Exactly what kind of Bible did the Christians in Muhammad's (pbuh) time have?

[Tyrion]

I have a quick question I'd like answered...

I'm fairly certain that the Arab Christians and Jews who were with Muhammad (pbuh) did not have the exact same Bible that we have today... (Or did they?) My question is, what exactly did they have, and what would have been available to them, or even to Muhammad (pbuh) at that time?

 

[Darth Ultor]

They must have had the same one. The Dead Sea scrolls say the exact same words. And these are 2500 years old.

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam


they read the Bible where they found this prediction :

Those who follow the Apostle, the unlettered Prophet, Whom they find mentioned in their own Scriptures, in the Torah and the Gospel... (Holy Qu'ran: VII - 157; Translation: Yusif Ali)​

In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful​

MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE​

By Dr. Jamal Badawi​

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/muhammad_bible.htm​

 

[Woodrow]

I am assuming you are making reference as to what bible the Christians in the Area would have been using. since it would still be 800 years before there was a printed compilation of all the books, it would be logical that any Christian church would have had hand printed scrolls of one possibly 2 books. based on the location the most logical Christians in the region would have been Copts. In which case the Bible found would have been Aramaic Scrolls of the Gospel of Mark. Which most likely no longer exist. There should have been contact with the Donatists who had only the Greek epistles of Paul. So most likely the Bible used in the region were the early Gospel of Mark and the epistles of Paul. It is also likely some of the churches may have had the Gospels of Thomas, Jude, Peter and Barnabas.

You would not have found anything that looks like what is known today as the Bible.

 

[Hiroshi]

I have a quick question I'd like answered...

I'm fairly certain that the Arab Christians and Jews who were with Muhammad (pbuh) did not have the exact same Bible that we have today... (Or did they?) My question is, what exactly did they have, and what would have been available to them, or even to Muhammad (pbuh) at that time?

Today we still have in existence the scriptures of the Jews and Christians dating back to before the rise of Islam. So we can safely say that these make up the same Bible as existed in the 7th century.

But Muslim argue, I believe, that these writings were already corrupted even at that early time and/or there were other writings, such as apocryphal gospel accounts, that have completely disappeared and that these made up the true Injil, etc.

 

[Hiroshi]

I am assuming you are making reference as to what bible the Christians in the Area would have been using. since it would still be 800 years before there was a printed compilation of all the books, it would be logical that any Christian church would have had hand printed scrolls of one possibly 2 books. based on the location the most logical Christians in the region would have been Copts. In which case the Bible found would have been Aramaic Scrolls of the Gospel of Mark. Which most likely no longer exist. There should have been contact with the Donatists who had only the Greek epistles of Paul. So most likely the Bible used in the region were the early Gospel of Mark and the epistles of Paul. It is also likely some of the churches may have had the Gospels of Thomas, Jude, Peter and Barnabas.

You would not have found anything that looks like what is known today as the Bible.

But the Torah would surely have been the same as we have today. Right?

 

[selsebil]

Assalaam Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh,

1.The words of the Torah, the Bible, and the Psalms do not have the miraculousness of those of the Qur’an. They have also been translated again and again, and a great many alien words have become intermingled with them. Also, the words of commentators and their false interpretations have been confused with their verses. In addition, the distortions of the ignorant and the hostile have been incorporated into them. In these ways, the corruptions and alterations have multiplied in those Books. In fact, Shaykh Rahmat Allah al-Hindi, the well-known scholar, proved to Jewish and Christian scholars and priests thousands of corruptions in them, and silenced them. Nevertheless, despite these corruptions, in our times the celebrated Husayn Jisri RA extracted one hundred and ten indications to the prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH), and included them in his Risalat al-Hamidiya.
2.Also, many Jewish and Christian scholars acknowledged and admitted that the attributes of Muhammad the Arabian (Upon whom be blessings and peace) were written in their Books. The famous Roman Emperor Heraclius, who was a non-Muslim himself, said: “Jesus foretold Muhammad’s coming.”
Also, another Roman ruler called Muqawqis, the Governor of Egypt, and celebrated Jewish scholars and leaders such as Ibn Suriya, Zubayr b. Batiya, Ibn Akhtab and his brother Ka‘b b. Asad, although remaining non-Muslim, admitted: “He is described in our Books.”

Also, some of the well-known Jewish scholars and Christian priests gave up their obduracy on seeing Muhammad’s (PBUH) attributes as described in the above-mentioned books, and believed in him. They then pointed out these references to other Jewish and Christian scholars, and convinced them. Among them were the famous ‘Abd Allah b. Salam, Wahb b. Munabbih, Abu Yasir, the two sons of Sa‘ya, Asid and Tha‘laba, and Shamul.296 The latter lived at the time of Tubba‘, the ruler of Yemen. Shamul became a believer before Muhammad’s prophetic mission and without ever seeing him, just as Tubba‘ did. While the guest of the Bani Nadir before the prophetic mission, a gnostic called Ibn al-Hayyaban declared: “A prophet will soon appear, and this is the place to which he will emigrate.” He died there. Later, when that tribe was at war with God’s Messenger (Upon whom be blessings and peace), Asid and Tha‘laba came forward and cried out to the tribe: “By God, he is the one Ibn al-Hayyaban promised would come.” But they did not heed him, and paid the penalty.
Also, many of the Jewish scholars like, Ibn Yasin, Mikhayriq, and Ka‘b al-Ahbar, became believers on seeing the prophetic attributes in their Books, and silenced those who did not accept faith.
Therefore,it's possible that there have been more alterations after the age of Muhammed SAW.

http://www.lightofquran.info/q5.htm

 

[Ramadhan]

Today we still have in existence the scriptures of the Jews and Christians dating back to before the rise of Islam. So we can safely say that these make up the same Bible as existed in the 7th century.

Are you suggesting that christians in makkah and madinah in the 7th century used the same scriptures as what you have now?
Meaning the christians in makkah and madinah in the 7th century spoke, read and wrote greek?
Or are you suggesting that Jesus (as) spoke to his disciples in koine greek?
produce your proof if you are truth ful.

But Muslim argue, I believe, that these writings were already corrupted even at that early time and/or there were other writings, such as apocryphal gospel accounts, that have completely disappeared and that these made up the true Injil, etc.

You are mistaken. You shouldnt confuse bible with injeel and torah.
The bible contained (and might still) some of injeel and torah. Nevertheless, some of them have been changed/corrupted, and we do not know exactly which parts of injeel and torah that were changed/corrupted.
Even when it's corrupted, they still contained the prophesies of the coming of prophet Muhammad SAW (hence the QS. 7:157 that you kept bringing up), which were then changed by the jews in madina/makkah because they did not like that the prophesied prophet turned out to be not from the jews.

 

[Hiroshi]

Are you suggesting that christians in makkah and madinah in the 7th century used the same scriptures as what you have now?
Meaning the christians in makkah and madinah in the 7th century spoke, read and wrote greek?

If they had a trustworthy translation in their own language, how would that have differed from the scriptures that we have now?

 

[Hiroshi]

You are mistaken. You shouldnt confuse bible with injeel and torah.
The bible contained (and might still) some of injeel and torah. Nevertheless, some of them have been changed/corrupted, and we do not know exactly which parts of injeel and torah that were changed/corrupted.

Isn't that exactly what I said as to Muslim beliefs? Where is my mistake?

 

[Ramadhan]

If they had a trustworthy translation in their own language, how would that have differed from the scriptures that we have now?

that's a big if.
anyway, there is no evidence that arabic injeel or arabic torah in written form existed in makkah/madinah during the 7th century

 

[Woodrow]

But the Torah would surely have been the same as we have today. Right?

Possibly but it most likely would have only been found on scrolls in the Jewish synagogues. The question asked as to what Bible would have been available, it must be kept in mind there was yet to be any compiled bibles for the average person. Books back then were extremely expensive plus very large and bulky scrolls. Books as we now know them did not exist. Only the largest churches would have been wealthy enough to have more than one or 2 scrolls and those would have been the Bible available to the Christians of that time and region.

The first compilation outside Greece would have been the Latin Codex Vaticanus written in about 351, Followed by the First Latin Vulgate compiled in 384 and at that time only contained the gospels of Mark, John, Luke and Matthew. The majority of the books that came to be known as the Bible would have been the koine Greek Scrolls kept in Greece, and possibly a copy in the library at Alexandria. The General populace would have never seen a Bible and the Monks would only have had one or 2 books. Usually just one of the 4 Gospels.

 

[Woodrow]

An error many Christians make is the assumption the bible was always the primary tool for the teaching of Christianity. the Bible had very little exposure to the early Christians and the reading of the Bible as such did not begin until Christianity spread into England in the 7th Century. Bible studies and teachings for the laity did not begin until after the invention of the printing press in 1440. Bible study was not a major part of Christianity until the 1800s. The modern emphasis on the Bible did not begin until at least the 1860s.

As far as what Bible would have been in use in the 7th Century on the Arabian peninsula, the answer is none except for some individual books carried by Monks. The most common would have been the Gospel of Mark as he was the Apostle who introduced Christianity in Alexandria.

Later the Crusades out of England would have tried to bring the Bible into the Mideast. Most probably a forerunner of the Wycliffe Bible, first written in 1384

 

[Hiroshi]

that's a big if.
anyway, there is no evidence that arabic injeel or arabic torah in written form existed in makkah/madinah during the 7th century

Okay, so you are saying that the Jews and Christians that were with Muhammad (as Tyrion specified) had nothing whatsoever of the Bible that they could read?

But if they had anything at all, untranslated, what is available today in comparison would, if anything, be older and more authoritative.

 

[Perseveranze]

Okay, so you are saying that the Jews and Christians that were with Muhammad (as Tyrion specified) had nothing whatsoever of the Bible that they could read?

But if they had anything at all, untranslated, what is available today in comparison would, if anything, be older and more authoritative.

Peace,

I recommend you read this - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBbible.html

I'll quote some -

Now we turn to the fact whether an Arabic Bible was present in the hands of the people during the time of the Prophet(P). Malik Ben Nabi narrates an interesting story:

Moreover, if Judeo-Christian thought had really made inroads into Jahiliyyan society and culture, the absence of an Arabic translation of the Bible could not be explained. As for the New Testament, it is certain that no Arabic translation of it existed in the fourth century of Hijrah. This is evident from the reference by Ghazzali, who had to resort to a Coptic manuscript to write his Rad, a respectable refutation of the divinity of Jesus according to the Gospel. In translating the work of the Arab philosopher, Rev. Fr. Chidiac searched everywhere for Gospel sources which could have served at the time of the composition of Rad. He finally found a manuscript in the library of Leningrad written about 1060 by a certain Ibn al-Assal as the first edition of a Christian text in Arabic. Thus, there did not exist an Arabic edition of the Gospels at the time of Ghazzali, and, a fortiori, it did not exist during the Pre-Islamic period.[9]


Constance E Padwick in his article "al-Ghazali & The Arabic Versions Of The Gospels: An Unsolved Problem" mentions this perplexity even though he shows evidence of the earliest Gospel in Arabic dated around 897 CE, a few years before al-Ghazali wrote his Rad.[10]
It is to be noted that the above statement of Malik Ben Nabi concerning the lack of existence of an Arabic Gospel before the fourth century after Hijrah. does not prove that there were no Arabic Gospels at all before this period. Rather, it shows the scarcity of the Gospels in Arabic which made al-Ghazali go for a Coptic Gospel. It is interesting to know that the Gospels were first translated in Arabic during the first Abbasid century. This was mainly due to the debates between Muslims and Christians concerning the status of Gospels, as well as the concept of God, and the defense of icons in the Church.
Sidney H Griffith has done extensive research on the appearance of Arabic Gospel. Regarding the manuscript evidence, he says:

The oldest known, dated manuscripts containing Arabic translations of the New Testament are in the collections of St. Catherine's monastery at Mt. Sinai. Sinai Arabic MS 151 contains an Arabic version of the Epistles of Paul, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Catholic Epistles. It is the oldest dated New Testament manuscripts. The colophon of this MS informs us that one Bisr Ibn as-Sirri made the translation from Syriac in Damascus during Ramadan of the Higrah year 253, i.e., 867 AD.[11]
​

The author went on to say:

The oldest, dated manuscript containing the Gospels in Arabic is Sinai Arabic MS 72. Here the text of the four canonical Gospels is marked off according to the lessons of the temporal cycle of the Greek liturgical calendar of the Jerusalem Church. A colophon informs us that the MS was written by Stephen of Ramleh in the year 284 of the Arabs, i.e., 897 AD.[12]
​

Concerning the presence of Arabic Gospels in the pre-Islamic period, Sidney Griffith, after extensive study, concludes that:

All one can say about the possibility of a pre-Islamic, Christian version of the Gospel in Arabic is that no sure sign of it's actual existence has yet emerged. Furthermore, even if some unambiguous evidence of it should turn up as a result of more recent investigations, it is clear that after the Islamic conquest of the territories of the oriental patriarchates, and once Arabic has become the official and de facto public language of the caliphate, the church faced a much different pastoral problem than was the case with the earlier missions among the pre-Islamic Arabs.[14]
​

Further, what about the Old Testament in Arabic? Ernst Würthwein informs us in his book The Text Of The Old Testament that:

With the victory of Islam the use of Arabic spread widely, and for Jews and Christians in the conquered lands it became the language of daily life. This gave rise to the need of Arabic versions of the Bible, which need was met by a number of versions mainly independent and concerned primarily for interpretation.[15]
​

Think otherwise? Produce your proof.

 

[Hiroshi]

Possibly but it most likely would have only been found on scrolls in the Jewish synagogues. The question asked as to what Bible would have been available, it must be kept in mind there was yet to be any compiled bibles for the average person. Books back then were extremely expensive plus very large and bulky scrolls. Books as we now know them did not exist. Only the largest churches would have been wealthy enough to have more than one or 2 scrolls and those would have been the Bible available to the Christians of that time and region.

The first compilation outside Greece would have been the Latin Codex Vaticanus written in about 351, Followed by the First Latin Vulgate compiled in 384 and at that time only contained the gospels of Mark, John, Luke and Matthew. The majority of the books that came to be known as the Bible would have been the koine Greek Scrolls kept in Greece, and possibly a copy in the library at Alexandria. The General populace would have never seen a Bible and the Monks would only have had one or 2 books. Usually just one of the 4 Gospels.

What about books of lesser value such as the apocryphal gospels? I believe that they would have been generally more available and their contents better known.

 

[Woodrow]

What about books of lesser value such as the apocryphal gospels? I believe that they would have been generally more available and their contents better known.

While that is a possibility, it would all depend on what denomination was present. Historically it seems the Copts would have been the most prevalent and for the most part they only used Mark.

 

[gmcbroom]

You are clearly illustrating the point the Catholics and Orthodox have been talking about for centuries. The Bible only Christians and those that follow that way, are have half truth and thus can fall into error due to their own intrepretation of the Bible. That is why Sacred Tradition plays such a big part int Christianity. The Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit through both Sacred Tradition (Bisops,Priests,Deacons, by Apostolic Succession) and Sacred Scripture.

Now, I know that muslims don't share this view. That's ok, you follow a different path. Your not really meant to understand as your view of Christianity is different than ours. To you were probably heretics. You'll understand why we disagree.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

 

[Woodrow]

You are clearly illustrating the point the Catholics and Orthodox have been talking about for centuries. The Bible only Christians and those that follow that way, are have half truth and thus can fall into error due to their own intrepretation of the Bible. That is why Sacred Tradition plays such a big part int Christianity. The Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit through both Sacred Tradition (Bisops,Priests,Deacons, by Apostolic Succession) and Sacred Scripture.

Now, I know that muslims don't share this view. That's ok, you follow a different path. Your not really meant to understand as your view of Christianity is different than ours. To you were probably heretics. You'll understand why we disagree.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

while we do differ we are to some degree in agreement regarding the Bible

 

[Ramadhan]

To you were probably heretics. You'll understand why we disagree.

Any group of people that worship man as god has always been heretics.

so yeah, obviously we disagree.