Replies

He argues i think successfully that the Koran is a deliberate misreading\rendering in Arabic of early Eastern Gnostic Christian liturgical writings.
/////
My understanding has been that if you read the dag hamadi scrolls that were discovered about 1946 or so—that these banned gnostic gospils give a version of Jesus that looks very much like Mohammed’s version of Jesus.

Is your point the same?

I’ve read them. I don’t see the connection to Mohammed. Gnostic Gospels that survived (Many many didn’t!) have many Christologies, some sort of fit Koran’s description most don’t.

Again Luxenberg claims the Koran is a mistranslation. Mistranslation by reading it in Arabic, a different but related language that it was written - written originally in Aramaic. By doing this you get a different and sometimes nonsensical work. This is why Islam has to have the Hadiths (commentary - sort of like the Talmud) to have it make any sense. Luxenberg’s works fit in well with the growing historical view that Mohammad as a historical figure never existed. Therefore Mohammad as used in the Koran - Messenger refers to Christ. The earliest coins minted under the Islamic kingdoms still use Christian imagery. Why? Coins historically are ideological statements of new regimes. It’s a hundred years or so before minted coins in that region are identifiably Islamic.