Editing Openai/67f9c019-88f0-8007-a867-29e6f1beeb8b (section)

===== - Traditional translations (like Yusuf Ali’s) maintain the well‑entrenched exegesis: the verse is understood to indicate that neither killing nor actual crucifixion took place, but that it appeared so to the observers. This view is supported by centuries of interpretative tradition and is linked with the inimitability of the Quran’s language. =====
* Qur’an‑bil‑Qur’an translations (represented by Rashad Khalifa’s approach) seek to derive all meaning solely from the Quran’s internal textual coherence, avoiding external commentaries. Here, the text is taken as its own best interpreter; the focus is on self‑reference and internal cross‑explanation of ambiguous words.
* Cross‑Linguistic Roots translators (as exemplified by Saint Murad) use comparative Semitic linguistics to re‑examine key lexical items. In this verse, Murad argues that the term for “appeared” is best understood not merely as “made to seem” but as deriving from a root that implies a deliberate rendering into a particular form—a nuance that can be seen as questioning the traditional view of an unaltered, divinely inimitable revelation.

Each approach shapes not only the wording but also the theological implications of the verse. Traditional methods reinforce the divine originality and consistency of the Quran, the Quran‑bil‑Quran approach emphasizes the text’s self‑containing clarity, and the cross‑linguistic method opens the door to reinterpretations that may challenge established readings.