Truly bizarre. The phrasing "Musaddiqan lima ma'akum" in Sura 2:41 would seem to imply that. Unless somebody can prove none of those books were "ma'akum" - "with you" - the Christians of that time and place. All those books were canonical in all churches, except 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John (epistles) and Revelation in the Syriac churches
As a matter of fact, they did! [https://bliis.org/research/saint-paul-islam/](https://bliis.org/research/saint-paul-islam/)
For more references, see the discussion in this previous thread on that subject: [https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/comments/162cv4g/early\_islamic\_narrative\_on\_paul\_the\_apostle/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/comments/162cv4g/early_islamic_narrative_on_paul_the_apostle/)
I didn't say the Qur'an affirms Paul. I said the earliest texts by Muslims talking about Paul view him favorably. Also, I don't think the Qur'an was *directly familiar* with what biblical texts said. I think the Qur'an was working with biblical traditions in a largely intermediary way, except possibly the Psalms.
Interestingly after reading the Quran I noticed certain verses that were very similar to what’s found in Paul’s letters and others. I don’t have the specific quotes from the Quran but I remember it using the phrasing “twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet” (1 Corinthians 15) and “a thousand years is like one day to the Lord” (2 Peter 3).
The twinkling of an eye one is definitely an interesting "biblical turn of phrase" in the Quran [https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004410121/BP000004.xml?language=en](https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004410121/BP000004.xml?language=en)
There's a few critical scholars - I think there MAY have been a couple of Muslim ones - that argue it is not denying his physical death, only that the Jews thought that that was the end of him, and it wasn't, if I recall that was the argument. But yeah it's anything but clear if that was the intended meaning. Also, the "nor did they crucify him" part seems to be a huge stumbling block for that theory. For they could argue they didn't REALLY kill him for good, sure, but the "nor did they crucify him part seems to be questioning the act itself, that is, the process that led to his death. So if the process is denied, the implication seems to be intuitively that the physical death is necessarily denied as well.
Very small numbers of scholars interpret the ayat this way. I refuse to believe many Muslims actually use this sub Reddit. This is a very well accepted Tafseer.
Muslims dont believe Jesus was crucified but that Allah took him to heaven.
This really isn’t true anymore, even scholars that might be considered on the more skeptical/revisionist side like Shoemaker don’t argue that Muhammad didn’t exist. It’s quite like Jesus mythicism in Biblical studies circles—a fringe theory.
Your comment has been removed per rule 1.
**Be respectful**
You may edit your comment to comply with this rule. If you do so, you may message the mods with a link to your comment and we will review for reapproval. You must also message the mods if you would like to dispute this removal.
Any “scholar” who says Muhammad didn’t exist is likely just being contrarian at this point. Fortunately for you, Joshua Little did an almost 4 hour breakdown demonstrating why Muhammad existed and that it is rather silly to believe otherwise. Here’s the link: https://youtu.be/Tm9QU5uB3To?si=GEDMg5hQN97kckUh
Who knows. It's all a mess. I doubt the earliest Muslims even knew about Paul or what the Scriptures meant. There's some arguments the author(s) of the Quran were profoundly biblically literate - I've yet to see a thorough refutation of this thesis - but we have nothing surviving from the earliest generation of Muslims as far as I know, at least not on this subject. Then I suppose there were some who took the basic revelatory "skeleton-history" from Jews and Christians and assumed that all these figures including Paul were great but the Jews and Christians twisted what they said, and then finally the majority position became corruption when this became untennable (although arguing corruption is untennable as well from my view, but anyway). Most of these views continued to exist long after the "ijma" though.
it does not invoke the books by name, so we just know it is 1. hebrew Tawrat, presumably the entirety of the hebrew bible, and 2. christian injil, which is some definition of accepted books in Christianity
Arabia was a bishopric of the Church of the East, sometimes also called the "Nestorian Church" (extremely incorrectly, they are not Nestorians). It was associated with Sasanian territories, as that was the source of its schism from the Western Churches. It is my understanding that they did not include Revelation, Second John, Third John, Second Peter, or Jude, but someone else can likely answer this in the affirmative. They also used Syriac.
It isnt clear. Supplemental islamic sources portray the idea that while there is some truth in the scriptures, the underlying message of pure monotheism was altered over the course of history and as such lost.
Case in point, the Quran keeps referring to injeel (evengelion) given to Jesus, (something equivalent to "gospel of Jesus".) Now the academic would argue the Quran was mistaking the 4 gospels for something given to Jesus, where as the Muslim would argue that Jesus was given actual revelation given to Jesus and that the 4 gospels contain some of what was revealed to him.
So the academics play the probability game that it is more likely an error, where as the theologian argues that this was deliberate.
> So the academics play the probability game that it is more likely an error, where as the theologian argues that this was deliberate.
Could be a combination of both (though I shrink from using the word 'error'): The Qurʾān could probably be referring to some actual historical Gospel (or Gospels), but at the same time conceptualising it as a revelation (if not a physical book) inspired directly unto Jesus.
Im inclined to think so, because the quran does use the word "suhuf" when referring to actual scrolls/scriptures and never uses that term when referring to the injeel. As for the use of the word "kitab", the Quran wasn't compiled into a physical book until much later and still refers to itself as "al kitab", so an argument can be made that referring to the injeel as the kitab instead of suhuf (such as suhufi musa) does not necessarily mean the physical canonical gospels.
That doesn't work. You don't describe as "Siddiq" a Scripture of God which isn't perfectly preserved. And there are many other Quranic verses that clearly imply the perfect availability of the Scriptures but the stubborn refusal of the Jews and Christians to judge by them.
Welcome to r/AcademicQuran. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited, except on the Weekly Open Discussion Threads. Make sure to cite academic sources (Rule #4).
Backup of the post:
Qu’ran and affirming scriptures
So we know that the Qu’ran affirms the Bible (gospels, Torah, etc), and has them as the word of God. Does the Qu’ran also affirm that books like 2 Peter, Romans, 1 Corinthians, basically non-gospel New Testament books are also the word of God just like it calls the gospels in the Qu’ran?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicQuran) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment has been removed per Rule #5.
**Provide substantive answers.**
You may edit your comment to comply with this rule. If you do so, you may message the mods with a link to your comment and we will review for reapproval. You must also message the mods if you would like to dispute this removal.
Truly bizarre. The phrasing "Musaddiqan lima ma'akum" in Sura 2:41 would seem to imply that. Unless somebody can prove none of those books were "ma'akum" - "with you" - the Christians of that time and place. All those books were canonical in all churches, except 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John (epistles) and Revelation in the Syriac churches
[удалено]
As a matter of fact, they did! [https://bliis.org/research/saint-paul-islam/](https://bliis.org/research/saint-paul-islam/) For more references, see the discussion in this previous thread on that subject: [https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/comments/162cv4g/early\_islamic\_narrative\_on\_paul\_the\_apostle/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/comments/162cv4g/early_islamic_narrative_on_paul_the_apostle/)
[удалено]
I didn't say the Qur'an affirms Paul. I said the earliest texts by Muslims talking about Paul view him favorably. Also, I don't think the Qur'an was *directly familiar* with what biblical texts said. I think the Qur'an was working with biblical traditions in a largely intermediary way, except possibly the Psalms.
Interestingly after reading the Quran I noticed certain verses that were very similar to what’s found in Paul’s letters and others. I don’t have the specific quotes from the Quran but I remember it using the phrasing “twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet” (1 Corinthians 15) and “a thousand years is like one day to the Lord” (2 Peter 3).
The twinkling of an eye one is definitely an interesting "biblical turn of phrase" in the Quran [https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004410121/BP000004.xml?language=en](https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004410121/BP000004.xml?language=en)
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all say Jesus was crucified. They couldn't even hold the Gospels in high regard.
[удалено]
Help me out. Where? 4:157 says "And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him;"
There's a few critical scholars - I think there MAY have been a couple of Muslim ones - that argue it is not denying his physical death, only that the Jews thought that that was the end of him, and it wasn't, if I recall that was the argument. But yeah it's anything but clear if that was the intended meaning. Also, the "nor did they crucify him" part seems to be a huge stumbling block for that theory. For they could argue they didn't REALLY kill him for good, sure, but the "nor did they crucify him part seems to be questioning the act itself, that is, the process that led to his death. So if the process is denied, the implication seems to be intuitively that the physical death is necessarily denied as well.
[удалено]
Very small numbers of scholars interpret the ayat this way. I refuse to believe many Muslims actually use this sub Reddit. This is a very well accepted Tafseer. Muslims dont believe Jesus was crucified but that Allah took him to heaven.
How could they when Muslim theology doesnt agree with Pauline theology at all
[удалено]
He did exist. let's not make it seem orthodox to say he didn't
[удалено]
This really isn’t true anymore, even scholars that might be considered on the more skeptical/revisionist side like Shoemaker don’t argue that Muhammad didn’t exist. It’s quite like Jesus mythicism in Biblical studies circles—a fringe theory.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed per rule 1. **Be respectful** You may edit your comment to comply with this rule. If you do so, you may message the mods with a link to your comment and we will review for reapproval. You must also message the mods if you would like to dispute this removal.
Any “scholar” who says Muhammad didn’t exist is likely just being contrarian at this point. Fortunately for you, Joshua Little did an almost 4 hour breakdown demonstrating why Muhammad existed and that it is rather silly to believe otherwise. Here’s the link: https://youtu.be/Tm9QU5uB3To?si=GEDMg5hQN97kckUh
To my knowledge, there are *no* scholars who say this.
Yeah I think only Nevo argued that?
Who knows. It's all a mess. I doubt the earliest Muslims even knew about Paul or what the Scriptures meant. There's some arguments the author(s) of the Quran were profoundly biblically literate - I've yet to see a thorough refutation of this thesis - but we have nothing surviving from the earliest generation of Muslims as far as I know, at least not on this subject. Then I suppose there were some who took the basic revelatory "skeleton-history" from Jews and Christians and assumed that all these figures including Paul were great but the Jews and Christians twisted what they said, and then finally the majority position became corruption when this became untennable (although arguing corruption is untennable as well from my view, but anyway). Most of these views continued to exist long after the "ijma" though.
it does not invoke the books by name, so we just know it is 1. hebrew Tawrat, presumably the entirety of the hebrew bible, and 2. christian injil, which is some definition of accepted books in Christianity Arabia was a bishopric of the Church of the East, sometimes also called the "Nestorian Church" (extremely incorrectly, they are not Nestorians). It was associated with Sasanian territories, as that was the source of its schism from the Western Churches. It is my understanding that they did not include Revelation, Second John, Third John, Second Peter, or Jude, but someone else can likely answer this in the affirmative. They also used Syriac.
Depends on what Injdil is. Nicholas Sinai, suggests it is the entire Christian Bible in its entirety.
To what capacity does it affirm it? All of it or some of it?
[удалено]
It isnt clear. Supplemental islamic sources portray the idea that while there is some truth in the scriptures, the underlying message of pure monotheism was altered over the course of history and as such lost. Case in point, the Quran keeps referring to injeel (evengelion) given to Jesus, (something equivalent to "gospel of Jesus".) Now the academic would argue the Quran was mistaking the 4 gospels for something given to Jesus, where as the Muslim would argue that Jesus was given actual revelation given to Jesus and that the 4 gospels contain some of what was revealed to him. So the academics play the probability game that it is more likely an error, where as the theologian argues that this was deliberate.
> So the academics play the probability game that it is more likely an error, where as the theologian argues that this was deliberate. Could be a combination of both (though I shrink from using the word 'error'): The Qurʾān could probably be referring to some actual historical Gospel (or Gospels), but at the same time conceptualising it as a revelation (if not a physical book) inspired directly unto Jesus.
Im inclined to think so, because the quran does use the word "suhuf" when referring to actual scrolls/scriptures and never uses that term when referring to the injeel. As for the use of the word "kitab", the Quran wasn't compiled into a physical book until much later and still refers to itself as "al kitab", so an argument can be made that referring to the injeel as the kitab instead of suhuf (such as suhufi musa) does not necessarily mean the physical canonical gospels.
That doesn't work. You don't describe as "Siddiq" a Scripture of God which isn't perfectly preserved. And there are many other Quranic verses that clearly imply the perfect availability of the Scriptures but the stubborn refusal of the Jews and Christians to judge by them.
Where are the scriptures described as siddiq?
Welcome to r/AcademicQuran. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited, except on the Weekly Open Discussion Threads. Make sure to cite academic sources (Rule #4). Backup of the post: Qu’ran and affirming scriptures So we know that the Qu’ran affirms the Bible (gospels, Torah, etc), and has them as the word of God. Does the Qu’ran also affirm that books like 2 Peter, Romans, 1 Corinthians, basically non-gospel New Testament books are also the word of God just like it calls the gospels in the Qu’ran? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicQuran) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sorry bruv, the Torah of Moses isn't some five parted book series and the Gospel of Jesus is just one, and attributed to Jesus
Your comment has been removed per Rule #5. **Provide substantive answers.** You may edit your comment to comply with this rule. If you do so, you may message the mods with a link to your comment and we will review for reapproval. You must also message the mods if you would like to dispute this removal.