Revisiting the British Library

This afternoon I visited the Asian & African Studies Reading Room at British Library. Its’ majestic. The walls are lined with paintings of distinguished notables (absolutely no idea who they are).

I read further articles from the standard Western academic work on the Qur’an:

This article on the People of the Book is particularly interesting.


You can see the 6 volumes of The Encyclopaedia of the Qur’ān on the shelf:

Some dead white male lurking in a corner

Categories: Books, London, Quran, Scholarship

58 replies

  1. My God….this is pure ecstasy….

    Liked by 1 person

  2. If you’re interested in African studies, I would recommend that you read: “The Broken Pump in Tanzania: Julius Nyerere and the Collapse of Developmental Economics” by E. Michael Jones. It was just published this year. Currently reading it. Great book.


    • I am indeed surprised that you got Michael Jones’s book this quickly. It isn’t even very popular yet in Africa. “Kudos” I must say.


    • Chocoboy, you obviously don’t know me well enough. When Jones has a book out, I order it. As simple as that.

      As a Muslim, you would enjoy his 1400 page refutation of usury.


  3. The Qur’an affirms / confirms that the previous Scriptures were never corrupted in the text, since it encourages the people (both Christians in 5:47 and 5:68 and Muhammad in 10:94) at the time of the revealing of the Qur’an to resort to the previous Scriptures.

    “And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.” Surah 5:47

    “Say, “O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.” And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. So do not grieve over the disbelieving people.” Surah 5:68

    “So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters.” Surah 10:94


    • It’s odd that the experts contributing articles to The Encyclopaedia of the Qur’ān do not agree with you. How do you explain that Ken?


    • I did not see in any of the pages you copied where they wrote the text was corrupted at the time of Muhammad.

      Also, both Jane M. and John Exposito are at Georgetown University, highly endowed by Saudi massive wealth. If they disagree and think the text was corrupted at the time of Muhammad, they are showing their bias as they are funded by rich Saudi and Gulf state oil wealth.


    • The text of the Qur’an is clear on those 3 verses and over rules the so called “experts” bias of interpretations.


    • I went back and see the comment “though in their present state these texts represent only a defective version of the original”. Ok, but it does not tell us the view at the time of the Qur’an, only “their present state” (today?). If the previous Scriptures were corrupted at the time of Muhammad, how can Surah 5:47; 5:68 and 10:94 be true? This is a massive contradiction that demolishes Islam at root.


    • is your middle name pagan parrot ?

      Liked by 2 people

    • why would the verse go on to say :
      And We have revealed to you, [O Muúammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth.

      the whole point of the verse is to tell christians that whatever agrees with the quran “in it” (5:47) must be taken as from God. why is the quran used as a criterion over it? why then does it say “judge between them” AFTER it called itself CRITERION ?


    • “O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.”

      what has been revealed is a criterion over what you are told to up hold.
      so what ever DISAGREES with the criterion, MUST be rejected.


    • and by the way, why would the quran agree with the following CRAP :

      God approves of alcoholism, Proverbs 31, Psalm 104
      I contend that, regardless of whatever else the bible may say, there is a passage that approves of alcoholism.

      4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, It is not for kings to drink wine, Or for rulers to desire strong drink,
      5 For they will drink and forget what is decreed, And pervert the rights of all the afflicted.
      6 Give strong drink to him who is perishing, And wine to him whose life is bitter.
      7 Let him drink and forget his poverty And remember his trouble no more. (Prov. 31:4-7 NAU)
      There are several signs in this passage the strong drink in question is real alcohol, not diluted wine or grape juice:

      The “wine” in v. 4 is defined as “strong drink” by hendiadys (Hebrew idiom: expressing one idea by means of two different descriptions).
      that it really is “strong” drink is confirmed from the King forgetting his own decree after imbibing (v. 5).
      Other persons are expected to forget their troubles if they partake of this stuff (v. 7)
      Grape juice and diliuted or weak “wine” does not make those who drink it forget their decrees or forget their troubles. But there’s endless empirical evidence that alcohol surely accomplishes this goal.


    • Ken,
      Please stop this parrot fashion of discussion since it has become more and more boring.
      Christians’ approach to this topic is so wrong because they think the situation regarding their bible today is the same in the 7th century or is the same throughout the history in general! They think christians were walking around with the English Protestant bible for each! This is so wrong.

      Verse 5:57 is just a historical time line. You may check this point with one of Richard’s topics on the blog. However, Qur’an has no problem to judge according to the Injil (i.e the message revealed to Jesus) if you have it or if you can distinguish it from the false things attributed to since the injil of Jesus will lead you to the prophet ﷺ & Islam. If you don’t have it, then why cannot you read the verse after? Also, we know & for sure that even according to your bible today now you reject some teaching of Jesus such as Mark 10:18. Matthew 23:3

      Surah 5:88, also, has nothing to do with your bible. Qur’an again and again has clear idea of what the Torah and Inji are. This verse affirms that what you’re doing now is just ignoring the truth message of Jesus to the favor of the satanic message of Paul.

      Surah 10:49 is related to Surah 43:45. It’s about the concept of prophethood & worshipping Allah alone.
      It has noting to do with your bible authenticity. Also, This verse is a conditional one! It should be appreciated in comparison to the attitude of your prophet Paul who considered the true disciples of Jesus were nothing. It should be appreciated in comparison to your god whose testimony about himself is nothing!

      In Sum,Qur’an with no doubt refers to the fact the christians and jews corrupted the message textually and verbally, yet it’s not necessarily that each monk or Rabbi didn’t know the the true message of those books. And it’s not necessarily that each manuscript throughout the centuries got corrupted.
      Rabbis such as Abdullah ibn Salam & Ka’ab Al Ahabr did know, so they accepted Islam. (Surah 46:10)
      Many christians did know such as Salman the Persian so they accepted the message of Islam (Surah 5:82-83).

      Liked by 1 person

    • Surah 5:68, NOT 5:88
      Surah 10:94, NOT 49
      You are wrong and refutted. Even many Muslim scholars through the centuries believed that the text of the previous Scriptures was NOT corrupted, and so did Abdel Haleem, that Paul wrote about before. (but Paul later said he misunderstood him, but I have not seen the proof nor documentation.)


    • Surah 5:47, not 5:57
      Wow, Abdullah, you got all three references wrong. What’s up?


    • Ken yoy alleged serious corruption at one of your top universities:

      ‘both Jane M. and John Exposito are at Georgetown University, highly endowed by Saudi massive wealth. If they disagree and think the text was corrupted at the time of Muhammad, they are showing their bias as they are funded by rich Saudi and Gulf state oil wealth.’

      If you look at the list of scholars contributing to this encyclopedia you will see they come from many diverse top universities such as Yale.


    • Yale is mostly liberal political correctness and anti-supernatural presuppositions, as is most modern western scholarship today, which is funny that a Muslim uses their liberal material – like Ehrman, Crossan, Borg, Bultmann, Robert Funk, etc.


    • Yale, like Dale Martin liberal scholarship, the homosexual who things homosexuality is not a sin. You have used him a lot.


    • A good, believing scholar Robert Gagnon refutes homosexual scholar Dale Martin, of Yale University:


    • “You are wrong and refutted”
      I gave you some points so deal with them if you can.
      Notice that some muslims said so and so ≠ refutations otherwise I can state that the founder of your sect rejects the book of Revelation!

      Surah 5:47 is just a historical timeline. Al Tabari , Al Qurtubi , and even Ibn Kathir stated that.
      The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Your example and the example of the people of the two Scriptures (i.e. Jews and Christians) is like the example of a man who employed some laborers and asked them, ‘Who will work for me from morning till midday for one Qirat?’ The Jews accepted and carried out the work. He then asked, Who will work for me from midday up to the `Asr prayer for one Qirat?’ The Christians accepted and fulfilled the work. He then said, ‘Who will work for me from the `Asr till sunset for two Qirats?’ You, Muslims have accepted the offer. The Jews and the Christians got angry and said, ‘Why should we work more and get lesser wages?’ (Allah) said, ‘Have I withheld part of your right?’ They replied in the negative. He said, ‘It is My Blessing, I bestow upon whomever I wish .’

      We are the last and the first!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken Temple talk about bias. The irony.


  4. That last photo of the Encyclopedia of the Qur’an by Jane Dammen McAuliffe, that book reveals a lot:

    It is necessary to force / compel the Ahl al Kitab (Surah 9:29) by force of arms “to settle into the legal status fixed for them”

    This is more honesty – that Islam spread by the sword and force of establishing an external legal community over (Sharia law) the minorities (Dhimmi peoples – Jews, Christians, and later, Zoroastrians / Magians) and then wear them down by Jiziye and second class status through oppression policies (the Pact of Omar 1 and 2), etc.

    This is the opposite of how Christianity spread – Christianity starts with the heart and repentance, faith, conversion and works outward to change society, whereas Islam starts with the external society and law and forces that first, then works on internal conversion.

    Even Jonathan Brown admitted that the Caliphs did not care about internal change, only the external ordering of society.



    • LOL you are invincibly ignorant.

      Liked by 2 people

    • LOL, you are invincibly ignorant in your view.


    • Your christianity got spread by the force of the dictatorship political power of Rome. Romans whom your prophet Paul had no problem with because they are the (servants of God ) according to him.

      The state of Islam got spread by the power because it’s the 5th kingdom( the kingdom of God) after the divided fourth one (Rome) according to Dan 2. Islam as beleif has nothing to do with force.
      I’m not sure what your problem is with this while your prophet paul praises the the dictatorship of Pagan Rome. If the pagan Rome are the servants of God , then at least you have to give Omar (ra) who cleaned the christians’ dirty over Al Quds(Jerusalem) more credits, don’t you think ?

      Liked by 2 people

    • No. The Roman Empire was won by preaching, persuasion, argument, good works, holy responses to persecution. Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion; he only made it legal among others and said not to persecute them anymore. 311-313 AD and beyond, until after 381 AD.
      The Roman government did not unify with Christianity until AFTER 381 AD. (Theodosius)


    • The apostle Paul was telling the Christians not to rebel against the state. (Romans 13) not to take up arms or rebel, etc. Christians are like that – they don’t go around hitting people and breaking property like the liberal-left wing Marxists “antifa” crowd has been doing in the west at rally’s and universities.

      What Omar did was unjust. But God allowed it of course and it is history.


    • “No. The Roman Empire was won by preaching, persuasion, argument, good works, holy responses to persecution. Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion”
      OK, It’s a nice fiction story !

      “The apostle Paul was telling the Christians not to rebel against the state. (Romans 13) not to take up arms or rebel”
      Jesus should have listened to your prophet then For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.


    • But Islam was a terror to good conduct – unjustly attacked both Byzantine and Persia and kept on until stopped.


    • It is a fact that Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion in 311-313 AD, rather Theodosius did in 381 – 390 AD, much later; even Paul Williams has agreed with that fact.


    • The Pact of Omar is a fabricated document, it has no correct isnad back to Umar b. al-Khattab and even western scholars agree to that, see A.S. Tritton Caliphs and their Non-Muslim Subjects A Critical Study of the Covenant of ‘Umar

      > This is more honesty – that Islam spread by the sword and force of establishing an external legal community over

      Your lies were disproven long ago by even the orientalist Thomas Arnold Walker – The Preaching of Islam

      And no “Sharia Law” (look how even the term you’re using is incorrect, Sharia = idea of God’s law, so “Sharia Law” would be “Idea of God’s law law”) doesn’t apply to non-Muslim communities who were judged according to their own laws, own courts and own judges.

      Liked by 2 people

    • “unjustly attacked both Byzantine and Persia and kept on until stopped.”
      Tell that to Dan 2, first. Tell that to Isaiah 11:14.

      Second, if that was unjustly, then I expect you to say the same thing to your prophet Paul when he praised Rome. And I expect you to evolve a missionary condemning white invaders who live now in America including condemning yourself.
      However, we know that you cannot notice the log that is in your own eye.

      The hypocrisy has already consumed you, christians, and we are aware of that.

      Liked by 2 people

    • @ bigemail,

      A.S. Tritton’s book “Caliphs and their Non-Muslim Subjects A Critical Study of the Covenant of ‘Umar” is an outdated piece of orientalism from the 1930’s, I wouldn’t put much confidence in that piece.


    • @Ibn Issam

      True but just like Thomas Arnold he has some valid points (I can’t remember the details, but he pointed for example that in one version of it it’s the very Christian population that set up these restrictions, and its usage of a word that didn’t appear only long after ‘Umar…). In any case, from the hadith perspective there’s simply no authentic isnad of that treaty to Umar b. al-Khattab, and it’s simply contrary to the many treaties that Umar made and those of the early Islamic state that were very simple in nature and didn’t have these long clauses.


    • @Bigmail
      The very definition of “orientalism” is that it is a western christian biased understanding of Arab culture, the middle east and stereotyped misunderstandings of Islam. Both of the scholars you cited are well known orientalists, therefore their work is highly questionable, and a waste of valuable time for anyone interested in serious scholarship. I highly recommend that you read the book “Orientalism” by the well respected Edward Said (Allah yerhamu):

      Liked by 1 person

    • Sorry for the naked butt in the pic (astaghfirallah), but thats a perfect example of Orientalist perceptions of the middle east! Lol!!


    • استغفرالله !!


    • Yes Ken, astaghfirallah! As u can c Said chose that pic for a reason as it perfectly illustrates his point!


    • @Ibn Issam

      I’m fairly familiar with that, but those two works are good enough that they’ve been cited by such Muslim scholars as Yusuf al-Qaradawi (in his Fiqh al-Jihad). And yes, they have a fair bit of bias but it wouldn’t matter for the attentive reader. Also Edward Said is an atheist/agnostic humanist, not a Muslim. If you want a more general critique of the Orientalist industry and its bias that goes beyond Edward Said have a look at these two papers by Wael B. Hallaq (also a Palestinian born non-Muslim):

      Re-Orienting Orientalism:

      On Orientalism, Self-Consciousness and History

      See also this brief critique of Orientalism that is in Muzaffar Iqbal’s critique of the Encyclopedia of the Qur’an:


  5. Ken I recommend you check this out.
    This refutes pretty much all the arguments that Christians have.


    • Atlas,
      That is a devastating refutation by Bassam Zawadi. Christian have no longer have a leg to stand on in this line of argument anymore, and they should stop using this argument since at this point, it only serves to embarrass them and highlight their own ignorance.

      Liked by 2 people

    • I agree. Br Bassam Zawadi is very knowledgeable on the Islamic literature.


  6. “This is seems to be what Muhammad did – he is just hearing things, doesn’t have the Scriptures in Arabic, and cannot read Hebrew or Greek, so he doesn’t know everything about the previous Scriptures and is just assuming that he understands them and approves of them, and assumes the Christians and Jews are teaching wrong things.”

    It’s the same conclusion of Richard as I remember.

    First, we affirm that the prophet(ﷺ) did not read Hebrew, Greek, and even Arabic, so the idea of plagiarizing is so stupid.
    Second, this conclusion seems to refer that the prophet (ﷺ) was honest though he got things wrong about this matter, which as I remember is something Richard said in one of his topic.
    Moreover,the honesty of the prophet (ﷺ) about his claim is acknowledged by many non muslim scholars.

    Based on the above, we may ask why prophet(ﷺ) built a whole career which cannot be found in the whole human history, and it involved losing members of his family for just an assumption? Also, many jews and christians did believe in him. Why didn’t any of those people correct him?

    Christians keep claiming that he ﷺ got his informations about Jesus from wrong sources.Then we except from christians to say that he ﷺ got information about his prophethood from Injil we don’t know as a minimum conclusion or heﷺ referred to a different Injil. At this point we reach to the same conclusion.

    Moreover, why did the prophetﷺ get the major lines regarding the stories of Noah, Abraham, Lut, Moses, David, and Jesus right, yet heﷺ went with assumptions about his prophethood?
    This verse for example:
    “And We have already written in the book [of Psalms] after the [previous] mention that the land is inherited by My righteous servants” QT 21:105
    Why did he get it right,yet when it comes to his prophethood,he just assumes? And it’s very strange that assumption was given with the language of challenge !

    “Those to whom We gave the Scripture before it – they are believers in it.
    And when it is recited to them, they say, “We have believed in it; indeed, it is the truth from our Lord. Indeed we were, [even] before it, Muslims [submitting to Allah ].” QT28:52-53.

    “Say, “Have you considered: if the Qur’an was from Allah, and you disbelieved in it while a witness from the Children of Israel has testified to something similar and believed while you were arrogant… ?” Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people. QT 46:10.

    Don’t you think these verse above tell something, especially if we take into account verses such as
    (2:79) and ( 5:41)?

    I hope the pic is so clear with that conclusion given with the lack of knowledge about the Quranic language.


  7. Yeah, Muhammad got his info from Jewish Midrash and Talmud and from heretical Gnostic stuff and legends. Some truths were in the heretical things, like Jesus as Al Masih (The Messiah), did miracles, taught the Injeel, virgin born, etc.


  8. Suran 5. Al-Ma’idah 48

    ‘And We have sent down to you (O Muhammad ) the Book (this Qur’an) in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it and Muhaiminan (trustworthy in highness and a witness) over it (old Scriptures). So judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging away from the truth that has come to you.’

    Muhaiminan: that which testifies to the truth that is therein and falsifies the falsehood that is added therein.


    Liked by 5 people

  9. You lucky devil i think i would need to bring a bucket with me if i ever go there as i would be drooling at the thought of the sheer amount of knowledge stored there!

    Just out of interest do they also have old manuscripts that can be studied? Well at least scans of them? Because it would be interesting what kind of scholarship has been done with regards to how different quranic manuscripts have rendered these verses about the gospel and torah.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. I just want to add some points to the previous comments of mine.

    1) The fact that Qur’an has its own definition of what the Torah and Inji really are ( i.e. as revelations given to Moses and Jesus) is not restricted to the Quran, but also it’s found in the Bible. For example, we can read in the Bible that Moses gave the Israelites the Torah in (Deuteronomy 33:4) or as we can read in(Nehemiah 8:1).
    That torah is defiantly not the biblical canon of jews today. Also, the Inji has its own definition in the NT. Jesus was talking about a gospel according to his own understanding in (Matthew24:14). Also, even the christians prophet, Paul who kept crying and insisting to people that he’s a true disciple, had its own definition of the gospel is. Paul even warned people to accept the gospel that had been preached by the (super-apostles) or even preached by the angels. In fact, Paul prayed against and cursed those super apostles who preached that different gospel. Accordingly, it’s really irrational and it’s very stupid when christians insist that Quran praises their biblical cannon of today because Muhammad was assuming he was right while their biblical canon itself makes the distinction between itself and the Torah and the Inji. What really fascinating is that the Quran in one hand and the Torah and Inji on the other hand both give this message as the most important message of these books, which is
    “The Lord our God, the Lord is one”.
    However, we know how that statement got corrupted by a “prophet” because it’s obvious that he had a different gospel. That “prophet” happened to be Paul.
    In sum, christians are very wrong when they enforce the language of Qur’an to match their stupid argument about the Biblical canon neglecting many historical factors in the subject

    2) The status of the scriptures which probably contained the truth that Qur’an refers to is very clear in Quran.
    For example
    “So woe to those who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say, “This is from Allah,” in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.” Surah 2:79. Abdullah ibn Abbs in Sahih Bukhari gave a satisfied explanation to this verse.

    “O Messenger, let them not grieve you who hasten into disbelief of those who say, “We believe” 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 they did not appraise Allah with true appraisal when they said, ” Allah did not reveal to a human being anything.” Say, “Who revealed the Scripture that Moses brought as light and guidance to the people? You [Jews] make it into pages, disclosing [some of] it and concealing much. And you were taught that which you knew not – neither you nor your fathers.” Say, ” Allah [revealed it].” Then leave them in their [empty] discourse, amusing themselves. ” Surah 6:91

    So, it’s very clear that Qur’an refers to a fact that these books got corrupted verbally and textually, yet we have to keep in mind that it doesn’t mean that each Monk or Rabbi did that with the message of those books, which leads me to the next point.

    3) Qur’an always gives the credit to the one who deserves, and the language of generalization is not in the Qur’an about this matter.

    “They are not [all] the same; among the People of the Scripture is a community standing [in obedience], reciting the verses of Allah during periods of the night and prostrating [in prayer].” QT 3:113.

    Those christians whom Qur’an describes as
    “And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say, “Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses.” QT 5:83.

    The prophetﷺ described the situation on the earth before his prophethood as the following :
    “Allah looked towards the people of the world and He showed hatred for the Arabs and the non-Arabs, but with the exception of some remnants from the People of the Book” Sahih Muslim.

    One of them is the great companion of the prophetﷺ, Abdullah ibn Salaam who knew that jews didn’t accept the message just in out of arrogance. Also, Salman the Persian accepted the message of Islam in out of previous knowledge from his christian teachers before Islam. Ka’ab Al Ahbar, the Rabbi from Yemen, also did accept Islam because of his previous knowledge. In fact, even Heraclius knew the prophetﷺ according to the long hadith in Sahih Bukhari.
    In sum, the remnants of the truth can still be traced even within the biblical canon.
    It’s turned out that when Muslims have done that to the Biblical canon of today, they found that Jesus teachings to his people to get the eternal life are identical to the message of Islam.

    4) How Qur’an presents itself to the people of the scripture?
    The answer of this question is very important to see how stupid that students of the clown are when they say Qur’an affirms their Biblical canon.
    Quran says
    “O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much. There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book.”QT Surah 5:15

    “And We have sent down to you (O Muhammad ) the Book (this Qur’an) in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it and Muhaiminan (trustworthy in highness and a witness) over it (old Scriptures). So judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging away from the truth that has come to you.’ QT 5:48
    Muhaiminan: that which testifies to the truth that is therein and falsifies the falsehood that is added therein.
    This word also can be translated to arbiter.

    “there is nothing hidden in the heavens or on earth that is not in a clear Record.
    Indeed, this Qur’an relates to the Children of Israel most of that over which they disagree
    And indeed, it is guidance and mercy for the believers
    Indeed, your Lord will judge between them by His [wise] judgement. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Knowing
    So rely upon Allah ; indeed, you are upon the clear truth.” QT 27:75-79.

    In sum, It’s clear the Qur’an commands the people of the book to return to the prophetﷺ & Qur’an so that they can distinguish the truth from the falsehood. The irony here is that the attitude of Israelites toward the prophetﷺ which is ” we don’t need you, we have our own scripture” is found in their Biblical canon toward Jeremiah, yet Jeremiah answered them like this
    “How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the Torah,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?”
    Also, even christians have the same attitude, but the problem with christians that they say we are wise for have the (words of Paul), so their problem is even bigger!

    I hope I’ve given clear points to the subject. May Allah help us.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Another verse that is overlooked by the perennialists from Surah 4:

      As for those who ignore God and His messengers and want to
      make a distinction between them, saying, ‘We believe in some but
      not in others,’ seeking a middle way, 151 they are really disbelievers:
      We have prepared a humiliating punishment for those who
      disbelieve. 152 But God will give [due] rewards to those who believe in
      Him and His messengers and make no distinction between any of
      them. God is most forgiving and merciful.


  11. ken temple, here is powerful evidence that papias was wrong about the gospel of matthew :

    Look at your example from Matthew 3:11 for example. Greek Matthew has “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with water,” which differs from the Hebrew “fire of the Holy Spirit.

    But look at Luke 3:16. Luke has exactly the same phrasing in Greek:

    This is Matthew:

    αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί
    (autos humas baptisei ev pneumati hagio kai pyri)

    This is Luke:
    αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί
    (autos humas baptisei pneumati hagio kai pyri)

    They’re exactly the same in Greek, so these are not independent translations. This is a Q saying. Matthew and Luke either shared a common Greek source or One of them copied the other. If the claim is that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, then how did Luke end up with the exact same wording in Greek? This is not just one example of that. Matthew and Luke are filled with shared material that is word for word the same in Greek, including almost the entirety of the Gospel of Mark which is lifted almost bodily for Matthew’s narrative template. When you take out everything from Matthew’s Gospel that is not shared with either Mark or Luke in Greek, you have very little left, basically the Nativity and the resurrection and a few editorial changes or added dialogue here and there. The stuff that’s not from other sources is like the black and white parts of The Wizard of Oz. The beginning and the end. Even if the argument is that Matthew wrote those parts in Hebrew (something apparently hypothesized because of a different spelling of names in the Hebrew translation of the genealogy?) the question would be why if the bulk of the Gospel is literally just copies of prior Greek sources.

    There is also the fact that Matthew has to explain Hebrew words to the audience. You don’t randomly translate words from the language you are writing into a language that you are not writing in. It’s like if right now, I explained that a nap means siesta in Spanish. Who am I talking to?

    I think I should also reiterate that the author himself never claims to be Matthew, so this is not a question of accusing the author of dishonesty. The question is whether this was the book Papias was talking about when he said Matthew wrote a logia. Papias does not quote from Matthew or give an indication that he knows of the canonical Gospel. That identification came from Irenaeus in 180 who decided “he must have been talking about this,” and called it, “The Gospel According to Matthew.” There is no other evidence that Matthew was written by Matthew, that entire tradition is based on a mistaken identification made by one guy.


    ken, what were you saying about copying ?

    Liked by 3 people

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: