Could al-Injeel and the Q-source document be one and the same?

[Grace Seeker]

An interesting query was posted in another thread. I thought it might deserve a discussion all its own.

:sl:
That is an interesting possibility. I've wondered if Al-Injeel is actually the sayings gospel, i.e., Q that scholars have tried to extrapolate as the authentic words of Jesus pbuh. If it is Q then it would contain the essence of his message in his own words at some point in time without the taint of all the extraneous material added in by the unknown authors of the gospels.

If you ever read what most scholars have concluded is the Q sayings gospel it doesn't say anything about the trinity, or him being God or a lot of the other baggage that Christians hold on to now. It is just the pure message that he delivered.
:wa:

There are several issues here. I suspect that we would do better to deal with them separately first so that we know the facts before trying to jump to any conclusion. As I see them, the issues that must first be resolved are:

1) What does the Qur'an and Hadith have to say about the Injeel?

2) What are we referring to when speaking of the Q-source?

3) If we don't have an actual copy of either document, how can we talk about the content of either of them with any assurance that either ever even existed as a document, let alone we can that we can assert with any degree of reliability what is posited to have been written in them?

If there is a Muslim willing to address questions #1 & #3 with respect to the Injeel, I can try to address #2 and #3 with respect to "Q".

[IAmZamzam]

1) What does the Qur'an and Hadith have to say about the Injeel?

I don’t know about the ahadith but the Koran says in 5:46 and 57:27 that it was directly given to Jesus (P) himself.

2) What are we referring to when speaking of the Q-source?

A completely hypothetical document born of the typical arrogance of modern historical scholars in thinking that they can guess things to a tee about any historical subject based on the silliest jumps to conclusion they call “evidence”. If putting together an entire theoretical document, thousands of words long, doesn’t prove that’s what they do, nothing ever will.

Short answer (two letters long, in fact): it’s B.S.

3) If we don't have an actual copy of either document, how can we talk about the content of either of them with any assurance that either ever even existed as a document, let alone we can that we can assert with any degree of reliability what is posited to have been written in them?

We know of only one specific thing for certain that is written in al-Injeel (Koran 48:29). As for the rest, it is of no importance to Muslims whatsoever given that we believe everything we need from al-Injeel is in the Koran, whereas Christians were so desperate to find any real ground to stand on that they had to invent Q out of thin air.

If there is a Muslim willing to address questions #1 & #3 with respect to the Injeel, I can try to address #2 and #3 with respect to "Q".

I personally don’t care. For your information, though, there is proof of there being many lost Gospels, some of which we know only the (perhaps possible or alternate) titles of, and probably some that we don’t know anything about at all or even whether they existed. There isn’t a scrap of proof for anything about Q anymore than there is for Arthur Miller’s “reconstruction” of historical events in “The Crucible”.

[Zafran]

For starters we know that christ would not be preaching Gospel according to mark, Like, matthew and John and whenever he went he preached the gospel - or translated Injeel.

3) If we don't have an actual copy of either document, how can we talk about the content of either of them with any assurance that either ever even existed as a document, let alone we can that we can assert with any degree of reliability what is posited to have been written in them?

Injeel is the revelation given to christ - what he said and taught - not according to this guy or that guy which is what christians have - like hadith with no science of hadith.

[Grace Seeker]

2) What are we referring to when speaking of the Q-source?

A completely hypothetical document born of the typical arrogance of modern historical scholars in thinking that they can guess things to a tee about any historical subject based on the silliest jumps to conclusion they call “evidence”.

haha In many ways I feel exactly the same. But, since it has been hypothesized, perhaps it would do well for those unfamiliar with the concept to give a little information with regard to the theory positing its existence.


If one reads the gospel accounts about Jesus (yes, for the benefit of the Muslims community here I said "about", not "of", for I'm not arguing that the existing gospels are "by" Jesus) -- those being Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John -- one notices that the first three of them have roughly, but not exactly, the same larger storyline. Indeed, in some places they are so similar that one suspects that perhaps they copied from one another in writing them. Yet, there are also sections that are unique to each individually. In the 19th century, a theory was proposed by a New Testament scholar in Germany that Matthew and Luke were written after Mark and borrowed heavily from Mark in writing their gospel accounts and this would account for how so much of Mark is found in both Matthew and Luke. However, it didn't answer the question about other significant sections of Matthew and Luke that are parallel with each other but are NOT in Mark. So, it was also proposed that just as Matthew and Luke must have borrowed from Mark, that there must have been another common source that Matthew and Luke also used in addition to Mark. Those passages that Matthew and Luke seemed to share in common that were not Markan in character were primarily collections of sayings (rather than narrative material recording events and actions) and the originator of this theory called this hypothesized source document by the name Quelle, which is German for "source", and the name "Q" has stuck in reference to it ever since.

In short, the theory claims that it is everything that Matthew and Luke share in common with one another that is not already also to be found in Mark. An example would be Jesus' most famous sermon (known as the sermon on the mount in Matthew and the sermon on the plain in Luke).

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Grace Seeker]

Adding more credibility to the theory is the existence of other non-canonical material produced by Christians around the same time that have similar sayings of Jesus as that which is posited to be the content of Q. Most notable among them is the Gospel of Thomas which is primarily a collection of Jesus' sayings without a narrative of Jesus passion. An examination of the canonical gospels shows that they virtually half of the content of those books is reserved to the description of Jesus' death and resurrection, with the collection of material that records Jesus' teachings to be of lesser importance to the canonical authors than the telling of the passion narrative.

This raises several questions of its own:
Did Matthew and Luke feel that there was a need to wed together these sayings that were reported to be from Jesus with the events of his life as the motivation for their gospels?
Even if there was a Q source for Jesus' sayings, how reliable was it? Was it oral or written?
Even on these passages that Matthew and Luke have in common that are supposedly based on Q, there are still differences. Could there have been more than one source for the Q material? Is Matthew or Luke more faithful in transmitting it?

My personal view is that there had to be lots of stories circulating about Jesus. It makes sense that Matthew and Luke would have used any they had knowledge of in preparing their gospel accounts. Presuppositions with regard to the dating of the gospels is going to influence with whether one supposes an oral tradition or a written source document. The existance of such a source, be it in oral or written form, provides continuity between the initial phase of the Christian community that knew Jesus and those that became ingrafted to it within the first generation but did not personally know Jesus. And the content of those sayings makes clear that the initial focus was an eschatological one, a proclamation that the kingdom of God was near and to expect God to consumate his redemption of the world soon. Jesus' life may have been understood as the downpayment on that promised fulfillment. Perhaps this is why that the sayings could initially exist without being joined to the passion narrative (which nonetheless also existed as a part of the kerygma from the beginning of the church as is evidence by the didache), but with the passage of time there became a felt need to record both for future generations.

In the end, I don't think we can know for certain. 120 years of speculations from scholars and amateurs alike has advanced the theory, but has done little to prove anything one way or the other.

[Hiroshi]

For starters we know that christ would not be preaching Gospel according to mark, Like, matthew and John and whenever he went he preached the gospel - or translated Injeel.

Injeel is the revelation given to christ - what he said and taught - not according to this guy or that guy which is what christians have - like hadith with no science of hadith.

Surah 7:157 says: "Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them." (Pickthal)

This shows that the Gospel existed with Christians who became followers of Muhammad in the 7th century.

And this link:
http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/dawah/0014.htm

contains an article written by Muslims that calls attention to Surah 7:157 and then refers the reader to verses in the Bible including passages from Matthew and John. Unless the article is intended to mislead the reader completely, this clearly acknowledges Surah 7:157 to be referring to the Gospel of the Bible that we have today.

[Zafran]

Surah 7:157 says: "Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them." (Pickthal)

This shows that the Gospel existed with Christians who became followers of Muhammad in the 7th century.

And this link:
http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/dawah/0014.htm

contains an article written by Muslims that calls attention to Surah 7:157 and then refers the reader to verses in the Bible including passages from Matthew and John. Unless the article is intended to mislead the reader completely, this clearly acknowledges Surah 7:157 to be referring to the Gospel of the Bible that we have today.

So are you saying that the Gospel that christ was preaching was according to matthew, mark luke and John? or the 5 books of Moses pbuh which talk about Moses pbuh being buried are the Torah given to Moses pbuh?

By the way if you carry on reading you'll see that the Quran also says

007.162
"But the transgressors among them changed the word from that which had been given them so we sent on them a plague from heaven. For that they repeatedly transgressed."

As i said before the Gospel is like a hadith rather then a pure revelation.

[Hiroshi]

So are you saying that the Gospel that christ was preaching was according to matthew, mark luke and John? or the 5 books of Moses pbuh which talk about Moses pbuh being buried are the Torah given to Moses pbuh?

By the way if you carry on reading you'll see that the Quran also says

007.162
"But the transgressors among them changed the word from that which had been given them so we sent on them a plague from heaven. For that they repeatedly transgressed."

As i said before the Gospel is like a hadith rather then a pure revelation.

The word that was changed was "hittat" meaning "absolution, indulgence". The Jews changed it to "habbat" meaning "corn".

Yusuf Ali has a footnote to Surah 2:58 which also has reference to Surah 7:162. The footnote says: "The word which the transgressors changed may have been a pass-word. In the Arabic text it is "Hittatun" which implies humility and a prayer of forgiveness, a fitting emblem to distinguish them from their enemies."

I think that you are trying to say that Surah 7:162 means that the writings of the Torah and the Injeel have been changed. As far as I can see it doesn't mean that at all. It refers to literally a single word. And that word was a pass-word, not part of the writings in the Torah or Injeel.

[Zafran]

The word that was changed was "hittat" meaning "absolution, indulgence". The Jews changed it to "habbat" meaning "corn".

Yusuf Ali has a footnote to Surah 2:58 which also has reference to Surah 7:162. The footnote says: "The word which the transgressors changed may have been a pass-word. In the Arabic text it is "Hittatun" which implies humility and a prayer of forgiveness, a fitting emblem to distinguish them from their enemies."

I think that you are trying to say that Surah 7:162 means that the writings of the Torah and the Injeel have been changed. As far as I can see it doesn't mean that at all. It refers to literally a single word. And that word was a pass-word, not part of the writings in the Torah or Injeel.

are you seriously telling us I repeat

that the Gospel that christ was preaching was according to matthew, mark luke and John? or the 5 books of Moses pbuh which talk about Moses pbuh being buried are the Torah given to Moses pbuh???

[Muhaba]

If one reads the gospel accounts about Jesus (yes, for the benefit of the Muslims community here I said "about", not "of", for I'm not arguing that the existing gospels are "by" Jesus) -- those being Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John -- one notices that the first three of them have roughly, but not exactly, the same larger storyline. Indeed, in some places they are so similar that one suspects that perhaps they copied from one another in writing them. Yet, there are also sections that are unique to each individually. In the 19th century, a theory was proposed by a New Testament scholar in Germany that Matthew and Luke were written after Mark and borrowed heavily from Mark in writing their gospel accounts and this would account for how so much of Mark is found in both Matthew and Luke. However, it didn't answer the question about other significant sections of Matthew and Luke that are parallel with each other but are NOT in Mark. So, it was also proposed that just as Matthew and Luke must have borrowed from Mark, that there must have been another common source that Matthew and Luke also used in addition to Mark. Those passages that Matthew and Luke seemed to share in common that were not Markan in character were primarily collections of sayings (rather than narrative material recording events and actions) and the originator of this theory called this hypothesized source document by the name Quelle, which is German for "source", and the name "Q" has stuck in reference to it ever since.

In short, the theory claims that it is everything that Matthew and Luke share in common with one another that is not already also to be found in Mark. An example would be Jesus' most famous sermon (known as the sermon on the mount in Matthew and the sermon on the plain in Luke).

Adding more credibility to the theory is the existence of other non-canonical material produced by Christians around the same time that have similar sayings of Jesus as that which is posited to be the content of Q. Most notable among them is the Gospel of Thomas which is primarily a collection of Jesus' sayings without a narrative of Jesus passion. An examination of the canonical gospels shows that they virtually half of the content of those books is reserved to the description of Jesus' death and resurrection, with the collection of material that records Jesus' teachings to be of lesser importance to the canonical authors than the telling of the passion narrative.

This raises several questions of its own:
Did Matthew and Luke feel that there was a need to wed together these sayings that were reported to be from Jesus with the events of his life as the motivation for their gospels?
Even if there was a Q source for Jesus' sayings, how reliable was it? Was it oral or written?
Even on these passages that Matthew and Luke have in common that are supposedly based on Q, there are still differences. Could there have been more than one source for the Q material? Is Matthew or Luke more faithful in transmitting it?

My personal view is that there had to be lots of stories circulating about Jesus. It makes sense that Matthew and Luke would have used any they had knowledge of in prepaaring their gospel accounts. Presuppositions with regard to the dating of the gospels is going to influence with whether one supposes an oral tradition or a written source document. The existance of such a source, be it in oral or written form, provides continuity between the initial phase of the Christian community that knew Jesus and those that became ingrafted to it within the first generation but did not personally know Jesus. And the content of those sayings makes clear that the initial focus was an eschatological one, a proclamation that the kingdom of God was near and to expect God to consumate his redemption of the world soon. Jesus' life may have been understood as the downpayment on that promised fulfillment. Perhaps this is why that the sayings could initially exist without being joined to the passion narrative (which nonetheless also existed as a part of the kerygma from the beginning of the church as is evidence by the didache), but with the passage of time there became a felt need to record both for future generations.

In the end, I don't think we can know for certain. 120 years of speculations from scholars and amateurs alike has advanced the theory, but has done little to prove anything one way or the other.

So what you are saying is that it's possible Matthew and Luke copied their bible from Mark, or they copied from other oral or written material circulating in their time, which means their bibles weren't inspired by God? That is, they didn't get the material included in their bibles from God. And it's not even certain that they transmitted the information about Jesus truthfully or that the information they transmitted was correct. Afterall, how can you trust a book that isn't from God? for the bibles to be copied from here and there means that it wasn't from God, so it's every bit possible that it contains erroneous material, that the material can get changed since God isn't protecting it. Since your faith is based on this sort of material, how can you be so certain that your belief is correct?

Compare your bible to the Quran which is the exact Word of God, was recorded orally and in written form from the time of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) to whom it was revealed, and is in the exact form today as it was revealed. Then which scripture is more credible?

1) What does the Qur'an and Hadith have to say about the Injeel?

The Quran consists of stories about previous nations and Prophets/ Messengers. What is contained in the Quran either confirms what is in the bible or refutes it. Those parts that the Quran confirms are true statements while those that the Quran refutes are false. One commentator says that if you read the Quranic stories and the biblical accounts side by side you can easily see which parts of the bible are the true statements and which are additions. For example, in the story of Job (Ayoub A.S) God says in the Quran that he was very patient and never lost his patience. on the other hand, the biblical account is filled with contradictions. In one part it says that Job was very patient and in another part it says that he complained to God in a terrible manner.

It might be a good idea to study the Quranic stories along with the biblical ones and then make your decision whether the bible is the exact word of God or whether it has been altered. Give it a try.

[Rabi Mansur]

It is hard for us to know the full extent of what would be in the Injeel. And scholars can only speculate on the sayings that may be included.

The Quran tells us that the Injeel was revealed to Jesus (P) not that the Injeel was about Jesus. So with that in mind, we can be pretty safe in saying it wouldn't consist of the gospels, neither would it consist of the writings of Paul. It was a message (good news) revealed to him.

To me the essence of his message would be about purity of heart, surrender to the reality of the One God (Allah), true prayer, peace and spiritual transformation. I would think it would include a number of sayings and teachings conveying this message that was revealed to him from above. But, I can only give my opinion, because the Injeel is lost to history.

:wa:

[Hiroshi]

are you seriously telling us I repeat

that the Gospel that christ was preaching was according to matthew, mark luke and John?

Well, yes. Jesus preached it before it was written down. Just like the Qur'an.

or the 5 books of Moses pbuh which talk about Moses pbuh being buried are the Torah given to Moses pbuh???

The final 8 verses, i.e. Deuteronomy 34:5-12, speak about Moses' death and burial. Obviously this last part was not recorded by Moses himself. But, yes, the rest of Deuteronomy and the whole of the other four books were written by Moses under inpiration from God.

[Hiroshi]

One commentator says that if you read the Quranic stories and the biblical accounts side by side you can easily see which parts of the bible are the true statements and which are additions. For example, in the story of Job (Ayoub A.S) God says in the Quran that he was very patient and never lost his patience. on the other hand, the biblical account is filled with contradictions. In one part it says that Job was very patient and in another part it says that he complained to God in a terrible manner.

Job was a faithful man, devoted to God. But Satan asserted that, if Job had was caused suffering and the loss of all that he had, that he would change and curse God.

That was the challenge. God allowed Satan to afflict Job in all manner of ways but the love that Job had for God was too strong. Even in the extremes of his misery and pain, Job refused to utter a curse as Satan had predicted.

Satan caused Job to suffer one shock after another. A messenger came to tell him that Sabean raiders had taken all his cattle and slaughtered his men. Before he had finished speaking another messenger came to tell him that fire from God came from heaven and destoyed all his sheep and shepherds. and before he had finished speaking a third messenger came to report that the Chaldeans had taken all his camels and killed the attendants. And while he was yet speaking a fourth messenger came to say that all of Job's ten children had died when a great wind struck the house of the firstborn where they were staying (Job 1:13-19). Job declared that God had taken away everything that he had but instead of cursing he blessed God (Job 1:21).

Thereafter, Satan struck Job with a horrible disease that covered him with boils and made his body stink and rot. Even his sleep was plagued with terrible nightmares. His own wife told him to curse God (Job 2:8). Then three men came to speak will him and all of them accused him of wickedness for which they said that God was punishing him.

Job had no idea why all these awful things, apparently caused by God, were happening to him. He endured great physical and mental anguish including bereavement of his own children, all of them. But his love for God did not waver. He declared that he would never lose his integrity. His love, his patience and long-suffering were outstanding.

But did he complain? Of course! He came to wish that he had never been born (Job 3:3). He asked that God might put him to death until God's anger had passed and then perhaps let him live again (Job 14:13-14).

Although God allowed Job to be tested he guarded Job's life (Job 2:6). By his faithfulness, Job proved Satan to be a liar and God was able to answer Satan's slanderous challenge. God was pleased with Job and afterwards blessed him with even more things than he had before.


It saddens me that the expressions of anguish of this faithful man should be seen as a Bible contradiction.

[Al-manar]

Surah 7:157 says: "Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them." (Pickthal)

This shows that the Gospel existed with Christians who became followers of Muhammad in the 7th century.

.

If we read and analyse the Quranic verses regarding the issue we can infer that The Gospel existed (but not complete ,) with Christians before and after the time of Mohamed(pbuh)...
where is it? it is whenever your find Sayings of Jesus that don't contradict the Quran..
the argument that there is a full lost original gospel, is un-Islamic..

and regarding the Q theory ,well it is a strong well-established theory, If proven with absolute certainity ,then we can say Q source is mostly the true gospel revealed to Jesus....

even if it is not to be taken with absolute certainity, the Saying gospel (which within Mark.Matthew,Luke may be even John) has to be mostly true parts of the Injeel.....


and yes, It would be error if we include verse 7.162 to an argument of Bible corruption....


the Questions again : Could al-Injeel and the Q-source(if proved or not proved to have existed) document be one and the same?yes , it HAS TO BE, (according to what we understood from the Quran).

I answered the Question of Grace-seeker ,in a hurry ... without quoting the Quran .... but a throughly analysis of the Quranic verses related to the topic will be in future posts in my thread InshAllah..

peace...

[Hiroshi]

and yes, It would be error if we include verse 7.162 to an argument of Bible corruption....

I'm glad that we agree on that at least.

[Hiroshi]

If we read and analyse the Quranic verses regarding the issue we can infer that The Gospel existed (but not complete ,) with Christians before and after the time of Mohamed(pbuh)...
where is it? it is whenever your find Sayings of Jesus that don't contradict the Quran..

This is easy to disprove because some of the greatest Islamic authorities testified that the books that were with the Christians were the true revelation from God. And the Qur'an states that none can change the words of God.

[Dagless]

This is easy to disprove because some of the greatest Islamic authorities testified that the books that were with the Christians were the true revelation from God.

If this is the case (and I doubt it since it seems an odd thing for the "greatest Islamic authorities" to decide to declare) then I think the word "were" in your sentence is the key.

And the Qur'an states that none can change the words of God.

Yes, the Quran is protected. This does not mean other books were.

[Hiroshi]

If this is the case (and I doubt it since it seems an odd thing for the "greatest Islamic authorities" to decide to declare) then I think the word "were" in your sentence is the key.



Yes, the Quran is protected. This does not mean other books were.

Hi Dagless. Okay, so the Qur'an is all that is left then? Do you believe that this document "Q" was the lost Injeel?

[Grace Seeker]

I'm almost shocked by how many people (though not all) are discussing issues that aren't what this thread is about. Now, I understand that threads can easily wander off-topic -- I've been the cause of that a time or two myself. But in this case, I see people who I think are trying to stay on topic and seem to not have an understanding as to what the topic actually is. This is NOT a discussion about Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. This is NOT a discussion about the Bible and whether it is authentic or corrupt. This is NOT a discussion about any known existant book at all. This IS an attempt to have a discussion about two hypothetized, but unobservable books or collections of sayings uttered by Jesus and (if they ever did exist) speculation about whether or not they might have been one and the same.

[Zafran]

Well, yes. Jesus preached it before it was written down. Just like the Qur'an.

So Jesus pbuh was preachng a gospel according to John, Luke, matthew and mark = 4 different views of the "life" of Jesus pbuh??

The final 8 verses, i.e. Deuteronomy 34:5-12, speak about Moses' death and burial. Obviously this last part was not recorded by Moses himself. But, yes, the rest of Deuteronomy and the whole of the other four books were written by Moses under inpiration from God

There you go you just admitted that deuteronomy has been corrupted and some parts have been put in after Moses pbuh - How can this be the Torah that was given to Moses pbuh when we can see the "extra add ons" God knows what else has been added in.

[Zafran]

I'm almost shocked by how many people (though not all) are discussing issues that aren't what this thread is about. Now, I understand that threads can easily wander off-topic -- I've been the cause of that a time or two myself. But in this case, I see people who I think are trying to stay on topic and seem to not have an understanding as to what the topic actually is. This is NOT a discussion about Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. This is NOT a discussion about the Bible and whether it is authentic or corrupt. This is NOT a discussion about any known existant book at all. This IS an attempt to have a discussion about two hypothetized, but unobservable books or collections of sayings uttered by Jesus and (if they ever did exist) speculation about whether or not they might have been one and the same.

Sorry seems like the JW is hijaking the thread for his missionery work as usual.

[Muhaba]

Job was a faithful man, devoted to God. But Satan asserted that, if Job had was caused suffering and the loss of all that he had, that he would change and curse God.

That was the challenge. God allowed Satan to afflict Job in all manner of ways but the love that Job had for God was too strong. Even in the extremes of his misery and pain, Job refused to utter a curse as Satan had predicted.

Satan caused Job to suffer one shock after another. A messenger came to tell him that Sabean raiders had taken all his cattle and slaughtered his men. Before he had finished speaking another messenger came to tell him that fire from God came from heaven and destoyed all his sheep and shepherds. and before he had finished speaking a third messenger came to report that the Chaldeans had taken all his camels and killed the attendants. And while he was yet speaking a fourth messenger came to say that all of Job's ten children had died when a great wind struck the house of the firstborn where they were staying (Job 1:13-19). Job declared that God had taken away everything that he had but instead of cursing he blessed God (Job 1:21).

Thereafter, Satan struck Job with a horrible disease that covered him with boils and made his body stink and rot. Even his sleep was plagued with terrible nightmares. His own wife told him to curse God (Job 2:8). Then three men came to speak will him and all of them accused him of wickedness for which they said that God was punishing him.

Job had no idea why all these awful things, apparently caused by God, were happening to him. He endured great physical and mental anguish including bereavement of his own children, all of them. But his love for God did not waver. He declared that he would never lose his integrity. His love, his patience and long-suffering were outstanding.

But did he complain? Of course! He came to wish that he had never been born (Job 3:3). He asked that God might put him to death until God's anger had passed and then perhaps let him live again (Job 14:13-14).

Although God allowed Job to be tested he guarded Job's life (Job 2:6). By his faithfulness, Job proved Satan to be a liar and God was able to answer Satan's slanderous challenge. God was pleased with Job and afterwards blessed him with even more things than he had before.


It saddens me that the expressions of anguish of this faithful man should be seen as a Bible contradiction.

From the Quran, chapter 21 (Al-Anbiya, the Prophets) Verses 83 – 84:

And We had given Job the same (blessing of Wisdom and knowledge). Remember when he invoked his Lord, saying, “I have been afflicted with the disease, and Thou art most Merciful.” We heard his prayer and relieved him of his affliction and gave him back not only those of his family but also as many more with them as a favor from Us so that it may serve as a reminder to Our worshippers.

Commentary from the Meaning of Quran By Abu Al Ala’ Maududi:

It will be worthwhile to compare the high character of Prophet Job as given in the Quran with that in the Book of Job in the Bible. The Quran presents him as a veritable picture of patience and fortitude and an excellent model for the worshippers of Allah, but his general picture in the Book of Job is that of a man who is full of grievance against God: “Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night in which it was said, There is a man child conceived …. Let them curse (the night) that curse the day, … Because it shut not the doors of my mother’s womb, nor did sorrow from mine eyes. Why died I not from the womb?” (Chapter 3) … “Oh that my grief were thoroughly weighed, and my calamity laid in the balance together … the arrows of the Almighty are within me, the poison whereof drinketh up my spirit:mthe terrors of God do set themselves in array against me.” (Chapter 6) … “I have sinned; what shall I do unto thee, o thou preserver of men? Why hast thou set me as a mark against thee, so that I am a burden to myself? And why dost thou not pardon my transgressions, and take away my iniquity? (chapter 7:20 – 21)

His three friends try to console him and councel patience, but in vain. He says, “my soul is weary of my life … I will speak in the bitterness of my soul” (10:1) … “I have heard many such things; miserable comforters are ye all.” (16:2) … “So these three men ceased to answer to Job… Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu … against Job … because he justified himself rather than God.” (32:1-3), but he also failed to console him … Then the Lord himself fame down and condemned the three friends and Elihu and rebuked Job and then forgave him, accepted him and blessed him.” (Chapters 41, 42)

It should be noted that in the first two chapters of this Book (Book of Job), Prophet Job is presented as a perfect and upright man who feared God, but in the following chapters he becomes an embodiment of grievance against God, as though the estimate of Satan about him was correct and that of God was incorrect. Thus this Book itself is a clear evidence that it is neither the Word of God nor of Prophet Job but had been written afterwards by some literary man and incorporated in the Bible as a scripture.

[Hiroshi]

It should be noted that in the first two chapters of this Book (Book of Job), Prophet Job is presented as a perfect and upright man who feared God, but in the following chapters he becomes an embodiment of grievance against God, as though the estimate of Satan about him was correct and that of God was incorrect. Thus this Book itself is a clear evidence that it is neither the Word of God nor of Prophet Job but had been written afterwards by some literary man and incorporated in the Bible as a scripture.

The situation could be likened to a child with very deep love and trust for a caring father who provides for all the child's needs. Without warning the father takes or destroys every precious thing that the child has and begins beating the child unmercifully. But the child did nothing wrong. What would be the child's reaction? Perhaps the child would want to die.

Satan wanted Job to think that God had turned against him just like that father towards the child. Satan hoped that Job would become rebellious but that did not happen. Naturally, however, Job protested his innocence and asked why he was being made to suffer.

The book of Job is about a real person with very human feelings and a very natural reaction to sudden unprovoked anger and disaster. Your expectations about how Job should have behaved are in the realm of fantasy.

[Muhaba]

We are talking about a prophet here and not a child. Even an ordinary righteous adult believer would be expected to have more patience than the person depicted in the Book of Job. And that was no ordinary person, but a Prophet. How can you expect that a Prophet would say that kind of things? I have seen more patience in very righteous ordinary people than that.

[Hiroshi]

We are talking about a prophet here and not a child. Even an ordinary righteous adult believer would be expected to have more patience than the person depicted in the Book of Job. And that was no ordinary person, but a Prophet. How can you expect that a Prophet would say that kind of things? I have seen more patience in very righteous ordinary people than that.

Okay, let's say that you have devoted your life to God and he has blessed you. Then one day you see fire from God in heaven striking all the precious things that you have. Lastly, God slaughters all of your children. Then while you are reeling from shock God begins striking you with agonizing pain and loathsome disease. It doesn't stop. It goes on and on. You are destitute and your days are filled with excruciating pain and horror. God watches all of your paths and activities to bring disaster upon you wherever you turn. Then a bunch of people come along and start cursing you saying that you are wicked and that God has every reason to punish you. But you are not aware of having done any wrong.

All of that is what happened to Job.

Now if you believe that very ordinary people would remain quiet and uncomplaining after such experiences then I would say that you are wrong. But if you want to insist on disagreeing then go ahead and do so.

[Rabi Mansur]

the Questions again : Could al-Injeel and the Q-source(if proved or not proved to have existed) document be one and the same?yes , it HAS TO BE, (according to what we understood from the Quran).

I answered the Question of Grace-seeker ,in a hurry ... without quoting the Quran .... but a throughly analysis of the Quranic verses related to the topic will be in future posts in my thread InshAllah..

:sl:
I tend to agree with Al-Manar on this issue, and I am looking forward to further posts on this analyzing the verses of the Qur'an related to this topic.

Peace.

[Muhaba]

Okay, let's say that you have devoted your life to God and he has blessed you. Then one day you see fire from God in heaven striking all the precious things that you have. Lastly, God slaughters all of your children. Then while you are reeling from shock God begins striking you with agonizing pain and loathsome disease. It doesn't stop. It goes on and on. You are destitute and your days are filled with excruciating pain and horror. God watches all of your paths and activities to bring disaster upon you wherever you turn. Then a bunch of people come along and start cursing you saying that you are wicked and that God has every reason to punish you. But you are not aware of having done any wrong.

So you start complaining about that in such an awful manner, because you feel that God is being unjust?

Righteous people will not behave in such a manner. This is because they know that God places trials on every one and not just on those who are sinners. In fact righteous people go through more trials to raise their rewards and to remove minor sins. Trials aren't necessarily a form of punishment. People who are sinners may lead easier and more comfortable lives than righteous people because sinners will get their punishment in the Life after death while righteous people will get heaven.

All of that is what happened to Job.

Now if you believe that very ordinary people would remain quiet and uncomplaining after such experiences then I would say that you are wrong. But if you want to insist on disagreeing then go ahead and do so.

Ordinary people who try to be as righteous as they possibly can, sacrificing everything for God, would try their best to be patient as they know that things are done according to God's pleasure and Will and not according to our will. Even still, it's possible for such people to sometimes lose their patience, but not all the time. once in a while they may say something but then would feel terrible for doing so, and would beg God to forgive them.

But the person in question isn't an ordinary person but a Prophet of God. Not only that, but he was a very patient person, so patient that satan challenged God that if everything he had were taken from him, he'd no longer be so patient. It's impossible to expect such things from him. Also, the bible seems to show that satan was right and God was wrong, since according to it, Prophet Job did lose patience and say such terrible things. However, the Quran denies that and states that no matter what he went through, Prophet Job didn't lose his patience.

[Hiroshi]

So you start complaining about that in such an awful manner, because you feel that God is being unjust?

Righteous people will not behave in such a manner. This is because they know that God places trials on every one and not just on those who are sinners.

That isn't actually true. James 1:13-15 says: "When under trial, let no man say: "I am being tried by God." For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone. But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin".

When Job lost all of his possessions and his ten children, Job 1:21-22 tells us his reaction: ""Jehovah himself has given, and Jehovah has taken away. Let the name of Jehovah continue yo be blessed." In all this Job did not sin or ascribe anything improper to God."

Then after this, when he was struck with a malignant disease, Job 2:10 tells us his further reaction: ""Shall we accept merely what is good from the true God and not accept also what is bad?" In all of this Job did not sin with his lips."

Job meekly accepted all that came upon him without sinning against God. But it wasn't just that he was undergoing hardship. He was made to think that each new disaster was caused miraculously by God. And his false comforters insisted that God was punishing him for wicked deeds. Job was unaware of committing any sin deserving such punishment. He could see no sign that his suffering would ever come to an end. And he did not know why such things were happening to him.

We can see the picture clearly because the story in the Bible gives us the whole background. But Job was given no knowledge of Satan's challenge and he was unaware that his afflictions were coming from Satan, not from God. Job did not sin with his speech but he was in unbearable pain and desperately needed to know what was going on and how it could end. That was why he cried out for answers.

[Grace Seeker]

:sl:
I tend to agree with Al-Manar on this issue, and I am looking forward to further posts on this analyzing the verses of the Qur'an related to this topic.

Peace.

If we can ever get back on topic and quit discussing the corruption or lack of corruption of the Torah and or the level of righteousness of Job or other prophets maybe we can do exactly that.


Mods, any help here?? Thanks.

[Muhaba]

That isn't actually true. James 1:13-15 says: "When under trial, let no man say: "I am being tried by God." For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone. But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin".

When Job lost all of his possessions and his ten children, Job 1:21-22 tells us his reaction: ""Jehovah himself has given, and Jehovah has taken away. Let the name of Jehovah continue yo be blessed." In all this Job did not sin or ascribe anything improper to God."

Then after this, when he was struck with a malignant disease, Job 2:10 tells us his further reaction: ""Shall we accept merely what is good from the true God and not accept also what is bad?" In all of this Job did not sin with his lips."

Job meekly accepted all that came upon him without sinning against God. But it wasn't just that he was undergoing hardship. He was made to think that each new disaster was caused miraculously by God. And his false comforters insisted that God was punishing him for wicked deeds. Job was unaware of committing any sin deserving such punishment. He could see no sign that his suffering would ever come to an end. And he did not know why such things were happening to him.

We can see the picture clearly because the story in the Bible gives us the whole background. But Job was given no knowledge of Satan's challenge and he was unaware that his afflictions were coming from Satan, not from God. Job did not sin with his speech but he was in unbearable pain and desperately needed to know what was going on and how it could end. That was why he cried out for answers.

Shows the discrepancies in the bible.

[Hiroshi]

If we can ever get back on topic and quit discussing the corruption or lack of corruption of the Torah and or the level of righteousness of Job or other prophets maybe we can do exactly that.


Mods, any help here?? Thanks.

I can't believe that Q really existed. The only written documentation that the gospel writers would have copied were the genealogies which would have been found in the public records.

[Rabi Mansur]

I can't believe that Q really existed. The only written documentation that the gospel writers would have copied were the genealogies which would have been found in the public records.

:sl:
Hiroshi, I can appreciate that some people don't believe that Q ever existed. I am one of those who tends to believe that it did.

Q may have begun like The Gospel of Thomas or Baruch. Thomas starts with "These are the sayings (logoi) which Jesus spoke.

The church father Papias as quoted by Eusebius mentions Aramaic sayings (logia) compiled by Matthew which may actually have been Q or similar to Q. There are several instances in early Christian literature where sections of sayings of Jesus are quoted and the preface to them is "remember the sayings (logia) of Jesus."

Also, Paul mentions sayings of the Lord (I don't have the exact verse) where he talks about certain teachings that are backed up or not backed up by sayings from Jesus. I'll find the verse if you are interested.

[Grace Seeker]

I can't believe that Q really existed. The only written documentation that the gospel writers would have copied were the genealogies which would have been found in the public records.

I have my doubts as to the existence of a written document as well. But I'm a lot more open to the idea of there being a specified oral tradition of a collection of Jesus' sayings. I even suspect that these saying only existed in an oral tradition and the gospel writers saw that they were losing the generation of the apostles that caused them to seek to create a written gospel of Jesus. Then using this collection of sayings (and perhaps using the framework of Mark) they added other material from their own sources to create Matthew and Luke. This fits well with what Luke said he was about in writing his gospel: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were hnaded down to us.... Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything....it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you" (Luke 1:1-3).

As for the chances of these collected sayings of Jesus being the al-Injeel, if they are what Muhammad meant in the beginning, I suspect that the contents had he every heard these stories himself would have been different than what Muslims make of them today. For, I think that they are largely included in the existing Gospels of Matthew and Luke (and perhaps Thomas as well), and are part and parcel of Christian teaching still to this day.

[Hiroshi]

I have my doubts as to the existence of a written document as well. But I'm a lot more open to the idea of there being a specified oral tradition of a collection of Jesus' sayings. I even suspect that these saying only existed in an oral tradition and the gospel writers saw that they were losing the generation of the apostles that caused them to seek to create a written gospel of Jesus. Then using this collection of sayings (and perhaps using the framework of Mark) they added other material from their own sources to create Matthew and Luke. This fits well with what Luke said he was about in writing his gospel: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were hnaded down to us.... Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything....it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you" (Luke 1:1-3).

As for the chances of these collected sayings of Jesus being the al-Injeel, if they are what Muhammad meant in the beginning, I suspect that the contents had he every heard these stories himself would have been different than what Muslims make of them today. For, I think that they are largely included in the existing Gospels of Matthew and Luke (and perhaps Thomas as well), and are part and parcel of Christian teaching still to this day.

The Gospel of Thomas?

[Grace Seeker]

The Gospel of Thomas?

What is your question? What it is, why I listed it, or my view with regard to it?

[Hiroshi]

What is your question? What it is, why I listed it, or my view with regard to it?

I was surprised because I don't usually concern myself much with non-canonical writings. With the possible exception of Maccabees which has some historical value

[Grace Seeker]

I was surprised because I don't usually concern myself much with non-canonical writings. With the possible exception of Maccabees which has some historical value

I rarely do either. But it does contain a lot of the same material that people have suggested would have been in Q (if it is assumed to have ever existed). And the dating of it is early enough to make it relevant to the discussion.

[Hiroshi]

I rarely do either. But it does contain a lot of the same material that people have suggested would have been in Q (if it is assumed to have ever existed). And the dating of it is early enough to make it relevant to the discussion.

Interesting. Does the book contain anything that you would disagree with?

[Grace Seeker]

Sure, just look at the opening verse:

1 And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."

I doubt the veracity of that statement, which leads me to doubt that the statement was every actually uttered. Much of the book appears to be written using hyperbole to an extreme degree. As to the authenticity of the book, I doubt that it was actually the disciple who recorded these sayings, but just someone who attached his name to it. As to actuallity of these being sayings of Jesus, well I suspect that there is some truth to at least some of them, but the aforementioned hyperbole and differences between some of the statements found in Thomas and what seem to be parallels to passages within the canonical gospels lead me to suspect that those sayings have been changed by one or more author(s) since they were first spoken. There are also some difficult passages in it such as

15 Jesus said, "When you see one who was not born of woman, fall on your faces and worship. That one is your Father."

and
19 Jesus said, "Congratulations to the one who came into being before coming into being."

So, I find it interesting that some who reject the canonical gospels might be so enamored with the Gospel of Thomas.

So, I don't think that Thomas is Q. But as it presents itself as just a grab-bag collection of sayings, and (on the whole) doesn't contain anything so antithetical to the view of Jesus presented in the canonical scriptures, I do think it gives some credence to the idea that there did exist a collection of sayings of Jesus (I suspect in oral form) that we known and used by the early church prior to the production of a written record. And I suspect that the early church ultimately did not recognize Thomas as being worthy of classification as canonical primarily because it wasn't really believed to have been the product of the disciple Thomas (despite the claim to that case in the text) and because the hyperbole of the text lead it to be viewed as less profitable as a guide to faith and practice than the other books that were accepted were found to be.

That's more than you asked, but I thought I would go ahead and anticipate future questions and just lay most of my views with regard to Thomas in one post.

[Hiroshi]

Sure, just look at the opening verse: I doubt the veracity of that statement, which leads me to doubt that the statement was every actually uttered. Much of the book appears to be written using hyperbole to an extreme degree. As to the authenticity of the book, I doubt that it was actually the disciple who recorded these sayings, but just someone who attached his name to it. As to actuallity of these being sayings of Jesus, well I suspect that there is some truth to at least some of them, but the aforementioned hyperbole and differences between some of the statements found in Thomas and what seem to be parallels to passages within the canonical gospels lead me to suspect that those sayings have been changed by one or more author(s) since they were first spoken. There are also some difficult passages in it such as So, I find it interesting that some who reject the canonical gospels might be so enamored with the Gospel of Thomas.

So, I don't think that Thomas is Q. But as it presents itself as just a grab-bag collection of sayings, and (on the whole) doesn't contain anything so antithetical to the view of Jesus presented in the canonical scriptures, I do think it gives some credence to the idea that there did exist a collection of sayings of Jesus (I suspect in oral form) that we known and used by the early church prior to the production of a written record. And I suspect that the early church ultimately did not recognize Thomas as being worthy of classification as canonical primarily because it wasn't really believed to have been the product of the disciple Thomas (despite the claim to that case in the text) and because the hyperbole of the text lead it to be viewed as less profitable as a guide to faith and practice than the other books that were accepted were found to be.

That's more than you asked, but I thought I would go ahead and anticipate future questions and just lay most of my views with regard to Thomas in one post.

Thanks. How did you find out so much about it? Do you have a copy?

[Grace Seeker]

Thanks. How did you find out so much about it? Do you have a copy?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html

[Hiroshi]

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html

Awesome. Many thanks.

[Hiroshi]

:sl:
Hiroshi, I can appreciate that some people don't believe that Q ever existed. I am one of those who tends to believe that it did.

Q may have begun like The Gospel of Thomas or Baruch. Thomas starts with "These are the sayings (logoi) which Jesus spoke.

To me this is pure speculation. Making such a serious claim without hard evidence and placing your complete trust in it is suicidal.