A Polemicist Guide to the Quran 9780060859510

Citation preview

Contents Mysticism ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 Muhammad the Mystic and the Boy Under the Blanket .......................................................................... 2 Quran, Mysticism and the Ignorance of Allah .......................................................................................... 7 Origins of Islam: Source, Form and Historical Criticism .............................................................................. 10 What is the Quran? ................................................................................................................................. 10 The Ring of Solomon and Surah 38:36-38............................................................................................... 13 Quran, Abraham, Zarathustra and the Furnace...................................................................................... 16 Quran, Alexander and Studies in Surah 18 ............................................................................................. 26 How Islam Shaped its Sources ................................................................................................................ 38 Quran and Queen.................................................................................................................................... 41 Surah 9:29 in Context.................................................................................................................................. 45 Development of Jihad ................................................................................................................................. 53 Determinism in Islamic Theology ................................................................................................................ 54 Morality of Muhammad.............................................................................................................................. 60 Early Sources on the Preservation of the Quran......................................................................................... 62 Oral Preservation of the Quran................................................................................................................... 65 Quranic Geography ..................................................................................................................................... 68 Inequality of Sexes in the Quran ................................................................................................................. 69 Women in Quranic Paradise ....................................................................................................................... 70 Prepubescent Sex in the Quran and Hadith................................................................................................ 70 Breastfeeding an Adult Male ...................................................................................................................... 75 The Quran’s Replacement Theology ........................................................................................................... 77 Answering Muslims ..................................................................................................................................... 78 Numbers 31:18, Sex Slaves and Islamic Paradise ................................................................................... 78 1 Samuel 15............................................................................................................................................. 82 God’s Resting Place ................................................................................................................................. 90 “Only Begotten” (monogenes) ................................................................................................................ 94 Divinity of Jesus....................................................................................................................................... 95 If Jesus is God, how can God die? ........................................................................................................... 96 Islam-The World’s Fastest Growing Religion? ........................................................................................ 97 Introduction to Trinitarian Theology ...................................................................................................... 99

1

Authorship and Dating of the Gospels: Intro ............................................................................................ 103 Authorship and Dating of the Gospels: Matthew ................................................................................. 107 Authorship and Dating of the Gospels: Mark ....................................................................................... 112 Authorship and Dating of the Gospels: Luke ........................................................................................ 118 Authorship and Dating of the Gospels: John ........................................................................................ 122 New Testament Text Critical Issues .......................................................................................................... 128 Ending of Mark’s Gospel ....................................................................................................................... 128 John 7:53-8:11 ...................................................................................................................................... 131 1 John 5:7 (Comma Johanneum) .......................................................................................................... 132 John 5:4 ................................................................................................................................................. 133

Mysticism Muhammad the Mystic and the Boy Under the Blanket1 This section describes Muhammad’s participation in Merkabah 2 mysticism, whereby mystics would attempt to ascend to the throne room of God, seeing a vision of God similar to Isaiah or Ezekiel. This is the earliest strand of Jewish mysticism to emerge, consisting of very ancient ideas, going back to at least the Tannaitic period (10-220 AD). Ibn Sayyad 3 was a Jewish boy living in Medina during Muhammad's lifetime and after. According to Islamic sources, he converted to Islam and later died about 683. There is a fascinating story in the Islamic sources that tell us about an interaction with Muhammad and this young boy. We’ll start with an overview of major elements of the story: When Allah's Messenger (‫ﷺ‬ ) entered the garden, he started hiding behind the trunks of the datepalms intending to hear something from Ibn Saiyad 4 before the latter could see him. Ibn Saiyad was lying on his bed, covered with a velvet sheet from where his murmurs were heard. Ibn Saiyad's mother saw the Prophet and said, “O Saf (the nickname of Ibn Saiyad)! Here is Muhammad!” Ibn Saiyad stopped his murmuring.” -Sahih al-Bukhari 6173-6175;

1

Video on my channel is here: https://youtu.be/6SNnhAysiZ4 “Merkabah” is translated as “throne” or “throne chariot” describing the way God’s throne was portrayed in the Hebrew Bible. Though the term does not occur in the visions of Isaiah 6 or Ezekiel 1, which are important texts for Merkabah Mysticism, it is still an appropriate term for those contexts. 3 Note that traditions speculating Ibn Sayyad was the Dajjal are later developments. 4 Transliterations of “Ibn Saiyad” vary wildly. 2

2

https://sunnah.com/bukhari/78/199 As usual with oral tradition, which we've seen numerous times in the hadith and Quran, this story occurs several times with varying details. Here are some more of interest: Muhammad said: “Do you bear testimony to the fact that I am the Messenger of Allah?” Thereupon he [Ibn Sayyad] said: Do you bear testimony to the fact that I am the messenger of Allah? Thereupon Allah's Messenger (‫ﷺ‬ ) said: I affirm my faith in Allah and in His Angels and in His Books, and what do you see? He said: I see the throne over water...” -Sahih Muslim 2925; https://sunnah.com/muslim/54/112 The boy sees a vision of a throne (start thinking “Merkabah.” See note 2). If you’ve been watching the series on source criticism on my channel, this should mean something to you. If it doesn’t, it will soon: Muhammad asked him: “What dreams do you have?” Ibn Sayyad replied, “Both truthful people and liars come to me.” The Prophet...said, “You are in a state of confusion.” Then the Prophet...said to him, “I am concealing something from you.” Ibn Sayyad said, “It is just smoke.” -Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 958; https://sunnah.com/adab/41/7 Then Ibn Saiyad asked the Prophet. “Do you testify that I am the apostle of Allah?” The Prophet (‫ﷺ‬ ) said to him, “I believe in Allah and His Apostles.” -Sahih al-Bukhari 3055; https://sunnah.com/bukhari/56/261 Perhaps there are some puzzling elements of this story with a vision of a throne, smoke, and an odd exchange between Muhammad and a young Jewish boy who was murmuring under a blanket. These puzzling elements will make sense soon. But first, there’s something else that’s odd about this tradition as well. According to Islamic sources, there are numerous false prophets who arose around Muhammad's time. They were decisively criticized by him. I've condensed one such account for you to highlight the contrast between them and Ibn Sayyad: Musaylima had written to Muhammad: “From Musaylima the apostle of God to Muhammad the apostle of God...” Muhammad questioned the messengers who brought the letter: “What do you say about it?” After hearing the messengers say they agreed with Musaylima, Muhammad said: “By God, were it not that heralds are not to be killed I would behead the pair of you!” Muhammad wrote back to Musaylima: “From Muhammad the apostle of God to Musaylima the liar...” -Ibn Hisham (tr. A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, Lahore, 1955, p. 649) But things are different with Ibn Sayyad. Muhammad doesn't seem to know quite how to respond. In fact, the hadith portray him as indecisive: Muhammad said: “Do you testify that I am the Messenger of Allah?” So Ibn Sayyad looked at him, and said: “I testify that you are the Messenger to the illiterates.” Then Ibn Sayyad said to the Prophet (s.a.w): “Do you testify that I am the Messenger of Allah?” So the Prophet (s.a.w) said: “I believe in Allah and His Messengers.” -Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2249, https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi/33/92 3

Then Ibn Saiyad asked the Prophet. “Do you testify that I am the apostle of Allah?” The Prophet (‫ﷺ‬ ) said to him, “I believe in Allah and His Apostles.” -Sahih al-Bukhari 3055; https://sunnah.com/bukhari/56/261 “Ibn Sayyad said to the Allah's Messenger (‫ﷺ‬ ): Do you bear witness to the fact that I am the messenger of Allah? Allah's Messenger (‫ﷺ‬ ) rejected this and said: I affirm my faith in Allah and in His messengers...” -Sahih Muslim 2930 a; https://sunnah.com/muslim/54/120 Then Muhammad proceeds to question him further. It simply says Muhammad rejected it. It doesn't say how. These little details are the types of things that look like later additions because without basis in the narrative, and indeed contrary to many of the narrations, it portrays Muhammad refuting Ibn Sayyad to save him the embarrassment of appearing indecisive. Now, this is where things get interesting. In some of these traditions, Muhammad probes the mystical powers of Ibn Sayyad: Muhammad said: “Do you bear testimony to the fact that I am the Messenger of Allah?” Thereupon he [Ibn Sayyad] said: Do you bear testimony to the fact that I am the messenger of Allah? Thereupon Allah's Messenger (‫ﷺ‬ ) said: I affirm my faith in Allah and in His Angels and in His Books, and what do you see? He [Ibn Sayyad] said: I see the throne over water...” Sahih Muslim 2925; https://sunnah.com/muslim/54/112 Muhammad asked him: “What dreams do you have?” Ibn Sayyad replied, “Both truthful people and liars come to me.” The Prophet...said, “You are in a state of confusion.” Then the Prophet...said to him, “I am concealing something from you.” Ibn Sayyad said, “It is just smoke.” -Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 958; https://sunnah.com/adab/41/7 Why this curious talk of smoke and thrones? Let’s get some clarification from David Halperin in his article published in the Journal of the American Oriental Society: “The expression used by Muhammad in his challenge appears, in a slightly fuller form, in the story of Hind bint ‘Utbah. It is used to test the clairvoyant powers of a kāhin: ‘I have concealed something for you that I may test you; see what it is.’” -Halperin, D. (1976). The Ibn Sayyad Traditions and the Legend of Al-Dajjal. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 96(2), 219 The mystical connections become even more explicit: Thereupon Allah's Messenger (‫ﷺ‬ ) said: “I affirm my faith in Allah and in His Angels and in His Books, and what do you see?” He [Ibn Sayyad] said: “I see the throne over water.” Whereupon Allah's Messenger (‫ﷺ‬ ) said: “You see the throne of Iblis upon the water, and what else do you see? He said: I see two truthfuls and a liar or two liars and one truthful.” -Sahih Muslim 2925; https://sunnah.com/muslim/54/112 Things should be coming together for the reader at this point. Halperin quotes a tradition in his article with a key word: “He said, ‘I see a throne upon the sea (baḥr; var., mā’, water), around it al-ḥayyāt (var., ḥayyāt).’” -Halperin, D. (1976). The Ibn Sayyad Traditions and the Legend of Al-Dajjal. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 96(2), 217 4

Why does this matter: “[This text is] is a priori the less likely to have suffered modifications, and should be given preference. We are therefore to retain the surrounding ḥayyāt. This point is crucial; for the word, evidently deleted as meaningless at a later stage of the transmission, is to be explained as an Arabicized form of the Hebrew ḥayyôt, ‘living creatures.’” -Halperin, D. (1976). The Ibn Sayyad Traditions and the Legend of Al-Dajjal. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 96(2), 217 This is referring to visions where living creatures are seen carrying the heavenly throne. This is the namesake of what later developed into Merkabah Mysticism. As a side note, this penetrates all the way into the Quran as well: “Those who bear the Throne and all who are round about it...” -Surah 40:7 Now back to Ibn Sayyad. Halperin notes: “We are clearly dealing with an authentic report of a vision, whose background is to be found in the Jewish merkābâh mysticism.” -Halperin, D. (1976). The Ibn Sayyad Traditions and the Legend of Al-Dajjal. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 96(2), 217 Further, where did all of this occur? When Allah's Messenger (‫ﷺ‬ ) entered the garden, he started hiding behind the trunks of the date-palms intending to hear something from Ibn Saiyad before the latter could see him. Ibn Saiyad was lying on his bed, covered with a velvet sheet from where his murmurs were heard.” Sahih al-Bukhari 6173-6175; https://sunnah.com/bukhari/78/199 We even have a mystical connection with this setting in the Talmud: “They said concerning Yohanan ben Zakkai that he never in his life left off studying Mishnah, Gemara, laws and lore, details of the Torah, details of the scribes, arguments a minori ad majus, arguments based on analogy, [Slotki:] calendrical computations, gematrias, the speech of the ministering angels, the speech of spirits, the speech of palm-trees, fullers’ parables and fox fables, great matters and small matters.” -b. Sukk. 2:6, II.10.D “...‘great’ meaning: ma'aseh merkavah (mystical speculation); ‘small’ meaning: the discussions of Abbaye and Rava.” -https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/johanan-ben-zakkai So even the description of the palm-grove, something that's really easy to just read over without stopping, is explicitly referring to a Jewish mystical setting. Let's summarize the mystical elements so far: Palm-grove Smoke Dreams/vision Trance-like state Murmuring Covered in a blanket Throne scene 5

These narrations are jam packed with Merkabah Mysticism elements. And to top it all off, we find Ibn Sayyad wrapped in a sheet, murmuring to himself in a trance-like state: “Ibn Ṣayyād is apparently either in a trance state or in the process of entering one. He is wrapped in a cloak and making low and unintelligible noises. Both features can be found in Arabian mantic practice: prophets and kāhins (including Muḥammad himself) received revelation wrapped in a mantle...” -Halperin, D. (1976). The Ibn Sayyad Traditions and the Legend of Al-Dajjal. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 96(2), 220 So Ibn Sayyad’s methods of divination were the same as Muhammad’s: “Allah's Messenger (‫ﷺ‬ ) used to bear the revelation with great trouble and used to move his lips (quickly) with the Inspiration...” -Sahih al-Bukhari 5; https://sunnah.com/bukhari/1 “While I was walking, all of a sudden I heard a voice from the sky. I looked up and saw the same angel who had visited me at the cave of Hira' sitting on a chair between the sky and the earth. I got afraid of him and came back home and said, ‘Wrap me (in blankets).’ And then Allah revealed the following Holy Verses (of Quran): ‘O you (i.e. Muhammad)! wrapped up in garments!’ Arise and warn...” -Sahih al-Bukhari 4; https://sunnah.com/bukhari/1 Muhammad said: “Sometimes it is (revealed) like the ringing of a bell, this form of Inspiration is the hardest of all and then this state passes off after I have grasped what is inspired...Aisha added: Verily I saw the Prophet (‫ﷺ‬ ) being inspired divinely on a very cold day and noticed the sweat dropping from his forehead (as the Inspiration was over).” -Sahih al-Bukhari 2; https://sunnah.com/bukhari/1 Keep in mind how the Quran describes Muhammad: “You, wrapped in a cloak, arise and warn.” -Surah 74:1-2. Here, I would suggest that inanimate objects talking to Muhammad is connected to Muhammad’s mystical experiences: “I asked Masruq, ‘Who informed the Prophet (‫ﷺ‬ ) about the Jinns at the night when they heard the Qur'an?’ He said, ‘Your father ‘Abdullah informed me that a tree informed the Prophet (‫ﷺ‬ ) about them.’” -Sahih al-Bukhari 3859; https://sunnah.com/bukhari/63/85 “The Prophet (‫ﷺ‬ ) used to stand by a stem of a date-palm tree (while delivering a sermon). When the pulpit was placed for him we heard that stem crying like a pregnant she-camel till the Prophet (‫ﷺ‬ ) got down from the pulpit and placed his hand over it.” -Sahih al-Bukhari 918; https://sunnah.com/bukhari/11/42 Smoke Dreams/vision Throne Scene/Trance-like state are all closely related. Remember Muhammad tested the mystic Ibn Sayyad’s clairvoyant powers with the knowledge of smoke. Many take this to mean Muhammad concealed a verse from the Quran in his mind and Ibn Sayyad was still able to detect it. Muhammad is not confused by the trance or dream-like states or visions of Ibn Sayyed, including the throne vision. He knows what Sayyad is talking about.

6

With respect to the murmuring and covering up with a blanket, this also explains Muhammad’s indecisive responses to Ibn Sayyad. The boy mystic used a mantle to induce his trance-like states at which point he would start quietly murmuring to himself. We’ve seen these are exactly the same methods Muhammad used for his divination. When Muhammad encountered people who claimed, falsely, in his view, that they were apostles of Allah, Muhammad’s condemnation was swift and decisive. But when Muhammad encountered another mystic who used methods of divination just like his own, Muhammad had met his match and simply didn’t know how to respond. With this background knowledge, perhaps you can understand more fully the puzzling narrations surrounding this incident with the young mystic Ibn Sayyad, and how mixed up Muhammad was in Jewish mysticism- so much so, that some canonical hadith collections clearly portray Muhammad as a mystic himself.

Quran, Mysticism and the Ignorance of Allah 5 In this section we’re going to trace some important narratives from Hekhalot traditions and literature all the way into the 7th century. It’s within these strands of literature that we see early traditions related to Merkebah mysticism.

First, a note on the nature of this literature which, as you see from the diagram, is not historical. In David Halperin’s 1977 PhD Dissertation, later published as a monograph, he followed Ephriam Urbach’s symbolic interpretation of the paradise story that we’re going to look at soon. Halperin states: 5

See video here: https://youtu.be/EulmXl3pgIs

7

“Scholem’s [literalist] views have been criticized by J. Maier, H. A. Fischel, and, particularly convincingly, by E. E. Urbach.” -Halperin, David. The Merkabah in Rabbinic Literature. American Oriental Society, 1980, 89. Several decades later, Peter Shafer agrees: “Urbach’s interpretation of our text as an allegory…with an ‘image’ (mashal) and its ‘application’ (nimshal)- is the most likely one.” -Schäfer, Peter. The Origins of Jewish Mysticism. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 2010, 198. And again from Christopher Morray-Jones: “In any case, both ‘Four Entered Paradise’ itself and this interpolated section (Bavli) are…the products of a complex exegetical and mystical tradition, not accounts of actual historical events.” -C. R. A. Morray-Jones. A Transparent Illusion: The Dangerous Vision of Water in Hekhalot Mysticism: A Source-Critical and Tradition-Historical Inquiry. JSJ Sup 59. Leiden: Brill, 2002, 21. At most you could call them, “performative exegesis.” Now you can see clearly why I’ve labeled this section as ahistorical on the diagram. So what is this story of the 4 who entered paradise? Well, let’s begin on the left side of our diagram, looking at this tale in a recension of the Hekhalot literature: “A certain person was worthy, and stood at the gate of the sixth palace, and saw the brilliance of the air (‫ )זיו אויר‬of the stones, and he opened his mouth twice and said, ‘Water! Water!’ In the blink of an eye, they cut off his head. And eleven thousand iron cleavers shall be upon him! Hekhalot Zuṭarti from Shafer, Synopse, §412. Cited from: C. R. A. Morray-Jones. A Transparent Illusion: The Dangerous Vision of Water in Hekhalot Mysticism: A Source-Critical and Tradition-Historical Inquiry. JSJ Sup 59. Leiden: Brill, 2002, 57. 48T

48T

Quite esoteric, isn’t it? Let’s move farther down our timeline and read an account in the Babylonian Talmud that links this tradition with the story of the 4 who entered paradise. Then we’ll discuss the interpretation: IV.30 A. Our rabbis have taught on Tannaite authority: B. Four entered Paradise, and these are they: Ben Azzai, Ben Zoma, the Outsider, and R. Aqiba. C. Said to them R. Aqiba, “When you get to stones of pure marble [that look like water], don’t say ‘Water, water,’ for it is said, “He who speaks falsehood shall not be established before my eyes” (Ps. 101:7).’ ” D. Ben Azzai peeked and died. In his regard Scripture says, “Precious in the sight of the Lords the death of his saints” (Ps. 116:15). E. Ben Zoma peeked and was smitten, and of him Scripture says, “You have found honey? eat so much as is enough for you, lest you be filled up with it and vomit it out” (Prov. 25:16). F. The Outsider cut down the shoots.

8

G. R. Aqiba got out in one piece. [T. Hag. 2:3–4]. 6 So what’s going in? When Merkabah mystics ascend to the throne room they’re administered a series of tests. For example, at the 6th palace, they should not follow the first order given by an angel. If an angel says, “enter,” do not until the order is repeated a second time. Only then does the worthy mystic enter. What we’ve just read is a test that comes after that. The hopeful mystic is shown polished, pure stone that look like water. If the mystic is fooled into thinking it’s actual water, they are exposed as a fraud. Then, some sort of horrible death ensues. Now let’s move farther down our timeline (see diagram above) into the second targum of Esther. You will notice some striking similarities. The setting, is the Queen of Sheba coming to visit Solomon: “When the king (Solomon) heard that she (Queen of Sheba) was coming to him, he arose and went and sat in a glass house. And when the Queen of Sheba saw that the king was sitting in a glass house, she considered in her heart and said to herself…that the king was sitting in water, so she lifted up her robe to wade across…” -Targum Sheni, §4, ed. Cassel, Zweites Targum, 21. Cited from: C. R. A. Morray-Jones. A Transparent Illusion: The Dangerous Vision of Water in Hekhalot Mysticism: A Source-Critical and Tradition-Historical Inquiry. JSJ Sup 59. Leiden: Brill, 2002, 233. Since we’ve traced the mystical ascent story through the Hekhalot literature and the Talmud, you can see something perplexing about the version we just read- and not just with this version but with others as we’ll soon see. Christopher Morray-Jones says it well: “…there can be little, if any, doubt that the author based his story on the water vision episode of the hekhalot tradition. It makes no allusion to the traditions about the celestial firmament, nor does it touch on any of the deeper issues and concerns of the ascent-midrashic tradition. It seems, therefore, that the author simply appropriated the story from the Hekhalot tradition and adapted it to his own purpose, perhaps without much understanding of the deeper meaning of the story he was borrowing.” C. R. A. Morray-Jones. A Transparent Illusion: The Dangerous Vision of Water in Hekhalot Mysticism: A Source-Critical and Tradition-Historical Inquiry. JSJ Sup 59. Leiden: Brill, 2002, 279. Now, adapting a story, rather ignorantly, in the way we’ve just seen it isn’t much of a problem at all. Unless, the author who’s adapting the story is supposed to be an all-knowing God. Surah 27: “It was said to her [Queen of Sheba], “Enter the Palace.” When she saw it [the palace], she thought it was a pool (of water), and she uncovered her legs. He [Solomon] said, “Surely it is a polished palace of crystal.” She said, “My Lord, surely I have done myself evil…” -Surah 27:44 Just as we saw in the mystical literature, this same quite conspicuous test was applied to the queen by Solomon. When the queen thought the stone of the palace was water and pulled up her 6

Jacob Neusner, The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary, vol. 7d (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2011), 60–61.

9

robe to keep her legs from getting wet, she was exposed as a fraud. And remember, we started at the left side of our diagram with historical material and ended with material the Quran thinks is historical. Jacob Lassner states: “Shorn of all exegesis, verses 15-44 [of Surah 27] represent a seemingly disjointed account more reminiscent of an opaque folktale than historical narrative or a didactic midrash based on an ancient and oft-read chronicle. Moreover, the Qur’ānic version remains elusive and ahistorical even after considering the scattered references to Solomon that are found elsewhere in Islamic literature.” -Lassner, Jacob. Demonizing the Queen of Sheba: Boundaries of Gender and Culture in Postbiblical Judaism and Medieval Islam. University of Chicago Press, 1993, 42. We started back here in the mystical traditions and ended here with derivative material the author of the Quran thought was historical as he included it into the already bloated narrative about Solomon. God, who is by definition, all knowing, couldn’t make such a mistake. We see then that the author of the Quran is not all knowing. Therefore, contrary to the claims of Muslims, the author of the Quran is not God.

Origins of Islam: Source, Form and Historical Criticism What is the Quran? 7 This section explores the dependence of the Quran on several sources, including the Life of Adam and Eve and the Book of the Cave of Treasures. See video (note 7) for background. Major elements of the story are in bold, then the relevant texts are cited for comparison. Finally, some inconsistencies are noted. The Iblis and Adam story occurs in Surah 2:30, 34; 7:11-18; 15:2844; 17:61-64; 18:50; 20:116-117; 38:71-85 Command to bow: Surah 2.34: And behold, We said to the angels: "Bow down to Adam" and they bowed down. Not so Iblis... Surah 18.50: Behold! We said to the angels, "Bow down to Adam"... Implied here: “And the angels and the hosts of heaven heard the Voice of God saying unto him, ‘Adam, behold; I have made thee king, and priest, and prophet, and lord, and head, and governor of everything which hath been made and created; and they shall be in subjection unto thee, and they shall be thine, and I have given unto thee power over everything which I have created.’ And when the angels heard this speech, they all bowed the knee and worshipped Him.” -The Book of the Cave of Treasures http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/bct/bct04.htm And here: “When God blew into you the breath of life and your countenance and likeness were made in the image of God, Michael brought you and made (us) worship you in the sight of God.” -Life of Adam and Eve 13.3 (Charlesworth, J. H. (1985). The Old Testament pseudepigrapha and 7

See video here: https://youtu.be/7cuTkCGbVlE

10

the New Testament: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom, and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works (Vol. 2, p. 262). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.) http://www.sacredtexts.com/chr/apo/adamnev.htm And here: “And Michael went out and called all the angels, saying, ‘Worship the image of the LORD God, as the LORD God has instructed.’” -Life of Adam and Eve 14.1. (Charlesworth, J. H. (1985). The Old Testament pseudepigrapha and the New Testament: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom, and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works (Vol. 2, p. 262). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.) http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/adamnev.htm And here: “And when I came from the ends of the earth Michael said: Worship thou the image of God, which he hath made according to his likeness.” -Gospel of Bartholomew 4:54; http://gnosis.org/library/gosbart.htm

The Angels bow down to/worship Adam: Surah 15.30: So the angels prostrated themselves, all of them together Surah 20.116: When We said to the angels, “Prostrate yourselves to Adam”, they prostrated themselves, but not Iblis: he refused. “And when the angels heard this speech they all bowed the knee and worshipped Him.” -The Book of the Cave of Treasures http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/bct/bct04.htm And Michael himself worshiped first, and called me and said, ‘Worship the image of God, Yahweh.’ -Life of Adam and Eve 14.2. (Charlesworth, J. H. (1985). The Old Testament pseudepigrapha and the New Testament: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom, and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments of Lost JudeoHellenistic Works (Vol. 2, p. 262). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.) http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/adamnev.htm

Satan refuses: Surah 7.11: and they prostrate; not so Iblis; He refused to be of those who prostrate. Surah 17.61: Behold! We said to the angels: "Bow down unto Adam": They bowed down except Iblis: He said, "Shall I bow down to one whom Thou didst create from clay?" When Satan saw Adam seated on a great throne, with a crown of glory on his head and a sceptre in his hand, and all the angels worshipping him, he was filled with anger. And when God said to him, "Come thou also, for thou shalt worship My image and likeness," Satan refused to do so. The Book of the Cave of Treasures http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/bct/bct04.htm

11

And I [Satan] answered, ‘I do not worship Adam.’ And when Michael kept forcing me to worship, I said to him, ‘Why do you compel me? I will not worship one inferior and subsequent to me. -Life of Adam and Eve 14.3 (Charlesworth, J. H. (1985). The Old Testament pseudepigrapha and the New Testament: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom, and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments of Lost JudeoHellenistic Works (Vol. 2, p. 262). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.) http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/adamnev.htm But I [satan] said: I am fire of fire, I was the first angel formed, and shall worship clay and matter? -Gospel of Bartholomew 4:54 (3rd Century AD); http://gnosis.org/library/gosbart.htm Satan criticizes man as inferior Surah 38.76: (Iblis) said: "I am better than he: thou createdst me from fire, and him thou createdst from clay." Surah 15.33: (Iblis) said: "I am not one to prostrate myself to man, whom Thou didst create from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape." Satan refused to do so, and, assuming an arrogant and insolent manner, he said, "It is meet that he should worship me, for I existed before he came into being. -The Book of the Cave of Treasures http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/bct/bct04.htm And I [Satan] answered, ‘I do not worship Adam.’ And when Michael kept forcing me to worship, I said to him, ‘Why do you compel me? I will not worship one inferior and subsequent to me. I am prior to him in creation; before he was made, I was already made. He ought to worship me.’ -Life of Adam and Eve 14.3 (Charlesworth, J. H. (1985). The Old Testament pseudepigrapha and the New Testament: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom, and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments of Lost JudeoHellenistic Works (Vol. 2, p. 262). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.) http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/adamnev.htm But I [satan] said: I am fire of fire, I was the first angel formed, and shall worship clay and matter? –Gospel of Bartholomew 4:54 (3rd Century AD); http://gnosis.org/library/gosbart.htm

Satan is expelled: Surah 7.13: (Allah) said: "Get thee down from this: it is not for thee to be arrogant here: get out, for thou art of the meanest (of creatures)." Surah 38.77: (Allah) said: "Then get thee out from here: for thou art rejected, accursed. When the Father saw his overbearing attitude, He knew that Satan's wickedness and rebellion had reached their highest pitch. He ordered the celestial soldiers to take from him the written authority that was in his hand, to strip off his armour, and to hurl him down from heaven to earth. -The Book of the Cave of Treasures http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/bct/bct04.htm And the LORD God was angry with me and sent me with my angels out from our glory; and because of you, we were expelled into this world from our dwellings and have been cast onto the 12

earth. -Life of Adam and Eve 16.1. (Charlesworth, J. H. (1985). The Old Testament pseudepigrapha and the New Testament: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom, and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments of Lost JudeoHellenistic Works (Vol. 2, p. 262). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.) http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/adamnev.htm Then was God wroth with me and cast me down, having commanded the windows of heaven to be opened. -Gospel of Bartholomew 4:55 (3rd Century AD); http://gnosis.org/library/gosbart.htm “He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.” -Surah 3:3 “And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light...” -Surah 5:46 Allah can’t quote Iblis consistently: Surah 38.76: (Iblis) said: "I am better than he: thou createdst me from fire, and him thou createdst from clay." Surah 15.33: (Iblis) said: "I am not one to prostrate myself to man, whom Thou didst create from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape." Allah can’t quote himself consistently: (Allah) said: "Get thee down from this: it is not for thee to be arrogant here: get out, for thou art of the meanest (of creatures)." -Surah 7:13 (Allah) said: "Then get thee out from here; for thou art rejected, accursed. And the curse shall be on thee till the day of Judgment." -Surah 15:34, 35 (Allah) said: "O Iblis! What prevents thee from prostrating thyself to one whom I have created with my hands? Art thou haughty? Or art thou one of the high (and mighty) ones?" -Surah 38:75 (Allah) said: "What prevented thee from prostrating when I commanded thee?" -Surah 7:12 (Allah) said: "O Iblis! what is your reason for not being among those who prostrated themselves?" -Surah 15:32

The Ring of Solomon and Surah 38:36-38 8 Every element of this puzzling text can be explained by referencing legends about Solomon. The date of authorship of the Testament of Solomon (ToS) is debated. However, the traditions are most likely very early. Generally, in texts like these, the traditions far antedate the authorship of the document. Additionally, the Quran’s account is brief and inadequately explained as ever, indicating its audience already knew the traditions. Similarities between the Quran and the Testament are provided for comparison. The short version is that, in Solomonic legend, he had

8

Video here: https://youtu.be/cxheJas1hGM

13

subjected an army of jinn to work for him. They would dive for pearls, build his temples…etc. In addition, Solomon had power over the wind and used it as a miraculous means of travel. Main text from the Quran: “We subjected the wind to him, so that it blew gently at his bidding, wherever he directed it, and We also subjected the devils to him all kinds of builders and divers; and others that were bound with chains.” -Surah 38:36-38 On the dating of ToS: "In 1898, F. C. Conybeare, in the preface to his English translation of the testament (MS P), noted that it was quoted as one of Solomon’s authentic writings in the Greek Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila. The Dialogue, a Christian document from about A.D. 400, was thought by Conybeare to go back to an earlier dialogue from the middle of the second century." D. C. Duling, “A New Translation and Introduction,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1 (New York; London: Yale University Press, 1983), 940. “Then the little boy went and spoke to Solomon, “King Solomon, I brought the demon to you just as you commanded me; observe how he is standing bound in front of the gates outside, crying out with a great voice to give me all the silver and gold of the earth so that I would not deliver him to you.” -Testament of Solomon 1:13 -Charlesworth, J. H. (1983). The Old Testament pseudepigrapha (Vol. 1, pp. 962–963). New York; London: Yale University Press. Online see verse 8: http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/testamen.htm; http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com /testsolomon.html Sahih al-Bukhari 1210, “The Prophet (�) once offered the prayer and said, ‘Satan came in front of me and tried to interrupt my prayer, but Allah gave me an upper hand on him and I choked him. No doubt, I thought of tying him to one of the pillars of the mosque till you get up in the morning and see him. Then I remembered the statement of Prophet Solomon, ‘My Lord! Bestow on me a kingdom such as shall not belong to any other after me.' Then Allah made him (Satan) return with his head down (humiliated).’” https://sunnah.com/bukhari/21/14 “Islamic folklore developed the Solomonic tale in tremendously fertile and imaginative ways. Solomon is the greatest of the world rulers, a true apostle of Allah, his messenger, and a prototype of Muhammad.” (Duling, D. C. (1983). A New Translation and Introduction.” In The Old Testament pseudepigrapha (Vol. 1, p. 951). New York; London: Yale University Press.) “Solomon is the subject of a large number of traditions and legends in Arabic literature, in which he completely overshadows in importance his father, David. Solomon is spoken of as the messenger of God ("rasul Allah"), and is in a way a prototype of Mohammed. Hence the importance assigned to his relations with the Queen of Sheba, the submission of whose country is taken to mean the submission of Arabia. The letter addressed to her, summoning her to accept Islam, begins with the same formula ("Bi-ism Allah al-Raḥman al-Raḥim") as that used in the documents issued by Mohammed.” -Jewish Encyclopedia http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13842-solomon “In the medieval period, probably about the twelfth century, and probably under Arabian influence, Solomon became known especially as a writer of scientific and magical books. M. 14

Seligsohn mentions forty-nine of these books...this list is by no means exhaustive...By the fifteenth century, books of magical secrets were attributed to many major characters of the Jewish Scriptures, including Adam and Moses, and especially Solomon. To this company, Zoroaster, Hermes Trismegistus, Aristotle, Alexander the Great, Virgil, and Muḥammad were joined.” (Duling, D. C. (1983). A New Translation and Introduction. In The Old Testament pseudepigrapha (Vol. 1, p. 956). New York; London: Yale University Press.) “Then, since he dispensed with them [the horses] for the sake of Allah, Allah compensated him with something better, the wind which blew gently by his order wherever he willed.” -Tafsir Kathir http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1954&Itemid=9 4 “...he [wind demon] broke through a large contingent of soldiers, raised up a blustering cloud of dust from the earth, transported it upward, and hurled it against me many times (while I watched) in amazement...When I stood up, I spat on the ground at that spot and I sealed (him)...As a result, the moving air stopped.” -Testament of Solomon 7:2-3 (Charlesworth, J. H. (1983). The Old Testament pseudepigrapha (Vol. 1, p. 969). New York; London: Yale University Press.) http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/testsolomon.html Then the boy obeyed the orders and went to Arabia. Now the men from the region doubted whether it was possible to bring the evil spirit under control. Nonetheless, before dawn the house servant got up and confronted the spirit of the wind...[the demon enters the flask] the boy stood firm. He bound up the mouth of the flask in the name of the Lord Sabaoth and the [wind] demon stayed inside the flask.” -Testament of Solomon 22:12; 14 (Charlesworth, J. H. (1983). The Old Testament pseudepigrapha (Vol. 1, p. 984). New York; London: Yale University Press.) http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/testsolomon.html “(And also the Shayatin, from every kind of builder and diver,) [Surah 38:37] means, among them were some whom he used to build high rooms, images, basins as large as reservoirs, and cauldrons fixed (in their places), and other difficult tasks which humans were unable to do. And there was another group, who dived into the sea recovering pearls, jewels and other precious things which cannot be found anywhere else.” -Tafsir Kathir, http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1953&Itemid=9 4 “...he [wind demon] broke through a large contingent of soldiers, raised up a blustering cloud of dust from the earth, transported it upward, and hurled it against me many times (while I watched) in amazement...Then I [Solomon]...commanded him to pick up stones and hurl them up to the heights of the Temple for the workmen.” -Testament of Solomon 7:2; 8 (Charlesworth, J. H. (1983). The Old Testament pseudepigrapha (Vol. 1, p. 969). New York; London: Yale University Press.) http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/testsolomon.html “Now when I, Solomon, heard these things, I commanded him [Beelzeboul, prince of the demons] to cut blocks of Theban marble.” -Testament of Solomon 6:9 (Charlesworth, J. H. (1983). The Old Testament pseudepigrapha (Vol. 1, p. 968). New York; London: Yale University Press.) http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/testsolomon.html 15

“(And also the Shayatin, from every kind of builder and diver,) [Surah 38:37] means, among them were some whom he used to build high rooms, images, basins as large as reservoirs, and cauldrons fixed (in their places), and other difficult tasks which humans were unable to do. And there was another group, who dived into the sea recovering pearls, jewels and other precious things which cannot be found anywhere else.” -Tafsir Kathir, http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1953&Itemid=9 4 “Now there was a gigantic cornerstone which I wished to place at the head of the comer to complete the Temple of God. All the artisans and all the demons who were helping came to the same (location) to bring the stone and mount it at the end of the Temple, but they were not strong enough to budge it.” -Testament of Solomon 22:7-8 (Charlesworth, J. H. (1983). The Old Testament pseudepigrapha (Vol. 1, p. 984). New York; London: Yale University Press.) When he had said these things, he [Arabian wind demon] went in underneath the stone, lifted it up, went up the flight of steps carrying the stone, and inserted it into the end of the entrance of the Temple. -Testament of Solomon 23:3 (Charlesworth, J. H. (1983). The Old Testament pseudepigrapha (Vol. 1, p. 985). New York; London: Yale University Press.) Then I [Solomon] said to him, “What can you do for me?” He [the Arabian wind demon] responded, “I am able to move mountains, to carry houses from one place to another, and to overthrow kings.” I said to him, “If you have the power, lift this stone into the beginning of the corner of the Temple.” But he responded, “I will raise not only this stone, King; but, with (the aid of) the demon who lives in the Red Sea, (I will) also (lift up) the pillar of air (which is) in the Red Sea and you shall set it up where you wish. -Testament of Solomon 23:1-2 (Charlesworth, J. H. (1983). The Old Testament pseudepigrapha (Vol. 1, p. 985). New York; London: Yale University Press.) http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/testsolomon.html

Quran, Abraham, Zarathustra and the Furnace9 In this section we look at the dependence of the Quran on rabbinic midrash. The Quran draws heavily from Midrash Rabbah, an account which is not historical. Rather, it was composed primarily as a polemic against Zoroastrian use of the Abrahamic traditions in the Hebrew Bible. This story occurs primarily in these texts in the Quran: Primary: Surah 21:51-70; Surah 37:84-98

Other allusions to or fragments of the story: Surah 2:258: Abraham argues with Nimrod 9

See video here: https://youtu.be/w6hnBUDWHug for helpful spreadsheet comparing the accounts in the Quran.

16

Surah 6:74-82: Abraham questions his father, dialogue ensues Surah 19:41-49: Contains beginning elements of the story Surah 26:70-89: Similar to Surah 6:74-82 Surah 29:16-17, 24-25: Abraham’s criticism of idolatry, deliverance from fire Surah 43:26-28, 60:4: Abraham criticizes idol worship (both are very brief) We’ll start with several objections raised by Muslims on this issue. The first is copying or plagiarism. As in all my videos this is NOT the claim. I’m not saying Muhammad or anyone else copied. I’m saying that oral tradition is at play. The authors and compilers of the Quran and hadith drew from a common pool of oral tradition: Medinan Suras- 55.01% average oral-formulaic density; Meccan Suras- 39.34% average oralformulaic density. -Andrew G. Bannister, An Oral-Formulaic Study of the Quran, p. 143 There is a 20% minimum density required for an “oral document”. So we’re looking for traits typical of oral tradition- similar stories told several times with variations, similar to the Adam and Iblis narratives in the Quran. Date is the second issue we run into when Muslims respond to this topic: for Genesis Rabbah we’re looking at 4th to 6th century with later redaction/editing: “As with the Talmud that it accompanies, so in Genesis Rabbah, some of the material in the compilation can be shown to have been put together before that material was used for the purposes of the compilers.” -Neusner, J. (1994). Introduction to rabbinic literature (p. 356). New Haven; London: Yale University Press. In some cases, then, the Talmud and Genesis Rabbah in their final forms are drawing from earlier material. This is something Muslims need to keep in mind when they try to argue for a late date for these documents in attempting to defend allegations of this material influencing the early Muslims who compiled the Islamic texts: “Genesis Rabbah in its final form emerges from that momentous century in which the Roman Empire passed from pagan to Christian rule and in which, in the aftermath of Julian’s abortive reversion to paganism, in ca. 360...” -Neusner, J. (1994). Introduction to rabbinic literature (p. 357). New Haven; London: Yale University Press. Neusner narrows it down a bit: “Generally thought to have been closed (“redacted”) at ca. 400–450 C.E., sometime after the Talmud of the Land of Israel had been redacted, Genesis Rabbah transforms the book of Genesis from a genealogy and family history of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, then Joseph into a book of the laws of history and rules of the salvation of Israel: the deeds of the founders become omens and signs for the final generations.” -Neusner, J. (1994). Introduction to rabbinic literature (p. 356). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

17

“Moses D. Herr, ‘Genesis Rabbah,’ Encyclopaedia Judaica 7:399–401: the title, structure, language, redaction, later additions, editions; apparently edited at about the same time as the Talmud of the Land of Israel, not later than 425.” -Neusner, J. (1994). Introduction to rabbinic literature. New Haven; London: Yale University Press. Notice that Islamic arguments related to dating of source material used for the Quran assume a 7th century date for the Quran. This can in no way be demonstrated, though it is widely believed. Another objection some Muslims may offer is that I’m handpicking the elements of the narratives in the Quran so I can stack the deck in my favor. The form critical approach we’re about to engage in will defeat that objection as well. So let’s take a look at the elements of the Islamic version of the story and see where they occur in the Quran.

Elements from Surah 6:74-82: Abraham challenges idol worship among his father/people : Surah 6:74 Abraham shown the heavens and the earth: Surah 6:75 Abraham calls celestial bodies his “lord”: Surah 6:76-78 Abraham acknowledges the creator: Surah 6:79 Abraham is confronted and responds: Surah 6:80-82 Elements from Surah 19:41-49: Abraham is a man of truth and a prophet: Surah 19:41 Abraham challenges his father’s idol worship: Surah 19:42-43 Abraham tells his father not to worship Satan: Surah 19:44 Abraham fears for his father’s punishment: Surah 19:45 Abraham threatened by his father: Surah 19:46 Abraham asks forgiveness for his father: Surah 19:47 Abraham leaves his father/people: Surah 19:48-49 Surah 21 gives us the fullest account: Elements from Surah 21:51-70: Abraham is said to have good judgment: Surah 21:51 Abraham challenges idol worship among his father/people: Surah 21:52, Surah 21:66-67 The response that their fathers worshiped them is given: Surah 21:53 Abraham says they were in error: Surah 21:54 Abraham’s critics question him: Surah 21:55 Abraham responds he testifies of the true God: Surah 21:56 Abraham swears against the idols: Surah 21:57 Abraham breaks the idols: Surah 21:58 Abraham’s people wonder who smashed the idols: Surah 21:59 Abraham is suggested as a culprit: Surah 21:60 Abraham is confronted: Surah 21:61-62 18

Abraham lies: Surah 21:63 Initially convinced, Abraham’s interlocutors accuse each other: Surah 21:64 They return the blame to Abraham: Surah 21:65 Abraham delivered to the fire: Surah 21:68 Abraham is divinely protected (by cooling): Surah 21:69-70

Elements from Surah 26:70-86: Abraham questions idol worship among his father/people: Surah 26:70, 72-82 The people respond that their fathers worshiped idols: Surah 26:71, 74 Abraham asks for divine blessing: Surah 26:83-85, 87-89 Abraham asks for forgiveness for his father: Surah 26:86 Elements from Surah 29:24-25: Abraham challenges idol worship: Surah 29:25 (Destruction of idols is implied since he was condemned to the fire) Abraham sent to the fire: Surah 29:24 Abraham is divinely protected from the fire: Surah 29:24 Another fairly complete picture of the story in Surah 37: Elements from Surah 37:84-98 Abraham is said to have good character: Surah 37:84 Abraham questions idol worship among his father/people: Surah 37:85-87, 95-96 Abraham looks at the stars: Surah 37:88 Abraham lies: Surah 37:89 The people depart from Abraham: Surah 37:90 Abraham questions the idols: Surah 37:91-92 Abraham breaks the idols: Surah 37:93 Abraham is confronted for breaking the idols: Surah 37:94 Abraham delivered to the fire: Surah 37:97 Abraham is divinely protected: Surah 37:98 Elements of this story from the Babylonian Talmud: Abraham delivered to the fire: b. Pesah. 10:7, II.14.C Gabriel asks to save Abraham: b. Pesah. 10:7, II.14.C Abraham is described as righteous and unique: b. Pesah. 10:7, II.14.C God grants permission: b. Pesah. 10:7, II.14.C https://www.sefaria.org/Bereishit_Rabbah.38?lang=bi

19

Elements from Bereishit Rabbah: Abraham’s character is affirmed Abraham challenges idol worship among his father/people Abraham breaks the idols and “frames” the largest idol Abraham’s father demands an explanation Abraham lies, saying idols argued and the biggest one smashed the others Abraham delivered to (King) Nimrod Argument ensues between them over worshipping natural elements Abraham and Haran thrown into the fire Abraham is divinely protected (by cooling) So we are not selectively choosing the major elements of the story, 10 we’ve let the Quran do that. And we’ve seen examples of similarities with prior Jewish texts. Indeed, the major elements of the Quran story and even many of the details correspond precisely to prior Jewish sources. Let’s look at just a couple examples of these similarities: Abraham’s father/people are idol worshippers: “Terah [Abraham’s Father] was a worshipper of idols. One time he had to travel to a place, and he left Abraham in charge of his store. When a man would come in to buy [idols], Abraham would ask: How old are you? They would reply: fifty or sixty. Abraham would then respond: Woe to him who is sixty years old and worships something made today - the customer would be embarrassed, and would leave.” -Bereishit Rabbah 38, https://www.sefaria.org/Bereishit_Rabbah.38.13?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en “When he [Abraham] said to his father and his people, ‘What do you worship?’...‘Do they hear you when you supplicate? Or do they benefit you, or do they harm?’” -Surah 26:70, 72, 73

Abraham breaks the idols: “Abraham took a club in his hands and broke all of the idols, and placed the club in the hands of the biggest idol.” -Bereishit Rabbah 38, https://www.sefaria.org/Bereishit_Rabbah.38.13?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en “So he made them [idols] into fragments, except a large one among them, that they might return to it [and question].” -Surah 21:58

The people are initially fooled by Abraham’s lie, but quickly realize that idols can’t speak:

10

Once again, see spreadsheet I show in the video which isolates the main elements of the story: https://youtu.be/w6hnBUDWHug

20

“When his father returned, he asked: who did all of this? Abraham replied: I can't hide it from you...The biggest one rose, took a club, and smashed the rest of them. Terah said: what, do you think you can trick me? They don't have cognition!” -Bereishit Rabbah 38, https://www.sefaria.org/Bereishit_Rabbah.38.13?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en “He [Abraham] said, "Rather, this - the largest [idol] of them - did it, so ask them, if they should [be able to] speak. So they returned to [blaming] themselves and said [to each other], ‘Indeed, you are the wrongdoers.’ Then they reversed themselves, [saying], ‘You have already known that these do not speak!’” -Surah 21:63 The cooling of the fire is also a common motif: “...let me (Gabriel) go down and cool it off and save that righteous man from the fiery furnace.” b. Pesah. 10:7, II.14.C, Neusner, J. (2011). The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary (Vol. 4, p. 547). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. “Allah said, ‘O fire, be coolness and safety upon Abraham.’” -Surah 21:69

There is a happy ending, not only is Abraham saved from the fire, but: “And since the Holy One, blessed be He, doesn’t withhold a reward from any creature, he said to him, ‘You will have the merit of saving three of his descendants.’” -b. Pesah. 10:7, II.14.C, Neusner, J. (2011). The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary (Vol. 4, p. 547). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. “And We gave him Isaac and Jacob in addition, and all [of them] We made righteous.” -Surah 21:72 (See also, Surah 6:84-86, 21:71-72, 37:101)

Note that there are differences in the Quran between these accounts. In Surah 19, for example, after confronting his father, Abraham simply leaves after being threatened: Abrahams father: "Have you no desire for my gods, O Abraham? If you do not desist, I will surely stone you, so avoid me a prolonged time.” -Surah 19:46 Abraham: “And I will leave you and those you invoke other than Allah and will invoke my Lord.” -Surah 19:48

This is completely different from the other accounts. And notice that after being threatened for condemning idol worship, Abraham leaves. He emigrates [like Muhammad, what a coincidence. “History” in the Quran is often made to parallel Muhammad’s life]. Yet another issue that Muslims might raise is dissimilarities with the Quran and its alleged sources. That’s what we’re going to talk about now. Just FYI the rest of this section will be a bit technical. First a review of the Genesis Rabbah version: 21

https://www.sefaria.org/Bereishit_Rabbah.38.13?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en “Terah took Abraham and passed him off to [King] Nimrod. They said [to the king]: let us worship the fire. Abraham said to them: [rather] let us worship water, for it extinguishes fire. Nimrod agreed: let us worship water. Abraham continued: if so, let us worship the clouds, which provide water. Nimrod agreed: let us worship the clouds. Abraham continued: if so, let us worship the winds that scatter the clouds. Nimrod agreed: let us worship the winds. Abraham continued: if so, let us worship humans who are filled with wind [air]. Nimrod replied: You're just speaking words - I only worship fire.” -Bereishit Rabbah 38, https://www.sefaria.org/Bereishit_Rabbah.38.13?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en It has been proposed by some who have addressed this topic that the Rabbi’s writing their texts like Genesis Rabbah messed up the translation of the Hebrew word for light or fire in Genesis 11. “And he said to him, ‘I am the LORD who brought you out from Ur (‫;אוּר‬χώρα) of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess.’” -Ge 15:7 “Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his kindred, in Ur (‫;אוּר‬χώρα) of the Chaldeans.” -Ge 11:28 Interesting to note that the LXX scholars didn’t mistranslate. However, a mistranslation has been suggested in popular writing, for example here: https://carm.org/abraham-fiery-furnace-quran-and-jewish-mythology But there are problems with this theory. There’s another Hebrew word for fire, and is used well over 300 times in the Hebrew Bible. So this is a frequent word, it was clear to the translators of the LXX. It just doesn’t make sense to me that the Rabbi’s would mis-translate the word in their commentary. What I’m suggesting is that we have here a “rabbinic” misinterpretation. That is, a typical device whereby they translate a word based on its possible nuances. They took “Ur” as “fire”, which is also the sense it carries in Rabbinic Hebrew. So everything comes together to translate this “Fire of the Chaldees” and there is a very specific reason they did this, and it’s very relevant to our study of the Quranic accounts as well. Let’s refer to an article in the Journal of Religion by Dr. Yishai Kiel: “...there are crucial elements in the Genesis Rabbah version of the story that are clearly novel, namely, the identification of Nimrod as a fireworshipper and the incorporation of a theological debate between Abraham and Nimrod over the worship of fire and other natural elements...” Yishai Kiel, Abraham and Nimrod in the Shadow of Zarathustra, The Journal of Religion 2005, p. 41 Keep that element of fire worship in mind. Now let’s begin to connect this Abraham/Nimrod story in Genesis Rabbah to Zoroastrianism to see why the Rabbi’s chose to “mistranslate” Ur of the Chaldees: “According to several accounts, Zarathustra is identified with Nimrod (or one of his forefathers, Cush or Ham)...According to several Greek traditions, Zarathustra-Nimrod was consumed by the 22

flames of a fire that descended from heaven.” -Yishai Kiel, Abraham and Nimrod in the Shadow of Zarathustra, The Journal of Religion 2005, p. 43 And in Genesis Rabbah we have the connection of fire and Abraham and Nimrod. But there’s something different between this and the Greek Zoroastrian traditions: “The role of Nimrod in this story, however, is reversed: according to Pseudo-Clement, Nimrod challenged the evil king, an act for which he was consumed by fire, while according to the midrash, Nimrod is himself the evil king, who having been theologically challenged by Abraham, attempted to cast him into the fire.” -Yishai Kiel, Abraham and Nimrod in the Shadow of Zarathustra, The Journal of Religion 2005, p. 48 So the Rabbi’s have inverted the story. For them, Nimrod is an evil character who is at odds with Abraham and his God: “But why would the authors of the midrash collate the story of Nimrod-Zarathustra with the early biography of Abraham in the first place? While it is true that earlier exegetes such as Pseudo-Philo already juxtaposed the stories of Abraham and Nimrod, I believe that the authors of the midrash are also reacting to another set of traditions, which juxtapose Zarathustra with Abraham...” -Yishai Kiel, Abraham and Nimrod in the Shadow of Zarathustra, The Journal of Religion 2005, p. 49 So there is a cross-cultural connection between Abraham, Nimrod and Zarathustra. Both Abraham and Zarathustra are said to have been divinely rescued from a fire, and Zarathustra is alternatively identified with both Abraham and Nimrod. Clearly the Rabbi’s did not like Abraham being associated in this way: “...by depicting Abraham as the hero who was cast into the fire and miraculously saved by God, the authors of the midrash critically engage the association of Abraham with Zarathustra, who is likewise said to have been cast into and miraculously saved from fire.” -Yishai Kiel, Abraham and Nimrod in the Shadow of Zarathustra, The Journal of Religion 2005, p. 49 So in construing the Hebrew “Ur” as “fire”, and incorporating “Nimrod” who’s just one short chapter away from Genesis 11, as well as of course Genesis Rabbah and numerous other traditions, the Rabbi’s were able to launch a polemic against the Zoroastrian portrait of Abraham that they had received through Greek traditions. Far from a simple mistranslation, it’s actually quite brilliant: “...arguing that Abraham is in fact the hero who was saved from a fire and that Zarathustra (in his reincarnation as Nimrod) should be identified as the evil king who sought to cast Abraham into the flames, the authors of the midrash ingeniously downplay and reverse the association between Abraham, the true monotheistic prophet, and Zarathustra, who is portrayed in the midrash as an evil, idolatrous king.” -Yishai Kiel, Abraham and Nimrod in the Shadow of Zarathustra, The Journal of Religion 2005, p. 50 So we’ve seen what’s going on with this “mistranslation of Ur in the Rabbic texts. They’re disassociating Abraham from Zoroastrian traditions. Now, why isn’t this part of the narrative 23

included in the Quran? I’ll suggest several possible reasons. The first two are simple. One could say the rabbi’s were reacting to the Zoroastrian traditions, but these traditions were not of Islamic concern so the elements were left out of the story. One could also speculate that the Islamic traditions were in touch with a different version of this oral tradition. Simple enough and quite plausible. For the third option, let’s suggest a more complex. Let’s speculate and ask some “what if’s”: “Alongside the identification of Nimrod with Zarathustra, several Muslim and Zoroastrian authors identify Zarathustra with the first monotheistic prophet Abraham...Although the links between these two figures were explicitly forged only in the Islamic period-a time in which Zoroastrians sought to improve their social standing by identifying themselves as monotheists and thus eligible for the status of ahl al-kitab (“people of the book”) -stories of Zarathustra’s life have been connected to the Abrahamic cycle from early on.” -Yishai Kiel, Abraham and Nimrod in the Shadow of Zarathustra, The Journal of Religion 2005, p. 46 When were the Zoroastrians trying to assimilate into the so called people of the book? It’s very difficult to tell. But if that is what’s in play, we would have the Quran importing a rabbinic tradition that was actually a Zoroastrian polemic. Having these elements in the Quran would alienate the Zoroastrians. But that would beg the question, do we see any pro-Zoroastrian elements or Zoroastrian influence in these stories of Abraham in the Quran? Yes. I think so. “And he [Abraham] cast a look at the stars and said, ‘Indeed, I am [about to be] ill.’” -Surah 37:88-89 Kathir attempts to soften this: “The Arabs say of one who thinks deeply that he is looking at the stars...” Tafsir Kathir http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1932&Itemid=93#1 Tafsir al Jalalayn is a bit more candid: “And he cast a glance at the stars- to delude them into thinking that he relies on them, so that they would then trust him” -al Jalalayn on Surah 37:88; https://quranx.com/Tafsir/Jalal/37.88 In Surah 6 Abraham says: “So when the night covered him [with darkness], he saw a star. He said, ‘This is my lord.’ ...And when he saw the moon rising, he said, ‘This is my lord.’...And when he saw the sun rising, he said, ‘This is my lord...’” -Surah 6:76-78 This is quite compatible with Zoroastrianism: “It has been pointed out, for example, that both Abraham and Zarathustra are said to have been born to pagan fathers, both are said to have been engaged in astronomy and astrology and are associated with stars...” -Yishai Kiel, Abraham and Nimrod in the Shadow of Zarathustra, The Journal of Religion 2005, p. 46 Let’s make it even more clear: 24

“Alongside the identification of Nimrod with Zarathustra, several Muslim and Zoroastrian authors identify Zarathustra with the first monotheistic prophet Abraham...” -Yishai Kiel, Abraham and Nimrod in the Shadow of Zarathustra, The Journal of Religion 2005, p. 46 We know that initially, Islam would attempt to take on some of the forms of previous religions in order to make itself appealing. We have seen this frequently throughout this series. Could there be something similar here? Did the compilers of the Quran omit the polemical elements of Genesis Rabbah story to avoid clashing with Zoroastrians as they were attempting to assimilate themselves with the people of the book? Were the compilers of the Quran even knowledgeable about all of this? It’s possible. Is there more that can be said? Yes. Let’s suggest a 4th reason compilers of the Quran handpicked the elements from prior traditions. What we will suggest at this point is extremely damaging to the traditional view of the so called “revelation” of these Suras in the Quran. In a video called “How Islam Shaped its Sources” 11: We looked at a specific case where the early Muslims took an existing Jewish tradition, added/subtracted and modified as needed to suit Islamic sensibilities and made it one of its own. Islam simply fabricated much of its history. There seems to be something similar here. Garsiel Bat-Sheva notes some similarities between these accounts in the Quran and Muhammad’s own experiences. Note that if you try to find this resource for your own study, it is written in Hebrew. I’ve summarized some of the similarities she notes between the Quran and rabbinic accounts here: “In the Quran...Abraham had the wisdom to prove to his audience that the gods have no power to hurt nor can they save therefore it is upon them to stop the idol worship...the nations before them were punished because they ignored the messengers, and threatens them with a punishment...His people were unable to provide an answer...They were angry...these additions reflect analogous changes from Abraham’s confrontation with his people to Muhammad’s action with his audience...” -Bat-Sheva, Garsiel. Bible, Midrash and Quran: An Intertextual Study of Common Narrative Materials (Tel-Aviv: Ha-Kibutz Ha-me’uhad, 2006) pp.79-81 She continues: Muhammad tells that Abraham was forced to leave his homeland...God helped him escape. On the contrary in the Torah there is no mention of danger or people’s action...It seems to me that the differences in the Quran reflect an event in Muhammad’s life. The Quran mentions that the infidels were planning to kill Muhammad or expel him from Mecca and Muhammad escaped to Medina. The similarities are that both Abraham and Muhammad were expelled because of their belief in one god and, as Abraham was rescued and gained God’s blessing so did Muhammad succeed in his mission. -Bat-Sheva, Garsiel. Bible, Midrash and Quran: An Intertextual Study of Common Narrative Materials (Tel-Aviv: Ha-Kibutz Ha-me’uhad, 2006) p.81 Further:

11

https://youtu.be/Hw4ZISSu2Ec

25

“...the Quran concentrates on the fact that Abraham left his homeland because he wanted to be separated from idol worship while his destination was secondary, so Canaan is mentioned only briefly. In my opinion Muhammad was trying to avoid mentioning that the land was promised to Abraham and to his descendants so he changed the reason for Abraham’s departure and made no note of Abraham’s destination.” -Bat-Sheva, Garsiel. Bible, Midrash and Quran: An Intertextual Study of Common Narrative Materials (Tel-Aviv: Ha-Kibutz Ha-me’uhad, 2006) p.81 She concludes: I feel that the changes that were made by Muhammad in the story about Abraham reflect his personal condition and his relationships with the audience with which he was active. -Bat-Sheva, Garsiel. Bible, Midrash and Quran: An Intertextual Study of Common Narrative Materials (TelAviv: Ha-Kibutz Ha-me’uhad, 2006) p.82 We’ve seen it before and we’re seeing it again, Muslims changing history to suit their own narratives. In this case, Abraham’s history being rewritten to reflect Muhammad’s life. What’s we’ve just done is uncovered a serious chronological problem, let’s unpack it. Muhammad, or the compilers of the Quran, are doing what we’ve seen before- they’re fabricating history that suits their narrative. We have been looking at Meccan Suras today. Suras 6; 19, 21, 26, 29, and 37 are all Meccan. But you can’t pattern an event in Muhammad’s life according to a story in a rabbinic tradition until after that event in Muhammad’s life has happened. So parts of these Suras which are believed to be Meccan appear to be crafted after Muhammad was in Medina, or much later over the following centuries, by what I would suggest would be later Quranic compilers and editors.

Quran, Alexander and Studies in Surah 18 12 In this section we establish that the Quran indeed relied upon the Alexander legends, apparently mistaking him to be a follower of Allah. We begin in addressing an objection from the “Islam Awareness” website and progress from there. https://www.islamic-awareness.org/quran/sources/bbalex Let’s start by looking at the sources of the article above. It’s heavily dependent on Brannon Wheeler’s article. Further, he lifts sources from the footnotes of the article and cites them as if he’s looked at these sources himself. This makes his article appear more rigorous. There are also numerous places where he closely paraphrases Brannon’s article without citing it. Now, given all that, as dishonest as it is, we still have a peer-reviewed article saying the Quran isn’t relying on the Alexander romance. Let’s look at a recent essay by Kevin van Bladel in the 2007 work, The Quran in its Historical Context: The present investigation will first show…the Qur’an 18:83–102 is a retelling of the story found in this particular Syriac text. But that is just the beginning of the matter. -The Qur'an in Its Historical Context, edited by Gabriel Said Reynolds, Routledge, 2007, 176. 12

See video here: https://youtu.be/ps9UFkDnSm8

26

As we’ve seen, major resource used on the Islamic website we looked at was an article written by Brannon Wheeler. Wheeler is actually referenced in the essay we’re going to look see in this section. And the review of his work is not good: “Moreover, some recent scholarship has brought considerable confusion into the study of Alexander stories in relation to the Qur’an.” -Reynolds, Gabriel Said. The Quran in Its Historical Context. London :: Routledge, 2007, 175. In the related, lengthy footnote, things get much worse: “B. Wheeler, “Moses or Alexander? Q 18:60–5 in early Islamic exegesis,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 57.3, 1998, 191–215 and idem, Moses, 10–36. Wheeler does not address directly Noldeke’s hypothesis of the relationship of the Alexander Legend to Q 18:83–102, which is the subject of the present paper, though he does refer in his notes to Noldeke’s work (“Moses or Alexander?” 201, n. 52; Moses, 138, n. 55 to chapter 1). This strikes me as an unfortunate oversight. While this is not the place to redraw Wheeler’s charts showing the supposed interrelationships of these texts, a few critical remarks are in order to guide the reader. In discussing the Qur’an, its commentaries, three different texts about Alexander (the Legend, the Song, and different recensions of the Romance), and then also the Talmudic story of Alexander, Wheeler has overlooked a good deal of relevant published research (e.g. see later in this note) but has almost completely avoided getting into the details of the texts that could be used to establish their real interrelationships. To take just one of the problematic conclusions as an example, his charts of affiliations (Wheeler, “Moses or Alexander?” 202–3; Moses, 17, 19) argue that the Babylonian Talmud is a source of the Christian Song of Alexander, which is extremely unlikely. He argues, without foundation, that when Qur’an commentators refer to extra-Qur’anic traditions, it becomes impossible for the Qur’an to refer to the same extra-Qur’anic traditions; the Qur’an itself is cleared of relying on the same ancient traditions (Moses, 28–9). This and other problematic schemata aside, Wheeler has not included the Legend of Alexander in his chart of affiliations, but only the Song of Alexander, which has been shown not actually to be by Jacob of Serugh, as Wheeler seems to think: “Moses or Alexander?” 201; Moses, 17; following Noldeke, actually, but missing much of the subsequent scholarship: for example, A. Baumstark, Geschichte der Syrischen Literatur, Bonn: A. Markus und E. Weber, 1922, 191; K. Czegledy, “Monographs on Syriac and Muhammadan sources in the literary remains of M. Kmosko,” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 4, 1955, (19–90) 35–6; G.J. Reinink, “Ps.Methodius: A concept of history in response to Islam,” in A. Cameron and L.I. Conrad (eds) The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East I: Problems in the Literary Source Material, Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam 1, Princeton, NJ: Darwin, 1992, (149–87) 167 n. 73; S. Gero, “The legend of Alexander the Great in the Christian orient,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 75, 1993, 3–9, 7; and above all the introduction accompanying the standard edition of the Song of Alexander itself: Das syrische Alexanderlied. Die Drei Rezensionen, CSCO 454 (edition)-455 (translation), Scriptores Syri 195–6, Trans. G.J. Reinink (ed.), Louvain: Peeters, 1983. Compare Wheeler’s reference to “the brief so-called Legend of Alexander, which is often said to be a prose version of Jacob of Serugh’s (Song) . . .” (Wheeler, Moses, 17, no references given) with Reinink’s statement: “No scholar has seriously considered the possibility that the legend is dependent on the (Song)” (Reinink, “Alexander the Great,” 153). Not even Budge, who first edited the Legend, thought that it was a prose version of the Song; rather he supposed that they 27

shared a common source (Budge, History of Alexander, lxxvii). As Reinink has shown, the Song of Alexander is to some degree a reaction to the Alexander Legend composed not many years after the latter, probably between 630 and 640 CE (Reinink, “Alexander the Great,” 152–5 and 165–8).” -Reynolds, Gabriel Said. The Quran in Its Historical Context. London :: Routledge, 2007, 197-198, n 8. Now, several articles have appeared since the essay we’re going to reference. Here’s one from 2015 in support of Kevin van Bladel against Brannon Wheeler’s article referenced by the Islamic website: A very confused (and confusing) discussion about the relationship between Q 18:60-82 and various texts concerning both Alexander and Gilgamesh is found in Wheeler 1998. -Tesei, Tommaso. The prophecy of Ḏū-l-Qarnayn (Q 18:83-102) and the Origins of the Qurʾānic Corpus”. Miscellanea arabica 2013–2014: 273-90. Another one: Brannon Wheeler, who dismisses any direct relationship between Q 18:60-82 and the Alexander legend, has attempted to challenge the dominant views concerning the dependence of Q 18:60-82 on the Alexander tale (“Moses or Alexander? Early Islamic Exegesis of Qur’an 18:60-65,” JNES 57,3 [1998]: 191-215); yet the results he achieves are highly doubtful. The same arguments are repeated in his Moses in the Quran and Islamic Exegesis (London: Routledge, 2002), 10-36. For a critique of Wheeler’s study, see Kevin van Bladel… -Tesei, T. (2015). Some cosmological notions from Late Antiquity in Q 18:60-65: the Quran in light of its cultural context. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 135(1), 22, n.15. Additionally, it was said to me in a private communication from a specialist in this field, that to his knowledge, “Brannon Wheeler’s contribution has been forgotten.” Additionally, “everybody” using his word, now accepts the Alexander story was retold in the Quran. Nobody is accepting the thesis put forward by Wheeler that our Islamic friends are referring to. Let’s find out why. For the purposes of this study, this can be divided into five parts. 1 an introduction to Dhu l-Qarnayn, the Two-Horned One (83–4), 2 his journey to the sun’s setting and his punishment of unjust people there (85–8), 3 his journey to the sun’s rising place where the people have no shelter from the sun (89–91), 4 his journey to a place threatened by Yajuj and Majuj where he is asked to build a protective wall between two mountains, culminating in his uttering a brief prophecy (92–8), and finally 5 God’s first-person warning of the events to come (99–102). -Reynolds, Gabriel Said. The Quran in Its Historical Context. London :: Routledge, 2007, 178.

“Many of the correspondences between the Syriac and the Arabic stories are so obvious that they do not need special attention. Simply relating both stories together establishes their extraordinary 28

similarity.” -Reynolds, Gabriel Said. The Quran in Its Historical Context. London :: Routledge, 2007, 180. But let’s look at some specific examples. I’ve extracted them from the essay and paired them with the associated verse from the Quran. Start with this parallel: “When Alexander came to the people in the west, he tested the efficacy of the deadly, fetid waters with the lives of convicts. This passage helps to explain the option given, for no apparent reason, by God to Dhul-Qarnayn in the Qur’an: either to punish the people or to do them a kindness. Dhul-Qarnayn says he will punish only wrongdoers…who are like the prisoners sentenced to death in the Syriac text, described there as evil-doers…” -The Qur'an in Its Historical Context, edited by Gabriel Said Reynolds, Routledge, 2007, 181. “We said: O Dhu'l-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness.” -Surah 18:86

Another parallel: The Syriac text has Alexander travel from that point, near to where the sun sets, in the direction of the place where the sun rises, just as does Dhul-Qarnayn in the Qur’an. The sun does not exactly set in the fetid water, but more vaguely nearby. And it is only this Syriac text that explains the meaning of Q 18:90, where the otherwise unknown eastern people who have no cover from the sun are mentioned. -The Qur'an in Its Historical Context, edited by Gabriel Said Reynolds, Routledge, 2007, 181. “Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water…” -Surah 18:86 “Until, when he came to the rising of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had provided no covering protection against the sun.” -Surah 18:90

And another one: On his third journey, the people who can hardly understand speech are explained by the Syriac text as “Huns,” here a generic term for Central Asian pastoralists, who appeared to the residents of the Middle East as savages. Their allegedly bestial barbarism is explained at length in the Syriac. The Qur’anic text saying that they “could scarcely understand speech” together with reference by name to Gog and Magog makes sense only in the context of this Syriac tale. -The Qur'an in Its Historical Context, edited by Gabriel Said Reynolds, Routledge, 2007, 181. “Until, when he reached (a tract) between two mountains, he found, beneath them, a people who scarcely understood a word.” -Surah 18:93

And yet another one: 29

Dhul-Qarnayn’s ability to build a wall of iron and brass is explained in the Syriac story by his being accompanied by seven thousand Egyptian “workers in brass and iron,” precisely the same metals. -The Qur'an in Its Historical Context, edited by Gabriel Said Reynolds, Routledge, 2007, 181. “‘Bring me blocks of iron.’ At length, when he had filled up the space between the two steep mountain-sides…” -Surah 18:96

Finally, we have another important parallel: “Most importantly, in both texts the hero issues a prophecy upon completing the fortification foretelling the end of the world in a time of great battles among nations.” -The Qur'an in Its Historical Context, edited by Gabriel Said Reynolds, Routledge, 2007, 181.

“Thus, quite strikingly, almost every element of this short Qur’anic tale finds a more explicit and detailed counterpart in the Syriac Alexander Legend. In both texts the related events are given in precisely the same order.” -The Qur'an in Its Historical Context, edited by Gabriel Said Reynolds, Routledge, 2007, 181. There are also numerous linguistic parallels: “Already earlier several cases of specific words that are exact matches between the Syriac and the Arabic were indicated. The water at the place where the sun sets is “fetid” in both texts, a perfect coincidence of two uncommon synonyms (Syriac saryâ, Arabic hami’a). Also, the wall that Alexander builds is made specifically of iron and brass in both texts. We are told in the Syriac that God will “gather together the kings and their hosts,” which finds a nearly perfect match in Q 18:99: “the horn will be blown and we shall gather them together.” The proper names of Yajuj and Majuj are not uniquely matched by this Syriac text (where they appear as Agog and Magog), for their tradition is derived from the books of Ezekiel and the Apocalypse of John, but they do still count as specific word correspondences between the Syriac and Arabic texts in question here. In the Qur’an God is characterized as saying, “We shall leave them on that day surging like waves against each other,” wa-tarakna ba‘dahum yawma’idhin yamuju fi ba‘din, while the Syriac says similarly “and kingdoms will fall upon each other,” w-naplan malkwata hda ‘al hda. The title of the Syriac work is “Neshanâ of Alexander.” The word neshanâ means “glory” or “victory” but was often used to refer to a narrative account of a person’s heroic acts. In Q 18:83 God is portrayed as commanding Muhammad to say that he will recite a dhikr about the Dhu l-Qarnayn. Dhikr in Arabic has most of the same connotations as Syriac neshanâ: it refers to glory or good repute but it also can refer to an account remembered about someone. Could the word dhikr in Q 18:83 be a translation of the very title of the Syriac Alexander Legend? It is a tempting consideration, but there are a few other instances in the Qur’an where a dhikr of a person is related without any apparent reference to a written work. The translation of sabab (pl. asbab), occurring in Q 18:84, 85, 89, and 92 as “heavenly course” 30

requires some explanation. These are conventionally translated merely as the “ways” that Dhu lQarnayn is made to follow, since among the many meanings of sabab in Arabic are prominently “means” and “ways of access.” However, Arabic lexicographers and much other evidence attest to the early use of the word to mean in particular heavenly courses, specifically cords leading to heaven along which a human might travel: asbab al-sama’, “ways to heaven” or “sky-cords.” In fact this is probably the only meaning of the word occurring in the Qur’an, appearing in four other places. Nor are these isolated cases of such a usage in Arabic. For example, it is also attested in the poetry of al-A‘sha (d. 625), an exact contemporary of Muhammad, where the phrase wa-ruqqita asbaba l-sama’i bi-sullam, “and were you to be brought up the gateways of heaven by a flight of steps,” is found with the synonymous, variant reading abwab al-sama’ “gates of heaven.” Thus, the translation given earlier, though unconventional, is not only suitable but likely. In the case of Dhu l-Qarnayn’s tale, it matches the window of heaven (kawwteh dammayyâ) through which the sun passes on its course, and which Alexander follows, in the Syriac Alexander Legend. The remaining problem is then to account for the third “way” mentioned in Q 18:92, the northward path that is not connected with any course of a heavenly body in the Alexander Legend. Here one may excuse the Arabic as following the pattern of the earlier journeys. The matter is bound up with the problem of how these heavenly courses were imagined, something I treat in detail elsewhere.” -The Qur'an in Its Historical Context, edited by Gabriel Said Reynolds, Routledge, 2007, 181-2. No wonder he says: “If there were a closer correspondence of the Syriac and Arabic, it would be possible to argue that one was just a much modified translation of the other.” -The Qur'an in Its Historical Context, edited by Gabriel Said Reynolds, Routledge, 2007, 182.

Now as for the date of the alexander legend: “The Alexander Legend is an apocalyptic text in which the ancient Alexander is portrayed as presenting a prophecy written long ago for events to come, which were intended to be understood by the audience at the real time of authorship as referring to events leading up to and including their own time. This is how many texts of the apocalyptic genre work. Thus the date of composition for such apocalypses can often be found by locating the latest point at which events allegedly predicted match actual historical events. Where the events “predicted” diverge from history, there one usually can find the date of the composition. The message of the apocalypse for its own time is not just in the events it describes, but rather in the way it describes these events and the future that it expects to unfold given what has occurred.” -The Qur'an in Its Historical Context, edited by Gabriel Said Reynolds, Routledge, 2007, 183. “Reinink has shown that the Alexander Legend demonstrates, through its prophecy and its use of Alexander to prefigure the emperor Heraclius, detailed knowledge of the events of that war and its resolution with the restoration of the earlier borders, a peace treaty, and a final reference to Jerusalem. Using this information, too much to repeat entirely here, he has persuasively argued that the Alexander Legend was composed just after 628, perhaps in 630, the year in which

31

Heraclius restored the cross to Jerusalem.” -The Qur'an in Its Historical Context, edited by Gabriel Said Reynolds, Routledge, 2007, 183.

After more elaboration, Kevin van Bladel concludes: “By now it should be amply clear that the Alexander Legend is the product of a very specific, identifiable historical and cultural environment, the end of a devastating war widely believed to carry eschatological implications, ending with Heraclius’ campaign in 628 and in 629 with the final withdrawal of the Persian armies. This needs to be held in mind when the relationship between this text and the Qur’an is considered.” -The Qur'an in Its Historical Context, edited by Gabriel Said Reynolds, Routledge, 2007, 185. But early, mid 7th century is a bit late for this legend, assuming of course the traditional dating of the Quran, which is by no means proven. But the plot thickens: In the early twentieth century Russian scholars discovered a number of Pahlavi inscriptions on the old wall at Darband, dated variously at first but with a final, general consensus to the sixth century. Thus the author of the Syriac Legend of Alexander was using common lore that would be readily understood by its audience: Alexander was thought to have built a real wall with a gate that was known to the inhabitants of the Caucasus region and indeed was famous far and wide, a wall that bore inscriptions. It is easy to see how one of these inscriptions might have been thought to have been carved there by Alexander.” -The Qur'an in Its Historical Context, edited by Gabriel Said Reynolds, Routledge, 2007, 186. It’s also interesting to note that the Alexander Legend combines two earlier traditions: Thus the Alexander Legend combines two traditions (1) Alexander’s building of a wall in the Caucasus to hold out Huns and (2) the identification of Huns, a generic term for all Central Asian peoples, with Gog and Magog, thereby associating Alexander with the end of time and giving him an occasion to make eschatological prophecies. Alexander’s wall also explains why the Huns (Gog and Magog) cannot invade at just any time; they have to surmount the wall first. But when that wall is breached, that will be a sign of the approaching end. Once these traditions were combined, it was now easy to link Heraclius both with the world conquering Alexander, who similarly defeated the Persian emperor, and with the end of time.” -The Qur'an in Its Historical Context, edited by Gabriel Said Reynolds, Routledge, 2007, 187. So the linguistic and thematic parallels are secure. The dating of the Alexander legend seems secure, while the Quran’s date of composition is certainly not. What about the legend itself? Was it widespread enough for Muhammad and his band of merry men to hear about it? Yes: The success or popularity of the Alexander Legend is indicated in that it was used by at least three more apocalypses, the so-called Song of Alexander attributed falsely to Jacob of Serugh (composed just a few years later but before the Arab conquest, between 630 and 636), the Syriac apocalypse De fine mundi attributed falsely to Ephraem (composed sometime between 640–83), and the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius (composed around 692, quite possibly in reaction to the building of the Dome of the Rock). The Alexander Legend was evidently well 32

known in the early seventh century.” -The Qur'an in Its Historical Context, edited by Gabriel Said Reynolds, Routledge, 2007, 188. Could the Syriac text have its source in the Qur’an: “Could the Syriac text have its source in the Qur’an? If this were the case, then the Syriac text would have to be seen as a highly expanded version of the Qur’anic account, which would then need to be understood as an attempt to explain the cryptic Qur’anic story with rationalizations drawn from stories about Alexander. However, the Syriac text contains no references to the Arabic language the type of which one might expect to find if its purpose was to explain an Arabic text, and it is impossible to see why a Syriac apocalypse written around 630 would be drawing on an Arabic tradition some years before the Arab conquests, when the community at Mecca was far from well known outside Arabia. Moreover, the very specific political message of the Alexander Legend would not make any sense in this scenario. This possibility must therefore be discounted.” -The Qur'an in Its Historical Context, edited by Gabriel Said Reynolds, Routledge, 2007, 189. After evaluating all other options: “Stephen Gero implied in one article that since the text comes from this date (629 CE or later), it cannot be regarded as a source of the Qur’an. He does not explain in detail but I take the implication to be that such a date of composition is too late for it to have reached the human agents who related the Qur’an. But to me this seems to be the only real possibility because the others are invalid, as just explained. The Qur’anic account must draw from the Syriac account, if not directly then by oral report.” -The Qur'an in Its Historical Context, edited by Gabriel Said Reynolds, Routledge, 2007, 189. You know that prophecy in Surah 30:2-3: “The Roman Empire has been defeated in a land close by; but they, (even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious.” -Surah 30:2-3 This prophecy is also paralleled by others circulating in the middle east during the 7th century. This has been described in great detail elsewhere, I may produce a video specifically on that topic at a later time. For now, a quick treatment will suffice: Also, as explained earlier, the Qur’an does not include the last part of the Alexander Legend [in Surah 18], in which Alexander defeats the Persian emperor Tûbarlaq, who writes his own prophecy down for Alexander and gives it to him, to the effect that the Romans would one day decisively defeat the Persians…-The Qur'an in Its Historical Context, edited by Gabriel Said Reynolds, Routledge, 2007, 183. (brackets mine) But according to the Quran nobody knows the future, also called the unseen, except for God: “To Allah do belong the unseen (secrets) of the heavens and the earth…” -Surah 11:123

33

So if Muslims claim Roman victory is a prophecy in the Quran then it’s also a prophecy everywhere else it occurs in contemporary traditions which means the author of those traditions knows the unseen in addition to Allah and they just committed shirk. Now, let’s open up the discussion to more include more of Surah 18. You have the story of Moses and his Mysterious companion in Surah 18:65 and following. We get the name of this mysterious companion from tradition: Though he is not named in the Qur’an, this man is identified as ‘al-Khadir’ by the Prophet Muhammad in a hadith recorded in Abu Dawud’s Sunan. -Toorawa, S. M. (2014). modern literary (after)lives of al-Khiḍr: The. Journal of Qurʼanic Studies, 16(3), 175. Khidr is the figure who, in Islamic literature, found the fountain of life and gained eternal life when he drank from it. He was an executive officer of Dhū-l-ḳarnain which, as we’ve alluded to before, is a SYRO-Arabic title for alexander the great. He’s also: It is obvious, and indeed is expressly and circumstantially related in later Muhammadan sources, that Khiḍr is identical with Alexander’s cook who discovered the Fountain of Life by means of the salted fish. -Israel Friedlaender, “KHIḌR,” ed. James Hastings, John A. Selbie, and Louis H. Gray, Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh; New York: T. & T. Clark; Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1908–1926), 694. This is where we get even further into the tangled mess of Islamic tradition. Let’s bring Elijah into the picture as well: The Tishbite is, no doubt, the most prominent and the most popular figure in the legendary world of post-Biblical Judaism. The most striking attributes of this post-Biblical hero are eternal life and omnipresence. -Israel Friedlaender, “KHIḌR,” ed. James Hastings, John A. Selbie, and Louis H. Gray, Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh; New York: T. & T. Clark; Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1908–1926), 694. For example, there’s an 11th century Jewish scholar who quotes a very interesting legend about Elijah: …Elijah accompanies a famous Rabbi of the 3rd cent, on his travels, and shows him several incidents which, on the surface, seem to militate against God’s justice, but, when interpreted by the prophet, are revealed as wonderful instances of the wisdom and justice of Divine Providence. -Israel Friedlaender, “KHIḌR,” ed. James Hastings, John A. Selbie, and Louis H. Gray, Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh; New York: T. & T. Clark; Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1908–1926), 694.

This is precisely how the story of Moses and Khidr goes in the Quran. Let’s look at some parallels:

34

Once he [Elijah] granted his friend Rabbi Joshua ben Levi the fulfilment of any wish he might express, and all the Rabbi asked for was, that he might be permitted to accompany Elijah on his wanderings through the world. Elijah was prepared to gratify this wish. He only imposed the condition, that, however odd the Rabbi might think Elijah’s actions, he was not to ask any explanation of them. -Louis Ginzberg, Henrietta Szold, and Paul Radin, Legends of the Jews, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2003), 1014. Moses said to him: “May I follow you on [the condition] that you teach me from what you have been taught of sound judgement?” Khidr said, “Indeed, with me you will never be able to have patience.” Moses said, “You will find me, if Allah wills, patient, and I will not disobey you in [any] order.” He [Khidr] said, “Then if you follow me, do not ask me about anything until I make to you about it mention.” -Surah 18:66-67, 69-70 Another one: There was no need for him to take any steps to have it rebuilt, for, when Elijah left the house, he prayed that the wall might erect itself, and, lo! it stood upright. -Louis Ginzberg, Henrietta Szold, and Paul Radin, Legends of the Jews, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2003), 1014.

Then they proceeded: until, when they came to the inhabitants of a town, they asked them for food, but they refused them hospitality. They found there a wall on the point of falling down, but he set it up straight. (Moses) said: "If thou hadst wished, surely thou couldst have exacted some recompense for it!" -Surah 18:77

And, as we noted above, both of these accounts conclude with an interpretation:

Now the Rabbi could not hold himself in check any longer, and he demanded an explanation of Elijah’s freakish actions. -Louis Ginzberg, Henrietta Szold, and Paul Radin, Legends of the Jews, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2003), 1014.

“He said: This is the parting between thee and me! I will announce unto thee the interpretation of that thou couldst not bear with patience.” Surah 18:78

You may be wondering, which one of these tales is earlier, the Jewish or Islamic version in the Quran? Which one is dependent on the other? Take a guess:

The antiquity of the legend is attested by Mohammed who reproduces it in the Koran (18.59–82) in his anachronistic fashion. There is no valid reason to doubt the Jewish origin of this legend, 35

especially if one considers the fact that Elijah appears as the “vindicator of God’s justice” in the old Haggadah, preceding the Koran by centuries. -Louis Ginzberg, Henrietta Szold, and Paul Radin, Legends of the Jews, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2003). And that’s exactly the role Elijah plays in this tale attributed to the 3rd century. The Quran is borrowing again. But there’s more: Khidr literally means “The Green One”, representing freshness of spirit and eternal liveliness, green symbolizing the freshness of knowledge “drawn out of the living sources of life.” -Khidr in Islamic Tradition: Omar, I. A. (1993). Khiḍr in the Islamic Tradition. The Muslim World, 83(3– 4), 288. Which corresponds with: According to a conjecture put forward by several scholars and upheld by the present writer, Khiḍr, ‘the green one,’ is the original designation of the sea-demon into which the [Alexander’s] cook Andreas was transformed when thrown into the sea. -Israel Friedlaender, “KHIḌR,” ed. James Hastings, John A. Selbie, and Louis H. Gray, Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh; New York: T. & T. Clark; Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1908–1926), 694. There’s a further allusion in Islamic tradition to the Alexander romance. Now, there are some really interesting things about Khidr, aside from the sea monster thing, and the development of his legend through tradition:

Khidr is one of the four prophets whom the Islamic tradition recognizes as being ‘alive’ or ‘immortal’. The other three being Idris (Enoch), Ilyas(Elias), and ‘Isa (Jesus). Khidr is immortal because he drank from the water of life.” -Khidr in Islamic Tradition: Omar, I. A. (1993). Khiḍr in the Islamic Tradition. The Muslim World, 83(3–4), 280.

Notice the parallels between Elijah in Jewish tradition and Khidr in Islamic legend. Elijah really gets around. From the Talmud: Michael [reaches his destination] in one [leap], Gabriel in two, Elijah in four, and the angel of death in eight, but during a time of plague, it is in one. -Jacob Neusner, The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary, vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2011), 19. Because of Elijah’s miraculous travel abilities: He [Elijah] attends every circumcision ceremony performed in a Jewish family, and it is still customary to keep a special seat, the so-called ‘chair of Elijah,’ ready for his reception; and he visits every Jewish home on Passover eve, when a special cup of wine is set aside for him. Israel Friedlaender, “KHIḌR,” ed. James Hastings, John A. Selbie, and Louis H. Gray, Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh; New York: T. & T. Clark; Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1908–1926), 694. 36

What about Khidr? As a figure who was able to travel great distances in short periods of time, Khiḍr became known for daily prayer circuits that included prayers at major monuments in Mecca, Jerusalem and, depending on the time period, Cairo, Tunis and Constantinople. Descriptions of Khiḍr praying at newly converted sites cast these buildings in a new series of associations with each other to create new sacred geographies. -Khiḍr and the Changing Frontiers of the Medieval World: Wolper, E. S. (2011). Khidr and the Changing Frontiers of the Medieval World. Medieval Encounters, 17(1/2), 120 Both the Quran and Islamic tradition as a whole is nothing but a patchwork quilt of prior traditions that were changes as necessary for the Islamic religion. Notice how entangled these traditions have become: Whatever the origin of the name, it is certain that the figure of Khiḍr as conceived in Islām is not derived from one definite source, but is rather the composite of a large number of legends and myths of widely divergent origin and character, which were current in the lands of Islām prior to the Muhammadan occupation. -Israel Friedlaender, “KHIḌR,” ed. James Hastings, John A. Selbie, and Louis H. Gray, Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh; New York: T. & T. Clark; Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1908–1926), 693. Put more succinctly:

Historically speaking, Islam inherited the tradition of Khidr from “earlier myths and faiths.” -Khidr in Islamic Tradition: Omar, I. A. (1993). Khiḍr in the Islamic Tradition. The Muslim World, 83(3–4), 281. Freidlander had it right when he said: As a result of this combination, the story of the Fountain of Life in the Qur’ān (xviii. 59–63), on the one hand, and the Elijah legend (64–81), on the other, which originally had nothing to do with one another and are easily distinguishable by their different rhymes, were subsequently made to follow one another, and were in a most artificial and clumsy manner welded into one continuous narrative…-Israel Friedlaender, “KHIḌR,” ed. James Hastings, John A. Selbie, and Louis H. Gray, Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh; New York: T. & T. Clark; Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1908–1926), 694.

37

How Islam Shaped its Sources13 This section explores how the early Muslims simply constructed “historical” narratives or adapted prior narratives to suit their purposes. This material is adapted from “Journeys in the Holy Lands” by Reuven Firestone. As the Islamic community grew and spread over more diverse areas, standardization of the religion was needed. An Islamic framework had to be established and solidified. It’s no coincidence then, that at the latter half of the 8th century and beginning of the 9th that the Sunna of Muhammad began to emerge, and external sources fell out of favor with Islamic scholars. But, by the time the caliphate had become concerned about the effect of external influences on the developing religion of Islam, it was too late. “Some material deriving from Biblicist and pre-Islamic pagan environments had become so well integrated into Islamic lore that they were included in the most respected collections and cited freely in authoritative exegesis of the Quran.” -Firestone, Journeys in the Holy Lands, p.10 Muslim writers coined a derogatory term for Jewish traditions that found their way into Islamic texts: Isrā’iliyyāt” (Israelite Tales, lit, “of Jewish origin”) When Islamic scholars ran across these stories they would deem them “Isrā’iliyyāt”, not based on how well or poorly they were historically attested, but based simply on their content alone. “In fact, however, stories or legends that are specifically designated by medieval Muslim scholars as Israelite Tales cannot be found in Jewish literature- at least not as they are found in Islamic sources…a story deemed by Islam as an Israelite Tale is actually…a unique and authentically Islamic tale.” -Firestone, Journeys in the Holy Lands, p.13

Let’s look at an example of how this plays out and see how Islam would adapt pre-existing material and shape it to suit its theology. So far, up to the 7th century, what we have is Biblical, Christian and Jewish material. But Islam needed Islamic elements in its stories. Let’s see how elements in the Abraham and Sarah traditions were adapted to Islamic sensibilities. Many of these elements from Biblical material, or Jewish tradition. You’ll notice three elements are missing:

1. 2. The king/ruler (or tyrant) of a town through which Abraham is passing is told that Abraham is with a beautiful woman. The tyrant sends an inquiry. Abraham tells the tyrant she is his sister. 3. 13

Video here: https://youtu.be/Hw4ZISSu2Ec

38

4. Sarah is brought to the ruler at which point she prays to God. She requests God prevent the ruler from touching her. * 5. The tyrant/ruler reaches out to her and is afflicted in some way (stricken on the hand; seizure)* 6. Sarah prays for him ruler to be released from his affliction 7. After being released from his seizure, the king reaches for her several more times 8. The ruler then concludes says he was sent a devil* 9. He gives Hagar to Sarah* 10. Sarah returns to Abraham* 11. She tells him that God foiled the plot of the tyrant and gave her Hagar* 12. *Drawn from Jewish tradition, i.e. Bereshit Rabbah; Palestinian Targum; Pirke de’Rabbi Eliezer; Sefer HaYashar

Compare with this version attributed, in part, to Abu Hurairah: 1. Abraham told only 3 lies. (Surah 37:89, 21.63; Sahih al-Bukhari 5084) 2. The king/ruler (or tyrant) of a town through which Abraham is passing is told that Abraham is with a beautiful woman. The tyrant sends an inquiry. Abraham tells the tyrant she is his sister. 3. Abraham speaks with Sarah and tells her not to contradict him because (1) she is his sister to God, (2) they are the only Muslims on earth, or both (1) and (2) (Sahih al-Bukhari 2217, Sunan Abi Dawud 2212) 4. Sarah is brought to the ruler at which point she prays to God. She requests God prevent the ruler from touching her. 5. The tyrant/ruler reaches out to her and is afflicted in some way (stricken on the hand; seizure) 6. Sarah prays for him ruler to be released from his affliction 7. After being released from his seizure, the king reaches for her several more times 8. The ruler then concludes says he was sent a devil 9. He gives Hagar to Sarah 10. Sarah returns to Abraham 11. She tells him that God foiled the plot of the tyrant and gave her Hagar 12. Abu Hurayra used to say, “This is your mother, O people of the water of heaven.” 39

Condense that down to the Islamized elements: 1. Abraham told only 3 lies (Surah 37:89, 21.63; Sahih al-Bukhari 5084, Muslim 2371) 2. Abraham speaks with Sarah and tells her not to contradict him because (1) she is his sister to God, (2) they are the only Muslims on earth, or both (1) and (2) (Sahih al-Bukhari 2217; Sunan Abi Dawud 2212) 3. Abu Hurayra used to say, “This is your mother, O people of the water of heaven.” (Sahih Muslim 2371, Sahih al-Bukhari 3358) First, the doctrine of infallibility is relevant at this point. It began to gain momentum as far back as the 8th century among some sects of Muslims. With respect to the first element above, even with the emerging doctrine of infallibility of the prophets, Abraham lying isn’t really a problem in Islamic exegesis because his lies were on the behalf of God. But as noted in the parenthesis, this element in the narrative has an important place because it ties the tradition to the Quran by mentioning the lies of Abraham. The second point of difficulty has to do directly with the infallibility of the prophets as well: Islamic exegesis couldn’t accept Abrahams apparent incestuous marriage. Clarifying that Sarah was his sister in Islam or his sister to God gets rid of this difficulty. Third, and finally, and most obviously, the last element in the narrative ties the Arabs back to Abraham via Hagar and dates this part of the story firmly in the Islamic period. Firestone states: “The evidence…can be found in Arabic genealogies, which appear to connect the Northern Arabs and the tribe of Muhammad to Hagar and Ishmael only in late- that is, Islamic-texts. PreIslamic pagan Arab genealogies appear to have no awareness or concern for the connection…” -Firestone, Journeys in the Holy Lands, p.37 Not only is this connection to Hagar a late development in Arabia, but it’s one that was developed rather vividly. Already in the 8th century we read: “It was said: The king had a daughter of extreme goodness and beauty named Hagar…Then Gabriel came to Abraham and gave him the good news that God would provide him with a child through…Hagar a son through whom would appear a prophet by the name of Muhammad, the seal of the prophets…when she [Hagar] gave birth to Ishmael, his face shone like the moon with the light of our prophet Muhammad.” -Al-Kisa’i’s, cited from Firestone, Journeys in the Holy Lands p.41 So the Islamic elements of the story serve to connect it to the Quran, also to connect the Arabs to Ishmael and therefore to Abraham, as well as clean up the issue of Abraham’s marriage to his half-sister to suit the Islamic notion of the infallibility of the prophets. At this point Firestone raises an interesting question:

40

“…why is this clearly foreign legend found in important religious and historical works of Islam, particularly in light of the fact that its story is not specifically mentioned or even directly alluded to in the Quran?” -Firestone, Journeys in the Holy Lands, p.38 He posits two reasons: “…once the genealogical connection with Hagar was established in the Islamic period, the Abu Hurayra version became an authoritative vehicle for establishing the origin of the matriarch of the northern Arabs.” -Firestone, Journeys in the Holy Lands, p.38 The second reason: “The second reason is that the story was simply a good source for much-needed information about Abraham, the first Muslim. It became a natural exegetical narrative (midrash), filling the gaps within quranic references to Abraham’s emigration (hijra) and subsequent adventures.” Firestone, Journeys in the Holy Lands, p.38 I hope this has helped you understand how Islam shaped its narratives. Historical accuracy was not a concern for those who crafted these narrations. Islam would simply take traditions that were too deeply imbedded to be removed, and Islamize them, freely adding and subtracting where necessary to suit the Islamic agenda. For anyone who critically engages in dialogue with Muslims today, we know this is what modern Muslims are still doing, well over 1,000 years later.

Quran and Queen14 We have progressed from our initial survey of Mystical material and its relationship to Islamic literature to exploring Muhammad’s connection to Merkabah mysticism. There we saw the fascinating and enlightening traditions related to Ibn Sayyed, Muhammad’s Jewish mystical contemporary. We saw Muhammad wrapped himself in a cloak and appealed to other typical practices characteristic of divination, in an attempt to receive his revelations. Noting of course that the Quran itself refers to the prophet as the cloaked one, 15 we turned our investigation to the Quran, where once again we saw that the Quran takes non-historical material to be historical, a divine error by Allah. Specifically, we noted elements of mystical exegesis imported into the Quran’s story about Solomon. Now, we move forward as we continue to realize the implications of our previous studies. In this section, we’ll explore the story of the Queen of Sheba more fully. “But when she saw it, she thought it was a body of water and uncovered her shins.” -Surah 27:44 This text should be familiar from our previous video 16 on this topic. The queen is fooled into thinking polished glass was water and thus exposed as a fraud. The 2nd Targum of Esther provides some interesting details:

14

See video here: https://youtu.be/GApY-Qs9SPI “You, cloaked one! Arise and warn…” -Surah 74:1-2 16 See here: https://youtu.be/EulmXl3pgIs 15

41

“When the king (Solomon) heard that she (Queen of Sheba) was coming to him, he arose and went and sat in a glass house. And when the Queen of Sheba saw that the king was sitting in a glass house, she considered in her heart and said to herself…that the king was sitting in water, so she lifted up her robe to wade across and he saw that she had hairy legs. King Solomon responded by saying to her: “You are exceedingly beautiful as a woman, but your hair is the hair of a man!” -Targum Sheni, §4, ed. Cassel, Zweites Targum, 21. Cited from: C. R. A. MorrayJones. A Transparent Illusion: The Dangerous Vision of Water in Hekhalot Mysticism: A SourceCritical and Tradition-Historical Inquiry. JSJ Sup 59. Leiden: Brill, 2002, 233. Now, what we’re going to see in this video is something that we’ve seen over and over again, please watch my video called, “How Islam Shaped its Sources.” 17 This is all blatantly obvious to everyone except for Muslims. Islamic sources borrow from others and change the narratives as necessary to make it fit the Islamic agenda. Jacob Lassner says it well: “Thus, the story of the ancient Israelites, the episode of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba included, was a history that Muslims appropriated and refashioned to suit their own historic consciousness and world view.” -Lassner, Jacob. Demonizing the Queen of Sheba: Boundaries of Gender and Culture in Postbiblical Judaism and Medieval Islam. University of Chicago Press, 1993, 116. Let’s turn to the influence of the Queen of Sheba legend on the Islamic sources. After noting that both the second targum of Esther and the Quran leave out vital details, Christopher MorrayJones draws the natural conclusion: “These considerations indicate that the Targum Sheni and the Qur’ān are both alluding to a traditional story which is assumed to be familiar to the reader. Since both of these sources were probably written during the seventh century, the story itself must be older still.” -C. R. A. Morray-Jones. A Transparent Illusion: The Dangerous Vision of Water in Hekhalot Mysticism: A Source-Critical and Tradition-Historical Inquiry. JSJ Sup 59. Leiden: Brill, 2002, 235. Now you may have noticed a conspicuous feature of the otherwise beautiful queen from the second Targum of Esther. We mentioned it earlier: “When the king (Solomon) heard that she (Queen of Sheba) was coming to him, he arose and went and sat in a glass house. And when the Queen of Sheba saw that the king was sitting in a glass house, she considered in her heart and said to herself…that the king was sitting in water, so she lifted up her robe to wade across and he saw that she had hairy legs. King Solomon responded by saying to her: “You are exceedingly beautiful as a woman, but your hair is the hair of a man!” -Targum Sheni, §4, ed. Cassel, Zweites Targum, 21. Cited from: C. R. A. MorrayJones. A Transparent Illusion: The Dangerous Vision of Water in Hekhalot Mysticism: A SourceCritical and Tradition-Historical Inquiry. JSJ Sup 59. Leiden: Brill, 2002, 233. In further support of the Quran and Targum relying on the same folktale, we see that for many early commentators:

17

https://youtu.be/Hw4ZISSu2Ec

42

“In most early Muslim commentaries on the passage…this detail [the queen’s hairy legs] is an integral part of the tale.” -C. R. A. Morray-Jones. A Transparent Illusion: The Dangerous Vision of Water in Hekhalot Mysticism: A Source-Critical and Tradition-Historical Inquiry. JSJ Sup 59. Leiden: Brill, 2002, 238. Let’s read an 11th century example of such a commentary. After describing the episode where the Queen is fooled into thinking that Solomon’s court was filled with water and lifted her robe to keep it from getting wet, we see: “She had the most beautiful ankles and feet that any human could have, but her ankles were most certainly hairy.” al-Tha‘labī, ‘Arā’is al-majālis. Cited from: Lassner, Jacob. Demonizing the Queen of Sheba: Boundaries of Gender and Culture in Postbiblical Judaism and Medieval Islam. University of Chicago Press, 1993, 200. Fortunately, the Solomon’s satans had an excellent idea. They found a way to remove the hair from her ankles using a depilatory, a chemical mixture that removes hair. The tafsir continues: “Ibn ‘Abbās related: That was the first time a depilatory was used. Solomon then married her.” -Tha‘labī, ‘Arā’is al-majālis. Cited from: Lassner, Jacob. Demonizing the Queen of Sheba: Boundaries of Gender and Culture in Postbiblical Judaism and Medieval Islam. University of Chicago Press, 1993, 201. When faced with demonstrably ahistorical narratives in the Quran, some of which we’ve discussed on my channel, Muslims will sometimes attempt to ignoring Allah’s historical error and claim the Quran is communicating a symbolic meaning. If that is the case, what is the meaning of this text? For some early commentators the Quran appears to be communicating a message about subjugating women wrongly placed in authority. “When the king (Solomon) heard that she (Queen of Sheba) was coming to him, he arose and went and sat in a glass house. And when the Queen of Sheba saw that the king was sitting in a glass house, she considered in her heart and said to herself…that the king was sitting in water, so she lifted up her robe to wade across and he saw that she had hairy legs. King Solomon responded by saying to her: “You are exceedingly beautiful as a woman, but your hair is the hair of a man!” -Targum Sheni, §4, ed. Cassel, Zweites Targum, 21. Cited from: C. R. A. MorrayJones. A Transparent Illusion: The Dangerous Vision of Water in Hekhalot Mysticism: A SourceCritical and Tradition-Historical Inquiry. JSJ Sup 59. Leiden: Brill, 2002, 233. The Queen wasn’t supposed to be in charge, she’s a female, with manly characteristics. The hairiness of her legs is a way of communicating that she had crossed the gender boundaries, just as, birthed from her jinn mother, she had crossed ontological boundaries. So again, we ask, what meaning did the early commentators extract from this tall tale? It’s connected to gender boundaries: “Presumably, the gender-related issues that link Muslim and Jewish sources were so powerful and spoke so directly to the Muslim concerns that they became central to the larger Islamic saga of Solomon and the queen of Sheba. Be that as it may, the theological agenda of the Qur’ānic text and the need to Islamize the ancient history of the Jews creates a parallel story requiring a 43

second explication of the text.” -Lassner, Jacob. Demonizing the Queen of Sheba: Boundaries of Gender and Culture in Postbiblical Judaism and Medieval Islam. University of Chicago Press, 1993, 87. Since the Quran leaves the event inadequately narrated, as always, it begged interpretation from later commentators, such as we saw above. But what exactly is their interpretation? “…the meaning of the queen’s hairy legs is not difficult to understand. They are symbolic of her wild and untamed ‘masculine’ nature, and of her arrogation of the male prerogatives of rulership and power. In a woman, according to these writers, such qualities are repugnant, no matter how desirable she otherwise may be.” -C. R. A. Morray-Jones. A Transparent Illusion: The Dangerous Vision of Water in Hekhalot Mysticism: A Source-Critical and Tradition-Historical Inquiry. JSJ Sup 59. Leiden: Brill, 2002, 250.

Perhaps the purpose of this story is Allah teaching that a woman ruler crosses gender boundaries, and therefore must be subjugated. Muhammad would agree. When the Queen of Sheba was mentioned to him, Muhammad said: “No society prospers that allows a woman to rule over them.” al-Tha‘labī, ‘Arā’is al-majālis. Cited from: Lassner, Jacob. Demonizing the Queen of Sheba: Boundaries of Gender and Culture in Postbiblical Judaism and Medieval Islam. University of Chicago Press, 1993, 191. At this point, we can raise a larger issue. Is this sort of theme consistent with the Quran overall? More to the point, does the Quran favor men over women? Absolutely: Verses like this make one wonder why women aren’t mentioned: “Call in two of your men as witness.” -Surah 65:2 “…sons as witnesses.” -Surah 74:13 “if there are not two men [witnesses], then a man and two women.” -Surah 2:282 And verses like this make you wonder why daughters aren’t mentioned: “God has given you…sons and grandsons…” -Surah 16:72 “[On judgement day] one will flee from his brother…mother and father…his consort and his sons…” -Surah 80:33-36 And when daughters are mentioned, the Quran clearly reflections the preference for sons, a preference so prominent in its time. What’s the proof? Let’s start with angels who were referred to as the “daughters of God.” This is what the Quran is referring to in Surah 16 and 17, just to name two examples: “They assign daughters to God.” -Surah 16:57

44

“Has your Lord distinguished you with sons and taken (for Himself) females from the angels?” -Surah 17:40 This is a problem because Allah prefers sons over daughters. We see this in a set of rhetorical questions: “Or does He [Allah] have daughters while you have sons?” -Surah 52:39 “Do you have male offspring while He [Allah] has female?” -Surah 53:21 “Has He [Allah] chosen daughters over sons?” -Surah 37:153 “Has He [Allah] taken daughters…and singled you out with sons?” -Surah 43:16 Perhaps this is why sons are preferred in paradise: “…and among them [believers in paradise] will circulate boys of their own…” -Surah 52:24 “…boys of eternal youth…” -Surah 56:17 “[Allah will] increase you with wealth and sons…” Surah 71:12 Things go from bad to worse. Not only does this account with Solomon demonstrate a historical error in the Quran, it yielded a symbolic interpretation for some early commentators, one of which we’ve examined here. We found the issue of the subjugation of women and Allah’s preference for sons against daughters to be a prevalent theme as described by the Quran, both in this life, and the hereafter.

Surah 9:29 in Context Frequently when secularized Muslim apologists interpret Surah 9:29-30, they say that the context in which it was revealed makes the passage much more narrow, interpretively, than it seems and that it's not actually a call for Muslims to wage war against unbelievers. Context is extremely important, and this view needs to be examined. In this section we will see, from the literary and historical context contained within the Islamic sources that the text in question does in fact command Muslims, given sufficient resources to be successful, to wage war against unbelievers, using violence to spread Islam. Surah 9 is said to have been revealed around the time of the Battle, or Expedition, of Tabuk, by some sources. I accept this view for the purpose of this critique. We will examine the literary and historical context in turn. I have included Surah 9:28 for reasons that will be apparent soon. First, the literary context: Surah 9:28-32: O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year. And if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise. Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they pay the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. 45

(30) The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah “; and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah,” That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded? (31) They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah, and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him. (32) They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah refuses except to perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it. Thus, the crimes of these people to be fought against are: 1. Unbelief in Allah and the law of Allah and Muhammad. 2. Taking their scholars and monks as lords. 3. “Speaking” is the most significant crime because it is mentioned five times. If this text is referring to defensive warfare as Muslim apologists claim, it is truly an enormous lapsus linguae on the part of Allah. No Muslim apologist I'm aware of makes any argument from the literary context to support an exegesis of defensive fighting against imminent invasion. The text simply doesn't say that. As Sayyid Qutb notes in his commentary: “In this second passage [9:29-35] we note that its statements are more general in phraseology and import, and are applicable to all people of earlier revelations [Jews/Christians], whether in Arabia or elsewhere. [Qutb's next statement will take us away from the literary context and into the historical context for this Surah. He continues,] “By the time this sūrah was revealed [9AH], all encounters and military conflicts with the Jews had already taken place, but no such conflict took place with any Christian community.” -Sayyid Qutb, In the Shade of the Quran, pp. 8081. https://www.kalamullah.com/Books/InTheShadeOfTheQuranSayyidQutb/volume_8_surah_9 .pdf We'll stay in the modern era with a quote from Maududi: "The defeat of 'ignorance' at Hunain paved the way for making the whole of Arabia the 'Abode of Islam' (Dar-ul-Islam). The result was that hardly a year had passed after the Battle of Hunain [8AH], when the major portion of Arabia came within the fold of Islam and only a few upholders of the old order remained scattered over some corners of the country." -Sayyid Maududi, Tafhim alQur'an; http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/9/index.html The same from Ibn Kathir: “This honorable Ayah [9:29] was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control.” -Tafsir Ibn Kathir; http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2567&Itemid=6 4 A very important element of the historical context is that Arabia was secured under Muslim control at the time Surah 9 was revealed. Now let's look at some historical accounts of the battle. I need to clarify there is no contemporary Byzantine account of the Battle of Tabuk. All we have are Islamic sources. Ibn Ishaq states very simply, “The apostle stayed in Medina from Dhu'l-Hijja to Rajab, and then gave orders to prepare to raid the Byzantines.” -Sirat Rasul Allah, Guillaume, 46

p. 602; https://archive.org/details/TheLifeOfMohammedGuillaume/page/n325 The earliest existing biography simply calls this a raid, not a defensive battle. What reason would Muhammad have to raid the Byzantines? “...Allah, Most High, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, Most High, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah. Allah says, 'O ye who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.' [Surah 9:29-30] Therefore, the Messenger of Allah decided to fight the Romans in order to call them to Islam.” -Ibn Kathir, The Battles of the Prophet, p. 183; https://archive.org/details/TheBattlesOfTheProphetpbuhalhamdulillah-library.blogspot.in.pdf/page/n189 Agreeing with the usage of the term “raid” from Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Kathir very clearly states that Muhammad decided to invade the Byzantines by order of Allah to convert them to Islam, which would earn Zakat for the Islamic State, or if they didn't convert, they would pay the jizyah. Either way, this would supplement the financial loss from trade. Here we have a very straightforward account of the historical background of Surah 9:29. Let's look at the first, and probably most common defense Muslim apologists use. “...the Romans had concentrated large forces in Syria, that Heraclius had disbursed one year’s salary to his soldiers, and that tribes of Lakhm, Judham, Amilah and Ghassan had joined hands with him. They had sent their vanguards to Al-Balqa. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him, summoned the people to march.” -Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir Apologists use this defense based on this and similar texts to show that Muhammad had heard rumors of an impending invasion by Heraclius and other forces. Therefore Surah 9:29 was revealed giving Muhammad permission to fight them, defensively. Let's evaluate these two accounts and see which one seems to align more with Surah 9:29 and its surrounding context. First, the previously quoted text from Ibn Kathir compared to the Quran, matching phrases are in bold: Surah 9:28-30: O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year. And if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise. Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. (30) The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah “; and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah,” That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded? 47

-Ibn Kathir, The Battles of the Prophet: “When Allah, Most High, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, Most High, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah...Therefore, the Messenger of Allah decided to fight the Romans in order to call them to Islam.” Notice how closely Kathir Parallels Surah 9:28-30. In ayah 28 which I quoted preemptively earlier, unbelievers are prohibited from entering the mosque. This would reduce their profits from trade due to pagan religious pilgrimages being banned, so Allah allowed the Islamic State to expand, and with that expansion, to bring the ahl al-khitab under subjugation and make them pay the jizya to compensate for the loss in trade profits. The agreement between Ibn Kathir's account and the Quran match perfectly. Now let's compare Ibn Sa'd and the Quran: Surah 9:28-30: O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year. And if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise. Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. (30) The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah “; and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah,” That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded? Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir: “..the Romans had concentrated large forces in Syria, that Heraclius had disbursed one year’s salary to his soldiers, and that tribes of Lakhm, Judham, Amilah and Ghassan had joined hands with him. They had sent their vanguards to Al-Balqa. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him, summoned the people to march.” There is no relevant agreement, other than fighting, between Ibn Sa'd's account and Surah 9:2830, at least in the way Islamic apologists want there to be. However, in accordance with Kathir's account, the army had just received a large sum of money to fight. This would have been ample incentive for an Islamic state concerned with reduced profit from trade. Given that no Byzantine forces were actually at Tabuk when Muhammad arrived, the rumors he allegedly heard were obviously false. The historical background behind the rumors of war and the gathering of troops that Muhammad was allegedly informed of requires some attention. Maududi gives a nice summary in his commentary: “One of the missions sent after the Treaty of Hudaibiyah...visited the clans which lived in the northern areas adjacent to Syria. The majority of these people were Christians, who were under the influence of the Roman Empire. Contrary to all the principles of the commonly accepted international law, they killed fifteen members of the delegation...the Christian governor of Busra, who was directly under the Roman Caesar, had also put to death...the ambassador of the Holy Prophet...”

48

As a result of the killing of Muhammad's ambassadors, Muhammad sent an army to the Syrian border in a conflict known as the Battle of Mutah. According to Islamic sources, the Muslims were vastly outnumbered, yet resisted defeat. The general consensus among Islamic sources is that the battle was a stalemate, with no victor. Some read that the Muslim's “avoided defeat”. The ambassadors of Muhammad require further explanation. These cannot be understood univocally with ambassadors in the modern era who are primarily concerned with facilitating foreign policy and international relationships between nations. Muhammad's ambassadors were of a different sort. They invited people to accept Islam or be subjugated or killed. History of al-Tabari Volume 9: “The Messenger of God sent Khalid b. al-Walid...and ordered him to invite them to Islam for three days before he fought them. If they should respond to him...then he was to accept it from them...” Muhammad's message during the later years was- “Fight, or accept Islam.” 18 Bukhari 2939, “Allah's Messenger sent his letter to Khusrau...when Khusrau read the letter he tore it...The Prophet then invoked Allah to disperse them with full dispersion, (destroy them (i.e. Khusrau and his followers) severely).” https://sunnah.com/bukhari/56/152 It is important to note that, Allah destroying or killing someone is often used synonymously with a Muslim killing or destroying someone throughout Bukhari. Bukhari 4039, for example, narrates Abdullah bin Atik's killing of Abu Rafi. Immediately after this event is narrated, Abdullah tells his companions, “Let us save ourselves, for Allah has killed Abu Rafi.” https://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/86 So what Muhammad said regarding Allah destroying Khusrau and his followers was not an appeal to some mystical destruction of Muhammad's enemies, rather it was a declaration of Muhammad's intent to wage war at some point in the future. More on Muhammad's invitations to unbelievers to accept Islam: “Therefore all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the jizya, they should be fought till they are killed.” -Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Surah 2:256. 19 Ibn Kathir is simply regurgitating the sunnah of Muhammad: From Bukhari 392, “While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, 'Let us go to the Jews'...He said to them, 'If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle.'” “I have been commanded to fight the idolaters until they bear witness to La ilaha illallah...if they bear witness to La ilaha illallah and Muhammad is His slave and Messenger, and they pray as we 18 19

See the relevant section on the development of Jihad. This is only in certain abridged versions. See here: https://youtu.be/diAx4OUo01Y

49

pray and face our Qiblah, and eat our slaughtered animals, then their blood and wealth becomes forbidden to us except for a right that is due.” Sunan an-Nasa'i 3966; https://sunnah.com/nasai/37 Sahih Muslim 4294: When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action...invite them to (accept) Islam...if they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya...if they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. https://sunnah.com/muslim/32/3 So we see that Muhammad's ambassadors were not bearing messages of peace any more than Muhammad's calls to accept Islam in the later years were of peaceful intent. What about the rumors that Muhammad was allegedly responding to? Muhammad's draw against an apparently much larger opposing force at the Battle of Mutah gave him some confidence. No doubt rumors were swirling in the Byzantine empire of possible future invasions, as Muhammad himself had sent a letter of invitation to Heraclius himself. When Heraclius read this letter in the Royal Court, there was a great cry and Abu Sufyan told his companions that even the King of the Byzantines was afraid of Muhammad. And he had good reason to be because: “Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination. The Messenger sent his intent to various Arab areas around Al-Madinah to gather forces, and he collected an army of thirty thousand.” -Tafsir Ibn Kathir The end result of this march to Tabuk? There was no enemy army to be found. Kathir continues, “When the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) reached Tabuk, Yuhanna Ibn Rifba governor of Ayla came and made a treaty with him and paid him the Jizyah. The people of Jarba' and Adhrah aslo came and paid the Jizyah.” -Kathir, Battles of the Prophet Kathir continues, “The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) sent Khalid Ibn Al-Walid to Ukaydir...who was ruler of Duma; he was a Christian. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) told Khalid that he would find him hunting wild cows. When Khalid went forth, he found Ukaydir and his brother...Khalid and his companions seized Ukaydir and killed his brother. Ukaydir was wearing a gown of brocade covered with gold. Khalid stripped him of this and sent it to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Then Khalid brought Ukaydir to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) who spared his life and made peace with him on condition that he paid the Jizyah.” -Kathir, Battles of the Prophet, 196. https://archive.org/details/TheBattlesOfTheProphetpbuh-alhamdulillahlibrary.blogspot.in.pdf/page/n203 Ukaydir and his brother were found hunting. As the ruler of Duma, one would think he wouldn't be engaging in recreational activity with Muhammad's 30,000 man army on the march. It appears they were taken entirely by surprise. Muhammad's expedition to Tabuk ended with people from 4 50

cities of the southeast Byzantine empire committing to pay the Jizya, as well as the coat they got from Ukaydir after killing his brother. Thus the actual events of this expedition are precisely as Kathir and the Quran describe- an offensive measure used to gain financial support for the Islamic state. Now I will quickly dispense with another argument commonly used. I'll quote from discovertruth.com- an Islamic apologetic website. It says, “According to Sahih Muslim...the Tabuk expedition was undertaken as a result of the impending army of the Byzantine’s (Romans) who were advancing on the Syrian border for war.” -Discover-the-truth.com Sahih Muslim: “Allah’s Messenger set out for this expedition in extremely hot season; the journey was long and the land (which he and his army had to cover) was waterless and HE HAD TO CONFRONT A LARGE ARMY…But on this expedition, he set out in extremely hot weather; the journey was long and the terrain was waterless desert; and HE HAD TO FACE A STRONG ARMY,” [Emphasis in the original]. -Discover-the-truth.com “Notice...we read that the Byzantine army were [sic] already there, ready, and equipped to go to war.” -Discover-the-truth.com But notice the text says nothing of the sort. It in no way implies an offensive measure by the Byzantines. It just says Muhammad had to travel a long way and confront a large army. In battle, whether offensive or defensive with the Byzantines, Muhammad would have faced a strong army. The only way you can say this supports defensive battle is by presupposing it- begging the question. Rather, this text is entirely consistent with Kathir and Ishaq's account of a raid. Muhammad had to travel up to Tabuk, and, being in enemy territory, he had to prepare for a possible confrontation with the Byzantines, though none occurred. Finally, a frequent objection is that Muhammad only engaged in defensive warfare. But, was offensive war to spread Islam something Muhammad engaged in? In the latter years of his life, yes. Bukhari 5:64:4110, Muhammad said, "From now onwards we will go to attack them (i.e. the infidels) and they will not come to attack us, but we will go to them." https://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/154 I previously quoted Sunan an-Nasa'i: “I have been commanded to fight the idolaters until they bear witness to La ilaha illallah...if they bear witness to La ilaha illallah and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger, and they pray as we pray and face our Qiblah, and eat our slaughtered animals, then their blood and wealth becomes forbidden to us except for a right that is due.” Sunan an-Nasa'i 3966; https://sunnah.com/nasai/37 Ibn Qayyim summarizes: “For 13 years after the beginning of his Messengership, he called people to God through 51

preaching, without fighting or jizyah...later permission was given to fight, then he was commanded to fight those who fought him...later he was commanded to fight the polytheists until God's religion was fully established.” -Ibn Qayyim, Zad al-Mi'ad So I must agree with Ishaq when he refers to the expedition to Tabuk as a raid, and Ibn Kathir when he states it was an offensive measure to obtain wealth for the Islamic State. Ibn Taymiyyah summarizes candidly, “The former [type of Jihaad], however, is voluntary fighting in order to propagate the religion, to make it triumph and to intimidate the enemy, such as was the case with the expedition to Tabuk and the like.” -Governance According to Allaah's Law in Reforming the Ruler and his Flock, Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah So what about the Islamic apologists who continually try to convince us jihad is only defensive? It is worth quoting Sayyid Qutb at length: “Some people ignore this essential feature of the Islamic approach and overlook the nature of the different stages of development it contains. They cite Qur’ānic statements stating that they represent the Islamic approach, without relating these statements to the stages they addressed. When they do so, they betray their utter confusion and give the Islamic approach a deceptive appearance. They assign to Qur’ānic verses insupportable rules and principles, treating each verse or statement as outlining final Islamic rules. Themselves a product of the sorry and desperate state of contemporary generations who have nothing of Islam other than its label, and defeated both rationally and spiritually, they claim that Islamic jihād is always defensive. They imagine that they are doing Islam a service when they cast away its objective of removing all tyrannical powers from the face of the earth, so that people are freed from serving anyone other than God…Some defeatist elements are overwhelmed by the pressures resulting from the desperate situation of present-day Muslims, who have nothing of Islam other than its name, and from the wicked attack by the Orientalists on the concept of jihād. Hence they try to find excuses by relying on provisional rulings and ignoring the true basis of the Islamic approach that moves forward to liberate mankind from servitude to other human beings, so that they can worship God alone...Such defeatists quote verses like: ‘If they incline to peace…’ (8:61) ‘God does not forbid you to show them kindness...’ (60:8) ‘…God does not love aggressors.’ (2:190) “Say: ‘People of earlier revelations! Let us come to an agreement which is equitable between you and us’ (3:64) They go on to say that Islam, then, does not fight anyone other than those who fight against the people in the land of Islam...This smacks of disrespect for Islam and God Almighty, resulting from a feeling of utter defeat.” -Sayyid Qutb, In the Shade Of the Quran, pp 2021; https://www.kalamullah.com/Books/InTheShadeOfTheQuranSayyidQutb/volume_8_surah_9 .pdf But, just as Muhammad did not move to attack the Byzantines until he had gained control and power in Arabia, offensive Jihad is conditional in the modern era as well. It is not to be implemented until the Islamic state has the power to do so successfully: “The fact is that the practical situation faced by the Muslim community in different 52

circumstances, places and times may determine, through absolute scholarly effort and discretion, which ruling is most suited to a particular situation, time and place.” -Sayyid Qutb, In the Shade Of the Quran, p. 20. Thus the stages of jihad progress from passive to defensive to offensive, as I demonstrated in my video series on this topic- and the Battle of Tabuk is a vivid example of the last stage of jihad which characterized Muhammad's final years. This stage outlived Muhammad, as the Umayyad Caliphate conquered parts of Europe, North Africa, Central asia all the way to the borders of China. Muhammad's successors, having gained the power to do so, wielded it just the way Muhammad taught them- and Allah taught them in Surah 9 ayah 41: “Go forth, whether light or heavy, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the cause of Allah...” Surah 9:41.

Development of Jihad 20 It is interesting to note several sources which describe the escalation of offensive violence during Muhammad’s career. I quote some of them here. Ibn Aun reported: “I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (�) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others.” -Sahih Muslim 1730; https://sunnah.com/muslim/32/1

Confirmed in Abi Dawud 2633: “Ibn ‘Awn said “I wrote to Nafi’ asking him about summoning the polytheists (to Islam) at the time of fighting. So, he wrote to me “This was in the early days of Islam. The Prophet of Allaah(�) attacked Banu Al Mustaliq while they were inattentive and their cattle were drinking water. So their fighters were killed and the survivors (i.e., women and children) were taken prisoners.” https://sunnah.com/abudawud/15/157 Muhammad’s intentions were not peaceful: The Messenger of Allah said: “If I live - if Allah wills - I will expel the Jews and the Christians from the Arabian Peninsula.” -Jami`at-Tirmidhi 1606; https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi/21/69 Notice the stages as described by the prestigious 14th century scholar Ibn Qayyim notes: “For 13 years after the beginning of his Messengership, he called people to God through preaching, without fighting or jizyah...later permission was given to fight, then he was commanded to fight those who fought him...later he was commanded to fight the polytheists until God's religion was fully established.” -Ibn Qayyim, Zad al-Mi'ad.

20

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GdyAc2wTPY&list=PLVwt18wNX1gxOYNv79BWcWxkGRH4rPzvY

53

The Sira gives us something similar. Read all of the paragraphs under the heading “The Apostle Receives the Order to Fight” on pages 212213: https://archive.org/details/TheLifeOfMohammedGuillaume/page/n129 Muhammad becomes decidedly offensive here: When the clans were driven away, I heard the Prophet (�) saying, “From now onwards we will go to attack them (i.e. the infidels) and they will not come to attack us, but we will go to them.” -Sahih al-Bukhari 4110; https://sunnah.com/bukhari/64 Muhammad used to forgive, until Allah ordered him to fight: So the Prophet (�) used to stick to the principle of forgiveness for them as long as Allah ordered him to do so till Allah permitted fighting them. So when Allah's Messenger (�) fought the battle of Badr and Allah killed the nobles of Quraish infidels through him, Ibn Ubai bin Salul and the pagans and idolaters who were with him, said, “This matter (i.e. Islam) has appeared (i.e. became victorious).” So they gave the pledge of allegiance (for embracing Islam) to Allah's Messenger (�) and became Muslims. -Bukhari 4566; https://sunnah.com/bukhari/65

Determinism in Islamic Theology “Determinism, the general name for all those theories according to which man, in his religious and moral action, is absolutely determined by external or internal motives not belonging to him, and which either deny his freedom or explain it as a mere semblance.” 21 This definition from a rather dated source describes closely the meaning of what I’m describing in this section. In Islamic theology, every deed is determined, as is one’s eternal destiny. We’ll start with verses from the Quran and then move to the hadith. In their hearts is disease, so Allah has increased their disease; and for them is a painful punishment because they [habitually] used to lie. -Surah 2:10 What is [the matter] with you [that you are] two groups concerning the hypocrites, while Allah has made them fall back [into error and disbelief] for what they earned. Do you wish to guide those whom Allah has sent astray? And he whom Allah sends astray - never will you find for him a way [of guidance]. -Surah 4:88 But the Jews and the Christians say, “We are the children of Allah and His beloved.” Say, “Then why does He punish you for your sins?” Rather, you are human beings from among those He has created. He forgives whom He wills, and He punishes whom He wills. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them, and to Him is the [final] destination. -Surah 5:18 O Messenger, let them not grieve you who hasten into disbelief of those who say, “We believe” 21

Alexander J. Schem, “Determinism,” Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1891), 760.

54

with their mouths, but their hearts believe not, and from among the Jews. [They are] avid listeners to falsehood, listening to another people who have not come to you. They distort words beyond their [proper] usages, saying “If you are given this, take it; but if you are not given it, then beware."” But he for whom Allah intends fitnah - never will you possess [power to do] for him a thing against Allah . Those are the ones for whom Allah does not intend to purify their hearts. For them in this world is disgrace, and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment. -Surah 5:41 And if their turning away is hard on you, then if you can seek an opening (to go down) into the earth or a ladder (to ascend up) to heaven so that you should bring them a sign and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have gathered them all on guidance, therefore be not of the ignorant. -Surah 6:35 But those who deny Our verses are deaf and dumb within darkness. Whomever Allah wills - He leaves astray; and whomever He wills- He puts him on a straight path. -Surah 6:39 Therefore (for) whomsoever Allah intends that He would guide him aright, He expands his breast for Islam, and (for) whomsoever He intends that He should cause him to err, He makes his breast straight and narrow as though he were ascending upwards; thus does Allah lay uncleanness on those who do not believe. -Surah 6:125 Say: Then Allah's is the conclusive argument; so if He please, He would certainly guide you all. -Surah 6:149 Whoever Allah guides - he is the [rightly] guided; and whoever He sends astray - it is those who are the losers. -Surah 7:178 And certainly We have created for hell many of the jinn and the men; they have hearts with which they do not understand, and they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not hear; they are as cattle, nay, they are in worse errors; these are the heedless ones. -Surah 7:179 And people are naught but a single nation, so they disagree; and had not a word already gone forth from your Lord, the matter would have certainly been decided between them in respect of that concerning which they disagree. -Surah 10:19

And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed - all of them entirely. Then, [O Muhammad], would you compel the people in order that they become believers? -Surah 10:99 And it is not for a soul to believe except by Allah's permission; and He casts uncleanness on those who will not understand. -Surah 10:100 And if your Lord had pleased He would certainly have made people a single nation, and they shall continue to differ. -Surah 11:118

55

And those who disbelieve say: Why is not a sign sent down upon him by his Lord? Say: Surely Allah makes him who will go astray, and guides to Himself those who turn (to Him). -Surah 13:27 Except his [Lot’s] wife; We ordained that she shall surely be of those who remain behind. Surah 15:60. See also 27:57: But We delivered him and his followers except his wife; We ordained her to be of those who remained behind. And upon Allah it rests to show the right way, and there are some deviating (ways); and if He please He would certainly guide you all aright. -Surah 16:9 And they who give associates (to Allah) say: If Allah had pleased, we would not have served anything besides Allah, (neither) we nor our fathers, nor would we have prohibited anything without (order from) Him. Thus did those before them; is then aught incumbent upon the messengers except a plain delivery (of the message)? -Surah 16:35 And if Allah please He would certainly make you a single nation, but He causes to err whom He pleases and guides whom He pleases; and most certainly you will be questioned as to what you did. -Surah 16:93 And whomsoever Allah guides, he is the follower of the right way, and whomsoever He causes to err, you shall not find for him guardians besides Him; and We will gather them together on the day of resurrection on their faces, blind and dumb and deaf; their abode is hell; whenever it becomes allayed We will add to their burning. -Surah 17:97 He punishes whom He pleases and has mercy on whom He pleases, and to Him you shall be turned back. -Surah 29:21 Nay! those who are unjust follow their low desires without any knowledge; so who can guide him whom Allah makes err? And they shall have no helpers. -Surah 30:29 And if We had pleased We would certainly have given to every soul its guidance, but the word (which had gone forth) from Me was just: I will certainly fill hell with the jinn and men together. -Surah 32:13 What! is he whose evil deed is made fairseeming to him so much so that he considers it good? Now surely Allah makes err whom He pleases and guides aright whom He pleases, so let not your soul waste away in grief for them; surely Allah is Cognizant of what they do. -Surah 35:8 And there is none of us but has an assigned place. -Surah 37:164 Allah has revealed the best announcement, a book conformable in its various parts, repeating, whereat do shudder the skins of those who fear their Lord, then their skins and their hearts become pliant to the remembrance of Allah; this is Allah's guidance, He guides with it whom He pleases; and (as for) him whom Allah makes err, there is no guide for him. -Surah 39:23 And if Allah willed, He could have made them [of] one religion, but He admits whom He wills into His mercy. And the wrongdoers have not any protector or helper. -Surah 42:8 56

He has made plain to you of the religion what He enjoined upon Nuh and that which We have revealed to you and that which We enjoined upon Ibrahim and Musa and Isa that keep to obedience and be not divided therein; hard to the unbelievers is that which you call them to; Allah chooses for Himself whom He pleases, and guides to Himself him who turns (to Him), frequently. -Surah 42:13 Allah leads astray by assigning people a Shaitan: And whoever turns himself away from the remembrance of the Beneficent Allah, We appoint for him a Shaitan, so he becomes his associate. -Surah 43:36 And We have not made the wardens of the fire others than angels, and We have not made their number but as a trial for those who disbelieve, that those who have been given the book may be certain and those who believe may increase in faith, and those who have been given the book and the believers may not doubt, and that those in whose hearts is a disease and the unbelievers may say: What does Allah mean by this parable? Thus does Allah make err whom He pleases, and He guides whom He pleases, and none knows the hosts of your Lord but He Himself; and this is naught but a reminder to the mortals. -Surah 74:31 And Allah's is the kingdom. of the heavens and the earth; He forgives whom He pleases and punishes whom He pleases, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. -Surah 48:14 Numerous verses talk about the “Book of Destiny” wherein the divinely ordained actions are all recorded: And there is no animal that walks upon the earth nor a bird that flies with its two wings but (they are) genera like yourselves; We have not neglected anything in the Book, then to their Lord shall they be gathered. -Surah 6:38 And with Him are the keys of the unseen treasures-- none knows them but He; and He knows what is in the land and the sea, and there falls not a leaf but He knows it, nor a grain in the darkness of the earth, nor anything green nor dry but (it is all) in a clear book. -Surah 6:59 Allah eliminates and confirms what He wills, and with Him is the Master Record. -Surah 13:39 (note that translations vary significantly for this verse) And We had made known to the children of Israel in the Book: Most certainly you will make mischief in the land twice, and most certainly you will behave insolently with great insolence. Surah 17:4 And We have made every man's actions to cling to his neck, and We will bring forth to him on the resurrection day a book which he will find wide open. -Surah 17:13 And there is not a town but We will destroy it before the day of resurrection or chastise it with a severe chastisement; this is written in the Divine ordinance. -Surah 17:58 No evil befalls on the earth nor in your own souls, but it is in a book before We bring it into existence; surely that is easy to Allah. -Surah 57:22 57

We now turn to some relevant hadith on the issue: 'A'isha, the mother of the believers, said that Allah's Messenger (�) was called to lead the funeral prayer of a child of the Ansar. I said: Allah's Messenger, there is happiness for this child who is a bird from the birds of Paradise for it committed no sin nor has he reached the age when one can commit sin. He said: 'A'isha, per adventure, it may be otherwise, because God created for Paradise those who are fit for it while they were yet in their father's loins and created for Hell those who are to go to Hell. He created them for Hell while they were yet in their father's loins. -Sahih Muslim 2662 c; https://sunnah.com/muslim/46/47 We were accompanying a funeral procession in Baqi-I-Gharqad. The Prophet (�) came to us and sat and we sat around him. He had a small stick in his hand then he bent his head and started scraping the ground with it. He then said, "There is none among you, and not a created soul, but has place either in Paradise or in Hell assigned for him and it is also determined for him whether he will be among the blessed or wretched." A man said, "O Allah's Messenger (�)! Should we not depend on what has been written for us and leave the deeds as whoever amongst us is blessed will do the deeds of a blessed person and whoever amongst us will be wretched, will do the deeds of a wretched person?" The Prophet said, "The good deeds are made easy for the blessed, and bad deeds are made easy for the wretched." Then he recited the Verses:- "As for him who gives (in charity) and is Allah-fearing And believes in the Best reward from Allah. " (92.5-6). -Sahih al-Bukhari 1362; https://sunnah.com/bukhari/23. See also Bukhari 4945-49 here: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/65 Allah's Messenger (�), the truthful and truly-inspired, said, "Each one of you collected in the womb of his mother for forty days, and then turns into a clot for an equal period (of forty days) and turns into a piece of flesh for a similar period (of forty days) and then Allah sends an angel and orders him to write four things, i.e., his provision, his age, and whether he will be of the wretched or the blessed (in the Hereafter). Then the soul is breathed into him. And by Allah, a person among you (or a man) may do deeds of the people of the Fire till there is only a cubit or an arm-breadth distance between him and the Fire, but then that writing (which Allah has ordered the angel to write) precedes, and he does the deeds of the people of Paradise and enters it; and a man may do the deeds of the people of Paradise till there is only a cubit or two between him and Paradise, and then that writing precedes and he does the deeds of the people of the Fire and enters it." -Sahih al-Bukhari 6594; https://sunnah.com/bukhari/82 The constituents of one of you are collected for forty days in his mother's womb in the form of blood, after which it becomes a clot of blood in another period of forty days. Then it becomes a lump of flesh and forty days later Allah sends His angel to it with instructions concerning four things, so the angel writes down his livelihood, his death, his deeds, his fortune and misfortune. By Him, besides Whom there is no god, that one amongst you acts like the people deserving Paradise until between him and Paradise there remains but the distance of a cubit, when suddenly the writing of destiny overcomes him and he begins to act like the denizens of Hell and thus enters Hell, and another one acts in the way of the denizens of Hell, until there remains between him and Hell a distance of a cubit that the writing of destiny 58

overcomes him and then he begins to act like the people of Paradise and enters Paradise. Sahih Muslim 2643 a; https://sunnah.com/muslim/46 Hudhaifa b. Usaid reported directly from Allah's Messenger (�) that he said: When the drop of (semen) remains in the womb for forty or fifty (days) or forty nights, the angel comes and says: My Lord, will he be good or evil? And both these things would be written. Then the angel says: My Lord, would he be male or female? And both these things are written. And his deeds and actions, his death, his livelihood; these are also recorded. Then his document of destiny is rolled and there is no addition to nor subtraction from it. -Sahih Muslim 2644; https://sunnah.com/muslim/46 Ali reported: We were in a funeral in the graveyard of Gharqad when Allah's Messenger (�) came to us and we sat around him. He had a stick with him. He lowered his head and began to scratch the earth with his stick, and then said: There is not one amongst you whom a seat in Paradise or Hell has not been allotted and about whom it has not been written down whether he would be an evil person or a blessed person. A person said: Allah's Messenger, should we not then depend upon our destiny and abandon our deeds? Thereupon he said: Acts of everyone will be facilitated in that which has been created for him so that whoever belongs to the company of the blessed will have good works made easier for him and whoever belongs to the unfortunate ones will have evil acts made easier for him. He then recited this verse (from the Qur'an): "Then, who gives to the needy and guards against evil and accepts the excellent (the truth of Islam and the path of righteousness it prescribes), We shall make easy for him the easy end and who is miserly and considers himself above need, We shall make easy for him the difficult end" (xcii. 5-10). -Sahih Muslim 2647 a; https://sunnah.com/muslim/46 'Ali reported that one day Allah's Messenger (�) was sitting with a wood in his hand and he was scratching the ground. He raised his head and said: There is not one amongst you who has not been allotted his seat in Paradise or Hell. They said: Allah's Messenger, then, why should we perform good deeds, why not depend upon our destiny? Thereupon he said. No, do perform good deeds, for everyone is facilitated in that for which he has been created; then he recited this verse:" Then, who gives to the needy and guards against evil and accepts the excellent (the truth of Islam and the path of righteousness it prescribes), We shall make easy for him the easy end..." (xcii. 5-10). -Sahih Muslim 2647 c; https://sunnah.com/muslim/46 Allah's Messenger, explain our religion to us (in a way) as if we have been created just now. Whosoever deeds we do today, is it because of the fact that-the pens have dried (after recording them) and the destinies have began to operate or these have effects in future? Thereupon he said: The pens have dried and destinies have begun to operate. (Suraqa b. Malik) said: If it Is so, then what is the use of doing good deeds? Zuhair said: Then Abu Zubair said something but I could not understand that and I said. What did he say? Thereupon he said: Act, for everyone is facilitated what he intends to do. -Sahih Muslim 2648 a; https://sunnah.com/muslim/46 'Aisha said (in another narration), ("When the Prophet (�) was on his death-bed) he looked up and said thrice, (Amongst) the Highest Companion (See Qur'an 4.69)' Aisha said, Allah benefited the people by their two speeches. 'Umar frightened the people some of whom were hypocrites whom Allah caused to abandon Islam because of 'Umar's speech. Then Abu Bakr 59

led the people to True Guidance and acquainted them with the right path they were to follow so that they went out reciting: "Muhammad is no more than an Apostle and indeed many Apostles have passed away before him.." (3.144) -Sahih al-Bukhari 3669, 3670; https://sunnah.com/bukhari/62 I said, "O Allah's Messenger (�)! I am a young man and I am afraid that I may commit illegal sexual intercourse and I cannot afford to marry." He kept silent, and then repeated my question once again, but he kept silent. I said the same (for the third time) and he remained silent. Then repeated my question (for the fourth time), and only then the Prophet said, "O Abu Huraira! The pen has dried after writing what you are going to confront. So (it does not matter whether you) get yourself castrated or not." -Sahih al-Bukhari 5076; https://sunnah.com/bukhari/67 I said, "O Allah's Messenger (�)! Why should a doer (people) try to do good deeds [since everything is preordained]?' The Prophet (�) said, "Everybody will find easy to do such deeds as will lead him to his destined place for which he has been created.' -Sahih al-Bukhari 7551; https://sunnah.com/bukhari/97 For more, see these books in the Hadith collections: https://sunnah.com/muslim/46; https://sunnah.com/bukhari/82

Morality of Muhammad 22 This is only a short list of Muhammad’s crimes, to which many more can be added. Links are provided for quick access. Spreading Islam by force: https://muflihun.com/muslim/1/33; https://sunnah.com/urn/680520; https://sunnah.com/na sai/37/6. See also, entire Book of Jihad in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim. Killing apostates: Sunan Abu Dawud 4337- https://sunnah.com/abudawud/40. Kill the apostates, just don’t burn them like Ali did: Bukhari 6922- https://sunnah.com/bukhari/88 Ambushing villages, killing people shouting "Allahu Akbar": Bukhari 2943/2945https://sunnah.com/bukhari/56; Ibn Ishaq, p. 511: https://archive.org/details/TheLifeOfMohammedGuillaume/page/n279. Assassinating people who insulted him: Sunan Abu Dawud 4349 and 4348https://sunnah.com/abudawud/40; See also: Sahih Bukhari 2510: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/48: Bukhari 3031: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/56; https://sunnah.com/bukhari/64 Muhammad and the wife of his adopted son: The History of Al-Tabari Volume 8, pp. 23: https://archive.org/stream/TabariEnglish/Tabari_Volume_08#page/n25/mode/2up. Surah 33:37: https://quran.com/33/37

22

See “Prepubescent Sex in the Quran and Hadith” for details related to Aisha.

60

Sex with all of his wives with a single bath: Sunan Abu Dawud 218https://muflihun.com/abudawood/1/218. Same here, hadith 5068: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/67 “Why did you not marry a young girl who would have fondled with you?” https://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/98. Same here: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/64 Muhammad gave a slave girl away for marriage and then released she was valuable so took her back: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/8 Muhammad’s sex with slave girl: https://muflihun.com/nasai/36/3411; History of al-Tabari, Volume 39, page 194 (second paragraph down, see also note 845 on the same page): https://archive.org/stream/TabariEnglish/Tabari_Volume_39#page/n223/mode/2up. This is why 66:1 was revealed: “O Prophet! why do you forbid (yourself) that which Allah has made lawful for you?” Tafsir al-Jalalayn: “O Prophet! Why do you prohibit what God has made lawful for you in terms of your Coptic handmaiden Māriya — when he lay with her in the house of Hafsa who had been away but who upon returning and finding out became upset by the fact that this had taken place in her own house and on her own bed…” https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=66&tAyahN o=1&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2 Aisha washing the semen off of Muhammad’s clothes: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/4/99 Struck Aisha in the chest and caused her pain: translated "shove" here: https://sunnah.com/nasai/36/25 Women are intellectually deficient: https://muflihun.com/muslim/1/142; https://sunnah.com/bukhari/52/22 Commanding women to breastfeed men: "How can I suckle him when he is a grown up man?" Sahih Mulsim 1453 a- https://sunnah.com/muslim/17 Buying, owning and selling of black slaves: https://muflihun.com/nasai/44/4625; https://sunnah.com/bukhari/95/17 Cutting off a woman's hand for stealing: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/52/12 Cut off hands and feet, burning eyes with hot nails: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/76/9; Wrongly commanding Ali to behead someone: https://sunnah.com/muslim/50/68 Muhammad wants to burn your house down if you don’t come for prayer: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/93. Even if you’re a blind person with no guide, come to prayer: https://sunnah.com/abudawud/2/162. Muhammad wanted to burn people with fire (hadith number 2954): https://sunnah.com/bukhari/56 The Prophet gave orders concerning Kenana to Zubayr, saying, “Torture him until you root out 61

and extract what he has.” So Zubayr kindled a fire on Kenana’s chest, twirling it with his firestick until Kenana was near death. Then the Messenger gave him to Maslamah, who beheaded him. -- Al-Tabari, Vol. 8, p. 122 (bottom) to 123: https://archive.org/stream/TabariEnglish/Tabari_Volume_08#page/n145/mode/2up Insult Muhammad and die: https://sunnah.com/abudawud/40/11 No issue with strangling a Jewess (what a coincidence, it’s da’if): https://sunnah.com/abudawud/40/12 Killing of the “singing girls” (p. 551): https://archive.org/details/TheLifeOfMohammedGuillaume/page/n299

Early Sources on the Preservation of the Quran23 Note that while the numbering scheme for Bukhari is consistent, Sahih Muslim is not. Therefore, the online references may vary drastically from what I have listed here. In my personal library I reference the print edition. I have provided links to the hadith accordingly. In large part, the contradictions in the numbering schemes may simply be ignored. ‘Abdullah b. ‘Umar reportedly said, “Let none of you say, ‘I have got the whole of the Qur'an.’ How does he know what all of it is? Much of the Quran has gone. Let him say instead, ‘I have got what has survived.’” -Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. Abi Bakr al Suyuti, al-Itqan fi `ulum alQur'an, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, Volume 2, p. 25 See here for more: https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/quran_lost.html Bukhari 1:9:530, Anas Bin Malik knowns nothing of what he used to know during Muhammad's life except for the Salat, but even that has been lost. https://sunnah.com/bukhari/9 Abu Ubaid's Kitab Fada'il-al-Qur'an- “Ibn Abi Maryam related to us from Ibn Luhai'a from Abu'l-Aswad from Urwa b. az-Zubair from A'isha who said, "Surat al-Ahzab (xxxiii) used to be recited in the time of the Prophet with two hundred verses, but when Uthman wrote out the codices he was unable to procure more of it than there is in it today." Also, "Isma'il b. Ibrahim and Isma'i b. Ja'far related to us from al-Mubarak b. Fadala from Asim b. Abi'n-Nujud from Zirr b. Hubaish who said--Ubai b. Ka'b said to me, "O Zirr, how many verses did you count (or how many verses did you read) in Surat al-Ahzab?" "Seventy-two or seventy-three," I answered. Said he, "Yet it used to be equal to Surat al-Baqara (ii), and we used to read in it the verse of Stoning.” Sahih Muslim 1691, “Verily Allah sent Muhammad with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of 23

https://youtu.be/pRpM_hGsTKE

62

stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession.” https://sunnah.com/muslim/29/21 Sahih Bukhari 82:816, “Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: 'Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book," and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession." Sufyan added, "I have memorized this narration in this way." 'Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him." https://sunnah.com/bukhari/86/56 Bukhari 9:93 Chapter 21, Umar says he would have written the verses on stoning in the Quran with his own hands, but he was afraid of accusations of adding to the Quran. This is on page 178 of Khan’s print edition. Sunan ibn Majah 1944 and a sheep eating an ayah about breastfeeding an adult: “The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it. https://sunnah.com/urn/1262630 Missing Ayah on suckling, Sahih Muslim, Book 8, Number 3421/1452 a/Book 17, Hadith 30: “‘Aisha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (May peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims).” https://sunnah.com/muslim/17/30 Bukhari 5037, “The Prophet heard a man reciting the Qur'an in the mosque and said, "May Allah bestow His Mercy on him, as he has reminded me of such-and-such Verses of such a Surah.” https://sunnah.com/bukhari/66/60 Sahih Muslim 2:2286, "Abu Harb b. Abu al-Aswad reported on the authority of his father that Abu Musa al-Ash'ari sent for the reciters of Basra (also in Sahih Muslim 2419). They came to him and they were three hundred in number. They recited the Qur'an and he said: You are the best among the inhabitants of Basra, for you are the reciters among them. So continue to recite it. (But bear in mind) that your reciting for a long time may not harden your hearts as were hardened the hearts of those before you. We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara'at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: "If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust." And we used so recite a surah which resembled one of the surahs of Musabbihat, and I have forgotten it, but remember (this much) out of it: "Oh people who believe, why do you say that which you do not practice" (lxi 2.) and "that is recorded in your necks as a witness (against you) and you would be asked about it on the Day of 63

Resurrection" https://sunnah.com/muslim/12/156 Bukhari 6:65:4481, Bukhari 6:66:5005 "Umar said, Ubai/Ubayy was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur'an) yet we leave some of what he recites.' Ubai says, 'PI have taken it from the mouth of Allah's Messenger and will not leave for anything whatever." But Allah said "None of Our Revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similar." https://sunnah.com/bukhari/66/27 Bukhari 2:23:1241/1242 talk about a verse (3:144) that nobody had heard until after Abu Bakr recited it. See 1242 here: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/23 Sahih Muslim 822a, Abdullah ibn Masud talks about different recitations. https://sunnah.com/muslim/6/336 Jami at-tirmidhi 3104- Az-Zuhri said: "'Ubaidullah bin 'Abdullah bin 'Utbah informed me that 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud disliked Zaid bin Thabit copying the Musahif, and he said: 'O you Muslims people! Avoid copying the Mushaf and the recitation of this man. By Allah! When I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man' - meaning Zaid bin Thabit - and it was regarding this that 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud said: 'O people of Al-'Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them. For indeed Allah said: And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement. So meet Allah with the Musahif.'" https://sunnah.com/urn/641130 Umar was once looking for the text of a specific verse of the Qur’an he vaguely remembered. To his deep sorrow, he discovered that the only person who had any record of that verse had been killed in the battle of Yamama and that the verse was consequently lost. (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, page 23) Seven readings of the Quran, Sunan Abu Dawud 1470-1473, Muslim, 1787. Bukhari 4:59:3219, 4991/2. Link to 4991: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/66 Variations in recitations among the companions, Bukhari 5:62:3743/3742 https://sunnah.com/bukhari/62, again in Bukhari 6:65:4943/4944 https://sunnah.com/bukhari/65, for Surah 92:1-3. Bukhari 8:79:6278: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/79. Variations on Surah 12 in Sahih Muslim 1870: https://sunnah.com/muslim/6/298 See Umar’s violent reaction to differing recitations here: https://sunnah.com/urn/631890 or here: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/66 Sahih Bukhari Volume 5 number 416, “We used to read a verse of the Qur'an revealed in their connection, but later the verse was cancelled. It was: "convey to our people on our behalf the information that we have met our Lord, and He is pleased with us, and has made us pleased." (Anas bin Malik added:) Allah's Prophet said Qunut for one month in the morning prayer, invoking evil upon some of the 'Arab tribes (namely), Ril, Dhakwan, Usaiya, and Bani Libyan. (Anas added:) Those seventy Ansari men were killed at the well of Mauna." https://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/134 64

Sahih Muslim 1427, Aisha tells her copyist to write Surah 2:238 differently: https://sunnah.com/muslim/5/263 Question about alif or ya in 47:14: https://sunnah.com/muslim/6/336. Dal or dhal in 54:15, Sahih Muslim 1914: https://sunnah.com/muslim/6/342 Similar questions about recitations here: https://sunnah.com/nasai/11/105. These search results show many such disputes: https://sunnah.com/search/?q=recitation+of+abdullah+by+the+night+envelopes A very important hadith regarding Ibn Mas'ud's arrangement in Bukhari 6:66:4996. https://sunnah.com/bukhari/66

Oral Preservation of the Quran 24 For decades Muslims have been told by many of their authorities that the Quran has been perfectly preserved, with no variants in its manuscripts. Some Muslims still believe this, though those numbers are going down, due to overwhelming evidence against it now being made public. Many Muslims who now accept textual variants in the Quran have quickly resorted to a second option: the Quran was perfectly preserved through oral recitation. There are a couple of problems with this theory: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Trust Ad hoc Cannot bear the burden of proof Fails to explain variants in the manuscripts Explain why belief in perfect oral preservation is a modern development

Regarding #5, this claim was not made by the early Muslims. On the contrary, we find early reports about the Quran being forgotten: “It is reported that ‘Ali b. Abi Talib proposed the following emendation of the Qur’an. The report is included in al-Tabari’s famous Tafsir and is discussed by Goldziher and Bellamy.” ּ◌ -Reynolds, Gabriel Said. The Qur’an in Its Historical Context. London (Essay by Devin J. Stewart) :: Routledge, 2007, 232. “This emendation is attributed to the Companion Ibn ‘Abbas (‘Abdallah, d. 68/687), who is supposed to have remarked about it, ‘I think the scribe wrote it when he was sleepy.’” -AlSuyuti, al-Itqan fi‘ulum al-Qur’an, 1, 393. Cited from: -Reynolds, Gabriel Said. The Qur’an in Its Historical Context. London (Essay by Devin J. Stewart) :: Routledge, 2007, 231.

24

See related video here: https://youtu.be/YAC_VLaMZGk

65

‘Abdullah b. ‘Umar reportedly said, “Let none of you say, ‘I have got the whole of the Qur'an.’ How does he know what all of it is? Much of the Quran has gone. Let him say instead, ‘I have got what has survived.’” -Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. Abi Bakr al Suyuti, al-Itqan fi `ulum al-Qur'an, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, Volume 2, p. 25 We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara'at [Surah 9 has 129 verses]. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it…And we used so recite a surah which resembled one of the surahs of Musabbihat, and I have forgotten it, but remember (this much) out of it…” Sahih Muslim 1050; https://sunnah.com/muslim/12/156 For many Muslims there is another difficulty, and this is probably the most significant: “Lurking behind this sentiment [that scholars proposing emendations of the Quranic manuscripts is an act of enormous hubris] is a sensitivity to popular Islamic reverence for the Qur’an and attendant claims that it is God’s eternal speech, that its continuous oral transmission has prevented its textual corruption or modification, that it does not include significant variants, that there are no significant disputes as to its integral text, and that it contains no contradiction. Such attitudes, while they accurately reflect what Muslim youth are taught at home or at the local mosque, do not hold up when examined in the light either of western critical scholarship or of traditional Islamic scholarship on the Qur’an, which involves a great deal of sophisticated, detailed, and insightful philological and historical criticism of the Qur’anic text.” -Reynolds, Gabriel Said. The Qur’an in Its Historical Context. London (Essay by Devin J. Stewart) :: Routledge, 2007, 228.

You can see examples of traditional Islamic scholarship with even Ibn Abbas proposing corrections to the text and this goes through Islamic scholars in the following several centuries as well. This is little known by Muslims mainly because their authorities don’t tell them. Now, I want to give the opinions of scholars who actually spend time in the text, to see what they say about oral preservation of the Quran. Daniel Brubaker says that the manuscripts indicate: “[The scribes] looked at an existing copy in order to make a new copy, rather than either writing from memory or writing from hearing a recitation.” -Daniel Brubaker, Corrections in Early Qurʾān Manuscripts: Twenty Examples. Lovettsville: 2019, 97. How? Well, we see mistakes like omitting words or phrases, repeating the same word or phrase twice and the kind of mistakes that indicate the scribe was momentarily distracted while looking away from the manuscript to, for example, get more ink on the nib of the pen. These kinds of mistakes are evidence of primarily written tradition, not oral. James Bellamy discusses some textual variants in his 1993 article saying: “They [variant readings] are important to us here because they prove that there was no oral tradition stemming directly from the prophet strong enough to overcome all the

66

uncertainties inherent in the writing system.” -James A. Bellamy. (1993). Some Proposed Emendations to the Text of the Koran. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 113(4), 563. Devin J. Stewart says: “The tradition of Qur’anic recitation can be shown to ignore or run roughshod over many discernible or retrievable features of the text, particularly with regard to rhyme, that must represent the oldest stage of its performance. In addition, while many of the variants recognized as legitimate within Islamic tradition may plausibly have arisen through oral transmission, many others cannot, being based on graphic and not phonic, resemblance.” -Reynolds, Gabriel Said. The Qur’an in Its Historical Context. London (Essay by Devin J. Stewart) :: Routledge, 2007, 229. Now examples of this get really dry really quickly so here’s just one from Bellamy’s article: “Ibn ‘Abbas, cousin of the prophet and a famous early commentator, is credited with detecting and correcting several errors in the text. In 13:31 we find a-fa-lam yay’asi lladhīna āmanū, ‘Have not those who believed despaired?’ Ibn ‘Abbas, following Ibn Mas‘ūd, read yatabayyan, ‘Have they not seen clearly?’ and said that the copyist must have been sleepy when he wrote yay’as…The scribe who wrote yay’as was probably not sleepy but confused by similar consonantal outlines. The words yay’as and yatabayyan are so different that such a mistake could not have occurred in the oral tradition, so we have to look to the written tradition for an explanation.” -James A. Bellamy. (1993). Some Proposed Emendations to the Text of the Koran. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 113(4), 563. The issue with this example is not the significance of the variant to the interpretation, rather the significance lies in the fact that it is indication of a written textual transmission taking priority over an oral one. The first generation of Muslims apparently looked at written, not oral, evidence for the original text of the Quran. These variants certainly seem mundane to the untrained eye, but not to experts. Collectively, the evidence against a strong oral tradition preserving the Quran is conclusive: “The common argument that an uninterrupted and completely reliable oral transmission has miraculously preserved the text of the Qur’an from such errors falls flat.” -Reynolds, Gabriel Said. The Qur’an in Its Historical Context. London (Essay by Devin J. Stewart) :: Routledge, 2007, 229. Modern Muslims can no longer claim the Quran has been miraculously preserved either in written or oral form. These are lies that Islamic authorities could only spread in the first place because their so-called evidence for this was not available for critical examination by nonIslamic scholars. Also, Arab nations have largely been able to keep their Muslim populations isolated from the critical scholarship. It is easy to see how these lies can thrive in the vacuum of Islamic thought. Allah was supposed to prevent this from happening: “Verily We: It is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Quran) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption).” -Surah 15:9

67

Quranic Geography 25 The point of including many of these ayat is that the geographical features described do not match modern day Mecca. However, we can go further. Many of these descriptions specifically place the hearers of the Quran far north. 26 One Arabic name for the Dead Sea is the “Sea of Lot” 27 which coincides with the location of the destroyed cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, 28 where Lot is said to have lived (Genesis 19:1). Internal evidence from the Quran coheres with external evidence, to place the original hearers of the Quran in the southern region of the Dead Sea, against Islamic tradition. This coheres with the work of Dan Gibso, 29 Patricia Crone, et al.

And He it is who causes gardens to grow, [both] trellised and untrellised, and palm trees and crops of different [kinds of] food and olives and pomegranates, similar and dissimilar. Eat of [each of] its fruit when it yields and give its due [zakah] on the day of its harvest. And be not excessive. Indeed, He does not like those who commit excess. -Surah 6:141 And remember when He made you successors after the 'Aad and settled you in the land, [and] you take for yourselves palaces from its plains and carve from the mountains, homes. -Surah 7:74 And O my people, let not [your] dissension from me cause you to be struck by that similar to what struck the people of Noah or the people of Hud or the people of Salih. And the people of Lot are not from you far away. -Surah 11:89 And you lived among the dwellings of those who wronged themselves, and it had become clear to you how We dealt with them. And We presented for you [many] examples. -Surah 14:45 And within the land are neighboring plots and gardens of grapevines and crops and palm trees, [growing] several from a root or otherwise, watered with one water; but We make some of them exceed others in [quality of] fruit. Indeed, in that are signs for a people who reason. -Surah 13:4 From it [the rain] vegetation grows on which you pasture livestock. He causes to grow for you thereby the crops, olives, palm trees, grapevines, and from all the fruits. Indeed, in that is a sign for a people who give thought. -Surah 16:10-11 And from the fruits of the palm trees and grapevines you take intoxicant and good provision. Surah 16:67 Then, has it not become clear to them how many generations We destroyed before them as they walk among their dwellings? -Surah 20:128 And We brought forth for you thereby gardens of palm trees and grapevines in which for you are abundant fruits and from which you eat. -Surah 23:19 25

See video here: https://youtu.be/ChIEV5Ny734 32:26, 37:136-138, 46:27 27 Harland, J. P. (1942). Sodom and Gomorrah: the location of the cities of the plain. The Biblical Archaeologist, 5(2), 18. 28 Ibid., p 32; Howard, D. M., Jr. (1984). Sodom and Gomorrah revisited. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 27(4), 385–400. 29 See Gibson’s “Qibla Tool” for the north to south change in Qibla direction: http://thesacredcity.ca/data/index.html 26

68

By means of it [the rain] We cause orchards to grow, full of beauty… -Surah 27:60 And they say, "If we were to follow the guidance with you, we would be swept from our land." Have we not established for them a safe sanctuary to which are brought the fruits of all things as provision from Us? But most of them do not know. -Surah 28:57 And [We destroyed] 'Aad and Thamud, and it has become clear to you from their [ruined] dwellings. And Satan had made pleasing to them their deeds and averted them from the path, and they were endowed with perception. -Surah 29:38 Has it not become clear to them how many generations We destroyed before them, [as] they walk among their dwellings? Indeed, in that are signs; then do they not hear? -Surah 32:26 We have brought it to life and brought forth from it grain, and from it they eat. We made in it gardens of date-palms and vines, and We caused springs to gush forth that they might eat of its fruits. -Surah 36:33-35 Then We destroyed the others. And indeed, you pass by them [the overturned cities, Surah 53:53] in the morning and at night. -Surah 37:136-138a Do you not see that Allah sends down rain from the sky and makes it flow as springs [and rivers] in the earth; then He produces thereby crops of varying colors…-Surah 39:21 And We have already destroyed what surrounds you of [those] cities…-Surah 46:27 And We have sent down blessed rain from the sky and made grow thereby gardens and grain from the harvest And lofty palm trees having fruit arranged in layers…-Surah 50:9-10 Therein is fruit and palm trees having sheaths [of dates] and grain having husks and scented plants. -Surah 55:11-12

Inequality of Sexes in the Quran In addition to the standard texts regarding women as inferior witnesses, the Quran also asks a series of rhetorical questions, mocking people for saying Allah has daughters (i.e. female angels) while they have sons.

“Call in two of your men as witness.” -Surah 65:2 “…sons as witnesses.” -Surah 74:13 “if there are not two men [witnesses], then a man and two women.” -Surah 2:282 “God has given you…sons and grandsons…” -Surah 16:72 “[On judgement day] one will flee from his brother…mother and father…his consort and his sons 30…” -Surah 80:33-36 30

Note, again, the conspicuous absence of daughters.

69

“They assign daughters [i.e. female angels] to God.” -Surah 16:57 “Has your Lord distinguished you with sons and taken (for Himself) females from the angels?” Surah 17:40 “Or does He [Allah] have daughters while you have sons?” -Surah 52:39 “Do you have male offspring while He [Allah] has female?” -Surah 53:21 “Has He [Allah] chosen daughters over sons?” -Surah 37:153 “Has He [Allah] taken daughters…and singled you out with sons?” -Surah 43:16 “…and among them [believers in paradise] will circulate boys of their own…” -Surah 52:24 “…boys of eternal youth…” -Surah 56:17 “[Allah will] increase you with wealth and sons…” Surah 71:12

Women in Quranic Paradise Translations vary in these verses for obvious reasons. “There they shall have spouses purified…” -Surah 4:57 https://quran.com/4/57 “…untouched before them by man or jinn…” -Surah 55:56 https://quran.com/55/56 “…large, [beautiful] eyes…” -Surah 37:48 https://quran.com/37/48 “…full-breasted maidens of the same age…” -Surah 78:33 https://quran.com/78/33 “…dark-eyed maidens confined 31 in tents…” -Surah 55:72 (trans: AJ Droge) https://quran.com/55/72 “…pure ones confined to pavilions…” -Surah 55:72 (trans: Shakir) http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=55&verse=72 “…fair ones, close-guarded in pavilions…” -Surah 55:72 (trans: Pickthall) http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=55&verse=72

Prepubescent Sex in the Quran and Hadith What follows is a copious amount of citations from the Tafsir and Hadith which confirm Muhammad’s prepubescent sexual intercourse with Aisha and Allah’s approval of it for all believing men as well. Muslims want to redefine “puberty” to answer this objection. They also want to quote a mistranslated hadith. We will define puberty first, from the hadith itself, and then address the latter in the conclusion. There we will also address the lemma for “women” in Surah 65:4 which some Muslims claim is only used for adult women. 31

Some translators will add “as to their glances” to the translation to make it appear as though the Arabic isn’t literally talking about confining women in tents. So Yusuf Ali, “Companions restrained (as to their glances)…”

70

“Attaining of puberty” and “start of menses” are used synonymously (Bukhari 3:52 Chapter 18) https://sunnah.com/bukhari/52 “Al-Mughira” (apparently a boy) attained puberty at the age of 12 in Bukhari 3:52 chapter 18 intro. This is page 486 of Khan’s translation. The chapter introductions are often left untranslated online. Image of the relevant part of the page is included here for convenience, and is a good defeater for the “early puberty” theory that some Muslims like to propose:

Bukhari 5133: “the Prophet (�) married her [Aisha] when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old....” https://sunnah.com/urn/48030 The chapter heading for the hadith just cited is telling. It comes from Khan’s translation, volume 7, page 57, and is included here for convenience:

Sahih Muslim 1422 c: “'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (�) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her.” https://sunnah.com/muslim/16/83 Sahih al-Bukhari 6130: “(The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fathul-Bari page 143, Vol.13)” https://sunnah.com/bukhari/78/157

71

Sunan Abi Dawud 4931: “I used to play with dolls. Sometimes the Messenger of Allah (May peace be upon him) entered upon me when the girls were with me. When he came in, they went out, and when he went out, they came in.” https://sunnah.com/abudawud/43 In Bukhari 2637 Aisha is a young girl who sleeps a lot: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/52 Aisha was playing on a swing set when they came to get her: https://sunnah.com/abudawud/43/163 Abu Bakr apparently objects to the young marriage: “The Prophet (�) asked Abu Bakr for `Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet (�) said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.” https://sunnah.com/bukhari/67 Sahih al-Bukhari 5236: “The Prophet (�) was screening me with his Rida' (garment covering the upper part of the body) while I was looking at the Ethiopians who were playing in the courtyard of the mosque. (I continued watching) till I was satisfied. So you may deduce from this event how a little girl (who has not reached the age of puberty) who is eager to enjoy amusement should be treated in this respect.” https://sunnah.com/bukhari/67/169 Sahih al-Bukhari 5190: “Aisha said, ‘While the Ethiopians were playing with their small spears, Allah's Messenger (�) screened me behind him and I watched (that display) and kept on watching till I left on my own.’ So you may estimate of what age a little girl may listen to amusement.” Note: “Aisha was fifteen years old then.” https://sunnah.com/bukhari/67 Sahih al-Bukhari: Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith 274: “I have never seen anything regarding Aisha which I would blame her for except that she is a girl of immature age...” https://sunnah.com/urn/44290 Surah 65:4, “And if you are in doubt about those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, (you should know that) their waiting period is three months, and the same applies to those who have not menstruated as yet...” Surah 33:49, “O believers! If you marry believing women and divorce them before the marriage is consummated, you are not required to observe the Iddat (waiting period)...” His statement, “He contracted marriage with ‘A’isha when she was six, thereafter consummating marriage with her when she was nine” is not disputed by anyone, and is well established in the sahih collections of traditions and elsewhere. -Ibn Kathir, The Life of the Prophet Muhammad (Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya), translated by professor Trevor Le Gassick, reviewed by Dr. Muneer Fareed [Garnet Publishing Limited, 8 Southern Court, south Street Reading RG1 4QS, UK; The Center for Muslim Contribution to Civilization, first paperback edition, 2000], Volume II, pp. 93-94. Cited from here: https://www.answeringislam.org/Shamoun/prepubescent.htm. Tafsir Kathir, “This is a command on which the scholars are agreed, that if a woman is divorced before the marriage is consummated, she does not have to observe the `Iddah (prescribed period for divorce) and she may go and get married immediately to whomever she 72

wishes.” http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1840&Itemid= 89 Maududi: “Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible.” http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/65/index.html Tafsir al-Jalalayn: “those who have not yet menstruated because of their young age their period shall also be three months" https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asptMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=65&tAyahN o=4&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2 Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi: “He said: ‘Those who are too young [such that they have not started menstruating yet]...And so this verse (And for such of your women as despair of menstruation…) was revealed.” https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=86&tSoraNo=65&tAya hNo=4&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2 Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs: “O Messenger of Allah! What about the waiting period of those who do not have menstruation because they are too young?” https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=65&tAyah No=4&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2 Al-Tabari: The same applies to the ‘idaah for girls who do not menstruate because they are too young, if their husbands divorce them after consummating the marriage with them. Tafsir Ar-Razi: Allah revealed {and those who have not menstruated yet}, meaning that her Iddah is like the old-aged woman who reached her menopause. Tafsir Zamakshari: “Those who have not menstruated” are young girls. Tafsir Al-Shawkani: “Those who have not menstruated yet” are young girls who have not reached the age of menstruation. Tafsir Al-Quartubi: {and those who have not menstruated yet} Means the young girls, their Iddah is 3 months. Tafsir Al-Baidawi: {and those who have not menstruated yet} Meaning those who have not menstruated yet. Tafsir Mujahid-Ibn Jabr: Those who have not yet menstruated, their ‘idda is three months. Tafsir Bukhari: He made the ‘idda of a girl before puberty three months. Tafsir Abu-hayyan: “Those who have not menstruated yet” denotes those not menstruated because of being young.

73

Tafsir Al-Fayrooz Abadi: {and those who have not menstruated yet} Those who did not menstruate due to their young age. Tafsir As-Suyuti: {and those who have not menstruated yet} They are the young girls who have not menstruated yet. Tafsir Muqatil ibn Sulayman: {and those who have not menstruated yet} … means the Iddah of the young girls who have not menstruated yet, and they were married and then divorced. Ibn Hajar: (65:4) indicates that giving her into marriage before puberty is permissible.“ Tafsir ‘Uthaymeen: If a woman does not menstruate, either because she is very young or old and past menopause, then her ‘iddah is three months Tafsir Al-Sa‘di: “along with those who have it [menses] not” means minors, those who have not yet started to menstruate. Tafsir Shafi‘ and Usmani: “‘iddah for a woman who does not menstruate on account of minority of age, or because she has attained menopausal age, is computed on monthly basis. Their ‘‘iddah is three months. Islamonline: Since this is not negated later, we can take from this verse that it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a prepubescent girl. Islamweb: So (in 65:4), Allah set rulings of marriage, divorce and waiting period for the women who have not yet had menses, i.e. the young girls. Islamqa: In this verse (65:4) we see that Allaah states that for those who do not menstruate – because they are young and have not yet reached the age of puberty – the ‘iddah in the case of divorce is three months. This clearly indicates that it is permissible for a young girl who has not started her periods to marry. Encyclopedia of medical jurisprudence: The waiting period for the little girl who has not menstruated is counted as three months, in accordance with the saying of the Most High: “and [also for] those who have not menstruated” [Qur’an 65:4].

Objections: The first is that the word for “women” in Surah 65:4 only applies to adult women. The lemma for women in 65:4 is “‫ ”ﻧِ َﺴﺎٓء‬transliteration: “nisa”. However, this same lemma occurs in Surah 4:11, “Then if they are only daughters (‫)ﻧِ َﺴﺎٓء‬...” Note that “they” in this ayah refers to “children (‫ ”) َوﻟَﺪ‬in the first part of the ayah. So, “Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children's (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters two or more...” This could refer to adults (even as an adult, I’m still a “child” of my parents) but this seems unlikely. The term for children (lemma: walad) that occurs in 4:11 is also used numerous times in the Quran to refer to literal children. 32 In Surah 2:49; 7:127, 141, and several other places, the term nisa occurs in similar contexts. Surah 7:127: “Their male children will P31F

P

0T

32

3:10; 3:47; 3:116; 4:12…etc.

74

we slay; (only) their females will we save alive; and we have over them (power) irresistible.” This is referring to Pharaoh’s treatment of the Israelites in Egypt. Kathir states: “So Allah mentioned saving their children from being slaughtered in order to remind them of the many favors that He granted them.” He also states, “After the dream, Pharaoh ordered that every newborn male among the Children of Israel be killed and that the girls be left alone.” -Kathir on Surah 2:89: http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=384 Therefore, “nisa” is not used exclusively of adult women. Further, this word is used in Surah 3:42 for Mary. So, if this word only means “adult women” then this controverts the ridiculous claims Muslims make that Mary was a child. They can’t have it both ways. Another objection: Muslims will cite Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 465 which is translated: “Narrated Aisha: I had seen my parents following Islam since I attained the age of puberty.” However, Aisha Bewley corrects the translation: “Narrated Aisha: (wife of the Prophet) Since I reached the age when I could remember things.” See her translation here (number 464): https://bewley.virtualave.net/bukhari5.html#8. See here for more information: https://www.answeringislam.org/authors/shamoun/attained_puberty.html; https://www.ummah.com/forum/forum/umma h-com-dawah-section/questions-about-islam-muslim/393373-question-about-bukhari-hadith.

Breastfeeding an Adult Male Sahih Muslim Book 8, Hadith 3421/1452 a/Book 17, Hadith 30: 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims): https://sunnah.com/muslim/17/31 Sahih Mulsim 1453 a, Book 17, Hadith 33, Book 8, Hadith 3424: “Messenger of Allah, I see on the face of Abu Hudhaifa (signs of disgust) on entering of Salim (who is an ally) into (our house), whereupon Allah's Apostle said: “Suckle him. She said: How can I suckle him as he is a grown-up man?” Allah's Messenger smiled and said: “I already know that he is a young man.” https://sunnah.com/muslim/17/37 Also, just pick a hadith from the Book of Suckling in Sahih Muslim. You can’t go wrong: https://sunnah.com/muslim/17. See also Malik’s Book of Suckling: https://sunnah.com/malik/30. Seriously, what on earth is wrong with Muslims who believe this stuff. Sunan Ibn Majah 1944: “The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.” https://sunnah.com/urn/1262630

75

Sunan Ibn Majah 1943: "Sahlah bint Suhail came to the Prophet and said: 'O Messenger of Allah, I see signs of displeasure on the face of Abu Hudhaifah when Salim enters upon me.” The Prophet said: “Breastfeed him.” She said: “How can I breastfeed him when he is a grown man? The Messenger of Allah smiled and said: “I know that he is a grown man.” So she did that, then she came to the Prophet and said: “I have never seen any signs of displeasure on the face of Abu Hudhayfah after that.” And he was present at (the battle of) Badr." https://sunnah.com/urn/1262620 Sahih Muslim Book 8, Hadith 3425/Book 17, Hadith 34/Sahih Muslim 1453 b: "Salim has attained (purbety) as men attain, and he understands what they understand, and he enters our house freely, I, however, perceive that something (rankles) in the heart of Abu Hudhaifa, whereupon Allah's Apostle said to her: Suckle him and you would become unlawful for him, and (the rankling) which Abu Hudhaifa feels in his heart will disappear. She returned and said: So I suckled him, and what (was there) in the heart of Abu Hudhaifa disappeared." https://sunnah.com/muslim/17/34 Malik's Muwatta, Chapter 30, Section 1, Number 8, "Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Safiyya bint Abi Ubayd told him that Hafsa, umm al-muminin, sent Asim ibn Abdullah ibn Sad to her sister Fatima bint Umar ibn al-Khattab for her to suckle him ten times so that he could come in to see her. She did it, so he used to come in to see her." (number 1281) https://sunnah.com/malik/30. Malik’s Muwatta “Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar said, "There is no kinship by suckling except for a person who is nursed when he is small. There is no kinship by suckling over the age of two years.” https://sunnah.com/urn/413010 Malik's Muwatta, Chapter 30, Section 2, Number 30, "'Messenger of Allah! We think of Salim as a son and he comes in to see me while I am uncovered. We only have one room, so what do you think about the situation?' The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'Give him five drinks of your milk and he will be mahram by it.' She then saw him as a foster son. A'isha umm al-muminin took that as a precedent for whatever men she wanted to be able to come to see her. She ordered her sister, Umm Kulthum bint Abi Bakr as-Siddiq and the daughters of her brother to give milk to whichever men she wanted to be able to come in to see her. The rest of the wives of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, refused to let anyone come in to them by such nursing. They said, 'No! By Allah! We think that what the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ordered Sahla bint Suhayl to do was only an indulgence concerning the nursing of Salim alone. No! By Allah! No one will come in upon us by such nursing!' "This is what the wives of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, thought about the suckling of an older person." (hadith 1287) https://sunnah.com/malik/30 Sahih Muslim 1454/Book 17, Hadith 38/Book 8, Hadith 3429: "Umm Salama, the wife of Allah's Apostle, used to say that all wives of Allah's Apostle disclaimed the idea that one with this type of fosterage (having been suckled after the proper period) should come to them. and said to 'A'isha: “By Allah, we do not find this but a sort of concession given by Allah's Messenger only for Salim, and no one was going to be allowed to enter (our houses) with this type of fosterage 76

and we do not subscribe to this view.” https://sunnah.com/muslim/17/38 See Kathir’s Tafsir on 4:23 for a discussion, starting here (verses are at the bottom, then continue to next page): http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=692&Itemid=59

The Quran’s Replacement Theology The Quran has a particularly dehumanizing view of people that shows up in numerous places. There is no concern given over loss of human life. People are simply destroyed and “replaced”. Some are even created for replacement, to become stories. Compare to Genesis 6:6-7 where, while judgement is dealt out, God was deeply troubled by the consequences of their mass rebellion. “…whoever of you should revert from his religion - Allah will bring forth [in place of them] a people He will love and who will love Him.” -Surah 5:54 “We destroyed them for their sins and brought forth after them a generation of others.” -Surah 6:6 “If He wills, he can do away with you and give succession after you to whomever He wills, just as He produced you from the descendants of another people.” -Surah 6:133 If you do not go forth, He will punish you with a painful punishment and will replace you with another people.” -Surah 9:39 “And We had already destroyed generations before you when they wronged…Then after them We made you so that We might see how you would do.” -Surah 10:13, 14 “If He wills, He can do away with you and produce a new creation.” -Surah 14:19 “So we intended that their Lord should substitute for them one better than him in purity and nearer to mercy.” -Surah 18:8 “And how many a city which was unjust have We shattered and produced after it another people.” -Surah 21:11 “Then We produced after them a generation of others.” -Surah 23:31 “Then We produced after them other generations.” -Surah 23:42 “If He wills, He can do away with you and bring forth a new creation.” -Surah 35:16 “And if you turn away, He will replace you with another people; then they will not be the likes of you.” -Surah 47:38 77

“We are able to replace them [disbelievers] with better than them; and We are not to be outdone.” -Surah 70:40b-41 “We created them…and when We please, We shall exchange the likes of them.” -Surah 76:28 In a not so surprising twist this theme surfaces, self-servingly, with Muhammad and his perpetual marital drama: “Perhaps his Lord, if he divorced you [all], would substitute for him wives better than you.” Surah 66:5 Some people were created only to be destroyed and replaced by others. That was the purpose for which they were created: “We turned them into ruins. Then, We produced other generations. We caused some of them to follow others, and We turned them into stories.” -Surah 23:41, 42, 44

Answering Muslims Numbers 31:18, Sex Slaves and Islamic Paradise33 Many Muslims criticize Numbers 31:18. As an example, here is a comment from answeringChristianity: http://www.answering-christianity.com/ahmed_eldin/bible_supports_pedophilia_and_rape.htm The context of the text that allegedly supports rape is where punishment is being dealt out for the shockingly obscene sins at Baal-Peor. Here we find reference to the term “Midianites” which refers to a large confederation of tribes, of which Moab was one. The verse in question states: “But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.” Num 31:18. It is ironic that people see this verse condoning sexual immorality with the daughters of Moab when one of the sins that started it all was sexual immorality with the daughters of Moab: “While Israel lived in Shittim, the people began to whore with the daughters of Moab.” Num 25:1 But let’s ignore that blatantly contradictory misinterpretation of the text and get to the heart of the issue. When female captives are taken, as in Numbers 31, there is a procedure that governs marriage and sexual relations in Deuteronomy 21. I’ve produced a video 34 on this topic, so we’ll only comment briefly here: 33 34

https://youtu.be/LXbAhy3rKU4 https://youtu.be/-8ylDgXNpyk

78

“This law [Deut 21:10-14] requires a soldier who wishes to marry a captive woman to show consideration for her feelings. He must allow her to adjust to all that has happened by bringing her back to his home and waiting a month before marrying her. In case he later becomes dissatisfied with her, he may not reduce her to slavery. A significant aspect of this law is its respect for the personhood of the captive woman and the moral obligations created by initiating a sexual relationship with her.” -Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 194. When referring to the rituals that the woman takes during this procedure Merrill states that the process: “…presupposes a degree of willingness on the part of the maiden to forsake the past and to embrace a new and different way of life, for one can hardly conceive of all this taking place coercively. “Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, vol. 4, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 291. It’s plausible that shaving the woman’s hair, clipping her nails and living, untouched in a state of mourning for a full month would reduce the attractiveness of the woman, which is what likely drew attention in the first place. Combining this with the economical strain of supporting an additional member of the household in a subsistence based culture would certainly discourage the planned marriage, which seems to be the intent of the law which does indicate, in verse 14 of Deuteronomy 21, that a successful marriage is not anticipated. And if this is the case: “But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.” -Dt 21:14. Notice it says, “humiliated her,” the text does not speak highly of this process, to say the least. This passage does acknowledge the stubbornness of people and puts in place laws, as we heard, to protect the: “This law requires a soldier who wishes to marry a captive woman to show consideration for her feelings. He must allow her to adjust to all that has happened by bringing her back to his home and waiting a month before marrying her. In case he later becomes dissatisfied with her, he may not reduce her to slavery. A significant aspect of this law is its respect for the personhood of the captive woman and the moral obligations created by initiating a sexual relationship with her.” Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 194. Laws given in such a context are reminiscent of what Jesus discussed in Mark chapter 10: “And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.” -Mk 10:5. So, critics typically talk about genocide in the OT. But these girls in Numbers 31 are saved from destruction. Critics speak of slavery in the OT. But women to be taken in this context are not to be sold for money or treated like slaves: 79

“But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.” -Dt 21:14. With those two criticisms defeated, the critics then move to the option we discussed earlier: rape. But where is rape in the text? Look closely as we read the text again from Numbers 31: “But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves [so that you may rape them, treating them as sex slaves].” Num 31:18 Now you may say the last part isn’t in the text. And I agree. So where does this come from? The imagination of the critic. I don’t normally watch debates. However, I did come across one recently just in time for this video. Thought not a Muslim, he illustrates interpretation via imagination perfectly: Here is the assumption: https://youtu.be/woqy13ZkeqM?t=3148 Shortly thereafter, it becomes the interpretation: https://youtu.be/woqy13ZkeqM?t=3211 See also here: https://youtu.be/woqy13ZkeqM?t=3251 Do you see how easy it is for a critic to allow his assumptions to evolve into authoritative interpretation? It doesn’t take long either. Now, as a point of consistently, one would think that someone who calls himself the cosmic skeptic would be consistent enough to be skeptical about the assumptions he makes regarding a text that he’s too confused to interpret: https://youtu.be/woqy13ZkeqM?t=3243

But how does this relate to Islam, both now and in the afterlife? How does all this expose the hypocrisy of Muslims? Well, let’s go back to our “corrupted” verse from Numbers 31: “But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves [so that you may rape them, treating them as sex slaves].” Num 31:18 And now for the hypocrisy. The Quran over and over allows men to have sex with women whom they possess. Perhaps Allah the all most sexist’s juiciest endorsement of this is in surah 70 which tells men to guard their private parts: “…except in regard to their spouses and those whom their right hands possess, for in regard to them they are not reproachable.” -Surah 70:30 Surely this passage requires clarification from a Muslim source: “Two categories of women have been excluded from the general command of guarding the private parts: (a) wives, (b) women who are legally in one’s possession, i.e. slavegirls. Thus the verse clearly lays down the law that one is allowed to have sexual relations with his slave-girl as with his wife. The basis being possession and not marriage. If marriage had been the

80

condition, the slave-girl also would have been included among the wives, and there was no need to mention them separately.” -http://islamicstudies.info/reference.php?sura=23&verse=9¬e=7 Some can’t accept Allah allows this in the Quran, so they dispute the Quran with, you guessed it, mental gymnastics: “Some modern commentators, who dispute the permissibility of having sexual relations with the slave-girl, argue from (Surah An-Nisa, Ayat 25 ) to prove that one can have sexual relations with a slave-girl only after entering wedlock with her, because that verse enjoins that if a person cannot afford to marry a free Muslim woman, he may marry a Muslim slave-girl. But these commentators have a strange characteristic. They accept a part of a verse if it suits them, but conveniently ignore another part of the same verse if it goes against their wish and whim.” -http://islamicstudies.info/reference.php?sura=23&verse=9¬e=7 But things get better for women in paradise, don’t they? No, they actually look like our corrupted translation of Numbers 31: From the Quran we find that Muslims get: “There they shall have spouses purified…” -Surah 4:57 “…untouched before them by man or jinn…” -Surah 55:56 “…large, [beautiful] eyes…” -Surah 37:48 “…full-breasted maidens of the same age…” -Surah 78:33 “…dark-eyed maidens confined in tents…” -Surah 55:72 (trans: AJ Droge) Confined in tents? Translation issue? Yes, it is! They may actually be confined to pavilions, not tents: “…pure ones confined to pavilions…” -Surah 55:72 (trans: Shakir) “…fair ones, close-guarded in pavilions…” -Surah 55:72 (trans: Pickthall) Notice what some translators try to do with this verse (Yusif Ali). They add, “as to their glances” embarrassed by what the Arabic actually says. http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=55&verse=72 Tafsir Jalalayn elaborates that these pavilions in which the full-breasted maidens are guarded are secluded, and are adorned with studded gems: “…this means maidens with intense black eyes set against the intense whiteness of the iris secluded concealed in pavilions made of studded gems annexed to the palaces like boudoirs.” https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=55&tAyahNo=72&t Display=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2 81

Does Allah approve of all of this? “…pure spouses and approval from God…” -Surah 3:15 Let’s do final comparison. Here’s our corrupted translation of Numbers 31:18 and some Quranic texts as well: “But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves [so that you may rape them, treating them as sex slaves].” Num 31:18 “…full breasted maidens of the same age…” -Surah 78:33 “…dark-eyed maidens confined in tents…” -Surah 55:72 “[guard your private parts]…except in regard to their spouses and those whom their right hands possess, for in regard to them they are not reproachable.” -Surah 70:30 There are a couple differences to note. One of these sources is quite a bit more graphic, describing paradise as a place where full-breasted women are confined, under guard so they don’t escape. And the other one doesn’t even exist in the original text. We conclude that the Quran confirms both in this lifetime and in the next that captive women are lawful for sexual intercourse. In paradise, they will even be guarded, help captive in their tents, awaiting the Muslim men. What Muslim critics imagine to be in Numbers 31 actually turns out to be a reality in the Islamic texts, right in the Quran itself. The corrupted text in Numbers 31 has only been corrupted by the imaginations of critics. Additionally, Muhammad certainly approved of having sex with slave girls: "The Prophet (�) sent `Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated `Ali, and `Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. `Ali)?" When we reached the Prophet (�) I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate `Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus." https://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/377 And he had sex with them himself: “The Prophet admired Umm Ibrahim, who was fair-skinned and beautiful...He used to visit her...and ordered her to veil herself, [but] he had intercourse with her by virtue of her being his property. When she became pregnant [and her time was due] she gave birth there...” History of al-Tabari, Volume 39, page 194 (second paragraph down): https://archive.org/stream/TabariEnglish/Tabari_Volume_39#page/n223/mode/2up

1 Samuel 1535 Muslims frequently point to the God of the Old Testament ordering the killing of men, women and children. Of course, they can’t generalize this criticism too much or they would be 35

https://youtu.be/tYGW5vHM5XY

82

criticizing the Quran which discusses the conquest, in Surah 5: And [mention, O Muhammad], when Moses said to his people, “O my people, remember the favor of Allah upon you when He appointed among you prophets and made you possessors and gave you that which He had not given anyone among the worlds. O my people, enter the Holy Land which Allah has assigned to you and do not turn back [from fighting in Allah 's cause] and [thus] become losers.” -Surah 5:20-21 Rather than criticize the conquest, they must make their criticism more specific. This is where 1 Sam 15 comes into the picture. We will examine the text with the help of John Walton’s recent work. 36 “Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” -1 Sa 15:3 First let’s talk about some background and the pleasant topic of destruction in the ancient near east. We have numerous examples of these types of texts, I’ll just cite a couple: Gebel Barkal Stela of Thutmose III, “The many troops (of) Mitanni were overthrown in the completion of an hour, quite gone, as if they had never come into being …” (Pritchard, J. B. (Ed.). (1969). The Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (3rd ed. with Supplement, p. 240). Princeton: Princeton University Press.) From the Merneptah Stele: “Israel is laid waste, his seed is not...” (Pritchard, J. B. (Ed.). (1969). The Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (3rd ed. with Supplement). Princeton: Princeton University Press.” Pritchard, J. B. (Ed.). (1969). The Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (3rd ed. with Supplement, p. 378). Princeton: Princeton University Press.) About this, Pritchard says: “The statement that the ‘seed,’ i.e. offspring, of Israel had been wiped out is a conventional boast of power at this period.” (Pritchard, J. B. (Ed.). (1969). The Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (3rd ed. with Supplement). Princeton: Princeton University Press) We see similar language in Joshua: Joshua 10:36–37, “Then Joshua and all Israel with him went up from Eglon to Hebron. And they fought against it and captured it and struck it with the edge of the sword, and its king and its towns, and every person in it. He left none remaining, as he had done to Eglon, and devoted it to destruction and every person in it.” Again: Joshua 11:21-22, “And Joshua came at that time and cut off the Anakim from the hill country, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the hill country of Judah, and from all the Walton, John H., and Walton, J. Harvey . The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest : Covenant, Retribution, and the Fate of the Canaanites . Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, an imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2017. 36

83

hill country of Israel. Joshua devoted them to destruction with their cities. There was none of the Anakim left in the land of the people of Israel. Only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod did some remain.” But we see 3 chapters later that these same Anakim are still in the area in spite of what we just read in Joshua 11: Joshua 14:12, “So now give me this hill country of which the LORD spoke on that day, for you heard on that day how the Anakim were there, with great fortified cities. It may be that the LORD will be with me, and I shall drive them out just as the LORD said.” (See also 10:3637) A scholar named Younger has done some work in this area, noting the wartime bravado typical in the ancient near east (Mesha). Dr Richard Hess says, “[K.L.] Younger has shown that similar expressions are used in Ancient Near Eastern texts. He gives examples from the Merneptah stele, where ‘Israel is wasted, his seed is not’, and from the ninth-century BC Moabite stele, where King Mesha states, ‘Israel has utterly perished forever.’” -Hess, R. S. (1996). Joshua: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 6, p. 223). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press It should be obvious that ancient writers use different convention than what we use today. That’s the concept I’m introducing you to in this section. They wrote history differently. For example, they were theologized. Or, in this case, the war biographies were greatly embellished as a way of bringing additional honor to the king or deity. They were much more concerned with interpreting the events instead of simply narrating them: John Walton says: “Ancient narratives are not what we would call historiography; they do not attempt to provide the audience with information to reconstruct what a video camera observing the event would have recorded.” -Walton, J. H., & Walton, J. H. (2017). The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest: Covenant, Retribution, and the Fate of the Canaanites (p. 178). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press. But not also that: “This does not mean that the accounts are lies in the sense that we mean when we call them propaganda; both author and audience understand the genre, so there is no intention to deceive. But the accounts are primarily interested in interpreting the event and only secondarily interested in documenting the phenomena that accompanied it.” -Walton, J. H., & Walton, J. H. (2017). The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest: Covenant, Retribution, and the Fate of the Canaanites (p. 178). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press. This needs to be considered, because when we encounter these types of texts in the Bible or anywhere else in the ancient near east, we need to look at the surrounding context to see what’s 84

being communicated. With that brief forward, let’s get into 1 Samuel 15. I’m going to draw your attention to a couple texts but assume familiarity with the passage as a whole. If you haven’t read it, now might be a good time before you continue the section. I’ll just read some verses from 1 Sam 15: 1 Samuel 15:2–3: “...Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” 1 Samuel 15:7-8, “And Saul defeated the Amalekites from Havilah as far as Shur, which is east of Egypt. And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive and devoted to destruction all the people with the edge of the sword.” In spite of this account of sweeping victory, in 1 Sam 27 apparently the Amalekites are in the same area. Also, notice they’ve been there for awhile: 1 Samuel 27:8, “Now David and his men went up and made raids against...the Amalekites, for these were the inhabitants of the land from of old, as far as Shur, to the land of Egypt.” So we have an apparent conflict with the account in 1 Samuel 15 where Saul had devoted the inhabitants to destruction: 1 Samuel 15:8–9, “...and [Saul] devoted to destruction (‫ )חרם‬all the people with the edge of the sword. But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep and of the oxen and of the fattened calves and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them. All that was despised and worthless they devoted to destruction (‫)חרם‬.” 49T

So we can easily see there’s an apparently tension, unless we take the accounts as ancient near eastern war rhetoric, as some scholars have suggested is so typical in the ancient near east. But let’s dig into the passage a bit more. There are several elements that need to be accounted for in our interpretation: 1) The Amalekites were to be blotted out. “You shall blot out the memory of Amalek...” (Deuteronomy 25:19). What does this phrase mean? 2) Samuel’s main concern is with the King of Amalek, whom he executes (1 Samuel 15:3233) 3) Not every person/animal was killed (cf. 1 Samuel 15:8; 1 Samuel 27:8; 1 Samuel 30:1). Samuel must know this, yet he doesn’t mention the people who remained 4) Samuel mentions hearing the animals but doesn’t give any orders concerning them (1 Samuel 15:14) Any interpretation of this passage needs to account for these elements. So, let’s take them in turn. 85

1) The Amalekites were to be blotted out. What does this phrase mean? Starting in Judges 19 there’s a rape and murder of a woman that occurs in Gibeah. We see Israel’s reaction in the next chapter: “Then all the people of Israel came out, from Dan to Beersheba, including the land of Gilead, and the congregation assembled as one man to the LORD at Mizpah. And the chiefs of all the people, of all the tribes of Israel, presented themselves in the assembly of the people of God, 400,000 men on foot that drew the sword.” -Jdg 20:1–2 The people of Israel are not happy about this, to say the least. Now, Gibeah was in the territory of the tribe of Benjamin. And Benjamin refused to give the men up to the judgement of Israel. As a result, the rest of Israel come up against Gibeah. Walton explains this in terms of community identity, a very familiar concept in the ancient near east. Let’s start with an analogy before we get into the explanation: “Like a human body...the larger community of Israel is made up of smaller units of tribes, clans, families, and cities, which we might compare to separate organs or limbs. All of them are part of the overarching community of Israel, but all of them have their own distinct microidentity as well.” -Walton, J. H., & Walton, J. H. (2017). The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest: Covenant, Retribution, and the Fate of the Canaanites (p. 183). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press. Walton continues: “It is not sufficient to simply disavow deviant individuals who possess community identity markers as somehow separate from the true community. Community identities do not possess qualities separately from the qualities of the people who constitute them and possess their markers; there is no true community apart from the membership of the community. If the cells in, say, your eye have cancer, then you have cancer. The entire corporate entity of you is sick as long as your eye remains both cancerous and attached to you. What any part of the community is determines what the entire community is.” -Walton, J. H., & Walton, J. H. (2017). The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest: Covenant, Retribution, and the Fate of the Canaanites (p. 183). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press. Now let’s see how this applies to Gibeah in a lengthy but illuminating quote, again from Walton: “The assembly initially asks for the microidentity of Gibeah to be destroyed (Judg 20:10–13), but the larger community of Benjamin refuses to allow this (Judg 20:13–15), thus identifying themselves with the city of Gibeah and against the covenant order. As a result, the entire Israelite microidentity of the tribe of Benjamin becomes subject to ḥerem [“to devote to destruction”], which is carried out in Judges 20:48 (although the word is not used; compare Deut 13:15). Some individuals survive (Judg 20:47; 21:7), yet the assembly still mourns the destruction of the microidentity: “Today one tribe is cut off from Israel” (Judg 21:6). If the emphasis were on eliminating a genetic legacy, even a single survivor would result in the community not being cut off; however, because the emphasis is identity, not genetics, and 86

because no Israelite woman can marry them (Judg 21:1), their children will lose the Israelite ethnic identity marker and so vanish from the community of Israel. The solution to this problem is to find them Israelite women to marry so that their children will carry the ethnic identity marker of Israelite [Judges 21:17, “And they said, “There must be an inheritance for the survivors of Benjamin, that a tribe not be blotted out from Israel.”] and thereby preserve the microidentity of Benjamin within Israel. If the issue were simply preserving the genetic line, the surviving Benjaminites could have married anybody, and it would have made no difference.” Walton, J. H., & Walton, J. H. (2017). The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest: Covenant, Retribution, and the Fate of the Canaanites (pp. 188–189). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press. We see this concept elsewhere, in Deut 25 for example: “Therefore...being blotted out cannot possibly mean having one’s genetic legacy die out. The same applies to a microidentity within Israel in Deuteronomy 25:5–6: ‘If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.’ Here it is the family identity, not genetics, that is preserved, since of course levirate marriage does nothing to pass on the genes of the deceased.” -Walton, J. H., & Walton, J. H. (2017). The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest: Covenant, Retribution, and the Fate of the Canaanites (p. 214). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press Returning to our first interpretive question: 1) The Amalekites were to be blotted out. “You shall blot out the memory of Amalek...” (Deuteronomy 25:19). What does this phrase mean? 2) Samuel’s main concern is with the King of Amalek, whom he executes (1 Samuel 15:3233) 3) Not every person/animal was killed (cf. 1 Samuel 15:8; 1 Samuel 27:8; 1 Samuel 30:1). Samuel must know this, yet he doesn’t mention the people who remained 4) Samuel mentions hearing the animals but doesn’t give any orders concerning them (1 Samuel 15:14) The “blotting out” of the Amalekites refers to terminating the markers of the Amalekite community identity, it has nothing to do with genetics or genocide. We can take the second and third issue together generally first, and then nuance them individually: 1) The Amalekites were to be blotted out. “You shall blot out the memory of Amalek...” (Deuteronomy 25:19). What does this phrase mean? 2) Samuel’s main concern is with the King of Amalek, whom he executes (1 Samuel 15:3233) 87

3) Not every person/animal was killed (cf. 1 Samuel 15:8; 1 Samuel 27:8; 1 Samuel 30:1). Samuel must know this, yet he doesn’t mention the people who remained 4) Samuel mentions hearing the animals but doesn’t give any orders concerning them (1 Samuel 15:14) Walton says: “We should also note that Samuel in 1 Samuel 15 makes no attempt to kill the animals but only kills the king (1 Sam 15:32). This is because the king is the embodiment and personification of the community identity, as also demonstrated by the promise in Deuteronomy 7:24, where the names of the kings will be wiped out, and by the (talionic) proclamation of Samuel in 1 Samuel 15:33 that “[Agag’s] mother [will] be childless” (that is, Agag’s family line will end). Samuel thus carries out the intent of the ḥerem, not by killing every last ethnic Amalekite and all of their animals (which he does not do) but by terminating the final marker of Amalekite community identity. Thus the ḥerem in 1 Samuel 15...as with all ḥerem against communities...has to do with destroying the identity (or failing to do so).” -Walton, J. H., & Walton, J. H. (2017). The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest: Covenant, Retribution, and the Fate of the Canaanites (pp. 214–215). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press. With respect to the people and animals specifically, the word that’s used in 1 Sam 15:3 is hrm as we’ve previously seen: 1 Samuel 15:3: “...Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction (‫ )חרם‬all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” 49T

Walton sees the connection between this verb and community identity as well: “This is because, once again, the purpose of the ḥerem is to remove a community identity from use, not to kill individual people.” -Walton, J. H., & Walton, J. H. (2017). The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest: Covenant, Retribution, and the Fate of the Canaanites (p. 190). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press. Now this is a very interesting note with respect to the King that gives us insight into Saul’s spiritual condition as well: When Assyria or Babylon conquered a territory, they would destroy the national identity of the conquered nation by killing or deporting the king and planting a puppet regent on the throne, deporting the cultic and community leaders, destroying cities and temples, carrying away or destroying the images of the gods, and levying a heavy tribute to depress the economy. The purpose of this was to strip away anything the conquered people could rally around in order to stage a rebellion. In 2 Kings 19:11 Sennacherib brags to Hezekiah that he has ḥrm all of the previous enemies of Assyria (NIV “destroying them completely”). The Canaanite armies are annihilated (or at least soundly defeated) during the conquest, but if the national identity that deployed the army is not destroyed, they will eventually raise 88

another one (as Midian does in Judg 6:1–6, despite being defeated in Num 31:7–11)...More importantly, however, the identity needs to be removed so that Israel cannot make use of it. This is the essence of the threat that “they will become snares and traps for you” (Josh 23:13; Judg 2:3). [Emphasis added] Walton, J. H., & Walton, J. H. (2017). The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest: Covenant, Retribution, and the Fate of the Canaanites (pp. 190–191). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press. This explains why Samuel cared so much about executing the Amalekite King, he embodied the national identity. What about King Saul: “Once a treaty was ratified, the overlord typically would erect a monument in the territory to signal that the region belonged to him and was under his authority and control.” -Walton, J. H., & Walton, J. H. (2017). The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest: Covenant, Retribution, and the Fate of the Canaanites (p. 226). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press. Now, did Saul do something like this in 1 Sam 15? Yes: “And Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning. And it was told Samuel, ‘Saul came to Carmel, and behold, he set up a monument for himself [not for God!!] and turned and passed on and went down to Gilgal.’” -1 Sa 15:12 This is theologically significant. After Saul’s victory, he seems to have completely, for the final time as King, detached himself from God. It seems that Samuel’s question teases this out further: “And Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears and the lowing of the oxen that I hear?” -1 Sa 15:14 Now we have an additional theological detachment: “Saul said, ‘They have brought them from the Amalekites, for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen to sacrifice to the LORD your God, and the rest we have devoted to destruction.’ Then Samuel said to Saul, ‘Stop!’” -1 Sa 15:15–16 Then Samuel says that he hasn’t obeyed the Lord, at which point Saul repeats his previous response: “But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the best of the things devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to the LORD your God in Gilgal.” -1 Sa 15:21 Samuel’s passing concern over the animals that they took as spoils of war seems only to tease out and then emphasize Saul’s theological status. Saul’s repeated reference to the Lord YOUR God further highlights Saul’s departure from the God of Israel. Soon after, he is removed from the throne of Israel: 1 Samuel 15:26: “And Samuel said to Saul, “I will not return with you. For you have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you from being king over Israel.”

89

In summary: • We discussed the concept of ANE wartime rhetoric • Stressed that one needs to take this into account when reading any ANE text • Explained how the Amalekites appear to be resurrected in an apparent conflict between 1 Sam 15/27 • Looked at four interpretive questions for 1 Samuel 15 • Removal of the Amalekite king and hence the national identity • Insight into King Saul’s spiritual life and why the kingdom was taken away from him

God’s Resting Place37 Many of you know that Muslims claim the God of the Bible gets tired because he rested after creation. “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested (‫ )שׁבת‬on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.” -Ge 2:1–2 To my knowledge Hebrew verb “‫ ”שׁבת‬only occurs 3 times with God as the experiencer and they’re all with reference to creation: “And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested (‫ )שׁבת‬on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.” -Ge 2:2 “So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested (‫ )שׁבת‬from all his work that he had done in creation.” -Ge 2:3 “It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested (‫ )שׁבת‬and was refreshed.’” -Ex 31:17 Now, given that these occurrences all refer to the same event back in Gen 1, this doesn’t seem to get us very far. But, this is really cool, Exodus 20:11 is the key. It’s also referring to Genesis 2 but uses a different Hebrew word: “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested (‫ )נוח‬on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” -Ex 20:11 So let’s contrast these two passages in Exodus: “It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested (‫)שׁבת‬...’” -Ex 31:17

37

https://youtu.be/riXQoluaiM0

90

“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested (‫)נוח‬...” -Ex 20:11 So we have ‫ שׁבת‬and ‫ נוח‬used interchangeably in the same context. When we expand our search into the LXX, we see that the translators used the same Greek word in all of these occurrences. And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested (καταπαύω) on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.” -Ge 2:2 “So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested (καταπαύω) from all his work that he had done in creation.” -Ge 2:3 “It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested (καταπαύω) and was refreshed.’” -Ex 31:17 “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested (καταπαύω) on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” -Ex 20:11 Having made sure we’re on a firm foundation in the text, we’re above to expand our search of these word forms in the Hebrew Bible in an attempt to further our understanding of what it means for God to rest. “For the LORD has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his dwelling place: ‘This is my resting place (‫ ;מְנוּחָה‬κατάπαυσις) forever; here I will dwell, for I have desired it.’” -Ps 132:13–14 Or, from Isaiah: “Thus says the LORD: ‘Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest (‫ ;מְנוּחָה‬κατάπαυσις)?’” -Is 66:1 So we see a semantic connection between God resting, or ruling from Zion or from his “house”, his temple, and our passage in Genesis. But what we’ve just seen in the Psalms and Isaiah is temple language. And it’s associated with God’s rest, or his rule from his temple. But we started in Genesis 2. So how does this relate? Do we have temple language back there as well? Let’s explore some other texts as well as some ANE background and attempt to answer this question. What was Eden, exactly? In describing the King of Tyre’s downfall, Ezekiel draws on an ancient story of rebellion: “You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering...” -Ezekiel 28:13 The temple is the dwelling place of God. So is Eden. So that’s one clear parallel. But there are many more when we incorporate some ANE background:

91

“The garden of Eden is not viewed by the author of Genesis simply as a piece of Mesopotamian farmland, but as an archetypal sanctuary, that is, a place where God dwells and where man should worship him. Many of the features of the garden may also be found in later sanctuaries, particularly the tabernacle or Jerusalem temple. These parallels suggest that the garden itself is understood as a sort of sanctuary.” -Wenham, “Sanctuary,” 19, quoted from: Walton, J. H. (2006). Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (p. 124). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Further: “The presence of God was the key to the garden and was understood by author and audience as a given from the ancient worldview. His presence is seen as the fertile source of all life-giving waters. ‘It is not only the dwelling place of God. It is also the source of all the creative forces that flow forth from the Divine Presence, that energize and give life to the creation in a constant, unceasing outflow of vivifying power [D. Neiman].’ This concept is well known in the Bible. Ezekiel 47:1–12 shows the life-giving waters flowing from the temple. Briefer references can be found in Zechariah 14:8 and Psalm 46:4. Perhaps the most familiar picture, however, comes in Revelation 22:1–2, where the river of the water of life flows from the throne of God.” -Walton, J. H. (2006). Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (p. 124). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Does anything else in the description of Eden remind us of God’s dwelling place? “The tree of life was in the midst of the garden...” Ge 2:9 “To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.” -Re 2:7 Let’s add in some more ANE background: “The concept of divine rest is prominent in ancient Near Eastern literature. Deity’s rest is achieved in a temple, generally as a result of order having been established. The rest, while it represents disengagement from any process of establishing order (whether through conflict with other deities or not), is more importantly an expression of engagement as the deity takes his place at the helm to maintain an ordered, secure, and stable cosmos.” -Walton, J. H. (2009). Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (Old Testament): Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Vol. 1, p. 23). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. There are several aspects of divine rest, or rule, in the ANE that correspond to Genesis: Divine rest is achieved after establishing order (creation) Divine rest is achieved in a temple Divine rest means ongoing stability I think all of these apply to our passage in Genesis

92

“As Levenson puts it, the seven-day creation account culminating in the divine rest should be understood as somehow parallel to the building of temples for divine rest. This course of analogy and logic results in the understanding that Genesis 1 is framed in terms of the creation of a cosmic temple in which Yahweh takes up his repose. The seven days are comparable to seven-day temple dedications at the end of which deity takes up his rest in the temple.” Walton, J. H. (2009). Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (Old Testament): Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Vol. 1, p. 23). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. So divine rest is about ruling, enjoying the equilibrium and harmony of the creative acts that preceded it. Now, the temple isn’t just associated with God’s rest, but with the rest of God’s people as well. When Solomon dedicated the Temple, he said: “Blessed be the LORD who has given rest (κατάπαυσις) to his people Israel, according to all that he promised.” -1 Ki 8:56 It’s no wonder that the writer of Hebrews, who drew much from the OT, used this term as well. In his commentary on Hebrews, in chapter 4, Donald Guthrie says it well: “God’s people share in his rest. What he did, they do. By becoming identified with him, they enter into his experiences.” -Guthrie, D. (1983). Hebrews: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 15, p. 119). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. So far from presenting an opportunity for cheap Islamic polemics, the creation account is God communicating to his people in their own, ANE terminology, that he was the one who brought order into chaos, and he did it for a reason, he is a personal God who makes his presence known to his people. That’s why he places his human creation right there in the cosmic temple with him, to tend the temple garden. From the very beginning of scripture, we see a God who dwells with his people. This is a theme that continues throughout the Torah, the prophets, the Gospels with Jesus as God dwelling with his people, to the Spirit who dwells with the believers and in the church-a holy temple in the Lord (Ephesians 2:21). And as we’ve seen already, this goes right through to revelation- Eden restored- where God will give his people perfect rest, and he will again rest with them. Thanks for watching. “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.” -Re 21:3 Very helpful from LTW: καταπαύω (katapauō). vb. to (cause to) stop, cease, rest. Can refer to resting or simply to stopping. Hebrews 4:4, citing Genesis 2:2–3, reminds readers that God rested (καταπαύω, katapauō) from all his works on the seventh day. The same word can mean “to stop (someone),” as in Acts 14:18, where Paul and Barnabas barely stop the crowds in Lystra from sacrificing to them. κατάπαυσις (katapausis). n. fem. rest. Refers to a state or place of rest. 93

In the NT, katapausis occurs only in Hebrews and Acts. Acts 7:49, quoting Isaiah 66:1, uses the word to translate ‫( מְנוּחָה‬mĕnuḥâ, “state or place of rest”), which here refers to the idea of the temple as God’s resting place. Hebrews 3:11, quoting Psalm 95:11, also uses it to translate mĕnuḥâ, but here it refers to the rest God gives to his people; the other uses of the term in Hebrews also deal with the subject of salvation as God-given rest. ἡσυχάζω (hēsychazō). vb. be quiet, rest, abstain from work; remain silent. Usually refers to being quiet, but can also refer to resting from work. Most uses of hēsychazō in the NT refer simply to being quiet or silent (e.g., Luke 14:4, Acts 11:18). However, Luke 23:56 uses it for resting on the Sabbath: “On the Sabbath they rested (hēsychazō) according to the commandment.” -Spoelstra, J. J. (2014). Rest. D. Mangum, D. R. Brown, R. Klippenstein, & R. Hurst (Eds.), Lexham Theological Wordbook. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

“Only Begotten” (monogenes) Michael Heiser has the best short description I could find on this Greek word. His explanation follows. “Only begotten” is an unfortunately confusing translation, especially to modern ears. Not only does the translation “only begotten” seem to contradict the obvious statements in the Old Testament about other sons of God, it implies that there was a time when the Son did not exist— that he had a beginning. The Greek word translated by this phrase is monogenes. It doesn’t mean “only begotten” in some sort of “birthing” sense. The confusion extends from an old misunderstanding of the root of the Greek word. For years monogenes was thought to have derived from two Greek terms, monos (“only”) and gennao (“to beget, bear”). Greek scholars later discovered that the second part of the word monogenes does not come from the Greek verb gennao, but rather from the noun genos (“class, kind”). The term literally means “one of a kind” or “unique” without connotation of created origin… The validity of this understanding is borne out by the New Testament itself. In Hebrews 11:17, Isaac is called Abraham’s monogenes. If you know your Old Testament you know that Isaac was not the “only begotten” son of Abraham. Abraham had earlier fathered Ishmael (cf. Gen 16:15; 21:3). The term must mean that Isaac was Abraham’s unique son, for he was the son of the covenant promises. Isaac’s genealogical line would be the one through which Messiah would come.” -Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, First Edition. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 36–37.

94

Divinity of Jesus38 Do not allow the fallacious Islamic, “Show me where Jesus said…” arguments. If Jesus did not say things specifically the way Muslims think he should have, it is simply inconsequential. In this section we will look at one of my favorite arguments for the divinity of Jesus from Mark 14:62. The polemics in the Old Testament are quite fascinating. One such case is an anti-Baal polemic which attributes some of Baal’s characteristics to the true God, the God of Israel. This was necessary in part because many Israelites were seduced into Baal worship: “Similarly the increasingly sharp polemics which came to dominate the Israelite literature (cf. KÜHLEWEIN 1971:331) attest to the fact that during the early Iron Age the god Baal played a large part in the belief of the Israelite population.” 39 Specifically, Baal is referred to as the rider, or charioteer, of the clouds: “Valiant Baal re[plie]d; the Charioteer of the Clouds responded…” 40 “Listen, O Valiant Baal! Understand, O Charioteer of the Clouds!” 41 The general idea is correct- a god should have this sort of power and control over the cosmos that would be appropriate for such a title. However, the Baal worshippers had it wrong, and that is what the Biblical authors sought to correct. It was the God of Israel who, alone, was the rider of the clouds: “He lays the beams of his chambers on the waters; he makes the clouds his chariot; he rides on the wings of the wind.” -Ps 104:3 “…to him who rides in the heavens, the ancient heavens…” -Psalm 68:33 “Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud.” -Is 19:1 “There is none like God, O Jeshurun, who rides through the heavens to your help, through the skies in his majesty.” -Dt 33:26. The concept is clear. And anyone who claims to “ride on the clouds” is claiming to do something only the God of Israel can do. No Biblically literate Jew could miss this, especially a high priest who knows the Hebrew Bible: “And Jesus said, ‘I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need? You have heard his blasphemy.” -Mk 14:62–64.

38

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YbI04WhH8I&list=PLVwt18wNX1gxPvhvZIF6wTUnKZ7zWtNRx W. Herrmann, “Baal,” ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden; Boston; Köln; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999), 136–137. 40 N. Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit, 2nd ed., Biblical Seminar, 53 (London; New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 95. 41 Ibid., 104. 39

95

At this point, many want to debate the meaning of the title “Son of Man” in this context. I don’t care. In fact, if “Son of Man” is referring here to Jesus’ humanity, that works even better, because then you have Jesus claiming humanity and divinity in the same statement. What we are focused on, is Jesus’ claim about riding the clouds. Michael Heiser says it well: “In what seems like a cryptic answer to a very clear question, Jesus quotes Daniel 7:13 to answer Caiaphas. The reaction is swift and unyielding. Caiaphas understood that Jesus was claiming to be the second Yahweh figure of Daniel 7:13—and that was an intolerable blasphemy. Jesus’ answer provides the high priest with the accusation he needs for a death sentence, but also gives us a clear testimony of Jesus as the final son of David, Yahweh incarnate, through whom Yahweh will reclaim the nations disinherited at Babel.” 42 But there is more. Notice Jesus’ statement: “…you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming…” -Mk 14:62. Notice the sequence: “seated…coming.” 43 Initially, the order of these verbs makes little sense. How does one take one’s seat and then “come with the clouds”? To put it bluntly, how does one travel in the ancient world while sitting down? The answer is clear if we remember the “charioteer of the clouds” motif, especially in the context of Ezekiel’s vision where he sees a chariot-throne that travels at God’s whim- anywhere, in any direction (Ezekiel 1). Jesus’ statement becomes increasingly clear. He will take his rightful seat in the divine chariot-throne and come on the clouds of heaven. It is difficult to imagine a more explicit divine claim in the context of the Hebrew Bible.

If Jesus is God, how can God die? The point of this short section is to encourage Christians to start from inside the Islamic framework when answering this question. Initially, this objection may take some Christians by surprise, not knowing how to answer. However, the presupposition of the question is deeply flawed and inconsistent. Namely, for Jesus only, Muslims are changing the definition of “death” to the “cessation of existence”. They seem to be asking, “how can God cease to exist?” since this is the only way a theological objection could be effectively raised. The problem is, this is not the definition of death for either Christians or Muslims. Ironically, the Quran provides some analogies: “And do not speak of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead; nay, (they are) alive, but you do not perceive.” -Surah 2:154. The same idea occurs in Surah 3:169: “And reckon not those who are killed in Allah's way as dead; nay, they are alive (and) are provided sustenance from their Lord.” 44 These verses show a Muslim, from within his or her own worldview, that death does not mean the cessation of existence. In Christian theology, Jesus’ death is much more significant. Jesus took on human nature for very specific purposes: 42

Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, First Edition. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 253. 43 I am grateful to Christopher Rowland for the observations that follow. See: Rowland, Christopher, and Christopher R. A. Morray-Jones. The Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament. Brill, 2009, 111. 44 These verses have been used by some classical Islamic commentators to explain how Jesus both did and didn’t die on the cross (i.e. he wasn’t actually “dead” because he was given life by Allah), c.f. Surah 4:157. Jesus’ death by crucifixion is obviously contrary to the modern, majority Sunni view.

96

Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. -Heb 2:14–15 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. -Mk 10:45 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known. -Jn 1:14–18

Additionally, the question, “If Jesus is God, how can God die?” indicates that Jesus not dying implies his divinity. Ironically, in the traditional Sunni interpretation of Surah 4:157, Jesus did not die on the cross but was simply raised to God.

Islam-The World’s Fastest Growing Religion? 45 Muslims love to claim that Islam is the world's fastest growing religion. This claim is nominally true, at least if you look at the right time period, but does this mean anything and will it last? This article investigates. From 2000-2015, Islam was the world's fastest growing religion, growing about 1.9% a year, compared to 1.2% a year for the world as a whole. 46 But if Islam is the world's fastest growing religion, does that mean it is true? Obviously not. For one, Christians still outnumber Muslims by a significant margin, so if we are just going by numbers it appears Christianity is still the most true religion. Second, growth rates vary over time. From 1970-2000, Daoism was the world's fastest growing religion by the same estimates. Does that make Daoism the true religion from 1970-2000? Third, growth and numbers are terrible indicators of truth. There was a time when everybody thought the world was flat, but the idea was no more true then than it is now. Communism went from essentially zero adherents in 1840 to controlling 1/3 of the world by 1985, experiencing far more rapid growth than Islam, or any other idea, has ever experienced, yet no one would argue that the growth proves its truth. Fourth, the growth rate of Islam is falling faster than the world growth rate, and is down from 2.8% a year from 1970-2000. Has Islam become less true because its growth rate has fallen? So, Islam being the world's fastest growing religion has no bearing on truth. Will Islam remain the world's fastest growing religion? There are four factors that impact a religion's membership – number of children born to adherents, number of deaths, conversions into the religion, and conversions out of it. Islam's growth is due entirely to the first two. Muslim women have a higher birth rate than average, and the population is younger on average so there 45 This section was contributed by Thaddeus at Reasoned Answers. See YouTube video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlduoSqkgV4 46 All population statistics come from the World Religion Database unless otherwise noted. (https://www.worldreligiondatabase.org/)

97

are currently less deaths. The latter is obviously not a permanent feature and the birth rate is falling rapidly as well. It may soon match the world average, negating any advantage Islam has in birth rate. As far as conversions go, Islam has a big apostasy problem. Well-known sheikh and Islamic teacher Bilal Philips explains that there is an pending avalanche, “a tsunami of apostasy on the brink of knocking over Islam.” 47 The data in countries with religious freedom agree. For example, in the United States 31% of children raised as Muslims abandon the faith as adults, more than double the apostasy rate for Christians. 48 And the story is similar in Europe and everywhere else with religious freedom. 49 But don't take my word for it, Mufti Menk says that Islam has the highest apostasy rate of any religion. 50 And he should know as he says he has studied the matter carefully. But the worst problem for Islam isn't apostasy, it is lack of converts. I looked at 20 years of survey data in the United States found just 20 out of over 20,000 people raised Christian had converted to Islam. Not 20%, or even 2%, but just 20 people or 0.1%. European data was very similar, around 0.1% of Christian children converted to Islam as adults. Influential Muslim scholar Yasir Qadhi agrees saying for everyone convert into Islam there are ten Muslims on the verge of apostasy. 51 Other Muslim leaders agree, lamenting on how nearly all “converts” never become active in Islam at all or leave within a few years. Why is this happening? Qadhi explains that factual, scholarly analysis about Islam is causing people doubts. He admits to having doubts himself when exposed to scholarly criticism. 52 Islam is the world's fastest growing religion, but it is also a house of cards that cannot stand up to scrutiny. Islam cannot survive without laws against apostasy, but don't take my word for it. Celebrity scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi explains: “If they had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment Islam would not exist today.” 53 The vast majority of the Muslim world leaves in homogeneous countries with little or no religious freedom and thus doesn't see significant apostasy, at least publicly. However, the Internet and brave voices like David Woods, Islam Critiqued, and Christian Prince are changing that. Muslim governments can no longer protect their citizens against information. Islam can't survive scrutiny and scrutiny is coming. By 2010, there were more than 10 million Muslim converts to Christianity and perhaps another 10 million or more who abandoned religion entirely. Sixty years ago, that number was essentially 47 Confused Muslims leaving Islam is on the RISE! | What is the Solution? - Dr Bilal Philips (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7pChq-3Qjs) 48 US apostasy rates based on survey data from General Social Survey (http://gss.norc.org/) 49 International apostasy rates based on survey data from International Social Survey Programme (https://www.gesis.org/issp/home/) 50 SALAMCast #7 Mufti Menk w/ M Hijab & Sh Abu Safiyyah (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgjn6w8ysnE) 51 Doubts about Islam - Guidance for Challenging Times ~ Dr. Yasir Qadhi (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL-SDO2k2w) 52 Yasir Qadhi Explains His 'Doubts' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drYvaxpejpI) 53 Yusuf al-Qaradawi: Killing Of Apostates Is Essential For Islam To Survive (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huMu8ihDlVA)

98

zero. 54 Indeed, there likely are more ex-Muslims currently living than in the rest of Islamic history combined. 55 And that number is growing at an increasing pace. The house of cards is beginning to fall. Even in Saudi Arabia, where apostasy is punishable by death and atheism is classified as terrorism, 5% of the the population, or more than 1 million people, now admits to being atheist. 56 Think change can't come quickly? Think again. The case of Indonesia is illustrative. Although Christian missionaries had been active for decades, few Muslims had converted prior to 1965. Then something dramatic happened. In September 1965, communists attempted to overthrow the government. The attempt failed, but led to widespread civil unrest. Members of the Muslim majority seized the opportunity to crackdown on their enemies, leading to the death of an estimate one million people. However, seeing the violence allowed by Islam, an estimated 2 million Muslims converted to Christianity over the next 6 years. The majority indicated the violence was a significant reason for their apostasy. 57 Indonesia has continued to see significant apostasy since then and is now home to the majority of the world's ex-Muslims. Could something similar be happening today? We don't yet have much hard data, but anecdotally Christian churches have reported a huge surge of interest across Northern Africa and the Middle East in the aftermath of ISIS. When people see the true colors of Islam, they don't like it and leave. At some point, a sufficiently large percentage of Muslims will be secret ex-Muslims and the governments will no longer be able to suppress their voice. And once religious freedom arrives, Islam cannot survive. Losing 20-30% of your children to conversion while attracting far less than 1% of other religion's children is a recipe for disaster. Soon, Islam will no longer be the world's fastest growing religion, but rather the world's fastest shrinking religion. And the world will be a better place for it.

Introduction to Trinitarian Theology58 This section provides a (hopefully) helpful way to introduce Muslims to the topic of the Trinity. In this section I will avoid responding to childish objections such as “1+1+1=1?”since I see no reason why the nature of God should be limited to preschool math. In this section “LORD” in all caps is synonymous with the divine name, YHWH. I use them interchangeably. Finally, it must be remembered that “angel” in the Hebrew Bible does not describe a being’s ontology. Rather, it is

54 "Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background: A Global Census" in Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion Volume 11 (2015) 55 A Wind In The House Of Islam: How God Is Drawing Muslims Around The World To Faith In Jesus Christ by David Garrison 56 "Global Index of Religion and Atheism" survey by WIN/Gallup and redc (https://www.scribd.com/document/103151098/RED-C-Press-Release-Religion-and-Atheism-25-7-12) 57 Indonesian Revival: Why Two Million Came to Christ by Avery T. Willis Jr. 58 The Bible Project has produced a video that may be helpful to some: https://youtu.be/eAvYmE2YYIU

99

a description of a role that the being is performing. “Angels” can be human or supernatural beings. 59 A helpful starting point when dialoging with Muslims about Trinitarian theology may be to suggest that the nature of God is not limited by categories of space, time and personhood like ours. I believe this starting point is a superior conception of God since we are not limiting God to what we know from our human experience, as unitarian theologians do. There are numerous accounts in the Hebrew Bible that help us see the “fluidity” and “overlap” 60 of God’s divine nature. I will present some select, condensed, pericopes from the Old Testament that show God’s identity present in more than one person. These texts give us the raw data for what systematic theologians later put together using modern “trinitarian” theological terms. Genesis 16:7-13 provides a very interesting account where the “angel of the Lord” is conflated with YHWY. Clearly the divine identity is shared between the two: The angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, the spring on the way to Shur. 8 And he said, “Hagar, servant of Sarai, where have you come from and where are you going?” She said, “I am fleeing from my mistress Sarai.” 9 The angel of the LORD said to her, “Return to your mistress and submit to her.” 10 The angel of the LORD also said to her, “I will surely multiply your offspring so that they cannot be numbered for multitude.” 11 And the angel of the LORD said to her, “Behold, you are pregnant and shall bear a son. You shall call his name Ishmael, because the LORD has listened to your affliction. 12He shall be a wild donkey of a man, his hand against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen.” 13 So she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, “You are a God of seeing,” for she said, “Truly here I have seen him who looks after me.”

Genesis 48:14–16 gives us another example. The verb “to bless” (v.16) is singular, but the antecedents are plural: “And Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on the head of Ephraim, who was the younger, and his left hand on the head of Manasseh, crossing his hands (for Manasseh was the firstborn). 15 And he blessed Joseph and said: ‘The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day, the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the boys; and in them let my name be carried on, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.’” 61

Gen 19:24 provides another interesting example: “Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven.” 59

The Hebrew word for “angel” is “‫”מלאך‬. An excellent example of the versatility of this word is in Gen 32:1–3, where God has “angels” (v.1) as well as Jacob (v.3), translated “messengers” in the latter case. For another fascinating example, see Zechariah 1:7–15. 60 These terms are borrowed from Sommer. See: Sommer, B. (2009). The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 61 I have altered the formatting of the three stanza poem to highlight the parallel, “The God…the God…the angel.”

100

That is not a typo. Something very similar is repeated in Amos 4:11: “I overthrew some of you, as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and you were as a brand plucked out of the burning; yet you did not return to me,” declares the LORD.

In Amos 4:11, the “LORD” is declaring how “God” overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, recalling Genesis 19:24 where YWHW rained down fire from YHWH. Clearly the nature of God is more complex than Unitarians believe. Exodus 3:1-6 gives us the “angel of the LORD” as well as “God” in the midst of the burning bush. These appear distinct from each other in some way, and from YHWH, who saw that Moses turned aside to see the fire. Yet they are not entirely distinct, because the author makes no attempt to separate them. To top it all off, Moses was “afraid to look at God.” YHWY then begins to speak in verse 7, cf. “God” speaking in verse 4. “Now Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Midian, and he led his flock to the west side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 And the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. He looked, and behold, the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed. 3 And Moses said, “I will turn aside to see this great sight, why the bush is not burned.” 4 When the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.” 5 Then he said, “Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.” 6 And he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God. 7Then the Lord said…”

Exodus 23:20–22 explicitly says the “angel” embodies the divine presence and has the power to forgive sins: “Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. 21 Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him. 22 “But if you carefully obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries.”

Michael Heiser offers a helpful summary: There’s something strange about God’s description to Moses that tells us that this is no ordinary angel. This angel has the authority to pardon sins or not, a status that belongs to God. More specifically, God tells Moses that the reason this angel has this authority is “my name is in him” (v. 21). What does this curious phrase mean? Moses knew instantly. Anyone thinking of the burning bush account does as well. When God told Moses that his name was in this angel, he was saying that he was in this angel—his very presence or essence. The I AM of the burning bush would accompany Moses and the Israelites to the promised land and fight for them. Only he could defeat the gods of the nations and the descendants of the Nephilim whom Moses and Joshua would find there.

101

Other passages confirm that this reading is correct. This angel is Yahweh. Perhaps the easiest way to demonstrate this is to compare Old Testament passages about who it was that brought Israel out of Egypt and into the promised land. 62

Accounts of the Exodus further exchange the terms angel of the LORD and YHWH: Deut 4:37–38: “And because he loved your fathers and chose their offspring after them and brought you out of Egypt with his own presence, by his great power…” Lev 11:45: “For I am the LORD who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God.” Num 15:41: “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God: I am the LORD your God.” Jdg 2:1: Now the angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bochim. And he said, “I brought you up from Egypt and brought you into the land that I swore to give to your fathers.

The Spirit of God is mentioned relative to the Exodus as well. Compare Is 63:10: But they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit; therefore he turned to be their enemy, and himself fought against them. …with Psalm 78:40: How often they rebelled against him in the wilderness and grieved him in the desert!

The Spirit is further seen in Ezekiel: Ezekiel 3:12: Then the Spirit lifted me up, and I heard behind me the voice of a great earthquake: “Blessed be the glory of the LORD from its place!” Ezekiel 8:2–3: Then I looked, and behold, a form that had the appearance of a man. Below what appeared to be his waist was fire, and above his waist was something like the appearance of brightness, like gleaming metal. 3 He put out the form of a hand and took me by a lock of my head, and the Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven and brought me in visions of God to Jerusalem… Ezekiel 11:1: The Spirit lifted me up and brought me to the east gate of the house of the LORD, which faces east.

These examples demonstrate the thesis of Trinitarian theology. Namely, that God’s nature is not limited to a single person as unitarians believe. Christian, trinitarian theology has ancient roots that go right back to the Hebrew Bible, as now acknowledged even by some leading Jewish scholars. 63

62

Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, First Edition. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 143. 63 See here: https://youtu.be/NtSm-InTLoA?t=18487

102

Authorship and Dating of the Gospels: Intro 64 Welcome to this section on the Gospels. Information in the following sections discuss dates, authorship and historical attestation for each of the four, Matthew - John. We will begin this section with an introduction and then follow it up with four more sections, one for each gospel. We start with a discussion of the early unity of the Gospels. “Until recently, most scholars tacitly assumed that the four gospels first circulated anonymously and that the present titles were first attached to them about A.D. 125. There is little evidence to support this date as the decisive turning point; it is little more than an educated guess...Now, however, this consensus has been vigorously challenged by Martin Hengel.” -Carson, D. A., & Moo, D. J. (2005). An Introduction to the New Testament (Second Edition, p. 140). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. So what are Hengel’s objections to this theory? Hengel is not happy with the date. AD 125 is not nearly early enough. Hegel begins by saying: “Let me quote Rudolf Pesch, at the beginning of his large two-volume commentary on Mark, as a representative of numerous more recent commentaries: ‘All the inscriptiones and subscriptiones in the Gospel manuscripts are late.’ The author thinks that this one sentence settles the matter—giving no further reasons for his view.” -Hengel, M. (1985). Studies in the Gospel of Mark. (J. Bowden, Trans.) (p. 64). London: SCM Press Ltd. That sounds like a lot of modern critics, doesn’t it? Hengel is going to draw our attention to the importance of the titles of the Gospels, and the probability that they would be circulated without a title for so long, as is often speculated. First let us look at the interpretation of the titles: “Compared with the usual title of a book in antiquity, εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μαθθαῖον sounds quite unusual. As a rule, the author would come first, in the genitive, followed by the title indicating the content: Πλουτάρχου βίοι παράλληλοι or Φιλοστράτου βίοι σοφιστῶν.” -Hengel, M. (1985). Studies in the Gospel of Mark. (J. Bowden, Trans.) (p. 65). London: SCM Press Ltd. “We cannot, therefore, see the preposition κατά [according to] with the accusative as a simple periphrasis for the genetivus auctoris, which is W.Bauer’s view; the concern was in fact to avoid the genitive. Instead, the striking form of the title was used to express the fact that here the gospel was narrated in the particular version of the evangelist in question.” Hengel, M. (1985). Studies in the Gospel of Mark. (J. Bowden, Trans.) (p. 65). London: SCM Press Ltd. Hengel gets technical, but stick with it: “What is questionable, however, is their argument that the shorter form is original, and their association of the introduction of the title with a fixing of the canon of the four Gospels in 64

See video here: https://youtu.be/fq-FIIoXWLc

103

the first half of the second century.” -Hengel, M. (1985). Studies in the Gospel of Mark. (J. Bowden, Trans.) (p. 66). London: SCM Press Ltd. Two things Hengel wants to call into question- the shorter form, and the late date in the second century. “The title εὐαγγέλιον referred, rather, to the whole canon of the four Gospels.” -Hengel, M. (1985). Studies in the Gospel of Mark. (J. Bowden, Trans.) (p. 65). London: SCM Press Ltd. What does this mean? Early attestation to their unity: “Zahn observes: ‘The title can have arisen only in the light of the fact that the four books belong together, i.e. at or soon after their being brought together.’” -Hengel, M. (1985). Studies in the Gospel of Mark. (J. Bowden, Trans.) (p. 65). London: SCM Press Ltd. “Harnack also defines the significance of the title clearly, with explicit reference to Zahn: ‘εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μάρκον etc. is not to be translated…“the Gospel writing according to the tradition which derives from Mark”, but the (namely the one) Gospel according to Mark’s account.’” -Hengel, M. (1985). Studies in the Gospel of Mark. (J. Bowden, Trans.) (p. 65). London: SCM Press Ltd. We have early manuscript evidence of this as well: “...on a page from P 4, 64 and 67, which belong together, with fragments from Matthew and Luke. This has the inscription ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΘΘΑΙΟΝ. Presumably this is the title page of a codex. Roberts dates this papyrus as early as the second century. The long form is also supported by the Old Latin translation, which presumably came into being in the last quarter of the second century, and by the Coptic versions. The procession of witnesses is brought up in the rear with the agreement in terminology between Irenaeus in Lyons and, a little later, Clement of Alexandria, the Muratorian Canon in Rome and Tertullian in Carthage. What is striking here is the complete unanimity over the four titles of the Gospels in a distribution extending throughout the whole of the Roman Empire towards the end of the second century, from Lyons to Carthage and as far as the Egyptian Chora.” -Hengel, M. (1985). Studies in the Gospel of Mark. (J. Bowden, Trans.) (p. 66). London: SCM Press Ltd. Martin’s conclusion? “This unanimity of testimony to the titles of the Gospels, for which there are still no variants of any kind in this early period, rules out a late origin from the middle of the second century.” -Hengel, M. (1985). Studies in the Gospel of Mark. (J. Bowden, Trans.) (p. 66). London: SCM Press Ltd. Hengel lays out his case for the importance of titles in practical use next, but let’s stop by Tertullian first because we have ancient witnesses giving us evidence about the importance of titles in antiquity. Writing in the early 200’s Tertullian says:

104

“And here I might now make a stand, and contend that a work ought not to be recognised, which holds not its head erect, which exhibits no consistency, which gives no promise of credibility from the fulness of its title and the just profession of its author.” -Tertullian [2nd3rd Cent]. (1885). The Five Books against Marcion. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), P. Holmes (Trans.), Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (Vol. 3, p. 347). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company. Back to Hengel observes: “It is extremely improbable that the Gospels were circulated in the communities and used in worship as writings without titles. Particularly if a new work was read in worship, there had to be an announcement of the kind of writing it was...At the latest when communities had two different copies of the Gospels, titles had to be used to distinguish them, in order to avoid confusion. Where the author was well known to the community, a verbal reference would have been enough, but as soon as his work was copied, sent to other communities and put in an archive there, a title was absolutely necessary to distinguish it from other works.” -Hengel, M. (1985). Studies in the Gospel of Mark. (J. Bowden, Trans.) (p. 81). London: SCM Press Ltd. “If, as is usually argued today, the earliest Gospels were anonymous or lacked titles, because of the pressing need to distinguish them in community libraries a variation of titles would have inevitably arisen, whereas in the case of the canonical Gospels (in contrast to that of countless apocryphal writings) we can detect nothing of this.” -Hengel, M. (1985). Studies in the Gospel of Mark. (J. Bowden, Trans.) (p. 82). London: SCM Press Ltd. Hegel asserts Markan priority where he believes the title “gospel” was drawn, remember how Mark’s prologue begins? This helps him narrow down his dates: “...it must be asserted that in the present state of our knowledge the titles of the Gospels are by no means late products from the second century but must be very old. With a considerable degree of probability they can be traced back to the time of the origin of the four Gospels between 69 and 100 and are connected with their circulation in the communities. Their ultimate root lies in the terminology of Mark, who was the first to call a writing εὐαγγέλιον. -Hengel, M. (1985). Studies in the Gospel of Mark. (J. Bowden, Trans.) (p. 84). London: SCM Press Ltd. Moo and Carson conclude: “...we have no evidence that these gospels ever circulated without an appropriate designation, κατὰ μαθθαῖον...or the like.” -Carson, D. A., & Moo, D. J. (2005). An Introduction to the New Testament (Second Edition, p. 140). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Moving ahead on the timeline a bit: Irenaeus lived from about 130-200 AD and is an important early witness to the 4 Gospels: “It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the 105

Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh.” -Irenaeus of Lyons. (1885). Irenæus against Heresies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 428). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company. Or again, “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.” -Irenaeus of Lyons. (1885). Irenæus against Heresies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 414). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company. Tertullian (160-225 AD): “We lay it down as our first position, that the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors to whom was assigned by the Lord Himself this office of publishing the gospel...Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith into us; whilst of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards.” -Tertullian. (1885). The Five Books against Marcion. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), P. Holmes (Trans.), Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (Vol. 3, p. 347). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company. One more before we conclude from Origen, whose comments are preserved through Eusebius: “In his first book on Matthew’s Gospel, maintaining the Canon of the Church, he [Origen] testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing as follows: “Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I [Origen] have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter...And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.” -Eusebius of Caesaria. (1890). The Church History of Eusebius. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), A. C. McGiffert (Trans.), Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine (Vol. 1, p. 273). New York: Christian Literature Company. Conclusions: Very early (before 100 AD) attestation to the unity (canon) of the four gospels Implausible that the gospel accounts would have circulated without a title No evidence that the gospels ever circulated without an appropriate designation Attestations of the church fathers to the fourfold Gospel

106

We’ll wrap this section up with a rather suggestive statement by FF Bruce: “It is noteworthy that, while the four canonical Gospels could afford to be published anonymously, the apocryphal Gospels which began to appear from the mid-second century onwards claimed (falsely) to be written by apostles or other persons associated with the Lord.” F.F. Bruce; Quoted from Carson, D. A. (1991). The Gospel according to John (p. 68). Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans

Authorship and Dating of the Gospels: Matthew65 In our last section which served as our introduction we discussed some of Martin Hengel’s work arguing that the four gospels were “canonized” prior to 100 AD. Ulrich Luz agrees with this date as he cites Hengel’s work in his own commentary on Matthew: “Thus the Gospel was probably attributed to Matthew the apostle earlier than 100 CE. That leaves little time for ascribing to the apostle an originally anonymous book or a book that came from an unknown Jewish Christian named Matthew.” -Luz, U. (2007). Matthew 1–7: a commentary on Matthew 1–7. (H. Koester, Ed.) (Rev. ed., p. 59). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. Drawing from Hengel’s work as well, Douglas Moo and DA Carson conclude: “In short, the argument that Matthew was understood to be the author of the first gospel long before Papias wrote his difficult words affirming such a connection seems very strong, even if not unassailable.” -Carson, D. A., & Moo, D. J. (2005). An Introduction to the New Testament (Second Edition, p. 142). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.” Leon Morris points to the oldest preserved manuscripts which attest to Matthean authorship:

“Now none of the oldest MSS of this Gospel has been preserved with the title page intact, but from the earliest ones that do have it onward the book is invariably ascribed to Matthew. This point is of greater weight than is usually recognized. We must face the fact that throughout antiquity it is accepted that Matthew wrote this Gospel and that there is no other name in the tradition.” -Morris, L. (1992). The Gospel according to Matthew (p. 14). Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press. Just as an example to those who are curious: http://www.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_01?OSIS=Matt.1.1 So what’s the debate among scholars? It seems straightforward. Let’s talk about some relevant issues. Was Matthew’s Gospel originally written in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic? This question comes from a quote by Papias (PAY-pias) that is extremely difficult to translate. We will not

65

https://youtu.be/yyHAroLe-aw

107

reproduce that difficulty here. We’ll simply quote a possible interpretation as recieved by Eusebius: “So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew [Aramaic] language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.” -Eusebius of Caesaria. (1890). The Church History of Eusebius. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), A. C. McGiffert (Trans.), Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine (Vol. 1, p. 173). New York: Christian Literature Company. Nearly every word in this quotation is ambiguous. What are the oracles? What is the reference to Heb (or Aramaic)? Does this mean language or style? In what way were the oracles interpreted? First let’s asses the evidence regarding Matthew writing original in Hebrew or Aramaic:

The mix of text forms in Matthew’s Gospel suggest writing in Greek but with knowledge of Semitic languages. Detailed verbal connections between Matthew and Mark Matthew does not read like a translation from a Semitic language to Greek -Carson, D. A., & Moo, D. J. (2005). An Introduction to the New Testament (Second Edition, pp. 143-144). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. As I said, Papias’ words regarding the Gospel’s language are difficult to translate, but early church history is unanimous in authorship of the gospel as RT France notes: “Patristic tradition is unanimous that the author was Matthew, and no other ‘Matthew’ is suggested than the disciple of that name whose call is described in [Matthew] 9:9.” -France, R. T. (1985). Matthew: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 1, p. 33). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

And possibly following Papias’ tradition, the church fathers are unanimous on language as well:

“Without exception, they [church fathers] held that the apostle Matthew wrote canonical Matthew and that it was first written in Semitic. That is true, for instance, of Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, quoted in Eusebius, H.E. 5.8.2), Tertullian (Adv. Marc., 4.2), Origen (quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 6.25.3–6), Eusebius himself (H.E. 3.24.5–6), and Jerome (De vir. ill. 3).” Carson, D. A., & Moo, D. J. (2005). An Introduction to the New Testament (Second Edition, p. 145). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. “In short, the evidence leads to a difficult conclusion...we are gently nudged to the conclusion that Papias was wrong when he claimed that Matthew was first written in

108

Aramaic.” -Carson, D. A., & Moo, D. J. (2005). An Introduction to the New Testament (Second Edition, p. 146). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. How could Papias have been mistaken about Matthew’s language, if indeed we are even understanding his words correctly? He could have made the assumption because:

Natural conclusion since Jesus’ ministry was among the Hebrews Had little knowledge of the popularity of Greek in 1st century Palestine Confused with other Hebrew writings in circulation -Carson, D. A., & Moo, D. J. (2005). An Introduction to the New Testament (Second Edition, p. 147). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

However, Gundry offers a thorough critique of this interpretation of Papias and concludes: “A Hebrew dialect,” then, does not imply that Matthew wrote in the Aramaic language. In other connections we should expect the conjunction of “Hebrew” and “dialect” to form a linguistic reference. But the stylistic contrast between Mark and Matthew cancels such an expectation here.” -Gundry, R. H. (1994). Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution (Second Edition, p. 619). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. And yet another perspective is that: “All these passages suggest that the Greek version of Matthew was earlier translated back from Greek into Aramaic. This back-translation was represented by Jewish Christians, however, as the original form of Matthew.” -Haenchen, E., Funk, R. W., & Busse, U. (1984). John: a commentary on the Gospel of John (p. 12). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Clearly difficulties remain in understanding Papias’ reference to language. What about his assertion of Matthean authorship? At this point, internal evidence from Matthew’s Gospel is generally referenced in tandem to ascertain the author. So let’s look at some internal evidence:

“From the characteristics of the Gospel noted above we may reasonably infer that its author was a Jewish Christian, with an extensive knowledge of and a strong interest in the Old Testament, familiar with scribal traditions and with the methods of Rabbinic debate, and capable of writing in good Greek, even though his own cultural background was clearly Semitic. Many of Jesus’ early disciples, known to us and unknown, could fit this description, given the increasing recognition that Greek was widely used in first-century Palestine, particularly in ‘Galilee of the Gentiles’. Undoubtedly Matthew would be likely to fit 109

the description, but is there any reason for seeing him as a more likely candidate than others?” -France, R. T. (1985). Matthew: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 1, p. 35). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. France summarizes the clues from internal evidence as follows: Fluent in Greek (as a tax collector) Literate (including notes on Jesus’ teaching?) Record Keeper Well educated Self-portrait (Matt 13:52?) Numerous references to tax-collectors/financial affairs in the Gospel

Leon Morris lists some of the latter: “He [Matthew] uses the general word for money, nomisma, and the words for “gold” 5 times, “silver” 10 times (two words), and “talent” 14 times, a total of 29, whereas Mark refers to “silver” once and Luke has it 4 times; they have none of the other words for big currency.” -Morris, L. (1992). The Gospel according to Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press. This would make sense if the writer of the Gospel was a publican, as Matthew, named in the Gospel, was: “As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him.” -Mt 9:9 Origen is relevant here: “Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I [Origen] have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican...” -Eusebius of Caesaria. (1890). The Church History of Eusebius. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), A. C. McGiffert (Trans.), Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine (Vol. 1, p. 273). New York: Christian Literature Company. R.T. France then gives a summation of his perspective as a critical scholar: “We may safely say that the unanimous tradition of the early church, however uncertain its origin, offers us a candidate who on other grounds is likely to have been the sort of person indicated by the character of the Gospel...So in the end we simply do not know the extent of the role of the apostle Matthew in the composition of the First Gospel, but the tradition of the early church encourages us to believe that it was a major one.” -France, R. T. (1985). Matthew: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 1, p. 37). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

110

I think it’s important to acknowledge at this point that some say the church fathers have been virtually ignored on this topic. So let’s summarize some more of that data: Irenaeus of Lyons- 130-200 AD: “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect...” -Irenaeus of Lyons. (1885). Irenæus against Heresies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 414). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company. We have very early attestation to Matthew’s Gospel as an authoritative source by Ignatius who lived from 35-108 AD. Hengel of course and many others have noted this: “Ignatius certainly knows the Gospel of Matthew...” -Hengel, M. (1985). Studies in the Gospel of Mark. (J. Bowden, Trans.) (p. 71). London: SCM Press Ltd. In a footnote he then lists several parallels which are contained in a short but dense quotation of Ignatius: “Son of God (Matthew 3:17) according to the will and power of God (Matthew 3:17), truly born of a virgin (Matthew 1:23), baptized by John (Matthew 3:13) that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him (Matthew 3:15)...” -Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 1:1b, Schoedel, W. R., Ignatius, S., Bishop of Antioch, & Koester, H. (1985). Ignatius of Antioch: a commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch (p. 220). Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Lastly, before we move on to dating, I like Lean Morris’ rational approach: “Matthew was not, as far as our information goes, especially prominent either among the Twelve or in the early church. Accordingly, there seems to be no reason for assigning to him such an important writing unless in fact he wrote it.” -Morris, L. (1992). The Gospel according to Matthew (p. 13). Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; InterVarsity Press. Matthew: Date Ignatius’ very early quotations of Matthew put an upper limit on the time of the gospel’s publication. And many scholars will push this limit because of certain presuppositions such as: Markan priority Apparent anachronisms (i.e. Matt 22:7; Matt 16:18) Tensions between Jews and Christians (circa 85AD) These are all open to numerous criticisms. For an earlier date, scholars will cite evidence like:

111

Traditional view of Matthean authorship (making prior to AD 70 more plausible) Matthew’s independence of Paul’s writings Matthew mentions the Sadducees 6 times Matthew’s preoccupation with Jerusalem Matthew’s phrasing of the flight from Jerusalem (Matt 24:20) Matthew’s reference to, “a gift at the altar” (Matt 5:23-24) Matthew uses the present tense when Jesus describes the temple as a den of robbers (Matt 21:13) Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple...’ (Matt 23:16) Matthew’s focus (Matt 23:34) on Jewish persecution of Christians (instead of Roman)

For some, like Gundry, the question is not before or after AD70, but: “How much earlier than A.D. 70 did Matthew write his gospel?” -Gundry, R. H. (1994). Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution (Second Edition, p. 606). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. He offers a correction to modern scholars in concluding his learned analysis: “Many recent sociological studies of Matthew are flawed by the unargued assumption that Matthew wrote after A.D. 70. Further such studies should reposition Matthew before A.D. 70.” -Gundry, R. H. (1994). Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution (Second Edition). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. So where does that leave us with authorship and date of Matthew’s Gospel? While it will no doubt continue to be debated, we do have:

Internal evidence in the Gospel that matches Matthew’s description Highly unlikely Matthew was originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic Improbable that the Gospel could have been renamed (from another author) and distributed so quickly The book is universally ascribed to Matthew in ancient tradition No indication that the Gospel ever circulated without an appropriate title Prior to AD 70 is most plausible

Authorship and Dating of the Gospels: Mark 66 If you’ll remember from our introduction to this topic, we heard from Martin Hengel: “...it must be asserted that in the present state of our knowledge the titles of the Gospels are by no means late products from the second century but must be very old. With a considerable degree of probability they can be traced back to the time of the origin of the four Gospels 66

https://youtu.be/6akM1S4udBA

112

between 69 and 100 and are connected with their circulation in the communities. Their ultimate root lies in the terminology of Mark, who was the first to call a writing εὐαγγέλιον. -Hengel, M. (1985). Studies in the Gospel of Mark. (J. Bowden, Trans.) (p. 84). London: SCM Press Ltd.

We’re going to hear a lot from Doug Moo and DA Carson throughout this series because their work on this is very recent and they do a good job of engaging with prior published work. So let’s start by reviewing what we talked about in the introduction video, along with what we just hear from Hengel: “...we have no evidence that these gospels ever circulated without an appropriate designation, κατὰ μαθθαῖον...or the like.” -Carson, D. A., & Moo, D. J. (2005). An Introduction to the New Testament (Second Edition, p. 140). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Papias has been passed down to us through Eusebius: “It is in the following words: ‘This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.’” -Eusebius of Caesaria. (1890). The Church History of Eusebius. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), A. C. McGiffert (Trans.), Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine (Vol. 1, pp. 172–173). New York: Christian Literature Company. Regarding the identity of the “presbyter” at the beginning of Papias’ quote: “The importance of these claims is magnified when we realize that the presbyter Papias is quoting is the presbyter John, probably the apostle John himself. If Papias is to be trusted, the identification of Mark as the author of the second gospel goes back to the first generation of Christians.” -Carson, D. A., & Moo, D. J. (2005). An Introduction to the New Testament (Second Edition, p. 173). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Irenaeus states: “Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: ‘The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, which shall prepare Thy way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make the paths straight before our God.’ Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom they confessed as God and Lord.” -Irenaeus of Lyons. (1885). Irenæus against Heresies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The

113

Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 425). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company. Justin gives us an early reference to Mark’s Gospel, chapter 3: “...He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter [Mark 3.16]; and...it is written in the memoirs of him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee [Mark 3:17]...” -Justin Martyr. (1885). Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, a Jew. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 252). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company. Tertullian says: “The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage—I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew—whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was...” -Tertullian. (1885). The Five Books against Marcion. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), P. Holmes (Trans.), Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (Vol. 3, p. 350). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company. And from Origen via Eusebius: “The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter...” -Eusebius of Caesaria. (1890). The Church History of Eusebius. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), A. C. McGiffert (Trans.), Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine (Vol. 1, p. 273). New York: Christian Literature Company. Finally from Clement, via Eusebius: “Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner: The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.” -Eusebius of Caesaria. (1890). The Church History of Eusebius. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), A. C. McGiffert (Trans.), Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine (Vol. 1, p. 261). New York: Christian Literature Company. We’ve seen over and over again the connection between Mark and the apostle Peter. It’s important to note if the early Christians wanted to assign names to the gospels at will, Peter would have been the most likely candidate. He was an apostle and an eye witness. It makes no sense to attribute Mark’s gospel to Mark instead of Peter unless Mark actually wrote the gospel. And regarding the connection of the Mark mentioned by the church fathers and the Mark of the Gospel: 114

“That they refer to the (John) Mark mentioned in Acts (12:12, 25; 13:5, 13; 15:37) and in four New Testament epistles (Col. 4:10; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. 4:11; 1 Peter 5:13) is almost certain. No other early Christian Mark would have been so well known as to be mentioned without further description...Paul mentions Mark’s presence with him during his Roman imprisonment (Philem. 24; Col. 4:10). Peter, writing from Rome, also mentions that Mark was with him, calling him his son (1 Pet. 5:13), perhaps implying that Mark had been converted through his ministry.” -Carson, D. A., & Moo, D. J. (2005). An Introduction to the New Testament (Second Edition, p. 174-175). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Moo and Carson conclude: “Yet as we have seen, there is nothing in the New Testament that is inconsistent with Papias’s claim that Mark wrote the second gospel. And since we have no indication that anyone in the early church contested Papias’s claim, we see no reason not to accept it.” -Carson, D. A., & Moo, D. J. (2005). An Introduction to the New Testament (Second Edition, pp. 175–176). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. With respect to Peter’s influence on Mark, there is even more internal evidence in the Gospel that suggests the same: “While found in all four gospels, the picture of the disciples as cowardly, spiritually blind, and hard of heart is particularly vivid in Mark. This, it is held, points to an apostolic viewpoint, for only an apostle would have been able to criticize the Twelve so harshly.” -Carson, D. A., & Moo, D. J. (2005). An Introduction to the New Testament (Second Edition, pp. 176). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Moo and Carson suggest 3 other more specific factors that we’ll briefly note before we move on to the topic of dating: •

Peter figures prominently in Mark

•

(Citing C.H. Dodd) Pattern of the Gospel similar to Peter’s words in Acts 10:36–41

•

Called “my son” in 1 Pet. 5:13

While this series is focused on Authorship and dating, it may be interesting for some viewers if we talk briefly about Peter’s role as an eyewitness in Mark’s account. With respect to the namings of Peter in Mark’s gospel, Bauckham says: “After Jesus, Peter is much the most frequently named character in the Gospel [of Mark]. The point can be highlighted by observing that, although Peter is a prominent character in all four Gospels, the frequency of references to him in Mark is (in proportion to the length of the Gospel) the highest.” -Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses in the Gospel of Mark, p.20 He also helpfully notes an inclusio: 115

“Peter is both the first disciple of Jesus to be named in Mark’s Gospel and also the last. In 1:16, the first reference, the occurrence of his name Simon is emphasized by a grammatically unnecessary repetition of it...The last reference to Peter, after one might have thought Peter had dropped completely out of the narrative, is in the penultimate verse of the Gospel, where the angel tells the women: ‘go and tell his disciples and Peter’...” -Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses in the Gospel of Mark, pp.20-21 Bauckham goes beyond simply noting the emphasis on Peter in the Gospel, he argues that this is an indication that the main eyewitness behind Mark's Gospel is Peter. Regarding the inclusion we just saw, he says: “What the inclusio does is to confirm that Peter’s pervasive presence throughout the narrative extends from the beginning to the end, making Peter’s witness the overarching one for virtually the whole Gospel narrative.” -Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses in the Gospel of Mark, p. 21 Bauckham notes a parallel between this and the writings of the ancient Greek historian Polybius: “So the pattern of reference in this account of Scipio- an inclusio along with the frequent reference within the narrative - forms a close parallel with the pattern of reference to Peter in Mark’s Gospel. In Polybius’s case he also makes it explicit that Laelius was his principal eyewitness source.” -Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses in the Gospel of Mark, p. 29 Bauckham says: “I argue in the book that in the early church there was a principle of eyewitness testimony ‘from the beginning’ (stated in Luke, Acts and John), i.e. that the most important testimony was that of disciples who had been with Jesus from the earliest days of his ministry and could testify to the whole course of events up to and including the resurrection appearances. The references to Peter in the Gospel of Mark clearly put him into that category.” -Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses in the Gospel of Mark, p. 22

Mark: Date

Blomberg, along with numerous other scholars, puts Mark’s gospel in the mid 60’s: “It is also important to observe that Irenaeus claims only that the transmission of the Gospel occurred after Peter’s death, not necessarily its composition. But if Mark wrote during Peter’s lifetime, and if the early church tradition can be trusted that Peter was martyred under Nero before A.D. 68, then Mark must have composed his Gospel at some still earlier date (perhaps 64–65, when Nero’s persecution was beginning).” -Blomberg, C. L. (1997). Jesus and the Gospels : an introduction and survey (p. 122). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers. 116

The events Blomberg refers to are captured in Irenaeus’ statement: “After their [Peter and Paul] departure [death], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.” -Irenaeus of Lyons. (1885). Irenæus against Heresies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 414). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company. However Clement says via Eusebius: “And Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome itself, as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure, Babylon...” -Eusebius of Caesaria. (1890). The Church History of Eusebius. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), A. C. McGiffert (Trans.), Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine (Vol. 1, p. 116). New York: Christian Literature Company. ...referring to Peter’s first Epistle. Now this would push the date of Mark’s Gospel back into the 50’s. Some, like John A.T. Robinson, have even suggested dating the Gospel as early as the mid 40’s. In fact, we have scholars who have advanced arguments for every decade from the 40’s to the 70’s. I’ll just list some of these names and note the majority view, safe to say:

40’s: C. C. Torrey; José O’Callaghan; J. W. Wenham; P.M. Casey; Crossley 50’s: Adolf von Harnack; C. S. Mann 60’s (majority): C. Cranfield; Hugh Anderson; James R. Edwards; Hengel; Collins 70’s: Zeichmann; Kummel; Incigneri

Though opinions vary widely, perhaps many would be comfortable ending where we started, with Blomberg’s happy medium: “A date of somewhere in the 60s is probably our safest guess, without trying to narrow things down any more than that.” -Blomberg, C. L. (1997). Jesus and the Gospels : an introduction and survey (p. 123). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers. In summary: • • • • • •

Improbable that the Gospel could have been renamed (from another author) and distributed so quickly The book is universally ascribed to Mark in ancient tradition Implausible to assign authorship illegitimately to a non-Apostle No indication that the Gospel ever circulated without an appropriate title Numerous connections between Mark and Peter are attested both in the NT and extraBiblical tradition Indications of Peter’s (eye-witness) influence in the Gospel

117

•

Plausibly written in the 60’s, though substantial arguments for earlier dates have been advanced

Authorship and Dating of the Gospels: Luke 67 If you’ll remember from our introduction to this topic, we heard from Hengel: “...it must be asserted that in the present state of our knowledge the titles of the Gospels are by no means late products from the second century but must be very old. With a considerable degree of probability they can be traced back to the time of the origin of the four Gospels between 69 and 100 and are connected with their circulation in the communities.” -Hengel, M. (1985). Studies in the Gospel of Mark. (J. Bowden, Trans.) (p. 84). London: SCM Press Ltd. Martin Dibelius agrees and turns our attention specifically to Luke and Acts: “Both writings, Gospel and Acts, were offered to the literary reading public from the very beginning under the name of Luke as author.” -M. Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, p.89. Cited from: Carson, D. A., & Moo, D. J. (2005). An Introduction to the New Testament (Second Edition). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, p.205. He also explains that since Luke’s Gospel, as well as Acts, both contain the names of the addressee, the name of the author could hardly be omitted from the title. The author’s name, would be indicated on a tag attached to the scroll. Carson and Moo echo many other scholars when they say: “...it is hard to understand why Luke’s name would have been attached to the gospel if it had not been there from the beginning. The manifest tendency in the early church was to associate apostles with the books of the New Testament. The universal identification of a nonapostle as the author of almost one-quarter of the New Testament speaks strongly for the authenticity of the tradition.” -Carson, D. A., & Moo, D. J. (2005). An Introduction to the New Testament (Second Edition, p. 206). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Marshall notes: “There is never any suggestion of a rival candidate for the honour of writing the Gospel.” Marshall, I. H. (1978). The Gospel of Luke: a commentary on the Greek text (pp. 33–34). Exeter: Paternoster Press. Once again there is no question in church history: “Tradition unanimously affirms this author to be Luke. This is attested by the early heretic Marcion...the Muratorian Fragment...the anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke...Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and others.” -Morris, L. (1988). Luke: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 3, pp. 19–20). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. 67

https://youtu.be/xaCac6rd12M

118

Tertullian says: The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage—I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew—whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke’s form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul.” -Tertullian. (1885). The Five Books against Marcion. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), P. Holmes (Trans.), Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (Vol. 3, p. 350). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company. From Irenaeus: “Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him...” Irenaeus of Lyons. (1885). Irenæus against Heresies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 414). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company. Clement states: “And to prove that this is true, it is written in the Gospel by Luke as follows...” -Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.21 Other external evidence includes P75: “The oldest manuscript of Luke, Bodmer Papyrus XIV, cited as P75 and dated A.D. 175– 225, ascribes the book to Luke.” -Carson, D. A., & Moo, D. J. (2005). An Introduction to the New Testament (Second Edition, p. 205). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Carson and Moo state: “Internal and external evidence combine to point strongly to Luke, the doctor, Paul’s ‘dear friend’ (see Col. 4:14), as the author.” -Carson, D. A., & Moo, D. J. (2005). An Introduction to the New Testament (Second Edition, p. 203). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. We’ve looked at external evidence from church history and P 75, let’s turn to internal evidence. Reading the Gospel gives us some clues about the author: • • • •

Plausibly a gentile Educated Proficient in Greek Versatile and competent writer

But we can’t go far in considering the internal evidence, without mentioning the relevance of the Luke-Acts connection. Since the work of Henry Cadbury in 1927 the implications of the close relationship between Luke and Acts have been more fully explored. Virtually all scholars agree 119

that the same author wrote both works. They were probably divided due to logistical issues, to keep the book to a manageable size. Leon Morris gives us a helpful analysis: “In Acts there are four passages in which the writer uses the pronoun ‘we’ (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5– 16; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16). These appear to have been taken from the diary of one of Paul’s companions. One of the ‘we’ sections yields the information that the writer stayed for some time in Caesarea with Philip the evangelist and his four daughters (Acts 21:8ff.). It was not until more than two years later (Acts 24:27) that he and Paul sailed for Rome (Acts 27:1). This period spent with such companions must have given opportunity for discovering much about Jesus and the early church.” -Morris, L. (1988). Luke: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 3, p. 21). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. He continues: “Paul speaks of Luke as ‘the beloved physician’ (Col. 4:14)”-Morris, L. (1988). Luke: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 3, p. 22). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. And notes some cases of medical interest in Luke’s writings. He says somewhat humorously: “...it is a very human touch that he omits the statement that the woman with the haemorrhage had spent all her money on doctors (8:43; cf. Mark 5:26).” -Morris, L. (1988). Luke: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 3, p. 23). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. We also have a reference to Luke in Philemon: “Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends greetings to you, and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers.” -Phm 23–24 Morris gives us a very helpful summary, (omit some of the names): “Acts ends with Paul in Rome, and the author is perhaps to be looked for among those named in the captivity Epistles or 2 Timothy as being with him, but not mentioned in Luke–Acts. This leaves us with a small group: Titus, Demas, Crescens, Jesus Justus, Epaphras, Epaphroditus and Luke. There seems no reason for thinking of any of these apart from Luke as being our author.” -Morris, L. (1988). Luke: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 3, p. 22). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Before we get into dating, let’s talk briefly about the eyewitness role in Luke’s gospel. Some of this will be familiar from the section on Mark: “I argue in the book that in the early church there was a principle of eyewitness testimony “from the beginning” (stated in Luke, Acts and John), i.e. that the most important testimony was that of disciples who had been with Jesus from the earliest days of his ministry and could testify

120

to the whole course of events up to and including the resurrection appearances.” Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses in the Gospel of Mark, p. 22 “My identification of the inclusio of eyewitness testimony as a recognizable device [in Mark] is confirmed by the fact that Luke takes the trouble to produce an equivalent of it, acknowledging his debt to Peter’s testimony as he had it in Mark’s Gospel. The key point here is that the references to Peter as the first disciple to be named in Luke (4:38) and the last to be named (24:73) are not the same as Mark’s, and so it is not as though the pattern in Mark has reappeared in Luke simply because of Luke’s incorporation of Mark’s material.” Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses in the Gospel of Mark, p. 23

“Luke is the only Synoptic evangelist who actually writes about his sources- in the preface to his Gospel. There he claims that his traditions come from “those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses.” If a reader were then to read the Gospel keeping an eye out for who these eyewitnesses might be, the first point at which he or she would find a character who continues to appear through the narrative would be Luke's first reference to Peter (4:38). The eyewitnesses of Luke’s preface must include Peter as at least prominent among them.” -Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses in the Gospel of Mark, p. 23 Luke: Date The Luke-Acts connection is important in dating the documents as well. Marshall says, “There are two serious possibilities, a date in the early sixties or a date in the later decades of the first century. The latter is the view most commonly held, with AD 80 being suggested as a round figure...On the other hand, the complete lack of interest in the fall of Jerusalem in Acts and the way in which that book ends its story before the death of Paul are strong indications of a date before AD 70. On the whole a date not far off AD 70 appears to satisfy all requirements.” Marshall, I. H. (1978). The Gospel of Luke: a commentary on the Greek text (p. 35). Exeter: Paternoster Press.”

Here are some considerations for a later date: • Some sayings of Jesus...seem to show that Luke was writing after the fall of Jerusalem • Luke used Mark and therefore must be later than c. AD 68 • There is no good reason for dating Luke far from Matthew • Luke tells us that many had written before him -Morris, L. (1988). Luke: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 3, p. 29-30). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. After addressing numerous arguments for the later date, Carson and Moo conclude:

121

“The only really significant argument for dating Luke after A.D. 70 is the argument that Mark must be dated in the mid-60s at the earliest. But we have seen reason to question the necessity of dating Mark as late as that. And if Mark is dated in the early 60s, then Luke could well have been written in the mid- or late-60s.” -Carson, D. A., & Moo, D. J. (2005). An Introduction to the New Testament (Second Edition, p. 210). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. More arguments for an early date- Leon Morris lists some relevant considerations: • Acts ends with Paul in prison • The Pastoral Letters seem to show that Paul visited Ephesus again • Luke notes the fulfilment of the prophecy of Agabus • Acts shows no knowledge of the Pauline Epistles and so must be early • In Acts no event after AD 62 is mentioned -Morris, L. (1988). Luke: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 3, p. 28-29). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Conclusions: • • • • • • • •

Improbable that the Gospel could have been renamed (from another author) and distributed so quickly The book is universally ascribed to Luke in ancient tradition No indication that the Gospel ever circulated without an appropriate title Implausible to assign authorship illegitimately to a non-apostle Internal evidence coheres with Lukan authorship Luke and Acts share the same author Numerous connections between Luke and Paul are attested both in the NT and extraBiblical tradition Luke was plausibly written in the early 60’s

Authorship and Dating of the Gospels: John 68 As with the rest of the Gospels, we have extremely strong attestation in church history: From Irenaeus who was personally connected with Polycarp who knew John: “Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.” -Irenaeus of Lyons. (1885). Irenæus against Heresies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 414). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company. 68

https://youtu.be/oTmEyioOdaY

122

Irenaeus again says: "I [Irenaeus] am able to describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat as he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and the manner of his life, and his physical appearance, and his discourses to the people, and the accounts which he gave of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord.” -Eusebius of Caesaria. (1890). The Church History of Eusebius. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), A. C. McGiffert (Trans.), Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine (Vol. 1, pp. 238–239). New York: Christian Literature Company. Carson and Moo note: “Most scholars recognize that this ‘John,’ certainly a reference to John the apostle, the son of Zebedee, is (so far as Irenaeus is concerned) none other than the John whom he emphatically insists is the fourth evangelist.” -Carson, D. A., & Moo, D. J. (2005). An Introduction to the New Testament (Second Edition, p. 230). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Clement through Eusebius (we’ve heard a lot of these before so I’ll allude to them and put them in the pinned comment: “But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. This is the account of Clement.” -Eusebius of Caesaria. (1890). The Church History of Eusebius. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), A. C. McGiffert (Trans.), Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine (Vol. 1, p. 261). New York: Christian Literature Company. Let’s quote Tertullian as well (160-225 AD): “We lay it down as our first position, that the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors to whom was assigned by the Lord Himself this office of publishing the gospel...Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith into us; whilst of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards.” -Tertullian. (1885). The Five Books against Marcion. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), P. Holmes (Trans.), Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (Vol. 3, p. 347). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company. Origen’s comments are preserved through Eusebius: “In his first book on Matthew’s Gospel, maintaining the Canon of the Church, he [Origen] testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing as follows: “Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I [Origen] have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew...Last of all that by John.” -Eusebius of Caesaria. (1890). The Church History of Eusebius. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), A. C. McGiffert (Trans.), Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine (Vol. 1, p. 273). New York: Christian Literature Company. 123

One more before we conclude from Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandra, circa 265: “Therefore that he [author of revelation] was called John, and that this book [Revelation] is the work of one John, I do not deny. And I agree also that it is the work of a holy and inspired man. But I cannot readily admit that he was the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, by whom the Gospel of John and the Catholic Epistle were written.” -Eusebius of Caesaria. (1890). The Church History of Eusebius. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), A. C. McGiffert (Trans.), Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine (Vol. 1, p. 309). New York: Christian Literature Company. In this case, an argument from silence is actually valid: “It is significant that Eusebius, who had access to many works that are now lost, speaks without reserve of the fourth gospel as the unquestioned work of St. John. The silence is most significant precisely because it was Eusebius’s concern to discuss the doubtful cases.” -B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes (London: John Murray, 1908), 1:lix Before we look at internal evidence, we need to listen to what Don Carson has to say. And this is something that’s good to keep in mind as we wrap up this series: “The fact remains that, despite support for Johannine authorship by a few front-rank scholars in this century...a large majority of contemporary scholars reject this view. As we shall see, much of their argumentation turns on their reading of the internal evidence. It also requires their virtual dismissal of the external evidence. This is particularly regrettable. Most scholars of antiquity, were they assessing the authorship of some other document, could not so easily set aside evidence as plentiful, consistent and plainly tied to the source as is the external evidence that supports Johannine authorship. The majority of contemporary biblical scholars do not rest nearly as much weight on external evidence as do their colleagues in classical scholarship.” -Carson, D. A. (1991). The Gospel according to John (pp. 68–69). Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans. Carson is right on track. In fact, many New Testament scholars, due in part to their insatiable skepticism and aberrant historical methodology fall under criticism by their classicist peers. If you’ve been watching this series thinking “with all of this external evidence, how could anyone deny the traditional views of authorship of the Gospels? How could anyone try to assign such late dates? Well you’re not the only ones thinking that. Blaiklock, a classicist, issues a scathing rebuke: “A classical scholar finds it difficult to be patient with some of the exotic theories of literary criticism which have bedeviled New Testament studies...New Testament scholars...refuse to see what the Classicists so naturally see- a record of life in the first century...which must at least be accorded its unique value as historical material. When critical theory seeks to persuade that liturgical and spiritual needs and aspirations taking shape from nowhere and within the lifetime of those who had known the first half of the first century, then...created a supporting 124

literature- the narratives and sayings which form the Gospels- fantasy is propounded which would provoke ridicule in any less confined and introverted sphere of literary criticism.” E.M. Blaiklock cited from “Unbelievable” here: https://youtu.be/Gm-nx8yNK3o?t=1392 Blaiklock has not been the only classicist to issue such criticism against the methodology of some New Testament scholars. With all this in mind, let’s turn to internal evidence. In chapter 21 of John’s gospel, we read: “This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.” -Jn 21:24 Colin Kruse provides a helpful analysis: “The Fourth Gospel mentions the Twelve (i.e. the twelve disciples whom Jesus chose) four times (6:67, 70, 71; 20:24). We may infer that the beloved disciple was one of the Twelve, because he was present at the Last Supper, and other Gospels indicate that Jesus celebrated this supper with the Twelve and apparently the Twelve only (Matt. 26:20; Mark 14:17). The Fourth Gospel mentions five of the Twelve by name: Simon Peter (1:40–42, 44; 6:8, 68; 13:6, 8–9, 24, 36–37; 18:10–11, 15–18, 25–27; 20:2–4, 6; 21:2–3, 7, 11, 15–17, 20–21), Andrew (1:40, 44; 6:8; 12:22), Philip (1:43–46, 48; 6:5, 7; 12:21–22; 14:8–9), Thomas (11:16; 14:5; 20:24, 26–28; 21:2) and Judas Iscariot (6:71; 12:4; 13:2, 26, 29; 18:2–3, 5). It refers to ‘the sons of Zebedee’ (21:2) without mentioning their names (their names were, of course, James and John: Matt. 4:21; 10:2; Mark 1:19; 3:17; 10:35; Luke 5:10). That the apostle John is not mentioned by name in the Fourth Gospel leaves open the possibility, but does not prove, that he was the beloved disciple and therefore the Gospel’s anonymous author.” -Kruse, C. G. (2003). John: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 4, p. 27). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Cruse then narrows the possibilities down further: “That the disciple who wrote these things came to be known as the beloved disciple and was the one who reclined next to Jesus at the Last Supper suggests he enjoyed some intimacy with him. The Synoptic Gospels indicate that of the Twelve, Jesus chose three, Peter, James and John, to be present at the raising of Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), to witness the transfiguration (Matt. 17:1; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28), and to be with him during his agony in Gethsemane (Mark 14:33). It was also Peter, James and John who asked Jesus for an explanation concerning the time of fulfilment of his prophecy concerning the destruction of the temple (Mark 13:3). It is highly likely that one of these three intimates of Jesus was the one who became known as the beloved disciple. It is unlikely to have been Peter, as he is frequently mentioned by name in the Fourth Gospel. It could be either of the sons of Zebedee, for neither of these disciples is mentioned by name. However, it is unlikely to have been James, as he was martyred very early on (Acts 12:1–2).” -Kruse, C. G. (2003). John: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 4, pp. 27–28). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. And who is the “Beloved Disciple”? Carson comments:

125

“The traditional view, that he is John the son of Zebedee, has been advanced for reasons of quite different weight...The fact that neither John nor James is mentioned by name in the Fourth Gospel, which nevertheless has place not only for prominent apostles like Peter and Andrew but also for relatively obscure members of the apostolic band like Philip and ‘Judas (not Judas Iscariot)’ (14:22) is passing strange, unless there is some reason for it. The traditional reason seems most plausible: the beloved disciple is none other than John, and he deliberately avoids using his personal name. This becomes more likely when we remember that the beloved disciple is constantly in the company of Peter, while both the Synoptics (Mk. 5:37; 9:2; 14:33; par.) and Acts (3:1–4:23; 8:15–25), not to mention Paul (Gal. 2:9), link Peter and John in friendship and shared experience.” -Carson, D. A. (1991). The Gospel according to John (p. 7172). Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans. After establishing the identity of the Beloved Disciple, Carson then asks: “Who, then, is the Evangelist? To put the matter another way, what is the relationship between the beloved disciple and the fourth Evangelist? The traditional answer is that they are one and the same.” -Carson, D. A. (1991). The Gospel according to John (p. 75). Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans. John: Date What about the date? Let’s start with some manuscripts: P 75 which dates to the 3rd century: http://www.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_P75?OSIS=John.1.1

P 52 (130 AD) http://www.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_P52 Some scholars centuries ago, scholars like F.C. Bauer argued that the Gospel of John was written a couple hundred years after Jesus. They can’t get away with that anymore because of manuscript evidence, like what we just looked at. When P 52 was discovered it sent thousands of pages of bad scholarship to the flames. Don’t you just love these discoveries? Because of P 52, many scholars have concluded with Kruse: “This suggests that the Fourth Gospel was written, at the latest, in the final decade of the first century, and certainly not the latter half of the second century as previously argued.” -Kruse, C. G. (2003). John: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 4, pp. 30–31). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. In fact, Kruse continues: “...the latest possible date for the writing of the Fourth Gospel is now generally recognized as the last decade of the first century...” -Kruse, C. G. (2003). John: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 4, p. 31). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

126

Carson and Moo surmise......(and they quote J Ramsey Michaels): “During the past 150 years, suggestions as to the date of the fourth gospel have varied from before A.D. 70 to the final quarter of the second century. Dates in the second century are now pretty well ruled out by manuscript discoveries...But apart from this limitation, none of the arguments is entirely convincing, and almost any date between about 55 and 95 is possible. John 21:23 “suggests it was probably nearer the end of that period than the beginning.” -Carson, D. A., & Moo, D. J. (2005). An Introduction to the New Testament (Second Edition, p. 264). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. This is in part because of Clement: “Clement of Alexandria says John returned to Ephesus after the death of the tyrant (Domitian, emperor from AD 81–96), and Irenaeus says he remained there until the time of Trajan (emperor from AD 98–117).” -Kruse, C. G. (2003). John: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 4, p. 31). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Finally, Kruse offers some more helpful data points: “The fact that early church traditions mention John’s residence in Ephesus continuing through to the time of Trajan (AD 98) has led to the conclusion that the Fourth Gospel was probably written quite late, in the 80s or 90s.” -Kruse, C. G. (2003). John: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 4, pp. 31–32). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. The date of the Johannine Epistles is entirely bound up with the date of the fourth gospel and their relationship to it. As we have seen, although a few date the Gospel of John before A.D. 70, and a majority assign it to the last decade of the first century, we have cautiously suggested 80– 85. -Carson, D. A., & Moo, D. J. (2005). An Introduction to the New Testament (Second Edition, p. 676). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. With respect to the role of eye witnesses in the Gospel of John, Muslims will be happy to know that we have explicit confirmation of this: “Among the things which have reached me about what Jesus the Son of Mary stated in the Gospel which he received from God for the followers of the Gospel, in applying a term to describe the apostle of God, is the following. It is extracted from what John the Apostle set down for them when he wrote the Gospel for them...” We have an explicit statement regarding John as the apostle, citing him as the author of the gospel. And as an apostle, he was an eye witness. What source am I quoting? Muhammad’s earliest existing biography: “Among the things which have reached me about what Jesus the Son of Mary stated in the Gospel which he received from God for the followers of the Gospel, in applying a term to describe the apostle of God, is the following. It is extracted from what John the Apostle set down for them when he wrote the Gospel for them...” -Sirat Rasul Allah, pp. 103-104 (Guillaume) 127

To summarize, remember from our introductory video: • • • • • • •

No indication that the Gospels ever circulated without an appropriate title Improbable that the Gospels could have been renamed (from another author) and distributed so quickly Historical data from Patristic tradition Internal data from the Gospel relevant to authorship Encouraged reasonable skepticism Reinforced with P 52 Dated somewhere in the 80’s

New Testament Text Critical Issues Here, I simply intend to provide helpful thoughts and quotes regarding the ending of Mark’s Gospel, John 7:53-8:11, 1 John 5:7 and John 5:4. The first item is complex, the second much less so. The rest are quite simple. As for all of them, the problems they present are more apparent than real. Contributing to this is the ignorance of these issues, or the lack of communication of them, in many Christian circles. We will end all of this with a quote from Muslims’ favorite scholar, Bart Ehrman.

Ending of Mark’s Gospel69 This long ending is printed as verses 9–20 in the KJV; in modern English versions, it usually appears in the margin or with a notation. Since it is found in many manuscripts and can be traced to the first half of the second century, this long ending can lay some claim to be considered as the original ending of Mark’s gospel. 70 Rather than assuming the ending of Mark was lost, it is plausible to consider that is how Mark intended to end his Gospel. Indeed, a “cliffhanger” ending was not uncommon in ancient literature. Multiple opinions are held on this issue. I simply put forward my own. “But the arguments against this [longer ending, i.e. vv 9-20]…being original are very strong. First, it is missing from what are generally considered the two most important manuscripts (the uncials ‫ א‬and B), as well as several others. Second, Jerome and Eusebius both state that the best manuscripts available to them did not contain this longer ending. Third, two other endings to the gospel exist: a shorter ending (attested in the uncials L, Ψ, C, 099, 0112, and some other witnesses), and the longer ending combined with an interpolation (attested in the uncial W and mentioned by Jerome). The presence of these alternative endings suggests that there was uncertainty about the ending of Mark for some time. Fourth, the longer ending contains several non-Markan words and expressions. Fifth, the longer ending does not flow naturally after 16:8: Jesus is presumed to be the subject in verse 9 (the Greek does not have an 69

See related video here: https://youtu.be/OxuydzypIHM D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, Second Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 188.

70

128

expressed subject), although “the women” is the subject in verse 8; Mary is introduced in verse 9 as if she has not been mentioned in verse 1; and “when Jesus rose early on the first day of the week” (v. 9) sounds strange after “very early on the first day of the week” (v. 2). With the great majority of contemporary commentators and textual critics, then, we do not think that verses 9–20 were written by Mark as the ending for his gospel. The resemblances between what is narrated in these verses and the narrative of Jesus’ resurrection appearances in the other gospels suggest that this longer ending was composed on the basis of these other narratives to supplement what was felt to be an inadequate ending to the gospel.” -D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, Second Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 188.

“If verses 9–20 were not the original ending to Mark’s gospel, what was? Three main possibilities exist. First, Mark may have intended to write more but been prevented from doing so (by his death or arrest?). Second, Mark may have written a longer ending to his gospel, including one or more resurrection appearances, and this ending may have been lost in the course of transmission. It has been suggested, for instance, that the last leaf of Mark’s gospel— presuming the gospel was in the form not of a scroll but of a codex, or many-paged book—may have been accidentally torn off. Third, Mark may have intended to end his gospel with verse 8. This third possibility is becoming more popular and is the most likely. Mark refrains from making very many editorial comments about the significance of the history he narrates. He lets his story speak for itself, forcing his readers to discover the ultimate significance of much of the story of Jesus. A somewhat enigmatic ending to the gospel suits this strategy perfectly. The reader knows that Jesus has been raised (v. 6). But the confusion and astonishment of the women (v. 8) leaves us wondering about just what it all means. And that is just the question Mark wants us to ask—and find answers to.” -D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, Second Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 189–190. “It was standard literary practice in ancient writings to allude to well-known events that occurred after those being narrated in the text, without actually narrating those later events. The best-known example of this technique is the Iliad. Thus, the fact that the appearances of the risen Jesus are not narrated in Mark does not necessarily mean that the author believed that they did not occur or wanted to suppress the tradition that they did. The decision not to narrate them, however, does have the effect of emphasizing the absence of Jesus in the time of the author and audiences (cf. 2:19–20*).” -Collins, A. Y., & Attridge, H. W. (2007). Mark: A Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (p. 797). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. A further objection can be raised if Mark’s Gospel was intended to end at v. 8. In Greek, this verse ends with the word “gar” which, in Greek, is “γαρ”. This is a postpositive typically translated “for” in this case, “for they were afraid.” Many will argue that ending a sentence with “γαρ” in Greek is awkward to the point of being a virtually impossible original ending of Mark. However, I do not believe that is the case at all. Even Gundry, who believed that Mark 16:8 began a new unit which is now lost, admits that a sentence can end with “gar.”

129

“Robert H. Gundry argued that v. 8*, in the autograph of Mark, was not the conclusion to the pericope that began with v. 1*, but the beginning of a new unit, “the rest of which is now lost.” He gives twelve arguments in support of this hypothesis. In the tenth argument, he acknowledges that a “sentence, paragraph, or section may end in γάρ, ‘for.’ ” He argues, nevertheless, that no other book has γάρ as its last word, mentioning Plot. Enn. 5.5 as a “possible exception” with reference to an article by P. W. van der Horst. In that article, van der Horst took the position that, “if a sentence can end with γάρ, a book can end with such a sentence.” As an example, he pointed to the above-mentioned text, the thirty-second treatise of Plotinus, as edited by Porphyry (Enneads 5.5), which ends with γάρ. Following R. Harder, he acknowledges that treatises 30, 31, 32, and 33 constitute one large treatise. But there is evidence that these treatises were originally four separate lectures on the same topic. The lecture in question, presented as a distinct treatise (#32) by Porphyry, ends as follows: “For that which acts is better than that which is acted upon. For it is more perfect” (κρεῖττον γὰρ τὸ ποιοῦν τοῦ ποιουμένου· τελειότερον γάρ)…In light of the evidence, it seems best to regard v. 8* as the original ending of Mark and to interpret the additional endings as products of later times. The alternative is to argue that (1) the author was prevented from completing his Gospel, or (2) that he did continue after 16:8*, but that the continuation was lost or detached at an early date. These hypotheses have already been refuted decisively (Lightfoot, Gospel Message, 80–85; Aland, “Der Schluss des Markusevangeliums,” 455–61).” -Adela Yarbro Collins and Harold W. Attridge, Mark: A Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007), 798-9. Lightfoot’s Gospel Message of Mark (cited above) has some helpful information. I will paraphrase his work from page 80 and following. He discusses three main possibilities: 1. Mark intended to proceed further, but was prevented for some reason (i.e. death). 2. Mark did proceed further, but at a very early date, the longer ending was lost. 3. Mark ended his work intentionally at 16:8. It should first be noted that there is zero evidence of any kind of the first two options. If the skeptic wants to claim the longer ending of Mark was lost, they bear the burden of proof. Quoting George Salmon, Lightfoot describes how losing the longer, original ending of Mark’s Gospel would have come about: the first copy would have needed to be kept until it fell apart with age before it was copied for the first time, so that when a leaf was lost, it was lost forever. This is considered so unlikely that we may, “fairly dismiss as incredible the supposition.” Lightfoot gives us more on the awkward ending of γαρ discussed above: Mark shows a tendency to form short sentences using γαρ: (i.e. 1:16, 5:42, 9:6, 11:18, 16:4). Lightfoot also cites Gen 18:15 and 45:3 (LXX). He also notes the very little difficulty that classical scholars have with Mark ending verse 8 using this grammatical form. Additionally, Mark’s short sentence at the end of v.8 reads, “ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.” This is also considered to be awkward, since ἐφοβοῦντο (“they were afraid”) allegedly needs a μη clause, complementing accusative or infinitive. However, this absolute usage isn’t uncommon at all in Mark’s Gospel. If, for example, an absolute usage is not a grammatical problem in Mark 10:32, then why should it be a problem at 16:8? 130

I trust by now the reader sees the real issues at hand. If critics want to claim that a longer ending of Mark’s Gospel was lost, they need to prove it. Mark has already explicitly stated the resurrection occurred (Mark 16:6). The theories regarding the lost ending of Mark’s Gospel seem mostly to have arisen from an undue amount of attention on Mark’s last couple of words, when that is clearly not where his attention was concentrated. Mark’s mention of human fear, as the women’s response, emphasizes our inadequacy in the presence of divine action.

John 7:53-8:11 Due to the manuscript evidence, this variant is much more doubtful when compared to the longer ending of Mark. It appears later, and is placed in Luke, or inconsistently scattered throughout John, in other manuscripts. It is very unlikely that this attractive story was an original part of the Fourth Gospel. It is not found in the earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts. Nevertheless, it has what Professor Metzger describes as ‘all the earmarks of historical veracity’. -Colin G. Kruse, John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 4, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 197. Despite the best efforts of Zane Hodges to prove that this narrative was originally part of John’s Gospel, the evidence is against him, and modern English versions are right to rule it off from the rest of the text (niv) or to relegate it to a footnote (rsv). These verses are present in most of the medieval Greek miniscule manuscripts, but they are absent from virtually all early Greek manuscripts that have come down to us, representing great diversity of textual traditions. The most notable exception is the Western uncial D, known for its independence in numerous other places. They are also missing from the earliest forms of the Syriac and Coptic Gospels, and from many Old Latin, Old Georgian and Armenian manuscripts. All the early church Fathers omit this narrative: in commenting on John, they pass immediately from 7:52 to 8:12. No Eastern Father cites the passage before the tenth century. Didymus the Blind (a fourthcentury exegete from Alexandria) reports a variation on this narrative, not the narrative as we have it here. Moreover, a number of (later) manuscripts that include the narrative mark it off with asterisks or obeli, indicating hesitation as to its authenticity, while those that do include it display a rather high frequency of textual variants. Although most of the manuscripts that include the story place it here (i.e. at 7:53–8:11), some place it instead after Luke 21:38, and other witnesses variously place it after John 7:44, John 7:36 or John 21:25. The diversity of placement confirms the inauthenticity of the verses. Finally, even if someone should decide that the material is authentic, it would be very difficult to justify the view that the material is authentically Johannine: there are numerous expressions and constructions that are found nowhere in John, but which are characteristic of the Synoptic Gospels, Luke in particular (cf. notes, below). On the other hand, there is little reason for doubting that the event here described occurred, even if in its written form it did not in the beginning belong to the canonical books. Similar stories are found in other sources. One of the best known, reported by Papias (and recorded by the historian Eusebius, H.E. III. xxxix. 16), is the account of a woman, accused in the Lord’s presence of many sins (unlike the woman here who is accused of but one). The narrative before us also has a number of parallels (some of them noted 131

below) with stories in the Synoptic Gospels. The reason for its insertion here may have been to illustrate 7:24 and 8:15 or, conceivably, the Jews’ sinfulness over against Jesus’ sinlessness (8:21, 24, 46). D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 333–334.

1 John 5:7 (Comma Johanneum)71 Compare ESV: For there are three that testify: 8the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.” -1 Jn 5:7–8. With KJV: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” -1 Jn 5:7–8. This is fairly straightforward: the Trinitarian statement in the KJV was added to Greek manuscripts in 1522 when Erasmus was pressured by the Catholic church, due to the Comma’s presence in some late Latin manuscripts. Erasmus refused to put the interpolation into his manuscript until he saw it in a Greek manuscript. A Greek manuscript was effectively copied on the spot and presented to Erasmus, thus making it into his third edition. However, it was accompanied by a lengthy explanation about why he did not think it belonged. This variant never fooled any modern text critics. Here’s a comment from the Hermeneia commentary: “In the sixteenth century, after the Comma Johanneum had found entry into a number of Latin manuscripts, it again became the subject of controversy. In the first two editions of his Greek NT (1516 and 1519), Erasmus did not reproduce the Comma Johanneum. The Complutensis Polyglot by the Spanish Cardinal Primate Ximenes, previously printed (1514) but not published until 1522, contained it, but the Greek text of the Comma Johanneum was translated from the Vulgate. After Erasmus had been criticized by D. Lopez de Zuñiga (“Stunica”), the editor of the Complutensis, and by the Englishman E. Lee for omitting the Comma Johanneum, he decided against his better judgment to include the text in the third edition of his NT (1522).” -Georg Strecker and Harold W. Attridge, The Johannine Letters: A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996), 191. “The Comma Johanneum is absent from nearly all manuscripts and versions of the New Testament. It was introduced into the Latin Vulgate sometime after the fourth century. Only eight late Greek manuscripts (out of approximately 5,800) contain some form of the Comma Johanneum.” -Jeffrey E. Miller, “Johannine Comma,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

71

See James White’s video on this topic here (starting around 8:00): https://youtu.be/MK_0vopu9nk

132

John 5:4 This verse is not found in the oldest manuscripts, like p66 and p75. It is plausibly an interpretive gloss (explanation) by a scribe which, difficult to distinguish from the actual text, made it into the main text at John 5:4, now removed. Finally, when dealing with Muslims on issues relating to the preservation of the Biblical text, it’s always fun to use their favorite scholar against them, Bart Ehrman: “The position I argue for in Misquoting Jesus does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.” -Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus (New York: Harper, San Francisco, 2005), 252-3. (Ehrman's quote is in the paperback edition of his book with the appendix. Here's an image: https://christianapologetics.org/the-elusive-bart-ehrman-quote/ The ISBN for the copy is: 9780060859510. There seem to be several versions out there. You’re going to want to look for the edition that has the “Plus” section at the end of the book).

133