Loading...Here are a couple of more reflections on the fragments on the Quran that were discovered some years ago, in a post that I published at the time.
******************************
My plan is to make this the final post for now on the issue of the Qur’an fragments discovered at the University of Birmingham. Obviously the discussion could go on forever (it’s been going on for 1500 years and is not likely to stop any time soon). But I’m not a scholar of the Qur’an or of Islam, and I would prefer sticking to topics that are within my realm of expertise.
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
DR.Ehrman ,I have read your year 1999 published book on Jesus. I still have some question. Why Jesus didn’t support the family value? I mean, “Love your neighbor” evidently include family member! if you can love your neighbor ,why not love your family?
He apparenlty urged his followers to abandon their families in order to proclaim the coming kingdom — that had priority.
So would you say we have no real evidence of people having memorized the Quran or any other text, not even songs, prior to the invention of the phonautograph in 1857, if there is no accompanying written testimony to that particular effect?
I am asking, because in our local mosque we have every year children – some aged 9 – have memorized the Quran in full, letter by letter, since decades. Only since late 90s some have video taped a few of these examined (‘ard al qur’an it is called) performences, but the hundreds years before they did the same. Although not on tape or in black on white, would such a continuance not assumed with such overwhelming and far spread practice in current times? Would you not, with the absence of different voices in history about these practices, assume with a high degree of confidence that this constitute perhaps even stronger evidence than a single note of physical evidence, let say even from the 7th century?
I don’t know if we have real evidence or not. There could be evidence, though, even if it were not as good as having some mechanical means of recording. For example, if one outside observer had a young Muslim recite the Quran to him in 1789, and another did the same with the same person in 1819, and then another did the same with three different young Muslims in three different times and places, and all three recorders had exactly the same text all the way through — that would be pretty good proof. I’m not aware of any evidence like that, however, even though I imagine we have *anecdotes* of such evidence that are unsubstnatiated.
Dr. Ehrman, what does it mean in Matthew 24:19, which says :” Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing infants in those days! ” Why woe to the pregnant ? are they not allowed to enter the coming kingdom? They did not do anything wrong!
Becuase they won’t be able to move quickly to get out of the city before it is wiped out.
I read the Quran last year and I have the same issue with it and the Bible: even if both books are absolutely reliable and accurate as compared to the original sources I do not accept the teachings as God-inspired and in various ways are flawed. Both books seem very human to me. That means some very good teachings (like, if you can’t fast then take the opportunity to feed a hungry person) but also some not so good teachings, like giving 1/2 of the human race priority and power over the other 1/2 of humanity. (The men have beautiful women and food awaiting them in heaven, but what do the women get? To do the dishes?) I prefer reason and thought to blind acceptance of what the ancients wrote down, no matter how carefully copied and preserved.
I also don’t like the numerous references to hellfire in the Qur’an too!
Or in any religious literature!
Hi Fishician,
You related to Quran 4:34 about the 1/2 of humans. However, this has been misunderstood because Westerns interpreting it without considering the background culture.
The verse says that men have a “managerial role” [Qa-wa-moon] over women for God has attributed men with some benefits [description] and for their financial support [condition].
According to the background culture on Earth at that time; Men were involved with the heavy duties of the community (wars, hunting, etc). Interpreting the verse as is: if the husband is providing food and money on the table then he is the manager of the house. But if the wife is the one providing money then the managerial role would shift. The husband “managerial role” has a “condition” that needs to be fulfilled.
This managerial role is not an authoritative position, and this is clear from the background culture of the Arabs at the time of the Quran: Marriage is by choice, not by force. Both men and women have the right to end this marriage. Wives still have direct and solid relationship with her family (parents and siblings), and her family have clear responsibilities toward her.
——–>
——–>
Within this dynamics, sensitive things in the house cannot be taken authoritatively, but it should be discussed; otherwise, the wife will just leave the house, end the marriage, and return back to her family.
However, the house needs a manager and if the “condition” was fulfilled then the manager of the house is the husband.
Also, it seems the verse allow husbands to hit their wives, but this is also misunderstood. If a husband whipped his wife, then it will be a very serious tribal war in the city. This background culture needs to be considered in the interpretation. Hitting here is a domestic physical almost the same when a mother hit her annoying son.
Furthermore, nothing in the Quran/Islam prevent wives from doing the same thing, and this could be understood from the context of this verse: before making the decision of divorce, the verse suggest to have a break (husband and wife sleeping in separate rooms), if this didn’t work, then get physical. If this didn’t work, then apply Quran 4:35. The verse here suggests steps to try and keep the marriage (if possible).
For Women in Heaven: See Quran 3:195, 9:72, 33:35, 48:5, 57:12.
“This background culture needs to be considered in the interpretation.” This is an issue that I have with both the Bible and Quran: a divine superior intellect should be able to speak to all generations, especially future, in a way that is independent of ancient cultures. Speak clearly, and don’t make us interpret or read between the lines.
1.1# The background data (the cultural, trusted hadith, ancient rhetoric styles, etc.) are available, and not hidden.
1.2# It was part of the Greek/Arabian understanding that it is a superior style to convey the meaning with little words, but this requires the usage of the background cultural data.
1.3# The Quran is 77k words. And if the Quran included all the background data, then it would probably be more than 77kk words.
2# This is just your private preference without logical necessity. For example: Suppose Simon says: if the Quran from God, then the superior omnipotent could have brought down divine copies of the Quran in Greek and English, so I can understand directly the words of God.
Simon objection here is just his own subjective private preference, and it doesn’t have logical necessity: The term {the Quran from God} has nothing to do with the term {There is no English divine copy of the Quran}. The same is your objection: The term {the Quran from God (or not)} has nothing to do with {the background data are needed for the interpretation of the Quran}. These both terms have no logical link or logical necessity, but this is probably your preference.
Sorry to hijack the post for an unrelated question, but I was wondering what you considered the most comprehensive collection of apocrypha and pseudepigrapha available in English for both the Old and New Testaments. Is the Charlesworth still the standard for the OT? (Is there a new one coming down the pike?) And while I know your book with Plese contains all the apocryphal gospels (and in dual translation—a real plus!), I also know there are other pseudepigrapha beyond them. Your book mentions the Elliot and the Schneemelcher—which of those would you recommend? Or is there something entirely different you’d say is best? Thanks!
Charlesworth for the Pseudepigrapha. The Apocrypha can be found in Bibles (even Oxford Annotated, eg) Elliott’s is handier; Schneemelcher is more exhaustive but with more dated scholarship. There probalby needs to be a new edition.
“I don’t know Hoffmann myself, personally.. I *think* that he is not himself personally a Christian (maybe someone could correct me on that) – and am certain that he does not have a conservative, or even liberal, Christian agenda — but I really do not know much about his religious background.”
I understand Hoffmann’s perspective as a historicist condemnation of Islam. Christianity and Judaism as all being grounded in violence; and his consequently requiring all three to be excluded from any role in maintaining international justice and order. His corollary being that post-enlightenment ‘liberal’ versions of these three creeds – those that maintain that a positive core message of peace can be found within each, potentially freed from their respective sad histories of oppression and reaching back to their true founding principles – are sad delusions. A full historicist assessment of all three religious traditions can only conclude that they are irremediably toxic.
Maybe that had predisposed Hoffman to reject as a liberal compromise of scholarly rigour, an academic project in which a ‘secular’ university’s publications appeared to be offering support to claims from a ‘religious’ historical tradition?
Dr. Ehrman I know this is not related to the topic, but what do you personally think about John5:19-23. Isn’t Jesus here claiming divinity?
The other people reading your questoin won’t know what Jesus says in these verses and won’t be likely to look them up. Could you ask again and quote the words you’re asking about? (Short answer, I think Jesus does claim divinity in John’s Gospel, but not in the others)
https://biblehub.com/john/5-19.htm
sure all the working class folks even understood what Jesus was spewing.
RJ Hoffmann calls the Birmingham fragment “leaves of parchment, probably… used by a religious teacher to record bits of memorized narrative from sources that finally make their way into the Qur’an”.
In a Christian context, such a discovery would be amazing. It would be like finding pre-synoptic written parts of the Q source!
Unfortunately Trevor, Hoffmann’s knee-jerk responses to the press releases around the announcement of the Birmingham Qur’an leaves have almost all turned out to be misapprehensions:
– These two leaves are definitely missing pages from the Paris Qur’an BNF Arabe 328c; the hand and format are the same, and the texts align.
– These pages are big – between A4 and A3 in size; the writing is generously scaled and spaced-out on the page. There are decorative verse and chapter separators and selective diacritical strokes indicating lengthened consonants. This is a Qur’an intended for public reading, not private study.
– Hoffmann’s suggestion that carbon-dating should better have been applied to the ink than the parchment is a red-herring, as the writing has selectively been re-inked at a later date. Fragments of ink are easily transferred between documents, so dating of ink is inherently unreliable; even were it not that responsible manuscript scholars now *never* destroy the written text they are studying.
– Hoffmann’s characterisation of Hijazi arabs at this date as universally “illiterate”, is countered by continued archeological findings of contemporary Hijazi Arabic graffiti and inscriptions. There would undoubtedly have been both readers and hearers for this Qur’an.