Editing Openai/67f9c019-88f0-8007-a867-29e6f1beeb8b (section)

===== Comparative Analysis of Q4:157 Interpretations =====

| Aspect                   | Traditional Approach (e.g., Yusuf Ali, classical tafsir)                                                                                                                                                                                  | Qur’an‑bil‑Qur’an Approach (e.g., Rashad Khalifa’s work)                                                                                                                                                                                | Saint Murad’s Approach                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
| ------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| Interpretative Basis     | • Grounded in centuries‑old classical Arabic linguistics and established tafsir.
• Emphasizes that “they did not kill him, nor crucify him” is understood as a divine intervention ensuring the miraculous preservation of Jesus’ status. | • Relies solely on internal cross‑referencing within the Quran, claiming that the text explains itself without external commentary.
• Maintains that the verse’s wording is clear when read in the context of Quranic self‑explanation. | • Uses a highly literal, word‑by‑word translation and cross‑linguistic etymological analysis (e.g. tracing the Arabic term for “appeared” to Syriac roots).
• This method often results in a reading that deviates from the classical consensus.                                               |
| Linguistic Methodology   | • Upholds the integrity of classical Arabic usage as it has been understood by early scholars.
• Prioritizes consistency with the language’s historical and cultural context.                                                             | • Favors an intra‑textual reading, where ambiguity is resolved by referring to other verses in the Quran, thus preserving the text’s self‑contained character.                                                                          | • Emphasizes external etymological connections with related Semitic languages, suggesting that the apparent crucifixion is a matter of “appearance” derived from non‑Arabic cognates.
• This may imply that the Quran’s language is not uniquely inimitable.                                   |
| Theological Implications | • Reinforces the belief in the Quran as the complete, divinely revealed word of Allah.
• The verse is understood to confirm that a miraculous, God‑ordained intervention prevented actual crucifixion.                                    | • Supports the idea that the Quran is coherent and self‑explanatory, where the divine message is internally consistent without relying on external interpretative frameworks.                                                           | • Critics argue that Murad’s method—by appealing to external linguistic origins—implicitly reduces the divine nature of the text to a human‑crafted product.
• Such an interpretation can be seen as influenced by a Christological perspective that reinterprets the crucifixion narrative.   |
| Academic Reception       | • Considered rigorous because it respects the historical, linguistic, and exegetical traditions developed over centuries.                                                                                                                 | • Valued for its internal consistency; its “self‑explanatory” methodology is appreciated among scholars who favor minimal reliance on later commentaries, though it can be seen as overly reductive.                                    | • Often criticized for lacking academic rigor and for serving a polemical agenda rather than a methodologically sound exegesis.
• Many scholars view this approach as reflecting personal or Christologically‑influenced biases rather than an objective analysis of the original Arabic text. |