Quran and New Testament, are they the same in authorship, manuscript evidence, textual reliability?

[firedragon]

@firedragon

Just a little tidbit that I learned long ago, gathered from the peripheries of my mind...

I know that Muslims claim that the Quran we have today is the same unaltered Quran in Arabic that was originally given whereas the Bible has been edited. However, this is not true.

There were in the beginning, many different versions of the Quran when it was first compiled. Caliph Uthman (644-656 A.D. ) decided to tackle this problem by gathering and destroying all the versions of the Quran except the one which survived.

It is also true that there are differences in the Arabic versions today, somewhere between 20 and 30, depending on whom you ask.

Yeah. Everyone has heard this accusation about Uthman and the so called "different versions". This is all over the internet.

You see, taking a historical approach, you are using uthmans story that someone recorded in the 4th century after Muhammed. Minimum, 3rd century after Muhammed. If you speak to me as a Muslim and about faith matters and theology then that's a whole different approach. But historically, why do you take this since you are not a Muslim? Also, this same hadith you are taking for this post, did you notice that you missed out the part where Uthman supposedly took a copy of the Quran from Hafza and returned the same thing to her later? Which means that is the standard. But you missed it.

Because what you find all over the internet is what you said exactly, but they are not even slightly read on the matter.

Please explain.

 

[firedragon]

The elements are, (a) angry gods (b) generate a great flood (c) in order to wipe out mankind (d) but one human is forewarned (e) and builds a large floating device (f) and he and one or more family members survive (g) so the gods repent and let them live. As you can see on that link to Andrew George's translation of Gilgamesh, in the chapter "Tablet XI, Immortality Denied" the wise god Ea says to Uta-Napishti (in Sumerian, Ziusudra, in the bible Noah) ─

demolish the house and build a boat!
Abandon wealth and seek survival! [...]
Take on board all living things' seed.

The boat you will build,
her dimensions all shall be equal:
her length and breadth shall be the same,
cover her with a roof [...] (24-32)​

Uta-Napishti agrees to do it (line 33). He builds the boat with an area of an acre, a height of ten rods, sides of ten rods, six decks, much tar.

He loads his silver and gold on board and ─

all the living creatures I had I loaded aboard.
I sent on board all my kith and kin,
the beasts of the field, the creatures of the wild, and members of every skill and craft. (84-6)​

The deluge ends after seven days (130). "All the people [outside] had turned to clay".

The boat comes to rest on Mt Nimush (142). Seven days later ─

I brought out a dove, I let it loose:
off went the dove but then it returned,
there was no place to land (148-50).​

The next, a swallow, also returns. The third, a raven, does not (155), and Uta-Napishti gives thanks ─ he offers incense and the gods are drawn to the place.

‘Then at once Belet-ili arrived,
she lifted the flies of lapis lazuli that Anu had made for their courtship:
“O gods, let these great beads in this necklace of mine
make me remember these days, and never forget them! (164-7)​

So even the rainbow is derived from (at the least) the Akkadian version of the Sumerian story.

I don't think there can be any doubt that this earlier tale is the basis of the bible's Noah story, or alternatively that they are from a common and even earlier origin.

What if it was Vice Versa? How come you insist that it was definitely derived from one source and not the other?

 

[blü 2]

What if it was Vice Versa? How come you insist that it was definitely derived from one source and not the other?

The story of Ziusudra and the Flood exists in Sumer by the middle of the third millennium BCE, and may be another millennium older. By the year 2000 BCE it had passed from the non-Semitic Sumerians to their Semitic neighbors the Akkadians, who called the protagonist Uta-Nipishtim, whence it passes to the Akkadians' northern Semitic neighbors the Babylonians. Yahweh makes his earliest known appearance as a Semitic tribal deity in the southern desert of the Canaan region around 1500 BCE. The earliest parts of the bible, with Noah as Flood protagonist, are not written until the early first millennium BCE.

 

[firedragon]

The story of Ziusudra and the Flood exists in Sumer by the middle of the third millennium BCE, and may be another millennium older. By the year 2000 BCE it had passed from the non-Semitic Sumerians to their Semitic neighbors the Akkadians, who called the protagonist Uta-Nipishtim. Yahweh makes his earliest known appearance as a Semitic tribal deity in the southern desert of the Canaan region around 1500 BCE. The earliest parts of the bible, with Noah as Flood protagonist, are not written until the early first millennium BCE.

You are right. The Bible was not written as early as the Sumerian episodes. But are you making the case that since the Bible was written later, the Sumerian epic is the original? How would you know that since the Gilgamesh epic is probably written in the 2100's BC but according to the Biblical legend Noah lived way before that? Did you even consider that since you yourself has stated that Abraham came from Ur, and the Gilgamesh epic comes from the same location in Iraq, during the same times, What if both stories have the same source, but written in different ways?

Do you understand the assertion?

 

[blü 2]

You are right. The Bible was not written as early as the Sumerian episodes. But are you making the case that since the Bible was written later, the Sumerian epic is the original?

Yes. I don't know what's in the earliest Sumerian cuneiform, but there are Sumerian signet rings depicting a figure which scholars say is Ziasudra, from the first half to middle of the 3rd millennium BCE. By 2000 BCE, Akkadian scribes, who were expected to know Sumerian as we used to be expected to know Latin, left plentiful tablets of their Sumerian exercises, including bits of the Ziusudra tale, to be found by archaelogists ─ the details are in Andrew George's Gilgamesh,

Did you even consider that since you yourself has stated that Abraham came from Ur, and the Gilgamesh epic comes from the same location in Iraq, during the same times, What if both stories have the same source, but written in different ways?

Yes. That's why I pointed out that by 2000 BCE Ur spoke Akkadian, not Sumerian, and that Abraham's name is Semitic, not Sumerian. Once again, see Andrew George,

 

[firedragon]

Yes. I don't know what's in the earliest Sumerian cuneiform, but there are Sumerian signet rings depicting a figure which scholars say is Ziasudra, from the first half to middle of the 3rd millennium BCE. By 2000 BCE, Akkadian scribes, who were expected to know Sumerian as we used to be expected to know Latin, left plentiful tablets of their Sumerian exercises, including bits of the Ziusudra tale, to be found by archaelogists ─ the details are in Andrew George's Gilgamesh,
Yes. That's why I pointed out that by 2000 BCE Ur spoke Akkadian, not Sumerian, and that Abraham's name is Semitic, not Sumerian. Once again, see Andrew George,

Blu. The king of Uruk is supposed to have lived around 2,700 to 2,500 BC. The Sumerian stories and the Akkadian epic depiction of Gilgamesh and his adventures seem like a Roman or Greek divination of a king or queen. It is known that by the year 2500 Gilgamesh was already known as a God. Or at least, it is probable. It is only after this that scholars say the transmission of oral tradition began to manifest in written tradition. This is based on other texts like the Abu Salabikh but none of them are about Gilgamesh which means we are assuming the Gilgamesh escapades were written so far in the rear. The Sumerian tales are only presumed to have been written around the 21st century BC which is probably 500 years after Gilgamesh. Which means a story that existed has evolved through 5 centuries into a fantasy story (historically speaking).

The Mythicists of theological books tend to always believe that the parallelism they practice are always plagiarised from the myths, but not vice versa. That itself is a mere belief. Faith.

There are some persons in the Sumerian tales like hobabish who is mentioned in the Qumran documents like the book of giants (Maybe I got the name a little here and there). So there are definite comparisons and some similarities but this could mean that the original source is older than both, and is one. Hope you understand.

According to the Biblical legend Noah and the Flood episode happened way before the king of urk. Maybe, just maybe, both are the same person. When Abraham came from Iraq to Israel (maybe 2100s if the Bible is correct) he brought the same story to Israel, but in Ur, it was an evolved mythology and they wrote it as the epic of Gilgamesh.

For example I do know of another story about Sita and Rama where another God with 12 heads from a country called Sri Lanka flew to India and kidnapped Ramas wife. Anyway that's a fantastic story. But a thing to ponder is that the same 12 headed God is recorded in Sri Lanka as a simple king who fought a war against the Indian king. But the person is the same. But in India it is absolutely fantastic mythology, yet in the other country it is a historical king who was no God with 12 heads. Now who copied form whom?

A lot fo people think that the mythicists approach is the historical approach. Nothing is further than the truth. This is why one has to take a historical approach in these matters and open the mind to possibilities. Maybe, both had one source, older than both writings but one origin.

Nevertheless, thanks for bringing up Andrewgeorge. I have not read his translation. Maybe interesting to read. Appreciated.

 

[firedragon]

Yes. That's why I pointed out that by 2000 BCE Ur spoke Akkadian, not Sumerian, and that Abraham's name is Semitic, not Sumerian. Once again, see Andrew George,

See Blu, everyone calls Jesus as "Jesus". But in the Greek text of the Bible he is EEsous. Eesaw. In Aramaic he is Yeshua. According to some legend, in some areas in India they called him Yusasaph. Even today in many places or the world they call him Jesu and sometimes Yesoos.

Though Abraham is a name, and is a semitic name, could have been absolutely something else in another country and another language. Given.

 

[blü 2]

See Blu, everyone calls Jesus as "Jesus". But in the Greek text of the Bible he is EEsous. Eesaw. In Aramaic he is Yeshua. According to some legend, in some areas in India they called him Yusasaph. Even today in many places or the world they call him Jesu and sometimes Yesoos.

If you have any evidence that Abram is, or represents, a Sumerian name, by all means lay it on me.

I don't understand why the point seems so important to you. Surely for the sorting of these matters we look to archaeology?

And the biblical Flood is just folktale anyway. Maybe there was a major flood on the Euphrates or Tigris, but not more.

 

[firedragon]

If you have any evidence that Abram is, or represents, a Sumerian name, by all means lay it on me.

I don't understand why the point seems so important to you. Surely for the sorting of these matters we look to archaeology?

And the biblical Flood is just folktale anyway. Maybe there was a major flood on the Euphrates or Tigris, but not more.

Its not that important, and mate, asking me why seems so important to me, why is that so important to you then? Thats not a valid counter. This is a forum and its a discussion.

And I dont have any evidence that Abraham is a Sumerian name. Yes, maybe there was a local flood. All agreed. The point is, lets not assume that one copied from another just like that. Maybe there was an earlier source both come from. Thats it.

Have a great day.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yeah. Everyone has heard this accusation about Uthman and the so called "different versions". This is all over the internet.

You see, taking a historical approach, you are using uthmans story that someone recorded in the 4th century after Muhammed. Minimum, 3rd century after Muhammed. If you speak to me as a Muslim and about faith matters and theology then that's a whole different approach. But historically, why do you take this since you are not a Muslim? Also, this same hadith you are taking for this post, did you notice that you missed out the part where Uthman supposedly took a copy of the Quran from Hafza and returned the same thing to her later? Which means that is the standard. But you missed it.

Because what you find all over the internet is what you said exactly, but they are not even slightly read on the matter.

Please explain.

Well, history in general is of interest to me. I have read the histories of many different civilizations.

 

[firedragon]

Well, history in general is of interest to me. I have read the histories of many different civilizations.

Thats great.

 

[blü 2]

Its not that important, and mate, asking me why seems so important to me, why is that so important to you then? Thats not a valid counter. This is a forum and its a discussion.

And I dont have any evidence that Abraham is a Sumerian name. Yes, maybe there was a local flood. All agreed. The point is, lets not assume that one copied from another just like that. Maybe there was an earlier source both come from.

Yes, the Noah story comes from the Akkadian, and the Akkadian comes from the Sumerian. And yes, in each case the story may have existed in two or more different versions.

Regardless, the chronology of Sumer (3rd millennium BCE if not earlier) , Babylon (2nd millennium BCE) and the worship of Yahweh (from mid-2nd cent BCE, written down 1st millennium BCE) and the parallels between the bible's Noah story and the Akkadian's earlier Uta-Napishti story (as I quoted above from George's Gilgamesh) persuade me that the bible story is based on the Akkadian / Babylonian story.

If you're not persuaded, that's fine ─ clearly a matter for you.

 

[blü 2]

All good blu. No problem.

Sorry for the delay. The book is Tom Holland’s In the Shadow of the Sword. In Chapter 6. “More Questions than Answers”. He makes the following points ─

The earliest biography of Muhammad is not written till almost 200 years after his death.

Mecca in Muhammad’s time was not a major center of commerce but a wholly insignificant valley in the middle of nowhere. Mentioned only once in the Qur’an, the earliest external mention is not till 741, more than a century after his death – as a place in Mesopotamia between Ur and Harran.

The Qur’an is not mentioned in any writings in Muhammad’s lifetime. Muslim jurists continued to use the Torah, not the Qur’an, throughout the century following his death, and there are no commentaries on it till the 9th century.

The oldest text of the Qur’an [about half of it] is found in the Sana’a palimpsest, overwritten by, close enough, the contemporary version. There are many textual differences. The order of the suras is unique and seriously different. [It was likely written before 646 CE. Muhammad died 632]

However, the textual differences are largely other phrasings of the accepted text, rather than any distinctly different narrative; in this sense they confirm the constancy of the text.

The Qur'an itself admits to ‘contradictions, abrupt shifts in voice, topic and tone, and baffling allusions’, which in turn point to the Qur’an being an evolved document. [ie not the work of a single author].

The text of the Qur’an indicates it was written later than the fall of the Thamud (4th cent. CE.) and arguably after the Sassanid conquest of Palestine [614 CE]. Hence there’s a reasonable case that it was written, or compiled, in Muhammad’s lifetime.

So I was wrong to claim the Qur’an was put together two hundred years later - I was confusing it with the editing of the hadiths.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, the Noah story comes from the Akkadian, and the Akkadian comes from the Sumerian. And yes, in each case the story may have existed in two or more different versions.

Regardless, the chronology of Sumer (3rd millennium BCE if not earlier) , Babylon (2nd millennium BCE) and the worship of Yahweh (from mid-2nd cent BCE, written down 1st millennium BCE) and the parallels between the bible's Noah story and the Akkadian's earlier Uta-Napishti story (as I quoted above from George's Gilgamesh) persuade me that the bible story is based on the Akkadian / Babylonian story.

If you're not persuaded, that's fine ─ clearly a matter for you.

Thanks, and you.

 

[firedragon]

Sorry for the delay. The book is Tom Holland’s In the Shadow of the Sword. In Chapter 6. “More Questions than Answers”. He makes the following points ─

The earliest biography of Muhammad is not written till almost 200 years after his death.

He means the Seerah. Not the Qur'an.

The Qur’an is not mentioned in any writings in Muhammad’s lifetime. Muslim jurists continued to use the Torah, not the Qur’an, throughout the century following his death, and there are no commentaries on it till the 9th century.

But I can give you many manuscripts from the 7th century. Many. Let me give you the exact figure. I can give you 285 manuscripts dated to the 7th century but that's what I have, maybe others could give more

.

The oldest text of the Qur’an [about half of it] is found in the Sana’a palimpsest, overwritten by, close enough, the contemporary version. There are many textual differences. The order of the suras is unique and seriously different. [It was likely written before 646 CE. Muhammad died 632]

Ah yes. the Sanaa Palimsest. Ill tell you what. Can you show me a textual variance, from which folio and I will explain it to you. If not, still I'll explain.

The Qur'an itself admits to ‘contradictions, abrupt shifts in voice, topic and tone, and baffling allusions’, which in turn point to the Qur’an being an evolved document. [ie not the work of a single author].

Can you give me an example?

The text of the Qur’an indicates it was written later than the fall of the Thamud (4th cent. CE.) and arguably after the Sassanid conquest of Palestine [614 CE]. Hence there’s a reasonable case that it was written, or compiled, in Muhammad’s lifetime.

So I was wrong to claim the Qur’an was put together two hundred years later - I was confusing it with the editing of the hadiths.

Honoured to discuss.

Peace.

 

[blü 2]

But I can give you many manuscripts from the 7th century. Many. Let me give you the exact figure. I can give you 285 manuscripts dated to the 7th century but that's what I have, maybe others could give more

He doesn't argue with that ─ his point is that the Qur'an was not a widely-known or used document in the century after Muhammad's death. He also refers to jurists continuing to use the Torah, not the Qur'an in that period.

He adds a footnote that

A Muslim scholar of the tenth century, Ibn Mujahid, established that there were seven, equally valid, qira'at ─ readings ─ of the Qur'an. The modern widely held notion that there is one single text was established only in 1924, with the publication in Cairo of an edition of the Qur'an that went on to become the global standard.​

Ah yes. the Sanaa Palimsest. Ill tell you what. Can you show me a textual variance, from which folio and I will explain it to you. If not, still I'll explain.

Again, he's not arguing ─ instead he says the variants are simply other ways of saying the same substantial thing as the present text, and this is a demonstration that the essential message was in place even in Muhammad's lifetime.

Can you give me an example?

He says this is stated in the Qur'an 3:7. You'll be better placed to check that than I am.

Regards

 

[firedragon]

He doesn't argue with that ─ his point is that the Qur'an was not a widely-known or used document in the century after Muhammad's death. He also refers to jurists continuing to use the Torah, not the Qur'an in that period.

He adds a footnote that

A Muslim scholar of the tenth century, Ibn Mujahid, established that there were seven, equally valid, qira'at ─ readings ─ of the Qur'an. The modern widely held notion that there is one single text was established only in 1924, with the publication in Cairo of an edition of the Qur'an that went on to become the global standard.

I understand. But he is wrong. Probably due to his lack of scholarship. You should ask him what this Cairo edition of the Qur'an is. I can understand that you would respect him as an author and of course I do too. But his lack of scholarship in this subject is too evident. If you want to discuss this particular matter, you are always welcome.

Again, he's not arguing ─ instead he says the variants are simply other ways of saying the same substantial thing as the present text, and this is a demonstration that the essential message was in place even in Muhammad's lifetime.

Honestly, this is absolutely wrong. This is very famous apologetics that was floating around for some time but he has completely mistaken the subject of textual criticism and especially the palimpsest. If you wish to discuss this in detail, yet again, you are more than welcome.

He says this is stated in the Qur'an 3:7. You'll be better placed to check that than I am.

Regards

The pleasure is mine. What he is talking about is a grammatical phenomena in Arabic you call "Fameer Manfusal". This occurs all over the Quran. As Holland himself speaks of this so called "last Surahs" that are different in voice, he has missed that this same phenomena happens in the chapter 9 that he picks up at least 20 to 30 times. What has happened is that he has looked at a translation which does not seem to provide enough searches on a pdf. I shall say that plainly.

Ill give you an example. When you say "He" or "Huwa" in Arabic that can be searched in an English translation. But that's absolutely bogus scholarship because in Arabic when you say a word like Isthawaa it is one word so you cannot search it, but it means the same "he" and is the same phenomena. Lets say I translate this word Isthawaa as "Established" because its in the middle of a sentence it won't read as "He", but in Arabic it means "He Established".

This is a grave error in understanding simple language.

Peace.

 

[blü 2]

What he is talking about is a grammatical phenomena in Arabic you call "Fameer Manfusal". This occurs all over the Quran. As Holland himself speaks of this so called "last Surahs" that are different in voice, he has missed that this same phenomena happens in the chapter 9 that he picks up at least 20 to 30 times.

I found this page which sets out multiple translations into English of sura 3:7. It says that in the Qur'an are passages that are (and I quote the interpreters there)

clear / basic / of established meaning / precise / clear and definite / decisive / definitive / literal and evident / fundamental / firm / lucid / lawgiving​

but also others that are

allegorical / elusive / ambiguous / unspecific / not entirely clear / in similes / have several possibilities / whose definite meanings are unknown / abstractions / open to interpretation / metaphorical / of a similitude / the interpretation of which is not clear​

and whose meaning may only be known to Allah.

So the existence of passages in the Qur'an that are unclear is acknowledged in the Qur'an, the point Holland was making.

For the present, I don't give a high priority to going deeper into the Qur'an, but I appreciate your offer.

My own view is that if someone acts decently, respectfully and inclusively to others, it doesn't really matter whether they're religious or if so which religion they follow. Nor would I expect a just God to argue with that. (Actually, having written that, I'm reminded of what Leigh Hunt said of Abu ben Adhem.)

Regards

 

[firedragon]

So the existence of passages in the Qur'an that are unclear is acknowledged in the Qur'an, the point Holland was making.

Thats called Muhkam and Muthasabih.

Where did Tom Holland speak about that?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Not at all. If you wish to discuss why I believe in the Quran and Islam you have to ask that question separately.

Sure, I like to know why you believe in Quran and Islam
By the way, What do you mean by Islam?
How do you know the original Islam taught by Muhammad? There are various sects of Islam, each have their own understanding and interpretations. Which Islam do you believe?

I can prove that the New Testament has nothing to do with Jesus or any of his disciples. Any day, any time. Just ask the question directly. If you want to discuss this decently you could do that in this thread particularly for that topic.

had nothing to do with Jesus and disciples is a very strong claim, which even contredict with Quran. Do you see many similarities between Quran and Bible?
Quran calls Jesus, the Word, which you can also see in John. The Quran confirms Mary, mother of Jesus, did not get pregnant by another man, and His birth was miraculous, which you can also find in Gospels. Look at prophecies in Revelation, there are many similarities with Quran.
Look at description of Day of Judgement, and you would see many similarities with Quran.
So, what do you mean Gospels has nothing with Jesus and disciples? It contains stories of Jesus and apostles.
Moreover, the Quran itself never says, the new testament has nothing with Jesus and disciples. Looks like you invented your own version of Islam.