وقد يقول قائل ان المراد هنا هو مريم او مريام اخت موسى و هارون و لكن الناقد غيوم داي يرد على الادعاء الساذج في الصفحة 14
Second, there is the formula "the priest Aaron, the brother of Mary" (ahron mgdelman jmaman mariamisman). The Lection of Jeremiah always speaks of Mary, and not Miryam, and since the author is patently a (clever) monk, he would not mistake Miryam for Mary. The formula priest brother of Mary is an addition of the Lection. Its typological and symbolic signification is obvious. Note also the mention, in addition to Aaron, of Moses, "the chosen of the Lord". Furthermore, following the Life of Jeremiah, the Lection of Jeremiah explains that the rock is located in the desert (exactly where the Ark was before), between two mountains, where Moses reposes (§ 13). Moreover, in fulfillment of the prophecy, God granted Jeremiah a place next to Moses and Aaron (§ 14) - beside the Ark, which remains a symbol for Mary.
All this brings an exceptionally close typology between Mary and the "family of 'Amran". It links Mary to Aaron and Moses, on two levels at least: the Ark of Covenant and the Dormition.
Indeed, it should be remembered that, according to Jewish traditions (of course known by Christians too), Moses, Aaron and Miryam all experienced a dormition (like Mary, and her mother Anna), dying "through a kiss of God".
المذهل ان الناقد يؤكد استحالة معرفة عربي من الحجاز لمثل هذه المعلومة و انه لا بد ان راهبا سريانيا قد الف هذه القصة الخاصة و ادخلها في القران بعد ان اسلم و اعلم تبعيته للخلفاء بعد فتح الشام و العراق فهي بالنسبة له و لكثير من قصص القران اليهودي و النصراني الفت بعد وفاة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم و هو مضطر إلى هذا التفسير فالاعتراف بالاعجاز يخالف منهجه و مثل هذه المعلومة لم تعرف عند يوحنا الدمشقي و لا نصارى نجران !!!
يقول في الصفحة 17
11) Nothing suggests that he relies on oracular words of Muhammad. Thanks to his intimate knowledge of Palestinian Marian liturgical traditions, he composes a dialogue hymn, following the model of hymns which were sung or recited in a (Christian) liturgical setting.
It is highly unlikely, to say the least, that a scribe corresponding to such a profile could have belonged to the Meccan or Medinan circle of Muhammad - or more generally to the Higaz, except if we are ready to imagine Mecca or Medina as an Arabic Edessa, Antioch, or Jerusalem. The most likely explanation is that this author should be situated elsewhere than the Higaz - most probably, indeed, not too far from Jerusalem, since he was extremely familiar with the Hagiopolite liturgy. Besides, such a skillful text requires various specific competencies, and we should wonder how they could have been acquired. The obvious explanation is that our author belongs to the class of the religious literati. In other words, he was certainly a Christian monk, who "converted" to the new faith, or put his pen at the service of the newcomers - certainly, therefore, after the conquests.68
وفي الصفحة 19
((Hence the following dilemma: we cannot say that the general framework given by the Muslim tradition is right and, at the same time, take seriously the Qur'anic text. If we take the Qur'ān seriously (namely, if we do not bind it on the Procrustean bed that Muslim tradition prepared for it), we should indeed admit at least one of the following scenarios. First hypothesis: the Higaz at the time of the Prophet had a level of Christian presence and literary culture which was comparable to the cities or monasteries of Syria and Palestine: there were Christians in the Higaz, Christian ideas were known, and it was also possible to meet there the kind of scribe who was able to write such texts as (among other examples) surah 3, 5, 18 and 19 (and this pertains to the so-called Meccan and Medinan suras). Second hypothesis: at least in part (namely, all the time, or only before the emigration to Yatrib), Muhammad's career did not take place in the Higaz, but further north, for example in Trans-Jordan or Palestine.