When was the first OT and NT translated into Arabic?

format_quote Originally Posted by Danish

Does any1 know when was When was the first OT and NT translated into Arabic?

pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee quote ur references and concrete evidences for ur answer.

If u can quote a certain book then it will be most appreciated

Doesn't the Sahih Bukhari talk of Khadija's cousin who was translating the Bible (although whether that is OT or NT or both I don't know) into Arabic?

And there were Arab Christians in Yemen so they must have had Arab Bibles.

format_quote Originally Posted by Danish

thanks for the answers guys

One comapritive religion scholar (Dr Zakir Naik) has to say:

The Arabic version of the Bible was not present at the time of Prophet Muhummad (pbuh). The earliest Arabic version of the Old Testament is that of R. Saadias Gaon of 900 C.E. - more than 250 years after the death of our beloved Prophet. The oldest Arabic version of the new Testament was published by Erpenius in 1616 C.E. - about a thousand years after the demise of our Prophet.

i research on Saadias Gaon and Erpenius now

Then he would have to explain why the Sahih Bukhari makes it clear that Muhammed's wife's cousin was working on a copy of the Bible himself. If you see Dr Naik ask him about these:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 605:

Narrated 'Aisha:

The Prophet returned to Khadija while his heart was beating rapidly. She took him to Waraqa bin Naufal who was a Christian convert and used to read the Gospels in Arabic Waraqa asked (the Prophet), "What do you see?" When he told him, Waraqa said, "That is the same angel whom Allah sent to the Prophet) Moses. Should I live till you receive the Divine Message, I will support you strongly."

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 478:

Narrated Aisha:

(the wife of the Prophet) The commencement (of the Divine Inspiration) to Allah's Apostle was in the form of true dreams in his sleep, for he never had a dream but it turned out to be true and clear as the bright daylight. >deletions< Khadija then took him to Waraqa bin Naufil, the son of Khadija's paternal uncle. Waraqa had been converted to Christianity in the Pre-lslamic Period and used to write Arabic and write of the Gospel in Arabic as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. >deletions<

Sahih Muslim Chapter 74: THE BEGINNING OF REVELATION TO THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH (MAY PEACE BE UPON HIM), Book 001, Number 0301:

A'isha, the wife of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him), reported: The first (form) with which was started the revelation to the Messenger of Allah was the true vision in sleep. >deletions< Khadija then took him to Waraqa b. Naufal b. Asad b. 'Abd al-'Uzza, and he was the son of Khadija's uncle, i. e., the brother of her father. And he was the man who had embraced Christianity in the Days of Ignorance (i. e. before Islam) and he used to write books in Arabic and, therefore, wrote Injil in Arabic as God willed that he should write. He was very old and had become blind Khadija said to him: O uncle! listen to the son of your brother. >deletions<

There is obviously some sort of sub-text to Dr Naik's claims but I can't see it. Anyone know why it matters when the Bible was translated into Arabic?

format_quote Originally Posted by Emir Aziz

Volume 1, Book 1, Number 3:

Narrated 'Aisha:

>deletions<

Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the PreIslamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight.

Well as they all have to be true, it is likely that Waraqa wrote the Bible in Arabic but using the Hebrew alphabet - as it says Hebrew letters. Which he must have been able to speak.

What is the problem here?

According to all scholarly sources, there was no arabic bible at the time of the Prophet saws.
The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics admits

there is no evidence of any parts of the Bible having been translated into arabic before Islam. (Hastings, James. The Encyclopedia of Rleigion and Ethics. Vol. X, p. 540)

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible attributes the first arabic translation of the Bible to the tenth century, (Hastings, James. Dictionary of the Bible. p. 105). Meanwhile, Encyclopedia Judaica attributes the frst arabic translation of the OT either to Hunayn Ibn Ishaq (800-873CE) or to Saadiah b. Joseph Gaon (882-942CE), (Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 4, p. 863).

The Christian and Jewish traditions that were circulating in Arabia were oral traditions. But the Christian and Jewish groups in arabaia were not orthodox at all, and there were numerous heretical groups. Paul Wegner writes:

The Scriptures do not seem to have been extant in an Arabic version before the time of Muhammad (570-632), who knew the gospel story only in oral form, and mainly from Syriac sources. These Syriac sources were marked by Docetism (believed that Jesus had only a divine nature and only appeared to be incarnate - they thought the material world and thus one's body was inherently evil)... (Wegner, Paul D. The Journey from Texts to Translations. 1999. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. p. 250)

And according to the New Catholic Encyclopedia:

Neither Arabian Jews not Arabian Christians, unfortunately, were to be classed among the better representatives of their faiths at the time. The former had lived in comparative isolation possibly since the middle of the 1st millenium B.C., although they had been mildly successful in proselytism and the latter were mainly heretical Monophysites, remote in every sense from the centers of Christian learning. (New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol 9, p.1001)

For more info, please see The First and Final Commandment by Dr. Laurence Brown MD.

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

According to all scholarly sources, there was no arabic bible at the time of the Prophet saws.

So, out of curiousity, do you reject the hadith from Bukhari and Abu Muslim?

For more info, please see The First and Final Commandment by Dr. Laurence Brown MD.

And he would be a Muslim?

format_quote Originally Posted by Danish

yes i find this quite interesting too. From the hadiths it is quite clear that waraqah used to read and write gospel into arabic. But did he wrote the WHOLE thing which was OFFICAL translation ACCESSIBLE to public? or was it merely a PERSONAL reference of FEW BITS which he chose to write out of interest? I think the answer is to be found in the following hadith:

I am sure if it existed it was a personal thing as the Meccans did not have a proper government as such and so no such thing as an official translation could exist - nor, of course, is there any sign any Church endorsed Waraqa's work.

So he wrote as much as Allah wished him to write and yet he was an old man who had lost his sight. That statements might indicate that he did not write the WHOLE gospel but as much as god wished him to write. And since he had lost his sight it would have restricted him from writing/reading more gospel. Greater point of interest is, historically speaking was his gospel translation official and accurate and accesible to public?

Well possibly. It might. Or he might have been old and the task of doing so much reading and writing destroyed his eyesight. For Muslim and Christian purposes I do not think it matters. If a Christian wanted to make a case that Muhammed cribbed from what little Waraqa did translate, they could. If a Muslim wished to deny it was even possible by asserting that no Jewish or Christian texts existed, they could not as Bukhari clearly shows that they were. So it is of interest to historians only and as no such copies have survived, it is not of much interest to historians.

format_quote Originally Posted by Danish

I see many flaws in stating that Prophet Muhammed copied waraqah:

Well I would not assert that Muhammed did copy from anyone. There is no evidence of it. However if you read the post by Ansar Al-Adl you can see that some Western scholars clearly imply it.

1) Prophet Muhammed was illiterate, so he couldnt have just read/wrote waraqah's work even in secrecy. So this restricts his access to even the small portion of the bible which was translated

I often wonder when the idea arose that Muhammed was illiterate. He is described as "Ummi" but I would have thought that meant he was sent to the Nation of the Arabs. After all there are hadith which seem to show, clearly, that he could read and write. Which is odd because you would think that Bukhari would have thrown them out immediately. However I have enough black marks against my name and so I do not care to discuss it.

So waraqah did not live long to teach and give personal lessons to the Prophet. He died after few days, yet the revelation continued for 23 years.

Yes but clearly Muhammed lived in an environment where Biblical stories were around. Presumably he heard them being told, presumably Waraqa would have talked about his Faith - just try and shut Christians up. Not that there is anything much else to say about that.

4) Prophet Muhammed only met waraqah twice, first when Waraqa was worshipping at the Kaaba (before the Prophetic Mission) and he kissed the Prophet’s forehead affectionately and the second occasion was when the Prophet went to meet Waraqa after receiving the first revelation.

Well come on now. Waraqa was his wife's cousin who was in her turn his cousin as well. Mecca was a small place. Presumably everyone knew everyone else. Just because only two meetings are mentioned, doesn't mean that only two meetings took place.

Hello HeiGou,

format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou

So, out of curiousity, do you reject the hadith from Bukhari and Abu Muslim?

No of course not. It is always amusing how some Christians bring up two hadith and forget their own scholarly sources about the translation of the Bible - the hadith they bring up are always the hadith of Waraqa and the hadith of Umar.

But neither of these contradict what historians have said. Waraqa used to study the Hebrew scriptures and he had his personal writings in arabic.

And he would be a Muslim?

A convert, yes.

After all there are hadith which seem to show, clearly, that he could read and write.

No, none of them do. Signing one's name does not prove literacy, there are many illiterate people who know how to sign, and one can dictate letters, they don't have to be hand-written, and being a tradesman does not prove anything about literacy. I have heard this nonsense several times, believe me.

Yes but clearly Muhammed lived in an environment where Biblical stories were around.

Can you name some other Christians in Makkah whom Prophet Muhammad pbuh would have heard the stories from? We agree it cannot be Waraqa since he died within a few days yet the revelation continued for 23 years.

Regards

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

It is always amusing how some Christians bring up two hadith and forget their own scholarly sources about the translation of the Bible - the hadith they bring up are always the hadith of Waraqa and the hadith of Umar.

Really? I thought I had come across it as a brand new discovery. What a shame. But what relevance does the translation of the Bible have?

But neither of these contradict what historians have said. Waraqa used to study the Hebrew scriptures and he had his personal writings in arabic.

Except the historians you cited claimed that the Bible was not translated into Arabic until much later. Now I agree if you discount the aHadith, the first texts are much much later. But if you believe the aHadith are historically valid texts then there must have been Arabic Bibles, perhaps only partial, well before Gaon.

No, none of them do. Signing one's name does not prove literacy, there are many illiterate people who know how to sign, and one can dictate letters, they don't have to be hand-written, and being a tradesman does not prove anything about literacy. I have heard this nonsense several times, believe me.

Well I am not interested in arguing what is bound to be a highly emotive subject that can only get me into trouble. But there are Hadith that say he did more than sign his name. He crossed bits out for instance

Volume 3, Book 49, Number 863:

Narrated Al-Bara:

When the Prophet intended to perform 'Umra in the month of Dhul-Qada, the people of Mecca did not let him enter Mecca till he settled the matter with them by promising to stay in it for three days only. When the document of treaty was written, the following was mentioned: 'These are the terms on which Muhammad, Allah's Apostle agreed (to make peace).' They said, "We will not agree to this, for if we believed that you are Allah's Apostle we would not prevent you, but you are Muhammad bin 'Abdullah." The Prophet said, "I am Allah's Apostle and also Muhammad bin 'Abdullah." Then he said to 'Ali, "Rub off (the words) 'Allah's Apostle' ", but 'Ali said, "No, by Allah, I will never rub off your name." So, Allah's Apostle took the document and wrote, 'This is what Muhammad bin 'Abdullah has agreed upon: No arms will be brought into Mecca except in their cases, and nobody from the people of Mecca will be allowed to go with him (i.e. the Prophet ) even if he wished to follow him and he (the Prophet ) will not prevent any of his companions from staying in Mecca if the latter wants to stay.' When the Prophet entered Mecca and the time limit passed, the Meccans went to 'Ali and said, "Tell your Friend (i.e. the Prophet ) to go out, as the period (agreed to) has passed." So, the Prophet went out of Mecca. The daughter of Hamza ran after them (i.e. the Prophet and his companions), calling, "O Uncle! O Uncle!" 'Ali received her and led her by the hand and said to Fatima, "Take your uncle's daughter." Zaid and Ja'far quarrel ed about her. 'Ali said, "I have more right to her as she is my uncle's daughter." Ja'far said, "She is my uncle's daughter, and her aunt is my wife." Zaid said, "She is my brother's daughter." The Prophet judged that she should be given to her aunt, and said that the aunt was like the mother. He then said to 'All, "You are from me and I am from you", and said to Ja'far, "You resemble me both in character and appearance", and said to Zaid, "You are our brother (in faith) and our freed slave."

Can you name some other Christians in Makkah whom Prophet Muhammad pbuh would have heard the stories from? We agree it cannot be Waraqa since he died within a few days yet the revelation continued for 23 years.

Except that Muhammed must have known Waraqa quite well. Mecca was a small place after all. They were related. And there were other "hanif" around who had studied Christianity. The ideas were in the air. Which is not to say that Muhammed copied them or anything like that. It is just that it is not true that it was impossible for him to have heard Biblical stories. For instance,

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 169:

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:

The Prophet met Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail in the bottom of (the valley of) Baldah before any Divine Inspiration came to the Prophet. A meal was presented to the Prophet but he refused to eat from it. (Then it was presented to Zaid) who said, "I do not eat anything which you slaughter in the name of your stone idols. I eat none but those things on which Allah's Name has been mentioned at the time of slaughtering." Zaid bin 'Amr used to criticize the way Quraish used to slaughter their animals, and used to say, "Allah has created the sheep and He has sent the water for it from the sky, and He has grown the grass for it from the earth; yet you slaughter it in other than the Name of Allah. He used to say so, for he rejected that practice and considered it as something abominable.

Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail went to Sham, inquiring about a true religion to follow. He met a Jewish religious scholar and asked him about their religion. He said, "I intend to embrace your religion, so tell me some thing about it." The Jew said, "You will not embrace our religion unless you receive your share of Allah's Anger." Zaid said, "'I do not run except from Allah's Anger, and I will never bear a bit of it if I have the power to avoid it. Can you tell me of some other religion?" He said, "I do not know any other religion except the Hanif." Zaid enquired, "What is Hanif?" He said, "Hanif is the religion of (the prophet) Abraham who was neither a Jew nor a Christian, and he used to worship None but Allah (Alone)" Then Zaid went out and met a Christian religious scholar and told him the same as before. The Christian said, "You will not embrace our religion unless you get a share of Allah's Curse." Zaid replied, "I do not run except from Allah's Curse, and I will never bear any of Allah's Curse and His Anger if I have the power to avoid them. Will you tell me of some other religion?" He replied, "I do not know any other religion except Hanif." Zaid enquired, "What is Hanif?" He replied, Hanif is the religion of (the prophet) Abraham who was neither a Jew nor a Christian and he used to worship None but Allah (Alone)" When Zaid heard their Statement about (the religion of) Abraham, he left that place, and when he came out, he raised both his hands and said, "O Allah! I make You my Witness that I am on the religion of Abraham."

Narrated Asma bint Abi Bakr: I saw Zaid bin Amr bin Nufail standing with his back against the Ka'ba and saying, "O people of Quraish! By Allah, none amongst you is on the religion of Abraham except me." He used to preserve the lives of little girls: If somebody wanted to kill his daughter he would say to him, "Do not kill her for I will feed her on your behalf." So he would take her, and when she grew up nicely, he would say to her father, "Now if you want her, I will give her to you, and if you wish, I will feed her on your behalf."

So clearly Muhammed met people who had heard about Christian and Jewish ideas. Their concerns were, no surprise, often his concerns as well. This does not mean that Muhammed copied anything from anyone or anything like that. Let me distance myself from such claims utterly as there is no proof or evidence of such claims. But he did live in an environment that was not entirely unacquainted with such accounts.