The Qur'an and the Bible: Text and Commentary by Gabriel Said Reynolds

Abstract

Reviewed by: The Qur'an and the Bible: Text and Commentary by Gabriel Said Reynolds David Penchansky gabriel said reynolds, The Qur'an and the Bible: Text and Commentary (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018). Pp. xviii + 1008. Paper $40. Reynolds has written a massive reference work, manifestly useful, and completely unique among those that examine the Qur'an and the Bible together. Most other comparative analyses of the Christian and Muslim Scriptures begin from the biblical arrangement of material. For instance, they cover creation and the Garden of Eden first, before Noah and Moses. According to R., roughly 70 percent of the Qur'an reflects biblical material, but scattered throughout, with many stories from the Bible appearing more than once. Rather than using the biblical order, R. begins with the Qur'an, Sura (chapter) by Sura, bringing in biblical parallels when they occur. Reynolds includes as part of his volume a contemporary translation of the Qur'an, which appears in large print. He places his commentary/comparative material underneath the verses in a smaller typeface. Because many biblical stories occur multiple times in the Qur'an, R. provides a detailed cross-reference system, directing the reader to the more in-depth comments on that biblical story. R. addresses many texts as well as the Bible in his comparative study, including the Talmud and early Christian sources, particularly from Syriac Christianity. He provides generous, lengthy translated passages from these sources, which, although often referred to in the secondary literature, can be difficult to locate. In this volume, they appear all in one place. When R. examines the relationship between these two great texts, he must articulate the exact nature of the relationship between the Bible and the Qur'an. The Qur'an, written in the seventh century c.e., was produced after the biblical writings. Western Qur'anic scholars during most of the twentieth century asserted that the Prophet borrowed and mangled biblical sources, claiming that the Qur'an was a derivative and inferior text. In contrast, traditional Muslim scholars insist upon the Qur'an's absolute uniqueness; it copied no one but rather came directly from God. R. provides a nuanced alternative to these two positions. He says, "The Qur'an is an original work in literary and religious terms, but also a work which depends heavily on its audience's knowledge of the Bible and the traditions which developed out of the Bible" (p. 2). He goes on to say, "From a traditional dogmatic perspective the Qur'an is original because it has no relationship with earlier traditions. Here we will see that the Qur'an's originality lies in the nature of that relationship, not in its absence" (p. 6). "If we are no longer restricted to thinking about the Qur'an as a transcript of Muhammad's proclamations between AD 610 and 632, then we might consider the possibility that it includes multiple sources and a complicated history of redaction and editing" (p. 5). These quotations come from R.'s substantial and meaty introduction, in which he lays out his project and explains how he understands the Qur'an's relationship with these earlier texts. He does this without disparaging the Qur'an. Rather, he highlights its originality and creativity. This introduction serves as an excellent introduction to contemporary Qur'anic scholarship. Reynolds navigates a very narrow path in his comparative work to affirm the complexity of the relationship between the Bible and the earlier Christian and Jewish texts. He uses weak and tentative words to describe possible connections between them. For instance, he writes that some element in the Qur'an "reflects," "is reminiscent of," "is related to," a corresponding Jewish or Christian text. He does this to avoid any taint of a claim that the [End Page 325] Qur'an depends on the Bible for its data. Further, he employs the subjunctive tense to distance himself even further from the accusation that the Qur'an lacks originality. For example, he says, "one might compare" (pp. 48, 102), "it may reflect" (pp. 57, 81, 96), and "it might be seen" (p. 66). R. asserts that the audience for these writings was familiar with these stories...