Evangel and Injeel

[Vladimir Youssef Hattaat]

Abdelkeram Benoit Evons seems to recognize the etymological
relationship between Evangel and Injeel. Both those words come from the
Greek word Euangelion.

Now I want to ask Muslims. How come God named His Aramaic holy book he
gave to Jesus a Greek name from the blasphemous New Testament? Could it
be that God never really gave Jesus any books, and Muhamad was hearing
around from Arab Christians things like "The Injeel of Jesus" and he
thought it must be like "The Torah of Moses" and even associated the
Greek New Testament with that mysterious 'Injeel" in his ignorance?

Vladimir Youssef Hattaat

[Zuiko Azumazi]

"Vladimir Youssef Hattaat" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

Both those words come from the Greek word Euangelion. ...

<snip> ...

Comment:-
Now I want to ask sceptics; how come they use the term "God" when they don't
know whether he exists or not? How come they present arguments against
"revelation" when sacred scripture cannot exist if there is, in their minds,
a doubtful or uncertain "God"? How come they spend so much creative time and
energy in developing 'invalid syllogisms' and 'begging the question'
arguments against religious faith, Islamic or otherwise, when they 'a
priori' cannot conceive a 'necessary being' (i.e. ultimate knowledge)?

What is the purpose of sceptical refutation in SRI, or elsewhere? Does it
matter which revealed religion, Islamic or otherwise, is being sceptically
scrutinised? Isn't the sceptical extreme, those sceptics who say that all
propositions are true or that all propositions are false, and who therefore
deny the 'principle of contradiction' and with it the distinction between
true and false?

As an aside, did you know that the etymological root of the Greek word
(barbarismos) "barbarism" was someone who stutters (bleats like a sheep)?

[Victor]

I'd like to see some Muslim answers to this one (I think Mr. Azumazi
posted his reply to a wrong thread, as it doesn't deal with the
original topic). The contention that Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Greek
is a plausible one. However, how is it then possible, from an Islamic
perspective, that the word with which the Quran refers to Jesus's
message is derived from Greek? Moreover, does the idea that there
existed an Aramaic "injeel" come from the Quran or other primary
sources of Islam, or is it an idea that was devised for later
anti-Christian polemics?

(Of course, the correct answer to this is that there never was an
Aramaic gospel, as the Christian religion and scriptures were created
by Hellenized Jews and gentile Greeks, but I'm interested in how
Muslims explain this apparent contradiction.)

[Abdalla Alothman]

Asalamu alaikum (Peace to you)

Post by Victor
The contention that Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Greek
is a plausible one. However, how is it then possible, from an Islamic
perspective, that the word with which the Quran refers to Jesus's
message is derived from Greek?

Maybe because the Arab Christians called it Injeel. If the
Quran would use another name, the Arab Christians from
Najran who met with the Messenger (s) could have said,
"That book (whatever it would've been called) is foreign to
us."

That was one point. As you know the Christians call their book
"The good news." But the Christians, unfortunately, have nothing
directly from their Messenger (a). Even the name of their religion
was given to them by non-believers (I think it was Acts 11:26).
However, this isn't a big issue. Injeel could have a meaning in
Arabic.

We all know that Jibreel and Israeel are mentioned in the Quran.
We might agree that eel is a suffix, and we can agree on it's
meaning. If we take the EEL out of INJEEL, we will have INJ.
The Alif (I, in INJ) could be considered a prefix such as:

[wa]ista'eenu bissabr...

Here, the alif serves as a way to say "do" (some sort of an order
or suggestion).

You might know that most Arabic words are made up of roots
that either contain two or three leters. So now we have NJ which
has several meanings. In the Quran, yuNAJJeekum, for example
NJJ means rescue you.

Najwaa (See Surat Yusuf: "falamma istay-asoo minhu khalasoo
NAJiyyaa. and Surat Taaha: "fatanaza'oo amrahum baynahum wa
asarroo an-NAJwaa") is a direct, secret conversation. In fiqh
al-'ibaadaat (Knowledge of Worship) muNAAJaat is considered
one of the high forms of worship. It means talking directly to
Allah (tt).

Besides the two examples above (in paranthesis), a special example
is worth considering:

19:52.And We called him from the right side of the Mount, and made
him draw near to Us for a talk with him

It is unique because two words that imply speech were used. In Arabic,
the aaya is: "wa NADAYNAHU min janibi aTToori al-aymani wa qarrabnahu
NAJIYYA."

NADAYNAHU means called him. NAJIYYA means very close or private
speech.

So Injeel *could* mean, in Arabic, "TO GET RESCUED by EEL/EL"
or "TO CONVERSE with EEL/EL in a close manner." Wallahu a'lam.
If you go back to the root, you may also be more creative than me.

Now, note in the Arabic examples above, the vowel 'A 'is always
present between N and J. Now, see the Greek word mentioned
in the original message that mentions the Greek equivalent for
Injeel:

Euangelion

Yunaji, does have a meaning in Arabic. If we emphasize the N
and shorten the vowel A (Yunnaji) it means rescue. If we leave
the N as it is and extend the vowel A (Yunaaji) it is the act of
performing muNAJaat. I don't know what does "lion" in
"Eunagelion" means, though. Since we are just guessing, we
usually say: wallahu a'lam (Allah knows best). :)

At the end, Injeel is the best word that Arabs could understand
because of its use by Christian Arabs way before the Messenger
Muhammad (s) was born. Even the Arab pagans and Arab
Muslim would understand what is an Injeel.

Post by Victor
(Of course, the correct answer to this is that there never was an
Aramaic gospel, as the Christian religion and scriptures were created
by Hellenized Jews and gentile Greeks, but I'm interested in how
Muslims explain this apparent contradiction.)

When a reference to the gospel of Barnabas is made, the Christians
say that it is a hoax made by a Muslim after the conquest of Al-Andalus
(Andalucia / Spain). However, it appears that Al-Imam Al-Ghazali had
access to another "gospel" (or maybe the gospel of Barnabas isn't
a hoax) and translated it to Arabic:

http://www.mcleanministries.com/jesussays.htm

If the Christians say that this is the gospel of Barnabas, they will be
wrong. If they just say it is a hoax, well, they might have a point or
they might not.

If there are 10,000 gospels that prove Islam or anything related to
Islam, it wont change anything. If there was and is only one gospel
it would also not change anything. As Ibn Hazm said in Al-Milal, "If
all people detest to the truth, it wont add or deduct from the
truthness of the truth. On the other hand, if all people attest to the
truthness of falsehood, it wont add or deduct from the falsity
of falsehood." (or as he said)

Wishing you and your family peace and good health.

Salam,
Abdalla Alothman

[Zuiko Azumazi]

"Victor" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...

<snip> ...

I'd like to see some Muslim answers to this one ...

<snip> ...

Comment:-
It's interesting that non-Muslims cannot answer the question that was raised
in the thread. It may passed your notice that the original topic was the
usage of some ancient Greek words i.e. "Both those words come from the Greek
word Euangelion". It's ironic that you have artfully strayed from that
topic.

<snip>

(I think Mr. Azumazi posted his reply to a wrong thread, as it doesn't

deal with

the original topic). ...

<snip> ...

Comment:-
Didn't my reply cover the mediaeval usage of some Greek words and the
confusion in that usage over time? The perennial "verbal dispute", that is,
the appearance of disagreement between parties who have not resolved the
ambiguity of one or more key terms. Agreement on the definition of these
terms eliminates a verbal dispute completely. The point being that the usage
of word "injeel" may have changed over time.

<snip> ...

The contention that Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Greek
is a plausible one. ...

<snip> ...

Comment:-
That explanation is contentious. Nevertheless, because it's "plausible"
means that it's also given to or characterized by presenting specious
arguments. The issue then becomes; why should any Muslim not answer the
question in an equally specious manner? Is it not "plausible" that back then
and there when people used the word "barbarism" (barbarismos) the were not
talking about a stutterer?

<snip> ...

However, how is it then possible, from an Islamic
perspective, that the word with which the Quran refers to Jesus's
message is derived from Greek? Moreover, does the idea that there
existed an Aramaic "injeel" come from the Quran or other primary
sources of Islam, or is it an idea that was devised for later
anti-Christian polemics?
(Of course, the correct answer to this is that there never was an
Aramaic gospel, as the Christian religion and scriptures were created
by Hellenized Jews and gentile Greeks, but I'm interested in how
Muslims explain this apparent contradiction.)

<snip> ...

Comment:-
Perhaps, from an Islamic perspective, the contradiction is best explained by
George Lamsa's theories. Wasn't he correct? How do you know that yours is
the right answer? What is your epistemological "claim to knowledge"?

[Victor]

Thanks for the reply, Abdalla. Your Arabic etymology for 'injeel' is a
bit too tortuous to be believed, especially as opposed to the clear and
unambiguous Greek one.

If Arab Christians use the word, you'd expect them to know what it
means - what do they say? Is 'injeel' the word used for 'euangelion' in
Arabic translations of the Bible? Any information on this?

Also, Abdalla, I'd appreciate if you stuck to the one theory you find
the most plausible vis-a-vis 'injeel', instead of trying to cover all
the bases by putting forth mutually contradictory theories.

As to apocryphal or fabricated gospels, they are not the subject of
this discussion.

[Abdalla Alothman]

Asalamu alaikum (peace to you)

Post by Victor
If Arab Christians use the word, you'd expect them to know what it
means - what do they say? Is 'injeel' the word used for 'euangelion' in
Arabic translations of the Bible? Any information on this?

Yes, the word Injeel is in the Arabic New Testament of today.
In contemporary Islamic and pre-Islamic history books, the
term was also used. Waraqa bin Nawfal was a Nazarine, and
he kept a holy book with him which he and the people of Makkah
referred to as Injeel -- these historic references occurred when
the first aaya or before the first aaya in the Quran was revealed.

Post by Victor
Also, Abdalla, I'd appreciate if you stuck to the one theory you find
the most plausible vis-a-vis 'injeel', instead of trying to cover all
the bases by putting forth mutually contradictory theories.

There is no theory, it's absolutely definite. :)

The Quran was revealed in an Arabic tongue. It will not use words
that those who use the Arabic tongue cannot understand. If the
Greeks or any other nation used the word "tafaya" to refer to an
ashtray, and the term found its way into Arabic, then if Allah (tt)
wishes to reveal a new aaya, He will use "tafaya" not ashtray
because the term is used in the Arabic tongue.

Please read what Allah (tt) said in surat fussilat:

41:44. And if We had sent this as a Qur'ân in a foreign language
other than Arabic, they would have said: "Why are not its Verses
explained in detail (in our language)? What! (A Book) not in Arabic
and (the Messenger) an Arab?" Say: "It is for those who believe,
a guide and a healing. And as for those who disbelieve, there is
heaviness (deafness) in their ears, and it (the Qur'ân) is blindness
for them. They are those who are called from a place far away (so
they neither listen nor understand).

The aaya refers to an actual argument that was going to take place.
The reply came before the argument was composed.

Post by Victor
As to apocryphal or fabricated gospels, they are not the subject of
this discussion.

The term has always been used by all types of Christians, those
of the past who would consider the Christians of today heritics, and
those of today who considered other Christians of the past heritics
(no offense by the way, we also have sects who consider other sects
heretics up to this day).

See the word Injeel, Injeeluna, etc. used by Arab Christians of today:

http://www.kalimatalhayat.com/church_related/WinningSouls/WinningSouls006.htm

As for determining what should be an apocryphal or not, it's simply
a man made decision that doesn't relate to the Creator or any prophet
or messenger. However, this is not my busiess, so I'll stop here.

Wishing you and your family peace and good health.

Salam,
Abdalla Alothman

[Robert]

I reeply to Victor March 9

Perhaps a little more clarity can be brought to the question of the
reference of the term "injil", thanks to the distinguished Scripture
scholar, F.F.Bruce, and his book "The New Testament Documents". (Enter
"F.F.Bruce canon" in the search engine.)

At a very early stage, probably after the writng of John's gospel,
Christians bound the four gospels together to form a *book*; that is it
was not a collection of scrolls; this they called The Gospel, or
Euaggelion, that is the Injil. The similar collection of Paul's letters
was called the Apostolos. So I suggest that Injil and Book, as in the
People of the Book, have the same reference. In the year 115 we find a
reference to The Gospel in this sense.