One advantage the Christians may have had is the fact that Aramaic was akin to Arabic and Hebrew and was also spoken widely throughout the Middle East.
Because many, if not most, of the original Christians were Jewish and hence spoke Aramaic as well as Greek, it is not improper to deduce that when they met the Peninsula Arabs, they were already familiar with their dialect. Prior to the Christian missionary effort to evangelise the Arabs, there was a large contingent of Jews already living in the Hijaz prior to Muhammad's arrival, and especially in southern Arabia.
Although removed from the immediate environs of Israel, according to Sidney Griffith , the Arabian Jews were in 'continuous contact with Jews elsewhere proper, and particularly in Palestine, and that they were fully aware of current Jewish traditions, both scriptural and rabbinic'.
The Arabian Jews were a multilingual culture, speaking both Aramaic and its sister languages, Arabic and Syriac. Such an arrangement would allow for not only commercial trade between the Palestinian Jews to the north and Arabic-speaking Jews to the south, it would also afford the propagation and proliferation of Judaism among the pagan Arabs.
As Islamic scholar, Alfred Guillame , points out:. At the dawn of Islam the Jews dominated the economic life of the Hijaz. They held all the best land in the oases of Taima, Fadak, and Wadi-l-Qura; at Medina they must have formed half of the population … the Jews of the Hijaz made many proselytes among the Arab tribesmen. The pre-Islamic Arabic version of the Bible.
Given the influx of both Jews and Christians in Arabia long before Muhammad Islamised the Hijaz, and due to the success of both groups to garner converts, even though in the latter case, the 'Christians' were of several heretical sects. As noted above, it must be asked if either group translated any part of the biblical canon into the native Arabic in order to spread their messages.
It is a question that has provoked scholars to both affirm and deny the reality. Without rehashing the long history centred on the question of textual transmission from Greek, Aramaic or Syriac into Arabic, two of the most recent arguments from Hikmat Kashouh and Sidney Griffith - the former scholar is a proponent of a pre-Islamic Arabic version of the Bible or at least the gospel , with the latter scholar rejecting such a proposal - will be investigated.
According to Kashouh , the first defence in written form of the Christian faith in Arabic was issued circa AD. Because of our knowledge of such events, the first Christian texts appeared in Arabic sometime before that date. Kashouh argued that evidence of this is seen in two palimpsests, 'Sinai, Ar. Par 8 and 28', one of which Codex Sinai likely contained Luke's Gospel.
Although he Kashouh is not absolutely certain of the discovery, 'the text is most likely to be a Christian text and pushes back the hypothesis of the existence of the Arabic Bible to the seventh century if not earlier'. In fact, due the exclusive nature of the Arabic text that was produced, which ' is incompatible with biblical texts of southern Palestine the roots of which go back to the seventh century , it is indeed plausible to propose that the Arabic Gospel text first appeared in the pre-seventh century era' Kashouh , [ Kashouh's italics ].
The problem with such a conclusion is that no one has ever produced an Arabic text of the Bible that Christians used 'prior to the rise of Islam' Griffith , What we have, according to Griffith , are 'tenuous extrapolations' that amount to 'Wishful thinking'. This is not to say that the gospel was not being preached and taught throughout the Arabian Peninsula in the Arabic dialect. As mentioned earlier, the early propagation of the biblical gospel was by word of mouth and not through the reading of a text.
As Griffith further argues, it would not be until after Islam's rise and Muhammad's death that the importance of collecting the Qur'an's many surahs, along with the Hadith, became an issue. Suddenly there was a need to preserve the sayings and teachings of the prophet, but that would only be done in Arabic. Development of Arabic grammars and dictionaries would not occur until the second half of the 8th century Griffith Translation of the Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic text of the Bible into Arabic would follow, meaning that those texts would also not come into being until at least the 8th century, and that to compete with the Qur'an.
Given the number of biblical allusions to stories and characters found in the Qur'an - many of which were distorted recollections by the heretical sects already mentioned - it should come as no surprise that, later on, the followers of Muhammad would read and rehash those distortions as they made their way into the Qur'an.
It is another reason why there was no effort on the part of the 'Christians' to produce, except possibly in note form, a Bible in Arabic that would have possibly kept in check the distortions being spread abroad among the tribal pagans prior to Islam's rise.
While Kashouh's argument shares much with other scholars on the subject e. Anton Baumstark and Ifran Shahid as 'plausible' or 'possible', Griffith's counter-argument, pointing out the lack of tangible evidence, is enough to defeat the 'wishful thinking'. There was no Bible written in Arabic prior to Islam's rise and sudden expansion throughout Arabia, the Middle East and North Africa in the mid-7th century.
Because Muhammad was dead at the time of the Arabic Bible as well as the Qur'an's rise, what 'books', particularly of the Bible, was he referring to then when he testified that he believed in it and that, by necessity, all subsequent Muslims must also believe in them Surah ; ; ? Moreover, how did he believe in them?
Was it something written or merely audible? He was obviously aware of something that he found worthy of adoration. But, what was it? The version of the Bible available to Muhammad. As has been already established, both the Jews and the Christians occupied land and cities in the Hijaz prior to Muhammad's existence.
The texts that those Jews and Christians used as aids to memory while they propagated their message verbally were already confirmed and essentially closed by the mid-4th century AD. Although the lingua franca of the day was Greek, not all Jews or Christians necessarily spoke or wrote in Greek, but in other languages such as Latin in the West, Syriac in the East and Coptic in North Africa as they spread abroad throughout the Middle East, Asia and eventually into the Arabian Peninsula.
Literally thousands of copies of biblical manuscripts, many of which are extant today, were produced as a result of the rich diversity of the languages and cultures that were encountered by both the Jews and Christians as they shared their messages.
It was more commonly known as the Septuagint LXX. Rival stories caused conflict over the designated terminology, Septuagint : whether the naming of the translation was due to the number of Jewish scribes employed to create it or whether it had to do with the number of elders who accompanied Moses to Mount Sinai to receive the Law from God. The finalisation of the Old Testament text that encompassed more than just the Torah occurred early in the 2nd century AD.
Such wide acceptance, though, would extend into the Christian community, only to be eventually rejected by the Jews, because 'some Christians had based some of their criticisms against Judaism upon faulty LXX texts' McDonald Aside from the verbal transmission of the New Testament, the text that most likely had the greatest impact upon Arabian culture at the time Muhammad spoke of the wonders of previous 'revelations', 'books', and 'scriptures' was handed down by the Syrians.
They gave aid to not only the Jews and Christians in Arabia, but the influence of the Old Testament, along with five versions of the New Testament they translated into Syriac, was witnessed as far as Lebanon to the north, China to the east and, of course, Arabia to the south.
Although the Old Syriac version was not well attested, one particular version, the Peshitta, was copied and distributed with great vigour and faithfulness. As Bruce Metzger observed:. Syrian scribes devoted great care to the transcription of the Peshitta version.
A remarkable accord exists among the manuscripts of every age, there being on the average scarcely more than one important variant per chapter. Aland and Aland add the following:. The Peshitta version of the New Testament is the most widely attested and most consistently transmitted of the Syriac New Testament versions. The Syriac church still preserves it and holds it in reverence in this form today. But, why is the Peshitta version relevant to our thematic question?
The Syriac Peshitta is important for at least three reasons:. First, aside from Jewish and Christian usage, it was the version being utilised by both the Nestorians and the Jacobites Monophysites as they grappled over the identity of Jesus. The conclusions they drew would be reacted to by Muhammad when he taught ' Far is He from having the partners they [ Jews and Christians ] associate with Him ' Surah Subsequent Muslims would later take up the gauntlet and 'fight' those foes as projections against orthodox belief.
Second, the Peshitta version not only consisted of all the books common to the Hebrew Old Testament canon along with several apocryphal works ; it also contained 22 books from the New Testament canon. Due to the faithfulness of those who translated it from Greek into Syriac, anyone familiar with the former would have a good idea of what went into the latter. Such fidelity leads to the important third reason, namely the natural rebuttal of some modern-day Muslim apologists who argue that what can be known about the Torah and the gospel is something wholly other than what Muhammad knew about them in his day.
If it is true that the Peshitta is as well attested and preserved as is contended, then what the Syrian Christian Church knew about the gospel in the 6th and 7th centuries of Muhammad's earthly existence is exactly what biblical Christians know about it today.
It is not something wholly other that the Muslim apologist wishes everyone to believe. Ramifications for acknowledging Muhammad's available 'Revelation'. Since the Syriac Peshitta was most likely the Bible version that Muhammad alluded to in Surahs , , ; , ; , et cetera, then there are several ramifications for acknowledging it as such. We know its content and that content has not been 'corrupted'. Any prophecies projected about the 'prophet' Muhammad would be dubious at best. The requirement that Muslims must read the Bible would be faulty.
Finally, knowledge about the persons of Jesus and God would be absent. Each of these effects will now be investigated one-by-one to judge their validity and gravity. The claim for corrupt versions of the Bible. The Bible has not been changed, nor has it been 'corrupted', in other words, if the Peshitta is the highlighted 'revelation' behind Muhammad's assertion. Many of the later Muslim apologists repeatedly assert just how corrupted or tainted any current revelation is by comparing it with the 'original text'.
Nevertheless, the Syriac Peshitta is nothing more than a copy, written in another language and handed down with 'remarkable fidelity' Metzger to Syriac-speaking Christians in the proclamation of their messages.
What can be known from the contents of both the Old and New Testament is the same information as that which was known by both the Jews and Christians for hundreds of years leading up to the development of the Peshitta. Arguments raised by Muslim spokesmen such as Ajijola who speak of believing in the Torah, Psalms of David and the gospel, but yet denigrate them, because they supposedly do not share the 'original form', is misleading if not untrue.
Even though Muhammad could not read the Peshitta himself, its contents is essentially the same as that found in the LXX and the Greek text from which the Peshitta was translated. Again, please note Sir Frederick Kenyon's comments above in respect to biblical and textual integrity and credibility see above under the heading titled 'A brief history of the biblical canon'.
As long as the Muslims choose to exalt any other non-biblical revelation or to align themselves with the 'People of the Book', there must be a consistency in those revelations and Muslim behaviour that honours and not demeans both the Jews and Christians. The Peshitta was 'the Book' those people were using at the time they made progress in Arabia - both prior to and during Muhammad's reign.
No longer can the Muslims accuse the Jews of changing Surah or perverting Surah God's revelation, or speciously writing it with their own hands Surah , and not further accuse God of impotence over what he has revealed. Muslims cannot call the Jews or Christians 'losers' Surah or encourage others not to befriend them Surah ; They certainly must end their campaign of jihad against them so as to oppress them until they are either killed or 'feel subdued' Surah , 73, ; In other words, the Muslims must 'believe the Revelation', as Muhammad claimed he did that would involve any reputable version after the order of the Peshitta or the texts upon which it was based, if they are to be consistent in their claim of following the one true religion.
Prophesying the coming of Muhammad. A second ramification of accepting the Syriac Peshitta as the Bible version available to Muhammad, alluded to as a previous 'Revelation' leading up to the Qur'an, is the disavowal that Muhammad was forecasted as the successor to Jesus as a 'prophet of God'.
It is not uncommon that non-Christian religious followers, and even many who claim to be Christian, wish to exalt their religious leaders to a special status in God's economy. Typically, this status takes the form of some kind of prophet, seer or revelator. The basis for such exaltation is usually the product of biblical manipulation through poor exegesis of the biblical text coupled with a misapplication based on faulty hermeneutical principles.
When the exegesis more properly eisogesis and interpretation are found to be wanting, the critic is either attacked personally - the biblical text is demeaned as somehow missing a plain and precious truth - or the Bible is assumed to have been tampered with somehow. All of that must be denounced when it becomes clear that what Muhammad accepted as the Bible version of his day is the same one used by the Jews and Christians prior to their entrance into the Hijaz. Khurshid Ahmad serves as a classic example of a Muslim who believes that the Bible has something to say about Muhammad's revelation that is exegetically untenable.
In his explanation on how the Qur'an influenced human history, he wrote:. In Islam religion has been perfected. That is another way of saying that with Islam the age of new revelation has come to a close, and that the age of realization of the principles revealed religion has been inaugurated. That is why in all the earlier scriptures references are to be found to the advent of the Prophet of Islam.
Students of the Bible, for instance, know that Jesus had said: 'I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now … He will guide you unto all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but of whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak' Jn A careful examination of the reference Ahmad provides as his proof text to validate Muhammad's prophethood, reveals that not only is Muhammad not being spoken about by Jesus, but the modus operandi Ahmad used to mislead the reader.
Nobody should unjustly cite the Bible to his or her own advantage - especially, if his or her own prophet has such a high esteem for the Bible. Ahmad simply excised the passage to exclude any mention of 'the Spirit of truth' in John that Jesus mentioned previously in John's Gospel as the one whom both he and the Father would send as another Paraclete John , Anyone practicing careful exegesis and proper hermeneutical skill would not only see Muhammad's absence, but upon examining the world of Islamic history and doctrine would note that whatever prophetic status he might have, it is different from those who are recognised as biblical prophets.
Inconsistency in the Muslim's acceptance of divine revelation. Given that the Syriac Peshitta was the biblical version that Muhammad sanctioned while he was alive, it follows that this version or any one of a number of other similar versions, should be 'required' reading for earlier and present day Muslims.
Accordingly, the Bible should form the basis for Muslim belief and doctrine, which would include that found in the book Muslims believe, came straight from heaven, namely the Qur'an. There should be no variance, because God would be the author of both. Any progressive revelation would dovetail with previous revelations with the ultimate object of all revelation being the person of Jesus Christ Lk ; Jn ; 2 Tm ; Heb ; Rv That is not the case for the Muslims, however, as they reject, except piecemeal, anything the Bible has to say, especially when it contradicts their own presuppositions.
Therefore, the conclusion can be made that today's Muslims are at variance with what Muhammad thought about the Bible in Surah , , , et cetera. If the Muslims reject the Peshitta, as well as any other textual revelation that serves as the basis upon which various Bible translations and versions are created, the mandate that stipulates belief in the Bible is without any authority to enforce it.
To state as much as M. Ali did, namely that the Muslims are 'required to believe' in all the books of God, would be basically meaningless. If it is assumed the Qur'an serves as a corrector or surrogate for the Bible,it once again implies that God is impotent in preserving his previously transmitted revelation s. Fallen humanity is capable of doing in the reverse what God is incapable of doing initially. Man's sinful will is more decisive than God's holy will. Furthermore, it assumes that God is mutable.
In the Qur'an's case, it would project that God somehow garnered more power, will and control over that revelation than over previous revelations. That, however, would contradict Qur'anic revelation that God was immutable , which would, in turn, negate that he was self-sufficient ; and unified see Hakim as the one being representative of deity. The only possible way for the requirement to believe in previous revelations to mean anything is for those revelations currently to exist and that there is access to those revelations to be read.
Because, according to the Muslims those revelations do not exist except in alleged corrupted or tainted forms, the mandate to believe means nothing in modern-day parlance that also nullifies the words found in the Qur'an - Allah's most perfect book. The best and only historical document that speaks of the life of Jesus is found in the Bible and that in an extremely abbreviated account.
Aside from a short birth narrative, coupled with the last three and a half years of his life that is mainly focused on the Passion Week, what we know about the person of Jesus is found in the New Testament and nowhere else.
The Qur'an's recollection is highly polemical and proffers nothing of biographical value regarding the historical Jesus. In fact, in the instance of the Qur'an, Muhammad's 'revelation' seems more interested in arguing with those with whom Muhammad is contending, and that with a 'distinctive prophetology' in mind, than providing any kind of real historical recollection. In other words, in the Qur'an, Jesus ends up being nothing more than an ordinary man Surah ; , 8 who only came to seek and save one faction of the human race Surah ; Ali and never dies for anyone Surah ; , while Muhammad is viewed as Jesus' superior, who came to comfort all humans Surah ; cf.
Ali , n. Without God's revelation, there can be no knowledge of him either. It is why the followers of Muhammad would record him saying that:.
Their status or place, identity of revealed scripture is explained and highly praised: these scriptures have been brought by true prophets such as Moses and Jesus.
They are, thus, the divine word, as they truly come from God. Therefore, they are described in highly positive terms: they are guidance for the people, a light, a benefaction, etc.
And because of their divine origin, they are highly authoritative. These parallels are shaped by the use of both similar themes and similar formulas. A similar parallelism is going on in the text: the parallelism between Muhammad and the previous prophets, designed to present Muhammad as a genuine prophet receiving a communication from God. Such an idea seems clearly to have appeared from outside of the text, in some sort of later interpretation. There are indeed two possibilities of interpretation: either the text states that it confirms the previous scriptures in their status of revealed scriptures, or the text states that it confirms the contents of these scriptures by providing the same contents , or by offering new proof for what they declare.
As long as these scriptures are unknown and inaccessible, it is fine to use them as referents. But when the audience or readership has more access to, and knowledge of, the content of their texts, this becomes more problematic. Is this done on purpose or due to some hesitation?
The text accuses people of one of these three components, or of two, or of all three of them. That is: to tell a lie about God by pretending that God did or said something, when it is not He who did or said it; and, in this way, to have God telling a lie, because the saying attributed to Him is not true, as it is not from God, and God speaks only the truth.
Indeed, this is about revelation: someone has not been inspired by God but nevertheless pretends to have been. Is Hell not the home for the disbelievers? The same goes for this other verse:. The tension thus involves denouncing claims that a practice is a true revelation from God, when it is only a forgery from the ancestors.
The overall discourse on forgery and lies reinforces the disqualification of the previous scriptures, now considered falsified. This framework can be explored by considering three components.
They authoritatively impose on the reader or the listener what is to be praised for instance, the behavior of pious believers and what is to be hated or rebuked for instance, the behavior of wrongdoers or hypocrites. This rhetorical technique stresses the gravity of such an act: those who commit forgery and lies against God are horrendous evildoers. This can be seen clearly when looking at several verses that make accusations of a forgery and lies.
Such is the case with the following verse:. If you could only see the wicked in their death agonies …. Therefore, the accusations of forgery and lies are to be understood within a general discourse concerning any kind of revelations including the one that the current prophet, Muhammad, is transmitting, i.
They include the arguments of the opponents accusing Muhammad of not being a real prophet. For instance, here is a verse using the second step the idea of writing down or copying a text which is being dictated mixed with the first step that the informants are only men, not God :.
The polemical passages are composed in a lively style, intertwined with negative comments about the behavior of the opponents, mockery, threats, challenges directed towards the opponents and, more importantly, precise responses to their attacks through rebuttal and counter-accusation The text presents a strong refutation of the idea that Muhammad—or other men—could have authored the recitations and could be falsely attributing them to God.
Indeed, the text is very well structured and responds either a bit further on in the text, or even earlier, and in the same surah. No main concern there about the biblical scriptures. Indeed, a detailed analysis of these elements section IV: general presentation of previous scriptures; section V: general discourse on forgery and lies, and their interplay , has brought about four important results.
On the one hand, the conclusion which stems out of the general description of the previous scriptures IV. They are explicitly highly praised; they are said to have a high status: since God has sent them down, they have an ultimate authority. To this very day, the double attitude towards the previous scriptures is a very important feature of main-trend Islamic belief; and thanks to the idea of possible alteration of the Bible, it does not appear paradoxical to the believers anymore.
No side of the paradox can stand alone, they are necessarily bound together. Moreover, in general, the two faces of the paradox are not seen as a paradox within Islamic circles: they are seen as two automatically related dogmas which form one single coherent idea.
At times, Jews and Christians when asking Muslims how they consider the Torah or the Bible may be quite surprised, or even upset and angry, at the Muslim reaction. While the first answer would generally be to say that Muslims believe in the scriptures and respect them, a later discussion may lead to the understanding that most Muslims generally have a strong lack of interest, if not some caution or some contempt, for the vernacular contemporary translations of the Bible and even for its original Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic texts.
First, the consequence of the highly positive discourse on previous scriptures section IV. Second, the consequence of the explicit section V.
This statement is of huge importance. The reasons for such a discourse are to be found in its goal: the text talks about previous scriptures because it wants to talk about itself. As has been shown in section V. It reflects neither the way the Torah and the Gospel were seen by the Jews and the Christians, 65 nor even, at least primarily, the way the Torah and the Gospel were to be understood.
The essential aim of the text, or at least its primary aim, was to explain and prove what it was, not what these previous scriptures were. God Himself has explained in the Gospels that this prophecy referred to Christ, not to Muhammad. Compare Deuteronomy , "Him you shall hear," with Matthew ,".
This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him! Jesus explains that this and other passages refer to Himself John ; Genesis ; ; ; ; He was descended from Judah Matthew ; Luke ; Hebrews , was born in Israel, and spent almost all of His life among the Jews.
In Acts , this prophecy is cited as referring to Christ Jesus. Psalm And in Your majesty ride prosperously because of truth, humility, and righteousness; And Your right hand shall teach You awesome things. Your arrows are sharp in the heart of the King's enemies; The peoples fall under You. In Islam, Muhammad is called "the Prophet with the sword. Verse six declares, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.
Furthermore, Hebrews clearly states that verse six is an address to Christ. Isaiah And he saw a chariot with a pair of horsemen, A chariot of donkeys, and a chariot of camels. Muslims think that the words "a chariot of donkeys" in this verse are a prediction of the coming of Christ, who entered Jerusalem riding on a donkey, and that :a chariot or troop of camels" refers to Muhammad, since he always rode on a camel. In fact, the context shows that this chapter refers to neither Christ nor Muhammad.
It is a prophecy of the fall of Babylon, as we learn from verse 9, and tells how travelers bring word of the capture of the city and the destruction of its idols, which took place under Darius in B. Is Muhammad Mentioned in the New Testament? Matthew The biblical kingdom of God has temporal and spiritual aspects, present and future implications.
Long before the rise of Islamic power, Christ announced the presence of the kingdom, saying, "But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you" Matthew In Mark , Christ told His disciples that some of them would not taste death until they saw the kingdom of God present with power. Did they see Muhammad and the "kingdom" of Islam?
Certainly not. Mark
0コメント