" 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. He will enjoin on them that which is right and forbid them that which is wrong. He will make lawful for them all good things and prohibit for them only the foul; and he will relieve them of their burden and the fetters that they used to wear. Then those who believe in him, and honour him, and help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him: they are the successful." Surah 7:157 (Pickthal)
I looked at the translation from Shakir and Yusufali as well:
"YUSUFALI: "Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law and the Gospel"
"SHAKIR: Those who follow the Messenger-Prophet, the Ummi, whom they find written down with them in the Taurat and the Injeel"
The subject of this text is clear: it is claiming that Mohammed is written about/prophesied in the Old and New Testaments. What is interesting here is that this verse is telling us also that the Torah and the Gospel was with them, in their own Scriptures.
Since this verse is alleging that the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures speak of Mohammed, which at that the time they had, then how is it that it can also be alleged that Old and New Testaments have been corrupted?
Doesn't it follow then that what they had was not corrupted at the time of Mohammed?
I have been looking at several passages from the Qur'an with regard to how it describes the Old and New Testaments. Here are some of the Surahs I have been looking at: Surah 5:47-51, 5:71-72, 5:16, 7:169, 29:45, 10:37, 46:11, 6:91, 35:31, 2:40-42.
I am finding the Qur'an in reference to the Bible to be quite favorable. If there is any of this alleged corruption, then it is not to be found to be said so in the pages of the Qur'an. The Qur'an, rather, seems to affirm the Law, Psalms, and the Gospel (Old and New Testaments).
I don't know a single Muslim who would suggest for a moment that God's Word can be altered or changed. In fact, this is often evidence presented in support of the Qur'an being the Word of God. But the Qur'an tells me that the Old and New Testaments are revelations sent down by God. Here is a simple logical syllogism:
1. God's Word cannot be altered, changed, or corrupted.
2. The Qur'an shows that the Old and New Testaments are God's Word.
3. Therefore the Old and New Testaments cannot be corrupted.
If I have come away with any understanding from the Qur'an concerning previous revelation/Scriptures, it is that they are trustworthy.
God gave scripture to Previous Nations, including the Jews (which included the followers of Moses and Jesus). He made them responsible for preserving it's content, and teaching it to their people. But He did not promise to preserve it in it's entirety.
Furthermore, God tells us about the error they fell into, when He says [meaning];
They distort words from their [proper] usages and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded. And you will still observe deceit among them, except a few of them. But pardon them and overlook [their misdeeds]. Indeed, Allah loves the doers of good. (Quran 5:13)
I.e. they would take a word out of context, and convey the distorted meaning to the people (due to many factors; including out of fear of Oppressive Governments etc). Which distorted the message. Furthermore, they forgot a part of the revelation which was given to them.
In regard to the followers of Prophet Muhammad; God promised to preserve the scripture revealed to them - however, that was because He wanted the believers to spread it's teachings to the rest of mankind.
Proof:
Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur'an and indeed, We [God] will be its guardian. [Quran 15:9]
Say, [O Muhammad], "O mankind, indeed I am the Messenger of Allah to you all, [from Him] to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. There is no deity except Him; He gives life and causes death." So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the unlettered prophet, who believes in Allah and His words, and follow him that you may be guided. [Quran 7:158]
So Jews(followers of Moses till the time of Jesus) who had only the duty of Preserving their scripture - altered parts of it, due to external pressures. They were not ordered by God to convey it to the rest of mankind.
The followers of Prophet Muhammad had God promise to preserve the Scripture [Qur'an and Prophetic Guidance (Sunnah)], however - they would have to convey it to the rest of mankind.
Last edited by - Qatada -; 03-17-2011 at 02:43 PM.
I am not aware of any religious tradition that doesn't have people who have twisted the meaning of their Scriptures. This, however, does not mean they intentially altered their writings that they held sacred. And, according to the Qur'an, there were those among them who did not distort the words, i.e. misinterpret them. There is a huge difference between alterting the Scriptures and misinterpreting them. Nor is the Surah your quoting saying they did. LIke you commented, it is saying they would take a word out of context, misinterpret, or forgot parts of it.
The evidence I have provided from the Qur'an suggests to me, and I think any honest reader, that at MINIMUM, the written Scritpures existing at the time of Mohammed, both Old and New Testaments, were uncorrupted. Yes, the Qur'an charges both Christians and Jews with error, but it appeals to them not to turn to the Qur'an, but to their own Scriptures. Honestly, does this make any sense at all if what they had in their hands they themselves had corrupted or altered?
THis was my main point. When I look at the Qur'an's testimony concernign previous revelation I find nothing but good spoken of it. I do not find any indication that the text was alterted, but rather the contrary, that Christians and Jews were exhorted to search their own texts. They are told they would find a confirmation of everything written in their books and even find prophesies of Mohammed.
If there is any valid argument the Muslim can make concerning the Bible, it seems to me it has to made post 7th century, and admitted that pre-7th century Scripture was uncorrupted based on the testimony of the Qur'an. The Muslim can't argue for the corruption of the biblical text pre-7th century. This is understandably problematic in light of the fact that we have manuscripts that pre-date the time of Mohammed.
Last edited by Tilmeez; 03-17-2011 at 05:30 PM.
Reason: Its Qatada :)
there were those among them who did not distort the words, i.e. misinterpret them.
good point.
format_quote Originally Posted by Fivesolas
the written Scriptures existing at the time of Mohammed, both Old and New Testaments, were uncorrupted.
also a good point, but you might be going too far here. I like your earlier point more. Some people corrupt the truth, some hold faithful to it, and it follows that those who hold faithful to the truth will have truthful scriptures. As well, it follows that the Christians which Allah (swt) describes as holding to their faith in the Qu'ran must have also had truthful holy books.
A problem I see is the certainty among some that the Christian holy book we have today is false. You don't know if we are descendants of the truthful Christians of Muhammad's time or if we are descendants of the false ones, so why judge so quickly?
If there is any valid argument the Muslim can make concerning the Bible, it seems to me it has to made post 7th century, and admitted that pre-7th century Scripture was uncorrupted based on the testimony of the Qur'an. The Muslim can't argue for the corruption of the biblical text pre-7th century.
Hmm. Do you know if any of the gnostic gospels were floating around in the 7th century still? I would not at all be surprised if they were. Gnosticism had a bigger hold on the eastern Christian world, in Egypt and elsewhere, from what I have read. There was a tradition during early Christianity of Christians with unpopular interpretations moving to Egypt/Jerusalem/eastern areas to escape persecution of the established church. Athanasius did it, and from what I have read he was among many others who did as well. That was in the 4th century. Some of the "Christian" beliefs (such as Mary as the holy spirit) criticized in the Qu'ran sound kinda strange and gnostic to me, but I might be wrong.
also a good point, but you might be going too far here. I like your earlier point more. Some people corrupt the truth, some hold faithful to it, and it follows that those who hold faithful to the truth will have truthful scriptures. As well, it follows that the Christians which Allah (swt) describes as holding to their faith in the Qu'ran must have also had truthful holy books.
A problem I see is the certainty among some that the Christian holy book we have today is false. You don't know if we are descendants of the truthful Christians of Muhammad's time or if we are descendants of the false ones, so why judge so quickly?
SalamChristian,
I don't think I am going too far, but let me explain why. I think (I could be wrong, and am glad to be shown if I am) I am reasoning from the Qur'an. Now, I do not accept the Qur'an as Scripture, but that is beside the point. When I look at the text of the Qur'an and see what it says and how it reasons concerning previous revelation, I am left with the understanding that what the Jews and Christians had in the time of Mohammed, 7th century, was uncorrupted. The reason I conclude this is because the Qur'an exhorts the Christians and Jews to look at their own Scriptures, what is in their hands. I cannot imagine God telling them to do this if what they held in their hands was corrupted with or without their knowledge. God knows.
Nor does it seem reasonable to me to suppose that what they had was gnostical writings, such as the Gospel of Thomas. Why? Well, a reading of the Gospel of Thomas would lead any Muslim to that conclusion....You would have Allah attesting to the truthfulness of that writing...
The question(s) then that should be raised are what books did the Christians have? Our Greek MSS pre-date the Islamic period and post-date them as well. With a large degree of certainty we can know these things. Without a long discussion here regarding textual criticism, even looking at the varient readings between all known existing MSS, young and old, there is overwhelming substantial agreement. What does this mean? It means that what we have in our hands today is what they had in their hands.
The only other place I can imagine someone going would be to some "other" MSS out there yet undiscovered. This, of course, would be conjecture and an argument from silence.
Hmm. Do you know if any of the gnostic gospels were floating around in the 7th century still? I would not at all be surprised if they were. Gnosticism had a bigger hold on the eastern Christian world, in Egypt and elsewhere, from what I have read. There was a tradition during early Christianity of Christians with unpopular interpretations moving to Egypt/Jerusalem/eastern areas to escape persecution of the established church. Athanasius did it, and from what I have read he was among many others who did as well. That was in the 4th century. Some of the "Christian" beliefs (such as Mary as the holy spirit) criticized in the Qu'ran sound kinda strange and gnostic to me, but I might be wrong.
I am still trying to find a solid source for the history of Christianity in 7th century Arabia. I found some substantial treatment of this, but it was unsourced. Based on the Qur'an's account of Jesus making and clay bird and giving it life, is evidence in my mind that gnosticism had influence in Arabia and was the "Christianity" that Mohammed encountered. Had it been Athanasius that was exiled to Arabia, it would have been a very different impression. After all, it is Athanasius' "list" that he sent in a festal letter to the churches that names all 27 books of the NT.
Well, a reading of the Gospel of Thomas would lead any Muslim to that conclusion....You would have Allah attesting to the truthfulness of that writing...
Hmm. That's another good point. You might have convinced me that Muhammad did not encounter gnostics, pending further research. This is all very speculative, lol. Obviously most of us on the board haven't read gnostic gospels. I have only read lengthy summaries, but they really turned me off to them. Someday, of course, I hope to read them.
Maybe the Mary-as-holy-spirit heresy as well as the "third-among-three" criticism described in the Qu'ran was an instance of misinterpretation as well, as opposed to false holy books. I certainly don't believe that she is the holy spirit lol.
format_quote Originally Posted by Fivesolas
After all, it is Athanasius' "list" that he sent in a festal letter to the churches that names all 27 books of the NT.
Read this from the link below. This Bible is ONLINE and you can even look at the Bible and read it for yourself and I want you to tell me if what you read there Bible is the exactly same Bible that we have in our hands today with our different translations and such.
The world's oldest known Christian Bible goes online Monday -- but the 1,600-year-old text doesn't match the one you'll find in churches today.
Discovered in a monastery in the Sinai desert in Egypt more than 160 years ago, the handwritten Codex Sinaiticus includes two books that are not part of the official New Testament and at least seven books that are not in the Old Testament.
The New Testament books are in a different order, and include numerous handwritten corrections -- some made as much as 800 years after the texts were written, according to scholars who worked on the project of putting the Bible online. The changes range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences.
And I encourage you to read the entire Qur'an. Not trying to make it support that the Bible you have today hasn't changed. Just read it.
There is a huge difference between alterting the Scriptures and misinterpreting them.
And what is that huge difference? I'm a journalist so let me give you an example as to how altering and misinterpreting something lead to the exact same end and that is not getting the truth.
If I were doing a breaking news story about something that happened right now and I got in touch with a reporter at the scene with 3 officers tied up in a room. He somehow got lose and got to his phone while the criminals stepped out for a bit and he tells me over the phone,"Authorities suspect more than 30,000 people are being held hostage in a football stadium. The guy who is leading this with 4 others in his crew has just shot a gun and lost it." Now let's say there was a phone glitch or I couldn't hear what the correspondent said and I repeat to him my story lede for clarification, "A downtown football stadium shut down today after a man upset about his sausage that he lost is holding an estimated 30,000 people in the stadium hostage." And the correspondent repeats to me, yes then I hear a gun shot and the line goes dead. Now already that sounds a little ridiculous to me but people have done stranger things for sillier reasons so I wrote up my story and send it to the wire immediately. Next thing you know CNN, Fox News, The LA Times and all of these other news stations pick up this wire story that I wrote alleging a man is holding people hostage over some sausages that he lost all because I misinterpreted what the correspondent said and the story is spreading like wildfire. Because of my misinterpretation, the true meaning of the story was altered and people aren't exactly getting the truth. The only person who knows what really happened is the reporter who was in the room with man and the 4 others shutting down access to the stadium and holding people hostage. Since it's likely that he got shot for being on the phone I really don't have anyone to confirm what I wrote at that point except the other tied up officers in the room or the 30,000 hostages and perhaps all of them might not really know the exact reason why the person is doing this...and even then, I can't get to them and now everyone is being told a lie.
This happens ALL the time in news and I don't see how the Bible can be exempt to how misinterpretation leads to altering. Either way, you don't get the truth. And this is why we have tens of thousands of sects of Christianity in America today and they all think they're right but really, which version of the story is it?
I'm sorry, I mispoke. You HAVE convinced me that the Qu'ran is not referring to gnostic gospels when it exhorts Christians to look to their gospels. Hmm. I am wondering, now, however, if he did not encounter gnostics. Catholics obviously venerate Mary very highly. Martin Luther wrote in 1521:
"How can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace."
I just found this via a quick internet search. It comes from the "Explanation of the Magnificat" written in 1521. The veneration of Mary is not something that I come from in my religious tradition, though, and it is hard for me to wrap my mind around.
Wow. How sure are you that is older than the Codex Vaticanus? I am looking these up now, and some sources are saying that the Codex Vaticanus is older.
Hmm. That's another good point. You might have convinced me that Muhammad did not encounter gnostics, pending further research. This is all very speculative, lol. Obviously most of us on the board haven't read gnostic gospels. I have only read lengthy summaries, but they really turned me off to them. Someday, of course, I hope to read them.
Maybe the Mary-as-holy-spirit heresy as well as the "third-among-three" criticism described in the Qu'ran was an instance of misinterpretation as well, as opposed to false holy books. I certainly don't believe that she is the holy spirit lol.
who sent this letter? Athanasius sent it?
The entire Hag Hammadi is available online. The Gospel of Thomas is a bit long, but available online. Some Muslims have remarked that Islam does not teach the Trinity to be God, Jesus and Mary. But I am not sure then of the meaning of the Surah I read. Perhaps someone can shed some light on that.
Athanasius did send a letter, the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius, which contains a list of the 27 books of the NT we find in our Bibles today. There were a few extra-biblical writings that the Christians accepted for reading, but not as Scripture. These were the Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, et. The letter mentioning our present canon dates to 367AD. He also enumerates the books of the OT. If you ever want to follow the development of the canon you could trace it as follows:
Ignatius of Antioch - 110AD - No list, but references to books in the NT canon, and nothing outside of it (i.e., aporcryphal)
Polycarp - 110AD - similar to Ignatius
Irenaeus - Cites books of the NT by name
Clement- citations
Tertullian - citiations
Muratorian Canon - 200-300AD -an 8th century mss was discovery in the library of Milan and published in 1740.
*some could be said about this discovery. It is quite facinating. It references the Apostle Paul making use of Luke's Gospel.. mentions how Luke omitted the crucifixtion of Peter and Paul's travel to Spain (these were omitted because they didn't not happen when Luke wrote the book of Acts). References are made to other books not counted in the present canon, some that are worth reading, but not publically or count among the prophets, and others that are to be rejected. Check it out.
This is enough to get anyone started on this history. Also look up Origen, Eusebius, the codex Sinaticus (now online), Didymus the Blind, the Pehsitta, and the Vulgate...this would run to you the end of 5th century.
Whoa, Codex Sinaiticus was found at Saint Catherine's Monastery in Egypt? I was just researching this monastery a couple weeks ago. It sits in the middle of nowhere, near some mines dug out by the Pharaohs ages ago. Some have speculated that Pharaoh Akhenaten's body, which has never been found, might actually be buried in those mines. There are also some very smart people who have argued that Akhenaten was the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Hmm.
Apparently Saint Catherine's also owns a diplomatic letter sent by Mohammed (pbuh) making official peace with them and giving them his protection, and condemning any Muslims who attack Christians in good standing with Mohammed? I was just looking it up...it's called the "Patent of Mohammed". Have you heard about that?
I'm sorry, I mispoke. You HAVE convinced me that the Qu'ran is not referring to gnostic gospels when it exhorts Christians to look to their gospels. Hmm. I am wondering, now, however, if he did not encounter gnostics. Catholics obviously venerate Mary very highly. Martin Luther wrote in 1521:
"How can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace."
I just found this via a quick internet search. It comes from the "Explanation of the Magnificat" written in 1521. The veneration of Mary is not something that I come from in my religious tradition, though, and it is hard for me to wrap my mind around.
Salaam Alaikum
I agree there is a dilemma here. If the Qur'an is affirming what was in the hand of the Jews and Christians, yet recounting a story that is found in a gnostical work, what is the explaination?
Concerning the veneration of Mary, where should our traditions come from? And what is tradition? Tradition, in the biblical sense, is teaching. And certinly we take actions on teaching, but it is teaching. Where in the apostolic tradition/teaching, i.e. the NT, is the veneration of Mary to any degree beyond calling her blessed among women?
I can't find anything like is seen in the papacy, orthodox churches, or early Reformed churches. We are bond to obey God rather than men.
Whoa, Codex Sinaiticus was found at Saint Catherine's Monastery in Egypt? I was just researching this monastery a couple weeks ago. It sits in the middle of nowhere, near some mines dug out by the Pharaohs ages ago. Some have speculated that Pharaoh Akhenaten's body, which has never been found, might actually be buried in those mines. There are also some very smart people who have argued that Akhenaten was the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Hmm.
Apparently Saint Catherine's also owns a diplomatic letter sent by Mohammed (pbuh) making official peace with them and giving them his protection, and condemning any Muslims who attack Christians in good standing with Mohammed? I was just looking it up...it's called the "Patent of Mohammed". Have you heard about that?
Never heard of the document until you mentioned it. Interesting....here is what hte monestary's website has:
According to the tradition preserved at Sinai, Mohammed both knew and visited the monastery and the Sinai fathers. The Koran makes mention of the Sinai holy sites. In the second year of the Hegira, corresponding to AD 626, a delegation from Sinai requested a letter of protection from Mohammed. This was granted, and authorized by him when he placed his hand upon the document. In AD 1517, Sultan Selim I confirmed the monastery’s prerogatives, but took the original letter of protection for safekeeping to the royal treasury in Constantinople. At the same time, he gave the monastery certified copies of this document, each depicting the hand print of Mohammed in token of his having touched the original.
If this is true, then it would necessarily mean that it would be possbile for Mohammed to have seen the Codex Sinaiticus.
If this is true, then it would necessarily mean that it would be possbile for Mohammed to have seen the Codex Sinaiticus.
Yeah, but Muhummad (pbuh) was illiterate. In any case, you could make a strong argument that Codex Sinaiticus is similar to/is the Biblical scripture that Muhummad (pbuh) refers to.
Also, I started a thread on the "Patent of Muhammed" (pbuh) in the "Clarifications on Islam" section of the website. I posted a link there to a translation (though I am under the impression it is actually not a full translation). I am hoping that some of our Muslim brothers comment on the authenticity of the letter.
Yeah, but Muhummad (pbuh) was illiterate. In any case, you could make a strong argument that Codex Sinaiticus is similar to/is the Biblical scripture that Muhummad (pbuh) refers to.
If that is the case, then it anyone can see the codex online and see that it contains all 27 books of the Bible. The question could/should be raised with regard to some of the apocryphal books and the extra-biblical Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Other ancient sources, such as the Muratorian Canon shed light on why the extra biblical letters are found here. It confirms that the early Christians did indeed make use of the Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, et. But that they did not regard them as Scripture.
This fragment makes an observation I had never heard before. How Paul's letters are addressed to seven Churches like John's Revelation is addressed to seven Churches.
Consider also this part of the fragment:
"What marvel, therefore, if John so constantly brings forward particular [matters] also in his Epistles, saying of himself: [21] "What we have seen with our eyes and have heard with [our] ears and our hands have handled, these things we have written to you." [22] For thus he declares that he was not only an eyewitness and hearer, but also a writer of all the wonderful things of the Lord in order."
This is an extra-biblical attestation to 1 John 1:1 and a recognition that the eyewitnesses of Jesus also wrote these things.
If that is the case, then it anyone can see the codex online and see that it contains all 27 books of the Bible. The question could/should be raised with regard to some of the apocryphal books and the extra-biblical Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Other ancient sources, such as the Muratorian Canon shed light on why the extra biblical letters are found here. It confirms that the early Christians did indeed make use of the Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, et. But that they did not regard them as Scripture.
Also, there are some omissions in Sinaiticus, from what I have read, as well as some verses which Vaticanus doesn't have. I'm going to have to read Sinaiticus and these other epistles/books.
format_quote Originally Posted by Fivesolas
Consider also this part of the fragment:
what fragment? Where/who is this quote coming from?
Also, there are some omissions in Sinaiticus, from what I have read, as well as some verses which Vaticanus doesn't have. I'm going to have to read Sinaiticus and these other epistles/books.
what fragment? Where/who is this quote coming from?
You would probably have a very hard time reading the Sinaiticus because of it being in Greek, unless you read Greek. Nevertheless, I am assuming that the translation online is just a translation of that one MSS. The Sinaiticus is part of the Critical Text, from which you find the NIV, NASB, ESV, et. For example, in the NIV you find the footnotes on the Gospel of Mark 16 "Older more reliable MSS do not contain these verses.." or something to that effect. This is the Critical Text camp. The KJV and NKJV are based on the Traditional Text, or Textus Receptus, but the NKJV includes all footnotes as to the variant readings.
If you want a fairly simplistic understanding/reading with being able to discern the varients, then get a NKJV. Between the Vaticanus and Siniaticus there are some 3,000 varients. Between all extant copies, and counting every single kind of variant, they are 85% identical. If we eliminate scribal varients, which are of no consquence, then the extant copies are more than 98% identical. So really, all the bally-hoo is over a few verses.
The fragment I was refering to is the Muratorian Canon. If you google it, you can find it online, intros about it, and several translations of it.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks