Luxenberg's book has been reviewed by Blois (2003), Neuwirth (2003) and following the English translation by King (2009) and Saleh (2011). He further argues that Arabic evolved from
Nabataean Aramaic script not Syriac. He concludes that by the 7th century Arabic was widely written and spoken, and was used for literary and sacred expression. 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. The Qur'an is the translation of a Syriac text is how
Angelika Neuwirth describes Luxenberg's thesis: "The general thesis underlying his entire book thus is that the Qur'an is 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 points out that Luxenberg doesn't consider the previous work in Qur'an studies, but "limits himself to a very mechanistic, positivist linguistic method without caring for theoretical considerations developed in modern linguistics." describes Luxenberg's book in a review article as "almost unreadable, certainly for the layman. One needs knowledge of eight languages (
German,
English,
French,
Latin,
Greek,
Hebrew,
Arabic and
Syriac) and of five different alphabets (
Latin,
Greek,
Hebrew,
Arabic, and the
Syriac Estrangelo) to comprehend the book fully. A good working knowledge of German, Arabic and Syriac is indispensable to be able to assess the book Luxenberg's main problem, however, is that his line of reasoning doesn't follow the simple and strict method that he set out at the beginning of his book".
Richard Kroes' conclusion about the book is, "certainly not everything Luxenberg writes is nonsense or too far-fetched, but quite a few of his theories are doubtful and motivated too much by a
Christian apologetic agenda. Even his greatest critics admit he touches on a field of research that was touched on by others before and that deserves more attention. However, this needs to be done with a strictly scientific approach. In fact, his investigations should be done again, taking into account all the scholarly work that Luxenberg doesn't seem to know". A March 2002
New York Times article describes Luxenberg's research: In 2002,
The Guardian newspaper published an article which stated: In 2003, the
Pakistani government banned a 2003 issue of
Newsweeks international edition discussing Luxenberg's thesis on grounds that it was offensive to
Islam. Francois de Blois has postulated that Luxenberg is not German but rather a
Lebanese Christian. He believes that the individual is a dilettante whose Syro-Aramaic reading "does not actually make better sense" than the standard
Classical Arabic reading. He writes that the 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." He posits that Luxenberg has an articulate knowledge of dialectal Arabic, passable (though flawed) command of
Classical Arabic, and a basic (though "very shaky") command of Syriac. He ultimately concludes that German academics have no reason to hide their identity:It is necessary, in conclusion, to say a little about the authorship, or rather the non authorship, the pseudonymity of this book. An article published in
the New York Times on 2nd March 2002 (and subsequently broadly disseminated in the internet) referred to this book as the work of 'Christoph Luxenberg, a scholar of
ancient Semitic languages in Germany'. It is, I think, sufficiently clear from this review that the person in question is not 'a scholar of ancient Semitic languages'. He is someone who evidently speaks some Arabic dialect, has a passable, but not flawless command of classical Arabic, knows enough Syriac so as to be able to consult a dictionary, but is innocent of any real understanding of the methodology of comparative Semitic linguistics. His book is not a work of scholarship but of dilettantism [amateur]. Richard Kroes (2004) says that "Even his (Luxenberg's) greatest critics admit he touches on a field of research that was touched on by others before and that deserves more attention. However, this needs to be done with a strictly scientific approach. In fact, his investigations should be done again, taking into account all the scholarly work that Luxenberg doesn't seem to know" and mentions that he is "unaware of much of the other literature on the subject" and that "quite a few of his theories are doubtful and motivated too much by a Christian apologetic agenda."
Patricia Crone, professor of
Islamic history at the
Institute for Advanced Study,
Princeton, New Jersey, in a 2008 article at
OpenDemocracy wrote that the Qur'an language is obscure and that "Sometimes it uses expressions that were unknown even to the earliest exegetes, or words that do not seem to fit entirely, though they can be made to fit more or less; sometimes it seems to give us fragments detached from a long-lost context; and the style is highly allusive." She refers to Luxenberg's work as "open to so many scholarly objections" and "notably amateurism". In contrast to these commentaries,
Robert Phenix and
Cornelia Horn of the
University of St Thomas in
Saint Paul, Minnesota write: == Christoph Luxenberg ==