I have lots of books on my bookshelf that I intend on reading. One of them is the Koran. It seems like such a monumental, influential book that one ought to at least peruse. Well, last night I picked it up and was surprised to find that it had a lot of Biblical references in it. The Koran contains stories of Noah, Abraham, Joseph who was sold into Egypt, Moses, and many other biblical characters. I was particularly interested in the account of the birth of Jesus Christ found in the Koran. After I read the Koran version, I read the Christian version from the King James Version of the Bible. How about I compare and contrast the two accounts for a bit?
In the Koran, the story of Jesus Christ's birth is found in the surah titled "Mary." In the Bible, the sames story is found in Luke chapters one and two. Between the two accounts there are similarities and differences.
Similarities:
Both the Bible and the Koran have an angel visiting and talking with Mary.
Both say Mary was a virgin.
Both tell how Mary was persecuted some by people who did not believe that she had been chaste.
Both say that Christ is destined to be an important man.
Differences:
The major difference between the Bible account and the Koran account is the Bible makes it clear that Jesus is the Son of God. In Luke 1:35, the Angel Gabriel says to Mary, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
Contrarily, the Koran declares that Jesus, although miraculously born of a virgin, is not the Son of God. In the surah "Mary," an unnamed angel of sorts, explained as "Our spirit in the semblance of a full-grown man." says to Mary,
"I am but your Lord's emissary," he replied, "and have come to give you a holy son."
"How shall I bear a child," she answered, "when I have neither been touched by any man nor ever been unchaste?"
"Thus did your Lord speak," he replied. "'That is easy enough for Me. He shall be a sign to mankind and a blessing from Ourself. Our decree shall come to pass.' " Thereupon she conceived him.
Later the Koran says, "Such was Jesus son of Mary. That is the whole truth, which they still doubt. God forbid that He Himself should beget a son! When He decrees a thing He need only say: "Be," and it is."
Thus, to the Muslims, Jesus is a wise man and even a prophet, but not a God. Allah is the only God to the Muslims, and Muhammad, as far as I understand the doctrine, is the most important prophet. And to the Christians, Jesus is both the Son of God and a God.
Another difference: The Koran, as far as I can tell, makes no mention of Joseph, wife of Mary and the adoptive father of Jesus. But the Bible includes him as a very important character.
Another difference: This isn't a doctrinal difference, but it is a cultural difference, I think. In the Koran, the "spirit in the semblance of a full-grown man" says to Mary, "if you shake the trunk of the palm tree it will drop fresh ripe dates into your lap." There are no palm trees or dates mentioned in the biblical account.
It's interesting to compare and contrast different books of scripture. Many religious studies professors like to compare and contrast the canonical and non-canonical works. I saw a show on the History Channel once comparing and contrasting Daniel from the Old Testament/ Hebrew Bible and Daniel from the Apocrypha, "The History of the Destruction of Bel and the Dragon cut off from the end of Daniel." It was an interesting comparison.
But at times I feel like when I read scripture, I'm studying literature more than I'm studying religion. That is, what the Bible says and how Christians act are two very different things. Likewise, what the Koran says and how the Muslims act are also two very different things. Here's a really academic-sounding but relevant quote from Kurt Rudolph, quoted by Dr. Jason BeDuhn in his preface to The Manichaean Body: In Discipline and Ritual. "The preponderate orientation of the history of religions towards "ideology"... should recede in favor of a greater emphasis on the practical field of the cultus.... Religious communities are chiefly cultic communities...It is from practice that mythology derives its religious significance; otherwise, it is only literature."
So Kurt Rudolph is saying that studying religious practice is more important than studying religious scripture, since practice gets closer to the heart of what makes a religion tick. But since I have been trained more as an English student than a religious studies or an anthropology student, I tend to examine the literature more than the believers themselves. Plus, reading a book in my house is a lot more comfortable and socially acceptable than tracking down people from different religions and studying them.
I once directed a one-act play in college called "The Youngest Shall Ask," by David Shaber. It was about a Jewish family. In preparation for the play, I read up a little on Judaism. After researching a bit, I felt that there was much of the history and doctrine of Jews that really didn't help me direct the play at all. Because to direct the play well, I had to be a little bit of a psychologist and a little bit of an hands-on anthropologist, rather than a detached reader. The textbooks, while interesting, weren't helping me direct the play. I wanted to know what the day-to-day interactions among the Jews were. What ended up helping me more than anything was talking to a Jewish man who had participated in several Seders.
The experience of researching for that play made me come to this conclusion: official statements and even scripture don't give an accurate portrait of how believers live. Reading the official literature of a religion can only take you so far. I think to really understand a religion, you have to live among the believers, and almost become one of them. I learned more about Catholicism, I think, by going to a mass with some of my Catholic friends than I did from reading things about Catholicism in books.
But I'm not against scripture, of course. I think the holy written word is necessary for a religion to maintain a collective sense of values and history. Plus, I believe that God has decreed that scripture must be written, and who am I that I can withstand the decrees of God? I'm just saying that if you really want to learn about Islam, maybe you should live among them.
That's enough for today, or at least this afternoon. I need to go do school work. (It's funny, but while I was writing this blog entry, I felt like I was already doing school work.) Goodbye for now.
P.S. The Angel Gabriel seems to be a much bigger figure in the Koran than he is in the Bible. In fact, the introduction to the Koran that I'm reading from penguin classics, published in 2003 translated by N. J. Dawood, says that the Koran "was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad by the Angel Gabriel." (By the way, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe that the Angel Gabriel is none other than the great hero of the Flood, Noah. Cool, huh?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Secret Admirer
Speaking of motivations, what is your motivation for this blog? It no doubt takes much time to keep up; coming up with clever and witty entries to keep your scores of fans entertained. Is that all it is: entertainment? Or are you trying to live a secret life apart from your comfortable existence at home? You said that you have a wife. What does she think about your blog?
Telemoonfa,
You quote Jason BeDuhn quoting Kurt Rudolph in his book The Manichaean Body as saying that it is more important and fruitful to study a traditions practices firsthand than it is to study their scripture and therefore their history. You have obviously not read past BeDuhn’s prologue or else you would have discovered that all scholars studying this dead religion have are texts. BeDuhn has managed to take this sacred writ and uncover the everyday practices and lives of these people; which he goes into great detail in his book to discuss. He was not able to sit down at their ceremonies in order to understand these practices, as you suggest is the only way true understanding can be achieved. What do you think of his research then? Do you think that scholars, who do not have the ability to sit down with their subjects and can only read about them, have no real hope in understanding them? What of history? What we know about the people before us comes solely from literature and art. Am I wrong?
I encourage you not to downplay the work of a scholar. It is their job to read texts, learn the history the places and people they are dealing with, and then make conclusions about those people they alone have the authority and knowledge to make.
I find the subject of religion fascinating and if you devote more entries to it, I will surely have more to say.
First, I think that you can get to know a living religion better than a dead one. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't study dead religions. We definitley should study dead religions. Dead religions are interesting.
I respect Dr. BeDuhn and all his research.
Thanks for your comment.
Post a Comment