In recent years, certain developments have occurred in scholarship regarding the question of the specific relationship of the Qurâan to high Christology.1 However, when examining explicit Qurâanic statements about Jesus, the Son of Mary, one must remember that speaking of the Old Testament prophets as typoi (i.e. as it were pre-drawings) of Jesus Christ and, in this manner, developing prophetology as implicit Christology were natural for the majority of church fathers of late antiquity.2 Therefore, Sidney Griffith assumes that Qurâanic prophetology must be deciphered as a counter-discourse against implicit Christology.3 In examining this thesis, the figure of Joseph is of particular interest, because he represented a particularly powerful site for the typological development of Christology among church fathers.4 As such, is it possible to understand SÅ«rah YÅ«suf as a confrontation with an implicit Christology? Moreover, can the Qurâanic critique of this Christology be more closely defined in terms of its motives? Is it a fundamental critique of any high Christology or are there comprehensible reasons that underlie the Qurâanic reshaping and reconfiguring of the given motifs and narrative materials?
Such questions emerge from presuppositions of recent historical-critical Qurâanic research, which should be first viewed as explorations in a new field of research. The awareness of the Qurâanic community about corresponding typological interpretations of the Christian church fathers is unclear. Moreover, whether or not the Qurâanic community theologically engaged with the church fathers is less clear. Nevertheless, reports of recent studies make it extremely likely, especially for SÅ«rah YÅ«suf that they addressed the intertexts of Syriac church fathers and, thereby, had typological interpretations in mind in the sense of implicit Christology.5 In his dissertation, Charbel Rizk convincingly demonstrated that the Qurâan, in its construction of the Joseph story, reacts in various ways to the Christological-typological interpretation of the Joseph figure in the Syriac tradition. In the first step, Rizkâs dissertation illustrates the motifs, plotlines and lines of thought from the Syriac tradition, which are of crucial importance to the typological interpretation of Joseph towards Christ that do not appear in the Qurâan.6 In total, Rizk lists 19 Syriac typological-Christological interpretations of the Biblical tradition whose narrative clues remain unmentioned by the Qurâan. This finding suggests that the Qurâan considers the church fathersâ extensive typological interpretations of Joseph towards Christ problematic and does not wish to adopt them. In the following, the study intends to explore the question of what theological motifs may underlie the Qurâanic omissions.
Evidently, one must be extremely careful with such a question, because the Qurâan is not only in discussion with the Syriac church fathers and not every omission of narrative details needs to pursue a counter-Christological intention.7 Thus, in my opinion, a few of the omissions listed by Rizk are seemingly readily explicable without reference to Christology. In my search for traces, I concentrate on the passages in which I consider the explanatory approach of the Qurâanic omission as an implicit statement vis-Ã -vis the Syriac tradition to be plausible. The fact that the Syriac tradition is seemingly such an intensive interlocutor for SÅ«rah YÅ«suf may be due to the particular geographical, cultural and linguistic proximity of Syriac Christians to the genesis of the Qurâan, which is a proximity that renders Syriac literature of late antiquity the site par excellence for Qurâanic intertexts.8 In doing so, this chapter does not endeavour to demonstrate once again that the Qurâanic modifications of the Biblical textual record are best understood as a reaction to the Christological interpretations of the church fathers. I am fully aware that the last word in research remains unspoken. Instead, with heuristic intent, this study seeks to elucidate the implications of the Qurâanic perspective on Jesus, the Son of Mary, if circumstantial evidence from SÅ«rah YÅ«suf may indeed be interpreted as addressing an implicit Christology. Therefore, I would like to invite readers to a so-called thought experiment, for which a number of strong clues can be found in recent research, at the same time, however, it is unusual and presupposition-rich, such that it can only be understood as an experimental search for clues for the time being.
1. Counter-Christological Omissions of Biblical Motifs in SÅ«rah YÅ«suf?
In examining the Qurâanic motifs that underlie the omissions of Biblical narrative materials in SÅ«rah YÅ«suf due to their critical implications for Christology, three circles of motifs emerge that seem to be of concern to the proclaimer of the Qurâan and the Qurâanic community.
a) Rejection of Anti-Jewish supersessionism
In my view, the rejection of any form of Christological supersessionism is particularly evident and recurring. I will illustrate this using three examples. First, the church fathers transfer the special relationship of Joseph to his father and his superiority over his brothers to Jesus and his special relationship to God the Father and his superiority over all prophets.9 The Qurâan does not seem to want to follow this hierarchisation, which could also be and was turned anti-Jewish. Thus, it omits the narrative details used by the church fathers to illustrate Josephâs superiority, such as the Bibleâs transmission through him of the evil deeds of his brothers to his father (Gen. 37:2) or the emphasis on the greater love of Jacob for Joseph (Gen. 37:3f). The Qurâan certainly considers the special significance of Josephâs clothes not only as evidence of his apparent death or infidelity (Q 12:17f; 12:25â28) but also as a means of healing (Q 12:96). However, it does not mention that the clothes were specially made for Joseph by his father, which elevated him above his siblings (Gen. 37:4). In summary, this move avoids any idea that would imply unjustified favouritism towards Joseph by his father. On the contrary, the Qurâan programmatically emphasises at the very beginning that God fulfils Godâs grace on Joseph and the house of Jacob (Q 12:6) without privileging Joseph at this point. If one considers the typological identification of Joseph with Christ in the patristic tradition, then one can see a promise not only to Christianity but also to Judaism in this programmatic statement.
Second, the Biblical version of the Joseph narrative assumes that Joseph is sent by God and his father to his brothers in Shechem, who are feeding the sheep and goats there (Gen. 37:12â14). In the Qurâanic version, however, the brothers take him away and, thus, lure him into a trap (Q 12:11f). In this context, Joseph appears still as a child and the brothers promise to watch over him while he plays. In the interpretation of Aphrahat and Jacob of Sarug, Joseph being sent by his father is linked to the vineyard parable, in which the landowner sends his son to the vinedressers to collect the fruit (Matt. 21:33â46par). However, the vinedressers kill the son, as did the servants before him. The Syriac church fathers now typologically interpret the brothers of Jospeh as the Jews who killed the son and heir of God.10
The fact that Joseph in the Qurâan becomes the victim of his brothersâ intrigue while still a child emphasises his innocence. His provocative dreams, which remain hidden, are not the cause of the intrigue but the feeling of jealousy against the one who is supposedly more beloved.11 In the Qurâanic version, given that Jesus is able to speak prophetically as a child (Q 19:30), the emphasis on the childhood of Joseph cannot be brought against the typological identification of Joseph with Jesus. The Qurâan simply seems to oppose the idea of the mission to the sacrifice on the cross and its supersessionist implications.
Third, in the Biblical story, Josephâs brothers sell him upon Judahâs initiative (Gen. 37:26f); in the Qurâanic version, the merchants discover him by chance when they went to fetch water from the well (Q 12:19). The background of this omission could be the fact that Syriac church fathers, such as Aphrahat and Jacob of Sarug, observed the behaviour of Judas Iscariot prefigured in this initiative by Judah.12 Thus, Judah becomes Judas and the life-saving intervention of Judah in the Biblical context is turned into its opposite. Once again, then, the Qurâanic omission can be understood as an endeavour to deconstruct supersessionist Christian theologies.
The three aforementioned omissions could also be generally opposed to any form of high Christology. In addition and certainly, the majority of Muslim interpretations would simply see such anti-Christological motifs at work in the interpretation of SÅ«rah YÅ«suf, if they are willing to seriously consider the typological search for the proposed traces. In pointing out that the three omissions can be interpreted as criticisms of the anti-Jewish supersessionism of the Christology of the church fathers, I want to acknowledge an interpretive possibility of the Qurâanic reservations about Christological motifs, which were developed and substantiated at length elsewhere.13 From the modern theological perspective, the Qurâan would be stronger and more convincing in such an anti-supersessionist reading and more challenging for non-Muslim listeners. In addition, the hermeneutical principle of charity within comparative theology demands to adopt the strongest interpretation available for the text of another religion. Thus, I suggest reflecting on this possibility.
b) Rejection of an imperial claim to the figure of Joseph
A second motif seemingly exerts a critical effect on Christology in the Qurâan and arouses scepticism about a typological claim to Joseph from the Christological perspective. Although rabbinic sources and in the church fathers refer to Joseph as a shepherd, even the Lord of Shepherds, this detail does not appear in the Qurâanic text. A possibility exists that the Qurâan takes offence at the hierarchisation made by Aphrahat and Jacob in particular, when Joseph thus appears as lord over all other shepherds and, therefore, as the better shepherd.14 For this reason, an anti-supersessionist motivation could be hidden here as well. Especially in view of the link of the shepherd function with that of the statesman given, for example, in Philo and numerous Greek thinkers,15 this superlative is politically charged and can be used to legitimise imperial theology and Christology, which the Qurâan seems to view critically.16
Two further details support this notion. In the Biblical text, Josephâs investiture of power by the Pharaoh is linked to a bestowal of insignia of power upon him, such as the signet ring, the byssus robes and the golden chain around his neck (Gen. 41:42). In the Qurâan, Joseph is also placed at the head of storehouses and is considered highly respected (Q 12:54â56); however, it avoids anything that may imply an end in itself of power. His installation is intended to secure Joseph a place in the land and is done due to his trustworthiness and pragmatic skill. Based on this discussion, a power-political staging of his peculiarity is avoided. Observing an anti-Christological intensification would only be permissible if one wanted to develop Christology with such imperial insignia of power. A possibility exists that the proclaimer of the Qurâan has indeed such Christologies in mind. However, whether or not a discourse exists with the Christian-typological interpretation is unclear in view of the installation of Joseph.
This uncertainty may change in light of another detail. Josephâs brothers also prostrate themselves before him (Gen. 42:6), which is a detail that is important for the Biblical narrative, because it partially proves the two dreams from the beginning of the Joseph novella. The prostration of the parents (Gen. 37:9f), which is to be expected from the second dream, is not found in the Biblical Joseph novellaâat least not in the Hebrew version of the text. It may be relatively different in the Greek and Syriac translations of the Bible. When Gen. 47:31 says that Jacob bends over the head of his deathbed in response to Josephâs oath, the Septuagint and Peshitta find the idea that Jacob bends âover the head of his staffâ, because the underlying Hebrew word for bed can also mean staff when vocalised differently. Many church fathers wanted to see bowing at this point and, thus, viewed the second dream as fulfilled.17
Interestingly, the Qurâan precisely takes up this second dream, such that one expects a corresponding prostration (Q 12:4). However, it is missing at the expected place of the brothersâ encounter with Joseph (Q 12:58). Once again, one can see the scepticism of the Qurâan against any religious charging of imperial insignia in the background or suspect anti-Christological motives. In any case, a striking aspect is that in the typological interpretation of a number of Syriac church fathers, this prostration of the brethren is understood as a surrender to Jesus as the Son of God.18 This notion suggests a counter-Christological implication of the Qurâanic omission. Whether or not it is directed against high Christology as such or against its imperial claim remains unclear for the time being. However, in the further course of SÅ«rah YÅ«suf, a prostration occurs before Joseph (Q 12:100), which does not fit a general critique of high Christology. This prostration does not explicitly mention the brothers, although one can assume that they are among those present who prostrate themselves before Joseph. This is also the suggestion of the standard interpretation in Muslim tradition. Much textual evidence implies that the parents of Joseph joined in the gesture of humility. However, this happens after Joseph has raised his parents to the throne. If they now throw themselves at Josephâs feet on the throne, then misunderstanding this gesture as a recognition of his imperial or political power is impossible. At the same time, this gesture is extraordinary in the ancient Near Eastern as well as in the late antique contexts, especially in light of it being anchored in the Biblical tradition, which can only be comprehended nearly by force. Does this mean that a Christological interpretation of this scene, purified of political implications, may therefore be likely?
The act of prostration/Proskynesis before a person is found in two main groups of images in late antique art: in depictions of defeated enemy rulers or generals (e.g. prostrating themselves before the Roman Emperor) and of donators or of the Emperor, prostrating in front of Jesus Christ.19 This latter pictorial motif, together with the fact that prostrations before the Emperor were forbidden on Sundays,20 may suggest that a certain tension was perceived between these two major forms of a Proskynesis.
However, a relatively clear idea to Christians of the late antique Near East was that prostration/Proskynesis was not something that could be offered to God alone: Already âOrigenes (adnot. In Ex. 20, Patrologia Graeca 17, col. 16) unterscheidet insofern zwischen
Nevertheless, in the majority of cases, one can infer that Proskynein in the New Testament is enacted before God and Jesus Christ as God or as divine.23 For example, theologically meaningful forms of prostration/proskynesis occur before Jesus (e.g. Heb. 1:6 or Phil. 2:10), which would have led Syriac fathers, such as Jakob, to understand the prostration in front of Josef christologically. Evidently, another very prominent Qurâanic scene exists in which prostration to humans occurs such as the scene in which the angels are ordered to prostrate themselves before Adam. Holger Zellentin compares the different versions of this Qurâanic scene with the same passages in the Cave of Treasures and with Bereshit Rabba and demonstrates that the different Meccan episodes on the creation of Adam (Q 18:50â53; 17:61â65, 15:26â48, 38:71â85, 7:10â28 and 20:116â23) are in close dialogue with the Syriac tradition. Moreover, they adopt an increasing number of elements of the Cave of Treasures, including the prostration before Adam and the refusal of a few angels to perform this prostration.24 Zellentin identifies the danger of the association of the angels with God as the major reason for this prostration in the Qurâan. He suggests that the prostration of the angels becomes a weapon in arguments against pagans in Mecca.25 At the same time, the Qurâan remains silent about certain Christological motives and does not understand the prostration â pace the Cave of Treasures â as a form of worship.26 Similar to the rabbis, the Qurâan seemingly rejects the kingship and holiness of Adam,27 which was developed in the Christian-typological reading of the role of Adam.
The only Medinan retelling of the story in Q 2:29â37 seems to be a response not only to the Christian but also to the rabbinic tradition, which becomes increasingly precise in its theological articulation. Zellentin demonstrates how glory and holiness are transferred from Adam/Christ to God,28 and no divine knowledge can be attributed to Adam,29 which seemingly also challenges the idea of the rabbis who stress that Adamâs wisdom is superior to that of angels.30
On the one hand, we present evident and close parallels between the Syriac literature and the Qurâanic prostration before Adam,31 which may be related to the order given to the angels to prostrate themselves before Jesus, the second Adam, in Heb. 1:6. This verse was interpreted â similar to Phil. 2:10 â by most Exegetes of Late Antiquity as a manifestation that Jesus Christ is God.32 This aspect may have led to the idea that the prostration of the parents before Joseph can also be interpreted christologically. On the other hand, Zellentin poses many arguments for a non-Christological reading of the Qurâanic versions of the prostration of the angels before Adam. However, applying his arguments to the case of Joseph is difficult. Thus, inferring that pagan people in Mecca associated angels with God and arguing that the Qurâan wants to oppose these pagans by positively referring to the prostration of the angels before Adam make sense. However, evidence is lacking for people who associate their parents with God. For this reason, the reference to the association of parents lacks a good Qurâanic motive, such that its narration in the Qurâan is striking. Nevertheless, the door remains open to the possibility for Christians for Christological readings at a very decisive moment of the story of Joseph.
In summary, an interesting notion is that the Qurâan does not omit such possibilities for Christological associations. Thus, the major concern is not to avoid prostrations before humans but, potentially, to avoid a misunderstanding of these prostrations as a form of the sacralisation of political power in the sense in which Heraclius understood his reign. When the parents perform the prostration on the throne, the scene illustrates that imperial power needs to be balanced and contextualised. In other words, the scene is seemingly more about Joseph and his relationship with his parents and less about his imperial power.
c) Counter-Eucharistic Implications of the Omission of Josephâs First Dream?
The first dream, in which the sheaves of Josephâs brothers bow down before his sheaf, is fiercely rejected by his brothers in the Biblical figure of Josephâs novella, because they noted the presumption that Joseph wants to be their king and lord (Gen. 37:6â8). In contrast, the second dream evokes the protest of his father, who does not want to accept that they must prostrate themselves before Joseph (Gen. 37:9â11). In the Qurâanic version, as previously mentioned, only the second dream is preserved, such that one could ask whether it is only narrative parsimony that leads the proclaimer of the Qurâan to omit the first dream or whether theological motives could also exist. Is it, perhaps again, Josephâs imperial presumption as suspected by the brothers that leads the Qurâan to omit the first dream? Alternatively, does the proclaimer of the Qurâan take offence at the Eucharistic interpretation of the first dream by Jacob of Sarug, for example?33
Examining the relationship of the father with Joseph, another detail may elucidate the answers to these questions. In the Qurâan, the father does not reject Josephâs presumption that the parents and his brothers should prostrate before him. Instead, the father asks Joseph not to use this fact as an argument against his brothers (Q 12:5). Thus, Jacob confirms his sonâs election and ranks it with the election of his fathers (Q 12:6). In contrast, the growth of Josephâs sheaf and its venerability to Jacob of Sarug functions to illustrate that the fullness of bread is only in Jesus and that only with him is life-giving power.34 It is precisely this latent supersessionist charge of the dream that its omission takes away. Therefore, the typological allusion to the Eucharist does not seem to be the decisive problem; instead, it is the intensification of this interpretation to a supersessionist Christology. In fact, another unlikely scenario is that the Qurâan pursues counter-Eucharist motifs in its omission of the first dream, because, elsewhere, it seemingly accepts in principle that the bread of heaven connects Christians with Jesus and is able to give the disciples certainty in their hearts.35 However (this is how one could interpret the omission of the dream), the proclaimer of the Qurâan resists the assumption of a superiority of the Eucharist over other forms of closeness to God. Nevertheless, whether or not the proclaimer of the Qurâan holds a special sensitivity for the particularity of the Eucharistic event and, perhaps, even wants to invite a Eucharistic interpretation of Christology, we will still consider in the further course of our reflections.
Thus far, we have identified only two motifs of the counter-Christological omissions in SÅ«rah YÅ«suf. The Qurâan seemingly opposes the typological claims to Joseph in the Christology of the church fathers when these can be used in a supersessionist and imperial manner. Whether or not he also wants to intervene generally against a high Christology must remain open. The textual findings do not suggest but evidently do not exclude this interpretation.
Apparently, one could object to all possibilities of interpretation turned to criticism of Christology that the omissions in each case are simply due to the narrative economy of the Qurâan and only happen to be concerned with christologically central points. Indeed, drawing conclusions from an argumentum e silentio is always decidedly tricky. In addition, the cumulative force from the multitude of case studies is only of limited conviction. Rizk is, evidently, aware of this objection; for this reason, he is particularly emphatic about the three cases, each of which exhibits not only an omission but also a counterfactual intertextuality between the Qurâanic formulation and the Syriac memre tradition. With this formulation of counterfactual intertextuality, which was borrowed from Zishan Ghaffar,36 Rizk intends to elucidate that the Qurâan and the Syriac tradition directly contradict each other on crucial facts. Once again, this direct contradiction decisively exceeds the diagnosis of an omission and increases the likelihood that even the mere omissions are made with critical intent. They are particularly striking and could also help in answering the question of how to evaluate the Qurâanic approach to the Biblical tradition in light of its Christological implications. Towards this end, I present three examples.
2. Three Examples of Counterfactual Intertextuality in SÅ«rah YÅ«suf
a) Potifarâs accusation
The first example explained by Charbel Rizk is related to Potifarâs wife, who in the Biblical and the Qurâanic versions, tries without success to seduce Joseph (Gen. 39:12; Q 12:23f). In contrast to the Bible (Gen. 39:19f), however, Potifar in the Qurâanic version does not believe his wife (Q 12:28) and is not responsible for the imprisonment of Joseph (12:33â35). In other words, not only is a detail of the Biblical narrative omitted, but the facts also are inverted. Such inversions are found in view of the first detail mentioned in certain rabbinic and Syriac sources. Thus, in Genesis Rabbah, Pseudo-Basilius, Pseudo-Narsai and Narsai, they also assume that Potifar does not believe his wife.37 However, in all these sources, Potifar is the one who remains responsible for Josephâs imprisonment. In contrast, in the Qurâan, Potifar does not condemn Joseph. In the further course, instead, Joseph himself desires the prison sentence to escape the persecutions of women (Q 12:33), such that the incarceration brought about by the womenâs intrigues nearly appears as a fulfilment of his wish. Who is responsible for this incarceration on the human side remains open; it is simply stated laconically that incarcerating him seemed good to them (Q 12:35). Who âtheyâ are remains open.
To make the inversion of the Biblical story understandable at this point, Rizk offers an explanation from the Syriac tradition, which he particularly develops by recourse to Jacob of Sarug. Similar to Jesus, Joseph was considered guilty by his people, although he was not guilty of anything as Jacob of Sarug explains.38 He explicitly identifies the Egyptian woman in her agitation against Joseph with the synagogue, which, according to his interpretation, turns against Jesus. At the typological level, Judaism is, thus, explicitly accused of having learned the denial of the Savior from the Egyptian woman. Typologically, Potifar plays the role of Pilate, who condemns the innocent victim to death, because he is manipulated by the women or the Jews against Joseph or Jesus.
Although Potifar is tricked in Jacobâs sermon and allows himself to be manipulated â similar to Pilate â the Qurâanic version of the story presents the case that Potifar recognises the deception and, therefore, defends Joseph against the accusations of his wife. In addition, in the Qurâan, the women in the city see through the scheme of Potifarâs wife and publicly oppose her (Q 12:30). If we typologically understand this woman as part of Israel, because Potifarâs wife is identified with Israel by the church fathers and the other women belong to the same people as she, then Israel as a whole would no longer turn against Jesus in the Qurâanic version, but only part of its ruling elite.
However, whether or not the women in the Qurâanic version of the story are to be interpreted in this manner remains relatively vague, because they follow the invitation of Potifarâs wife to a banquet and perform a strange ritual by cutting their hands. This ritual has previously aroused associations with the Eucharist through the talk of a banquet and the great importance of the blood. However, blood is not symbolically represented, which stems from an injury that the women want only inflicted on themselves. Moreover, no ritual consumption of the blood occurs. Despite these obvious differences, if the Eucharist is in view here, then the Qurâan perhaps intends to warn against a potential misunderstanding of the Eucharist. After all, the women get into ecstasy by the beauty of Joseph and they increase into it by their peculiar ritual actions. Relatively different from Q 5:112â114, their actions do not appear as a response to Godâs action, but as something of their own making. As such, it is not for the purpose of gaining assurance of heart but for ecstasy. Thus, their feast could be interpreted as a pagan instead of a Christian ritual; accordingly, it culminates in the confession of Joseph/Jesus as an angel (Q 12:31) that is, the basic pagan misunderstanding of the prophets in Qurâanic theology.
This pagan interpretation of the womenâs ritual also fits the fact that a cross-cultural idea of slitting oneâs wrists for love nearly exists in secular love literature. Against this background, the ritual of the women may be evaluated as a pagan ritual of veneration of Joseph or Jesus, respectively, which is supposed to demonstrate how much Joseph have inspired the women. The women could then stand for a grouping that was very present in Mecca and wanted to include Jesus in their pantheon of gods, thus, understanding Jesus as a finite quantity that competes with other heavenly figures (see Q 43:58).39
In this aspect, Potifarâs wife gets carried away by Joseph and commits the sin of companionship in this manner (Q 12:30). In doing so, she harms Joseph/Jesus the most and destroys the relationship with him. Furthermore, the other women fail to achieve a helpful relationship with Joseph/Jesus. Apparently, dangers lurk for the Qurâanic perception in the Christ-relationship, which gets the upper hand when rituals display ecstatic-orgiastic features and when the beauty of Jesus Christ becomes the all-dominating category. Unfortunately, less is known about the addressees of this warning such that it can be explained more precisely. If Christians are addressed, then it may be concerned with an inherent danger of Christ worship, which could consist in making Jesus an idol and wanting to come close to him through ecstatic rituals.
On the one hand, it denotes the defence against the paganisation of the worship of Christ. In addition, the opposition between Christ and Israel, as introduced by Jacob of Sarug, is broken up and given new possibilities of interpretation through the category of ambiguity.40 The anti-Jewish clichés of the church fathers are rendered impossible and the arbitrator role of Rome is destroyed, because Joseph/Jesus determines his fate in the end. Therefore, it is neither the Jews who bring Jesus to the cross nor Pilateâs miscarriage of justice but the will of Jesus, who submits entirely to the will of God. In this manner, Q 4:157 can then say that God alone is the acting agent in the execution of Jesus.41 The reason is that Jesus takes himself completely back in the Qurâanic interpretation and repeatedly elucidates God as the reason for his work and his miracles. The group that, in fact, conducts the execution in the end is no longer important at this point, because the historical event can no longer be separated from the will of God.
b) The Three Journeys of Josephâs Brothers to Egypt
For the second example, Josephâs brothers make three trips to Egypt in the Biblical version. Although they returned empty-handed after the first time due to Josephâs insistence that they must bring their youngest brother Benjamin with them, Benjamin is then arrested by Joseph the second time, before Joseph reveals himself to them (Gen. 45:3â5). Finally, the third visit serves to move the whole clan to Egypt (Gen 46). In the Qurâanic version, Josephâs revelation on the second journey occurs only to Benjamin, who remains nameless (Q 12:69), while he does not reveal himself to the other brothers until the third journey (Q 12:90). In this context, not only is something omitted (the revelation to the brothers on the second journey) but the situation of revelation is inverted with regard to the brothers who have become guilty of Joseph.
To explain the reasons why this event happens, Rizk again recommends an examination of the Syriac church fathers. Thus, Jacob of Sarug compares the revelation of Joseph to his brothers with the Parousia of Christ and his meeting with the nations. When all the nations are gathered only then will the Risen Christ come again and reveal himself in his glory.42 Those who crucified him will also recognise him. A special treatment of the Jews is, thus, excluded and their special relationship to Christ is left unmentioned. Yes, typologically, they will have to be ashamed in the encounter with the Parousia Christ as the brothers of Joseph when they see him again.
If one wants to understand the special treatment of the Qurâan with regard to Benjamin, then one needs to consider whether or not Benjaminâs role should also be understood typologically. In the Jewish tradition, at any rate, Benjamin seems to have been frequently understood as a typos for King Saul, who came from the tribe of Benjamin.43 After all, Benjamin is the only son of Jacob born in Israel. On the other hand, part of the patristic exegesis typologically links Benjamin with Paul.44 Evidently, this interpretation fits well with the special relationship of Jesus to the Benjaminite Paul. However, making it plausible as a theological intervention of the Qurâan is difficult, because Paul seemingly does not play a role in the Qurâan.
Therefore, considering the typological interpretation of Saul seems more insightful. The relationship of Saul to David, who would then be typologically identified with that between Benjamin and Joseph, is anything but free of tension biblically. Nevertheless, if the special closeness of Joseph to Benjamin is considered here and Benjamin stands for the pre-Davidic or the so-called extra-Messianic, state-constituted Israel, then a special love relationship of Jesus Christ to precisely this Israel is warranted. In view of the massive hopes of the Jews in late Meccan times to become native again in Jerusalem through the interim victory of the Persians over Byzantium, such a statement would also be a very powerful political message.45
In any case, I find that the Qurâanic Joseph asks Benjamin to stop being sad about what his brothers once did is very interesting (Q 12:69). Typologically, this act is the betrayal of Christ, for which Benjamin/Saul is not responsible. The representative of the present political Israel and its hopes would then be acquitted of the charge of betrayal and in intimate relationship with Christ. As previously discussed, especially as Q 4:156f clarifies, the proclaimer of the Qurâan does not want to take sides in the question of the guilt for the death of Jesus.46 Although he dismisses the dumping of the blame on Rome, it does not mean that he accepts the thesis of Jewish responsibility for the death. He only elucidates that reconciliation can occur for Josephâs brothers even if they bear the guilt of betrayal. In other words, even if one shares the thesis of the guilt of certain Jews in the death of Jesus (which the Qurâan explicitly does not), one must not infer their rejection based on this guilt. Typologically speaking, Christ holds out new possibilities of relationship despite the guilt that has emerged. Moreover, the hoped-for state figure of Israel is unrelated to the rejection of the messianic claim of Jesus.
c) The Revelation on the Second Journey
The third example given by Rizk deepens our observation from above by examining the considerations of Jacob of Sarug regarding the reason why Jesus reveals to the brothers on his second journey of all times. Although Jacob interpreted the encounter on the first journey as an encounter with the earthly Jesus, which has just not yet led to the faith of the Jews, the second journey stands for the Parousia of Christ, such that the conversion of Josephâs brothers is understood as the conversion of Israel through the Parousia.47 In contrast, the Qurâan â when viewed from this scheme â postpones the conversion of the brothers to the time after the Parousia. In doing so, it fundamentally changes the character of the return of Jesus Christ. It no longer serves to point all peoples towards Christ and, thus, to convert an unbelieving Israel to Christ. Instead, it provides a platform for an intimate encounter between Joseph and Benjamin or Jesus and Israel.
From the Qurâanic point of view, however, the story is far from over with the reconciliation of the church with Israel. Only in the third journey did reconciliation with the brothers occur. If the brothers represent the totality of the tribes of Israel, then this journey could still be related to the complexity of the reconciliation process of Israel and the church, which is made possible not only by Joseph but also by Benjamin. Possibly, however, the brothers also typologically stand for Gentile nations, which then do not fall solely within the Christian sphere of responsibility. Similarly, they require the cooperation of Joseph and Benjamin that is, of Christ and Israel. The considerations here remain tentative and point to different directions. However, it is not likely to interpret the Qurâanic inversions simply as a criticism of high Christology.
3. Counterfactual Intertextuality and Qurâanic Appropriations of Patristic Interpretive Traditions
In the abovementioned dissertation (see footnote 5), Rizk addresses Qurâanic passages that add extra-Biblical details to the story of Joseph in his second working step and demonstrates that these can be explained nearly exclusively by the texts of the Syriac church fathers. Once again, this point decisively strengthens his basic argument. Evidently, the proclaimer of the Qurâan always receives Syriac additions and theological deepening of the Biblical text, even when they are interpreted christologically. Only when these Christological interpretations acquire supersessionist features and establish a hierarchical relationship via typology that the Qurâan does not seem to adopt them.
Specifically, Rizk presents 13 extra-Biblical details.48 In the case of the second dream of Joseph at the beginning of the story, for example, the Qurâan adopts Jacobâs belief in the dream and his warning against the ill will of the brothers. It also pertains to the idea of Satan as the enemy of humans from the patristic tradition. In particular, the latter two details are found in this form in Jacob of Sarug. Theologically, Rizk explains these adoptions using the fact that the Qurâanic community can readily interpret these details in terms of the fate of Muhammad, which a rationale that applies to many of the elaborated adoptions. Thus, the proclaimer of the Qurâan seemingly adopts the typological strategy of the patristic texts and to see the fate of Muhammad as prefigured in the fate of Joseph. However, it does not argue in a supersessionist way and â in contrast to the Christian tradition with regard to Jesus does not claim that Muhammad exacerbates and surpasses the fate of Joseph. The typological interpretation towards Muhammad should also not be understood exclusively and, as will be discussed later â does not necessarily omit the Christological connection.
a) Potifarâs Accusation Revisited
I also cannot trace in detail all the points that have been discussed in the exegetical studies of Rizk. For pragmatic reasons, I will limit this paper to the two scenes discussed in the last chapter. In the Biblical narrative, Potifarâs wife does not appear after her accusation of Joseph but does so in the Qurâanic narrative, when she appears with the women who cut their hands (Q 12:31) and admits her guilt for Josephâs arrest (Q 12:32).
Interestingly, the admission of guilt as such by Potifarâs wife can be found in the Syrian church fathers (e.g. in Ephraem).49 At the same time, she attempts to take away her husbandâs bad conscience due to the condemnation pronounced by him by understanding the condemnation as Godâs plan and by pointing out that Joseph could only find his destiny and glory through his imprisonment. In the letter of Pseudo-Basilius, she asks forgiveness for her meanness and lie and wants to participate in his elevation to rule over Egypt, which is an offer of reconciliation that Joseph gladly accepts.50 Repeatedly, then, the repentance of Potipharâs wife enables her to share in Josephâs salvation. Typologically, the option of redemption is, thus, opened to Israel when it recognises its guilt and turns to Christ anew.
Interestingly, the Qurâan considers this idea positively and modifies it decisively at the same time. By including the other women, Potifarâs wife no longer stands alone for Israel, but the voices of this people are diversified. We found that in the case of the other women, whether or not they are typologically still to be identified with Israel remains unclear. Hence, the clearcut supersessionist Christian reading becomes ambiguous in the Qurâanic version and different interpretations become possible. The Qurâan may want to suggest the following here: In their confession of guilt so demanded by the church, if Jews seek a new relationship with Christ and find a ritual fellowship with people who are enthusiastic about Christ in the process, then new trouble threatens. The reason is that the innocent women unite through the conversion-mad wife of Potifar into an enthusiasm for Joseph/Jesus accompanied by bloody rituals, which should be rejected from the Qurâanic perspective. The reason for this rejection is that their ritual is an encroaching intrigue; on the narrative level, it forces Joseph/Jesus to flee into the dungeon. Apparently, he feels challenged by the encroaching enthusiasm of the women and no longer knows how to resist them. Joseph/Jesus is afraid to fall for them (Q 12:33). In this respect, the Jewish No to Jesus can also be understood as a protection for the church to prevent it from becoming encroaching and wanting to unite everything with Christ in a carnal manner. Alternatively, the conversion of all Jews could call into question the integrity of Jesus, who can only remain truly human if the orgiastically united community of women turns away from him (Q 12:31) or is kept away from him through intervention by God (Q 12:34).
b) The Meeting of Joseph With Jacob Revisited
Let us now consider the second context that was previously examined and pose a new detail: in the Qurâanic version, when the brothers return to Jacob after their second journey, he loses his sight in the face of the loss of his two favourite children (i.e. Joseph and Benjamin). He is literally no longer able to see anything that makes life worth living. When they then return to Joseph and complete their third journey to Egypt, not only are their debts forgiven, but Joseph also gives them his shirt to take with them, such that they may use it to heal Jacobâs blindness (Q 12:93). Thus, Josephâs brother mediated this healing as they were tasked to bring Josephâs shirt to Jacob, which assumes a liturgical function. The relationship with Joseph/Jesus, thus, becomes possible through the liturgical action of his brothers, who can stand as much for the church as for Israel. On the one hand, therefore, healing is Christocentric (precisely through his garment); alternatiely, it needs the cooperation of the brothers regardless of which faith community they belong.
Rizk implies that such a function of Josephâs clothing and the idea of Jacobâs blindness do not occur in Jewish tradition. In the Syriac tradition, as well, although the healing role of Joseph comes into play, it is not associated with his clothes.51 On the contrary, in the Syriac church fathers, Jacob loses his sight in view of the perception of the bloody clothes of Joseph, not simply as in the Qurâan, due to his recollection of Josephâs fate (Q 12:84) in view of the presumed loss of Benjamin (Q 12:83). Thus, if Benjamin should stand for pre-Messianic, state-constituted Israel, as previously conjectured, then Israel would be visible in terms of its relationship with Christ. If one continues to follow the typological interpretation that was previously pursued, then one may consider whether or not perhaps the loss of a successful relationship of this Israel to Christ constitutes the occasion of the need for redemption by Jacob/Israel.52 This notion could potentially further imply that the salvific significance of Jesus becomes relevant only to the descendants of Jacob who lost their connection to Benjamin and, thus, to state-based Judaism. Moreover, it is the case that, according to the Qurâan, the touch by the garment replaces the living encounter, which becomes the occasion of healing for the Syriac church fathers. Given the great importance of relics in the late antique Christian tradition and the extensive debate about the significance of the garments of Jesus and Mary in the Qurâan,53 this change can be viewed as a benevolently presented concretisation of the so-called Christ encounter in Late Antiquity. The same shirt (which in the Qurâanic version of the story of Joseph proves Josephâs innocence in the accusations of Potifarâs wife) is the one that refers to Joseph/Jesus and, thus, conveys healing and brings the good news (Q 12:96).
However, Rizk draws attention to another potential explanation. According to ancient church understanding, the Eucharist opens the eyes of people and overcomes their inner blindness, as in the Emmaus story. This symbolic meaning was literally demonstrated in the Syriac liturgy in Late Antiquity by faithfully placing the body of Christ on their eyes before communicating.54 Moreover, in the liturgical context, this Eucharistic event is prepared by the use of incense. It is also used for the Eucharistic gifts; the priest in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom says that they are received from God âas a fragrance of a spiritual odorâ.55 The sense of smell, as it were, opens to the encounter with Christ; indeed, it virtually mediates this encounter. From this point of view, Rizk is absolutely right when he considers remarkable the fact that Jacob is first touched by the smell of Joseph (Q 12:94).
If we relate the healing meaning of the instance in which Jacob once again smells Josephâs clothes, then, notably, the relics in the (late antique as well as todayâs) eastern piety are also typically very often fragrant.56 Therefore, Jacob can believe again the good news that Joseph/Jesus is alive even before he sees Joseph in the flesh through the touch of his eyes on the shirt/Eucharistic body and its holy fragrance.
Thus, one could also ask whether or not the second journey in the Qurâanic version can really mean the Parousia. For Joseph can heal Jacob through signs which is from a Christian-typological point of view the hallmark of the church in the time of waiting for the return of Christ. The described reconciliation of Israel and church would then not be an event that can wait until the Parousia of Christ but is now the task of all children of Israel. Only the third journey would then stand for the Parousia and provoke the prostration of all before Joseph.
4. Conclusion
We collected several indications, which suggest that the Qurâan rejects high Christology when it is turned supersessionistically against Israel and when it is used to legitimise imperial theology. Finally, the Qurâan is critical of Christians whose relationship with Christ is indistinguishable from their relationship with an idol. In contrast, the proclaimer of the Qurâan seems decidedly open to a Eucharistic embedding of Christology, even if he can see the dangers of misunderstood Christian rituals. In addition, he interprets the Eucharist in contrast to many church fathers not through the tradition of love mysticism57 but from its sensual processes. Only when we open ourselves to Christ with all our senses, such as in the smell of the incense as well as in the touch of his body, can the healing experience of the closeness of Jesus be possible. Thus, Joseph/Jesus becomes newly accessible as a brother, rather than as a super shepherd or head guru, who can approach us in a reconciling manner through his relational power. His specialness consists precisely in the fact that he does not want to be special (Q 12:101). His venerability is only given when he is not isolated from his Jewish origin; for this reason, he is venerated together with his parents or asks the parents to come to the throne in their veneration (see above 1.b). In contrast, the attempt to place Joseph above his brothers and, thus, to separate the church from Israel proves to be the work of Satan (Q 12:100), which the Qurâan contrasts with the reconciling power of God in its guidance and mercy (Q 12:111). Only when such reconciliation is achieved can the true beauty of the story of Joseph be allowed to shine (Q 12:3) and a superficial enthusiasm for the beauty of Joseph be overcome. Embedded in the beauty of the recitation and narrative context, however, Joseph can then also become a sign of God with his brothers (Q 12:7), which is a distinction that has previously existed for Jesus (Q 19:21). According to the Qurâan, therefore, it could be reason to pursue the signs of God from the Christological perspective as well.
The present search for traces intends to put forward the first heuristic hypotheses, which enables the Qurâanic Joseph story to appear in a new light through its connection with Syriac intertexts. My impression is that this aspect makes the story more comprehensible in terms of originality and penetrating power. However, many observations can be interpreted very differently. Only when we succeed in placing SÅ«rah YÅ«suf more precisely in the Qurâanic prophetology will it become clear whether or not the reading attempted in this article can really stand up to close criticism.
For a discussion, see Khorchide and Stosch, The Other Prophet; as a summary of my position today, cf. Stosch, âKirche und Fremdprophetie,â 247â70.
Cf. Heither, Mose; Heither, David.
Cf. Griffith, âLate Antique Christology in Qurâanic Perspectiveâ here 44.
See, for example, Dulaey and Joseph le patriarche, âFigure Du Christ,â 83â105; Heal, âJoseph as a Type of Christ in Syriac Literature,â 29â49.
Based on the Qurâanic text alone, a striking aspect is that according to Q 12:22, Joseph is given wisdom and knowledge by God, which are both qualities that the Qurâan prominently associates with Jesus (cf. Q 3:48). For the initial research, I believe this aspect, in fact, makes it very likely that Q 12 indeed engages with texts from the Syriac church fathers, see Rizk, Prophetology, Typology, and Christology; Witztum, âThe Syriac Milieu of the Quranâ.
Cf. Rizk, Prophetology, Typology, and Christology, 41â99.
In this book Schmidtâs chapter can be understood as a reading of the Qurâanic Joseph story that is aware of the exegetical findings that I use for my interpretation without giving them much weight as this chapter. As one of the editors of this book, I am particularly happy with these oppositions, because they demonstrate the ambiguity of Qurâanic dealings with Christological traditions in a very impressive manner.
This can be demonstrated by a look at the proportion of Syriac intertexts in the environmental texts compiled by the Corpus Coranicum project (https://corpuscoranicum.de/ call 10.03.22).
When I speak here of the Church Fathers in general, I do not mean to claim that all Church Fathers are to be regarded as supersessionist, but only to address a widespread tendency in patristics, which I concretize only with regard to certain Syriac Church Fathers, because they are particularly obvious as intertexts of the Qurâan. On the inaccuracy of the accusation of supersessionism, cf. with regard to Origen, for example, Azar, âOrigen, Scripture, and the Imprecision of âsupersessionismââ; Kofsky and Ruzer, âTheodore of Mopsuestia on Jews and Judaism.â
Cf. Aphraates and Lehto, The Demonstrations of Aphrahat, the Persian Sage, 405; Akhrass and Syryany, 160 Unpublished Homilies of Jacob of Serugh, 1:505.
As previously mentioned, the Qurâan omits the Biblical detail of Jacobâs preference for Joseph. However, the motive of jealousy due to this preference (from the Qurâanic point of view, only alleged) is assumed to be known in the Qurâan. The Qurâan does not want to undo the effects and plausibility of the Biblical story but only to question its legitimacy.
Cf. Aphraates and Lehto, The Demonstrations of Aphrahat, the Persian Sage, 406; Akhrass and Syryany, 160 Unpublished Homilies of Jacob of Serugh, 1:513.
Cf. Stosch, âKirche und Fremdprophetieâ; Khorchide and Stosch, The Other Prophet.
Cf. Aphraates and Lehto, The Demonstrations of Aphrahat, the Persian Sage, 405; For more detailed evidence, see Rizk, Prophetology, Typology, and Christology, 41â42.
Cf. Colson, Philo, 141; Blondell, âFrom Fleece to Fabric,â here: 23â32.
Cf. Ghaffar, Der Koran in seinem religions- und weltgeschichtlichen Kontext.
Cf. for example Johannes Chrysostomos, Genesishomilien, 54, sp. 567f; Ephraem the Syrian, âGenesiskommentar XLI,â 198.
See, for example, Ps.-Narsai, âÃber Josef,â 561.
See Stefanos Alexopoulos, âProskynesis,â col. 368.
See ibid., col. 370â371.
Ibid., col. 367.
Lozano, The Proskynesis of Jesus in the New Testament, 175; See, ibid., 13â34.
Alexopoulos, âProskynesis,â col. 366f.; see Lozano, The Proskynesis of Jesus in the New Testament, esp. 169ff., coming to different results than the earlier study by Horst, Proskynein.
See Zellentin, âTrialogical Anthropology,â 61â129, here 98. For the inner-Qurâanic developments between these passages see the chapter of Neuwirth/ Hartwig in this book.
Zellentin, âTrialogical Anthropology,â 97.
Compare ibid., 79.
Compare ibid., 86â87.
See ibid., 122.
See ibid., 124.
See ibid., 93.
See Minov, âSatanâs Refusal to Worship Adam,â 230â71.
See Heen, Krey, and Oden, Hebrews, 22ff.
Cf. Akhrass and Syryany, 160 Unpublished Homilies of Jacob of Serugh, 1:498 f.
See again ibid.
See also Q 5:112â114. On the interpretation of the passage, cf. Khorchide and von Stosch, The Other Prophet, 159â62.
Cf. Ghaffar, âKontrafaktische Intertextualität im Koran und die exegetische Tradition des syrischen Christentums.â
See the evidence in Rizk, Prophetology, Typology, and Christology, 70.
See Akhrass and Syryany, 160 Unpublished Homilies of Jacob of Serugh, 1:529.
See Neuwirth, Der Koran. Band 2/1, 620; Stosch, âKirche und Fremdprophetie,â 250â56.
The category of ambiguity is introduced by the Qurâan itself in the context of Christology (cf. Q 3:7 in the interpretation of Khorchide and von Stosch, The Other Prophet, 130.). Through the narrative development of the seductive power of the beauty of the figure of Jesus with simultaneous appreciation of his healing power, which will be discussed in more detail in a moment, an ambiguous mixed situation arises in the typological interpretation of SÅ«rah YÅ«suf with regard to Jesus. Cf. Stosch, âKirche und Fremdprophetie.â
For a detailed explanation of this interpretation of the crucifixion verse, see Stosch, âApproaching the Death on the Cross.â
Cf. Akhrass and Syryany, 160 Unpublished Homilies of Jacob of Serugh, 1:567.
Cf. Krause, Saul, Benjamin and the Emergence of Monarchy in Israel, 1â6.
Cf. Hannah, âThe Ravenous Wolfâ.
In view of the late Mecan major conflict of the Byzantine Empire with the Persians, it could also be interesting that Mordecai and his niece Esther were both from the tribe of Benjamin. Both submit to the king of Persia and, thus, save the lives of the entire Jewish people (Esther 2:5â6). Could there be a cautious allusion here to the Jewish hope after the reconquest of Jerusalem by the Persians? This hope would remain christologically tied back through Benjaminâs special relationship to Joseph, such that the Jewish-Christian antagonism that normally accompanies it cannot emerge in the first place. The Jewish longing for their land, thus, no longer becomes visible as in the Sefer Serubbabel as a messianic hope for overcoming adversaries but as a justified hope for a homeland, which can certainly be conveyed christologically and prophetologically. However, this must remain a speculation.
For the interpretation of Q 4:156f, see again Stosch, âApproaching the Death on the Cross,â 150â64.
Cf. Akhrass and Syryany, 160 Unpublished Homilies of Jacob of Serugh, 1:567.
Cf. Rizk, Prophetology, Typology, and Christology, 100â174.
See the evidence in Witztum, âThe Syriac Milieu of the Quran,â 238â54.
Heal, âJoseph as a Type of Christ in Syriac Literature,â here: 106f.
Cf. the evidence in Rizk, Prophetology, Typology, and Christology, 153.
For the capture of Benjamin as representative of this integrity by Joseph would now be the reason for Jacobâs blindness, which makes it impossible for him to see the continued work of Godâs promise in his children. Thus he lacks the healing nearness of God, which is then granted to him a little later by the garment of Joseph/Jesus and which enables him again the possibility of the perception of the faithfulness of God (literally he can see his child again, in whose existence, however, exactly this faithfulness is shown).
Cf. on the interpretation of Q 5:75 Tartari and Stosch, Mary in the Qurâan, 210â17.
Cf. Rizk, Prophetology, Typology, and Christology, 161.
https://www.goarch.org/-/the-divine-liturgy-of-saint-john-chrysostom?_101_INSTANCE_ulcNzWPdScz6_languageId=el_GR Call on 10.03.22.
Cf. Harvey, Scenting Salvation, esp. 203, 223, 272.
Cf. only the numerous echoes of the marriage mysticism between Christ and the Church in Ephraim and Jacob. Evidence can be found, for example, in Ephraem, Gwynn, and Böer, Hymns and Homilies of St. Ephraim the Syrian; Jacob of Sarug, âÃber die Taufe unseres Erlösers im Jordan,â 6f and 52ff. The Eucharistic union was not only understood by them very strongly also in an erotic sense, for example, by Gregory of Nyssa. The first wedding night corresponded in this thinking to the Eucharist. One can easily imagine that such images could cause irritations in the Qurâanic community, which were in the background of the criticism of the feast of the women around Potifarâs wife described above.