A Brief Look at 'Nasara'

The Quran uses the word ‘Nasrani’ and ‘Nasara’ to mean Christian and Christians respectively. Of course, Arabic-speaking Christians call themselves Masihiyun. Singular: Masihi.

In the Quran we read in S 3:52 Then when Isa perceived kufr among them he said: Who are my helpers to Allah? The Hawariyun said: We are Allah’s helpers. We have believed in Allah, and bear witness that we are Muslims.

The author uses the word ansar for ‘helpers’. Did he think that this is the etymology of ‘Nasara’?

In S 5:14 we read: And from those who said: We are Nasara, we took their covenant but they forgot a share of what they had been reminded of. So we aroused enmity and hatred among them until the day of resurrection. And Allah will inform them of what they used to do.

Now, we might expect Arabic-speaking Christians to call themselves Masihiyun, which they do. So why might they call themselves ‘Nasara’?

S 22:17 Those who have believed and those who were Jewish and the Sabians and the Nasara and the Magians and those who have associated, Allah judges between them on the day of resurrection. Allah is a witness over everything.

Following is a list of Arabic words and their transliterations:

مسيحي

مسيحيون

Masihi

Masihiyun

نصراني

نصارى

Nasrani

Nasara

Regarding a ‘Nazarene' etymology: We see the Arabic form of the word ‘Nazarene’ below:

ناصري

Nasiri

And the plural is:

ناصريون

Nasiriyun

But would Arab Christians be calling themselves 'Nazarenes'?

If Waraqa had translated the true Gospel, wouldn’t he have come across the correct Syriac word for ‘Christian(s)’?

وَكَانَ يَكْتُبُ الْكِتَابَ الْعِبْرَانِيَّ، فَيَكْتُبُ مِنَ الإِنْجِيلِ بِالْعِبْرَانِيَّةِ مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ أَنْ يَكْتُبَ

And he used to write the Hebrew Book, so he would write from the Injil in Hebrew what Allah willed him to write. https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3

If by ‘Hebrew’ Syriac is meant, the word used in the Syriac Peshitta is ܟܪܣܛܝܢܐ Keristeyana and in the plural ܟܪܣܛܝܢܐ Keristeyane. Now, one might expect him to have been familiar with the Syriac terms. And one might suppose that he would have used the equivalent terms in conversation with the founder of Islam. But why did the latter not use the correct terms? Was he using a term that ordinary Arabs were using of the Christians, a term that they themselves of course didn’t use?

But might one expect a book that is purportedly from God to use the correct terms, especially when putting one in the mouth of Christians?