Transcription
Hi everyone, uh, this is Gabriel. Welcome to Exploring the Quran and the Bible. Uh, my friend Hassan and I will be speaking about a topic that brings together the Quran and the Bible, one of like, great interest. I mean, it's behind a lot of the back and forth and debates and polemics between Christians and Muslims and Jews, uh, namely, whether the Bible is corrupt. What does the Quran say about whether the Bible is corrupt? Uh, you'll remember, Hassan, we've recorded a couple episodes together. So, hello friend, how are you doing?
Good, how are you doing, Gabriel? It's great to be back.
Yeah, happy to be here, uh, with you. Uh, this is a difficult topic, but we'll navigate through it with all of our, uh, eloquence and grace and wisdom and prudence and all of that.
Your eloquence, yes, will get us through this.
Yeah, so where do you want to start?
Um, let's start with how the Quran sees revelation generally. So maybe, um, Gabriel, do you want to start us off with what's your answer to that question? How does the Quran see revelation? Maybe how does it see scripture in particular? Let's start there.
Yeah, I think that's, that's, that's the, that's the place to start, right? Because I mean, what makes a religion a religion is that there are claims that God is communicating to the world, right? So like, uh, there's philosophy out there, you know, people can just kind of think up stuff, you know. So, uh, you know, Aristotle walking around or Plato, whatever he was doing, or Socrates drinking before he drank the hemlock, uh, you can just kind of say stuff, right? So, but religions are different from philosophies. I, I mean, this is starting really, starting at the beginning because religions say it's not just about what you or I think, it's about what God has revealed, um, about himself. Um, and, you know, like, so that's, I mean, when we say the word revelation, there's kind of like, you know, the vulgar colloquial sense of like, just like something new has happened or whatever, something has been unveiled. But in a religious sense, when we mean revelation, we basically mean like, you know, how God has shared, uh, both his will and maybe, um, his nature with, uh, the world. And so, I mean, that can, uh, you know, that can be, um, not necessarily through scripture. It could just, could be through nature, the created world. Um, so, uh, yeah, I mean, like, this is something shared between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Um, so like, I don't know, there are different ways in which, uh, you can learn something about God through, um, nature, through the human person. Um, I mean, people, I guess, debate about like, how, how far exactly can you go with that? How far can you get by observing, you know, um, the way that, uh, the rain comes down and then plants, uh, grow up from the ground? Or even conscience? I'm not sure how you feel about that, like, you know, different, um, religious thinkers feel that like the, that that humans have a conscience, uh, allows us through self-interior reflection, ultimately to know something, uh, about God. Not sure if you have thoughts like, how do you feel about that? You feel like conscience?
Well, I'll reserve my opinion, but, uh, many have thought that, uh, across traditions. I've heard it once said that it's almost like reading an author's novel to learn about them, right? So if you want to say, learn about Tolkien, the author of The Lord of the Rings, you could read a biography about Tolkien, right? Or his auto, or his letters, or you could just go read The Lord of the Rings, right? Um, so natural theology, uh, is akin to that. It's, in a sense, reading the book. And, um, this actually brings me to a, a question, a further question, which is, do you think that the Quran makes a distinction between revelation as such, right? Because revelation doesn't necessarily need to be scripture. Even in, um, the biblical tradition, uh, or in Judaism and Christianity, there is revelation that maybe God has revealed himself to a particular prophet or, um, to a, a king or something, or a person. The, the shepherds, you know, in, uh, the beginning of Luke's gospel, the angel comes and gives them a message, but they weren't given a scripture. Or that particular message was not, um, in the case of Luke's gospel, it does tell what the shepherds were told, but, uh, in other cases, we can, we know many prophets from the biblical tradition that, um, don't have their own book or aren't thought of to, uh, to have written down or composed a scripture. So, does the Quran make a distinction between these two things, revelation generally and scripture, or is all revelation turned into scripture? What do you think?
I mean, my, my reading of the Quran is that, uh, I mean, it, in no obvious way does it present clear distinctions, uh, between, um, uh, let's say, revelation, uh, as, uh, a book or other sorts of revelation. It's more of a spectrum. I think it's really important, as you point out, Hassan, that like, you know, the Quran has this kind of capacious view of the way that God communicates, um, his nature and his will, which is kind of two different things to the world. I mean, one, maybe just kind of to get a bit more specific, um, you know, so we have these words, uh, I mean, the root n, that, or z, l, en, which all of that means somehow to come down or to bring down, to send down. And then you have the, the other root associated with W, the Arabic root associated with W. And then folks are like, well, maybe there's, you know, one kind of revelation is clearly like, nzela revelation, like God sends down a book, maybe with an angel. And then is like, more inspiration or something. But I mean, we see all different sorts of uses. I mean, for example, towards the end of Al, uh, God himself uses the word, uh, when he speaks of how he delivered a message to the disciples or apostles of Jesus, right? Um, uses, I think he uses a first-person singular, uh, and then there's direct speech that follows it. So it seems like it's just direct speech. Um, I mean, it's also, so we see examples of God not only speaking to figures who are not usually, uh, thought of as, uh, prophets, but God also, uh, speaks to a woman in Mary, the mother of Jesus, and then sometimes to the world in the famous am Mana or, um, you know, compact or covenant verse, um, or or to bees. Um, if I'm not mistaken, I think W is used when God gives W somehow to the bees. So, I mean, yeah, I mean, famously, the Quran has lots of language. But I think I, I think it's just important to keep in mind that you, you raised that really important term, natural theology. And I think it's important to keep in mind when speaking, we are going to get to the Bible specifically in the Quran's view of the Bible, but when speaking generally about the Quran's view of revelation, that, you know, the Quran seems to me very convinced that, you know, God has sort of woven throughout the fabric of creation, the natural world, and the human person, sort of signs that for a thoughtful person, uh, who's able to like, you know, uh, think clearly, uh, sort of get over whatever kind of sinful distractions he might have, uh, that he can read those signs in nature and in the human person. Not only nature, it is, you know, the rain and the mountains and the birds and all that, uh, or the, the stars and the sun and the moon, but it's also, uh, human faculties like seeing and hearing and thinking that the Quran invokes. Um, so, yeah, I mean, uh, that's really, that's really important to, uh, note. And, I mean, it's kind of the first point or the starting point for thinking about, well, why are there prophets at all? You know, what I mean? Like, if the signs of God are so clear in the natural world, then like, why, why does it have to be prophets?
Yeah, I don't know if you have further reflections about that.
Or yeah, I mean, it's also complicated further by, you know, the, the notion of the fitra, or I mean, it's somewhat similar to, yeah, right? Or the nous in, uh, sort of Greek terminology, in, in Christian theology. So we both, and, and, you know, there is a parallel to conscience too, where we have some experience of, of God in our own person, as well as just from, from the, uh, from the created world. So, yeah, it's a very good question. Why are there, uh, prophets after that? I mean, don't you think it speaks to, I mean, I guess this puts it in a negative light, but a sort of pessimistic anthropology in the Quran? Like, we need prophets because we tend to forget, we tend to sin.
Well, you hit the nail on the head there, uh, with the word forget, right? Um, because the Quran often is, uh, is speaking of itself as a reminder, right? It's, it's asking, it's hearers to remember, or, you know, the, uh, the prophet to mention, right? So, I, I think this is a fundamental element of, uh, quranic anthropology, that the reason you need prophets is because humans forget. They forget, right?
Yeah, yeah. I mean, I, I know that sometimes in the context of, um, sort of Islamic apologetics or dawa, people will advance the case that the Quran, you know, especially in comparison with Christianity, has a positive view of the human person. So an optimistic anthropology, to use that fancy word. But I mean, I, I think the, um, the insistence on, on, uh, God's sending of prophets, you know, if you start with thinking about natural theology, and then you see how important prophets are to the vision of the Quran of how God, um, kind of manages the world, I mean, why did God send so many prophets? Because, you know, humans are a problem, basically. They need, just like you said, right? They need reminders constantly. Uh, they forget. Um, you know, Quran sometimes uses this word, uh, about humans of being hasty, which kind of points to that. You know, there's other language, negative language about humans being kafir or kaffur, which probably doesn't mean like unbelieving, just means like ungrateful. Like, in our, it's in our nature to be ungrateful, selfish. Um, so, I mean, honestly, I think, uh, that, you know, the idea that, sort of, the Quran is positive about the human person, whereas the Bible is negative about the human person, probably, that's a bit of a caricature, and it's a of sort of positioning the Quran for the sake of debate or polemics vis-à-vis the Bible. But when we see like the very purpose, like, put it this way, there's another way to put it, like God was, was not obliged to, um, I mean, God's, I guess, not obliged to do anything. But I mean, if you read the Quran, you sort of get the sense that there are so many signs in nature and in the human person that there really should not have been any need for a prophet at all. I mean, the, so often says, you know, look around you, look at the world, even says, look at your food, you know, God provides you sustenance, speaks about the cow, it speaks about the fact that boats can float and things can fly, birds can fly. So, prophecy is a, prophecy is a mercy, right? It's, it's a mercy of God in the, in the Quran, especially, you mean, it's like, kind of super abundant. It wasn't sort of out of God's justice that he was obliged to, right?
Yeah, and I also would say that, like, if you think about it, maybe this is also too simplistic of a way. I would say in the Bible, the fundamental human dilemma is something like concupiscence. It's something like, it, it's a problem of the will. Humans know, know what's right and will wrong, right? Um, you can see this even in how it treats prophets. People very close to God, be it David, is a great example, of course, a man after God's own heart, but he wills in a moment of temptation, he, his will goes awry. And I think in Christianity, especially, this is highlighted. But, you know, you could probably make the argument that it's in the biblical text itself that concupiscence is, uh, a fundamental issue. Say, Paul says, again, going to a Christian reading of the Bible, Paul says, um, "I do what I do not want, and I do not do what I want." Right? But in the Quran, I think it's some more like the intellect, the intellect is the issue. Humans forget, they're careless, but they're not in a, it's not that they can't, there's not anything really stopping them once they know to follow.
Yeah, I, I don't know. I think I agree, like, 90% okay with that. Because I mean, I, I, I, I find really impressive, sort of, the vividness, the intensity, the dynamism of quranic kind of exhortation, you know, do you know what I mean? Like, that the Quran chooses to portray, uh, hell, for example, um, the fire, Muslims, you know, might more normally say, uh, and such terrifying terms, you know, like the zakum tree, whose fruit is like the heads of devils. I mean, it's not only like physically gross, but there's like mockery, you know, like God mocks those who are damned. There's total humiliation for the damned. I mean, it's so vivid and horrible. And likewise, or to the contrary, I guess, vivid the presentation of paradise, or the garden, as Muslims might say. I mean, it's just so impressive in the Quran. You know, you get everything from, you know, food and couches to sex, to people saying, Salam, Salam, peace, peace, servant boys. I mean, it's meant to, I mean, wouldn't you say that, like, it's meant to appeal to, sort of, the emotions, the desires, the fears? Like, there's this emotional side of all this rhetoric.
Yeah, absolutely. And, I mean, I would say, like, a data download. Yeah, I agree. I completely agree. And that's, it's not quite what I meant. C, certainly the, the analog to that also is stubbornness, right? In the Quran, humans are stubborn. They're sort of, they're, they're lazy, like you said, they hate, they they are act in haste. But I guess I was thinking in the sort of classical distinction between intellect and will, the Quran really, in my reading, is more concerned with reminding rather than, uh, there there being something like irreparably wrong with the will of man. But yeah, I agree, the, the appetites are are in full display. And, and there is an element, uh, there is an element, uh, partially of data download, because, um, I mean, uh, the Quran is asking more of humanity than simply to fear God, right? It's not enough. I mean, I guess it's theological debate and, you know, complicated. Probably the Quran is not saying, listen, just be terrified, have taqwa, so that, you know, um, you'll be righteous, but it's actually giving, like, it's giving rules and regulations and, uh, instructions on, you know, God tells you how he wants to be worshipped, etcetera, etcetera. But, I mean, if I can just, uh, take a step forward and bring us a little bit closer to the Quran's view of, um, the Bible, I mean, I think the distinction you make, um, about, you know, the, uh, the Quran sort of reminding, uh, humans, uh, that's actually sort of the starting point to understanding what it's saying about scripture, uh, generally, uh, because it's all kind of timeless, in my humble opinion. I know people contend with this, and there's back and forth. Deon Stewart has written some interesting things, sort of insisting that the Quran does have a view of history and all of this. But, I mean, the words of the prophets, you know, they're very similar to one another. You know, what, uh, Hud and Noah and and Sal and Moses and Jesus, what they all say is very close to what God is saying to the prophet of the Quran, Muhammad. Uh, so there's sort of this, this timelessness to it, which you, I think it's just really, it's really key. And I think, I mean, maybe I'm going too far, and you can push back or correct me, like, I think in, in Muslim spirituality generally, this becomes just an important principle. You know, you see slogans, for example, kind of dawa slogans of, you know, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, four prophets, one religion, many, many prophets, one, one religion, exactly.
One message.
Yeah. So, and, I mean, I don't want to get too punchy here, but like, it's so impressive to so many Muslims, like, this makes such a, uh, formative imprint on their kind of spirituality, that it's not often brought into conversation with, like, the data of history, of evolution, of what, you know, anthropologists of religion have said about, you know, I don't know, Neolithic man and all this stuff. I just kind of threw that term. I actually know when the Neolithic period was, but you, you get my, I think. Or even, um, ancient Israelite religion, right? This is, um, so the Quran has a view that sort of David, uh, exhorts in the same, in a similar manner to which Muhammad is, uh, called to do, and establishes, is he supposed to be doing similar things? He has a, um, certainly this is true in the tradition, right? He's seen as, uh, having a copy of, uh, the book, the like, the timeless book of of revelation. He has a Zabur, and he's, he's ruling accordingly. I mean, does it bear into, uh, you know, questions of what the archaeological history of ancient Israel yields, or what sort of, you know, political or, um, material developments led to the sort of David narratives in the Bible, or in, you know, para-biblical literature? No, right? So, not really. Not really. And doesn't mean that Muslim thinkers can't sort of do that, right? And there are exceptions. Uh, you know, famously, there, uh, was a controversy around an Egyptian fellow, I think his name was Abd al-Shahin, who wrote a book called, "My Father Adam," and he tried to bring evolution into conversation with the Quran. But even then, I mean, frankly, it was kind of in a pretty brutal way. Like, his idea of how they joined together was basically like, okay, you know, there was like, um, all of this development of hominids from chimpanzees and everything, and different stages of Australopithecus or Homo erectus or whatever the things are. But then, you know, suddenly, you know, God just chose, Adam, and then basically all the Quran is, you know, historical kind of textbook from there on out. You know, Adam's a historical figure, Noah is a historical figure, everyone's a historical figure. The data of the Quran is the data of history, you know, it's not a sort of a genre of religious spiritual writing, etcetera, etcetera. No, no, uh, no allegory, whatever. So, I mean, anyway, is a roundabout way of saying that, I mean, it, this, like, this is really important to the Quran. Makes a big imprint on Muslim spirituality. Um, and, I mean, at the heart of the whole question is Muhammad, right? So, like, the Quran, uh, you know, my opinion, like everything is directed towards validating and confirming, uh, its prophet. Um, and, you know, the whole history of earlier prophets, uh, anticipates Muhammad. Uh, I mean, sometimes explicitly, like in Surah Baqarah, Quran 2, where Abraham and Ishmael are made, uh, to pray for Muhammad, or Quran 7, uh, I think it's 157, somewhere around there, where the Quran says that, you know, the Gentile or the Ummi, maybe illiterate prophet, is written about in the Torah and the, uh, Injil, the Torah and Gospel, which we'll get to those terms. So, I mean, yeah, I mean, everything, everything is directed towards Muhammad. And, uh, it's therefore assumed, and maybe this gets us more directly to the question of, uh, the Bible, it's therefore assumed that, um, you know, the role of Moses, and Moses must have been like Muhammad, David must have been like Muhammad, Jesus must have been like Muhammad. Uh, you know, necessarily, uh, Muhammad is sort of the model for all the earlier prophets. Uh, therefore, Moses must have had a revelation, uh, more or less from an angel, more or less verbatim. You know, there's some problems there that some Muslims get into, like, wait, what language was it in? Did he speak in Arabic? Or, uh, but same thing with David, same thing, uh, with Jesus. So that's kind of the beginning of the problem of, uh, of, you know, of, you can see where you, if you start with that, you can see how you end up with the accusation of, or the corruption of the Bible.
Very good. Now, I think that, I think it's absolutely right. And, and actually, in, um, um, it's right. It's, it's actually written. It is written in the those scriptures. So, yeah, we'll talk about that in a minute. Can I jump in, Hassan, before you? Just one last point to sort of bring to bear the importance of that. I mean, I think it's just worth saying for folks who, you know, are not maybe familiar with this debate or the rhetoric, uh, medieval and modern, around corruption. I mean, this isn't like, uh, a few folks on the fringe who think the Bible is corrupt. I mean, this is just like, I don't know, if you go from Indonesia to Nigeria to South Bend, Indiana, and you speak with Muslims, I mean, it's simply the overwhelming view that, for example, you know, Jesus received one gospel from God. The Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not that gospel, therefore they're corrupt. Period. I mean, I find that with Muslim intellectuals working in the West, in, you know, American or European universities, like I find it in the Middle East or, you know, other Islamic countries that I've been to. I mean, it's just, it's just there are exceptions, of course, it's not 100%. You know, I could tell some stories about, you know, Muslims I've met through the years who said, no, no, like, I love the Bible too, I read the Bible for spiritual, uh, edification or whatever. But those are exceptions.
Yeah, no, I think that's absolutely right. And, uh, I think it would be helpful. Let's go, we start, we're talking about about modern-day perceptions. Let's go back, because I do think that you generally see a trend towards the universalization, apologies of this view, right? It's not, I don't think it's dominant, um, at the earliest stages, certainly. I mean, let's, I think we should focus in on the quranic material, uh, where, I, I think it's quite, quite debatable if not the opposite view. Um, but over, over time, in Muslim tradition, uh, this becomes the overwhelmingly dominant position. Yes.
Right. And it's not clear, I agree with you, it's not clear that this is a quranic position. Uh, there's a lot of polemic in the Quran against sort of, um, the, uh, the, uh, stewardship, if that's the right word, of Jews and Christians over God's word. So there's a lot of accusations that they're not good stewards. Um, so all kinds of vocabulary here. I mean, famously, although I don't think the noun corruption or falsification appears in the Quran, but the verb does appear, you know, as a difficult word or verb to translate, but, you know, it's usually rendered as, um, misread, mishandled, because it's usually, you know, so, uh, it would mean something like mishandling, mis- misread, misused, the, uh, the words or the word. But then, on the other hand, you have accusations of writing something which is not God's word and claiming that it is God's word. Uh, you know, a whinge made against the Jews, made made against, I think the Jews in particular, right? Yeah. So, "Cursed are those who write the word with their own hands, and then they say, this is from God," in order to to win something, uh, from it, to gain something materially from it. So, I mean, there, yeah, there's lots of, there's tbal, exchanging things. So there's lots of accusations, um, like this.
And 100% right. It's really interesting that it's principally against the Jews. But I mean, Hassan, this may be a detour. I mean, don't you think that like, I mean, there's polemic against the Christians, but the Jews play a particular role as sort of the anti-Muslims, not, not necessarily as the community hostile to Muslims, although there is some of that, but principally as like, the example you shouldn't follow. I don't you think that's prominent in the Quran, especially in? But it's in other places too.
Yeah, and I, I think wherever the stories of previous prophets are recounted, um, maybe just given the the biblical background, so many of them concern the children of Israel, right? So when, and there's so many parallels between the people not, uh, obeying God, be it, uh, at The Exodus, right? So, so the Ma'ah, um, when they're told to enter the land, they disobey, and then this is compared with, uh, people in, uh, Muhammad's own, uh, sort of milieu, and their responses to his prophethood. So, yes, it very often does happen. Yeah, explicitly. I mean, there's the famous line, I think it's twice in the Quran, where the Israelites are made to say, "We hear and we disobey." Right? Uh, and then the believers are made to say a couple of times as well, "We hear and we obey." At so, I mean, it's, there's explicit parallelism where the Israelites are held up as sort of the opposite of the prophet's own community. Not to say there isn't also a sort of criticism, uh, within of M elements of Muhammad's own community, or praise for certain elements, uh, among the Jews. So it's, it's not a universal kind of, I'm not saying the Quran is anti-Semitic, I'm not saying it's a universal condemnation of the Jews, but in sort of its, like, the use of the Israelites in the Quran for its, I mean, you use a fancy word, sort of homiletic purposes, its efforts at convincing its audience, they are held up as the community that rebelled and subsequently was punished for the rebellion, and, "take a lesson, like, take heed." Right? You know, Jesus says in the gospel, "Remember Lot's wife." You know, so it's that, I mean, I think it's that kind of vibe.
Yeah, absolutely. And, let's further, uh, specify this. It's not even all Jews, usually. It's us, um, something like, right? Or, you know, a party from amongst them, or some, you know, like, a group within them. And, well, some of them believe, right? I think that's true and not true. I mean, I wish it were completely true, but I think there's like, probably just for, you know, the purposes of argument, there are presentations because remember, you know, like the peoples who rejected the other prophets, who, or Noah, it's basically all of them. You know, sometimes there's a few individuals that believe, but it's basically all of them. And they're kind of all punished, right? 'Ad is punished, Thamud is punished. And I think you get this with, um, uh, with, you know, with the Israelites as well. I mean, I could cite some passages. I don't want to kind of lay to, uh, uh, emphasize that too much. Um, but I mean, the, I guess the most important point is just what's going on here is not like, in my humble opinion, not like, um, a sort of meticulous assessment of the nature of the Bible. Uh, we can get into this, but it's not even clear that the Quran has detailed knowledge of the nature of the Bible. Um, and that's, that's just not what's going on. What's going on is, um, an effort to convince the people of Muhammad's time to accept him, um, as a prophet. And there's this negative example, ex, le, of a people who were disobedient to God, and their prophet, you know, they took a covenant with God, they broke their covenant, they not only disobeyed the prophets, they killed the prophets, right? So all of this is kind of marshaled, in my opinion, for the sole purpose of sort of, you know, inculcating, uh, belief in, um, in Muhammad's own community.
Yeah, that's right. I, I think that's right. The general parallel, which you're bringing attention to, is true. I think specifically for, for the question of though, it is, it's important to identify the language of, you know, a party from amongst them, because I do think that it, it, it's an argument against the total corruption of the biblical text, right? So if we assume, um, that the, the Quran is speaking of, you know, fairly contemporary matters, it seems that it's always qualifying, even some of its sh, not always, it's very often qualifying, even some of its sharper critiques against those who maybe are mishandling scripture, uh, by saying, well, some of them do this, or a party of them do this, or, uh, you know, maybe even most of them. But I, I think what's missing, if you look at, look at it closely, and we could look at the text itself in a moment here, uh, some of the key texts in this regard, but there is missing, I think, a totalizing, um, sort of corruption at the hands of either, um, Jews or mus, or sorry, or Christians, uh, of their respective scriptures. But, yeah, certainly the Jews are singled out for mishandling, uh, their, um, the Torah. I, you know, I take your point, and I think probably both things are going on. So there's kind of, for argument's sake, the representation of the whole people, sort of breaking the covenant that's sort of put forward. And then in other places, like you say, for example, you know, that verse that I started quoting, which I think is, I think is 79, is could be getting it wrong, so 279 is something like, well, well, anyway, goes on, so "cursed be the people who write the book with their hands, and it's not saying cursed be all of the, I mean, woe is exactly cursed, whatever, woe to, woe to these people." It's not saying all of the Jews, for example, or all the Christians, it's those, right? Yeah. So I think that's, I think that's there. I think that's there as well. And, I mean, I think like generally, this is, this is where everything gets murky, uh, namely, trying to sort out precise historical scenarios that could, uh, be behind, you know, the, the final form of the Quran. Sort out what exactly, yeah, because anyway, that's probably another topic, uh, right? And then, I mean, I don't know, I, I feel like we should probably address also, I mean, I wonder if you have reaction to my point that the Quran is not sort of meticulously considering whether say, the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament, or the 27 books of the New Testament, um, at least as, you know, as they're known in most churches, I know in the East or other canons and stuff, but like, whether they're like, reliable, God's word, etcetera, uh, I don't know if you have a few thoughts about that, like, how, you know, do you have a sense that the Quran has kind of familiarity with, um, whatever in its context is the canonical Bible?
Uh, I would say yes and no. I would say that I don't think it makes a distinction, really, between para-biblical stories or narratives and biblical narratives. What we find in the canon, right? Um, so it usually recounts these together, intertwined at times. I will say that there is a lot of recapitulation of biblical material, right? And that, I, I think that has to at least be a sort of leading indicator of the Quran's view towards revelation, right? So even when it goes, uh, when it goes over the sorts of commandments that were given, uh, in the Torah, right? So an eye for an eye, um, things like this, it's, it, it's not quoting in the sense that we would today, but it, it does seem like a very clear reference back, right? And there are many, many cases of this. So the Nativity of, of, of Jesus, uh, Zechariah in the temple, uh, even other biblical narratives and lists of prophets. So, I, I do think that the Quran is, um, whenever it deals with canonical material, it seems to, uh, it seems to affirm it, is my, is my, interesting put.
Yeah, okay. Yeah. Um, yeah, and I maybe I can go even a step further than that in saying that there, there are places in the Quran where, uh, more or less the Quran seems to be praising, maybe Christians especially, for reciting God's word. Um, so I mean, sometimes it's pretty, pretty veiled, but I mean, there are cases like, I think it's in Quran 57, maybe you can correct me if you look it up, where the Quran speaks of the Christians as a people, you know, who have gentleness and mercy. And then I might be mixing up two different passages that would be horrible, some someone would correct me in the comments, but, um, you know, it speaks of a parable, meth for, um, from the gospel. Um, okay, that might be all my stuff. But then another example that might be less messed up is, you know, uh, the Quran in Surah 22, um, uh, right, 22 refers to, uh, seems to refer, well, no, it refers to different religious buildings. Uh, so it refers to B, which is churches, uh, refers to, which seems to be the, the cells or of monks, cells of monks, yeah, yeah. And it refers to Salat or something like that, which which could be synagogues, is not really clear. Anyway, Muhammad also, uh, it, I believe it speaks to them as, it speaks of them as good places and as a place where God's word is recited. Uh, there's also a reference, if I'm not mistaken, in, uh, Quran 24, right after the light verse. So this is, you know, right after the light verse, which is verse 35, I think. There's a reference to, uh, basically a monk. I mean, it doesn't say monk, doesn't monk here, but I think it is a reference to a monk reciting God's word. So I mean, you know, uh, that's kind of interesting, right? Because you could, you could look at, I mean, this happens all the time. You could say, oh, the Quran speaks about the Injil, the gospel, and or the Torah, the, uh, Torah, and but a Muslim, you know, kind of working in an apologetic mode would say, yeah, yeah, but that's not, that's not the New Testament or the Old Testament. But then you have these other passages where the Christians of Muhammad's time seem to be good because they recite God's word. And then the most famous one, I guess, is in where it it commands the people of the Gospel to rule according to the Gospel. This isn't a gospel from the first century that was lost. This is clear. I mean, if they're going to be ruling according to, uh, their gospel, it's the gospel that is around between 610 and 632 AD. Yeah.
Right. Absolutely. And it even goes on to say that, you know, "to Allah is your return altogether, and then he will inform you concerning over which you used to differ." Right? So it acknowledges, that's 48. Right? That's 48. That's the following verse. That it acknowledges that there might, I mean, and this is a principal concern of the Quran, that is theology, right? There are misunderstandings. Certainly the Quran always affirms that Christians, for the most part, and Jews, to a lesser degree, have error in theology. Yes, but God, it's, yeah, it seems to say here that God will inform them of their differences, um, on the day. So, yeah.
Now, um, there's a problem though. I mean, with all this, which is namely that, um, does the Quran, does it go further, or does it know more than in some sort of vague way, um, Christians say monks are reading the word of God, are reading something called the Injil? Does it go further than that? Does it actually know, you know, like I said, the 27 books, or whatever, in the Eastern context of the New Testament? Does it actually know, you know, Jews would say the Tanakh, you know, the Torah, the five books of the Torah, and then the Prophets, and then the so-called Writings, uh, of the Hebrew Bible? Uh, I don't think it does. So, um, that kind of complicates things. I mean, it's, it's kind of interesting in a historical way. I mean, but for, uh, theology, this complicates things, right? Because, I mean, just as a general reminder, you could correct me if I, if I forget something here, but, you know, the Quran speaks in kind of vague terms of Torah, Zabur, so Psalms, maybe I'm not sure I actually like that translation, we could speak about that, but it's associated with David. And yes, uh, anyway, we speak about that. I know there's the thing in about, uh, you know, maybe a quotation from the Psalms that's mentioned by the Quran, in, um, and then there's a couple of other things in there, like, there are all kinds of references to, well, there's the of Abraham, and then there are different things of like ktis and other kinds of words for parchment and papyrus, maybe, and scrolls and whatever. But, I mean, it doesn't actually use any of the, I mean, with a possible exception of Psalms, and we could speak about that exception, it doesn't actually use any of the, uh, names, um, that, you know, in the Eastern Church at the time, um, were used for the units of the Bible. I mean, it, you know, doesn't give a title like Bit, uh, or whatever the Arabic version would be, Teen, or whatever, for the Book of Genesis, right? It never speaks of, uh, you know, meta, the four Gospels. It doesn't seem to have any idea out there that there's a book called Acts of the Apostles, right? That there's a guy named Paul, you know, who wrote all these letters? Do you know, you know what I mean? Like, there's just no, there's no sense of, of kind of knowledge of or engagement with the scripture. And actually, although this will be a little controversial, I mean, I, I think there are a couple of places where it, um, proposes that there are things in Christian scripture that are not there.
Yeah, I think so. I, I think that's absolutely right. I don't even think that's a controversial thing, at least in, in, in scholarship. It's certainly not a controversial, uh, take that the Quran seems largely, um, you could say non-conversant with the, uh, the canon. And, so, yeah, that, I mean, that's an issue. I mean, I guess, uh, you know, obviously Muslims have the T, the theological task before them of reconciling all these things with what is sort of an unmovable doctrine or dogma that the Quran is the infallible word of God. So, I mean, you know, obviously theologically, uh, believers can work that out, which is fine. Obviously, Christians and Jews have their own, uh, challenges before them as well. But, I mean, just historically, the interesting point is, and, you know, I F A little bit with Jack Tanus on an earlier episode of Exploring the Quran and the Bible, you know, what does this say about the, uh, the presence of, uh, of an Arabic Bible? Um, you know, if the, I go with the traditional setting of Mecca and Medina, I mean, to me, the answer is that there was not an Arabic Bible around. Professor Tanus, who's actually usually right, so that makes me a little nervous, suggests at least it was part enough for use in in worship, in liturgy. But anyway, I mean, I think that's really important, just in the larger context of, uh, the legacy of accusations against the Bible in an Islamic context, just keep in mind that, you know, what the Quran is up to is really important, you know, um, in terms of sort of advancing its case for Muhammad, and necessarily for itself as well. But, you know, it's just, it's, it's just wrong, in my opinion, in historical terms, it's wrong to think that the Quran sort of is examining the canonical Bible and finding it wanting. Um, yeah.
Right. Anyway, I think we should move, uh, I think that's absolutely right. But we should probably move from here to, uh, the quranic material, uh, itself. And maybe we can talk about, um, we can talk about specifically, um, though I want, before we go there, maybe we could touch briefly on, um, the verses where previous scriptures are mentioned, right? Maybe that can set the scene for us. So, um, you know, when, when Moses is given, uh, the book, and then when Jesus is, or the Torah, and then when Jesus is given the, um, maybe we can just dig into a few of those. Um, right. So, Quran 2:87 comes to mind right off the bat. So, Surah Baqarah, um, "We did certainly give Moses the Scripture and followed up after him with messengers. And We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear proofs and supported him with," uh, often rendered, you know, "a pure spirit," or Gabriel. The Arabic is, um, "Ruh al-Qudus," whose translation is that, who renders that as G, I think it's the majority of of of of Muslim translators render this at least in a gloss as is the Arabic.
Yeah, that's right. Yeah, that's right. So literally, literally, to take a non-exegetical translation, it's "We supported him with the Spirit of Holiness." Right? Exactly.
Um, so, yeah, maybe we could just start there. And there are other, uh, examples, of course, as well. In Surah 3, uh, we also have, uh, in the beginning, Surah 3, verse 3, we have, I think this is a very important word, right? Right? So maybe you want to say a few things about that, Professor?
That could get us started. I mean, I, I don't know if I have much more to add. To me, all of that is best viewed as part of the Quran's argument for Muhammad.
What do you make of, right? So I, I think that actually is an interesting counterpart to, right? So it's what the Torah does. Sorry, it's what the Injil does to the Torah. It's what the Quran does, right? Yeah. Um, I mean, it's all about Muhammad. It's all about Muhammad. So I mean, it's all the claim is, I don't think the Quran's intention there is really to affirm, uh, Jews or Christians at all, or their scripture, although, as I've said, and I think we probably see eye to eye on this, I don't think the Quran, uh, has sort of ruled against the Bible. But the point there is, you know, "muhaymin" means to confirm. You know, it appears, um, uh, a number of places as a self-designation of the Quran as well. You know, there's a passage that speaks of the Quran as, you know, an Arabic tongue, a book which confirms. That's its principal identity. And the point is, Muhammad, the point is that, listen, um, this, uh, this new prophet, uh, is given revelation as earlier prophets were giving revelation. Um, you know, therefore, you should recognize him as a prophet. I mean, the whole context, I know this is a little, uh, sort of provocative, but the whole context is the Quran needs to make space for this prophet because in late antiquity, in the Middle East, basically, like the idea that a new prophet would come along is sort of out of the question. You know, there's stuff out there, a little bit like Mani and Manichaeism and whatever, you know, Elites, Elazi things, but more or less like prophecy is out of the question. Late antiquity is over. The cessation of prophecy. And so the Quran really has to work hard to demand space for this new prophet. And its principal strategy is to say, um, well, actually, there's a couple of principal strategies. One of them is to say, you know, he is coming, uh, in the line of Moses and Jesus. I mean, there's actually, it's probably a wild comparison and maybe it has more, how do you say, heat than light, but I mean, it's a little bit like Joseph Smith, um, the American scene, um, claiming the legacy of Jesus for, uh, his religion that also has a theology, probably in a very, very different way from Islam, you know, that veers radically, uh, from Christianity. Um, so, I mean, yeah, that's how I see all of that. And, I mean, where things get messy, if I could just add one more thing, and maybe you can build on this, or we could circle back to the Quran. I mean, where things get messy is that when you get into the medieval writings by Muslims, you know, you have a totally different social political context, and now Muslims know about the Bible. You know, Christians are around and most of the Islamic heartlands, they know about the Bible. And so they circle back to this quranic material and, you know, as we said at the beginning, with this firm conviction that, you know, God has sent these books to these prophets, all the books are basically the same. And now that they know the Bible, start examining the Bible, and they're basically on the hunt for, uh, for, they're on the hunt for things which veer from their assumptions about what Moses' or Jesus' books would have looked like. Okay.
Yeah, fair enough. Yeah. I think that's, I think that's absolutely right. But we should probably move from here to, uh, the quranic material, uh, itself. And maybe we can talk about, um, we can talk about specifically, um, though I want, before we go there, maybe we could touch briefly on, um, the verses where previous scriptures are mentioned, right? Maybe that can set the scene for us. So, um, you know, when, when Moses is given, uh, the book, and then when Jesus is, or the Torah, and then when Jesus is given the, um, maybe we can just dig into a few of those. Um, right. So, Quran 2:87 comes to mind right off the bat. So, Surah Baqarah, um, "We did certainly give Moses the Scripture and followed up after him with messengers. And We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear proofs and supported him with," uh, often rendered, you know, "a pure spirit," or Gabriel. The Arabic is, um, "Ruh al-Qudus," whose translation is that, who renders that as G, I think it's the majority of of of of Muslim translators render this at least in a gloss as is the Arabic.
Yeah, that's right. Yeah, that's right. So literally, literally, to take a non-exegetical translation, it's "We supported him with the Spirit of Holiness." Right? Exactly.
Um, so, yeah, maybe we could just start there. And there are other, uh, examples, of course, as well. In Surah 3, uh, we also have, uh, in the beginning, Surah 3, verse 3, we have, I think this is a very important word, right? Right? So maybe you want to say a few things about that, Professor?
I mean, I, I don't know if I have much more to add. To me, all of that is best viewed as part of the Quran's argument for Muhammad.
What do you make of, right? So I, I think that actually is an interesting counterpart to, right? So it's what the Torah does. Sorry, it's what the Injil does to the Torah. It's what the Quran does, right? Yeah. Um, I mean, it's all about Muhammad. It's all about Muhammad. So I mean, it's all the claim is, I don't think the Quran's intention there is really to affirm, uh, Jews or Christians at all, or their scripture, although, as I've said, and I think we probably see eye to eye on this, I don't think the Quran, uh, has sort of ruled against the Bible. But the point there is, you know, "muhaymin" means to confirm. You know, it appears, um, uh, a number of places as a self-designation of the Quran as well. You know, there's a passage that speaks of the Quran as, you know, an Arabic tongue, a book which confirms. That's its principal identity. And the point is, Muhammad, the point is that, listen, um, this, uh, this new prophet, uh, is given revelation as earlier prophets were giving revelation. Um, you know, therefore, you should recognize him as a prophet. I mean, the whole context, I know this is a little, uh, sort of provocative, but the whole context is the Quran needs to make space for this prophet because in late antiquity, in the Middle East, basically, like the idea that a new prophet would come along is sort of out of the question. You know, there's stuff out there, a little bit like Mani and Manichaeism and whatever, you know, Elites, Elazi things, but more or less like prophecy is out of the question. Late antiquity is over. The cessation of prophecy. And so the Quran really has to work hard to demand space for this new prophet. And its principal strategy is to say, um, well, actually, there's a couple of principal strategies. One of them is to say, you know, he is coming, uh, in the line of Moses and Jesus. I mean, there's actually, it's probably a wild comparison and maybe it has more, how do you say, heat than light, but I mean, it's a little bit like Joseph Smith, um, the American scene, um, claiming the legacy of Jesus for, uh, his religion that also has a theology, probably in a very, very different way from Islam, you know, that veers radically, uh, from Christianity. Um, so, I mean, yeah, that's how I see all of that. And, I mean, where things get messy, if I could just add one more thing, and maybe you can build on this, or we could circle back to the Quran. I mean, where things get messy is that when you get into the medieval writings by Muslims, you know, you have a totally different social political context, and now Muslims know about the Bible. You know, Christians are around and most of the Islamic heartlands, they know about the Bible. And so they circle back to this quranic material and, you know, as we said at the beginning, with this firm conviction that, you know, God has sent these books to these prophets, all the books are basically the same. And now that they know the Bible, start examining the Bible, and they're basically on the hunt for, uh, for, they're on the hunt for things which veer from their assumptions about what Moses' or Jesus' books would have looked like. Okay.
That's absolutely, uh, right. So I guess from here, we should probably, I mean, there's an interesting, uh, I mean, there's an interesting direction we could go into medieval exegesis, but I want to resist that for just a moment. Um, that you, but let's go, let's, let's go back to, um, words like, like, can we speak maybe a little bit more about, so then what is talking about? What, what is it? What does it mean then? Okay, go ahead.
I think it's almost, I mean, the phrase in the Quran that shows up, for example, in 5:13, a couple of other places, is, I mean, it's just like, how do you interpret this phrase, uh, both in sort of a, um, I don't know, like a literary level, like how do you actually understand the words, and then if you go to the deeper sort of level of the meaning, it's just super hard. I mean, you start with the root of *y-w-r*, which is related to the Arabic word for letter, but I believe, and I don't know if you ask lexicographers, they say, well, this root was used for letters once writing came around because it has to do with an edge of something, and sharp instruments were necessary for writing. So you're doing this thing, edge, sharpness, letter, to *kal*, to word or words from their places or meanings, because most, I mean, that root, which just comes from, you know, it's, I can mean a million different things. It comes to mean a place, and it comes to mean meaning as well. So it's just a mess. Sorry, that's not very helpful.
You have a clear idea of what's going on there? Yeah. Well, I, I think it's important, maybe just to jump into the context of, um, that, that this also is, is a, is a Jewish, there's a Jewish context behind this, right? 5:13. 100%. And then the accusation is not in 5:14, right, where Christians are criticized, but they're not criticized for this, right? Right, exactly. And it comes right after, uh, a discussion of them breaking, uh, the covenant or the compact. And, um, right. I think, I think it's important just to keep in mind as we look at a few textual examples. Yeah.
And I mean, it's a pretty big problem. Uh, I, I feel like I keep pushing, pushing us towards the medieval and modern, and you want to stick with the Quran. Let's go, let's go ahead. This is a big, this is a big problem, uh, theologically and also just socially, culturally, politically, right? Uh, and it's not only a problem for Muslims in the Quran, it's also a problem, uh, for Christians, um, and the Gospels, really the whole New Testament, and the whole legacy of church teaching on the Jews and Judaism. It's rendered a thousand times more complicated by the political realities. You know, we're recording this in 2024, the war in Gaza is still going on. Um, obviously, you know, the conflict, uh, you know, around Zionism has been going on a lot longer. So, I mean, it's just, it's just very, very difficult, right? Because, uh, you know, in the Quran, the Jews are put forward as, we said, as the people who sort of, uh, paradigmatically rebel against God, disobey God, twist God's word for their own benefit. I mean, and then there's really polemical stuff about the ways in which, you know, we don't have to go into it now, the ways in which God punished certain Jews for disobeying the Sabbath, all this kind of stuff. And there's plenty in Christian, uh, the Christian legacy as well. It takes a totally different form, of course, because it's connected to the charge of Jews as the murderers of Christ, um, you know, in the church replacing Israel. But I mean, like, if I can add, yeah, yeah.
If I can add here too, I, I would, I would say in, in Christian polemic, it's not usually an actual corruption of the text. It's, it's usually the reading of the text that's criticized, right? Yeah. On this question. Yeah. You said a misreading of the text. Yeah. A misreading of the text. A, you know, where they, they miss typology, or they, you know, necessarily, because Christians, the church accepts the Hebrew Bible as God's word, right? Right. Absolutely. And I mean, it was the basis before the New Testament. It was the basis of, of Christian, uh, preaching, right? For, I mean, maybe early Christians would have, and some hypothetical world would have accused the Jews of, um, you know, corrupting, falsifying their scripture. But, you know, once the church decided that this is God's word, um, and it's kind of, the church had no choice because it seems like the very early articulation of the Gospel or the kerygma, uh, sort of depended on, you know, Christological readings of the Hebrew Bible. That's a whole another subject. Any, yeah.
I, I would, I would just say that I, I don't, I don't know if there was any an explicit decision apart from opposing maybe Marcionism to early Christian. And, I mean, again, maybe it's a wild comparison, but it's the same reason why Latter-day Saints, Mormons, love the Bible, defend the Bible, uh, you know, in their, uh, you know, kind of proselytizing material on the internet, or when they knock on your door with their nice smiles and their name tags, you know, I live on the third floor, so they're always like, we love the Bible, we love the Bible, we just, you know, we have a newer, a newer, uh, version of God's word that you really should get to know, etc., etc.
Speaking of a newer version of God's word, um, let's go to the medieval, um, the medieval period, the medieval interpretation of some of these Quranic polemics and the notion of *tahrif* developing in Islamic theology, to Abd al-Jabbar, right? Um, which is, uh, you translated and, uh, edited, um, a, a work of his, right? The medieval, um, Muslim theologian. Yeah. I just did the translation, not the edition. Edition was by. So that's, I, you guys worked together on on the project. That's right. So it wasn't like an older edition that I grabbed. You know, we sat down in Beirut, uh, you know, for basically a year and worked on that together. Yeah. Amazing. I mean, I, I read it actually, and I, I remember the, it was one of my first introductions, uh, to the field, uh, funny enough. And I remember the story, the more or less, the, at least the broad outline of what Abd al-Jabbar gives as the scenario in which this happens, right? So, and correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a little while ago, but I'll try to recapitulate it here. Basically, that after, um, after Christ's Ascension, there is, um, a party from the disciples or the followers of Jesus who, um, are propositioned by the Romans because they're being persecuted by the Jews. And the Romans give them a deal that, "We will make you, um, will make you stronger, will help you against, um, your adversaries if you give us the book." And some of them do it, and then there's a party of them that don't, but then they get outnumbered by the Romans. Um, and, uh, is that right? Is there anything more to it?
Yeah, I mean, there's just the end of the story. So that's perfect. The end of the story is basically that, uh, the folks who refused the deal, they actually, um, have like the one book, apparently, it's just one of them. They didn't make any copies. And they, uh, they run off, um, with the book. So the unfaithful disciples of Jesus, who made the deal with the pagan Romans, they kind of like are looking around at each other. They're like, "Wait, we don't, we don't have a book now. We better come up with something." Yeah. And then they come up, successively, come. This is why there are four Gospels, because one came up with something, and then the other came up with something, the other came up with something. They forget more stuff each time. There's also an interesting detail. I remember that the emperor, the Roman Emperor, is said to be in Constantinople and not, uh, not Rome, right? Is that, that's correct, I think. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Before Constantine and, yeah, before the city was the capital of the Roman Empire. Yeah. But, uh, nonetheless, you know, well, I mean, so I think it's interesting to put that kind of account, and it's a really extraordinary account. Um, you, I'm not trying to sell books here. I think I make, like, $2 a year off of this translation because of the great royalties rate that I negotiated back then. So, you know, like, and find a pirated copy on the internet, uh, uh, if you want to. Um, you don't have to, you know, I'm not going to make any money anyway. But I mean, this is an extraordinary account. Basically, you know, Abd al-Jabbar, the book is called, the Arabic, the full Arabic book is called, *The Confirmation of the Signs of Prophethood*. We just grabbed, it's about, um, in the Arabic text, 120 pages. We grabbed that part which deals with Abd al-Jabbar's critique of Christianity, and we call it the English version, *The Critique of Christian Origins*. So, we just made up that title. It's not Abd al-Jabbar's title. It's just a section of the book. But I mean, in that section, this, this is just an extraordinary account. Why? Because, you know, already earlier Muslims are, uh, throwing out accusations of, um, you know, that comes, you know, in the pretty early on in the legacy of, um, of anti-Christian polemics, and it's more or less there in the Hadith already, you know. And I remember a couple of the Hadith that deal with the Hadith. So, you know, Bukhari comes around in, uh, well, he dies in 870 CE, and, you know, who knows when the Hadith are best dated, but so it's around this, this accusation is around. But no one, no one is explaining how, like, okay, if the Bible, if the New Testament was really corrupted from Jesus's original gospel, um, I mean, this is just like, no data. It's just like this accusation. Like, was the gospel in Hebrew? Was it in Aramaic? Was it in Greek? What did it look like? The true gospel? Where did it go? Who had it? Why do we have these four Gospels? And so Abd al-Jabbar is the first guy who tries to come up with a story of what went down, right?
Well, there's also issues that in the, there's, you know, there are Christian monks, um, and some of them are, are, are, are said to have it, right? Like one of them is said to have it, and, um, he translates from it. And, um, there's an additional issue with, uh, respect to when it happened. I think a lot of thought is, um, like Constantine, right? That's a very popular opinion, at least today. Uh, I'd have to check on how old, how, you know, the antiquity of this opinion. That might be the beginning of the Constantine, both the obsession with with Paul the Apostle Paul, and the obsession with Constantine as sort of like the mega corruptors of Jesus's Islamic religion. It's Abd al-Jabbar, who, by the way, Abd al-Jabbar dies in 1025 CE. In anyway, he says in the text that he's writing in 385 AH, so 995 CE is when he's writing. Yeah. Yeah. So, but this, I mean, like the principal account pushes it back. Not, it's not just Constantine, but it's actually the the apostles themselves. Yeah. Even, even before. Well, I don't know if it uses the word, uh, *hawariyun* or something like that, right? Sure. So it's not clear if in the scenario that Abd al-Jabbar tells, he imagines Jesus's very, very apostles. I see. Okay. But it's very, very early. He, because he starts the story by saying, "After the disappearance of Jesus," and he's careful not to say, uh, the crucifixion or the, right, the resurrection. He says, "After the appearance of Jesus." Muslims, of course, generally believe that he was taken up directly into heaven, body and soul, without dying. He said, "After the disappearance of Jesus, his followers were all in one community together with the Jews, and the Romans were ruling over them." So, yeah.
I mean, uh, so, I mean, just to, like, kind of step back, because, you know, um, we're already over an hour here, I think, and I, I want to, and pretty soon, and I, I want to say a word or two, although maybe we could do a second episode where we can go into greater depth about the Gospel of Barnabas. But I want to say a word or two about the modern era, because I think something completely new happens around, in the modern era. So, I mean, if it's okay, and then maybe you can add or push back on this, like, I mean, what happens with Abd al-Jabbar and in the medieval period generally is just fundamentally different to, like, I don't know, Muslim *da'wah*, you know, on TikTok and Instagram or wherever, YouTube, these days, as concerns the Bible, because in the medieval period, you know, um, there isn't like this engagement with, um, any sort of like historical critical scholarship about biblical manuscripts. There's just like really hazy knowledge about any, basically anything that happens, uh, in the Christian world, uh, before Islam. I mean, obviously, there are kind of historical chronicles that begin with creation, and they, you know, but usually everything up to Muhammad, it's just the prophets that they focus on. There's just not a lot of detail on the other stuff. It's usually the Christian Arabic or Syriac chronicles, uh, that go into that stuff, like the history of the Patriarchs, and, I mean, in Syriac, Michael, Michael the Syrian, and, uh, Bar Hebraeus, and stuff. So there's just kind of hazy knowledge out there in the medieval period. So Abd al-Jabbar, he, it's pretty clear that some of his sources for that story about *tahrif* are, uh, actually Jewish, um, Jewish sources writing in Arabic, Judeo-Arabic, where some of these notions, um, especially about Paul, the section on Paul, are developed, you know. There is a history of anti-Pauline writing among Jews writing in, uh, in Arabic. So, but he's like, he's, I think, uh, he completes the story himself with his own creativity. So, yeah. And then in the modern period, it's just, you know, totally different, where, um, I mean, first, the Gospel of Barnabas in the Renaissance period, 15th, 16th century, shows up on the scene. And then in the modern period, you know, there's the engagement with, uh, with historical critical Bible research, you know, that happens still today, produces the *Izhar al-Haqq*, 100%. Yeah, that comes out of South Asia, out of India, 19th century. Yeah. So, I mean, I don't know if you would agree that there's like a total disjuncture between what the Quran itself is doing in regard to revelation, to the medieval period, to the modern period, but I think there are kind of three different things.
Yeah, I think that's absolutely right. I would say that the Quran's view is, I mean, if we're looking to conclude here, I would say that the Quran's view is one of at least tacit acceptance, and, um, if not a little further than that. I would say the medieval view is, I think it's divided too. Like, I mean, Ibn Hazm famously says, well, how could Christians and Jews have corrupted their scripture? They hate each other, and they're spread everywhere. How, how could they all do the same, uh, sort of corruptions? But, I mean, you know, Abd al-Jabbar, Ibn Hazm comes to mind, like fierce polemics against, um, the Bible, but not based on historical critical modern naturalist thinking, right? Unlike, then, you know, the biblical studies revolution sort of takes off, the rise of nationalism, and sort of critical study. And then this is used, the, the, the sort of metaphysics, if you say, are very different between medieval critiques and, um, uh, modern critiques, right? Because modern critiques would even say that something like the Virgin birth, which is found in Matthew and Luke, and not in the rest of the New Testament, apart from maybe it's ambiguous in John, at least on face value, maybe ambiguous in Galatians, but probably not, at least explicitly mentioned. But it's affirmed in the Quran. Biblical scholars, for example, Bart Ehrman has said this, that he thinks it's, it's a later, uh, sort of invention, right, in, uh, part of the infancy narratives. Muslims, of course, can't, you know, Muslim theology, of course, doesn't think that, right? It thinks that the Virgin birth, the Virgin birth is laid out explicitly in in the Quran, right? So, yeah, very different, very different metaphysics, and sort of underlying philosophies at work.
Yeah, and I mean, uh, not to end on sort of a depressing, pessimistic note, but, uh, I mean, basically, um, Muslims and Christians, and, uh, Muslims and Jews, um, have been moving further apart when it comes to a dialogue around the Bible. Um, I agree with your assessment with the Quran's take on the Bible. Maybe we might disagree a little bit on how much the Quran actually knows the Bible, but I think the assessment is, you know, vaguely positive. The medieval period, you know, there's, uh, just general accusation that the Bible is corrupt, you know, even though there are some exceptions, you know, on the margins, you know, the *Ayatollah Sistani* tradition, Sistani, and some other, I think, uh, uh, one of the *Riyadh*, uh, *Abbas*, I think Abu al-Hasan was a, is as well, you know, quotes from the scripture, the Bible as God's word. So there's exceptions. I mean, but, and then, you know, you alluded to some really interesting things, which I think we should speak about in a second episode, but, you know, when you get to the modern period, you know, you have the fall of the Ottoman Empire, fall of the Safavid Empire, fall of the Mughal Empire, Europeans show up on the scene, you know, with their guns. And although, you know, maybe the marriage between missionaries and, uh, colonialism isn't as close as people assume, nevertheless, you know, missionaries do show up, even if they're very often kind of anti-colonial voices, but they do show up, and they're like, you know, preaching the gospel, printing the Bible in Islamic languages, all this stuff. And so it's just like, you know, turbocharges, uh, this whole problem around the Bible. But I mean, we should probably speak about that some other time. Yeah. Wonderful. Um, yeah, so much, so much you can talk about, so much you can sort of get into in this subject. So, all right. Yeah, let's, let's definitely do a second episode. And, uh, well, before we go, how about this? What if, if you were to say, give a final assessment, Professor, does the Quran think that the biblical text in the hands of Jews and Christians in the 7th century, uh, is corrupt? What would you say?
I don't think the Quran makes an assessment. I don't think it's agnostic. Yeah. I don't think the Quran, uh, tells us its opinion on that question. I mean, maybe a better, a simpler way of putting it is, I don't think the Quran is concerned with the canonical Bible at all. I think it has a general sense that the Jews and Christians read God's word, and that's good. It's good when they read it. It kind of commends them for doing that. Then it has a general sense that, you know, uh, in some ways, uh, they have been irresponsible. But its principal concern is just different. Its principal concern is advocating for the claims of its prophet. Okay. Yeah. Very interesting. Uh, well, yeah, thank you.