Was name "Ahmad" (referring to prophet Muhammad) really mentioned in the Gospel of John?- research

Was name "Ahmad" (referring to prophet Muhammad) really mentioned in the Gospel of John?-research

In the recent years, some people comparing word "Ahmad" in a Quranic verse speaking of Jesus' prophecy about coming of prophet Muhammad (Qur'an, al-Saff: 6) with the word "Paraclete" in the Gospel of John (14: 26; and other phrases) have tried to make a connection between them, and have ascribed this idea to the Muslims (and even to the prophet himself) that the word Paraclete (its Greek pronunciation: Parakletos) is a distorted form of the word Periclete (its Greek pronunciation: Periklutos) which is approximately (but not exactly) equal to Arabic word Ahmad, and that Quranic verse refers to this point. But is this idea true?

Because of significance of this idea, I thought it is necessary to bring a brief report of my full scale research in this matter (The complete text of my research is brought in my book in Persian language): Adyane Ebrahimi wa Mas'aleye Payambare Mo'ud (Abrahamic Religions and the Question of the Promised Prophet), Tehran, 2015. The issue has a lot of Scientifical details, and this report only shows a very small picture of it. So, everyone who likes to read all the research he must refer to the original book.

At the beginning, let us look at the Qur'anic verse (al-Saff:6):

"And when Jesus, son of Mary, said: "O children of Israel, I am God's messenger to you, authenticating what is present with me of the Torah and bringing good news of a messenger to come after me whose name will be acclaimed." But when he showed them the clear proofs, they said: "This is clearly magic."

  First point, is that, name "Ahmed" in the early days of appearance of Islam (during prophet's life) was never known as a famous name for the prophet, and though the Quranic verse (al-Saff:6) convinces us that it was really a name of prophet Muhammad, but if it was not mentioned in Ginza Rbba (the sacred book of Mandaeans, ended its writing at 8th century A.C) with pronunciation "Ahmat" we had not anyexternal evidence to prove it as a name of the prophet (Adyane Ebrahimi wa Mas'aleye Payambare Mo'ud, Pp. 215-216).

Second point, is that, first Muslim scholars (in the early Islamic period) never claimed happening of any distortion in the phrase of the Gospel of John, but they wrongly saw the same word Paraclete as meaning: "Praised one" which equals (in their mind) to Arabic words "Muhammad" and "Ahmad". Indeed, in the writings of Muslim scholars in the early Islamic period (indeed, up to 13th century A.H, according to 19th century A.C) there is no even one hint to such a distortion in the word Paraclete (claiming that the word Parakletos was originally the word Periklutos). In fact, this claim has come into Muslim writings through European sources from 17th and 18th century (same book, Pp. 216-222; 229-235).

Third point, is that, the Quranic verse is only an indirect reference to the phrase in the Gospel of John, and not a direct one. Indeed, it is not a true assumption that the prophet whlie relates the verse had the Biblical phrase in his mind. There are some important reasons for this: 1- In the phrase of Gospel, Jesus is speaking with his Apostles (who are named in the Qur'an as: al-Hawariyyun), and his prophecy about "Paraclete" is adressed to them. But in the Qur'an, the scene is arranged in a manner that Jesus' prophecy about "Ahmad" is adressed to all children of Israel. So, we see difference between two relations. In the two texts (both Gospel of John and the Qur'an) the prophecies are adressing to two different groups of people (In the Qur'an, whenever the Apostles of Jesus are in the view, the book refers to them as: al-Hawariyyun. Indeed, Qur'an's reference to the hearers as: children of Israel, shows that the prophecy is not told in the presence of the Apostles only, in contrary to Gospel wich places the pophecy in the assembly of the Apostles themselves). Another point here is that, none of two suggested Greek words (Parakletos and Periklutos) is exact equal for the Arabic word "Ahmad:. the name Ahmad, means: "the most praised one", while the word "Parakletos" means "who is called for" and the word "Periklutos" means: "who is very praised". Indeed, the equal Greek word for name "Ahmad" is a word other than "Periklutos". Finally, Absence of any "witness manuscript" of the gospel of John which bears the word "Periklutos" or Arabic name "Ahmad" leads us to conclude that there was never any such a thing in the manuscripts of Gospel of John in pre-Islamic periods, and so, the idea that there is a connection between Qur'anic verse and a "distorted form" of the word "Parakletos" can not be confirmed (same book, Pp. 224-228).

Fourth point, is that, the exact examination of the texts proves that, the theory of seeing the word Paraclete by the Muslims as a distorted form of the word "Periklutos" is a wrong idea which was originated from non-exactly reading of some writings of Muslims. Apparently, the first one who committed such a mistake, was George Sale the Brittish scholar who got such a wrong idea from misreading of a phrase in the Gospel of Barnaba, and brought it in his introduction to the English translation of Qur'an, and also in his explanatory footnotes on the Quranic verse al-Saff:6, while he himself later confessed that when he spoke about phrases of the Gospel of Barnabas, he had not seen it yet with his own eyes and what he has said, was borrowing from other sources which had related some things from this Gospel (same book, Pp. 229-235).

Of course, I have brought many details for my arguments in the original text of my book (Adyane Ebrahimi wa Mas'aleye Payambare Mo'ud, or: The Abrahamic Religions and the Question of the Promised Prophet). Now I bring a photo of the cover of my book, and a page of it which contains some more details about George Sale's mistake. This is E-mail of the writer:

[e-mail]

Paran is not Mecca

Paran is not Mecca

As many of observers of my weblog are non-Persian speaking people, I was convinced to provide for them an English translation of the issues and articles presented in this page. Now, I want to begin with an important one of them: Is Paran (mentioned in Deuteronomy 33:2) the same Mecca in Arabia? Is there a sufficient amount of historical materials to examine it?

Now we will speak about it.

The fame of this claim in Muslim sources about sameness of Biblical Paran and the city of Mecca in Arabia goes back to this claim that prophet Moses has foretold coming of prophet  Muhammad in the Torah, and so he mentioned Paran as the Biblical name of Mecca to identify location of his future appearance. According to this claim, the phrase of Torah which says about God's coming from Sinai and his rising from Seir and his shining from Mount Paran (or Pharan; both pronunciations can be found in the ancient manuscripts) it indeed refers to locations of appearance of three great prophets of God: Moses (who received Torah from God in Mt. Sinai), Jesus (who was appeared in Seir, according to Muslim claims, and received the sacred book Injeel, Quranic name for Gospel, from God in this mountain), and Muhammad (who appeared in Mecca and received the Qur'an there, which, again, according to the claim, is the same Biblical Paran). Muslim scholars always refer to a passage in Torah (Genesis 21:21) to prove that Paran is the area in which Hagar and Ishmael (Abraham's wife and son) inhabited, that according to Arabic traditions it was the same area of Mecca.

But are these claims true, and do our documents confirm it?

I have made a full research and provided the complete information about it, in my book in Persian language: Adyane Ebrahimi wa Mas'aleye Payambare Mo'ud (The Abrahamic Religions and the Question of the Promised Prophet). In this book, I specialized a separate chapter to examination of the claim of "sameness of Pharan and Mecca", (it is attached to the end of the book).

It is adress of my book:

Karimpur, Saeed, Adyane Ebrahimi wa Mas'aleye Payambare Mo'ud (The Abrahamic Religions and the Question of the Promised Prophet), Sabzan Publication, Tehran (Iran), 2015  

In this book, I have examined the claim in separate parts: 

part 1- A review of biblical phrase in Deuteronomy 33:2

part 2- Did the jews and christians see the phrase Deuteronomy 33:2 as a prophecy at all?

part 3- How Paran is described in pre-Islamic historical sources?

?part 4- How both Paran and Mecca are described in post-Islamic historical sources

part 5- Are the maps in which Paran is shown inside Hijaz (a great desert in Arabia wich contains Mecca too) accurate?

part 6- What we found in the Muslim geographical sources about location of Paran?

part 7- How Paran and Mecca were firstly connected to each other in early Arabic sources?

part 8- What was the origin of the claim of sameness of Paran and Mecca, and how was its historical development?

part 9- What made  the Muslim scholars to accept this claim such widely?

part 10- Reviewing the phrase Deuteronomy 33:2 again

part 11- The last word about Paran and claim of its sameness with Mecca

As the readers see, I have examined the issue from many different aspects and I have considered many points in my examination.  So, the result of my research is that, Paran is not Mecca in Saudi Arabia, and the claim of their sameness was only a wrong claim wich was brought up by some ignorant Muslim scholars. My research is very detailed (it has occupied about 60 pages in my book), thus I only can bring a very brief review of it, mentioning only its important points.

Firstly, we must know that , Muslim's interpretation of Deuteronomy 33:2 has many internal problems. Indeed, circumtances we see in the phrase, shows a clear connection between it and the story of Moses and history of Israelites during their wondering in the desert after their departure from Egypt.  Using past tense verbs, referring to things such as "fiery law" , and its clear reference to Israelites using word "them" during the phrase, gives it a very clear jewish sense. So, the phrase itself never leads us to interpret it as a "prophecy" with a future sense about coming of any prophet (Adyane Ebrahimi wa Mas'aleye Payambare Mo'ud, Pp. 148-149).

secondly, examining jewish sources like Babylonian Talmud and the Targums (from centuries before Islam),  shows that they never saw it as a prophecy about future happenings (same book, Pp. 152-158).

Thirdly, name "Paran" or "Pharan" in the history was never applied to Mecca. The claim in Muslim sources about this, has not any support in historical documents . According to our sources, the only areas which were known as Paran or Pharan in the history, were an area in the south of Palestine and east of Egypt (outside of them, above the Gulf of Aqaba and inside Sinai Peninsula, and it is the same biblical Paran), and a valley in Palestine itself (according to Josephus Flavius the jewish historian in first century A.C), and some other obscure locations none of them is the same Mecca in Arabia. Indeed Mecca has a long distance with all locations which were known as Paran or Pharan (same book, Pp. 158-167). One important of these historical sources is Ptolemy's Geography (belonging to 2rd century A.C) which shows Paran exactly at the same area we described above (Ibid, P. 160). not only many sources from Jews and Christians before and after appearance of Islam confirms it, but also Paran is described just as the same in the texts of Muslim geographers. Indeed, geographers like Ibn Khordadbeh (3rd century A.H), Sohrab (4th century A.H), unknown writer of book Hodud ul-'Alam or "the Borders of the Universe" (4th century A.H), Moqaddasi (4th century A.D), Ibn Hawqal (4th century A.D), Istakhri (4th century A.D), Bakri (5th century A.D), Idrisi (6th century A.D), Ibn Khaldun (8th century A.D) and many other Muslim geographers locate Paran just at the south of Palestine and east of Egypt (which we have descrived as the biblical Paran). (same book, Pp. 174-179).  

fourthly, now it is known that, some scattered hints found in the old sources which imply locating Paran in Hijaz (eastern great desert of Saudi Arabia) like that what we find in Jerome and Eusebius' Oniomasticon (4th century A.C) or what is said in the book al-Tijan by Wahab ibn Munabbih (jew who converted to Islam in the first century A.D) are weak and unreliable.  Eusebius and Jerome's description of Paran as "a desert at the east of Elath at a three days journay" (which locates Paran at northern Hijaz in north-east of Saudi Arabia) is given because of a mistake in survey of area, and what is related from Wahab ibn Munabbah is not reliable because of unauthenticity of his book (the book al-Tijan is full of fictions and poems and stories which have originated from the writer's mind and imaginations). (same book, Pp. 167-174 and 180-182). The words of a few Muslim geographers like Yaqut al-Hamawi and Ibn Hazm al-Andalosi and others who have said Paran is a name for Mecca, is not reliable because they have relied on Muslim scholarss' claims about this in current debates of that period which had made this claim as a famous idea (same book, Pp. 178-179).

fifthly, the first one who brought up this claim according to Muslim sources, was Ka'b ul-Ahbaar, a jew who converted to Islam at the early first century (In his childhood, prophet Muhammad was still alive) and he converted to Islam some years after prophet's death. This person, is very despised by great Muslim scholars like Ibn Kathir (one of greatest Muslim scholars whose commentary on Qur'an is widespread, and also by Ibn Khaldun who is known as "the father of History in Islamic World) (same book, Pp. 183-188). Also, a shiasource wich ascribes a debate between Imam Reza (8th Imam of Shi'ism) in which it is put in his mouth that Paran is the same Mecca, is a forgery, which is produced about 4th century A.D (according to 10th century A.C) from many other older sources (same book, Pp. 41 footnote 74, and 189).   

sixthly, the only material wich is a pretext for Muslim writers to claim that Paran was the same Mecca, is a phease of Torah (Genesis 21: 21) which says Hagar and Ishmael settled in Paran, and as they believe that they were indeed living in Mecca (according to Arab traditions) so they conclude that Paran was the same Mecca. Indeed, Muslim writers never had any other document to rely on it for their claim (same book, Pp. 190-194). But an exact examining of biblical references and comparing them with archaeological finds shows that Paran which is referred to in Genesis 21:21, is the same area we described as located in the south of Palestine and east of Egypt (same book, Pp. 194-198). So, even what is said in Genesis 21:21 can not be at all a support for Muslim claims. The Muslims also can not prove any connection between mountain Seir and Jesus christ, especially in their claim that he has got the book Injeel (gospel) from God in that mountain.

I tried very much that my research would be evenly and the most complete one in this field. I hope what I related very briefly from my book, would make the Muslims to review their texts more exactly and to correct their ideas about the matter. Indeed, all documents shows that Paran in the Bible, is not the same Mecca in the desert of Arabia.

I sure if sometime my book comes to be translated into English, Arabic and Turkish, it would be useful for many people other than persian-language people too.

The photo of cover of my book, and a page of it which says about location of Paran in the writings of Muslim geographers:

Karimpur, Saeed, Adyane Ebrahimi wa Mas'aleye Payambare Mo'ud (The Abrahamic Religions and the Question of the Promised Prophet), Sabzan Publication, Tehran (Iran), 2015

E-mail of writer: [e-mail]