Etymology of "injeel"

[Vladimir Youssef Hattaat]

INJEEL is EVANGELION.

"Evangelion" in Greek means "good news".

Why "good news"?

Because Isaiah wrote:
61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath
___anointed me__ to __preach good tidings___ unto the meek; he hath
sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the
captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

__annointed me__: "mashach"
__preach good tidings__: "basar"

Jesus believed he was that /Moshiach/ to PREACH THE GOOD NEWS TO THE
POOR.

When Jesus followers were preaching the new religion to Greek
populations they told them that the Messiah/Khristos was prophecied in
the old writings, and this verse above was one of the prophecies of the
KHRISTOS (Greek for "annointed one").

In Luke 4, it tells us that Jesus went to synagogue on a Sabbath to
read the above passage from Isaiah and tell people that the prophecy in
the passage became true (in him).

This is why the term EVANGELION has been a central concept in
Christianity.

When Christianity spread among Arabs the term EVANGELION had already
become one of the central theological concepts, and it wasn't
translated, rather it derived to Arabic phonetically, and become
INJEEL.

But today you find Muslims turning against Christians and asking them
"Where is the ORIGINAL HEBREW INJEEL?"

They think that "Injeel" was a book. Moreover, they think that "Injeel"
was a Hebrew book.

This confusion is rooted in Muhamad's own misunderstanding and
ignorance of Christian religion and its scriptures. He was hearing
around Jews talking of "The Torah of Moses" and Christians talking of
"The Injeel of Christ Jesus". He must have concluded that "Injeel of
Jesus" is a Revealed Book of God just like "Torah of Moses" and now his
"Koran of Muhammad".

Today you find Muslims calling Jesus "the Christ", and believing that
"the Christ" was just a prophet and given a Holy Book from God to
preach to the Jews, named a Hebrew name (by God as he names his books)
which derived to Arabic to be "Injeel".

[Derrick Mohammed Abdul-Hakim]

Salaam Alaikum

I just thought I respond quickly to this post.

Vladimir says,

Post by Vladimir Youssef Hattaat
Jesus" is a Revealed Book of God just like "Torah of Moses" and now his
"Koran of Muhammad".
Today you find Muslims calling Jesus "the Christ", and believing that
"the Christ" was just a prophet and given a Holy Book from God to
preach to the Jews, named a Hebrew name (by God as he names his books)
which derived to Arabic to be "Injeel".

I suggest you read Daniel A. Madigan's "The Qur'an's Self-Image".
Therein, professor Madigan makes an excellent case for the Qur'an's
self-understanding as well as the Christian "sciptures." I believe such
will answer your confusion on the matter.

Cheers!

[Vladimir Youssef Hattaat]

Post by Derrick Mohammed Abdul-Hakim
I suggest you read Daniel A. Madigan's "The Qur'an's Self-Image".
Therein, professor Madigan makes an excellent case for the Qur'an's
self-understanding as well as the Christian "sciptures." I believe such
will answer your confusion on the matter.

Thank you for your kind advice. I dont understand what you think that I
am confused about though. Could you explain please.

--

Vladimir Youssef Hattaat

[Abu Jamil]

Hi, folks,

I'm not sure what Vladimir believes he is proposing. The Qur'an says
that God gave Jesus <al-'injiil>. That's it. It doesn't say it was a
book, although Muslims do understand that it was at least a coherent
corpus of revelations. It should be interesting to Christians that this
means that Muslims are indeed taught that Jesus' words are inspired of
God! It could be worse. At any rate, here are the eight references to
the Injil in the Qur'an, for purposes of verification: 3:3, 48, and 65;
5:46-47, 66, and 68; and 57:27.

Nor is it any surprise that the Qur'an would use the common term of the
day with which to refer to the collection of sayings of Jesus that was
familiar to the Christians at the time, using the word that they
already knew: [إنجيل] <'injiil> in Arabic.

More interesting might be the fact that the word <'injiil> just happens
to line up with the root that means "to kick someone in the buttocks"!
I like that accident. I think it's funny.

Most interesting, however, is this:

1. The Arabic term is given in the singular. Muslims know from this
fact that there is only one Corpus of Jesus' Words.

2. At the time of the revelation of the Qur'an, the Aramaic-speaking
Christians *only* had the four Synoptic Gospels [أناجيل]
<'anaajiil>. So the word should have been plural in the usage of the
Arabic-speaking Christians of the time of Muhammad, correct?

--> If Muhammad merely mimicked Christian usage of the time, which
should have been plural, why did God make it singular all eight times
in the Qur'an?

3. The Diatessaron of Tatian (ca. AD 175) attests to the fact that the
Aramaic-speaking people (of Syria), i.e., those who spoke Jesus'
language, *wanted* a single Corpus of Jesus' Words. Tatian's work was
precisely that: One Gospel: One Corpus of Jesus' Words.

4. The Aramaic-speaking (i.e., Syriac) Christians were the only
Christian community that used a *single* Gospel (<'injiil>) for any
significant period of history. They did so all the way through the 5th
century AD. Prior to Tatian, no one knows what they had, but the odds
that they started with four Synoptic Gospels, then switched to Tatian's
single Gospel, and then back again to four in the 5th century (once
Tatian was declared a heretic) are remote to any reasonable observer.

Thus, although history shows that those early Christians who spoke
Jesus' native tongue wanted and indeed used a *single* Gospel, that
practice had been declared heretical and therefore was suppressed in
favor of four Gospels a full two centuries before the advent of Islam.
Yet the Qur'an somehow remembered that there was originally only One
Corpus of Jesus' Words.

Doesn't that just kick you in the buttocks?

Abu Jamil

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Post by Vladimir Youssef Hattaat
INJEEL is EVANGELION.
When Christianity spread among Arabs the term EVANGELION had already
become one of the central theological concepts, and it wasn't
translated, rather it derived to Arabic phonetically, and become
INJEEL.

the Qur'an is in "clear arabic", i.e. intelligible to its original
audience. so it used the best known word for it.

Post by Vladimir Youssef Hattaat
But today you find Muslims turning against Christians and asking them
"Where is the ORIGINAL HEBREW INJEEL?"

"Hebrew" was used in late antiquity for Palestinian Aramaic.

many muslims acknowledge that Jesus spoke aramaic and that his
revelation
was in it, as do secular scholars.

Post by Vladimir Youssef Hattaat
They think that "Injeel" was a book. Moreover, they think that "Injeel"
was a Hebrew book.

see above.

Waraqa b. Nawfal is said to have written the 'Gospel' ('inji:l ; sing.)
in Hebrew.

Post by Vladimir Youssef Hattaat
This confusion is rooted in Muhamad's own misunderstanding and

the modern view of many historians is to take the Qur'anic statements
about christianity at afce value, at least as practiced in the
early 7th cent. Hijaz.

a picture then emerges of judaizing christian sects and the statements
appear consistent with what is known about them from other sources.

and they did have a single gospel in palestinian aramaic.

F. de Blois is a leading advocate of this theory.


moreover, even the canonical gospels show evidnece of being based on
an aramaic oral tradition.

Post by Vladimir Youssef Hattaat
ignorance of Christian religion and its scriptures. He was hearing
around Jews talking of "The Torah of Moses" and Christians talking of
"The Injeel of Christ Jesus". He must have concluded that "Injeel of
Jesus" is a Revealed Book of God just like "Torah of Moses" and now his
"Koran of Muhammad".
Today you find Muslims calling Jesus "the Christ", and believing that
"the Christ" was just a prophet and given a Holy Book from God to
preach to the Jews, named a Hebrew name (by God as he names his books)
which derived to Arabic to be "Injeel".

well, yes, the muslim view is that Jesus was more in line with
mainstream Judaism. and many modern historians would agree. and
there were christian sects that believed so as well.

this may not be you belief, but "there is no compulsion in religion."

[Zuiko Azumazi]

"Yusuf B Gursey" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the modern view of many historians is to take the Qur'anic statements
about christianity at afce value, at least as practiced in the
early 7th cent. Hijaz.
a picture then emerges of judaizing christian sects and the statements
appear consistent with what is known about them from other sources.

<snip> ...

Comment;-
As usual you are right on the button. I thought this etymological extract my
help as an additional Islamic reference, since it clearly establishes how
"euangelion" was used in transition by early Christians, which has no
ramifications or relation at all on the Quranic usage, if Muslims were using
the term "Injeel" (in transition?) simply as a Quranic word:

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txw/gospel.htm

Extract:-

Origin

Euangelion (neut. sing.) is rarely found in the sense of "good tidings"
outside of early Christian literature. As used by Homer it referred not to
the message but to the reward given to the messenger (e.g., Odyssey xiv.
152). In Attic Greek it always occurred in the plural and generally referred
to sacrifices or thank offerings made in behalf of good tidings. Even in the
LXX euangelion is found for sure but once (II Kings 4:10: Eng. versions, II
Sam.) and there it has the classical meaning of a reward given for good
tidings. (In II Kings 18:22, 25, euangelion should undoubtedly be taken as
fem. sing. in harmony with vss. 20 and 27 where this form is certain.)
Euangelion in the sense of the good news itself belongs to a later period.
Outside of Christian literature the neuter singular first appears with this
meaning in a papyrus letter from an Egyptian official of the third century
A.D. In the plural it is found in a calendar inscription from Priene about 9
B.C. It is not until the writings of the apostolic fathers (e.g., Didache
8:2; II Clement 8:5) that we sense a transition to the later Christian usage
of euangelion as referring to a book which sets forth the life and teaching
of Jesus (Justin, Apology i. 66).

Against this background the frequency with which euangelion occurs in the NT
(more than seventy-five times) with the specific connotation of "good news"
is highly informative. It suggests that euangelion is quite distinctively a
NT word. Its true significance is therefore found, not by probing its
linguistic background, but by observing its specific Christian usage.

End extract.

[Zuiko Azumazi]

"Vladimir Youssef Hattaat" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

Post by Vladimir Youssef Hattaat
INJEEL is EVANGELION.
"Evangelion" in Greek means "good news". ...

<snip> ...

Comment:-
Another piece of artfully disguised folderol meant to criticise the Quran,
Islam and Muslims on a "crooked thinking" basis. Haataat would have us
believe that because he has a superficial knowledge of Arabic he is some
kind of "intellectual" polyglot in all classical languages. What is
Hattaat's simplistic "Etymology of Injeel" speciously based on? Does his
attack on the "Injeel" have fundamental flaws? Let's examine that issue in
some detail.

"Evangelion" in Greek means "good news", is not the etymological root or
meaning of "euangelion" (evangelion), In classical Greek literature the word
"euangelion" designated 'the reward given for good tidings' and its later
transference to the "good news" itself belongs to the New Testament and
early Christian literature. [R.H. Mounce]

Bibliography: R.H. Mounce "The Essential Nature of the New Testament
Preaching" [1960]; C. Friedrich in TWNT, II, pp 705-735; R. H. Strachan,
"The Gospel in the New Testament", IB, VII, 3ff.

If you want to intelligently comment on such etymological matters then you
had better start checking your facts before going to print otherwise
subscribers, Muslim and non-Muslim, will get the idea that you don't know
what you are writing about (which generally is the case, in my humble
opinion, but I admit I'm a "straight thinking" bigot <G>).

Now, would you care to comment on the inherent circular logic of your
etymological reference: - "Evangelion" in Greek means "good news". - when in
fact it should have read, "Evangelion" in the New Testament means "good
news"? Which raises the question, the "New Testament", "Gospel" and "Good
News" are often used interchangeably by Christians, which makes the whole
item a meaningless tautological exercise from your polemical perspective.
It's like Muslims saying the meaning of the word "Quran" is the word
"Quran".

Notwithstanding, the signature below. Why would I quote Ludwig Wittgenstein
because he wrote some excellent things that confound so many dogmatic
"Islamic critics" in SRI. Like his "A proposition always keeps a back door
open, as it were. Whatever, we do, we are never sure that we are not
mistaken." [ "Ludwig Wittgenstein and the Vienna Circle", p 47]