Thread by @PhDniX

A strange bit of misinformed apologetics has been making the rounds on Twitter that claims the Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaª) (Is. 42:1) mentions ʾAḥmad (traditionally understood to be Muḥammad) of Q61:6. This is false, but figuring out what is happening is interesting. So 🧵

Let's first take a moment to appreciate what the significance of Isaiah 42:1. The Synoptic gospels ( Mathew 3:17, Mark 1:11 & Luke 3:22) cite a Greek adaptation of this verse at the Baptism of Jesus:
"You are my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased"

This is clearly quite close to the Hebrew of the old testament Isaiah 42:1 "Behold My Servant, whom I uphold; Mine elect, in whom My soul delights." and is understood to refer to it.

The fourth gospel, John, lacks this reference (this will become important later).

In the Islamic tradition, however, this verse is not understood as an allusion to Jesus in the Old Testament, but rather a prediction of the future prophet Muhammad.
Thus ʿAbd Aḷḷāh b. ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ (d. 65 AH) cites Isaiah 42:1 directly.

sunnah.com/adab/12/9

While the wording is not a precise match, it should be clear that he is actually citing the Hebrew Bible (as he also says), Isaiah 42:1-3. It's actually much clearer than the citation on the synoptic gospels. Compare the parallel verses in this image.

Now we come to the ʾAḥmad part in Q61:6. It has been long suggested that Q61:6 is actually citing Jesus with the words in the Gospel of John 14:16 where Jesus makes in the Gospel of John 14:16, of another παράκλητον /paráklēton/ "helper" to come.

κἀγὼ ἐρωτήσω τὸν πατέρα καὶ ἄλλον παράκλητον δώσει ὑμῖν ἵνα ᾖ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another helper and he will be with you forever"

But how did "helper" become ʾAḥmad?

ʾAḥmad means 'most lauded, most famous', and there just so happens to be a Greek word with this same meaning, which is phonetically very close to παράκλητον /paráklēton/, namely, περικλυτόν /periklytón/ "widely known, famous".

The citation of Jesus as found in the Quran would be a translation of a version of the Greek Gospel of John that had the word περικλυτόν /periklytón/, rather than παράκλητον /paráklēton/.

(Images Bell from "The Origin of Islam in Its Christian Environment 156- 7.)

To my knowledge (but this is well outside of my wheelhouse) no such version of the Greek Gospel of John has been discovered, nor translations that presuppose περικλυτόν /periklytón/. But would love to be corrected.

Whether the περικλυτόν /periklytón/ ~ παράκλητον /paráklēton/ confusion is considered plausible, depends 1. on how similar you require a word to be to be conflated and 2. the relative chronology of linguistic changes in Greek. η /ē/ and υ /u/ merge, but already in the 7th c.?

So far this has all been set-up for the claim that the Isaiah Scroll contains ʾAḥmad, an alternative name for the Islamic prophet Muḥammad. As should be clear now is that two separate predictions of the prophet Muḥammad are being conflated here.

1. The Isaiah 42:1 prediction, understood to refer to Jesus by the synoptic gospels, and to Muḥammad by the Islamic tradition.
2. The prediction of Jesus in Q61:6, which has been understood as a reference to a different verse, not from the Torah, but the Gospel of John 16:14!

The claim I saw, claimed that this word read
<ʾḥmwd>. Anyone who can count can already tell that something isn't right, the Hebrew has 6 letters not 5. The final letter is <h>, so if anything it would say <ʾḥmwdh>, but it definitely doesn't.

The Masoretic text reads אֶתְמָךְ ʾɛṯmåḵ <ʾtmk> "I uphold". The Isaiah scroll actually deviates from the Masoretic text and reads אתמוכה <ʾtmwkh>, which reads most naturally as a cohortative ʾɛṯmoḵå "let me uphold". So let's look at why it cannot read <ʾḥmwdh>.

So three claims are made:
1. that a ח <ḥ> has been misread as a ת <t>
2. that a ד <d> has been misread as a כ <k>
3. That the ו <w> and ה <h> need to simply be ignored.

1. & 2. sometimes happen, but certainly did not happen here.

3. is just desperate nonsense.

Both <ḥ> and <t> occur elsewhere in the very same verse, so we can compare how the alleged <ḥ> is written in this word, and how the <t> and <ḥ> are written elsewhere in the verse.

When we do so, what does the disputed letter look more like? <t> or <ḥ>?

Obviously <t>.

As for the alleged misreading of <d> as <k>. Again <d> occurs, in the same verse, right before it. Another medial <k> has to be taken from kehå in verse 3. Again lining them up, it's clear that the disputed letter is a <k> NOT a <d>.

So no, the Isaiah Scroll does not mention ʾAḥmad (or ʾAḥmoḏå). And you don't even need to be able to really know Hebrew to check this. It clearly read ʾɛṯmoḵå.

It should be noted that even if it *did* it wouldn't make sense, the phrase is ʾɛṯmoḵå bo "Whom I uphold".

If it read ʾAḥmoḏå bo, you would have this weird dangling bo "in it" (equivalent of Arabic به bihī):

"Behold My Servant, ʾAḥmad in it. Mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth."

That makes just as little sense in Hebrew as in English.

A general reminder for misinformation on the internet: If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

This should not make you cynical, but rather curious! Why not figure out a bit of the Hebrew Alphabet and check the claim yourself for example!

This is where I encountered this claim most recently. But it seems to be a popular bit of misinformation in Muslim apologetic circles.

https://twitter.com/DawahConnected/status/1477013042365882369

If you enjoyed this thread, and would like to support me and get exclusive access to my work-in-progress critical edition of the Quran, consider becoming a patron on patreon.com/PhDniX/!

You can also always buy me a coffee as a token of appreciation.
ko-fi.com/phdnix

I guess that's one way of dealing with being shown you're spreading misinformation.