Discussion:
Zabur
(too old to reply)
Helmut Richter
2017-05-13 12:39:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
According to easily available sources like WP, "Zabur" is a book that
has been revealed to Dawud=Dawid, according to the Quran. I read this
information so that its contents is now unknown, and any relationship to
the biblical book of Psalms or parts thereof is conjectural at most?

Nonetheless the usage of the word "Zabur" for a psalm in the biblical
sense seems to be widespread among Christians in languages the speakers
of which are mostly Muslims (Urdu, Turkish, Kurdish, Swahili).

Are the roots Z-B-R (ar: Zabur) and Z-M-R (he: mizmor) cognates by a
regular shift in consonants?
--
Helmut Richter
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-13 13:55:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Helmut Richter
According to easily available sources like WP, "Zabur" is a book that
has been revealed to Dawud=Dawid, according to the Quran. I read this
information so that its contents is now unknown, and any relationship to
the biblical book of Psalms or parts thereof is conjectural at most?
Nonetheless the usage of the word "Zabur" for a psalm in the biblical
sense seems to be widespread among Christians in languages the speakers
of which are mostly Muslims (Urdu, Turkish, Kurdish, Swahili).
Are the roots Z-B-R (ar: Zabur) and Z-M-R (he: mizmor) cognates by a
regular shift in consonants?
No, that's not a known relationship within Semitic. In all those other languages,
it's simply a borrowing of the Arabic word.

Syriac has a single word, attested once, in a lexicon, from the root ZBR, meaning 'spears'.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-05-13 16:40:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Helmut Richter
According to easily available sources like WP, "Zabur" is a book that
has been revealed to Dawud=Dawid, according to the Quran. I read this
information so that its contents is now unknown, and any relationship to
the biblical book of Psalms or parts thereof is conjectural at most?
Nonetheless the usage of the word "Zabur" for a psalm in the biblical
sense seems to be widespread among Christians in languages the speakers
of which are mostly Muslims (Urdu, Turkish, Kurdish, Swahili).
Are the roots Z-B-R (ar: Zabur) and Z-M-R (he: mizmor) cognates by a
regular shift in consonants?
No. But in Pre-Islamic Yemen we see the change for initial
Semitic m- > b- on occasion.

zabu:r means "book", something written down, zabara means to write
or transcribe. and fa3u:l measure is to be understood as a form
of the passive participle maf3u:l . zibr and zabi:r are alternate
forms for this more general meaning. It also usually and more
specifically meant the palm stalks used for wriing, and in Ancient
South Arabia a more minisicule and more cursive variant of the
South Semitic Script was used for the occasion.
zubra(t) means a piece of iron, a piece of bone, zubr a word
for penis.

What we have here is very likely an example of folk etymology
from the scholarly Christian Arabic word for the Psalms,
al-maza:mi:r sing. mazmu:r (Mezamir, mezmur is also used
in Turkish Bible tranlations, though some may have Zebur)

The Qur'an is full of such Arabizations, probably in the
oral, non-scholarly manne in which Judaism and Christianity
was transmitted in Pre-Islamic Arabia

some examples: 3imra:n for 3amrAm, sulayma:n (dim. of
salma:n) for Solomon to name only two, notwithsanding
less recognizable forms such as 3i:sa" for yasu:3 (a
number of phonetic steps), yaHya" ("he lives") for
yu:Hanna: (through Hebrew diminutive yoHai)
Post by Helmut Richter
--
Helmut Richter
Helmut Richter
2017-05-17 11:53:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Helmut Richter
According to easily available sources like WP, "Zabur" is a book that
has been revealed to Dawud=Dawid, according to the Quran. I read this
information so that its contents is now unknown, and any relationship to
the biblical book of Psalms or parts thereof is conjectural at most?
The first question was whether there is a known text which is the book
Zabur mentioned in the Qur'an. The answer is no. That the Zabur is the
same as the book of Psalms -- in whatever language -- seems not to be a
widespread belief among Muslims either.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Helmut Richter
Nonetheless the usage of the word "Zabur" for a psalm in the biblical
sense seems to be widespread among Christians in languages the speakers
of which are mostly Muslims (Urdu, Turkish, Kurdish, Swahili).
Are the roots Z-B-R (ar: Zabur) and Z-M-R (he: mizmor) cognates by a
regular shift in consonants?
No. But in Pre-Islamic Yemen we see the change for initial
Semitic m- > b- on occasion.
zabu:r means "book", something written down, zabara means to write
or transcribe. and fa3u:l measure is to be understood as a form
of the passive participle maf3u:l . zibr and zabi:r are alternate
forms for this more general meaning. It also usually and more
specifically meant the palm stalks used for wriing, and in Ancient
South Arabia a more minisicule and more cursive variant of the
South Semitic Script was used for the occasion.
zubra(t) means a piece of iron, a piece of bone, zubr a word
for penis.
What we have here is very likely an example of folk etymology
from the scholarly Christian Arabic word for the Psalms,
al-maza:mi:r sing. mazmu:r (Mezamir, mezmur is also used
in Turkish Bible tranlations, though some may have Zebur)
That the root ZMR has been used for Psalms in the scholarly Christian
Arabic world is immediately understandable: It is the same Semitic root
as in the Hebrew (mizmor=psalm, although the book is called
tehillim=praises). This root is now used in Arabic and Farsi for the
purpose.

For a folk etymology that connects ZMR to ZBR there is a need for folks
who believe in a connection between the Zabur as mentioned in the Qur'an
and the Biblical book of Psalms. Who could they have been? Are Muslims
generally aware that Dawud is an author of psalms? Do they know the sura
mentioning the Zabur and draw the connection? Or, the other way round,
are there Christians in the Muslim world who know that the Qur'an
mentions a book revealed to Dawud and equate it with the Psalms?

The distribution of languages where ZBR is used for Psalms (I checked
the names of the corresponding WP articles, as I do not know these
languages) demands also an explanation, as Arabic is not among them. One
big area is Osmanic (Turkish, Azeri, Uzbek, Kurdish, Bosnian, Tartar).
But how did the word get into Urdu or Swahili? Especially the latter got
all its Muslim influence from Arabia, especially Yemen, and from Persia,
but not from the Osmanic area.
--
Helmut Richter
Arnaud Fournet
2017-05-17 12:14:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Helmut Richter
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Helmut Richter
According to easily available sources like WP, "Zabur" is a book that
has been revealed to Dawud=Dawid, according to the Quran. I read this
information so that its contents is now unknown, and any relationship to
the biblical book of Psalms or parts thereof is conjectural at most?
The first question was whether there is a known text which is the book
Zabur mentioned in the Qur'an. The answer is no. That the Zabur is the
same as the book of Psalms -- in whatever language -- seems not to be a
widespread belief among Muslims either.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Helmut Richter
Nonetheless the usage of the word "Zabur" for a psalm in the biblical
sense seems to be widespread among Christians in languages the speakers
of which are mostly Muslims (Urdu, Turkish, Kurdish, Swahili).
Are the roots Z-B-R (ar: Zabur) and Z-M-R (he: mizmor) cognates by a
regular shift in consonants?
No. But in Pre-Islamic Yemen we see the change for initial
Semitic m- > b- on occasion.
zabu:r means "book", something written down, zabara means to write
or transcribe. and fa3u:l measure is to be understood as a form
of the passive participle maf3u:l . zibr and zabi:r are alternate
forms for this more general meaning. It also usually and more
specifically meant the palm stalks used for wriing, and in Ancient
South Arabia a more minisicule and more cursive variant of the
South Semitic Script was used for the occasion.
zubra(t) means a piece of iron, a piece of bone, zubr a word
for penis.
What we have here is very likely an example of folk etymology
from the scholarly Christian Arabic word for the Psalms,
al-maza:mi:r sing. mazmu:r (Mezamir, mezmur is also used
in Turkish Bible tranlations, though some may have Zebur)
That the root ZMR has been used for Psalms in the scholarly Christian
Arabic world is immediately understandable: It is the same Semitic root
as in the Hebrew (mizmor=psalm, although the book is called
tehillim=praises). This root is now used in Arabic and Farsi for the
purpose.
For a folk etymology that connects ZMR to ZBR there is a need for folks
who believe in a connection between the Zabur as mentioned in the Qur'an
and the Biblical book of Psalms. Who could they have been? Are Muslims
generally aware that Dawud is an author of psalms? Do they know the sura
mentioning the Zabur and draw the connection? Or, the other way round,
are there Christians in the Muslim world who know that the Qur'an
mentions a book revealed to Dawud and equate it with the Psalms?
Where is that claim written in the Qur'an?

Besides, most "psalms" are not written by David.
A.
Helmut Richter
2017-05-17 14:59:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Helmut Richter
For a folk etymology that connects ZMR to ZBR there is a need for folks
who believe in a connection between the Zabur as mentioned in the Qur'an
and the Biblical book of Psalms. Who could they have been? Are Muslims
generally aware that Dawud is an author of psalms? Do they know the sura
mentioning the Zabur and draw the connection? Or, the other way round,
are there Christians in the Muslim world who know that the Qur'an
mentions a book revealed to Dawud and equate it with the Psalms?
Where is that claim written in the Qur'an?
4:163, 17:55 and 21:105

I cannot read Arabic to check. I understand that the claim is that
something called Zabur was revealed to Dawud, but nothing about its
contents is said, in particular not whether there is a connction to the
Psalms. Right?
--
Helmut Richter
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-05-17 16:15:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Helmut Richter
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Helmut Richter
For a folk etymology that connects ZMR to ZBR there is a need for folks
who believe in a connection between the Zabur as mentioned in the Qur'an
and the Biblical book of Psalms. Who could they have been? Are Muslims
generally aware that Dawud is an author of psalms? Do they know the sura
mentioning the Zabur and draw the connection? Or, the other way round,
are there Christians in the Muslim world who know that the Qur'an
mentions a book revealed to Dawud and equate it with the Psalms?
Where is that claim written in the Qur'an?
4:163, 17:55 and 21:105
an-Nisa 4:162, al-'isa:' 17:55


وَءَاتَيۡنَا دَاوُ ۥدَ زَبُورً۬ا

wa-'a:tayna: da:wa(:)da za:bu:ran

"We gave David Zabur"
Post by Helmut Richter
I cannot read Arabic to check. I understand that the claim is that
something called Zabur was revealed to Dawud, but nothing about its
contents is said, in particular not whether there is a connction to the
Psalms. Right?
Typically terse for the Quran.

There is a concensus of opinion that it is the Psalms.
Post by Helmut Richter
--
Helmut Richter
Helmut Richter
2017-05-17 16:47:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Helmut Richter
I cannot read Arabic to check. I understand that the claim is that
something called Zabur was revealed to Dawud, but nothing about its
contents is said, in particular not whether there is a connction to the
Psalms. Right?
Typically terse for the Quran.
There is a concensus of opinion that it is the Psalms.
This is what I wanted to find out in the first place. Thank you.
--
Helmut Richter
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-05-17 17:02:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Helmut Richter
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Helmut Richter
For a folk etymology that connects ZMR to ZBR there is a need for folks
who believe in a connection between the Zabur as mentioned in the Qur'an
and the Biblical book of Psalms. Who could they have been? Are Muslims
generally aware that Dawud is an author of psalms? Do they know the sura
mentioning the Zabur and draw the connection? Or, the other way round,
are there Christians in the Muslim world who know that the Qur'an
mentions a book revealed to Dawud and equate it with the Psalms?
Where is that claim written in the Qur'an?
4:163, 17:55 and 21:105
an-Nisa 4:162, al-'isa:' 17:55
وَءَاتَيۡنَا دَاوُ ۥدَ زَبُورً۬ا
wa-'a:tayna: da:wa(:)da za:bu:ran
"We gave David Zabur"
Which could also mean "We gave David a Book"
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Helmut Richter
I cannot read Arabic to check. I understand that the claim is that
something called Zabur was revealed to Dawud, but nothing about its
contents is said, in particular not whether there is a connction to the
Psalms. Right?
Typically terse for the Quran.
There is a concensus of opinion that it is the Psalms.
Post by Helmut Richter
--
Helmut Richter
Arnaud Fournet
2017-05-18 04:00:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
an-Nisa 4:162, al-'isa:' 17:55
وَءَاتَيۡنَا دَاوُ ۥدَ زَبُورً۬ا
wa-'a:tayna: da:wa(:)da za:bu:ran
"We gave David Zabur"
There is a concensus of opinion that it is the Psalms.
Which surahs in the Qor'an are considered Psalms by the islamic tradition?
Which are part of Zabur?

A.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-05-18 07:16:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
an-Nisa 4:162, al-'isa:' 17:55
وَءَاتَيۡنَا دَاوُ ۥدَ زَبُورً۬ا
wa-'a:tayna: da:wa(:)da za:bu:ran
"We gave David Zabur"
There is a concensus of opinion that it is the Psalms.
Which surahs in the Qor'an are considered Psalms by the islamic tradition?
Which are part of Zabur?
None. The Quran does not say directly incorporates any part of previous
scripture, but says it reaffirms them.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
A.
Arnaud Fournet
2017-05-18 15:02:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
an-Nisa 4:162, al-'isa:' 17:55
وَءَاتَيۡنَا دَاوُ ۥدَ زَبُورً۬ا
wa-'a:tayna: da:wa(:)da za:bu:ran
"We gave David Zabur"
There is a concensus of opinion that it is the Psalms.
Which surahs in the Qor'an are considered Psalms by the islamic tradition?
Which are part of Zabur?
None. The Quran does not say directly incorporates any part of previous
scripture, but says it reaffirms them.
I perceive that kind of situation as an internal contradiction.
The Qor'an should incorporate what it claims to reaffirm.
A.
DKleinecke
2017-05-18 16:25:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I perceive that kind of situation as an internal contradiction.
The Qor'an should incorporate what it claims to reaffirm.
Wouldn't it then follow that that the New Testament should
incorporate the Old Testament?

Or does "incorporate" means just writing together in the same
manuscript?

Would matters have been different if there had been an Arabic
version of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) available
to the early Muslims?
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-05-18 16:51:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I perceive that kind of situation as an internal contradiction.
The Qor'an should incorporate what it claims to reaffirm.
The Quran also says that every nation was sent a prophet,
but that all their names are not mentioned. They all were
supposed to give the same monotheist message and basic notions
of good evil. So in Arnaud's logic it would have had to collect
every single belief on Earth with that sense.
Post by DKleinecke
Wouldn't it then follow that that the New Testament should
incorporate the Old Testament?
Or does "incorporate" means just writing together in the same
manuscript?
Would matters have been different if there had been an Arabic
version of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) available
to the early Muslims?
The details would certainly have been different.

The Quran is basically a series of sermons and disputations
with the folk Christianity, folk Judaism and other monotheist and
polytheist musings of early 7th cent. Arabia. It is not concerned
with the specifics of OT or NT writings. Their popular versions
are alluded to here and there, but the important point is the
moral derived from them. It is not concerned with Arabian stories
either. For example, we are told something very bad happened
to the "People of Elephant" but no clue is given as to their
identity. The important thing is that they incurred the wrath
of God and were punished for it. Muhammad's audience knew the
details, but why waste time going over it?
Arnaud Fournet
2017-05-19 02:54:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I perceive that kind of situation as an internal contradiction.
The Qor'an should incorporate what it claims to reaffirm.
The Quran also says that every nation was sent a prophet,
but that all their names are not mentioned. They all were
supposed to give the same monotheist message and basic notions
of good evil. So in Arnaud's logic it would have had to collect
every single belief on Earth with that sense.
Post by DKleinecke
Wouldn't it then follow that that the New Testament should
incorporate the Old Testament?
Or does "incorporate" means just writing together in the same
manuscript?
Would matters have been different if there had been an Arabic
version of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) available
to the early Muslims?
The details would certainly have been different.
The Quran is basically a series of sermons and disputations
with the folk Christianity, folk Judaism and other monotheist and
polytheist musings of early 7th cent. Arabia. It is not concerned
with the specifics of OT or NT writings. Their popular versions
are alluded to here and there, but the important point is the
moral derived from them.
I disagree here.
It's quite obvious that some parts of the Qor'an are translations of the Old and New Testaments.
For example, the beginning of Surah19 is obviously taken from Luke chapter1.
And it's not the only case.
A.

It is not concerned with Arabian stories
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
either. For example, we are told something very bad happened
to the "People of Elephant" but no clue is given as to their
identity. The important thing is that they incurred the wrath
of God and were punished for it. Muhammad's audience knew the
details, but why waste time going over it?
yes, possibly so.
I tend to think that when the Qor'an talks about the Kitab it does not refer to itself but to the Christian Bible.
The notion that the Qor'an is autoreferential is an invented lie.
A.
DKleinecke
2017-05-19 04:18:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I perceive that kind of situation as an internal contradiction.
The Qor'an should incorporate what it claims to reaffirm.
The Quran also says that every nation was sent a prophet,
but that all their names are not mentioned. They all were
supposed to give the same monotheist message and basic notions
of good evil. So in Arnaud's logic it would have had to collect
every single belief on Earth with that sense.
Post by DKleinecke
Wouldn't it then follow that that the New Testament should
incorporate the Old Testament?
Or does "incorporate" means just writing together in the same
manuscript?
Would matters have been different if there had been an Arabic
version of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) available
to the early Muslims?
The details would certainly have been different.
The Quran is basically a series of sermons and disputations
with the folk Christianity, folk Judaism and other monotheist and
polytheist musings of early 7th cent. Arabia. It is not concerned
with the specifics of OT or NT writings. Their popular versions
are alluded to here and there, but the important point is the
moral derived from them.
I disagree here.
It's quite obvious that some parts of the Qor'an are translations of the Old and New Testaments.
For example, the beginning of Surah19 is obviously taken from Luke chapter1.
And it's not the only case.
A.
It is not concerned with Arabian stories
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
either. For example, we are told something very bad happened
to the "People of Elephant" but no clue is given as to their
identity. The important thing is that they incurred the wrath
of God and were punished for it. Muhammad's audience knew the
details, but why waste time going over it?
yes, possibly so.
I tend to think that when the Qor'an talks about the Kitab it does not refer to itself but to the Christian Bible.
The notion that the Qor'an is autoreferential is an invented lie.
A.
The second surat starts out literally "This is the book - no
doubt in it". I am inclined to read that as "This is the
book [called] 'No doubt in it'". Aside from the fact that
"this" has no obvious reference this can easily be read as
self-referential.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-05-19 06:17:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I perceive that kind of situation as an internal contradiction.
The Qor'an should incorporate what it claims to reaffirm.
The Quran also says that every nation was sent a prophet,
but that all their names are not mentioned. They all were
supposed to give the same monotheist message and basic notions
of good evil. So in Arnaud's logic it would have had to collect
every single belief on Earth with that sense.
Post by DKleinecke
Wouldn't it then follow that that the New Testament should
incorporate the Old Testament?
Or does "incorporate" means just writing together in the same
manuscript?
Would matters have been different if there had been an Arabic
version of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) available
to the early Muslims?
The details would certainly have been different.
The Quran is basically a series of sermons and disputations
with the folk Christianity, folk Judaism and other monotheist and
polytheist musings of early 7th cent. Arabia. It is not concerned
with the specifics of OT or NT writings. Their popular versions
are alluded to here and there, but the important point is the
moral derived from them.
I disagree here.
It's quite obvious that some parts of the Qor'an are translations of the Old and New Testaments.
For example, the beginning of Surah19 is obviously taken from Luke chapter1.
And it's not the only case.
A.
What you say does not contradict what I wrote, which
I agree with.

There are snippets of OT, NT (not all of them canonical)
and Arabian stories but none from beginning to end.
They are interrupted by commentary and scattered throughout.
There is very little consistent narrative because
narrative is not the main point.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
It is not concerned with Arabian stories
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
either. For example, we are told something very bad happened
to the "People of Elephant" but no clue is given as to their
identity. The important thing is that they incurred the wrath
of God and were punished for it. Muhammad's audience knew the
details, but why waste time going over it?
yes, possibly so.
I tend to think that when the Qor'an talks about the Kitab it does not refer to itself but to the Christian Bible.
kita:b occurs for the Qur'an in later verses, possibly because
at that time an effort was being made to compile it.

Otherwise kita:b quite obviously means the Old and New Testaments
since "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
The notion that the Qor'an is autoreferential is an invented lie.
A.
Arnaud Fournet
2017-05-19 02:48:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I perceive that kind of situation as an internal contradiction.
The Qor'an should incorporate what it claims to reaffirm.
Wouldn't it then follow that that the New Testament should
incorporate the Old Testament?
The New Testament does not claim to reaffirm the Old Testament, but describes how the prophecies of the Old became true in the New.
A.
Post by DKleinecke
Or does "incorporate" means just writing together in the same
manuscript?
yes, it's quite odd that the Qor'an hardly includes a single Psalm.
A.
Post by DKleinecke
Would matters have been different if there had been an Arabic
version of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) available
to the early Muslims?
They probably had versions in Aramaic or some other Semitic languages.
A.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-05-19 06:28:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I perceive that kind of situation as an internal contradiction.
The Qor'an should incorporate what it claims to reaffirm.
Wouldn't it then follow that that the New Testament should
incorporate the Old Testament?
The New Testament does not claim to reaffirm the Old Testament, but describes how the prophecies of the Old became true in the New.
A.
Post by DKleinecke
Or does "incorporate" means just writing together in the same
manuscript?
yes, it's quite odd that the Qor'an hardly includes a single Psalm.
A.
A scholarly just Muslim pointed out one, and it is explicitly stated
that it is from the Psalms.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Would matters have been different if there had been an Arabic
version of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) available
to the early Muslims?
They probably had versions in Aramaic or some other Semitic languages.
A.
But the dissemination was mainly oral, the written versions
coming from the Lrvant and Mesopotamia. You simply couldn't
afford a parchment industry in early 7th cent. Arabia. You
would run out of animals. Writing on parchment seems to have
been mainly for short formulaic trade contracts etc.
Helmut Richter
2017-05-19 09:56:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Arnaud Fournet
yes, it's quite odd that the Qor'an hardly includes a single Psalm.
A.
A scholarly just Muslim pointed out one, and it is explicitly stated
that it is from the Psalms.
Where is it stated? In the Qur'an in the form "this text is quoted from
the Zabur"? Or elsewhere?

As I wrote, I take it as sufficient to know that it is a generally
accepted opinion that the Zabur is the book of Psalms or a portion
thereof. A generally accepted opinion explains the usage of language
irrespective of whether the opinion can be corroborated.

Now, if there were an explicit statement, this is more than just a
generally accepted opinion.
--
Helmut Richter
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-05-19 10:07:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Helmut Richter
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Arnaud Fournet
yes, it's quite odd that the Qor'an hardly includes a single Psalm.
A.
A scholarly just Muslim pointed out one, and it is explicitly stated
that it is from the Psalms.
Where is it stated? In the Qur'an in the form "this text is quoted from
the Zabur"? Or elsewhere?
I posted it 20 hours ago. Here it is again:

===

OK. There is one partial quote, and to clinch it the Quran
actually attributes it to the Psalms. (I found through q
querry)

al-'anbiya:' (The Prophets) 21:105

وَلَقَدۡ ڪَتَبۡنَا فِى ٱلزَّبُورِ مِنۢ بَعۡدِ ٱلذِّكۡرِ أَنَّ ٱلۡأَرۡضَ يَرِثُهَا عِبَادِىَ ٱلصَّـٰلِحُونَ

wa-la-qad katabna: fi(:)~z-zabu:ri min ba3di *dh*-*dh*ikri
'anna~l-'arDa yari*th*uha: 3iba:diya~S-Sa:liHu:n(a)

"Before this We wrote in the Zabur (Psalms), after the Message (given to Moses): My servants the righteous, shall inherit the earth (land)."

This is from Psalm 37:29

The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever.

Remarkbely the Hebrew has yiršū ʼāreṣ "wiil inherit the land /Earth"
and the Quran the cognate ʼanna l-ʼarḍa yariϑuhā "that (verily)
will inherit the land (Earth)"

So this clinches the identification of "Zabur" with "the Psalms"
as well.

====
Post by Helmut Richter
As I wrote, I take it as sufficient to know that it is a generally
accepted opinion that the Zabur is the book of Psalms or a portion
thereof. A generally accepted opinion explains the usage of language
irrespective of whether the opinion can be corroborated.
Now, if there were an explicit statement, this is more than just a
generally accepted opinion.
--
Helmut Richter
Helmut Richter
2017-05-19 11:20:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Thank you. I had seen it but not fully noticed. Seems I'm getting old.
--
Helmut Richter
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-19 11:44:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I perceive that kind of situation as an internal contradiction.
The Qor'an should incorporate what it claims to reaffirm.
Wouldn't it then follow that that the New Testament should
incorporate the Old Testament?
The New Testament does not claim to reaffirm the Old Testament, but describes how the prophecies of the Old became true in the New.
Post by DKleinecke
Or does "incorporate" means just writing together in the same
manuscript?
yes, it's quite odd that the Qor'an hardly includes a single Psalm.
A scholarly just Muslim pointed out one, and it is explicitly stated
that it is from the Psalms.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Would matters have been different if there had been an Arabic
version of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) available
to the early Muslims?
They probably had versions in Aramaic or some other Semitic languages.
But the dissemination was mainly oral, the written versions
coming from the Lrvant and Mesopotamia. You simply couldn't
afford a parchment industry in early 7th cent. Arabia. You
would run out of animals. Writing on parchment seems to have
been mainly for short formulaic trade contracts etc.
The main writing ground was still papyrus. Paper was introduced from the East shortly
after the revelation of the Qur'an. (See Jonathan Bloom, Paper Before Print, Yale
UP, ca. 2000).
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-05-19 14:06:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I perceive that kind of situation as an internal contradiction.
The Qor'an should incorporate what it claims to reaffirm.
Wouldn't it then follow that that the New Testament should
incorporate the Old Testament?
The New Testament does not claim to reaffirm the Old Testament, but describes how the prophecies of the Old became true in the New.
Post by DKleinecke
Or does "incorporate" means just writing together in the same
manuscript?
yes, it's quite odd that the Qor'an hardly includes a single Psalm.
A scholarly just Muslim pointed out one, and it is explicitly stated
that it is from the Psalms.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Would matters have been different if there had been an Arabic
version of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) available
to the early Muslims?
They probably had versions in Aramaic or some other Semitic languages.
But the dissemination was mainly oral, the written versions
coming from the Lrvant and Mesopotamia. You simply couldn't
afford a parchment industry in early 7th cent. Arabia. You
would run out of animals. Writing on parchment seems to have
been mainly for short formulaic trade contracts etc.
The main writing ground was still papyrus. Paper was introduced from the East shortly
after the revelation of the Qur'an. (See Jonathan Bloom, Paper Before Print, Yale
UP, ca. 2000).
Was papyrus available in early 7th cent. Arabia?

I know of no papyrus codices.

the introduction of paper is usually placed with
the early Abbasids, tradition says after the
Battle of Talas with the Chinese 751
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-19 14:16:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I perceive that kind of situation as an internal contradiction.
The Qor'an should incorporate what it claims to reaffirm.
Wouldn't it then follow that that the New Testament should
incorporate the Old Testament?
The New Testament does not claim to reaffirm the Old Testament, but describes how the prophecies of the Old became true in the New.
Post by DKleinecke
Or does "incorporate" means just writing together in the same
manuscript?
yes, it's quite odd that the Qor'an hardly includes a single Psalm.
A scholarly just Muslim pointed out one, and it is explicitly stated
that it is from the Psalms.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Would matters have been different if there had been an Arabic
version of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) available
to the early Muslims?
They probably had versions in Aramaic or some other Semitic languages.
But the dissemination was mainly oral, the written versions
coming from the Lrvant and Mesopotamia. You simply couldn't
afford a parchment industry in early 7th cent. Arabia. You
would run out of animals. Writing on parchment seems to have
been mainly for short formulaic trade contracts etc.
The main writing ground was still papyrus. Paper was introduced from the East shortly
after the revelation of the Qur'an. (See Jonathan Bloom, Paper Before Print, Yale
UP, ca. 2000).
Was papyrus available in early 7th cent. Arabia?
I know of no papyrus codices.
It's not _terribly_ good at surviving millennia.

That stash of discarded Qur'an mss. found in a Yemeni geniza includes papyrus
copies. The oldest dated Arabic commercial document is a papyrus from AH 22
in the Rainer Collection, Vienna -- it shows that consonant dotting was already
used at that time, but only where it was needed for disambiguation.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the introduction of paper is usually placed with
the early Abbasids, tradition says after the
Battle of Talas with the Chinese 751
See Bloom. Turns out to be an etiological legend.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-05-19 14:30:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I perceive that kind of situation as an internal contradiction.
The Qor'an should incorporate what it claims to reaffirm.
Wouldn't it then follow that that the New Testament should
incorporate the Old Testament?
The New Testament does not claim to reaffirm the Old Testament, but describes how the prophecies of the Old became true in the New.
Post by DKleinecke
Or does "incorporate" means just writing together in the same
manuscript?
yes, it's quite odd that the Qor'an hardly includes a single Psalm.
A scholarly just Muslim pointed out one, and it is explicitly stated
that it is from the Psalms.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Would matters have been different if there had been an Arabic
version of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) available
to the early Muslims?
They probably had versions in Aramaic or some other Semitic languages.
But the dissemination was mainly oral, the written versions
coming from the Lrvant and Mesopotamia. You simply couldn't
afford a parchment industry in early 7th cent. Arabia. You
would run out of animals. Writing on parchment seems to have
been mainly for short formulaic trade contracts etc.
The main writing ground was still papyrus. Paper was introduced from the East shortly
after the revelation of the Qur'an. (See Jonathan Bloom, Paper Before Print, Yale
UP, ca. 2000).
Was papyrus available in early 7th cent. Arabia?
I know of no papyrus codices.
It's not _terribly_ good at surviving millennia.
That stash of discarded Qur'an mss. found in a Yemeni geniza includes papyrus
copies. The oldest dated Arabic commercial document is a papyrus from AH 22
in the Rainer Collection, Vienna -- it shows that consonant dotting was already
used at that time, but only where it was needed for disambiguation.
Yes. I know about that. It has the year 22 and the lunar month
as well as the Byzantine year of indiction, the Coptic month
and date. It turns out that they are consistent with our tabulated
values, so the documnent is of importance in establishing the calendar.
It is however from Egypt, so that it is on papyrus is not
surprising.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the introduction of paper is usually placed with
the early Abbasids, tradition says after the
Battle of Talas with the Chinese 751
See Bloom. Turns out to be an etiological legend.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-19 15:00:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I perceive that kind of situation as an internal contradiction.
The Qor'an should incorporate what it claims to reaffirm.
Wouldn't it then follow that that the New Testament should
incorporate the Old Testament?
The New Testament does not claim to reaffirm the Old Testament, but describes how the prophecies of the Old became true in the New.
Post by DKleinecke
Or does "incorporate" means just writing together in the same
manuscript?
yes, it's quite odd that the Qor'an hardly includes a single Psalm.
A scholarly just Muslim pointed out one, and it is explicitly stated
that it is from the Psalms.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Would matters have been different if there had been an Arabic
version of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) available
to the early Muslims?
They probably had versions in Aramaic or some other Semitic languages.
But the dissemination was mainly oral, the written versions
coming from the Lrvant and Mesopotamia. You simply couldn't
afford a parchment industry in early 7th cent. Arabia. You
would run out of animals. Writing on parchment seems to have
been mainly for short formulaic trade contracts etc.
The main writing ground was still papyrus. Paper was introduced from the East shortly
after the revelation of the Qur'an. (See Jonathan Bloom, Paper Before Print, Yale
UP, ca. 2000).
Was papyrus available in early 7th cent. Arabia?
I know of no papyrus codices.
It's not _terribly_ good at surviving millennia.
That stash of discarded Qur'an mss. found in a Yemeni geniza includes papyrus
copies. The oldest dated Arabic commercial document is a papyrus from AH 22
in the Rainer Collection, Vienna -- it shows that consonant dotting was already
used at that time, but only where it was needed for disambiguation.
Yes. I know about that. It has the year 22 and the lunar month
as well as the Byzantine year of indiction, the Coptic month
and date. It turns out that they are consistent with our tabulated
values, so the documnent is of importance in establishing the calendar.
It is however from Egypt, so that it is on papyrus is not
surprising.
Do you imagine that the pre-Uthmanic Qur'an mss. were imported from Egypt to Yemen? Papyrus, not parchment, was the main writing surface throughout Europe
until the introduction of paper by the Arabs.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the introduction of paper is usually placed with
the early Abbasids, tradition says after the
Battle of Talas with the Chinese 751
See Bloom. Turns out to be an etiological legend.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-05-19 15:15:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I perceive that kind of situation as an internal contradiction.
The Qor'an should incorporate what it claims to reaffirm.
Wouldn't it then follow that that the New Testament should
incorporate the Old Testament?
The New Testament does not claim to reaffirm the Old Testament, but describes how the prophecies of the Old became true in the New.
Post by DKleinecke
Or does "incorporate" means just writing together in the same
manuscript?
yes, it's quite odd that the Qor'an hardly includes a single Psalm.
A scholarly just Muslim pointed out one, and it is explicitly stated
that it is from the Psalms.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Would matters have been different if there had been an Arabic
version of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) available
to the early Muslims?
They probably had versions in Aramaic or some other Semitic languages.
But the dissemination was mainly oral, the written versions
coming from the Lrvant and Mesopotamia. You simply couldn't
afford a parchment industry in early 7th cent. Arabia. You
would run out of animals. Writing on parchment seems to have
been mainly for short formulaic trade contracts etc.
The main writing ground was still papyrus. Paper was introduced from the East shortly
after the revelation of the Qur'an. (See Jonathan Bloom, Paper Before Print, Yale
UP, ca. 2000).
Was papyrus available in early 7th cent. Arabia?
I know of no papyrus codices.
It's not _terribly_ good at surviving millennia.
That stash of discarded Qur'an mss. found in a Yemeni geniza includes papyrus
copies. The oldest dated Arabic commercial document is a papyrus from AH 22
in the Rainer Collection, Vienna -- it shows that consonant dotting was already
used at that time, but only where it was needed for disambiguation.
Yes. I know about that. It has the year 22 and the lunar month
as well as the Byzantine year of indiction, the Coptic month
and date. It turns out that they are consistent with our tabulated
values, so the documnent is of importance in establishing the calendar.
It is however from Egypt, so that it is on papyrus is not
surprising.
Do you imagine that the pre-Uthmanic Qur'an mss. were imported from Egypt to Yemen? Papyrus, not parchment, was the main writing surface throughout Europe
until the introduction of paper by the Arabs.
I'm not saying the manuscripts were imported but how about the
writing material? Was there papyrus growing in Arabia?

Also Central Arabia is not Yemen.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the introduction of paper is usually placed with
the early Abbasids, tradition says after the
Battle of Talas with the Chinese 751
See Bloom. Turns out to be an etiological legend.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-05-19 15:18:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 6:15:16 PM UTC+3, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

BTW I am *asking* not arguing.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I perceive that kind of situation as an internal contradiction.
The Qor'an should incorporate what it claims to reaffirm.
Wouldn't it then follow that that the New Testament should
incorporate the Old Testament?
The New Testament does not claim to reaffirm the Old Testament, but describes how the prophecies of the Old became true in the New.
Post by DKleinecke
Or does "incorporate" means just writing together in the same
manuscript?
yes, it's quite odd that the Qor'an hardly includes a single Psalm.
A scholarly just Muslim pointed out one, and it is explicitly stated
that it is from the Psalms.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Would matters have been different if there had been an Arabic
version of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) available
to the early Muslims?
They probably had versions in Aramaic or some other Semitic languages.
But the dissemination was mainly oral, the written versions
coming from the Lrvant and Mesopotamia. You simply couldn't
afford a parchment industry in early 7th cent. Arabia. You
would run out of animals. Writing on parchment seems to have
been mainly for short formulaic trade contracts etc.
The main writing ground was still papyrus. Paper was introduced from the East shortly
after the revelation of the Qur'an. (See Jonathan Bloom, Paper Before Print, Yale
UP, ca. 2000).
Was papyrus available in early 7th cent. Arabia?
I know of no papyrus codices.
It's not _terribly_ good at surviving millennia.
That stash of discarded Qur'an mss. found in a Yemeni geniza includes papyrus
copies. The oldest dated Arabic commercial document is a papyrus from AH 22
in the Rainer Collection, Vienna -- it shows that consonant dotting was already
used at that time, but only where it was needed for disambiguation.
Yes. I know about that. It has the year 22 and the lunar month
as well as the Byzantine year of indiction, the Coptic month
and date. It turns out that they are consistent with our tabulated
values, so the documnent is of importance in establishing the calendar.
It is however from Egypt, so that it is on papyrus is not
surprising.
Do you imagine that the pre-Uthmanic Qur'an mss. were imported from Egypt to Yemen? Papyrus, not parchment, was the main writing surface throughout Europe
until the introduction of paper by the Arabs.
I'm not saying the manuscripts were imported but how about the
writing material? Was there papyrus growing in Arabia?
Also Central Arabia is not Yemen.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the introduction of paper is usually placed with
the early Abbasids, tradition says after the
Battle of Talas with the Chinese 751
See Bloom. Turns out to be an etiological legend.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-19 17:40:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I perceive that kind of situation as an internal contradiction.
The Qor'an should incorporate what it claims to reaffirm.
Wouldn't it then follow that that the New Testament should
incorporate the Old Testament?
The New Testament does not claim to reaffirm the Old Testament, but describes how the prophecies of the Old became true in the New.
Post by DKleinecke
Or does "incorporate" means just writing together in the same
manuscript?
yes, it's quite odd that the Qor'an hardly includes a single Psalm.
A scholarly just Muslim pointed out one, and it is explicitly stated
that it is from the Psalms.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Would matters have been different if there had been an Arabic
version of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) available
to the early Muslims?
They probably had versions in Aramaic or some other Semitic languages.
But the dissemination was mainly oral, the written versions
coming from the Lrvant and Mesopotamia. You simply couldn't
afford a parchment industry in early 7th cent. Arabia. You
would run out of animals. Writing on parchment seems to have
been mainly for short formulaic trade contracts etc.
The main writing ground was still papyrus. Paper was introduced from the East shortly
after the revelation of the Qur'an. (See Jonathan Bloom, Paper Before Print, Yale
UP, ca. 2000).
Was papyrus available in early 7th cent. Arabia?
I know of no papyrus codices.
It's not _terribly_ good at surviving millennia.
That stash of discarded Qur'an mss. found in a Yemeni geniza includes papyrus
copies. The oldest dated Arabic commercial document is a papyrus from AH 22
in the Rainer Collection, Vienna -- it shows that consonant dotting was already
used at that time, but only where it was needed for disambiguation.
Yes. I know about that. It has the year 22 and the lunar month
as well as the Byzantine year of indiction, the Coptic month
and date. It turns out that they are consistent with our tabulated
values, so the documnent is of importance in establishing the calendar.
It is however from Egypt, so that it is on papyrus is not
surprising.
Do you imagine that the pre-Uthmanic Qur'an mss. were imported from Egypt to Yemen? Papyrus, not parchment, was the main writing surface throughout Europe
until the introduction of paper by the Arabs.
I'm not saying the manuscripts were imported but how about the
writing material? Was there papyrus growing in Arabia?
Of course papyrus was imported from Egypt. It was the principal surface for
ordinary writing throughout Europe until the introduction of paper by the Arabs.
What does that have to do with where a ms. was written?
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Also Central Arabia is not Yemen.
Indeed. It's uninhabitable. That's why it's called the "Empty Quarter."
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the introduction of paper is usually placed with
the early Abbasids, tradition says after the
Battle of Talas with the Chinese 751
See Bloom. Turns out to be an etiological legend.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-05-19 18:26:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I perceive that kind of situation as an internal contradiction.
The Qor'an should incorporate what it claims to reaffirm.
Wouldn't it then follow that that the New Testament should
incorporate the Old Testament?
The New Testament does not claim to reaffirm the Old Testament, but describes how the prophecies of the Old became true in the New.
Post by DKleinecke
Or does "incorporate" means just writing together in the same
manuscript?
yes, it's quite odd that the Qor'an hardly includes a single Psalm.
A scholarly just Muslim pointed out one, and it is explicitly stated
that it is from the Psalms.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Would matters have been different if there had been an Arabic
version of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) available
to the early Muslims?
They probably had versions in Aramaic or some other Semitic languages.
But the dissemination was mainly oral, the written versions
coming from the Lrvant and Mesopotamia. You simply couldn't
afford a parchment industry in early 7th cent. Arabia. You
would run out of animals. Writing on parchment seems to have
been mainly for short formulaic trade contracts etc.
The main writing ground was still papyrus. Paper was introduced from the East shortly
after the revelation of the Qur'an. (See Jonathan Bloom, Paper Before Print, Yale
UP, ca. 2000).
Was papyrus available in early 7th cent. Arabia?
I know of no papyrus codices.
It's not _terribly_ good at surviving millennia.
That stash of discarded Qur'an mss. found in a Yemeni geniza includes papyrus
copies. The oldest dated Arabic commercial document is a papyrus from AH 22
in the Rainer Collection, Vienna -- it shows that consonant dotting was already
used at that time, but only where it was needed for disambiguation.
Yes. I know about that. It has the year 22 and the lunar month
as well as the Byzantine year of indiction, the Coptic month
and date. It turns out that they are consistent with our tabulated
values, so the documnent is of importance in establishing the calendar.
It is however from Egypt, so that it is on papyrus is not
surprising.
Do you imagine that the pre-Uthmanic Qur'an mss. were imported from Egypt to Yemen? Papyrus, not parchment, was the main writing surface throughout Europe
until the introduction of paper by the Arabs.
I'm not saying the manuscripts were imported but how about the
writing material? Was there papyrus growing in Arabia?
Of course papyrus was imported from Egypt. It was the principal surface for
ordinary writing throughout Europe until the introduction of paper by the Arabs.
What does that have to do with where a ms. was written?
I'm saying that since papyrus was imported it wasn't accesible to all

We are told that very crude materials such as palm stalks and
shpulder blades of animals were in common use for writing in
Arabia.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Also Central Arabia is not Yemen.
Indeed. It's uninhabitable. That's why it's called the "Empty Quarter."
The Empty Quarter is in SE Arabia, north of Oman.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the introduction of paper is usually placed with
the early Abbasids, tradition says after the
Battle of Talas with the Chinese 751
See Bloom. Turns out to be an etiological legend.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-19 20:09:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I perceive that kind of situation as an internal contradiction.
The Qor'an should incorporate what it claims to reaffirm.
Wouldn't it then follow that that the New Testament should
incorporate the Old Testament?
The New Testament does not claim to reaffirm the Old Testament, but describes how the prophecies of the Old became true in the New.
Post by DKleinecke
Or does "incorporate" means just writing together in the same
manuscript?
yes, it's quite odd that the Qor'an hardly includes a single Psalm.
A scholarly just Muslim pointed out one, and it is explicitly stated
that it is from the Psalms.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Would matters have been different if there had been an Arabic
version of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) available
to the early Muslims?
They probably had versions in Aramaic or some other Semitic languages.
But the dissemination was mainly oral, the written versions
coming from the Lrvant and Mesopotamia. You simply couldn't
afford a parchment industry in early 7th cent. Arabia. You
would run out of animals. Writing on parchment seems to have
been mainly for short formulaic trade contracts etc.
The main writing ground was still papyrus. Paper was introduced from the East shortly
after the revelation of the Qur'an. (See Jonathan Bloom, Paper Before Print, Yale
UP, ca. 2000).
Was papyrus available in early 7th cent. Arabia?
I know of no papyrus codices.
It's not _terribly_ good at surviving millennia.
That stash of discarded Qur'an mss. found in a Yemeni geniza includes papyrus
copies. The oldest dated Arabic commercial document is a papyrus from AH 22
in the Rainer Collection, Vienna -- it shows that consonant dotting was already
used at that time, but only where it was needed for disambiguation.
Yes. I know about that. It has the year 22 and the lunar month
as well as the Byzantine year of indiction, the Coptic month
and date. It turns out that they are consistent with our tabulated
values, so the documnent is of importance in establishing the calendar.
It is however from Egypt, so that it is on papyrus is not
surprising.
Do you imagine that the pre-Uthmanic Qur'an mss. were imported from Egypt to Yemen? Papyrus, not parchment, was the main writing surface throughout Europe
until the introduction of paper by the Arabs.
I'm not saying the manuscripts were imported but how about the
writing material? Was there papyrus growing in Arabia?
Of course papyrus was imported from Egypt. It was the principal surface for
ordinary writing throughout Europe until the introduction of paper by the Arabs.
What does that have to do with where a ms. was written?
I'm saying that since papyrus was imported it wasn't accesible to all
Neither was writing. What does "hafiz" mean in the 21st century? (I often wonder
whether the former head of Syria came by the name legitimately.)
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
We are told that very crude materials such as palm stalks and
shpulder blades of animals were in common use for writing in
Arabia.
The former -- not "palm," but cypress, often -- have turned up over the last
several decades, bearing all sorts of texts (but not Qur'anic ones), the latter haven't.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Also Central Arabia is not Yemen.
Indeed. It's uninhabitable. That's why it's called the "Empty Quarter."
The Empty Quarter is in SE Arabia, north of Oman.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the introduction of paper is usually placed with
the early Abbasids, tradition says after the
Battle of Talas with the Chinese 751
See Bloom. Turns out to be an etiological legend.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-05-20 06:45:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter T. Daniels on 5/19/2017 in
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I perceive that kind of situation as an internal contradiction.
The Qor'an should incorporate what it claims to reaffirm.
Wouldn't it then follow that that the New Testament should
incorporate the Old Testament? The New Testament does not claim
to reaffirm the Old Testament, but describes how the prophecies of
the Old became true in the New. Or does "incorporate" means just
writing together in the same manuscript?
yes, it's quite odd that the Qor'an hardly includes a single Psalm.
A scholarly just Muslim pointed out one, and it is explicitly stated
that it is from the Psalms.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Would matters have been different if there had been an Arabic
version of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) available
to the early Muslims?
They probably had versions in Aramaic or some other Semitic languages.
But the dissemination was mainly oral, the written versions
coming from the Lrvant and Mesopotamia. You simply couldn't
afford a parchment industry in early 7th cent. Arabia. You
would run out of animals. Writing on parchment seems to have
been mainly for short formulaic trade contracts etc.
The main writing ground was still papyrus. Paper was introduced from
the East shortly after the revelation of the Qur'an. (See Jonathan
Bloom, Paper Before Print, Yale UP, ca. 2000).
Was papyrus available in early 7th cent. Arabia?
I know of no papyrus codices.
It's not _terribly_ good at surviving millennia.
That stash of discarded Qur'an mss. found in a Yemeni geniza includes
papyrus copies. The oldest dated Arabic commercial document is a
papyrus from AH 22 in the Rainer Collection, Vienna -- it shows that
consonant dotting was already used at that time, but only where it was
needed for disambiguation.
Yes. I know about that. It has the year 22 and the lunar month
as well as the Byzantine year of indiction, the Coptic month
and date. It turns out that they are consistent with our tabulated
values, so the documnent is of importance in establishing the calendar.
It is however from Egypt, so that it is on papyrus is not
surprising.
Do you imagine that the pre-Uthmanic Qur'an mss. were imported from Egypt
to Yemen? Papyrus, not parchment, was the main writing surface throughout
Europe until the introduction of paper by the Arabs.
I'm not saying the manuscripts were imported but how about the
writing material? Was there papyrus growing in Arabia?
Of course papyrus was imported from Egypt. It was the principal surface for
ordinary writing throughout Europe until the introduction of paper by the
Arabs. What does that have to do with where a ms. was written?
I'm saying that since papyrus was imported it wasn't accesible to all
Neither was writing. What does "hafiz" mean in the 21st century? (I often
wonder whether the former head of Syria came by the name legitimately.)
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
We are told that very crude materials such as palm stalks and
shpulder blades of animals were in common use for writing in
Arabia.
The former -- not "palm," but cypress, often -- have turned up over the last
several decades, bearing all sorts of texts (but not Qur'anic ones), the latter haven't.
There are some examples, but AFAIK not dated.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Also Central Arabia is not Yemen.
Indeed. It's uninhabitable. That's why it's called the "Empty Quarter."
The Empty Quarter is in SE Arabia, north of Oman.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the introduction of paper is usually placed with
the early Abbasids, tradition says after the
Battle of Talas with the Chinese 751
See Bloom. Turns out to be an etiological legend.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-05-20 19:27:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 9:26:55 PM UTC+3, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

al-Jallad on writing in Arabia

http://dase.laits.utexas.edu/media/not_even_past/mp3/100531801.mp3,
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I perceive that kind of situation as an internal contradiction.
The Qor'an should incorporate what it claims to reaffirm.
Wouldn't it then follow that that the New Testament should
incorporate the Old Testament?
The New Testament does not claim to reaffirm the Old Testament, but describes how the prophecies of the Old became true in the New.
Post by DKleinecke
Or does "incorporate" means just writing together in the same
manuscript?
yes, it's quite odd that the Qor'an hardly includes a single Psalm.
A scholarly just Muslim pointed out one, and it is explicitly stated
that it is from the Psalms.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Would matters have been different if there had been an Arabic
version of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) available
to the early Muslims?
They probably had versions in Aramaic or some other Semitic languages.
But the dissemination was mainly oral, the written versions
coming from the Lrvant and Mesopotamia. You simply couldn't
afford a parchment industry in early 7th cent. Arabia. You
would run out of animals. Writing on parchment seems to have
been mainly for short formulaic trade contracts etc.
The main writing ground was still papyrus. Paper was introduced from the East shortly
after the revelation of the Qur'an. (See Jonathan Bloom, Paper Before Print, Yale
UP, ca. 2000).
Was papyrus available in early 7th cent. Arabia?
I know of no papyrus codices.
It's not _terribly_ good at surviving millennia.
That stash of discarded Qur'an mss. found in a Yemeni geniza includes papyrus
copies. The oldest dated Arabic commercial document is a papyrus from AH 22
in the Rainer Collection, Vienna -- it shows that consonant dotting was already
used at that time, but only where it was needed for disambiguation.
Yes. I know about that. It has the year 22 and the lunar month
as well as the Byzantine year of indiction, the Coptic month
and date. It turns out that they are consistent with our tabulated
values, so the documnent is of importance in establishing the calendar.
It is however from Egypt, so that it is on papyrus is not
surprising.
Do you imagine that the pre-Uthmanic Qur'an mss. were imported from Egypt to Yemen? Papyrus, not parchment, was the main writing surface throughout Europe
until the introduction of paper by the Arabs.
I'm not saying the manuscripts were imported but how about the
writing material? Was there papyrus growing in Arabia?
Of course papyrus was imported from Egypt. It was the principal surface for
ordinary writing throughout Europe until the introduction of paper by the Arabs.
What does that have to do with where a ms. was written?
I'm saying that since papyrus was imported it wasn't accesible to all
We are told that very crude materials such as palm stalks and
shpulder blades of animals were in common use for writing in
Arabia.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Also Central Arabia is not Yemen.
Indeed. It's uninhabitable. That's why it's called the "Empty Quarter."
The Empty Quarter is in SE Arabia, north of Oman.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the introduction of paper is usually placed with
the early Abbasids, tradition says after the
Battle of Talas with the Chinese 751
See Bloom. Turns out to be an etiological legend.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-05-20 19:45:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
al-Jallad on writing in Arabia
http://15minutehistory.org/2016/04/27/episode-82-what-writing-can-tell-us-about-the-arabs-before-islam/
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
http://dase.laits.utexas.edu/media/not_even_past/mp3/100531801.mp3,
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I perceive that kind of situation as an internal contradiction.
The Qor'an should incorporate what it claims to reaffirm.
Wouldn't it then follow that that the New Testament should
incorporate the Old Testament?
The New Testament does not claim to reaffirm the Old Testament, but describes how the prophecies of the Old became true in the New.
Post by DKleinecke
Or does "incorporate" means just writing together in the same
manuscript?
yes, it's quite odd that the Qor'an hardly includes a single Psalm.
A scholarly just Muslim pointed out one, and it is explicitly stated
that it is from the Psalms.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Would matters have been different if there had been an Arabic
version of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) available
to the early Muslims?
They probably had versions in Aramaic or some other Semitic languages.
But the dissemination was mainly oral, the written versions
coming from the Lrvant and Mesopotamia. You simply couldn't
afford a parchment industry in early 7th cent. Arabia. You
would run out of animals. Writing on parchment seems to have
been mainly for short formulaic trade contracts etc.
The main writing ground was still papyrus. Paper was introduced from the East shortly
after the revelation of the Qur'an. (See Jonathan Bloom, Paper Before Print, Yale
UP, ca. 2000).
Was papyrus available in early 7th cent. Arabia?
I know of no papyrus codices.
It's not _terribly_ good at surviving millennia.
That stash of discarded Qur'an mss. found in a Yemeni geniza includes papyrus
copies. The oldest dated Arabic commercial document is a papyrus from AH 22
in the Rainer Collection, Vienna -- it shows that consonant dotting was already
used at that time, but only where it was needed for disambiguation.
Yes. I know about that. It has the year 22 and the lunar month
as well as the Byzantine year of indiction, the Coptic month
and date. It turns out that they are consistent with our tabulated
values, so the documnent is of importance in establishing the calendar.
It is however from Egypt, so that it is on papyrus is not
surprising.
Do you imagine that the pre-Uthmanic Qur'an mss. were imported from Egypt to Yemen? Papyrus, not parchment, was the main writing surface throughout Europe
until the introduction of paper by the Arabs.
I'm not saying the manuscripts were imported but how about the
writing material? Was there papyrus growing in Arabia?
Of course papyrus was imported from Egypt. It was the principal surface for
ordinary writing throughout Europe until the introduction of paper by the Arabs.
What does that have to do with where a ms. was written?
I'm saying that since papyrus was imported it wasn't accesible to all
We are told that very crude materials such as palm stalks and
shpulder blades of animals were in common use for writing in
Arabia.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Also Central Arabia is not Yemen.
Indeed. It's uninhabitable. That's why it's called the "Empty Quarter."
The Empty Quarter is in SE Arabia, north of Oman.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the introduction of paper is usually placed with
the early Abbasids, tradition says after the
Battle of Talas with the Chinese 751
See Bloom. Turns out to be an etiological legend.
Ruud Harmsen
2017-05-20 19:17:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Fri, 19 May 2017 10:40:13 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Also Central Arabia is not Yemen.
Indeed. It's uninhabitable. That's why it's called the "Empty Quarter."
Roub el Khali. Perfect place for solar and eolar energy.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-05-18 14:03:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
an-Nisa 4:162, al-'isa:' 17:55
وَءَاتَيۡنَا دَاوُ ۥدَ زَبُورً۬ا
wa-'a:tayna: da:wa(:)da za:bu:ran
"We gave David Zabur"
There is a concensus of opinion that it is the Psalms.
Which surahs in the Qor'an are considered Psalms by the islamic tradition?
Which are part of Zabur?
A.
OK. There is one partial quote, and to clinch it the Quran
actually attributes it to the Psalms. (I found through q
querry)

al-'anbiya:' (The Prophets) 21:105

وَلَقَدۡ ڪَتَبۡنَا فِى ٱلزَّبُورِ مِنۢ بَعۡدِ ٱلذِّكۡرِ أَنَّ ٱلۡأَرۡضَ يَرِثُهَا عِبَادِىَ ٱلصَّـٰلِحُونَ

wa-la-qad katabna: fi(:)~z-zabu:ri min ba3di *dh*-*dh*ikri
'anna~l-'arDa yari*th*uha: 3iba:diya~S-Sa:liHu:n(a)

"Before this We wrote in the Zabur (Psalms), after the Message (given to Moses): My servants the righteous, shall inherit the earth (land)."

This is from Psalm 37:29

The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever.

Remarkbely the Hebrew has yiršū ʼāreṣ "wiil inherit the land /Earth"
and the Quran the cognate ʼanna l-ʼarḍa yariϑuhā "that (verily)
will inherit the land (Earth)"

So this clinches the identification of "Zabur" with "the Psalms"
as well.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-05-17 17:00:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Helmut Richter
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Helmut Richter
According to easily available sources like WP, "Zabur" is a book that
has been revealed to Dawud=Dawid, according to the Quran. I read this
information so that its contents is now unknown, and any relationship to
the biblical book of Psalms or parts thereof is conjectural at most?
The first question was whether there is a known text which is the book
Zabur mentioned in the Qur'an. The answer is no. That the Zabur is the
same as the book of Psalms -- in whatever language -- seems not to be a
widespread belief among Muslims either.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Helmut Richter
Nonetheless the usage of the word "Zabur" for a psalm in the biblical
sense seems to be widespread among Christians in languages the speakers
of which are mostly Muslims (Urdu, Turkish, Kurdish, Swahili).
Are the roots Z-B-R (ar: Zabur) and Z-M-R (he: mizmor) cognates by a
regular shift in consonants?
No. But in Pre-Islamic Yemen we see the change for initial
Semitic m- > b- on occasion.
zabu:r means "book", something written down, zabara means to write
or transcribe. and fa3u:l measure is to be understood as a form
of the passive participle maf3u:l . zibr and zabi:r are alternate
forms for this more general meaning. It also usually and more
specifically meant the palm stalks used for wriing, and in Ancient
South Arabia a more minisicule and more cursive variant of the
South Semitic Script was used for the occasion.
zubra(t) means a piece of iron, a piece of bone, zubr a word
for penis.
What we have here is very likely an example of folk etymology
from the scholarly Christian Arabic word for the Psalms,
al-maza:mi:r sing. mazmu:r (Mezamir, mezmur is also used
in Turkish Bible tranlations, though some may have Zebur)
That the root ZMR has been used for Psalms in the scholarly Christian
Arabic world is immediately understandable: It is the same Semitic root
as in the Hebrew (mizmor=psalm, although the book is called
tehillim=praises). This root is now used in Arabic and Farsi for the
purpose.
For a folk etymology that connects ZMR to ZBR there is a need for folks
who believe in a connection between the Zabur as mentioned in the Qur'an
and the Biblical book of Psalms. Who could they have been? Are Muslims
generally aware that Dawud is an author of psalms? Do they know the sura
mentioning the Zabur and draw the connection? Or, the other way round,
are there Christians in the Muslim world who know that the Qur'an
mentions a book revealed to Dawud and equate it with the Psalms?
Where is that claim written in the Qur'an?
Besides, most "psalms" are not written by David.
A.
At least some are in Jewish and Christian Tradition.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-17 13:07:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Helmut Richter
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Helmut Richter
According to easily available sources like WP, "Zabur" is a book that
has been revealed to Dawud=Dawid, according to the Quran. I read this
information so that its contents is now unknown, and any relationship to
the biblical book of Psalms or parts thereof is conjectural at most?
The first question was whether there is a known text which is the book
Zabur mentioned in the Qur'an. The answer is no. That the Zabur is the
same as the book of Psalms -- in whatever language -- seems not to be a
widespread belief among Muslims either.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Helmut Richter
Nonetheless the usage of the word "Zabur" for a psalm in the biblical
sense seems to be widespread among Christians in languages the speakers
of which are mostly Muslims (Urdu, Turkish, Kurdish, Swahili).
Are the roots Z-B-R (ar: Zabur) and Z-M-R (he: mizmor) cognates by a
regular shift in consonants?
No. But in Pre-Islamic Yemen we see the change for initial
Semitic m- > b- on occasion.
zabu:r means "book", something written down, zabara means to write
or transcribe. and fa3u:l measure is to be understood as a form
of the passive participle maf3u:l . zibr and zabi:r are alternate
forms for this more general meaning. It also usually and more
specifically meant the palm stalks used for wriing, and in Ancient
South Arabia a more minisicule and more cursive variant of the
South Semitic Script was used for the occasion.
zubra(t) means a piece of iron, a piece of bone, zubr a word
for penis.
What we have here is very likely an example of folk etymology
from the scholarly Christian Arabic word for the Psalms,
al-maza:mi:r sing. mazmu:r (Mezamir, mezmur is also used
in Turkish Bible tranlations, though some may have Zebur)
That the root ZMR has been used for Psalms in the scholarly Christian
Arabic world is immediately understandable: It is the same Semitic root
as in the Hebrew (mizmor=psalm, although the book is called
tehillim=praises). This root is now used in Arabic and Farsi for the
purpose.
Presumably via Syriac.
Post by Helmut Richter
For a folk etymology that connects ZMR to ZBR there is a need for folks
who believe in a connection between the Zabur as mentioned in the Qur'an
and the Biblical book of Psalms. Who could they have been? Are Muslims
generally aware that Dawud is an author of psalms? Do they know the sura
mentioning the Zabur and draw the connection? Or, the other way round,
are there Christians in the Muslim world who know that the Qur'an
mentions a book revealed to Dawud and equate it with the Psalms?
The distribution of languages where ZBR is used for Psalms (I checked
the names of the corresponding WP articles, as I do not know these
languages) demands also an explanation, as Arabic is not among them. One
big area is Osmanic (Turkish, Azeri, Uzbek, Kurdish, Bosnian, Tartar).
But how did the word get into Urdu or Swahili? Especially the latter got
all its Muslim influence from Arabia, especially Yemen, and from Persia,
but not from the Osmanic area.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-05-17 16:59:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Helmut Richter
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Helmut Richter
According to easily available sources like WP, "Zabur" is a book that
has been revealed to Dawud=Dawid, according to the Quran. I read this
information so that its contents is now unknown, and any relationship to
the biblical book of Psalms or parts thereof is conjectural at most?
The first question was whether there is a known text which is the book
Zabur mentioned in the Qur'an. The answer is no. That the Zabur is the
same as the book of Psalms -- in whatever language -- seems not to be a
widespread belief among Muslims either.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Helmut Richter
Nonetheless the usage of the word "Zabur" for a psalm in the biblical
sense seems to be widespread among Christians in languages the speakers
of which are mostly Muslims (Urdu, Turkish, Kurdish, Swahili).
Are the roots Z-B-R (ar: Zabur) and Z-M-R (he: mizmor) cognates by a
regular shift in consonants?
No. But in Pre-Islamic Yemen we see the change for initial
Semitic m- > b- on occasion.
zabu:r means "book", something written down, zabara means to write
or transcribe. and fa3u:l measure is to be understood as a form
of the passive participle maf3u:l . zibr and zabi:r are alternate
forms for this more general meaning. It also usually and more
specifically meant the palm stalks used for wriing, and in Ancient
South Arabia a more minisicule and more cursive variant of the
South Semitic Script was used for the occasion.
zubra(t) means a piece of iron, a piece of bone, zubr a word
for penis.
What we have here is very likely an example of folk etymology
from the scholarly Christian Arabic word for the Psalms,
al-maza:mi:r sing. mazmu:r (Mezamir, mezmur is also used
in Turkish Bible tranlations, though some may have Zebur)
That the root ZMR has been used for Psalms in the scholarly Christian
Arabic world is immediately understandable: It is the same Semitic root
as in the Hebrew (mizmor=psalm, although the book is called
tehillim=praises). This root is now used in Arabic and Farsi for the
purpose.
also in Turkish. It is used in non-Muslim contexts
Post by Helmut Richter
For a folk etymology that connects ZMR to ZBR there is a need for folks
who believe in a connection between the Zabur as mentioned in the Qur'an
Originally the inhabitants of 7th cent and earlier Arabia.

Records from that area from that time are confined to graffiti.

The Qur'an is the 1st book in Arabic known.
Post by Helmut Richter
and the Biblical book of Psalms. Who could they have been? Are Muslims
generally aware that Dawud is an author of psalms? Do they know the sura
mentioning the Zabur and draw the connection? Or, the other way round,
Obviously. Devout Muslims memorize the Qur'an.
Post by Helmut Richter
are there Christians in the Muslim world who know that the Qur'an
mentions a book revealed to Dawud and equate it with the Psalms?
Certainly. I have heard it used by Turkish Christian friend of
mine social media discussions.
Post by Helmut Richter
The distribution of languages where ZBR is used for Psalms (I checked
the names of the corresponding WP articles, as I do not know these
languages) demands also an explanation, as Arabic is not among them. One
The Arabic Wikipedia article seems to be written by Arab Christian
who deliberately ignores the Quran.

Wikipedia is susceptable to net-loons who is for polemical purposes.
Post by Helmut Richter
big area is Osmanic (Turkish, Azeri, Uzbek, Kurdish, Bosnian, Tartar).
Uzbek and Tatar have their own scholarly traditions and are not
"Osmanic" . Even Azeri is marginally "Osmanic" in this sense.

The Tatar and Uzbek articles are very short. The Turkish article
mentions "Mezmurlar" (pl. of Mezmur) in the opening line and
the Azeri article in the body.
Post by Helmut Richter
But how did the word get into Urdu or Swahili? Especially the latter got
all its Muslim influence from Arabia, especially Yemen, and from Persia,
but not from the Osmanic area.
From Muslim scholarship identifying it as the Psalms!
Post by Helmut Richter
--
Helmut Richter
Helmut Richter
2017-05-18 08:21:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Helmut Richter
The distribution of languages where ZBR is used for Psalms (I checked
the names of the corresponding WP articles, as I do not know these
languages) demands also an explanation, as Arabic is not among them. One
The Arabic Wikipedia article seems to be written by Arab Christian
who deliberately ignores the Quran.
As I wrote, I cannot read Arabic, I only used the headline مزمور as a
hint that the translation of "psalms" into Arabic contains the root ZMR
and not ZBR. Would that (the headline, not the article as a whole) have
been different if a Muslim had written that article?

And given that the text of the Psalms is in the Jewish Bible which has
become a part of the Christian Bible but is not in the Qur'an: is it not
plausible that a Jew or a Christian write on the issue, even in Arabic?
As much as I would expect that a Muslim write about the Qur'an also in
WPs in languages predominantly spoken by non-Muslims?
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Wikipedia is susceptable to net-loons who is for polemical purposes.
Yes, it is, but I am often astonished that this happens much less than I
would have expected. This may also be different for different WPs.
--
Helmut Richter
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-05-18 09:21:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Helmut Richter
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Helmut Richter
The distribution of languages where ZBR is used for Psalms (I checked
the names of the corresponding WP articles, as I do not know these
languages) demands also an explanation, as Arabic is not among them. One
The Arabic Wikipedia article seems to be written by Arab Christian
who deliberately ignores the Quran.
As I wrote, I cannot read Arabic, I only used the headline مزمور as a
hint that the translation of "psalms" into Arabic contains the root ZMR
and not ZBR. Would that (the headline, not the article as a whole) have
been different if a Muslim had written that article?
Possibly. The problem is that the Qur'an has nothing to
say about it except from being revealed to David. Arabic
Wikipedia has seperate articles titled "yasu:3" that is
"Jesus" in Christian Arabic (but as a name given to children
"3i:sa" is used) describing Jesus from a Christian POV
and an article "3i:sa~bnu maryam" (3i:sa" b. maryam, Jesus
son of Mary) describing Jesus from a Muslim POV but the two
are linked.

There is also an article "zabu:r" in Arabic Wikipedia,
but it is not linked to the mazmu:r article, which fairness
demands it so be. This is the case of Persian Wikipedia.
Persian "Farsi" Wikipedia has both (zabu:r and maza:mi:r),
but the "zabu:r" article is surprisingly verbose. and
the maza:mi:r article short (perhaps because of few
Persian speaking Christians).


As expected the zabu:r is terse in terms of zabu:r as
Scripture and then says a few things about zabu:r as
the miniscule variant of the South Arabian Script.
Post by Helmut Richter
And given that the text of the Psalms is in the Jewish Bible which has
become a part of the Christian Bible but is not in the Qur'an: is it not
plausible that a Jew or a Christian write on the issue, even in Arabic?
As much as I would expect that a Muslim write about the Qur'an also in
WPs in languages predominantly spoken by non-Muslims?
Very true, but as I said above, there should have been linkage
to the Arabic zabu:r article and at least word or two that it
is regarded by Muslisms as a revelead book along with the Torah
and the Gospel (always singular in Muslim Arabic).
Post by Helmut Richter
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Wikipedia is susceptable to net-loons who is for polemical purposes.
Yes, it is, but I am often astonished that this happens much less than I
would have expected. This may also be different for different WPs.
--
Helmut Richter
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-05-18 09:34:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Helmut Richter
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Helmut Richter
The distribution of languages where ZBR is used for Psalms (I checked
the names of the corresponding WP articles, as I do not know these
languages) demands also an explanation, as Arabic is not among them. One
The Arabic Wikipedia article seems to be written by Arab Christian
who deliberately ignores the Quran.
As I wrote, I cannot read Arabic, I only used the headline مزمور as a
hint that the translation of "psalms" into Arabic contains the root ZMR
and not ZBR. Would that (the headline, not the article as a whole) have
been different if a Muslim had written that article?
Possibly. The problem is that the Qur'an has nothing to
say about it except from being revealed to David. Arabic
Wikipedia has seperate articles titled "yasu:3" that is
"Jesus" in Christian Arabic (but as a name given to children
"3i:sa" is used) describing Jesus from a Christian POV
and an article "3i:sa~bnu maryam" (3i:sa" b. maryam, Jesus
son of Mary) describing Jesus from a Muslim POV but the two
are linked.
There is also an article "zabu:r" in Arabic Wikipedia,
but it is not linked to the mazmu:r article, which fairness
demands it so be. This is the case of Persian Wikipedia.
Persian "Farsi" Wikipedia has both (zabu:r and maza:mi:r),
"Persian" covers anything from the inscription of Darius
to the slang of Tehran or Dushanbe. "Farsi" is the Arabized
Persian of the Islamic period and more narrowly the modern
standard of Iran as opposed to the modern standards of Afghanistan
(known officially as "Dari") and Tajikistan (now called
offically called Fårsi-yi Tåjiki "Tajik Persian").

I don't like the term "Farsi" when using English because
"Farsi" in the popular American mind has come to be
associated with the speech of sinister bearded guys hatching
nefarious plots and "Persian" with the language of Omar
Khayyam!
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
but the "zabu:r" article is surprisingly verbose. and
the maza:mi:r article short (perhaps because of few
Persian speaking Christians).
As expected the zabu:r is terse in terms of zabu:r as
Scripture and then says a few things about zabu:r as
the miniscule variant of the South Arabian Script.
Post by Helmut Richter
And given that the text of the Psalms is in the Jewish Bible which has
become a part of the Christian Bible but is not in the Qur'an: is it not
plausible that a Jew or a Christian write on the issue, even in Arabic?
As much as I would expect that a Muslim write about the Qur'an also in
WPs in languages predominantly spoken by non-Muslims?
Very true, but as I said above, there should have been linkage
to the Arabic zabu:r article and at least word or two that it
is regarded by Muslisms as a revelead book along with the Torah
and the Gospel (always singular in Muslim Arabic).
Post by Helmut Richter
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Wikipedia is susceptable to net-loons who is for polemical purposes.
Yes, it is, but I am often astonished that this happens much less than I
would have expected. This may also be different for different WPs.
--
Helmut Richter
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-05-18 14:06:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Helmut Richter
According to easily available sources like WP, "Zabur" is a book that
has been revealed to Dawud=Dawid, according to the Quran. I read this
information so that its contents is now unknown, and any relationship to
the biblical book of Psalms or parts thereof is conjectural at most?
Nonetheless the usage of the word "Zabur" for a psalm in the biblical
sense seems to be widespread among Christians in languages the speakers
of which are mostly Muslims (Urdu, Turkish, Kurdish, Swahili).
Are the roots Z-B-R (ar: Zabur) and Z-M-R (he: mizmor) cognates by a
regular shift in consonants?
No. But in Pre-Islamic Yemen we see the change for initial
Semitic m- > b- on occasion.
An entirely phonetic, (albeit somewhat long-winded explanation)
has been proposed to me by Prof. de Blois:

Something like mazmūr > *zammūr (metathesis) > *zambūr (dissimilation) > *zabbūr (assimilation)> zabūr (degemination).
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
zabu:r means "book", something written down, zabara means to write
or transcribe. and fa3u:l measure is to be understood as a form
of the passive participle maf3u:l . zibr and zabi:r are alternate
forms for this more general meaning. It also usually and more
specifically meant the palm stalks used for wriing, and in Ancient
South Arabia a more minisicule and more cursive variant of the
South Semitic Script was used for the occasion.
zubra(t) means a piece of iron, a piece of bone, zubr a word
for penis.
What we have here is very likely an example of folk etymology
from the scholarly Christian Arabic word for the Psalms,
al-maza:mi:r sing. mazmu:r (Mezamir, mezmur is also used
in Turkish Bible tranlations, though some may have Zebur)
The Qur'an is full of such Arabizations, probably in the
oral, non-scholarly manne in which Judaism and Christianity
was transmitted in Pre-Islamic Arabia
some examples: 3imra:n for 3amrAm, sulayma:n (dim. of
salma:n) for Solomon to name only two, notwithsanding
less recognizable forms such as 3i:sa" for yasu:3 (a
number of phonetic steps), yaHya" ("he lives") for
yu:Hanna: (through Hebrew diminutive yoHai)
Post by Helmut Richter
--
Helmut Richter
Franz Gnaedinger
2017-05-22 07:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Helmut Richter
According to easily available sources like WP, "Zabur" is a book that
has been revealed to Dawud=Dawid, according to the Quran. I read this
information so that its contents is now unknown, and any relationship to
the biblical book of Psalms or parts thereof is conjectural at most?
Nonetheless the usage of the word "Zabur" for a psalm in the biblical
sense seems to be widespread among Christians in languages the speakers
of which are mostly Muslims (Urdu, Turkish, Kurdish, Swahili).
Are the roots Z-B-R (ar: Zabur) and Z-M-R (he: mizmor) cognates by a
regular shift in consonants?
Zabur for a book, especially a book of psalms, might go back to SAI BIR,
life SAI fur BIR, Greek zao 'I live' and byrsa 'hide, fur, leather'.
BIR also named a well as fur place where fur and leather bags were filled
with water, consider Hebrew beer 'well'. A book may be regarded as a well
of information, wisdom, and a book of psalms as a well of spiritual life.
Greek psallein 'to pluck, pluck a harp, sing a psalm' accounts for English
psalm. Young David, by then a shepard, plucked his harp for king Saul
and thus "refreshed" him, gave him back the spiritual life Saul had lost.

Mizmor could perhaps go back to MmOS AMA REO, offspring MmOS mother AMA
river REO

MmOS Miz AMA REO MA Ri Mo R

and name a Son of the Mother (goddess) of Rivers, a Son of Mari, or Sons
and Daughters of Mari, short for a collection of psalms by one or several
scribes from Mari that may have inspired David and other authors of the
Bible (dvd David, from DA PAD, away from DA activity of feet PAD, delivered
from the paw of the Egyptian lion, delivered from the paw of the Hittite
bear, delivered from the paw of the Philistine giant Goliath).

Mari, modern Tell Hariri on the western bank of the Euphrates River in
Syria, close to the border with Iraq, was a wealthy city state (until
devastated by Hammurabi). An important trading route led from Mari via
Tadmor (Palmyra), Damascus and Palestine to the Red Sea. Mari was famous,
also for her singers and musicians and scribes, among them women. Singers
and musicians from Mari traveled far, even some 350 kilometers to Ebla.
One might look for traces of the hypothetical anthology of psalms in the
written legacy of Mari - 25,000 inscribed clay tablets, probably many
still undocumented.

Cyrus H. Gordon makes a connection between Mari and the Bible. Mural
paintings from the days of Hammurabi (c.1704-1662 BC) show a goddess
(also known from seals) in her flauncing dress that is covered with
scallops of many colors - "This may be the type of formal robe that
Jacob gave his son Joseph: the 'coat of many colours'" (Cyrus H. Gordon,
Adventures in the Nearest East, Phoenix London 1957). I haven't seen
the murals (nor a seal in a sufficiently large reproduction) so I can't
say whether the woman represents a river goddess. But a sculpture does!
A 140 cm high statue of a standing woman holding before her womb a vase
out of which flew water, actual water from a hidden source in the base,
her robe falling in waves from her waist along her legs where the cloth
is decorated with vertical wavy lines - that statue was found in the
royal palace and may be the river goddess AMA REO who named Mari ...
As for Jacob, he is known for his well, and Joseph interpreted Pharaoh's
river dreams and thus helped Egypt survive a famine of seven years.

If a lost anthology of psalms by a Son of Mari, or by Sons and Daughters
of Mari inspired David and other authors of the Bible, then the middle
part of David's first psalm, 1:3, could have been quoted from the lost
source: "And he (the godly one) shall be like a tree planted by the rivers
of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf shall also
not wither (Hebrew fade); and whatsoever he doeth will prosper."

Did joung David find himself in those lines he may have heard from a
traveler? and hope that his own songs may not fade? Imagine him playing
a lyra, maybe accompanying the glittering wavelets of a small river
somewhere in the hills of Gibea ...
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-05-22 14:48:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 10:04:44 AM UTC+3, Franz Gnaedinger wrote:

Let Magdalenian stuff be in the Magdalenian thread.

Loading...