Why does the Quran use the name of ??s? for the name of Yas?? ?
-
Based on Dye Guillaume and Kropp Manfred, The name of Jesus (??s?) in the Quran and some other biblical names comments on the quranical onomastics, in Biblical Figures in Islam, under the direction of Guillaume Dye and Fabio Nobilio, Brussels ?d. E.M.E., 2011
Why does the Quran use the name of ??s? for the name of Yas?? (Jesus - equivalent arab of the hebrew Ye???a) as was always used by the christian arabs?
Since the existence of western islamology, researchers have wondered why one finds the consonants ?YSW for the quranic name of Jesus instead of YSW?, as if the final ?ayn final (?) was moved to the front. In effect, the quranic text reads ??s?, this while the christian arabs say Yas??. A consonant moving from fourth place to the first is an impossible evolution. We are faced with an impasse that can not be resolved by any hypothesis.
These authors show how philology alone can explain the changing of YSW? to ?YSW, by changing the perspective to that of spoken arab language. In their writings, one can find evidence of a tendency "to add a ?ayn to "arabicize" a borrowed word. This is still the case today, eg ma?kar?na, borrows from italian maccheroni? (p.184). This kind of understanding has been little known until now, possibly because the research remained hypnotized by the idea of a divine language of the Quran (God calling who He wills however He wants) or by that of supposed arab "polytheists" (who were unlikely to use the name of Jesus).
To illustrate the evolutions that had to have taken place in the popular arab pronunciation, the authors point to a multitude of examples of Quranic deformations of proper names (eg the Syriac ?l?m?n that becomes Sulaym?n in arab, the ? becomes an s like in ??s?) - but they are giving example entirely outside of Quran as well and state
"If one wishes to explain the form of ??s? based only on linguistic elements, one will conclude that it will appear reasonable to start with the aramaic form YSۑ, of which one knows it is represented, in the aramaic dialects of later times, in many different ways, for example ysw? to syriac, vocalised Y???? in western syriac and Κ?? in eastern syriac oriental (pronounced Κ?, the ?ayn final falling into the eastern syriac pronunciation)? (p.184).
"In effect, it is "simple (and plausible) to start from the idea that the transmission was most of all spoken. And there, starting from the pronunciation of Κ??, that is to say Κ?, things are explained very easily, like Fraenkel rightly staded a) fall/drop of final ?ayn in the pronunciation of the aramaic word; b) change from ?? to ?? ; c) change from -?- to -s-; d) addition of an initial ?ayn
"The question is not the amount of changes but rather the logic by which they are applied - and they appear less arbitrary here as they all appear (except for the drop of the final ?ayn, which depends on the term that is being borrowed) in another example, this example being the name of the town of Ascalen (Ashqel?n), often mentioned in the Bible (eg Amos 1, 8 ). In effect, the arab ?asqal?n or ?asqul?n has to be compared to the syriac ?a?qal?n and the hebrew ?a?qel?n one will find the change of the alif (?) to ?ayn (?) in the beginning, just like those from -?- to -s- and from ? /? to ?? (p.187).
In "The Foundation of Islam" (2002), A.-L. de Pr?mare had already revealed the writing of ??s? in arab graffiti (thus close to verbally spoken) discovered by Y. Nevo in the Negev - they are not dated but appear contemporary to the origins of arab Islam -; such a popular pronunciation of the name of Jesus could thus have been written in formulations that did not depend on those of the Quran (p. 197) The question is even more simple when one bears in mind that these leaflets who would serve later to compose the Quran with were drafts designed to indoctrinate the Arabs with every wise preacher reproduced the names in such a way as those as they reckoned to be addressing pronounced it. Moreover those addressed had to be already very familiar with the content, or not understand a word of it at all this necessarily implies those addressed were arab christians. More than likely these arab christians were their geographical neighbours - which the Coreshites effectively were, living in northern syria and before that in Mesopotamia. We are sorry for for destroying the myth of "polytheistic" arabs which was invented to support the idea of a new Revelation given by God to Arab muslims in Mecca.
One could say this study reveals an old enigma how to explain the writing was missing diacritic markers in the oldest versions of Quran, while diacritical markers were already in use at that time? More than likely, the leaflets that would later constitute the Quran were draft writings used for preaching.
A final remark Another quranic name, that of John, looks to be also deformed Yahya. Like with ??s?, was the name of Yahya a deformation (from Yuhanna, arab form of the hebrew Yohannan) reflecting the popular speech of christian arabs? Nabataean inscriptions (older than the Quran) attest for such a usage. With this we object to the explanation of a bad reading the consonantal ducus (i.e. removed from diacritic markers) can be read equally Yahya as Yuhanna. Coincidence or not?
-
To start with, the Qur'an has its own system for naming people which is nto subordinate to any other system.
Secondly, indeed, the 3isa in the Qur'an is not the gospels Jesus.
Also, there is not such a thing as Abrahamic faiths. Ibrahim did not invent a religion, and his was not a particular religion but the universal religion revealed to all the peoples in the world.
The Qur'an is the revelation made to serve as a khatam, seal of any other revelation, to distinguish the autehtntic from the spurious. So whatever there is in any "book", in any other purported revelation the seal of its authenticity and integrity is its agreement with the Qur'an.
The Qur'an is not there to be granted authentiity by any other revelation but the other way around.
So thanks for the help giving category to the Qur'an by making it an offshoot to the bible, but there is no need of it and least of all to make it a monopoly of certain peoples or certain places.
Salaam