In Chapter 4, Luxenberg argues that as only six consonants were rendered unambiguous in the Quranic Arabic, various mistakes could have been made when commentators later added diacritics. Categories include: identical rasm (e.g. ب b / ت t / ث th), optical similarity (e.g. confusing د d / ذ ḍ with ر r / ز z), as well as phonetic similarity (س s h / ح ḥ) and mistaking the guttoral for the hamza (ع / ء).^[8]

Luxenberg posits the existence of a proto-Quran initially written in Garshuni.^[5]:49

In Chapter 10, Luxenberg argues that confusing the Arabic د (d) with ر (r) has not been well explained as they are clearly distinguishable in the early Arabic Hijazi and Kufic scripts. More likely is a mix-up between these letters if they are mistranscribed from the more easily confused Syriac letters ܕ (d) and ܪ (r) (only distinguished with a dot). Similarly, this also explains how final d, when mistranscribed as final r, could somtimes be mistaken for final m.^[8]:83-84

In Chapter 13, examples are provided of mistranscribed letters even in the earliest Quran manuscripts. A common mistake is confusing the Syriac letters ܕ and ܪ as well as the Arabic و .^{[8]:239-241[5]:63}

In Chapter 7, various proposals of phonological Syriacisms are presented. Some imply that the Quran was (at a time) transmitted only in written form.^[5]:46

Luxenberg argues that, because of the process of imala, words in Classical Arabic that end phonetically with the sound ē (orthographically written as final ﻯ , ﺍ or ﻩ with/without dots) may reflect the sound ē of the Syriac emphatic masculine plural.^[5]:46 Luxenberg uses this e.g. to explain the irregular use of "singular accusative nouns after the numbers 12-99", which should instead be understood as Syriac emphatic plurals.^[5]:48

Luxenberg also argues that frequent use of ﺕ rather than ﺓ (in the construct state of feminine nouns) is another orthographic Syriacism. Thus, Luxenberg speculates that in the Syriac "Garden of Eden" (ܓܢܬ ܥܕܢ , feminine singular noun) the feminine ending ܬ (t) was represented in Arabic with the letter ﺕ (tāʾ), rather than standard Arabic ending ﺓ (tāʾ marbūṭa). Later Arabic readers misinterpreted this as a plural, rendering it "Gardens of Eden".^[5]:47

Luxenberg also explains "anomalous feminines" (nouns) where the Syriac (ܐ) was originally used as mater lectionis (a consonant used to indicate a vowel, before vowels had their own letters) for Syriac emphatic (i.e. definite) forms, was subsequently transcribed into the Arabic ﻩ , but was then misunderstood, received a point ( ﺓ ) and was turned into the ta' marbuta. Luxenberg uses this e.g. to explain the Quranic forms of the names for Jesus and Moses.^[5]:47

Theodor Nöldeke suggested that the word "quran" has a Syriac origin in qeryānā ("reading aloud", "reading matter") and presumably assimilated "to the type fuʿlān" into the modern form qurʾān. Luxenberg reasons that understanding how this transformation took place orthographically provides the key to understanding the Quran's language. For this, Luxenberg builds mostly on the work of Werner Diem [de] who noted that in the defective Quranic rasm, which lacked vowels, the letter y was occasionally used as mater lectionis for both long vowels ī and ā.^{[note 5]} Luxenberg proposes that interpreters of the Quran sometimes made mistakes and, for example, interpreted an ī instead of ā. Furthermore, as the undotted tooth (ـٮـ) in the Quranic rasm could represent five consonants (b, t, th, n, y), later differentiated with dotting (ـبــتـثــنــيـ), any letter derived from an undotted tooth might potentially represent ā.^{[11]:37 [5]:48-50 [8]:70-71 [note 6]}

Luxenberg illustrates these mechanisms and potential confusion in seven examples, one of which is restoring the Arabic pronunciation for Abraham (Ibrāhīm) to the way it is pronounced in all other Semitic languages (Abrāhām).^[11]:37 For this Luxenberg uses the defective spelling ابرهم (Abrhm) occurring 15 times in the Quran which faithfully corresponds to the Hebrew (אברהם) and Syriac (ܐܒܪܗܡ), whereas an editor must have added the small peak to the 54 times occurring ابر هيم to emphasise the final vowel (Abrahám).^{[8]:93[4]:122} Furthermore, the orthograpic procedure is crucially used by Luxenberg as one of several steps in a theory to explain how the Syriac qeryānā transformed into the modern qurʾān (see graph).^{[5]:48-50[8]:70-74}

These "anomalous spellings, in which ā is represented orthographically by any tooth . . . should not (as in Nöldeke) be treated as examples of 'imāla, but as an orthographic method of reproducing ā in the early stages of Qur’ānic writing, which was forgotten by the later stages when oral tradition had been left behind".^[5]:50 This theory "presupposes a period in which the Qur’ānic text was preserved only in a written form, the pronunciation largely forgotten, and then a later period of Islamising exegesis."^[5]:50

Thus, in Sura 7:160 ("And we divided them into twelve tribes") the number twelve is followed by a plural, which is incorrect according to the rules of Arabic, but fully correct according to Syriac. Furthermore, the numbers 11-99 are considered singular with an accusative ending in Arabic, but would make more sense as a Syriac plural ending. Finally, the number "one hundred" is singular in Arabic, but in Sura 18:25 "three hundred" is again a plural; however, this would be correct Syriac.^[8]:58

The remainder of Chapter 12 deals with the theory that ﻭ could mark the start of an apodosis in Quranic Arabic. This results in new readings, new methods and the application of the Syro-Aramaic methodology^[5]:55

In Chapter 13, Luxenberg introduced the idea of Syriac grammar having influenced the basic grammatical structure of the language of the Quran, based on unusual word order (Sura 19:23), apparent masculine endings in Arabic referring to feminine subjects (also Sura 19:23) and various borrowing patterns of endings and Eastern Syriac dialect vowel-shifts.^[5]:61-4

The Syro-Aramaic method (Ch 3) and various other emendations are used by Luxenberg to reinterpret Sura 19:24.^[5]:51-4 Luxenberg suggests verse 24 should be read as a continuation of verses 16 and 22, which relate that Mary is cast out by her family on the suspicion of an illegitimate conception and verse 23 where Mary longs for her own death. Traditionally this verse is translated as:^[8]:140-2

"Then he (probably 'the child') called to her from beneath her: 'Grieve not; thy Lord hath placed beneath thee a streamlet'."

Luxenberg considers this obscure and reinterprets the verse as:

"Then he called to her immediately after her delivery: 'Do not be sad, your Lord has made your delivery legitimate'."^[8]:140-2

The theory of apodosis (Ch 12) is applied to Sura 2:259, regarding a man who does not believe in resurrection. He is made by God to die and revived after one hundred years. The verse is traditionally translated as:

"[L]ook at thy food and drink; it has not become stale; and look at thy ass - in order that We may make thee a sign to the people - and look at the bones how we shall make them stand up and clothe them with flesh."

is emended by Luxenberg to read:

"Yet behold your condition and your state: it has not changed. Behold your perfection! And therewith we make you an example for the people, [and] behold how we restore your bones and cover them anew with flesh!"^[8]:191-7

Another example of applying the theory of apodosis (Ch 12) is Sura 37:103, considered to be about Ibrahim's sacrifice of his son, reads when translated into English from Arabic, "And when they had both submitted and he put him down upon his forehead". But using Syriac instead of Arabic for almost the same Arabic rasm reads "...he tied him to the firewood".^{[8]:167 [1]:16-7}

A final example applying the theory of apodosis (Ch 12), in the analysing Sura 24:31, the part traditionally rendered as "they (women) should draw their veils over their bosoms", actually reads "they should beat their khumurs against their bags", which is incomprehensible. Luxenberg instead reads as "they should fasten their belts around their waists", an idiom, with the belt as a symbol for chastity without ordering any organ to be covered with cloth.^[6] According to him, the meanings of the words in the relevant part of the verse are as follows: خِمار khimār; cummerbund, جيب jayb; sinus, sac, وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ; "let them hit."

In Chapter 15, the theme 'virgins of paradise' is discussed. The word houris, meaning "maidens with intensely black eyes set against the whiteness of their irises", who will serve the faithful in Paradise (Quran 44:54, 52:20, 55:72, 56:22) means (according to Luxenberg) "white grapes" or "raisins".^[26] He says that many Christian descriptions of Paradise describe it as abounding in pure white grapes. Thus, "the virgins who are supposedly awaiting good Islamic martyrs as their reward in paradise are in reality "white raisins" of crystal clarity rather than fair maidens... In both ancient Aramaic and in at least one respected dictionary of early Arabic, ḥūr means "white raisin".^[27] According to Luxenberg, the context makes clear that it is food and drink being offered.^[26]

In Chapter 16, the related "boys of paradise" refers rather to "wine".

In Chapter 17, two suras are read in light of the idea that they might represent christian liturgial material.

Sura 108 is significantly changed by the re-reading of only two words. The result is that verses 1 and 2 are made into a pair of parallel synonymous expressions. The outcome is interpreted to mean that this sura is a "Syrian liturgical pronouncement in the manner of 1 Peter 5.8-9"^[5]:66-7

The discussion of Sura 96 is much more detailed, rereading almost every verse, but with two being the most significant.^[5]:67-68

Opinions on Luxenberg's book diverge widely. A selection of reviews by 2011 were categorised as ranging from positive to critical and even scathing.^[15]:53 Positive reviews include Reynolds (2001),^[39] Gilliot [fr] (2003)^[40] and Phenix & Horn (2003).^[2] Scathing reviews include De Blois (2003),^[41] Hopkins (2003),^[13] Neuwirth (2003),^[42] and Saleh (2011).^[24] Highly critical, though open to some of the suggestions are Corriente (2003),^[43] Stewart (2008),^[44] and King (2009).^[5] Some additional reviews^{[45]:28fn[46]fn11[47]} (uncategorised) are: Maas (2003),^[48] Karimi-Nia [fa] (2004),^[49] Kroes (2004),^[37] Van Reeth (2006),^[50] al-Jamal (2007)^[51] and Wild (2010).^[52] In all, some 50 academic articles and books had appeared discussing Luxenberg's work by 2014.^[7]:382-5

Even competent philologists vehemently disagreed, with De Blois having "weighty criticisms", yet, others considering it "a scholarly book with some proposals of great consequence for our understanding of the Qur’an"^[1]:15 referring to: Phenix & Horn (2003),^[2] Brague (2003),^[53] Jansen (2003),^[54] Gilliot [fr] (2003)^[40] and Baasten (2004).^[55][c] Of a similar opinion are Dye [fr] & Larcher (2003) who consider it "most interesting",^[56][d] Van Reeth (2006) who considers it "innovative”,^[50][e] and Dye & Amir-Moezzi (2019) who consider it as having "suggestive insights".^[57]:27[f]

Some scholars sharing Luxenberg's skepticism regarding the Quran's origins have "gravitated towards Luxenberg’s approach"^[45]:29 namely: Sawma (2006),^[58] Kropp [de] (2008),^[59] Van Reeth (2008),^[60] and similarly^[61]:17 also Younes (2008, 2009, 2011, 2017).^{[62][63][64][65]} Others remain wholly unconvinced, with Zellentin (2019) writing: "next to nothing in Luxenberg's reading has been confirmed in mainstream scholarship."^[61]:6 However, Dye [fr] (2017) cautions against a categorical dismissal, stating: "The way this book has been received in the academic world seems to me unsatisfactory. Luxenberg’s work has sometimes been enthusiastically praised, but also fiercely dismissed, quite often on dogmatic grounds."^[66]

Phenix and Horn (2003) write that, although similar works can be found in text-critical scholarship on the Bible:

"Not in the history of commentary on the Qur’’an has a work like this been produced [thus] scholars of the first rank will now be forced to question the assumption that, from a philological perspective, the Islamic tradition is mostly reliable".^[2]:164 "Despite the sober revolution this book will no doubt create, one should not be naïve to think that all Islamicists in the West will immediately take up and respond to the scholarly challenges posed by any work of this kind. However, just as Christianity faced the challenges of nineteenth and twentieth century biblical and liturgical scholarship, so too will serious scholars of Islam, both East and West, benefit from the discipline Luxenberg has launched".^[2]:178

Stewart (2008) counters this stating: "no stretch of the imagination allows one to see in Luxenberg’s work the introduction of a startling new critical paradigm into Qur’anic studies".^[44]:226

Marx [de] writes that Luxenberg's hypothesis had a positive impact on scientific discussions and perhaps accelerated the development of the long-term Corpus Coranicum project conceived of in 2006 by Angelika Neuwirth, Nicolai Sinai and Michael Marx himself.^[67]

Crone (2006) referred to Luxenberg's work as "open to so many scholarly objections [...] notably amateurism" which "cannot be said to have done the field much good".^[23]

Warraq (2014), after giving an extensive overview of reviews, concludes that "Luxenberg’s work has truly opened up a new era in Koranic Studies. He has provided the philology. His colleagues and co-researchers must now provide the historical context, and furnish the Judaeo-Christian and other Near Eastern and Babylonian sources."^[7]:370

Dayeh (2019) writes that Luxenberg examplifies a new subfield of investigation fixated on Muhammad as an author-writer, reducing Quranic studies "to a study of etymologies, loan words, and orthographical variants". This is problematic because it "neither corresponds to the way in which the Prophet is depicted in the Qur’an nor to the generic characteristics of the text. It is also problematic because it conflates prophecy, authorship, and writing".^[68]:31

Zellentin (2019) writes of Luxenberg's book that:

"the interest which the broader public has taken in it continues to have a detrimental effects on the public - and especially the Muslim - reception of serious works of scholarship on the Qur'an. Luxenberg's work, nevertheless, forced scholars to re-evaluate the difficult question of the Qur'an's early transmission history and its multifaceted relationship with the Syriac tradition, which in turn led them to corroborate earlier findings that this tradition is indeed of special importance when seeking to determine the Qur'an's sociocultural and historical context".^[61]:6,17

Stewart (2024), discussing the development of Western Quranic studies, writes:

"The publication of Christoph Luxenberg’s work on the 'decipherment' of the Quran in 2000 may be recognized as a watershed moment in [breaking through] the general lull in Western Quranic studies in the latter half of the twentieth century and the concomitant lack of attention to the relationship between the Quran and Biblical tradition. [...] The urge to refute the work provoked a wave of intense study of the Qur’anic text, the early history of Arabic script, inscriptions in Arabia and surrounding regions, early Islamic history, and the Qur’an’s relationship with Christian tradition. Interest in the Syriac language grew by leaps and bounds."^[3]

Dye [fr] and Larcher (2003) write that Luxenberg's undertaking "will provoke in some Islamic circles the same emotion as did the hypothesis of Vollers formerly, because it amounts to seeing in the Qur’ān a kind of palimpsest."^[56]

Davitashvili (2026) writes: "the book also negatively affected the way some Muslims understood the relationship between the Qurʾan and pre-Islamic Syriac literature. Comparative studies of these relationships were perceived by some academics of the Muslim world as 'an Orientalist challenge to be confronted'. For some Muslims, comparative analyses of the Qurʾan and Syriac literature ran the risk of denying the Qurʾan as God’s word, and denying its originality."^[69] Thus for al-Jamal (2007),^[70]:63 "an identification of Qurʾanic words of Syriac origin such as the name “Qurʾan” itself (in Syriac: qeryānā) is intended to establish a connection between the Qurʾan and the 'language of Evangelium' and to cast doubts on the authenticity of key terms. For al-Jamal, it means that God did not reveal the Qurʾan to Muhammad but that Muhammad took its language and content from Syriac Christian sources", Davitashvili notes.^[69] Likewise El-Badawi (2014) cautions that his analysis tracing Quranic concepts to Aramaic gospels is not intended to offend Muslims or pander to non-believers.^[45]:xiii

De Blois (2003) calls Luxenberg a "dilettante" (an amateur) and posits that Luxenberg has an articulate knowledge of dialectal Arabic, passable (though flawed) command of classical Arabic, "knows enough Syriac so as to be able to consult a dictionary" and that it is impossible that Luxenburg is a professional scholar. He criticizes the New York Times' attempt to compare Luxenberg with Salman Rushdie, Naguib Mahfouz and Suliman Bashear, because De Blois claims to have information that Luxenberg is not German but rather a Lebanese Christian. There is thus no reason "to avoid the death threats of rabid Muslim extremists" and Luxenberg has no right "to conceal his (or her) identity". De Blois also writes that Luxenberg's makes mistakes in Arabic that are typical for the Arabs of the Middle East."^[41]

Corriente (2003) in contrast says that Luxenberg "appears to be an undoubtedly seasoned scholar, well at home in Syriac language and literature, also endowed with a remarkable command of Classical Arabic and versed in the Qur’anic sciences."^[43]:306

Reynolds (2008) writes that Luxenberg's work "provoked an unusually polemical reaction from some. François de Blois concludes that Luxenberg’s new reading of the Qur’an, 'is a reading that is potentially attractive only in its novelty, or shall I say its perversity, not in that it sheds any light on the meaning of the book or on the history of Islam.' . . . Part of this hostility against Luxenberg may be due to the amount of attention that his work has received in the popular press".^[1]:16

Stewart (2008): "Indignation is the word that most readily describes the majority of reactions to Luxenberg’s study on the part of scholars in Arabic and Islamic studies in countless statements on electronic discussion lists and elsewhere. Luxenberg’s audacity has rankled for three reasons primarily: he makes a radical proposal about the early history of Islam, he is not a professional scholar of Islam, and he emends the text of the Qur’an . . . It bears keeping in mind, however, that amateurs can produce important results, and that the work should be judged on its own merits rather than being dismissed summarily. After all, Michael Ventris was an amateur, yet his brilliant decipherment of Linear B indeed represented a revolution in the study of ancient Greek, and Schliemann, for all his eccentricities, did make fantastic discoveries at Troy and Mycenaea".^[44]:227-8

Warraq (2014) writes that the initial academic reactions, in particular by De Blois, to the contribution by Luxenberg reminded of the previously disgraceful treatment by academics of Günter Lüling and John Wansbrough, whose contributions were in some ways precursors to the work of Luxenberg. However, Ibn Warraq notes that Claude Gilliot and Jan van Reeth, two distinguished researchers in Koranic Studies, "very courageously called attention to the scandalous review that François de Blois wrote of Luxenberg’s book".^[7]:356 Thus, Gilliot wrote in a footnote: "Apart from the fact that this article often distorts the thoughts of Luxenberg, it also contains allegations about the ethnic and religious background of the author (i.e., Luxenberg) which are hardly bearable".^[71]:92 Van Reeth stated that Luxenberg's publication challenged the stagnation in Quranic Studies that, with minor criticisms, repeated the legendary accounts of the revelation of Islam and this challenge "undoubtedly explains certain reactions. . . At the end, [De Blois'] criticism becomes wicked and personal; moreover, some of his remarks show an apparent lack of foundation".^{[50]:511-12[g]}

Stewart (2017) gives a broader perspective:

"many Islamicists denounced the work as shoddy scholarship that failed to cite the relevant studies in the field and did not adhere to the standard modes of Arabic and Islamic studies. For a number of these scholars, it rankled that an amateur wrote such a book as this, and they sought to defend their turf from the outsider. Most such defences focused on the method and approach of Luxenberg rather than on his concrete propositions about the text of the Qurʾan . . . Moreover, one must admit as well that most of the scholars who write on the Qurʾan are not at base specialists on the Qurʾan (or Syriac and Aramaic), but actually were trained in other subfields of Arabic and Islamic studies and so are also amateurs with respect to qur’anic scholarship. It is true that some of them are better Arabists than Luxenberg, but the difference between them might be one of degree rather than one of category".^[14]

De Blois (2003) says that Luxenberg has "no real understanding of the methodology of comparative Semitic linguistics".^[41] Likewise, Neuwirth (2003) says that Luxenberg "limits himself to a very mechanistic, positivist linguistic method without caring for theoretical considerations developed in modern linguistics."^[42] However, Phenix and Horn (2003) write: "Luxenberg is aware that many features of a standard philological presentation are missing. These he promises in the final study."^[2]:165 Gilliot [fr] (2003) considers the philological method used by Luxenberg coherent and persuasive: "the method is undeniably rigorous"^[40][h] and it converges with Gilliot's own work on the development of the Quranic text.^[5]:73 Yet, Dye [fr] (2019) writes that Luxenberg's method often "lacks rigor" whilst nevertheless creating "convincing results, or [...] stimulating avenues of inquiry".^[72]:768

Hopkins (2003)^[13] argues the philological method to be wholly arbitrary.^[5]:73 Saleh (2011) describes Luxenberg's method as "so idiosyncratic, so inconsistent, that it is simply impossible to keep his line of argument straight." and criticises Luxenberg for not understanding that "The etymology of a word is a poor indication of what it means in a new context".^{[24][note 7]} Likewise, El-Badawi (2014) writes that Luxenberg "does not systematically explain the arbitrariness of selecting Syriac words of his predilection to fit his new qur’ānic reading".^[46] Reynolds (2008) is also critical of the methodology, saying Luxenberg "turns from orthography to phonology and back again", his use of Syriac is "largely based on modern dictionaries" and that he "consults very few sources"—only one exegete (Abu Jafar al-Tabari)—and seldom integrates the work of earlier critical studies into his work^[1]:16

De Blois (2003) believes that Luxenberg's theory is not novel but seems to be adapted from earlier works by James A. Bellamy and Günter Lüling. The fact that Luxenberg does not cite them in his bibliography "poses questions about [his] scholarly integrity."^[41] Likewise Neuwirth (2003) points out that Luxenberg doesn't consider the previous work in Quran studies.^[42] Hopkins (2003) criticises Luxenberg for frequently quoting "a few . . . favourite books (and very good books they are too), but seldom goes beyond them" such as with Goldziher and A. Levin's work on the imala.^[13] King (2009) adds that Goldziher and Lülling were discussed in a later edition of the book but "not incorporated into the text as a whole".^[5]:72-3 Kroes (2004) says that "his investigations should be done again, taking into account all the scholarly work that Luxenberg doesn't seem to know".^[37] Langermann (2008) writes Luxenberg "would have done well to avail himself of some works on comparative Semitics, such as the (by now) classical comparative grammars of William Wright and De Lacy O’Leary or the much more recent work of Edward Lipinski".^[4]:123

Van Reeth (2006) considers Luxenberg's research innovative and fruitful, but hindered by a lack of confrontation with the Quran's literary context.^[50] Similarly, Witzum (2011) writes: "To conclude, one of the many flaws of the work of Luxenberg lies in his neglecting to examine actual Syriac texts, even when these deal with the same subject-matter as the Quran, and might lend support to some of his theories".^[15]:57 Likewise, El-Badawi (2014) writes that Luxenberg does not "identify any specific genre or corpus of Syriac literature to compare with the Qur’ān", thus, "while Luxenberg’s book provides rich—though often unsubstantiated—insights, and a handful of solutions to previously problematic passages, his work produces more problems in their place and is so methodologically problematic as it maintains an exclusive focus on philology, with little regard for the Qur’ān 'as a literary text...that has to be de-coded and evaluated historically'."^[46]

Dye [fr] (2017): "Clearly, Luxenberg’s method is often faulty, especially because of its disregard of any historical and literary context and, too frequently, its arbitrary use of linguistic evidence. However, Luxenberg offers many suggestions and emendations which should be examined case by case. Some of them are hasty, speculative, or unconvincing, but there are also very interesting and valuable insights (several examples given here owe him much). So the question should rather be: what can be extracted from the mass (and mess) of Luxenberg’s analyses."^[66]

Luxenberg (2007, 2014) in a later article has himself tried to put forward empirical evidence from early Quran manuscripts for the theory that the Quran was first written in Syriac script.^[73][74]

King (2009) considers Luxenberg's theory of a Garshuni intermediary "more doubtful" than the idea of a written transmission, because "the Garshuni technique is unlikely to have existed at so early a date".^[5]:71

King (2009) writes that the example maṯalaⁿ as representing mathlē - used by Luxenberg to argue for the ’imāla phonological procedure for Syriacisms - is criticised by "Corriente^[43] and de Blois^[41] on the basis that the resulting Arabic is not grammatically correct (the verb should now be singular), and by Stewart^[44] on the basis that the unemended text is unproblematic, for which he adduces parallels" and, King adds, "this latter argument also seems to apply to the example suğğad^an."^[5]:46 Langermann (2008) considers this positively: "On the strong side, Luxenberg suggests that the final alif, which has, with great difficulty, been interpreted as an accusative in words such as mathalan (11:24) or al-hawaya (6:146), can be better explained on the basis of corresponding Aramaic forms".^[4]:123

However, King notes that Luxenberg's application of this method to interpret the frequently in the Quran occurring phrase Ibrahīm the Ḥanīf is more successful. This is traditionally translated (in a broader context) as "Abraham the Ḥanif, and he was not one of the idolaters", but should according to Luxenberg be understood instead as Syriac meaning "Abraham was a heathen but he was not one of the idolaters". This renders it an "unexceptional and understandable piece of Christian or Jewish exegesis" and is an "important argument [that] has received cautious support [by Stewart^[44]:238-240] as solving a series of grammatical conundra".^[5]:48

Kroes (2004) writes that Luxenberg's argument that the small tooth more often represents long a (and that misreading this might explain the Arabic form of Ibrahim instead of Abraham) was corroborated in some early Sanaa codices and published in 1999,^[75] but this appears unknown to Luxenberg.^[37]

Likewise, Stewart (2008) concludes that:

"the suggestion that medial y may represent –ā- more frequently than hitherto realized is one of Luxenberg’s tangible contributions. However, he connects this result rather unnecessarily and even illogically with Syriac. . . . [T]here is no necessary connection between the etymological derivation of Qur’ān [from Syriac qeryānā] and the fact that -y- in Qur’ānic script may sometimes represent -ā-. The problem with arguing Syriac influence on Qur’ānic orthography here is that the -y- in the Syriac does not actually represent -ā-, but simply the consonant -y-, and this contradicts the point Luxenberg is trying to make".^[44]:240

King (2009)^[5]:50 says there is some corroboration of Luxenberg's orthographical theory by Donner (2007).^[76] Donner (2009) writes that some confirmation for Luxenberg's orthographic procedure can be found in early manuscripts: "Both the San‘ā’ Qur’āns and some other very early Qur’ān leaves also show at least occasional variant orthographies that suggest the use of a tooth as mater lectionis for ā. In all cases, however, this orthography is not consistent – that is, there is no surviving text which uses a tooth consistently to represent long ā."^[11]:38

Stewart (2017) writes that some of Luxenberg's "remarks concerning the script of the Qurʾan are also worth consideration, such as the claim that a yāʾ in the script could represent the vowel -ā-, which is clearly true but seems to have little to do with Syriac".^[14]:23

King (2009) concludes that Luxenberg's theory of the apodosis as carried over from Hebrew into Syriac and thence into Arabic is not proven by the evidence and thus requires "a great leap of the imagination."^[5]:55 One such emendation by Luxenberg concerning Ibrahim's sacrifice Sura 37:103-4 requires "so many leaps of the lexical imagination that one is left wondering whether one is not just being treated to an overall reading which is too convenient for the author’s meta-narrative of Christian origins to be taken seriously on philological grounds."^[5]:55-7 However, Reynolds (2008) considers Luxenberg's reading of Sura 37:104 "intellectually compelling".^[1]:16

Dye [fr] (2017) rejects King's dismissal as "unduly dogmatic".^[66]:361 Dye writes: "In short: there are several Qur'anic verses where [there] is used a 'wa apodosis', a syntactical construction which is exceptionally rare in Classical Arabic, but present in various stages of Arabic, before and after the Qur'an".^[66]:362-3 Thus, "When Luxenberg writes that wa apodosis constructions 'should be understood (...) syntactically on the basis of a sentence construction that is also attested in part in the Syro-Aramaic translation of the Bible under the influence of Biblical Hebrew', he is right, in a way – this is without a doubt how some Qur’ānic verses should be understood and translated. However, it is far-fetched to look for close or direct influences from Biblical Hebrew, or from the few Hebraisms of the Pǝšiṭtā".^[66]

Moqbel (2025) considers Luxenberg's theory of the wa apodosis "not altogether implausible" while discussing Sura 18:47,^[77]:19 for example, and concludes: "I do not find King’s arguments sufficiently unsettling and, accordingly, I endorse the core of Luxenberg’s findings on the matter (and Dye’s careful arguments for them); namely, that the AW exists in the Qur'ān. I am also convinced that its existence is capable of being justified in terms of the Qur'ān itself and in accordance with its Semitic background. . . . I am content that the AW is, by and large, attested in the Qur'ān."^[77]:4 Moqbel adds: "I am not suggesting, however, that the Qur'ān was directly influenced by Biblical Hebrew or Syriac-Aramaic. All I want to say is that the Qur'ān, in its employment of the AW [wa apodosis], exhibits a telling alignment with texts that are prior to it."^[77]:11

Stewart (2008):

"Luxenberg’s claim that Qur’anic language was influenced by Syriac grammatical constructions is not all that far-fetched, though most reviewers have denied the possibility altogether. Since it is known that certain passages of the Qur’an are related to texts in Syriac/Aramaic and Hebrew, it is quite likely that some features of the text reflect the syntax and other linguistic features of those underlying texts, as is commonly observed in translations of sacred texts, such as the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, the Greek of the New Testament, or the King James Bible. Thus, Mingana suggested that not only key words and religious terms in the Qur’an are derived from Syriac, but also that the syntax of certain passages exhibits underlying Syriac influence. Luxenberg may be correct, for example, in attributing to the influence of an underlying language the construction found in the phrases wa-qatta‘nahum ithnatay ‘ashrata asbatan umaman (7:160) and thalath mi’at sinina wa-zdadu tis‘an (18:25), both of which violate classical Arabic grammar (and even dialectal usage) in that they use a plural noun after a number greater than ten. Thus, it is possible to accept some of Luxenberg’s general points as plausible. Little is new or revolutionary, however, as the author would claim. The problem with many of Luxenberg’s supposed Syriacisms is that many are well within the normal range of attested grammatical possibilities within Arabic itself".^[44]

Kroes (2004) writes: "If qur'an was indeed derived from Syriac Qeryana 'lectionary', that still does not mean that the Qur'an actually was a Christian lectionary, at most it had a comparable function: text to be recited."^[37]

Kerr (2014) is of the opinion that "Luxenberg convincingly shows [that] the word Qur’ān itself is an Aramaic loan-word" and suggests its meaning to have been "scriptura sacra [holy scripture]".^[78]:163

Corriente (2003) believes that among Luxenberg's "positive contributions to the interpretation of the Qur’anic text and to the present levels of knowledge of the Arabic language are some terms of Aramaic origin to be added to those listed by Jeffery", of which Corriente proceeds to list a dozen.^[43]:310

King (2009) judges Luxenberg's reading of Sura 6:146 (discussing the dietary restrictions imposed on the Jews) favorably, with Witzum (2011) adding that this is one example where Luxenberg's "argument could have been stronger had he worked with texts rather than dictionaries, as this passage seems to reflect Leviticus 7:22-25", which clearly shows this to be "a Christian report on Jewish dietary laws".^[15]:34-35

Dye [fr] and Kropp [de] (2011) consider Luxenberg's explanation for the Arabic pronunciation (‘Īsā) of the name Jesus (يسى) as the result of "post-Quranic phonetics" unconvincing. Luxenberg considers the spelling of the final -ā using alif maqṣūra (ى) instead of alif (ا) significant and suggets it should actually be pronounced -ay. This would more closely match the Syriac pronunciation ’Īšay (with a voiceless glottal stop hamza at the beginning). Dye and Kropp see "no reason to follow Luxenberg".^[79]

Bannoura (2026)^[80]:330 writes: "Luxenberg’s philological methodology and conclusions about ḥūrʿīn were roundly critiqued [by Wild,^[52] Saleh,^[24] Donner,^[11] Griffith^[25] and Neuwirth^[42]].

Gilliot (2003)^[40] considers the crux of Luxenberg's reading of huris convincing.^[5]:73

Warraq describes how Van Reeth (2006)^[50] considers Luxenberg’s analysis of the boys of paradise brilliant^[7]:359 and says that Van Reeth "with his unequaled knowledge of the history of Christianity, in general, and Syriac Christianity, in particular, builds on Luxenberg’s thesis concerning the Koranic descriptions of Paradise to produce a totally convincing account of the sources of the entire tradition. Where Luxenberg goes back to St. Ephrem, Van Reeth’s starting point is two Biblical passages in Genesis and Psalms [...] the book of Enoch 10:19, [...] the second Book of Baruch 29:5–6, [and] words of Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, with the Hymns of Paradise of St. Ephrem filling in the gaps and closing the story."^[7]:359 Van Reeth's alternative reading was rejected by Luxenberg in a footnote in a later edition of the book.^[25]:789

Saleh (2010) noted that "Luxenberg fails to mention that the Qurʾanic paradise, even with the absence of maidens, is still radically different from any Late Antique Christian understanding of paradise."^[24]:684 Thus:

"One is left with the impression that Muhammad, having taken his inspiration of paradise from St. Ephrem, is unable to embellish it, and we are not told why this is the case. If St. Ephrem could have a vision of paradise, why cannot Muhammad? Luxenberg seems to think that grapes are less fantastic a thing to encounter in the afterlife than boys or virgin brides. That the Qur'an has its own understanding of the afterlife is denied simply because it is derivative".^[24]:684

Furthermore, Saleh states that "to claim that the issue of the subject is clarified by the content of the Hymns of Paradise is not only perverse, but simply nonsensical".^[24]:687 He instead suggests that the virgins of paradise might reflect a Greek Hellenic mythological depiction of Zeus’s "oxen-eyed" (buōpis) consort Hera, and the boys of paradise might borrow from the cup-bearer of Zeus from Ganymede.^[24]:689-91 Thus:

The whole joyful hedonistic atmosphere of the Qurʾanic paradise is more akin to the lives of the gods of Olympus than to the asceticism and sensibilities of late Antique Christianity [which] was busy enshrining the monastic ideal ... Reading the Hymns and the Qurʾanic depictions one is struck by their different considerations and presuppositions. The Qurʾanic depictions could not be more different than their supposedly Christian sources. St. Ephrem’s Hymns on Paradise are a long poetic analogy of what paradise is like, and the poem makes clear that all the imagery is metaphorical and as such a textually induced imagery.^[24]:689-90

El-Badawi (2014): "While it is quite clear that the qur’ānic description of ḥūr ‘īn does not refer to white grapes but rather women, it is equally clear that the description of [Verse] 56 has the imagery of the bridal chamber of Syriac literature in mind, including Aphrahat’s Demonstration on Death and the Last Days. It is not uncommon to find descriptions of paradise associated with hanging fruit in both the Qur’ān and the extant corpus of Syriac literature. Oddly enough, Luxenberg does not make this case."^[46]

Yousef Kouriyhe "systematically discusses the role of the qur’ānic ḥūr‘īn—which Luxenberg fails to do—and the relationship to its counterpart in Syriac literature. Kouriyhe ultimately corroborates the qur’ānic notion of the term while staying true to its conceptual, Syriac precedent. He argues that the ḥūr/ḥūrāyē are symbols—hanging fruit—of virgin female companions for which desert hermits longed, but to whom they could only allude".^[45]:29

Griffith (2017) acknowledges the importance of Ephraem the Syrian, but argues the evidence does not support re-reading the Qur’anic houris as grapes:

"in the writings of Ephraem the Syrian and the Syriac liturgical tradition in general one does find, contrary to Christoph Luxenberg's view, an abundance of marital and sexual imagery in the description of the joys of the garden of paradise. What relations this lush imagery in Syriac literature might have to the depictions of paradise in the Arabic Quran is another matter."^[25]:799 "[A]t the very least the [Quran intended] to address an audience within that same frame of reference[: an] Arabic-speaking audience, living within the range of the Syriac-speaking churches of Late Antiquity".^[25]:800-801

Courtieu (2020)^[81] arrgued how "vocabulary and descriptions of objects, food, and beverages in the Qurʾan’s paradise seem to borrow heavily from Middle Persian vocabulary, as well as customs and artifacts associated with banquets at the Persian court", thus tracing "the term ḥūr back to the Middle Persian etymological form of hurūst". The presentation of half-naked women with large eyes and "almost every description of paradise" can be traced to Sasanian "iconography, mosaics, and silverware". The male counterparts wildān and ghilmān "would have been young men who bore cups and also served as servants and musicians".^[80]:331-2

Bannoura (2026) supports Courtieu as "it seems plausible here to assume that these Middle Persian loanwords would have entered the Qurʾan through a Syriac source" ant that it seems plausible to relate the "Qurʾan’s paradisiacal imagery . . . to pre-Islamic poetry, Greek mythology, or Sasanian banquets".^[80]:333

Gilliot [fr] (2003)^[40][i] is particularly convinced of Luxenberg's re-readings of Sura 108 and 96 "including the liturgical reading of the latter".^[5]:73

Gilliot [fr] and Larcher (2003)^[56] consider Sura 108 (al-Kawṯar) "convincingly deciphered" by Luxenberg. However, they do not accept all new readings, finding that Luxenberg's fecundity in producing new interpretations invokes scepticism.^[7]:361

Baasten (2004)^[55] considers many of Luxenberg's readings of Quran verses “stunning", suddenly turning some Sura's into "coherent texts." This is "convincing" in the case of Sura 108 (al-Kawṯar) and "most convincing" for Sura 96 except for some details.^[7]:364 Concluding: "His proposals often do lead to a better understanding of impenetrable Quranic passages, which in itself is a major achievement and a challenge for historians of early Islam".^[7]:364

King (2009) strongly disagrees that Luxenberg's reading of Sura 108 is convincing.^[5]:66-7

Dye [fr] (2019) writes that Luxenberg creates "convincing results, or [...] stimulating avenues of inquiry" in his studies of Suras 97 and 108.^[72]:768

Baasten (2004): "Whether one should go along with [Luxenberg's] more far-reaching statements, on the Syriac-Arabic mixed language of Mecca or an Aramaic Urkoran, is something that further research will make clear".^[5]:72

Corriente (2004) strongly criticises Luxenberg's theory of a hybrid language (Syriac Vorlage) as "not convincing in most cases, because the philological arguments . . . do not have the necessary weight to counteract the previous more traditional views on this topic, grounded as they are on solid historical and socio-linguistic data.^[43]:314

King (2009) a Syriacist at the University of Cardiff, endorses some of Luxenberg's emendations and readings but concludes:

"Luxenberg's meta-theory of Qur'ānic origins is not proved by the evidence he sets forth in this book. That certain of the Qur'ān's expressions and words (as well as broader ideas and themes) are of Christian origin is well founded, and should in general be sufficient to explain the data presented here without needing recourse to either of the two more radical theories he espouses, namely that the Qur'ān was in origin no more than a Christian lectionary, and that the language which it is written is an 'Aramaic-Arabic hybrid'. More must be offered to convince anybody as to the mechanisms by which such a strong cultural and linguistic contact could have occurred".^[5]:69-71

Stewart (2008): "Luxenberg’s claim that Qur’anic language was influenced by Syriac grammatical constructions is not all that far-fetched, though most reviewers have denied the possibility altogether . . . Many of his emendations of the text, however, do not involve any recourse to Syriac vocabulary or constructions, or do so only by a considerable stretch of the imagination".^[44]:226,237

Donner (2009) considers Luxenberg's idea of a mixed Arabic-Aramaic language his "most daring proposal" but criticizes him for not making an effort to clarify what he actually means, such as: a Syriac–Arabic pidgin that died out, or instead whole Aramaic passages embedded within an otherwise Arabic text (which Donner considers "highly plausible")? As this ambiguity allows Luxenberg the freedom to interpret difficult passages in ways that would otherwise be considered ungrammatical, this theory offers a "convenient pretext" to freely interpret the text. Donner concludes: "Some of the negative reviews of Luxenberg’s book have, with perfect justice, castigated him for failing to demonstrate the grammatical cogency of some of his proposed emendations. . . [However] the proposal deserves full investigation, not the reflexive rejection it sometimes elicits".^[11]:38-40

Saleh (2010) sums up his assessment of Luxenberg as follows:

The first fundamental premise of his approach, that the Qur'ān is a Syriac text, is the easiest to refute on linguistic evidence. Nothing in the Qur'ān is Syriac, even the Syriac borrowed terms are Arabic, in so far as they now Arabized and used inside an Arabic linguistic medium. Luxenberg is pushing the etymological fallacy to its natural conclusion. The Qur'ān not only is borrowing words according to Luxenberg, it is speaking a gibberish language.^[24]: 55

El-Badawi (2014) presents a more nuanced take on what Luxenberg's "hybrid language" (Mischsprache in the German version of the book) might mean:

The evidence adduced in this study makes it clear that circulating traditions from the Aramaic Christian sphere intersected with the Qur’ān’s milieu early, on multiple occasions, and from different individual sources. These crucial observations are illustrated best in the opening verses of the so called ‘Meccan Surahs,’ including [Sura] 51:1–9 which integrates terminology from Syriac, CPA, and Jewish Aramaic into the Arabic cognate accusative grammatical constructions (maf‘ūl mutlaq) that are a hallmark of the cryptic prophetic speech employed in the Qur’ān. . . . The integration of terminology from different Aramaic dialects—and not Syriac alone—into Arabian prophetic speech might reflect a more nuanced understanding of what Luxenberg calls Mischsprache. The multiplicity of Aramaic substrata is diffused throughout the Qur’ān text . . . and confirms our claim . . . that the process of dialogue between the Qur’ān and the Aramaic Gospel Traditions [see Palestinian Syriac version of the Bible and Syriac versions of the Bible] took place over centuries."^[45]:216

Stewart (2017): "Luxenberg’s claim that the Qurʾan was written in a mixed Arabic-Aramaic language seems preposterous, given the lack of historical evidence for such a language. All that one might be able to claim responsibly is that there were groups of Arabic speakers who had adopted Christianity before Islam who must have had Syriac as their liturgical language and Arabic as their spoken language, a situation that exists till this day in Christian communities in the Levant. Such speakers in the community would have had control of both idioms, and terms from the liturgical language may have come into use in popular speech".^[14]:22

Dye [fr] (2017) explores phenomena of bilingualism or multilingualism in the Quran, phenomena which Luxenberg drew attention to. Dye notes that Aramaic was indeed prevalent in the social milieu surrounding the conception of the Quran. Furthermore, Dye sees evidence for "many phenomena related to bilingualism, interference and language contact" in Quranic Arabic, especially "if we allow changes in the punctuation of the rasm". The bilingual phenomena noted by Dye are: "loanwords, [loan shifting], [loan extensions], semantic calques, uses of foreign words (namely, insertions), influence of foreign syntactical structures (congruent lexicalization) – in other words, code-switching and code-mixing".^[66]

Hopkins (2003) criticizes the book for making no attempt to "place its findings in any plausible historical context" such as who these "Christian inhabitants of pre-Islamic Mecca" were and how they came to so thoroughly misunderstand their book.^[13]:380

Gilliot [fr] (2003)^[40] sees no problem with Luxenberg staying strictly within the field of comparative philology and himself suggests a possible historical reconstruction for the influence of Aramaic based on the tradition that Zayd ibn Thābit, the personal scribe of Mohammed and chief recorder of the Quran, was a Jew who spoke Aramaic.^[5]:73

Hoyland (2008) argues against Luxenberg's thesis that Syriac was prevalent in the Hijaz during the time of the Quran's inception, instead finding Arabic script on funerary text, building text inscriptions, graffiti, and stone inscriptions of that era in the area.^[82]:61-64 He further argues that Arabic evolved from Nabataean Aramaic script not Syriac.^[82]:60-61 He concludes that by the 7th century Arabic was widely written and spoken, and was used for literary and sacred expression.^[82]:63-64 He proposes that the rise of an Arabic script in the sixth century was likely the work of Arab tribes allied to Rome and Christian missionaries working to convert Arab tribes.^[82]:57-60

Reynolds (2008) writes: "While Luxenberg’s opponents often criticize this point, it seems to me quite justifiable, even prudent, in light of our uncertain historical knowledge of Islamic origins. Of course, most of Luxenberg's opponents have more confidence in the historical reliability of the master narrative of Islamic origins than he does."^[1]:15

Böwering (2008)^[83] writes about the work of Azzi [ar] (2001)^[84] who revisited the relation between the Quran and the Ebionites. Muslim tradition has it that Muhammad's cousin Waraqah ibn Nawfal became a Christian in pre-Islamic times who was literate, copied passages from the Christian scriptures and "recognized Muhammad’s prophetic mission immediately after his first Qur’anic revelation". Azzi instead depicts Waraqah as a priest who was the head of the small Ebionite community of Mecca and, as Muhammad's teacher and mentor, prepared him to be his succesor. However, "Muhammad betrayed this project when he migrated to Medina and there became the head of the new Islamic state". This furthermore explains the difference between the earlier and later Quran because "The original Qur’an, assembled by the priest, was intended to serve as a lectionary for the ritual worship of the Christian Arab community of Mecca". Böwering qualifies Azzi's theory as "highly speculative and poorly documented", but as a direction of investigation that could support Luxenberg's purely philological work.^[83]:79-80

Gilliot (2008): "The historical basis that is lacking in the work of Luxenberg might be partly found in Syriac literature, and partly in the bond which, according to the Muslim sources, existed between Muhammad and those who enthroned him as a prophet (Waraqa b. Nawfal, Khadija, and others), or those who furnished him with reports or enriched those that he already possessed on the Bible and post-Biblical literature".^[85]:101

King (2009) writes: "a philological and linguistic argument by itself could be sufficient to prove cultural contact even if it were impossible to reconstruct how that contact might have come about."^[5]

Witzum (2011): "The textual study of the Quran and the examination of its Jewish and Christian sources must precede historical speculation. While work in this direction has been undertaken in many studies ... further endeavors are necessary if the historical reconstruction is to be reliable".^{[15]:257, 279} Yet, "Looking at the Arabian Peninsula as a whole, it can be shown that Christianity had spread throughout it"^[15]:259 and new forms of contact are being proposed, such as by Serafim Seppälä who is quoted as saying: "My own estimation is that, if the author of the Qur’an had direct contact with Christian texts, the most likely possibility is that he heard recitation of Syriac hymns related to liturgical feasts, in addition to Gospel readings from Syriac Qeryana".^[15]:262-3

Neuwirth (2003) describes Luxenberg's thesis of Quran as "a corpus of translations and paraphrases of original Syriac texts recited in church services as elements of a lectionary." She considers it as "an extremely pretentious hypothesis which is unfortunately relying on rather modest foundations." Neuwirth concludes "Luxenberg's reading with its far-reaching conclusions has – though in itself little convincing since largely relying on circular argument – revived the debate about the role of Syriac, as the most vigorous linguistic medium in the transmission of knowledge in Near Eastern late Antiquity, in the emergence of the Qur'an"^[42]

Van Reeth (2006) proposes that the Gospel in the Quran refers to the Syriac Diatessaron. Van Reeth: "the holy book that was read by the community, of which Muhammad was a member, was a Syriac book" and this conclusion "reinforces ... the theory of Luxenberg".^[86]:73[j] This conjecture is reinforced by El-Badawi (2014)^[87] who "traces Qurʾanic concepts and terms in the Diatessaron of Tatian and Syriac gospels, both of which El-Badawi places within this 'Aramaic Gospel tradition [see Palestinian Syriac version of the Bible and Syriac versions of the Bible]'."^[88]:7 That is:

"El-Badawi demonstrates how the Qur’ān, via the agency of the late antique lingua franca of the Near East—Aramaic—selectively challenged or re-appropriated, and therefore took up the “dogmatic re-articulation” of language and imagery coming from the Aramaic Gospel Traditions, in order to fit the idiom and religious temperament of a heterogeneous, sectarian Arabian audience".^[89]

Böwering (2008) writes: "Unfortunately, Luxenberg cannot document a single short sura in its actual Arabic wording that can be set side by side its supposedly Syriac substratum. While he examines three suras in their entirety, their dependence on Syriac is hardly as certain as he wishes it to be".^[83]:78 Böwering concludes: "Not a single written source, whether scriptural or liturgical, however, has been identified that would satisfy the search for an underlying Ur-Qur’an, whether postulated as a Christian hymnal or a Syro-Aramaic lectionary, that served as a written source book for the Qur’an. [Instead,] Essential sections of the Qur’anic message were received from the oral lore of a variety of religious communities who were rooted in the widely dispersed and non-normative Jewish and Christian traditions".^[83]:83

Griffith (2008)^[90] "a central figure for scholarship on the Qur’ān in light of Syriac Christian literature"^[91] and while building on the work of Georg Graf, argued "convincingly that the Bible had not been fully translated into Arabic before the rise of Islam. This would mean that many Arabic speaking Christians relied on Aramaic/Syriac scripture at the time of Islam’s origins."^[92]:15 However Griffith completely rejects a Jewish-Christian substratum to the Quran and cautions against reductionist theories of a direct, linear influence. Griffith instead expounds "complex, diffuse, diverse, and free flowing ideas" present in the thematic context of the Quran's origins.^[91] Thus, "Among many studies Griffith^[90][93][94] convincingly argues that qur’ānic language concerning the Trinity, the nature of Jesus and the story of the Youths of Ephesus ([Sura] 18:9-26) are all informed by an intimate understanding of Syriac Christian literature".^[91]

Stewart (2008)^[44] considers many of emendations "based purely on Arabic readings and not at all on the supposed Syriac Vorlage".^[5]:74

El-Badawi (2014) describes a lack of scholarly consensus regarding the contribution of Syriac/Aramaic Christian literature to the Quran and that three schools of thought can be distinguished:^[46]

• On the one hand "the Luxenberg school" who argue that the Quran was originally a Syriac Christian liturgical text. Supporters are those belonging to the Inârah Institute (a subgroup of revisionist scholars), see also Kropp,^[59] Van Reeth,^[60] and Sawma.^[58] This group is marginalised and their claims "hotly contested, if not rejected outright by most Qur’ān specialists".^[46]
• On the other end of the spectrum Neuwirth^[95] who considers the Quran "fundamentally a text of late antiquity and belonging to the Arabian context illustrated in Islamic tradition. The relationship between qur’ānic passages and Syriac Christian literature are only part of a wider intertextual dialogue between the Qur’ān and religious works of late antiquity".^[46]
• The middle ground is represented by Reynolds^[96] who diminishes the tafsir tradition and also rejects a Christian liturgical urtext, instead advocating for reading the Quran "through the lens of late antique Syriac Christian homiletic literature", i.e. to read the Quran "as a homily".^[46]

El-Badawi concludes stating "the field continues to change and . . . there is hope that new work by Zellentin,^[97] El-Badawi^[45] and others will tread a path between that of Neuwirth and Reynolds".^[46]

Neuenkirchen (2022) writes: "many subsequent scholarly endeavours, while most definitely benefiting from the momentum created by Luxenberg’s book, have offered much more pondered and contextualized approaches to the question of the relationship between the Syriac milieu and that in which the Quran emerged. . . . Among the different literary genres of [Syriac writings], homilies have proven to be choice candidates for such comparative purposes."^[12]

McCoy (2021) writes that with the notable exception of Saleh^[98][99] and Casewit^[100][101] modern scholarship has paid almost no attention to the contributions made by some medieval Muslim exegetes - notably Ibn Barrajan and al-Biqai - who interpreted the Quran using Arabic versions of the Bible.^[102]:xi-xii They placed authority in the canonical texts of the Old and New Testament, seeing them as divine knowledge, and considered the Hebrew and Christian scriptures as identical to the Tawrah and Ingil referred to in the Quran".^[102]:1-7

De Blois (2003) is of the opinion that "the possibility of repointing affords virtually limitless opportunities to reinterpret the scripture".^[41] King (2009) counters this saying this "is not as such an argument against that procedure which is generally accepted as a valid one in, e.g., the textual criticism of the Hebrew scriptures."^[5]:72

Corriente (2003)^[43] is "occasionally accepting, more often sceptical, sometimes scathing" on individual readings.^[5]:72

The Berlin Institute for Advanced Study organized a conference on Luxenberg's work in 2004. "Luxenberg's methodology was generally deemed incomplete [but] a consensus seems to have been reached that the interventions Luxenberg makes in the texts must be scrutinized individually".^[103]

Baasten (2004) is very positive on individual readings: “in many instances he makes a convincing case".^[55]:272

Stewart (2008) writes:

"Luxenberg is not alone in proposing emendations of the Qur’anic text. Many emendations are reported in medieval works of Qur’anic philology, [such as compiled in Al-Suyuti's Al-Itqan, however,] only a handful of scholars in Qur’anic studies since Nöldeke and Goldziher have devoted serious attention to emendation of the text. Among them the most prominent is undoubtedly James A. Bellamy, who, in seven articles dating from 1973 to 2002, proposed 29 emendations of the Qur’anic text as well as dozens of emendations of the muqatta‘at. . . . The results are varied. Many of the medieval emendations presented by al-Suyuti seem plausible and in some cases very probable. Many of Bellamy’s proposed emendations are highly unlikely, but a few are excellent proposals that provide improved readings. How does Luxenberg compare with his predecessors in the project of Qur’anic emendation? All told, Luxenberg proposes hundreds of emendations to the text of the Qur'an [..] Most of Luxenberg’s emendations are implausible and often demonstrably wrong. A small number of proposed emendations is likely or merits further consideration."^[44]:230-7

Stewart (2008) furthermore notes: "Whatever the merits of Luxenberg's work, reactions that have deprecated it simply because he dares to emend the Qur'anic text are disappointing. Scholars of the Qur'an, if they are worthy of the name, should be able to advance arguments regarding the probability or improbability of the specific emendations Luxenberg has proposed rather than simply crying foul."^[44]

Donner (2009) writes that "While some reviewers have harshly criticized a few of his emendations, the majority of them remain to be tested".^[11]

Böwering (2008): "it cannot be overlooked that, generally speaking, Semitic roots invite creative tinkering and that one can offer alternate explanations for Luxenberg's readings by manipulating roots in Hebrew, Ethiopic or Syriac in comparison with Arabic".^[83]:78

El-Badawi (2014) reports that "some scholars equally skeptical about the Qur’ān’s origins have gravitated towards Luxenberg's approach",^[45]:29 referring to: Sawma (2006),^[58] Kropp [de] (2008)^[59] and Van Reeth (2008).^[60]

Zellentin (2019)^[61] writes that "a few scholars find the method of reconstituting words based on the Qur'anic rasm (i.e. the consonantal skeleton of the Qur'an, without i'jam pointing) a worthwhile exercise, see e.g. Munther Younes".^{[62][63][64][65]}

Corriente (2003) has strenuous objections to the thesis of a non-oral transmission.^[43] King considers Corriente's arguments lacking and "a case of pleading on the basis of what must have been".^[5]

Donner (2008) suggests there is evidence to support Luxenberg's hypothesis of a time of only written transmission, which is required to explain why Quran interpreters did not realise they were reading Syriac passages and the pronunciation Luxenberg attempts to reconstruct with his orthographic procedure (y for a):

"there is mounting evidence that the Qur’an text, or parts of it at least, must at some stage in its history have been transmitted in purely written form, without the benefit of a controlling tradition of active recitation. This evidence takes the form of recognizing in the Qur’anic text misunderstood words, hypercorrected words (the “lectio facilior”), or stray marks which then became incorporated into the recitation, something that could only happen if the oral recitation were derived from the written text rather than the other way around" "Recent work on the word furqan provides another case in which the written, not oral, transmission of the text is implied by the evidence."^[11]:40-41

King (2009) considers Luxenberg's more successful emendations to lend support to the idea of an early textual transmission of the Quran.^[5]:71 King considers this even further supported on other grounds when reading F. Donner^[76] alongside U. Rabbin.^[104]