I suppose they hopped in his minivan ad rushed him right home and never said a word.
The text did not come from nowhere, it did not come out of thin air. Muhammad had to be taught this information, he factually had to have a teacher.
the koran has copied mythology from the bible. That means we look at who muhammad knew that had biblical knowledge and wrote in Arabic.
For someone so keen on academic history and the proper pursuit of knowledge, you seem far too certain about this view. You are stating speculation as close to fact, which is the opposite of academic historical enquiry. You also don't appear to be very familiar with much actual scholarship on the issue, which probably leads to your overconfidence.
It is certainly plausible, but then again many untrue things are plausible also.
"On the basis of this assumed link, which identifies the Ebionites with those Christians who are called Nasara in the Qur’an, Azzi presses an audacious claim that has yet to be substantiated. His thesis is based on the figure of Waraqa b. Nawfal,37 the cousin of Muhammad’s first wife, Khadija, who is portrayed by Azzi as Muhammad’s teacher and mentor.38 According to Muslim tradition, Waraqa was literate and became a Christian in pre-Islamic times. He copied down passages from the Christian scriptures and recognized Muhammad’s prophetic mission immediately after his first Qur’anic revelation. Azzi, however, depicts him as a priest who prepared Muhammad to follow him as the leader and head of the small Ebionite community of Mecca. Muhammad betrayed this project when he migrated to Medina and there became the head of the new Islamic state. The separation of the pupil from the teacher explains the change that took place between an original Qur’an and the codex of ‘Uthman. The original Qur’an, assembled by the priest, was intended to serve as a lectionary for the ritual worship of the Christian Arab community of Mecca. The codex of ‘Uthman, on the other hand, put together as a book after Muhammad’s death, incorporates the agenda of Muhammad’s Islamic state and constitutes the basis of our present-day Qur’an...
To sum up, Azzi’s study is highly speculative and poorly documented" G. Bowering - Recent research on the construction of the Quran
"The trouble is that there is simply no way to substantiate or disprove such suppositions, which are speculative and/or circular – the putative evidence is too shaky and meagre indeed to allow any conclusion
." G. Dye - Jewish Christianity, the Qur’ān, and Early Islam
Even if we accept the Sirah as being true and look at who 'Muhammed knew who had Biblical knowledge', then we also have to consider Ziad ibn Amr, Uthman ibn Huwarith, Ubaid-Allah ibn Jahsh.
And this is not to mention the important detail that the audience of the Quran is clearly people who are familiar with scripture, which really requires more than a handful of knowledgable people.
History states the book was copied/plagiarized mythology and that the bible was its source.
'History' states many potential things that don't fit into this narrow paradigm, as you should know if you are familiar with contemporary scholarship.
"Even a brief perusal of the Arabic Qurʾān is sufficient to convince the first-time reader that the text presumes a high degree of scriptural literacy on the part of its audience... What is more, there are numerous echoes in the Qurʾān of non- biblical, Jewish and Christian traditions, some of them otherwise found in so-called apocryphal or pseudepigraphic biblical texts."
S. Griffiths - The Bible in Arabic
The whole field is full of tentative enquiry relying on a complex and interdisciplinary approach, why are you so confident you are correct when the world's leading experts are not?
In this and another thread you are talking about how we 'know' Waraqa was his teacher and how it's 'GAME OVER'. I can only assume this is based on lack of knowledge rather than a genuine interest in scholarly enquiry as regard this field.
What do you consider to be some good resources on the origins of Islam to justify your certainty?
