My Icon of St. Clement of Rome purchased at Kiev Perchersk Lavra
In my last post I talked about how Christianity was born in the Greek literate tradition and was able to record the beliefs of the earliest Christians in their sacred texts known as the New Testament. At the same time I contrasted this with Islam which with minimal exceptions has no documents until the 9th century. At this point the Muslims probably realized that they couldn’t compete with a literate tradition in the long run. Either that or some of the literate tradition of the areas that they conquered started to rub off on them. After all, just because they didn’t accept the Christian religion in areas they were occupying, it doesn’t mean that they didn’t accept other cultural practices and customs and wouldn’t contradict Islam.
At the beginning of the second century of the common era, Greek was the intellectual language of the Roman Empire and the classical world. At the beginning of the second century, Christians were busy making use of the literate tradition they inherited and these writings are known as the writings of the apostolic fathers. The two most famous are Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch. Clement was the Bishop of Rome and Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch, which at the time were the two highest offices in the Church.
We have a very long detailed letter from Clement to the Church in Corinth from the year 100 AD. We have seven epistles from Ignatius written in 107 AD. Let us do some math here. Ignatius finishes his epistles 77 years after our Lord ascends to heaven. If we use 77 years as a reference point, doctrinal orthodoxy was being clearly promoted in the biggest church in both east and west. Although Clement is writing in Rome, a Latin speaking city, he is writing in the language of Alexander the Great which is Greek. Ignatius, who ended up dying in Rome, wrote in Greek as well.
If we use the magic number of 77 years and look at Islam, we can draw some conclusions. Although Islam is traditionally dated from 622 AD, we’ll use 632 AD as a reference date since Muhammad dies that year. That gives us 709 AD. What do we have for Islam in 709 AD? It seems that they hadn’t picked up on Greek literate culture yet. This might be because the Arabs often wouldn’t live in the cities that they conquered, but in nearby garrison cities that they constructed.
In the same span of time, there was no confirmation of Islamic orthodoxy on the eastern and western ends of their vast empire; not even two mere religious authorities writing letters. Again, this is due to the lack of the literate tradition as Islam emerged out of an oral crucible.
Why is this such a big deal? Because there are no documents, the revisionist school is allowed to exist. Revisionists look to the early mosques and see that the original qiblas are facing Petra rather than Mecca. Those same revisionists also say that things start to change in terms of the qibla around 709 AD. From this time going forward, there are several qiblas and then they’re eventually standardized to Mecca about a hundred years later. The best guess would be to conclude that Islamic orthodoxy wasn’t established 77 years after Muhammad died. We can never know for sure, but in terms of Christianity we can. This is pretty amazing since in the span of 77 years, Christianity was a marginal spread out movement while Islam was a large and vast empire. Thank you Clement, Ignatius, Alexander, and ancient Greece!
Damage control, eh Allan? So now the Muslims had other’s literate culture “rub off” on them? Apparently, you keep forgetting that Islam has numerous 1st-century AH manuscripts for the Quran. What does Christianity have? Time to wake up, dude! Remember, it’s “truth without compromise” not the “truth as Allan Ruhl sees it”! 🙂
Yes, Muslims have early Qurans. Why did they work hard to preserve it but were negligent in preserving sunnah and history? My guess is that the Quran was a liturgical document. Islam isn’t the Quran. Islam is Hadith. We can’t find anything about Muhammad, Mecca, Islamic history, or the early ummah from the Quran. That’s where the Hadith come in, which are very late.
Special pleading, Allan, and nothing more. You are hard-pressed to face the facts, so you keep moving the goal post.
Also, we have a ton of documentary evidence for Islam outside of the Quran: https://www.islamic-awareness.org/history/islam/inscriptions/earlyislam
We have inscriptions, coins, even tombstones that provide evidence for the early Islamic community. And they all fall within your “77 year” mark.
I’m not moving any goalposts. I’m simply using 77 years as a standard. I read through every single quote in the link you provided. Please tell me what you can gather anything about Muhammad, Mecca, Islamic history, or the early Ummah from those inscriptions. The answer is nothing. If I’m wrong, please show me where.
The literate culture allowed our bishops both East and West to write extensively on this subject while all the vast Islamic empire has in this timeframe are coins, inscriptions, tombstones and other meager markings. For example, where are the detailed letters written by Abdul Malik to some other authority in this vast empire which had access to scribes, libraries, papyri, and vellum. That would certainly destroy Jay Smith and Dan Gibson’s theories, now wouldn’t it? If we can produce letters from Clement and Ignatius, there is no reason that you shouldn’t be able to produce the same thing from Muslims 77 years after Muhammad.
Your bias on this issue is quite telling. There is a reasonable amount of information that can be gathered from all those inscriptions, coins and other things. Islamic terms like Bismillah, and use of the Shahada are all attested. Names of prominent companions of the Prophet are present. What more do you want? It seems you are willing to accept far less for Christianity but want much more for Islam. This is a typical inconsistency among Christian apologists.
So let’s go over this again. For Islam, we have numerous manuscripts of the Quran from the 1st century. We have inscriptions, coins and other historical evidence which attests to the early Muslim community. In contrast, we have ZERO manuscripts of the NT from the 1st century. We have very little historical evidence for the Christian community in the form of extrabiblical documentation. All you have are a few “letters”, which don’t actually confirm anything about what Jesus taught or did.
You are grasping at straws, and your boasting of the “literate” culture in which Christianity grew is not at all impressive.
I’m grasping at straws? I invite anyone to go look at your evidence on the website and see what they can gather. And remember, this was an empire. The Church was a marginal movement but they have way more documents. All we have are letters? Where are your letters btw. The reason this dumb Petra theory exists is that you have the Quran which tells us nothing about Muhammad, Mecca, Islamic history, or the ummah, and those few inscriptions.
If you guys actually had factual evidence, Jay Smith would be out of a job.
No, the reason the theory exists is because some moron thought he knew better than seasoned historians and came up with an idiotic theory based on his own ignorance of history.
Muslims didn’t need to write “letters” like pen pals. You have letters because Christians were so confused as to what they were supposed to believe. Even Paul’s letters show how confused he was. Why did he go to Jerusalem and perform the temple rites? Read my article on Paul to see how confused he was.
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2015/03/12/paul-and-the-evolution-of-christianity/
I’ve noticed that when you can’t explain something, you bring up some huge red herring that has nothing to do with discussion. We’re talking about early sources for Christianity and Islam, then you bring up Paul being supposedly confused. You did this with Orangehunter and the rabbits. You tried to do this with me and your babies in hell post. Completely irrelevant to the discussion.
LOL, I only brought up Paul because you mentioned his letters. Also, your cheerleader orange guy has tried to change the subject multiple times, yet I don’t see you criticizing that! I wonder why? Hypocrisy is deeply ingrained in Christian apologists.
I am still waiting for an explanation of why Christianity’s written record is so poor.
I am also still waiting for an explanation of the Nazarene prophecy. 😉
You tend to run away when you are cornered and make excuses and side comments that have no bearing on the discussion.
Well as Tom Holland put it in his book, sure there was some sort of Quran in existence in the earliest period of the Arab conquests of the Roman and Persian territories.
But then, why does so much of the subsequent Islamic jurisprudence outright go against what the Quran says?
Why do the Hadith state that adultery must be punished by stoning (a Jewish Mosaic command) instead of lashes (Sura 24:2-5)? Why are there five prayers in the Hadith (as the Zoroastrians of Persia practiced) instead of the Quran’s three (Sura 24:58, 2:238, 24:58)?
Why does it take two centuries after Muhammad’s death before Hadith ‘going back to the time of the prophet, traced through reputable isnad chains’ are written down – recounting how so-and-so verse on stoning or breastfeeding an adult male was abrogated or lost from the Quran, in order to explain the preceding 200 years of noncompliance to Quranic decrees?
Mere coincidence that the Hadith, Sira, Tarikh etc were compiled in the same regions where the Talmudic schools (with their oral law ‘isnad’ chains going back to Moses) and Zoroastrian priests, surely! /kappa
LOL, Allan! Your obsession with “oral” and “written” traditions, and why it is “important” with regards to the “Petra” conspiracy theory is quite laughable. You might want to read David King’s excellent explanation for the orientation of mosques. It might help clear your confusion.
And again, where are those pesky manuscripts of the NT? If those Christians inherited a literate culture, why can’t we find any manuscripts?
Honestly, I find that King article to be awful. He also writes in an extremely childish tone. Dr. King is an expert on the later qiblas, not the earlier ones.
“And again, where are those pesky manuscripts of the NT? If those Christians inherited a literate culture, why can’t we find any manuscripts?”
We have many NT manuscripts. The NT is the best attested document from antiquity in terms of manuscripts. Also, coming from a literate culture doesn’t mean that papyri or vellum are preserved, it just means that they wrote things down. Even if the manuscript evidence was bad, it has nothing to do with the fact that a culture is literate or not. You’re comparing apples and oranges.
LOL!! Yes, of course you would find an established scholar to be not as trustworthy as some amateur historian like Dan Gibson and the like!
“We have many NT manuscripts. The NT is the best attested document from antiquity in terms of manuscripts.”
You must be joking! Where are the 1st century manuscripts? Why do we have Roman documents from the 1st century, even the Dead Sea Scrolls from the 1st century BCE, but no 1st-century CE mss for the NT? Hmmm, something is fishy.
Your so-called “literate culture” failed to preserve even ONE early manuscript, and the ones they did preserve are either fragments or contain variations that only prove that the Bible was being edited for centuries.
“You must be joking! Where are the 1st century manuscripts? Why do we have Roman documents from the 1st century, even the Dead Sea Scrolls from the 1st century BCE, but no 1st-century CE mss for the NT? Hmmm, something is fishy.”
Am I joking? On your website in your recommended books the only book you have for textual criticism is Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman. In his debate with James White, Ehrman said: “The New Testament, we have much earlier attestation than for any other book in antiquity.”
The dead sea scrolls aren’t 1st century BC documents. They’re 1 Century BC copies of OT books and Rabbinic writings from earlier periods. The Gospel of John was written in 90 AD. This would give only 10 years to have a first century manuscript which is a ridiculous standard for an ancient document. We don’t have first century manuscripts for first century documents in antiquity.
“Your so-called “literate culture” failed to preserve even ONE early manuscript, and the ones they did preserve are either fragments or contain variations that only prove that the Bible was being edited for centuries.”
We have many early manuscripts. Do we have first century manuscripts? No, but its very unreasonable to ask for first century manuscripts from an ancient book written in the second half of the first century. I’m still hoping that we’ll find some manuscripts of the Injeel, don’t you? Since there is no record of this document even existing until the Quran, I have my doubts. Also, Quran manuscripts have variations so I guess your Quran was edited as well.
“Am I joking? On your website in your recommended books the only book you have for textual criticism is Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman. In his debate with James White, Ehrman said: “The New Testament, we have much earlier attestation than for any other book in antiquity.””
And yet he also says that there are thousands of errors and no two manuscripts match each other. Also, the majority of mss are from medieval times. There is NOTHING from the 1st century.
“The dead sea scrolls aren’t 1st century BC documents. They’re 1 Century BC copies of OT books and Rabbinic writings from earlier periods.”
Yes, I know. But that’s my point. How come older documents have survived, and yet somehow, your NT is absent from the 1st century?
” The Gospel of John was written in 90 AD. This would give only 10 years to have a first century manuscript which is a ridiculous standard for an ancient document”
Again, you say this as if it is a fact, when it is actually just a myth. You have no evidence that John wrote the gospel in 90 CE. If it was written in the first century, you would expect at least one mss or even a fragment to show up. But you don’t.
“We don’t have first century manuscripts for first century documents in antiquity.”
Incorrect. We have Roman documents from the 1st century. And again, if the DSS have survived for even longer, then why didn’t your NT mss survive?
“We have many early manuscripts.”
Such as? And please don’t mention p52!
“No, but its very unreasonable to ask for first century manuscripts from an ancient book written in the second half of the first century.”
Not at all. You just want the benefit of the doubt because you have no other choice.
“I’m still hoping that we’ll find some manuscripts of the Injeel, don’t you?”
LOL, nice try with the deflection, but it doesn’t work. Since the majority of Jesus’ followers would have been illiterate, it is quite likely that the Injeel was taught by word of mouth, at least initially.
I am still hoping that we will find mss of the book of the Wars of the Lord, don’t you?
“Also, Quran manuscripts have variations so I guess your Quran was edited as well.”
Perhaps you can point to some. Let’s see the extent of your knowledge on this.
See my upcoming post.
Perhaps instead of posting your short rants, you should take the time to actually research your claims? Just a thought….
I will read it later. In the mean time, I am still waiting for an explanation of the Nazarene prophecy. 😉
“And yet he also says that there are thousands of errors and no two manuscripts match each other. Also, the majority of mss are from medieval times. There is NOTHING from the 1st century.”- there are like 500 000 textual variants in NT manuscrits…and according to the UBS critical apparatus only 1600 of them are viable and meaningful (the rest are just misspellings, changed world order, usage of different (but equally correct) spellings of a certain word/name, etc.). Of these 1600 variants the ones that teach a doctrines different from the ones we see in the rest of the NT are zero. How do you know that the viable and meaningful variations were not implanted in the manuscript tradition by God Himself? According to the Orthodox Christian tradition many of the said differences were actually inspired by God and are approved for reading. We have nothing from the 1st century because the earliest manuscripts have fallen appart due to extensive copying. Even your favorite Bart Ehrman affirms this in “Misquoting Jesus”. Have you even bothered to read the book before recommending it? Have you any idea how fragile is the papyrus paper? Besides, both the Quran and Muhammad testified to the veracity of the Torah and the Gospel. This was in the 7th century AD. We have dozens of manuscripts of both books, and they are pretty much the Torah and Gospel that we read nowadays. If you think you know better than Allah and Muhammad, why do still call yourself a Muslim?
“You have no evidence that John wrote the gospel in 90 CE. If it was written in the first century, you would expect at least one mss or even a fragment to show up. But you don’t.”- total nonsense, already explained above why. Again, what about Bart Ehrman? He also thinks it was written around 90-95 A.D. (check his textbook on the New Testament).
“If the DSS have survived for even longer, then why didn’t your NT mss survive?”- DSS were not used (at least most of them) after they were hidden. And the climate of Judaea is dry. The NT books were relatively widely copied and circulated (even anti –Christian scholar Richard Carrier concedes the Gospels were already in circulation in wide regions of the Roman empire, check his book “Not The Impossible Faith”). The originals of most NT books were not in Judaea (the opinion of virtually every Church father and biblical scholar) but in regions whose climate is not suitable for preservation of papyri- Italy, Greece, Asia Minor, etc.
“Such as? And please don’t mention p52!”- do some research, please. I know you don’t like doing it, but it helps greatly. P52 is very important, whether you like it or not.
“You just want the benefit of the doubt because you have no other choice.”- hahaha, finally. A joke that is funny.
“LOL, nice try with the deflection, but it doesn’t work. Since the majority of Jesus’ followers would have been illiterate, it is quite likely that the Injeel was taught by word of mouth, at least initially.”- baseless assertion…at best. If something can be freely asserted, it can be also freely rejected. How do you know Jesus’ followers were illiterate? Do you have any source of info or you just made this up? The Ahadith (Bukhari collection at least) testifies to the inscripturation of the Injeel. Are we supposed to just throw it under the bus?
“Perhaps you can point to some. Let’s see the extent of your knowledge on this.”- I don’t know about Allan’s knowledge on this matter, but mine is limited. That’s why I consult the writings of experts (oh no, a third party source!) like this one:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00J972RR4/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i0
May God help us all
“there are like 500 000 textual variants in NT manuscrits…and according to the UBS critical apparatus only 1600 of them are viable and meaningful (the rest are just misspellings, changed world order, usage of different (but equally correct) spellings of a certain word/name, etc.). Of these 1600 variants the ones that teach a doctrines different from the ones we see in the rest of the NT are zero. ”
LOL, nice try! This is the typical excuse, but it just isn’t true. The best example that can be used to destroy your pathetic argument in the Johannine Comma. Christians tried to twist the words to confirm the trinity, when the passage had nothing to do with it. See how easy that was? 🙂
“Have you any idea how fragile is the papyrus paper? ”
HAHAHA, talk about special pleading. As I said to Allan, and which he is still struggling to respond to, we have even older manuscripts that have survived to the present day. We have the DSS from the 1st century BCE! We have Roman documents from the 1st century CE! Why is it that you Christians weren’t able to even preserve ONE manuscript? Not even a fragment? Nothing?!
“We have dozens of manuscripts of both books, and they are pretty much the Torah and Gospel that we read nowadays. If you think you know better than Allah and Muhammad, why do still call yourself a Muslim?”
I can’t stop laughing at your stupidity! You just regurgitate the same debunked claims spread by other ignoramuses, not even knowing how to back them up with evidence!
“total nonsense, already explained above why. Again, what about Bart Ehrman? He also thinks it was written around 90-95 A.D. (check his textbook on the New Testament).”
Yes, silly, but he doesn’t believe that it was written by John the disciple! Big difference!
“DSS were not used (at least most of them) after they were hidden. And the climate of Judaea is dry. The NT books were relatively widely copied and circulated (even anti –Christian scholar Richard Carrier concedes the Gospels were already in circulation in wide regions of the Roman empire, check his book “Not The Impossible Faith”). The originals of most NT books were not in Judaea (the opinion of virtually every Church father and biblical scholar) but in regions whose climate is not suitable for preservation of papyri- Italy, Greece, Asia Minor, etc.”
LOL, Christians have to come up with all sorts of excuses and keep digging themselves into a bigger hole!
What about Roman documents? Are you telling me that they somehow managed to survive but your NT didn’t? How convenient!
“do some research, please. I know you don’t like doing it, but it helps greatly. P52 is very important, whether you like it or not.”
More vagueness? Do you even know what you are talking about? P52 ia tiny fragment, which has been dated anywhere from the early 2nd century to even the 3rd century. Read Brent Nongbri. Get yourself educated first. You’re embarrassing yourself.
“baseless assertion…at best. If something can be freely asserted, it can be also freely rejected.”
HAHA, except that it is not a “baseless assertion”. Numerous studies have been done to show that the majority of Jews in the 1st century were illiterate. Some would have been literate, sure, but the majority were not.
” don’t know about Allan’s knowledge on this matter, but mine is limited. That’s why I consult the writings of experts (oh no, a third party source!) like this one:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00J972RR4/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i0”
So again no answer? It seems pretty clear that you are way in over your head but are too proud to admit it. Why can;t you give me a specific example of a variant in the Quranic mss?
As for Keith Small’s book, here is how Larry Hurtado summarizes his conclusions:
“As to results, Small repeatedly notes that the Qur’an manuscripts exhibit a remarkable stability in the text across many centuries, from the earliest to the latest. In general terms, not much more than orthographic variants (vowel differences in the consonantal script) and other minor variants are found. There are occasional copyist mistakes, but no major differences involving whole clauses or sentences. This accords with traditional, popular Muslim beliefs/claims about the stability of the text of the Qur’an.”
WOW!! So, there is a “remarkable” stability in the text, which corresponds to Muslim beliefs! Alhamdulillah!
But Hurtado also point out:
“But Small also notes that the other evidence (especially palimpsests and reports from early centuries) suggest strongly that there was, in the earliest period, a considerably greater diversity in the text of the Qur’an than is reflected in the extant manuscripts studied. Moreover, as is widely accepted, in the late 7th century, disturbed by the diversity in the text of the Qur’an, the Caliph Uthman organized a standardization of the consontantal text (early Arabic, like ancient Hebrew, was a consonantal aphabet with no written vowels), suppressing variant versions. ”
This is of course nothing new, and nothing that any Muslim wouldn’t already know. We know there were disagreements among some Muslims, mostly over pronunciation. That would have been expected since vowel marks were not used in those days. But Keith Small still shows that there are no major differences in the text. You shot yourself in the foot again, dummy! LOL!!
Jar Jar, you are such a genius! Are you sure you’re not Einstein’s descendant, huh, Jar Jar?
“LOL, nice try! This is the typical excuse, but it just isn’t true. The best example that can be used to destroy your pathetic argument in the Johannine Comma. Christians tried to twist the words to confirm the trinity, when the passage had nothing to do with it. See how easy that was?”- yeah, it was easy for everyone to see your delusion. Even if we assume the Johannine Comma is a later addition to the NT (the evidence for that is not as good as it’s generally presented, but this is another topic), you still fail to prove anything, since it probably started as a footnote that was inserted by mistake. Do you even to read what leading textual critics (like Bruce Metzger) wrote on this issue? And now let’s turn the tables and see if Muslims themselves were making fake verses previous scriptures. Oh no, what’s this- Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, №335 or Sunan Al Daarimi, Kitab: Al Muqadima, hadith №7. And these are only a sample of the ahadith that contain fake verses from the Torah and the Gospel. And the final nail in your coffin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0z0hCvQWak
“HAHAHA, talk about special pleading. “- calm down, we already know it’s your specialty.
“Why is it that you Christians weren’t able to even preserve ONE manuscript? Not even a fragment? Nothing?!”- Christians were concerned about preserving the text, not the manuscripts themselves. None of the Roman manuscripts from the first century contain works that were widely copied back then. Have you ever wonder why?
“HAHAHA, talk about special pleading. As I said to Allan, and which he is still struggling to respond to, we have even older manuscripts that have survived to the present day. We have the DSS from the 1st century BCE! We have Roman documents from the 1st century CE! Why is it that you Christians weren’t able to even preserve ONE manuscript? Not even a fragment? Nothing?”- calling something a special pleading doesn’t make it one. You need to prove it is. The rest has already been refuted.
“I can’t stop laughing at your stupidity! You just regurgitate the same debunked claims spread by other ignoramuses, not even knowing how to back them up with evidence!”- ad hominem+ baseless assertion. The claim has not been debunked yet, despite the desperate tries of Bassam Zawadi, Ijaz Ahmad and the rest. And the evidence to the contrary is actually quite sound. I’m not gonna follow this rabbit trail of yours.
“Yes, silly, but he doesn’t believe that it was written by John the disciple! Big difference!”- nice try changing the subject after getting exposed, but it’s too late.
“LOL, Christians have to come up with all sorts of excuses and keep digging themselves into a bigger hole!
What about Roman documents? Are you telling me that they somehow managed to survive but your NT didn’t? How convenient!”- LOL, dawamongers reject every explanation that ruins their imaginary world of Islam being the true faith. Which Roman “documents” you refer to? Some personal letters by randies, legal contracts, etc. were preserved because they were not widely used after being written. How many manuscripts do we have of works that were widely circulated? How many 1st century manuscripts of Caesar’s works do we have? Of Seneca’s “Moral Letters to Lucilius”? Of Cicero’s “On the Commonwealth”? Do you even make a difference between “documents” and these works? Pathetic!
“More vagueness? Do you even know what you are talking about? P52 ia tiny fragment, which has been dated anywhere from the early 2nd century to even the 3rd century. Read Brent Nongbri. Get yourself educated first. You’re embarrassing yourself.”- If you want less “vagueness” (I still wonder what these “Roman documents” of your are), do the research yourself. I’m not your dhimmi. P52 is very important, because even a tiny piece like it shows remarkable stability of the text. Its size is actually a good thing, because it lessens the probability of matching the text of later manuscripts. But it still does. Do your homework before scribbling.
“HAHA, except that it is not a “baseless assertion”. Numerous studies have been done to show that the majority of Jews in the 1st century were illiterate. Some would have been literate, sure, but the majority were not.”- attacking strawman again? Good boy. But weren’t Jesus’ 1st century followers supposed to be Muslims? How many studies show the literacy rates of 1st cent. Muslims?
“Jar Jar, you are such a genius! Are you sure you’re not Einstein’s descendant, huh, Jar Jar?”
Well Darth Maul, it doesn’t make genius to embarrass a dummy like you, so I’m not patting myself on the back. 🙂
“Yeah, it was easy for everyone to see your delusion. Even if we assume the Johannine Comma is a later addition to the NT (the evidence for that is not as good as it’s generally presented, but this is another topic), you still fail to prove anything, since it probably started as a footnote that was inserted by mistake.”
LOL!! Queue the excuse-making! Even if it was a “footnote”, that would mean that someone deliberately tried to twist the meaning to conform to a trinitarian understanding. That’s how desperate your trinitarian pagans have always been!
“And now let’s turn the tables and see if Muslims themselves were making fake verses previous scriptures. Oh no, what’s this- Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, №335 or Sunan Al Daarimi, Kitab: Al Muqadima, hadith №7. And these are only a sample of the ahadith that contain fake verses from the Torah and the Gospel. And the final nail in your coffin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0z0hCvQWak”
Calm down orange guy. Your ranting and raving is not helping your cause. Neither is your frantic Google searching.
That’s talking about the Taurat, not the Pentateuch (the so-called 5 books of Moses). Apples and oranges, orange guy. You should know that already.
“Christians were concerned about preserving the text, not the manuscripts themselves. None of the Roman manuscripts from the first century contain works that were widely copied back then. Have you ever wonder why?”
More excuses? You’ve obviously never heard of the Oxyrhynchus papyri, which were thrown out as garbage and yet somehow survived till the present day. And yet you Christians could not save even one fragment of one your gospels? Either you guys were incompetent or there was something more sinister going on.
“nice try changing the subject after getting exposed, but it’s too late.”
LOL, except you didn’t “expose” anything, silly. You idiots try to give an exact date but no serious scholar gives exact dates. John’s gospel could have been written anywhere from 90 to even as late as the early 2nd century. Scholars give ranges, not exact dates.
“Which Roman “documents” you refer to? Some personal letters by randies, legal contracts, etc. were preserved because they were not widely used after being written. How many manuscripts do we have of works that were widely circulated? How many 1st century manuscripts of Caesar’s works do we have? Of Seneca’s “Moral Letters to Lucilius”? Of Cicero’s “On the Commonwealth”? Do you even make a difference between “documents” and these works? Pathetic!”
Google Oxyrhynchus papyri, dummy. We know Google is your best friend. These papyri have survived despite some of them being from the 2nd century BCE!
“P52 is very important, because even a tiny piece like it shows remarkable stability of the text. Its size is actually a good thing, because it lessens the probability of matching the text of later manuscripts. But it still does. Do your homework before scribbling.”
Awww, look at the pathetic and desperate crosstian trying to turn his pathetic fragment into a mountain! So you’re okay with a tiny fragment, right? So then why can’t you produce a tiny fragment of Mark, Matthew or Luke or Paul?
“But weren’t Jesus’ 1st century followers supposed to be Muslims? How many studies show the literacy rates of 1st cent. Muslims?”
LOL, everytime you get schooled, you respond with idiotic questions and incoherent rants. A Muslim is someone who submits to God, stupid. In that way, all the prophets were Muslims and so were their followers. The fact remains that the majority of Jesus’ followers would have been illiterate. Either refute this with evidence or admit that you are beaten. There’s a good boy…
Allan, why are you not publishing my comments now?
I published them. Have some patience.
Apparently, you keep forgetting that Islam has numerous 1st-century AH manuscripts for the Quran. What does Christianity have? – quranandbibleblog
Well as Tom Holland put it in his book, sure there was some sort of Quran in existence in the earliest period of the Arab conquests of the Roman and Persian territories.
But then, why does so much of the subsequent Islamic jurisprudence outright go against what the Quran says?
Why do the Hadith state that adultery must be punished by stoning (a Jewish Mosaic command) instead of lashes (Sura 24:2-5)? Why are there five prayers in the Hadith (as the Zoroastrians of Persia practiced) instead of the Quran’s three (Sura 24:58, 2:238, 24:58)?
Why does it take two centuries after Muhammad’s death before Hadith ‘going back to the time of the prophet, traced through reputable isnad chains’ are written down – recounting how so-and-so verse on stoning or breastfeeding an adult male was abrogated or lost from the Quran, in order to explain the preceding 200 years of noncompliance to Quranic decrees?
Mere coincidence that the Hadith, Sira, Tarikh etc were compiled in the same regions where the Talmudic schools (with their oral law ‘isnad’ chains going back to Moses) and Zoroastrian priests, surely! /kappa
Do you have a point? What does this have to do with the fact that there Quranic mss? Hey Allan, another one of your fans is trying to trying to change the subject. Will you let him know that you don’t like that?
No change of subject from where I stand, my interest is focused on the authenticity of the Quran and Hadith – it’s up to you whether you want to address my allegations or ignore them as OOT.
I could care less where you “stand”. Your buddy Allan whines when people change the subject.
We can certainly talk about the authenticity of the Quran and Hadith, but that is a very broad and complex subject. I suspect that your knowledge on this topic is taken largely from Google searches rather than serious research, though. And as far as I am concerned, both the Quran and Hadith are far more reliable and authentic than your Bible could ever be.
“And as far as I am concerned, both the Quran and Hadith are far more reliable and authentic than your Bible could ever be.”- only in your dreams. I’m still waiting for my three passages.
” only in your dreams. I’m still waiting for my three passages.”
LOL, reality hurts brainwashed Christians!
Again, refresh my memory and then find that pesky mutant rabbit, if you please.
I guess your brain has a way of getting rid of stressful info. I’m not surprised, given that you failed twice to meet my challenges. Don’t worry, here are my three challenges again:
1. Show me the exact Torah passage that speaks of the Messiah- the EXACT passage;
2. Show me where Mahomet said that Deutheronomy 18 is a prophecy about him;
3. Show me where Eesa said in the fully detailed Quran “I am the Messiah”;
No vague references, no “lols”, no false accusations, no red herrings. Just plain and simple quotations of the passages I asked for. It should be very easy for you. If you can’t do it, be a man and apologize to your readers.
So where’s that pesky rabbits?
“Show me the exact Torah passage that speaks of the Messiah- the EXACT passage;”
Already answered, stupid. The Pentateuch refers to the latter days. It doesn’t mention the Messiah specifically, but latter days was understood to mean the days of the Messiah.
“2. Show me where Mahomet said that Deutheronomy 18 is a prophecy about him;”
I have no idea why that is even important. I have shown that there was an expectation of a prophet who was not the Messiah. So either your Bible has a false prophecy (which is not surprising) or the prophecy was referring to someone else. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) didn’t have to refer to a specific verse from your ludicrous Bible, because the Bible is not the Taurat and the Injeel. Your Bible is a mix of centuries of different source materials written by different people.
“3. Show me where Eesa said in the fully detailed Quran “I am the Messiah”;
No vague references, no “lols”, no false accusations, no red herrings. Just plain and simple quotations of the passages I asked for. It should be very easy for you. If you can’t do it, be a man and apologize to your readers.”
LOL!! Ooops, sorry!
Your laughable “challenges” reflect your own idiocy. The Quran refers to Jesus as the Messiah. It refers to him as Al-Masih”. Ergo, he is the Messiah. That is enough for us.
See? All of your pathetic “challenges” have been answered. Hey, I didn’t need to write a formal article!
Now, about those rabbits. Where are they? 😉
Pfff, what in Buraq’s name is this? I asked you for meeting my simple challenges and you come up with this? You truly have no idea what integrity means, do you? This is your third failure to respond adequately.
1. “Already answered, stupid. The Pentateuch refers to the latter days. It doesn’t mention the Messiah specifically, but latter days was understood to mean the days of the Messiah.” – your comprehension crisis continues, I see. I asked you to cite the EXACT PASSAGE FROM THE TORAH. Do you know what citation means? You squirm like a worm every time when
I challenge you to cite the EXACT PASSAGE. Why is this so hard for you? Moreover, what makes you think that Christ had
exactly this passage in mind. Did He say it or you just made it up?
2. You’ve just waved the white flag with this response. Your whole case against Deutheronomy 18 is completely ruined. We don’t deny that some Jews did view the Prophet of Deutheronomy 18 and the Messiah as distinct Persons. The Gospels themselves testify to this. But this shows only that some Jews had wrong views, nothing more. These same Jews also thought that the Prophet will be Jew Himself, not Arab. Do you think they were right? No? Why not?
“So either your Bible has a false prophecy (which is not surprising) or the prophecy was referring to someone else.”- the fallacy of false dilemma. You assume without evidence that the Jews who embraced option 2 were right. How about a third option- the prophecy actually IS about the Messiah?
This is how Christians understand the prophecy and thus far you fail miserably to prove us wrong. Finally, you seem to admit that Mahomet did not think that the Bible contains prophecies about him, because they are to be found in the Taurat and the Injeel. I’m glad you do so, but then why did you even bother with Deutheronomy 18? Was all this bluster for nothing? Besides, why don’t you provide evidence that the Taurat and the Injeel even existed? Why should we believe they contain prophecies about Mahomet? Can you cite these alleged prophecies, or we just have to take your word on this? What happened to your “you don’t have evidence for your claims”. Where is your evidence?
“Your Bible is a mix of centuries of different source materials written by different people.” – yep, but this was done through God’s inspiration. Unlike the Quran.
3. “Your laughable “challenges” reflect your own idiocy. The Quran refers to Jesus as the Messiah. It refers to him as Al-Masih”. Ergo, he is the Messiah. That is enough for us.”- this is why sane people should not take you seriously. This is pure buffoonery on your behalf. What if I say “The Bible says so and so, ergo it’s so and so”. Would this be good enough for you? No, you’ll just continue to shovel up your buffoonish scribblings. As for your rabbit blunder, I’ll just quote one of my previous responses: Appealing to what evolutionists say is very un-Islamic, given that the vast majority of the Umma rejects the theory of evolution. Your claim holds no water at all, at least from Islamic perspective. You are one truly bad Muslim.
I would like to thank you for your wretched third failure to address my challenges. It shows why big and foamy mouths will never triumph over the truth.
Does this imply that your knowledge is from serious, official study of reputable scholarly sources?
Cos if so, then you really ought to know how much of a gap there is between the rich/recent-to-composition/tenacious manuscript evidence for the Bible vs the paucity/lateness/variance of the Quran & Hadith.
Well as Tom Holland put it in his book, sure there was some sort of Quran in existence in the earliest period of the Arab conquests of the Roman and Persian territories.
But then, why does so much of the subsequent Islamic jurisprudence outright go against what the Quran says?
Why do the Hadith state that adultery must be punished by stoning (a Jewish Mosaic command) instead of lashes (Sura 24:2-5)? Why are there five prayers in the Hadith (as the Zoroastrians of Persia practiced) instead of the Quran’s three (Sura 24:58, 2:238, 24:58)?
Why does it take two centuries after Muhammad’s death before Hadith ‘going back to the time of the prophet, traced through reputable isnad chains’ are written down – recounting how so-and-so verse on stoning or breastfeeding an adult male was abrogated or lost from the Quran, in order to explain the preceding 200 years of noncompliance to Quranic decrees?
Mere coincidence that the Hadith, Sira, Tarikh etc were compiled in the same regions where the Talmudic schools (with their oral law ‘isnad’ chains going back to Moses) and Zoroastrian priests, surely! /kappa
“So again no answer? It seems pretty clear that you are way in over your head but are too proud to admit it. Why can;t you give me a specific example of a variant in the Quranic mss?”- because the last time I read on this topic was like 4 years ago. My to-read list is enormous. You recommend a whole book about this. Is it just another recommendation you haven’t really read?
“As for Keith Small’s book, here is how Larry Hurtado summarizes his conclusions:”- lol, a “third party source”! I thought you are allergic to these. I guess they’re ok when they supposedly suit your agenda. Why don’t just read the book for yourself instead of reading someone else’s opinion of it? You may get unpleasant surprises there.
So no answer? You are clueless on this subject? OK, got it! Thanks! 🙂
So, none of the Christians can produce any so-called “variants” in the Quranic text. So will they be humble for once and admit that they are mistaken? Should I hold my breath?
Orange guy, so did you find any rabbit that chews the cud yet? How about a lion that ate vegetables only? Or a snail that melts? 😉