Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Lights on the way
by akay
Today at 04:40 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Today at 02:45 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
Today at 12:50 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
Today at 04:17 AM

What's happened to the fo...
by zeca
Yesterday at 06:39 PM

New Britain
Yesterday at 05:41 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
Yesterday at 05:47 AM

Iran launches drones
April 13, 2024, 09:56 PM

عيد مبارك للجميع! ^_^
by akay
April 12, 2024, 04:01 PM

Eid-Al-Fitr
by akay
April 12, 2024, 12:06 PM

Mock Them and Move on., ...
January 30, 2024, 10:44 AM

Pro Israel or Pro Palesti...
January 29, 2024, 01:53 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: the injil

 (Read 15360 times)
  • Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • the injil
     Reply #30 - January 07, 2015, 01:09 AM

    On a somewhat related note, I was just reading the Google books version of the new book in honor of Patricia Crone (link here), "Islamic Cultures, Islamic Contexts."

    https://books.google.com/books?id=7nSjBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA24#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Among other things, Witztum (p. 27) talks about how scholars usually assume that the Qur'an's chronological composition drifts 'towards' Biblical accounts, but how in the example he analyzes (the Qur'an's parallel retellings of the Iblis story) the language of the later textual account drifts *away* over time from Biblical accounts, such that the Qur'an's older reference to Biblical "angels" become rewritten as a more Islamicized "dominions" in the Qur'an's later retelling of the same Iblis story.

    This is consistent with my own view (more chronologically broadly) that the earliest Qur'anic layers are provincial Christian texts, while the later textual layers and compositions reflect increasing "Islamicizing" in the context of claiming authority/legitimacy for an Arabian prophet, a holy book, and ultimately a supersessionist theology based on a final Arabian prophet.  It is certainly true that the Medina surahs reflect increasing engagement with aspects of Biblical tradition, particularly Abraham, but they do so as part of the rising imperative to ground the ongoing Arabic political/military expansion in a Biblical context ... reworking texts with that aim in mind and adding stereotyped rhetoric ... not because they represent a move of the authors from ignorant paganism to a monotheistic Biblical literate climate.  In many respects the reverse happened, as older Biblical context was progressively jettisoned and deformed to suit more contemporary and fervent Arab theological imperatives.

    The Witztum essay is ridiculously good and should be read regardless.  He also discusses the whole golden calf and al-Samari issues, and points out that the al-Samari stuff involves parallel conflicting accounts (in one of the Qur'anic accounts, the Israelites are blamed for the golden calf, in another, al-Samari is blamed).
  • the injil
     Reply #31 - January 07, 2015, 01:14 AM

    Does al-Samari mean Samaritan?

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • the injil
     Reply #32 - January 07, 2015, 01:23 AM

    There's another recent thread about that exact subject in this same forum, check it out.  That's why I mentioned this.
  • the injil
     Reply #33 - January 07, 2015, 01:31 AM

    Just read the other thread. Is there any independent information about the Samaritans origins other than the Bible?

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • the injil
     Reply #34 - January 19, 2015, 09:45 PM

    The thing is, if the Islamic consensus was that the Injil is the Gospel, which was then corrupted and changed over time, that cannot make sense. The Quran implies that the original injil was a direct revelation from God just as the Quran itself claimed to be.

    The problem with the above is that the current Injil/Gospels are four accounts of the activities of Jesus, in contrast to the Quranic style, which is a poetic/oral recitation which often switches from topic to topic within the same chapter. These Gospels are acknowledged to have human authors and were written in Greek. That's the problem: Either the original Gospels were the human-authored greek scriptures, which were then corrupted and by the time of Mo were claiming that Jesus was God/the Son of God, or the original Gospel was one that was revealed to Jesus and was presumably akin to the Quran, which means that the original Gospel was not ''corrupted'' but replaced with something else entirely.
  • the injil
     Reply #35 - January 19, 2015, 11:20 PM

    Quote
    First-century copy of Mark’s Gospel discovered

    by Denny Burk on January 19, 2015 in Theology/Bible

    In 2012, Dan Wallace dropped a bombshell during a debate with Bart Ehrman. Ehrman had claimed that our earliest copy of Mark’s Gospel is dated 140 years after the gospel was first written. It’s a point often made by critics to show the unreliability of the New Testament. Wallace then revealed that he had knowledge that a first century copy of Mark’s Gospel had been discovered. He also revealed that the document would be published in a forthcoming volume by E. J. Brill.

    It was all very cryptic at the time, and Ehrman later complained that Wallace should not have brought it up in the debate. Ehrman argued that bringing up this alleged discovery without providing any evidence for it was dirty pool. I disagree. It’s only dirty pool if you don’t know what you’re talking about, and a report out today suggests that Wallace knew exactly what he was talking about.

    LiveScience.com has a report today verifying Wallace’s claims about work being done on a first-century fragment of Mark. There are also some more details about the nature of the discovery.

    I have to say that this could prove to be a momentous find. It turns out the papyrus fragment in question was a part of an ancient mummy mask discovered in Egypt. Through a complicated process, the manuscript fragment has been identified and dated to the latter part of the first century, just as Wallace claimed in the debate.

    There are a number of masks that are currently being studied, and the masks in question could yield a treasure-trove of historical data. In a report for LiveScience.com, Craig Evans explains:

    We’re recovering ancient documents from the first, second and third centuries. Not just Christian documents, not just biblical documents, but classical Greek texts, business papers, various mundane papers, personal letters.

    Evans also explains why there has been so much secrecy about the discovery.

    Of course, all of this is subject to the peer-review process. But if it all pans out, I can’t tell you how important this discovery would be. To have a first-century witness to the text of the New Testament is unprecedented. That a fragment of Mark was found in Egypt is even more astonishing. That would seem to require that the original was probably penned decades before. I will resist speculating further until the book comes out, but this really is a remarkable discovery. I am looking forward to the volume from Brill.


    http://www.dennyburk.com/first-century-copy-of-the-marks-gospel-discovered-wallaces-claim-to-ehrman-vindicated/
  • the injil
     Reply #36 - January 19, 2015, 11:48 PM

    Wow, if true that is an absolutely SENSATIONAL find!!!
  • the injil
     Reply #37 - January 20, 2015, 12:01 AM

    I know. We shall see.
  • the injil
     Reply #38 - January 20, 2015, 12:32 AM

    I think the important part of that would be finding out which parts of Mark it is. If it's something rather generic that doesn't describe any aspect of what we identify today as the Jesus life story, like the so-called "Sermon on the Mount", then a much more likely explanation than that it was spoken by "Jesus" (and therefore included in the gospel) is that it was a local cult text that was later found and incorporated into Christian texts. In which case it wouldn't shed any light onto whether Jesus was an actual historical figure or where to find evidence of him, and it would help the theory that Jesus is just an amalgamation of local cult texts and myths.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • the injil
     Reply #39 - January 20, 2015, 12:54 AM

    I watched the debate where this was brought up and it definitely was random and unsubstantiated announcement that he had this manuscript. It's been complete silence since then, so I assumed it was a hoax. Dan Wallace and Craig Evans are extremely conservative scholars (essentially apologists). I know Wallace has argued for Pauline authorship of the pastoral epistles (universally acknowledged to be forgeries) and is about as conservative as you can get and still be taken seriously by the scholarly community. I'd be surprised if everything checks out and his announcement was accurate

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • the injil
     Reply #40 - January 20, 2015, 12:56 AM

    In one sense it probably changes nothing, since most scholars already agree that the Gospel of Mark was written around 66-70 CE, which is about 30 years after Jesus's death around 33 CE.  In that sense, it's remarkably similar to the probable chronology for the Uthmanic Qur'an (660ish) relative to Mohammed's death (630ish), but I digress.

    But if true (Justperusing seems to know much more about this) it's amazing for a physical copy of such a Gospel text to be found in Egypt already in the 1st Century, perhaps as little as 10-30 years after it was first written, and perhaps as few as 40-60 years after Jesus died.

    There's no way anybody would think it was 'spoken by Jesus' since the Gospel of Mark is written in third person, in Greek, not as if it was spoken by an Aramaic-speaking Jew.  Christians do not believe the Gospel was 'spoken' by Jesus, and that would make no sense (particularly since there are four Gospels, and they are different).  Again, the modern Islamic conception of the "Injil" seems to have not the slightest relation to the historical Gospels, it is a theological construct that envisions Allah's prophets as being validated by "holy books" that Allah/angels give them.  Why Jesus would have a Greek holy book with a Greek name is a very good question tho ...
  • the injil
     Reply #41 - January 20, 2015, 01:11 AM

    It would be kinda cool if it were true. The truth is that for the gospels to be as corrupted as Muslims try to say they are, this would have to involve just massive amounts of corruption in which basically the entire thrust of the narrative has been changed. Even Mark, the earliest and simplest of the gospels, frequently refers to Jesus as the son of God and his main message seems to be that the kingdom of God is at hand (within his generation) and the forces of evil are going to be wiped away. Also the crucifixion is seen as a theologically important sacrifice.

    Although we don't have manuscripts until about a 100 years after these books were written, they are so geographically dispersed that it makes most textual corruptions easy to spot. If we can say anything from antiquity is sufficiently preserved, it would be the New Testament. However, there probably will always be variants and discrepancies that will not be found which causes a problem for those who believe every word of the bible is inspired

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • the injil
     Reply #42 - January 20, 2015, 01:15 AM

    justperusing, do you know what part of the text it is? like my earlier comment (reply #38) says.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • the injil
     Reply #43 - January 20, 2015, 01:28 AM

    Sorry couldn't tell you. There's literally been no information about it except for Dan Wallace claiming that it exists and a papyrist (or some other specialist of dating manuscripts) has confirmed that it is from the 1st century (taking wallaces word for it. According to Wallace it's taking so long because they're publishing a book on it


    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • the injil
     Reply #44 - January 20, 2015, 01:46 AM

    http://www.dts.edu/read/wallace-new-testament-manscript-first-century/

    Here's him writing about it. Notice how he says it will be published the following year (this was in 2012)

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • the injil
     Reply #45 - January 24, 2015, 08:23 PM

    How do Muslims rationalize the following verse with the old scriptures being corrupted:

    10:64 Theirs are good tidings in the life of the world and in the Hereafter - There is no changing the Words of Allah - that is the Supreme Triumph.

    The context does not make it seem like it is just talking about the Quran being preserved. It seems to be an unambiguous statement that one cannot change the "Words of Allah"

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • the injil
     Reply #46 - January 24, 2015, 09:30 PM

    How do Muslims rationalize the following verse with the old scriptures being corrupted:

    10:64 Theirs are good tidings in the life of the world and in the Hereafter - There is no changing the Words of Allah - that is the Supreme Triumph.

    The context does not make it seem like it is just talking about the Quran being preserved. It seems to be an unambiguous statement that one cannot change the "Words of Allah"


    You're right, it's not just talking about the Qur'an but in general. However the traditional way of understanding this and similar references is that it is not speaking about specific words in specific books - but rather "God's general "edicts, decrees, ordinances, promises, threats, way, methodology etc.."

    There are several places similar phrases occur in the Qur'an i.e:

     لاَ تَبْدِيلَ لِكَلِمَاتِ ٱللَّهِ
    There is no change to God's words (Kalimaat)

    مَا يُبَدَّلُ ٱلْقَوْلُ لَدَىَّ
    The word/saying/speech (Qawl) does not change with me

    ولن تجد لسنة الله تبديلا
    You will not find any change so the way/method (Sunnah) of God

    Basically this is all part of the Qur'an's way of saying this message is just the same as in previous scriptures - God does things in the same way - this is no different - it fits in with previous (abrahamic) revelations etc...
  • the injil
     Reply #47 - January 24, 2015, 09:45 PM

    However I have my own issue with such statements in the Qur'an - because God's "Way/Method" has clearly changed.

    For a start he no longer destroys the iniquitous with plagues, birds throwing stones, global floods, or local parting seas/floods or fire and brimstone. He no longer sends prophets, tablets, magic flying horses, precise details on what type of cow to sacrifice, how to solve local disputes and regularly getting angry and directly "smiting" those who pisseth him off etc... He used to be soooo hands on.

    But now?

    Not a peep!

    If that's not changing "God's way/methodology" - I don't know what is?

  • the injil
     Reply #48 - January 25, 2015, 05:19 PM

    It seems like the traditional way to explain the verse might have come about when muslims realized their scripture contradicted the other scriptures and had to say the old ones were corrupt. Taking this and other verses at face value, it would be hard to say that the quran allows for Gods messages to be corrupted (utterly changed into a completely different message in the case of the gospels)

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • the injil
     Reply #49 - January 25, 2015, 05:28 PM

    I don't think Muhammad (or whoever composed these words) knew in detail what the Bible said - nor was he concerned with the differences between Christianity, Judaism and what he was saying.

    I think he had a general idea of them being all basically the same and any differences that may exist were down to people 'corrupting' the pure message that never changes.

    One can observe this phenomena with modern religious movements. I remember when I attended the Brahma Kumaris centre in Willesden they also put forward this idea that all religions taught the same thing and are basically united in achieving the same spiritual goals.

    How they square that with the reality may seem impossible to us - but as I say, such movements are not concerned with these details - they want to claim authenticity of the past while presenting their own take.
  • the injil
     Reply #50 - January 25, 2015, 06:06 PM

    Memory of the Diatesseron, the Syriac harmony which later got destroyed, probably did survive to spawn oral-traditions of a lost single Evangel. But most Muslims have ignored this, and have seen the Injil as instead surviving in the tradition of direct Jesus sayings. Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Mubarak jotted down a bunch of these "Isa ahadith" in their Zuhd books.

    Tarif Khalidi has reconstructed what might be a modern Injil canon in "The Muslim Jesus".
  • the injil
     Reply #51 - January 25, 2015, 06:10 PM

    I think he had a general idea of them being all basically the same and any differences that may exist were down to people 'corrupting' the pure message that never changes.

    That's pretty much what Fred Donner has been saying. But I disagree - I think the notion of multiple "keys to Paradise" had been floating around the Near East for centuries as a reaction to the Catholic Church, which claims just to have the one key. In my view (and I think in Sean Anthony's view, now) the Arab Prophet brought a fateful tweak - that the keys were swords. Left unstated was that the Prophet knew in which direction to point the swords.
  • the injil
     Reply #52 - January 27, 2015, 04:13 PM

    I think it would be impossible to claim that gods general message/way/method does not change because the Jewish scriptures hold no promise of an afterlife and speak nothing of a heaven or hell but just a place called Sheol. The importance of the afterlife seems to be a central theme if not THE central theme of the Quran. If that's not changing the general message I don't know what would be.

    And if one were to claim the Jewish scriptures once contained explicit and vivid passages about heaven and hell but were corrupted, that would nearly be impossible to argue because 1) the Dead Sea scrolls show the scriptures have not changed much at all since around the 2nd century BC  2) heaven and hell have proven to be the most effective carrot and stick for keeping the masses in line, the Jewish priests would have wielded all the more power under such a theology and would never remove remove such a concept from their scriptures

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • the injil
     Reply #53 - January 27, 2015, 05:23 PM

    I agree with Abu Ali ... the way the Qur'an envisions the situation is that the 'message' is *very basic*, although the holy texts include lots of extraneous details and specific content (like the language) that is not necessary to the holy text's main message.  So you are really talking about different texts that embody the same message.  Where the texts differ, it's either just extraneous material (like explanations and stories), or a corruption.  In this sense, the Qur'an simply does not care about the proliferation of different gospels + Diatessaron.  They are seen as 'synoptic' when it comes to Allah's eternal message, and where they depart from that, a corruption or just extraneous material.

    Kind of similar to how people nowadays will tell you that all religions have the same fundamental message, which is usually some vague platitude about love or such.  Disregard their history and textual specificity, the core is love.

    As to Zimriel's point, I agree with his view about the historical Muhammad and his leadership to paradise via the sword, but I think the Qur'an's theology has very little to do with a historical Muhammad, so I don't see a contradiction between the two.  Even if Muhammad was the final prophetic leader who would usher in the apocalypse via military conquest and take the believers to paradise, that doesn't mean the Qur'an (as a composite object) envisions itself as delivering a different basic message than previous scriptures.
  • the injil
     Reply #54 - January 27, 2015, 06:22 PM

    2) heaven and hell have proven to be the most effective carrot and stick for keeping the masses in line, the Jewish priests would have wielded all the more power under such a theology and would never remove remove such a concept from their scriptures


    I actually had a conversation about this recently with my friend who is doing her PhD work in the history of the evolution of Judaism. The reason why Judaism never developed a hell for unbelievers probably has to do with the fact that at no time in Judaism's history has there been a Jewish theocracy for more than a few years at a time, so basically the entire history of Judaism has been dealing with how to live under invading armies and foreign governments. Most of the foreign kings have allowed Jewish practice to go on relatively undisturbed as long as they didn't preach anything revolutionary. If they had started preaching that the king they were living under was going to be tortured forever, that wouldn't have gone over well. Whatever sect started teaching that would probably have been denounced by the mainstream religious authorities, who didn't want to be wiped out for the extremist views of a sectarian preacher.

    So preaching about hell would not have been conducive to the religious authorities staying in power.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • the injil
     Reply #55 - January 27, 2015, 06:59 PM

    Well it's not just the hell doctrine, but the afterlife has been a moot point through most of Jewish scripture and theology. In the books of the intertestamental period, Jewish beliefs in the idea of a general resurrection started showing up (including in books such as Daniel), but the idea is notably absent from the torah and vast majority of the OT

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • the injil
     Reply #56 - January 27, 2015, 07:56 PM

    Well it's not just the hell doctrine, but the afterlife has been a moot point through most of Jewish scripture and theology. In the books of the intertestamental period, Jewish beliefs in the idea of a general resurrection started showing up (including in books such as Daniel), but the idea is notably absent from the torah and vast majority of the OT


    Well, the Torah was most probably written by a school of scholars around the time of Ezra who were trying to gain recognition from the local government (I think it was the Persians at that time). They wanted to make it seem as if their religion was much older than it was, so they drew together a bunch of ancient texts and added their own spin. In actual fact, monotheism had never been more than a temporary fad in the older Israelite religion; all the kings of Israel and most of the kings of Judah had sanctioned worship at local altars, which was forbidden by the later Torah. Sometimes they'd destroy some of the altars, but this was probably not a "return" to monotheism; it is more likely to have been a change in the favor of certain of the local pantheon. So for example a god of the hills might have been thought to have given them victory over a god of the plain, so they destroyed the altars to the god of the plain. Later authors probably edited that history to make it the rulers seem monotheistic.

    As for the appearance of ideas of an afterlife in the later periods, this probably is a result of more freedom locally or a response to political pressure (the rulers believed in an afterlife and thought the Jews were lying) or possibly a response to the rulers being seen as unnecessarily harsh and restrictive--to deal with the problem of mass slaughter of Jews and Jews not being allowed to practice their religion openly, the religious authorities wanted the people to believe they would be rewarded for their faith sometime. Or possibly a combination of these factors.

    For example, in modern Chabad Lubavitch belief, many believe that the last Lubavitcher rebbe (Menachem Mendel Schneerson) was the messiah. Their belief that he will return in glory to rule the world is very similar to Christian beliefs, and is probably based on them, as this movement was born in modern America and believes things atypical of Jewish texts. So it's a response to the pressures of the Christians and to the horrors of the holocaust. In an opposite example, the Sanhedrin's response to the death of Bar Kokhba, who had been declared the messiah by Rabbi Akiva, was to more or less banish Rabbi Akiva from the mainstream, because the Romans, who had killed Bar Kokhba, wanted to destroy anyone who held revolutionary views to prevent another uprising. If it had not been for this hunting of revolutionaries, the belief that Bar Kokhba was the messiah and would return one day to rule the world would probably have spread.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »