There is no lack of studies on the many ways in which the Qurâan presents Jesus as a prophet, and as a central precursor to the prophet Muhammad.1 In particular, Heikki Räisänen, Ryann Craig and Guillaume Dye have pointed out that the Qurâanâs Jesus narratives stand as close to the Acts of the Apostles as they do to the broader Christian Gospel tradition.2 Yet Jews critical of what eventually became Christianity equally developed an image of Jesus. Taking up many of the narratives given in Acts and in the Gospels, they bequeathed us two late antique bodies of testimonies. The first one is constituted by the diverse and multiform classical rabbinic literature, whose date of redaction spans the third to the seventh century CE, which considers Jesusâ heritage in a dialectical way through the lens of the Talmudic tradition.3 The second one is constituted by a much more raucous genre, which started to form around the sixth century CE at the latest, yet continued to thrive unabatedly up to early modern times: the fluid para-rabbinic Jewish collection of satirical counter-Gospels I will refer to as the Toledot Yeshu tradition.4 The few studies of the Qurâanic Jesus that have considered the Jewish tradition have focused only on the former, Talmudic body of evidence, delivering middling results.5 It may therefore be high time to explore the value of the latter, polemical part of the Jewish tradition, whose importance for the way in which the Qurâan impugns Jewish claims about Maryâs unchastity and Jesusâ execution is also emphasized by Sean Anthony in a study currently in preparation.6
In the following, I will argue that the Qurâanâs list of Jesusâ divinely approved miracles in Q 3 SÅ«rat Äl Ê¿ImrÄn 49 and in Q 5 SÅ«rat al-MÄʾida 110 â esp. the creation and vivification of clay birds, the healing of the blind and of the leper, and the revival of the dead â responds not only to Christian but also to the polemical Jewish narratives, which ascribe a list of the same miracles to Jesus. By emphasizing that God allowed him to perform miracles, the Qurâan not only undermines Christian claims of Christâs divinity, but also dismisses Jewish claims that Jesus awed his audience by means of magic. The fullness of the Qurâanic Christ, hence, only comes to light if one considers it in dialogue with both its Jewish and its Christian audience, especially in Medina.7
I will begin with a close reading of Q 43:63â65, which, in the context of its engagement of the Meccan pagans, constitutes the Qurâanâs first portrayal of Jesus as a prophet and legal reformer sent to the Israelites. The Qurâan then reuses the Meccan literary segment formed by its response to the pagansâ view of Jesus, in Q 43, in order to develop its image of Jesus in two Medinan passages, Q 3:49 and Q 5:110, which more fully recount Jesusâ miracles in the context of his role as partial abrogator of the Torah.8 Here, the Qurâan responds to both a Jewish and a Christian image of Jesus, as I will seek to illustrate by first reading the Medinan passages within their Qurâanic context, and then in dialogue with late antique Christian and Jewish narratives, especially stemming from the Gospels, the Didascalia Apostolorum, the Clementine Homilies, and the Toledot Yeshu tradition.9 The Qurâanâs subtle and effective textual triangulation presents Jesus as a human prophet who is neither divine nor a magician, yet, along with Moses, a model for all of the Qurâanâs prophets and thereby a precursor to Muhammad. I will conclude by revisiting the growing body of evidence that allows us to anchor many aspects of the Toledot Yeshu narratives â though likely none of the extant full versions â in Late Antiquity, long before the date of its earliest textual witnesses.
Jesusâ Wisdom and the Disputes of the Israelites in the Meccan Surah Q 43 al-Zukhruf
Q 43 SÅ«rat al-Zukhruf stems from the Meccan period and testifies to Muhammadâs intense dialogue with his Meccan pagan audience. Apparently, the prophetâs interlocutors had previously compared âthe son of Maryâ (bnu maryam) to âour godsâ (ÄlihatunÄ), to the formerâs detriment (Q 43:57â58).10 The Qurâan, in turn, clarifies that Jesus should by no means be compared to any divinity real or imagined: rather, he was just an âexemplar for the Children of Israelâ (mathalan li-banÄ« isrÄʾīl), yet a special one, himself constituting âknowledge of the hourâ (wa-innahÅ« la-Ê¿ilmun li-l-sÄÊ¿ati) (verse 59â61).11 After a brief warning about Satanâs attempts to keep the Meccans away from the divine truth, the Qurâan then relates for the first time how Jesus addressed the Israelites in a way that is partially common to many of its apostles and prophets and partially unique to Jesus and to Muhammad alone:
The passage then continues with a warning about the eschatological âhourâ in verse 66, closing a narrative frame that was opened with Jesusâ presentation as himself constituting âknowledge of the hourâ in verse 61. Likewise, Jesusâ insistence to the Israelites that âGod is my Lord and your Lordâ should be read in response to the Meccanâs attempt to compare Jesus to their own divinities in the preceding verses 57â58: Jesus had made it clear to the Israelites that he is a mere human messenger, the Qurâan argues. Any comparison between the Meccan gods and Jesus is doubly misguided: the gods are mere idols and the son of Mary a mere messenger.12 What sets Jesus apart is his âwisdom,â a term that designates an innate, yet God-given sense of natural morality that allows, inter alia, for the correct understanding of divine law.13 Jesusâ wisdom, however, led to the fact that the Israelites began to âdifferâ as a result of his coming, leading to their split into two factions, one of which became âthe Jewsâ and the other âthe Christians.â14 Their âdifferingâ focused on Jesusâ messianic persona as much as on his abrogation of the Sabbath and of some food laws through his âwisdom,â which, as the Medinan Qurâan will indicate, is equivalent to âthe Gospel.â15
Every single element of Jesusâ words in verses Q 43:63â64 will be repeated and expanded upon in the later, Medinan retellings of Jesusâ coming in Q 3 and Q 5, as we will see below.16 At the same time, we must take note that the Meccan passage about Jesus in Q 43 shares much with the Qurâanâs depiction of the âcomingâ of many other Arabian and Israelite apostles and prophets. Identifying these broadly shared prophetological tropes will allow us to set these matters aside for the current inquiry in order to highlight what, exactly, is unique about Jesus in his Meccan and Medinan context, with the latter one prominently featuring his miracles.
A dense web of inner-Qurâanic references in our passage Q 43:63â65 weave it into an overwhelming wealth of both Meccan and Medinan material. Since an analysis of this web would distract from the purpose of this article, a few examples for the way in which the Qurâan uses Jesus in its prophetological discourse must suffice. To begin with Jesusâ closing pronouncement, for example, in verse 63, we should note that the statement fa-ttaqÅ« llÄha wa-aá¹Ä«Ê¿Å«ni, âso be wary of God and obey me,â is used as a refrain in the late Meccan surah Q 26, and is here uttered verbatim by, respectively, Noah (verses 108 and 110), HÅ«d, the apostle to the Ê¿Äd (verses 126 and 131), á¹¢Äliḥ, the apostle to the ThamÅ«d (verses 144 and 150), and then once by Lot (verse 163) and once by ShuÊ¿ayb, the apostle to the inhabitants of Aykah (i.e. the Midianites, verse 179). Hence, Jesusâ closing command to the Israelites in Q 43:63 teaches us much about the way in which the Meccan surahs establish a cohesive prophetological model that portrays Arabian next to Israelite prophets. Yet Jesusâ command to âbe wary of God and obey meâ may tell us nothing unique about his role in particular.17 Given the relative chronology of the surahs, however, it is not inconceivable that the Qurâan employs Jesus as the type on which all other prophets are modelled.18
The same holds true, generally, for the way in which Q 43:63 describes Jesus as having âcomeâ with âclear proofsâ (jÄʾa. ⦠bi-l-bayyinÄti), a concept immediately repeated when he then addresses the Israelites by stating that âI have certainly come to you with the wisdomâ (qad jiʾtukum bi-l-ḥikmati). Jesusâ repeated âcomingâ (ultimately going back to Matt. 5:17 and serving as a key marker of his literary mission throughout late antique Jewish and Christian literature) highlights his foundational prophetological role.19 The âcomingâ of the prophets, which the Qurâan depicts by using the highly frequent and almost interchangeable verbs atÄ and jÄʾa, is the most basic way by which it describes the mission of many of its apostles and prophets. The prophets bring âclear proofs,â bayyinÄt (sg. bayyina), which serve the essential purpose of clarifying Godâs message to groups of humans or to humanity as a whole; these proofs are mainly verbal yet include supernatural ones.20 Likewise, the wording of Q 43:63, that a messenger âcame with clear proofs,â is commonplace in a number of late Meccan surahs that focus on Arabian prophets, and also occurs in a few Medinan ones that focus on Israelite prophets who bring a variety of textual âproofsâ:
In this vein, the verses Q 7:101, Q 10:13 and 74, Q 30:9 and 47 and Q 35:25, for example, just like verse Q 43:63 about Jesus, combine the verb jÄʾa, âto come,â with the expression bi-l-bayyinÄti, âclear proofsâ (see also Q 64:6), describing a series of anonymous messengers.
Likewise, the late Meccan verse Q 14:9 relates that prophets âcame with clear proofsâ to the âpeople of Noah, and Ê¿Äd, and ThamÅ«d,â a list to which the Medinan verse Q 9:70 adds âthe people of Abraham and the inhabitants of Midian and the towns that were overturned.â21
The late Meccan verse Q 29:39 states that Moses, in his role as a prophet to the Egyptians, âcame with clear proofsâ to Korah, Pharaoh and HÄmÄn, whereas the late Meccan verses Q 40:28 and 34 also mention Mosesâ as well as Josephâs âcomingâ to the Egyptians (see also ibid, verses 22, 50 and 83).22
A few Medinan verses then transfer the same language of âcoming with clear proofsâ to other Israelite prophets besides Jesus: in Q 2:92, for example, Moses thus came with clear proofs to the Israelites, who still took up the Calf in his absence (see also Q 4:153, Q 20:72, Q 29:39, and Q 40:28), and in Q 5:32 and Q 3:183â184, unnamed apostles thus came to the Israelites in the past.23
In light of these examples, to which adjacent ones could be adduced with ease, it may not be an exaggeration to say that Jesusâ words in Q 43:63 (alongside its retellings in Q 3 and Q 5), describing his âcoming with clear proofs,â constitutes a fundamental expression of the Qurâanâs prophetological model, and as such would not set Jesusâ mission apart from that of any other apostle. Again, however, in light of the relative chronology of the surahs, it would seem that Jesus here forms the type, and all later Israelite and Arabian prophets the antitype conceived of in his image. Notably, the Meccan Jesus, while himself constituting âknowledge of the hourâ as discussed above, performs no miracle other than bringing divine proof; it is only in its Medinan retellings of Jesusâ mission that the Qurâan explicates Jesusâ supernatural deeds. While the Qurâan expands Jesusâ role as offering a series of unique miracles, elsewhere reserved for the realm of God alone, these wonders also have a specific history in Jewish and Christian narratives about Jesus. Understanding the Qurâanâs portrayal of Jesusâ miracles first within its own framework of references, and secondarily against the broader historical background, as I hold it intended its original audience to do, significantly sharpens its message to Jews, to Christians, and to those pagans that equally knew about the competing late antique Jesus narratives.
Jesusâ Miracles in the Medinan Surah Q 3 Äl Ê¿ImrÄn
The Medinan passage Q 3 SÅ«rat Äl Ê¿ImrÄn 48â53 dramatically expands the Meccan passage Q 43:63â65. Hence, even if their subject matter does not directly concern us here, it is important to note that the prequel and sequel of Q 3:48â53 equally engage aspects of the prequel and sequel of Q 43:63â65:
Q 3:48â53, for example, is preceded by the narrative of Maryâs birth (verses 35â41) and itself constitutes part of the annunciation of Jesus (verses 42â51). This central Qurâanic narrative, with parallels in the Meccan surahs Q 16, Q 21, Q 23 and the Medinan surahs Q 3, Q 4, Q 5, and Q 66, constitutes a dramatic expansion of what may well be implied by the briefest of phrases âson of Mary,â in Q 43:57.24
The sequel of Q 3:48â53, in turn, in verses 54â55, relates the Israelites âplottingâ against Jesus, followed by God raising him towards Himself (also paralleled in the Medinan passage Q 4:157â58 about the death of Jesus). The culmination of this narrative sequel, Godâs warning to the Israelites, in Q 3:55, that at the end of days âI will judge between you (fa-aḥkumu baynakum) concerning that about which you used to differâ (fÄ«-mÄ kuntum fÄ«hi takhtalifÅ«n), once again constitutes an elaboration of the conclusion of the Meccan Jesus narrative in Q 43. Here, we learned that upon Jesusâ coming, the Israelites âdiffered ⦠among themselvesâ (fa-khtalafa ⦠min baynihim), followed by a warning about their fate on judgement day (Q 43:65, paralleled in Q 19:37); Q 3:54â55, in turn, emphasizes the result of the Israelitesâ âdifferingâ on âjudgment dayâ and, through the narrative of Jesusâ ascension, connects his coming to this event.25
Both the prequel and the sequel of Q 3:48â53 can therefore already be understood as an elaboration of an emerging central theme, itself first expressed in Q 43:63â65: the disputes among the Israelites that arose with Jesusâ coming. In Q 3, we learn that these disputes concerned all aspects of Jesusâ life, mission, and legal teaching, and will last until Judgment Day; they equally extended to the role of Jesusâ mother Mary, and to the narratives concerning Jesusâ ascension. With this, we can turn to the Medinan retelling of Jesusâ coming in Q 3, which focuses on the legal implication of the dispute of the Israelites and on the interpretation of Jesusâ miracles. I highlight repeated key terms and phrases by using italics in the English, and roman in the transliterated Arabic:
The passage Q 3:48â53 as a whole, just as its prequel and sequel, should be understood as a dramatization of the Meccan narrative in Q 43. The Medinan retelling repeats many of the elements of the Meccan version either verbatim or with slight alterations in order to create a similar core narrative, with a few important additions that lead to the Qurâanâs fuller portrayal of Jesusâ mission as both confirming and abrogating law based on his wisdom, now expanded through âthe Gospel,â confirmed by Jesusâ miracles.26
In the Medinan retelling in Q 3:50â51, Jesus ends his initial address to the Israelites with the words âso be wary of God and obey me. Indeed God is my Lord and your Lord; so worship Him. This is a straight path,â the very phrase we encountered in Q 43:63â64 (paralleled in Q 19:36â37). Jesusâ subordinate relationship to God, as well as his apostolic authority, thus remains firmly in the focus of the Medinan retelling of Jesusâ coming; both aspects inform the passage as a whole by establishing how God gave Jesus the authority to amend the law He gave to the Israelites, and how Jesus became the founder of an apostolic community endorsed by the Qurâan, in principle.
The Medinan retelling expands Jesusâ âcomingâ with âwisdom in order to make clear to you some of the things that you differ about,â as it was described in Q 43:63, in ways that were indicated only fleetingly in the Meccan verses. Whereas Q 43 simply posits the reality of Jesusâ âwisdom,â Q 3:48 now clarifies that it was God who taught (wa-yuÊ¿allimuhu) Jesus the Scripture (al-kitÄb) and the wisdom (al-ḥikmah), the Torah (al-tawrÄh) and the Gospel (al-ʾinjÄ«l). This rephrasing serves three purposes.
First, in line with Q 61:6, Q 3:48 again connects Jesus to Muhammad, who is at one point announced as an Abrahamite messenger whom God will equally âteach ⦠the Book and wisdomâ (wa-yuÊ¿allimuhumu l-kitÄba wa-l-ḥikmata, Q 2:129), and who will in turn âteach Scripture and wisdomâ (wa-yuÊ¿allimukumu l-kitÄba wa-l-ḥikmata) to the Meccan pagans (Q 2:151, see also Q 3:164 and Q 4:113).
Second, the verse apparently expands the purview of Jesusâ mission beyond the implementation of âwisdomâ to include not only âthe Scripture,â but also âthe Torah and the Gospelâ as well.
Third, the verse thereby prefigures Jesusâ abrogation and confirmation of Torah through the Gospel that will be explicated in Q 3:50, thereby forming a legal frame around the miracles listed in verse 49.
In order to understand the relationship of Scripture and wisdom to the Torah and the Gospel, we should note the parallelism the Qurâan creates between âScripture and wisdomâ on the one hand and âthe Torah and the Gospelâ on the other: our surah, indeed, states that God teaches Jesus Scripture, i.e. the Torah, and wisdom, i.e. the natural morality innate to the Gospel. The two pairs have very similar, if not identical referents.27
This insight allows us to focus on the relationship between the Torah and the Gospel, or more specifically between the Torah and Jesus, as our passage spells out in its legal climax, verse Q 3:50. Here, Jesus announces that he will be âconfirming that which is before me of the Torah (wa-muá¹£addiqan li-mÄ bayna yadayya mina t-tawrÄti), and to make lawful for you, some of what was forbidden to youâ (wa-li-ʾuḥilla lakum baÊ¿á¸a lladhÄ« ḥurrima Ê¿alaykum; see also Q 61:6). I suggest that the âconfirmationâ of the Torah through the Gospel simply parallels the âconfirmationâ of Scripture through wisdom, which includes the abrogation of some legal provisions. It is important to note that Q 3:50 constitutes a conceptually stable yet lexically divergent rephrasing of Jesusâ statement to the Israelites in Q 43:63, that he came to âmake clear to you some of the things that you differ about.â While the retelling of Q 43:63 in Q 3:50 leaves only a single word, âsomeâ (baÊ¿á¸a), in its place, a careful contextual reading of the passage shows that Jesusâ confirmation and abrogation of the Torah remains an attempt to âclarifyâ to the Israelites âsome of the things they differâ about, mainly regarding the food laws and the Sabbath.28
Now the idea that God repeatedly calls for a muá¹£addiqan li-mÄ bayna yadayhi, of âa confirmation of what was before it,â or, more literally, âwhat is in between its hands,â is a central Qurâanic concept. The idea is already prominent in a few Meccan suras, where the phrase tends to describe the relationship of the Qurâan to the Torah given to Moses, as specified in Q 35:31, Q 46:12 and 30, and in Q 6:92. It is clear that the Qurâan understands itself as reaffirming, for the Qurâanic community, the vast majority of the laws it understands the Israelites initially to have received from God. The same idea, that Godâs revelation to Muhammad âconfirmsâ previous revelation, is equally expressed in the Medinan passage Q 2:97. Other Medinan surahs broaden the concept of âconfirmationâ in order to include the way in which Jesus and the Gospel âconfirmâ the Torah by partial abrogation just like Muhammad and the Qurâan, in turn, will âconfirmâ both Moses and Jesus, both the Torah and the Gospel.29
Jesusâ miraculous âsignsâ in Q 3:49 prepare the audience for the âsignâ of his âconfirmation of the Torahâ in verse 50. The impression may hence arise that the Qurâan recounts the natural miracles in Q 3:49 â which were completely absent in Q 43 â in order to legitimize Jesusâ legal intervention. While this certainly is the case to a degree (as a Syriac Christian precedent to this type of reasoning in the Didascalia Apostolorum discussed below will reconfirm), a closer analysis shows that in effect, we are rather dealing with two types of miracles, one physical and one textual, which actually reinforce each other by pointing to Jesusâ divine legitimization for both of them.
A focus on the passagesâ internal repetitions guides the way towards this conclusion. In Q 3:50, Jesus closes the announcement of the partial confirmation and partial abrogation of the Torah by repeating verbatim the purpose of his coming with which he already opened his speech and introduced his miracles in verse 49: annÄ« qad jiʾtukum bi-ʾÄyatin min rabbikum, âI have come to you with a sign from your Lord.â The repeated Medinan phrase creates a narrative frame that fuses and develops two elements that marked the way Jesusâ âcomingâ was twice described in Q 43:63, as discussed above. Jesusâ âcoming,â hence, is the focus of the passage in Q 3:48â53 as well, and the extraordinary fact that he himself announces his mission to the Israelites is presented in even sharper profile. The verbatim repetition of Jesusâ announcement of his âcomingâ in Q 3:49 and 50, and the slight change from âclear proofsâ (bayyinÄt) to âsignsâ (ÄyÄt, in line with Q 61:6), moreover, develops the nature of Jesusâ means of prophetic authentication and creates a narrative frame around two types of âsignsâ that mark the Qurâan, one concerning Godâs creation, and one His revealed guidance.
The Qurâanic Arabic term Äyah, âsignâ namely, can denote textual segments of revelation â including normative guidance â as much as cosmic, historical, and miraculous signs.30 The underlying unifying logic of this protean usage, which in many ways reaches back to the Hebrew Bible and to its Jewish and especially its Christian interpretations, is that God has created both the physical world and Scripture in a way that the former and the latter can function as confirmatory signs for each other.31 In Q 3:49â50, the two types of Jesusâ âsignsâ â miraculously confirming his status as a prophet and legally amending the Torah â are thus closely interlinked, the former ones setting the stage for the latter one.32
Jesusâ Äyah in verse Q 3:50, indeed, consists of his confirmation and partial abrogation of the Torah. The term Äyah in this verse should perhaps be translated as ânormative guidance.â33 The ÄyÄt Jesus brings from âyour Lordâ in verse 49 are of a different nature, constituting âmiraclesâ in the sense of temporarily suspending natural conditions. Q 3:49, accordingly, describes the miracles performed by Jesus, besides his speaking from the cradle, as mentioned in the prequel (in Q 3:46): the creation and vivification of clay birds, the healing of the blind and of the leper, the revival of the dead, and the prophecy regarding âwhat you eat and what you store in your houses.â If considered in detail, Jesusâ miracles here give manifold proof of his status as an apostle that will also legitimate the âsignâ of his legal interventions. Indeed, Q 3:49â50 portrays Jesus as performing tasks usually reserved to the Creator and Lawgiver alone.34 A close reading of verse 49 illustrates how far this affinity goes:
I will create for you. God alone is the creator of the world and its animals; the verb khalaqa, exceedingly common in the Qurâan, elsewhere describes Godâs actions. Jesusâ phrasing, annÄ« akhluqu lakum, âI will create for you,â moreover, strongly evokes the promise to Mary just a few verses earlier, that God yakhluqu mÄ yashÄËu, âwill create whatever He wantsâ (Q 3:47, see also Q 5:17â18).
out of clay. Jesusâ announcement, annÄ« akhluqu lakum mina l-á¹Ä«ni, âI will create for you out of clay,â most closely resembles Godâs announcement to the angels, innÄ« khÄliqun basharan min á¹Ä«nin, âI am about to create a human being out of clayâ in Q 38:71; on Godâs creation of humans from clay see also Q 6:2, Q 7:12, Q 17:61, Q 23:12, Q 32:7, Q 37:11 and Q 38:76.
the likeness of a bird ⦠and it will become a bird. Jesusâ creation of ka-hayʾati l-á¹ayri, âthe likeness of a bird,â closely recalls the way in which God shows Abraham how He gives life to the dead by vivifying four dedicated birds (tayr) in Q 2:260.
then I will breathe into it. Jesusâ announcement that he will anfukhu fÄ«hi, âbreathe into it,â closely resembles the way in which God describes how He in turn had created Jesus, fa-nafakhnÄ fÄ«hÄ min rūḥinÄ, âWe breathed into it,â i.e. into Maryâs chaste private parts, âOur spiritâ (Q 21:91, see also Q 66:12).35 The proximity extends to Godâs creation of humans from clay, which He brought to life by having wa-nafakhtu fÄ«hi min rūḥī, âbreathed into him of My Spirit,â Q 38:72, see also Q 15:29.
And I heal. Healing, typically denoted by the verb yashfÄ«, is usually Godâs domain (Q 26:80), yet can also derive from the use of His twofold creation, such as the Qurâan (Q 17:82) or honey (Q 16:69). The verb here employed, abraʾa (in form IV), in the apparent meaning of âhealing someoneâ is unique to our passage Q 3:49 (and its parallel in Q 5:110), yet once again the root brʾ â in other verbal forms, with diverging meanings â tends to describe Godâs intervention in His creation, for example in the statement in Q 57:22 that âno affliction visits the earth or yourselves but it is in a Scripture before We create itâ (min qabli an nabraʾahÄ, in form I), see also Q 2:54 and Q 59:24.36
the blind and the leper. The nouns akmaha and abraá¹£a are again unique to Q 3:49 (and its parallel in Q 5:110); the regular term for a blind person in the Qurâan is aÊ¿mÄ (see e.g. Q 48:17 and Q 24:61).37
and I revive the dead. Jesusâ phrase, uḥyi l-mawtÄ, âI will revive the dead,â can again be tied to Abrahamâs question to God, preceding the miracle of the birds, kayfa tuḥyi l-mawtÄ, âhow You give life to the deadâ (Q 2:260). Indeed, reviving the dead is one of the central miracles attributed to God in the Qurâan, with dozens of attestation of the phrase such as wa-annahÅ« yuḥyi l-mawtÄ, âHe gives life to the dead,â see e.g. Q 22:6, Q 42:9, Q 75:40 and Q 77:26.
And I prophecy to youp. Jesusâ phrase unabbiʾukum, âI will prophecy to you,â clearly marks him as a divinely apportioned messenger, connecting him to all previous apostles since God first teaches Adam and then instructs him to âprophecy for themâ (anbiʾhum, i.e. to the angels, in Q 2:33). Again, the fact that Jesus himself announces his prophecy is exceptional and connects him to God and His messenger: similar wording is elsewhere uttered by God (see e.g. Q 29:8, Q 31:15, see also Q 26:221) and by Muhammad (see e.g. Q 3:15, 5:60, and Q 22:72). The most common usage of the adjacent phrase âHe will prophecy to you,â it should be noted, depicts Godâs eschatological âprophecyâ announcing their past deeds to the resurrected humans on judgment day. The portrayal of Jesus, hence, evokes phrases such as âHe,â i.e. God, âwill inform you what you used to do,â fa-yunabbiʾukum bi-mÄ kuntum taÊ¿malÅ«na (Q 5:105, see also Q 6:60 and Q 9:94), in line with Jesus acting as an eschatological witness elsewhere in the Qurâan (see Q 4:159, and cf. Q 5:117).
what you eat and what you store in your houses. While the expression fÄ« buyÅ«tikum, âin your houses,â is not uncommon (see e.g. Q 3:154, Q 10:87, Q 16:80, Q 24:17), the miracle of Jesusâ prophecy instructing the Israelites âwhat they eatâ (bi-mÄ taʾkulÅ«na) and âwhat they storeâ has no clear precedent in the Qurâan; a possible reference to an eschatological reckoning for the Israeliteâs unlawful eating and storing of Manna will be explored below.38 Jesusâ prophecy does vaguely evoke the way in which the Qurâan portrays Joseph as instructing the Egyptians what they will eat (mimmÄ taʾkulÅ«na) and what they will preserve for the lean years to come; the respective passage in SÅ«rat YÅ«suf, however, uses rather different imagery and vocabulary (see Q 12:47â48). Regardless, if read alongside the Joseph story, Jesusâ âsignâ could be read predictively: he âpropheciesâ to the Israelites how they will sustain themselves, just as Joseph ensured the availability of food in Egypt, and just as God provides for the Israelites in the desert (see Q2:57, Q 7:160, and Q 20:80) or for humanity more broadly (see e.g. Q 4:85, Q 6:14, Q26:79, Q 34:15, Q41:10, Q 43:32 and Q 51:57).39 By contrast, if read in light of the passageâs narrative framing â Jesusâ confirmation and abrogation of the Torah in verse 50, already introduced in verse 48 â it could even be read prescriptively: Jesus âpropheciesâ the partial abrogation of the Israelite food laws, which will govern what they store in their houses. Both readings, and even their combination, seem contextually defensible, and both, we will see, can be linked to late antique narratives about Jesus.40
The Qurâan indeed presents Jesus as performing actions that make him comparable to Godâs creation of Adam at the beginning of human history, to Godâs sustenance of humanity throughout their life by maintaining their health, to His resurrection of the dead after the end of it, and to either the eschatological judgement (for unlawfully having eaten and stored Manna?) or to Godâs role as a law-giver.41 The Qurâan emphasizes that Jesus acted âwith Godâs leaveâ (bi-idhni llÄhi), which reinforces Jesusâ own emphasis that âGod is my Lord and your Lord; so worship Him,â in verse Q 3:51. The phrase âwith Godâs leaveâ is not uncommon in the Qurâan, yet its repetition in the same verse is unique to Jesus.42 We will see that all of Jesusâ miracles which the Qurâan recounts have a vibrant pre-history in late antique Jewish and Christian narratives, with which the Qurâan expects its audience to be at least partially familiar. Before turning to the late antique context of Jesusâ miraculous and legal signs, however, a few comments on the Medinan retelling of Jesusâ miracles in Q 5:110â115 are in order.
Jesusâ Miracles in Q 5 SÅ«rat al-MÄʾida
In Q 5:110â115, the Qurâan gives an account of Jesusâ miracles that is clearly based on Q 3:46 and 49, using much of the same vocabulary, which Q 5 places in a slightly divergent narrative frame. The narrative shift from Jesus to God that permeates the passage in Q 5, along with the omission of Jesusâ prophecy about food, may suggest that Q 3, as the lectio difficilior, is the older version.43
Q 5 bookends the report of the miracles with a narrative frame that opens, in Q 5:109, with a dramatization of God gathering and questioning of all of his apostles, concluding with their admission of ignorance and their statement that âindeed, You are the Knower of the unseenâ (innaka anta Ê¿allÄmu l-ghuyÅ«b). The same narrative frame then closes â after the passage on Jesusâ miracles in Q 5:110â115 here under scrutiny â with Godâs inquiry as to whether or not Jesus said to the people to take him and his mother as gods (Q 5:116â118). After offering a firm denial of the charge, Jesus, like the other apostles, emphasizes his ignorance and repeats, verbatim, the apostlesâ statement that âindeed You are the Knower of the unseenâ (Q 5:116: innaka anta Ê¿allÄmu l-ghuyÅ«b).44 We can thus already see that the passage detailing Jesusâ miracles in Q 5 is, even more so than in Q 3, forcefully responding to the danger of taking the account of Jesusâ unique powers to be a sign of his divinity. The retelling of Jesusâ miracles in Q 5 diverges from Q 3 in several other ways that further reinforce the heightened focus on Godâs power:
In Q 5:110, it is not, as in Q 3:49, Jesus, but God himself who recounts how Jesus was born, how he spoke in the cradle (see Q 3:46) and how He gave him the power to perform the signs in question, already shifting the focus on the narrative towards God.
In Q 5:110, accordingly, it is not Jesus who portrays the miracles as having occurred âby Godâs leaveâ (bi-idhni llÄhi), a more common phrase as we have seen above. Rather, it is God Himself who emphasizes that Jesusâ miracles occurred âby my leaveâ (bi-idhnÄ«), a rendering of this phrase unique to this verse alone. Moreover, God repeats that he gave His permission not only after the vivification of the bird and after the resurrection of the dead, as in Q 3:49, but already after the creation of the bird from clay and then again, once more, after the healing of the blind and the leper, creating a fourfold repetition that internally structures verse Q 5:110 by means of a recurring refrain in a more heavy-handed way than the twofold repetition we have seen in Q 3:49.
In Q 5:110, Jesus is described not so much as ârevivingâ the dead (âand I revive â¦â wa-uḥyi) but as âbringingâ them âforthâ (âand when you brought forth â¦,â wa-idh tukhriju). The substitution of the verbs lessens Jesusâ affinity to Godâs often-repeated eschatological role as reviver of the dead during the resurrection (even if the verb âto bring forth,â akhraja also once describes Godâs actions to vivify both dead land and plausibly humans, see Q 7:57).
In Q 5:110, we learn of an additional miracle performed not by Jesus but by God Himself, who reminds him of the moment âwhen I held off the Children of Israel from youâ (waʾidh kafaftu banÄ« isrÄʾīla Ê¿anka). Since the verb kaffa, âto hold off, to restrain,â clearly indicates restraint from causing physical harm through violence (Q 4:77, 84, 91 and Q 5:11), the passage here most likely references Godâs salvation of Jesus by elevating him when the Israelites âplottedâ against him alluded to also in Q 3:54â55 and spelled out in more detail in Q 4:157â158.45
Q 5:110 then inserts the phrase âYet when he brought them clear proofs, they said, âThis is clear magic,â (ʾin hÄdhÄ illÄ siḥrun mubÄ«nun) already uttered against Jesus in Q 61:6. The charge is a common one against Godâs prophets in the Qurâan such as Moses (see Q 27:13); it is, e.g., verbatim levelled against Muhammad in Q 6:7, Q 34:43, and Q 37:15.
Jesusâ final miracle, described in Q 5:111â114, equally revolves around food, yet rather than predicting to the Israelites âwhat they eatâ (bi-mÄ taʾkulÅ«na) and âstore in their houses,â as in Q 3:49, Jesus here heeds a request of his disciples who demand a table from the sky from which they desire to eat (nurÄ«du an naʾkula); their willingness to act as witnesses (given unconditionally in Q 3:53 and in Q 61:14) apparently depends on this miracle.
To conclude our reading of Jesusâ ânaturalâ miracles, then, we can see that the narratives in Q 3 and Q 5, despite their close connection, follow slightly divergent trajectories: Q 3:49, in line with Jesusâ emphasis on his own subservience to God in verse 51, seems addressed to an audience with whom the Qurâan negotiates Jesusâ legal role as confirming and abrogating the Torah â the primary addressee here seem to be both, Christians and Jews. The key message regarding Jesusâ miracles in Q 3, as in Q 43, seems to be that Jesus is an apostle whose âsignâ of a legal intervention is as divinely sanctioned as his supernatural signs. Q 5, by contrast, treats the legal status of Jesus as settled (see Q 5:46â47), thereby freeing up the retelling of Jesusâ miracles for a different purpose.46 Q 5, indeed, places the focus on the speech and actions of God Himself, in my view the hallmarks of a retelling focused on the sovereignty of the Creator; Jesus is thereby already relegated to a more passive position. At the same time, however, Q 5, by introducing the theme of the accusation of magic in verse 110 (in line with Q 61:6), seems again to address not only those who would believe in Jesusâ divinity, namely the Christians, but also those who would be likely to ascribe Jesusâ miracles to witchcraft, namely the Jews. In light of the inner-Qurâanic reading of Q 3:48â53 and Q 5:110â114, we can now turn to the relationship between the Qurâanâs portrayal of Jesusâ signs and their late antique Jewish and Christian precedents.
Jesusâ Signs in Late Antiquity
We have seen that Q 3:49 and Q 5:110 introduce Jesusâ miracles alongside his confirmation and abrogation of the law, which itself constitutes another sign. Along with speaking in the cradle in Q 3:46 and Q 5:110, Jesusâ miracles are the creation and vivification of clay birds, the healing of the blind and the leper, the vivification of the dead, and, lastly, in Q 3:49, the prophetic announcement of what people eat and what they store in their houses, replaced in Q 5 by the miracle of the food on the heavenly table (in verses 111â114). Our understanding of the first and the last miracle in the Qurâanâs list â speaking in the cradle and prophecying about food â should primarily be understood within the context of the Christian tradition and can only secondarily benefit from our present consideration of the Qurâanâs engagement of Jewish narratives.
To begin with Jesusâ speaking in infancy, we should note that in its original context in Q 19:27â36, this miracle serves to prove the innocence of Mary against the accusation of unchastity; it is followed by the statement that it is not for God âto take a son,â clearing Him, as well, as it were, from the charge to have engendered offspring. While the accusations against Mary are a central theme in the New Testament as well as in both the Talmudic and the polemical Jewish traditions about Jesus, the specific image of a baby infant revealing his true father has a clear Christian pedigree.47 However, neither Q 3 nor Q 5 retain the narrative punchline of Q 19, the infant Jesus speaking as proof of Maryâs chastity. In the miracleâs Medinan retelling, the focus shifts to the infant Jesus speaking as such. Since the late antique precedents to this motif are both common and rather vague, I will exclude the first miracle from the present consideration.48
Jesusâ association with food, likewise, is a central theme in the Gospels, and his feeding the multitudes was received both in the Christian and the Jewish tradition, in Toledot Yeshu.49 Jesusâ food miracle according to Q 5:110â116, the table from the sky, has long been associated with Peterâs vision in the Book of Acts 10, and has alternatively been linked with the Eucharist.50 The Christian tradition, moreover, associates Jesus with food in three specific ways that could have the potential to help us contextualize and to comprehend the âpredictiveâ and the âprescriptiveâ reading of the last sign in Q 3:49 already developed above:
Based on the Gospel of John, Christians often portrayed Jesus as âthe bread of life,â and as the antitype of the biblical Manna, the âbread from heavenâ (see e.g. John 6:31). The Israelites transgressed Godâs commandment to eat, rather than store, the Manna (see Exod. 16), for which the Holy Spirit requited them according to a rabbinic tradition. Jesus may therefore be portrayed as prophetically informing them about this specific misdeed at the eschaton, a plausible â if difficult to substantiate â context for reading of the miracle that would depict Jesusâ role during the eschaton.51
In light of the common linkage between Joseph and Jesus in Syriac literature, one could speculate if the Qurâan understands Jesusâ prophecy regarding food in light of Josephâs announcement of the way the Egyptians are to eat and preserve their food.52
A parallel to Jesusâ teaching in the Qurâan on âwhat you eatâ and how not to store food is found in a prominent passage of the Sermon on the Mount, Matt. 6:25â26 and its parallel, Lukeâs Sermon on the Plain.
As indicated above, Jesusâ (partial) abrogation of the food laws, finally, employs a central role in late antique Jewish and especially Christian literature, a fact which would provide better ways to read Jesusâ final miracle in a prescriptive way.
All four parallels, intriguing as they may be, remain too vague to allow us to answer the question of whether Jesusâ final miracle should be read in its legal context, in the context of divine provision, or as referencing Jesusâ role during the eschaton. I will therefore also bracket last miracle for the present purposes.
The late antique Jewish and especially Christian testimony of Jesusâ three remaining miracles â the vivification of birds, his healing, and the resurrection of the dead â is overwhelmingly rich, and even the broadest of descriptions would surpass the scope of this study. In its stead, we will first briefly look at the combination of Jesusâ role as a lawgiver with a discourse on miracles in the Didascalia Apostolorum. Then, more significantly, we will consider the miracles found in Q 3:48â50 and Q 5:110 as lists both in the context of the Jewish and the Christian Jesus traditions. In short, Jesusâ agglomerative announcement of miracles goes back to the synoptic Gospels themselves, which in turn build on the prophecies of Isaiah. The emphasis on the divine authority with which Jesus performed his miracles, and more specifically the combination of a list of signs with a comment regarding Godâs authority, is an element shared between the Qurâan and the Clementine Homilies. The one source whose cognates of Jesusâ âmiraclesâ stand closest to the Qurâan is the Toledot Yeshu tradition. Despite the proximity of the Qurâan to late antique narratives, however, there are hardly any signs of literary âdependenceâ on written or even on oral sources of any sort â even in the cases where the Qurâan seems to use Aramaicisms to describe Jesusâ miracles, the words used in the Gospels and in their Jewish and Christian interpretation differ. Instead, I surmise that the Qurâan responds to an environment formed by oral discussion, into which it inserts itself forcefully by retooling shared themes and motifs according to its own prophetological paradigms.53
The Didascalia Apostolorum is an essential text in our attempt to situate the Qurâan within late antique Christian culture more broadly, as I have previously sought to illustrate.54 Comparable to Q 3:48â50, the Didascalia equally reads Jesusâ confirmation and partial abrogation of the Torah (as the text understands Jesusâ coming in Matt. 5:17) in the context of his miracles, albeit within a diverging narrative and hermeneutical framework:
And again our Saviour, when he cleansed the leper, sent him to the Law (lwt nmwsʾ shdrh) and said to him: âGo, show yourself to the high priest, and offer the offerings (wqrb qwrbnʾ) of your cleansing, as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto themâ (Matt. 8:2â4)â that he might show that He does not abrogate the Law (dlʾ shrʾ nmwsʾ, Matt. 5:17), but teaches what is the Law and what the second legislation (tnyn nmwsʾ). Indeed, he (Jesus) said thus: âI am not come to abrogate the Law nor the prophets, but to fulfil them (lʾ ʾtyt dʾshrʾ nmwsʾ wlʾ nbyʾ ʾlʾ dʾmlʾ ʾnwn, Matt. 5:17). The Law therefore is not abrogated (nmwsʾ hkyl lʾ mshtrʾ), but the second legislation is temporary, and is abrogated (tnyn nmwsʾ dyn dzbnʾ hw wmshtrʾ).55
In the Didascalia, Jesusâ healing the leper serves as the narrative backdrop that illustrates the difference between the parts of the Torah that Jesus abrogates and those he leaves intact. The Qurâan encapsulates the same linkage by listing the healing of the leper as one of the two types of âsignsâ â supernatural and legal â that authenticate each other, similarly reinforcing the partial abrogation of the Torah.56 Despite the patent literary discrepancy, the affinity in legal argumentation remains clear: both the Qurâan, in Q 3:48â50, and the Didascalia relate Jesusâ healing of a leper to his confirmation and abrogation of the Torah. The Didascalia therefor represents an argumentative rather than a literary precedent to the Qurâanâs understanding of Jesusâ miracles: the Qurâan also portrays Jesus as applying âScriptureâ through âWisdom,â i.e. âthe Torahâ through âthe Gospel,â making clear to the Israelites what they differ about.
When it comes to the Qurâanâs wording, the issue of the agglomeration of miracles in Q 3:48â50 and by Q 5:110 offers a few Christian and Jewish literary pathways that been given little attention in previous scholarship. Matt. 11:5 (along with its close parallel Luke 7:22) offers the best point of departure. In this passage, in the rendering of the Syriac Peshitta, Jesus himself announces that through his work, âthe blind see (smyÊ¿ ḥzyn), and the lame walk (wḥgyrʾ mhlkyn), the lepers are cleansed (wgrbʾ mtdkyn), and the deaf hear (wḥrshʾ shmÊ¿yn), and the dead rise up (wmytʾ qymyn) and the poor hope (wmsknʾ mstbryn).â The Gospel passage, in turn, echoes Scriptural verses from Isaiah such as 35:5â6 (âthe eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped, then the lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the speechless sing with joyâ) and 61:1â2 (âbecause the Lord has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressedâ), which Jesus more or less reads out loud in Luke 4:18â19.57 Matt. 11:5 and Luke 7:22 stand close to the Qurâan: Matthew and Luke, just like Q 3:49, have Jesus himself announce his miracles, and in both the Gospels and the Qurâan, Jesus heals the blind and the leper and resurrects the dead (with the last miracle not named in Isaiah 35). Notably, the Qurâan follows the very same order of signs as do Matthew and Luke, allowing us to suggest that the Qurâanic list of signs, though phrased distinctly, stands in a specific literary tradition, rather than reflecting the vast discourse on Jesusâ miracles more generally.58
Another late antique point of departure for Q 3:49 concerns the issue of the divine power through which Jesus performs his miracles. This key element in the Qurâan is already debated in the synoptic Gospels, where Jesus handily turns around the accusation that he is working in collusion with Beelzebub â an occasion which, in the end, allows him to establish his authority (see e.g. Mark 3:22, Matt. 12:24, Luke 11:15, see also John 8:48 and 10:20).59 Yet the specific combination of the list of Jesusâ miracles with a brief reference to Godâs authority we find in the Qurâan echoes not only the Gospels but more specifically so a passage in the Clementine Homilies, a second Christian text that has proven essential for contextualizing the Qurâan, especially regarding Jesusâ status as non-divine prophet in this text.60 The respective passage has been preserved in both Greek and in its Syriac translation and proclaims the following about Jesus, here in the latter rendering:
âAnd in order for it to be believed that he did these things (i.e. announcing the kingdom of God) filled with divinity (dʾlhwtʾ mlʾ hwʾ), he worked many wonders (tdmrtʾ), signs (wʾtwtʾ), and portents (wnysʾ) by command alone, as if his authority were from God (ʾyk dshwlá¹nh mnh dʾlhʾ ʾytwhy hwʾ). He made the deaf to hear (ldwgʾ Ê¿bd dnshmÊ¿wn), the blind to see (wlsmyʾ dnḥzwn), and the maimed and the lame to be strengthened (wlpshygʾ wlḥgyrʾ dnshtrrwn). And he drove out every infirmity (wkl kwrhn rdp), and the dead who were brought near to him rose (wmytʾ dʾtqrbw lh qmw), and lepers from afar, by merely seeing him, were healed and cleansed (wgrbʾ mn rwḥqʾ blḥwd dḥzʾwhy ʾtʾsyw wʾtdkyw).â61
This list of miracles, here (at one point called ʾtwtʾ, âsigns,â a Syriac cognate to the Arabic Äyah, âsign,â in Q 3:49) again has Jesus heal the blind and the leper and resurrecting the dead, i.e., as in the Qurâan, even though the list is somewhat longer and gives a different order than the one we find in the Gospel of Mathew and in the Qurâan. The passage, furthermore, does not have Jesus announce his healings himself. Yet by broaching the central issue of the ultimate origin of the power that allows for these miracles, it stands closer to the Qurâan in a different way than the Matthean original. Just as Q 3:49 and especially Q 5:110, the passage from the Clementine Homilies emphasizes that the miracles are performed âas if his authority were from Godâ (ʾyk dshwlá¹nh mnh dʾlhʾ or, in the Greek, âsince he had received authority from God,â
The emphasis on Jesusâ authority in the Clementine Homilies finds its negative counterpart in the Toledot Yeshu tradition, the âpolemicalâ strand of the late antique Jewish reports about Jesus. In one of its Early Oriental (Pilate) versions for example, attested in manuscript New York JTS 8998, Jesus falsely claims that he gained possession of the magical books of Balaam, the son of Beor, but then changes his story to allege that these books came from John the Baptist (who acknowledges the charge while at the same time distancing himself from Jesus).63 Toledot Yeshu thus portrays Jesus as a magician â the charge voiced in Q 5:110 and already in Q 61:6 â and, importantly, also tends to agglomerate the miracles Jesus himself announces, as in the Gospel of Matthew, in the Clementine Homilies, and in Q 3:49:
There is a man, named Yeshuaʿ, and he misled the people of the world by way of sorcery (
×××¢×©× ×××שפ×× )⦠And the people were sitting before him, and he was telling them: âI will cure you (×× × ××¨×¤× ×ת×× ), and I will resurrect the dead (×× × ×××× ×ת×× ), and I will open the eyes of the blind (×××¤×ª× ×¢×× × ×¡×××× ).â And he also said to them, âI am Godâ (×××× ×× × ). And they fell prostrate before him.64
The list shares three of the Qurâanic miracles, even if it does not indicate the specific diseases Jesus seeks to heal. In two further details, it is echoed by the Qurâan even more closely than the Gospel of Matthew: firstly, Jesus announces his miracle in the first person; secondly, Jesusâ claim that âI will vivify the dead,â
In addition, we should note that Jesusâ announcement of his own divinity, which results in people worshipping him (in this and other versions of Toledot Yeshu), offers a close narrative precedent to Godâs questioning Jesus whether he has âsaid to the people, âTake me and my mother for gods besides Godâ,â which Jesus strongly denies, regarding his own persona, in Q 5:116â120, as discussed above. Jesusâ denial in the Qurâan thus primarily seems to reject the Jewish depiction of Jesus himself proclaiming his divinity in Toledot Yeshu, and only secondarily so the Christian ascriptions of Christ as divine, usually in the third person. With regards to Maryâs divinity in the same passage, however, the focus shifts: negating the divinity of Mary is a theme the Qurâan shares with East Syrian heresiology.66
As we have seen, the Toledot Yeshu tradition, here and throughout, charges Jesus to have performed his signs with the help of magic. Whereas this charge is expressed only in general terms in the canonical Gospels, in pagan and patristic polemics, and in the Babylonian Talmud, it is so acutely evoked in the Qurâan that a reaction to the narrative preserved in the Toledot Yeshu tradition seems highly plausible.67 We can therefore infer that the Toledot Yeshu tradition may be as important for the contextualization of Jesusâ miracles in Q 3:49 and Q 5:110 as the Gospel of Matthew, the Didascalia Apostolorum, and the Clementine Homilies.
Missing from the Christian lists of miracles based on the Gospel of Matthew is the way in which Jesus takes clay and models it into birds. This motif is clearly attested not only in the Qurâanic narrative about Abraham in Q 2:260 but also in the pre-Qurâanic Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which in its Syriac translation uses the term á¹ynʾ for clay, a cognate to the Qurâanâs Arabic á¹Ä«n.68 When it comes to lists of miracles, the Toledot Yeshu tradition is the only late antique precedent of which I am aware that includes the vivification of birds along with other signs, as is the case in the Qurâan. One of its versions, just like the Qurâan, even begins its list of Jesusâ (illegitimate) miracles with the vivification of birds, whereas the subsequent miracles do not feature in the Qurâan. Another version, however, offers a list that fully, if neither exclusively nor consecutively, pre-empts the list given in the Qurâan. Hence, a closer look at the Toledot Yeshu tradition in its entirety, along with the sources thus far discussed, may help us gain a better understanding of Jesusâ miracles in the Qurâan.
In the rather idiosyncratic Byzantine (Pilate/Helena) manuscript St. Petersburg RNL EVR 1.274, the vivification of birds occurs as the first of a list of Jesusâ miracles, i.e. of magical feats, which otherwise bear little resemblance to those listed in the Qurâan. Here, Jesus seeks to convince his audience of his messianic status, as follows:
Before them he made shapes of birds (
צ×××¨× ×¢×¤×ת ) and caused them to fly. He also split a river of water and passed through it on dry land. They were also in want of bread (× ××¡× ××× ××× ), and he satisfied them with one loaf of bread (××ש×××¢× ×××ר ××× ). He made water (taste) like wine in their mouths. And he dyed clothes in the water inside a bowl in the house (×××ת ), like the color that the dyer (requested) at his time (of work), and he took (the clothes) out dyed, and all of the men and women were carrying them [â¦]. Men came to capture him and to turn him over for judgment, and he darkened the house (×××ש×× ×××ת ) before their eyes and escaped. Thus he did with his magic (×××©×¤× ××ª× ), and he led all of those places astray after him. When all of Israel heard this, they sought to remove the evil from Israel but could not.69
This list of miracles evokes two intriguing details pertaining to our discussion. Most significantly, the miracle of the birds is the first in a longer list, both in the Qurâan and in this manuscript of Toledot Yeshu. Moreover, Jesus, here makes âshapes of birdsâ (
By contrast, three other Hebrew and Aramaic versions of the Toledot Yeshu that attest to the miracle of the vivification of the birds point out that the initial models were made âof clayâ (â
âIn the Ashkenazi A (Helena) manuscript Strasbourg BnU 3974, a manuscript of special relevance for the present purposes, the agglomerative healing of a cripple and a leper is narratively followed by Jesusâ announcement â soon thereafter realized â that âI will vivify the deadâ (
××× × ×××× ×ת×× , as in the Byzantine manuscript discussed above), by his claim that âI am the Son of Godâ (×× × ×× ×××× ), and by his vivification of clay birds.72âIn the related Ashkenazi B (Helena) manuscript New York JTS 2221, Jesus answers a request for a sign (
××ת , a cognate of Arabic Äyah and Syriac ʾtwtʾ as mentioned above) with the agglomerative healing of the blind and the crippled, which is then followed by his announcement that âI am the Messiah and I have the ability to ⦠vivify the deadâ (×× × ××× ×ש×× ×©×ש ××××ת ⦠×××××ת ×ת×× ) and by his vivification of birds of clay.73âThe Late Yemenite (Helena) manuscript New York JTS 2343 follows both versions very closely.74
In their agglomeration of miracles, these three manuscripts of Toledot Yeshu stand closer to the Qurâan than either the Infancy Gospel of Thomas or the tradition based on the Gospel of Matthew we have seen in the Clementine Homilies.
The miracles described in the Qurâan therefore combine some motifs preserved in the Christian tradition with others found in the Toledot Yeshu tradition, maintaining, challenging, and reconfiguring aspects of both traditions according to its own prophetological paradigm. I would thus propose that a careful reconstruction of retrievable aspects of the late antique Toledot Yeshu tradition offers a challenging, yet essential method to understand what the Qurâanâs intended audience, and partially also its historical audience, had previously learned about Jesus. In addition to the reports about Jesusâ miracles (and his execution as discussed by Anthony), there are more than a few details of the Toledot Yeshu tradition that would explain how the Qurâan pursues a rectification not only of the Christian but also of the Jewish record. For example, it should be noted that alongside the Clementine Homilies, the Toledot Yeshu tradition is one of the few texts that emphasizes Jesusâ prophethood alongside his messianic status and his partial abrogation of the Torah, if only to deny these claims.75 Moreover, the depictions of Christians as noá¹£ryn/noá¹£rym throughout the Toledot Yeshu tradition â and likely throughout the Jewish Middle East more broadly â would solve the long-standing puzzle of why the Qurâanâ would refer to Christians with an Arabic cognate of this term, naá¹£ÄrÄ, rather than with any of the terms Christians themselves would have used.76
Hence, only in light of the Qurâanâs trialogue with both Jewish tradition â specifically as preserved, yet not necessarily embodied, by the mediaeval Toledot Yeshu manuscripts â on the one hand, and the Christian tradition â with special emphasis on the Gospel of Matthew, the Didascalia Apostolorum, and the Clementine Homilies â on the other, can we appreciate the fuller message conveyed by the expansion of Q 43 al-Zukhruf 63â65 first in Q 3 SÅ«rat Äl Ê¿ImrÄn 48â53 and then in Q 5 SÅ«rat al-MÄʾida 110â15. The Qurâan, in short, maintains the list of miracles found in the Christian and especially in the Jewish tradition, connects these miracles to Jesusâ confirmation and partial abrogation of the Torah found in the Jewish and especially in the Christian tradition. At the same time, it forcefully rejects the polemical portrayal of Jesus as both a magician and as having proclaimed his own divinity as most clearly expressed in Toledot Yeshu, albeit again with ample Christian precedent. Its message can most fully be reconstructed as fully engaged with both the Jewish and the Christian narratives about Jesus.
How best to account for the affinities between Jesusâ miracles in the Qurâan and in the Toledot Yeshu tradition in light of the late date of the latterâs manuscripts? I have long resisted the temptation of exploring this question for the simple reason that many of the textual elements of Toledot Yeshu clearly post-date the Qurâan. The many important studies of the dynamic development of Toledot Yeshu as a narrative throughout the Jewish Middle Ages and into Early Modernity leave no doubt about this fact, and preclude any simplistic reading of the Qurâan in light of the Jewish lives of Jesus.77 For the present purposes, we should note that âthe Ishmaelites,â
But among the people who erred after him (i.e., Jesus) were those who believed and those who did not believe (
××× ××××× ×× ×××× ××× × ××××× ×× ). And then, some of those people who did not believe arose and made for themselves a religion (×ת ), saying, âIt is written, âYour new moon festivals and assemblies I hateâ (Isa. 1:14).â And they erred after his (i.e. Jesusâ) words, and made a writ (××ª× ) for themselves, and they are those noá¹£rim (×× ×צר×× ) in every time and place. And the gossip has spread in every foolish nation (×¢×× ××¤×©× ), and they called his name Ê¿Isa ben Miriam (×¢××¡× ×⺠×ר×× ). And this is the matter concerning which the gentiles (××××× ) say, âThe angel came and blew into her womb, and she gave birth to this sonâ (××××× ×× ×× ×¤× ×××ת ×ר×× ). ⦠The story of Yeshu ha-Noá¹£ri and what has become of him is complete.79
This passage â to reiterate, located at the very end of the manuscript, a location most easily amendable in any tradition â is heavily invested in Qurâanic vocabulary:
The employment of the phrase âbelievers and non-believersâ is unusual in Jewish parlance yet shares much with the description of the Israelites in the Qurâan, see e.g. Q 2:253.
Jesusâ name
×¢××¡× ×⺠×ר×× , âÊ¿Isa ben Miriam,â is almost an exact transliteration of the Qurâanâs name of Jesus, ʿĪsÄ ibn Maryam.80The image of an angel speaking to Mary may reflect the Christian Gospel narrative (see Luke 1:35) as much as Q 3:42. Yet the image of an angel blowing into Maryâs womb finds its closest counterpart in the distinctive Qurâanic phrase about Mary, âwho guarded the chastity of her private parts, so We blew into it of Our spiritâ (fa-nafakhnÄ fÄ«hi min rūḥinÄ) according to Q 21:91 and Q 66:12. The Hebrew
× ×¤× used in Toledot Yeshu even constitutes a cognate to Arabic nafakha here employed.81
There is then, in my mind, no doubt that Toledot Yeshu tradition, as it continued to develop, began to integrate aspects of the Qurâan and of Islam more broadly. Toledot Yeshu, in effect, could easily be updated to constitute a polemic not only against Christian but also against Muslim beliefs about Jesus â all one had to do was to add the Ishmaelites to the noá¹£rim or, as in manuscript New York JTS 6312, add a Qurâanic reference to broaden the target of satire beyond the Christian Gospels.82
Yet it does not follow that the miracles in Toledot Yeshu were told in light of the Islamic Scripture rather than the other way around, and we should not even exclude the early Yemenite and the Ashkenazi A and B manuscripts, or any other of the reasonably early traditions, reflecting either the Pilate or the Helena version, from consideration when studying the Qurâan. A disinterested and broad look at the cumulative evidence rather allows us to identify select motifs of Toledot Yeshu as late antique, especially those that are separately attested in various local and literary strands of the tradition. These prove essential for any attempt to reconstruct the knowledge the Qurâanâs diverse intended and historical audiences had of Jesus.
It is, moreover, easy to point to robust evidence for the late antique â i.e. pre-Qurâanic â provenance of much of the Toledot Yeshu tradition. It goes without saying that in the sense of a Jewish counter-Gospel tradition, Toledot Yeshu inevitably takes us as far back as the formative period of the Gospels themselves. The canonical Gospels already seek to contradict accusations such as the claim that Christâs body was merely hidden by his disciples.83 It is true that full-blown versions of a Jewish âGospel,â or rather a Gospel parody, have been preserved only in mediaeval manuscripts, the earliest Aramaic fragments stemming from the tenth century CE. Yet few, if any, written witnesses to the classical rabbinic tradition are late antique, either, and the debate about their pre-Qurâanic nature has largely been settled.84 Yet, the existence of a late antique Toledot Yeshu tradition â that substantial parts of the narrative already entered circulation in the sixth century CE at the very latest, even if not exactly in the form in which it was later preserved â can be deduced from the following three facts:
First, the Aramaic language of the earliest Toledot Yeshu manuscripts that were found in the Cairo Geniza is clearly late antique. Exactly how ancient is as much under dispute as the languageâs provenance: according to one opinion, we are dealing with a text that was originally composed in Palestine in the third century CE and repeatedly updated, whereas a more straightforward case has been made for a âBabylonian,â i.e. Mesopotamian text from the turn of the sixth century CE. Yet there is no dispute about the fact that the language used in these fragments pre-dates the Qurâan at least by several decades, if not by several centuries.85
Second, we do have numerous late antique Christian responses to Toledot Yeshu, meaning that several post-canonical Christian Gospels and other stories engage various aspects of the same Jewish Gospel parody. Notably, the Christian responses seek to turn the Gospel narrative back on its feet after the Jewish tradition had turned it on its head, in this way pre-empting a narrative strategy similar to the one we see in the Qurâan. Many of the references in Toledot Yeshu, moreover, fit a fifth century CE context rather well.86
The third argument, perhaps weaker than the first two yet methodologically important, concerns the extraordinary narrative diversity of the various extant Toledot Yeshu manuscripts. Even a cursory glimpse at both the striking commonalities and divergences between the earlier Toledot Yeshu manuscripts that have been paleographically and linguistically classified as either more broadly Oriental, or as more specifically Yemenite or Byzantine, especially when equally read in light of the Ashkenazi A and B tradition, strongly points to a burgeoning diversity of traditions already in Late Antiquity. While we can trace instances of late transmission within the Jewish community, the sheer scale of diversity amidst clear commonality suggests that some individual narrative motifs are indeed more likely to be pre-mediaeval. Inversely, of course, the broad attestation and burgeoning development of the tradition itself may well explain the same ecotypification of the narratives, so this last argument will have to be substantiated or rejected through further research.87
As a consequence of the first two arguments, along with the study here presented, I would seek to dispel an overly positivist focus on the manuscripts of Toledot Yeshu that deprives one of an important late antique source. Based both on 14C dating and on philology we only recently have gained certainty of what the Islamic tradition has claimed all along, namely that the Qurâan itself is a late antique text. We now may have to revisit the entirety of the Toledot Yeshu tradition and try to reconstruct which of its motifs may predate the Qurâan based on philology alone, along the lines Anthony proposes regarding Jesusâ execution, and I myself have put forward regarding his miracles. The Qurâan, it turns out, may help us better appreciate the Jewish tradition, and vice versa: in light of the present considerations, I would also suggest revisiting the intriguing possibility that both the Qurâan and the Babylonian Talmud may, each in their own way, offer corrections to the polemical Jewish traditions regarding the life of Jesus we find in Toledot Yeshu. While the path is not an easy one, the rewards of doing so may allow us to learn much about the diversity of the Jewish tradition, about the Jewish-Christian debate throughout the first millennium, and about the Qurâanâs forceful intervention into it.
This article is part of a project that has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Unionâs Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant agreement ID: 866043). It develops some of the thoughts I had first presented at the conference Theology of Prophecy in Dialogue: A Jewish-Christian-Muslim Encounter, held August 23, 2021, at the University of Paderborn, with a follow-up at the conference titled The Qurââ an and Syriac Christianity: Recurring Themes and Motifs, held December 7, 2022, at the University of Tübingen. My gratitude to the respective organizers, Klaus von Stosch and Ana Davitashvili, and to other participants, for their valuable feedback. I furthermore owe special gratitude to Sean Anthony, who, in a private communication in April 2021, first suggested a possible connection between the Qurâan and Toledot Yeshu, a view he substantiates in a forthcoming study (see note 6 below). I have learned much from the ensuing conversation with him over the past years. The present article, finally, has gained much from the critical comments of Nadja Abuhussein, Shuaib Ally, Zishan Ghaffar, Miriam Goldstein, Raashid Goyal, Saqib Hussain, Isaac Oliver/de Oliveira, Marika Pulkkinen, Steffanie Rudolf, and Daniel Weiss.
While many aspects of the Qurâanic Jesus have seen much interest recently, the most perceptive comprehensive study in my view remains Robinson, Christ in Islam and Christianity, esp. 3â40; for further literature see idem, Robinson, âJesus,â see also Reynolds, âThe Islamic Christ,â 185â88, and notes 2, 11 and 24 below.
See Räisänen, âThe Portrait of Jesus in the QurâÄn,â Craig, âThe QurʾÄnic Cross and the Lost Substitute,â and Dye, âMapping the Sources of the Qurâanic Jesus.â
On the image of Jesus in the Talmudic tradition see e.g. Murcia, Jésus dans le Talmud et la littérature rabbinique ancienne, cf. also Jaffe, âHistory of a Marginal Disciple.â
Among the many fine studies on Toledot Yeshu, which tend to highlight its vibrant mediaeval developments, see e.g. Goldstein, A Judeo-Arabic Parody of the Life of Jesus, Barbu and Deutsch (eds.), âToledot Yeshuâ in Context, and Schäfer, Meerson and Deutsch (eds.), Toledot Yeshu (âThe Life Story of Jesusâ) Revisited.
See Mehr, âIs the Quran Supersessionist?â and Mevorach, âQurʾan, Crucifixion, and Talmud.â In my view, both Mehr and Mevorach, commendable as their studies could have been, hold the telescope the wrong way around when it comes to Jewish literature, since the Babylonian Talmud, just like the Qurâan, critically recontextualizes the narrative, juridical and exegetical excesses preserved in the Toledot Yeshu tradition. In other words, the parallels between the Bavli and the Qurâan that Mehr and Mevorach rightly highlight are only incidental to the way in which both texts more directly react to the Toledot Yeshu tradition, as I argue in a study currently in preparation, yet see Stökl Ben-Ezra, âOn Some Early Traditions in Toledot Yeshu and the Antiquity of the âHelenaâ Recension.â
See Anthony, Toledot Yeshu and the End of Jesusâ Earthly Mission in the Qurʾan and see note * above. The first Western scholar to make the connection between the two corpora may have been Philip Alexander, a most careful reader, who pondered whether Q 5:110, Q 61:6 and Q 4:156 may be âdirect allusions to the Toledot Yeshuâ only to reject this idea, see idem, âThe Toledot Yeshu in the Context of Jewish-Muslim Debate,â in Schäfer, Meerson and Deutsch (eds.), Toledot Yeshu (âThe Life Story of Jesusâ) Revisited: A Princeton Conference, 155. At the time of Alexanderâs writing, however, the critical study of the Toledot Yeshu tradition had been hindered by the lack of a scholarly edition of the texts, which has since been provided by Michael Meerson and Peter Schäfer, see Schäfer and Meerson, Toledot Yeshu.
On the Qurâanâs engagement with both a Jewish and a Christian audience, especially in Medina yet plausibly already in Mecca, see Zellentin, âbanÅ« isrÄʾīl, ahl al-kitÄb, al-yahÅ«d wa-l-naá¹£ÄrÄâ; cf. the stronger emphasis on the Jewish tradition, at least for the Meccan period, in Sinai, âQurâanic Monotheism and the Meccan Israelites.â
On the chronology of the Qurâan see Sinai, The Qurâan, esp. 40â58 and 111â137.
The Clementine Homilies and the Didascalia Apostolorum are two Christian texts originally written in Greek and eventually translated into Syriac (only partially attested for the Homilies) that have proven essential for an exploration of the legal and prophetological context of the Qurâan, as I have previously argued in Zellentin, The Qur ÍÄnâs Legal Culture and Zellentin, Law Beyond Israel.
On the rhetorical strategy of the Qurâanâs engagement of the Quraysh in Q 43, see Hussain, Wisdom in the Qurâan, 141â73, Saleh, âMeccan Gods, Jesusâ Divinity,â 92â111, Neuwirth, The Qurâan and Late Antiquity, 300â305, and the related arguments in Neuwirth, âImagining Mary â Disputing Jesus,â 383â416.
On the basis of variant reading traditions or the textâs broader logic, most traditional and modern readers reject the most literal understanding of the phrase, namely that Jesus himself constitutes âknowledge of the hour,â see e.g. Hayes, âThe Treasury of Prophecy,â 210 note 4, Reynolds, âThe Muslim Jesus,â and Neuwirth, âImagining Mary â Disputing Jesus,â 400. A more satisfying reading is offered by Hussain, who accepts the phraseâs literal meaning and interprets it as the Qurâanâs attempt to overwrite the widely attested Christian theme of Jesus as constituting âknowledge of God,â see Hussain, Wisdom in the Qurâan, 155â64.
As Neuwirth has noted, verses Q 43:64â65 are likely the basis of the similarly worded rejection of Jesusâ sonship in Q 19 SÅ«rat Maryam 36â37. Here, the same words are added after Jesusâ soliloquy in the cradle, in verses 29â33, see Neuwirth, The Qurâan and Late Antiquity, 300â305. and the related arguments in Neuwirth, âImagining Mary â Disputing Jesus,â and cf. Dye, âMapping the sources of the Qurâanic Jesus,â 162â63.
See Hussain, Wisdom in the Qurâan, 303â4, and Sinai, Key Terms of the Qurâan, 228â33.
See Zellentin, âbanÅ« isrÄʾīl, ahl al-kitÄb, al-yahÅ«d wa-l-naá¹£ÄrÄ,â esp. 75â82.
On Jesusâ partial abrogation of Israelite law in the Qurâan see Zellentin, The Qur ÍÄnâs Legal Culture, esp. 155â174, Zellentin, Law Beyond Israel, esp. 35â281 and Pregill, The Golden Calf between Bible and Qurâan, 412â14; for late antique Jewish and Christian views of Jesusâ abrogation of the law see Zellentin, âOne Letter Yud Shall Not Pass Away from the Law,â 204â58.
For the sake of brevity, we will only be able to refer in passing to the important Medinan verse Q 61:6, which equally expands Q 43:63â65 by connecting Jesus to Muhammad, foreshadowing Q 3:48, and by explicating the charge of magic against Jesus, foreshadowing Q 5:110.
Importantly, the Qurâanâs âArabianâ prophets fade into the background in the Medinan period. On the Qurâanâs prophetology more broadly, see Goudarzi, âThe Second Coming of the Bookâ and Griffith, âScript, Text, and the Bible in Arabic,â 131â56.
The role of typology in the Qurâan has been explored in a 2015 conference titled âTypology â Strategies of Reenactment and Fulfillment in the Milieu of the Qurâan and its Exegesisâ; Islam Dayeh and Angelika Neuwirth are currently preparing the proceedings for publication. On Jesusâ particular role as a prophet in the Qurâan, see note 1 above. Zishan Ghaffar has alerted me to the fact that Thomas J. OâShaughnessy considers Q 43:64 (and its many parallels) to be based on John 20:17, see OâShaughnessy, âThe Qurâanic âMy Lord and Your Lordâ Verses,â 273â80.
Note that both verbs atÄ and jÄʾa, when concatenated with bi-, can equally be translated as âto come with,â in the sense of âto bring,â see Ambros and Procházka, A Concise Dictionary of Koranic Arabic, 19â20 and 65. On the usage of âcomingâ in late antique Jewish and Christian literature see note 15 above.
See Sinai, Key Terms of the Qurâan, 149â58, as well as Stewart, âMubÄ«n and Its Cognates in the QurʾÄn,â 115â56.
The literature on the so-called âpunishment storiesâ in the Qurâan is reviewed in Stewart, âWansbrough, Bultmann, and the Theory of Variant Traditions in the QurâÄn,â 29â34.
On the Qurâanâs distinctive version of these stories see Sinai, âInheriting Egypt,â 198â214.
Many of these unnamed messengers to the Israelites, according to the Qurâan, suffer greatly at their hands, in line with Jewish and Christian narrative precedent, see Hawting, âKilling the Prophets and Stoning the Messengersâ and Reynolds, âOn the Description of the Jews as âKillers of the Prophetsâ in the QurʾÄn.â
On these narratives, see e.g. Muna Tatari and Klaus von Stosch, Mary in the Qurâan as well as note 10 above.
The âascensionâ of Jesus figures prominently in both Jewish Christian literature, albeit to opposite means, see Reynolds, âThe Muslim Jesusâ and Anthony, Toledot Yeshu and the End of Jesusâ Earthly Mission in the Qurʾan. On the relationship of Q 19 and Q 43 see note 12 above.
On the Qurâanâs notion of âthe Gospelâ see Sinai, Key Terms of the Qurâan, 103â7 and Griffith, The Bible in Arabic, 54â126.
This has been astutely observed by Hussain, in dialogue with classical exegesis, in Hussain, âWisdom in the Qurâan,â 284â85, see already MuqÄtil, TafsÄ«r MuqÄtil, 3:800, and the previous note.
See note 14 above.
On the Qurâanâs concept of âconfirmationâ of previous revelation see Sinai, Key Terms of the Qurâan, 467â70, for late antique precedents, see note 15 above.
See Sinai, Key Terms of the Qurâan, 118â128.
See Decharneux, Creation and Contemplation, 43â50.
Accordingly, the phrase closing the list of Jesusâ miracles, inna fÄ« dhÄlika la-Äyatan lakum, âthere is indeed a sign in that for you, should you be faithfulâ in Q 3:49, elsewhere in a Medinan surah describes the Ark of the Covenant and Godâs Sakina, a parallel that once again links Jesus to Moses, as well as to God himself (see Q 2:248).
Sinai, Key Terms of the Qurâan, 128.
Jesusâ proximity to God in these verses has previously been discussed by authors such as Robinson (see idem, Christ in Islam and Christianity, 155) and Hussain (see idem, Wisdom in the Qurâan, 162), yet had long been the subject of Muslim Christian polemics as evidenced, e.g., in the anonymous Letter from Cyprus and Ibn Taymiyyaâs al-JawÄb al-á¹£aḥīḥ, see Pink, âIbn Taymiyyah, the Bible and the QurʾÄn,â 123â39.
Dye aptly notes that the Qurâan successively relegates the agency of Godâs Spirit with respect to the creation of Adam and Jesus, see Dye, âMapping the Sources of the Qurâanic Jesus,â 168â69. It should be noted in this context that the Clementine Homilies, which see Jesus as a son of God at the same time as cautioning against claiming him to be divine, argue that anyone inspirited by the âbreath of Godâ could plausibly argued to be divine, chief of all Jesus, see Clementine Homilies 16:15â16, see also note 60 below. The Qurâanâs focus away from the presence of Godâs spirit observed by Dye may thus have a broader context.
The passageâs usage of the root bry, equally attested in the sense of âhealthâ in Hebrew, distinctly recalls the usage of the same rootâs afÊ¿el form in Jewish Palestinian and Babylonian Aramaic (rather than in Syriac, as Stefanie Rudolf has pointed out to me), see Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, 112 and idem, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods, 244; see also the next note and note 53 below.
The root the Qurâan here employs, kmh, is well attested in Syriac as well as in Christian Palestinian and Samaritan Aramaic, but not in Hebrew, Jewish Palestinian or Babylonian Aramaic, see Sokoloff and Brockelmann, A Syriac Lexicon, 629â30. Since the Qurâan elsewhere employs different words to denote the blind and tends to employ loanwords and hapax legomena with higher frequency when engaging Jewish and Christian traditions, it may use the present Aramaisms as a stylistic device to indicate that it here engages an Israelite tradition, see also the previous note and note 53 below.
One could certainly read the Israelitesâ âeatingâ in an eschatological way, e.g. along with Q 4:10, âthey eat fire into their beliesâ (yaʾkulÅ«na fÄ« buá¹Å«nihim nÄran); for an eschatological use of âstorageâ see the next note. Alternatively, another Qurâanic passage, Q 24:61, equally connects the phrase buyÅ«tikum, âyour houses,â to the phrase an taʾkulÅ«, âif you are eating,â reminiscent of Jesusâ prophecy in Q 3:49 of what you will âeat ⦠in your housesâ (bi-mÄ taʾkulÅ«na ⦠fÄ« buyÅ«tikum, if such were the intended meaning). Intriguingly, the same verse Q 24:61 also evokes âthe blindâ (al-aÊ¿mÄ) alongside âthe lameâ (al-aÊ¿raj) and âthe illâ (al-marÄ«á¸), and is given so that âGod clarifies the signs to youPâ (yubayyinu llÄhu lakumu l-ÄyÄt), offering an additional thematic affinity to Jesusâ âsignsâ of âhealingâ âthe blindâ and âthe leperâ in Q 3:49, see also notes 36 and 37 above. Yet the verse Q 24:61 regulates commensality between healthy and sickly members of the community (akin to Q 48:17) and bears hardly any lexical or semantic explanatory potential for Jesusâ final miracle in Q 3:49.
The Qurâanic verb iddakhara, âto store,â common in later Arabic, is once again a hapax in the Qurâan, though attested in ancient South Arabian epigraphy (see Stein, Die altsüdarabischen Minuskelinschriften auf Holzstäbchen aus der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek in München) and in pre-Islamic Arabic poetry (see e.g. Ê¿AdÄ« b. Zayd, DiwÄn, 61), to which Nadja Abuhussein has drawn my attention). The poem of Ê¿AdÄ« b. Zayd, is heavily invested in Christian imagery (âmonk,â âchurchâ) and the âstoringâ here describes the deeds accumulated for an eschatological reckoning. The Qurâan, however, firmly tethers the âstoringâ that occurs to actual food, a usage closer to the verbâs quotidian ancient South Arabian usage.
The Qurâan uses the verb nabbaʾa bi-, âto prophecy something,â once before with reference to a (putative) body of food laws that are then abrogated, namely the Meccan ones. In Q 6:142â143, the Qurâan commands the Meccans to âeatâ (kulÅ«) the animals which God provides for them, and then challenges them to âprophecy to me (nabbiÅ«nÄ«) with knowledgeâ should their own prohibitions be truthful. The point, here, of course, is that the Meccan food laws lack divine backing; on the Christian context of the Qurâanâs antinomian Meccan tendencies see Sinai, âThe QurʾÄnâs Dietary Tetralogue,â 113â46. Note also that in Q 54:28 the messenger to the ThamÅ«d is instructed to âprophecy to themâ (wanabbiʾhum) how to divide water between themselves and the sacred she-camel.
Hussain understands Jesusâ miracles in Q 3:49 as tracing the human development from birth to maturity, death, resurrection, and final judgment, which has much to commend it, even if the nature of the resulting parallel between God âinformingâ humans about their past moral conduct on the Day of Judgement â a very common Qurâanic motif, as noted above â and Jesus âinformingâ the Israelites about their food would need further explanation, see Hussain, âWisdom in the Qurâan,â 162â163, and see note 39 above on eschatological âstorage.â
The phrase bi-idhni llÄhi, âwith Godâs leave,â occurs nineteen times in the Qurâan; the usage here is in line with the more general statement that âan apostle may not bring a sign except by Godâs leaveâ in Q 13:38 and Q 40:78.
Whatever the merit of this particular reasoning, Q 5 is generally understood to post-date Q 3, a view shared by Sinai, see note 8 above.
The Qurâanic concept of God as the knower of al-ghayb, the âhidden,â or âunseenâ (see also Q 9:78 and Q 34:48) has deep roots both in the pagan Arabian and in the Christian tradition, see Sinai, Key Terms of the Qurâan, 541â44.
On the Qurâanic verses and their late antique contexts see note 25 above.
On the legal implications of Q 5:44â47 see Zellentin, âWhat Is âwithin Judaismâ According to the Quran?,â 282â308.
Perhaps most intriguingly, a comparable narrative of a speaking infant clearing a saint from the charges of both unchastity and fatherhood is associated with the church father Ephrem, in the Syriac version of his life, which dates to the middle of the sixth century CE, see Amar, The Syriac Vita Tradition of Ephrem the Syrian, 14 as discussed by Nestor Kavvadas, who points to further parallels in the (earlier) work of Romanos Melodos and Jacob of Serugh, see Kavvadas, âA Talking New-Born (Q 19:30), Aaronâs Sister (Q 19:28), Mary Who Is Not God (Q 5:116),â and see already Canart, âLe nouveau-né qui dénonce son père.â On Maryâs unchastity in the Talmudic and the polemical Jewish traditions about Jesus see Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, 15â24, and Anthony, âToledot Yeshu and the End of Jesusâ Earthly Mission in the Qurʾan.â
The fact that newborns can be able to speak and perform tasks is a widespread trope, the Rabbis, for example, suggest that the antediluvian babies would easily assist their mothers in cutting their umbilical cords or battle â and speak â with demons, see Leviticus Rabbah 5.1, composed at the turn of the fifth century CE. We should also note that Hippolytus, at the turn of the third century CE, reports that Valentinus claims to have had a vision of an infant claiming âI am the logos,â offering another relevant, if somewhat remote precedent for the Qurâanic miracle of the speaking baby Jesus, see Hippolytus, Ref. VI, 40, 2 (ed. Wendland, 173). The speaking Jesus in the Arabic Infancy Gospel, however, seems to post-date the Qurâan, see Gero, âThe Infancy Gospel of Thomas,â 74.
On Jesus feeding the multitudes see e.g. Matt. 14:13â21 and 15:32â39 and the parallels in Mark 6:31â44 and 8:1â9, Luke 19:12â17 and John 6:5â14, see already Ahrens, âChristliches im Qoran,â 173. For Toledot Yeshu see note 70 below.
See Goudarzi, âThe Eucharist in the Qurâan.â
According to Midrash Tanhuma Beshallah 24, another Jewish text whose late antique core is both evident and difficult to reconstruct, the Holy Spirit informs the Israelites about the Manna they have wrongly stored in their tents. The Qurâan mentions the sending of Manna twice by referring to an unspecified sin (see Q 2:57 and Q 7:160) and in a third passage explicates that the Manna comes with specific âbounds therein,â evoking the prohibition of storing Manna in Exod. 16 (see Q 20:80â82); my gratitude to Nadja Abuhussein for suggesting the possible connection between Jesusâ prophecy and Manna in the Qurâan.
Ephrem, for example, understands Josephâs prediction of the abundance of grain to the everlasting life offered through Jesus as the bread of life, see Heal, âJoseph as a Type of Christ in Syriac Literature,â 43. On the Qurâanâs tendency to âoverwriteâ such typological readings see Rizk, âThe Joseph Story in the QurâÄn and in the Syriac Tradition.â
The Qurâan uses two Aramaicisms, based on the roots bry and kmh, when describing Jesus âhealingâ âthe blind,â see notes 36 and 37 above. The Peshitta translation of the Gospels, as well as the Jewish and Christian reports of Jesusâ miracles as discussed below, by contrast, use the Hebrew and Aramaic roots rpy/h and ʾsy to depict Jesusâ acts of healing, and the Hebrew and Aramaic roots Ê¿wr and swm / smʾ/y/h to depict the blindness of those healed. While the issue requires more attention, the discrepancy indicates that we are not dealing with the Qurâanâs literary âdependenceâ on either the Peshitta or the Toledot Yeshu narrowly defined (and certainly not with its dependence on the extant manuscripts) but with an unrestricted Qurâanic reaction to (likely oral) Jewish and Christian traditions, purposely indicating their Israelite origin through its use of Aramaicisms.
See note 9 above.
Didascalia Apostolorum 26, based on Vööbus, The Didascalia Apostolorum in Syriac IâIV, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 401â2 and 407â8, 224 (translation) and 242â243 (text), reflecting Vööbusâ emendations. The phrase, âand abrogated,â is missing in the Latin, which simply states: âlex ergo indestructibilis, secundatio autem legis temporalis,â see Connolly, Didascalia Apostolorum, 219.
The Qurâan, of course, does not mention Jesusâ endorsement of the purificatory sacrifice in the Jerusalem Temple that was incumbent upon a healed leper (according to Lev. 14:10â32). For both texts, this ritual has lost its relevance following the destruction of the Temple. Note that the parallel of Matt. 8:1â4 and Luke 5:12â16 in Mark 1:40â45 has the healed man disobey Jesusâ command. On the historical context of the Gospel narrative see Thiessen, Jesus and the Forces of Death, 55â68.
Note that similar lists of miracles also occur in Mandaic texts, as noted by Ahrens, who rightly dismisses them from his considerations based on their difficult dating, see Ahrens, âChristliches im Qoran,â 174.
On the Qurâan and specific literary Gospel traditions see e.g. Reynolds, âBiblical Turns of Phrase in the QurʾÄn,â 45â69.
Acts 2:22 specifies that God Himself performed the miracles through Jesus, as discussed by Dye, âMapping the Sources of the Qurâanic Jesus,â 166â167. Especially in light of the close parallel with the Clementine Homilies and the stark counter-narrative in Toledot Yeshu discussed below, I am not persuaded by Dyeâs attempt to read the Qurâanic miracles more closely aligned with Acts; it is rather striking that the Qurâanic Jesus remains the author of the miracles, despite their proximity to Godâs own creative powers as discussed above.
The relevance of this passage for the Qurâanâs portrayal of Jesus has been identified by Hussain, see idem, Wisdom in the Qurâan, 161. On the importance of the Clementine Homilies for the Qurâan see notes 9 and 35 above, on the status of Jesus see Clementine Homilies 2:4â6 and 3:11â30 and Zambon, âThe True Prophet in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies,â 156â76.
Clementine Recognitions 1:6, cited according to Paul de Lagarde, Clementis Romani Recognitiones syriace, 5; for the parallel in the Clementine Homilies 1:6, which adds the element of the expulsion of demons (
See Hussain, âWisdom in the Qurâan,â 161.
See Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu, vol. I, 138â40 (translation) and vol. II, 60 (text). The manuscripts of Toledot Yeshu can be classified based both on their provenance and their content; I combine both systems classifications for ease of reference. For an overview of the provenance of the Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts see Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu, 28â39, for a recent discussion of the two main versions of Toledot Yeshu tradition as identified by Riccardo di Segni â the so-called âPilateâ and âHelenaâ versions, named after the role Pontius Pilate and Queen Helena play in the narrative â with an emphasis on the importance of the Judaeo-Arabic manuscripts, see Goldstein, A Judeo-Arabic Parody of the Life of Jesus, 1â16.
Manuscript New York JTS 8998 cited according to Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu, vol. I, 138 (translation) and vol. II, 60 (text).
On the phrase in Toledot Yeshu see Evans and van Putten, ââI Am the Messiah and I Can Revive the Deadâ.â
See Babai the Great, Liber de unione, 138, as discussed by Stosch, âJesus and Mary in SurÄt Al-MÄʾida (Q 5);â see also Kavvadas, âA Talking New-Born (Q 19:30)â and Ghaffar, Der Koran in seinem religions- und weltgeschichtlichen Kontext, 33â48 on the potential relevance of Sefer Zerubbabel for the Qurâanâs depiction of Mary.
While the charge of magic is a common theme throughout late antiquity and especially in the Qurâan, the latterâs double rejection of Jesusâ status as either divine or as a magician is more specific than the Qurâanâs depiction of charges of magic levelled against Moses or Muhammad, noted above. On the charge of magic and Jesusâ miracles in Toledot Yeshu see Bohak, âJesus the Magician in the âPilateâ Recension of Toledot Yeshu,â 81â98 and Schäfer and Meerson, Toledot Yeshu, 64â75; on the charge in the Babylonian Talmud see Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, esp. 34â40, on pagan and patristic polemics see e.g. Å edina, âMagical Power of Names in Origenâs Polemic Against Celsus.â
Quoted according to Burke, âThe Infancy Gospel of Thomas from an Unpublished Syriac Manuscript,â 267. On the broader context of Jesusâ miracle in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, see also Gero, âThe Infancy Gospel of Thomas,â 46â80 and Gribetz, âJesus and the Clay Birds,â vol.2, 1021â1048. Note that in the Gospel of Thomas, Jesusâ creation occurs on the Sabbath, which is also portrayed as causing a legal problem when Jesus heals on the Sabbath in the canonical Gospels, see e.g. Matt. 12:10â12, Mark 3:2â4 and Luke 6:6â9. The Qurâanâs emphasis, especially in Q 5:110, that all these miracles occurred with Godâs permission, could extend to indicate the permissibility of Jesusâ actions on the Sabbath, whose breaking the Qurâan problematizes elsewhere (see Q 2:65, Q 4:47 and 154, Q 7:163) without clearly abrogating it (see Q 16:124), see also note 15 above.
Manuscript St. Petersburg RNL EVR 1.274 cited according to Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu, 158 (translation) and vol. II, 74 (text). This manuscript uniquely combines elements of the âPilateâ and the âHelenaâ versions, adding further elements in direct contact with Byzantine Christianity.
The other miracles in this tradition â splitting water and passing over dry land, feeding the multitudes, turning the taste of water to wine, dying clothing, and darkening a house, offer a conglomerate of motifs known from the Hebrew Bible, the canonical Gospels, and later, plausibly post-Qurâanic Gospel traditions, none of which are essential for the present purpose, on feeding the multitudes see note 49 above.
See manuscripts Strasbourg BnU 3974, New York JTS 2221 (where the people make the birds that Jesus vivifies), and New York JTS 2343, see Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu, vol. I, 172, 193, 210, 245 (translation) and vol. II, 87, 102, 117 (text). Note that the badly damaged Judaeo-Arabic fragment RNL Evr.-Arab. II: 2035 equally reports a miracle concluding with âflying off,â apparently depicting the vivification of the birds, see Goldstein, A Judeo-Arabic Parody of the Life of Jesus, 88â89.
Manuscript Strasbourg BnU 3974 cited according to Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu, vol. I, 171â172 (translation) and vol. II, 86â87 (text); on the manuscriptâs importance see Stökl Ben-Ezra, âOn Some Early Traditions in Toledot Yeshu and the Antiquity of the âHelenaâ Recension,â 43â58.
Manuscript New York JTS 2221 cited according to Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu, vol. I, 191â193 (translation) and vol. II, 101â102 (text).
See Manuscript New York JTS 2343 in Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu, vol. I, 208â210 (translation) and vol. II, 116â117 (text).
Importantly, the Early Yemenite (Pilate) manuscript New York JTS 6312 connects Jesusâ rejection of the Oral Torah to his claim of prophethood and his magic, see Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu, vol. I, 148â149 (translation) and vol. II, 67 (text), see also note 81 below.
This important matter cannot be treated here in the necessary detail, yet see the important brief summary by Bar-Asher Siegal, âNazarenes (
See note 4 above and notes 82 and 87 below.
The âIshmaelitesâ appear in Ashkenazi B (Helena) manuscript New York JTS 2221, see Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu, vol. I, 202 (translation) and vol. II, 109 (text), as well as in Late Yemenite (Helena) manuscript New York JTS 2343, see Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu, vol. I, 215 (translation) and vol. II, 122 (text). For the mention of Eliezer ben Qalir see the Ashkenazi A (Helena) manuscript Strasbourg BnU 3974 in Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu, vol. I, 184 (translation) and vol. II, 95 (text). Note the discussion of an Islamicate emendation in a manuscript belonging to the âPilateâ version below.
Cited according to manuscript New York JTS 6312 in Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu, vol. I, 154 (translation) and vol. II, 70 (text).
An epigraphic precedent for the Qurâanâs name for Jesus, ʿĪsÄ, has recently been published by Al-Jallad and Al-Manaser, âPre-Islamic Divine Name Ê¿sy and the Background of the QurʾÄnic Jesus.â
Note the interesting parallel to the case of Maryâs impregnation in the Ashkenazi A (Helena) manuscript Strasbourg BnU 3974, which has Nestor proclaim that âapostates are those who say that Yeshu is God, for he was born by a woman (
On the importance of Toledot Yeshu in the Islamicate world â and its divergences from European polemics â see Goldstein, âA Polemical Tale and its Function in the Jewish Communities of the Mediterranean and the Near Eastâ and Alexander, âThe Toledot Yeshu in the Context of Jewish-Muslim Debate.â
See, e.g., Alexander, âNarrative and Counternarrative.â
On the dating of Toledot Yeshu see note 4 above, see also Sarit Kattan Gribetz, âToledot Yeshu,â 154â74, arguing for a late date, and Barbu, âLâÃvangile selon les Juifs.â The earliest witness to the rabbinic literature may be the Rehov inscription, see Fine, âThe Rehov Inscriptions and Rabbinic Literature.â
See Smelik, âThe Aramaic Dialect(s) of the Toldot Yeshu Fragments,â Sokoloff, âThe Date and Provenance of the Aramaic Toledot Yeshu on the Basis of Aramaic Dialectology,â 13â26 and Horbury, âA Critical Examination of the Toledot Yeshu.â
See Stökl Ben-Ezra, âWho Is the Target of Toledot Yeshu,â 359â80, Stökl Ben-Ezra, âOn Some Early Traditions in Toledot Yeshu and the Antiquity of the âHelenaâ Recension,â Piovanelli, âThe Toledot Yeshu and Christian Apocryphal Literature,â 89â100 and Gero, âThe Nestorius Legend in the Toledot Yeshu,â 108â20 pace Schaefer and Meerson, Toledot Yeshu, 111â13. A similar reading of a Coptic homily attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem as responding to the Toledot Yeshu tradition has been suggested by Anthony, âToledot Yeshu and the End of Jesusâ Earthly Mission in the Qurʾan.â
Miriam Goldstein, as part of her recent study of the Judeo-Arabic manuscripts of Toledot Yeshu, urged for a revaluation of the literary development of the two main branches of Toledot Yeshu in all extant ancient languages, see Goldstein, A Judeo-Arabic Parody of the Life of Jesus and Goldstein, âJesus in Arabic, Jesus in Judeo-Arabic.â Given that many of the Judaeo-Arabic versions were translations from earlier, Aramaic versions, a further study of this corpus may prove essential for the further study of the relationship of the Qurâan to the Jewish tradition, see also Bohak, âA New Genizah Fragment of Toledoth Yeshu in Aramaic.â