I read recently (but old news really), about the age of the Quran manuscript in Birmingham, England. I also read an observation from Ehrman that the Quran scribes may have done a much better job at preserving the Quran word for word.
A couple of possible explanations for this:
1) The Quran had a single origin/author of the actual writings. A point source. The teachings of Jesus never did. Jesus gave talks only. Unfortunately, it does not appear that Jesus ever wrote anything or dictated to a designated scribe an intended writing. It does not appear Jesus give instructions to “write down what I say”. I believe that the message was intended to be so simple, and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it would be written in the hearts of men.
2) The Quran was authored hundreds of years later and the whole writing business/industry/skill had advanced greatly.
3) The teaching and spread of Islam was more closely aligned with the writings (see 2 above) than was Christianity (see 2 above). Basically, most of Christianity was spread early on by word of mouth and a few letters. One day, a few people started suggested that we write some of this down to unify the message.
zebman said
I read recently (but old news really), about the age of the Quran manuscript in Birmingham, England. I also read an observation from Ehrman that the Quran scribes may have done a much better job at preserving the Quran word for word.A couple of possible explanations for this:
1) The Quran had a single origin/author of the actual writings. A point source. The teachings of Jesus never did. Jesus gave talks only. Unfortunately, it does not appear that Jesus ever wrote anything or dictated to a designated scribe an intended writing. It does not appear Jesus give instructions to “write down what I say”. I believe that the message was intended to be so simple, and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it would be written in the hearts of men.
2) The Quran was authored hundreds of years later and the whole writing business/industry/skill had advanced greatly.
3) The teaching and spread of Islam was more closely aligned with the writings (see 2 above) than was Christianity (see 2 above). Basically, most of Christianity was spread early on by word of mouth and a few letters. One day, a few people started suggested that we write some of this down to unify the message.
Probably the main reason for there being much less variation in the quran is that from the very beginning islam held political power – this allowed an “official” version to be decreed and any variation from this official version could be destroyed.
If the quran had initially been spread in a hostile environment like the new testament it may well have seen similar amounts of variation develop.
Let’s not forget that it’s much less problematic to critique the Jewish and Christian scriptures than the Islamic ones. Which makes Quranic scholarship a dicey affair at best. Taking an honest look at the origins of Islam is much more controversial and even dangerous now than it has been to do the same with the origins of Christianity at any time since the Enlightenment.
Which makes sense–Islam is about six centuries younger. The Enlightenment began in the 18th century. At that point, people could begin to seriously contemplate which parts of the received dogma stood up to close examination. Obviously there are still many Christians who have reacted badly to the Post-Enlightenment world, have retreated info Fundamentalism (originally a word referring exclusively to certain Christian sects). Some personalities only want to own the truth, not study it. To study is to doubt, as Bart Ehrman’s career demonstrates.
There is probably a lot more to the history of early Islam than people realize, and there was definitely a lot of disunity there–it is in fact one of the most divided of the world religions, and they are still fighting actual religious wars with each other (which like all religious wars, are about a lot of things besides religion).
Well people do fight about other things than religion but they do indeed fight about religion.
The scholarly textual historical work is being done on the Islamic tradition but circumspectly and mostly in the West. There is no way the Quran was written by a single individual, human or divine. For example scholars point out the presence of Persian loan words present in the text. Completely anachronistic for the time of Mohammad but reflecting the ninth and tenth centuries. And we have Quranic quotes in various sources that cannot be found in any manuscripts available to us.
The problem is the Islamic view of the Quran. In Christianity the view that God literally dictated the text of the Bible through human interlocutors is a minority hard core fundamentalist view. But that is the mainstream standard orthodox view in the Islamic world. I have Muslim friends who are in most things reasonable modern adults but who are nevertheless convinced that the Quran was divinely dictated and who are offended at any suggestion otherwise.
Christians have a safety valve. They can always chalk up differences in textual readings and interpretations to the vagaries of human transmission. But Muslims have no such option. Allah doesn’t make mistakes. This does not bode well for much desired future liberalizing of the traditions.
Robert said
I’m old enough to remember Catholics and Protestants killing each other in Ireland.
And having been to Belfast when that was going on, and read more than the occasional newspaper article about the latest atrocity, I know that was never really about religious beliefs, but territory and jobs–and of course the English having intentionally created a settler population to hold it, centuries before–divide et impera. At the height of The Troubles, many IRA men were devout Marxists, though certainly some were also practicing Catholics (roundly and routinely condemned from the pulpit when they showed their faces in church).
I don’t believe wars conducted purely over religious belief are common at all, and it can be questioned whether even one has ever taken place. Even the Thirty Years War was more of a power struggle between great nations and local princes, not devotional practices. Religion becomes a flag, a dividing line, a group identifier, the same way ethnicity and race do. In its absence (or when it ceases to be important to most in the community), the underlying divisions simply find some other identifier.
In Northern Ireland, nearly everyone is white, and ethnicity is hard for even locals to divine. So where you go to church (or to school) becomes the point of differentiation. It’s not really about what Catholics and Protestants (mainly Presbyterians) believe, and in fact they agree on most of the key social issues (Catholic Nationalists in the North are actually less conservative, on average, than the Loyalist Protestants).
Do Sunni and Shiite really kill each other today over a conflict between the Prophet’s family and other faithful from over a millennia ago? How many of the combatants could ever explain what that was about? It’s about power, it’s about land, it’s about water (perhaps most important). But religion adds a certain edge to the proceedings, I’ll grant you. The proceedings would still proceed without it–as they did before.
Stephen said
Well people do fight about other things than religion but they do indeed fight about religion.The scholarly textual historical work is being done on the Islamic tradition but circumspectly and mostly in the West. There is no way the Quran was written by a single individual, human or divine. For example scholars point out the presence of Persian loan words present in the text. Completely anachronistic for the time of Mohammad but reflecting the ninth and tenth centuries. And we have Quranic quotes in various sources that cannot be found in any manuscripts available to us.
The problem is the Islamic view of the Quran. In Christianity the view that God literally dictated the text of the Bible through human interlocutors is a minority hard core fundamentalist view. But that is the mainstream standard orthodox view in the Islamic world. I have Muslim friends who are in most things reasonable modern adults but who are nevertheless convinced that the Quran was divinely dictated and who are offended at any suggestion otherwise.
Christians have a safety valve. They can always chalk up differences in textual readings and interpretations to the vagaries of human transmission. But Muslims have no such option. Allah doesn’t make mistakes. This does not bode well for much desired future liberalizing of the traditions.
True enough, but six centuries do make a difference in the life of a religion. And the Islamic world is, on the whole, much less developed than the Christian one. And how many Muslims can even read the Qu’ran with any understanding? Many of the people immolating themselves for groups like Isis couldn’t hold their own for even a minute in a serious discussion of their holy book. Forget the Enlightenment–they haven’t even gotten to the Reformation yet.
Christianity does have certain advantages, which you’ve laid out in part. And it did have several centuries to find its footing before it became a state religion. Islam effectively began as one. That was–unfortunate.
is anyone familiar with marijin van putten?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
analytic analysis of early manuscripts of quran shows it has a pretty solid transmission.
quote:
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)