Reading Quran [19:27,28](https://quran.com/19/27) Christians and Jews encounter something that raises alarms.

> 
> Then she brought him to her people, carrying him. They said, "O Mary, you have certainly done a thing unprecedented. O sister of **Aaron**, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste."
> 
> 
> 

The same alarms were raised in Najran, as we see recorded in [Sahih Muslim #5326](https://sunnah.com/muslim/38/13)

> 
> When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read "O sister of Harun" (i.e. Hadrat Maryam) in the Qur'an, whereas Moses was born much before Jesus. When I came back to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) I asked him about that, whereupon he said: The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them.
> 
> 
> 

The 2 problems the Christians faced in this passage is that...

1. They understood the Quran saying that Aaron's sister (who lived hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus) was the same person as the Theotokos, making Dei Genetrix about 1400 years old when giving birth to the True God.
2. They seen that the author of the Quran confused Maryam the sister of Moses with Mary the Mother of God.

The first being problematic to their christian faith, in the understanding that the Light of the world was born of a young woman, but the greatest miracle in fertility & life.

The second being problematic to the legitimacy of the Quran, therefore the legitimacy of the prophetic career of Muhammad.

Luckily Muhammad explains the situation, saying that it was simply the way people were named in the time, simply a metaphor.

Sounds like a closed case, but not yet, there is no evidence (I am able to find) showing in that time (of the Mother of God) where an ordinary person would be named "sister of (pious ancient person)". (Judea preferred)

If there is no evidence, then I can only see 4 situations.

1. This particular part of the Quran is **miraculously** the **only** part of history where this is recorded (600 years after the era).
2. There is evidence **fully satisfying** the pending evidence request of many Christians for hundreds of years, making it public and finally settling the centuries long evidence request.
3. The Hadith quoted is unreliable and the mother of the Lamb of God was truly very old at the birth of the God Incarnate.
4. Or there is simply an error in the infallible word of God, making Muhammad a fraud.

My question is if there's any evidence backing up the metaphor explained by Muhammad.