If we find books written some decades after Prophet Muhammad by authors in sophisticated Greek or Persian, would anyone in their right mind that these authors were the Prophet’s followers?
Could you quote the Quranic source, where this distinction is made clear? I do not question that it is a widespread main stream opinion in Muslim perspective, but would like to see explicit mention of this in the Quran. Also, at least a minority of Muslim view considers it more or less preserved, for example as argued in Lumbard’s essay of the Quran’s view of Sacred history, found in “The Study Quran”.
Thanks, Paul. He quotes two ayats of the Quran, 4:157 which deals not with the issue and the exact meaning, has been subject to many and varied interpretations by the mufassireen.
2:79 which is discussed out of context (to me 2:75-79) does not itself refer to Torah, Zabur or Injeel or even ahli al-kitab or snything clearly identifiable. When one reads the context there are more uncertainties as 2:78 speaks of unlettered people (maybe Jews?) somehow taking a part of writing(?). I agree with him that the distinction is made clear outside of rhe Quran, but is there perhaps a more clear distinction made in the Quran itself you could refer me to?
“When one reads the context there are more uncertainties as 2:78 speaks of unlettered people (maybe Jews?) somehow taking a part of writing(?”
what do you mean? The quran clearly identifies two groups of people, one who dont know the book and one who do know the book, the one who know write the book with their own hands and corrupt it
@ mr.Heathcliff these ayas never explicitly identify anyone neither Jews, Christians, Sabeans, ahli al-kitab nor what books or revelations were altered. I would prefer an aya in the Quran where a clear distinction is made as brother Paul said.
I agree with you that whomever 2:75-79 talks about, it is not characterising them positively.. What I am asking for, is a verse in the Quran that explicitly and unambigiously says that the written text of the Injeel (or for that matter the Torah, Zabur and possibly other revelations) has been altered.
I respect you very much Paul and the verse is clear, but in the Arabic it actually argues that the previous Books of revelation are uncorrupted (but perhaps incomplete) . I do see that some translations such as Sahih Int. may give the wrong impression.
Let me translate the first part of the aya somewhat literally: “And We have revealed the Book [The Quran] in truth, confirming what is between their hands [or what came before it] of/from the Book and as a protector/trust/guard [muheiman] over it…”
So it not only confirms what came before/that which is now in their possession of the Scripture, but as it has Book in the singular it is also saying they are all part of the same Book. Muheiman does not really mean criterion (implying that something could be not right – and note there is another clear word for criteron, Furqn) but rather it is a safeguard/protector of the previous scripture(s). It has nothing to do with corruption. At best you might say the previous revelations are not complete without the final revelation, The Quran . Alteration of the text is not talked about in this aya, nor did many comentators understand it to be, see for instance al Jalalayn ,
Corriection “We have revealed the Book to you” to you [Muhammad presumably] were errenously omitted in the first section of the translation – dont know how. Sorry!
Hi Sam.
Verse 2:79 does not explicitly mention the name of what was corrupted and it doesn’t really have to. It says they (the Jews as mentioned in previous verses) wrote the SCRIPTURE with their own hands. Now if you were to interpret it as saying the scripture being something like the talmud or the zohar then this isn’t correct since the jews don’t consider these to be scripture. Hence the only interpretations for the word scripture are: Torah, Psalms or Tenakh. The latter option still contains the Torah and Psalms and hence are very likely to be corrupted as well.
I don’t think this will satisfy you since you explicitly asked for corruption of scripture by name but it’s as close as you can get.
Q 5:48 uses the wore muhamain which many scholars understood to mean ‘controller’ or ‘quality control’. This word is used for the Quran as being a quality control over the previous scriptures and hence implying corrurption since if they weren’t then the Qur’an wouldn’t have to be a quality control.
Hi Sam, I planned on doing a part 2 to a series I was writing on QB’s blog but since you asked I’ll try to share some. We can break the passages down into explicit and implicit references
Explicit
2:75. Now do you ˹really˺ hope that a people such as this will believe in you, when some of them used to hear God’s words and then change or twist it, even though they understood them?
2:76. When they meet those who believe, they say: “We’ve believed!” But when they’re alone in secret, ˹they˺ say: “Are you telling them about what God has ˹revealed to us previously˺, so that they can make a case against you, with your Lord? Don’t you have any type of common sense or understanding?”
2:77. Do they not understand that God knows what they’re hiding and what they’re showing?
2:78. Among them as well are the ‘illiterate’ ones who don’t know the Scripture except for wishful thinking. They’re only making guesses and assuming.
2:79. May damnation be unleashed on those who write the Scripture with their own hands, then say: “This is from God,” in order to sell it for a worthless price. May damnation be on them for what their hands have written and may damnation be on them for what they’re earning.
6:91. They did not value God as he deserves to be valued when they said: “God hasn’t revealed anything to a human being.” Ask them: “Who was it then who sent down the Scripture, which Moses brought as a light and guide to the people, which you separated and made into these exotic and expensive scrolls, showing some but making sure to hide many? And now you’ve taught something which neither you nor your fathers knew.” ˹Help them out and˺ say: “God…” and then leave them there amusing themselves and running their mouths with useless talk.
5:12. God had taken a Covenant from the Children of Israel…
5:13. But they broke their promise, so I cursed them and made their hearts hard. They changed the words from their original places and have forgotten a huge piece of what they were told to remember over and over again, so you will continue to find treachery against you or cheats from a few of them. Overlook this and forgive them because God loves those who excel in doing good.
5:14. I had also took a Covenant from those who say: “We’re Christians,” but they too forgot what they were told to remember. So I released animosity and hatred among themselves until the Day of Judgement, when God will tell them what they used to manufacture.
5:15. People of the Scripture! My Messenger has come to you; clarifying what you used to keep hidden of the Scripture and who overlooks much ˹of what you changed˺. A light has now come to you from God, along with a Scripture making things clear,
5:16. which God uses to guide to the ways of peace, all who are looking to follow what pleases Him. Leading them from their various shades of darkness into the Light, by His will, and onto one straight path.
Implicit
4:44. Haven’t you seen the ones who were given A PART of the Scripture, buying misguidance and wishing you too would lose the way?
4:51. Haven’t you seen those who were given A PART of the Scripture, believing in superstitions and anything that calls to rebellion ˹against God˺, say about the disbelievers: “Even they’re better guided than these ‘believers’ to what the right path is ˹to follow˺?”
Notice they do not have the complete book.
98:1. Those who disbelieved among the followers of the People of the Scripture and the pagans would’ve never stopped until clear proof came to them.
98:2. A Messenger from God, reading and following purified scriptures,
98:3. which contain upstanding teachings and laws in it.
Prophet Muhammad(saw) and his purified Scripture coming means theirs is notand they would have never stopped using the wrong they were doing.
5:48. I have sent this Scripture to you with a purpose and the Truth, verifying the books that came before it, and it is a witness and Safeguarder to forever dominate over them, so judge between them according to what God has sent down. Do not follow their empty whims and desires, which deviate from the Truth that has come to you. I have assigned a law and a path for you all, and if God had desired, He could’ve made you one community, but He wanted to test you through what He’s given you. So race to do good, you will all return to God and He will make it clear to you about the matters which you argued about.
God says in this verse the Quran is a Safeguarder over the previous Scriptures and they did not receive anything really that much different from what we got. If it agrees with the Quran it is correct if it disagrees they altered it.
I hope that clears things up Sam and may peace be on those who follow the guidance.
PS
Also, quick note be careful with the “Study Quran” is not made by any scholars of note and almost entirely is encompassed by deviants or non-Muslims.
Thanks a lot for sharing Stewjo004
I greatly appreciate your generosity. I will have to look into your material in more depth, when time permits. For now I have two comments/questions;
1. 5:48 literally states that the Quran confirms what is between their hands at the time of the prophet and that it is all part of/from the same book. So if other ayats appear to contradict this we will have to consider other interpretations ( but before having seen the article you will publish I have not been convinced that corruption of written Torah, Inheel zabbur etc. Is explicitly mentioned in the Quran).
2. As ffar as I know all contributors to “The Study Quran” are devout Muslim academics , and highly regarded, e.g, Abdel Haleem. Who is not Muslim among the contributors? The work was highly praised by for example Shabir Ally who called it marvellous, see his review on youtube.
1. i responded to Paul’s suggestion above that 5:48 is it, with a very brief linguistic analysis. You probably missed it. See above. With all due respect., the Arabic is not exactly saying what the translations say or imply.
2. Well, many scholars of various stripes did write positively of the work. I am not sure it is fair to just criticise because of their background as they are all scholars of the field, even if one disagrees with them. So I prefer not to go further on this point.
I have spoken to Abel Haleem personally about the passage and he understands it to be teaching the corruption of the previous scriptures (*not* the New Testament). The traditional Muslim understanding is based on the Quran. He told me he intends to write an article on this subject.
Muhammad A. S. Abdel Haleem is Professor of Islamic Studies at SOAS, University of London in London, England, and editor of the Journal of Qur’anic Studies.
Thanks Paul, I will await the publication of Prof. Haleem’s article to see the full argument. Please post it here if you hear of its publication.
For now, I will consider my argument a legitimate one, based on reading the Arabic text. If there are other legitimate readings, arguing a conflicting view, such as the one Prof. Haleem will offer, it simply supports my contention that the issue is not expressed as unequivocally in the Quran, as it is often assumed.
BTW, I do not claim that the traditional Muslim view developed somehow independently of the Quran, it clearly did not. Only that the Quran itself makes a less explicit claim when compared to the traditional view, which was only much later filly developed.
Sorry to report that Abdel Haleem was very dismissive indeed of views such as yours. He does not regards them as ‘legitimate’ alternatives, but as simply wrong.
Actually, he used a much stronger word than that to me. But you get the idea.
@mr.heathcliff. Perhaps we should agree to disagree then. Even if one believes these to be Jews and I agree this is a legitimate interpretation, what did they corrupt? Yes, there is one view they corrupted the foretelling of Muhammad in the Torah (perhaps Tanakh?) and another view they scribbled something down on a medium and pawned it off on ignorant people (see al-Tabari and and al-Tha’labi according to the “The Study Quran”). This would accord well with the rest of the verse that they did it to “sell it for a paltry price”. If this is correct then it appears that the Book (or revelation) itself was unscathed. But again, we can speculate about the exact meaning, I was asking for something unequivocal.
“Sorry to report that Abdel Haleem was very dismissive indeed of views such as yours. He does not regards them as ‘legitimate’ alternatives, but as simply wrong. Actually, he used a much stronger word than that to me. But you get the idea.”
That is fair enough, he is an authority on the Arabic of the Quran, so let us await his study of the issues, perhaps we are then in better position to proceed. Let me make a brief point and then perhaps you can make a few concluding remarks to round off the topic.
You have not actually shown my reading to be wrong or reproduced the argument of Prof. Abdel Haleem, simply stated his positions. But you see, Prof. Abdel Haleem is no longer disagreeing with me alone, but also with at least some of his editors and fellow contributors to “The Study Quran” (see in particular the interpretation of 5:47-48 as well as the essay on the Qurans view of Sacred History by Joseph Lumbard). In addition, modern) scholars such as Gabriel Said Reynolds (non-Muslim I think he is Christian) have also argued that the Quran does not declare the text of the previous revelations to be corrupted. Also, notable Islamic scholars such as Al-Tabari did not consider the text of previous revelations to be corrupt, as argued by scholars like Camilla Adang and Abdullah Saeed.
In sum, my position may be wrong and it may be a minority view, but it is also the understanding of a wide range of scholars.
PS I wish to clarify a point, which I fear you misunderstood (but I hope you did not), since you now twice mentioned Prof. Abdel Haleem. I never said or meant to imply that he agreed with “my” position. I simply mentioned him as an example of a scholar of note in response to the statement that “The Study Quran” “…was not made by any scholars of note”.
Been to the library today after work, and so I apologize for the belated response. Thank you for the material, it is indeed useful and it’s always helpful to start out with well-defined statements. I will divide my response in two parts.
As a non-professional I would not like to contradict a scholar of the field such as Dr. Saleh, so I will stop short of that. But let me report my findings – which were not consistent with the statement – “that the scholarly consensus is that the Qurān does indeed make the charge that Jewish and Christian scriptures have been textually corrupted”, and I will let you asses the material. I also encourage you not to take my word for it, but look up the sources for yourself.
There are, numerous statements I might quote, but for the sake brevity sake, I will limit myself to one quote in favor of each position. If you wish I can quote relevant portions that you deem necessary.
I looked up all the sources quoted in footnote 40, p. 13 in the book reviewed and which Dr. Saleh states “…provides a list of major scholars who hold the view” [that the Qurān does indeed make the charge that Jewish and Christian scriptures have been textually corrupted]. Except for Charles J. Adams, whom the author (Nickel) cites as an example of a scholar of the view espoused by Dr. Waleh, only one other of the sources namely, Shari Lowin’s entry on “Revision and Alteration”, states what Dr. Waleh considers to be the scholarly consensus. The remaining sources cited – 6 by my count – all entries in the Encyclopedia of the Quran – seem to speak of textual corruptions only in the Islamic tradition.
Thus, Camilla Adang states in her entry “Torah” that “Since the Qurʾān does not always explicitly state how, and by whom this misrepresentation (known as taḥrīf) was effected — some authors ascribe a major role to Ezra (q.v.) — different interpretations of the relevant verses soon arose. According to one, the Jews did not corrupt the text of their scripture, but merely misrepresented its contents. The other view, which developed somewhat later and seems to be held by the majority of Muslims, asserts that the Israelites and later the Jews changed the written text of the Torah, adding to and deleting from it as they pleased”.
In support of the consensus position, I did manage to find a review of Nickel’s book by David Powers (U of Cornell), who states: “…Gordon Nickel successfully deploys the technique of word study and semantic analysis in an effort to disabuse scholars of the mistaken assumption that the doctrine of textual distortion is found already in the text of the Qur’an. This reader has in consequence been largely disabused of this notion – albeit not entirely. In my view greater attention should be paid to exegeses of Q 2:79, 3:78, and 5:13, in which verses the plain meaning points to the manipulation of text”. (I can agree that the first reference is about text, though the remaining two seem much less clear to me, but let us not get into that for the moment).
Let us in “kid’s fashion” tally up: the consensus position has Dr. Saleh and Jane Dutton (as per your posts), Shari Lowin, C. J. Adams as well as David Powers, for a total of five scholarly opinions.
On the other hand, I counted six sources. To be fair I am willing to deduct two, as I fail to see the relevance of some sources cited that, at best, only touch on the subject and indirectly at that (e.g., the entry on chronology). Perhaps some of the authors did express a position identical to that described by Dr. Saleh, in other publications, but as cited here, some of the sources, do not, in my estimate, illuminate the question of scholarly consensus.
In sum, I do not say that Dr. Saleh is wrong about what the scholarly consensus is. He is a scholar of the field. However, from the sources, you provided and the resulting 5:4 ratio I came to, one would not have guessed.
I hope you find that I have tried to deal with the issue in a fair manner even if I am – and I admit it – a nonprofessional in this field. But again I encourage you to review the material for yourself – I may have erred. Finally, I already admitted that I may be wrong and that my position may be a minority one, but again the position I currently hold is one held by a wide range of scholars including Muslims and western scholars.
Yes, I am aware there are ahadits to that effect (I think I drew a clear distinction clear between the Quran and extra Quranic material, a few times already).
However, studying and using ahadits is different field requiring different methodology. For example, one would need to look at time period, the report itself, do we have differing or conflicting reports etc. and then and make observations on the basis of the material in toto. At least that’s how I think about it as a layman – but do correct me if I am wrong.
I do not mean to say this in order to somehow disqualify the use of ahadits, quite the contrary. My concern is simply that we ask the right questions.
It is an interesting topic indeed. Is there any literature on the subject you might recommend?
I see I misspelled a couple of names above, so let me correct myself. “Jane Dutton” should have been Jane Dammen McAuliffe (the entry you quoted was authored by William A. Graham). Also, I misspelled Dr. Saleh as “Waleh” in a couple of instances. I apologize.
Ibn ‘Abbaas said, “How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about their Books while you have Allah’s Book (the Qur’an) which is the most recent of the Books revealed by Allah, and you read it in its pure undistorted form?”
Volume 9, Book 93, Number 614:
Narrated ‘Ubaidullah bin ‘Abdullah:
‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbaas said, “O the group of Muslims! How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about anything while your Book which Allah has revealed to your Prophet contains the most recent news from Allah and is pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the people of the Scriptures have changed some of Allah’s Books and distorted it and wrote something with their own hands and said, ‘This is from Allah, so as to have a minor gain for it. Won’t the knowledge that has come to you stop you from asking them? No, by Allah, we have never seen a man from them asking you about that (the Book Al-Qur’an ) which has been revealed to you.
“hese ayas never explicitly identify anyone neither Jews, Christians, Sabeans, ahli al-kitab nor what books or revelations were altered.”
So what about the context when it says those who understood deliberately altered the harf ?this is explicitly refering to the jews, then the verse LINKS back to these people in 2:79. What al kitaab do the jews know?
“When one reads the context there are more uncertainties as 2:78 speaks of unlettered people (maybe Jews?) somehow taking a part of writing(?”
i read the context. You seem to be saying that unlettered people “somehow taking part in writing”
I asked:
what do you mean? The quran clearly identifies two groups of people, one who dont know the book and one who do know the book. the one who know write the book with their own hands and corrupt it
you then said:
these ayas never explicitly identify anyone neither Jews, Christians, Sabeans, ahli al-kitab nor what books or revelations were altered.
question:
I honestly dont understand your response.
i do not want to use fallacy of presentism , but even today christian forgeries are sold of as “word of god”
my question is, when did christians and jew.make sales of their scripture ? Making sales of torah was pre-islamic practice ?
”
Yes, there is one view they corrupted the foretelling of Muhammad in the Torah (perhaps Tanakh?) and another view they scribbled something down on a medium and pawned it off on ignorant people (see al-Tabari and and al-Tha’labi according to the “The Study Quran”). ”
1.you mean like god resting and getting refreshed ?
2.like god saying “this day ana wulidtuka” ?
3. Like saying that those to whom God chose and publically verified were disgusting sinners?
surah baqarah seems to have beef with these things .
“This would accord well with the rest of the verse that they did it to “sell it for a paltry price”. ”
quran does not seem to say that selling is the only incentive,it seems to be saying that their are other incentive .
What does this do for your own truth claims? Nothing. Bart Ehrman finds more historical reliability concerning the real Jesus in the Gospels than in the Quran. Inconsistency destroys credibility.
So still nothing from th doorknob. Yes, we know that Ehrman, like any secular historian, will automatically reject any suggestion of miracles or the divine. In contrast, refuting the status of the gospels as eyewitness accounts has nothing to do with the miraculous or the divine. It is just the only viable conclusion. Meanwhile, that Jesus was rescued by God cannot be assessed using the historical method, just like you can’t use the scientific method to test if the devil exists.
Ehrman is consistent in applying his standards as a historian. You are not. Jesus almost certainly was killed, crucified by the romans. “It is just the only viable conclusion”.
Especially considering that there are at minimum 4 stories of his alleged crucifixion (Jews only, Herod only and Roman only) that were stitched together. AND the ascension and resurrection stories are separate tales that were stitched together?
5:48. I have sent this Scripture to you with a purpose and the Truth, verifying the books that came before it, and it is a witness and Safeguarder to forever dominate over them, so judge between them according to what God has sent down. Do not follow their empty whims and desires, which deviate from the Truth that has come to you. I have assigned a law and a path for you all, and if God had desired, He could’ve made you one community, but He wanted to test you through what He’s given you. So race to do good, you will all return to God and He will make it clear to you about the matters which you argued about.
As I don’t see how that verse talks about what is in between their hands at the time of the Prophet(saw). May you explain this a bit more for me?
2. The Study Quran
With all due respect to Dr.Ally, he himself is not some heavyweight scholar in the Islamic world he is simply a person who debates missionary trolls. Islamic scholarship is not using the “Study Quran” in schools. I made a mistake in claiming there were non-Muslims on staff (as they all claim Islam) but they were a bunch of nobodies who just tried to copy the “Study Bible”. I’ll show all the editors and authors right now:
See a pattern? How are you going to do a book on Quranic interpretation and have NOT ONE “Sunni” (i.e. 85-90% of the Muslim population in the world) on staff but a bunch of nobody deviants? When we Muslims say “Muslim academics” we talk about the likes of:
Hassan al Basri, Bukhari, Nawawi, Ibn Hajar al Asqalani, Albani, Taymiyyah, Ibn Abbas(ra), Ibn Masood(ra), Ghazali, Ar Razi, Ibn Kathir, etc.
I know its not your fault as you obviously aren’t expected to know Muslim scholarship but who are these guys especially compared to the HEAVY HITTERS I just named?
(and Muhayminan over it) means entrusted over it, according to Sufyan Ath-Thawri who narrated it from Abu Ishaq from At-Tamimi from Ibn `Abbas. `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said, “Muhaymin is, `the Trustworthy’. Allah says that the Qur’an is trustworthy over every Divine Book that preceded it.” This was reported from `Ikrimah, Sa`id bin Jubayr, Mujahid, Muhammad bin Ka`b, `Atiyyah, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, `Ata’ Al-Khurasani, As-Suddi and Ibn Zayd. Ibn Jarir said, “The Qur’an is trustworthy over the Books that preceded it. Therefore, whatever in these previous Books conforms to the Qur’an is true, and whatever disagrees with the Qur’an is false.” Al-Walibi said that Ibn `Abbas said that Muhayminan means, `Witness’. Mujahid, Qatadah and As-Suddi said the same. Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas said that Muhayminan means, `dominant over the previous Scriptures’. These meanings are similar, as the word Muhaymin includes them all. Consequently, the Qur’an is trustworthy, a witness, and dominant over every Scripture that preceded it. This Glorious Book, which Allah revealed as the Last and Final Book, is the most encompassing, glorious and perfect Book of all times. The Qur’an includes all the good aspects of previous Scriptures and even more, which no previous Scripture ever contained. This is why Allah made it trustworthy, a witness and dominant over all Scriptures. Allah promised that He will protect the Qur’an and swore by His Most Honorable Self,
Why should I take a bias Missionaries interpretation over Disciples of Prophet Muhammad’s(saw) (i.e. the people who were there)? The argument doesn’t make sense contextually of the passage and the word Muyman itself means:
ha-Ya-Miim-Nun = TO WATCH OVER, oversee, expand the wings (hen over their chickens), control. To be witness to, offer security and peace, PROTECT, DETERMINE WHAT IS TRUE. muhaimanun – GUARDIAN TO WATCH AND DETERMINE WHAT IS TRUE AND WHAT IS FALSE WITNESS, afforder of security and peace, controller and superintendent of all the affairs, PROTECTOR.
Moving on even if I dropped this verse for the sake of discussion we still have a list of passages I just named that CLEARLY state the Jews altered text. So how can you then say its not explicitly mentioned when Muslims have never disagreed on this issue? And finally, even IF it was the case that nothing is “explicitly” mentioned the ABUNDANCE of ahadith we have, make this something that’s honestly not even worth discussing especially nowadays when we KNOW for a fact that scribes have altered the text. (See Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11)
@mr.heathcliif and Stewjo004: This will be my final post on this topic, to which you may add concluding remarks. This is because I think we have now made our positions clear, I doubt that we will be agreeing and because of the time involved in replying to you both. Do not take it as a sign of disregard since you have indeed made good observations and I respect the comments you have made, despite our differences.
Commenting on 5:48 “The Study Quran” attributes the following position to Al Tabari and Al-Zamakhshar (unfortunately I am now at a place where I don’t have access to these works): “The Quran is further described as a protector (muhaymin) over the previous scriptures, meaning that the Quran testifies to the validity of the earlier scriptures and serves as their trustee, keeper and Guardian.” In other words, “muhayman” was understood in various ways.
The preceding verses (43-47) as well as the part in this of this aya that reads: “…To each of you We prescribed a law (Shirah) and a way. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation (ommatan wahidatan), but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good…”; would seem to suggest that the law revealed to the people of the book (and perhaps others as well) was intact, why else, should they continue to use their prescribed Shirah to be tested therewith?
“The Quran is further described as a protector (muhaymin) over the previous scriptures, meaning that the Quran testifies to the validity of the earlier scriptures and serves as their trustee, keeper and Guardian.”
Yes; this seems to be the right understanding, especially given what the Qur’an says in other contexts about the previous prophets and previous Scriptures. You cannot get away from the clarity of this.
Calls it a written book that the Christians and Jews were reading before hand. (10:94 and other places)
5:68 – the people of the Gospel, etc. What book did they have in the 600s AD? The NT, the true Injeel, established centuries earlier.
The idea that the original was lost or corrupted only came about later when the Muslims conquered the Byzantine areas and started to actually read and understand the contents of the true Injeel. (the 27 God-breathed books of the New Testament and the 39 of the OT.)
oops! the Qur’an was wrong . . . we have to re-interpret it.
‘The idea that the original was lost or corrupted only came about later when the Muslims conquered the Byzantine areas and started to actually read and understand the contents of the true Injeel. (the 27 God-breathed books of the New Testament and the 39 of the OT.)’
This is easily refuted:
Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 9, Book 93, Number 613:
Narrated ‘Ikrima:
Ibn ‘Abbaas said, “How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about their Books while you have Allah’s Book (the Qur’an) which is the most recent of the Books revealed by Allah, and you read it in its pure undistorted form?”
Volume 9, Book 93, Number 614:
Narrated ‘Ubaidullah bin ‘Abdullah:
‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbaas said, “O the group of Muslims! How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about anything while your Book which Allah has revealed to your Prophet contains the most recent news from Allah and is pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the people of the Scriptures have changed some of Allah’s Books and distorted it and wrote something with their own hands and said, ‘This is from Allah, so as to have a minor gain for it. Won’t the knowledge that has come to you stop you from asking them? No, by Allah, we have never seen a man from them asking you about that (the Book Al-Qur’an ) which has been revealed to you.
Sam are you aware that most non-Muslim western scholars conclude that the Qur’an does indeed teach the corruption (verbal and material) of the previous Books?
@ Paul Williams. I am not aware of that, no, so I would be happy if you have some references. I really appreciate, that you are trying to take the debate in a useful and productive direction. Let us not get bogged down in polemics and apologetics.
From memory Sidney Griffith in “The Bible in Arabic” says this somewhat discreetly and in a subtle way.
However, in my estimate, his argument is a non sequitor, as Jews and Christians have “rewritten” their Scriptures to deal with theologically problematic points. Anthropomorphisms being a case in point (Dead Sea Scrolls, Apocrypha, Targums etc.). They did so not because they considered their Scriptures corrupted, but rather because they considered them normative.
Also, I do not think his idea would be acceptable to Muslims as his assumption is that the author of the Quran did not know the Bible first hand as, in his estimate , if I remember correctly, it was translated into Arabic no earlier than the 8th century.
@ Paul, verbal corruption yes (as in interpretation). But this, textual vs verbal is something that is discussed also in the Islamic literature see e.g., Al Razi on tahrif lafzi and tahrif manawi.
Also Dr Walid Saleh who specialises in the Qur’an, its history, redaction and manuscripts; the history of the reception of the Qur’an and its exegesis, at the University of Toronto states:
“the scholarly consensus is that the Qurān does indeed make the charge that Jewish and Christian scriptures have been textually corrupted.”
Notice nobody is refuting the clear cut verses and are just trying to twist the OBVIOUS meaning of the word Muhyman in 5:48, I’ll just post these again and watch them be ignored:
Explicit
2:75. Now do you ˹really˺ hope that a people such as this will believe in you, when some of them used to hear God’s words and then CHANGE OR TWIST it, even though they understood them?
2:76. When they meet those who believe, they say: “We’ve believed!” But when they’re alone in secret, ˹they˺ say: “Are you telling them about what God has ˹revealed to us previously˺, so that they can make a case against you, with your Lord? Don’t you have any type of common sense or understanding?”
2:77. Do they not understand that God knows what they’re HIDING and what they’re SHOWING?
2:78. Among them as well are the ‘illiterate’ ones who don’t know the Scripture except for wishful thinking. They’re only making guesses and assuming.
2:79. May damnation be unleashed on those who WRITE THE SCRIPTURE WITH THEIR OWN HANDS, THEN SAY: “This is from God,” in order to sell it for a worthless price. May damnation be on them for what their HANDS HAVE WRITTEN and may damnation be on them for what they’re earning.
6:91. They did not value God as he deserves to be valued when they said: “God hasn’t revealed anything to a human being.” Ask them: “Who was it then who sent down the Scripture, which Moses brought as a light and guide to the people, which you SEPARATED and made into these exotic and expensive scrolls, SHOWING some but making sure to HIDE many? And now you’ve TAUGHT SOMETHING WHICH NEITHER YOU NOR YOUR FATHERS KNEW .” ˹Help them out and˺ say: “God…” and then leave them there amusing themselves and running their mouths with useless talk.
5:12. God had taken a Covenant from the Children of Israel…
5:13. But they broke their promise, so I cursed them and made their hearts hard. They CHANGED THE WORDS FROM THEIR ORIGINAL PLACES AND HAVE FORGOTTEN A HUGE PORTION OF WHAT THEY WERE TOLD REPEATEDLY TO REMEMBER, so you will continue to find treachery against you or cheats from a few of them. Overlook this and forgive them because God loves those who excel in doing good.
5:14. I had also took a Covenant from those who say: “We’re Christians,” but they TOO FORGOT WHAT THEY WERE TOLD TO REMEMBER. So I released animosity and hatred among themselves until the Day of Judgement, when God will tell them what they used to manufacture.
5:15. People of the Scripture! My Messenger has come to you; CLARIFYING WHAT YOU USED TO KEEP HIDDEN OF THE SCRIPTURE AND WHO OVERLOOKS MUCH ˹of what you changed˺. A light has now come to you from God, along with a Scripture MAKING THINGS CLEAR,
5:16. which God uses to guide to the ways of peace, all who are looking to follow what pleases Him. Leading them from their various shades of darkness into the Light, by His will, and onto one straight path.
Implicit
4:44. Haven’t you seen the ones who were given A PART of the Scripture, buying misguidance and wishing you too would lose the way?
4:51. Haven’t you seen those who were given A PART of the Scripture, believing in superstitions and anything that calls to rebellion ˹against God˺, say about the disbelievers: “Even they’re better guided than these ‘believers’ to what the right path is ˹to follow˺?”
Notice they do not have the complete book.
98:1. Those who disbelieved among the followers of the People of the Scripture and the pagans would’ve never stopped until clear proof came to them.
98:2. A Messenger from God, reading and following PURIFIED scriptures,
98:3. which contain upstanding teachings and laws in it.
Prophet Muhammad(saw) and his purified Scripture coming means theirs is not and they would have never stopped using the wrong they were doing.
5:48. I have sent this Scripture to you with a purpose and the Truth, verifying the books that came before it, and it is a witness and SAFEGUARDER over them, so judge between them according to what God has sent down. Do not follow their empty whims and desires, which deviate from the Truth that has come to you. I have assigned a law and a path for you all, and if God had desired, He could’ve made you one community, but He wanted to test you through what He’s given you. So race to do good, you will all return to God and He will make it clear to you about the matters which you argued about.
Again what is it “safeguarding”? But yeah there is no mention of textual corruption lol. The problem is they think this is the Bible where any Tom, Dick and Harry can throw his own hat in interpretation.
To begin in Islam, an interpretation from a Disciple (Sahabi) defeats a Commentator’s (muffassir) in MOST cases.
Even then neither Zamakshari nor Tabari are altering or contradicting what earlier commentators said. Simple question why is it a keeper, trustee, guardian and what ot is confirming (aka verifying)? What was solid and what was not.
As for your context point, you don’t simply look at the verse before it the entire passage was revealed due to the Jews attempting to alter one of their laws (that we agree with). If you look at my part 1 article I wrote, I quote the relevant commentary about why this passage was revealed:
Also I’m not offended Mr. Verden I just believe a bunch of deviants are spreading false information to people honestly trying to learn that from a basic logic perspective doesn’t even make sense and has NEVER even been a discussion in over one thousand years of scholarship.
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony is a book written by biblical scholar and theologian Richard Bauckham and published in 2006 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
The book challenges the consensus view[the view of Ehrman and other liberal scholars that Paul Williams and Shabir Ally uses] that, “while the eyewitnesses originated (at least some of) the traditions about Jesus, these were then transmitted as anonymous traditions in the early Christian communities, developing in all sorts of ways in the process, and reached the Gospel writers as the product of such community transmission and development.”[1]
It does so by presenting the historical argument that the synoptic Gospels are based “quite closely” on the testimony of eyewitnesses, while one (the Gospel of John) is written by an eyewitness.[1]
The final chapter offers a theological argument against the dichotomy between the Christ of faith and the historical Jesus.[1]
“Gospels are based “quite closely” on the testimony of eyewitnesses, while one (the Gospel of John) is written by an eyewitness”
just juxtapose the accounts about the crucifiction
1. mark : people from a distance .disciples all fled. again and again mark tells readers that jesus’ disciples were faithless cowards who were not willing to “take up the cross”
2. matthew:people from a distance. the pals of jesus all fled
3: luke:unknown crowds . People viewing from a distance
4: john: realises that jesus’ crucifixion doesn’t have any eyewitnesses.he reads that mark says that they ALL fled and the message was not reported to the 12, so how to repair? make the male disciple, who jesus called coward, close to the cross .add in jesus’ mother. luke who has high view of mark completely forgot to mention her . you would expect that if a pink elephant existed near the cross, all four would mention about it, how then is the women who sang church single at the beginning of luke goes missing in lukes crucifixion account?
john knew that unknown crowds and women looking from a distance means nothing so he brought an unknown disciple close to the cross.
they fled temporarily in Mark 14:50, Matthew 26:56 – in order to get away from the Roman soldiers, ect. when Jesus was arrested, in the garden of Gethsemane.
But afterwards, they came back and followed from a distance.
Matthew 28:58, Mark 14:54, Luke 22:54, John 18:15-16
Peter and John are mentioned, and probably some or all of the other 11.
The details of the rest of all 4 gospels shows that they were there as eyewitnesses of the trials, crucifixion, death, and empty tomb and resurrection, and also “many women” (Matthew 27:55-56), the apostle John (John 19:18-27, 19:35) were there at the cross witnessing the history and crucifixion and death of Christ.
“And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe.”
John 19:35
and btw, it does not seem that according to the quran that jesus’ close disciples were faithless cowards.this would mean quran disagrees with mark because mark attacks them again and again throughout his story.
In Mark’s defense, he was stitching together at least 3 different factions accounts. This is why you will see shots fired at the Disciples and Jesus’s(as) family (two of the factions) throughout the text.
Obviously having one embarrassing story doesn’t make the whole tale true. It may increase the likelihood of a certain section being told but this doesn’t automatically extend to everything (Also as a sidenote even then this criteria is shaky because someone could just make up an embarrassing tale that is later believed like for example that Catherine the Great had sex with a horse). Finally “Luke” was trying to make it seem as if everyone got along and so different tales that were in circulation are being put together and reconciled creating a new narrative (i.e “stitching”) and creating a new narrative. And yes there is such “stitching” examples in the Biblical text such as the Genesis and Noah accounts. Some is true, some is false and some actual events being manipulated to say something from the original context.
I understand that the lack of corroboration is considered an “argument from silence” and that such arguments are considered to be weak. However, the silence here is deafening! In Points #6 through #9, there are TWELVE different events closely related to the passage in the 4th Gospel that we are evaluating, and NOT A SINGLE ONE of those TWELVE events is mentioned in ANY of the other three Gospels. There were thus 36 different opportunities for the other three Gospels to corroborate one of those events, yet there is NO CORROBORATION of ANY of the twelve events! The most plausible explanation of this uniform silence in the other three Gospels is that the passage from the 4th Gospel (John 19:31-37) is NOT HISTORICAL but is a FICTIONAL story.
“Peter and Mark are being honest about the beginning struggles. Later, they were bold as lions – book of Acts.
The “embarrassing facts” point even more to the credible nature of the history – they did not re-write or make up “pious history”.”
Mark doesnt tell you that. Mark explicitly says they were apostate kafir who lied and took false oath, mark is telling you this stuff DECADES later. mark says the last peter is seen is denying and lying because he is not willing to DIE for jesus.
if peter was RESOLVED, WHY didnt he bury jesus?
Matthew sees that the last peter is seen is denying and lying about jesus so he is embarrassed and must create a reunion which is not found in mark.
so your argument from embarrassment works heavily against you
“they fled temporarily in Mark 14:50,”
jesus did not prophecy that they fled “temporarily” he said these cowards were not willing to die for jesus.they are too scared . mark says being scared kills faith and causes one to be an apostate.
mark says peter is FOLLOWER but he does not go all the way, here is proof:
Peter Denies Jesus
66 While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant-girls of the high priest came by. 67 When she saw Peter warming himself, she stared at him and said, “You also were with Jesus, the man from Nazareth.” 68 But he denied it, saying, “I do not know or understand what you are talking about.” And he went out into the forecourt.[k] Then the cock crowed.[l] 69 And the servant-girl, on seeing him, began again to say to the bystanders, “This man is one of them.” 70 But again he denied it. Then after a little while the bystanders again said to Peter, “Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean.” 71 But he began to curse, and he swore an oath, “I do not know this man you are talking about.” 72 At that moment the cock crowed for the second time. Then Peter remembered that Jesus had said to him, “Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” And he broke down and wept.
thats where the “following” ends, pete is not going all the way
Quote:
Mark makes a special point throughout his narrative that the male disciples never do understand who Jesus is. Despite all his miracles, despite all his teachings, despite everything they see him do and say, they never do get it. And so at the end of the Gospel, who is it who learns that Jesus has not stayed dead but has been raised? It is the women. Not the male disciples. The women never tell. As a result, the male disciples never do come to understand. That is all consistent with Mark’s view.
14 The sower soweth the word.
15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; and when they have heard, straightway cometh Satan, and taketh away the word which hath been sown in them.
16 And these in like manner are they that are sown upon the rocky [places], who, when they have heard the word, straightway receive it with joy;
17 and they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, straightway they stumble.
“But afterwards, they came back and followed from a distance.”
your such a pagan, you quote a verse which explicitly fit the verses about stumbling. Peter showed his cowardice and blasphemy when “followed from a distance” i.e AND THEY HAVE NO ROOT IN THEMSELVES.
“And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may ”
in the mark, jesus is reported to have died. if there are heresies , how can you verify them? just create a forged certificate to show that jesus was SEEN dying .
“ven Ehrman and other liberals agree that “embarrassing facts” within the story make it even more credible.”
How do we know such would be embarrassing to the likes of mark? how can credibility be based on what modern day scholars feel? this is a feelings thing. maybe it was embarrasing to matthew, but where is the argument that it was embarrasing to mark?
Whelp good thing scholarship is not a democracy. They can claim what they like but at the end of the day the primary source being discussed clearly states otherwise.
If we find books written some decades after Prophet Muhammad by authors in sophisticated Greek or Persian, would anyone in their right mind that these authors were the Prophet’s followers?
Well maybe not Greek, but Persian. People would be rightfully skeptical of such documents.
For muslims the million-dollar question would be, were the Gospels, the true Injeel of Jesus? Definitely not.
Indeed. The Qur’an makes that distinction clear.
Could you quote the Quranic source, where this distinction is made clear? I do not question that it is a widespread main stream opinion in Muslim perspective, but would like to see explicit mention of this in the Quran. Also, at least a minority of Muslim view considers it more or less preserved, for example as argued in Lumbard’s essay of the Quran’s view of Sacred history, found in “The Study Quran”.
Sam here are the verses: https://www.call-to-monotheism.com/evidence_that_islam_teaches_that_there_was_textual_corruption_of_the_christian_and_jewish_scriptures
Thanks, Paul. He quotes two ayats of the Quran, 4:157 which deals not with the issue and the exact meaning, has been subject to many and varied interpretations by the mufassireen.
2:79 which is discussed out of context (to me 2:75-79) does not itself refer to Torah, Zabur or Injeel or even ahli al-kitab or snything clearly identifiable. When one reads the context there are more uncertainties as 2:78 speaks of unlettered people (maybe Jews?) somehow taking a part of writing(?). I agree with him that the distinction is made clear outside of rhe Quran, but is there perhaps a more clear distinction made in the Quran itself you could refer me to?
“When one reads the context there are more uncertainties as 2:78 speaks of unlettered people (maybe Jews?) somehow taking a part of writing(?”
what do you mean? The quran clearly identifies two groups of people, one who dont know the book and one who do know the book, the one who know write the book with their own hands and corrupt it
@ mr.Heathcliff these ayas never explicitly identify anyone neither Jews, Christians, Sabeans, ahli al-kitab nor what books or revelations were altered. I would prefer an aya in the Quran where a clear distinction is made as brother Paul said.
“Woe to those who write.the book”
these are the scribes who write the book and KNOW the book.
God is saying “woe to you…”
Why the “woe” ?
I agree with you that whomever 2:75-79 talks about, it is not characterising them positively.. What I am asking for, is a verse in the Quran that explicitly and unambigiously says that the written text of the Injeel (or for that matter the Torah, Zabur and possibly other revelations) has been altered.
5: 48 is very clear.
I respect you very much Paul and the verse is clear, but in the Arabic it actually argues that the previous Books of revelation are uncorrupted (but perhaps incomplete) . I do see that some translations such as Sahih Int. may give the wrong impression.
Let me translate the first part of the aya somewhat literally: “And We have revealed the Book [The Quran] in truth, confirming what is between their hands [or what came before it] of/from the Book and as a protector/trust/guard [muheiman] over it…”
So it not only confirms what came before/that which is now in their possession of the Scripture, but as it has Book in the singular it is also saying they are all part of the same Book. Muheiman does not really mean criterion (implying that something could be not right – and note there is another clear word for criteron, Furqn) but rather it is a safeguard/protector of the previous scripture(s). It has nothing to do with corruption. At best you might say the previous revelations are not complete without the final revelation, The Quran . Alteration of the text is not talked about in this aya, nor did many comentators understand it to be, see for instance al Jalalayn ,
Corriection “We have revealed the Book to you” to you [Muhammad presumably] were errenously omitted in the first section of the translation – dont know how. Sorry!
Hi Sam.
Verse 2:79 does not explicitly mention the name of what was corrupted and it doesn’t really have to. It says they (the Jews as mentioned in previous verses) wrote the SCRIPTURE with their own hands. Now if you were to interpret it as saying the scripture being something like the talmud or the zohar then this isn’t correct since the jews don’t consider these to be scripture. Hence the only interpretations for the word scripture are: Torah, Psalms or Tenakh. The latter option still contains the Torah and Psalms and hence are very likely to be corrupted as well.
I don’t think this will satisfy you since you explicitly asked for corruption of scripture by name but it’s as close as you can get.
Q 5:48 uses the wore muhamain which many scholars understood to mean ‘controller’ or ‘quality control’. This word is used for the Quran as being a quality control over the previous scriptures and hence implying corrurption since if they weren’t then the Qur’an wouldn’t have to be a quality control.
@ Sam Verden
Hi Sam, I planned on doing a part 2 to a series I was writing on QB’s blog but since you asked I’ll try to share some. We can break the passages down into explicit and implicit references
Explicit
2:75. Now do you ˹really˺ hope that a people such as this will believe in you, when some of them used to hear God’s words and then change or twist it, even though they understood them?
2:76. When they meet those who believe, they say: “We’ve believed!” But when they’re alone in secret, ˹they˺ say: “Are you telling them about what God has ˹revealed to us previously˺, so that they can make a case against you, with your Lord? Don’t you have any type of common sense or understanding?”
2:77. Do they not understand that God knows what they’re hiding and what they’re showing?
2:78. Among them as well are the ‘illiterate’ ones who don’t know the Scripture except for wishful thinking. They’re only making guesses and assuming.
2:79. May damnation be unleashed on those who write the Scripture with their own hands, then say: “This is from God,” in order to sell it for a worthless price. May damnation be on them for what their hands have written and may damnation be on them for what they’re earning.
6:91. They did not value God as he deserves to be valued when they said: “God hasn’t revealed anything to a human being.” Ask them: “Who was it then who sent down the Scripture, which Moses brought as a light and guide to the people, which you separated and made into these exotic and expensive scrolls, showing some but making sure to hide many? And now you’ve taught something which neither you nor your fathers knew.” ˹Help them out and˺ say: “God…” and then leave them there amusing themselves and running their mouths with useless talk.
5:12. God had taken a Covenant from the Children of Israel…
5:13. But they broke their promise, so I cursed them and made their hearts hard. They changed the words from their original places and have forgotten a huge piece of what they were told to remember over and over again, so you will continue to find treachery against you or cheats from a few of them. Overlook this and forgive them because God loves those who excel in doing good.
5:14. I had also took a Covenant from those who say: “We’re Christians,” but they too forgot what they were told to remember. So I released animosity and hatred among themselves until the Day of Judgement, when God will tell them what they used to manufacture.
5:15. People of the Scripture! My Messenger has come to you; clarifying what you used to keep hidden of the Scripture and who overlooks much ˹of what you changed˺. A light has now come to you from God, along with a Scripture making things clear,
5:16. which God uses to guide to the ways of peace, all who are looking to follow what pleases Him. Leading them from their various shades of darkness into the Light, by His will, and onto one straight path.
Implicit
4:44. Haven’t you seen the ones who were given A PART of the Scripture, buying misguidance and wishing you too would lose the way?
4:51. Haven’t you seen those who were given A PART of the Scripture, believing in superstitions and anything that calls to rebellion ˹against God˺, say about the disbelievers: “Even they’re better guided than these ‘believers’ to what the right path is ˹to follow˺?”
Notice they do not have the complete book.
98:1. Those who disbelieved among the followers of the People of the Scripture and the pagans would’ve never stopped until clear proof came to them.
98:2. A Messenger from God, reading and following purified scriptures,
98:3. which contain upstanding teachings and laws in it.
Prophet Muhammad(saw) and his purified Scripture coming means theirs is notand they would have never stopped using the wrong they were doing.
5:48. I have sent this Scripture to you with a purpose and the Truth, verifying the books that came before it, and it is a witness and Safeguarder to forever dominate over them, so judge between them according to what God has sent down. Do not follow their empty whims and desires, which deviate from the Truth that has come to you. I have assigned a law and a path for you all, and if God had desired, He could’ve made you one community, but He wanted to test you through what He’s given you. So race to do good, you will all return to God and He will make it clear to you about the matters which you argued about.
God says in this verse the Quran is a Safeguarder over the previous Scriptures and they did not receive anything really that much different from what we got. If it agrees with the Quran it is correct if it disagrees they altered it.
I hope that clears things up Sam and may peace be on those who follow the guidance.
PS
Also, quick note be careful with the “Study Quran” is not made by any scholars of note and almost entirely is encompassed by deviants or non-Muslims.
Thanks a lot for sharing Stewjo004
I greatly appreciate your generosity. I will have to look into your material in more depth, when time permits. For now I have two comments/questions;
1. 5:48 literally states that the Quran confirms what is between their hands at the time of the prophet and that it is all part of/from the same book. So if other ayats appear to contradict this we will have to consider other interpretations ( but before having seen the article you will publish I have not been convinced that corruption of written Torah, Inheel zabbur etc. Is explicitly mentioned in the Quran).
2. As ffar as I know all contributors to “The Study Quran” are devout Muslim academics , and highly regarded, e.g, Abdel Haleem. Who is not Muslim among the contributors? The work was highly praised by for example Shabir Ally who called it marvellous, see his review on youtube.
@stewjo004:
1. i responded to Paul’s suggestion above that 5:48 is it, with a very brief linguistic analysis. You probably missed it. See above. With all due respect., the Arabic is not exactly saying what the translations say or imply.
2. Well, many scholars of various stripes did write positively of the work. I am not sure it is fair to just criticise because of their background as they are all scholars of the field, even if one disagrees with them. So I prefer not to go further on this point.
I have spoken to Abel Haleem personally about the passage and he understands it to be teaching the corruption of the previous scriptures (*not* the New Testament). The traditional Muslim understanding is based on the Quran. He told me he intends to write an article on this subject.
Muhammad A. S. Abdel Haleem is Professor of Islamic Studies at SOAS, University of London in London, England, and editor of the Journal of Qur’anic Studies.
Why don’t you contact him?
Thanks Paul, I will await the publication of Prof. Haleem’s article to see the full argument. Please post it here if you hear of its publication.
For now, I will consider my argument a legitimate one, based on reading the Arabic text. If there are other legitimate readings, arguing a conflicting view, such as the one Prof. Haleem will offer, it simply supports my contention that the issue is not expressed as unequivocally in the Quran, as it is often assumed.
BTW, I do not claim that the traditional Muslim view developed somehow independently of the Quran, it clearly did not. Only that the Quran itself makes a less explicit claim when compared to the traditional view, which was only much later filly developed.
Sorry to report that Abdel Haleem was very dismissive indeed of views such as yours. He does not regards them as ‘legitimate’ alternatives, but as simply wrong.
Actually, he used a much stronger word than that to me. But you get the idea.
@mr.heathcliff. Perhaps we should agree to disagree then. Even if one believes these to be Jews and I agree this is a legitimate interpretation, what did they corrupt? Yes, there is one view they corrupted the foretelling of Muhammad in the Torah (perhaps Tanakh?) and another view they scribbled something down on a medium and pawned it off on ignorant people (see al-Tabari and and al-Tha’labi according to the “The Study Quran”). This would accord well with the rest of the verse that they did it to “sell it for a paltry price”. If this is correct then it appears that the Book (or revelation) itself was unscathed. But again, we can speculate about the exact meaning, I was asking for something unequivocal.
“Sorry to report that Abdel Haleem was very dismissive indeed of views such as yours. He does not regards them as ‘legitimate’ alternatives, but as simply wrong. Actually, he used a much stronger word than that to me. But you get the idea.”
That is fair enough, he is an authority on the Arabic of the Quran, so let us await his study of the issues, perhaps we are then in better position to proceed. Let me make a brief point and then perhaps you can make a few concluding remarks to round off the topic.
You have not actually shown my reading to be wrong or reproduced the argument of Prof. Abdel Haleem, simply stated his positions. But you see, Prof. Abdel Haleem is no longer disagreeing with me alone, but also with at least some of his editors and fellow contributors to “The Study Quran” (see in particular the interpretation of 5:47-48 as well as the essay on the Qurans view of Sacred History by Joseph Lumbard). In addition, modern) scholars such as Gabriel Said Reynolds (non-Muslim I think he is Christian) have also argued that the Quran does not declare the text of the previous revelations to be corrupted. Also, notable Islamic scholars such as Al-Tabari did not consider the text of previous revelations to be corrupt, as argued by scholars like Camilla Adang and Abdullah Saeed.
In sum, my position may be wrong and it may be a minority view, but it is also the understanding of a wide range of scholars.
PS I wish to clarify a point, which I fear you misunderstood (but I hope you did not), since you now twice mentioned Prof. Abdel Haleem. I never said or meant to imply that he agreed with “my” position. I simply mentioned him as an example of a scholar of note in response to the statement that “The Study Quran” “…was not made by any scholars of note”.
@Paul Williams
Been to the library today after work, and so I apologize for the belated response. Thank you for the material, it is indeed useful and it’s always helpful to start out with well-defined statements. I will divide my response in two parts.
As a non-professional I would not like to contradict a scholar of the field such as Dr. Saleh, so I will stop short of that. But let me report my findings – which were not consistent with the statement – “that the scholarly consensus is that the Qurān does indeed make the charge that Jewish and Christian scriptures have been textually corrupted”, and I will let you asses the material. I also encourage you not to take my word for it, but look up the sources for yourself.
There are, numerous statements I might quote, but for the sake brevity sake, I will limit myself to one quote in favor of each position. If you wish I can quote relevant portions that you deem necessary.
I looked up all the sources quoted in footnote 40, p. 13 in the book reviewed and which Dr. Saleh states “…provides a list of major scholars who hold the view” [that the Qurān does indeed make the charge that Jewish and Christian scriptures have been textually corrupted]. Except for Charles J. Adams, whom the author (Nickel) cites as an example of a scholar of the view espoused by Dr. Waleh, only one other of the sources namely, Shari Lowin’s entry on “Revision and Alteration”, states what Dr. Waleh considers to be the scholarly consensus. The remaining sources cited – 6 by my count – all entries in the Encyclopedia of the Quran – seem to speak of textual corruptions only in the Islamic tradition.
Thus, Camilla Adang states in her entry “Torah” that “Since the Qurʾān does not always explicitly state how, and by whom this misrepresentation (known as taḥrīf) was effected — some authors ascribe a major role to Ezra (q.v.) — different interpretations of the relevant verses soon arose. According to one, the Jews did not corrupt the text of their scripture, but merely misrepresented its contents. The other view, which developed somewhat later and seems to be held by the majority of Muslims, asserts that the Israelites and later the Jews changed the written text of the Torah, adding to and deleting from it as they pleased”.
In support of the consensus position, I did manage to find a review of Nickel’s book by David Powers (U of Cornell), who states: “…Gordon Nickel successfully deploys the technique of word study and semantic analysis in an effort to disabuse scholars of the mistaken assumption that the doctrine of textual distortion is found already in the text of the Qur’an. This reader has in consequence been largely disabused of this notion – albeit not entirely. In my view greater attention should be paid to exegeses of Q 2:79, 3:78, and 5:13, in which verses the plain meaning points to the manipulation of text”. (I can agree that the first reference is about text, though the remaining two seem much less clear to me, but let us not get into that for the moment).
Let us in “kid’s fashion” tally up: the consensus position has Dr. Saleh and Jane Dutton (as per your posts), Shari Lowin, C. J. Adams as well as David Powers, for a total of five scholarly opinions.
On the other hand, I counted six sources. To be fair I am willing to deduct two, as I fail to see the relevance of some sources cited that, at best, only touch on the subject and indirectly at that (e.g., the entry on chronology). Perhaps some of the authors did express a position identical to that described by Dr. Saleh, in other publications, but as cited here, some of the sources, do not, in my estimate, illuminate the question of scholarly consensus.
In sum, I do not say that Dr. Saleh is wrong about what the scholarly consensus is. He is a scholar of the field. However, from the sources, you provided and the resulting 5:4 ratio I came to, one would not have guessed.
I hope you find that I have tried to deal with the issue in a fair manner even if I am – and I admit it – a nonprofessional in this field. But again I encourage you to review the material for yourself – I may have erred. Finally, I already admitted that I may be wrong and that my position may be a minority one, but again the position I currently hold is one held by a wide range of scholars including Muslims and western scholars.
As an aside are you aware that reliable hadith also teach the textual corruption of previous revelations given to Jews and Christians?
@Paul
Yes, I am aware there are ahadits to that effect (I think I drew a clear distinction clear between the Quran and extra Quranic material, a few times already).
However, studying and using ahadits is different field requiring different methodology. For example, one would need to look at time period, the report itself, do we have differing or conflicting reports etc. and then and make observations on the basis of the material in toto. At least that’s how I think about it as a layman – but do correct me if I am wrong.
I do not mean to say this in order to somehow disqualify the use of ahadits, quite the contrary. My concern is simply that we ask the right questions.
It is an interesting topic indeed. Is there any literature on the subject you might recommend?
I see I misspelled a couple of names above, so let me correct myself. “Jane Dutton” should have been Jane Dammen McAuliffe (the entry you quoted was authored by William A. Graham). Also, I misspelled Dr. Saleh as “Waleh” in a couple of instances. I apologize.
@ Sam
Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 9, Book 93, Number 613:
Narrated ‘Ikrima:
Ibn ‘Abbaas said, “How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about their Books while you have Allah’s Book (the Qur’an) which is the most recent of the Books revealed by Allah, and you read it in its pure undistorted form?”
Volume 9, Book 93, Number 614:
Narrated ‘Ubaidullah bin ‘Abdullah:
‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbaas said, “O the group of Muslims! How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about anything while your Book which Allah has revealed to your Prophet contains the most recent news from Allah and is pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the people of the Scriptures have changed some of Allah’s Books and distorted it and wrote something with their own hands and said, ‘This is from Allah, so as to have a minor gain for it. Won’t the knowledge that has come to you stop you from asking them? No, by Allah, we have never seen a man from them asking you about that (the Book Al-Qur’an ) which has been revealed to you.
Thanks Paul, what I had in mind though was secondary literature 🙂
The million dollar question for everyone: where to is this so-called true Injeel vaporated? Raised “up” into the clouds into outer space too?
Here’s another million dollar question: will the doorknob ever make an intelligent comment?
If I were a betting man (I’m not since gambling is haram), I would bet the answer is no. When do I get my million dollars?
@ Agnostic
Probably the parables. They then took these and framed stories around them.
“hese ayas never explicitly identify anyone neither Jews, Christians, Sabeans, ahli al-kitab nor what books or revelations were altered.”
So what about the context when it says those who understood deliberately altered the harf ?this is explicitly refering to the jews, then the verse LINKS back to these people in 2:79. What al kitaab do the jews know?
“When one reads the context there are more uncertainties as 2:78 speaks of unlettered people (maybe Jews?) somehow taking a part of writing(?”
i read the context. You seem to be saying that unlettered people “somehow taking part in writing”
I asked:
what do you mean? The quran clearly identifies two groups of people, one who dont know the book and one who do know the book. the one who know write the book with their own hands and corrupt it
you then said:
these ayas never explicitly identify anyone neither Jews, Christians, Sabeans, ahli al-kitab nor what books or revelations were altered.
question:
I honestly dont understand your response.
i do not want to use fallacy of presentism , but even today christian forgeries are sold of as “word of god”
my question is, when did christians and jew.make sales of their scripture ? Making sales of torah was pre-islamic practice ?
”
Yes, there is one view they corrupted the foretelling of Muhammad in the Torah (perhaps Tanakh?) and another view they scribbled something down on a medium and pawned it off on ignorant people (see al-Tabari and and al-Tha’labi according to the “The Study Quran”). ”
1.you mean like god resting and getting refreshed ?
2.like god saying “this day ana wulidtuka” ?
3. Like saying that those to whom God chose and publically verified were disgusting sinners?
surah baqarah seems to have beef with these things .
“This would accord well with the rest of the verse that they did it to “sell it for a paltry price”. ”
quran does not seem to say that selling is the only incentive,it seems to be saying that their are other incentive .
What does this do for your own truth claims? Nothing. Bart Ehrman finds more historical reliability concerning the real Jesus in the Gospels than in the Quran. Inconsistency destroys credibility.
…and the doorknob repeats the the same dumb comment. Where’s my million dollars?
the crosstians have to assume the following:
1. long life like it is today
2.adult education like it is today
3.wars would cause no problem
4.possible therefore probable
“Ehrman is talking as a secular atheist historian. He rejects a priori any historical information that comes from a transcendent source. ….
His loss.”
Paul Williams
So still nothing from th doorknob. Yes, we know that Ehrman, like any secular historian, will automatically reject any suggestion of miracles or the divine. In contrast, refuting the status of the gospels as eyewitness accounts has nothing to do with the miraculous or the divine. It is just the only viable conclusion. Meanwhile, that Jesus was rescued by God cannot be assessed using the historical method, just like you can’t use the scientific method to test if the devil exists.
Now…where’s my million bucks?
Ehrman is consistent in applying his standards as a historian. You are not. Jesus almost certainly was killed, crucified by the romans. “It is just the only viable conclusion”.
@ Agnostic
“Jesus almost certainly was killed, crucified by the romans. “It is just the only viable conclusion”.”
As you assert this so confidently, what primary source is this based on?
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/07/02/the-crucifiction-series-part-2-the-other-sources/
Especially considering that there are at minimum 4 stories of his alleged crucifixion (Jews only, Herod only and Roman only) that were stitched together. AND the ascension and resurrection stories are separate tales that were stitched together?
“Historical information from a transcendent source”? Myth
what is your evidence that God does not reveal historical information to his prophets?
@ Sam Verden
1. 5:48?
Are we talking about this verse?
5:48. I have sent this Scripture to you with a purpose and the Truth, verifying the books that came before it, and it is a witness and Safeguarder to forever dominate over them, so judge between them according to what God has sent down. Do not follow their empty whims and desires, which deviate from the Truth that has come to you. I have assigned a law and a path for you all, and if God had desired, He could’ve made you one community, but He wanted to test you through what He’s given you. So race to do good, you will all return to God and He will make it clear to you about the matters which you argued about.
As I don’t see how that verse talks about what is in between their hands at the time of the Prophet(saw). May you explain this a bit more for me?
2. The Study Quran
With all due respect to Dr.Ally, he himself is not some heavyweight scholar in the Islamic world he is simply a person who debates missionary trolls. Islamic scholarship is not using the “Study Quran” in schools. I made a mistake in claiming there were non-Muslims on staff (as they all claim Islam) but they were a bunch of nobodies who just tried to copy the “Study Bible”. I’ll show all the editors and authors right now:
Editor in Chief Hossein Nasr (Shia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hossein_Nasr
Joseph E. B. Lumbard (Sufi)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._B._Lumbard
Caner K. Dagli (Sufi)
https://books.google.com/books/about/Ibn_Al_%CA%BBArabi_and_Islamic_Intellectual.html?id=UevuoAEACAAJ&source=kp_author_description
Maria M Dakake (Shia/Sufi)
https://religious.gmu.edu/people/mdakakem
Mohammed Rustom (Sufi)
https://renovatio.zaytuna.edu/authors/mohammed-rustom
See a pattern? How are you going to do a book on Quranic interpretation and have NOT ONE “Sunni” (i.e. 85-90% of the Muslim population in the world) on staff but a bunch of nobody deviants? When we Muslims say “Muslim academics” we talk about the likes of:
Hassan al Basri, Bukhari, Nawawi, Ibn Hajar al Asqalani, Albani, Taymiyyah, Ibn Abbas(ra), Ibn Masood(ra), Ghazali, Ar Razi, Ibn Kathir, etc.
I know its not your fault as you obviously aren’t expected to know Muslim scholarship but who are these guys especially compared to the HEAVY HITTERS I just named?
@ Sam Verden
Regarding 5:48
(and Muhayminan over it) means entrusted over it, according to Sufyan Ath-Thawri who narrated it from Abu Ishaq from At-Tamimi from Ibn `Abbas. `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said, “Muhaymin is, `the Trustworthy’. Allah says that the Qur’an is trustworthy over every Divine Book that preceded it.” This was reported from `Ikrimah, Sa`id bin Jubayr, Mujahid, Muhammad bin Ka`b, `Atiyyah, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, `Ata’ Al-Khurasani, As-Suddi and Ibn Zayd. Ibn Jarir said, “The Qur’an is trustworthy over the Books that preceded it. Therefore, whatever in these previous Books conforms to the Qur’an is true, and whatever disagrees with the Qur’an is false.” Al-Walibi said that Ibn `Abbas said that Muhayminan means, `Witness’. Mujahid, Qatadah and As-Suddi said the same. Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas said that Muhayminan means, `dominant over the previous Scriptures’. These meanings are similar, as the word Muhaymin includes them all. Consequently, the Qur’an is trustworthy, a witness, and dominant over every Scripture that preceded it. This Glorious Book, which Allah revealed as the Last and Final Book, is the most encompassing, glorious and perfect Book of all times. The Qur’an includes all the good aspects of previous Scriptures and even more, which no previous Scripture ever contained. This is why Allah made it trustworthy, a witness and dominant over all Scriptures. Allah promised that He will protect the Qur’an and swore by His Most Honorable Self,
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=768&Itemid=60
Why should I take a bias Missionaries interpretation over Disciples of Prophet Muhammad’s(saw) (i.e. the people who were there)? The argument doesn’t make sense contextually of the passage and the word Muyman itself means:
ha-Ya-Miim-Nun = TO WATCH OVER, oversee, expand the wings (hen over their chickens), control. To be witness to, offer security and peace, PROTECT, DETERMINE WHAT IS TRUE. muhaimanun – GUARDIAN TO WATCH AND DETERMINE WHAT IS TRUE AND WHAT IS FALSE WITNESS, afforder of security and peace, controller and superintendent of all the affairs, PROTECTOR.
http://www.studyquran.co.uk/8_ha.htm
Moving on even if I dropped this verse for the sake of discussion we still have a list of passages I just named that CLEARLY state the Jews altered text. So how can you then say its not explicitly mentioned when Muslims have never disagreed on this issue? And finally, even IF it was the case that nothing is “explicitly” mentioned the ABUNDANCE of ahadith we have, make this something that’s honestly not even worth discussing especially nowadays when we KNOW for a fact that scribes have altered the text. (See Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11)
@mr.heathcliif and Stewjo004: This will be my final post on this topic, to which you may add concluding remarks. This is because I think we have now made our positions clear, I doubt that we will be agreeing and because of the time involved in replying to you both. Do not take it as a sign of disregard since you have indeed made good observations and I respect the comments you have made, despite our differences.
Commenting on 5:48 “The Study Quran” attributes the following position to Al Tabari and Al-Zamakhshar (unfortunately I am now at a place where I don’t have access to these works): “The Quran is further described as a protector (muhaymin) over the previous scriptures, meaning that the Quran testifies to the validity of the earlier scriptures and serves as their trustee, keeper and Guardian.” In other words, “muhayman” was understood in various ways.
The preceding verses (43-47) as well as the part in this of this aya that reads: “…To each of you We prescribed a law (Shirah) and a way. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation (ommatan wahidatan), but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good…”; would seem to suggest that the law revealed to the people of the book (and perhaps others as well) was intact, why else, should they continue to use their prescribed Shirah to be tested therewith?
“The Quran is further described as a protector (muhaymin) over the previous scriptures, meaning that the Quran testifies to the validity of the earlier scriptures and serves as their trustee, keeper and Guardian.”
Yes; this seems to be the right understanding, especially given what the Qur’an says in other contexts about the previous prophets and previous Scriptures. You cannot get away from the clarity of this.
Calls it a written book that the Christians and Jews were reading before hand. (10:94 and other places)
5:68 – the people of the Gospel, etc. What book did they have in the 600s AD? The NT, the true Injeel, established centuries earlier.
The idea that the original was lost or corrupted only came about later when the Muslims conquered the Byzantine areas and started to actually read and understand the contents of the true Injeel. (the 27 God-breathed books of the New Testament and the 39 of the OT.)
oops! the Qur’an was wrong . . . we have to re-interpret it.
Sam Verden is basically correct.
Ken claims:
‘The idea that the original was lost or corrupted only came about later when the Muslims conquered the Byzantine areas and started to actually read and understand the contents of the true Injeel. (the 27 God-breathed books of the New Testament and the 39 of the OT.)’
This is easily refuted:
Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 9, Book 93, Number 613:
Narrated ‘Ikrima:
Ibn ‘Abbaas said, “How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about their Books while you have Allah’s Book (the Qur’an) which is the most recent of the Books revealed by Allah, and you read it in its pure undistorted form?”
Volume 9, Book 93, Number 614:
Narrated ‘Ubaidullah bin ‘Abdullah:
‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbaas said, “O the group of Muslims! How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about anything while your Book which Allah has revealed to your Prophet contains the most recent news from Allah and is pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the people of the Scriptures have changed some of Allah’s Books and distorted it and wrote something with their own hands and said, ‘This is from Allah, so as to have a minor gain for it. Won’t the knowledge that has come to you stop you from asking them? No, by Allah, we have never seen a man from them asking you about that (the Book Al-Qur’an ) which has been revealed to you.
Sam are you aware that most non-Muslim western scholars conclude that the Qur’an does indeed teach the corruption (verbal and material) of the previous Books?
@ Paul Williams. I am not aware of that, no, so I would be happy if you have some references. I really appreciate, that you are trying to take the debate in a useful and productive direction. Let us not get bogged down in polemics and apologetics.
From memory Sidney Griffith in “The Bible in Arabic” says this somewhat discreetly and in a subtle way.
However, in my estimate, his argument is a non sequitor, as Jews and Christians have “rewritten” their Scriptures to deal with theologically problematic points. Anthropomorphisms being a case in point (Dead Sea Scrolls, Apocrypha, Targums etc.). They did so not because they considered their Scriptures corrupted, but rather because they considered them normative.
Also, I do not think his idea would be acceptable to Muslims as his assumption is that the author of the Quran did not know the Bible first hand as, in his estimate , if I remember correctly, it was translated into Arabic no earlier than the 8th century.
@ Paul, verbal corruption yes (as in interpretation). But this, textual vs verbal is something that is discussed also in the Islamic literature see e.g., Al Razi on tahrif lafzi and tahrif manawi.
Sam see this from a recognised Western scholarly reference work: https://bloggingtheology.net/2017/10/17/40503/
Also Dr Walid Saleh who specialises in the Qur’an, its history, redaction and manuscripts; the history of the reception of the Qur’an and its exegesis, at the University of Toronto states:
“the scholarly consensus is that the Qurān does indeed make the charge that Jewish and Christian scriptures have been textually corrupted.”
https://bloggingtheology.net/2016/05/01/review-of-narratives-of-tampering-in-the-earliest-commentaries-on-the-qur%CA%BEan/
@ Paul
Notice nobody is refuting the clear cut verses and are just trying to twist the OBVIOUS meaning of the word Muhyman in 5:48, I’ll just post these again and watch them be ignored:
Explicit
2:75. Now do you ˹really˺ hope that a people such as this will believe in you, when some of them used to hear God’s words and then CHANGE OR TWIST it, even though they understood them?
2:76. When they meet those who believe, they say: “We’ve believed!” But when they’re alone in secret, ˹they˺ say: “Are you telling them about what God has ˹revealed to us previously˺, so that they can make a case against you, with your Lord? Don’t you have any type of common sense or understanding?”
2:77. Do they not understand that God knows what they’re HIDING and what they’re SHOWING?
2:78. Among them as well are the ‘illiterate’ ones who don’t know the Scripture except for wishful thinking. They’re only making guesses and assuming.
2:79. May damnation be unleashed on those who WRITE THE SCRIPTURE WITH THEIR OWN HANDS, THEN SAY: “This is from God,” in order to sell it for a worthless price. May damnation be on them for what their HANDS HAVE WRITTEN and may damnation be on them for what they’re earning.
6:91. They did not value God as he deserves to be valued when they said: “God hasn’t revealed anything to a human being.” Ask them: “Who was it then who sent down the Scripture, which Moses brought as a light and guide to the people, which you SEPARATED and made into these exotic and expensive scrolls, SHOWING some but making sure to HIDE many? And now you’ve TAUGHT SOMETHING WHICH NEITHER YOU NOR YOUR FATHERS KNEW .” ˹Help them out and˺ say: “God…” and then leave them there amusing themselves and running their mouths with useless talk.
5:12. God had taken a Covenant from the Children of Israel…
5:13. But they broke their promise, so I cursed them and made their hearts hard. They CHANGED THE WORDS FROM THEIR ORIGINAL PLACES AND HAVE FORGOTTEN A HUGE PORTION OF WHAT THEY WERE TOLD REPEATEDLY TO REMEMBER, so you will continue to find treachery against you or cheats from a few of them. Overlook this and forgive them because God loves those who excel in doing good.
5:14. I had also took a Covenant from those who say: “We’re Christians,” but they TOO FORGOT WHAT THEY WERE TOLD TO REMEMBER. So I released animosity and hatred among themselves until the Day of Judgement, when God will tell them what they used to manufacture.
5:15. People of the Scripture! My Messenger has come to you; CLARIFYING WHAT YOU USED TO KEEP HIDDEN OF THE SCRIPTURE AND WHO OVERLOOKS MUCH ˹of what you changed˺. A light has now come to you from God, along with a Scripture MAKING THINGS CLEAR,
5:16. which God uses to guide to the ways of peace, all who are looking to follow what pleases Him. Leading them from their various shades of darkness into the Light, by His will, and onto one straight path.
Implicit
4:44. Haven’t you seen the ones who were given A PART of the Scripture, buying misguidance and wishing you too would lose the way?
4:51. Haven’t you seen those who were given A PART of the Scripture, believing in superstitions and anything that calls to rebellion ˹against God˺, say about the disbelievers: “Even they’re better guided than these ‘believers’ to what the right path is ˹to follow˺?”
Notice they do not have the complete book.
98:1. Those who disbelieved among the followers of the People of the Scripture and the pagans would’ve never stopped until clear proof came to them.
98:2. A Messenger from God, reading and following PURIFIED scriptures,
98:3. which contain upstanding teachings and laws in it.
Prophet Muhammad(saw) and his purified Scripture coming means theirs is not and they would have never stopped using the wrong they were doing.
5:48. I have sent this Scripture to you with a purpose and the Truth, verifying the books that came before it, and it is a witness and SAFEGUARDER over them, so judge between them according to what God has sent down. Do not follow their empty whims and desires, which deviate from the Truth that has come to you. I have assigned a law and a path for you all, and if God had desired, He could’ve made you one community, but He wanted to test you through what He’s given you. So race to do good, you will all return to God and He will make it clear to you about the matters which you argued about.
Again what is it “safeguarding”? But yeah there is no mention of textual corruption lol. The problem is they think this is the Bible where any Tom, Dick and Harry can throw his own hat in interpretation.
But, but, but Stew, Quran 10:94, Stew! Quran 10:94! Babble, babble, babble…
QB is basically correct.
@ Sam Verden
To begin in Islam, an interpretation from a Disciple (Sahabi) defeats a Commentator’s (muffassir) in MOST cases.
Even then neither Zamakshari nor Tabari are altering or contradicting what earlier commentators said. Simple question why is it a keeper, trustee, guardian and what ot is confirming (aka verifying)? What was solid and what was not.
As for your context point, you don’t simply look at the verse before it the entire passage was revealed due to the Jews attempting to alter one of their laws (that we agree with). If you look at my part 1 article I wrote, I quote the relevant commentary about why this passage was revealed:
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/02/24/corruption-of-the-scriptures-part-i-does-islam-confirm-the-bible-as-a-scripture-from-god/
Also I’m not offended Mr. Verden I just believe a bunch of deviants are spreading false information to people honestly trying to learn that from a basic logic perspective doesn’t even make sense and has NEVER even been a discussion in over one thousand years of scholarship.
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony is a book written by biblical scholar and theologian Richard Bauckham and published in 2006 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
The book challenges the consensus view[the view of Ehrman and other liberal scholars that Paul Williams and Shabir Ally uses] that, “while the eyewitnesses originated (at least some of) the traditions about Jesus, these were then transmitted as anonymous traditions in the early Christian communities, developing in all sorts of ways in the process, and reached the Gospel writers as the product of such community transmission and development.”[1]
It does so by presenting the historical argument that the synoptic Gospels are based “quite closely” on the testimony of eyewitnesses, while one (the Gospel of John) is written by an eyewitness.[1]
The final chapter offers a theological argument against the dichotomy between the Christ of faith and the historical Jesus.[1]
“Gospels are based “quite closely” on the testimony of eyewitnesses, while one (the Gospel of John) is written by an eyewitness”
just juxtapose the accounts about the crucifiction
1. mark : people from a distance .disciples all fled. again and again mark tells readers that jesus’ disciples were faithless cowards who were not willing to “take up the cross”
2. matthew:people from a distance. the pals of jesus all fled
3: luke:unknown crowds . People viewing from a distance
4: john: realises that jesus’ crucifixion doesn’t have any eyewitnesses.he reads that mark says that they ALL fled and the message was not reported to the 12, so how to repair? make the male disciple, who jesus called coward, close to the cross .add in jesus’ mother. luke who has high view of mark completely forgot to mention her . you would expect that if a pink elephant existed near the cross, all four would mention about it, how then is the women who sang church single at the beginning of luke goes missing in lukes crucifixion account?
john knew that unknown crowds and women looking from a distance means nothing so he brought an unknown disciple close to the cross.
they fled temporarily in Mark 14:50, Matthew 26:56 – in order to get away from the Roman soldiers, ect. when Jesus was arrested, in the garden of Gethsemane.
But afterwards, they came back and followed from a distance.
Matthew 28:58, Mark 14:54, Luke 22:54, John 18:15-16
Peter and John are mentioned, and probably some or all of the other 11.
The details of the rest of all 4 gospels shows that they were there as eyewitnesses of the trials, crucifixion, death, and empty tomb and resurrection, and also “many women” (Matthew 27:55-56), the apostle John (John 19:18-27, 19:35) were there at the cross witnessing the history and crucifixion and death of Christ.
“And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe.”
John 19:35
and btw, it does not seem that according to the quran that jesus’ close disciples were faithless cowards.this would mean quran disagrees with mark because mark attacks them again and again throughout his story.
@ Mr. Heathcliff
In Mark’s defense, he was stitching together at least 3 different factions accounts. This is why you will see shots fired at the Disciples and Jesus’s(as) family (two of the factions) throughout the text.
Peter and Mark are being honest about the beginning struggles. Later, they were bold as lions – book of Acts.
The “embarrassing facts” point even more to the credible nature of the history – they did not re-write or make up “pious history”.
Even Ehrman and other liberals agree that “embarrassing facts” within the story make it even more credible.
Part of historiography and historical research principles that scholars use.
@ Ken
Obviously having one embarrassing story doesn’t make the whole tale true. It may increase the likelihood of a certain section being told but this doesn’t automatically extend to everything (Also as a sidenote even then this criteria is shaky because someone could just make up an embarrassing tale that is later believed like for example that Catherine the Great had sex with a horse). Finally “Luke” was trying to make it seem as if everyone got along and so different tales that were in circulation are being put together and reconciled creating a new narrative (i.e “stitching”) and creating a new narrative. And yes there is such “stitching” examples in the Biblical text such as the Genesis and Noah accounts. Some is true, some is false and some actual events being manipulated to say something from the original context.
@ Ken
It’s a… what’s the word…”Frankenstein” if you will.
Na, there is no “stitching together” of different pieces.
jesus was.saved according to the psalms
https://youtu.be/eALOFGPv6uA
why the argument from silence works :
I understand that the lack of corroboration is considered an “argument from silence” and that such arguments are considered to be weak. However, the silence here is deafening! In Points #6 through #9, there are TWELVE different events closely related to the passage in the 4th Gospel that we are evaluating, and NOT A SINGLE ONE of those TWELVE events is mentioned in ANY of the other three Gospels. There were thus 36 different opportunities for the other three Gospels to corroborate one of those events, yet there is NO CORROBORATION of ANY of the twelve events! The most plausible explanation of this uniform silence in the other three Gospels is that the passage from the 4th Gospel (John 19:31-37) is NOT HISTORICAL but is a FICTIONAL story.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2019/08/21/defending-the-swoon-theory-part-9-more-problems-with-objection-2/
“Peter and Mark are being honest about the beginning struggles. Later, they were bold as lions – book of Acts.
The “embarrassing facts” point even more to the credible nature of the history – they did not re-write or make up “pious history”.”
Mark doesnt tell you that. Mark explicitly says they were apostate kafir who lied and took false oath, mark is telling you this stuff DECADES later. mark says the last peter is seen is denying and lying because he is not willing to DIE for jesus.
if peter was RESOLVED, WHY didnt he bury jesus?
Matthew sees that the last peter is seen is denying and lying about jesus so he is embarrassed and must create a reunion which is not found in mark.
so your argument from embarrassment works heavily against you
“they fled temporarily in Mark 14:50,”
jesus did not prophecy that they fled “temporarily” he said these cowards were not willing to die for jesus.they are too scared . mark says being scared kills faith and causes one to be an apostate.
mark says peter is FOLLOWER but he does not go all the way, here is proof:
Peter Denies Jesus
66 While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant-girls of the high priest came by. 67 When she saw Peter warming himself, she stared at him and said, “You also were with Jesus, the man from Nazareth.” 68 But he denied it, saying, “I do not know or understand what you are talking about.” And he went out into the forecourt.[k] Then the cock crowed.[l] 69 And the servant-girl, on seeing him, began again to say to the bystanders, “This man is one of them.” 70 But again he denied it. Then after a little while the bystanders again said to Peter, “Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean.” 71 But he began to curse, and he swore an oath, “I do not know this man you are talking about.” 72 At that moment the cock crowed for the second time. Then Peter remembered that Jesus had said to him, “Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” And he broke down and wept.
thats where the “following” ends, pete is not going all the way
Quote:
Mark makes a special point throughout his narrative that the male disciples never do understand who Jesus is. Despite all his miracles, despite all his teachings, despite everything they see him do and say, they never do get it. And so at the end of the Gospel, who is it who learns that Jesus has not stayed dead but has been raised? It is the women. Not the male disciples. The women never tell. As a result, the male disciples never do come to understand. That is all consistent with Mark’s view.
14 The sower soweth the word.
15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; and when they have heard, straightway cometh Satan, and taketh away the word which hath been sown in them.
16 And these in like manner are they that are sown upon the rocky [places], who, when they have heard the word, straightway receive it with joy;
17 and they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, straightway they stumble.
“But afterwards, they came back and followed from a distance.”
your such a pagan, you quote a verse which explicitly fit the verses about stumbling. Peter showed his cowardice and blasphemy when “followed from a distance” i.e AND THEY HAVE NO ROOT IN THEMSELVES.
“And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may ”
in the mark, jesus is reported to have died. if there are heresies , how can you verify them? just create a forged certificate to show that jesus was SEEN dying .
“ven Ehrman and other liberals agree that “embarrassing facts” within the story make it even more credible.”
How do we know such would be embarrassing to the likes of mark? how can credibility be based on what modern day scholars feel? this is a feelings thing. maybe it was embarrasing to matthew, but where is the argument that it was embarrasing to mark?
@ Sam Vernadan
Whelp good thing scholarship is not a democracy. They can claim what they like but at the end of the day the primary source being discussed clearly states otherwise.