vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 355-383 Vigiliae

Christianae
brill.com/vc

The Annunciation to Mary: A Christian Echo

in the Qurʾān
Jonathan M. Reck

Abstract

The Annunciation to Mary as presented in the Protevangelium of James is an early

account of Mary’s childhood and the Virgin Birth that flourished in both Western and
Eastern Churches. This Annunciation account, distinct from versions found in the
canonical gospels of the New Testament, successfully migrated beyond its Christian
milieu, where it had traversed primarily by textual means in late-antiquity. The account’s
widespread influence is attested to by its entry into the oral milieu of Arabia, the
account being the basis by which the Qurʾān vindicates Mary and corrects Christological
error amid a seemingly polemical environment. This article will evaluate qualities of the
selected passage Q. 3:42-7 that elucidate the Annunciation’s gain of a new identity as it
became adopted into the Qurʾānic corpus while considering how the Annunciation as
presented in the passage provides further clarity as to the polemical and political cir-
cumstances surrounding the proto-Muslim community.

Keywords

Protevangelium of James – Qurʾān – Mary – Jesus – intertextuality – orality –

annunciation

The popularity and wide reception of the Protevangelium of James (hereafter,

pej) in Western and Eastern Christian traditions is surprising on the simple basis
that it was never considered canonical. It is difficult to consider another non-
canonical text that has had a similar degree of influence over Christian aesthet-
ics and liturgy. It is particularly the Annunciation to Mary as preserved in the pej
that seemed to provoke such an influence. Fascinating also is how the pej man-
aged to be received outside of Christian borders in late-antique centuries. Having
transcended beyond such borders in the Near-East, it seems that the Annunciation
to Mary as depicted in the pej was received by the Qurʾān as a genuine account,
thereby bearing the authoritative status of divine revelation.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi ��.��6�/15700720-12341179

356 Reck

The intent of this article will be to observe the qualities of the Qurʾānic
Annunciation account that attest to its character as being an echo of the
Annunciation presented in the pej, the account having successfully entered
the oral milieu of the Qurʾānic genesis, when the prophetic revelation was still
in its pre-canonical form. It is the Annunciation as depicted both in the pej
and the Qurʾān that served as the ballast by which the proto-Muslim1 commu-
nity gained legitimacy as an emerging presence with Christological and
Mariological positions distinct from those of coterminous Jewish and Christian
counterparts.
The order of the article’s argumentation is presented in the following. The
pej’s provenance in the West and East will be evaluated since significant to this
article’s aim is that the pej traversed not only in textual form, but also in litur-
gical, artistic, and numismatic forms. It is apparent that the pej was not lim-
ited within strict boundaries, but rather displayed a high degree of transference
across permeable borders.
The Qurʾān’s reception of the pej’s Annunciation will then be observed in a
threefold manner. First, the Qurʾānic Annunciation as it relates to the pej will
be evaluated and shown that it does indeed retain the pej’s Annunciation.
Second, the oral qualities of Q. 3:42-7 will be evaluated. Marked by rhetorical
devices and formulaic themes and patterns, the passage within Q. 3:42-7 has
numerous oral qualities that signal its origination as prophetic logia that would
come to be crystallized in the Qurʾān’s final canonical text, having orally tra-
versed the proto-Muslim environment via the polemical interactions between
interlocutors. Third, the Annunciation according to the pej provided a key
political advantage. It will be argued that the pej’s Annunciation became the
ground by which the proto-Muslim community was able to establish its matri-
archal connection to the House of Amram via the lineage of Mary, providing an
authoritative response to Jewish and Christian claims while also enhancing a
sense of identity for the fledgling community.

1 The early Muslim community will be referred to as the “proto-Muslim community” in order
to emphasize the form of Islam during its nascent years as a developing religious entity. The
phrase functions similarly to “proto-orthodox”, employed by Bart Ehrman to imply a form of
“incipient orthodoxy” among early Christians (Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of
Scripture, rev. ed. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011] 14).

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 355-383

The Annunciation to Mary 357

I The Provenance of the pej in the West and East

The pej2 is an apocryphal gospel that provides an account that is less about
Jesus than it is about Mary’s life.3 The author identifies himself as James, the
half-brother of Jesus, born to Joseph from a previous marriage (pej 12:1-2).4
This is one of several important details the author provides in order to empha-
size the Virgin Birth and to affirm Mary’s purity. The creation of the pej seems
to reflect two intents: first, a desire to venerate Mary, especially in light of her
perpetual virginity;5 second, a provision of further details where the canonical
gospels seemed silent and unable to satiate curiosity.6 The perceived need for
the infancy gospel may also have been triggered by Jewish polemics. Some Jews
had leveled claims that Mary gave birth to an illegitimate child by a Roman
soldier named Pantera.7 This Jewish polemic was strong and popular, taking on
developments such as the steadily evolving Toledot Yeshu, which spanned an

2 Protevangelium of James is the popular title given to the apocryphal infancy gospel. However,
a more correct title might be ‘The Birth of Mary: Revelation of James’, which is what appears
as the title on the Bodmer Papyrus V MS (J.K. Elliott, Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection
of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation [Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1993] 49).
In his Commentary on Matthew, Origen ascribes the pej to be related to the Gospel of
Peter and referred to it as the “Book of James” (Origen Comm. Matt. 10:17).
3 Stephen Gero, ‘Apocryphal Gospels: A Survey of Textual and Literary Problems’, ANRW 25/5
(1988) 3979.
4 All references to the pej’s text correspond to the translation by Oscar Cullmann in New
Testament Apocrypha, ed. Wilhem Schneemelcher, (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991)
421-39.
5 Gero writes that the pej serves to “assert the reality of the virgin birth” (Gero, ‘Apocryphal
Gospels’, 3979).
6 J.K. Elliott, A Synopsis of the Apocryphal Nativity and Infancy Narratives, ed. Bruce M. Metzger
and Bart D. Ehrman, (Leiden: Brill, 2006) xii.
7 The earliest references to Pantera seem to be Origen, who mentions him regarding a Jewish
polemic that was intended to discredit the virgin birth (Origen Cels. 1:32-33). Also, there are
several Talmudic references to Jesus’ attribution as “son of Pantera” (Rab. Qoh 1:8; Ḥul. 2:22f)
and polemical accusations of Mary’s immorality (Sanh. 67a; Šabb. 104b).
The Jewish polemic may be attested to by the sixth century apocryphal Cave of Treasures
as a reference in it indicates that Jews placed pressure upon Christians to identify the pater-
nal lineage of Mary (E.A. Wallis Budge, The Book of the Cave of Treasures [London: The
Religious Tract Society, 1927] 195).

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 355-383

358 Reck

“awkwardly broad range” between the fourth and early ninth centuries.8 In
addition to reflecting a desire to fill in missing details from the gospel accounts
and reactions against Jewish polemics, the pej may have been written to
advance Gnostic views that promoted Jesus as needing no development or
maturity, even as an infant.
Traditionally the text of the pej is dated to 150 ce. The date might be earlier
because, though the work does include Synoptic references, there are no sub-
stantial Johannine references included.9 Additionally the author vaguely men-
tions that the pej was written after the death of Herod Agrippa. However, this
is dubious as this date is attested by a questionable source, the supposed
author James. The pej’s date ought to be no later than the latter half of the
second century due to apparent familiarity of the text by Origen, Clement of
Alexandria, and possibly Justin Martyr.10 It is possible that a Syrian origin for
the pej may contribute to its pseudo-ascetic nature, as proposed by Mary

8 Hillel I. Newman, ‘The Death of Jesus in Toledot Yeshu Literature’, The Journal of Theological
Studies 50 (1999) 62. There may have been charges among some Jews that Mary had
immoral relations with someone other than Joseph. Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra dubbed it “a
worldwide bestseller, at least unofficially” (Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra, ‘An Ancient List of
Christian Festivals in Toledot Yeshu: Polemics as Indication for Interaction’, Harvard
Theological Review 102/4 [2009] 484). The ty charges Mary with having immoral relations
with a soldier named Joseph Pantera (her true husband being Yohanan, who eventually
fled to Babylon) and gave birth to an illegitimate child who became a sorcerer. The ty
made its way throughout the medieval near east and seems to have influenced the tenth-
eleventh-century Islamic theologian Abd al-Ğabbār in his well known polemic Critique of
Christian Origins (Ernst Bammel, ‘Excerpts from a New Gospel?’, Novum Testamentum 10
(1968) 1-9).
The Cave of Treasures also speaks of Mary being called an adulteress by Jews (E.A.
Wallis Budge, The Book of the Cave of Treasures [London: The Religious Tract Society, 1927]
195).
9 The term ‘synoptic’ refers to the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke while the term
‘Johannine’ refers to matter dealing with material from the gospel of John.
Although the pej is drastically different from the canonical Gospel accounts, there are
some places where the pej seems to include canonical Gospel tradition: Annunciation
references (pej 11:1-3; Luke 1:28-38); the mention of Caesar Augustus’ decree (pej 17:1; Matt
2:1; Luke 2:1), elements from Elizabeth’s greeting to Mary (pej 12:2-3; Luke 1:41-56); Herod’s
search and attempt to kill the Christ-child (pej 21:2; Matt 2:1-16). References to John’s
Gospel seem to be lacking with the exception of a possible loose reference (pej 19:3; John
20:25).
10 Clement of Alexandria Stromata 7:4; Justin Martyr 1 Apol. 33 (cf. pej 11:3; both references
may be sharing the same conflation of Matt 1:20-21 and Luke 1:30-31); Origen Comm. Matt.
10:17.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 355-383

The Annunciation to Mary 359

Clayton.11 Egypt has been suggested as a possible place of origin and is sup-
ported by Greek papyri on which the pej was preserved. However other argu-
ments contending for an Egyptian origin seem less convincing.12
The pej has a broad and dynamic reception history.13 The earliest manu-
script of the pej is Bodmer V, a papyrus held in the Vatican. Dated to the first
half of the fourth century, the Greek text of Bodmer V bears the mark of signifi-
cant revision suggesting that the pej underwent considerable development
since the second century.14 Without extent textual evidence preceding the
fourth century, it is difficult to assert how extensive this development is.

11 Mary Clayton, The Apocryphal Gospels of Mary in Anglo-Saxon England (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1998) 12. Clayton writes, “In Syria there were constant con-
tacts between Jews and Christians, and the way in which Mary’s relationship with Joseph
is described makes her very similar to the uirgines subintroductae who were common in
Syria. These were women who, in the period when there were yet no monasteries, took
refuge in the houses of male ascetics in order to live as virgins.”
12 Stryker points out certain parts of the pej where certain Greek grammar is without paral-
lel and in light of such odd occurrences suggests a Bohairic Vorlage upon which the Greek
text is dependent (Émile de Stryker, La forme la plus ancienne du Protévangile de Jacques
[Brussells: Société des Bollandistes, 1961] 423). The weakness of Stryker’s view is that it
can only be supported by internal evidence. There is no external evidence of early extant
Bohairic manuscripts that could be this plausible Vorlage for the Greek version.
13 Traces of the pej seem to have made their way into Persian versions of Tatian’s Diatessaron,
a single work from the mid-second century that combines large portions of the four
canonical Gospels to produce a gospel harmony (Messina, ‘Lezioni Apocrife nel
Diatessaron Persiano’, Biblica 30 (1949) 10-27; Bruce M. Metzger, ‘Tatian’s Diatessaron and
a Persian Harmony of the Gospels’, Journal of Biblical Literature 69/3 (1950) 267, n. 20;
Peter Joose, ‘An Introduction to the So-Called Persian Diatessaron of Iwannis Izz Din of
Tabriz: The Testimony of John 2:1-11 (The Wedding at Cana)’, Oriens Christianus 86 (2002)
13-45).
This could be significant for its dissemination in the Near East as the Diatessaron was
extremely popular in Eastern churches, though banned officially in the first half of the
fifth-century by Rabulla of Edessa (John F. Healey, ‘Rabbūlā’, The Blackwell Dictionary of
Eastern Christianity). The portions of the pej entered into the Persian Diatessaron attests
to the pej’s transference across borders in the Near East.
14 Clayton, The Apocryphal Gospels of Mary, 11.
Stryker attests that the Bodmer V papyrus underwent revision, particularly a shorten-
ing process (Stryker, La forme, 377-92).
Bodmer V is published by Michel Testuz in Papyrus Bodmer V: Nativité de Marie
(Cologny-Geneva: Bibliotheca Boderiana, 1958).

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 355-383

360 Reck

Over one-hundred and fifty manuscripts15 are known to exist in a wide array
of forms and languages including Greek (as early as the fourth century),16
Syriac (fifth century),17 Ethiopic (thirteenth and fifteenth centuries),18 Coptic
(tenth-eleventh centuries),19 Georgian (seventh century),20 Armenian (two
complete manuscripts from the fifteenth-sixteenth centuries; one fragmentary
manuscript ca. twelfth-thirteenth centuries),21 Arabic (tenth century),22
Latin,23 and even Irish.24
The pej was significant not only among those in the East who favored the
account, but also among those who wished to do away with it. The Western
Church, while initially receiving the pej, had placed an official ban on the
pej along with several other apocryphal works in the Decretum Gelasianum
attributed to Pope Gelasius (492-96 ce).25 Though banned in the West, the pej

15 Elliott, Synopsis, xii.

16 Portions of the pej (13:1-23) are contained in fourth century papyri published by
Ermenegildo Pistelli in Pubblicazioni della Società Italiana per la Ricerca dei Papiri Greci e
Latini in Egitto (Florence: Società Italiana, 1912) 9-15.
17 A fifth century Syriac manuscript containing the pej and Transitus Mariae is published by
Agnes Smith Lewis in Apocrypha Syriaca: The Protevangelium Jacobi and Transitus Mariae
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902).
18 Portions of Codex Aethiopicus 53 (sixteenth century) and Codex Aethiopicus 131 (thir-
teenth century) are published by Marius Chaine, ed., “Liber Nativitatis Mariae”, in Corpus
Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 7 (Rome: Karolus de Luigi, 1909) 1-49.
19 Stryker, La forme, 363.
20 Gérard Garitte published portions of a Georgian codex from Saint Catherine’s monastery.
The manuscripts are dates to the late tenth century. Gérard Garitte, ‘Le “Protévangile de
Jacques’ en Géorgien”, Le Muséon 70 (1957) 233-65.
21 Stryker, La forme, 355-9.
22 Portions of twelfth century Arabic manuscripts of the pej (Codex Sinaiticus Arabica 535
and 556) are published by Gérard Garitte in ‘Protevangelii Iacobi: Versio Arabica
Antiquior’, Le Muséon 86 (1973) 377-396.
23 Widespread Latin witnesses are lacking due to the negative view of the pej among the
Western church. Elliott mentions that another reason is due to the pej’s teaching on
Joseph’s first marriage (J.K. Elliott, Apocryphal New Testament, 48).
Stryker mentions Latin manuscripts of the pej that are reasonably datable to 800 ce
(Émile de Stryker, ‘Une Ancienne Version Latine du Protévangile de Jacques’, Analecta
Bollandiana 83 (1965) 365-410, see especially 383.
24 Clayton, The Apocryphal Gospels of Mary, 11.
Martin McNamara provides that the portions of the pej are preserved in an Irish work
known as Leabhar Breac. He argues that the pej was known in the twelfth century and
possibly the ninth century (Martin McNamara, The Apocrypha in the Irish Church [Dublin:
Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1984] 46-7).
25 The pej was condemned by Jerome, Popes Damasus, and Innocent I before the Decretum
Gelasianum (Cullmann, ‘Infancy Gospels’, 418).

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 355-383

The Annunciation to Mary 361

was reworked into the subsequent Gospel of Pseudo Matthew.26 The gpm
contains much material from the pej, but also adds additional narrative such
as the Christ-child commanding a palm tree to bow its branch and provide
food for Mary.
The gpm held a strong influence over Western Christian art. In the ninth
century, Leo III commissioned the entire story involving Joachim and Anna
(Mary’s parents according to the pej) to be depicted in St. Paul’s church in
Rome.27 The gpm even influenced the lyrics of the late medieval song The
Cherry Tree Carol. However, it does not seem to have carried the same weight
of influence in both the West and East as its predecessor. Despite its eventual
rejection in the West, the pej’s influence flourished in the East, evident par-
ticularly in artistic renderings and numismatics, some of which will be men-
tioned below. Such visual presentations of pej scenes suggest that portions of
the pej traversed the late antique world in ways other than by textual means.
It is difficult to overstate the influence that the pej has carried. It is clear
that the pej has held a consistent and prolonged influence on the Eastern
Church. Unlike in the Western Church, the pej was never banned in the East.28
Eastern Church liturgy incorporated elements of the pej as it was read every
year on September eighth when the Feast of the Birth of the Virgin was cele-
brated. Even in homiletic manuscripts of James of Kokkinobaphos there are
references to Mary receiving bread from an angel in the Temple as occurs in
the pej.29 Numerous other feasts based upon the pej were held annually to
honor Mary: the Feast of the Birth of the Virgin, the Feast of Mary’s Nativity,
and the Feast of the Presentation of the Virgin.

26 Ibid. Hereafter, gpm.

The pej also became the base for other subsequent works such as the Arabic Infancy
Gospel and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, 101).
27 Ibid.
The gpm influenced other works of art in the West. For example, the presentation of
the young Virgin Mary (mentioned in both the pej and gpm) is illustrated in a Roman
Book of Hours dating from the third quarter of the fifteenth-century (Janet Backhouse,
Illumination from Books of Hours (London: The British Library, 2004) 92).
Another scene that occurs in both the pej and gpm appears in a Florentine Book of
Hours. In it there is a depiction of Joachim and Anna’s embrace after the announcement
of Anna’s ability to conceive (ibid., 47).
28 Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, 48; Cullmann, ‘Infancy Gospels’, 425.
29 Two manuscripts of homiletic sermons of James of Kokkinobaphos that were commis-
sioned during the twelfth century (Ms. Vatican BAV gr. 1162; Ms. Paris BNF gr. 1208) contain
rich illuminations of scenes from the pej. The manuscripts are covered by Kallirroe
Linardou in ‘The Kokkinobaphos Manuscripts Revisited: The Internal Evidence of the
Books’, Scriptorium 61/2 (2007) 384-407.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 355-383

362 Reck

Other liturgical references occur in the East. Recently, Stephen Emmel pub-
lished the literary works of Abba Shenoute of Atripe (348-466 ce), the archi-
mandrite of the White Monastery in Sohag.30 In the published Coptic liturgical
material the influence of the pej is clear. References to the pej also appear in
Syriac31 and Ethiopic liturgies. Ethiopian Christians received from Coptic
Christians the fourteen Anaphoras that eventually came to comprise the
Anaphora of Saint Mary, celebrated on the feast days of Saint Mary, the day
before Christmas, and the Annunciation’s memorial day. Within the liturgy are
several verses that reference portions of the pej.32
The pej’s influence on Byzantine artwork is considerable. Several Christian
sites portray narrative elements from the pej. For example, the Chora
Monastery near modern day Istanbul, which portrays numerous scenes from
the pej on its interior walls; the Hagia Sophia in Kiev, which depicts narrated
events from the pej on its exterior walls. Additionally, on a ciborium in Saint
Mark’s Basilica in Venice there is a series of scenes from the pej that include
the infancies of Mary and Jesus. Cornelia Horn comments that the ciborium is
an oriental work dating from the sixth century, having been brought to the
West from Constantinople in 1204 ce.33
Additionally, Byzantine numismatics reflect the pej’s influence. A medal-
lion likely belonging to a pilgrim in the fifth century depicts a scene from the
pej on its face, showing Mary drawing water at the time of the Annunciation
(pej 11:1).34 Its inscription reads: ΧΕΡΕ ΚΕΧΑΡΙΤΟΜΗΝΙ.35 Additionally, Van

30 Stephen Emmel, Shenoute’s Literary Corpus, I (Leuven: Peeters, 2004) 376-8.

31 Marx, ‘Glimpses’, 542-61.
32 See Marcos Daoud, trans., The Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church (London: Kegan Paul, 2005)
108.
The reception of the pej among Abyssinian Christians is evident not only by its influ-
ence on Ethiopic liturgy. Several manuscripts of the pej as well as commentaries, both
written in the Gəʿəz language (early Ethiopic), contain names for the Magi that occur in
Gəʿəz copies of the pej, but not its Greek or Syriac copies (Roger W. Cowley, Ethiopian
Biblical Interpretation: a Study in Exegetical Tradition and Hermeneutics [Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1988)] 47).
33 Cornelia B. Horn, ‘Intersections: The Reception History of the Protevangelium of James in
Sources from the Christian East and the Qurʾān’, Apocrypha 17 (2006) 145-6; Jacqueline
Lafontaine-Dosogne, Iconographie de l’Enfance de la Vierge dans l’Empire Byzantin et en
Occident (Brussels: Académie Royale de Belgique, 1992) 35, plate 1.
34 A print of the medallion and a brief note on its character are published by André Grabbar
(André Grabbar, Ampoules de Terre Sainte [Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck, 1958] 31).
35 Ann van Dyck, ‘The Angelic Salutation in Early Byzantine and Medieval Annunciation
Imagery’, The Art Bulletin 81/3 (1999) 430.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 355-383

The Annunciation to Mary 363

Dyck describes an ampulla with several scenes inscribed on it, one displaying
an angel, Mary, and a basket of wool at her feet, likely referring to the wool used
by Mary to make the curtain for the Temple (pej 10:2).36 These non-textual
attestations to the pej’s wide popularity inform us that the pej’s influence was
not limited to the spread of textual copies of the pej, but its material was ver-
bally referenced via liturgy and visually communicated via art and numismat-
ics. This remarkable transmission will have bearing on the present article as it
transitions to observing the pej’s permeability in not only a Western environ-
ment but also the oral milieu of Arabia.

II The Qurʾānic Reception of the pej’s Annunciation

The Annunciation to Mary in Q. 3:42-7

That Mary is a woman highly honored in the Qurʾān is clear as she is the only
woman in the Qurʾān to be addressed directly by name. The very title of Q. 19,
Maryam, is named after Mary, indicating a high regard for the Qurʾānic Virgin
Mother. Her status is even attested to by her prominence in the Qurʾān as she
is mentioned more often than her son. Considering Mary’s veneration in the
Qurʾān, it is not surprising that controversy would arise over competing inter-
pretations regarding Mary and the Annunciation account.
A polemical tone is apparent in the presentation of the pej’s Annunciation
in Q. 3:42-7 and certainly is not limited to the passage, but seems to reverberate
throughout Q. 3 (further coverage of Q. 3’s polemical passsages will occur later
in this article). In particular, Christology and Mariology were two points of
contention that needed to be rectified. It is likely that in an environment where
proto-Muslims, Jews, and Christians interacted, Mary became a popular topic
in discussion. While Christians held Mary to be the Theotokos, some Jews con-
tended that Mary had immoral relations with Joseph during their betrothal.37
Both perspectives are incongruent with Qurʾānic testimony. The Qurʾān is ada-
mant that God has no son (Q. 4:171), while Mary is pristine. Loren Lybarger
explains, “. . . the Qurʾānic narration creates a polarization between Christians
who desire to overcome the implicit stigma [against Mary] of an out-of-
wedlock pregnancy by asserting divine paternity and Jews who maintain the

36 Ibid.
37 In Q. 4:156, the Jews were accused of rejecting the faith and slandering Mary. The long
sustained polemic, evident in the previously referenced Talmudic sources and the Toledot
Yeshu, may well have been present in the milieu of the proto-Muslim community.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 355-383

364 Reck

charge of illegitimacy”.38 Essentially, the Qurʾān seeks to validate the virgin

birth of Jesus (thus vindicating Mary amid claims of immorality), while simul-
taneously distancing itself from the Christian claims that Jesus is the Son of
God and Mary is the Theotokos.
Present in Q. 3 is a distinct proto-Muslim re-presentation of the pej’s
Annunciation, one which preserves Mary somewhat according to Christian
tradition while disassociating her with Joseph in order to preserve her pristine
character. This may reflect an initiative by the proto-Muslim community to
practice political compromise: in an effort to encourage the audience’s accep-
tance of the Qurʾānic message, Mary is appropriated in the Qurʾān in a manner
that would seek to make her immune to its interlocutors, thus preserving
Mary’s preeminence while also vindicating her against slander. This is evident
in the textual comparison between Q. 3:42-7 and the pej’s Annunciation, but
other approaches would help affirm this article’s claim. In the following, two
approaches—one touching upon the passage’s oral qualities and the other
regarding the political advantages to the Qurʾānic re-presentation of the pej’s
Annunciation—will be taken to complement this article’s claim that the pej’s
Annunciation is drawn upon in Q. 3:42-7.
The intent here will be to evaluate the pej’s Annunciation against the
Qurʾānic Annunciation, identifying the passage’s blend of discernible Christian
tradition and shaping.39 The Annunciation to Mary is presented in Q. 3:42-7 in
a way that echoes the pej as preserved in Christian tradition, while distin-
guishing itself as having a Qurʾānic identity. The following section will aim to
elucidate the strong connection between both the pej and Qurʾānic passages,
culminating in the claim that it is the pej’s Annunciation that is presented in
the Qurʾānic text. The two Annunciation accounts are presented here in the
following:

38 Loren D. Lybarger, ‘Gender and Prophetic Authority in the Qurʾānic Story of Maryam: A
Literary Approach’, The Journal of Religion 80/2 (2000) 250.
39 Other helpful studies on Christian tradition in the Qurʾān are: Suleiman A. Mourad, ‘Mary
in the Qurʾān: a Reexamination of Her Presentation’ in The Qurʾān in its Historical Context,
ed. Gabriel Said Reynolds (Abingdon: Routledge, 2003) 163-174; Suleiman A. Mourad,
‘From Hellenism to Christianity and Islam: The origin of the palm tree story concerning
Mary and Jesus in the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew and the Qurʾān’, Oriens Christianus 85
(2002) 206-16; Neil Robinson, Christ in Islam and Christianity (Albany: State University of
New York Press, 1991); Cornelia Horn, ‘Syriac and Arabic Perspectives on Structural and
Motif Parallels Regarding Jesus’ Childhood in Christian Apocrypha and Early Islamic
Literature: the “Book of Mary” ’, the Arabic Apocryphal Gospel of John and the Qu’ran”,
Apocrypha 19 (2008) 267-91.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 355-383

 The Annunciation to Mary 365

pej 11:1-340 Q. 3:42-7

11.1. And she took the pitcher and went
forth to draw water, and behold, a voice
said: “Hail, thou that art highly favoured,
the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou
among women.” And she looked around
on the right and on the left to see whence
this voice came. And trembling she went
to her house and put down the pitcher
and took the purple and sat down on her
seat and drew out (the thread).
11.2. And behold an angel of the Lord
(suddenly) stood before her and said:
“Do not fear, Mary; for you have found
grace before the Lord of all things and
shall conceive of his Word.” When she
heard this she doubted in herself and said:
“Shall I conceive of the Lord, the living
God, [and bear] as ever woman bears?”
11.3. And the angel of the Lord came and
said to her: “Not so, Mary; for a power of
the Lord shall overshadow you; wherefore
also that holy thing which is born of you
shall be called the Son of the Highest.
And you shall call his name Jesus; for he
shall save his people from their sins.”
And Mary said: “Behold, (I am) the
handmaid of the Lord before him: be it
to me according to your word.”
4041
3.42. And when (or, behold), the angels said,
“O Mary, indeed Allah has chosen you and
purified you. He has purified you above the
women of the nations.”
3.43. “Oh Mary, worship your Lord and
prostrate with those who prostrate.”
3.44. That which is from the tidings of the
unseen that We reveal to you: you were not
with them when they cast rods to see which
of them should take charge of Mary, you were
not with them when they disputed.
3.45. And when (or, behold) the angels said,
“Oh Mary, indeed Allah has given to you glad
tidings of a Word from him, Christ41 Jesus, the
son of Mary, and honored in the present
world and the world to come and with those
who are near [to God].
3.46. And he will speak to the people in
childhood and maturity. He will be among the
righteous.
3.47. And she (Mary) said, “Lord, how will I
conceive a son when no man has touched
me?” And he said, “So it is for you, Allah
creates what he wills. When He decrees a
matter, He says to it, ‘Be!’ and it is.”

40 This translation is provided by Oscar Cullmann in New Testament Apocrypha (ed. Wilhem
Schneemelcher, Lousville, ky: Westminster/John Knox, 1991) 429-431. All parentheses are
from Cullmann’s translation.
41 Christ (al-Mesihu) should not be assumed to mean Christ in a Christian salvific sense. The
Qurʾānic title Christ indicates only an anointed status and is divorced from most Judeo-
Christian connotations. The Qurʾān’s reference to Messiah refers more to an honored fig-
ure (Andrew Rippin, ‘Anointing’, Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān).

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 355-383

366 Reck

What are some identifying features of the Qurʾānic passage that would suggest
that the pej is echoed? Is it possible that Q. 3:42-7 is also drawing upon some
other strand of Christian tradition (such as the gpm or the Arabic Infancy
Gospel) or even some blend of several strands? It would seem too simplistic to
assert that the pej is the only discernible element of Christian tradition in the
entire passage. Bearing in mind the oral quality of the Qurʾān, consideration
should be given for loose shaping and even blending of various material. There
seems to be in Q. 3 some degree of awareness of canonical gospel material.
Consider the reference to Zechariah in the Q. 3:38-41 where an angel foretells
the birth of his son John (Yaḥyā) and then rebukes Zechariah for asking that
the angel provide a sign as proof. No other infancy gospel pairs this material
with the birth of Jesus, but rather it is unique to the Gospel of Luke (Lk 1:8-23).
This would not be the only part of Q. 3 that betrays an awareness of distinct
canonical gospel narrative. There is a close parallel to Lk 1:46-55 (Mary’s
Magnificat) with Q. 3:26: “Say: ‘O Allah, master of the kingdom, you give king-
ship to whom you please, and you take away the kingship from whom you
please. You exalt whom you please and you humble whom you please. In your
hand is all good. Indeed, over all things you have power’ ”. On this, Angelika
Neuwirth writes, “. . . the revolutionary words that in Christianity belong to
Mary, have become in the Qurʾān the Prophet’s motto who, with the promulga-
tion of this text, daringly attaches his cause to a seemingly powerless, though
historically no less significant agency”.42 Additionally, Elizabeth’s exclamation
over Mary in Lk 1:42 (“Blessed are you among women . . .”) may be attributed to
Mary in Q. 3:42.43 Based on these references, one might ask how it is that
Q. 3:42-7 is referencing the pej’s Annunciation and not the Annunciation
found in Luke 1:26-38. Of course both Annunciation accounts presented bear

42 Angelika Neuwirth, ‘The House of Abraham and the House of Amram’, in The Qurʾān in
Context, ed. Angelika Neuwirth, Nicolai Sinai, and Michael Marx (Leiden: Brill, 2010) 528.
Neuwirth also provides parallels between the Qurʾān and Gospel tradition that seem ten-
uous. For example, the Lord’s Prayer and Q. 3 16-17 (Angelika Neuwirth, ‘Mary and Jesus—
Counterbalancing the Biblical Partriarchs’, Parole de l’Orient 30 [2005] 242).
43 Other references to Gospel tradition have been presented. For example, Andrew Rippin
has done much to explain the proverbial saying in Q. 7:40 which parallels Jesus’ warning
to the rich of the difficultly of entering into the kingdom of Heaven, as difficult as a camel
passing through the eye of a needle (Matt 19, 24; Mark 10, 25; Luke 18, 25). Andrew Rippin,
‘Qurʾān 7.40: “Until the camel passes through the eye of the needle”’, Arabica 27 (1980)
107-13.
Also, Jan Van Reeth argues that Q. 48:29 amalgamates two pericopes from Matt 13:23
and Mark 4:26-27, a reading found in a Middle Dutch Diatessaron manuscript (Jan M.F.
Van Reeth, ‘L’Évangile du Prophète’, Acta Orientalia Belgica [2004] 161-2).

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 355-383

The Annunciation to Mary 367

similarity to others, canonical and non-canonical (i.e., an angelic messenger

speaks to Mary and foretells the birth of Jesus and of the significant figure he
will be; Mary responds at first with questioning but is assured by the angel that
by God’s power she will conceive).
Yet, alongside this apparent canonical material, Q. 3:42-7 and verses near it
exhibit elements that point to a drawing from the pej narrative. For example,
one distinguishing mark that the pej’s Annunciation is referenced is the angel’s
foretelling of Mary conceiving the Word (pej 11:2; Q. 3:45). No such reference to
Mary bearing the Word occurs in any canonical account. Also, between Q. 3:35-
37 are strong references to certain figures and events portrayed in the pej.
Mary’s mother44 is referred to in Q. 3:35 as “the woman of Imran”, Imran being
the equivalent to Amram, Moses’ father mentioned in Exod 6:20. This serves to
connect Mary to the lineage of Moses and to establish the grounds for a signifi-
cant typological connection (a matter later covered in this article). In both the
pej and the Qurʾān, Mary’s mother commits her then unborn child to Temple
service (pej 4:1; Q. 3:35). The child (Mary) is later presented in the Temple (pej
7:1-3; Q. 3:37). The high priest Zechariah is mentioned (pej 8:3; Q. 3:37) as is the
sustenance given to Mary in the Temple from a divine source (pej 8:1; Q. 3:37).
The references to specific persons, the Temple, and significant events are not
found grouped together in any other infancy gospel narratives except the gpm,
which seems to have been limited to the Latin West and bore no signs of tex-
tual provenance in the East.
However, the Qurʾānic passage is not without its dissimilarities with the pej.
It bears a close resemblance to the pej’s form, but bears slight differences that
betray a new proto-Muslim identity given to the Annunciation. A specific
example is seen in the speech of the angel to Mary. The angel repeatedly
addresses Mary with the Arabic vocative: yā Maryamu. In Q. 3:45, the angel’s
title attributed to Jesus also differs with the pej. Whereas the angel refers to
Jesus as “Son of the Highest” in the pej (11:3), the Qurʾān depicts the angel refer-
ring to him as “Jesus, the Son of Mary”.45 This may be the result of a modifica-
tion of the Christian attribution of Jesus as the Son of God, contributing to a
polemical thrust in the passage. It may also be the result of compromise stem-
ming from debates among interlocutors, the proto-Muslims intending for the

44 Mary’s mother is unnamed in the Qurʾān. The pej (and wider Christian tradition) calls her
Anna.
45 This is similar to the re-presentation of Jesus’ title from the Arabic Infancy Gospel (AIG):
“I am Jesus, the Son of God”, which in the Qurʾān occurs as “I [Jesus] am indeed a servant
of God” (Q. 19:30).

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 355-383

368 Reck

Qurʾānic testimony to be accepted by its audience.46 Likewise, Mary’s dialogue

with the angel is narrated in a way that emphasizes her piety. Her prostration
in prayer as one of the faithful serves the same purpose (Q. 3:43). No such locu-
tion involving vocative phrasing or prostration in prayer is present in the pej’s
Annunciation account.
The reference to the casting of rods in Q. 3:44 also contributes to the claim
that the pej’s narrative is drawn from in Q. 3:42-7. This obscure reference bears
much significance not only because it identifies the Qurʾānic passage as echo-
ing the pej narrative, but also because it aides in the elucidation of the pas-
sage’s polemical milieu. To briefly summarize the rod-event as it occurs in the
pej (pej 9:1), the account begins as the priest Zechariah set out to find a care-
taker for Mary, having made a call for all widowers in Judea to carry their rods
and assemble at the Temple. Joseph, a widower and considerably older than
Mary, arrived at the Temple. In a ceremony held to determine Mary’s caretaker,
Joseph contributed his rod among the other widowers and was divinely cho-
sen, indicated by a dove that descended upon Joseph’s head.47
A significant difference between the pej and the Qurʾān is observed in the
break caused by the rod-event reference in the Qurʾān’s Annunciation
sequence: the choosing of the rods occurs in Q. 3:44, placed in the middle of the
Annunciation passage.48 In the pej, there are no such references to the rod-
event within the Annunciation between the angel and Mary. Rather, there is
distance between the two: the rod-event occurs in pej 9, while Mary’s
Annunciation occurs in pej 11. An ambiguous quality is also associated with
the rod-event in Q. 3:44, the event being part of the “tidings of the unseen.”
Despite the ambiguity, the account is given status as revelation suggesting to
Muḥammad49 and the Qurʾānic audience its trustworthiness.50 Such ambigu-

46 Michael Marx, ‘Glimpses of a Mariology in the Qurʾan’, in The Qurʾān in Context, ed.
Angelika Neuwirth, Nicolai Sinai, and Michael Marx (Leiden: Brill, 2010) 559.
47 This may be related to the dove descending upon Jesus at his baptism, signaling Jesus’
divine significance.
48 The Arabic term aqlam (pl., translated here as “rods”) may stem from the Syriac qalma,
which is rooted in the Greek term kalamos (“reed”) (Gabriel Said Reynolds, The Qurʾān
and its Biblical Subtext [London: Routledge, 2010] 143). It may be rooted in Ethiopic, hav-
ing made its way into Arabic through Southern Arabia as it appears in some South Arabian
poetry and inscriptions (Arthur Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qurʾān [Baroda,
Oriental Institute, 1938: reprint: Brill, 2007] 243).
49 Admittedly, this article is assuming that Muḥammad is the individual to whom the verse
is making the second person reference to.
50 By ‘audience’ this article is referring to those (proto-Muslim, Jew, and Christian) present
during the early developments of Islam who listened to the oral recitation of the Qurʾān
before it became crystallized in its textual form.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 355-383

The Annunciation to Mary 369

ity of “the unseen” surrounding the rod-event may be referring back to Q. 3’s
prologue where ambiguity surrounding Mary was presented sub-textually via
feminine terminology, a matter that will be examined later in this article.
Despite the statement’s affirmation that there can be no re-visitation to the
event, no clarification follows as to the Qurʾān’s view of the rod-event’s out-
come.51 The point that the verse seems to make is that neither Muḥammad nor
the audience knows since no one among the Qurʾān’s audience served as eye-
witnesses to the event. The Qurʾān seems comfortable to leave the verse ambig-
uous and claims that the ambiguity is divinely revealed.52
In light of the reference to the rod-event, it is also curious why Joseph is
never mentioned in the Qurʾānic passage. Joseph’s absence from the Qurʾānic
narrative contributes to the new identity of the Qurʾānic Annunciation and
elucidates the controversy within the polemical setting of Q. 3:42-7 that
stemmed from polemical charges against Mary’s character.53 As Mary’s
betrothed, Joseph is a key figure in Biblical narrative and Christian tradition,
particularly in the pej. However, there is no mention in the Qurʾān of Joseph.54
Although the pej is echoed in Q. 3:42-7, it is curious why such a premier figure
from the pej should be missing in the Qurʾānic Annunciation. Additionally,
the salient event from the pej involving Joseph’s selection as Mary’s caretaker

51 Ibn Isḥāq explains that the results of the rod-event were concealed from Joseph in an
attempt to manipulate the results of the event (Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad:
a Translation of Ibn Isḥāq’s Sirat Rasul Allah [Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2011] 275).
52 It seems that later Islamic commentators were not satisfied with Q. 3:44’s ambiguity.
Islamic tradition generally supports that the dispute occurred, yet the interpretations of
traditional commentators are conjectural. For example, Ibn Kaṯīr writes of disputers who
demanded a rematch, adding much additional detail to the account. The competitors
floated their rods in a river to see whose rod would swim against the current, Zechariah
being declared the winner (Ibn Kaṯīr, Stories of the Prophets [Riyadh: Dārussalām, 2003]
541).
53 Jewish polemical dispositions can be observed. Consider the previously mentioned
Talmudic references to Jesus’ attribution as “son of Pantera” the Roman soldier (Rab. Qoh
1:8; Ḥul. 2:22f) and to polemical accusations of Mary’s immorality (Sanh. 67a; Šabb. 104b).
54 Joseph is referred to by later commentators, reflecting an intention to clarify Q. 3:44 and
harmonize with Christian accounts: Ibn Isḥāq refers to Joseph as Ğurāğ, the ascetic car-
penter (Guillaume, Life, 275); Ibn Kaṯīr mentions Joseph but once, referring to him as
Jospeh b. Jacob An-Nağār. He is briefly referenced as Mary’s cousin to whom Mary made
mention of her pregnancy in secret (Ibn Kaṯīr, Stories of the Prophets, 549); Muḥammad b.
Abd Allāh al-Kisaʾi also references Joseph, writing of Mary sharing news of her pregnancy
which is followed by Joseph’s confusion at the situation. The account resembles more
canonical Gospel tradition than the pej: Joseph’s role as a carpenter, his comments to
Mary, and their flight to Egypt (Muḥammad b. Abd Allāh al-Kisaʾi, Tales of the Prophets,
trans. Wheeler M. Thakston Jr. [Chicago: Kazi, 1997] 328-30).

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 355-383

370 Reck

is but briefly referenced in Q. 3:44 and with notably less detail, lacking any
proper name so as to inform the reader to who is being referred.55
Also, Q. 3:37 presents Zechariah as the one chosen to be Mary’s caretaker, yet
it seems that the Qurʾān is purposefully telling the story of Mary’s childhood in
a way that subtly makes Zechariah’s role as caretaker unnecessary.56 Zechariah
was assigned as Mary’s caretaker, yet each time he entered her Temple resi-
dency he found her nurtured by divinely provided sustenence. The pej too
affirms that Mary received food from a divine source (pej 8:1), yet it lacks the
Qurʾān’s suggestion that Zechariah’s role as a caretaker was unneeded. The
Qurʾān may reflect the same toward Joseph: Joseph’s involvement is so unnec-
essary that he need not even be mentioned in the Qurʾānic text. A subtle ascetic
hint is present as no male figure is needed to be closely associated with Mary
because God sufficiently meets her needs.
Mary’s purity may have been perceived as having been threatened by
Joseph’s close proximity rendered in canonical Gospel accounts.57 Such con-
cern is not limited to the proto-Muslim community, but seems to have some
presence in Eastern Christianity.58 Considering polemical claims of immoral-
ity leveled by Jewish interlocutors, placing Joseph near Mary may have threat-
ened the testimony of the miraculous work of God as he spoke Jesus into
existence (Q. 3:47: idhā qaḍā amran fa-innamā yaqūlu lahu kun fayakūnu) as
well as portrayed a diminished view Jesus in light of Qurʾānic teaching that he
had no father. Contending for God alone as Mary’s childhood caretaker is cru-
cial for preserving a high view of Mary.
The lack of Joseph may be purposeful, encouraged by the political needs of
the proto-Muslim community and polemics. Amid pressure prompted by
Jewish interlocutors, the Qurʾān is seeking to correct Christological and
Mariological matters by vigorously defending (1) that Mary is pure and worthy
of reverence, (2) that Jesus is created by the word of God (and therefore no

55 The passage’s casual use of pronouns and its lack of explanation as to their antecedent
further attests to the Qurʾān’s expectation that its audience be familiar with the
Annunciation account according to the pej (Reynolds, Subtext, 234).
56 Such may also be the reason why Mary’s father Joachim (another key figure in the pej’s
narrative of Mary’s birth and childhood) is not mentioned in the Qurʾānic account.
57 The controversy in the canonical gospels involving Mary and Joseph is apparent as Jesus’
rejection was at times paired with negative associations between him and his parents
(Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3).
58 Distance created between Joseph and Mary may be reflective of Eastern Christian tradi-
tions. Arthur Vööbus identifies several ascetic emendations to the Liege Manuscript of
the Diatessaron (Arthur Vööbus, History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient: A Contribution
to the History of Culture in the Near East, Louvain, Secrétariat du Corpus, 1958, 42).

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 355-383

The Annunciation to Mary 371

physical procreation has occurred), and (3) that no immorality was present at
Jesus’ conception.

The Oral Circulation of the pej’s Annunciation

Not only does Q. 3:42-7 seem to be set in a polemical environment involving
both Jewish and Christian interlocutors, but it is proposed here that the pas-
sage betrays qualities of being orally circulated in the Qurʾānic milieu as “pro-
phetic logia”, becoming subsequently received into the Qurʾānic corpus and
later fixed in its crystallized text.59 Two particular qualities will be addressed
here: (1) the use of rhetorical device, and (2) the passage’s oral formulae.
The passage Q. 3:42-7 opens with a rhetorical device: the beginning phrase
wa-idh (“and behold” or “and when”) draws upon that which is already known
among the Qurʾānic audience.60 There is a subtle, yet implied imperative for
the audience to recall the account. The device is purposeful as it enhances
Qurʾānic self-referentiality to its own authority based on its asserted agree-
ment with prior revelation, the Annunciation as presented in Q. 19.61
The audience is prompted to remember what previously had been revealed
about the Annunciation to Mary in Q. 19.62 The Annunciation from Q. 19 echoes
the pej’s Annunciation to a high degree and is held by most scholars to have
preceded Q. 3. Like Q. 3, the Annunciation in Q. 19 is polemically presented as

59 John Wansbrough’s phrase “prophetic logia” from his work Quranic Studies is employed in
this article to refer to the form of the Qurʾān’s contents before its canonization (John
Wansbrough, Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation [Amherst:
Prometheus Books, 2004]). Wansbrough defines prophetic logia as repeated pericopies
that are unified by means of rhetorical conventions “whose formulation exhibits a num-
ber of recognizable literary types” (Ibid., 47). Prophetic logia functions similarly to what is
known in New Testament studies as Jesus tradition, or Jesus sayings. It is viewed here as a
body of oral literature that is received and preserved within a community. Where
Wansbrough’s notion is deviated from in this article occurs over the issue of when the
Qurʾān became canonized. Wansbrough held to the prophetic logia becoming canonized
far beyond Islam’s nascent years, while here it is affirmed that such logia became incorpo-
rated far earlier into the Qurʾān’s crystallized text.
60 Lybarger, ‘Gender and Prophetic Authority’, 252.
61 Ibid.
Wansbrough supports the imperatival nuance given to idh along with interrogative
and simple declarative functions when used as a rhetorical device (Wansbrough, Quranic
Studies, 19).
62 The Qurʾān seems to recognize its own function as a reminder for its audience. Q. 38:1:
“The Qurʾān is the reminder” (wa-l-qurʾāni dhī l-dhikri). The same surah closes with a simi-
lar statement: “This is nothing but a reminder (dhikr) to the worlds”. This is pointed out by
Gabriel Reynolds, Subtext, 235.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 355-383

372 Reck

the true account of Jesus’ birth against competing interpretations and disput-
ers (cf. Q. 19:34ff). The numerous references within Q. 19 to the scandalous idea
of God begetting a son suggests that it is largely directed toward proponents of
orthodox Christology or what the Qurʾān refers to as “a people given to conten-
tion” (Q. 19:97). The unit also sustains an eschatological expectation of the Last
Day when all will be raised and judged, the descriptions of various faithful
individuals (Zechariah, Mary, Jesus, Abraham, Moses, and Idris63) exhibiting
this expectation and the proper piety and obedience that is to complement
such expectation. The homiletic unfolding of each seems to emphasize the
ideal disposition of a believer in contrast to the contentious character of the
disputers in the Qurʾānic audience. The different occasions (and possibly loca-
tions) in which Q. 3 and Q. 19 were revealed are important to consider as they
suggest polemical discourses to have occurred in multiple settings. The polem-
ical interactions between proto-Muslims and their interlocutors provide occa-
sions of dialogue and debate during which the Annunciation account would
have been orally transmitted. Also, if Q. 19 was in fact revealed in Mecca, while
Q. 3 was likely revealed in Medina, the distance in both geography and chro-
nology within Muḥammad’s career allows for further development and shap-
ing of the Annunciation account in Q. 3.
In the process of the Annunciation becoming adopted into the Qurʾānic
corpus, a development occurred in which the Annunciation’s function shifted
from its role within Christian tradition as a gospel narrative affirming Mary’s
Immaculate Conception and perpetual virginity to fulfill the role of a polemic
vindicating the same, yet from the Qurʾānic perspective. This transcendence
across cultural-geographic boundaries (i.e., the pej’s penetration into early
seventh-century Arabia) is described by Reuven Firestone as the fluid nature
of oral literature: “The fluid nature of oral literature therefore lends itself to
adaptation to its naturally changing cultural environment . . . One could pre-
dict that Biblicist legends transplanted into Arabian clime would naturally
bend and evolve into new forms as they were told and retold under the influ-
ence of new geographic and cultural surroundings.”64
The pej’s Annunciation passed from one cultural milieu to another, devel-
oping an identity as Qurʾānic tradition while serving a different function in its
new environment. Whereas the pej affirms Mary’s role as Virgin Mother and

63 Part of the prophetic line in the Qurʾān, Idris is twice mentioned in the Qurʾānic text
(Q. 19:56-7 and 21:85-86) and is considered to have ascended into Heaven similar to Enoch
or Elijah in Judeo-Christian tradition.
64 Reuven Firestone, Journeys in Holy Lands: The Evolution of the Abraham-Ishmael Legends
in Islamic Exegesis (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990) 16.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 355-383

The Annunciation to Mary 373

her conception of the “Son of the Highest” (pej 11:3), the Qurʾānic account
seeks to vindicate Mary against slander and resolve Christological error. In
addition to the use of rhetorical device and the shaping of the Annunciation’s
new identity, Q. 3:42-7 also contains markers that identify the passage as hav-
ing an oral quality. The frequency of certain formulae in the Qurʾān suggests
the passage as having the character as prophetic logia circulating the Qurʾānic
milieu, logia that prefigured the Qurʾān’s canonized form.65
Repeated formulae are important to consider when seeking understanding
of a text’s function in an oral environment. What is also important is when
larger groups of similar formulae can be grouped in common oral themes.
Robert Culley describes themes as typical scenes or stock descriptions.66
Essentially, oral themes contain oft-repeated formulae that are purposefully
implemented in certain contexts. One formula in Q. 3:47 (and its derivations)
occurs several times in the Qurʾān: “When He decrees a matter, He says to it,
‘Be!’ and it is”. The formula seems to occur in polemical contexts that empha-
size God’s sovereign ability to speak life into existence (Q. 40:68), particularly
at the final resurrection (Q. 6:73; 16:40; 36:82). Of interest here are three polemi-
cal occurrences in which the formula is associated with Jesus:

Q. 2:117: “The originator of the heavens and earth. When He decrees a

matter, He says to it, ‘Be!’ and it is”.
badīʿu l-samawati wa-l-arḍi wa-idhā qaḍā amran fa-innamā
yaqūlu lahu kun fayakūnu
Q. 3:47: “. . . Allah creates what He wills: When He decrees a matter, He
says to it, ‘Be!’ and it is”.
l-lāhu yakhluqu mā yashāu idhā qaḍā amran fa-innamā yaqūlu
lahu kun fayakūnu
Q. 19:35: “It is not befitting to God that He should beget a son. Glory be
to Him! When He decrees a matter, He says to it, ‘Be!’ and it is”.
mā kāna li-llāhi an yattakhidha min waladin subʾḥānahu idhā
qaḍā amran fa-innamā yaqūlu lahu kun fayakūnu

65 Wansbrough mentions that the uniform distribution and frequency of oral formulae may
indicate oral transmission and oral composition (Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, 48).
66 Robert Culley, Oral Formulaic Language in the Biblical Psalms (Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1967) 16.
Alfred Lord, a noted pioneer in oral formulaic theory, defines theme as: “. . . a recurrent
element of narration or description in traditional oral poetry” (Alfred Lord, ‘Composition
by Theme in Homer and Southslavic Epos’, Transactions and Proceedings of the American
Philological Association 82 [1951] 73).

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 355-383

374 Reck

In their contexts, Q. 2:117 and Q. 19:35 argue emphatically against teaching that
God has a son. The formula mentioned here is the response given to orthodox
Christology. The Qurʾān is quite clear: God has no offspring. Accordingly, God
does not lower himself to human procreation, but rather everything that He
creates is spoken into existence by divine fiat. The occurrences of the formula
in Q. 2:117 and Q. 19:35 are significant in light of Q. 3:42-7. The formula is
repeated in these similar scenarios where correction of Christology suggests
the existence of a similar intent between Q. 2:117, 3:47, and 19:35, each contrib-
uting to a wider theme shared by other polemical occurrences of the formula
in the Qurʾān (Q. 6:73; 16:40; 36:82; 40:68).
It may be that Q. 3:47 is a repetition resulting from the passage being a re-
presentation of Q. 19. However, the formula occurring in Q. 19:35 is not deliv-
ered in the angel’s address to Mary as in Q. 3:47, but rather in a direct reprimand
by the narrator against Christian orthodoxy. The formula’s recurrence in these
passages suggests that an oral theme is established that does not merely recall
God’s sovereignty and creative ability, but serves as a rebuke against orthodox
Christological claims. Angelika Neuwirth refers to this sort of formula as a
cadenza which serves to transcend the narrative, introducing a meta-narrative
discourse. A cadenza can be used to introduce a variety of meta-narrative dis-
courses: a moral argument (Q. 12:88), the expression of divine approval or dis-
approval (Q. 12:29) or the communication of God’s attributes (Q. 17:1).67 In a
similar way, the formula in Q. 3:47 moves beyond the Annunciation narrative
and connects the passage to the Qurʾān’s Christological position expressed in
the overarching meta-narrative which contends that Jesus was not created by
mere physical means, but by the word of God. Additionally, the same formula
occurs shortly after Q. 3:42-7, where Q. 3:59 pairs Jesus and Adam: “The likeness
of Jesus before Allah is like that of Adam; He created him [Adam] from dust,
then said to him: ‘Be!’ And he was”. In the passage is an abbreviated form of the
formula found in Q. 2:117, 3:47, and 19:35. Both Adam and Jesus share key fea-
tures unique to them only in the Qurʾān: both have no human father and were
created beings, brought about by divine fiat (“Be!”). Again, a connection is
made between the aforementioned formula and an objective claim involving
Jesus’ nature as a human being created by God’s word, emphasizing that Jesus
has no father. The polemical undertone in Q. 3’s context is evident as the Qurʾān
seeks to assert that Jesus was created by God’s word, implying that no act of
immorality was present in the Annunciation so as to taint Mary’s character.

67 Angelika Neuwirth, ‘Qurʾan and History—A Disputed Relationshi Some Reflections on

Qur’anic History and History in the Qurʾan’, Journal of Qur’anic Studies 5 [2003] 12.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 355-383

The Annunciation to Mary 375

In addition to repeated formulae, patterns should be considered when

evaluating a text’s oral quality. Repeated patterns of material may suggest a
recasting of material in a way that serves various purposes (i.e., mnemonic
aid). One can observe a distinct formulaic pattern among three Annunciation
accounts in the Qurʾān (the Annunciations to Mary: Q. 3:42-7; 19:17-21; the
Annunciation to Sarah: 11:69-73). This pattern occurs where angelic commis-
sion is followed by a woman’s response, then a delivery of the divine message,
followed by another response from the woman, and concluding with a doxo-
logical formula.68 Note the sequential pattern between the three Annunciation
accounts in Table 1:

Table 1 Qurʾānic Annunciation passages exhibiting form and typological correspondence.

Q. 3 Q. 11 Q. 19

Commission And when (behold), “And certainly Our “. . . We sent her our
the angels said, “O messengers came to Spirit and he assumed
Mary! Indeed Allah Abraham with good for her the likeness of a
has chosen you and news. They said, well-proportioned
purified you. He has ‘Peace’. He answered, man” (Q. 19:17).
purified you above ‘Peace’ and hastened
the women of the to bring a roasted
nations. O Mary! calf . . .” (Q. 11:69).
Worship your Lord
and prostrate with
those who prostrate”
(Q. 3:42-43).
(Continued)

68 Wansbrough was the first to identify a similar, less detailed pattern to Q. 19. He broke
down the Annunciation as commission (Q. 19:17), delivery (Q. 19:19), and message
(Q. 19:21) (Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, 12). He did not apply the pattern to other
Annunciation accounts. Wansbrough identified the Annunciation in Q. 19 as messenger
speech based upon Claus Westermann’s work on messenger formulae in ot prophetic
speech (Claus Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, trans. Hugh Clayton White
[Louisville: Westminster, 1991] 100-15).

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 355-383

376 Reck

Table 1 (Continued)

Q. 3 Q. 11 Q. 19

Response That which is from “. . . And his wife [Mary] said: “I seek
the tidings of the [Sarah] was standing refuge to Allah Most
unseen that We there and she Gracious from you,
reveal to you: you laughed . . .” if you fear Allah”
were not with them (Q. 11:71A). (Q. 19:18).
when they cast lots
to see which of them
should take charge
of Mary, you were
not with them
when they disputed
(Q. 3:44).

Delivery And when (behold) “. . . then we gave [The angel] said: “No, I
the angels said, “O [Sarah] good news of am only a messenger
Mary! Indeed Allah Isaac, and after Isaac, from your Lord, to give
has given to you glad of Jacob” (Q. 11:71B). to you the gift of a pure
tidings of a Word son (Q. 19:19).
from Him, Christ
Jesus, the son of
Mary, and honored
in the present world
and the world to
come and with
those who are near.
And he will speak
to the people in
childhood and
maturity. He will be
among the righteous.
(Q. 3:45-46).
(Continued)

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 355-383

The Annunciation to Mary 377

Table 1 (Continued)

Q. 3 Q. 11 Q. 19

Response And [Mary] said, [Sarah] said, “Woe to [Mary] said, “How will
“Lord, how will I me! Will I bear a child, I have a son, when
conceive a son when while I am an old no man has touched
no man has touched woman, and this me and I am not
me?” (Q. 3:47A). husband of mine is an unchaste?” (Q. 19:20).
old man? Indeed this
would be an amazing
thing!” (Q. 11:72).

Formula And he said, “So it is They said, “Are you He said, “Thus said
for you, Allah creates amazed at Allah’s your Lord, ‘That is easy
what he wills. When decree? The mercy of for Me and that we may
He decrees a matter, Allah and His blessings make him a sign to
He says to it, ‘Be!’ be on you, you people men and a mercy from
and it is” (Q. 3:47B). of the house! For Us.’ It is a decreed
He is indeed all- matter”
praiseworthy, all- (Q. 19:21).
glorious!” (Q. 11:73).

There are four features of this formulaic pattern deserving attention. First, the
similar presentations of the Annunciations may reflect how often the accounts
were recited in the proto-Muslim community. Second, the pattern may show
that the Annunciation accounts served a mnemonic purpose. The consistent
structure of the three accounts would have helped with committing the
accounts to memory. A third feature of the formulaic pattern is that it seems
related to patterns within other Ancient Near-Eastern (ane) literature, which
include prophetic speech in the Old Testament and messenger speech found
in the Samaritan Letters of Mari (eighteenth century bce).69 In his work Basic
Forms of Prophetic Speech, Claus Westermann provides several examples of

69 Examples of Samaritan messenger speech in the Letters of King Mari can be found in
Wolfgang Heimpel’s translation (Wolfgang Heimpel, Letters to the King of Mari [Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003] 266).

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 355-383

378 Reck

patterns involving ane messenger speech that resemble the previously formu-
laic patterns in Q. 3, 11, and 19. Westermann argues that when a messenger
speaks on behalf of God in the Old Testament, his message is often sealed with
what he refers to as a “messenger formula” (“Thus says the Lord . . .”). He com-
ments, “The formula authorizes the message, which is repeated by the mes-
senger before the addressee, to be the word of the sender, corresponding,
therefore, to the signature in our letter form”.70 It may be that the formula that
closes each Qurʾānic Annunciation account (Q. 3:47; 11:73; 19:21) functions in a
similar manner to messenger speech in other ane literature, a kind of authori-
tative seal that validates the messenger’s speech. Influenced by Westermann,
Wansbrough equates the phrase in Q. 19:21 (“Thus said your Lord” [kadhāliki
qāla rabbuki]) to “Thus says the Lord” (Heb., kōh āmar YHWH). Noting the sim-
ilar locutions in Q. 19:9 (a message delivered to Zechariah) and Q. 51:30 (a mes-
sage delivered to Abraham), Wansbrough suggests that the Qurʾānic phrase
kadhāliki qāla rabbuki functions as “a stereotype for identical situations”, simi-
lar to the function of an oral theme.71 The similarity between the Qurʾān’s mes-
senger speech and other ane literature serves to locate the Qurʾān within its
Near Eastern context, participating in an extensive stream of Near Eastern
messenger-speech tradition.
The fourth feature is that the Sarah-Mary pattern may affirm the Qurʾān’s
inclusion of an Eastern Christian typological relationship between Sarah and
Mary. It is well known that the Hebrew text of Genesis provides a wordplay
between Sarah’s laughter (ṣaḥaq) and Sarah’s son Isaac (yiṣḥaq). However,
in the Qurʾān there is no such root-connection, yet Sarah’s laughter is still
connected to her son in Q. 11:71. In Arabic, the words ‘laughter’ and ‘Isaac’ are
based upon two different roots, the Arabic root for ‘laughter’ (ḍaḥika) in the
Qurʾān deriving from the Syriac root for ‘laughter’ (g-ḥ-k).72 The Syriac connec-
tion suggests that the Qurʾān retains a Sarah-Mary relationship preserved
within Syrian Christian tradition. Ephrem is known to have made a typological
connection between Sarah and Mary based on Sarah’s laughter: “Sarah did not
laugh because of Isaac, but because of the One who is born of Mary”.73 Sarah’s

70 Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, 100.

71 Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, 13.
72 Gabriel Said Reynolds, ‘The Qurʾānic Sarah as Prototype of Mary’, in The Bible in Arab
Christianity, ed. David Thomas (Leiden: Brill, 2007) 203.
73 Ibid.
See also S. Ephraem Syri Opera, Tomus Primus, ed. Silvio Giuseppe Mercati, Rome,
Pontificio Istituti Biblico, 1915, 49.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 355-383

The Annunciation to Mary 379

laughter points forward to the joy that Mary would have in her son.74 The pres-
ervation of the Mary-Sarah typological relationship may suggest that the
Qurʾān is presenting Mary as the pinnacle of women within the Qurʾānic
Heilgeschichte. The Qurʾān’s retention of this Sarah-Mary typological relation-
ship contributes to the thrust of this article as it serves to affirm the prove-
nance of Christian tradition and interpretation circulating among the
proto-Muslim community.

Q. 3:42-7 as a Politicized Re-Presentation of the Annunciation

The polemical milieu of Q. 3:42-7 will be further evaluated here as the Qurʾān’s
reception of the pej evidences an initiative by proto-Muslims to establish a
new identity as a community bearing an authoritative presence amid its
polemical milieu. Within Q. 3 is a subtext that elucidates the setting of the
proto-Muslim community and the vital role of the pej’s Annunciation regard-
ing the establishment of the community’s legitimacy. Angelika Neuwirth pro-
poses a unique way of understanding the strata of Q. 3: the key to understanding
Q. 3 is to recognize a conflation that exists between two discourses within Q.
3:1-63. One discourse regards the process of revelation and its interpretation;
the other regards procreation and genealogy.75 The former depicts revelation
being handed down vertically (tanzīl), while the latter presents revelation
through observing what is of nature. For both, a feminine agent is used in the
revelatory process: what is vertically handed down emanates from the Mother
of the Book (ummu l-kitāb, the celestial body of revelation), while procreation
occurs via a mother’s womb (raḥim).76 Feminine vocabulary is frequent in the
conflation, preparing the way for the dominance of the matriarchal figures of
the House of Amram77 (Mary and her mother), upon which the proto-Muslim

74 The typological relationship may also be established on the angelic visitations to Sarah
and Mary. Consider how the Qurʾān speaks of several angels visiting Sarah. In Q. 3:45 the
number is plural (“The angels said: ‘O Mary! Allah gives to you glad tidings of a Word from
Him.’ ”). Two verses later in Q. 3:47, only one angel speaks to Mary. The number of angels
may substantiate the retention of Eastern Christian typology in Q. 3’s Annunciation
(Reynolds, The Qurʾānic Sarah’, 205).
75 Angelika Neuwirth, ‘The House of Abraham and the House of Amram’, in The Qurʾān in
Context, ed. Angelika Neuwirth, Nicolai Sinai, and Michael Marx (Leiden: Brill, 2010) 520.
76 Ibid.
Note that Q. 3:6, with its reference to procreation, precedes Q. 3:7 with feminine-
gendered ʼumm al-kitāb (ibid., 519).
77 By the assertion that Amram’s physical descendant is Moses and his spiritual descendant
is Jesus, there may be grounds for suggesting that the Qurʾān is presenting Jesus as the
new Moses. There is a close semblance with the name Jesus (ʿīsā) and Moses (mūsā)
(Reynolds, Subtext, 146).

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 355-383

380 Reck

community established itself in competition to the House of Abraham com-

prised of the Jews. The unit carries an air of polemic, an atmosphere fostering
the exchange of oral dialogue. It is upon this gender-based subtext that a politi-
cized re-presentation of the Annunciation is established.
A political tension exists in Q. 3’s prologue (Q. 3:1-32) between two oppo-
nents: (1) Jews who, as God’s people, are genealogical heirs through Abraham
and (2) proto-Muslims aiming to establish themselves not on Abrahamic lin-
eage, but through the House of Amram.78 A new genealogical line, one that
becomes the basis of Muslim authority, is established through the House of
Amram, from which Mary descends.79 Additionally, due to Mary’s close prox-

Amram as the father of Moses and the ancient forefather of Jesus is also significant to
consider. The Qurʾān may be retaining an Eastern Christian typological relationship
between Jesus and Moses. Such Jesus-Moses typology is present in Ephrem’s hymns such
as Mary and Eve as the World’s Two Eyes: “The brightness which Moses put on was wrapped
on him from without, the river in which Christ was baptized put on Light from within,
[Mary’s] body, in which He resided, was made gleaming from within. Just as Moses
gleamed with the [divine] glory because he saw the splendor briefly, how much more
should the body wherein [Christ] resided gleam, and the river in which He was baptized?”
(Sebastian Brock and George A. Kiraz, Ephrem the Syrian: Select Poems, vol. 2 of Eastern
Christian Texts, ed. Daniel C. Peterson, Carl W. Griffin, and Kristian S. Heal (Provo:
Brigham Young University Press, 2006) 73.
78 This may seem confusing in light of later Islamic developments led to Muslims establish-
ing themselves as being of the House of Abraham. Neuwirth provides a clarifying com-
ment: “The subsequent Islamic fait accompli—Abraham as the personification of the
Meccan origins, the forerunner of the Prophet, and the prototype of the Muslims—tends
to obscure and downplay the detours that had to be taken until Abraham and ‘his house’
could be fully appropriated by the Qurʾanic community, or—looked at from an opposite
angle—could ideologically be severed from their traditional genealogical heirs, the Jews
of Medina” (Neuwirth, ‘The House’, 503).
W. Montgomery Watt presumed that among the proto-Muslim community, there may
have been a lack of understanding as to the connection between Ishmael, Abraham, and
Arabs. As Muslims gained closer contact with Jews in Medina, they became aware of their
genealogical relationship with Abraham. Watt suggested that the later siding with Abra-
ham became advantageous because he was considered the Father of Jews and Arabs yet
he also lived before the Torah was revealed to Moses and the Gospel to Jesus and therefore
Abraham was neither Jew nor Christian. This led to Abraham later becoming an essential
patriarch of Islam (W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina [London: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1956] 204-5).
79 Q. 3:33, 36.
Fred Donner comments on the “Genealogical Legitimation” in the Near East: “In most
societies, ties of kinship (real or assumed) have formed one of the basic determinants of
an individual’s social standing; in many cases, being of the ‘right’ family or ethnic group

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 355-383

The Annunciation to Mary 381

imity to the Temple in the pej, the proto-Muslim community is able to connect
itself to the Israelite Temple heritage via an Aaronid lineage,80 allowing proto-
Muslims to legitimize themselves against their Jewish opponents in Medina.
Striking feminine terminology variegates the prologue, prepping the audi-
ence for the later introduction of the matriarchy. God’s shaping of the womb
(raḥim, cf. Q. 3:6) indicates his sovereignty over human conception and birth,
as well as his exclusive knowledge of a child’s gender. This precedes the narra-
tive surrounding Mary’s birth, where Mary’s mother is unaware of her child’s
gender as she pledges her then-unborn child to service in the Temple for priest-
hood (Q. 3:35-36).81 The ambiguity surrounding Mary’s gender inside her
mother’s womb suggests a contrast between God’s omniscience and human
unknowingness.82 This foreshadows the ambiguity surrounding Jesus and the
circumstances of his birth. Jesus was born according to the will of God, having
no paternal source, which provided for much ambiguity for the proto-Muslims,
Christians, and Jews to address. Christology is a preeminent issue in Q. 3’s pro-
logue, which is introduced subtly in the gender-based subtext and later
becomes explicated in Q. 3:33-66.
Neuwirth convincingly argues that the prologue’s feminine terminology
accomplishes two tasks. First, the terminology identifies the proto-Muslims
with the matriarchal House of Amram, distinct from and in competition with
the Abrahamic patriarchal line. The proto-Muslims thus attempted to estab-
lish legitimacy against Jewish superiority. Second, the terminology prepares
the way for Mary’s birth. Though Mary is not “Mother of the Book” (ummu
l-kitāb), she is the mother of the Word.83

has counted for more than anything else in evaluating one’s claim to privilege. We may
call this procedure Genealogical Legitimation . . .” (Fred M. Donner, Narratives of Islamic
Origins: The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writings [Princeton: Darwin, 1998] 47-9).
80 Neuwirth, ‘The House’, 528.
81 Ibid., 519.
82 Neuwirth references a portion of the Akathistos Hymnos which is recited during Lent.
There is a striking similarity with Mary’s role as the mother of God which confounded
men and the ummu l-kitāb, which “defies the attempts of professional interpreters to
decode it”. Neuwirth translates the Arabic form of the hymn as: “We find the great rhetori-
cians rendered mute like fish when confronted with you, who gave birth to God. They are
unable to spell out how you could give birth remaining a virgin. We however, admiring the
mystery, in belief call out: Rejoice, you who were the receptacle of God! Rejoice, you who
stripped philosophers of their philosophy! Rejoice, you, who made the instructors of
speech speechless . . .” (ibid., 521-2).
83 Q. 3:39.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 355-383

382 Reck

The feminine language seems also to function negatively as a slant against

the Jews. Those who disbelieve (primarily Jews) are said to cling to ambiguity
(mutašābih)84 and desire disorder (fitna). This may be referencing the Jews’
continual hovering over debated issues, Christology and Mariology being the
primary volleys exchanged back and forth between interlocutors. Jews are also
described as immoral (ibtiġāʾa) on account of their exegesis.85
Of practical import to this article are the political implications that flow
from the reception of the pej’s Annunciation account among the proto-
Muslim community. Legitimization of the proto-Muslim community via
attachment to the House of Amram hinges upon the reception of the
Annunciation account according to the pej. If the Annunciation according to
the canonical gospels were to be the account by which the community sought
to derive legitimacy, there would not have been adequate attestation to the
community’s genealogical authority as the canonical accounts lack an exalted
view of Mary, never mention Mary’s mother or Mary’s infancy and childhood
in her Temple residency. The canonical gospels also do not ascribe any connec-
tion between Mary and the House of Amram as Amram’s name is never men-
tioned in them. The Annunciation as presented in the pej and the Qurʾān is
the ballast by which the proto-Muslim community was able to establish its
legitimacy during its fledgling state as an emerging presence with Christological
and Mariological positions that are distinct from coterminous Jewish and
Christian positions.

III Conclusion

The intent of this article has been to observe the qualities of the Qurʾānic
Annunciation account that attest to its character as being an echo of the
Annunciation presented in the pej, the account having successfully entered
the oral milieu of the Qurʾānic genesis, when the prophetic logia of the proto-
Muslim community was still in its pre-canonical form. It has been proposed
that the pej’s influence was prevalent throughout the Christian Near East in
late-antiquity not only in textual form, but also in liturgical, artistic, and
numismatic forms. It is apparent that the pej was not limited within strict

84 The ambiguity the Jews are accused of dwelling upon may equate to the Jewish view that
texts contain more than one interpretation, with the “different ‘faces’ of the Torah” being
distinguished in the Tannaitic period (ibid., 516).
85 The term ibtighā’ and its meaning likely stems from its usages in Q. 19:20 and 28 where
upon discovery of her pregnancy, Mary is accused of immorality (whoredom).

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 355-383

The Annunciation to Mary 383

boundaries, but rather displayed a high degree of transference across perme-

able borders. That the Annunciation account as presented in the pej is refer-
enced in the Qurʾānic text testifies to its successful entry into Arabia. Marked
by rhetorical devices and formulaic themes and patterns, the passage within Q.
3:42-7 has numerous oral qualities that mark it originating as prophetic logia
that would come to be crystallized in the final canonical text, having orally
traversed the proto-Muslim environment via the polemical interactions
between interlocutors. The strong influence of the pej is not limited to the
Christian West and East of late-antiquity. The Annunciation according to the
pej was considerably influential amid the Qurʾānic genesis, becoming the
authoritative ground by which the proto-Muslim community was able to
establish its matriarchal connection to the House of Amram.

vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 355-383