unknown authors | Search Results

Search Results for: unknown authors

The Role of Scriptural Manuscripts in Islam and Christianity – A Primer

Posted on August 3, 2015 by Ijaz Ahmad 2 comments

Introduction

Given all the buzz about manuscripts regarding both the scriptures of the Muslims and Christians, I thought it’d be best to write something simple to explain the differences in approach that the Islamic and Christian faiths use when understanding their scriptures. This isn’t meant to be a highly technical article, but by the end of this post you’ll understand why manuscripts are important and to whom they are important.

The main difference in understanding manuscripts in both these faiths can be summed up in one term, “textus receptus vs textus criticus”. Textus receptus refers to the passing of scripture from generation to generation, until present day. Hence the term, “received text”. Textus criticus refers to a reconstructed version of scripture, based on the best manuscript witnesses that are extant (still surviving to our times). Hence the term, “critical text”.

Textus Receptus or Textus Criticus?

Christians today no longer depend on their textus receptus, they opt for textus criticus. In essence, they believe that their scriptural tradition internationally, that their Churches internationally, that for over 2000 years, their collective world of Christendom was unable to accurately preserve the New Testament. We can assign the shift in thinking from textus receptus to textus criticus sometime during the 16th century, when we had Erasmus’s, Cisneros’s and Stephanus’s critical Greek editions of the New Testament. This movement agreed on the principle that the Latin Vulgate, despite being the primary New Testament for centuries, did not accurately represent the “original” readings that the earlier Greek manuscripts contained. Therefore, Christians had to “recover” and “reconstruct” their scripture from the earlier Greek manuscripts, as opposed to relying on the traditional view of depending on the Latin Vulgate which was a translation of some of the Greek, the primary language of the New Testament.

There are however Christians who do disagree with this view that the entire world of Christendom failed to preserve the New Testament, and that the Church tradition did preserve their scripture. This is a minor group known as KJV-Onlyists. It has taken over 500 years for Christendom to propagate the shift from textus receptus to textus criticus. Thus, to modern Christians, manuscripts are extremely important to reconstructing the original words of the New Testament. The problem here is that we have no original manuscripts (autographs) and at best, the critical text of the New Testament today is an approximated “prototype” (vorlage) of the manuscripts, that may have been written in between 200 – 500 CE. In other words, the critical text of the New Testament does not go back to the original manuscripts (autographs) but they can be traced back to a “prototype” from which they may have been copied from at a later date, usually known as an “archetypal text”.

This view of textus criticus is not accepted in Islam. We believe that our scholastic tradition has preserved the Qur’an in its entirety. This is because in Islam, we did not translate the Qur’an from Arabic to English and then only used the English for 1400 years, while forgetting the Arabic and failing to preserve the Arabic Qur’an. We have kept the primary language of the Qur’an alive as well (fusha Arabic), and we’ve kept two separate traditions alive for over 1400 years: Hifz al Qur’an (memorization of the Qur’an) and ‘Ilm al Rasm al Mushaf (the science of the writing of the Qur’an). In essence, Muslims have kept reciting the Qur’an, memorizing it in its entirety, specializing in learning its language, specialized in learning its recital for over 1400 years, to this very day. We’ve also kept the tradition of writing the Qur’an and writing it with the most advanced Arabic styles of calligraphy. These two traditions mean that the Muslims in China are reciting the same Qur’an, in the same way, as the Muslims in the Caribbean, and that they have been doing so for centuries. The fact that Muslims have an entire month each year dedicated to the reciting of the Qur’an, and that we must recite it at a minimum 5 times a day, ensures that the Qur’an is being preserved everyday, all day. The same cannot be said for the New Testament.

This means, that while Christians have great reasons to doubt the preservation of their scripture and have to rely on reconstructing it, us Muslims do not share this problem. We have no reason to doubt our traditions of preservation as we have means to authenticating them. The Christians do not. As mentioned in other articles, we know who our reciters are and where they came from, what their characters were like and what their beliefs were. They are not unknown and we do not take knowledge from unknown persons. Today one would find many Christian scholars trying to search for a “Jesus oral tradition”. They’re trying to find some oral tradition that can link the manuscripts to credible persons who are historically viable to give their manuscripts authority, so that they could validate their reconstructed text. Muslims do not need to find an oral tradition to do so, as ours still exists to this day through our sanad of reciters (Qurra) and memorizers (Huffaz), which must authorize (provide an ijaza) students before they can teach the Qur’an to others. These mechanisms are inherent to the Islamic scriptural tradition, but they are alien to the Christian scriptural tradition.

The Need for Manuscripts

What Christians are doing today, like Jay Smith, Keith Small, Andy Bannister, Samuel Green and Spencer, is trying to get Muslims to reject textus receptus and to create a textus criticus. In essence, they need Muslims to have the same level of doubt about the Qur’an as they do, with the New Testament. Yet, as mentioned previously, our faith’s mechanisms in regard to preserving, teaching and sharing scripture are far more advanced that those of Christianity’s. Thus, when Christians point out that manuscripts have some variants or some differences, they are trying to force Muslims to reject our scriptural tradition. However, we are not in the same position as Christianity. We have no need to reject our scriptural tradition, but Christians do, since their collective world of Christianity was unable to preserve their scriptural tradition as Muslims have. The problem with using manuscripts from unknown authors, from unknown sources is quite obvious. What would happen if Christians found a manuscript of John 1 from the 1st century CE that excluded the Johannine Prologue? By their standards, they would have to give this manuscript authority and remove the prologue from their modern Bibles.

However, Christians are not consistent. They will instead claim that Church tradition has mentioned the prologue as being scripture and thus they will find some excuse to remove authority from that manuscript, despite rejecting their scriptural tradition for the critical method. In other words, Christians seriously doubt the preservation of their scripture and demand that Muslims use their critical methods on the Qur’an, when they themselves do not apply these critical methods consistently. Consider then, the example of the Shepherd of Hermas which is included in our earliest collection of the New Testament from the 4th century CE, Codex Sinaiticus. An entire book is excluded from the modern critical texts because Church tradition did not consider it scripture, yet the critical texts are not supposed to be based on tradition, but on the critical method. If Christians were consistent, they’d have to place the Shepherd of Hermas in their modern day critical edition. Yet, when missionaries see that some obscure manuscript, found in some obscure place may or may not have a different spelling of a word in the Qur’an, they demand that we accept that the Qur’an has changed.

That is strange reasoning. Who wrote this manuscript? We don’t know. What was their level of education? We don’t know. Why did they write it? We don’t know. So, on what basis do we accept an unknowable. unverifiable text, over 1400 years of verifiable, known tradition from chains of historic transmission? There are a hundred and one reasons why a manuscript can contain a variation. The person writing may have been using regional orthography (representation of letters and words) than a standardized style of writing. The scribe may have been using the manuscript to practise writing. The scribe could have been writing while someone was reciting (usually known as an amanuensis) and made an error in haste. The scribe could have been copying the shapes of the letters without knowing what the letters on the manuscript meant, thus if they made an error they would not have known that they changed a word. These are all common reasons that Christian textual critics point out for rejecting the variants found in many New Testament manuscripts.

In other words, Christians themselves reject the notion that all manuscripts are authoritative and for them manuscripts need to be authoritative because their scriptural tradition internationally was unable to preserve their scripture from its earliest days to the present day. This problem is not present in Islam and so we have no need to depend on, unverifiable manuscripts. We don’t need to authorize texts that are historically without authority. Christians have that need, it’s a necessity because their scriptural tradition was insufficient, Islam does not have this problem. So when Christians point out a variant that a scribe may or may not have made in writing the Qur’an, that means nothing to do the Muslim as it is a lone witness, versus a living tradition of witnesses in continuous verification over 1400+ years through daily, monthly and yearly memorization and recitation. However, if there is a variant in a New Testament manuscript, this is a problem for Christianity as not only do they accept that their scriptural tradition needs to be abandoned, they now need to reconstruct what their scripture may or may not have looked like and so they try to attack the Qur’an out of jealousy. While Muslims can be certain about the Qur’an, a Christian simply cannot be certain about anything in the New Testament.

Conclusion

One of the divine signs of Islam is the promise in Qur’an 15:9, which reads:

“Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian.”

From the very start of Islam, the Qur’an was commanded to be recited. It was memorized, taught, recited daily. If God wanted a scripture to be preserved, then the best way to preserve it among humans would have been through continuous and daily recitation. In Islam, we find this with the 5 daily prayers in which the Qur’an must be recited. God included an entire month of the year dedicated to reciting the Qur’an in mass congregation, Ramadhan. God made it compulsory for each community to have a hafiz (memorizer) who needed to know the Qur’an by memory. God made it compulsory for each Muslim to individually carry the responsibility of knowing several chapters (Surahs) of the Qur’an. The God of Islam, it would seem through divine wisdom, knew what was needed for the Qur’an to be preserved among its followers. The same cannot be said about the New Testament or the Graeco-Roman Post-Hasmonaean Jewish Syncretic deity that Christians worship. This deity did not make the New Testament central to the lives of the early Christians. There was no need to memorize what Jesus said and taught, there was no need to recite what God revealed daily, monthly or even yearly. There was no command to preserve the language in which the scripture was given.

There was no need to preserve the New Testament. One must wonder, if there is a God and He wanted us to know Him, wouldn’t He have raised a community of people devoted to the preservation of His scripture? This is what we find in the religion of Islam, but it is not something we can find in the religion of Christianity. Interestingly, this rejection of textus receptus for textus criticus raises a very disturbing problem. If the collective world of Christendom, could not preserve their scripture for over 2000 years and they needed to reconstruct their scripture, what else has their religious tradition failed to preserve? What if their traditional teachings about the Trinity are wrong and need to be recovered. What if their traditional beliefs about Jesus dying for their sins are wrong and need to be recovered? What if…? Islam does not carry with it, such uncertainty, only Christianity can and does. For me, that’s a problem.

and Allah knows best.

FAQS

New Covenant, Old Traditions

Posted on October 10, 2012 by Ijaz Ahmad 4 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

The crucifixion of Christ is alleged to have herald into commission, the New Covenant [1]. However, if we are to do a basic reading of the New Testament narrative of Christ’s alleged death, we run into some theological conundrums. The unknown authors of the synoptic Gospels were familiar with the Tanach, citing it at every chance they got, yet in doing so they’ve unearthed a vast amount of room for misapplied dogmas and theological errata. Often times, leading to the mess we’re about to uncover. On the cross, Jesus is alleged to have said:

“About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lemasabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).^{[d]” – Matthew 27:46.}

Most people see that little citation, that “d” and don’t seem to investigate it. So where does that “d”, lead to?

Matthew 27:46 – Psalm 22:1

Therefore, it is apparent that while Jesus was on the cross, he was referencing this chapter from Psalms. If we go to the chapter in Psalms, most people upon reading would be shocked at the contents within:

¹My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from my cries of anguish?
²My God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, but I find no rest.

According to the reading, God has abandoned Christ on the Cross. This is a far worse depiction of Christ, than any Pharisee could muster. Christ is depicted as abandoned by God, he is suffering and is not being saved by God, hardly a ‘willing sacrifice’ if you were to ask me. Strikingly, even Jesus concedes to the fact that if he was being crucified, that his own “Father”, did not answer his cries for help, this wasn’t for a moment, but lasted day and night. A most strange circumstance, considering that Christ is alleged to have said, “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.[2]” Unfortunately for Jesus, this was not the case, as God never answered him. If it didn’t work for Christ on the Cross, why do Christians expect anything to be granted to them, save for them believing they are greater than Christ, for if Christ’s sonship could not merit mercy from the “Father”, on what grounds should a lay Christian expect to be given more mercy than the son himself?

³Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the one Israel praises.
⁴In you our ancestors put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.
⁵To you they cried out and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not put to shame.

The diatribe continues by questioning God’s actions, see, God saved the Israelites when they called out to Him, yet when His own alleged Son calls out, there was no answer. Christ is also indicating here, that he was put to shame, yet the Israelites were not, can any Christian answer as to why Jesus was put to suffer and was void of God’s mercy and help?

⁶But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by everyone, despised by the people.
⁷All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads.
⁸“He trusts in the Lord,” they say,
“let the Lord rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him.”

⁹Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast.
¹⁰From birth I was cast on you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

¹¹Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.

At this point, Christ, in referencing these verses, he no longer considers himself a ‘man’, he considers himself to be less than a man. We’ve all heard of the hypostatic union, half man, half God, well as it turns out, Christ negates being a man and assumes the role of a worm. I guess this is the Hypostatic Union Version 2.0. It’s also telling that Christ says there is no one to help him, this would either mean that Christ who is God, could not help himself or God, the all powerful, failed to help his son.

¹²Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
¹³Roaring lions that tear their prey
open their mouths wide against me.

This is most intriguing, why does Christ reference Psalms 22, when it is in these passages that insults to Gentiles are still considered to be normal? If Christ was dying for their sins, shouldn’t he be dying with the intention of, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.[3]” Yet this is not Jesus’ attitude, it’s quite the opposite, he lowers himself to mocking and insulting, with curses meant for gentiles. In fact, this verse contains some level of anti-Semitism (not too dissimilar to John 8:44-48), Adam Clarke, a famed Christian exegete comments:

The bull is the emblem of brutal strength, that gores and tramples down all before it. Such was Absalom, Ahithophel, and others, who rose up in rebellion against David; and such were the Jewish rulers who conspired against Christ. Bashan was a district beyond Jordan, very fertile, where they were accustomed to fatten cattle, which became, in consequence of the excellent pasture, the largest, as well as the fattest, in the country. See Calmet. All in whose hands were the chief power and influence became David’s enemies; for Absalom had stolen away the hearts of all Israel. Against Christ, the chiefs both of Jews and Gentiles were united. [4]

Christ therefore, according to Christian theology, in his weakest moment, not only questioned God’s mercy but he fell privy to the sin of insulting and cursing both Gentiles and Jews. This as previously stated, in direct contrast to the earlier statement of, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

¹⁶Dogs surround me,
a pack of villains encircles me;
they pierce my hands and my feet.

Lastly, we jump to the last of the insults, using a term that he also used to describe gentiles in Matthew 7, which reads:

“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.”

Who are these dogs? According to several commentaries, it refers to ‘disbelievers‘, therefore Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists are all considered to be dogs by the Christian God while bringing into commission, the New Covenant. The People’s New Testament Commentary says:

The dog was regarded an unclean animal by the Jewish law. They probably represent snarling, scoffing opposers. The characteristic of dogs is brutality. To try to instill holy things into such low, unclean, and sordid brutal minds is useless. [5]

Therefore infidels (those who are unfaithful) to Christ, are like dogs, because we oppose the religion of Christianity. How strange are these words indeed, especially when Christ was supposed to be dying for our sins. In his supposed ultimate act of mercy and sacrifice, Christ berates, curses and abuses the very people he is allegedly killing himself for.

Conclusion

While Christ was dying for our sins, he references Psalms 22. Upon reading Psalms 22, we discover that it entails a man who is abandoned by God, void of God’s mercy, leading the one in pain to question God’s authority and means of grace. The person suffering then decides to insult, mock and curse those who do not accept his beliefs. If these verses were referenced by Christ as a means of expressing his emotion while on the cross, then the notion that Christ introduced a New Covenant is hogwash, as Christ insults, mocks and curses both Gentiles and Jews. If this is not what Christ intended to communicate with his referencing of the aforementioned passages, why would he allegedly reference them to begin with?

Sources:

Luke 22:20, “In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”.
Matthew 7:7.
Luke 23:34.
Adam Clarke’s Commentary, Psalms 22:12-13.
People’s New Testament Commentary, Matthew 7:6.

Muslim and Non-Muslim Dialogue

The New Testament

Posted on January 19, 2012 by Ijaz Ahmad 4 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

One of the primary arguments that Missionaries use to propagate their ideology, is that the Bible is the inspired word of God, meaning God didn’t dictate to the unknown authors what to write, but rather inspired these authors to write a synoptic (general, but cohesive) story about the worldly ministry of Jesus. The problem with this though is that most Christians don’t exactly read all of the Bible. For example, a story which occurs in Matthew would be read and the reference for that similar story is acknowledged (in the footnotes), whether it be in Mark or Luke, however after one has read the story in Matthew and acting under the impression that it would be redundant to read the same story in another Gospel, Christians may simply become content with having just read the story in Matthew, while foregoing the reading of the other Gospels. This is problematic because Christians are indoctrinated with the impression that synoptic means, “recalling the same story, albeit from an alternate viewpoint”. While linguistically this definition is accurate, it behoves me to remind our Missionary friends as well as Evangelical inerrantists that while Mark, Matthew and Luke (I’m excluding John because it gives an entirely variant viewpoint all together) in some way do narrate similar stories their narratives are often conflicting if not incohesive and inconclusive. What we must come to realise, if we truly are seeking the truth in religion is that the Synoptic Gospels aren’t fully Synoptic, rather they present a myopic view of events surrounding the person and life of Jesus, the Messiah of Israel.

One of the more popular examples is the conflicting end of the Gospel of “Mark”, Christians often assume that such a conflict does not affect their doctrine therefore it is useless to discuss it. However, it does indeed affect their doctrine, if we agree with the presumption that God did inspire these 4 writers to complete a synoptic narrative of Jesus’ ministry where we could expect missing elements of one of the narratives but have the answer in another narrative, how could we account for one narrative that’s conflicting in itself. That therefore, presents a doctrinal problem, which manuscript of a select Gospel, did God actually inspire? We could have over 30 versions of Mark, 15 with the short conclusion and 15 with the longer conclusion, which 15 did God inspire? If we take this problem and replicate it among the 4 Gospels we are introduced to an even greater question, which group out of all of these manuscripts actually consist of the inspired word of God? To understand this problem, let’s take a look at Prof. Bruce Metzger’s analysis of the Ethiopic Manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark:

Until the latter part of the twentieth century, the status of the last 12 verses of Mark in this version was in doubt, arising from conflicting statements made concerning the evidence of the same manuscripts. Now, however, on the basis of the personal examination of photographs of the ending of the second Gospel in 65 Ethiopic manuscripts, belonging to about 30 different collections, Metzger has ascertained that all of them have the text of Mark 16.9-20. In addition, what is known as the “shorter ending” of Mark, found in several Greek and Syriac manuscripts, occurs in many Ethiopic manuscripts between 16.8 and 9. Subsequently, William F. Macomber of the Hill Monastic Manuscript Microfilm Library at Collegeville, Minnesota, examined microfilms of 129 additional Ethiopic manuscripts of Mark. Of the total of 194 (65 + 129) manuscripts, all but two (which are lectionaries) have Mark 16.9-20, while 131 contain both the shorter ending and the longer ending. At the end of the Ethiopic version of Acts chapter 28, there is a directive to readers to consult Paul’s letters and the Acts of Paul, as well as information about Paul’s further activities in Rome. This addition originated as a gloss or colophon that was later integrated into the main text.” – (The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Bruce M. Metzger & Bart D. Ehrman, pp 120-121.)

Prof. Bruce has clearly outlined a major problem for inerrantists and missionary zealots, what started as a colophon (an inscription placed usually at the end of a book, giving facts about its publication), became inspired scripture after a change of hands, through numerous scribes, eventually making its way into the mass population of Christendom. His statements are profound, for when missionary zealots propose that it is absurd that the word of God could have changed while so many people were in possession of it, we really must educate them. Clearly, as stated above, we have extant evidence of this happening, with various codices and manuscripts numbering more than 100, while in mass circulation having two varying endings. While the proposition of such corruption may be laughable to many missionary zealots, the empirical evidence is quite clear, the delusion that this could not happen, is smashed by the manuscripts themselves. Prof. Metzger continues:

Scholars differ on the question of the date of origin of the Ethiopic version; some argue for a date as early as the fourth century, while others attribute it to the sixth or seventh century. Opinion also differs as to whether the translators made use of a Greek or Syriac original. In any case, it is a curious fact that in the Epistles of Paul the version frequently agrees with p46 with little or no other support. The version also shows evidence of later contamination from Coptic and Arabic texts. Thus, the Ethiopic text eventually became a conglomerate with quite disparate elements standing side by side. Analyses of the earlier form of the Ethiopic version disclose a mixed type of text, predominantly Byzantine in complexion but with occasional agreement with certain early Greek witnesses (p46 and B) against all other witnesses. The little that is known of this version as far as the New Testament is concerned (the Old Testament has been studied more thoroughly) suggests that it deserves far more attention than it has received. The earliest known manuscript, a codex of the four Gospels, dates from the thirteenth century; most other manuscripts are of the fifteenth and succeeding centuries. – (The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Bruce M. Metzger & Bart D. Ehrman, pp 120-121.)

In summation, what we’ve read from the above excerpt is that further corruption took place due to Coptic Christian and Arabic Christian transmission of the manuscripts of the New Testament Gospels. Wherein he seals the problem of the manuscript corruption with these words:

“Thus, the Ethiopic text eventually became a conglomerate with quite disparate elements standing side by side. Analyses of the earlier form of the Ethiopic version disclose a mixed type of text, predominantly Byzantine in complexion but with occasional agreement with certain early Greek witnesses (p46 and B) against all other witnesses.”

I personally look forward to the refutation of this article by missionary zealots, where they’ll have only one of two conclusions to arrive at:

(1) Deny the above evidence by reinterpreting the corruption as invalid stories by liberal scholars who lack faith.
(2) Concur with the corruption but say it doesn’t affect doctrine therefore it does not matter.

To refute position (1), we can simply question their logic and reason. If a person examines two sheets of paper and notices one is unlike the other, does that make such a person, a liberal atheist who only pretends to be Christian? Simple observation and determining a conclusive understanding based on one’s observation equates someone to being a fraudulent Christian?

To refute position (2), the very fact that Christians presuppose that God inspired these men to write, not by dictation but by their own ideas, implies that God wanted the variations to occur and thus sought to confuse rather than guide the masses. If God wanted to guide humanity, then he would have guarded it, protected it. We read from the Old Testament how much emphasis God placed on preserving the Torah:

“Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God. There it will remain as a witness against you.” – Bible : Deuteronomy (31) : 26.

Protected with great extravagance and attention to detail:

When the camp is to move, Aaron and his sons are to go in and take down the shielding curtain and put it over the ark of the covenant law. Then they are to cover the curtain with a durable leather, spread a cloth of solid blue over that and put the poles in place.- Bible : Numbers (4) : 5-6.

Furthermore to state that God wanted variations to occur is also in direct contradiction to the Bible in itself:

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints. – Bible : 1 Corinthians (14) : 33.

As I have demonstrated above, we can conclude that either possible argument against Biblical manuscript corruption is not easily disproved, but also irrational and illogical. Only a person of great arrogance and ignorance would continue to contest such a simply demonstrable fact. If we forego the manuscript corruption, can we actually find incoherencies within the Gospels themselves? Yes, however normally at this stage we’d encounter counting and genealogical problems from the Old Testament and not the Gospels, such as:

And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand. – Bible : Numbers (25) : 9.

Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. – Bible : 1 Corinthians (10) : 8.

Or perhaps genealogical errors:

And the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz. – Bible : Genesis (36) : 11.

These were dukes of the sons of Esau: the sons of Eliphaz the firstborn son of Esau; duke Teman, duke Omar, duke Zepho, duke Kenaz, Duke Korah, duke Gatam, and duke Amalek: these are the dukes that came of Eliphaz in the land of Edom; these were the sons of Adah. – Bible : Genesis (36) : 15 – 16.

The sons of Eliphaz; Teman, and Omar, Zephi, and Gatam, Kenaz, and Timna, and Amalek. – Bible : 1 Chronicles (1) : 36.

However, these are found in the Old Testament and while some Christians may profess they believe in this Old Testament, they are quick to to deny it’s applicability in relation to the New Testament which is based on the life of their God, Jesus. With that said, can we find similar inconsistencies, based on the doctrine of Christians? Indeed we can, to begin with, the Bible’s epistles are generally discussions by Church leaders on heretics and developing beliefs among the masses, usually they contain directives supposedly based on the life of Jesus, however these directives, although meant for the people, directly contradict the Gospels in themselves, leaving one with an air of confusion. For example, this simple directive in Titus 3:9 :-

But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.

Seems like a simple directive, not hard to achieve, relatively good advice, except that the Bible here is calling itself unprofitable and useless. To begin with, it directs Christians to avoid genealogies, yet when we read Matthew 1 and Luke 3, we have entire chapters devoted to them:

This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiahthe son of David, the son of Abraham:

² Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
³ Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
⁴ Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
⁵ Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
⁶ and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,
⁷ Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
⁸ Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
⁹ Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
¹⁰ Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
¹¹ and Josiah the father of Jeconiah^[c] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
¹² After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
¹³ Zerubbabel the father of Abihud,
Abihud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
¹⁴ Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Elihud,
¹⁵ Elihud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
¹⁶ and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.
¹⁷ Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.

A bit ironic isn’t it? Feel free to read Luke 3 here. Although it is well known that Paul’s epistles were authored before the Gospels were written, many missionary zealots tend to argue that the Gospels were written by the disciples themselves. Given that Paul’s epistles were authored between 50 CE and 65 CE, you’d think that atleast one disciple, apostle, presbyter, anyone really (acting under the premise that the 4 Gospels did exist at this time) would have seen this major and blatant inconsistency in New Testament directives. How could the Bible in essence, condemn genealogies (which contradict within themselves) but then have two areas where genealogies are listed, far worse where the New Testament even begins with one? It really does leave a lot of questions unanswered, but what it does do is prove the historical claim that the epistles were written first and then the gospels, by persons who had yet to place them together as a scripture, thus leaving much room for errors.

Are there instances where Jesus argued about the law? Why yes, there are many, but for the sake of brevity, let’s look at one instance, Matthew 22: 41-42, 45 :-

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”….. If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?”

Notice, Jesus in this instance approaches and asks the Pharisees about laws and genealogies, not only contradicting the directive in Titus 3:9, but whosoever wrote Matthew 22, really had not seen Matthew 1, as it argues Jesus is the son of David:

This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Whereas Matthew 22 argues that Jesus is not the son of David, but the Lord of David, Matthew 1 argues that Jesus is the son of David and has no mention of him having lordship over anyone. It’s one mistake to have an epistle contradict a gospel, but to have a gospel contradicting itself, let alone the very first verse of the New Testament? Highly appalling to say the least.

Thus far, I’ve demonstrated inconsistencies:

(1) From within the manuscripts.
(2) From within New Testament Laws and Directives.
(3) From within the same Gospel.

What is left to demonstrate now, is the incoherencies from within the the synoptic narrative, this being between one Gospel and another:

When Jesus had again crossed over by boat to the other side of the lake, a large crowd gathered around him while he was by the lake. Then one of the synagogue leaders, named Jairus, came, and when he saw Jesus, he fell at his feet. He pleaded earnestly with him, “My little daughter is dying. Please come and put your hands on her so that she will be healed and live.” So Jesus went with him. – Bible : Mark (5) : 21-24.

In this version, the girl is dying, she has yet to die, so Jesus is asked to come to heal her so that she will continue to live, Jesus accepts the proposition and proceeds to heal her. However in this version, the girl is already dead and the father asks Jesus to make her live:

While he was saying this, a synagogue leader came and knelt before him and said, “My daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live.” Jesus got up and went with him, and so did his disciples. – Bible : Matthew (9) : 18-19.

So we are presented with two conflicting narratives. Is the girl dying and awaiting Jesus to cure her, or has she already died and waiting for Jesus to raise her from the dead? Which narrative is true? Which one did God inspire? If I am to believe that Jesus did a miracle, which miracle in this case did he do? What’s worse is that even the Bible’s narration of this story was prohibited by Jesus, after he has cured the girl according to Mark’s gospel, Jesus gives a clear directive:

He gave strict orders not to let anyone know about this, and told them to give her something to eat. – Bible : Mark (5) : 43.

If Jesus did in fact speak those words, and he himself according to Christian theology is God, how can we explain, that the God who inspired two (2) Gospel authors to write about this story which more than 1 billion people have read, also commanded for it to remain secret?

In conclusion, I’ve demonstrated inconsistencies:

(1) From within the manuscripts.
(2) From within New Testament Laws and Directives.
(3) From within the same Gospel.
(4) From within the same Gospel’s chapter.
(5) From within the Synoptic Narrative.

If you are a Christian and you’ve read this article, the onus is on you to take the challenge further. Your faith here isn’t being demeaned or manipulated, but what is being done to it, is a critical examination of Biblical Gospel Truth. If you are willing to concede that these are errors and are willing to confirm in your heart and mind that you cannot accept that your faith’s foundations are this inconsistent, I encourage you to take a sincere look at the religion of Islam, which some 1400 and more years ago, from within the true word of God (The Qur’aan), speaking on the Bible, has said:

لِلَّذِينَ يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَـٰذَا مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّـهِ لِيَشْتَرُ‌وا بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا ۖ فَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا كَتَبَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا يَكْسِبُونَ
(So woe to those who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say, “This is from Allah,” in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn. ) – Qur’aan : Suratul Baqarah (2) : 79.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Bible: Inspired Incoherencies.

Posted on January 19, 2012 by Ijaz Ahmad 22 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

One of the primary arguments that Missionaries use is that the Bible is an inspired word of God, meaning God didn’t dictate to the unknown authors what to write, but inspired these authors to write a synoptic (general, but cohesive) story about the worldly ministry of Jesus. The problem with this though is that most Christians don’t exactly read all of the Bible. For example, a story which occurs in Matthew would be read and the reference for that similar story is acknowledged (in the footnotes), whether it be in Mark or Luke, however after one has read the story in Matthew and acting under the impression that it would be redundant to read the same story in another Gospel, Christians may simply become content with having just read the story in Matthew, while foregoing the reading of the other Gospels. This is problematic because Christians are indoctrinated with the impression that synoptic means, “recalling the same story, albeit from an alternate viewpoint”. While linguistically this definition is accurate, it behoves me to remind our Missionary friends as well as Evangelical inerrantists that while Mark, Matthew and Luke (I’m excluding John because it gives an entirely variant viewpoint all together) in some way do narrate similar stories their narratives are often conflicting if not incohesive and inconclusive. What we must come to realise, if we truly are seeking the truth in religion is that the Synoptic Gospels aren’t fully Synoptic, rather they present a myopic view of events surrounding the person and life of Jesus, the Messiah of Israel.

Until the latter part of the twentieth century, the status of the last 12 verses of Mark in this version was in doubt, arising from conflicting statements made concerning the evidence of the same manuscripts. Now, however, on the basis of the personal examination of photographs of the ending of the second Gospel in 65 Ethiopic manuscripts, belonging to about 30 different collections, Metzger has ascertained that all of them have the text of Mark 16.9-20. In addition, what is known as the “shorter ending” of Mark, found in several Greek and Syriac manuscripts, occurs in many Ethiopic manuscripts between 16.8 and 9. Subsequently, William F. Macomber of the Hill Monastic Manuscript Microfilm Library at Collegeville, Minnesota, examined microfilms of 129 additional Ethiopic manuscripts of Mark. Of the total of 194 (65 + 129) manuscripts, all but two (which are lectionaries) have Mark 16.9-20, while 131 contain both the shorter ending and the longer ending. At the end of the Ethiopic version of Acts chapter 28, there is a directive to readers to consult Paul’s letters and the Acts of Paul, as well as information about Paul’s further activities in Rome. This addition originated as a gloss or colophon that was later integrated into the main text.” – (The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Bruce M. Metzger & Bart D. Ehrman, pp 120-121.)

Scholars differ on the question of the date of origin of the Ethiopic version; some argue for a date as early as the fourth century, while others attribute it to the sixth or seventh century. Opinion also differs as to whether the translators made use of a Greek or Syriac original. In any case, it is a curious fact that in the Epistles of Paul the version frequently agrees with p46 with little or no other support. The version also shows evidence of later contamination from Coptic and Arabic texts. Thus, the Ethiopic text eventually became a conglomerate with quite disparate elements standing side by side. Analyses of the earlier form of the Ethiopic version disclose a mixed type of text, predominantly Byzantine in complexion but with occasional agreement with certain early Greek witnesses (p46 and B) against all other witnesses. The little that is known of this version as far as the New Testament is concerned (the Old Testament has been studied more thoroughly) suggests that it deserves far more attention than it has received. The earliest known manuscript, a codex of the four Gospels, dates from the thirteenth century; most other manuscripts are of the fifteenth and succeeding centuries. – (The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Bruce M. Metzger & Bart D. Ehrman, pp 120-121.)

“Thus, the Ethiopic text eventually became a conglomerate with quite disparate elements standing side by side. Analyses of the earlier form of the Ethiopic version disclose a mixed type of text, predominantly Byzantine in complexion but with occasional agreement with certain early Greek witnesses (p46 and B) against all other witnesses.”

I personally look forward to the refutation of this article by missionary zealots, where they’ll have only one of two conclusions to arrive at:

“Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God. There it will remain as a witness against you.” – Bible : Deuteronomy (31) : 26.

Protected with great extravagance and attention to detail:

When the camp is to move, Aaron and his sons are to go in and take down the shielding curtain and put it over the ark of the covenant law. Then they are to cover the curtain with a durable leather, spread a cloth of solid blue over that and put the poles in place.- Bible : Numbers (4) : 5-6.

Furthermore to state that God wanted variations to occur is also in direct contradiction to the Bible in itself:

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints. – Bible : 1 Corinthians (14) : 33.

And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand. – Bible : Numbers (25) : 9.

Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. – Bible : 1 Corinthians (10) : 8.

Or perhaps genealogical errors:

And the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz. – Bible : Genesis (36) : 11.

These were dukes of the sons of Esau: the sons of Eliphaz the firstborn son of Esau; duke Teman, duke Omar, duke Zepho, duke Kenaz, Duke Korah, duke Gatam, and duke Amalek: these are the dukes that came of Eliphaz in the land of Edom; these were the sons of Adah. – Bible : Genesis (36) : 15 – 16.

The sons of Eliphaz; Teman, and Omar, Zephi, and Gatam, Kenaz, and Timna, and Amalek. – Bible : 1 Chronicles (1) : 36.

But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.

This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiahthe son of David, the son of Abraham:

² Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
³ Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
⁴ Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
⁵ Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
⁶ and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,
⁷ Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
⁸ Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
⁹ Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
¹⁰ Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
¹¹ and Josiah the father of Jeconiah^[c] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
¹² After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
¹³ Zerubbabel the father of Abihud,
Abihud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
¹⁴ Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Elihud,
¹⁵ Elihud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
¹⁶ and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.
¹⁷ Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.

Are there instances where Jesus argued about the law? Why yes, there are many, but for the sake of brevity, let’s look at one instance, Matthew 22: 41-42, 45 :-

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”….. If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?”

This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Thus far, I’ve demonstrated inconsistencies:

(1) From within the manuscripts.
(2) From within New Testament Laws and Directives.
(3) From within the same Gospel.

What is left to demonstrate now, is the incoherencies from within the the synoptic narrative, this being between one Gospel and another:

When Jesus had again crossed over by boat to the other side of the lake, a large crowd gathered around him while he was by the lake. Then one of the synagogue leaders, named Jairus, came, and when he saw Jesus, he fell at his feet. He pleaded earnestly with him, “My little daughter is dying. Please come and put your hands on her so that she will be healed and live.” So Jesus went with him. – Bible : Mark (5) : 21-24.

While he was saying this, a synagogue leader came and knelt before him and said, “My daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live.” Jesus got up and went with him, and so did his disciples. – Bible : Matthew (9) : 18-19.

He gave strict orders not to let anyone know about this, and told them to give her something to eat. – Bible : Mark (5) : 43.

In conclusion, I’ve demonstrated inconsistencies:

لِلَّذِينَ يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَـٰذَا مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّـهِ لِيَشْتَرُ‌وا بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا ۖ فَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا كَتَبَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا يَكْسِبُونَ
(So woe to those who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say, “This is from Allah,” in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn. ) – Qur’aan : Suratul Baqarah (2) : 79.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

FAQS

Corrections in Early Qurʾān Manuscripts: Twenty Examples – Dan Brubaker

Posted on June 8, 2019 by Ijaz Ahmad 18 comments

cc-2019-db-correctionbookcover

A recent publication by Dan Brubaker has received quite serious praise from a crowd of individuals who do not seem to have read it and those that have read it cannot seem to articulate what about it was meant to be praiseworthy in the first place. Having read it myself roughly a week or two ago, I forgot about its existence as I was thoroughly nonplussed about its contents, I proceeded with my Ramadan (and subsequently my Eid) until today when I thought to myself that perhaps I can do a very brief review of the work in an effort to put to some use the time I invested in having read the very short book.

To begin with, I have had several interactions with missionaries who seem to consider this book to be one of the greatest literary pieces ever published, yet I cannot seem to find anyone who is able to explain to me why this is the case. Most of my conversations about this work have followed generally the same line of reasoning:

This book proves that the Qur’an is corrupt and has not been preserved!
Can anyone reference the page on which this claim is made?
No.

This book is groundbreaking because it shows that the Qur’an has changes to it!
Changes in the sense that someone somewhere inserted a word or verse or chapter into one of these manuscripts which eventually came to be seen as part of the Qur’an today? No.

Changes that show the early Muslims had a different Qur’an!
A different Qur’an in what sense?

That it contained different words that they had to correct!
Do you mean the words which were omitted by the initial scribe, noticed and then corrected by the same scribe (or in some cases, later ones)?
Yes.
That doesn’t make it a different Qur’an then, all that makes it is someone writing, making an error while writing and then correcting that error.

But it is an intentional change!
Well yes, I would imagine that if someone wrote something and realised they made an error that they would have intentionally chose to correct it.

He says that some of the corrections were later!
Not exactly, he only comes to this conclusion because the nib (writing tip of the writing instrument – think of a lead pencil’s point) was different, the same scribe could have had more than one nib, especially if they were untrained and prone to error, as some of the manuscripts clearly demonstrate some scribes were untrained. It is also possible that there was an initial scribe with one writing instrument (think of a pen, or a pencil), what scholars call the initial scribe or the prima manus and then there was a corrector or secunda manus reviewing the work of the first scribe who used a different nib or the same nib (but due to difference in writing ability their corrections were more noticeable). Therefore a difference in the nib (writing instrument) or in the stroke of the hand of the scribe (or corrector) would appear different but would not necessitate it being centuries later (that conclusion is a matter of interpretation and not one of a factual or immutable nature).

These are how most of my conversations have gone, indeed one specific conversation comes to mind where a missionary could not believe I had read the book so quickly because it took years of research to write. He could not grasp that a man can take 100 years to write a book, but that it does not mean it takes 100 years to read it. I have tried to understand what missionaries find so impressive about the book, it has been difficult to find one that has actually read it. I was able to find one and some of his reasons were as follows:

It is impressive because he shows that corrections were made.
Is he the first person in the world to recognize that authors (scribes) can make mistakes and then correct their mistakes?
No.

Is he the first person in the world to study Qur’anic manuscripts?
No.

Doesn’t he thank Islamic Universities, libraries and institutions for help with his manuscript studies?
Yes.

Didn’t he claim to have consulted Islamic scholarly works on understanding some corrections?
Yes.

So what exactly was impressive if he was not the first to notice any of these things and especially that he received help from pre-existing Islamic literature and Arab-Islamic institutions on this topic?

On the other hand however, what I have managed to notice is that from those who have actually read the very brief book, there is a trend they have all noticed. There are four things to note:

These corrections were allegedly made in different cities.
At different times.
By different scribes.
Towards the accepted Qira’at of the Qur’an.

If the argument was that the Qur’an which is read today was a recent invention (though this is not the argument he himself makes), then how is it possible for all of these different people, in different places, in different times to invent the exact same Qira’at of the Qur’an as we have it today? The only reasonable and sensible conclusion is because they had the same Qur’an, they could not all make the same corrections towards the text of the Qur’an as we have it today, if they did not know what the correct Qira’at of the Qur’an was in the first place. In other words his short book is not a proof of anything negative about the Qur’an, rather it is a proof that scribal errors made by unknown scribes (and in many cases, clearly untrained in Arabic nahw) were seen as such and did not enter into the authentic and well-known transmissions Qira’at of the Qur’an.

The fact that Muslims read these individual copies and went to the effort to ensure they were properly written, demonstrates their careful concern for the accurate transmission of the Qur’an, if they had left the errors without correction then that would have been a cause for concern. In many cases, Dan’s inability to understand Arabic nahw allowed him to choose examples which didn’t make much sense, especially in the cases where:

The scribe omitted or repeated a word due to confusing it with another verse (homoeoteleuton or homoeoarcton).
The scribe omitted or repeated a word due to copying the letters as shapes (unable to understand what they are writing, they are able to identify shapes but don’t know words or what the words mean).
The owner preferring another Qira’ah and requesting it be changed to that reading.

What is perhaps the most intriguing is that these errors before being corrected were exclusively done to singular manuscripts which when compared to manuscripts from the same time period, it can easily be seen that contemporaneous manuscripts do have the correct reading and do not have the same error, thus certifying that these were not legitimate readings that were long forgotten, but that they were genuine errors that were supposed to be corrected.

All in all, nothing about the book is novel, nothing about it is ground-breaking and nothing about it affects any beliefs that Muslims have about the Qur’an, to the contrary it serves as a good evidence for the preservation of the Qur’an that after almost a decade of research for the sake of advancing Christianity, and with a team of volunteers behind him, he could find only 20 examples of corrections stemming from largely untrained scribes. On the other hand, that we have early manuscripts of the New Testament from professional publication houses (scriptoria) with text-clusters (multiple manuscript traditions from the same time period) showing significant and meaningful changes, and additions, demonstrates to us why the missionaries need to inflate meaningless corrections to obfuscate from the faith-crisis they are experiencing.

and Allah knows best.

Textual Criticism Versus Evangelical Beliefs

Posted on February 1, 2018 by Ijaz Ahmad One comment

There has been a trend of late where evangelical apologists are trying to normalize the cc-2018-sitenews-clashingheads use of textual criticism in their understanding of the New Testament. This however, leaves them in an untenable position trying to balance the divergence of textual critical axioms, arguments and evidences with those of their normative faith. This can be seen with apologists such as Dr. White, Dr. Licona and Dr. Wallace. All three are studying or have studied textual criticism to some degree and there stands a myriad of obvious issues that need be sorted out.

Consider the case of the nature of revelation itself. On a recent Dividing Line program Dr. White along with Dr. Brown chose to argue that the Greek Septuagint was stronger in its wording than the Masoretic Text and Dead Sea Scrolls were when it came to prophecies about Jesus (John Calvin notably argued the same for Paul’s use of the Septuagint and its associated divergences). The obvious issue here is that according to their own classical beliefs, the Old Testament was not revealed (and written) in Greek. Surely then, according to the confessions, it is traditionally understood that inerrancy primarily refers to the autographs. In other words, God chose the men who wrote the “books” of the Old Testament in a specific language. God chose men, again, according to their beliefs to word scripture to the best degree of accuracy and understanding possible. How is it then possible that a translation by unknown people can represent scripture better than the people that God chose to represent His teachings for Him? That does not make sense. Yet this is the position they now hold to, a position that is absolutely advantageous for Muslims doing da’wah.

Then there is the other argument of the Old Testament (as per the program responded to here), that it descended to us in various streams and that different scribes (as well as copyists) chose one variant over another because they completed the exposition of a verse better, as Dr. White referred to it, “sermonic expansion”. So there was addition to the text, addition not by the initial authors whom God chose, yet somehow this is not corruption. Odd reasoning here. Clearly cognitive dissonance at work. What then do we make of the claim that there were different streams? Yes, we agree, but did God intend to give authority to each stream? If that was the case then the later Masoretic Text would have authorial primacy and importance, rather than a translation in the form of the Septuagint that came before it, if we were to consider it with respect to chronology. Yet we find most Christian apologists referring and giving importance to the Septuagint while wholly ignoring the Latin and Samaritan texts, are those too not viable streams? Who then, gave the scribes authority to choose from those streams? Those anonymous and unknowable scribes? Again, problems arise.

What then do we make of the claim that there existed actual men within the first century by the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John who would be considered the initial authors? Isn’t it the case in New Testament Textual Criticism through stemmatics and philology that each Gospel is a composite work, the result of more than one author in various periods throughout history? How then can Matthew be one man and yet many, not existing at one time, but many simultaneously? Yes, I do recognize such thinking to be absurd, which is why I find it almost impossible to take anyone seriously who argues for a singular, inspired authorship, yet still accepts – at the same time – that there were multiple authors to one text as is the standard position. Yes, you are right in asking that no right thinking evangelical would accept composite authorship, yet today in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, the standard critical text that the aforementioned men believe in, contains conjectural emendations. These are instances where the textual critic has decided that their version of a passage best represents the original without any manuscript evidence for their version ever having existed. Surely, today’s evangelicals don’t hold to the position that the folks on the Nestle-Aland committee are inspired by God, so wouldn’t that then confirm they accept the words of multiple people for one Gospel, rather than one individual from the 1st century? It does, yet again we arrive at a problem.

So while I am happy that today’s Christian apologists are becoming more liberal towards the New Testament and affirming the Qur’an’s claims about their attitude to Scripture, I also mourn for the aloofness that abounds otherwise.

and God knows best.

Comparison: Scribes of The Qur’an vs Scribes of the New Testament (Part 2)

Posted on July 9, 2015 by Ijaz Ahmad One comment

Last week we took a cursory look at the known scribes of the Qur’an, in comparison with the known scribes of the New Testament. This week, we’re going to venture a little deeper into understanding why the identity of the authors and scribes (amanuenses and copyists) is of concern to the modern reader. Unlike the Qur’an, the veracity of the New Testament is based on the claim that it is from eyewitnesses:

For almost seventeen hundred years, Christians regarded the four canonical Gospels as being, among other things, records of what actually happened. Divine inspiration seemed to guarantee historical veracity, as did the belief that the purported authors of those Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were either eyewitnesses or friends of eyewitnesses.[1]

It is therefore touted as a historical work, based on the witness of contemporaneous sources. However, both early sources and later sources agreed throughout Church history that the New Testament was ahistorical in many cases and as one Church Father would put it, based on “material falsehood”:

Even more clear-eyed was Origen, who in the third century anticipated modern criticism by candidly observing that at “many points” the four Gospels “do not agree.” He inferred that their truth cannot reside in “the material letter:” The Evangelists “sometimes altered things which, from the eye of history, occurred otherwise.” They could “speak of something thing that happened in one place as if it had happened in another, or of what happened at a certain time as if it had happened at another time,” and they introduced “into what was spoken in a certain way some changes of their own.” “The spiritual truth was often preserved, one might say, in the material falsehood.”[2]

The issue of scribes altering original works is not alien to the New Testament itself. A warning in Revelation 22, the last book of the Bible was placed there to very specifically warn scribes from altering the work, the author(s) of this work then, at the very least were aware of the fate that had befallen other Christian works of that time and prayed that this would not happen to their own:

“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.”[3]

For those who argue that this book was written early, this quote demonstrates that at the time it was written scribes were altering works at such a scale of worry that the author(s) had to invoke a curse and warn them from altering their own work! Commenting on this passage, Phillip Comfort states:

“Since writers in antiquity were well aware that their books could be changed by scribes in successive copies, they made these warnings. Undoubtedly, they knew that there would be unintentional mistakes, which come through the course of making manuscripts. What they were hoping to protect against was intentional alteration of the writing.”[4]

What kind of intentional changes do we find in the New Testament manuscript tradition?

“Those who study the text and the history of its transmission realize that most of the substantive changes were made in the interest of “improving” the text. Various scribes were motivated to make changes in the text for the sake of harmonizing Gospel accounts, eliminating difficult doctrinal statements, and/or adding accounts from oral tradition.”[5]

“Whereas readers do this gap-filling in their imaginations only, scribes sometimes took the liberty to fill the unwritten gaps with written words. In other words, some scribes went beyond just imagining how the gaps should be filled and actually filled them. The historical evidence shows that each scribe who made a text created a new written text. Although there are many factors that could have contributed to the making of this new text, one major factor is that the text constantly demands the reader to fill in the gaps. During the reading process, the reader must concretize the gaps by using his or her imagination to give substance to textual omission and/or indefiniteness. Since this substantiation is a subjective and creative act, the concretization will assume many variations for different readers.”[6]

“Metzger considered the early Western text to be the work of a reviser “who was obviously a meticulous and well-informed scholar, [who] eliminated seams and gaps and added historical, biographical, and geographical details. Apparently the reviser did his work at an early date, before the text of Acts had come to be generally regarded as a sacred text that must be preserved inviolate.”[7]

“More often than not, the editors of the UBS/NA text considered the Alexandrian text, as the shorter text, to have preserved the original wording in Acts. My view is that in nearly every instance where the D-text stands alone (against other witnesses—especially the Alexandrian), it is a case of the Western scribe functioning as a reviser who enhanced the text with redactional fillers. This reviser must have been a well-informed scholar, who had a penchant for adding historical, biographical, and geographical details (as noted by Metzger). More than anything, he was intent on filling in gaps in the narrative by adding circumstantial details. Furthermore, he shaped the text to favor the Gentiles over the Jews, to promote Paul’s apostolic mission, and to heighten the activity of the Holy Spirit in the work of the apostles.”[8]

In Uloom al Hadeeth or the Science of Hadeeth, criticism of a transmitter is necessary for validating or verifying the information they are transmitting. This type of criticism is known as Rijal al Hadeeth, in which the character of the transmitter is examined. One might wonder, how detailed is this science in Islam? The following text should clarify the extent to which our methodology goes in order to validate information on a transmitter:

“A man bore witness in the presence of `Umar ibn al-Khattaab -radiyallaahu `anhu, so `Umar said to him: “I do not know you, and it does not harm you that I do not know you, but bring someone who does know you.”

So a man said: ‘I know him, O Chief of the Believers.’
He said: “What do you know of him.”

He said: ‘Uprightness.’
He said: “Is he your closest neighbour; so that you know about his night and his day, and his comings and goings?”

He said: ‘No.’

He said: “So have you had (monetary) dealings with him involving dirhams and deenars, which will indicate his piety?”

He said: ‘No.’

He said: “Then has he been your companion upon a journey which could indicate to you his good character?”

He said: ‘No.’

He said: “Then you do not know him.”

Then he said to the man: “Bring me someone who knows you.”[9]

Such a detailed criticism of any transmitter (whether orally or textually) in early Christianity has never been done, nor had such a science been developed in the Christian tradition. Rather, the most critical methodology of verifying information in the Christian tradition has been one of assumption. Rather than critically examining the characters of scribes, and transmitters, it is assumed that the earliest witnesses would have corrected misinformation from being shared:

“The primary reason is that the writers (or their immediate successors) were alive at the time and therefore could challenge any significant, unauthorized alterations. As long as eyewitnesses such as John or Peter were alive, who would dare change any of the Gospel accounts in any significant manner? Any one among the Twelve could have testified against any falsification.”[10]

We’ve already seen just how unreliable the early scribes were, and now that we know that there was no methodology to verify early transmitting of information, how can we be certain that if we assume the disciples were around, that they would be able to correct and thus stop misinformation from spreading? We cannot be certain of this, in fact, this assumption is erroneous given that the very Gospels themselves which are alleged to have been written during the time of the 12 disciples can’t even get the origin of Jesus meeting some of his most important disciples correct! In the origin story of the disciple Phillip, Jesus meets Philip in the city of Bethsaida. This is anachronistic, as Bethsaida only became a city after the ministry of Jesus ended. Therefore when Jesus met Philip in Bethsaida, it was considered a village. The Gospel of Mark in 8:23 correctly identifies it as a village (Greek: kome), but John in 1:44 refers to it as a city (Greek: polis). Considering that three disciples, Philip, Andrew and Peter were from Bethsaida, then how is it possible that all three of them let such a minor detail in one of the twelve’s origin stories be incorrect?

So that’s a minor detail, what about the origin stories for both Peter and Andrew?

In Matthew 4:18, Jesus meets Peter and Andrew on the seashore while fishing with nets. At that time the poorer fishermen did not have boats and so they would cast nets from the shoreline and catch whatever they could have. Just three verses later in 21 – 22, Jesus meets James and John with their father, who unlike Peter and Andrew, have a boat and are mending their nets. So Jesus in 5 verses, meets four of his most prominent disciples. In Mark 1:16 – 20, he tells us the same story in Matthew, but with a big difference, the third man in the boat when Jesus meets James and John for the first time is a hired servant and not their father, thus showing their wealth in comparison with Peter and Andrew. He makes the distinction between their places in society more noticeable.

In Luke though, it’s a different story. Jesus when he first comes to Capernaum, goes to Peter’s house and cures his mother in law (Luke 4:38). Then later, he stumbles across Peter on the shore of the lake, but they have a boat and he finds Peter mending a net, not using it to fish, a different story from Matthew. Jesus then proceeds to embark on Peter’s boat, perform a miracle in the lake and it is then that James and John notices the miracle and joins Peter. Again, this contradicts both Matthew and Mark’s story in which Peter, Andrew and Jesus while walking on the shoreline, spots James and John, then they leave their boat and follow Jesus on the shore. Have you noticed Luke never mentions Andrew? That’s a problem because in John’s account, Andrew met Jesus when Jesus was at the River Jordan with John the Baptist. Then Andrew finds Peter and takes him to meet Jesus (John 1:39-42). Then they go to Galilee in the region of Bethsaida. No mention of meeting on a boat, by a boat, because of a boat, or because of fishing, a completely different narrative. Definitely no mention of either James or John, the sons of Zebedee.

All four Gospels, have contradictions, errors and in some cases, a completely different narrative regarding the origin of Jesus meeting four of his twelve disciples. As we read earlier, according to Christian scholarship, if the disciples were alive they would have corrected any falsification, as we have just seen, either the disciples were complicit in falsifying information or the Gospel stories as we currently possess them were not verified by the disciples themselves. In fact, the reason that we cannot critically assess the character of any of the early transmitters in Christianity, or its disciples is because we know so little about them. Take for example, the rock on which Jesus is alleged to have built his Church, the disciple Peter, the most important disciple. What do we know about Peter?

“It is one of the inscrutable ironies of Christianity’s humble beginnings that we know so little about Jesus of Nazareth’s leading disciple— the one identified in the Gospel of Matthew as the “rock” on whom Jesus would build his church, listed in later Christian tradition as Rome’s first bishop, and one of its two apostolic martyrs at the hands of Emperor Nero. But who was this man, and what happened to him? Any conventional quest for a “historical Peter” runs into the ground rather swiftly.”[11]

“Yet they remain remarkably vague or silent about many of the things we would like to know about this apostle’s origin, character, missionary career, and death. Why would these sources show such a lack of interest in the fate of such a prominent apostle? This can only leave the modern reader frustrated and mystified. The historical Peter himself left virtually nothing in writing, and even less of archaeological interest— whether in his native Galilee, in Jerusalem or Caesarea, in Antioch or Corinth.”[12]

“Among the numerous extant writings in his name, there are of course two short and remarkably different letters of uncertain date and origin in the NT. Beyond that, we have a bewildering range of apocryphal sources, styled as written by or about him, dating from the second through (at least) the sixth century. The authenticity of these documents remains contested among scholars of diverse critical presuppositions. On perusing the scholarly secondary literature, it seems hard to dispel the impression that the vast majority of leading specialists on both sides of the Atlantic now regard neither of the NT’s two Petrine letters as coming from Peter’s own pen.”[13]

It is amazing that Christians would like to tell us what the disciples believed about Jesus, but the reality is that they themselves do not know much, if anything about Peter. Moreso, not only do they know nothing about Peter, they have very little to tell us about the origins, or ends of any of the disciples. Therefore, when Christians claim that the New Testament is based on eyewitness testimony and that the New Testament is historically accurate, on what basis are they making these claims? The early Church had no methodology for verifying and validating information made about Jesus, the one theory Christian scholarship offered about the disciples correcting information did not stand up to scrutiny, historically we know nothing about the earliest witnesses, therefore by every criteria they claim to stand on, the New Testament fails every one of them.

In contrast to the disaster that is the Christian transmission of information, the sciences of Uloom al Hadeeth and Uloom al Qur’an, are far more detailed and critical of transmitters. More critical, than any methodology ever offered by the Christian tradition. It is often claimed that our hadeeth corpus is on par with the New Testament’s authenticity, but as demonstrated last week, this cannot be the case. Pursuant to this, if one of the sub-sciences of Uloom al Hadeeth, Rijal al Hadeeth, is more demanding and critical than any methodology ever used in Christian scholastic history to validate or verify the New Testament, then it stands to reason that our weakest narrations from the hadeeth corpus are more authentic, valid and historically viable than the entire New Testament.

and Allah knows best.

Sources:

Allison, Dale C., Jr.. The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus (Kindle Locations 32-34). Kindle Edition.
Allison, Dale C., Jr.. The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus (Kindle Locations 42-46). Kindle Edition.
Unknown. The Book of Revelation, 22:18-19. NIV 2011.
Comfort, Phillip (2010-07-19). Encountering the Manuscripts (Kindle Locations 6833-6835). B&H Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Comfort, Phillip (2010-07-19). Encountering the Manuscripts (Kindle Locations 6890-6892). B&H Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Comfort, Phillip (2010-07-19). Encountering the Manuscripts (Kindle Locations 8023-8028). B&H Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Comfort, Phillip (2010-07-19). Encountering the Manuscripts (Kindle Locations 8691-8694). B&H Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Comfort, Phillip (2010-07-19). Encountering the Manuscripts (Kindle Locations 8702-8708). B&H Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Reported by al-Bayhaqee and others, and it was declared to be ‘saheeh’ (authentic) by Ibnus-Sakan, and our Shaykh (Muhammad Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee) agreed; and refer to ’al-Irwaa’ no. 2637. As recommended by the blog’s owner, Br. Omar.
Comfort, Phillip (2010-07-19). Encountering the Manuscripts (Kindle Locations 6801-6803). B&H Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Bockmuehl, Markus (2012-11-01). Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory: The New Testament Apostle in the Early Church (p. 3). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Bockmuehl, Markus (2012-11-01). Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory: The New Testament Apostle in the Early Church (p. 3). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Bockmuehl, Markus (2012-11-01). Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory: The New Testament Apostle in the Early Church (p. 4). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Comparison: Scribes of the Qur’an vs Scribes of the New Testament (Part 1)

Posted on July 3, 2015 by Ijaz Ahmad 3 comments

A quick comparison on the identities of the scribes of the Qur’an and the scribe(s) of the New Testament. Quite the disparity!

Click to Enlarge

The list of names of the Qur’anic scribes was transcribed from Shaykh Muhammad Mustafa al Azami’s work on the Qur’an’s preservation[1]. To understand why the New Testament has unknown scribes, it should be noted that Irenaeus in 185 CE, was the first to name the authors of the New Testament gospels[2][3]. Prior to this, no name was attached to them and none of their authors were known. Moreover, since none of their authors were known, we know of none of their scribes. Comparisons are usually made between the hadith corpus and that of the New Testament. However, this is the fallacy of false equivalency, as the conditions for establishing a narration as da’eef, or weak is not met by the New Testament literature:

The Riwaayah of an unknown person is not acceptable because if his name is not known then his Haal (condition) cannot be defined (as to whether he is reliable or not). The Saheeh (correct) verdict is that a Mubham (unknown) Raawi cannot be declared as Aadil (reliable).[4]

On this basis, at the very least, the New Testament does not compare to a single weakly graded tradition from the hadith corpus.

Note: Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan (d. 640 CE), is not to be confused with Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah (d. 683 CE), they are two different persons.

and Allah knows best.

Sources:

Al Azami, Muhammad Mustafa. The History of the Qur’ānic Text: From Revelation to Compilation : A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments. Leicester: UK Islamic Academy, 2003. 68. Print.
Ehrman, Bart. “The Gospels Are Finally Named! Irenaeus of Lyons.” The Gospels Are Finally Named! Irenaeus of Lyons. – Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog. 18 Nov. 2014. Web. 3 July 2015.
Irenaeus, Saint. Adversus Haereses. Vol. 3. Print.
Al Asqalani, Ibn Hajr. Nukhbat Al-Fikar Fī Muṣṭalaḥ Ahl Al Athar. 62. Print.

FAQS

The Pauline Problem

Posted on May 22, 2014 by Ijaz Ahmad 6 comments

Paul has always been a controversial figure in the Christian faith. Some scholars like Dr. Tabor and Prof. Eisenman have identified Paul as the HaKohen Harasa, the “Wicked Priest” as is recorded in the Dead Sea scrolls. Proto-Orthodox Christians believed he was an Apostle of God, and thus a central and authoritative figure of the Christian faith. Islam’s view of Paul is largely negative, most viewing him as a corrupter of the faith of Jesus the Son of Mary, a similar belief to that of the views attributed to the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the people of Qumran.

The Disciples of Jesus

The problem of Paul though, begins with the problems of the disciples. We must understand that the disciples were the ones chosen by God to accompany the Christ in his mission throughout the lands of Palestine. Richard Newton writes in his book, “The Life of Jesus for the Young“, he states the following, “It was necessary for these men to be chosen.” These men were chosen to accompany the Christ, so that they could have learned from him, seen his ways, studied from his teachings and from then on, to continue the work that the Christ had started. It is recorded in Matthew 10:5-6, the following commands of Jesus the Christ:

“These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.”

This command is very important, Jesus the Christ is delimiting the disciples on the scope of their missionary work. He directs them to absolutely convey the message he preaches, to the sheep of Israel. To further confirm this message of being sent to only the twelve tribes of Israel, we read from Matthew 15:21-28:

“21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.” 23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” 25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. 26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” 27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” 28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.”

There are many things to be learnt from here, but the most important are:

Jesus reiterates the scope of his preaching, that is, to the sheep of Israel.
The curing of the Canaanite woman’s daughter is an exception to the rule and not the rule in itself.
The disciples witnessed this incident and learnt from it

This passage is unfortunately misrepresented by many Christians to demonstrate that Christ’s message was for all peoples, as in the example above he cures a Canaanite girl. The problem for those who interpret this passage in such a way, is that Jesus did not state that this was his new philosophy, he reiterates, emphasizes only a few verses before that he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. His curing of this woman’s daughter, is an exception to the rule and not a rule in itself. This is often difficult for Christians to digest. Jesus explicitly states who he was sent for, and him doing an act contrary to his own teachings would label him a liar. Surely, the Christ is not a liar, he still retained the belief that he was only sent for the lost sheep of Israel, after curing this Canaanite girl. There is no passage in which he goes off after this incident and preaches to the gentiles, therefore this incident was an exception to the rule and not the rule in itself. It is important to note that the disciples witnessed this, we need to hold this point in mind for now, as it will correlate with what we read further on.

These disciples were chosen by the Christ, to teach God’s message as instructed by the Christ. They were to carry on after him, or carry the message in whichever city or town he directed them to.

The Dilemma

If the disciples were specifically chosen by the Christ to spread the message given to him by God, then the Christian faith would have us believe that either Christ or God, whoever chose these men, made a gross and negligent error. The image painted of the disciples in the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles is one of great ineptitude, hypocrisy, lying, forgetfulness and ignorance. Here are a few examples of the incapability of these men to understand the Christ. How could they teach his message, yet alone preserve it, if they were unable to even understand it?

Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” – Matthew 16:23

But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” – Mark 8:33

This incident is of great concern. Peter is the one upon whom the Church was to be built (Matthew 16:18), the Christ says to Peter a few verses before referring to him as Satan, “the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” How absurd is such an incident! Within the space of 5 verses, Satanic influences will never overcome Peter, but a few verses down and the Christ is directly referring to Peter as Satanic. What message are we to take from this? We continue to read:

“23 Then he got into the boat and his disciples followed him. 24 Suddenly a furious storm came up on the lake, so that the waves swept over the boat. But Jesus was sleeping. 25 The disciples went and woke him, saying, “Lord, save us! We’re going to drown!” 26 He replied, “You of little faith, why are you so afraid?” Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was completely calm.” – Matthew 8:23-26

The disciples are of weak and of little faith. Somehow having a God-man in front of them was not enough to convince them of his power, at this point in time they clearly were concerned about their well being, if they had the belief that Jesus was a deity, then they would not have been concerned in the least. To the contrary, they awoke him when they found their lives and his life to be endangered, Jesus then rebukes them for their little faith. A question needs to be asked here, in what regard was their faith, little? If they believed he was a God, then either awake or asleep, he would be all knowing and would protect them. If they believed in him as a messenger of God, a human, then waking him to invoke the mercy of God would save them from the perilous waters. Therefore since they woke him to make him aware of the dangerous weather, then it clearly implies they did not view him as a deity. He rebukes them in this case because they should have been aware that God would protect him and his disciples, for God is always in control of the earth. If we do take this verse in the Christian sense though, it becomes problematic as it renders the disciples as people of little faith despite the deity among them. Continuing, we read in Luke 9:46-50:

46 An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. 47 Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. 48 Then he said to them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For it is the one who is least among you all who is the greatest.” 49 “Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.” 50 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”

This paints the disciples as people seeking fame, greatness, without regard for serving God and being humble in their servitude. The Christ though, says something towards the end of the passage that reflects awfully on Paul, “for whoever is not against you is for you“. Either way, this passage demonstrates great moral faults with the disciples and their behaviour. We read in another passage from the Gospel attributed to John, in John 21:20-22:

“20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?” 22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?””

In this incident, the disciples are not only jealous of each other, they completely misunderstand what Jesus is trying to teach them. It would also seem that a scribe has commented on this by trying to explain why the disciples were mistaken and what they should have understood from Christ’s words, versus what they understood. Another negative picture of the disciples is shown here, in Matthew 26:40-46:

“Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Couldn’t you men keep watch with me for one hour?” he asked Peter. 41 “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” 42 He went away a second time and prayed, “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.” 43 When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. 44 So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing. 45 Then he returned to the disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour has come, and the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners. 46 Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!””

These passages illustrate for us, even more weakness in faith from the disciples. They willingly disobey the Christ, they refuse to follow his instructions and they chose to sleep rather than pray for the Christ. This is at the end of Christ’s ministry, if they expected Jesus to die soon or to be crucified, then one would expect them to be up all night in prayer, seeking protection for their teacher. However, they clearly are not willing to do so and the Christ being tortured to death is of little concern, as opposed to a comfortable sleep.

The Arrival of Paul

Paul’s epistles were authored somewhere between 47 CE and 65 CE. This is some 14 years after the time of Christ. Between 33 CE and 47 CE, we would expect many of the Jews to be told of their works and their teachings, etc. In fact, the Jews of Jerusalem and in many towns and cities were beginning to accept Jesus as the Messiah, they sat with and learned from the disciples:

“11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? 15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.” – Galatians 2:11-16.

We will return to this passage shortly. There is something important to be pointed out, 14 years since Jesus’ ascension, the disciples continued to preach solely to the lost sheep of Israel and made their base of operations, Jerusalem. Paul disagrees with them on many issues, and insults them, referring to them as hypocrites who are condemned by the law. There are a few facts that need to be stated:

Paul’s works preceded the Gospels.
Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles far outnumbered the congregation of the Jews following the teachings of the Christ.

This is important, because it then allows us to understand that in order for Paul to have gained authority in the Church, he would have to denigrate the disciples and create the impression that they were not true to Christ. Surely, Paul’s animosity and hate for the disciples, manifested itself into the Gospel accounts which later corroborated/ confirmed the views of Paul in their descriptions of the disciples as inept, ignorant and weak in faith. Paul’s rise to authority in the Church is based upon the inaction and misguidance of the disciples of Christ. This would undoubtedly have to mean that either God or Christ made the wrong decision on choosing 12 disciples to convey God’s message as for 14 years they failed to do so and were hypocrites, and of little faith. In order for Christians to believe that Paul rebuked them for not conveying God’s true message, Christians must believe that the disciples were disobedient and failed to properly teach the Christ’s message, and that they were hiding the true message of preaching to all peoples and not just to the people of Israel.

Earlier, I had quoted Luke 9:50, which said, “for whoever is not against you is for you“. Since Paul was against the disciples and their teachings, then it would mean that he was not commissioned by God. The litmus test is clear. If God instructed a person to continue teaching the message of the Christ, then their teachings would be in accordance with the disciples. However, if this person was not instructed by God, then it would mean they would find faults and issues with the teachings of the disciples. In fact, in Galatians 1:-9 we read:

“6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!”

According to this passage, the disciples and students of the disciples are preaching a fundamentally variant Gospel, in contradiction to Paul’s Gospel. He even claims that the disciples whom he would later confront as hypocrites and claim them to be condemned, were trying to pervert the Gospel of the Christ! Therefore the negative images portrayed of the disciples by the unknown Gospel authors stems from the negative connotations of them as taught by Paul in his bid to win authority over them and over the Gospel of Christ. Paul clearly states that he was a deluded individual, under the command of a Messenger of Satan, we read from 2 Corinthians 12:6 the following:

“6 Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say, 7 or because of these surpassingly great revelations. Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.”

Paul believes boasting about himself was not sinful, and would not make him a fool because the authority given to him allegedly by Christ was truthful! Then he admits he was given a Messenger of Satan to torment him, he clearly sounds like a deluded individual, something he later confirms by saying:

“11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie” – 2 Thessalonians 2:11

Putting these two statements of Paul together, we can thereby understand that God did send him a delusion/ Messenger of Satan and Paul believed that he was an apostle and given authority! Despite the fact that he failed the litmus test above, in his opposition to the disciples and his own confessions, Christians still continue to believe him, over the words of Christ and the disciples.

The Destruction of the Message of the Christ

After discrediting the disciples and spreading his version of the Gospel to the gentiles, Paul went on to revel in his leadership of them. In Acts 9:15-16 we read the following:

““Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.””

How odd is this proclamation? God already chose 12 worthy persons to convey his message to the children of Israel, people He believed were competent and reliable to spread the message of Christ, the Gospel. However, as we read here, God made a mistake and entrusted the message of Christ with people who were corrupting it, hiding it and not spreading it to the rest of the world, that being the gentiles. So 14 years later, God decides to choose a man known for opposing the beliefs of the Christians (something he didn’t change as he went on to denigrate the teachings of the disciples), to then share his own interpretation of Christ’s message with the gentiles.

The Unfortunate Conclusion

In his entire lifetime, Jesus the Christ focused on spreading and teaching his message to the sheep of Israel. He commanded his disciples to do the same. Christians would have us believe that God made a mistake in choosing the disciples, that they corrupted Jesus Gospel and preached something contrary to it, and that despite Jesus restricting his teachings to the sheep of Israel, he was actually supposed to preach to everyone.

I choose to believe that Christ did not lie in his teachings and that he fulfilled God’s commands, and that the disciples chosen were competent, honest, faithful and sincere men, I do not believe that Christ made a mistake and forgot who his message was for, and I certainly do not believe that the disciples were idiots, uneducated, misunderstanding, lazy and ignorant men who hid and corrupted the message of Christ.

It is with this having been said, that I declare Paul to be a problem to the Gospel of Christ, as he degrades the Christ and his specifically chosen disciples.

and God knows best.

Muslim and Non-Muslim Dialogue

Was Qur’an’s chapter 18 plagiarized?

Posted on January 3, 2014 by Abu Rahma One comment

Since the very first day Islam has been attacked fruitlessly. Thousands and thousands of books, articles and pamphlets have been written against it. One such attack that has been relatively new is the claim of plagiarism of 18^th chapter of the Qur’an, Surah Kahf (The Cave), by Prophet Muhammad –on him be the peace and blessings of Allah. Read more

Muslim and Non-Muslim Dialogue

« Older Entries

	Rawya abd EL- Azyz on The Significance of the S…
	Zozeph Francisco on The Birth Narratives of Jesus…
	mr.heathcliff on The Birth Narratives of Jesus…
	mr.heathcliff on Abraham Righteous Solely by…
	mr.heathcliff on Abraham Righteous Solely by…