A paradoxical fine line to five stars

A review by Lev Weitz made me order a copy of Holger Michael Zellentin’s The Qur’an’s Legal Culture. Hence, I do not repeat the praise and criticism other than the problematic document history of the Didascalia. Arguments based on oral transmissions should be rejected outright since they attempt to rationalize why documents appear as late as the criticism by its opponents. Having said that, I need to disclose that my expertise is in the economics of religion and religious fraud.

Perhaps the key sentence in Zellentin’s work is that the overlap between the Qur’anic and Judaeo-Christian lawcodes (here the Homilies and perhaps also the Rabbinic literature) ‘are well worth considering from the point of view of critical historiography.’ However, if the document history of the Didascalia is problematic, then the author’s attempt is threatened to be circular. Research needs to first map out the real history of Judaic religions. For this purpose, the Koran provides for such a pivotal moment and an unshakable piece of evidence (give or take a few decades) that it might well serve as the departing point for such a research project in both directions on the timeline. The author seems to partly recognize this importance in stating that his work might make ‘as much of a difference for the study of Late Antiquity as for the study of the Qur’an.’ Indeed, decoding the Koran will change everything.

But let us be frank: Islam is a Judaic religion, and it is childish for the faithful to believe that the Koran grew out of a Pagan environment, when Paganism should have long succumbed to other Judaic sects. For those that still believe in the fairy tale, Zellentin is deafening. Besides, only ONE lone reference can be found in the entire Koran that could potentially be interpreted as referring to Paganism. All other such allusions come with some sort of association with the single and undivided Judaic god – Allah. Pagans join nothing to Allah; only Judaic believers, such as Western Christians, do. However, the author seems to overlook that the MUSLIM Abbasids would come to continue the tradition of the associator role, which presents a paradox when trying to understand the related meanings in the new scripture (see Benjamin of Tudela about Baghdad). Zellentin ascribes the associator role to bishops, but the evidence that has come down to us speaks mainly of imperial rulers and kings across the globe that had lifted themselves to the role of gods or representatives of God and pontiffs. Bishops, instead, should have been accountable to the patriarchs and pontiffs, at least as religious history attempts to suggest, and these select few must have included kings, shahs, caliphs, and emperors at the time (note: Rome only broke off from Constantinople in the early eight century).

The daughter-in-law of Theodosius was perhaps the first such Christian exponent inside the Roman Empire (I am well aware of other opinions that help confuse the real history). As of the fifth century, this joining of secular and religious offices rendered the entire Christian ecclesiastical structure corrupt. It is also in this period when the most dividing of all synods since the beginning of Christianity took place in 451 AD, the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. This represents the last opportunity on the path for the schism between Christianity and Islam as its doctrines would be flat-out rejected by almost all from Spain to Afghanistan but Constantinople. Byzantine Orthodoxy would until the seventh century apply the method of cutting throats for those that refused to sing with the choir to different songs. The historical evidence tells us that the persecuted moved to safer places, mainly east and south. There, they may have gained strength.

Obviously, the Koran borrows from its Judaic neighbors and engages in ongoing discourses. It is thus hardly a surprise that one can find parallels to all sorts of Judaic literature, not just the Didascalia, the Homilies, the Talmud(s), or the Evangelicum (a term that was assimilated by the Koran from the Greeks, meaning one or more of the four Gospels, of which we can only be sure of Matthew). If the (reform-)Zoroastrian and Manichean scriptures of the time were extant, we would certainly find ample parallels in these as well. The author does thus not present much new or beyond the obvious. However, the way he presents it is refreshing.

It may be noted that the Paulinic texts were only unified in 692 AD for Byzantine Orthodoxy, thus creating another paradox for the author. Somebody had to swallow a bitter pill, and who they were is laid out in the Canons of the respective Synod. Since nothing in the Koran points to Paul, taking Acts as a point of reference appears fairly remote. Taking the abolition of laws from the point of Acts as referring to the Golden Calf after which secondary laws had been imposed for punishment (as sometimes suggested by the Koran’s chronology) is even more fanciful. There must be a different origin since Islam did not abrogate the circumcision as Christianity did in Acts. Therein, Peter discusses the circumcision for Gentiles – a (Judaic) marker ordered upon Abraham’s successors in Genesis – just before stating which minimalist (food) laws apply to them. This is the same Peter that had refused to bring Jesus’s teachings to the Gentiles. Instead, the Koran does not abolish ALL secondary laws but handpicks some of them as exceptional. Moreover, the Koran forcefully rejects central tenets that we understand today as ‘Christianity’, namely ‘the Lord’ Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, all three of which are embraced by Acts (2:22-24), including the Messiah’s apparent divination in the title ‘the Lord.’ Moreover, for ‘Christianity’, salvation is ONLY through the belief in Jesus. Hence, the Koran cannot directly have been influenced by this book. How on earth would the Muslim community have thrown such deeply seated concepts overboard without having ended up in a bloodbath among themselves? Yet, the Koran does make ritual changes over time in order to set itself apart from other sects (hinting at a stretched-out chronology). Maybe the authors of the Koran have taken note how much easier life under Christianity’s ritual laws was compared to Orthodox Judaism. The author recognizes some as shifting attitudes, which makes his argument all the more complex. What is new; what has been replaced? Yet, for example, the change in the orientation of the prayers to Mecca must have been painful to implement in the community, and such alterations would most likely lead to schisms within Islam and rejection of the respective texts (Samarra’s Abbasid and Shi’ite mosques are a case in point).

That the Didascalia itself might sit post the Koran is given by the Koran’s abrogation of laws that should have long been abrogated by the Didascalia or by the Evangelicum. Why would Mohammad nullify laws that had already been abandoned? It only makes sense if the authors of the Koran were either not under the influence of the Didascalia or if the latter would have been redacted to better suit an Islamic environment post the Koran. Likewise, Acts must have been absent from the mindset of Muhammad since he would have otherwise abrogated the same laws threefold. The comparison of the Koran with the Didascalia suffers from the same catch 22 as the Gospel does with Josephus. The sequence is critical, and the respective traditions bring forth more questions than answers. Thus, the author’s logic has some fundamental flaws that are nevertheless not all that important in his overall work if the reader is able to look beyond these and think with the writer.

A matrix of Judaic ritual and theological markers over the centuries might eventually bring forth the real tree of religious thought on which the path to Islam could be traced. I would not be surprised to find the source of a schism at the very beginning, before the inception of Paul. Since Zellentin is perhaps the first such detailed work (to my knowledge), he deserves all the praise for opening the Pandora Box. I command him for the tremendous learning and effort that such an undertaking takes. Yet, Zellentin’s weak spot might be a lack of understanding religious symbolism (for example in respect to spirits and demons) even though his education is perhaps one of the best suitable to crack open the hard nut. He seems so uncomfortable with the subject that he simply circumnavigates it and sticks with the words. For example, if the secondary laws had been imposed as a punishment for the sin of the Golden Calf, then the abrogation of these laws by Jesus already amounts to the symbolic forgiveness of these sins in any case. Thus, the Didascalia does not need to specifically demonstrate a forgiveness of sins through Jesus in addition to the abrogation. The symbolism takes care of it. Likewise, since some Jews had already accepted the abrogation by Jesus, Muhammad had no case to do so with them. It was already done.

With his literal approach, I would have preferred a better structure that explores a set of details and then moves to the next set. It would have become more apparent to him that the influence upon the Koran is not one or the other but rather one AND the other. Likewise, the Koran does not seem to attempt to include one or the other but rather a number of groups that may have been close to proto-Islam in various forms of like-Arianism to which all non-Chalcedonians may have initially flocked as allies. Given the pressure by forced conversions throughout the Middle East in most of the seventh century, I would be surprised NOT to find an ecumenical approach buried inside the Koran’s logic. The attempt of the hunted would have been to form an alliance under a religious compromise, thus, creating a new fusion from the continuance of various sectarian streams that viewed Jesus as a human, even partly, perhaps including the distant Abbasid concept of a paraclete, a sort of a demi-divinity. This is perhaps also the reason for the historical evidence pointing to a REVIVAL of like-Arianism and for Zellentin’s observation that the people of Israel must have included Jews and Christians alike. Hence, ‘heresies’ that were thought to having been routed returned with a vengeance, perhaps under the allied power of an emerging, new broom. But, of course, this could only go wrong. Thus, the Koran evolved with new rules that attempted to control its subjects, providing for a possible rationale why the Koran has been ‘translated’ and shuffled like a deck of cards (see a primitive attempt to reconstruct the history in Deus, Vol. II, 2011).

Thus, while I am unsure what the DIRECT implications of Zellentin are, the indirect consequences may indeed be significant. Here is the strange paradox against all that was just said: this book deserves 5 stars outright for its quality of research in the details and its insights into the legal parallels between the Koran and other sources (perhaps with the exception of the author’s core document, the Didascalia).

Zellentin is also almost a model on how to present translations and arguments. He routinely adds the primary terms to the translations, which makes the work much easier to study than others that opt to suppress the terms after having stated their opinions. It is critical for scholarship to always retain the original words (in particular pertaining to subjects) since there will remain much uncertainty for a long time to come. He makes an unfortunate exception with the Nasara after he made up his mind in a compelling argument that they can only be Christians. If we were to say ‘Christians’ to Catholics and Protestants, we would not understand a dot about the Reformation. Since this religion comes in different shapes and colors, it would have been better to stick with ‘Christians (Nasara)’ or Nasara-Christians. Also, and that is quite unusual, I read all footnotes, which amounts to perhaps more than a third of the volume but attests to their quality. The author could have done better by simplifying the main text and delegating more sidelines into the footnotes. I would have read them anyhow, but it would have been easier to follow his thoughts. I do not mind footnotes as long as they are on the same page.

Zellentin is indeed easy to read – as in a text that flows nicely. However, that does not mean that it is easy to understand. The prerequisites are enormous, which is why the text is perhaps not suitable for non-experts. I find it lengthier than need be, but coming from a German background, I understand his differing approach compared to the Anglophones. Germans can hold a thought and inject numerous sidelines in a single sentence that can span several pages. Americans are more accustomed to short cadence paragraphs that are no longer than a breath. In addition, in a surety that borders to arrogance, the author presents his ideas in a matter-of-factly approach. However, it is not arrogant at all; it is just German – and beautifully passionate. For the English, this may make it difficult to hold facts and author opinions separate. Sometimes, the choice of confident words may mislead the readers and prompt them to overlook significant deviations.

The deeper one reaches into the text, the more difficult Zellentin’s text appears, even though in the end quite the contrary is true. The text would thus have benefited from better editing, which is perhaps the weakest spot of the work. It has simply too many words. The length and deviations in all sorts of possibilities and hedging of opinions makes Zellentin’s text at times almost incomprehensible. The reader wonders here and there what the objective of the author may be. For example, his explanation that the word ‘hnp’ does not mean ‘Pagan’ but refers to a Judaic sect spans pages when a couple of sentences would have been enough. The subject has been treated in academia ad nauseum, and the author does not really add anything new here (in my paper about Muhammad, the ‘hnp’ emerge on the path to Islam and form thus a pre-Islamic group that may be the core of the sprout to the new religion, hence the continuance in its name, perhaps referring to eastern Manicheans [Deus, 2015, for free on academia.org]). It is really simple: Christians do not listen to Atheists; Pagans do not listen to Jews; sect A does not listen to sect B. The exclusion of others is put in stone in every scripture of note. The same accounts for the logic of the Koran, and it helps to draw fairly clear demarcation lines.

Intriguingly, if one can hold 200 pages on small print together, in the end, it all fuses into one concise and intelligently laid out argument, however problematic it may be. He is certainly on the right track with the claim of continuance, but it is perhaps an interrupted continuance, one of rebirth for the sake of ecumenical survival. Many other options need to still be taken into consideration.

This author should focus somewhat more on the big picture. In the future, I expect great works from this author if he refrains from digging into futile details that may cost him more time than he has to get to the bottom of the secrets. Before he can do that, he will have to become more critical of the religious doctrines that may have shaped his thinking. I would then perhaps not have been confounded by the author’s statement that the Israelites had been punished ‘relatively mildly’ after the Golden Calf incident. This provokes a direct confrontation: Firstly Aaron (!) ordered the idol (with its distinct symbolism) BEFORE (!) the Israelites had received the Ten Commandments from his brother Moses. Aaron happens to be the great-grandfather of all Levitic linages that appear on the map in the first century Temple Mount. Secondly, the Levites (!) were then seduced into killing the sinners, brother, friend, and neighbor, three thousand of them. The rest of the ‘sinners’ were hit by a plague sent by God, except for the Levite ringleaders, of course. I do neither consent with the unjust and uncontrollable anger of the god of the Israelites nor with its misguided mercy for the few privileged survivors who happen to be of Aaron’s Levitic linage and of the original instigators (!) of a crime that only Judaic believers can detect as worthy of any punishment, here with the penalty of death for followers who did not even know about the Law. Even though I might come across as too hard on the author, he should double check on his beliefs, because it is here where his interpretations are the most vulnerable.

With all due respect, while I am obviously not a fan of the outcome, this is a work in this genre worthy of academia. ( )