-126.
  32. ↑ See Corriente Córdoba, Federico ( memento of September 17, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) on the website of the University of Zaragoza
  33. ^ Corriente (2014), p. 314.
  34. ↑ Corriente (2014), p. 306 f .: “ […] a country which was a crossroad of other Semitic and non-Semitic civilizations, and not just the backyard of Aramaic-speaking lands, as the author overemphasizes in his preface [ …] ”Cf. Wild (2010), pp. 635 and 641-643; Stewart (2008), p. 226; Saleh (2010), pp. 673-675 and 689-691; King (2009), p. 49 f.
  35. ↑ See Wild (2010), pp. 635 and 643 and Stewart (2008), p. 227
  36. ↑ Corriente (2014), p. 307
  37. ↑ Corriente (2014), p. 308 f. See Wild (2010), p. 635; Saleh (2010), pp. 672, 674 f .; Thomas Bauer: The Relevance of Early Arabic Poetry for Quranic Studies Including Observations on Kull and on Q 22:27, 26: 225, and 52:31 . In: Angelika Neuwirth, Nicolai Sinai, Michael Marx (eds.): The Qurʾān in Context: Historical and Literary Investigations into the Qurʾānic Milieu . Brill, 2010. p. 701
  38. ↑ See Stewart (2008), p. 226 and Saleh (2010), p. 674
  39. ↑ Corriente (2014), p. 309 f. See Neuwirth (2003), p. 9; de Blois (2003), p. 96; Hopkins (2003), p. 380; Wild (2010), pp. 635, 637, 641-643; Wild (2010), pp. 635, 637 and 641-643; Stewart (2008), pp. 227, 238, 241 and 244; Jan Retsö: Arabs and Arabic in the Age of the Prophet . In: Angelika Neuwirth, Nicolai Sinai and Michael Marx (eds.): The Qurʾān in Context: Historical and Literary Investigations into the Qurʾānic Milieu . Brill, 2010. p. 285
  40. ↑ Corriente (2014), p. 310 f.
  41. ↑ See Baasten (2004), p. 269 f .; Hopkins (2003), p. 379; Gilliot (2003), p. 389; Tilman Nagel: Mohammed. Life and legend . Oldenbourg-Verlag, 2008. p. 918; King (2009), p. 66 f .: “ As such the re-reading is not unappealing, especially as the two terms thus become synonymous and yield a neat parallelism. It deserves further consideration and research. Luxenberg, however, wholly lets the argument down with the explanation he then proceeds to give […] ”
  42. ↑ See King (2009), p. 67 f.
  43. ^ Corriente incorrectly paraphrases the term qawsarah
  44. ↑ See King (2009), p. 48
  45. ↑ See also Saleh's remarks on Luxenberg's hypotheses regarding the ḥūr ʿīn - and wildān - or bzw.ilmān terms : Saleh (2010), pp. 683-690
  46. ↑ Corriente (2014), p. 311. Cf. de Blois (2003), p. 93 f .; Hopkins (2003), p. 378; Stewart (2008), p. 237 f .; King (2009), p. 46
  47. ↑ The tāʾ marbūṭa without diacritical marks is identical to the ه / h in the final and isolated position
  48. ↑ See King (2009), p. 47, but: de Blois (2003), p. 94; Hopkins (2003), p. 379
  49. ↑ Corriente (2014), p. 311 f. See de Blois (2003), p. 94 f.
  50. ↑ Corriente (2014), p. 312. See, however: King (2009), p. 47 and Rudi Paret: Der Koran. Commentary and Concordance . Kohlhammer, 1981. p. 154: "The interpretation of the expression ḥawāyā is not certain."
  51. ↑ See Neuwirth (2003), p. 9; Wild (2010), pp. 641-643 and 645; Stewart (2008), pp. 226, 237 and 243
  52. ↑ See de Blois (2003), p. 94, but: Stewart (2008), p. 238–240 and King (2009), p. 47 f.
  53. ↑ Corriente (2014), p. 313 f. See also Hopkins (2003), p. 378 f.
  54. ↑ See François de Blois ( memento of September 17, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) on the website of the School of Oriental and African Studies
  55. ↑ De Blois (2003), p. 96: “ It is, I think, sufficiently clear from this review that the person in question is not 'a scholar of ancient Semitic languages'. He is someone who evidently speaks some Arabic dialect, has a passable, but not flawless command of classical Arabic, knows enough Syriac so as to be able to consult a dictionary, but is innocent of any real understanding of the methodology of comparative semistic linguistics. His book is not a work of scholarship but of dilettantism. ”See Saleh (2010), p. 672 (“ […] a project whose scholarly credentials are dubious in the extreme. ”) And 674 (“ […] his work lies outside scholarly consensus ”)
  56. ↑ Accusative of an indeterminate noun that expresses a more detailed definition ( tamyīz )
  57. ↑ De Blois (2003), p. 94: “ Most first-year students of Arabic are sure to know that this is neither classical nor modern Arabic, but simply wrong. "See Hopkins (2003), p. 378; Corriente (2014), p. 311; Stewart (2008), p. 237 f .; King (2009), p. 46
  58. ↑ In the case of a dual form of the noun here, the verb would have to be in the singular, ergo: hal yastawī al-maṯalāni?  /هل يستوي المثلان؟
  59. ↑ a b De Blois (2003), p. 94
  60. ↑ De Blois (2003), p. 94. See Hopkins (2003), p. 379 and King (2009), p. 47, but: Corriente (2014), p. 311 f.
  61. ↑ De Blois (2003), p. 93. See Saleh (2010), p. 673 and 680 and King (2009), p. 55.
  62. ↑ De Blois (2003), p. 92
  63. ↑ See Neuwirth (2003), p. 9; Corriente (2014), pp. 309-311; Hopkins (2003), p. 380; Wild (2010), pp. 635, 637, 641-643; Stewart (2008), pp. 227, 238, 241 f. and 244; Jan Retsö: Arabs and Arabic in the Age of the Prophet . In: Angelika Neuwirth, Nicolai Sinai and Michael Marx (eds.): The Qurʾān in Context: Historical and Literary Investigations into the Qurʾānic Milieu . Brill, 2010. p. 285
  64. ↑ De Blois (2003), p. 96: “ I think, however, that any reader who wants to take the trouble to plow through Luxenberg's' new reading 'of any of the numerous passages discussed in this book will concede that the' new reading 'does not actually make better sense than a straight classical Arabic reading of the traditional text. It is a reading that is potentially attractive only in its novelty, or shall I say perversity, not in that it sheds any light on the meaning of the book or on the history of Islam. ”Cf. François de Blois: Islam in its Arabian Context . In: Angelika Neuwirth, Nicolai Sinai and Michael Marx (eds.): The Qurʾān in Context: Historical and Literary Investigations into the Qurʾānic Milieu . Brill, 2010. p. 619
  65. ↑ See Martin Baasten on the website of the University of Leiden
  66. ↑ Baasten (2004), p. 268. See Sara (2008), p. 2
  67. ↑ Baasten (2004), p. 372
  68. ↑ Here the supposedly original ج / ğ was mistaken for a ح / ,, since both letters are identical without diacritical marks.
  69. ↑ The letters ب / b and ت / t , which are written identically without diacritical marks, have been mixed up here, according to Luxenberg.
  70. ↑ Baasten (2004), p. 269 f. See Corriente (2014), p. 310; Hopkins (2003), p. 379; Gilliot (2003), p. 389; King (2009), 66 f .; Tilman Nagel: Mohammed. Life and legend . Oldenbourg-Verlag, 2008. p. 918
  71. ↑ Baasten (2004), p. 269 f. See Corriente (2014), p. 310 and Hopkins (2003), p. 379
  72. ↑ Baasten (2004), p. 270. See Hopkins (2003), p. 379 and King (2009), p. 67 f.
  73. ↑ Hans Wehr: Arabic dictionary for the written language of the present . Harrassowitz Verlag, 1985. pp. 1.013 f.
  74. ↑ See Baasten (2004), p. 270; King (2009), p. 67 f .; de Blois (2003), p. 95 f .: “ There is no good reason to assume that the same Syriac verb was 'borrowed' a second time as the (differently formed) stem iqtaraba. ”
  75. ↑ Baasten (2004), p. 271. Cf. Corriente (2014), p. 312; Neuwirth (2003), p. 9; Saleh (2010), p. 687
  76. ↑ Baasten (2004), p. 271. See Saleh (2010), p. 673 and 680 and King (2009), p. 55
  77. ↑ Baasten (2004), p. 271
  78. ↑ Baasten (2004), p. 272. See also Corriente (2014), 307 f. and Saleh's remarks on Luxenberg's hypotheses with regard to the ḥūr ʿīn - and wildān - or bzw.ilmān terms : Saleh (2010), pp. 683–690. Cf. Fred M. Donner: Quranic Furqān . In: Journal of Semitic Studies 52 (2007/2). P. 298: “ Luxenberg's hypothesis that the Qurʾān text may contain passages reflecting such an evolution is far from proven, but deserves to be fully tested to see if it may apply for at least some Quranic passages. ”
  79. ↑ See Simon A. Hopkins on the Hebrew University of Jerusalem website
  80. ↑ Hopkins (2003), p. 379. See Saleh (2010), pp. 670, 677 and 684 and King (2009), pp. 44, 50 f., 62 and 70
  81. ↑ Hopkins (2003), p. 378 f.
  82. ↑ Hopkins (2003), p. 378. See Stewart (2008), p. 242
  83. ↑ See Saleh (2010), p. 673 and 680 and King (2009), p. 55
  84. ↑ Hopkins (2003), p. 380: “ […] wayward philology and exegetical caprice […] ”. See King (2009), p. 49
  85. ↑ Hopkins (2003), p. 379 f.
  86. ↑ Hopkins (2003), p. 379
  87. ↑ Hopkins (2003), p. 380. See also: Neuwirth (2003), p. 10; Corriente (2014), p. 306 f .; de Blois (2003), p. 92; Wild (2010), p. 635; Stewart (2008), p. 226; Saleh (2010), pp. 672-675, 682, 686 and 689-693; King (2009), pp. 50, 63 and 69; Tilman Nagel: Mohammed. Life and legend . Oldenbourg-Verlag, 2008. p. 918
  88. ↑ Hopkins (2003), p. 380: “ One will readily concede that the text of the Qurʾān is fraught with problems. It is difficult, however, to believe that many (or indeed any) of them have been solved in Mr Luxenberg's book. ”See Neuwirth (2003), p. 9; de Blois (2003), p. 96; Corriente (2014), pp. 309-311; Wild (2010), pp. 635, 637, 641-643; Stewart (2008), pp. 227, 238, 241 f. and 244 f .; Jan Retsö: Arabs and Arabic in the Age of the Prophet . In: Angelika Neuwirth, Nicolai Sinai and Michael Marx (eds.): The Qurʾān in Context: Historical and Literary Investigations into the Qurʾānic Milieu . Brill, 2010. p. 285
personal data
SURNAME Luxenberg, Christoph
BRIEF DESCRIPTION Pseudonym of a German syrologist and Koran researcher
DATE OF BIRTH 20th century