John Damascene's tradition on Golgotha, which he does not relate directly to the Book Of Allâh, in place of shabah has skian auton - that is, the Jews crucified Jesus' shadow. For John, Islam itself is a skia. Phantasma would have been literal.
John might translate tafsir but he does not translate the Book we got - and that the Iraqis had. Moreover and however John's account doesn't resemble any tafsir of which I am aware. The Arabic word for shadow would be zill, nu?
Unless it's less literal. John's take if we were goin' thematic resembles more closely ... sura 38, in which a jasad takes the place of King Solomon. To much worse effect!
What to make of this? Was there a Syrian verse resembling our Q. 4:157, but perhaps not in sura 4, which had jasad? Was there an Umayyad tafsir of sura 4 we're missing?
Ehh. G-d knows better.
UPDATE 7/14: h/t Juan Cole at Academia, we should look at canon Q. 4:157 as the culmination of vv. 153-9 on the kitâbîs. And what kitâb, but the Covenant of v. 154? John's summary of Mamed's text says the kitâbî drive against Jesus, recently noted as a son of Mary, was paranomic. Although this isn't Nicetas' ἄνευ δικαίου, John's paranomía must shadow bighayri haqqin, v. 155 / Q. 3:21. That would bring John's source closer to sura 4, adding to evidence that the ultimate source is indeed the sura.
No comments:
Post a Comment