The Mystery of the Historical Jesus: The Messiah in the Qur'an, the Bible, and Historical Sources [Paperback]

Thank you, Timothy, for your review. I appreciate your views and respect any disagreement you have with the book. However, I would like to comment on two specific points you raise.

First, it is true, of course, that many Jewish and Christian writings, including the Bible, were in existence before the Qur'an. It is also true that the Qur'an has similarities with some of these sources. If there were no God, then such similarities can probably only mean that the Qur'an was written by someone who was influenced by those older sources. But the existence of God opens the door for completely different interpretations, including one advocated by the Qur'an itself. The Qur'an states that God revealed scriptures to a number of prophets, including Moses and Jesus. It also confirms that the core message of all revealed books is one and the same. This is where those similarities come from. The Qur'an also states that the existing Jewish and Christian sources are not the original revelations because over time people edited, changed, and tampered with the original divine books. This is where those fundamental differences between the Qur'an and such sources originate from. So, an atheistic point of view would probably find the Qur'an guilty of plagiarism, but a theistic perspective allows alternative, very different scenarios. I have explained the Qur'anic perspective by the concept of "contextual displacement" which I introduced in this book on the historical Jesus. I have given many examples of contextual displacements in this and my various works, including The Mystery of the Crucifixion: The Attempt to Kill Jesus in the Qur'an, the New Testament, and Historical Sources; The Mystery of Israel in Ancient Egypt: The Exodus in the Qur'an, the Old Testament, Archaeological Finds, and Historical Sources; and The Mystery of the Messiah: The Messiahship of Jesus in the Qur'an, New Testament, Old Testament, and Other Sources. I have also explained this concept in this article on my website:[...]
The second point is about your conclusion that my book might be accepted by Muslims but would not convince Jews or Christians. What I did in the book was simply this: I recounted the accounts of Jesus' story as found in Christian sources and in the Qur'an, I examined the internal consistency of both accounts, and I compared them with available historical information. My goal was not to present the two accounts in a way that would leave every reader without a shred of doubt that the Qur'an is the Word of God and the Bible is not. This is not possible, not the least because of how we, human beings, develop and deal with our beliefs. My aim was to help the reader decide which account is "more likely" to be divine or at least "closer" to the truth. I consider the book to be more of a comparative study that should allow the reader to see that if they are to choose between accepting the Qur'anic account or Jewish and Christian alternatives, then the former is a more reassuring choice, on the basis of its higher internal consistency and better agreement with external evidence. This is how I conclude chapter 1 of the book: "Let me repeat again, this book does not claim to be a dispassionate, neutral study of Jesus' history. I am not sure that such an attempt is possible at all anyway. Nevertheless, I will ensure that I make my assumptions clear and differentiate between facts and their interpretations, allowing the reader to decide whether the arguments of the book are likely or unlikely, credible or absurd."

But why have I not written a book from a completely neutral point of view? There is more than one reason for that, but it suffices to say that given the way we humans think and the nature of the topic, this option is not possible. Any such study has to make assumptions and speculate, so the best a researcher can do is to be honest and open about their assumptions and leave it to the reader to decide whether these assumptions and the conclusions they lead to are more credible or any other alternatives.

Thank you again for reviewing the book.

Louay

It is believed that the Koran became established in the Arabic nation around the 3rd to 9th century. Also, it is believed that many of the writings which are coined to the Koran originates from the Jewish Torah, and many Christian apocryphal writings. Now, if we choose to be directed by concrete historical facts; the researcher knows that Judaism and Christianity was literally before the Arabic nation's Koran (Qur'an). This conclusion is not to insult anyone who is Moslem (Muslim) but to establish tangible facts. Is there a possibility that Islam represents hybrid philosophies of the Judeo-Christian world, which interests are political and religious superiority; maybe. Can the Judeo-Christian world be inscribed to the same political and religious superiority of Islam; maybe.

All Abrahamic faiths claim divinity, and all have proven by scripture to fall short of the glory of God. Was Yahushua (Jesus) a prophet, a god, God-Almighty, or the second-person of the triune which was prescribed by Tertullian. This doctrine though in it's original context was formulated to demonstrate the collective unity of God, the son, and the Set-Apart Spirit but its philosphical ideas can be linked to foreign religious philosphies which predated Christianity. So, as a believer in the Universal-One Uncreated God of the Cosmos I must agree with my brothers and sisters who practice Judaism, Islam, and a host of other Christian Sects; God is One and is not a "Trinity."

Does the scriptures which are transcribed or translated in the English language have flaws; yes. Anything, I repeat-anything that man puts his hands on eventually he will corrupt, whether, it's today or tommorrow. Page 439: "Throughout history, religious followers have had the histories of their leaders mixed with myths and legends to the point that separating between them is at times impossible. The strength of popular belief in a concept or claim or is no guarantee that this concept or claim is more likely to be real."

Dr. Louay Fatoohi does have many biases in his book, only because he has established himself as a Muslem. Like for example: he teaches that all of the biblical patriachs & prophets are Muslems. This is not a fact, this is a learned man who uses the science of "dialectics." All religious followers and organizations who claim divinity devise this particular form of reasoning to support their own self anointed belief systems.

I have nothing but resepect for Dr. Fatoohi who states in his book that the Qur'an is not a history book and that it often bypasses details that are given prominence in traditional recounting of history. I do not agree with all of Dr. Fatoohi's interpretations, or conclusions but some of his scholarship is based on simple common sense. For instance page 500 states: "Christians, like Jews, believed that it is only them who will enter paradise. The Qur'an refutes this claim, clarifying the requirements for salvation and stressing that they apply to "All" people without exception or discrimination." Does this view contradict what the set-apart scriptures teach? Go to Mark 9:38-40 and Luke 9:49-50, scriptures indicate that by two or three witnesses every matter must be established. Mark and Luke are my 2 witneses. This particular man was not with the chosen flock, but he was a chosen vessel. This can not be refuted if we conform to what the scriptures teach. A human being does not have to be with the governing body to be a follower of the "Nazarene." But you must be a believer in his light, and truth which bears the semblance of the Father. A religious order's name nor philosphies cannot save a believer, only their faith and works can do that. In conclusion, I think that Dr. Fatoohi's book is well designed for the Moslem believer, or perhaps the Liberal Christian Community. But his views cannot and will not be accepted by the Orthodox Judeo-Christian world.

› Go to Amazon U.S. to see both reviews  4.5 out of 5 stars