Loading...After I posted on the discovery of an ancient manuscript of the Quran (years ago; but I reposted it yesterday) I received a bunch of comments (years ago) that I responded to (years ago). Here’s a repost of the back and forth, with a couple of tough ones here.
*********************
My post on Saturday about the discovery of two pages of the Qur’an in the library of the University of Birmingham that appear to date from the time of Mohammad himself. or a decade or so later, evoked more than the usual response. My Facebook post has received nearly 260,000 hits. I think before that my previous highest hit total was 25,000 or so. Amazing amount of interest in this.
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!
Further to these discussions of the Birmingham Qur’an; maybe some updates from subsequent research:
– these two leaves have been positively identified as filling a gap in another known fragmentary Qur’an in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris: (BnF Arabe 328(c)) – although none of those leaves have been carbon-dated. Consequently, we should reckon the surviving portion as 18 leaves, not two.
– the text across those 18 leaves differs from the “standard” form (represented by the Cairo edition of 1924/1342) chiefly in placing some verse divisions (surahs). Otherwise, there are differences in “phonetic, orthographic, morphologic and syntactic” forms of writing, but not affecting the recitation of the text.
– more speculatively, comparing key orthographic and morphologic features of BnF Arabe 328(c) with those of other ‘very early’ Qur’ans – substantially as to which Arabic vowel sounds are noted, and which are not – these all appear to represent consistent copying from a standard original. On the one hand, this is consistent with Islamic traditions of a very early standardisation of the text; on the other, this standardisation looks to have happened even *earlier* than the traditional date, that the 3rd Caliph Uthman (644-656CE).
Thanks!
Scribal error alert: “First, this is not time Qur’anic manuscript pages have had such an early date.” (Presumably should be “This is not the first time…”)
Scribal corruption of the text.
Hello, Bart,
1) “Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tested by the devil.” Matthew 4:1 NRSV
Why would the Spirit led Jesus up to be tempted? Is it similar to Job’s story? Does the devil here have full autonomy or is it also God that wants it/makes it happen?
2) Does the expression “kingdom of heaven” have exactly the same meaning as “kingdom of God” ?
I suppose that hearing kingdom of *heaven* people reading the Gospels believe that the kingdom is in the God’s realm and not implied to come to earth.
thanks
1. It appears to be parallel to the nation of Israel going into the wilderness and failing its being tested. Jesus, the other son of God, succeeds.
2. Yes “heaven” is often a respectful circumlocution for “God” (I swear to heaven!)
Jesus was divine
God was bullying Job, a human
Sorry to be off topic here, but I just got through watching the podcast on the book of Job and the issue of suffering. It was an excellent podcast, thank you so much for it Bart. In watching the podcast, it suddenly dawned on me that perhaps the book of Job is a kind of commentary on the Babylonian exile. Job losing everything could be a metaphor for the Babylonian conquest of Judea and Job regaining everything he lost could be a metaphor for the Judeans regaining their homeland when the exile ended. If that’s true, then the entire book of Job is really a Jewish grappling with the issue of why the exile happened. Bart, do you think this might be the case? Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
Interesting idea. I don’t know!
Yeah, I’m wondering about it myself because I’d like to know. It is interesting that in the book of Job, verse 42, God refers to Job as “My servant” and as you know there are lots of places in the Old Testament books where Israel and Jacob are referred to as “My servant” (singular) of God. Some online sites say the meaning of the word “Job” is “will father or one who returns and reflects” and post exile Israel were surely reflecting on their captivity after their return to Judea. Apparently, the meaning of the word “Israel” is “fought and contended with God” which is what Job is doing in his dialog with his friends and God. It’s even weirder that the meaning of “Uz” is “contemplation or inner strength” and the whole book of Job deals with Job’s use of his inner strength in facing his adversities as well as contemplating the mystery of his suffering. The play on words in the book of Job is certainly consistent with it being a post-exile commentary.
Of course that word generally (Ebed; servant) is very common in the Hebrew Bible; I believe it occurs nearly 800 times. But your point is interesting.
I couldn’t help but do a little more digging. Jeremiah 30 deals with the restoration of Israel and verses 23-24 mention the whirlwind of the Lord going forth in a fury. It’s funny how God speaks to Job from a whirlwind and Jeremiah 30 deals with the restoration of Israel and mentions God’s whirlwind. From my quick inspection of the poetic stuff in Job and Jeremiah, there seem to be lots of correspondences. For example, Job 38:8-11 and Jeremiah 5:22 both mention God establishing boundaries between the land and the sea. The verses immediately preceding them (Job 38:1-7 and Jeremiah 5:21) both contrast human ignorance in comparison to God’s providence. The verses immediately after them (Job 38:12-15 and Jeremiah 5:23) both deal with human wickedness. I’ve spent two hours looking at the speeches of Job, his friends, and God, and then comparing them with the poetic stuff in Jeremiah. I think I am seeing all sorts of parallel stuff. If the author(s) of Job used Jeremiah as a source, then, to me, it seems that a fairly strong case can be made that Job is a commentary on the exile. I’m not sure what to make of it.
Bart,
Who Communicated the Thought First? Cicero or Jesus?
Replace the country of Rome, the Roman Republic, with Jesus.
Cicero:
Love justice and devotion. This is owed to your country, your fellow citizens.
Such is the life that leads to heaven.
Scipio’s Dream, 5 by Cicero translated by Richard Hooker
Jesus:
Be devoted to me and when you are persecuted for my cause
The kingdom of heaven is yours.
Matthew 5:10
= = = = = = =
Cicero:
For all fame or glory you win among mere human beings should simply be ignored.
“Strive on,” he answered, “secure in the knowledge that only your body is mortal and that your true self endures forever. The man you appear to be is not yourself at all, for your real self is not that corporeal, palpable, changing form you see, but the spirit inside.
Scipio’s Dream, 15 by Cicero translated by Richard Hooker
Jesus:
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
Matthew 16:26
I believe you will find the thought expressed centuries before either of them. Similar ideas are expressed frequenlty by Greek philosohers centuries before Cicero.disabledupes{aa9102ebabb959336368cd1c432deca9}disabledupes
Steve Campbell
author of 3 first edition books on the historical accuracy of the bible
Thank you for implying these sentiments are not original to Jesus.
Now, these statements were due to the education of Jesus or the education of Matthew?
Sorry, without a context I’m not sure which sentiments you’re referring to. But if they are views not spoken by Jesus thgn his level of ecucatoin would not be relevant I should think.
See original comment. The two statements/sentiments/thoughts are there.
You said, of course not, those examples in the original comment are expressed frequently before Cicero and of course would be before Jesus who came after Cicero.
Then I said, we know Cicero studied Roman moral philosophy and Greek philosophy BUT the same cannot be said of Jesus BUT can be said of the author of the Gospel of Matthew.
I don’t think the author of Matthw studied pagan moral philosophy, at least I don’t see any evidence that he did.
Probably because Matthew is unknown and we cannot say where he studied but Roman moral philosophy and Greek philosophy is spoken by Jesus in the gospel of Matthew.
Jesus: But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment.
Matthew 5: 22
“The most remarkable feature of Cicero’s writing about anger is that he advocated complete abstention from anger. Although he was not a Stoic, for him, abstaining from anger was an attractive aspect of Stoicism. The orator must put on a show of anger, not feel the emotion itself. ”
Restraining Rage: The Ideology of Anger Control in Classical Antiquity:
Part I, Chapter 6: “Philosophies of Retraining Rage,” ps 109-111.
= = =
So, if you do not think the author of Matthew studied Roman moral philosophy and Greek philosophy despite the instances where it occurs in the gospel of Matthew, it is even less likely that the Jesus of the gospels did given your description of Jesus’ background and education.
= = =
The ethos of perfectionism is the essence of Stoicism.
Ludwig Edelstein, The Meaning of Stoicism
Be perfect.
Matthew 5: 48
Studying moral philosophy is not at all the same as saying a few things that moral philosophers also say.
Hi Bart. In your book of heaven and hell, you emphasize the socrate’s saying about souls such as: “If what we are told is true”. Then you mention that since socrates mentioned this, he is not sure whether after life exists at all and he places enough probability on the idea of annihilation. If so, Why in phaedo would he really talk about the after life journey(tarturus, acherusian lake) ? I mean, if he is not sure at all and uses hedging – “if what we are told is true”, what’s the point of describing after life by him in such depth(even though it’s a myth) ? Is he just trying to make others believe in something that he might NOT even believe ? He also says: “And so… if we are guided by me we shall believe that the soul is immortal and capable of enduring all extremes of good and evil”, then why would he say: “if what we are told is true” in the first place ?
He uses the myth as a way to express the truth he’s established via dialectic in a different form; he doesn’t think the myth is literally true. There are a lot of debates about why he uses myths at all given his disparagement of them; I give some of the most important scholarship in the endnotes.
He is over-effusive and a Christian evangelist but Jay Smith has collected a mass of fascinating data on the real history of early Islam (not the Standard Islamic Narrative). His entertaining presentations are available on Youtube.
There is a saying by Einstein that: “By academic freedom I understand the right to search for truth and to publish and teach what one holds to be true. This right implies also a duty: one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true”.
This is about being professional in Scholarship studies: to present the data that support your claims, but also acknowledging the counter data, and to be able to acknowledge the errors in your research.
But researchers who {only present the supporting data for their affirmed assured conclusions while ignoring the main counter data (or presenting these data unfairly)} are probably biased and cherry-pickers.
In my view, Jay Smith is very biased in his research and analysis.
For example: To my memory, Jay has implied that the Birmingham Manuscript was before the birth of Muhammed, and then he adjusted his views by implying that this Manuscript is before Othman standardization of the Quran. In both cases he presented the supporting data without giving fair time for the counter data, and he never acknowledged his errors.
One of the best counter arguments for Jay’s thoughts came for a devoted Atheist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TFTj-7JHDo