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

**Grace Seeker** · 11-05-2010

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

Originally Posted by Rabi Mansur

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.

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** · 11-05-2010

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** · 11-05-2010

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** · 11-05-2010

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

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

Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

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).

**Grace Seeker** · 11-05-2010

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** · 11-07-2010

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 11-07-2010

Originally Posted by Hiroshi

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** · 11-07-2010

Originally Posted by Zafran

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** · 11-08-2010

Originally Posted by Hiroshi

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** · 11-08-2010

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

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** · 11-08-2010

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.

**Hiroshi** · 11-08-2010

Originally Posted by Zafran

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.

Originally Posted by Zafran

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** · 11-08-2010

Originally Posted by muhaba

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** · 11-08-2010

Originally Posted by Hiroshi

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** · 11-08-2010

Originally Posted by Al-manar

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** · 11-08-2010

Originally Posted by Al-manar

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** · 11-08-2010

Originally Posted by Hiroshi

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.

Originally Posted by Hiroshi

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** · 11-08-2010

Originally Posted by Dagless

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** · 11-08-2010

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** · 11-09-2010

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.