An Evaluation of the Book by Cherubino Mario Guzzetti
(Cinisello Balsano, 1995)

PRESENTATION OF THE BOOK

1. Author. The author is a Christian, a Salesian, who combines a deep adhesion to Christianity and interest in Islam, which he knows in depth, since he lived some thirty years in the Middle East.

2. Content. The book has the following sections:

-- Presentation, by Gianfranco Ravasi;
-- Introduction;
-- Synoptic comparison between Bible and Koran. Both are placed on opposite pages, which makes it easy to see the Bible page and the Koran page.
The Biblical texts are taken from La Bibbia. Nuovissima versione dai testi originali (Cinisello Balsamo, 1991). Quotations from the Koran are taken from: C.M. Guzzetti, Il Corano. Introduction, translation and comment. (Leumann, Turin, 1993). The Biblical text is the basis for the comparison; the Koranic text is placed next to the Biblical one.
-- The notes. We find them under the Biblical text and under the Koranic text.
The ones under the Biblical text: i. Explain more amply to the reader the Biblical text ;
ii. Compare the Biblical text to the Koranic text .
The notes under the Koranic text have various purposes:
i. Explanation of words and phrases ;
ii. Recall to other texts of the Koran ;
iii. Comparisons between events narrated in the Koran and in the Bible ;
iv. Explanation of historical and geographical elements .
v. Explanation of theological concepts .
-- Apparatus and Index: The book ends with the following
apparatus:
-- Essential bibliography;
-- Concordance for the spelling of Biblical and Koranic names: truly valuable in connecting the content of both books;
-- Glossary: it gives a short explanation of the most common terms that we find in the Koran;
-- Analytical index of the Koran: it lists in 45 pages the proper names and the main concepts that are found in the Koran, their meaning, the context in which they were quoted and the texts in which they are set;
-- Index of Bible quotations;
-- Index of Koran quotations;
-- General Index.

3. Studied Persons and Themes
In order to compare the Bible and the Koran, the author makes the easiest choice: Beginning with Genesis down to the New Testament, he chooses the Biblical persons that are mentioned in the Koran. Other themes are added to this list: Creation of the world; Creation of man; Praise to the Creator. This way, it’s easy for the reader to see how the Koran treated these people, which are their common statements and which affirmations are different. When these Biblical and Koranic texts are rather long, he divides them into chapters. Here is the list:
Creation of the world;
Creation of man;
Praise to the Creator;
Sin of Adam and Eve;
Cain and Abel;
Noah and the Flood;
The Tower of Babel and the Tower of the Pharaoh;
Abraham;
Joseph;
Moses;
Saul;
David;
Salomon;
Elijah and Elisha;
Jonas;
Job;
Zechariah, Elizabeth, John the Baptist;
Mary, Moher of Jesus;
Jesus.


CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE BOOK

As far as I am concerned, the book is a very good introduction to the Koran in its relationship to the Bible, both for the Christians who do not know the Koran, and for the Muslims who would like to know a little more about the Bible. Naturally, I cannot examine all the aspects of the book. But I would like to make some points here.

Introduction
The author tells us that the comparison between the Bible and the Koran is a difficult undertaking, but at the same time a necessary one, “because it is from mutual knowledge that mutual respect and peaceful coexistence can come” .
The author then shows the differences between Bible and Koran:

-- The Koran is the Word of God that “in Islam takes the central place that Jesus has in Christianity” .
This clarification is important, because it helps avoiding gross errors of evaluation.
I would even say that (on the side of Islam, of course) the Koran is considered more perfect than what we Christians consider Christ.
For us, Christ is true God (consequently: perfect), but he is also a man (with his human limitations, for example, limitations of knowledge), while, for Islam the Koran is totally divine and inimitable, as we find in 17:88: “Even if men and ginn united together to compose a Koran as this one, even if they aided one another, they would not succeed” .
-- The author of the Koran is God, who dictates “word by word, even letter by letter” , what the prophet has to write. This is totally differet from the Christian and Jewish understanding of the Bible, in which the author is not “the typist from the dictation” of God, rather he (the writer) keeps his personality which we can see in every page of the Bible and of the New Testament. For Christianity, this revelation prevents only errors in the dogmatic and moral matters, and does not eliminate the personality of the sacred author.
-- While Christianity recognizes the human sources and influence of its revelation, Islam does not consider the problem of the sources of the Koran, because, according to them, the only source is God .
-- The Koran, in as much as it is Revelation “come from God”, cannot be translated, because each letter has its hidden meaning. Instead, we see how, for Christianity, translation is a normal thing, inasmuch as the Bible for Jesus and the primitive Church had already arrived in the Greek translation! When one accepts a translation, one accepts at the same time a plurality of viewpoints, because every translation must mediate between two diverse worlds. Thus the popular saying: “Translator traitor” is quite true! The lack of official translations of the Koran (until the most recent times) perhaps explains why Islam is still a monlythic system. .
-- According to the Koran, Bible and Gospel are incomplete because they are revealed to an immature humanity, and they were corrupted across the centuries; from here comes the need of a new revelation . Certainly, as far as I am concerned, this Islamic criticism towards us urges us to make an examination of conscience!
-- The concept of Prophet is for Islam that of “legislator”, not the Biblical concept of the one “who reveals the divine mysteries” . As far as I see it, this concept cannot adequately represent the Biblical prophets.
-- Furthermore, the major Biblical prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Hosea, etc.) are ignored by the Koran. Why? Our author’s opinion is that maybe the Jews with whom Mohammed was in contact were not interested in the religious and moral ideals with whom these prophets had contact .


JOSEPH

The Koran dedicates to Joseph sura No.12, which is considered the most beautiful in the whole Koran. The two teachings that I draw from the reading of the Koranic text are:

-- God provides for the needs of those who follow him, even in the midst of the greatest dangers. This is proven by the incorruptible behavior of the youth Joseph, slave in a foreign land, altough he was forcibly and strongly coveted by his mistress and although he felt a burning desire for her (12:24). In this, the Koran follows the Biblical model.
-- Joseph is presented as a perfect Muslim , a perfect “hanif”, because he obeys God. Here, the emphasis is Muslim, although the basis is Biblical.

However, the comparison between the Biblical text and the Koranic text reveals the following aspects:
-- In the Bible, the description is psychologically very refined and reveals much tension and emotion (ex., Gen 39:7-11, and 45:1-3). Besides, as Guzzetti notes , the context of the Biblical account is typically Egyptian, with the presence of the magicians, the droughts, the prosperity brought about by the Nile, the Pharaoh and his court.
-- But the Koranic story of Joseph is “anachronistically Islamic, and even the Pharaoh is only just any king” . Besides, the psychological refinement “is almost totally absent in the Koranic story” . It is colder than the Biblical account .

From the comparison between the two accounts, it is clear to me that:
-- The Biblical account is preferable from the aesthetic, historical and psycological point of view. I must say however that my evaluation is based on my reading of the translation and on Guzzetti’s evaluation; I am not capable of evaluating the Koranic text in Arabic.
-- The Biblical account is the basis for the Koranic account. According to Guzzetti’s interpretation, the Koran denies such dependence. Indeed, in 12:102, we read: “This is one of the stories of the invisible world that we reveal to you” . And yet, the literary dependence on the Bible is evident!

MARY

Guzzetti underlines the following points:
-- The sources from which the Koran takes its information on Mary, Jesus, Zeccariah, Elizabeth and John the Baptist are the New Testament, the Apocryphals and heretical sources, especially Manichean .
-- The account of Mary is found especially in suras 3 and 19. There also are several other quotations .
-- Islam, because of its emphasis on divine transcendence, absolutely rejects the concept of Incarnation (19:35) .
-- The Koran shows a great respect for Mary, Jesus and John the Baptist .
-- The Koranic veneration towards Mary was probably caused by the great veneration that the Byzantine rite showed towards her, and also from the fact that, in the Kaaba itself, there was an image of Our Lady with Baby Jesus, which Mohammed wished to preserve, even after he conquered Mecca in 630 .

Let us now see some details. Concerning the Annunciation, the Koran presents:
-- Two versions on the messengers of God to Mary: The Angel Gabriel (“Spirit of God”) in 19:17-21, and the Angels in 3:45-46.
-- The virginity of Mary is underlined in a more explicit way than in the Gospel. Mary states emphatically: “No man has ever touched me” (3:47); and “I am not a dissolute woman” (19:20).
-- Divine omnipotence is presented in a more concrete way than in the Gospels: “God creates whatever he wants. When he decides something, he only has to say: ‘Be!’ and it comes into being” (3:47b).

As far as the Birth of Jesus is concerned, we see that:
-- The context in Luke is very well defined, but the Koran just gives a general account, without any historical or geographical information, and all is situated in a typically Arab ambiance .
-- The Koran calls Mary “Sister of Aaron” (19:28). Is this a confusion between the Mary of the New Testament and the one of the Old Testament? Guzzetti adheres to the thesis that the Koran does not confuse the two women called Mary, rather it intends, by “Sister of Aaron”, a descendent of Aaron .
-- The Koran, basing itself on apocryphal accounts, has newly-born Baby Jesus speak in order to acquit Mary of the accusation of being a dissolute woman (19:30-33).
-- The Koran stresses that Jesus is “the son of Mary” (19:34), to indicate that there is no question of divine filiation.
-- Mary is called “Holy” (5:75), in the Arab “siddiqa”, meaning “thruthful, sincere, just, excellent, and consequently Holy” .
-- Portrayed as the spouse of Mary, Joseph never says anything in the Koran, probably to underline the miraculous aspect of the birth of Jesus. There are however several hadith that refer to Joseph .

JESUS

Jesus’ portrait, central to Christianity, is also very important for Islam. Guzzetti notes the following aspects of how the Koran speaks of Jesus.
-- Jesus performs miracles since his infancy and young age (19:30-33; 3:48-49; 5:112-115) .
-- Jesus is a prophet (19:39), inferior to Mohammed in everything. This inferiority is shown also, according to the Koran, in the fact that Jesus announces the coming of Mohammed (61:6) .
-- He is a messenger from God (4:171; 61:6).
-- He is Messiah, which must not be understood in the Judeo-Christian sense of “Annointed”, “Consecrated by God”, but in the sense of one who touches”, or is “touched” .
-- He is an example that should be followed (43:57-58).
-- He cursed those who did not believe (5:78) .
-- Many of the Gospel teachings are reflected on the Koran: for example, forgiveness and reconciliation (42:40), almsgiving in secret (2:271) .
-- According to 4:157-158, Jesus did not die on the cross, but someone who looked like him, while Jesus was taken to heaven by God .
-- Certainly, Jesus is not son of God. On this, the Koran is emphatic. It strongly rejects any affirmation of the Trinity (4:171; 5:37; and 5:116) .


CONCLUSION

I would like to end this evaluation of the book with the following statements.

-- This theme, The Bible and the Koran, could be tackled in several other ways, for example:
a) The idea of God in the Bible and in the Koran; b) Moral values in the Bible and in the Koran; c) Anthropology in the Bible and in the Koran; d) Fundamentalism in the Bible and in the Koran; or other aspects. Guzzetti chose the clearest and easiest way to compare the two sacred texts. A synopsis allows us to see common points and differences in an easier way . Only after seeing in a clear way the synoptic comparison between the Bible and the Koran can the reader enter into deeper thematic parallels.
-- From an impartial comparison between the Bible and the Koran, it becomes apparent that the Koran took many things from the Bible, and a lot of material from other sources, even if the problem itself of the sources is not aired. This fact shows a clear difference between Christianity and Islam. In fact, the New Testament quotes long texts directly from the Old Testament (see Mt 11:10; 11:23; Lk 3:4-6; and many other instances). Besides, the Church accepts as word of God all the Old Testament of the Jews, and invites the believer to do a direct reading/listening of the text. Not so in Islam: it underlines as divine source only the revelation to Mohammed, without caring for the Biblical sources of Revelation. On this point, Christianity shows a historical and critical sense far superior to Islam, since Christianity accepts as Word of God not only the New Testament (which is fundamental and basic for the Christian), but also the Old Testament, which was the Bible of Jesus.
-- An attentive reading of this book helps to learn a bit about Islam. This is rather valid, because Muslims are now all over the world, and because we Christians believe that the Semina Verbi are scattered everywhere .
-- This synoptic reading of the Bible and the Koran makes us understand that, when it is question of the same Biblical figure, even when the same words are used, there could be considerable differences in the meaning, for example in the case of Mary and Jesus. For us Christians, Jesus is the Son of God. There can be no true Christianity without this faith in Jesus, Son of God. Not so for the Muslims, as we have seen above. This must be kept in mind in any interreligious dialogue, otherwise we will be dealing with dangerous ambiguities that can lead to confusion.
-- In the reading of the Koran in relationshop to the Bible, the following elements struck me positively:
-- Linguistic concreteness, for example about the virginity of Mary (3:47 and 19:20) and God’s omnipotence (3:47).
-- Emphasis on recognizing God’s “signs” (ex., 10:92; 2:26; 26:8). This concept is deeply Biblical and very important to a life lived in rapport with God.
-- A good moral life towards others (ex., 28:77; 21:90), honesty (38:24), concrete charity (17:23-26).

-- Instead, the following Koranic elements leave me considerably perplexed:
-- Lack of historical sense, as we can well see in the way Joseph’s story is treated, as explained above.
-- The arbitrariness of God’s behavior, which is strange, to say the least, and even contradictory (for example, in the treatment of the real death of Christ, or his only apparent death on the cross).
-- Mohammed predicts that Abu Lahab and his wife will go to hell (11:1-5). This shows a vindictive attitude that, as I see it, we do not find in the Bible nor in the NewTestament .
-- Lack of consideration for the person of the sacred author in order to stress the opinion that the text came “directly” from God. This attitude comes from the desire to present God as trancendent, but it does not give any real space to the contribution of the human author, who writes the text with all his limitations. These limitations are visible in many ways, for example, in the change of opinion in regard to the qibla, or direction of prayer .
All the documents produced by human beings, the Bible and the Koran included, show clearly the limitations of the writer. To deny it is an impossible exercise, it is a closing of eyes to what is evident, it is like climbing “glass surfaces”, in a useless attempt to prove that everything comes directly from God, even contradictory things. The Catholic Church recognizes that the Bible is the work of God and the work of man. Divine inspiration safeguards doctrinal and moral aspects “relative to salvation” . All the rest is the work of the sacred author.
From this comes the acceptance of a critical reading of every text. Islam does not recognize this human mediation, and, even more, it simply denies it. The Koran is Word of God come down from heaven. Consequently, a critical reading of the Koran is unacceptable, meaning that the only acceptable reading is the fundamentalist one.
This tendency of Islam to put the accent on the divine action, and to underrate the human action is also evident in basic texts. For example, in Genesis 2:19 man names the animals (by this, is indicated man’s dominion over animals). In the corresponding Islamic passage (2:31), God himself gives a name to all things, and then reveals it to man. Besides, the drama of sin, portrayed so finely and plastically in Genesis 3 (temptation, sin as rebellion, consequences, forgiveness by God) is just slightly mentioned by the Koran (1:36-39) with the enunciation: sin, forgiveness by God, expulsion from the garden, human responsibility. This comparison too shows the artistic, literary and psychological superiority of the Bible over the Koran.

-- Finally, a comparison between the Bible and the Koran must notice the following differences:
-- Principle of Tanslation:
As we have seen already, the Old Testament came to Christians in several languages (Aramaic and Hebrew), and also in translation (Greek). Accepting the principle of translation requests the acceptance of various points of view, because every translation, even the one that tries be most faithful, introduces new interpretations. As a matter of fact, translations are bridges between cultures. To transport a text from the culture that produced it to the culture that receives it means to explain it in “new” terms, terms that do not belong to the original culture, terms that are understandable to the new culture. This means that it is necessary to interpret the original message. This produces a variety of views, because at least two points of view must be kept in mind: the original one, and the one of the language into which the translation is done. That’s why, from the start, the Bible allows an opening up to various cultural forms.
Not so for Islam. From the beginning it insists that the Arabic was the essential language of divine Revelation and of prayer. All this fixes the form and the content of revelation, and forbids opening up to new imterpretations.
-- Duration of the period in which Revelation took place:
For the Old Testament, we have a rather long period, over 1,000 years. These long period mean several religious experiences, several authors, various literary genres. Anyone who accepts the Old testament as Word of God is continuously challenged to understand this plurality, to separate the essential message from the secondary messages that had only a circumstantial value – challenged to choose the “canon in the canon”.
To a smaller extent, this also happens in the case of the New Testament, which was written in a period of some 50 years, and which includes the religious experience of some 70 years. It too was written by various authors who used various literary genres (Gospels, Letters, stories, Apocalyptical Literature).
Not so for the Koran. The duration of time in which it was written is brief, some 23 years . His revelation was pronounced by one person alone: Mohammed. There were several variations of texts, but the process of unification of the text started very soon . A unified text was imposed on everybody a few years after the death of Mohammed . All this breeds a uniform message which practically does not allow any plurality of views.


CONCLUSION

From this study, I came to a better knowledge of Islam and of its basic text, the Koran, by comparing it to the Bible and the New Testament, the basic texts of Christianity.
As a result of this work, I feel that now I appreciate more deeply the Bible and Christianity. I hope that this will also be the result for those who read Guzzetti’s book.