822
edits
Historical Attestation of Muhammad: Difference between revisions
Historical Attestation of Muhammad (view source)
Revision as of 12:02, 30 June 2025
, Yesterday at 12:02→Historical Critical Method: Added some text here with Sinai's take on the 'Historical-Critical Method'
| [checked revision] | [pending revision] |
No edit summary |
(→Historical Critical Method: Added some text here with Sinai's take on the 'Historical-Critical Method') |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{QualityScore|Lead=1|Structure=3|Content=2|Language=2|References=2}} | {{QualityScore|Lead=1|Structure=3|Content=2|Language=2|References=2}} | ||
==Introduction== | ==Introduction== | ||
===Historical Critical Method=== | ===Historical Critical Method=== | ||
Professor Nicolai Sinai (2017) writes the 'historical-critical method' (all of ancient sources) essentially involves firstly suspending pre-conceived notions about it/them, before carrying out an investigation of the text without these to arrive at a conclusion. And secondly, interpreting its meaning as something that could plausibly have been thought or said in its original historical context. While these assumptions can be debated, they are foundational to contemporary historical scholarship. Thus, historical-critical interpretation significantly differs from traditional religious exegesis by postponing judgments about the truth or relevance of scripture and avoiding supernatural explanations. | |||
{{Quote|Sinai, Nicolai. Qur'an: A Historical-Critical Introduction (The New Edinburgh Islamic Surveys) (p. 14-16). Edinburgh University Press. Kindle Edition.|At this point, the reader may legitimately demand to know what, exactly, I understand by approaching the Qur’an from a historical-critical perspective, and why this may at all be a worthwhile endeavour.<sup>3</sup> I shall take the two components of the hyphenated adjective ‘historical-critical’ in reverse order. To interpret a literary document critically means to suspend inherited presuppositions about its origin, transmission, and meaning, and to assess their adequacy in the light of a close reading of that text itself as well as other relevant sources...<br> ...Moving on to the second constituent of the adjective ‘historical-critical’, we may say that to read a text historically is to require the meanings ascribed to it to have been humanly ‘thinkable’ or ‘sayable’ within the text’s original historical environment, as far as the latter can be retrospectively reconstructed. At least for the mainstream of historical-critical scholarship, the notion of possibility underlying the words ‘thinkable’ and ‘sayable’ is informed by the principle of historical analogy – the assumption that past periods of history were constrained by the same natural laws as the present age, that the moral and intellectual abilities of human agents in the past were not radically different from ours, and that the behaviour of past agents, like that of contemporary ones, is at least partly explicable by recourse to certain social and economic factors.<sup>7</sup>... ...The foregoing entails that historical-critical interpretation departs in major respects from traditional Biblical or Qur’anic exegesis: it delays any assessment of scripture’s truth and relevance until after the act of interpretation has been carried out, and it sidesteps appeals to genuine foresight and miracles.<sup>8</sup>}} | |||
===Traditionalist Historians=== | ===Traditionalist Historians=== | ||