Finding Jesus (= אישו) at the Beginning of Genesis

[Clive]

http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=27825

hello all. does anyone know where the word "'Isa", the name referring to Jesus in the Quran comes from, and why is it such a "puzzle" to scholars?

I thought that the obvious answer would be that it was used by the Arabs of the time of the Quran, and the author(s) simply used that word. This is what Alphonse Mingana said, in here, that "So far as the word 'Isa (the name given to Jesus in the Kur'an) is concerned, it was apparently in use before Muhammad, and it does not seem probable that it was coined by him. A monastery in South Syria, near the territory of the Christian Ghassanid Arabs, bore in A.D. 571 the name 'Isaniyah, that is to say, "of the followers of Jesus," i.e. of the Christians". But then there's Arthur Jeffery, who states "The form 'Isa, however, does not occur earlier than the Qur'an, whereas <Yasu3> appears to have been used in personal names at an early period. Till further information comes to hand we shall have to content ourselves with regarding it as some form of "konsonanten permutation" due, maybe, to Muhammad himself, and perhaps influenced... by Nestorian pronunciation". strangely enough, he puts a reference to Mingana's quote regarding the Isaniyya monastery when saying that "'Isa" didn't occur earlier than the Quran. Here's a more contemporary account by James Bellamy that "'Isa has no satisfactory derivation and no pre-Koranic history". So which one is right? was there or was there not pre-Quranic use of 'Isa?

Then I would think that perhaps the Quran's author is following some sort of rule in translating foreign words into Arabic. Jeffery then writes, regarding the ayn in front of 'Isa and the disappearing ayn at the end: "It is not unusual to find Arabic using an initial ayin in words borrowed from Aramaic, and the dropping of final ayin is evidenced by the form Yisho of the Manichaean "koktiirkish" fragments from Turfan, and the late Jewish Yeshu for Yeshua'".

If so, then what's so puzzling about the origin of the word "'Isa" that is said by scholars? I feel like I'm missing something here. if the translation of 'Isa is in accordance with the conventions of Arabic, and there were pre-Quranic usage of 'Isa, then how come it's not an open and shut case? why the statements about it being made by Muhammad, or that there is no satisfactory derivation, with theories of it actually being Esau, or that is rhymes with Musa, or it was originally Masiyya, etc?

what is the opinion of current scholarship regarding this word? any illuminations regarding this issue would be appreciated....

[Clive]

I remember reading volker popp's explanation of muhammad as being not "the praised one", but "praised be". This refers to the inscriptions on the dome of the rock. On the dome of the rock, the inscriptions say that jesus is but a messenger. And thus the phrase "muhammadan rasulullah" means not that "muhammad is a messenger of Allah", but "praised be the messenger of Allah", the messenger here referring to Jesus. So instead of the phrase being a testimony of the apostleship of a figure called muhammad, it's actually praising Jesus.

Or " Jesus" should read "holy man or similar? And are not messengers angels? Praised be the holy man of God?

http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index ... 86.new#new

[Clive]

Well, a more accurate explanation is probably that it was not originally a godman, but rather another member of a pantheon, because from what we've been able to decipher of earlier Bronze Age Mesopotamian, Canaanite, and Egyption works, most if not all of the stories of Genesis are actually just copied and pasted from other texts, with minor alterations, to give them a uniquely Israelite feel, with Hebrew names and places, exaggerations (to make the god stronger--not only can he do creation, he can also do war! on any terrain! even hills! and valleys! also he can destroy things with magic, and with weather...), and most importantly, forced monotheism. Even when this destroys the original plot line, monotheism is forced onto the texts with no thought for continuity.

Like the story of the flood. It makes a lot more sense if some gods got angry at the meddling/creations of other gods. When monotheism is forced onto the text, some Nephilim are left in the text and no one knows what the fuck they're supposed to be or what they're doing there, but whatever it was it made the now monotheist god mad that it was ruining his creation somehow even tho he himself did all the creating instead of being one of several gods creating stuff, and he regrets having let himself mess around with making humans. The gods that came to the rescue of mankind and taught them to build boats are removed, and so the same god who made the people and regretted making the people is brought back to teach the humans how to escape the flood he's causing because he's mad at himself over stuff he created himself. See? Ruined the whole plot line.

Most of Genesis is stuff like that. Which isn't too surprising, considering who wrote it--it was a bunch of scribes trying to gain power, because Cyrus was giving religious leaders of minority religions limited autonomy over their local areas. So these guys cobbled together an "ancient" tome in a hurry and presented it as proof that they were, in fact, representatives of a unique ancient religion and should be granted the limited autonomy status.

From cemb link above

So Jesus and Mo are corruptions of this early "man" and related nephilim etc?