On 10/15/05, Mark A. Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gilberto,
> At 12:32 PM 10/14/2005, you wrote:
> >>I don't necessarily have the same understanding as most Muslims. I would
> >>say that the Quran and sunnah provide certain parameters for how Muslims
> >>should understand the Bible, but within those parameters a large amount of
> >>variation is possible.<<
Mark:
> Okay. As I understand it, the original idea was perversion of doctrine.
> Perversion of the texts (intentionally) was a later innovation.
Gilberto:
I would say no. Even in the Quran there is a condemnation against
"those who write the book with their hands and then say: This is from
Allah" [2:79]
And there are hadith which allude to the same thing:
Narrated Ubaidullah: "Ibn 'Abbas said, "Why do you ask the people of
the scripture about anything while your Book (Quran) which has been
revealed to Allah's Apostle is newer and the latest? You read it pure,
undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of
the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and
distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said,
'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the
knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about
anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking
you regarding what has been revealed to you!" (Translation of Sahih
Bukhari, Holding Fast to the Qur'an and Sunnah, Volume 9, Book 92,
Number 461)"
There is another hadith (which I don't have at hand this moment) where
Umar (ra) is reading from the Torah of that time, and prophet
expresses slight disapproval because it has been corrupted, while he
brings the revelation pure and fresh.
Gilberto:
> >>In terms of the New Testament, for me, the question is what books should
> >>have been canonized in the first place. Or more precisely, out of the many
> >>different Christian groups which had different scriptures, which one best
> >>represents Jesus' actual teachings.<<
Mark:
> And the folks associated with the Jesus Seminar have been looking at that
> issue for many years. However, if we are asking which books should have been
> incorporated into the Christian literature, I don't think it can be answered
> by comparing various Christian mss. to the Qur'an, the Baha'i Writings, or to
> some other sets of ideas.
> Unfortunately, that is precisely what some people have done with the Gospel of
> Barnabas. They have accepted it without consideration to its dubious
> authenticity. (Of course, it would be apologetically advantageous to both
> Muslims and Baha'is.)
I think Barnabas is a seperate issue. Even I can see that there is
questionable stuff in Barnabas and it seems very possible or even
likely that it is a much later medieval forgery. So in some sense
mentioning Barnabas is a straw dog. I'm talking about looking at the
groups which are definitely older.
And I'm not sure how Bahais could be expected to respond to Barnabas.
It wouldn't necessarily be the same as Muslims. Yes, Barnabas clearly
has Jesus making prophecies of Muhammad (saaaws) by name, but if I
remember properly it also has Jesus warning his followers against Paul
by name.
Mark:
> In the popular literature, one also sometimes finds that people accept the Nag
> Hammadi tractates, not because there is evidence that one or more of these
> books has greater historical validity than certain others in the NT, but
> because
> the content (Gnosticism, etc.) appeals to, and confirms, the sensibilities of
> that > particular writer.
Gilberto:
Sure but it would be naive to think that this doesn't happen in the
other direction either now. Or that it didn't happen in the beginning
when the canon was being chosen.
Gilberto:
> >>I would say some "errors" actually are more radical than that. If the Torah
> >>was a revelation given to Moses, then the Documentary hypothesis, which is
> >>very widely accepted in the circles of Biblical scholarship implies some
> >>serious problems with naively equating the first five books of the Bible
> >>with the Torah.<<
Mark:
> Yes, but that doesn't tell us whether the content reflects the teachings of
> Moses.
>
I'm not sure what you mean. The point is that if only a fraction of
the "Torah" came from Moses, and the rest of it was put together be
other authors centuries after Moses then that's pretty much what I
would describe as "corruption". It doesn't mean that Moses would have
hated it, but it does mean that one can't naively assume that
everything in the Penteteuch reflects what Moses actually taught.
Gilberto:
> >>Another significant issue would be the difference in the Catholic and
> >>Protestant canons. Two major groups of Christians have substantially
> >>different Bibles. And on top of that, they have different versions of
> >>Esther, Jeremiah, and Daniel. That's not just forgetting a word or two, or
> >>substituting a word for its synonym.<<
Mark:
> I wouldn't say "substantially different." About the only difference I know of
> is that most Protestants accord only an apocryphal status to the Roman
> Catholic
> deuterocanonical books.
Gilberto:
Most Protestants (in my experience) ignore the apocrypha altogether.
And some of the proof-texts for some of the more contraversial
theological issues (free-will, purgatory, efficacy of prayer for the
dead) are actually based in the apocrypha.
Mark:
> On the other hand, neither Roman Catholics nor Protestants see those books in
> the same light as the rest of the biblical literature.
That doesn't sound right. For RCs, the Apocrypha is just part of the
Old Testament. I think they are seperated out because of Protestants
but I think they are treated the same as the rest of the Bible. At
least, that's what my copy of the Catechism seems to suggest.
Peace
Gilberto
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail")
is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be
confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The
information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts
or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail
in error please immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and
permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
__________________________________________________
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[email protected]
Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:[email protected]
Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st
News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
