I spent a little time last night reading some of the commentary. In a nutshell, it's very good in terms of explaining Muslim interpretation of various passages and such, but there's no hint of anything text-critical.
Without getting into any of the reasons that might get this kicked to Politics and Religion, I'll quote part of the commentary for Sura 3 (
Āl ʿImrān) verses 33-34:
Quote:
|
ʿImrān is the name of Mary’s father (also in v. 35; 66:12), who is not named in the Bible, but is known in extra-Biblical literature as Joachim, which means “He whom Yahweh set up.” The commentators who equate the name ʿImrān with the Hebrew Amram (the name of Moses’ father), and thus believe that both the father of Moses and the father of Mary were separately named ʿImrān, do not seem to be aware of the name Joachim. The Quran and Ḥadīth do not name Moses’ father; so it is unclear how the equation between ʿImrān and Amram came to be, even though commentators as early as Muqātil (d. 150/767) seem to accept it, and they make an explicit distinction between the two (including the centuries between them).
|
Comparing this to study Bibles, it's something like the
NIV Study Bible discussing the meaning of 1 Timothy without seriously considering the possibility that Paul wasn't the author. While neither
The Study Quran nor the
NIV Study Bible are devotional by any means, they're also not
The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible.