Christian missionaries claim that the four gospels are four separate eyewitness accounts of what took place during Jesus’ lifetime, written by those who witnessed what happened, and afterwards decided to write and record the events of Jesus’ life.
When we read the opening of the Gospel of Luke however we stumble across a problem to this thesis put forth by missionaries, the opening of Luke reads:
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilledamong us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4)
There are several points here that are very problematic to the Christian missionary claim, and to the general point of the gospels being actual eyewitness accounts.
The first thing that is clearly established by the opening of Luke is that it was certainly not written by an eyewitness, the author is openly writing that he is writing an account based on what was handed down to him by eyewitnesses, so he himself isn’t an eyewitness.
Secondly, the author says that he has gathered all the accounts he has within his possession, and to his own personal discretion has decided to make his own personal account, and this clearly establishes that the Gospel of Luke is certainly not the word of God, but the word of the author simply going through several different accounts of Jesus’ life and putting his own piece together.
Thirdly, as the author mentions many other persons did exactly what he is doing, writing an account of Jesus’ life, so what this means is there were other ‘gospels’ floating around, as the author says ‘many’ such accounts were written by others and now the author of Luke has decided to write his own account that is based on the other accounts.
Fourthly, and this is connected to the second point, the very human nature of the Gospel of Luke is exemplified by it’s differences-contradictions to other gospels, which is something we would expect from a very human endeavor. Let’s mention some of these contradictions, the first has to do with the other men beside Jesus on the cross:
Mark 15:25-32
And it was the third hour, and they crucified him. And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS. And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left. And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors. And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, 30 Save thyself, and come down from the cross. Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save. Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.
So according to Mark’s version, the other men beside Jesus reviled him alongside the people who were mocking him and telling him to save himself.
Let’s read Luke’s account of the same incident:
Luke 23:32-43
And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death. And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God. And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar, And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself. 38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord,remember me when thou comestinto thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shaltthou be with me in paradise.
So according to Luke’s account, one of the men on the crosses actually began to defend Jesus, and started calling Jesus lord and telling Jesus to remember him when Jesus enters his kingdom, and Jesus tells the man that he will be alongside Jesus in paradise today. Compare that with the earlier account of Mark where Jesus is being mocked and reviled and being challenged to save himself.
Another contradiction comes concerning where the disciples are to meet the resurrected Jesus, in Jerusalem or Galilee?
According to both Mark and Matthew, the man (in Mark) and the angel (in Matthew) told the women that Jesus has risen and will meet them in Galilee:
“Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’” (Mark 16:6-7)
Now in Luke’s account, the 2 persons at the tomb site tell the women that Jesus has arisen, but says nothing about them having to go to Galilee to see him:
While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ” (Luke 24:4-7)
The immediate context of these passages makes it further clear that the women were never told that they and the disciples would see the risen Jesus in Galilee, because if you go on to read the rest of the chapter, the disciples remain in and around Jerusalem when they finally see the risen Jesus:
Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven milesfrom Jerusalem. They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him. (Luke 24:13-16)
So two disciples come into contact with Jesus while going to the village of Emmaus, located near Jerusalem. Jesus finally reveals his true identity to them, and then they go tell the rest of the disciples in Jerusalem, where Jesus appears to all of them in Jerusalem:
They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread. While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” (Luke 24:33-39)
So Jesus reveals himself to all of them at Jerusalem according to Luke.
So which one is it? Was Jesus to meet the disciples in Galilee as Mark and Matthew allege? Or were they to meet Jesus in Jerusalem as Luke says?
As we said, such contradictions are not a surprise and are to be expected from this very human endeavor of Luke, who in his own words says he was writing up his own personal account of what took place during Jesus’ lifetime based on other accounts he heard, thus it makes sense to find discrepancies and contradictions with other accounts and gospels, revealing that this gospel is certainly not the supposed pure and protected word of God.
A fifth problem with this is why would Luke decide to make his own account if other gospels were already in existence, gospels such as Mark and Matthew which are accepted as legitimate gospels in comparison to the many others? It means that Luke (or the author of the Gospel of Luke) was not satisfied with the other accounts so he decided to make his own one, and this on it’s own is quite problematic. If Mark and Matthew are the words of God then why does Luke feel it’s his place to make his account and version, aren’t those Gospels enough? Obviously not according to Luke who says he has decided to write his own account based on all the other accounts and what he has heard. We’re talking about the supposed words of God here, the words of God, shouldn’t Mark and Matthew have sufficed? Obviously not in the mind of Luke.
Categories: Christianity
The Muslim Debate Initiative 
I don’t know of any knowledgeable Christian who claim Luke was an eye witness Christians believe only Matthew and John are eye witnesses especially John and these are not really contradictions but differences it is possible Jesus met at both places and all the gospels were written for different audience and for different reasons
Hi
I was reading about the so called accounts of the crucifixion in Mark and Luke. There is nothing wrong with a man on the cross CHANGING his mind. Are you telling me that because a man changed his attitude towards on the cross then it means it’s a contradiction
Read the account in Matthew it will help Muslims to understand people can change their minds as we are reading the different…it’s a bit like real life
Hi
The Matthew account has an interesting verse.
Mat 27:44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.
woe to the hands that make something and say this is from our lord in other to make benefit out of it. And woe to the benefit they make out of it
Hello Amidu
However the Quran says the Injil is from God –
And in their footsteps, We sent ‘Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) confirming the Taurat (Torah) that had come before him, and We gave him the Injeel (Gospel), in which was guidance and light and confirmation of the Taurat (Torah) that had come before it, a guidance and an admonition for Al-Muttaqun S. 5:46. S. 57:27
It is He Who has sent down the Book (the Qur’an) to you (Muhammad SAW) with truth, confirming what came before it. And he sent down the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel). S. 3:3
Sura 5:46 states that the Injil was given to Jesus by Allah. Sura 19:30 and 3:3 then clarify that the Injil is a book just as the Qur’an and the Torah are books that were sent down by Allah.
Why criticise another religion? Why are Muslims attacking the Christian scriptures – the Injil ?
The Quran says the Injil (New Testament) is from God. The Gospel of Luke was part of the Injil so the writer is contradicting the Quran. See Surahs 5.46. 57.27, 19.30, 3.3.
Also compare the Inil (New Testament) to the Hadith.
The Injil was written during the same life time of the eye witnesses. However the most reliable Hadith were compiled about 200 years after the life time of Mohammad. So obviously the New Testament is more reliable than the best of Muslim Hadith.
Serious problems also exist for the Quran. The earliest Quran found in the 1970s in Sanaa, Yemen prove the Quran is very much influenced by man – not a reliable and absolute recitation from God at all.
Experiential,
You talk about talk about the writer creating a straw man but it is in fact you who is creating a straw man. However, I’m going to give you the benefit of doubt and assume that you are unaware what the “Injeel” is. The Injeel is NOT the New Testament as you make it out to be.
You have correctly pointed out Prophet Jesus was given the Injeel just as Qur’an and Taurat were given. The Injeel is the gospel that Jesus preached which is even mentioned in the New Testament (Matt 4:23, 9:35, Mark 1:14-15). The Gospel of Luke is not part of the Injeel that the Qur’an mentions and I’m not sure on what basis you make that claim. The Qur’an clearly states that the Injeel was given to Jesus not Luke. The writer of the article has further shown that the Gospel of Luke is nothing but an account of what he has been handed down.
Why are you asking us to compare the Injeel which I repeat is not the New Testament to the Hadith? Are you aware what Hadith are? If you want to compare the NT you should do it to the Quran. Once again, I have no idea where you got 200 years from? Furthermore, according to Islamic sources the Quran was formally compiled by Uthman, who ruled from 655 to 656. The earliest manuscript of Quran dates back to 650–700AD (http://www.news.leiden.edu/news-2014/oldest-koran-fragments.html) which is within half a century after the death of the Prophet. Now if we look at the NT the earlies manuscript (Papyri) dates 2nd Century. Having said all that, this article has NOTHING to do with the preservation of the the text so I am not even sure why you bring that up, straw man?
As for your critique of the article, you are entitled to your opinions.
– Chase
Hello Chase
In terms of the point about a Strw man argument the writer has misinterpreted the Christian view of Luke and scripture thus making it easier to argue his case. That is a Straw man argument. You say I have done the same thing. Can you please tell me what I have misinterpreted so as to make it easier to argue my case ?
In regards to the Injeel that Mohamad had, let’s look at it logically –
1. The Christian ‘Gospels’ or Injeel were established Centuries before Mohammad was even born.
2. The ‘Gospels’ Mohamed was referring to had to be the Christian Gospels. There was nothing else either before Mohammad or at the time of Mohammad. That is basic logic.
You mention Matt 4:23, 9:35, Mark 1:14-15 which read –
Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.
So why don’t you continue to read Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John and see what the ‘Good News’ (also meaning – Gospel) was that Jesus preached. It is all there recorded by eye witnesses. Of which Luke is one who recorded what he had been handed down by eye witnesses.
Th reason I am asking you to compare the New Testament to the Hadith is because the writer and you are challenging the reliability and validity of Lukes account. My point being that Luke wrote an account at time of the eye witnesses still being alive. The Hadith however were evaluated and gathered into collections during the 8th and 9th centuries. This was centuries after the time of Mohamad and his followers.
So my point is if Muslims wish to criticize the reliability and validity of Lukes account then you need to have an equally critical or even more of a critical look at the reliability and validity of the Hadith.
You are wrong in saying the New Testament should be compared to the Quran. The transmission of the New Testament is a historical account written by men of the Good News (Gospel / Injeel) was that Jesus preached. Written by men who were inspired by God. My understanding ids that Muslims do not see the Quran as a God inspired man written document. Rather they see it as a direct the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God”.
I viewed your link the fragment of the Quran in Leiden. However, are you aware of the much more significant codex that was found in 1972 ? A large number of ancient Quranic manuscripts, dating from first century of Hijra were discovered in the Great Mosque of Sana’a (Yemen), which significantly differs from the present standard Quran.
Carbon-dating puts the origin of some of the parchments to 645–690 CE, while calligraphic dating has pointed to their origin in 710–715 AD.
This shatters the orthodox Muslim belief that the Quran, as it has reached us today, is “the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God”. It means the Quran has been distorted, perverted, revised, modified and corrected, and textual alterations had taken place over the years purely by human hands.
your right the new testament can be trusted more than the hadiths and tasfir the two best sources for Islam are only Quran and Sira while for Christianity it is the bible especially the new testament
Hi XP (your new nickname),
“Can you please tell me what I have misinterpreted so as to make it easier to argue my case ?”
I thought I made it pretty clear what it is (paragraph 2) but to reiterate; you misinterpret the Quran when it says the Injeel to mean the New Testament. Let’s try to clear this up so you can understand it better.
What you said in your orginally post –
“Sura 5:46 states that the Injil was given to Jesus by Allah. Sura 19:30 and 3:3 then clarify that the Injil is a book just as the Qur’an and the Torah are books that were sent down by Allah.”
– is absolutely correct. Isa was given the Injeel just like Musa was given the Taurat and Muhammed was given the Quran. I’m not sure how you can then say that the New Testament is the Injeel. It is clear that the New Testament is not what was given to Jesus rather it is a collection of works written at different times by various authors. Thus you are creating a straw man.
“In regards to the Injeel that Mohamad had,”
What? When did I mention Mohammed had the Injeel? How did you come to this conclusion?
“1. The Christian ‘Gospels’ or Injeel were established Centuries before Mohammad was even born. 2. The ‘Gospels’ Mohamed was referring to had to be the Christian Gospels.”
Once again “The Christian ‘Gospels'” and the Injeel is not the same thing. As you are aware the Quran is not the word of Muhammed but what was revealed to him from God. Just as the Injeel was revealed to Jesus. Also Injeel is translated as Gospel (singular) which is translated to Good News.
“You mention Matt 4:23, 9:35, Mark 1:14-15… So why don’t you continue to read Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John and see what the ‘Good News’ (also meaning – Gospel) was that Jesus preached.”
You completely miss my point here or do not address it at least. I have read the Gospels of MMLJ, but again what I was showing from those verses was that Jesus preached the Gospel (good news). Now it can’t be the Gospel of MMLJ that Jesus was preaching, can it? The Gospel that Jesus was preaching is what the Quran refers to as the Injeel. Hope the point is clearer this time.
“It is all there recorded by eye witnesses. Of which Luke is one who recorded what he had been handed down by eye witnesses.”
Either you have terrible grammar or you are saying Luke is an eye witness? The author of the article makes it pretty clear that the author of Luke “is writing an account based on what was handed down to him by eyewitnesses, so he himself isn’t an eyewitness.” In any case, the Injeel revealed to Jesus is not the same as the New Testament.
“So my point is if Muslims wish to criticize the reliability and validity of Lukes account then you need to have an equally critical or even more of a critical look at the reliability and validity of the Hadith.”
The Hadith is the tradition of the Prophet Mohammed. No Muslim claims it to be the word of God. On the other hand, Christians claim that the New Testament is the inspired word of God. Thus it makes no sense to compare them. The author of this article was not discussing the preservation of the text rather what it contained. As for the reliability and validity of the Hadith, we are equally critical of it. That is why there is a Science of Hadith and an overview as well as detailed explanation can be found here: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/Ulum/hadsciences.html.
“You are wrong in saying the New Testament should be compared to the Quran. The transmission of the New Testament is a historical account written by men of the Good News (Gospel / Injeel) was that Jesus preached. Written by men who were inspired by God.”
XP, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. You have basically summed up what I have been trying to explain to you about the Injeel that the Quran speaks of. These men may have heard the Injeel (Gospel/Good news) and remnants can be found in the New Testament but as you have clearly shown the New Testament was not given to Jesus, the Injeel was. I asked you to compare them because you were talking about preservation of text. For us the Quran and hadith sayings are two completely different sources. Allah promises to preserve the Quran, not the hadith sayings thus we have strong hadith which are agreed upon and weak hadith which we don’t hold on to. There are even fabricated hadith and we know this because of the hadith science developed (refer to previous link).
“I viewed your link the fragment of the Quran in Leiden. However, are you aware of the much more significant codex that was found in 1972?.. which significantly differs from the present standard Quran.”
So you have viewed my link it and chose to ignore it? I am aware of it but I am not sure what was “significantly different” so I googled your quote and the first link that came up was you saying the exactly same thing in November 2012 on another forum. Up to this point, I truly believed you were just unaware of the things I am saying to you but it’s become apparent that you have been arguing the same things for a long time and you have had plenty of responses that address your claims. I feel there is no need to repeat them.
– Chase.
Hello Chase
Sura 19:30 and 3:3 say the Injeel was a book. So my question to you is where is this book? Apart from the primary four New Testament Gospels it did not exist before Mohammad, at the time of Mohamed or afterwards. So where is it?
You ask when did I mention Mohammed had the Injeel? I came to that conclusion by what the Quran says about the Injeel.
You say the Injeel was revealed to Jesus. As I mentioned earlier, do you want to know what the revealed Good News was that Jesus received from God Chase? Then continue to read Mathew Mark, Luke and John where it is recorded.
However my point remains. The four Gospels were established centuries before Mohammad was born. So either Mohammad was referring to those gospels or else he was showing his confusion and ignorance as to what Christians believed.
You say he (Luke) himself wasn’t an eyewitness.” Yes, that is correct. Luke recorded from the eye witnesses the Gospel that Jesus preached.
In regards to the hadith do not Muslims see Sahih Bakahri and Sahih Muslim as authoritative?
While the author may not have been specifically discussing the preservation of the text he was criticizing the overall veracity of the New Testament Gospel of Luke.
In terms of comparing the New Testament with the Quran and hadith I agree with you, to a point. It is misleading to try to compare them too closely. But my point being in my opinion the New Testament shares a greater commonality to the hadith.
A point I will make however was Luke was a contemporary of the eye witnesses he recorded from. He lived at the time. Compare this to your best hadith. Sahih Bakahri and Sahih Muslim were both compiled approximately 200 years after the eye witness accounts. So Luke has far more credibility than your best hadith.
You say remnants of the Injeel can be found in the New Testament. Which remnants ? Can you identify them? Can you tell me what is the criteria used to determine what is a valid remnant? Further more what happened to the original revelations? Why were they not recorded? Or if they were recorded when were they disposed of? And by who? and where? And why?
As explained the 4 books of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are a record of the revelation that was given to Jesus. If you continue to read the four books you will read the record of the Good News, The Gospel, the revelations of The Good News that Jesus received.
Yes I viewed your link. I read it, thought about it and then provided you with information about the 1972 Sanaa Quran which expands on the information you provided.
Did you read what I said about the Sanaa Quran Chase? Have you thought to research it? Here is a provided link. I trust you will show the same good faith and view the link as I viewed yours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscript
You are correct Chase. I have asked Muslims many times about the implications of the Sanaa Quran on Islam and I have never had an adequate reply. Perhaps you could try to answer this concern. Or perhaps you will be just like others before you who would rather not go there and face the facts about the Sanaa Quran.
[[Sura 19:30 and 3:3 say the Injeel was a book. So my question to you is where is this book? Apart from the primary four New Testament Gospels it did not exist before Mohammad, at the time of Mohamed or afterwards. So where is it?]]
I believe what you are doing here is called moving the goalposts, “an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.” I’m not sure if you are aware but when the Quran says book/scripture it isn’t referring to a physical book. Muhammed wasn’t given a physical copy of the Quran, rather the verses were revealed to him. Similarly, the Taurat and Injeel were revealed to Musa and Isa, respectively. The difference is that the Quran being the last revelation is meant for all time/nation, whereas the previous revelations were sent for a specific time/nation.
[[You ask when did I mention Mohammed had the Injeel? I came to that conclusion by what the Quran says about the Injeel.]]
Ok, where does Quran mention that Mohammed had the Injeel?
[[You say the Injeel was revealed to Jesus… The four Gospels were established centuries before Mohammad was born. So either Mohammad was referring to those gospels or else he was showing his confusion and ignorance as to what Christians believed.]]
Once again, you are either completely missing the point or refusing to address it. I will try one more time, was the New Testament revealed to Jesus? No, thus it cannot be the Injeel that the Quran speaks of. I didn’t say that the four Gospels didn’t exist before Muhammed. Again, when the Quran says something, it isn’t Muhammed talking.
[[You say he (Luke) himself wasn’t an eyewitness.” Yes, that is correct. Luke recorded from the eye witnesses the Gospel that Jesus preached.]]
“The Gospel of Luke was written by an anonymous author.” – E P Sanders, Bart D. Ehrman, F.F. Bruce, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Donald Senior, Paul J. Achtemeier, Robert J. Karris, Keith Fullerton Nickle, Ben Witherington, Patrick J. Flannagan. The Gospel According to Luke is just another account of the life of Jesus written by an unknown author. As the OP quoted – “Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, “This is from Allah,” that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.” – Quran, 2:79.
[[In regards to the hadith do not Muslims see Sahih Bakahri and Sahih Muslim as authoritative?… But my point being in my opinion the New Testament shares a greater commonality to the hadith.]]
Yes we do. Do you know what “sahih” is? If not, please take the time to read the link I previously provided. In Islamic literature we have the word of God (Quran) – Holy Scripture, word of Prophet (Hadith), words of companions/historians (other books) and they are all kept separate. On the other hand, Christians combine all these things in the NT and says it’s the inspired word of God – making it all Holy Scripture. Thus it makes more sense to compare Holy Scriptures.
[[A point I will make however was Luke was a contemporary of the eye witnesses he recorded from. He lived at the time. Compare this to your best hadith. Sahih Bakahri and Sahih Muslim were both compiled approximately 200 years after the eye witness accounts. So Luke has far more credibility than your best hadith.]]
Who is “he” you are referring to? We don’t know who wrote Luke. Who are these eyewitnesses? You clearly haven’t read the information or haven’t understood it from the link I gave you. If you are sincere in knowing about how hadith are complied and validated, please read through this: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/Ulum/ . Hadith can be traced back to the Prophet by a chain of transmission (isnad). The same cannot be said for the Gospel of Luke. Furthermore, if we were to agree with your point, it would go to prove that the Quran is far more credible than the New Testament because it dates back closer to the time.
[[You say remnants of the Injeel can be found in the New Testament. Which remnants ? Can you identify them? Can you tell me what is the criteria used to determine what is a valid remnant? Further more what happened to the original revelations?….]]
For example, I have no issue believing Jesus would’ve said this; “Jesus replied, “The most important commandment is this: ‘Listen, O Israel! The Lord our God is the one and only Lord.” – Mark 12:29. The criteria is if it aligns with the Muslim teachings; “And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth.” – Quran 5:48. Like I said before, you are just moving the goalposts. Do you believe that New Testament was revealed to Jesus? Of course not, yet you continue to argue that the Injeel is the New Testament?
[[As explained the 4 books of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are a record of the revelation that was given to Jesus.]]
So now you change your position from the NT being the Injeel to just the 4 books? We don’t know who wrote these books. Furthermore, these unknown authors do not say that they are the word of God or that Jesus conveyed them from God, rather they claim to narrate some words Jesus said along with some of his deeds and miracles. How can you then carry on saying that this is the Injeel given to Jesus “in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.” Quran, 5:46
[[Yes I viewed your link. I read it, thought about it and then provided you with information about the 1972 Sanaa Quran which expands on the information you provided.]]
How does it expand on the information I provided? You wanted to talk about reliability due to the dating. Your response went on to change the topic (yet again) and started talking about textual corruption.
[[Did you read what I said about the Sanaa Quran Chase? Have you thought to research it?… I have never had an adequate reply. Perhaps you could try to answer this concern. Or perhaps you will be just like others before you who would rather not go there and face the facts about the Sanaa Quran.]]
I did go on to research it, so I thank you for giving me the opportunity to learn something new. However, the claims you made were far from the truth. I’m not sure what an adequate answer to you is but this article is well written and answers all the claims; http://callingchristians.com/2012/09/23/codex-sanaa-and-the-quran/. If you have further question, please post a reply on the article, I know the author will be happy to answer your question. You are making it out like no one has touched on this subject and Muslims are just trying to brush it under the carpet. This is not the case. A simple Google search will show you that. What’s funny is that the Wikipedia article you provided talks about Dr. Puin making similar claims and how that was a lie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscript#Media_controversy).
You say the Quran mentions book/scripture it isn’t referring to a physical book. While that may be the case for the Quran, the historical fact is The Good News / Gospel / Injeel – the revelation that Jesus received and preached, was recorded in book form centuries before Mohamed was even born. Was Mohamed ignorant of that or was he just confused?
Shedding some light is Ibn Ishaq who wrote the earliest biography of Muhammad. He clearly indentifies the Gospel mentioned in the Qur’an as what Christians call the New Testament.-
“Among the things which have reached me about what Jesus the Son of Mary stated in the Gospel which he received from God for the followers of the Gospel, in applying a term to describe the apostle of God, is the following. It is extracted from what John the Apostle set down for them when he wrote the Gospel for them from the Testament of Jesus Son of Mary”
(Ibn Ishaq’s “Sirat Rasulallah”, translated as “The Life of Muhammad”, by A. Guillaume, Karachi: Oxford, 1998, pp. 103-104, bold added.)
Here we see Ibn Ishaq refer to the Apostle John and the Gospel that he wrote. This is simply what Christians call the Gospel according to John and it is part of the New Testament.
You ask where does the Quran mention that Mohammed had the Injeel? I don’t know how well Mohamed knew the Injeel. It appears not very well if he did. What I was saying was that the Quran mentions the Injeel.
Once again, you are either completely missing the point or refusing to address it. I will repeat it. The 4 Gospels of Mathew, Mark Luke and John were the record of the revelation Jesus received. The record of the Injeel.
You say the Gospel according to Luke is written by an unknown author and drop some names like – E P Sanders, Bart D. Ehrman, etc.
Christians have always known there is no direct mention of Luke but while the Gospel of Luke does directly state who wrote it, it is obvious through scholarly deduction it was Luke. All you need to do is cross reference it to the Book of Acts and other New Testament writings to see it is the same author. As result the two books are often referred to as Luke-Acts. If you read the beginning of Acts it reads –
“In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach”
Act 1:1.
This Luke is also mentioned in Paul’s Epistle to Philemon (v.24), and in two other epistles – (Colossians 4:14 and 2 Timothy 4:11).
Why are you quoting Quran, 2:79? I don’t even believe in the Quran.
But if you want to go down the path of warning false scribes or prophets here is one for you about ‘prophets ‘ that will come after Jesus–
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them.”
Matthew 7:15–23)
In regards to comparing The Old Testament and New Testament with Islamic literature it is basically a moot point. However I still hold that the Bible has more in common with hadith than the Quran.
In terms of comparing the compilers of the hadith who compiled approx 200 years after the events, compared to the contemporary accounts of the eye witnesses of the Bible, you ask who are these eyewitnesses and claim we don’t know who wrote Luke. As mentioned we know who wrote Luke – it was Luke, as I have shown from the evidence above. Other eye witnesses’ that either documented the events or got others to document for them were Peter, James, Mathew, Mark, Paul and John.
Yes I had a look at your link about hadith science. However the fact remains your most reliable hadith was still compiled about 200 years after the events. Unlike the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament that were written in the same life time of the events.
If you are sincere in knowing about how the NT was complied and validated, please read through this- http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence
You say a reliable chain of transmission cannot be said for Luke. This is not correct.
Most experts date the composition of Luke-Acts to around 80-90 CE and the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings. Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy and they are consistent.
Oh ! So if it aligns with Muslim teachings it is genuine. How convenient! That’s just circular reasoning. You chose a criterion that is convenient and nothing more.
Why quote the Quran (5:48) to me. I don’t believe in the Quran, so there is no point in trying to influence me with a writing I don’t believe in.
You quote Mark 12:29 Listen, O Israel! The Lord our God is the one and only Lord. Yes so? Christians also believe in only One (1) God .
If you are going to quote Mark 12:29 why not read on into the same chapter of Mark to 12.35 – 12.37 where Jesus claims to be God the Son. So what scholarly criteria are you using to distinguish these verses (which are in the same chapter of Mark) apart from your Muslim centric criteria of convenience?
You claim I change my position from the NT being the Injeel to just the 4 books?
I don’t think you know what the difference is between the New Testament and the Gospels. What I said was- the 4 books of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are a record of the revelation that was given to Jesus. I didn’t detail the rest of the NT. For your information, the rest of the NT is essentially a collection of 1st Century letters from the disciples and early believers. Apart from The Book of Revelation which is more of a prophetic writing.
And we do know where the books originated from. They were either written by or dictated by Mathew Mark, Luke or John.
You say the authors do not say that they are the word of God, or that Jesus conveyed them from God. Lets look at the words they narrated then – take John for instance-
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”
John 1: 1-5
What was the author – (John) saying? He was saying not just that Jesus had the word of God. He is even going further and saying Jesus IS the Word of God.
Here is another one from John again-
“Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching (Word) , you are really my disciples.
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
John 8.31-31
Obviously these verses are saying they are the word of God and that Jesus conveyed them from God.
You ask how can I carry on saying that this is the Injeel given to Jesus and then quote (Quran, 5:46). Easy – again read John 1: 1-5 and John 8.31-31.
The information I provided on the Sanaa Quran expands significantly on the link you provided. The Sanaa link details an extensive codex . Your link detailed nothing but a fragment.
In terms of reliability of dating the original intent of the author of the post was to discredit the overall veracity of Luke. So whether we are talking textual corruption or not is irrelevant. It is overall credibility that is the question here.
Regarding the Sanaa Quran I looked at your link. It was not credible. It avoids the Muslim claim that the Quran is the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God and how the Sanaa Quran proves this not to be the case.
Why should I have to reply to the author Chase? You are posting your support for the attack on the Book of Luke on MDI so if you are getting involved why are you being evasive?
I looked at your first link and the writer doesn’t understand difference between the Muslim belief of the Quran as the supposedly the absolute timeless, and unchanging Word of God and the Christian belief of the Bible as written by man but inspired by God.
In terms of your second link all it did was take me to a Wikipedia list. A random click on one of the listed links you provided states –
“What’s more, some of these fragments revealed small but intriguing aberrations from the standard Koranic text. Such aberrations, though not surprising to textual historians, are troublingly at odds with the orthodox Muslim belief that the Koran as it has reached us today is quite simply the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God.”
Further to that – the articled I got directed to had no reply to the above.
You claim that Dr. Puin was making similar claims and how they were lies. You need to support this statement. One of Puin’s conclusions is that though there was an oral tradition, there were deliberate changes in the oral tradition of the reading of the Koran. Thus this oral tradition was not stable or elaborate – changes must have occurred in the San‘ä’ manuscripts.
Hence this shatters the orthodox Muslim belief that the Quran, as it has reached us today, is “the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God”. It means the Quran has been distorted, perverted, revised, modified and corrected, and textual alterations had taken place over the years purely by human hands.
Provided is a list of Muslim or ex Muslims who all doubt the veracity of the Quran- Walid Shoebat, Abul Kasem, S Kamran Mirza, Avijit Roy, Ibn Warraq, Nasr Abu Zayd.
[[You say the Quran mentions book/scripture it isn’t referring to a physical book. While that may be the case for the Quran, the historical fact is The Good News / Gospel / Injeel – the revelation that Jesus received and preached, was recorded in book form centuries before Mohamed was even born. Was Mohamed ignorant of that or was he just confused?]]
It’s become apparent that you are just ignoring the points I am making. If you are not going to address the points I make then there is no point continuing this discussion. I am going to break it down even further for you;
1. You made a straw man argument in your original post regarding the Quran’s teaching on the Injeel.
2. I replied by giving you evidence that the Quran does not teach the Injeel and New Testament are the same.
3. You ignored my points and replied that you weren’t sure what straw man you’ve created.
4. I replied and showed you again how you’ve misinterpreted the Quran.
5. You ignored my points again and asked “Sura 19:30 and 3:3 say the Injeel was a book. So my question to you is where is this book?”
6. I replied that (a) your committing a fallacy and (b) when the Quran uses the word Book/Scripture it isn’t referring to a literal book rather the revelation given to the Prophet.
7. Now you want to dismiss what the Quran says.
All in all, you are being inconsistent. I have previously agreed with you on the fact that the four Gospels according to MMLJ were in existence before Muhammed, not sure why you bring this up again. The problem here is that your premise is in need of evidence – begging the question. You believe that when the Quran says Injeel, it is referring to the New Testament. This is not the case, which I have shown you and it seems I will have to carry on showing you throughout this reply. Furthermore, I understand that it’s hard for Christians to distinguish but for the like the 3rd time, Muslims believe that the Quran like the previous Scriptures is not the word of the Prophet rather the verbatim word of God, as you are well aware.
###
[[Ibn Ishaq who wrote the earliest biography of Muhammad. He clearly indentifies the Gospel mentioned in the Qur’an as what Christians call the New Testament… Here we see Ibn Ishaq refer to the Apostle John and the Gospel that he wrote. This is simply what Christians call the Gospel according to John and it is part of the New Testament.]]
Firstly, unless you are Samuel Green (of Answering-Islam) – which I highly doubt you are – you’ve just plagiarised his work, word for word. There is no point going back and forth on this issue as it’s been refuted by various people. However, there are points I’d like to highlight (links provided for further reading);
1. Ibn Ishaq didn’t write “the earliest” biography just one of the early ones. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biographies_of_Muhammad).
2. Just because it’s early doesn’t necessarily make it reliable. Unlike the Hadith, Ibn Ishaq’s Biography doesn’t have chain of transmission (isnad). “Ibn Ishaq being the solitary narrator i.e. there is no chain for it that does not involve Ibn Ishaq. Solitary reports of Ibn Ishaq are not reliable.” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsmSDIw5MDY) (http://www.answering-christian-claims.com/The-Problems-With-Ibn-Ishaq.html)
3. Green did not complete the quote which goes on to talk about the coming of Comforter/the spirit of Truth. As Bassam Zawadi (of Call-to-Monotheism) and Ali (of IslamiCity) correctly point out that nowhere does Ibn Ishaq say that the entire Gospel according to John is the revelation from God. He only mentions that one of the sayings of Jesus revealed to him by God could be extracted from the Gospel according to John which is “a term to describe the apostle of God” (i.e. Muhammed) – and that term being Comforter/the spirit of Truth. In other words, Ibn Ishaq is saying that the foretelling of Muhammed can still be found in the Gospel according to John. As I told you before, there can be remnants found and according to Ibn Ishaq, this is one.
###
[[You ask where does the Quran mention that Mohammed had the Injeel? I don’t know how well Mohamed knew the Injeel. It appears not very well if he did. What I was saying was that the Quran mentions the Injeel.]]
Here we go with the blatant inconsistency again. Another one I have to break down for you;
1. You originally said “in regards to the Injeel that Mohamad had”
2. I replied, “when did I mention Mohammed had the Injeel? How did you come to this conclusion?”
3. Your said you “came to that conclusion by what the Quran says about the Injeel.”
4. I asked, “where does Quran mention that Mohammed had the Injeel?”
5. Now you change your whole stance and claim you were saying “that the Quran mentions the Injeel.”
Well, yes, the Quran does mention the Injeel. I don’t even know what else I can say on this. Please try to be consistent.
###
[[Once again, you are either completely missing the point or refusing to address it. I will repeat it. The 4 Gospels of Mathew, Mark Luke and John were the record of the revelation Jesus received. The record of the Injeel.]]
Wow. I really don’t get how you can even quote me yet refuse to acknowledge what I am saying. I honestly don’t know how can I break this down even further. Let me try another angle – maybe if I let your Christian friends explain it to you, it might make more sense. Jochen Katz & Bassam Khoury (of none other than Answering-Islam) write “Note: According to S. 5:46, the Injil was a book given to ‘Isa by Allah. That means, it is not the New Testament or the Gospels contained in the NT, because those books were not given to Jesus during his life on earth, but they were written by his disciples (under divine inspiration) after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus.” – http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/injil_israel.html. I hope this has clarified it for you and you will stop misinterpreting the Quran in future.
###
[[You say the Gospel according to Luke is written by an unknown author and drop some names like – E P Sanders, Bart D. Ehrman, etc.]]
What I said was that it “is just another account of the life of Jesus written by an unknown author.” I was merely paraphrasing the author of Luke and New Testament scholars, theologians, professors, historians, etc. such as the ones I gave for the quote I provided. Additionally, I wasn’t name-dropping rather I was referencing the work I used – something you should do, too.
###
[[Christians have always known there is no direct mention of Luke but while the Gospel of Luke does directly state who wrote it, it is obvious through scholarly deduction it was Luke. All you need to do is cross reference it to the Book of Acts and other New Testament writings to see it is the same author.]]
That may have been the traditional view but as you’re well aware and I have given reference, there are many New Testament scholars who do not believe it was Luke so it’s not as “obvious” as you make it out to be. Having read through the Wikipedia article on the issue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_Luke%E2%80%93Acts), it’s not as simple as just cross-referencing. Additionally, what you fail to address is that it is an account of the birth, life, death, resurrection, ascension etc. of Jesus. Now my question to you is, how can it then be the Injeel that was given to Jesus which as you correctly pointed out “is a book just as the Qur’an”? That’s like calling the Sīra/Sunnah of Muhammed, the Quran – which it is not. Furthermore, the accounts found in the four Gospels not only have discrepancies with each other in some places but also go completely against what the Quran teaches. This further shows that it cannot be the Injeel that the Quran speaks of.
###
[[Why are you quoting Quran, 2:79? I don’t even believe in the Quran.]]
The reason I quoted it wasn’t because you believe in it, rather what the Quran teaches about the corruption of the earlier Scripture. In other words, it further shows that the Injeel and the New Testament are not the same.
###
[[In regards to comparing The Old Testament and New Testament with Islamic literature it is basically a moot point. However I still hold that the Bible has more in common with hadith than the Quran.]]
I will say it again, you can’t have your cake and it eat it too. You confirmed in your original post that “the Injil is a book just as the Qur’an” and you claimed that the Injeel is the New Testament. However, when you thought that it will help you prove a point (which it doesn’t) you changed your stance to “the New Testament shares a greater commonality to the hadith” and now you “still hold the Bible has more in common with hadith than the Quran.” Once again, you’re not being consistent.
###
[[In terms of comparing the compilers of the hadith who compiled approx 200 years after the events…]]
You keep bringing this up and even though I asked you in my original post where you got 200 years from, you still haven’t explained it. Anyhow, I will address this point since you won’t answer me. The 200 year after the event claim is absolute rubbish. It is clear you have done no background study on hadith or even looked at the link I provided. What you are referring to is the 4th stage, hadith classification. The writing of hadith can be classified in four stages (Dr. Philips. Usool Al-Hadeeth: The Methodology of Hadith Evaluation. p28):
1. Sahefah – in the life of prophet Muhammad and his companions, the hadith were compiled just for the sake of collection.
2. Musannaf – hadith classification according to subject matter.
3. Musnad – classified hadith under companion’s names.
4. Sahih – hadith were classified under the headings of different subjects and particular care was paid to the reliability and content of the hadith.
“The third century hijri became the most important time for the sciences of hadith, and it was pioneered by the strict measures taken by imam Bukhari in compiling his monumental work Sahih al Bukhari.” – http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2012/05/documentation-sunnah-hadith-begin-early.html.
For further reading: http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2011/04/hadith-compilations-by-companions-of.html and http://www.muftisays.com/forums/36-nabi-s–sahaabah-stories/7307-the-companions-ra-who-wrote-hadith-and-those-who-wrote-from-them.html .
###
[[you ask who are these eyewitnesses and claim we don’t know who wrote Luke. As mentioned we know who wrote Luke – it was Luke, as I have shown from the evidence above. Other eye witnesses’ that either documented the events or got others to document for them were Peter, James, Mathew, Mark, Paul and John. Yes I had a look at your link about hadith science.]]
Firstly, I am not making this claim, New Testament scholars are – I’m just relaying it. As mentioned, there are many scholars that don’t believe it was Luke and others that say it can neither be proved nor disproved that it was Luke. Secondly, you say you have looked at the link on hadith science and if that’s the case you still haven’t understood it. What I mean when I asked who were these eyewitness is that Luke doesn’t mention where he is relating from and on whose authority, i.e. isnad.
###
[[However the fact remains your most reliable hadith was still compiled about 200 years after the events. Unlike the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament that were written in the same life time of the events. If you are sincere in knowing about how the NT was complied and validated…]]
Just claiming something is a fact doesn’t make it a fact. Hadith were written during the life of the Prophet as I have already explained. Please refer to the further reading links I provided above. For even more on this issue please read: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/hadith.html, http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/god_s_preservation_of_the_sunnah__by_jamaal_al_din_zarabozo and http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_that_the_hadith_have_been_collected_200_years_after_the_death_of_the_prophet_and_therefore_are_unreliable_ .
I had a look at your link and to be honest, it does not provide much information how it was “complied and validated” rather how well the manuscripts compare to other ancient writings. However, I have read through the Wikipedia article on Development of NT canon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon). The earliest the New Testament was decided upon was the 4th Century but it has still carried on varying. So what you consider New Testament has not been the same for everyone over the previous centuries and one could argue that it is still evolving with each new critical edition. This further points to the fact that the New Testament is not the Injeel.
Again, you failed to comment on my point so I’m going to put it as a question to you. Does your point not go on to prove that the Quran is far more credible than the New Testament because it can be dated back closer to the time of the Prophet?
###
[[You say a reliable chain of transmission cannot be said for Luke. This is not correct….]]
You haven’t understood what isnad is (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/296158/isnad). It is the chain of reporters i.e. “It has been related to me by A on the authority of B on the authority of C on the authority of D…” all the way back to the Prophet. An example of the transmission of the isnad is shown on a chart in this article: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/exisnad.html . This is what I mean when I said it cannot be said for Luke.
###
[[Oh ! So if it aligns with Muslim teachings it is genuine. How convenient! That’s just circular reasoning. You chose a criterion that is convenient and nothing more. Why quote the Quran (5:48) to me. I don’t believe in the Quran, so there is no point in trying to influence me with a writing I don’t believe in.]]
We are talking about the Injeel given to Isa by Allah as stated in the Quran, of course I am going by Muslim teachings! I didn’t choose the criterion – God tells us that the Quran is the criterion. The same God that is telling us that the Injeel was given to Jesus, two verses before. Ibn Kathir in his tafsir on the verse quotes: “Therefore, whatever in these previous Books conforms to the Qur’an is true, and whatever disagrees with the Qur’an is false.” How is it circular? You asked what the criteria was and I quoted the verse to show you what you asked for. Also, you are okay with quoting 5:46 but I can’t reference two verses ahead which tells us that the Quran is the criterion and judge by it? How convenient! Again, be consistent. Furthermore, I believe this is a red herring, why do I even need to identify them? We have the final revelation – the Quran, which is our guidance (2:1).
###
[You quote Mark 12:29 Listen, O Israel! The Lord our God is the one and only Lord. Yes so? Christians also believe in only One (1) God .]]
What do you mean, “Yes so?” I didn’t randomly quote this. You asked if I could identify what could be classified as a remnant. I gave you this as an example.
###
[[If you are going to quote Mark 12:29 why not read on into the same chapter of Mark to 12.35 – 12.37 where Jesus claims to be God the Son. So what scholarly criteria are you using to distinguish these verses (which are in the same chapter of Mark) apart from your Muslim centric criteria of convenience?]]
So you dismiss when I give a reference to Quran but then you want to reference the New Testament? I could, like yourself, simply say I don’t believe in the New Testament and not bother replying. However, unlike yourself, I realise that I have to be consistent and since I have quoted your scripture I must be prepared to receive more from it. Moving on, you don’t need a scholarly criteria, you just need to be consistent and use your logic – You claim that the New Testament is the Injeel given to Jesus by Allah according to the Quran. If that was the case then Jesus wouldn’t claim to be “God the Son” since Jesus is only a Prophet and Allah does not have a son, according to the same Quran.
###
[[I don’t think you know what the difference is between the New Testament and the Gospels. What I said was- the 4 books of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are a record of the revelation that was given to Jesus… For your information, the rest of the NT is essentially a collection of 1st Century letters from the disciples and early believers. Apart from The Book of Revelation which is more of a prophetic writing…]]
I do know the difference but I wanted you to highlight this point so I can show you how big of a hole you are digging for yourself. You originally claimed that the New Testament (which includes Acts, Epistles, Hebews, Revelation) is the Injeel given to Jesus according to the Quran (5:46). Now please answer me this and of course it is a ridiculous question but to make my point clear so anyone can follow the logic, did Allah give these Acts, Epistles, etc. to Jesus? Because that is what you are saying when you claim the New Testament is Injeel. Moreover, you affirm “the Injil is a book just as the Qur’an and the Torah are books that were sent down by Allah” but you also say that you see your Bible (NT included) “as the inspired Word of God, not the literal, inerrant, verbatim Word of God as Muslims do with the Quran.” Thus the New Testament cannot be the Injeel. If you continue to argue that the Injeel given to Jesus is the same revelation as the New Testament, you are just being intellectually dishonest.
###
[[You say the authors do not say that they are the word of God, or that Jesus conveyed them from God. Lets look at the words they narrated then – take John for instance [John 1:1-5]… What was the author – (John) saying? He was saying not just that Jesus had the word of God. He is even going further and saying Jesus IS the Word of God. Here is another one from John again…[John 8:31-32]
Obviously these verses are saying they are the word of God and that Jesus conveyed them from God]]
You are actually making it easier for me to argue my case. John 1:1-5, the author is saying this about Jesus. Now you may believe these words are inspired by God, but the Injeel was not a revelation given to the author of John nor the other 3 Gospels, rather it was given to Jesus. John 8:31-32 states that Jesus said if you follow his teachings you are his disciples – Whilst I have no objection to this, how does it “obviously” show its the word of God and not just Jesus? It doesn’t, unless you have the presupposition that Jesus is God – which incidentally is what the author of John is portraying but goes against what the Quran says thus it cannot be the Injeel which Quran speaks of.
###
[[You ask how can I carry on saying that this is the Injeel given to Jesus and then quote (Quran, 5:46). Easy – again read John 1: 1-5 and John 8.31-31.]]
No, not easy. I highlighted the last bit of the verse because it says “confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.” What is it confirming? Well if you read the previous verse it says “And We ordained therein for them: “Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal…” Quran (5:45) – Before you ask why, I quoted the Quran to show you the context of the verse you’ve used, once again. So my point is the Injeel contained the same message, whereas the New Testament says that Jesus abolished this law, therefore it cannot be the Injeel.
###
[[In terms of reliability of dating the original intent of the author of the post was to discredit the overall veracity of Luke. So whether we are talking textual corruption or not is irrelevant. It is overall credibility that is the question here.]]
Let me be more clear. The author is highlighting what they believe are “the problem with the Gospel of Luke.” I think you are creating red herrings. You are not addressing those problems instead you are pointing to what you believe are problems with the Quran on a different topic.
###
[[Regarding the Sanaa Quran I looked at your link. It was not credible. It avoids the Muslim claim that the Quran is the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God and how the Sanaa Quran proves this not to be the case.]]
Why was it no credible? It responds to Dr Puin’s findings. It seems the only problem you have is that Muslims believe the Quran is perfect, timeless and unchanging word of God, as you keep bringing it up through out, I will clarify what that means for you;
1. Perfect :- This is a reference to Quran 11:1 which states “Alif, Lam, Ra. [This is] a Book whose verses are perfected …” – Ibn Kathir writes in his tafsir on this verse: “This means perfect in its wording, detailed in its meaning. Thus, it is complete in its form and its meaning.
2. Timeless :- As I explained to you before, when Allah gave the previous Books it was for a “particular location, particular generation and for a particular time… The only things that were timeless about those Books have been reiterated in the Quran.” The Quran is the final revelation so it’s till the end of mankind thus its not limited by time and “it was given to a Messenger who is for all nations so it’s not limited by nation / generation.” – Ust. Nouman Ali Khan: The Quran is Timeless: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw0mYqJytLw (from 1:10 onwards).
3. Unchanging word of God:- This means that the Quran we have is the same as the one revealed to the Prophet. As I mentioned before, Books didn’t just fell down from the sky in a physical form. The Quran was revealed gradually over 23 years. It was preserved through an oral tradition and a textual tradition. The Quran was memorised and the text was used as a secondary reference. It was revealed in 7 different “ahruf” which matched the dialects of the various tribes in Arabia and made it easier for them to recite and memorise. “The Qur’an (literally: The Recitation) when being transcribed was transcribed according to the vernacular of some scribes from throughout Arabia, therefore Uthman [ra], ordered the scribes to write the Qur’an by transcribing it, according to the tongue (liturgical transmission) of its original revelation: the Qurayshi Dialect. Therefore any such palimpsest of the Qur’an which demonstrates orthographical variants or textual variants is due to the Arabic of the Qur’an being transcribed from its mother dialect.” – Ijaz Ahmad (http://callingchristians.com/2012/09/23/codex-sanaa-and-the-quran/).
Therefore, the Sana’a manuscripts do not disapprove these 3 points. Rather they “demonstrate the textual integrity of the Qur’an and the grammatico-historical validity of the ahadith which verify the transcribing of the tongue of the Quraysh into a mushaf (text).”
###
[[Why should I have to reply to the author Chase? You are posting your support for the attack on the Book of Luke on MDI so if you are getting involved why are you being evasive?]]
I asked you to reply to author as it is someone who is clearly more knowledgeable than myself. I assumed you were here to learn and receive well detailed answers. In my spare time, I like to read and do my own research so I may be able to answer your question (as I have done so), it just takes longer and might not be an adequate reply to you. Moreover, I am not posting “support for the attack on the Book of Luke.” Your comprehension skills do amaze me. I have actually been posting in defence of the Quran & Hadith. When you made false claims in your original post, I had enough knowledge to recognise your straw man argument and respond to it. You have a habit of claiming your opponent of doing something but doing it yourself – if anyone is being evasive, it is you, XP. I have responded to ever point you have raised whereas you haven’t actually responded to any points I’ve made regarding your straw man instead you bring up new points, diverge and throw in red herrings.
###
[A random click on one of the listed links you provided states – “What’s more, some of these fragments revealed small but intriguing aberrations from the standard Koranic text. Such aberrations, though not surprising to textual historians, are troublingly at odds with the orthodox Muslim belief that the Koran as it has reached us today is quite simply the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God.” Further to that – the articled I got directed to had no reply to the above.]]
These small aberrations have been discussed thoroughly in the link I provided. Further to that, it had no reply? Really? Your comprehension skills continue to amaze me. If you read the next paragraph from where you quote, it gives a reply from Jeffrey Lang.
###
[[You claim that Dr. Puin was making similar claims and how they were lies. You need to support this statement. ]]
I was specifically referring to Dr. Puin claims that the Yemeni were keeping the manuscript “low-profile” and the last 2 paragraphs of the Wikipedia article you provided show that it was a lie. I said lie, not lies. His observations may be correct but his conclusions are not, which have been addressed in the article I provided.
###
[[One of Puin’s conclusions is that though there was an oral tradition, there were deliberate changes in the oral tradition of the reading of the Koran. Thus this oral tradition was not stable or elaborate – changes must have occurred in the San’ä’ manuscripts.]]
Now you’ve decided to plagiarise Ibn Waraq and interestingly remove what he extracts from Dr. Puin conclusions. The original paragraph reads “there was an oral tradition (otherwise the Koranic text could not have been read)” and “as can be seen in the variant orthography to be found in the San’ä’ manuscripts.” Now you are just being deceitful. The implication of the things you removed are that (a) he recognises that the mus’haf was used as a supplement since there was already a oral tradition and (b) he makes the claim that the reading must of changed based on variant orthography. Once again, this has been addressed in the article I provided (under the heading – Palimpsests: Textual Variants and Orthography of the Qur’an).
###
[[Provided is a list of Muslim or ex Muslims who all doubt the veracity of the Quran- Walid Shoebat, Abul Kasem, S Kamran Mirza, Avijit Roy, Ibn Warraq, Nasr Abu Zayd.]]
On the other hand, this is called name-dropping. How does this help your case? How does this shows that the Injeel given to Jesus is the New Testament? How does this support the “overall credibility” of Luke? Another red herring.
since everything else you said was talking about something else I will respond to when you talk about sira and hadith and you can try justify but it accepted that hadiths have nothing to say they god back to Muhammad they were about 200 years after and while earliest biography we can trace are ibn ishaq through ibn hisham and al tabari but even those others biographies that have not survived but which may have existed still date more than 100 years after Muhammad died that is why many critical non muslim scholars don’t see the hadith or sira as being of value although few non muslim scholars do think somethings in them can be value but not everything so the quran is best source and few of non muslim sources we have to know Islam while new testament has been dated all to the 1st century or just early second century by scholars and Christians have traditions but accepted by some Christians only if they don’t contradict or against the new testament
Hello Chase.
In terms of any Straw man augment yes I agree I did confuse things by saying the Injeel was the NT. I should have been more precise in identifying it as the Gospels of MMLJ. However I still hold to my original point that the writer of the article created a straw man argument by making a disingenuous presumption as to Lukes motive for writing and compiling his account.
There was no ignoring of Sura 19:30 and 3:3 Chase. I think we are in agreement now. The historical fact is The Good News / Gospel / Injeel – the revelation that Jesus received and preached, was recorded in book form.
Sam Green and plagiarism? No plagiarism about it. Referencing was provided. What about you ? Where are you gathering your sources from and how well are you referencing them?
Even as you try to discredit Ibn Ishaq Chase – the fact remains. The Good News Message / The Gospel/ The Injeel message that Jesus preached was recorded in a book.
In terms of the coming of the Comforter/the spirit of Truth I presume you are raising the common Muslim argument of this being a prophesy of Mohammad, which has been adequately refuted.
You say that nowhere does Ibn Ishaq say that the entire Gospel according to John is the revelation from God. That’s not the point. Again the point being the message of Jesus / the Injeel was recorded in book form.
You keep saying remnants of truth can be found and give an examples of one of these so called remnants by Ibn Ishaq. As already I’ve already mentioned your criteria for what is remnant or truth in the Injeel is circular reasoning based on a subjective Muslimcentric premise. You are saying unless something lines up with your own Muslim view then it is not a remnant of truth. Your criteria is non objective and non scholarly. It is like me saying the only verses in Quran that are true are those that line up with my own point of view.
In terms of the Quran mentioning that Mohammed had the Injeel –I agree this appears to be mere quibbling and going nowhere.
In terms of The 4 Gospels of Mathew, Mark Luke and John being the recorded revelation Jesus received Jochen Katz & Bassam Khourymerely confirm that S. 5:46, says the Injil was a book given to ‘Isa by Allah.
Katz & Khourymerely are not saying they agree with S 5.46, they are merely confirming the Muslim understanding of S. 5:46. And yes that’s correct they were written by his disciples (under divine inspiration) after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus.”
So are we agreed now that the Injeel was a book record of what Jesus had to say?
You say you have given reference of many New Testament scholars who do not believe it was Luke who wrote the book. Actually you haven’t given any referencing at all. All you have done is merely say E P Sanders, Bart D. Ehrman, etc were saying the book of Luke is anonymous. Christians have always known the books writer was anonymous.
In terms of this long standing debate amongst Christians as to who wrote Luke the traditional position is a far more sound exegesis than the critical view. Take Bart Erhman as an example of a theologian who often takes a critical view. Ehrman unfortunately has a very rigid form of fundamentalism which seeks mathematical certainty in matters of NT text. Erhman does not have a good understanding on what inspired text means or on understanding the complementary differences of the synoptic gospels. Erhman also places far too much emphasis on the variants within the text. New Testament scholar Gordon Fee scholar has said “Unfortunately Ehrman too often turns mere possibility into probability and probability into certainty, where other equally viable reasons for (textual) corruption exist”
Gordon D Fee review of The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (Misquoting Jesus is a popularized version of in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture) Critical review of Books in religion. (1995).
D. Wallace says “The fact is that scholars across the theological spectrum say that in all essentials – not in every particular, but in all essentials – our NT manuscripts go back to the originals. Ehrman is part of a very small minority of textual critics in what he’s saying.”
Lee Strobel- The Case for the Real Jesus pg. 72.
Again these arguments are not new for Christians? Christians have been debating who wrote the Book of Luke for centuries.
You say I have failed to address it being an account of the birth, life, death, resurrection, ascension etc. So what? How does this prove it was not Luke that wrote or compiled the book?
You ask about the Injeel and how this is like calling the Sīra/Sunnah of Muhammed the Quran ? The mistake Muslims often make Chase is expecting the Gospels to read like the Quran. The Gospels are more similar to hadith in terms of literacy content, style and transmission. As mentioned the Gospels are a record of the revelations Jesus received.
In terms of discrepancies between the 4 Gospels you need to know how the Gospels are to be understood. Christians have known about the differences for 2000 years. The Gospel writers did not change the basic truth but they did treat its message as a living tradition that could be applied and reapplied differently in the life of different communities.
http://www.cresourcei.org/synoptic.html
You say the Gospels go completely against what the Quran teaches and this further shows that it cannot be the Injeel that the Quran speaks of. Who cares what the Quran teaches Chase? Not me. Your criteria for what is remnant or truth in the Injeel is circular reasoning based on a Muslim centric premise. You are saying unless something lines up with your own Muslim view then it is not a remnant of truth. Your criteria is circular, non objective and non scholarly. It is like me saying the only verses in Quran that are true are those that line up with my own point of view.
Regarding the discussion about Hadith. I checked out your links. A mixture of interest and tedium is how I would describe them. You your self admit it was not until the third century hijri that the most important time for the sciences of hadith developed. Compare this to the First Christian Century when Christians were already having these rigorous discussions about authenticity. My poinyt still stands. The NT has more reliability than hadith.
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/hadith.htm
You are correct Luke doesn’t mention the names of the eye witnesses he gathered his information from, but this is not significant. However if you have a good read of Luke you will see it is packed with historical and geographical detail – with names, locations etc. this all adds to its historicity. Remember Luke also wrote Acts which is also very historical. In terms of whose authority also remember Luke was a friend and associate of all the NT disciples and writers.
Yes you correct in saying the early cannon was still fluid and varying. However you will note to 4 books of MMLJ were all generally accepted right from the beginning. The Diatessaron and Muratorian fragment are proof of that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatessaron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragment
You say the link I provided does not provide much information how it was complied and validated. Actually much is known as to how it was compiled and validated .
The NT reliability is radial not linear. Its not a simplistic linear, telephone tag type of transmission but radial, like spokes of a wheel. And not just one wheel but many, all of which validate one another. The wide geographical spread of the texts combined with the sheer number validate the reconstructed text. Currently we have more than 120 manuscripts from the first 300 years. While this may sound small it is significant, and the number is constantly growing. Seventy new manuscripts have been found in the last 10 years by The Centre for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts alone consisting of 1800 pages of text.
Also consider there were many non “non-Christian writers and texts” which confirm many Christian beliefs. Cornelius Tacticus 115 AD, the 1st century Jewish historian Josephus, Thallus 52 AD, the Jewish Talmud, Pliny the Younger, Mara Bar Sepion, Celsus, Gaius Seutonis Tranquillis, Lucian.
Second Century Church leaders quoting from earlier Gospel manuscripts also proves the relaibilty of the Gospels and NT. Their testimony validates the earlier texts. Polycarp, Clement and Ignatius are examples. From the 27 NT books they quote from 25.
You say the NT is still evolving with each new critical edition. How is this so Chase when we have so many manuscripts with the NT being based on the above valid and reliable criteria.
You say your argument points to the fact that the New Testament is not the Injeel. Lets not confuse things here Chase we have already established it is the Gospels (which are part of the NT) that is the Injeel.
You ask does my point not go on to prove that the Quran is far more credible than the New Testament because it can be dated back closer to the time of the Prophet? The Gospels and rest of NT were all compiled in the life time of the disciples of Jesus. So the answer to your question as to whether the Quran is far more credible than the New Testament because it can be dated back closer to the time of the Prophet is – no.
In your mention of isnad and the chain of transmission You don’t understand the hermeneutical science for determining the reliability of Christian scripture. As mentioned above the NT reliability and validity is strong.
http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/maps/manuscript-evidence
Again in terms of some remnant of truth– as mentioned above your criteria for what is remnant or truth in the Injeel is circular reasoning based on a Muslim centric premise. You are saying unless something lines up with your own Muslim view then it is not a remnant of truth. Your criteria is circular, non objective and non scholarly. It is like me saying the only verses in Quran that are true are those that line up with my own point of view.
You say I dismiss when you give a reference to Quran but then I reference the New Testament? Yes that’s correct. The reason for this is I don’t believe in the Quran. So I of course I don’t take its claims seriously when you quote it. But obviously as I believe in the NT when you, myself or any one else quotes it of course I take it seriously.
You say you don’t need scholarly criteria, you just need to be consistent and use your logic. Truth and scholarly criteria is more than just logic and consistency Chase. It is also based on fact. And the only argument you have provided so far is a logic based on a faulty premise that the Quran is the truth. For me the Quran is not truth.
Also I’m not the one making the claim that the Gospels are the Injeel given to Jesus by Allah -according to the Quran. It is the Quran making this claim. Any inconsistencies or difficulties in this claim are a problem for Muslims and the Quran – not me.
You say I originally claimed that the New Testament (which includes Acts, Epistles, Hebews, Revelation) is the Injeel given to Jesus. Yes as I mentioned earlier Chase, I realise the Injeel is the Gospels. I knew that also when I made the original point. Typo mistakes do happen.
In regards to John 1:1-5, you are saying John was recounting the words of Jesus and then go on to say this was not a revelation given to John. You are confusing as to how the NT and Gospels are to be read. You are imposing your own style and technique from reading the Quran onto the NT and Gospels. You need to read the NT and Gospels more in the same style as if you were reading hadith rather than the Quran. Any way, truth is still truth – As I’ve said all along John recorded the revealed Words of God through Jesus.
There is no contradiction between John 1.1-5 and John 8:31-32.
Take a good look at John 1.1-5-
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
John 1.1-5
What it is saying is that Christ God The Son was The Word even before He walked the earth.
Whether there is a contradiction and presupposition that Jesus is God is beside the point. All the verses discussed prove you are not correct in your original statement in saying the authors of the Gospels do not say that they are the word of God, or that Jesus conveyed them from God. It is obvious these verses are saying they are the word of God and / or Jesus IS The Word and / or that Jesus conveyed them from God.
And who cares what the Quran says? I don’t. And I’m not sure why you keep quoting it to me as it means nothing to me. Again to the Quran as your criteria of truth to gauge for any “remnant” of truth in the Injeel is circular and subjective.
In regards to you quoting Quran (5:45), as said I couldn’t care less what the Quran says. As far as Im concerned any commonalities between the Quran and Injeel and confusion the Quran creates due to its allusion to the Torah or Injeel is a problem for Muslims – not me. I only quote the Quran to raise this with you.
And you are wrong about the NT saying Jesus came to abolish the law. Jesus states he actually came to fulfill the law.
You need to be honest. The overall motive of the original post is obvious – it was designed to discredit the Christian scriptures. . I have addressed the concerns raised in a logical manner. And Yes I have raised problems with the Muslim scriptures as a response to that. If Muslims wish to discredit the scriptures of a different religion then they need to be prepared to have a critical look at their own.
Regarding the Sanaa Quran you say your book did fall out of the sky . It is not supposed to be a miracle that came from heaven through the angel Gabriel. So what Quran were / are Muslims memorizing and reciting? All your Qurans pre Uthman were burnt remember apart from this one that shows real problems for Muslims.
And just why did Uthman burn all earlier copies is an interesting question in it self?
Let me repeat what Puin said about the oral tradition. He concluded that though there was an oral tradition there were deliberate changes in the oral tradition of the reading of the Koran. Thus this oral tradition was not stable.
I read the Link you provided and it does not discuss the implications of the Sanaa Quarn on the Muslim belief of the Quran being absolute, immutable and the literal Word of God.
https://peshawarnights.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/the-myth-of-quranic-immutability-a-brief-look-at-the-sanaa-manuscripts/
In terms of “my only problem” being the Sanaa Quran proving the Quran not to be the timeless and unchanging word of God, this is actually your problem, not mine.
You are minimizing the difficult significance this has for Islam. Your definitions of perfect, timeless and unchanging offers no answer to this. In fact all you have done is confirm the Muslim claim that the Quran is supposed to be the immutable, timeless and unchanging without addressing the evidence to the contrary.
You say your provided link responds to Dr Puin’s findings. Please tell me how ? It does not address the problem of the Quran being proven to be a human influenced historical document. Not miraculous at all.
You also said there were lies from Puin but as yet have not quoted or illustrated what they were.
Chase You are actually making it easier for me to argue my case.
You say The Quran as the final revelation is not limited by time.
You say it is for all nations so it’s not limited by nation / generation.”
And the the Quran is Timeless and the Quran we have is the same as the one revealed to the Prophet perfect in wording, detailed in meaning. complete in form and meaning.
But the Sanaa Quran actually proves it is not perfect in its wording, it is limited in time, wasn’t complete in form or detailed in meaning. The Sanaa Quran proves it has been distorted, perverted, revised, modified and corrected. Textual alterations had taken place over the years purely by human hands.
You say the small aberrations were discussed thoroughly in the link you provided. Aberrations in the immutable, perfect, unchanging Word of God Chase? Again you appear to be minimizing the significance of this for Muslims.
Interestingly Jeffery Lang confirms the unconventional verse orderings, minor textual variations, and rare styles of orthography and artistic embellishment, before he then goes on to minimize the impact of this on the absolute and literal Muslim Word of God. He like you and many in the Muslim community are minimizing the problem.
Gerd Puin is an authority on Qur’anic historical orthography, He is also a specialist in Arabic paleography. He was a lecturer of Arabic at Saarland University, in Saarbrücken Germany. He has far more credibility than Jeffrey Lang.
You say Ive decided to plagiarise Ibn Waraq. Yes I do need to be more careful with my referencing. What about you Chase? You also appear to be quoting a lot from others without adequate referencing.
You then go on to say Ive removed what he extracts from Dr. Puins conclusions.
Lets look at Ibn Waraqs quote in more depth then and you will see it is you disingenuously misquoting Puin Chase.
One of Puin’s conclusions is that though there was an oral tradition, (otherwise the Koranic text could not have been read), there were deliberate changes in the oral tradition of the reading of the Koran. Thus this oral tradition was not very stable or elaborate – changes must have occurred as can be seen in the variant orthography to be found in the San‘ä’ manuscripts.
There is nothing removed here Chase. Ibn Warag then goes on to quote Puin where he is discussing the long “a” sound. There is no misleading extraction here Chase.
[40] Gerd R-Puin. Neue Wege der Koranforschung: II.Über die Bedeutung der ältesten Koranfragmente aus Sanaa (Jemen) für die Orthographiegeschichte des Korans, Universität des Saarlandes Magazin Forschung, 1 (1999), 37-40.
[41] Ibid . p.40
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/16608/sec_id/16608
And yes you are correct Puin said he recognizes that the mus’haf was used as a supplement since there was already a oral tradition and he makes the claim that the reading must of changed based on variant orthography.
Meaning – and quoting Puin again –
“the existence of variant readings indicates that neither the oral tradition nor the [textual] context were strong enough to rule out the emergence of alternative readings.”[33]
[33] Gerd R-Puin. Variant Readings of the Koran, Chapter 8.3 in present volume.
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/16608/sec_id/16608
The conclusion being the oral tradition was not absolute and immutable.
Here is a quote taken from Ibn Wariqs article. Ibn Warig is quoting Andrew Ribbin.
“the text contains variant readings of a minor nature that suggest to some scholars that the idea of an oral tradition running parallel to the written one cannot be given historical credence. What we may have evidence of is the interpretative nature of the detailed annotations that were added to the text later: that is, that the current text is the product of reflection upon a primitive written text and not upon the parallel transmission of an oral text as the Muslim tradition has suggested.”
A. Rippin. Muslims, Their Religious Beliefs and Practices London: Routledge, 2nd Edition 2001, p.30
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/16608/sec_id/16608
We all know there was an oral tradition. No problem there. Yes the mus’haf was a supplement to to the oral tradition. But what it shows is the oral tradition itself was variant and not stable. It means the Quran has been distorted, perverted, revised, modified and corrected, and Textual alterations had taken place over the years purely by human hands.
Again – I read the Link you provided and it does not discuss the implications of the Sanaa Quran on the Muslim belief of the Quran being absolute, immutable and the literal Word of God.
You say you are not posting to support the attack on the Book of Luke. Actually Chase I believe you are. In terms of the “straw man argument I already addressed this at the beginning of this post.
Red herrings ? Yes I have raised problems with the Muslim scriptures as a response to Muslims attempting to undermine Christian scriptures. Again, if Muslims wish to discredit the scriptures of another religion then they need to be prepared to have a critical look at their own.
Hi Chase
If the scriptures given to Muhammad was from God then why after the death of Muhammad did Uthman have the scriptures burnt?
And as for the Hadith collection of Sahih al- Bukhari wasn’t that compiled 200 years after the prophet? No eye witnesses involved people were long dead and so were the prophet’s companions.
Hello DC,
Both of your questions show your lack of understanding of Quran, Hadith and Islamic history. I would advise you do a little research before spewing out the same old arguments.
If you read the Hadith (found in Sahih al-Bukhari, ironically) where you got this theory from you’ll see what was ordered to be burnt and why [1].
Furthermore, yes it was compiled 2 centuries after. I think you might be confusing that to mean the Hadith weren’t in existence before that. Let me remind you what compile means;
1. produce (a list or book) by assembling information collected from other sources.
“This collection took him 16 years to complete and since its compilation has been considered the most authentic book of hadith in history, thus the book’s common name: Sahih al-Bukhari meaning “The Authentic Hadiths of al-Bukhari”.” [2]
I figured out that my comment wasn’t accepted originally because of the links so I am posting them separately this time:
[1] muslimdebate[dot]org/polemics/71-why-did-uthman-burn-all-quranic-manuscripts
[2 ] lostislamichistory[dot]com/imam-al-bukhari-and-the-science-of-hadith/
Please replace [dot] with an actual “.”
Hi Chase
Why do you Muslims always that Christians don’t know what they talking about? All I have done is ask you a question.
I asked about the scriptures that Uthman ordered to be burnt.
1. Are they scriptures that Muhammad was given ( forget about dialects) from Allah.
2. Uthman not being a prophet who gave him the authority?
3. How we know that the koran that was rewritten is what Muhammad dictated to his followers is the same.
This is what I asked you and lastly
What eye witnesses did Bukhari spoke to so he could verify the Hadith?
Unlike yourself DC, I wasn’t making a blanket statement. I didn’t say “Christians don’t know”, rather I singled you out. You’ve asked questions which clearly arise from, as I said, your lack of understanding.
Your questions have been answered in my previous reply. Perhaps you still don’t know what we’re talking about so let me ask you a question instead; how do you know that there were “scriptures that Uthman ordered to be burnt”?
Your question on al-Bukhari is absurd and you know why. What he did was to develop far stricter rules in order to authenticate ahadith and then sorted it into categories. I would highly recommend you read the book – Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature by Prof. M. M. al-Azami. If not at least read the following articles in order to have a basic understanding: http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2012/05/documentation-sunnah-hadith-begin-early.html and http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2011/04/hadith-compilations-by-companions-of.htm.
All the writer has done is create a “Straw man argument”
Straw Man Argument Definition – “a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent’s argument.[1] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.”
So what in terms of any claims missionaries make? Just read the New testament (Injil) for your self. It’s the Bible we go by – not what individuals may say. The writer is telling us nothing that Christians don’t already know.
The writer states in his second point that Luke gathered all the accounts and by his own discretion made his own personal account which establishes that the Gospel of Luke is certainly not the word of God. So how does this establish that the Gospel of Luke is not the Word of God?
Luke did what any historian would do. He gathered all available eye witness accounts and summarized them. This is good historical research.
The writer says in his third point that Luke mentions that other people wrote an account of Jesus’ life, and there were other ‘gospels’ floating around…
Again so what? The writer is saying nothing important here. Also he is presuming there were other gospels. All Luke is saying is that there were other oral and written accounts. Again Luke displayed good historical research by drawing on all available accounts.
In the fourth point the writer talks about the “human nature “of Lukes account and the differences in the Luke account to other accounts. And this is something we would expect from a very human endeavor.
The writer misunderstands by what Christians take to mean the “Word of God.” Muslims believe the Quran is the literal word of God. That is not how Christians (or Jews) see the Bible. Christians see the Bible as the inspired Word of God ( 2Timothy 3.16 ), not the literal, inerrant, verbatim Word of God as Muslims do with the Quran.
The Gospels of Mathew, Mark and Luke are called the “Synoptic Gospels. The Definition of Synoptic is – “affording a general view of a whole”. From this perspective differences are tolerated and any difference between them actually validates the story. This is called “The criterion of dissimilarity “which argues that if a saying or action is dissimilar to, or contrary to, then it can more confidently be regarded as an authentic saying or action of Jesus.
In other words the differences between them prove that the authors did not conspire to fabricate them.
The fifth “problem” the writer tries to identify is to ask why would Luke decide to make his own account if other gospels were already in existence – unless he was not satisfied with the other accounts?
This is pure presumption, typical of the Straw man argument. What basis does the writer have to argue that Luke was not satisfied with the other accounts?
What the writer doesn’t realize is that many of the accounts Luke refers to were oral. Luke was merely summarizing them, and as I mentioned earlier this is good historical practice. A wide selection and variety of accounts is a strength not a weakness.
The writer is saying nothing new here that Christians have not been discussing for centuries and also resolved centuries ago.
The writer also displays ignorance as to how Christians (and Jews) view scripture. Christians do not view scripture as the literal word of God but rather words of men inspired by God.
Hi
No Muslim knows what the supposed Injeel says in it and more to the point there is nothing to compare the manuscripts of the Christians with to prove their case. The scriptures of the Christians go right back to the 3rd and 4th century, way before their prophet Muhammad walked the earth.
What I want to know is who gave the leader of the Muslims the authority to burn Koranic scriptures AFTER the prophet died?
If it was TRUE scripture why was it destroyed? If it was FALSE scripture WHY was it written if it was supposed to be from God.
Hi John,
It won’t let me reply to your post so I am starting this one. If you want to discuss something with me, I would appreciate it if you would address me instead of adding your two cents into a discussion and then expecting me to reply to you. Moreover, I would urge you to use proper spelling, grammar and punctuation. Writing one continuous sentence seems like you are rambling thus making it difficult to follow what you are saying. Now I will try to answer what I could make sense of;
I was “talking about something else” because I was having a discussion with my friend, XP, as you can see. Also, I wasn’t aware we were discussing anything, you interjected without addressing anyone.
It’s accepted by whom? What exactly was 200 years after? As I said to XP, claiming something is a fact doesn’t simply make it a fact. Please refer to what I have already said on this issue.
You’ve clearly shows that you haven’t even distinguished the difference between Sira and Hadith. I am not even sure what you mean by “value” or what your overall point is.
Once again, why are you comparing the Sira to the New Testament? Like I was trying to explain to XP, this is a false analogy. We don’t believe the Sira is the word of God nor “inspired” word of God. Furthermore, if you believe that dating makes it more reliable or credible doesn’t that go on to show that the Quran is more reliable than the New Testament?
If you choose to reply, please try to be more coherent in order for me to understand and respond.
Thanks,
Chase.
I was replying directly to you so you should have seen it and my point simply is historically the new testament is better than the earliest sira we have and earliest hadith which is fact and yes Quran might be better than something in the new testament historically but not everything like the epistles of Paul with earliest estimated dating to be 18 years after Jesus death while the Quran is 20 or 30 years that is why I always say the Quran is the best source for Islam while the best source for Christianity is new testament or the epistles of Paul that is why everything in the traditions like through the church fathers and the traditions of islam through the hadiths,sira and tasfir I only see some value in them
John please stop rambling and learn to use punctuation.
Actually, you weren’t “directly replying to” me instead you replied to Experiential with “your right the new testament…” It’s under his comment. As for the first part of your point, it is incorrect. Earliest Siras were written within the first century hijri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biographies_of_Muhammad) and earliest Hadith collection date to mid- first century hijri (http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/hadith.html).
Furthermore, I don’t know if you are ignorant or purposefully trying to manipulate facts but the second part of your point is also incorrect. Firstly, you are comparing Quranic manuscripts with estimated dating of Paul’s epistles. The earliest manuscript of Paul’s epistle is the Papyrus 46 “with its ‘most probable date’ between 175-225” – (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46). Secondly, although there is no manuscript evidence let’s just agree that it was written 18 years after Jesus’ death, even then some of the parchments of Codex Sanaa date to as early as 645 CE making it 13 years after the Prophet’s death. In conclusion, contrary to your claims, historically speaking the New Testament is not better than the Sira, Hadith or Quran.
I was directly responding you and you should have known that I replied to you just like I know you replied to me and no it is not incorrect the earliest biography we have is much later like Ibn Hisham is between 150-200 years after Muhammad died and Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari is about 200-300 but it is believed that these biographies we have may have used these earlier sources you mentioned and Sahifah Hammam ibn Munabbih may be one of the earliest Muslim hadith collection which might be of value but from commonly read hadith collection Muwatta Imam Malik is the earliest which is between 100-150 years all other commonly read hadiths like Sahih Muslim,Sahih al-Bukhari,Sunan Abu Dawood,Jami at-Tirmidhi,Sunan ibn Majah are all between 200-250 years after Muhammad died and yes we don’t have very early manuscript of Paul while we do for the Quran that is why I said before Quran is best source for Islam but of the new testament is still better than the hadiths and biographies of Islam based on what is historically accepted and codex sana may be old compared to other manuscripts or parchment we have most of them which date to the early 8th century or early 9th century and codex sana doesn’t date to 645 it dates between 645-690 with the lower text being before 670 and other ways of dating dates it between 690-750 ad and I think probably 660 ad and they do have variants
John, stop rambling. If you still continue to do it, I won’t bother replying. It’s really not that hard to insert full stops and start new paragraphs.
Let me remind you, what it is that you said originally;
“your right the new testament can be trusted more than the hadiths and tasfir the two best sources for Islam are only Quran and Sira while for Christianity it is the bible especially the new testament”
This was a direct reply to Experiential as it is under his comment and is in agreement with what he is saying. However, you claim you were “directly” responding to me. What exactly in that comment is a response to me? The reason you know I am replying to you is because I have clicked reply on your comment hence it comes up under your comment and I have also addressed you directly by name in the comment.
The biographers you mention edited the work of Ibn Ishaq. My point being these are not the earliest biographies and they themselves say they’ve used earlier sources (found in the link provided) which date to first century hijri.
Your comment about the sahifah shows your real lack of understanding. You say they’re not “commonly read hadith” but “We can see that of the 138 narrations in the Sahifa, 98 of them are faithfully witnessed in the later collections of al-Bukhari and Muslim, both through narrations of Abu Hurrairah and witnessing narrations from other Companions.” – http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/hadith.html. Here is a bit more on Hadith compilation by the Companions of the Prophet: http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2011/04/hadith-compilations-by-companions-of.htm. Oh and just so you know “Even though Muwaṭṭaʾ contains both legal judgements andḥadīths, it is neither a book of fiqh nor a book of ḥadīth.” – http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/muwatta.html. As for your comment on “commonly read hadiths”, these are collections which have been through the authentication stage (http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2012/05/documentation-sunnah-hadith-begin-early.html). As I said to XP, the earliest the New Testament was decided upon was the 4th Century but it has still carried on varying.
I’m glad to see you’ve acknowledged that you were wrong about Paul’s epistles and therefore retracted your ealier statement about some of the New Testament being better than Quran. When you say New Testament is still better than Hadiths, what are you referring to? Tatian’s Diatessaron? Marcion Canon? Codex Sinaiticus? Codex Vaticanus? Codex Bezae? Codex Alexandrinus? Something else?
Again your comment shows your ignorance of Quranic manuscripts. We have plenty of manuscripts that date to within first century hijri (http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/). As for the date of Codex Sanaa, if you actually read what I wrote, I said “some of the parchments of Codex Sanaa date to as early as 645 CE”. So I wasn’t referring to it all and I took the earliest dating from the range you’ve have also provided (645-690). According to Sadeghi & Goudarzi radiocarbon dating puts it at 75% probability of being from before 646 CE. You argued your case based on estimated dating with no evidence, but I can’t take 75% probability? Talk about double standard. Regardless of what date you want to give it, or even if we looked at dozen other Quranic manuscripts, they would still date closer than the earliest Paul’s epistle manuscript does.
You:John, stop rambling. If you still continue to do it, I won’t bother replying. It’s really not that hard to insert full stops and start new paragraphs.
Response: you should still be able to understand what im saying now I will write it like this
You: Let me remind you, what it is that you said originally;
“your right the new testament can be trusted more than the hadiths and tasfir the two best sources for Islam are only Quran and Sira while for Christianity it is the bible especially the new testament”
This was a direct reply to Experiential as it is under his comment and is in agreement with what he is saying. However, you claim you were “directly” responding to me. What exactly in that comment is a response to me? The reason you know I am replying to you is because I have clicked reply on your comment hence it comes up under your comment and I have also addressed you directly by name in the comment.
Response:Yes that was original comment but to Experimental the comment to you was when I said “since everything else you said was talking about something else” when I click reply you would know that im replying to you not Experimental just like I know you are replying to me
You: The biographers you mention edited the work of Ibn Ishaq. My point being these are not the earliest biographies and they themselves say they’ve used earlier sources (found in the link provided) which date to first century hijri.
Response: yes they may claim that even Christian sources seem to talk about other texts that may be earlier but they don’t exist any longer same is the case here the early sources don’t exist so we depend on them
You:Your comment about the sahifah shows your real lack of understanding. You say they’re not “commonly read hadith” but “We can see that of the 138 narrations in the Sahifa, 98 of them are faithfully witnessed in the later collections of al-Bukhari and Muslim, both through narrations of Abu Hurrairah and witnessing narrations from other Companions.” – http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/hadith.html. Here is a bit more on Hadith compilation by the Companions of the Prophet: http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2011/04/hadith-compilations-by-companions-of.htm. Oh and just so you know “Even though Muwaṭṭaʾ contains both legal judgements andḥadīths, it is neither a book of fiqh nor a book of ḥadīth.” – http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/muwatta.html. As for your comment on “commonly read hadiths”, these are collections which have been through the authentication stage (http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2012/05/documentation-sunnah-hadith-begin-early.html). As I said to XP, the earliest the New Testament was decided upon was the 4th Century but it has still carried on varying.
Response: Yes maybe I don’t know but they as collection are not known or read by most Muslims and Muwaṭṭa is still a early collection of value better than the other texts historically although the later texts may have few hadiths that may be authentic or date earlier and it is the common read 6 or 5 collection that is called Kutub al-Sittah and you can claim that there was authentication but we have nothing to say that is true the best case is probably that it was memorised and yes it was finally comfirmed in the 4 century but a new testament was made before then and we can say most of the texts we accept today like 4 gospel,acts,revelation,roman,1 corinthians,galatians, colossians,ephesians,2 thessalonian etc as the new testament was accepted by at least the mid 2 century
You: I’m glad to see you’ve acknowledged that you were wrong about Paul’s epistles and therefore retracted your ealier statement about some of the New Testament being better than Quran. When you say New Testament is still better than Hadiths, what are you referring to? Tatian’s Diatessaron? Marcion Canon? Codex Sinaiticus? Codex Vaticanus? Codex Bezae? Codex Alexandrinus? Something else?
Response: No I think i always said that Quran in something might be better than some books in the new testament but I still say the new testament is better than the sira, hadith, tasfir historically and im referring to the new testament we have and all of the new testament is accepted to be from first century or early second century which would make the new testament to be in total at least 100 years after death of Jesus
You: Again your comment shows your ignorance of Quranic manuscripts. We have plenty of manuscripts that date to within first century hijri (http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/). As for the date of Codex Sanaa, if you actually read what I wrote, I said “some of the parchments of Codex Sanaa date to as early as 645 CE”. So I wasn’t referring to it all and I took the earliest dating from the range you’ve have also provided (645-690). According to Sadeghi & Goudarzi radiocarbon dating puts it at 75% probability of being from before 646 CE. You argued your case based on estimated dating with no evidence, but I can’t take 75% probability? Talk about double standard. Regardless of what date you want to give it, or even if we looked at dozen other Quranic manuscripts, they would still date closer than the earliest Paul’s epistle manuscript does.
Response: you seem to like Islamic Awareness,Let Me Turn The Tables they are probably the best websites to use with this website,Islam QA,IslamiCity,Call-To-Monotheism,Islamic Awakening and if you have just took the earliest date that just being dishonest because it was between the dates the dates I gave and no one has dated it before 646 and it is now thought to be 660-70 ad but it is still oldest manuscript we have there is no earlier and I don’t know if you know but there now seem to be another one which is MA VI 165 script which is said to be between 649-675 AD and yes I agree manuscript evidence of the Quran is better than Paul epistles but most scholars both Christian and liberal and atheistic do say that the earliest epistle date about 20 years after Jesus died but the earliest Quran does have variants so you cant it has not been changed not even a dot as some Muslims like to claim and some sceptical non Muslim have claimed that the Quran didn’t exist until 670 ad but we can confirm that by atleast 690 the Quran existed in some form and the tradition like from tasfir,sira,hadith were created later with biased exaggeration on claims and in response to Jews and Christians as the caliphate grew
[[Response:Yes that was original comment but to Experimental the comment to you was when I said “since everything else you said was talking about something else” when I click reply you would know that im replying to you not Experimental just like I know you are replying to me]]
Not you too John! Let me break it down for you:
1. You – since everything else you said was talking about something else..
2. Me – I was “talking about something else” because I was having a discussion with my friend, XP, as you can see. Also, I wasn’t aware we were discussing anything, you interjected without addressing anyone.
3. You – I was replying directly to you so you should have seen it
4. Me – Actually, you weren’t “directly replying to” me instead you replied to Experiential with “your right the new testament…” It’s under his comment.
5. You – I was directly responding you and you should have known that I replied to you just like I know you
6. Me – Let me remind you, what it is that you said originally;“your right the new testament…”
7. You – Yes that was original comment but to Experimental the comment to you was when I said “since everything else you said was talking about something else”
From comment 1-5 you are arguing that you were directly replying to me but now you say you weren’t? As I told you in comment 2. the reason I am talking about something else is because I wasn’t discussing anything with you as you didn’t reply to me or even address me in your original comment. The lack of consistency is just beyond belief!
—
[[Response: yes they may claim that even Christian sources seem to talk about other texts that may be earlier but they don’t exist any longer same is the case here the early sources don’t exist so we depend on them]]
If multiple Christian sources provide references to a particular work then you should by all means go ahead and claim that such a work existed. Not sure why we should pretend there was no earlier sources just because we don’t have it even though multiple authors mention using same earlier sources.
—
[[Response: Yes maybe I don’t know but they as collection are not known or read by most Muslims and Muwaṭṭa is still a early collection of value better than the other texts historically although the later texts may have few hadiths that may be authentic or date earlier and it is the common read 6 or 5 collection that is called Kutub al-Sittah and you can claim that there was authentication but we have nothing to say that is true the best case is probably that it was memorised and yes it was finally comfirmed in the 4 century but a new testament was made before then and we can say most of the texts we accept today like 4 gospel,acts,revelation,roman,1 corinthians,galatians, colossians,ephesians,2 thessalonian etc as the new testament was accepted by at least the mid 2 century]]
You’ve confirmed you don’t really know what you are talking about so please stop embarrassing yourself by continuing to argue. At least try to be consistent in your reply. Your original claim was that historically the NT is better than the earliest hadith “which is fact” as you put it. I have clearly shown you that this is not the case and your first reply was that even though there are very early hadith collection, they are not “commonly read hadith” but this again was shown to be an incorrect statement. So now your “response” is that “they as collection are not known or read by most Muslims”. Seriously? So historicity is based on what is “known or read by most Muslims”? Muwatta isn’t isn’t even a hadith book. You are clutching at straws. I have shown you there were written collections by the companions not just memorisation that date to within first century. Majority of which have made it through the authentication stage to be found in Sahih books. Honestly John, I recommend you do some reading (Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature – available at: http://islamicstudies.islammessage.com/EBook.aspx?bid=545) before you continue making foolish claims.
Additionally, you agree that the NT was finally confirmed in the 4th century whereas the authentic hadith were confirmed by the 3rd century. So how is it better historically? You say “a new testament was made before then” so please tell us what you are referring to.
—
[[Response: No I think i always said that Quran in something might be better than some books in the new testament but I still say the new testament is better than the sira, hadith, tasfir historically and im referring to the new testament we have and all of the new testament is accepted to be from first century or early second century which would make the new testament to be in total at least 100 years after death of Jesus]]
Might be? Not some some books John, all books. Your claim about Paul’s epistle failed miserably as the earliest manuscript date to 175CE (that’s taking the earliest dating). Please stop embarrassing yourself, we both know there is nothing that is historically better in the NT.
Which New Testament? Don’t pretend they are all the same cannon. Provide me with evidence of a cannon that you believe to be the NT and the date of when it was finalised so then I can at least have some idea as to what your are arguing about. You say all of it was accepted from first or early second century? When was it accepted? By whom? Are you basing the dating on manuscript evidence? Please provide some sources about your claims.
—
[[Response: you seem to like Islamic Awareness,Let Me Turn The Tables they are probably the best websites to use with this website,Islam QA,IslamiCity,Call-To-Monotheism,Islamic Awakening and if you have just took the earliest date that just being dishonest because it was between the dates the dates I gave and no one has dated it before 646 and it is now thought to be 660-70 ad but it is still oldest manuscript we have there is no earlier and I don’t know if you know but there now seem to be another one which is MA VI 165 script which is said to be between 649-675 AD and yes I agree manuscript evidence of the Quran is better than Paul epistles but most scholars both Christian and liberal and atheistic do say that the earliest epistle date about 20 years after Jesus died but the earliest Quran does have variants so you cant it has not been changed not even a dot as some Muslims like to claim and some sceptical non Muslim have claimed that the Quran didn’t exist until 670 ad but we can confirm that by atleast 690 the Quran existed in some form and the tradition like from tasfir,sira,hadith were created later with biased exaggeration on claims and in response to Jews and Christians as the caliphate grew]]
So your response is to name websites that you think I seem to like? I gave you a reference so you could see for yourself that there are manuscripts from within the first century thus you don’t have to take my word for it. This is something you don’t seem to do, you’ve provided zero references/sources for your claims.
Anyway, you then go on to say I am being dishonest if I just took the earliest date. I don’t think you understand English well so I will just ignore that accusation and tell you to once again read what I wrote. There is a range given, with high probability (75% according to radiocarbon dating {Sadeghi & Goudarzi (2012) “Ṣanʿāʾ I And The Origins Of The Qur’ān” page 8}) that it is from before 646 CE, hence I said “as early as”. For argument sake, let’s say I agree it was between 660-700 CE, is it still closer than the manuscript of Paul’s epistle to the death Jesus? Yes. You really don’t have a leg to stand on. You also seem to contradict yourself in the same sentence. You say “it is now thought to be 660-70 ad but it is still oldest manuscript we have there is no earlier” and then go on to provide another one which dates to “649-675 AD”. You do make me laugh, John, I’ll give you that.
On what basis do these scholars say that it dates to “about 20 years after Jesus died”? Clearly not based on manuscript. Similarly I can say that the Quran was being written down whilst it was being revealed but you will demand manuscript evidence. Then you throw in red herring, talk about being desperate! I am not having another discussion on the same issue, read my reply to Experiential. Please stick to historicity.
You: Not you too John! Let me break it down for you:
1. You – since everything else you said was talking about something else..
2. Me – I was “talking about something else” because I was having a discussion with my friend, XP, as you can see. Also, I wasn’t aware we were discussing anything, you interjected without addressing anyone.
3. You – I was replying directly to you so you should have seen it
4. Me – Actually, you weren’t “directly replying to” me instead you replied to Experiential with “your right the new testament…” It’s under his comment.
5. You – I was directly responding you and you should have known that I replied to you just like I know you
6. Me – Let me remind you, what it is that you said originally;“your right the new testament…”
7. You – Yes that was original comment but to Experimental the comment to you was when I said “since everything else you said was talking about something else”
From comment 1-5 you are arguing that you were directly replying to me but now you say you weren’t? As I told you in comment 2. the reason I am talking about something else is because I wasn’t discussing anything with you as you didn’t reply to me or even address me in your original comment. The lack of consistency is just beyond belief!
Response: No im saying when I actually responded to you would have seen that I was commenting you even if I didn’t write your name one was to you and one was to experimental
You:If multiple Christian sources provide references to a particular work then you should by all means go ahead and claim that such a work existed. Not sure why we should pretend there was no earlier sources just because we don’t have it even though multiple authors mention using same earlier sources.
Response: Yes most would accept maybe they existed but they put more value to the texts we can actually see and judge
You’ve confirmed you don’t really know what you are talking about so please stop embarrassing yourself by continuing to argue. At least try to be consistent in your reply. Your original claim was that historically the NT is better than the earliest hadith “which is fact” as you put it. I have clearly shown you that this is not the case and your first reply was that even though there are very early hadith collection, they are not “commonly read hadith” but this again was shown to be an incorrect statement. So now your “response” is that “they as collection are not known or read by most Muslims”. Seriously? So historicity is based on what is “known or read by most Muslims”? Muwatta isn’t isn’t even a hadith book. You are clutching at straws. I have shown you there were written collections by the companions not just memorisation that date to within first century. Majority of which have made it through the authentication stage to be found in Sahih books. Honestly John, I recommend you do some reading (Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature – available at: http://islamicstudies.islammessage.com/EBook.aspx?bid=545) before you continue making foolish claims.
Additionally, you agree that the NT was finally confirmed in the 4th century whereas the authentic hadith were confirmed by the 3rd century. So how is it better historically? You say “a new testament was made before then” so please tell us what you are referring to.
Response : I think you are becoming angry stop making your side comments and respond to me and no I didn’t say they are very earliest hadith I just accepted that commonly read Muwaṭṭa is the earliest and the collection you told might be the earliest but I don’t really know and then I said the fact that hadith collection is not commonly or read by Muslims and my original comment was based on hadiths that are commonly read and no there is nothing say most of hadith that we have actually come from Muhammad or his companions and yes new testament was finally confirmed by in the 4 century but there was early canon made by the church fathers and many of the books we accept today were accepted by at least 2nd century but what I meant is that most scholar accept all the books of new testament was written in the 1st century or very early 2nd century which is better than most of hadiths,tasfir,sira
You:Might be? Not some some books John, all books. Your claim about Paul’s epistle failed miserably as the earliest manuscript date to 175CE (that’s taking the earliest dating). Please stop embarrassing yourself, we both know there is nothing that is historically better in the NT.
Which New Testament? Don’t pretend they are all the same cannon. Provide me with evidence of a cannon that you believe to be the NT and the date of when it was finalised so then I can at least have some idea as to what your are arguing about. You say all of it was accepted from first or early second century? When was it accepted? By whom? Are you basing the dating on manuscript evidence? Please provide some sources about your claims.
Response: no you don’t understand I think the Quran historically better than most books in the new testament only the epistles of Paul may compare and im saying this based on what scholars despite Christian tradition dates the other books even earlier where they can be compared to Quran and by the second century like by Clement of Alexandria accepted most of the books but some additions and based on references by church fathers like Irenaeus,Justin Martyr show they believed in many of the books for basis of the Christian faith
You:So your response is to name websites that you think I seem to like? I gave you a reference so you could see for yourself that there are manuscripts from within the first century thus you don’t have to take my word for it. This is something you don’t seem to do, you’ve provided zero references/sources for your claims.
Anyway, you then go on to say I am being dishonest if I just took the earliest date. I don’t think you understand English well so I will just ignore that accusation and tell you to once again read what I wrote. There is a range given, with high probability (75% according to radiocarbon dating {Sadeghi & Goudarzi (2012) “Ṣanʿāʾ I And The Origins Of The Qur’ān” page 8}) that it is from before 646 CE, hence I said “as early as”. For argument sake, let’s say I agree it was between 660-700 CE, is it still closer than the manuscript of Paul’s epistle to the death Jesus? Yes. You really don’t have a leg to stand on. You also seem to contradict yourself in the same sentence. You say “it is now thought to be 660-70 ad but it is still oldest manuscript we have there is no earlier” and then go on to provide another one which dates to “649-675 AD”. You do make me laugh, John, I’ll give you that.
On what basis do these scholars say that it dates to “about 20 years after Jesus died”? Clearly not based on manuscript. Similarly I can say that the Quran was being written down whilst it was being revealed but you will demand manuscript evidence. Then you throw in red herring, talk about being desperate! I am not having another discussion on the same issue, read my reply to Experiential. Please stick to historicity.
Response: No im just trying to say that I don’t trust or think all Islamic sites are of value but websites I mentioned are some of the sites I think are good and yes the sana manuscript is from the first century of the quran that being the earliest known we have had as most come from the late 8 century or early 9 century or even later and I don’t think there is any source that say it is before 646 ad and yes if you said as early as that is correct but if you are saying it is 645 only then that is wrong and yes we don’t have very early manuscripts for Paul epistle but just like the quran is divided into different chapters the bible is divided into different books so if we are to compare the quran on manuscript we should look at earliest chapter of the quran we have and earliest book if not chapter we have of the new testament because the bible is longer and 649-675 is the new one it seems they recently found but I do think the earliest quran we have is from 660 ad that seems reasonable based on the earliest manuscript we have
also can you tell me are you born muslim?
Hi Chase
The koran states Jesus spoke from the cradle and that he made birds from clay, those stories are not found in the bible anywhere…are they from the Injeel?
The only other place I have seen this is in the gnostic gospel of Thomas the same book that says Jesus committed murder…do you believe Jesus sinned?
One more question who wrote the Injeel and in what language was it written?
Firstly, let me make clear I am no expert on the Injeel nor do I claim to be. I am only going by what I know.
Now as for your questions, the Injeel is the name of the revelation given to Isa mentioned in the Quran. Therefore, it wouldn’t really make sense for the stories of Isa to be part of the Injeel as they’re not revelation. If you’re trying to imply that the Quran copied from the gospel of Thomas, I would advise you read through this:
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_the_quran_plagiarize_from_the_infancy_gospel_of_thomas_. Also, whether it was written down is not mentioned in the Quran, but the fact that textual corruption of previous Scriptures took place is.
Hi XP, ran out of replies on the previous post it seems so started another one.
[[In terms of any Straw man augment yes I agree I did confuse things by saying the Injeel was the NT. I should have been more precise in identifying it as the Gospels of MMLJ. However I still hold to my original point that the writer of the article created a straw man argument…]]
I am glad to see you’v admitted that you misinterpreted the Quran when it says Injeel to mean it is the New Testament but you still continue to argue the Injeel is the Gospels of MMLJ when that is not the case. Frankly, I don’t care what your original point was regarding the article, I haven’t and am still not arguing for the case of the article. If you actually understood what I wrote, you’d see that I have been responding to your claims regarding the Quran and Hadith.
[[There was no ignoring of Sura 19:30 and 3:3 Chase.]]
I’m not even sure what this means or is referring to. It certainly isn’t answering anything I’ve said.
[[I think we are in agreement now. The historical fact is The Good News / Gospel / Injeel – the revelation that Jesus received and preached, was recorded in book form.]]
Do you have reading comprehension difficulties? Or are you purposely misrepresenting what I am saying? I said I agreed “that the four Gospels according to MMLJ were in existence before Muhammed” not that they are the Injeel the Quran speaks of. Like I said, your premise is in need of evidence – begging the question. You haven’t shown that the Injeel mentioned in the Quran is the same as the 4 Gosples of MMLJ.
—
[[Sam Green and plagiarism? No plagiarism about it. Referencing was provided.]]
Yes, you copied and pasted a paragraph written by Sam Green (found on here: http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/onbible.htm) without mentioning his name or where you took it from, thus making it out like it is your own work. This is known as plagiarism. Please don’t act like you have no idea I am talking about. The reference you provided was to the quote used within Green’s work, not of Green’s work. You didn’t even bother to correct Green’s spelling mistake nor remove the part of the quote reference which says “bold added”.
[[ What about you ? Where are you gathering your sources from and how well are you referencing them?]]
What about me? You can see my sources as I have provided the links and names. If there is anything I have copied and pasted I’ve shown it’s a direct quote by putting speech marks.
[[Even as you try to discredit Ibn Ishaq Chase – the fact remains. The Good News Message / The Gospel/ The Injeel message that Jesus preached was recorded in a book.]]
Firstly, please don’t misrepresent what I said. I was discrediting the work which has no isnad and this is the view of many scholar regarding his work which can be read in the links provided. Secondly, you are continuing with the straw man by calling the 4 Gospels of MMLJ, the Injeel yet you fail to give any evidence for it. You claimed in your original post that “The Gospel of Luke was part of the Injil so the writer is contradicting the Quran. See Surahs 5.46. 57.27, 19.30, 3.3.” However, when we examine your Quranic references we see that it is not the case and there would only be contradictions if we were to believe the 4 Gospels as the Injeel. Furthermore, you have changed your stance on using the Quran and want to dismiss it altogether so I am not even sure how you’re continuing to argue the Injeel mentioned in the Quran is the same as the 4 Gospels.
[[In terms of the coming of the Comforter/the spirit of Truth I presume you are raising the common Muslim argument of this being a prophesy of Mohammad, which has been adequately refuted.]]
I wasn’t raising any argument, I have no interest in red herrings. If you take the time to understand what I wrote, you will see that I am showing you how Ibn Ishaq was only quoting a specific verse.
[[You say that nowhere does Ibn Ishaq say that the entire Gospel according to John is the revelation from God. That’s not the point. Again the point being the message of Jesus / the Injeel was recorded in book form.]]
That’s not the point? Honestly, I don’t think I have ever met anyone more inconsistent than yourself – to the point where I’m not even sure I should continue this. The whole reason I am having this discussion is because you claim the Injeel – the revelation from Allah to Isa mentioned in the Quran is the same as the 4 Gospels including that of John. Now you say that your point is the Injeel was recorded in book form, even then, Ibn Ishaq only quotes specifically what could’ve been part of the Injeel.
[[You keep saying remnants of truth can be found and give an examples of one of these so called remnants by Ibn Ishaq. As already I’ve already mentioned your criteria for what is remnant or truth in the Injeel is circular reasoning based on a subjective Muslimcentric premise. You are saying unless something lines up with your own Muslim view then it is not a remnant of truth. Your criteria is non objective and non scholarly.]]
I actually said remnants can be found not sure where you got “of truth” from. It’s only circular if I believe the Injeel mentioned in the Quran is the 4 Gospels of MMLJ which it is not, and you are yet to prove this point. Never have I said that “unless something lines up with your own Muslim view then it is not a remnant of truth” please quote me otherwise. You’re just creating another straw man. What I said was that remnants of the Injeel given to Isa by Allah could be found in the New Testament and the criteria is the Muslim teachings found in Quran 5:48. Again, if you understood what I am saying you’d see that the criteria is objective, since the Injeel is a Muslim book (Quran 5:46) thus it’s teachings were Muslim teachings. In order to verify if the four Gospels of MMLJ contains the Injeel, we use the Quran.
[[It is like me saying the only verses in Quran that are true are those that line up with my own point of view.]]
The funny thing is that it is exactly what you are saying. You thought the verses of the Quran you quoted show the Injeel were the NT thus used them but when I quote the Quran in order to put them in context you dismiss it.
—
[[Katz & Khourymerely are not saying they agree with S 5.46, they are merely confirming the Muslim understanding of S. 5:46. And yes that’s correct they were written by his disciples (under divine inspiration) after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus.”]]
I seriously think you have some sort of reading comprehension difficulties. Let me help and break it down for you. They say “Note: According to S. 5:46, the Injil was a book given to ‘Isa by Allah.” Note means that they want you to pay particular attention to what the verse is saying,which is the fact that the according to the Quran, the Injeel was given to Isa by Allah. They then continue by explaining the implications of the verse. “That means, it is not the New Testament or the Gospels contained in the NT, because those books were not given to Jesus during his life on earth, but they were written by his disciples (under divine inspiration) after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus.” Thus, they are giving their own understanding which you somehow still cannot comprehend. The fact that it’s their own understanding is confirmed by them saying “under divine inspiration” and “after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus” which we as Muslims do not believe in. So once again, I urge you to stop this intellectual dishonesty and cease from misrepresenting what the Quran teaches.
—
[[You say you have given reference of many New Testament scholars who do not believe it was Luke who wrote the book. Actually you haven’t given any referencing at all. All you have done is merely say E P Sanders, Bart D. Ehrman, etc were saying the book of Luke is anonymous.]]
If you read what I wrote again or better yet just read what you wrote about what I said, you’ll clearly see that I said I have given reference to NT scholars and not their work. I don’t think you know what the meaning of reference is;
ˈrɛf(ə)r(ə)ns
noun
1. the action of mentioning or alluding to something.
Therefore, yes I did reference NT scholars. Anyway, if you want to read all their work then check out citations 20 – 28 on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke#References
[[Christians have always known the books writer was anonymous. In terms of this long standing debate amongst Christians as to who wrote Luke the traditional position is a far more sound exegesis than the critical view.]]
Which is exactly what I said – it is written by an unknown author. Why is it far more sound exegesis? What is wrong with the exegesis of the scholars I referenced (which also means mentioned).
[[Take Bart Erhman as an example of a theologian who often takes a critical view. Ehrman unfortunately has a very rigid form of fundamentalism which seeks mathematical certainty in matters of NT text. Erhman does not have a good understanding on what inspired text means or on understanding the complementary differences of the synoptic gospels… ]]
You have once again committed plagiarisms and before you pretend you don’t know what I am talking about, your second sentence is taken from C. Stirling Bartholomew comment on here: http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.co.uk/2005/12/review-of-bart-ehrman-misquoting-jesus_31.html). I have no issue with you using other people’s arguments but at least acknowledge them or take the time to reword it instead of straight copy and paste. Anyway, all you’ve done here is discussed Ehrman and not what he says on authorship of Luke – Ad hominem fallacy.
[[You say I have failed to address it being an account of the birth, life, death, resurrection, ascension etc. So what? How does this prove it was not Luke that wrote or compiled the book?]]
I think you have trouble following the points being discussed even though I quote what you say and reply to it. Unlike yourself I don’t throw in red herrings, I try to link everything back to my original point – the Injeel given to Isa by Allah is not the same as the 4 Gospels of MMLJ. To reiterate, I said that the Gospel of Luke is an account of the life of Jesus written by an unknown author to which you replied only addressing the authorship and not the content. That’s when I replied saying you have failed to address it and asked how can it then be the Injeel that was given to Isa which as you correctly pointed out “is a book just as the Qur’an”? You still haven’t answered it.
[[You ask about the Injeel and how this is like calling the Sīra/Sunnah of Muhammed the Quran ? The mistake Muslims often make Chase is expecting the Gospels to read like the Quran. The Gospels are more similar to hadith….]]
No mistake is being made by the Muslims, XP. It is you who is making the mistake. We do not believe the 4 Gospels are the same as the Injeel. We expect it to read like the Quran because as you have shown, the Injeel “is a book just as the Qur’an”. It’s not like the Hadith either since they are the “traditions” not an account of life, as I said its more like the Sira. The Injeel is not a Sira (biography) or if you still want to argue it is like the Hadith, its still not Hadith (traditions), rather it was the revelation given to Isa, thus it cannot be the 4 Gospels of MMLJ.
[[In terms of discrepancies between the 4 Gospels you need to know how the Gospels are to be understood. Christians have known about the differences for 2000 years…You say the Gospels go completely against what the Quran teaches and this further shows that it cannot be the Injeel that the Quran speaks of. Who cares what the Quran teaches Chase? Not me…]]
I don’t know why but I expected you to be at least somewhat consistent in this reply especially after I showed how inconsistent you were being in your last reply but I was wrong. Now as for the discrepancies, I didn’t claim you were unaware of them and how you should understand your 4 Gospels rather I brought up this issue to show you a that it’s not the Injeel given to Isa by Allah. I think you have a very short memory so let me remind you why we are having this discussion. You quoted the Quran (5:46 and 3:3) in your very first post, then proceeded to explain that “Sura 5:46 states that the Injil was given to Jesus by Allah. Sura 19:30 and 3:3 then clarify that the Injil is a book just as the Qur’an and the Torah are books that were sent down by Allah.” Next you jumped to the conclusions that “The Quran says the Injil (New Testament) is from God. The Gospel of Luke was part of the Injil so the writer is contradicting the Quran.” The whole point of this discussion is to show your straw man and now that I’ve shown you what the Quran actually teaches and it’s clearly not what you said it was teachings, you don’t care? If you didn’t want to discuss what the Quran teaches you shouldn’t have brought it up as an argument.
—
[[Regarding the discussion about Hadith. I checked out your links. A mixture of interest and tedium is how I would describe them. You your self admit it was not until the third century hijri that the most important time for the sciences of hadith developed. Compare this to the First Christian Century when Christians were already having these rigorous discussions about authenticity. My poinyt still stands. The NT has more reliability than hadith.]]
Once again you’ve failed to address my point about your inconsistency and continue to compare the NT with Hadith. Moving on, you acknowledge that it was the Sahih stage which was developed 3rd century hijri. Then you claim that “Christians were already having these rigorous discussions about authenticity” in the first century thus the NT is more reliable. This is another baffling statement you have made! Firstly, can you provide some sources for these discussions and what they were discussing? Secondly, the books of the canon of the NT were finished in the second century. So even if they were discussing the authenticity in the first century clearly it didn’t end there. It was still developing. Thirdly and most importantly, let me remind you that the earliest the New Testament was decided upon was the 4th Century but it still carried on varying. So no XP, your point doesn’t stand. The final stage of authentication had developed by 3rd century hijri whereas what was authentic in the NT continued to vary even after 4th Christian century.
[[You are correct Luke doesn’t mention the names of the eye witnesses he gathered his information from, but this is not significant..]]
Not significant? On the contrary, if we don’t know who they are, there is just no way for us to verify if the author’s sources are reliable.
[[Yes you correct in saying the early cannon was still fluid and varying. However you will note to 4 books of MMLJ were all generally accepted right from the beginning. The Diatessaron and Muratorian fragment are proof of that.]]
Wasn’t your claim that the New Testament has more reliability than the Hadith? All of sudden we are reduced to 4 books!? Now you claim that they were “accepted right from the beginning” and you provide two proofs. According to the Wikipedia articles you provided; “The Diatessaron (c. 160–175) is the most prominent early Gospel harmony” and the Muratorian fragment is “a 7th-century Latin manuscript…it contains features suggesting it is a translation from a Greek original written about 170 or as late as the 4th century.” Considering that the first of the 4 books dates to around 70AD and these two documents date to late 2nd century at earliest, making it around 100 years later, it clearly does not prove that they were accepted “right from the beginning.”
Also, the Diatessaron shows that Tatian was creating his own narrative by cutting up separate gospels, removing duplicates, harmonising contradictions, and his version contained non- or extra-conical material. Prof. William L. Petersen (Patristic and Text-Critical Studies, p509) suggests; “The Diatessaron would be evidence for a “five-gospel canon” (at least) in this period. Second, it is clear that what we today call “exta-canonical” gospel traditions were, in the time of Tatian, often placed on an equal footing with what we today call “canonical” material.” If anything, the Diatessaron goes to show that what is considered authentic was still not decided upon in the late 2nd century.
[[You say the link I provided does not provide much information how it was complied and validated. Actually much is known as to how it was compiled and validated . The NT reliability is radial not linear. Its not a simplistic linear, telephone tag type of transmission but radial, like spokes of a wheel…]]
Errm what? Another straw man perhaps? I said the link you provided didn’t have much to do with what you claimed it did, i.e how it was compiled and validated. I did not say we don’t know much as to how it was complied and validated, rather I went on to say that I read through the Wikipedia article to find out more on how it was complied. Then you give a long speech about the reliability of NT, yet you don’t actually mention how it was complied and validated instead go on about how we have many manuscripts and give names of non Christian writers etc.
[[You say the NT is still evolving with each new critical edition. How is this so Chase when we have so many manuscripts with the NT being based on the above valid and reliable criteria.]]
While there are many manuscripts, none are the original. Therefore, there are critical edition being produced containing a text which the editors believe will be most closely like the original. For more info: http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/CriticalEds.html.
[[You say your argument points to the fact that the New Testament is not the Injeel. Lets not confuse things here Chase we have already established it is the Gospels (which are part of the NT) that is the Injeel.]]
No we certainly have not established that the Injeel mentioned in the Quran is the same as the 4 Gospels. I keep asking you to provide your evidence but you still haven’t.
[[You ask does my point not go on to prove that the Quran is far more credible than the New Testament because it can be dated back closer to the time of the Prophet? The Gospels and rest of NT were all compiled in the life time of the disciples of Jesus. So the answer to your question as to whether the Quran is far more credible than the New Testament because it can be dated back closer to the time of the Prophet is – no.]]
No? How so? Are you now trying to claim that the Quran wasn’t compiled in the life time of the companions of Muhammed? It’s funny that we are talking about dating yet you haven’t mentioned a date in your response. You’ve shot yourself in the foot here my friend.
[[In your mention of isnad and the chain of transmission You don’t understand the hermeneutical science for determining the reliability of Christian scripture. As mentioned above the NT reliability and validity is strong. http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/maps/manuscript-evidence%5D%5D
Firstly, isnad is the chain of transmission, they are not separate things. Secondly, what does me understanding hermeneutics got to do with isnad? Thirdly and not so surprisingly, the link you provided doesn’t say anything about hermeneutical science. Note, I said the link doesn’t, not that there isn’t much on it. I did skim through the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics) on it. It states that “Biblical hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation concerning the books of the Bible.” In other words, methods developed to provide Biblical exegesis. Again, what does that have to do with isnad? Another red herring?
—
[[You say I dismiss when you give a reference to Quran but then I reference the New Testament? Yes that’s correct. The reason for this is I don’t believe in the Quran. So I of course I don’t take its claims seriously when you quote it. But obviously as I believe in the NT when you, myself or any one else quotes it of course I take it seriously.]]
My point was to highlight the hypocrisy. By your logic I should ignore you whenever you quote NT because I don’t believe in it and I should only be quoting the Quran. Oh wait but you’re not okay with that either!
[[You say you don’t need scholarly criteria, you just need to be consistent and use your logic. Truth and scholarly criteria is more than just logic and consistency Chase. It is also based on fact. And the only argument you have provided so far is a logic based on a faulty premise that the Quran is the truth. For me the Quran is not truth.]]
I think you are once again confusing things here. The premise isn’t faulty. To believe that there was a revelation called the Injeel given to Isa by Allah and all the other things in the verses you provided (Quran, 5.46. 57.27, 19.30, 3.3), I have to believe the Quran is the truth. It explicitly says that the Quran is the truth in S3:3 (which you provided as proof for your case); “He has sent down upon you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it and He revealed the Taurat and the Injeel.” Therefore, you already know we are working on this premise and any answer I provide will be on that premise too. Whether it is truth for you or not is beside the point which is why I said to you originally, you’ve created a red herring, by asking for criteria.
[[Also I’m not the one making the claim that the Gospels are the Injeel given to Jesus by Allah -according to the Quran. It is the Quran making this claim. Any inconsistencies or difficulties in this claim are a problem for Muslims and the Quran – not me.]]
Really? Where does the Quran say that the 4 Gosples of MMLJ are the Injeel? It doesn’t! I and even your friends at Answering-Islam have shown you that the 4 Gosples and the Injeel of the Quran are not the same. Thus we have no problems but when you make such foolish claims without any evidence to support it, you are only creating problems for yourself.
[[You say I originally claimed that the New Testament (which includes Acts, Epistles, Hebews, Revelation) is the Injeel given to Jesus. Yes as I mentioned earlier Chase, I realise the Injeel is the Gospels. I knew that also when I made the original point. Typo mistakes do happen.]]
Firstly, it wasn’t a typo because clearly it isn’t a mistake you made in the typing process rather you admit “I did confuse things by saying the Injeel was the NT”. Moving on, as I’ve shown you from multiple angles, the Injeel that the Quran mentions and the 4 Gospels of MMLJ are not the same and saying “the Injeel is the Gospels” is a problem in itself. The Injeel isn’t a revelation given to 4 different authors, the Injeel (the Gospel – singular) is the name of the revelation given to Isa.
[[In regards to John 1:1-5, you are saying John was recounting the words of Jesus and then go on to say this was not a revelation given to John. You are confusing as to how the NT and Gospels are to be read. You are imposing your own style and technique from reading the Quran onto the NT and Gospels. You need to read the NT and Gospels more in the same style as if you were reading hadith rather than the Quran.]]
No, what I was actually saying is that the quote you provided (John 1:1-5) is a statement being made about Jesus by the author of John so it’s clearly not even recounting the words of Jesus. Therefore, it cannot be the Injeel which was given to Isa by Allah. Additionally, I believe it is you who is in confusion. I am not imposing the style on the NT, rather on the Injeel mentioned in the Quran because as you’ve correctly pointed out it is a revelation “just as the Qur’an”. My point being, the Injeel mentioned in the Quran is a Scripture given to Isa by Allah so it cannot be like the Hadith.
[[There is no contradiction between John 1.1-5 and John 8:31-32. Take a good look at John 1.1-5…What it is saying is that Christ God The Son was The Word even before He walked the earth. Whether there is a contradiction and presupposition that Jesus is God is beside the point. All the verses discussed prove you are not correct in your original statement in saying the authors of the Gospels do not say that they are the word of God, or that Jesus conveyed them from God. It is obvious these verses are saying they are the word of God and / or Jesus IS The Word and / or that Jesus conveyed them from God.]]
When did I say that there is a contradiction between 1:1-5 and 8:31-32? Another misrepresentation. Presuppositions and contradiction with the Quran do matter, remember the purpose of my discussion with you is to show you that you’ve made false claims about the teachings of the Quran. Anyway, I did take a good look at John 1:1-5 which according to you is saying “that Christ God The Son was The Word even before He walked the earth”. How does this prove my statement incorrect? Remember, you said “the 4 books of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are a record of the revelation that was given to Jesus” to which I replied “these unknown authors do not say that they are the word of God or that Jesus conveyed them from God…” John 1:1-5, even according to your own understanding, is the author talking about the Logos and clearly does not mention that it is “a record of the revelation that was given to Jesus” nor does it is say that it’s the word of God or that Jesus conveyed it from God.
[[And who cares what the Quran says? I don’t. And I’m not sure why you keep quoting it to me as it means nothing to me.]]
I will take that as: Chase you’ve shown me I was wrong about what the Quran teaches so instead of admitting it I will just say I don’t care what the Quran says. Let me get this straight, you make an argument that the Quran says the Injeel is the NT and the Gospel of Luke is part of the Injeel whilst providing quotes and references from the Quran. However when I respond to those claims, you are not sure why I keep quoting the Quran? Really? Funny thing is that a few sentences down you say you’re addressing me in a logical manner…
[[In regards to you quoting Quran (5:45), as said I couldn’t care less what the Quran says. As far as Im concerned any commonalities between the Quran and Injeel and confusion the Quran creates due to its allusion to the Torah or Injeel is a problem for Muslims – not me. I only quote the Quran to raise this with you.]]
There is no confusion created by the Quran. It’s only a confusion when you haven’t understood what it is saying by quoting out of context. No, you actually quoted it to show that the Injeel is the same as the NT and that “Gospel of Luke was part of the Injil so the writer is contradicting the Quran”. I am quoting the Quran to make you understand what it is actually teaching instead of what you claim it is teaching – if you still haven’t figured out why I keep quoting it. Now if you don’t want to carry on talking about what the Quran teaches, then retract your original claims.
[[And you are wrong about the NT saying Jesus came to abolish the law. Jesus states he actually came to fulfill the law.]]
I never said that the NT says Jesus came to abolish the Law – It’s like you love making straw man arguments! I was specifically referring to the law of retaliation (eye for an eye) and according to Matt 5:38-39 Jesus said “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” So according to this Jesus is telling you not to follow that anymore. Thus it cannot be the Injeel mentioned in the Quran.
[[You need to be honest. The overall motive of the original post is obvious – it was designed to discredit the Christian scriptures. . I have addressed the concerns raised in a logical manner. And Yes I have raised problems with the Muslim scriptures as a response to that]]
I think it is you who needs to be honest. It’s clear you do not actually believe that the Quran teaches that Injeel is the New Testament nor the 4 Gospels it contains yet you’re adamant on saying it does without any evidence. The motive of the original article is given: “There are several points here that are very problematic to the Christian missionary claim..” Being inconsistent and raising problems with Muslim scriptures as a response isn’t a very logical manner. The issues raised in the original article could’ve easily been raised by any non-Christian as there is nothing in it which only Muslims would object to.
—
[[Regarding the Sanaa Quran you say your book did fall out of the sky . It is not supposed to be a miracle that came from heaven through the angel Gabriel. So what Quran were / are Muslims memorizing and reciting? All your Qurans pre Uthman were burnt remember apart from this one that shows real problems for Muslims. And just why did Uthman burn all earlier copies is an interesting question in it self?]]
What? Do you even read what I write? I actually said Books didn’t fall down from the sky in a “physical form” and yes, it was revealed through Jabreel. The Quran is the revelation given to the final Prophet, it was transcribed into a mushaf (physical book form of the Quran). They were/are reciting and memorising the Quran (which literally means “the Recitation”) revealed to the final Prophet. As for your red herring, it’s been addressed so many times. Uthman and his Commission collected all the verse available and using a criteria, prepared a definitive compiled mushaf. “Uthman felt the need to destroy these superfluous copies of the verses and preserve the approved text from being tainted.” – http://www.mostmerciful.com/reply-ans-islam.htm (this article also answers various other Christian claims).
[[In terms of “my only problem” being the Sanaa Quran proving the Quran not to be the timeless and unchanging word of God, this is actually your problem, not mine. You are minimizing the difficult significance this has for Islam. Your definitions of perfect, timeless and unchanging offers no answer to this. In fact all you have done is confirm the Muslim claim that the Quran is supposed to be the immutable, timeless and unchanging without addressing the evidence to the contrary.]]
It is not a problem for me. I have shown you why but you’ve either failed to understand it or chose to ignore it. There is no minimisation as my definitions clearly show that the findings of Codex Sanaa has no bearing on the fact that it is perfect, timeless and unchanging. It’s still the same Quran that was revealed, the minor changes in the Codex Sanaa are due to the development of the Arabic language, thus it is still perfect and unchanging. The Codex Sanaa doesn’t disprove that it was sent for all mankind till the end of time, i.e. it’s the final revelation from God, thus it is timeless.
[[You say your provided link responds to Dr Puin’s findings. Please tell me how ? It does not address the problem of the Quran being proven to be a human influenced historical document. Not miraculous at all.]]
Are you sure you read the article? The article lists Dr Puin’s findings and then addresses them. Again you are confusing the Quran (the Recitation) with the sahifa which were written down as a supplement in the early stages and then formally complied into a mushaf.
[[You also said there were lies from Puin but as yet have not quoted or illustrated what they were.]]
You must be kidding me, right? Let me just copy and paste what I replied previously, maybe you will actually read it this time. “I was specifically referring to Dr. Puin claims that the Yemeni were keeping the manuscript “low-profile” and the last 2 paragraphs of the Wikipedia article you provided show that it was a lie. I said lie, not lies.” Here is the link again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana%27a_manuscript#Media_coverage, read the last 2 paragraphs which show that there was no suppression by the Yemini authorities.
[[Chase You are actually making it easier for me to argue my case. You say The Quran as the final revelation is not limited by time. You say it is for all nations so it’s not limited by nation / generation.” And the the Quran is Timeless and the Quran we have is the same as the one revealed to the Prophet perfect in wording, detailed in meaning. complete in form and meaning. But the Sanaa Quran actually proves it is not perfect in its wording, it is limited in time, wasn’t complete in form or detailed in meaning. The Sanaa Quran proves it has been distorted, perverted, revised, modified and corrected. Textual alterations had taken place over the years purely by human hands.]]
I am seriously shocked by your lack of reading comprehension skills, to the point where I am worried for you. I can understand the definitions I provided for perfect and unchanging might be difficult to comprehend by timeless is pretty straightforward. Let me reiterate, previous Scriptures such as Taurat and Injeel, were for a particular nation (Israelites) and for a particular time till the next one was sent down. The Quran is the last of the revelation and is sent for all mankind not a particular nation. This is the meaning of it being timeless. How does Codex Sanaa disapprove this? The Quran – the recitation is still in its perfect form as it was revealed to the Prophet, you need to read my definition of unchanging word of God again. The Quran was revealed in 7 different “ahruf” which matched the dialects of the various tribes in Arabia and made it easier for them to recite and memorise thus the Codex Sanaa shows variants. For further info: http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2012/05/seven-ahruf-2-best-explanation-taqi.html.
[[You say the small aberrations were discussed thoroughly in the link you provided. Aberrations in the immutable, perfect, unchanging Word of God Chase? Again you appear to be minimizing the significance of this for Muslims.]]
Once again, you’ve either not read the article or haven’t understood it or purposefully ignoring what you have read. The articles states that the small aberrations are due to the orthographical development of the Arabic language, not that the word of God have changed. Orthographical development can be identified with many languages including the Greek language and even English. Then the author goes on to give example of words that have devolved in the English language such as sonne to son. They are pronounced the same way and have the same meaning, yet spelled differently as the language developed and it would be preposterous to claim that the word has been corrupted.
[[Interestingly Jeffery Lang confirms the unconventional verse orderings, minor textual variations, and rare styles of orthography and artistic embellishment, before he then goes on to minimize the impact of this on the absolute and literal Muslim Word of God. He like you and many in the Muslim community are minimizing the problem. Gerd Puin is an authority on Qur’anic historical orthography, He is also a specialist in Arabic paleography. He was a lecturer of Arabic at Saarland University, in Saarbrücken Germany. He has far more credibility than Jeffrey Lang.]]
If you read the Ijaz Ahmad’s article you’d see that it too confirmed these things but showed you how this doesn’t change the fact that we still have the same Quran. It’s not a minimisation of problem, we are saying there is no problem. Also, I didn’t claim that Jeffrey Lang has more credibility rather I wanted to show you that there clearly was a response in the article when you claimed there wasn’t. Furthermore, I did some more research on Gerd Puin and realised that you haven’t actually done any digging yourself rather you been spewing the same old arguments.
I found this interesting extract (http://rasheedgonzales.wordpress.com/2007/06/15/introduction-to-al-azamis-the-history-of-the-quranic-text/) from a book written by Prof. Muhammad M. al-Azami called The History of the Qur’anic Text from Revelation to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments – I just got my hands on this book and will be reading it soon, I would advise you get a copy too if you are serious about this issue. Prof. al-Azami states that “Dr. Puin himself has in fact denied all of the findings Lester ascribes to him, with the exception of occasional differences in the spelling of some words. Here is a part of Puin’s original letter – which he wrote to al-Qādī Ismā’īl al-Akwa’ shortly after Lester’s article – with its translation: [35]
“The important thing, thank God, is that these Yemeni Qur’ānic fragments do not differ from those found in the museums and libraries elsewhere, with the exception of details that do not touch the Qur’ān itself, but are rather differences in the way words are spelled. This phenomenon is well-known, even in the Qur’ān published in Cairo in which is written:
Ibrhīm (ابرهيم) next to Ibrhm (ابرهم)
Qurān (قران) next to Qrn (قرن)
Sīmāhum (سيماهم) next to Sīmhum (سيمهم) etc.
In the oldest Yemeni Qur’ānic fragments, for example, the phenomenon of not writing the vowel alif is rather common.”
This deflates the entire controversy, dusting away the webs of intrigue that were spun around Puin’s discoveries and making them a topic unworthy of further speculation.
[35] For the Arabic text of his complete letter, see the Yemeni newspaper, ath-Thawra, issue 24.11.1419 A.H./11.3.1999. ”
As you can see Dr Puin findings are that words are spelt differently, which as I said are due to orthographical development of the Arabic language.
[[You say Ive decided to plagiarise Ibn Waraq. Yes I do need to be more careful with my referencing. What about you Chase? You also appear to be quoting a lot from others without adequate referencing.]]
Not just be careful but actually provide a reference to start with! Stop accusing me and produce your evidence – show me where I have quoted from others without referencing? If you cannot then you’ve uttered a lie. Oh and providing a name/link is adequate for the medium we’re using.
[[You then go on to say Ive removed what he extracts from Dr. Puins conclusions. Lets look at Ibn Waraqs quote in more depth then and you will see it is you disingenuously misquoting Puin Chase. One of Puin’s conclusions is that though there was an oral tradition, (otherwise the Koranic text could not have been read), there were deliberate changes in the oral tradition of the reading of the Koran. Thus this oral tradition was not very stable or elaborate – changes must have occurred as can be seen in the variant orthography to be found in the San’ä’ manuscripts. There is nothing removed here Chase. Ibn Warag then goes on to quote Puin where he is discussing the long “a” sound. There is no misleading extraction here Chase.]]
Hahaha! This one actually made me laugh. So when you get caught out, you accuse me of being disingenuous? Let’s examine who is practising deceit here. In your previous reply you said “One of Puin’s conclusions is that though there was an oral tradition, there were deliberate changes in the oral tradition of the reading of the Koran. Thus this oral tradition was not stable or elaborate – changes must have occurred in the San’ä’ manuscripts.” To which I replied you’ve plagiarised Ibn Waraq and removed “(otherwise the Koranic text could not have been read)” and “as can be seen in the variant orthography to be found”. To minimise your blatant removal of the text from the quote, I notice how you said “lets look at Ibn Waraqs quote in more depth” instead of lets look at Ibn Waraq actually said which you have posted now. From it we can clearly see that indeed you had extracted out the two things I mentioned from you previous reply. Honestly mate, sort it out.
[[And yes you are correct Puin said he recognizes that the mus’haf was used as a supplement since there was already a oral tradition and he makes the claim that the reading must of changed based on variant orthography. Meaning – and quoting Puin again – “the existence of variant readings indicates that neither the oral tradition nor the [textual] context were strong enough to rule out the emergence of alternative readings.”… The conclusion being the oral tradition was not absolute and immutable.]]
Firstly, why did you remove it from Ibn Waraq’s quote? Secondly, you either have no clue what you are talking about or purposelessly trying to cut and piece together different quotes to make an argument. Variant orthography and variant readings are separate things. Variant orthography is due to the development of the Arabic language. As explained previously, the Quran was revealed in 7 ahruf and “variant readings (or rather, multiple readings) have been recognised and commented on by Muslim scholars since the time of the Prophet.” – Prof. al-Azami, from the same extract. More info on Ahruf can be found here: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Qiraat/hafs.html#1
[[Here is a quote taken from Ibn Wariqs article. Ibn Warig is quoting Andrew Ribbin. “the text contains variant readings of a minor nature…”… We all know there was an oral tradition. No problem there. Yes the mus’haf was a supplement to to the oral tradition. But what it shows is the oral tradition itself was variant and not stable. It means the Quran has been distorted, perverted, revised, modified and corrected, and Textual alterations had taken place over the years purely by human hands.]]
Please refer to above link for further clarification on the variant readings issue. The oral tradition was to memorise it word for word and the text was only a supplement at the early stage “hence when a hafidh (someone who has memorised the Quran) refers to a copy of the Qur’an with a small mistake such as an incorrect alif, he will easily understand the word and make the correction. Take for example the word ‘understanding’ in English. If read the following way: “understndng” anyone could comprehend the meaning, especially if the incorrectly spelt word was placed in a sentence.” – http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/q-a/does-dr-puins-research-provide-evidence-that-the-quran-has-been-revised/. So it was more than stable. Yes there were multiple readings, thus the Quran “when being transcribed was transcribed according to the vernacular of some scribes from throughout Arabia, therefore Uthman [ra], ordered the scribes to write the Qur’an by transcribing it, according to the tongue (liturgical transmission) of its original revelation: the Qurayshi Dialect.” – Ijaz Ahmad, http://callingchristians.com/2012/09/23/codex-sanaa-and-the-quran/. So when we recited the Quran, it is the same as the recitation revealed to the Prophet, therefore it hasn’t been modified, revised, distorted, etc.
—
[[You say you are not posting to support the attack on the Book of Luke. Actually Chase I believe you are.]]
If I was “supporting the attack” I would have replied to your critique of the article but if you read my original post you’d see I said I’m staying away from that. You can believe whatever you like but I am telling you I am not and it is rather obvious to see I am replying to your attack on the Quran and Hadith.
[[Red herrings ? Yes I have raised problems with the Muslim scriptures as a response to Muslims attempting to undermine Christian scriptures. Again, if Muslims wish to discredit the scriptures of another religion then they need to be prepared to have a critical look at their own.]]
I got no problem with you raising your problems with Muslim scriptures but not when its is done in a way to distract or mislead from the issue being discussed which you have done on the occasions I pointed out. Also, raising what you believe are problems with Muslim scriptures as a response to specific problems highlighted in the Book of Luke isn’t really an effective response. However, I am glad to see you’ve dropped your last red herring.
Hello Chase. Thanks for your post. I must say these posts are getting rather convoluted with logic increasingly difficult to follow. I also note the tone of your posts are becoming more sarcastic in nature. If you can just try to keep tabs on that it would be appreciated.
You say I am misrepresenting the Quran about the Injeel / Gospel / NT ? I hope you are not misrepresenting my supposed misrepresentation.
No Isnad? No chain of transmission ? What are you trying to say in raising this point? That the NT lacks reliability? The science validating the NT is highly sophisticated and it is a fact the NT is the most reliable and validated of any ancient text.
No evidence is required for calling the 4 Gospels of MMLJ, the Injeel. It is a historical fact. What else could have been the Injeel Mohamed was referring to? All you’ve mentioned is some kind of vague mysterious “remnant” of an Injeel that you have not been able to prove in your quoting of the Gospels of Mark or John and of which there is no historical basis to any remnant. In terms of Ibn Ishaq and Comforter/the spirit of Truth, all you have done by quoting Ibn Ishaq and Comforter/the spirit of Truth is provide evidence for the reliability and historicity of the Christian canon by quoting a verse that has always been part of the canon. Like I said, it is a historical fact the Gospels of MMLJ were accepted canon long before Mohamed was born.
In terms of your circular reasoning, you say in order to verify if the four Gospels of MMLJ contain the mysterious, remnant of the Injeel, you use the Quran. So yes, Chase, I am accusing you of circular reasoning. Unless something lines up with your own Muslim view then it is not a remnant of your truth. Another term for this is – logical fallacy.
In terms of Katz & Khourymerely and S. 5:46 and the Injil I don’t really care what the Muslim understanding is of S. 5:46. The historical fact remains the Injeel / Gospel that Mohammad was referring to had to be no other than the revelations that Jesus received which were recorded in book form (MMLJ) centuries before Mohammad was born. So either Allah and Mohamed were ignorant of the canon Gospels being MMLJ or they were confused.
Also the onus is on you to prove the Gospels of MMLJ are not the Injeel rather than me to prove they are. The reason being you are the one making an accusation against the historical Gospels of MMLJ and raising a vague theory about some kind of remnant.
You ask why is the traditional exegesis on attributing the Gospels to the traditional writers more sound? It is far sounder in terms of historicity, cross referencing and analysis of literary style. Bart Erhman is simply another character in this Christian discussion that has been occurring for Centuries.
In regards to Erhman all he has said is the writer of Lukes Gospel is unidentified. So what? Christians have also known this for centuries. In regards to plagiarisms, please cease your quibbling. You’re as much an internet amateur as anyone else around here. I suggest you stick to the central points rather than evade them quibbling about plagiarism.
You raise a non contextual, tangential point around the content of Luke regarding the account of the birth, life, death, resurrection, ascension. Suddenly you move from discussing authorship to content. Hence your question is out of context. Please clarify. What exactly are you asking here?
You say you expect the Injeel to read like the Quran because as shown, the Injeel “is a book just as the Qur’an”. I always thought Muslims believed the Quran to be a recitation rather than a book? You are being inconsistent as to the Quran being a book or recitation. The Bible is not a recitation. Rather it is a collection of God inspired historical writings in book form similar to hadith, and yes Chase, similar to Sira. Your conclusion of the Injeel being some kind of remnant is based on a false premise, circular reasoning and convoluted logic. You still have offered no proof for this missing remnant apart from some vague references to verses from the Gospels of John and Mark based on Muslimcentric circular reasoning.
In terms of discrepancies between the synoptic gospels you say you brought up this issue to show that it’s not the Injeel given to Isa by Allah due to me quoting surah 5:46 and 3:3. Why did I bring up surahs 5:46 and 3:3? I did so merely to highlight Muslim confusion over the Injeel rather than any interest in what the verses are actually saying. So in terms of then saying the writer is contradicting the Quran, your convoluted logic is based on a faulty premise and circular reasoning.
You ask for proof Christians were having rigorous discussions about authenticity in the first century. This is obvious in that the epistles of Paul, Peter, James and John were accepted as God inspired scripture and circulated amongst the believing communities at the time and also the oral accounts were translated into the written Gospels very early.
You say the canon was still developing in the second century. The timing of the closure of the canon is irrelevant. As I said the epistles and the 4 Gospels of the NT were widely accepted by the majority of Churches as early as the Second Century as evidenced by the Diatesseron completed by Tatian in the Second Century and the Muratorian fragment dated with credibility to about 170. Scholars such as Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Clement, Tertullian all studied the reliability of scripture and scholars such as Irenaeus and Origen were authenticating the canon as early as the 2nd century.
In terms of your quote from Prof. William L. Petersen and your comment on the Diatessaron about the canon, you are missing the point. The point of me telling you about the Diatessaron was to show that robust scholarly activity was happening earlier in the Christian era compared to the Muslim time of Buhari. However you appear to be acknowledging this where you said-
“If anything, the Diatessaron goes to show that what is considered authentic was still not decided upon in the late 2nd century.”
From this you appear to be recognizing that the – “Diatessaron was a 2nd century work? Hence it compares more favorably in time frames than the Bukhari work which was a 3rd Hirja. This is what I have been saying all along.
Yes I did and still do claim the New Testament has more reliability than the Hadith due to proximity of time of the eye witnesses to its compilation.
And yes I did refer to the 4 Gospels rather than the whole NT for the reason being they are more similar to hadith in terms of biographical content and also as the 4 Gospels are generally more contentious than the epistles it figures to focus on those in our discussion.
In terms of proof that the Gospels were accepted right from the beginning this is obvious due to the oral accounts being translated into the written Gospels. My point still stands. The Gospels and the rest of the NT has more reliability than hadith in terms of being compiled and circulated in a time frame closer to the lives of the eye witnesses. Christians were conducting rigorous examination and validating the canon sooner than what Bukhari and Muslims did for the hadith.
In terms of Lukes sources remember the Gospel of Luke was compiled and written in the same life time of all the eye witnesses. Any problems in reliability would have been challenged at the time.
You ask how texts were compiled and validated. Consider the original Epistles and Gospels were compiled in Israel, multiple copies then radiated in all directions of the compass from as far afield as India to Britain. As a result the ability to cross check such a geographically diverse collection has lead to a high degree of reliability and validation.
If you want to know how the Bible was compiled I’m sure a simple search of the www can help you. In terms of further info re validity and reliability the provided link is quite a good one. You may also find it helpful with some of the other points made in these discussions.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/gospel-authorship-who-cares
You say there are no original biblical manuscripts. Yes so ? Where are the original manuscripts for the Quran? Non existent. Remember they were all destroyed. Burned! The earliest is the Sanaa Quran with all its consequent problems for Muslims. I personally have many different editions of the Bible and find them all helpful in their own way. They all complement each other.
What makes you think Im interested in the isnad? Remember this discussion is about the Book of Luke and how Christians have validated it. As a result I suggest you research this rather than try to educate me on isnad.
You say we certainly have not established the Injeel mentioned in the Quran is the same as the 4 Gospels. As I’ve said, it is a historical fact the Gospels of MMLJ were already in existence centuries before Mohamed was born. As said Allah and Mohamed were either ignorant of this or they were confused. The burden of proof is on you to prove the historical documents of MMLJ are not the originals due to your theory of some kind of missing remnant.
In terms of what is the Injeel as mentioned by the Quran I don’t particularly care what the answer is. As said this confusion is a Muslim problem not a Christian one.
Is the Quran more credible than the New Testament because it can be dated back closer to the time of the Prophet? I don’t know, can it? Remember the NT was compiled at the same time as the eye witnesses.
There is no hypocrisy in me dismissing the Quran. Logic and the Quran does not allow you to ignore the Torah and Injeel but logic does allow me to ignore the Quran. You are directed by Allah to pay heed to the Torah and Injeel. I have no such injunction to see the Quran as authoritative.
In terms of any verses from the Quran I quoted eg. (5.46. 57.27, 19.30, 3.3)
I simply provided them to you as a means of highlighting the problem Muslims have over the confusion created for Muslims by Allah and Mohamed who obviously didn’t know what the Gospels were.
You ask where does the Quran say that the 4 Gosples of MMLJ are the Injeel? Injeel means – Gospel- so obviously the Quran is referring to the Gospel when it mentions the Injeel. All you’ve said to counter this is raise some kind of vague and obscure remnant and provide no evidence for any kind of missing Gospel.
In terms of you saying the Injeel was not a revelation given to 4 different authors, but is the name of the revelation given to Isa. Again as you see the Quran as a recitation you mistakenly believe the Gospels of MMLJ should also be some kind of recitation. You are imposing your own style and technique in seeing the Quran as a recitation onto the NT and Gospels.
You make the point Injeel is Gospel – singular. So I guess the implications of this are that Allah made a grammatical mistake.
In terms of John 1:1-5 your criteria for judging what is Gospel is Muslimcentric based on your faulty premise that revelation is only recitation. The Gospels of MMLJ make known the revelation of God through the words and actions of Jesus. The birth of Jesus to the Virgin Mary was not uttered from the mouth of Jesus. Neither is the story of John the Baptist or the miracles of Jesus, but yet Muslims believe these accounts. Surely they must be part of your mysterious “Injeel remnant”?
In terms of John 1:1-5 this doesn’t so much prove your statement as incorrect rather it displays your confusion as to how Christians see revelation. Let me clarify “revelation” again. Revelation for Christians is more than just a book, recitation, or biographical information. Revelation is Christ himself. The whole life of Jesus is The Word. His life, His actions, His total being was, and still is, the revelation.
Yes His words were recorded by the God inspired authors in book form and yes I have previously said the books captured the revelation of Jesus. Let’s clarify things with a bit of a summary. Why did I say this? I said it due to your obsession and Allah’s confusion over Jesus being given a book. Hence it seemed a logical way to explain it to you. But Jesus received more than just words of revelation. The revelations of Jesus were also in His actions. For example His power to make miracles was revelation in action, than just words.
This is what I said to you earlier when I quoted John in saying Jesus IS THE WORD (John 1). John was inspired by God in writing that Jesus was the revelation (The Word) in human form. Christ Jesus The Messiah is the revelation in the form of His total personhood.
This is explained further where John quoted Jesus where Jesus said —
“Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
John 8:58
Actually Chase you have said the NT says Jesus abolished the law. You made this statement in your post dated 27 November. So why are you now denying this?
Now you are saying Jesus said not to follow the OT and as a result you presume it cannot be the Injeel mentioned in the Quran? This is nonsensical. Firstly you forget your claim the Jesus said in the NT he came to abolish the law which was clearly wrong, and from this you extrapolate some illogical conclusion about the Injeel and the Quran?
You say it’s clear I don’t believe the Quran teaches the Injeel is the New Testament or the 4 Gospels. As said Chase I really don’t care what the Quran says about this mysterious unknown “remnant” Injeel / Gospels, because it’s obvious Allah and Mohammad were confused. Consequently this is your problem as a Muslim to sort out. Good luck because if Allah was confused I don’t think you’ll get to the bottom of it.
You say my response to the original article was inconsistent and raising problems with Muslim scriptures as a response isn’t logical. Actually Chase you’re wrong. I did make points directly refuting the article separate to raising the problems with the Quran and hadith.
You said Books didn’t fall down from the sky in a “physical form. The Quran fall from the sky? Dropped by a sea gull, or thrown from a UFO by Aliens maybe? No of course a physical book didn’t fall from the sky! So what were you trying to say then?
How about this then? How about a perfect heavenly tablet descending from God above, from the Seventh Heaven to the First Heaven as some Muslims claim? As the Quran says about itself-
this is a Glorious Quran (inscribed) in a Tablet Preserved.
85: 21:22
85: 21:22 seems to be saying the Quran is a revelation that is inimitable, timeless, eternal, perfectly preserved, immutable, ageless, everlasting, universal, absolute. A tablet preserved in Heaven. But yet the Sanaa codex proves the Quran not to be perfectly preserved. Not immutable or ageless.
I checked out your link. Hopefully there is no plagiarism here Chase?
So exactly what were and are the hufadh reciting? Which version of the confused Quran made it to the final product? You have no way to know it was the Heavenly Tablet version. The point remains you have no original pre Uthman manuscripts apart from the problematic Sanna manuscript which in its confused nature raises doubts as to what exactly the hufadh were and are reciting.
You say Uthman felt the need to destroy superfluous copies of the verses and preserve the approved text. Isa Mashith makes an interesting point about this in Harold C. Felders article.
http://www.givingananswer.org/articles/koran.html
“The missing manuscripts are huge embarrassment to Muslims. It simply does not make sense that there are not any earlier manuscripts. The New Testament writers wrote on papyrus, far less durable and robust than the parchment used for the Qur’an. Yet there are plenty of New Testament manuscripts that have been written on parchments that are in extremely good condition even though they predate the Qur’an by several centuries.”48
Isa Mashith, July 1998, Problems with the Qu’ran,
In the same article by Jay Smith goes on to say-
“Interestingly, we have no copies of the Uthmanic text. If it is, as Muslims claim, to be the most important literature ever written, then why do we not have any early manuscripts? The fact is that “we have absolutely no evidence for the original Qur’anic text.”49
Jay Smith, 1999, Is the Qur’an the Word of God,
“…This is in sharp contrast to Christianity which can claim more than 5,300 early manuscripts, most written between the 1st and 5th centuries, before the time of paper. Yet Islam cannot produce a single manuscript until well into the eighth century.”(51)
Jay Smith, 1999, Is the Qur’an the Word of God.
You mention minor changes to the Codex Sanaa. Minor changes? Puin certainly didn’t think they were minor changes. Here are some more quotes of Puin taken from Lester –
“There are dialectal and phonetical variations that don’t make any sense in the text”,
“My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants.”
“The Arabic script is very defective – even more so in the early stages of its literature.”
Lester states – “He (Puin) says the Koran contains most of the biblical stories but in a shorter form and is “a summary of the Bible to be read in service”.
What is Puin saying here? He is saying there are variations that don’t make any sense, contradictions, texts older even than Islam, older than Mohammad’s revelations, with Christian influences. This is far more significant than any minor variations you mention.
You mention the development of the Arabic language. However doesn’t the Quran praise the clarity of the Arabic language. See 26: 193-195. –
With it came down the truthful spirit, to your heart that you may admonish, in the perspicuous (plain to understand, precise, clear,) Arabic tongue.
26: 193-195).
So if the Quran claims the sacred Arabic language to be so plain to understand, precise and clear, why then is the development of the Arabic language any defense?
Lester takes point this further in summarizing Puin-
“Puin also questions another sacred belief that Muslims hold about the Koran, that it was written in the purest Arabic. He has found many words of foreign origin in the text, including the word “Koran” itself. Muslim scholars explain the “Koran” to mean recitation, but Puin argues that it is actually derived from an Aramaic word, qariyun, meaning a lectionary of scripture portions appointed to be read at divine service.
[1]References-1.^ a b Lester, Toby (January 1999).
“What Is the Koran?”. Atlantic Monthly. ISSN 1072-7825. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/01/what-is-the-koran/4024/. Retrieved 2012-07-7.
You mention the 7 ahruf and the orthographical development of Gods miracle Arabic language ? How can this be? The development of Gods perfect and unchanging Arabic language and message for humanity? Again how can this be?
You seem to admit you have trouble explaining the Quran to be perfect and unchanging. Let me quote you –
“I can understand the definitions I provided for perfect and unchanging might be difficult to comprehend but timeless is pretty straightforward.”
While you appear to admit in having trouble seeing the Quran as perfect and unchanging you attempt to rationalize the Quran as timeless by saying-
“the previous Scriptures such as Taurat and Injeel, were for a particular nation and time where the Quran is the supposed last revelation and is sent for all mankind not a particular nation.” You say this is the meaning of it being timeless. This however is nothing more than a semantic evasion and denial of word meanings. Timeless obviously means eternal, ageless, everlasting, universal, absolute, before or out side of time.
Verse 85: 21:22 confirms this –
this is a Glorious Quran (inscribed) in a Tablet Preserved.
You ask how does Codex Sanaa disapprove its timelessness? The Codex Sanaa proves the script was very much affected by man between the years
( TIME ) of Mohammad’s death and Uthmans later version.
So again just exactly how is a perfect, timeless, inimitable, eternal, perfectly preserved, immutable, ageless, everlasting, universal, absolute, unchanging miracle of God explained when there were obvious changes and is subject to a developing human language. This certainly does not sound inimitable, eternal immutable, ageless, everlasting, universal, or absolute to me.
You say the recitation is still in its perfect form as it was revealed to Muhammad. Remember one of Puins conclusions was that the oral tradition – the verbal recitation was unstable. That means the recitation was unreliable, variable, confusing. In regards to your provided article addressing Puins concerns actually it didn’t. Puin said the oral tradition was unstable. Meaning the oral recitation that hufadh recite was and is still unstable. This means it was not stable, not reliable. Hence if the oral hafidh tradition of recitation was unstable, not reliable, then the mushaf was also not stable, not reliable.
You quote Gozales quoting of Prof al-Azami where he states that – “Dr. Puin himself has in fact denied all of the findings Lester ascribes to him,
Read on Chase. Read one of the respondents to Gonzales post who is no other than the son of Prof al-Azami – Aqil Azami.
Aqil Azami says:
September 15, 2008 at 4:33 am
Here is what Aqil Azami says-
…The other thing is that Puin as a missionary minded person has a hidden agenda and by writing such a letter helps cool down the temper in Yemen and other parts of the Muslim world (he did not want to anger the Yemeni authorities and put a curb on possible future collaboration with Yemen or for that matter any Muslim country and Western ‘experts’)…
So there you have it! Prof al-Azamis son, Aqil Azami, gives a reasonable reason for Puin making this ‘denial’.
Besides even if Puin is stating no central doctrine of the Quran is affected from his studies that’s not the point. It’s the claim of the Quran being a perfect miracle transmission from heaven to earth from the inscribed on Heavenly tablets that’s the issue.
Further to this your link is only Rasheed Gonzaes quoting Prof. al-Azami quoting Puin. I don’t believe Gonzales does either Prof. al-Azami or Puin justice with his blog in terms of arguing effectively against Puin and Rippin. In fact his quotes appear to support my position. Look at this one for example.-
Rasheed Gonzales quotes Puin –
“The Koran claims for itself that it is ‘mubeen’, or ‘clear’“ he says, “But if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense. Many Muslims – and Orientalists – will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible.”[11]
Thus Rasheed Gonzaes actually confirms that Puin is saying the Quran is not clear, it doesn’t make sense and it is incomprehensible. Look at Rasheed Gonzaes lack of objectivity and his obvious defensive agenda compared to the rigors of an intellectual academics like Puin and Rippin.
In regards to supposed lies from Puin about the Yemeni authorities the quotes are not authoritative and besides this is a red herring. Please stick with the topic which was about the Sanaa codex showing the Quran to be unreliable and imperfect.
I’ve compiled a list of all the contradictions in the Quran. Would you mind if I post them?
I’ve even traced some of the various texts copied by the Quran, if you’re interested.