The argument provided that Muhammad who revealed the Quran from 610 to 632 AD refers to an extant Gospel is extremely weak IMHO. It appearsd a fabrication of Muslim scholars only. If it were really true that the Christians had a false gospel Muhammad would have made it clear. He didn't, but instead on occasion admonishes the Christians for not following it.
It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong). (Surah Al-Imran, 3)
"And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel, (Surah Al-Imran, 48)
Ye People of the Book! Why dispute ye about Abraham, when the Law and the Gospel Were not revealed Till after him? Have ye no understanding? (Surah Al-Imran, 65)
And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah. (Surah Al-Maida, 46)
Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein.If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel. (Surah Al-Maida, 47)
If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side.There is from among them a party on the right course: but many of them follow a course that is evil. (Surah Al-Maida, 66)
Say: "O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord." It is the revelation that cometh to thee from thy Lord, that increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy|.But sorrow thou not over (these) people without Faith. (Surah Al-Maida, 68)
Then will Allah say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favour to thee and to thy mother.Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit, so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity.Behold! I taught thee the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel and behold! thou makest out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave, and thou healest those born blind, and the lepers, by My leave.And behold! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave.And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: 'This is nothing but evident magic.' (Surah Al-Maida, 110)
"Those who follow the apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law and the Gospel;- for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them.So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper." (Surah Al-Araf, 157)
Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah.then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme. (Surah At-Tawba, 111)
Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other. Thou wilt see them bow and prostrate themselves (in prayer), seeking Grace from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure. On their faces are their marks, (being) the traces of their prostration. This is their similitude in the Taurat; and their similitude in the Gospel is: like a seed which sends forth its blade, then makes it strong; it then becomes thick, and it stands on its own stem, (filling) the sowers with wonder and delight. As a result, it fills the Unbelievers with rage at them. Allah has promised those among them who believe and do righteous deeds forgiveness, and a great Reward. (Surah Al-Fath, 29)
Then, in their wake, We followed them up with (others of) Our apostles: We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary, and bestowed on him the Gospel; and We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him Compassion and Mercy. But the Monasticism which they invented for themselves, We did not prescribe for them: (We commanded) only the seeking for the Good Pleasure of Allah. but that they did not foster as they should have done. Yet We bestowed, on those among them who believed, their (due) reward, but many of them are rebellious transgressors. (Surah Al-Hadid, 27)
Scholarship of the Bible is to be welcomed. The fact is that the Gospels were all written between 66 to 100 AD so within 30 - 70 years of the crucifixion of Christ. The Gospel of John is likely to have been written by the apostle John but we can not be certain. It is likely that at least the synoptics whose authors collaborated were written by anonymous authors. All the early Christian writers/scholars were unanimous in thier acceptance and authenticity of the four gospels. Although the case for authenticity for the Gospels is not as strong as for the Quran, I have no problem accepting the authenticity of the Gospels in substance although we can not affirm every word written was the exact words Jesus spoke. It obviously suits the agenda of the Muslims to find as many holes as possible for the both the Gospel and Torah to reject them as corrupted as they have the Quran they see has superseded the Gospels. The Muslim position in regards the Gospels and Torah being corupt is well known and rightly rejected by most Christians and Baha'is IMHO.
Hello Adrian.
Sorry for the delay.
You’ve offered much to think about. It might be advisable to munch this particular elephant one piece at a time.
You write: ‘The argument provided that Muhammad who revealed the Quran from 610 to 632 AD refers to an extant Gospel is extremely weak IMHO. It appears a fabrication of Muslim scholars only.’
I know of no Islamic scholar who teaches that the ʾInjīl is extant. I’d be grateful for any help you can give. My understand is that the ʾInjīl has been lost (although certain elements may yet be found in the Gospels, for example the Sermon of the Mount).
You write: ‘It obviously suits the agenda of the Muslims to find as many holes as possible for the both the Gospel and Torah to reject them as corrupted as they have the Quran they see has superseded the Gospels. The Muslim position in regards the Gospels and Torah being corrupt is well known and rightly rejected by most Christians and Baha'is IMHO.’
The Qur’an does not ‘supersede the Gospels’, as you claim. It merely corrects errors that have distorted the message given to Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām). I’ve already mentioned certain literal corruptions of the Gospels:
The spurious ‘Comma Ioanneum’: ‘…added by some enterprising person or persons in the ancient Church who felt that the New Testament was sadly deficient in direct witness to the kind of doctrine of the Trinity which he favoured and who determined to remedy that defect . . . ’ (Anthony and Richard Hanson: ‘Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith; page 171)’.
What is this if not corruption?’
The ‘pericope adulterae’; a source of much controversy for decades. I have pointed out that the King James Version (based on the Textus Receptus) includes the ‘pericope adulterae’ as an original part of the Gospel. On the other hand, more modern translations – such as the ESV, NIV, RV; NRVS; and GNB – include the ‘pericope adulterae’, but bracket it as not original; while others print it in a smaller font (TNIV), or place it at the end of the gospel (REB), all with notes of explanation. This is because the story is not found in the earliest Greek manuscripts.
What is this if not corruption?’
The various endings of Mark: Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9-20 immediately after verse 8. At least one manuscript inserts additional material after verse 14; some manuscripts include, after verse 8, the following: ‘But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.’ These manuscripts then continue with verses 9-20.
What is this if not corruption?’
But there is a more pernicious form of corruption:
For many years there has been broad agreement among New Testament scholars that the historical Yeshua did not lay claim to deity; that he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate.
Here are some quotes for you to think about:
'Jesus did not claim deity for himself' (Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey: ‘Jesus and the Living Past’).
'Any case for a "high" Christology that depended on the authenticity of the alleged claims of Jesus about himself, especially in the Fourth Gospel, would indeed be precarious' (C.F.D Moule – an Anglican priest and theologian: ‘The Origin of Christology).
‘There was no real evidence in the earliest Jesus tradition of what could fairly be called a consciousness of divinity' (James Dunn – New Testament scholar, and minister of the Church of Scotland: ‘Christology in the Making’).
‘It is no longer possible to defend the divinity of Jesus by reference to the claims of Jesus' (Canon Brian Hebblethwaite - a staunch supported of Nicene/Chalcedonian Christology: ‘ The Incarnation).
‘There is good evidence to suggest that (Jesus) never saw himself as a suitable object of worship…..(it is) impossible to base any claim for Christ's divinity on his consciousness once we abandon the traditional portrait as reflected in a literal understanding of St. John's Gospel' (David Brown – an Anglican priest and another staunch supporter of Nicene/Chalcedonian Christology: ‘The Divine Trinity).
About fifty years ago I had a colleague who was a Biblical Unitarian (I was a Trinitarian). We discussed (often) both the trinity and incarnation. He was older than I, and very well acquainted with the Bible. On one occasion I became angry with him (I was fiery in those days!). I grabbed my Bible and thrust it under his nose. ‘This is
my Book’, I hissed. ‘What’s yours?’
He smiled, and gently removed the book from my hand. ‘This!’, he replied. I was stunned. How could this man read the very same book as I, and yet reach conclusions so opposed to my own? He was no fool; neither was he perverse. He was both genuine and honest; a decent man who lived his faith according to his conscience. And yet, he did not,
could not, believe what I believed.
What we have here is corruption by interpretation: Two people read the very same scriptures. One interprets these in a way that makes God a Trinity, and Yeshua ‘wholly God, and wholly Man’. The other’s interpretation sees no justification for the notion of a trinity; and regards Yeshua as just a man; in no way divine. Which interpretation is correct, and which is the corruption?
In šāʾ Allāh, I will return to your other comments, once we are done with the above.
Have a great day, and very best regards.
