Some Thoughts on Nadir Ahmed v. Michael Brown


My video on the recent discussion between Nadir Ahmed and Michael Brown. I discuss a few mistakes made by Brown which demonstrate his incompetence.

The Quran and Bible Blog

As-salaam alaikum. I saw the recent discussion between brother Nadir Ahmed and Michael Brown on the topic of Deuteronomy 18 and whether Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the prophet. I noticed some examples of Brown’s incompetence, so I made a video demonstrating these. Enjoy!

View original post



Categories: Islam

65 replies

  1. Nadir Ahmed is an idiot.

    Like

    • Did Nadir Ahmad just say that the Prophet confirmed the Torah and swore on it?

      Liked by 1 person

      • I assume he meant that the true Torah did include the Deuteronomy 18 prophecy as foretelling the coming of Muhammad (pbuh).

        Like

      • Obviously, but if he swore on it that would mean the true Torah wasn’t lost and existed at the time of the Prophet.

        Like

      • Who says it couldn’t? The possibility exists.

        Like

      • Maybe possible I guess, so when it talks about the Torah in the Quran it is still the true uncorrupted one?

        Like

      • Of course. It’s not referring to the present-day Pentateuch, which studies have shown was the products of centuries of editing and the work of multiple authors. Certainly, there is some truth in it, but it is not the true Torah. The same goes for the Gospel.

        Like

      • You mean like the Dead Sea scrolls? i learned the Quran teaches the Torah was already corrupt by the time of the Prophet.

        Like

      • Well of course it was. The Bible as we know it did already exist. Its interesting that the earliest manuscript of the Bible in Arabic is from after the coming of Islam. But what I’m saying is that it is possible that the Jews in Arabia had a different Torah.

        Like

      • I was always under the impression based on other ahadith on the topic that the “torah” in this context was the verse of stoning. https://sunnah.com/bukhari/86/48

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ Zizu, QB and Vaqas

        Think you’re overthinking this. The first point is there is a difference of opinion about this hadith’s authenticity (I favor it’s not because in a stronger one the Torah is brought out later) But let’s say it was, basically the Yahood wanted to circumvent the Law (and tried to bribe the Prophet (saw)) so Allah allowed him to make a ruling based on it to them. Then they brought out the text and he gave it some respect because some of Allah’s words are in there. Not a big deal. Many Muslims do this now which is why we don’t organize “Bible burnings”

        Two there is not really a single verse in the Hebrew Bible for stoning adulterers. They are to be killed but it doesn’t state by stoning:

        “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife–with the wife of his neighbor–both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)
        https://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-10.htm

        You eh “kinda” got it in Deuteronomy:
        …23If there is a virgin pledged in marriage to a man, and another man encounters her in the city and sleeps with her, 24you must take both of them out to the gate of that city and stone them to death— the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you. ( Deuteronomy 22:24)

        https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/22-24.htm

        But even then this has issues as:

        1. It’s not about adulterers it’s about fiances
        2. It’s not a single verse

        Since the text isn’t quoted in the hadith there’s nothing to go on.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Don’t know, I mean, it doesn’t make much sense that there should be one Torah in Arabia that was radically different from the rest of the world.

      I’m not too keen on the whole idea of distrusting ahadith that are not obviously wrong. Can’t really see that the Prophet should would swear on it either just as a sign of respect if he knew there were fabricated lies in there. Guess it’s just hard to tell.

      Like

      • @ Zizu

        I don’t distrust the hadith I said there is a better variant where the Torah is taken out later. Even then the Jews of Arabia probably had some sort of Targum imo because of this hadith;

        Narrated Abu Huraira:

        The people of the Scripture (Jews) used to recite the Torah in Hebrew and they used to explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. On that Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “Do not believe the people of the Scripture or disbelieve them, but say:– “We believe in Allah and what is revealed to us.” (2.136)

        https://sunnah.com/urn/41670

        This would explain why the have all these readings.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targum

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sorry, maybe Im slow but I don’t get it. Maybe just me but If the Prophet swore on it must have been the real Torah, right? Just not making sense that all Torahs were completely corrupted except the Arabian ones. I don”t know but I learned that the Torah was corrupt long time before the Prophet.

        Like

    • A few observations on the recent discussion of Deut. 18:18 between Nadir Ahmad and Dr. Michael Brown.

      Often a New Testament text will present a certain text from the Hebrew Bible as fulfilled in Jesus, e.g., Mark 15:28; Isa. 52:12. Whether such “fulfillments” are deemed convincing or not depends, of course, on a number of factors. More importantly, perhaps, is the issue of establishing reliable criteria of “fulfillment”. However, from a historical critical viewpoint, I would from the outset, take a very skeptical position to such “fulfillments”. That would be putting it rather gently.

      Furthermore, I also strongly disagree with Christian apologetic arguments to find Jesus prophesied in the Hebrew Bible, such as the one espoused by Dr. Brown. Such attempts will often, in my opinion, not only twist the meaning and take it out of context but are also extremely problematic methodologically and exegetically, in addition to the problems of a historical critical nature mentioned above.

      While I strongly disagree that Deut. 18:18 talks about Jesus and Dr. Brown’s arguments for it, I nevertheless believe he correctly points out that the context and philology suggest more likely that the reference is to an Israelite and thus not really about the Prophet Muhammad. To summarize:

      A.

      The context, starting in chapter 17, is Moses speaking to the Israelites, explaining what will happen specifically to the Israelites when they come “into the land” (vs. 14) for example in vs. 15: “be sure to appoint over you a king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from the midst of your brethren (miqereb aḥeka). Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not your brother (aḥika)”. And there are further matters mentioned, relevant it seems, only to the Israelites. Deut. 18 seems to speak only of issues and regulations relevant exclusively to the Israelites when they enter the land, such as regulations for priests and Levites in vs. 1-8. The remainder of the chapter from vs. 9 on when the Israelites “enter the land” talks about proper channels of communication with God. In other words, the larger context seems to be talking about the Israelites, their settling in the land with issues relevant only to them.

      B.
      In addition, as Dr. Brown points out, an analysis of the similar phraseology of Deut. 18 vs. 15 and 18 i.e., the immediate context speaking of the prophet specifically, also suggests that it talks about in Israelite:

      “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet from among your brethren (miqirbeka mi aḥeka, literally “from your midst, from your brethren”), like myself; him you shall heed”.

      “I will raise up a prophet for them from among their brethren (miqereb aḥehem), like yourself: I will put My words in his mouth and he will speak to them all that I command him”

      Besides Deut. 18 the Hebrew phrase miqirbek(a) literally, “from your midst” occurs in the below passages of the Hebrew Bible and refers in all instances to the midst of the Israelites themselves. In many cases there is not even the slightest possibility of construing the phrase differently as e.g., Deut. 17:15 cited above.

      Ex. 23:25; Deut. 4:3; 13: 6, 14; 21: 9, 21; 17:7; 19:19. 22:21, 24; 24:7; Micah 5:9, 13; Zeph. 3:11.

      Thus, contextually and philologically Deut. 18:18 seems to refer to an Israelite prophet.

      It seems a pity though that the Muslim organization chose to contact a Christian apologist instead of a secular or impartial Biblical scholar whom they could have consulted for an evaluation and answers to their questions and folks could have made up their own minds on this basis.

      Instead, and perhaps due to a misunderstanding as both debaters seemed to acknowledge, the entire debate quickly got derailed and there was little constructive, folks could take away from the debate.

      On the issue of references: just as Christian apologists like Dr. Brown see allusions to Jesus in the Hebrew Bible, so have Muslim scholars and apologists seen references to Jesus and Muhammad in the Hebrew Bible. This has been so at least since theologians and scholars like Ibn Hazm Alī b. Rabban al-Ṭabarī (not to be confused with famous Imam Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari) and Samau’al al-Maghribi.
      Popular and Modern apologists taking this approach include Ahmed Deedat, Zakir Naik, Osama Abdallah, Zakir Hussain and Adnan Rashid. Prooftexts from the Hebrew Bible include Deut. 18:18; 33:2; Isaiah 42, Song of Songs 5:16 etc. and the topic is very popular among Muslims (sometimes appealing to Quran 7:157) and I understand that Muslims often request this be part of formal debates and many firmly believe that such texts talk about Muhammad.

      Here I would simply point out that I believe these Muslim prooftexts are just as problematic as the Christian ones, with just as serious a twisting of scripture and taking out of context. In terms of methodology there seems to be little difference, between the Christian and Muslim apologists, qualitatively speaking.

      I believe apologists of whatever persuasion should either try and develop some more objective and falsifiable criteria for such foretellings serving to help discussion along better defined lines paying close attention to context and philology or simply drop this line of apologetics. Personally, though, I am very skeptical if the typical approaches used by contemporary popular apologists can be supported without violating the texts.

      Liked by 2 people

      • For once, I actually agree with you. As for Deut 18, as I have said, I am neutral on the topic and it really doesn’t matter to me who the prophet was. As a Muslim, I can prove that Muhammad(pbuh) was a prophet by other means. I don’t need the Bible.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Marc C.

        What would you say to some of the points raised in this article concerning Deuteronomy 18:18?

        https://www.manyprophetsonemessage.com/2017/03/31/how-deuteronomy-foretells-the-coming-of-muhammad-%ef%b7%ba/

        Liked by 1 person

      • Marc C., Good points and shows the weaknesses of popular Muslim apologetics (vastly inferior to Christian apologetics, even though the latter is frequently nor much sophisticated).

        The topic of prophecy is a subjective one and it’s a never ending discussion many times. If we look at Jewish interpretations of the Bible, typology and allegorical approaches were often utilised. Later, Christians too continued with the allegorical and typological readings of the bible. The problem with such readings is one of criteria. It seems the mind can go creatively wild in reading passages typologically and allegorically, as we clearly see in Matthew and also Luke.

        I think that a crucified messiah can be read into the Jewish Bible only through an extraordinarily creative use of the typological approach, where past events are seen as prototypes pointing towards Jesus. But a conservative use of typology can be applied to point towards a human prophet who is like Moses, who follows the laws and the commandments, and who adheres to the same conception of God as Moses. The Arabs are genetically connected with the Jewish people and are their cousins, tracing their descent from the line of Ishmael. Cousins are brothers to each other. Hence Arabs and others, who have a blood connection with the Jewish people.

        Hence a conservative typological approach, where particular events are seen as a type of a particular past event (ie hijra seen in light of the Exodus), the latter reminding us of the former due to their similarities, or the life and deeds of a particular present individual being very similar to that of a past individual – so, the former seen as a type of the latter – is how the Jewish interpreters many times read the bible. Here, particular past events had recurring types in subsequent events.

        So, a “typological prophecy” is something which I am considering at the moment and it does not seem to be open to the same critique as rightfully mounted towards the traditional approach of reading an earlier text as prophecising a specific future event.

        And a restricted typology as applied by Jewish interpreters could be used by Muslims to argue for Muhammad, noting the similarities in particular episodes and also relating the undoubted similarities between Moses and Muhammad. No one is more fully like Moses than Muhammad, not even Jesus.

        Like

      • Marc C, what is the likelihood that a random claimant to prophethood will experience his first revelation on a mountain just like Moses, will go up against powerful unbelievers who also happen to be the people he grew up with just as Moses was under the care of Pharaoh only to confront him as an enemy later on, will undertake an exodus with his enemies on pursuit just like Moses, will defeat his enemies against all odds just like Moses, will bring a new Law/revelation as opposed to following previous revelations like all prophets after Moses did, will overlook the governance of a nation just like Moses?

        Liked by 1 person

      • @QB 🙂

        @Vaqas
        Since you and others have now raised a number of interesting issues that I’d like to respond to, but do not have unlimited time, is there anything specifically in the article you would like to discuss or that you would like me to comment on? Alternatively, you could list a number of points and well can talk about them one at a time as time permits.

        @Imran @Kmak

        Imran, yes I would agree with a number of your points. And yes I think typology, as you correctly point out, is not “open to the same critique as… the traditional approach. However, the typological approach in the way I understand you to propose as well as what Kmak suggests is, unfortunately, not free of methodological issues that need to be discussed (e.g., the relationship between texts and intertexts). I’ll hope we can talk about it, but it will take me a little to write something up.

        @Kmak

        I’ll try and formulate a more elaborate answer, but for now my short answer is that I believe the biblical Moses figure is itself cast in a typological or narrative mold of ancient near eastern heroic figures. This is because I read/approach much biblical literature not as history, but as homily, theology and literature as I have discussed with QB recently about Matthew 2:1-12. But I’d rather, it not be a polemical discussion (I think QB dubbed it religious propaganda where I think the softer terms are more appropriate and would like to understand “Matthew’s” message, motive way of narrating etc,).

        I’ll just say up front that we might have differences over the historicity of religious figures and events, (human) authorship of religious texts. I may tend to view Quran as separate from Sirah/Hadith (but not vice versa though) where you may wish to read them together etc., as I’d like not to get into too much polemics. If you feel it’s “gonna” go that way, I would prefer to focus on the talks with Vaqas and Imran.

        In any case, what I am saying is that as a consequence the biblical Moses figure resembles not only Muhammad (or vice versa) but a number of other near eastern figures described in ancient near eastern literary texts as well. This raises of course the methodological questions that Imran noted of how to identify typologies, how best to envisage such parallels, their significance and what kind of messages these texts wish to communicate.

        A lot of interesting literature has been written on this subject.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Marc: In any case, what I am saying is that as a consequence the biblical Moses figure resembles not only Muhammad (or vice versa) but a number of other near eastern figures described in ancient near eastern literary texts as well.

        How many historical figures resemble Moses?

        Like

      • I would say a fair number and a fair number of narrative functions.

        What would you think If I told you, for example, about a near eastern narrative figure who was conceived in secret, when born, his mother placed him in a basket, sealed it with tar, placed it on a river. The child was on the river for a while found and reared by someone else, came to receive divine favor and subsequently became king, was presented as a man of the people siding not with aristocracy but with the more common man?

        Like

      • Marc C: I would say a fair number and a fair number of narrative functions.

        Name five historical figures that like Moses had a profound religious experience in a cave which led them to confront the people in charge, which then led to an exodus and finally the establishment of a polity.

        Liked by 1 person

      • As far as I know the Biblical Moses did not have a profound religious experience in a cave that led to all of that.
        Which Moses figure are you referring to?

        But even then there are a number of methodological issues of e.g., parallels.

        Like

      • @Marc C.

        No problem Marc. I was referring two parts of the article.

        The first part where they discuss Deuteronomy 34:10 plain reading and jewish commentary suggesting the prophet could be from outside of Israel.

        “Never again’: Note the discrepancy between the perspective of this verse and the divine promise to Moses that the line of prophetic succession will continue in the future: “I will raise up a prophet for them…like yourself” The Jewish Study Bible, commentary on Deuteronomy 34:10, p. 450

        “The Sages note the Torah’s statement here that in Israel there will never be a Prophet like Moses implies that among the non-Jewish nations there could be such a prophet…” Artscholl Chumash Commentary on Deuteronomy, p. 187

        The second part where they discuss missing words from Deuteronomy 18:15.

        “Notice that Deuteronomy 18:15 contains some extra words that are missing from verse 18, “from among you”. These extra words make it explicit that the Prophet like Moses would arise from among the Israelites, in which case he cannot be a Gentile Prophet.

        The problem with these extra words is that they are missing from most versions of the Old Testament. This is clear when we compare the version of the Old Testament that these words can be found in, known as the Masoretic Text, with other versions of the Old Testament such as the Septuagint, Samaritan Torah and Dead Sea Scrolls:”

        https://www.manyprophetsonemessage.com/2017/03/31/how-deuteronomy-foretells-the-coming-of-muhammad-%ef%b7%ba/

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hi Vaqas,

        To engage with your first point, in reverse order:

        A.

        The Rabbis in Sifrei Deuteronomy read Deut. 34:10: “Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses…” as implying that such a prophet had arisen from a non-Israelite nation. This reading is based on a hypertextual approach in which the tiniest detail in the Biblical text e.g., a particular or unusual spelling of a word, is fraught with meaning and can be used to extract homiletical truth from the text.

        A similar example can be found in Genesis Rabbah where Gen 6:9 “…Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time…”. The phrase “among the people of his time” elicits two opinions among the rabbis: since he could be righteous in an environment that was utterly corrupt (cf. Gen. 6:11-12) it might imply that Noah’s character was even more extraordinary. The other opinion is that that since he lived in an utterly corrupt generation the implication is that would take less to be considered righteous. Had he lived alongside Abraham, he might not have been considered righteous.

        However, with regards to Deut. 34:10 the rabbis believe this non-Israelite prophet to be Balaam (see Num. 22-24). Why this is so and how this plays out in the rabbinic discussions is an extremely interesting topic, but one we need not to go into now.

        Be that as it may, since 34:10 is phrased in the perfect tense and Balaam is killed in Num. 31:8, at a time Moses was still alive, it does not, in this particular Midrashic reading of the verse, talk of a gentile prophet to arise in the future, but rather one that lived in the past.

        I would just say, that this Midrashic-homiletic approach, which we should be careful to read too literally, is different from the plain meaning of the text. In classical rabbinic thought the plain meaning and Midrashic-homiletic readings can co-exist side by side.

        I would simply note, that I don’t think the author of the biblical passage in Deut. 34:10 wished to imply that there had arisen a non-Israelite prophet somewhat comparable to Moses. He simply attests to Moses’ greatness and unique prophetic character in ancient Israel.

        On a more general note, the ancient Rabbis did not deny that non-Jews could be prophets (of which this Midrashic reading, of course, in itself is an example).

        I see little in Gen. 34:10 that brings us closer to identifying the prophet spoken of in Deut. 18:15-18.

        B.

        I don’t see a discrepancy in perspective between Deut. 18:15-18 and Deut. 34:10 as does the Jewish Study Bible.

        I understand Deut. 34:10 simply as attesting to Moses’ greatness and unique character. I consulted two other commentaries on Deuteronomy 34:10 (NICOT and JPS, one Christian, one Jewish) and neither of these read the verse in the way the Jewish Study Bible does, but understand it along the same lines. I say this to express that I am not presenting you with my “own made up” understanding of this verse. The JPS has a very interesting and thought provoking comment, I find, on Moses’ prophetic character that you might find worthwhile to look at.

        I read Deut. 18:15-18 simply as a statement of how the Israelites are to establish a proper communication channel with God, once they enter the land. I don’t even read it as talking of a single prophet, even though it is phrased in the singular. The passage might describe simply the prophets fulfilling the prophetic office. If you look at the description of the king the Israelites are to appoint it is also phrased in the singular, but obviously there were a number of Kings in ancient Israel (see Deut. 17:15 I quoted above). In other words, it talks about the institution of kingship.

        As mentioned, I see Deut. 18:15-18 as a reference not to any one particular prophet, but rather to those prophets that will arise once the Israelites are established in the land. For this reason I find the approach, taken by Christian and Muslim apologists, of determining who “more” resembles “the prophet like Moses” as fundamentally wrong. The author of Deut. 18:15-18 does not, in my view, refer to either of these nor to any one specific prophet per se.

        In my opinion probably both Jesus and Muhammad are presented as resembling Moses in Christian and Islamic sources (admittedly I am less familiar with the Islamic sources, traditions and research). What I do find interesting is why and how an author communicated this message as I discussed previously with QB (You may for example be familiar with the common view that GM presents Jesus as a new Moses, e. g., Dale Allison, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology, 1993 ).

        Like

      • Hi Marc

        I want to focus only on phraseology of Deut. 18 vs. 15 and 18. Reading the Deut 18 and its immediate chapters I do not think the context dictates that ’a-heka אַחֶ֙יךָ֙ conclusively refers exclusively to Israelites. Here we should notice the the use of מִקִּרְבְּךָ֤ miq-qirbeka, from the root q-r-b קרב sttongly indicates that that the Prophet mentioned is of non Israelites stock but from nearby tribe/kinsman (but having blood relation). The word qereb קרב has its aramaic equiavalent (the same characters) which mean to be near, close and of course it also cognates with arabic قرب which means the same. I see that the use of qereb קרב is redundant if it is intended for the jews only

        Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 812) defines the verb קָרַב (qārab) TWOT 2065 as “come near, approach, enter into.”

        its sematic range includes:

        (2065a קָרֵב (qārēb) near.
        2065b קְ רָב (qĕ rāb) battle, war.
        2065c קִרְבָּה (qirbâ) drawing near.
        2065d קָרוֹב (qārôb) near, kinsman.
        2065e קָרְבָּן (qorbān) offering.
        2065f קֻרְבָּן (qūrbān) supply.

        Also it is interesting to note that there are other verses (Exod 22:21, 23:9, Levi 19:34, 25:23, Deut 10:19 etc.) which shows that, in relation to the Israelites, there are what is called the ger-im גֵרִ֥ים from hebrew גֵּר (ger) from the root which means: to live among people who are not blood relatives; thus, rather than enjoying native civil rights (TWOT 330 (electronic ed., p. 155). These are people who have no blood relation to the Israelites.

        Like

      • Thanks for your reply. I would like to read more on this and will appreciate if you can list a few books/essays for further reading about the pre-biblical non-biblical accounts which may have been the model to recast the Moses accounts. I would like to study the similarities and differences between the two. Based on my intertextual, source and form critical readings thus far, I have the following thoughts in mind: when looking at two different stories with similar elements, there can be a host of explanations underlying their similarities and differences. A) text X could be dependent upon text Y, or vice versa; B) both can be dependent upon the same source (textual or oral or both); C) their similarities could be the outcome of independent redaction, hence no direct link between them; D) both may have been secondarily redacted at a later stage by later transmitters on the basis of one another or the same oral/written tradition. These are just s few scenarios from the top of my head, including this one:

        Stories of the same type, even if independently composed, are bound to share common elements, including the sequence of events. For example, if you and I were to be locked in different rooms in different locations, tasked with composing either a brief love story, a story of infidelity, story of winning against all odds against a much stronger adversary, tragic story, a father-son account, a miracle story, a rescue account etc., there will be many similarities in our independent accounts, including in the way one event follows another. That is because stories of the same type share the same logic. Thus, if you were to write an account about a child, who almost dies after birth or when a todler, is being chased by enemies, miraculously survives, grows in strength and wisdom, finds his true calling and successfully reclaims his true position by overcoming all odds, it will undoubtedly share elements in common with numerous ancient accounts, including the Moses story as found in the Pentateuch. If you were to compose a story of a miraculous rescue, where initially it seems all is lost and there is no hope, but suddenly out of the blue something happens and you’re rescued, it will share many elements in common with other stories of the same type. That’s not due to direct or indirect dependencies among these accounts, but because the underlying rationale/logic of the type requires certain events to follow in particular order.

        I do not mean by the above that the final Moses accounts in the bible, in their finished forms, are fully independent accounts. It could be that at a later stage of transmission, both biblical and non-biblical accounts could have influenced one another and were further adapted. Yet not every similarity may necessarily be due to direct or indirect literary dependency; it could be independent too. This is important to bear in mind when dealing with accounts belonging to the same type.

        So, a difficult but fascinating topic on which I would like to read more.

        Moving on, generally speaking, typology seems to be a better way of understanding the Quranic claim: the Jewish opponents of the Prophet (saw) know him like they know their children. Unlike the various authors of the New Testament, the Quran does not apply a particular biblical passage as a proof text. Yet Muhammad (saw) and his role is recasted on the Moses model, so as to reason that if you know and are familiar with Moses, his role and his stories, then you will recognise the currrent prophet (i.e. Muhammad (saw)) because he is like Moses and his circumstances and key events resemble and are like those associated with Moses.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Marc C (btw, my previous comment was also directed to you):

        {{I don’t even read it as talking of a single prophet, even though it is phrased in the singular. The passage might describe simply the prophets fulfilling the prophetic office. If you look at the description of the king the Israelites are to appoint it is also phrased in the singular, but obviously there were a number of Kings in ancient Israel (see Deut. 17:15 I quoted above). In other words, it talks about the institution of kingship.

        As mentioned, I see Deut. 18:15-18 as a reference not to any one particular prophet, but rather to those prophets that will arise once the Israelites are established in the land. For this reason I find the approach, taken by Christian and Muslim apologists, of determining who “more” resembles “the prophet like Moses” as fundamentally wrong. The author of Deut. 18:15-18 does not, in my view, refer to either of these nor to any one specific prophet per se.

        In my opinion probably both Jesus and Muhammad are presented as resembling Moses in Christian and Islamic sources (admittedly I am less familiar with the Islamic sources, traditions and research). }}

        I basically agree with you (ie Deut. 18-18 could be read for multiple future prophets). But I do think that we should not bypass the element of similarity to Moses. I stopped my Hebrew studies a few years ago but can note that the likeliness to Moses is a point made in the text itself (2nd person masculine pronoun with the preposition, כָּמ֑וֹךָ). Of course, prophets after Moses among the Israelites fulfil the requirements of the passage because they would be following in the footsteps of Moses, following the laws and commandments, hence like him. Jesus too, likewise, can be seen as fulfilling the requirements of this passage. But with Muhammad (saw), the similarity to Moses takes a rather intense form. What I find interesting, a point noted by a professor of mine a few months ago, is that Muhammad (saw) comes across as more like Moses than Israelite prophets and Jesus. Here a non-Israelite’s prophetic career is hauntingly and intensely closer to Moses. Moses also, interestingly enough, is the Prophet most mentioned in the Quran. So if you were a Jew, familiar with the Bible, during the time of the proclaimer of the Quranic message, witnessing his rise, actions, his position as law giver, the nature of his law, his preaching about God, his role as a political and prophetic leader etc, the likeliness to Moses just couldn’t be overlooked. The only stumbling block for his Jewish opponents is this: he is not an Israelite. From the Muslim perspective, this shouldn’t be a “problem” because the Arabs are brothers of the Israelites, being their cousins, tracing their line to Abraham through Ishmael.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @Marc C.

        Hello Marc and thank you for the response.

        “However, with regards to Deut. 34:10 the rabbis believe this non-Israelite prophet to be Balaam (see Num. 22-24). Why this is so and how this plays out in the rabbinic discussions is an extremely interesting topic, but one we need not to go into now.”

        I am aware that Balaam is considered to be that prophet like Moses(a.s) however i would disagree because

        1: The obvious problems of it being Balaam given his actions and reputation.
        2: If you simply compare the two Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam is more like Moses(a.s) than Balaam is.

        “Be that as it may, since 34:10 is phrased in the perfect tense and Balaam is killed in Num. 31:8, at a time Moses was still alive, it does not, in this particular Midrashic reading of the verse, talk of a gentile prophet to arise in the future, but rather one that lived in the past.”

        The article i linked actually has a section talking about this issue with another alleged prophecy in Deuteronomy.

        “This is a literary technique that is actually very common in Biblical prophecy and is known as the prophetic perfect tense. It is used to describe future events that are so certain to happen that they are referred to in the past tense as if they have already happened [13]. The category of “prophetic perfect” was already suggested by medieval Hebrew grammarians, such as David Kimhi: “The matter is as clear as though it had already passed” [14]. Rabbi Isaac ben Yedaiah describes it as:

        [The rabbis] of blessed memory followed, in these words of theirs, in the paths of the prophets who speak of something which will happen in the future in the language of the past. Since they saw in prophetic vision that which was to occur in the future, they spoke about it in the past tense and testified firmly that it had happened, to teach the certainty of his [God’s] words – may he be blessed – and his positive promise that can never change and his beneficent message that will not be altered. [15]

        There are numerous examples of this literary technique throughout the Old Testament. For example, in the story of Noah:

        But I will establish my covenant with you, and you have come into the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. [Genesis 6:18]

        Another example is the story of Joseph:

        And seven years of famine have arisen after them, and all the plenty is forgotten in the land of Egypt, and the famine hath finished the land [Genesis 41:30]

        The prophetic perfect tense can also be found in the New Testament. For example, when Paul speaks of being raised up to God:

        And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus [Ephesians 2:6]

        https://www.manyprophetsonemessage.com/2017/03/31/how-deuteronomy-foretells-the-coming-of-muhammad-%EF%B7%BA/

        “I would simply note, that I don’t think the author of the biblical passage in Deut. 34:10 wished to imply that there had arisen a non-Israelite prophet somewhat comparable to Moses. He simply attests to Moses’ greatness and unique prophetic character in ancient Israel.”

        Perhaps, however that is what the text reads an has been interpreted to read. I’m reminded of the Christian troubles with john 17:3. The author(s) of john may not have intended unitarianism with the verse but that is how it reads and has been read in the ages following.

        “The JPS has a very interesting and thought provoking comment, I find, on Moses’ prophetic character that you might find worthwhile to look at.”

        Would you be willing to post it here? As I am having trouble finding it online.

        “As mentioned, I see Deut. 18:15-18 as a reference not to any one particular prophet, but rather to those prophets that will arise once the Israelites are established in the land. For this reason I find the approach, taken by Christian and Muslim apologists, of determining who “more” resembles “the prophet like Moses” as fundamentally wrong. The author of Deut. 18:15-18 does not, in my view, refer to either of these nor to any one specific prophet per se.

        I respect you’re perspective, though I obviously disagree. In matters when a text is claimed to have a divine or prophetic origin I think it prudent to look at every interpretation the text allows in examples that come after it. And i want to remind that Deut 34:10 is considered prophecy/inspired and should be looked at as such.

        I hope that all made sense and wasn’t silly rambling that wasted you’re time.

        Like

      • Hi Imran,

        Thank you very much for your fascinating thoughts and observations. And yes, I gathered your comments were also directed at me.

        I am very sympathetic to your observations. As I have little knowledge of this particular area I offer only a few simple comments on some of your observations I find to be especially important.

        Could you cite some of what you consider to be the most significant Quranic material dealing with the similarities and parallels between Muhammad and Moses?

        “Moving on, generally speaking, typology seems to be a better way of understanding the Quranic claim: the Jewish opponents of the Prophet (saw) know him like they know their children. Unlike the various authors of the New Testament, the Quran does not apply a particular biblical passage as a proof text. Yet Muhammad (saw) and his role is recasted on the Moses model, so as to reason that if you know and are familiar with Moses, his role and his stories, then you will recognise the currrent prophet (i.e. Muhammad (saw)) because he is like Moses and his circumstances and key events resemble and are like those associated with Moses”.

        This would be consistent with Fred Donner’s idea of the “believers’ movement”.

        On a more general note, how do you view the “recasting on the Moses model”?

        Did “the role and stories” all take place historically, or are some meant to convey simply homiletical truth, perhaps a combination of these two factors or perhaps something else entirely? Do you believe some stories and functions, for example, were given prominence over others (and were stories/functions not found in the Quran preserved in other sources or by other means) in order to make similarities between Moses and Muhammad stand out more sharply? And if so, what are the indications for this?

        “What I find interesting, a point noted by a professor of mine a few months ago, is that Muhammad (saw) comes across as more like Moses than Israelite prophets and Jesus. Here a non-Israelite’s prophetic career is hauntingly and intensely closer to Moses. Moses also, interestingly enough, is the Prophet most mentioned in the Quran. So if you were a Jew, familiar with the Bible, during the time of the proclaimer of the Quranic message, witnessing his rise, actions, his position as law giver, the nature of his law, his preaching about God, his role as a political and prophetic leader etc, the likeliness to Moses just couldn’t be overlooked. The only stumbling block for his Jewish opponents is this: he is not an Israelite. From the Muslim perspective, this shouldn’t be a “problem” because the Arabs are brothers of the Israelites, being their cousins, tracing their line to Abraham through Ishmael.”

        A lot of interesting food for thought and I am quite sympathetic to this, but have little concrete knowledge. I have just one observation about the Jews and Christians.

        Regarding the Jews: would they not, despite the similarities with Moses, object to or be concerned with having to accept Jesus as the Christ or al-masiḥ? Because from their perspective Jesus did fulfill the messianic eschatological expectations?

        And from a Christian perspective, would Christians not be adverse to give up the idea of Jesus’ divinity and the concept of the trinity? Especially since the Quran so strongly opposes these fundamental Christian doctrinal beliefs.

        How would such groups “who recognize the Prophet like they know their own children” react to such firm opposition on their religious beliefs?

        I very much appreciate your comments and find your observations very fascinating! Love to hear more.

        I will try to put the references in writing for you, when time permits. Right now, I am using available time to focus on keeping up with engaging with all these terribly interesting issues!

        Like

      • This is fascinating,

        You wrote: “I have just one observation about the Jews and Christians.”

        “Regarding the Jews: would they not, despite the similarities with Moses, object to or be concerned with having to accept Jesus as the Christ or al-masiḥ? Because from their perspective Jesus did not fulfill the messianic eschatological expectations?”

        From my own study, the jews should not have problem to accept Jesus as the Christ or al-masiḥ from the Islamic perspective, almost all those messianic “fulfilments” to Jesus that Christian apologists like Mike Brown use from the Hebrew Bible, are not against Judaism/Islamic core teachings minus their allusion to Jesus presupposed divinity.

        “And from a Christian perspective, would Christians not be adverse to give up the idea of Jesus’ divinity and the concept of the trinity? Especially since the Quran so strongly opposes these fundamental Christian doctrinal beliefs.”

        Why would them? after all these orthodoxy was not fully developed until the 4 century of Jesus era, not before before 381 AD, trinity was officially formulated backed by the Roman emperor. Before that there were no reference with three persons “god” only the Father /Yhwh alone is the one true God.

        Like

      • Hi Eric,

        Thank you very much for your thoughts and input.

        I consider the immediate context, chapters 17 & 18, to clearly indicate it is about the Israelites and what will transpire when they will enter the land. Specifically, the rules of the king, priest Levites would seem to be relevant to the Israelites only. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. However, what aspects of the context, as opposed to the phraseology, of Deut. 17-18, do you consider point to the Prophet Muhammad?

        I fundamentally agree with the semantic range of the root q-r-b קרב you quoted, but I fail to see how this in and of itself “strongly indicates that the Prophet mentioned [in Deut. 18] is of non Israelites stock but from nearby tribe/kinsman (but having blood relation)”. Talking specifically of 18:15 &18 I consider it to mean “midst” or nearness in the “community” sense as in many instances like Deut. 21:21 “Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from your midst (מִקִּרְבֶּךָ miqirbeka). All Israel will hear of it and be afraid”. Again, as all occurrences in the Hebrew Bible of miqirbek(a) מִקִּרְבְּךָ “from your midst” quite clearly refer to Israelites, one would think this to be the case in 18:18 as well (I cited them above). Grammatically and contextually speaking there seems to be no indication to consider this verse to be an exception.

        You write: “I see that the use of qereb קרב is redundant if it is intended for the jews only”. I take it you refer to the syndetic locutions מִקִּרְבְּךָ מֵאַחֶיךָ / מִקֶּרֶב אֲחֵיהֶם (in 18:15 and 18) that I translated above as “from your midst, from your brethren” and “from the midst of their brothers”. But such syndetic locutions simply and precisely underscore who is being talked about, namely Israelites. The identical locution is employed in Deut. 17:5 as I pointed out and quoted above, leaving no doubt about it: “be sure to appoint over you a king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from the midst of your brethren (miqereb aḥeka מִקֶּרֶב אַחֶיךָ). Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not your brother (aḥika אָחִיךָ ).”

        Weighing such evidence contextually, philologically and historical critically, understanding these verses as references to Muhammad seems to me rather improbable.

        Of course, none of this does not take away from the fact that Israelites and Arabs are Semitic brother peoples, with a shared heritage.

        Like

      • Hi Marc C,

        I got your point but consider 18:15 asyndetic construct : nabi mi-qerbeka me-aheka literally says (a) prophet from-nearby-you from-you-brethren. Grammatically it is plausible to translate as “a prophet from-nearby-clan-of-you” meaning not from the of Israelites themselves but rather their nearby brethren. And contextually also it makes sense if take the heb ahei as Israelites as a whole nation. Verse 5 earlier (and also 7) same Ch says bahar yhwh eloheka mi-kkal sebate-ka literally means “has chosen yhwh your god among-all your-tribes”, the use of “kal” indicates Israelites as a whole nation. So brethern here is figurately = israel nation. The brothers of a nation have to be other “nearby” nations. Also this philologically is not improbable considering the Torah use of this phraseology Gen 16:12 when the word the heb word אֶחָ֖יו ehaw undoubtedly indicates that the Ishmaelites are “within the midst” as well. I hope you get my point.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hi Marc, I just want to add.

        You write “Again, as all occurrences in the Hebrew Bible of miqirbek(a) מִקִּרְבְּךָ “from your midst” quite clearly refer to Israelites, one would think this to be the case in 18:18”

        I just want draw your attention that even if we want to use the argument that “qerb” means “from within” (not “nearby”) I found it interesting that this word is missing in the septuaginta (18 :15&18 προφήτην ἀναστήσω αὐτοῖς ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν… ) prophētēn anastēsō autois ek tōn adelphōn autōn , it says ” A prophet..from your brethren”.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @Imran

        I see I made a typo in my comment, it should have been:

        Regarding the Jews: would they not, despite the similarities with Moses, object to or be concerned with having to accept Jesus as the Christ or al-masiḥ? Because from their perspective Jesus did not fulfill the messianic eschatological expectations.

        Like

      • @ Vaqas

        Thank you for your response.

        Here I’ll try to address the second part of your original question, citing it below. I’ll try and respond to your comments to my first response, as time permits. I can’t promise this will be before after the weekend (probably it won’t), so if you have further comments and questions to the below feel free to post them and I’ll try and respond to everything together.

        “Deuteronomy 18:15 contains some extra words that are missing from verse 18, “from among you”. These extra words make it explicit that the Prophet like Moses would arise from among the Israelites, in which case he cannot be a Gentile Prophet. The problem with these extra words is that they are missing from most versions of the Old Testament. This is clear when we compare the version of the Old Testament that these words can be found in, known as the Masoretic Text, with other versions of the Old Testament such as the Septuagint, Samaritan Torah and Dead Sea Scrolls:”

        I’m afraid this is not entirely an accurate description and with all due respect I’m afraid this could not have been written by someone who consulted the original texts or the secondary literature on biblical textual criticism and philology.

        The Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) to Deut. 18:15 reads “miqereb aḥeka” (מקרב אחיך) i.e., “from the midst of your brothers” where the Masoretic Text (MT) reads “miqirbeka meaḥeka (מִקִּרְבְּךָ מֵאַחֶיךָ) ” i.e. “From your midst, from your brothers”. The difference is the pronominal suffix -ka “your” (as in Arabic) and the preposition “mi” i.e., “from” (=Arabic “min”, the nun mostly assimilates to the following letter in Biblical Hebrew, but the longer form “min” is also frequently used). Thus, grammatically MT has double prepositional phrases, whereas the SP has two nouns in what is knowns as the “status constructs”. Or simply put, both words are attested.

        The Septuagint reads ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου, i.e. “from out of your brothers” potentially reflecting a Hebrew vorlage that did not include “your midst”. Since, however, the Septuagint consistently translates these words with “from out of your brothers” (Deut. 17:15; 18:15, 18) many scholars believe that the vorlage of the Septuagint was a text similar to the SP, which the translator understood to be an adequate translation of the Hebrew. This is indicated in the critical apparatus of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and by Weavers who states to this verse that “Actually the parent reading for the translation [of the Septuagint] may well have been the מקרב אחיך of Sam[aritan Pentateuch]; comp also v .18”. John William Weavers: Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy, Atlanta 1995, p. 301.

        Other ancient translations of the Torah such as the Peshitta and Targum Onqelos (both about 2nd-3rd century) reflect a Hebrew text similar to the MT/SP.

        The fact that the no verse of Deut. 18:15 is extant in any surviving manuscript of the Dead Sea scrolls cannot serve as evidence that the word “midst” was missing in an early version of Deut. 18:15.

        Since, in fact, both the SP and MT as well as other ancient witnesses agree on the word “midst” over the LXX and it is uncertain that the LXX’s vorlage did not actually contain the word “midst”, I think the evidence supporting the claim made is not very strong.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hi Marc, allow me to quickly jump in to your discussion with Vaqas,

        You wrote: “The Septuagint reads ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου, i.e. “from out of your brothers” potentially reflecting a Hebrew vorlage that did not include “your midst”. Since, however, the Septuagint consistently translates these words with “from out of your brothers” (Deut. 17:15; 18:15, 18) many scholars believe that the vorlage of the Septuagint was a text similar to the SP, which the translator understood to be an adequate translation of the Hebrew.”

        However in Exodus 31:14 where the SP text write

        מִקֶּ֥רֶב עַמֶּֽיהָ mi-qqereb am-meha literally translates as “from among his people”

        but here the Septuagint write

        ἐκ μέσου τοῦ λαοῦ ek mesou tou laou “from among his people.”

        undoubtedly there is an ancient greek word for “midst” which is mesou..

        So I am not entirely convinced there is possibility that LXX’s vorlage actually contain the word “midst”

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hi Eric,

        Thank you very much for your comment and please feel free to jump in. You made a perfectly fine observation and a valid point. I’ll just quickly respond it to clarify my position.

        I didn’t mean to imply that Greek doesn’t have a word for “midst” and μέσου “mesous” is used primarily, but certainly not exclusively, for Hebrew תָּוֶךְ “tokh” meaning “inside, within” and the like.

        Also, I didn’t mean to imply that the vorlage of the Old Greek was categorically and unequivocally identical to the SP or MT. The point is that is uncertain what the vorlage read: it is possible it did not read qrb (midst), but it is also possible it did.

        I apologize if I was not clear about these two points.

        Also, note that mesous is actually found in the Apostolic Polyglot to Deut. 18:18:

        προφήτην αναστήσω αυτοίς εκ μέσου των αδελφών αυτών i.e., “I will raise up to them a prophet from the midst (mesous) of their brothers”.

        With regards to Ex. 31:14 you quoted the (MT identical to SP): The overall question, however, is somewhat complex and technical. If you look at the critical apparatus in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgatensia to the verse you will find that the numerous manuscripts and versions indicated, contain a variant, in form of an added preposition on עַמֶּֽיהָ as compared to MT and SP which might help explain this particular Old Greek translation, but we will probably need to investigate this a little further.

        Most importantly, however, is to note that SP consistently has the word midst (qrb), in the three instances where MT also has it. In Deut. 17:15 and 18:18 the text is identical to MT. In Deut. 18:15, SP has the slightly different status constructus where MT has double prepositional phrases, but the word “midst” is there. The Peshitta and Targum Onqelos also reflect a text similar to MT in all these instances.

        Since the Masoretic text is supported by the Samaritan Pentateuch as well as the ancient translations and the vorlage of the Old Greek cannot be determined with any certainty, I still believe that the claim made, does not rest on a strong foundation.

        Like

      • Hi Marc, I appreciate your thoughtful and cordial reply.

        Again I understand where you are coming from, I just want to highlight the plausibility on those who have the perspective that prophet Muhammad is deemed fit to be “the prophet like Moses”.

        I hope I make my position clear is that the use of “qrb” does not exclude Ismaelites prophet as Deut 18 refer to. Quite the opposite the use of qrb indicate the this prophet is not “from within” but “from nearby” and yet still has blood relation with the Israelite prophets, as the web word ach אָח is employed. Contextually also it does make sense as I mentioned elswhere the Torah use of this phraseology Gen 16:12 when the word the heb word אֶחָ֖יו ehaw undoubtedly indicates that the Ishmaelites are “within the midst” in the sense of “nearby and having blood relation” to the Israelites. Furthermore, as you already mentioned, there is a more specific heb phrase for “from within” that is be-tok בְּת֥וֹךְ (from the root tok תוך among/ midst) eg. 2 Kings 23:9 etc-s which makes this position tenable.

        Like

      • Hi Eric,

        Agreed, fascinating subject, though I’m not sure I follow you.

        Would you not agree that from the perspective of the Jews, they would have concerns accepting Jesus as the Messiah, as he did not bring about the Messianic era as per their expectations? Also, I am not referring to the traditional Christian fulfillment prophecies, as the Jews would clearly not accept those.

        As for the Christians, even if those doctrines were fully developed later than the time of Jesus, would they not have been well established by the time of Muhammad? As I read the Quran this seems to be a point of concern in the time and place of Muhammad, or at least to the implied audience, otherwise why would the Quran so strongly speak against these Christian doctrines?

        Like

      • This what fascinates me, with regards to Jesus (ﷷﷵ), Islamic position really is the middle ground between the (rabbinic) judaism and trinitarian christianity. Whether or not Jesus (ﷷﷵ) was fulfilled messiah really is the matter of interpretations, Islam allows the possibility of Jesus second coming where he will become the kind of messiah the jews are expecting. As for Christians, it is true that this athanasian formulation had been fully developed time of prophet Muhammad (ﷺ), that is why the very message of the Quran is the anti-thesis of this doctrinal beliefs to bring them back to monotheism. I do not see why would Christians be adverse to accept the idea that Jesus was the messiah of Israel who teach monotheism and the observance of judaic laws.

        Like

      • Hi Eric,

        I’ll try briefly to engage with all or most of your points in this one post. However, please feel free to ask again if I missed something, as it’s a little hard to keep up with all these various posts. It’s not out of an unwillingness to engage with the points you’ve raised.

        For Deut. 18:18: since all occurrences of מִקִּרְבֶּךָ “from your midst” miqirbeka in the Hebrew Bible refer to the Israelites I believe this is how it is to be understood in Deut. 18:18 as well and I think the contexts also supports this understanding as I have argued a few times. Thus, I think it refers to the community of Israelites rather than to a “clan nearby”, which I with all due respect do not find to be the plain meaning of the text.

        For Gen. 16:12 “He will dwell among all of his kinsmen” (אֶחָיו ehav, “his brothers)” I understand this to refer to the Ishmaelites with a number of commentaries (e.g., JPS p. 121) but perhaps more importantly and, as was pointed out in the debate, “brother” may have all kinds of meaning in the Hebrew Bible.

        Having said all of that: I now understand your latest comment to consider the allusion of Deut. 18:18 as a more gentle one, wishing simply keep open the possibility for “those who have the perspective that Prophet Muhammad is deemed fit to be the prophet like Moses” as you put it. So, if you are not pressing the argument too hard on the linguistics and textual criticism, I would simply respectfully disagree, but I would not see any great need to discuss the issue at length.

        I too, understand where you are coming from and appreciate that you now take, what seems to me, a more gentle and ecumenical approach. I believe your approach to the issue is much closer to that of Ali Ataie than to that of the popular apologists I mentioned above, and I believe this approach is a much more healthy one.

        Like

      • Hi Marc, thank you for your comment.

        I think we have reached a point where nothing new is presented. Of course you are entitled with your opinions, I  respect that. I have stated my position that the heb. word qrb does not indicates that it is “from within” the Israelites but rather “nearby” as the following:

        1. Semantic range of this word include: nearby, kinsman (TWOT 2065d) and there is a more specific heb phrase for “from within” that is be-tok בְּת֥וֹךְ (from the root tok תוך among/ midst)
        2. Contextually verse 5 earlier (and also 7) says bahar yhwh eloheka mi-kkal sebate-ka has chosen yhwh your god among-all your-tribes, the use of “kal” meaning Israelites as a whole nation. So here the the use indicates that brethern here is figurately mean israel as a nation therefore. The brothers of a nation have to be other “nearby” nations. The Ishmaelites.
        3.The construct nabi mi-qerbeka me-aheka : (a) prophet from-nearby-you from-brethren-you, could well mean a prophet “from-nearby-clan-of-you” meaning not from “within”  the of Israelites themselves but rather their brethren due to the fact that the “midst” is missing in the LXX and the Samaritan lacks the extra pro noun.

        Deu 18-15So Masoretic reading–> “Midst of YOU” of your brothers;  Samaritan reading–> “Midst of your brothers”, this could means your brother nations not within Israel only.

        4. Considering the Torah use of  אֶחָ֖יו ehaw elsewhere (eg Gen 16:12) undoubtedly indicate that the Ishmaelites are “within the midst” of Israel

        5. There are specific hebrew word verses in Torah (Exod 22:21, 23:9, Levi 19:34, 25:23, Deut 10:19 etc.)  for people who have no blood relation with Israelite ie the ger-im גֵרִ֥י from hebrew גֵּר (ger) meaning: people who are not blood relatives (TWOT 330). The Ishmaelite were never included.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hi Vaqas,

        Thanks for engaging with my initial response. And no, I don’t consider it a confusing ramble at all, as I can see you have put a lot of thought into your comment.

        The Hebrew verbal system is indeed complex. We are not here going to solve the enigma of the Hebrew verbal system or if indeed there is such a thing as a “prophetic perfect” and if there is, to what extent it is represented in the Hebrew Bible. It is true, however, that the article you linked to, considers that possibility with regards to Deut. 33:2 (also highly problematic IMHO) as phrased in the prophetic perfect. That discussion, though, is not directly applicable to our discussion of Deut. 34:10, for reasons I will try to clarify, but even that website, wisely abstained to claim the “prophetic perfect” for Deut. 34:10 and as far as I know no scholar has ever suggested this.

        The discussion offered, I’m afraid, seems rather imprecise and shows little familiarity with the complexities of the Hebrew verbal system. Possibly the author relied on sources that should be used only cautiously if at all. Both examples from Hebrew Bible considered there to represent the “prophetic perfect” are simply perfect tense verbs with prefixed consecutive wāw. To simplify a bit, the consecutive wāw has the effect of “reversing” the tense aspect of the verb. Thus, a prefixed perfect tense verb is understood as imperfect tense and vice versa. Consequently, a classic standard reference work such as “Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar”, classifies both Gen. 6:18 and 41:30 under the appropriate sections of the wāw consecutive, namely §49 and §112.

        Specifically, regarding Deut. 34:10 there are a number of problems in seeing the verse as a prophetic perfect. First, the prophetic perfect is usually believed to occur in sections of prophetic language, a highly stylized form of poetic Hebrew, whereas Deut. 34 is written entirely in classical Biblical prose.

        Second, the entire chapter is written in the perfect tense and refers to events in the past. Either by simple perfects of by imperfects with prefixed wāw consecutive. The word arisen in Deut. 34:10 קָם (qam) itself is written in the perfect tense. For these reasons it seems difficult to argue that Deut. 34:10 refers to a future gentile prophet.

        You write: “Perhaps, however that is what the text reads an has been interpreted to read”.

        I would respond that the “implicit” part, i.e., that it refers to a non-Israelite prophet, is not what the text reads and needs to be supplied. It is true, as you say, that the rabbis midrashically read this into it, though it is acknowledged that the midrashic reading is not the plain meaning of the text. Be that as it may, the rabbis correctly identified, the verse as perfect tense.

        I would add, respectfully, that I don’t consider this a strong argument. Simply because a text was read in a certain way, even by someone relatively close to the time of composition or the tradition, does not lead to the conclusion that it is a plausible reading, especially when, as here, it seems to have little foundation in the plain meaning of the text.

        If you remember our discussion of Matt. 2, you suggested the possibility that Matthew wished to write in the prophecy of the star, a reading that was indeed proposed by early interpreters. I agreed with you that it’s a possibility. I myself don’t believe this is what Matthew intended and I don’t think we can now, as I indicated there, but at least it’s possible as the star is actually in the text.

        Having said all of that that, thanks to your observations, comments and questions you made me think further about it. So I’ll just float a thought I had and you can tell me what you think about it.

        While I don’t think the author of Deut. 34:10 intended to imply a non-Israelite prophet, perhaps we could speculate that the author of Q 7:157 was familiar with midrashic traditions, similar to that of Sifrei. So when we read “Those who follow the Messenger, the ummi prophet (“al-nabi al-ummi”) whom they find written in what is with them, the Torah and the Gospel…” the author might possibly allude to such rabbinic traditions, here understanding the ummi prophet as a gentile prophet, a meaning that is within its range. Ummi can also mean uneducated, though usually it is translated “unlettered”. In other words, perhaps the author of Q 7:157 wished to communicate the idea that the non-Israelite prophet, we find in the rabbinic traditions, was actually the Prophet Muhammad. I realize this is highly speculative, so I am certainly not going to press this point too hard, but I simply wanted to raise this idea.

        Be that as it may, for reasons I have explained in this and other posts, I don’ believe there is strong evidence that the prophet spoken of in Deut. 18 refers to the Prophet Muhammad.

        Like

      • @Marc C.

        Hello again Marc and thank you for you’re civil engagement of this topic.

        “Second, the entire chapter is written in the perfect tense and refers to events in the past. Either by simple perfects of by imperfects with prefixed wāw consecutive. The word arisen in Deut. 34:10 קָם (qam) itself is written in the perfect tense. For these reasons it seems difficult to argue that Deut. 34:10 refers to a future gentile prophet.”

        What would you’re comments be on the claim of Mosiac authorship of Deut. 34 via prophecy? would this not quite literally make it prophetic perfect?

        ” I would add, respectfully, that I don’t consider this a strong argument. Simply because a text was read in a certain way, even by someone relatively close to the time of composition or the tradition, does not lead to the conclusion that it is a plausible reading, especially when, as here, it seems to have little foundation in the plain meaning of the text.”

        I’m afraid I don’t see why it’s not a strong argument. shouldn’t such interpretations carry some sort of weight? Perhaps you could elaborate on why that is. Also I simply must disagree with the idea that the plain reading of the text does not support a gentile prophet. After all is says the prophet like moses will nor arise in israel.

        “While I don’t think the author of Deut. 34:10 intended to imply a non-Israelite prophet, perhaps we could speculate that the author of Q 7:157 was familiar with midrashic traditions, similar to that of Sifrei. So when we read “Those who follow the Messenger, the ummi prophet (“al-nabi al-ummi”) whom they find written in what is with them, the Torah and the Gospel…” the author might possibly allude to such rabbinic traditions, here understanding the ummi prophet as a gentile prophet, a meaning that is within its range. Ummi can also mean uneducated, though usually it is translated “unlettered”. In other words, perhaps the author of Q 7:157 wished to communicate the idea that the non-Israelite prophet, we find in the rabbinic traditions, was actually the Prophet Muhammad. I realize this is highly speculative, so I am certainly not going to press this point too hard, but I simply wanted to raise this idea.”

        I think it is interesting and there may be something to it. Though as a muslim I would obviously say that the author of the Quran knew of such traditions(in addition to say texts like Deut. 34 10) by virtue of being God and not being influenced by them.

        Like

      • Hi Eric, and thank you too for your comment.

        I should agree with you that everything has been stated. I think I responded to most of your, but let me nevertheless briefly answer all the points including those I did not deal with.

        1. Your argument here, seem like a non-sequitur. First, בְּת֥וֹךְ is usually used in the sense of “within” or “inside”, but obviously has a wider semantic range, Second, there are several Hebrew words and constructions, that could have been used. For example, Targum Onqelos uses ביו, “between” “among” which would work just as well in Hebrew. Even if the text had said אֶחָיו ת֥וֹךְ (inside/within/among his brothers) someone could just as easily argue that it includes Ishmaelites as had it said מקרב אחיך or מִקִּרְבְּךָ מֵאַחֶיךָ. Actually, the phrase used מִקִּרְבְּךָ (from your midst) is used only of Israelites.

        2. I really don’t understand this argument. Deut. 18:5 and 7, speaks about those priests and Levites who were selected to minister. Those did not come from the Ishamelites or any other group outside Israel. The phrase of Deut. 18:7 “he may minister in the name of the Lord his God like all his fellow Levites [lit. his Levite brothers כְּכָל-אֶחָיו הַלְוִיִּם] who serve there in the presence of the Lord. Clearly singles out what group is being talked about and this group could only come from within the Israelites and more specifically from the Levites

        3. It is a pronominal suffix and a preposition that is different in SP, so the SP makes it status constructus. The vorlage of the Old Greek we don’t know, so you can’t say it is missing. In the end the difference of what we do know is tiny.
        4. It is, with all due respect a non-sequitur. First, I don’t think it refers to Israelites but rather the Ishmaelite kinsmen. Second a different construction is used (al pnei), and third, “brothers”, can mean many things including kinsman. Nobody denied that and that is what was also stated in the debate.

        5. I don’t understand the argument here. Yes, a גֵּר ger is sojourner, who is distinguished, from the local population. Deut. 18:18 uses a construction מִקִּרְבְּךָ (from your midst) that is used only of Israelites and the whole context clearly expresses this.

        But I would agree with you it has been exhausted by now.

        Like

      • @ Vaqas and thank you too for your cordial interaction, despite differences in perspective and approach. To respond to your points,

        “What would you’re comments be on the claim of Mosiac authorship of Deut. 34 via prophecy? would this not quite literally make it prophetic perfect?”

        From a historical-critical point of view we would say that it betrays the time of the author, and many Muslim apologists actually “seize” on this text to prove this text could not have been written by Moses. But the point is the same, even if Moses wrote chapter 34 on God’s dictation say ten years before his death, from the time of his death there never arose a prophet comparable to him in Israel. The text accepts that ancient Israel had other prophets, but of lesser stature. The text simply testifies to Moses’ unique prophetic character in Israel.

        Historical-critically this idea raises so many problems, is not falsifiable and makes assumptions that cannot be proven instead of the “simple” or “rational” solution: the text was written not by Moses but by someone who lived long after.

        I don’t have a problem with anyone believing in it. But I would say that such an approach is not methodologically and scientifically viable. It is really forced and I would think it quite a stretch to think that the author of Deut. 34 meant to imply or even “knew” of a specific gentile prophet to arise some 2000 years later.

        What would you say if I explained a biblical anachronism or “impossibility” by recourse to such an argument?

        “I’m afraid I don’t see why it’s not a strong argument. shouldn’t such interpretations carry some sort of weight? Perhaps you could elaborate on why that is. Also I simply must disagree with the idea that the plain reading of the text does not support a gentile prophet. After all is says the prophet like moses will nor arise in Israel”

        As I mentioned, I think this is reading into it. Had the reading a more firm grounding in the text itself I would not exclude the possibility. Often the ancient rabbis give us great insights into the text, just as we often find great insights from the traditional Muslim exegetes. It is not a matter of being against tradition or that such traditions a priori do not carry any weight. I simply don’t see this as the plain meaning of the text.

        But even if we accept this “implicit” message, the verse still does not say “the prophet like moses will not arise in Israel” In the future tense. It says: “Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses” (NIV) “And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses” (KJV) and the like. The text simply attests to Moses’ unique prophetic character in ancient Israel.

        Sometimes a perfect tense verb is just a perfect tense verb.

        “I think it is interesting and there may be something to it. Though as a muslim I would obviously say that the author of the Quran knew of such traditions(in addition to say texts like Deut. 34 10) by virtue of being God and not being influenced by them”.

        Ok, I understand and respect that this is your perspective and belief as a Muslim.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Marc C,

        Just a short note. I’ve saved your comments directed towards me and will strive to post my thoughts today. I’ve been distracted with my studies. Apology for the delay.

        Like

      • Sorry again for the late reply Marc. I had to revisit a few references before posting my reply. I’ll try to reply to your questions, but do note that my views on this subject remain in a state of flux and I need to read far more extensively.

        {{Could you cite some of what you consider to be the most significant Quranic material dealing with the similarities and parallels between Muhammad and Moses?}}

        It would be best to check out Cornelia Schöck’s ‘Moses’ entry in the Encyclopaedia of the Qur’an (vol. 3), who writes, “…the biography of Moses is seen in light of the biography of Muhammad.” (p. 419). It will take me much longer to go through all the material; Moses is most frequently mentioned in the Qur’an and comparisons are made with the former and his community in multiple ways: not only in 1-2-1 comparisons, but also by describing the same Qur’anic community and Prophet using the same/similar terms as earlier applied upon Moses and his community; by simply narrating past Mosaic episodes and then either addressing the Children of Israel or the Qur’anic community to draw out moral/ethical lessons; by noting the behaviour of the opponents of the Qur’anic community in terms similar to the descriptions of the vile behaviour of Moses’ opponents. Hence, typology is taking place in multiple modes all over the place, it is rather intensified. I just summarise below some points in the above referred essay:

        Qur’anic reminders of Moses’ deeds and events, associating these with Muhammad’s (saw) circumstances;

        The Qur’anic emphasis upon Moses’ monotheism, role as divine messenger, him facing accusations of lying, his oppression, the hostility from the disbelievers/evildoers whom he is interacting with, Moses and his peoples’ rescue, destruction of their enemies – all of these themes mirroring the circumstances in the life of Muhammad (saw);

        The hostile attitude of the Medinan Jews towards Muhammad (saw) is similar to the rebellious attitude which past prophets had to face from their people, particularly Moses – see 2:93 // 4:46; contrast this with the statement of Muslim belief: 2:285, 5:7, 24:51;

        The Meccan noble clans opposing Muhammad (saw) are akin to Pharaohs council of nobles;

        The patience displayed by Moses and his people corresponds to Muhammad (saw) and his followers’ patience in Mecca.

        Neuwirth, on the other hand, focusses upon Surah TaHa (20), where Moses is presented as a role model. This surah contains both Meccan and Medinan sections. In the former, Moses is a role model but, in the latter, Muhammad (saw) comes to the scene and steps into Moses’ role. He addresses the people of Moses (the Jews of Medina) through Qur’anic words, reminds them of their past episodes.

        {{This would be consistent with Fred Donner’s idea of the “believers’ movement”.

        On a more general note, how do you view the “recasting on the Moses model”?

        Did “the role and stories” all take place historically, or are some meant to convey simply homiletical truth, perhaps a combination of these two factors or perhaps something else entirely? Do you believe some stories and functions, for example, were given prominence over others (and were stories/functions not found in the Quran preserved in other sources or by other means) in order to make similarities between Moses and Muhammad stand out more sharply? And if so, what are the indications for this?}}

        I’ll deal with the easy part first, “Do you believe some stories and functions, for example, were given prominence over others (and were stories/functions not found in the Quran preserved in other sources or by other means) in order to make similarities between Moses and Muhammad stand out more sharply? And if so, what are the indications for this?” – Response: I don’t know. I will have to do a lot more reading before forming some sort of a view on these questions.

        As for “Did “the role and stories” all take place historically, or are some meant to convey simply homiletical truth, perhaps a combination of these two factors or perhaps something else entirely?”: The Qur’anic Mosaic episodes, which seem to have been familiar to the first hearers (judging by how the Qur’an presents them) would suggest, I think, that the implied speaker (and readers) believe them to have taken place. Hence, they are mentioned that thereafter lessons are derived for the benefit of the current community of believers. This also serves the purpose of encouraging them in difficult times, by showing how God helped Prophets in the past. In short, past events are mentioned and commented upon for the benefit and needs of the present community. Second, we see actual events in the prophetic career of the Qur’anic proclaimer. The main events being: the journey from Mecca to Medina (hijra), Muhammad (saw) claiming to be a Prophet and proclaimer of the Qur’an – its implied author/speaker being God, attaining political leadership in Medina, leading his followers into battles, being a law giver, to list a few. These events, historically, did take place. The Qur’an and extra-Qur’anic material can be utilised to support this view (the more radical revisionism of the 70s-80s has significantly waned). Just from the surface, they are seen to resemble events from Moses’ life. Hence, there’s a combination of commentary upon past events, present events as they’re unfolding, and in several places same/similar descriptors are employed to more strongly draw the similarities.

        {{Regarding the Jews: would they not, despite the similarities with Moses, object to or be concerned with having to accept Jesus as the Christ or al-masiḥ? Because from their perspective Jesus did fulfill the messianic eschatological expectations?}} (your subsequent correction noted)

        Yes. That is why the Qur’an strongly defends Jesus and his mother. The Qur’anic speaker wants everyone, no matter what their current beliefs, to replace them with the Qur’anic calling. It is demanding a radical change.

        {{And from a Christian perspective, would Christians not be adverse to give up the idea of Jesus’ divinity and the concept of the trinity? Especially since the Quran so strongly opposes these fundamental Christian doctrinal beliefs.}}

        Yes. There’s no compromise or middle ground here: hearers are being asked to accept the Qur’anic take.

        {{How would such groups “who recognize the Prophet like they know their own children” react to such firm opposition on their religious beliefs?}}

        The reactions would be a mixture of acceptance and rejection, as we can infer from the Qur’anic text itself. What the Qur’anic is asking every hearer to do is something radical: they have to give up those beliefs which are contrary to the views of the Qur’anic speaker. Polytheists have it particularly tough, because they have to ditch almost everything which they’ve inherited from their parents. For Jews and Christians, a lot of what the Qur’anic speaker says is familiar to them. The Qur’anic view of God would be not at all problematic for Jews and Qur’anic soteriology, the system of atonement in place, would all be immediately recognisable to the Jewish people. Christians who believe in Jesus as God, on the other hand, have to give up this belief, because it is false, and, likely, rectify their concept of God by embracing a unitarian God.

        It is definitely not easy what the Qur’an is demanding the various parties to do, hence the violent reaction against its call. The Qur’anic message is making a radical break from the status quos.

        Like

      • RE: Jews being required to accept Jesus as messiah: I forgot to add – the Qur’anic presentation of Jesus, moreover, is more Jewish. Jesus here does not claim to be God, he does not completely dismiss the laws and the commandments, and his birth and miracles are defended as the works of God. The honor of his mother is strongly defended. So, the correct response to the Qur’anic call by the Jews would be to accept Jesus the way it, the Qur’an presents him – as a Prophet of God.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Wow, facinating, thanks a lot Imran. The Moses entry is very useful. I’ll try to look more closely at that and at Neuwirth and I will come back to you., including references to Moses.

        I think the Jews could accept Jesus as a prophet once the obstacle of his divinity is out of the way. The sticking point would be accepting him as the Messiah.Especially since the eschatological characteristic and role is seldom overtly discussed in the Quran if I remember correctly (but I might be wrong bere).

        I’ve always found this relative silence striking, any thoughts on that?

        Thanks again for your reply

        Like

      • You’re welcome Marc. Apology for the many typing errors in my posts.

        Neuwirth’s lecture is available here:

        Click to access sandiego_keynote_an.pdf

        {{I think the Jews could accept Jesus as a prophet once the obstacle of his divinity is out of the way. The sticking point would be accepting him as the Messiah.Especially since the eschatological characteristic and role is seldom overtly discussed in the Quran if I remember correctly (but I might be wrong bere).}}

        Yes, I think the Qur’an does not go into the details of the eschatological role of the Messiah. I do not know about the late antique Jewish views of the role of the Messiah, but in my study of some biblical, 2nd Temple and Qumran documents some years ago, I was left with impression that, firstly, there’s no great obsession with the Messiah, secondly, a few texts which mention an eschatological messiah figure disagree over his role and concept (dividic messiah, priestly messiah, a messiah who apparently fails in his mission, a few texts even mention divine, angelic type, angelic figures). But I do not know how the Jewish messianic view(s) evolved into the late antique period, when Christianity had become a more forceful reality.

        Be that as it may, the implied speaker of the Qur’an, God, is not really concerned about the current views and concepts in vogue among its target hearers. He can arrogantly and confidently bypass and dismiss them, presenting its take on the matter – the only one that matters and which is correct. So, in this case, whatever the supposed eschatological role of the Messiah, Jesus is a human servant of God, His Prophet and also messiah, and the hearers only need to believe about him than which the Qur’anic speaker reveals.

        Like

      • @Imran

        Thanks a lot. Very exiting material and perspectives. As I mentioned earlier I found the entry in EQ to very useful. I think it highlights the need for a detailed scholarly study on the Moses Muhammad parallels with close attention to extra-biblical and extra-Quranic traditions.

        Neuwirth’s study also seems to me very fascinating and sophisticated reading. I am not sure about her reconstructions of historical and diachronic nature or the Sitz im Leben for it she creates. It is a quaint reminder of the methods of Gunkel and von Rad and what was still possible in Biblical studies, up to about the 70’s. But clearly her reading is much more sophisticated.

        Having said that I am very sympathetic to the reading itself. In her reading of Surah 20, as you correctly pointed out, the similarity becomes quite intense. It is not so much that Muhammad becomes a new Moses or a typological figure, so much as Muhammad actually becomes Moses himself!

        I should hope she could expand her study to include other Quranic discourses on Moses.

        For birth and life of Moses, most commentaries on Exodus will have at least a brief discussion of various ANE stories and motifs. Apart from that you may also find Hauglid’s essay very interesting: B. Hauglid, “On the Early Life of Abraham: Biblical and Qur’anic Intertextuality and the Anticipation of Muhammad”, in ed. John Reeves, Bible and Qur’ān: Essays in Scriptural Intertextuality, pp. 87-105. More broadly also consult the numerous recent books and studies of the Bible as Literature, since the literary turn some 40-50 years ago. But below are some specific suggestions you might find interesting.

        On similarities between Moses and Muhammad outside the Quran I found something that might be of interest. Its a brief discussion and bibliography listed in Shoemaker p. 114-117 (haven’t read the book). Among other things he states that on p. 114:

        “Modern scholarship has long recognized that the sīra’s depiction of Muhammad is frequently modeled directly after the life of Moses, in an effort to shape Muhammad’s biography according to the pattern of a biblical prophet. 184 As noted already, this tendency is especially apparent in the sīra’s chronology of Muhammad’s life, and the timing of his birth and death in particular has been harmonized to reflect the traditional boundaries of Moses’ lifespan”. 185 Stephen J. Shoemaker: The Death of a Prophet: The End of Muhammad’s Life and the Beginnings of Islam, Philadelphia 2012.

        Caterina Moro, “bambini seminati”: connotati osiriani di una leggenda ebraica”, in Aegyptus, Anno 87, L’artigianato nell’Egitto antico: Atti dell’XI Convegno Nazionale di Egittologia e Papirologia Chianciano Terme, 11-13 gennaio 2007 (2007), pp. 347-368

        Colette Briffard, “Moïse versus Sargo”, Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 60, Fasc. 3 (2010), pp. 479-482

        Nili Shupak: “Moses’ Birth in the Light of Egyptian Mythology: A Re-examination” in Beit Mikra: Journal for the Study of the Bible and Its World, 2017, pp.115-146

        Ronald Hendel: The Epic of the Patriarch: The Jacob Cycle and the Narrative Traditions of Canaan and Israel. 1987. Specifically. pp. 133-168.

        J. Robin King, “The Joseph Story and Divine Politics: A Comparative Study of a Biographic Formula from the Ancient near East” Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 106, No. 4 (Dec., 1987), pp. 577-594.

        Edward Greenstein. “The Fugitive Hero Narrative Pattern in Mesopotamia”, in (eds)
        John J. Collins, T. M. Lemos and Saul M. Olyan: “Worship, Women and War: Essays in Honor of Susan Niditch”, SBL 2015.

        Gary N. Knoppers. Moses and the Greek Lawgivers.: The Triumph of the Torah in Ancient Mediterranean Perspective, Writing Laws in Antiquity / L’écriture du droit dans l’Antiquité, Edité par Dominique Jaillard et Christophe Nihan 2017 (pp. 50-77).

        Elliott Rabin, “The Biblical Hero: Portraits in Nobility and Fallibility” in idem, The Biblical Hero: Portraits in Nobility and Fallibility, UNP 2020.

        Like

  2. Brother Kmak why do you say that?

    Like

  3. Nadir is about the same level as you. Dumb and Dumber.

    Like

  4. take both of them out to the gate of that city and stone them to death— the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he has violated his neighbor’s wife.

    If she is betrothed she is already his wife as the text uses the word “wife” to describe her:

    He has violated his neighbor’s WIFE.

    Like

    • No idea what this has to do with the present topic. Crosstians are so confused. 🤣

      But let’s go with this. So Deuteronomy 22, huh? But why didn’t you use your all-mighty KJV? Let me do it for you:

      “because he hath HUMBLED his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.”

      Now, let’s see Deuteronomy 21, shall we?

      “And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;

      12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

      13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

      14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast HUMBLED her.”

      Well, look at that. The same word is used in the translation for… drumroll please…RAPE!

      Run away now Iggy. You still need to find Brutus the Brontosaurus.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. I was just replying to stewpot who said:

    You eh “kinda” got it in Deuteronomy:
    …23If there is a virgin pledged in marriage to a man, and another man encounters her in the city and sleeps with her, 24you must take both of them out to the gate of that city and stone them to death— the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he has violated his neighbor’s WIFE. You must purge the evil from among you. ( Deuteronomy 22:24)

    https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/22-24.htm

    But even then this has issues as:

    1. It’s not about adulterers it’s about fiances ?????????????????????

    No, the word WIFE is used in the text itself.

    Stewpot redefines the OT concept of marriage, lol.

    Like

    • @ Erasmus

      Because you’re stupid, key phrase:

      “if there is a virgin pledged in marriage to a man”

      Means they are fiances. From commentary:

      Matthew Poole’s Commentary
      By this BETHROTHING she had actually engaged herself to another man, and was in some sort his with, and therefore is sometimes so called

      Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
      If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband,…. BUT NOT MARRIED, not as yet brought home to her husband’s house, and the marriage consummated; for the Jews distinguish between being BETHROTHED or espoused, and married; and generally there was some time between the one and the other.

      Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers
      His neighbour’s wife.—It is evident from the language of this precept that a BETROTHED virgin in Israel is regarded as a wife.

      Got anything else today?

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Hey guys, check out my response to a Christian called “royal son” on YouTube. I think he has posted on BT previously on as well.

    He tried to answer my question about whether Jesus prophesied in the name of Yahweh, which is one of the conditions Brown set. Here is what “royal retard” claimed:

    “In John 17:6, Jesus says While I was with them, I protected and preserved them by Your name, the name You gave Me.

    Jesus protected and preserved the elect with the Father’s name. This shows the sovereign preserving power of Christ. While Christ preserved each of the elect, Allah lacked the sovereign power to protect His own word according to the Islamic worldview.

    Jesus miraculously preserved the elect with God’s name – the very name which God gave to Him – The name Jesus means YHWH the savior, or YHWH the salvation. So, yes, Jesus did things in His own name which is the name of God.”

    And it didn’t much effort to destroy this argument:

    “Thank you for actually attempting to answer the question. You still failed miserably, but at least you tried. It amazes me that you have to do so much reaching and appealing to non-sequiturs, instead of just admitting that you lost.

    So let’s look at John 17:6. Here is what your commentaries say:

    Benson commentary: “I have manifested thy name — All thy attributes; and in particular thy paternal relation to believers”

    Barnes Notes: “Have manifested thy name – The word “name” here includes the attributes or character of God. Jesus had made known his character, his law, his will, his plan of mercy – or, in other words, he had revealed God to them. The word “name” is often used to designate the person…”

    JFB Bible commentary: “From praying for Himself He now comes to pray for His disciples.

    I have manifested—I manifested.

    thy name—His whole character towards mankind.”

    And the most damaging of all, Gill’s Exposition: “I have manifested thy name,…. Not the “Nomen Tetragrammaton”, the name of four letters, the name “Jehovah”, and which the Jews call “Shemhamphorash”, and say is ineffable, and to be pronounced by Adonai; who also speak of other names, and say (i), ”

    OUCH!

    So Jesus did not “manifest” God’s alleged “name” Yahweh. It was referring to God as “Father”. That’s the name.

    So nice try, but you failed to answer the question. I think you guys have had ample time to answer and the fact that you cannot shows that Jesus cannot be the prophet because he did not prophesy in Yahweh’s name.’

    Also, this little twerp tried to give me advice about being “respectful” but then was getting all chummy with the Christian trolls who have done nothing but insult Islam. This is the true face of Christianity, the face of hypocrisy. “By their fruits, you shall know them”.

    Then this pig tried to be a wise guy and attempted to use lies and astonishing leaps of logic to demonize Prophet Muhammad (pbuh):

    “Royal Son
    Royal Son
    11 hours ago
    @Ebun Williams It gets even worse than this:

    Premise 1. Muhammad said if anyone has a dream they don’t like, it is from Satan (Bukhari 9.87.114)

    Premise 2. Muhammad’s revelation at the cave at Mt Hira was in the form of a dream (Bukhari 6.60.479,480) which He didn’t like (Buhari 1.1.3, 9.87.111, Sirat al Rasul Allah)

    Conclusion: Therefore Muhammad’s revelation of the Qur’an at Mt Hira was from Satan. ”

    And I destroyed this argument as well, while also proving that Paul was a Satanic apostle:

    “quranandbibleblog
    quranandbibleblog
    28 minutes ago
    @Royal Son Pathetic Christian logic and deception!

    Let’s see the hadith about dreams:

    ” Abu Qatada reported Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:
    The good vision are from Allah and the evil dreams are from the satan. If one sees a dream which one does not like, one should spit on one’s left side and seek the refuge of Allah from the satan; it will not do one any harm, and one should not disclose it to anyone and if one sees a good vision one should feel pleased but should not disclose it to anyone but whom one loves.” Sahih Muslim)

    So, it’s about dreams that are “good” and “evil”.

    Second, the experience in the cave was not a dream:

    ” Narrated Aisha:

    (the wife of the Prophet) The commencement (of the Divine Inspiration) to Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) was in the form of true dreams in his sleep, for he never had a dream but it turned out to be true and clear as the bright daylight. Then he began to like seclusions, so he used to go in seclusion in the cave of Hira where he used to worship Allah continuously for many nights before going back to his family to take the necessary provision (of food) for the stay. He come back to (his wife) Khadija again to take his provision (of food) likewise, till one day he received the Guidance while he was in the cave of Hira. An Angel came to him and asked him to read. Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) replied, “I do not know how to read.”” (Sahih Bukhari)

    So he was initially having dreams that came true, but when he was in the cave, he was awake. It was not a dream. The hadith does not say that it was a dream.

    Nice try with your copy/paste Google search. You guys are pathetic!

    Speaking of Satanic visions, let’s look at the demonic Paul:

    “And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.” (2 Corinthians 11:14)

    “As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him.” (Acts 9:3)

    Hmmm, so Paul had a vision of Satan! That makes sense! He was a liar, and Satan is the father of all lies! LOL!! “

    Liked by 4 people

  7. Islam as we know it is over..
    The quran has been falsified, verses have been changed and added (Sana’a palimpsest).
    Mecca has been falsified, the first qibla was Petra in Jordan, not Jerusalem, not Saudi Mecca..
    So, muslims, it’s your turn now…
    Update your religion and be fair, or fade away..

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: