https://en.dawah.wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=TheIslampill 2026-07-22T02:19:01Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.43.8 https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Seerahdawah&diff=132 2026-07-16T05:21:02Z

<p>TheIslampill: </p> <hr /> <div>SeerahDawah is a young internet content creator who claims to give da'wah, but we are unaware of any credentials which he has for the matter.<br /> <br /> <br /> SeerahDawah has made massive blunders, such as comparing the testimony of the New Testament to the level of Mutawatir ahadith from the Prophet ﷺ.<br /> <br /> He has also made massive blunders, appealing to non-Muslim scholars, to support his &quot;dawah&quot;. <br /> <br /> When corrected on obvious misrepresentation of the scholarship in the instances above (legitimising the New Testament as valid teachings for Muslims; distorting a non-Muslim's views to suport the Qur'an), he immediately resorted to mockery and insults, spamming emojis instead of giving considerate and thoughtful responses. <br /> When reminded on the appropriateness of good manners, especially to his elders, he doubled down on insulting &amp; not responding to anything of substance.<br /> <br /> For being corrected, regarding misuse of non-Muslim scholarship, his immediate response to that individual was to mock their chronic health conditions. Then, in the midst of numerous elementary-school level misspeallings, SeerahDawah would go on to mock Dementia. Treating mental health conditions like a joke, to antagonise and insult his elders giving him advice, is one of the various reasons given to warn against, and avoid, SeerahDawah. <br /> <br /> https://x.com/SeerahDawah</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Seerahdawah&diff=131 2026-07-16T05:16:32Z

<p>TheIslampill: Created page with &quot;SeerahDawah is a young internet content creator who claims to give da&#039;wah, but we are unaware of any credentials which he has for the matter. SeerahDawah has made massive blunders, such as comparing the testimony of the New Testament to the level of Mutawatir ahadith from the Prophet ﷺ. He has also made massive blunders, appealing to non-Muslim scholars, to support his &quot;dawah&quot;. When corrected on obvious misrepresentation of the scholarship in the instances above (...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>SeerahDawah is a young internet content creator who claims to give da'wah, but we are unaware of any credentials which he has for the matter.<br /> <br /> <br /> SeerahDawah has made massive blunders, such as comparing the testimony of the New Testament to the level of Mutawatir ahadith from the Prophet ﷺ.<br /> <br /> He has also made massive blunders, appealing to non-Muslim scholars, to support his &quot;dawah&quot;. <br /> <br /> When corrected on obvious misrepresentation of the scholarship in the instances above (legitimising the New Testament as valid teachings for Muslims; distorting a non-Muslim's views to suport the Qur'an), he immediately resorted to mockery and insults, spamming emojis instead of giving considerate and thoughtful responses. <br /> When reminded on the appropriateness of good manners, especially to his elders, he doubled down on insulting &amp; not responding to anything of substance.<br /> <br /> For being corrected, regarding misuse of Muslim scholarship, his immediate response to that individual was to mock their chronic health conditions. Then, in the midst of numerous elementary-school level misspeallings, SeerahDawah would go on to mock Dementia. Treating mental health conditions like a joke, to antagonise and insult his elders giving him advice, is one of the various reasons given to warn against, and avoid, SeerahDawah. <br /> <br /> https://x.com/SeerahDawah</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Worship&diff=64 2026-06-01T15:53:21Z

<p>TheIslampill: </p> <hr /> <div>== What is “worship”? ==<br /> <br /> An object of worship— no matter what its nature is —is believed to have an unseen authority whose effect is reflected in reality.<br /> <br /> Worshippers try to draw closer to the worshipped, to gain benefit or ward off harm.<br /> <br /> On one hand, they may believe the unseen authority is predicated a self-authority; they consider the worshipped as one who independently benefits &amp; harms.<br /> <br /> This applies to worship of the sun and stars, believing in their effect on the laws of the universe and management of creation.<br /> <br /> On the other hand, they may believe that this unseen authority is not a self-authority; worshippers consider the worshipped an intermediary between them and a superior power that has an independent self-authority of inflicting harm and bringing about benefit.<br /> <br /> Worship of this object is to intercede for them with the one who possesses the power to benefit and harm.<br /> <br /> This applies to the polytheists who believe that their objects of worship get them closer to the Almighty and intercede for them.<br /> <br /> == What is the meaning of the words “ilāh” and “Allah”? ==<br /> <br /> A god/ilāh is an object of worship.<br /> <br /> This can be any entity.<br /> <br /> Money. Men. Women.<br /> <br /> Dogs. Rats. Cars.<br /> <br /> War. Carvings. Trees.<br /> <br /> An &quot;entity&quot; is a fundamental unit of existence, possessing discernible properties or attributes that distinguish it from others.<br /> <br /> The god/ilāh/entity that, alone, is deserving of all worship, is the One with maximally-great properties — having all of the attributes of perfection, and thus being without partner, likeness, or shortcoming.<br /> <br /> The word for this (as ''ilāh'' is Arabic, and ''god'' is English) — the object of worship that deserves of all worship; the One with all of the greatest properties and names; this is encompassed by &quot;Allah&quot;, the name being a contraction of &quot;ilāh&quot; (an object of worship), and &quot;Al-&quot; (the definite article — indicating the only One, besides Whom there is no other).<br /> <br /> This name therefore entails the reality of all other names of Allah.<br /> <br /> An absence of an understanding of &quot;worship&quot; will often lead to a misunderstanding of what an object of worship is.<br /> <br /> Worship in truth belongs to only One alone, without partners, upon Whom all depend:<br /> <br /> '''Allah''' — the Creator &amp; the Provider — the Lord of the Worlds.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Islamic theology]]<br /> [[Category:Tawhid]]<br /> [[Category:Worship]]<br /> [[Category:Allah]]</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Worship&diff=63 2026-06-01T15:45:47Z

<p>TheIslampill: </p> <hr /> <div>== What is “worship”? ==<br /> <br /> An object of worship— no matter what its nature is —is believed to have an unseen authority whose effect is reflected in reality.<br /> <br /> Worshippers try to draw closer to the worshipped, to gain benefit or ward off harm.<br /> <br /> On one hand, they may believe the unseen authority is predicated a self-authority; they consider the worshipped as one who independently benefits &amp; harms.<br /> <br /> This applies to worship of the sun and stars, believing in their effect on the laws of the universe and management of creation.<br /> <br /> On the other hand, they may believe that this unseen authority is not a self-authority; worshippers consider the worshipped an intermediary between them and a superior power that has an independent self-authority of inflicting harm and bringing about benefit.<br /> <br /> Worship of this object is to intercede for them with the one who possesses the power to benefit and harm.<br /> <br /> This applies to the polytheists who believe that their objects of worship get them closer to the Almighty and intercede for them.<br /> <br /> == What is the meaning of the words “ilaha” and “Allah”? ==<br /> <br /> A god/ilaha is an object of worship.<br /> <br /> This can be any entity.<br /> <br /> Money. Men. Women.<br /> <br /> Dogs. Rats. Cars.<br /> <br /> War. Carvings. Trees.<br /> <br /> An &quot;entity&quot; is a fundamental unit of existence, possessing discernible properties or attributes that distinguish it from others.<br /> <br /> The god/ilaha/entity that, alone, is deserving of all worship, is the One with maximally-great properties — having all of the attributes of perfection, and thus being without partner, likeness, or shortcoming.<br /> <br /> The word for this (as ''ilaha'' is Arabic, and ''god'' is English) — the object of worship that deserves of all worship; the One with all of the greatest properties and names; this is encompassed by &quot;Allah&quot;, the name being a contraction of &quot;ilaha&quot; (an object of worship), and &quot;Al-&quot; (the definite article — indicating the only One, besides Whom there is no other).<br /> <br /> This name therefore entails the reality of all other names of Allah.<br /> <br /> An absence of an understanding of &quot;worship&quot; will often lead to a misunderstanding of what an object of worship is.<br /> <br /> Worship in truth belongs to only One alone, without partners, upon Whom all depend:<br /> <br /> '''Allah''' — the Creator &amp; the Provider — the Lord of the Worlds.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Islamic theology]]<br /> [[Category:Tawhid]]<br /> [[Category:Worship]]<br /> [[Category:Allah]]</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Group_Conversion&diff=62 2026-06-01T03:51:32Z

<p>TheIslampill: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Group conversion''' to Islam refers to the conversion of a family, social circle, local community, ethnic group, people, or other coherent group into Islam together, or to the process by which such a group develops Muslim communal life after entering Islam.<br /> The concept is mainly relevant to da'wah strategy, convert retention, institution-building, and the long-term formation of Muslim families.<br /> <br /> The term does not mean that a person becomes Muslim without individual belief, choice, or responsibility. Rather, it is used in da'wah and community-formation discussions to describe whether Islam is received only by isolated individuals, or whether a people can imagine themselves as Muslim together, build institutions together, marry and raise families within Islam, and remain connected after conversion.<br /> <br /> == Islamic framing ==<br /> <br /> Islamic da'wah addresses both individuals and peoples. The Qur'an calls the People of the Book to the worship of Allah alone, and states that messengers were sent to nations calling them to worship Allah and avoid false deities.&lt;ref&gt;Qur'an 3:64.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Qur'an 16:36.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Group conversion should therefore be understood as a practical da'wah and retention question. The concern is whether converts are left isolated, or whether stable Muslim social life becomes possible for them without compromising tawḥīd or individual responsibility.<br /> <br /> == Individual and group conversion ==<br /> <br /> Individual conversion can be sincere and valid, but it may also be socially fragile. Converts may lose family support, face hostility from their previous community, struggle to marry, lack culturally accessible institutions, or be expected to assimilate into existing Muslim ethnic communities without forming their own stable Muslim networks.<br /> <br /> Group conversion addresses these social and institutional questions. It asks whether a group can enter Islam while maintaining lawful forms of family, community, leadership, language, culture, and social continuity.<br /> <br /> This does not make ethnicity, nationality, or culture a source of superiority. The unity of Muslims is based on tawḥīd and obedience to Allah. Recognizing group-specific barriers is a practical matter, not a denial of Muslim brotherhood.<br /> <br /> == Barriers to group conversion ==<br /> <br /> One useful framework is Robert Dufour's list of “the Top Ten Barriers that prevent group conversion to Islam.” The following wording is preserved as a source quotation, while the surrounding article summarizes its relevance for da'wah and convert retention.<br /> <br /> === The Top Ten Barriers that prevent group conversion to Islam ===<br /> <br /> Robert Dufour, writing as '''@robertofcanada''', summarized the barriers as follows:&lt;ref name=&quot;dufour-top-ten&quot;&gt;Robert Dufour (@robertofcanada), “The Top Ten Barriers that prevent group conversion to Islam,” X, 27 December 2024, https://x.com/robertofcanada/status/1872717719432511704. Text quoted from supplied copy of the post.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> '''1) The Conceptual Barrier'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> If one cannot conceive of a group capable of being a Muslim group, they will only convert as individuals.<br /> <br /> '''2) The Turnkey Barrier'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Group conversion is easier when the group builds and administers mosques or other Islamic organizations themselves, since they have more contact with their people. When mosques are run by outsiders, such endeavours are considered unnecessary.<br /> <br /> '''3) The Madinah Model Barrier'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> This model postulates that Muslims must be a homogeneous unit in order to be successful. Any organization based on groups with specific needs are deemed divisive and thus unwarranted. Of course, the myriad born Muslim orgs are never questioned.<br /> <br /> '''4) The Civilizational Barrier'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> When the converts come from a civilization whose people were the enemies of the Muslims historically, it becomes harder for them to collectivize. Their own people marginalize them while many born Muslims are leery of any effort to do this.<br /> <br /> '''5) The Gender Barrier'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Collectivizing becomes even more difficult when both genders are completely separate. Other Muslim communities get around this barrier since they have families, and two-way communication is possible father-to-daughter, mother-to-son, brother-to-sister etc.<br /> <br /> '''6) The Relationship Barrier'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> When converts have no sub-group, convert intra-marriage becomes impossible. Most converts marry into an existing Muslim community. These converts tend to oppose collectivization since the assumption is that their new family will feel excluded.<br /> <br /> '''7) The Anti-Islam Barrier'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> The more the convert’s society hates Islam, the more likely they are to get kicked out, written out of the will, disowned; preventing public conversion. Marrying another convert becomes even less of a prospect.<br /> <br /> '''8) The Woke Barrier'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> If most converts are ingrained and taught to hate their own people, they will be averse to collectivizing in any way. In fact, they will make every effort to kibosh such an endeavour. People from a conservative background will be averse to conversion.<br /> <br /> '''9) The Individualism Barrier'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> People who come from individualistic societies are far less likely to convert and collectivize as a group. Conversion is seen as a personal decision and are more likely to try to fit in with existing Muslim communities, with varied results.<br /> <br /> '''10) The Dropout Barrier'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> All nine of the previous barriers contribute to converts dropping off from the Muslim community and often Islam altogether. It is difficult to get a movement off the road when so many people drop off and are unseen in the community.<br /> <br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> In this context, “Madinah Model” refers to a modern sociological usage criticized by Dufour, not to the Prophetic model of Madinah itself.<br /> <br /> == Summary of the barriers ==<br /> <br /> The barriers are not primarily arguments against Islam. They are conditions that shape whether Islam can become socially imaginable, institutionally sustainable, and generationally durable for a group.<br /> <br /> They may be summarized into several broad types:<br /> <br /> * '''Conceptual obstacles:''' whether a group can imagine itself becoming Muslim together.<br /> * '''Institutional obstacles:''' whether converts can build and administer their own Muslim spaces.<br /> * '''Civilizational obstacles:''' whether historical hostility, anti-Islam sentiment, or mutual suspicion prevent public conversion.<br /> * '''Family and marriage obstacles:''' whether marriage, family formation, and gender communication can function.<br /> * '''Cultural obstacles:''' whether individualism, anti-native sentiment, or pressure to assimilate into existing ethnic Muslim communities weakens group formation.<br /> * '''Retention obstacles:''' whether converts remain visible and supported after entering Islam.<br /> <br /> == Practical implications ==<br /> <br /> A group-conversion approach suggests that da'wah should not end at individual shahādah, but should also consider the social conditions that help converts remain Muslim across families and generations. It should also consider:<br /> <br /> * convert-led institutions where appropriate;<br /> * family and marriage pathways for converts;<br /> * support for public conversion when social costs are high;<br /> * lawful cultural continuity that does not contradict Islam;<br /> * retention systems so converts do not disappear after conversion.<br /> <br /> == Importance ==<br /> <br /> Group conversion is important because Islam is not only a private belief held in isolation. Muslims need worship, family life, learning, marriage, leadership, institutions, and community support.<br /> <br /> Where converts remain isolated, their Islam may become socially unsupported. Where converts can form lawful, stable, and connected Muslim communities, da'wah can become more durable across families and generations.<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> * [[Da'wah]]<br /> * [[Conversion to Islam]]<br /> * [[Tawhid]]<br /> * [[Fitrah]]<br /> * [[Masjid]]<br /> * [[Muslim community]]<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Da'wah]]<br /> [[Category:Conversion to Islam]]<br /> [[Category:Muslim community]]<br /> [[Category:Islamic sociology]]</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Group_Conversion&diff=61 2026-06-01T03:49:03Z

<p>TheIslampill: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Group conversion''' to Islam refers to the conversion of a family, social circle, local community, ethnic group, people, or other coherent group into Islam together, or to the process by which such a group develops Muslim communal life after entering Islam.<br /> The concept is mainly relevant to da'wah strategy, convert retention, institution-building, and the long-term formation of Muslim families.<br /> <br /> The term does not mean that a person becomes Muslim without individual belief, choice, or responsibility. Rather, it is used in da'wah and community-formation discussions to describe whether Islam is received only by isolated individuals, or whether a people can imagine themselves as Muslim together, build institutions together, marry and raise families within Islam, and remain connected after conversion.<br /> <br /> <br /> == Islamic framing ==<br /> <br /> Islamic da'wah addresses both individuals and peoples. The Qur'an calls the People of the Book to the worship of Allah alone, and states that messengers were sent to nations calling them to worship Allah and avoid false deities.&lt;ref&gt;Qur'an 3:64.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Qur'an 16:36.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Group conversion should therefore be understood as a practical da'wah and retention question. The concern is whether converts are left isolated, or whether stable Muslim social life becomes possible for them without compromising tawḥīd or individual responsibility.<br /> <br /> == Individual and group conversion ==<br /> <br /> Individual conversion can be sincere and valid, but it may also be socially fragile. Converts may lose family support, face hostility from their previous community, struggle to marry, lack culturally accessible institutions, or be expected to assimilate into existing Muslim ethnic communities without forming their own stable Muslim networks.<br /> <br /> Group conversion addresses these social and institutional questions. It asks whether a group can enter Islam while maintaining lawful forms of family, community, leadership, language, culture, and social continuity.<br /> <br /> This does not make ethnicity, nationality, or culture a source of superiority. The unity of Muslims is based on tawḥīd and obedience to Allah. Recognizing group-specific barriers is a practical matter, not a denial of Muslim brotherhood.<br /> <br /> == Barriers to group conversion ==<br /> <br /> One useful framework is Robert Dufour's list of “the Top Ten Barriers that prevent group conversion to Islam.” The following wording is preserved as a source quotation, while the surrounding article summarizes its relevance for da'wah and convert retention.<br /> <br /> === The Top Ten Barriers that prevent group conversion to Islam ===<br /> <br /> Robert Dufour, writing as '''@robertofcanada''', summarized the barriers as follows:&lt;ref name=&quot;dufour-top-ten&quot;&gt;Robert Dufour (@robertofcanada), “The Top Ten Barriers that prevent group conversion to Islam,” X, 27 December 2024, https://x.com/robertofcanada/status/1872717719432511704. Text quoted from supplied copy of the post.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> '''1) The Conceptual Barrier'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> If one cannot conceive of a group capable of being a Muslim group, they will only convert as individuals.<br /> <br /> '''2) The Turnkey Barrier'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Group conversion is easier when the group builds and administers mosques or other Islamic organizations themselves, since they have more contact with their people. When mosques are run by outsiders, such endeavours are considered unnecessary.<br /> <br /> '''3) The Madinah Model Barrier'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> This model postulates that Muslims must be a homogeneous unit in order to be successful. Any organization based on groups with specific needs are deemed divisive and thus unwarranted. Of course, the myriad born Muslim orgs are never questioned.<br /> <br /> '''4) The Civilizational Barrier'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> When the converts come from a civilization whose people were the enemies of the Muslims historically, it becomes harder for them to collectivize. Their own people marginalize them while many born Muslims are leery of any effort to do this.<br /> <br /> '''5) The Gender Barrier'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Collectivizing becomes even more difficult when both genders are completely separate. Other Muslim communities get around this barrier since they have families, and two-way communication is possible father-to-daughter, mother-to-son, brother-to-sister etc.<br /> <br /> '''6) The Relationship Barrier'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> When converts have no sub-group, convert intra-marriage becomes impossible. Most converts marry into an existing Muslim community. These converts tend to oppose collectivization since the assumption is that their new family will feel excluded.<br /> <br /> '''7) The Anti-Islam Barrier'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> The more the convert’s society hates Islam, the more likely they are to get kicked out, written out of the will, disowned; preventing public conversion. Marrying another convert becomes even less of a prospect.<br /> <br /> '''8) The Woke Barrier'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> If most converts are ingrained and taught to hate their own people, they will be averse to collectivizing in any way. In fact, they will make every effort to kibosh such an endeavour. People from a conservative background will be averse to conversion.<br /> <br /> '''9) The Individualism Barrier'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> People who come from individualistic societies are far less likely to convert and collectivize as a group. Conversion is seen as a personal decision and are more likely to try to fit in with existing Muslim communities, with varied results.<br /> <br /> '''10) The Dropout Barrier'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> All nine of the previous barriers contribute to converts dropping off from the Muslim community and often Islam altogether. It is difficult to get a movement off the road when so many people drop off and are unseen in the community.<br /> <br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> In this context, “Madinah Model” refers to a modern sociological usage criticized by Dufour, not to the Prophetic model of Madinah itself.<br /> <br /> == Summary of the barriers ==<br /> <br /> The barriers are not primarily arguments against Islam. They are conditions that shape whether Islam can become socially imaginable, institutionally sustainable, and generationally durable for a group.<br /> <br /> They may be summarized into several broad types:<br /> <br /> * '''Conceptual obstacles:''' whether a group can imagine itself becoming Muslim together.<br /> * '''Institutional obstacles:''' whether converts can build and administer their own Muslim spaces.<br /> * '''Civilizational obstacles:''' whether historical hostility, anti-Islam sentiment, or mutual suspicion prevent public conversion.<br /> * '''Family and marriage obstacles:''' whether marriage, family formation, and gender communication can function.<br /> * '''Cultural obstacles:''' whether individualism, anti-native sentiment, or pressure to assimilate into existing ethnic Muslim communities weakens group formation.<br /> * '''Retention obstacles:''' whether converts remain visible and supported after entering Islam.<br /> <br /> == Practical implications ==<br /> <br /> A group-conversion approach suggests that da'wah should not end at individual shahādah, but should also consider the social conditions that help converts remain Muslim across families and generations. It should also consider:<br /> <br /> * convert-led institutions where appropriate;<br /> * family and marriage pathways for converts;<br /> * support for public conversion when social costs are high;<br /> * lawful cultural continuity that does not contradict Islam;<br /> * retention systems so converts do not disappear after conversion.<br /> <br /> == Importance ==<br /> <br /> Group conversion is important because Islam is not only a private belief held in isolation. Muslims need worship, family life, learning, marriage, leadership, institutions, and community support.<br /> <br /> Where converts remain isolated, their Islam may become socially unsupported. Where converts can form lawful, stable, and connected Muslim communities, da'wah can become more durable across families and generations.<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> * [[Da'wah]]<br /> * [[Conversion to Islam]]<br /> * [[Tawhid]]<br /> * [[Fitrah]]<br /> * [[Masjid]]<br /> * [[Muslim community]]<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Da'wah]]<br /> [[Category:Conversion to Islam]]<br /> [[Category:Muslim community]]<br /> [[Category:Islamic sociology]]</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Group_Conversion&diff=60 2026-06-01T03:43:32Z

<p>TheIslampill: Created page with &quot;&#039;&#039;&#039;Group conversion&#039;&#039;&#039; to Islam refers to the conversion of a family, social circle, local community, ethnic group, people, or other coherent group into Islam together, or to the process by which such a group develops Muslim communal life after entering Islam. The concept is mainly relevant to da&#039;wah strategy, convert retention, institution-building, and the long-term formation of Muslim families. The term does not mean that a person becomes Muslim without individual be...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>'''Group conversion''' to Islam refers to the conversion of a family, social circle, local community, ethnic group, people, or other coherent group into Islam together, or to the process by which such a group develops Muslim communal life after entering Islam.<br /> The concept is mainly relevant to da'wah strategy, convert retention, institution-building, and the long-term formation of Muslim families.<br /> <br /> The term does not mean that a person becomes Muslim without individual belief, choice, or responsibility. Rather, it is used in da'wah and community-formation discussions to describe whether Islam is received only by isolated individuals, or whether a people can imagine themselves as Muslim together, build institutions together, marry and raise families within Islam, and remain connected after conversion.<br /> <br /> == Article scope ==<br /> <br /> This article discusses group conversion as a da'wah, retention, and community-formation problem. It does not mean that Islam is inherited by group identity, that an individual can become Muslim without personal belief, or that ethnicity and culture override tawḥīd.<br /> <br /> The purpose is to examine the barriers that prevent groups, families, and communities from imagining, entering, and sustaining Muslim life together.<br /> <br /> == Islamic framing ==<br /> <br /> Islamic da'wah addresses both individuals and peoples. The Qur'an calls the People of the Book to the worship of Allah alone, and states that messengers were sent to nations calling them to worship Allah and avoid false deities.&lt;ref&gt;Qur'an 3:64.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Qur'an 16:36.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Group conversion should therefore be understood as a practical da'wah and retention question, not as a replacement for individual faith. The concern is whether converts are left isolated, or whether stable Muslim social life becomes possible for them.<br /> <br /> == Individual and group conversion ==<br /> <br /> Individual conversion can be sincere and valid, but it may also be socially fragile. Converts may lose family support, face hostility from their previous community, struggle to marry, lack culturally accessible institutions, or be expected to assimilate into existing Muslim ethnic communities without forming their own stable Muslim networks.<br /> <br /> Group conversion addresses these social and institutional questions. It asks whether a group can enter Islam while maintaining lawful forms of family, community, leadership, language, culture, and social continuity.<br /> <br /> This does not make ethnicity, nationality, or culture a source of superiority. The unity of Muslims is based on tawḥīd and obedience to Allah. Recognizing group-specific barriers is a practical matter, not a denial of Muslim brotherhood.<br /> <br /> == Barriers to group conversion ==<br /> <br /> One useful framework for discussing group conversion is Robert Dufour's list of “the Top Ten Barriers that prevent group conversion to Islam.”<br /> The following list is quoted from a post by Robert Dufour (@robertofcanada). The original post is linked in the reference. The wording is preserved as a source quotation, while the surrounding article summarizes its relevance for da'wah and convert retention.<br /> <br /> === The Top Ten Barriers that prevent group conversion to Islam ===<br /> <br /> Robert Dufour, writing as '''@robertofcanada''', summarized the barriers as follows:&lt;ref name=&quot;dufour-top-ten&quot;&gt;Robert Dufour (@robertofcanada), “The Top Ten Barriers that prevent group conversion to Islam,” X, 27 December 2024, https://x.com/robertofcanada/status/1872717719432511704. Text quoted from supplied copy of the post.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> '''1) The Conceptual Barrier'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> If one cannot conceive of a group capable of being a Muslim group, they will only convert as individuals.<br /> <br /> '''2) The Turnkey Barrier'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Group conversion is easier when the group builds and administers mosques or other Islamic organizations themselves, since they have more contact with their people. When mosques are run by outsiders, such endeavours are considered unnecessary.<br /> <br /> '''3) The Madinah Model Barrier'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> This model postulates that Muslims must be a homogeneous unit in order to be successful. Any organization based on groups with specific needs are deemed divisive and thus unwarranted. Of course, the myriad born Muslim orgs are never questioned.<br /> <br /> '''4) The Civilizational Barrier'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> When the converts come from a civilization whose people were the enemies of the Muslims historically, it becomes harder for them to collectivize. Their own people marginalize them while many born Muslims are leery of any effort to do this.<br /> <br /> '''5) The Gender Barrier'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Collectivizing becomes even more difficult when both genders are completely separate. Other Muslim communities get around this barrier since they have families, and two-way communication is possible father-to-daughter, mother-to-son, brother-to-sister etc.<br /> <br /> '''6) The Relationship Barrier'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> When converts have no sub-group, convert intra-marriage becomes impossible. Most converts marry into an existing Muslim community. These converts tend to oppose collectivization since the assumption is that their new family will feel excluded.<br /> <br /> '''7) The Anti-Islam Barrier'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> The more the convert’s society hates Islam, the more likely they are to get kicked out, written out of the will, disowned; preventing public conversion. Marrying another convert becomes even less of a prospect.<br /> <br /> '''8) The Woke Barrier'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> If most converts are ingrained and taught to hate their own people, they will be averse to collectivizing in any way. In fact, they will make every effort to kibosh such an endeavour. People from a conservative background will be averse to conversion.<br /> <br /> '''9) The Individualism Barrier'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> People who come from individualistic societies are far less likely to convert and collectivize as a group. Conversion is seen as a personal decision and are more likely to try to fit in with existing Muslim communities, with varied results.<br /> <br /> '''10) The Dropout Barrier'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> All nine of the previous barriers contribute to converts dropping off from the Muslim community and often Islam altogether. It is difficult to get a movement off the road when so many people drop off and are unseen in the community.<br /> <br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> In this context, “Madinah Model” refers to a modern sociological usage criticized by Dufour, not to the Prophetic model of Madinah itself.<br /> <br /> == Analytic frame ==<br /> <br /> The barriers are primarily arguments against Islam. They are conditions that shape whether Islam can become socially imaginable, institutionally sustainable, and generationally durable for a group.<br /> <br /> The list therefore treats group conversion as involving several layers:<br /> <br /> * a conceptual layer: whether the group can imagine itself as Muslim;<br /> * an institutional layer: whether converts can build and administer their own Muslim spaces;<br /> * a relational layer: whether marriage, family, and gender communication can function;<br /> * a civilizational layer: whether historical hostility and social suspicion prevent public conversion;<br /> * a retention layer: whether converts remain visible and supported after entering Islam.<br /> <br /> == Summary of the barriers ==<br /> <br /> The list can be summarized into several broad types of obstacles:<br /> <br /> * '''Conceptual obstacles:''' people may not imagine that their group can become Muslim as a group.<br /> * '''Institutional obstacles:''' converts may lack control over mosques, organizations, leadership, and outreach structures.<br /> * '''Civilizational obstacles:''' hostile historical memory, anti-Islam sentiment, and mutual distrust can prevent collectivization.<br /> * '''Family and marriage obstacles:''' lack of convert sub-communities can make marriage, gender communication, and family formation difficult.<br /> * '''Cultural obstacles:''' individualism, anti-native sentiment, or pressure to assimilate into existing ethnic Muslim communities can weaken group formation.<br /> * '''Retention obstacles:''' when these barriers remain unresolved, converts may disappear from the community or leave Islam altogether.<br /> <br /> == Practical implications ==<br /> <br /> A group-conversion approach suggests that da'wah should not end at individual shahādah. It should also consider:<br /> <br /> * convert-led institutions where appropriate;<br /> * family and marriage pathways for converts;<br /> * support for public conversion when social costs are high;<br /> * lawful cultural continuity that does not contradict Islam;<br /> * retention systems so converts do not disappear after conversion.<br /> <br /> == Importance ==<br /> <br /> Group conversion is important because Islam is not only a private belief held in isolation. Muslims need worship, family life, learning, marriage, leadership, institutions, and community support.<br /> <br /> Where converts remain isolated, their Islam may become socially unsupported. Where converts can form lawful, stable, and connected Muslim communities, da'wah can become more durable across families and generations.<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> * [[Da'wah]]<br /> * [[Conversion to Islam]]<br /> * [[Tawhid]]<br /> * [[Fitrah]]<br /> * [[Masjid]]<br /> * [[Muslim community]]<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Da'wah]]<br /> [[Category:Conversion to Islam]]<br /> [[Category:Muslim community]]<br /> [[Category:Islamic sociology]]</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Bible&diff=59 2026-05-30T02:30:50Z

<p>TheIslampill: </p> <hr /> <div>'''The Bible''' is the name commonly given to the collection of scriptures used by Jews and Christians. From an Islamic perspective, the Bible must be distinguished from the original revelation that Allah gave to His prophets.<br /> <br /> Islam acknowledges that scripture was given to Christians and Jews; they are called '''Ahl al-Kitāb''' — the People of the Book. However, the disagreement begins with the very understanding of what “the Bible” is.<br /> <br /> To the Muslim, the '''Tawrat''' was given to Moses and the '''Injīl''' was given to the Messiah. This is as the Qur’an says:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “Indeed, We revealed the Torah, containing guidance and light…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:44.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> And:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah. And We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:46.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> The Qur’an presents the Injīl as a scripture given to the Messiah from God, just as the Tawrat was given to Moses from God. No Christian today believes that the New Testament was given by the Messiah to his disciples. The New Testament is therefore not identical to the Injīl.<br /> <br /> As Muslims, we believe that Christians and Jews today do not possess the original Torah or the original Gospel in their pure revealed form.<br /> <br /> == Islamic framework for revealed scripture ==<br /> <br /> Muslims believe that Allah sent revelation to His prophets for the guidance of mankind. This includes belief in the books Allah named, such as the Tawrat, Zabur, Injīl, and Qur’an.<br /> <br /> Belief in the books of Allah is part of īmān. The Qur’an says:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “The Messenger has believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord, and [so have] the believers. All of them have believed in Allah and His angels and His books and His messengers…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 2:285.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This means that the Muslim position is not a denial that revelation was given before the Qur’an. Rather, Muslims affirm that Allah revealed guidance before the Qur’an, while also affirming that the Qur’an is the final revelation, confirms the truth that remains from previous revelation, supersedes earlier scriptures, and judges over what people later attributed to God.<br /> <br /> The Qur’an describes itself as confirming previous scripture and as a criterion over it:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “And We have revealed to you the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:48.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This is why Muslims do not judge the Qur’an by the present Bible. Rather, the Qur’an confirms what remains true from previous revelation and judges what people later altered, concealed, misunderstood, or attributed to God.<br /> <br /> The issue with the present Bible is therefore not whether Allah ever revealed scripture to Moses or Jesus. Islam affirms that He did. The issue is whether the present Bible is identical to those original revelations in wording, meaning, canon, and authority.<br /> <br /> From the Islamic perspective, previous scriptures were altered in word and meaning, while the Qur’an remains the final preserved criterion for mankind.<br /> <br /> == Qur'anic criticism of textual corruption ==<br /> <br /> The Qur’an criticizes those who wrote scripture with their own hands and then claimed it was from God:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “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…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 2:79.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> The Qur’an also states that some from the People of the Book altered words from their proper places:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “So for their breaking of the covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their proper usages…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:13.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This is not merely a Muslim claim asserted without evidence. The textual history of the Old and New Testaments shows that “the Bible” is not one simple, unchanged text that all Jews and Christians have always possessed in a single stable form.<br /> <br /> == Calling the People of the Book back to tawḥīd ==<br /> <br /> The Qur’an’s address to the People of the Book is not merely a textual argument about manuscripts. It is first a call back to tawḥīd — the worship of Allah alone without partners.<br /> <br /> Allah says:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “Say, O People of the Scripture, come to a word that is equitable between us and you — that we will not worship except Allah and not associate anything with Him and not take one another as lords instead of Allah. But if they turn away, then say, Bear witness that we are Muslims.”<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 3:64.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This is also the prophetic method. When the Prophet ﷺ sent Muʿādh to Yemen, he told him that he was going to a people from the People of the Book, and that the first thing he should invite them to was the tawḥīd of Allah.&lt;ref&gt;Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 7372.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This matters because the question of the Bible is not only academic. The Muslim evaluates the Bible under the higher issue of revelation, worship, and the right of Allah over His servants. The purpose is not merely to show that manuscripts differ, but to call people back to the worship of Allah alone and to the final revelation He sent.<br /> <br /> == Which Bible? ==<br /> <br /> One of the first problems is the question: which Old Testament and which New Testament is meant?<br /> <br /> Examples of Old Testament textual traditions and sources include:<br /> <br /> * the Greek Septuagint;<br /> * the Hebrew Vorlage behind the Septuagint;<br /> * the Masoretic Text;<br /> * the Samaritan Pentateuch;<br /> * the Dead Sea Scrolls / Qumran scrolls;<br /> * the source or sources behind the Greek Septuagint.<br /> <br /> Examples of New Testament canons, manuscripts, or printed critical editions include:<br /> <br /> * Marcion’s canon;<br /> * Tatian’s ''Diatessaron'';<br /> * Codex Sinaiticus;<br /> * Codex Vaticanus;<br /> * Codex Alexandrinus;<br /> * Codex Bezae;<br /> * Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus;<br /> * Codex Washingtonianus;<br /> * the Textus Receptus;<br /> * Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament;<br /> * Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament editions;<br /> * United Bible Societies Greek New Testament editions.<br /> <br /> The problem is that there is no one simple “Biblical text” that all Christians or Jews have agreed upon across history. What is called the Bible today is a collected and translated text based on multiple textual traditions, manuscript witnesses, canons, and scholarly editorial decisions.<br /> <br /> == The Old Testament text ==<br /> <br /> The Old Testament text is not available today in its original autographs.<br /> <br /> Ernst Würthwein notes that with ancient writings, including the writings of the Old and New Testaments, the original documents have been lost, and the available texts exist only in copies separated from the originals by centuries and by an unknown number of intermediate copies.&lt;ref&gt;Ernst Würthwein, ''The Text of the Old Testament'', trans. Erroll F. Rhodes, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The copying process itself creates textual problems. A word may be missed or repeated; words may be transposed or replaced; and even scribal correction may introduce further corruption. Therefore, before interpretation, the text itself must first be established by comparing the available witnesses.&lt;ref&gt;Würthwein, ''The Text of the Old Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Those witnesses are not all equally reliable. Each has its own character and its own individual history, so a textual witness cannot simply be treated as a neutral copy of the original.&lt;ref&gt;Würthwein, ''The Text of the Old Testament'', xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Masoretic Text also should not be imagined as one perfect master copy of the original Old Testament. Roy E. Beacham argues that no such thing as “the Masoretic text” or one single Masoretic text actually exists, and that no single “master copy” of the entire Old Testament corpus exists today.&lt;ref&gt;Roy E. Beacham, “The Old Testament Text and the Version Debate,” in Roy E. Beacham and Kevin T. Bauder, eds., ''One Bible Only? Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible'' (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001), 64–65.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Beacham further argues that even if Jewish scribes had produced a master copy in the first century, there is no evidence that such a text was ever accepted, much less portrayed, as a perfect replica of the originals.&lt;ref&gt;Beacham, “The Old Testament Text and the Version Debate,” 64–65.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Old Testament as possessed today is therefore mediated through later textual families, recensions, manuscript traditions, and scholarly reconstruction.<br /> <br /> == The New Testament and the Injīl ==<br /> <br /> The New Testament is not the Injīl that Muslims believe was given to Jesus. The Qur’an describes the Injīl as revelation given to the Messiah. The New Testament, by contrast, is a later collection of writings about Jesus, his followers, and early Christian communities.<br /> <br /> Jesus preached in the 20s and 30s CE, in Aramaic, among Jews in Galilee and Jerusalem. The canonical Gospels were composed decades later, in Greek, for communities living in a post-Jesus and largely Gentile environment. This creates a major distinction between the Gospel given to Jesus and the later Gospel literature written about Jesus.<br /> <br /> The New Testament did not exist during the lifetime of Jesus. The writings of Paul came after Jesus, and the canonical Gospels were written later still.<br /> <br /> Bart D. Ehrman states that most scholars date Mark to around 65–70 CE, Matthew and Luke to around 80–85 CE, and John to around 90–95 CE.&lt;ref&gt;Bart D. Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee'' (New York: HarperOne, 2014), section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This places the canonical Gospels decades after Jesus. They were not written as transcripts, meeting minutes, or stenographic records of his ministry. They were written after stories about Jesus had circulated through communities, languages, theological disputes, preaching contexts, and oral transmission.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Barrie Wilson likewise warns against treating the Gospel writings as if they were direct reports or “student notes” from the time of Jesus. They are later literary compositions written for later audiences.&lt;ref&gt;Barrie A. Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah: Unlocking the Psalms of Solomon and Humanity’s Quest for a Savior''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The New Testament therefore represents a later Christian literary and theological corpus. It is not the same thing as the Injīl revealed by Allah to Jesus.<br /> <br /> == Difference between the Gospel and the New Testament ==<br /> <br /> The Islamic argument is not merely that Christians have different Bible translations. The deeper issue is that the Qur’an speaks of a revelation given to Jesus, while the New Testament consists of later writings about Jesus.<br /> <br /> The Qur’an says that Allah gave Jesus the Injīl:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah. And We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:46.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> The New Testament, however, is not a book given by Jesus to his disciples. It is a later Christian corpus consisting of Gospels, letters, and other writings produced after Jesus.<br /> <br /> The distinction may be summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> * Jesus preached in the 20s and 30s CE, in Aramaic, among Jews in Galilee and Jerusalem.&lt;ref&gt;Barrie A. Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah: Unlocking the Psalms of Solomon and Humanity’s Quest for a Savior'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * His earliest followers transmitted teachings orally before the later Gospel writings were composed.&lt;ref&gt;Bart D. Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee'' (New York: HarperOne, 2014), section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * A historical gap of roughly 40–70 years separates Jesus’ ministry from much of the later Gospel literature.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * The later Gospel writings were composed anonymously, in Greek, for communities living in a post-Jesus and increasingly Gentile environment.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels”; Dale B. Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * These writings were produced after the original Jewish setting of Jesus had been transformed by later disputes, Pauline influence, Gentile expansion, and the destruction of the Temple.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * The canonical Gospels were not books handed down by Jesus himself, nor do they present themselves as transcripts or recordings made at the time of the events.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * The New Testament canon developed over time through later Christian usage, dispute, selection, and exclusion.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This means that the New Testament should not be treated as though it were a book revealed to Jesus. It is a later collection formed by Christian communities.<br /> <br /> This also explains why the Muslim does not accept the New Testament as the Injīl. Even before discussing textual variants, manuscripts, or canon lists, the category itself is different: the Injīl is revelation given to Jesus; the New Testament is a later corpus about Jesus.<br /> <br /> The basic timeline is therefore:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> God → Jesus → disciples and early Jewish followers → oral transmission and community memory → later Greek Gospel literature → dominant Christian sect → apocrypha and New Testament canon.<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This timeline reflects the historical distinction between the ministry of Jesus and the later formation of Christian scripture. The first known attempt to identify a canon-like list of approved Christian writings was Marcion’s list in the first half of the second century, not a list preserved from Jesus or the disciples.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This is why the present New Testament cannot simply be identified with the Gospel revealed to Jesus.<br /> <br /> == Gospel development ==<br /> <br /> A simplified roadmap of Gospel development can be summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> individual sayings about Jesus and from Jesus → sayings collections and sayings Gospels → narrative miracle literature → canonical and non-canonical Gospels.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, notes dated 25 November 2025, “Summary Roadmap of Gospel Development.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This summary is not meant to claim that every stage can be reconstructed with certainty. Rather, it highlights that the canonical Gospels are not the starting point of the Jesus tradition. They are later literary compositions built from earlier sayings, oral reports, community memory, source materials, and theological interpretation.<br /> <br /> A more detailed schematic is:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> '''God → Jesus'''<br /> <br /> Jesus preached in the late 20s and early 30s CE, in Aramaic, among Jews in Galilee and Jerusalem.&lt;ref&gt;Barrie A. Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah: Unlocking the Psalms of Solomon and Humanity’s Quest for a Savior'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Jesus → disciples and early Jewish followers'''<br /> <br /> The earliest Jesus movement was rooted in a Jewish environment, centered on Jesus’ proclamation and remembered teachings, not on a completed New Testament canon.<br /> <br /> '''Disciples and early followers → oral transmission and community memory'''<br /> <br /> Reports about Jesus circulated orally before being written down. The Gospel writers do not provide named eyewitness chains for each episode, nor do they identify their sources in the manner of modern historians.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels”; Bart D. Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee'' (New York: HarperOne, 2014), section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Historical gap: roughly 40–70 years or more'''<br /> <br /> The canonical Gospels were written decades after Jesus’ ministry. Mark is commonly dated around 65–70 CE, Matthew and Luke around 80–85 CE, and John around 90–95 CE.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Unknown source chains → later Greek Gospel literature'''<br /> <br /> By the time the canonical Gospels were composed, the reports about Jesus had passed through communities, languages, preaching contexts, theological disputes, and memory. Wilson warns that these writings should not be treated as transcripts, recordings, or direct reports made at the time of Jesus.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Jewish setting → Gentile and Graeco-Roman audiences'''<br /> <br /> The Gospel writers addressed later audiences far removed from the original Jewish world of Jesus. Wilson emphasizes that these audiences were largely Greek-speaking Romans and Gentiles who were not familiar with the customs, beliefs, and expectations of Jesus’ Jewish environment.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Sayings traditions → narrative Gospel literature'''<br /> <br /> The earliest layers of Jesus tradition are often identified with sayings material. Sources such as the Gospel of Thomas and the hypothetical Q source do not center the crucifixion and resurrection in the way the later canonical Gospels do.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Mark → Matthew and Luke → John'''<br /> <br /> The first canonical Gospel is usually identified as Mark. Matthew and Luke are commonly understood to have used Mark as one of their sources, while John represents a later and more openly theological Gospel tradition.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels”; Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Gospel literature → dominant Christian canon'''<br /> <br /> The Gospel writings later became part of the New Testament canon through a process of Christian usage, dispute, selection, and exclusion. The first known canon-like list of Christian writings was Marcion’s list in the first half of the second century, not a list preserved from Jesus or the disciples.&lt;ref&gt;Dale B. Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> The Gospel of Mark is not a strict biography in the modern sense. It is closer to a structured theological narrative built around miracle material, conflict material, and proclamation. Some summaries of Gospel development compare Mark’s miracle-oriented narrative to ancient miracle-story literature or aretalogy rather than to modern biography.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> According to the same summary, Mark includes three miracle sets: water miracles, healing miracles, and feeding miracles. The later canonical Gospels build upon, reorder, expand, and theologically shape earlier material.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The New Testament Gospel narratives are therefore not raw transcripts of Jesus’ speech. They are literary works built out of inherited material, community memory, theological concerns, and earlier sources. From an Islamic perspective, this supports the distinction between the Injīl revealed to Jesus and later Gospel literature written about Jesus.<br /> <br /> == Unknown sources and oral transmission ==<br /> <br /> The Gospel writers do not name the sources behind their narratives in the way modern historians normally cite sources. They do not provide named eyewitness chains for each episode, nor do they explain how each unit of tradition passed from the event to the written account.<br /> <br /> This is important because the Gospel writings are not transcripts, recordings, minutes, or direct reports made at the time of Jesus. They are not stenographic records of what Jesus said and did, but later literary compositions based on inherited materials, oral reports, community memory, and theological interpretation.&lt;ref&gt;Barrie A. Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah: Unlocking the Psalms of Solomon and Humanity’s Quest for a Savior'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Barrie Wilson argues that the temptation to treat the four Gospel writings as direct reports made at the time of the events should be resisted. In modern terms, they are not “transcripts” or “recordings,” but creative writings composed from earlier materials in circumstances far removed from the original ministry of Jesus.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The problem is not merely that the Gospel authors used sources. The problem is that the sources are usually unknown. Even where scholars propose earlier sources behind the Gospels, such as Mark, Q, or other traditions, those sources themselves point back to earlier chains of oral and written transmission that cannot normally be reconstructed with certainty.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Wilson notes that, when trying to identify the sources of the Gospels, the historian is often left with anonymous chains of transmission: reports passed from person to person, over decades, before being composed into literary form. These reports were shaped by memory, preaching, selection, and community concerns before reaching the final Gospel writers.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ehrman makes the same point from another angle. The Gospel authors were not eyewitnesses, did not write in the same language as Jesus, and were not writing from the same Palestinian environment. Jesus and his earliest followers were Aramaic-speaking Jews in Palestine, while the Gospel writers wrote in Greek for later Christian audiences.&lt;ref&gt;Bart D. Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee'' (New York: HarperOne, 2014), section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Gospel traditions therefore passed through a historical gap. Jesus’ ministry occurred in the late 20s and early 30s CE, while the canonical Gospels were written decades later. During that gap, reports about Jesus were transmitted orally across communities before being written down.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels”; Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This means that the Gospel writers were not simply reporting events to people who already knew the world of Galilee and Jerusalem. They were addressing later audiences in different settings. Wilson stresses that the Gospel writers’ audiences were largely Greek-speaking Romans and Gentiles, living far from Jesus’ original Jewish environment and unfamiliar with many of its customs, beliefs, and expectations.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For that reason, the Gospels must be read as later theological-literary works shaped by transmission. <br /> <br /> They may preserve memories and traditions about Jesus, but they should not be treated as direct eyewitness transcripts or as the revealed Injīl given to Jesus.<br /> <br /> == Anonymous authorship and later attribution ==<br /> <br /> The four canonical Gospels were originally published anonymously. That is, the texts themselves do not name their authors.<br /> <br /> Dale B. Martin notes that the four Gospels were published anonymously, not pseudonymously: they were not written under false names, but rather with no authors’ names attached. Later titles were attached to them, but the titles themselves are not historical proof of authorship.&lt;ref&gt;Dale B. Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Martin also notes that Papias and other early Christians preserved traditions about Gospel authorship, but modern scholars doubt many of these traditions, including the claims that Mark wrote Peter’s version, Matthew compiled Matthew, Luke wrote as a disciple of Paul, and John son of Zebedee wrote John.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ehrman argues that the later attributions are difficult because Jesus’ followers were lower-class Aramaic-speaking Jews, whereas the Gospel authors were highly educated Greek-speaking Christians of a later generation, writing in a different language, in different parts of the world, and at a later time.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The traditional names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John therefore belong to later ecclesiastical attribution, not to authorial self-identification inside the Gospel texts themselves.<br /> <br /> == Did the Gospel authors validate one another? ==<br /> <br /> There is no evidence that the claimed authors of the canonical Gospels personally validated one another’s Gospels. There is also no evidence that they exegeted or commented upon each other’s Gospel texts as a fixed four-Gospel canon during their own lifetimes.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Instead, the Gospels show literary dependence, reuse of material, differences in sequence, theological shaping, and later harmonizing activity by scribes and interpreters.<br /> <br /> Origen, in his commentary on John, acknowledged that the Gospel writers sometimes changed place, time, or sequence in order to preserve a spiritual or theological aim, even where the material presentation differed.&lt;ref&gt;Origen, ''Commentary on the Gospel of John'', Book X.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The need for later harmonization itself shows that Christians inherited multiple Gospel narratives with tensions and differences. The problem was not solved by preserved authorial commentary from Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, but by later interpretation, canon formation, and theological reading.<br /> <br /> == Canon formation ==<br /> <br /> The New Testament canon did not appear all at once.<br /> <br /> Marcion, in the first half of the second century, is identified as the first known Christian leader to produce something close to an authoritative list of accepted Christian writings.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Marcion selected a form of Luke and a collection of Pauline letters. He rejected the Old Testament and believed that other apostles had adulterated the pristine Gospel taught by Jesus by introducing “judaizing” tendencies.&lt;ref&gt;Dale B. Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This is important because the first known attempt to identify a particular set of Christian writings as an authoritative scriptural list came not from Jesus, nor from the disciples, but from Marcion. Later Christians rejected Marcion, yet his project forced the broader question: which writings should count as Christian scripture? &lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The second century contained many different kinds of Christianity, and the later boundaries between “orthodoxy” and “heresy” were not yet fixed in the way they would be in later centuries.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Some second-century Christian writers argued that the Church should accept four Gospels because they believed those Gospels were connected to real apostles: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This was partly a response to Marcion’s selection of only Luke.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Other Christians handled Gospel plurality differently. Tatian’s ''Diatessaron'' wove Gospel material into one harmonized narrative instead of preserving four separate Gospel accounts. &lt;ref&gt;Sami Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God: The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament and the Qur’an in Light of Textual and Historical Criticism'' (Minneapolis: Thoughts of Light Publishing, 2013), 53–54.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The later 27-book New Testament canon also took time to stabilize. Athanasius’ Festal Letter 39 in 367 CE is commonly identified as the first surviving list matching the later 27-book New Testament canon. The Synod of Hippo in 393 CE is commonly identified as the first council to list the same 27 books.&lt;ref&gt;Athanasius, ''Festal Letter 39''; Synod of Hippo, 393 CE.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Even then, the matter was not simply settled everywhere. Books continued to waver in and out of canon lists for centuries, such as Revelation in the East and Laodiceans in the West. Different Christian traditions, including Syriac and Ethiopian traditions, continued to preserve different canonical histories.&lt;ref&gt;Edmon L. Gallagher and John D. Meade, ''The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Eusebius of Caesarea classified writings into accepted, disputed, and rejected categories. Among the disputed writings he listed James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation, while other works such as the Shepherd, the Apocalypse of Peter, Barnabas, and the Didache were rejected or treated separately.&lt;ref&gt;Eusebius, ''Ecclesiastical History'', Book 3, Chapter 25.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Synod of Laodicea listed 26 of the later 27 New Testament books and omitted Revelation, reflecting an Eastern pattern in which Revelation remained disputed.&lt;ref&gt;Synod of Laodicea, canon list; Gallagher and Meade, ''The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Cyril of Jerusalem likewise excluded Revelation from his list, instructing readers to receive the four Gospels, Acts, the Catholic Epistles, and the fourteen Epistles of Paul, while putting other writings aside.&lt;ref&gt;Cyril of Jerusalem, ''Catechetical Lecture'' 4.36.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Gregory of Nazianzus also omitted Revelation and stated that anything beyond his listed books was not genuine.&lt;ref&gt;Gregory of Nazianzus, ''On the Genuine Books of Divinely Inspired Scripture''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Amphilochius of Iconium reported that some accepted Revelation, but that the majority said it was spurious.&lt;ref&gt;Amphilochius of Iconium, ''Iambics to Seleucus''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Jerome acknowledged that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not received by Latin custom in the same way as in the Greek churches, while the Greek churches did not receive the Apocalypse of John in the same way. He nevertheless accepted both on the basis of earlier writers rather than simply following the custom of his own time.&lt;ref&gt;Jerome, Letter 129 to Dardanus.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The canon was therefore not simply handed down as a fixed list from Jesus or the disciples. It developed through later Christian disputes, preferences, exclusion, harmonizations, regional usage, ecclesiastical authority, and attempts to identify which writings should count as Christian scripture.<br /> <br /> == Citations do not settle the canon ==<br /> <br /> Appeals to early Christian citation are also not enough by themselves to establish the canon.<br /> <br /> A writer may quote or use a book without necessarily including it in his canon list. Likewise, a book may be valued, read, or cited in Christian communities without being treated as canonical in the final sense.<br /> <br /> Gallagher and Meade note that citations are a problematic criterion for determining which books someone would list as canon. Citations can show how early Christians used and valued writings, but the list of writings cited — even cited “as Scripture” — does not always correspond to the list of canonical writings provided by individual authors.&lt;ref&gt;Gallagher and Meade, ''The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This matters because canon is not established merely by finding an early Christian writer who quotes a book. One must distinguish between use, edifying reading, liturgical reading, disputed status, ecclesiastical status, and final canonical authority.<br /> <br /> == Earliest Gospel manuscripts ==<br /> <br /> There are no complete first-century manuscripts of the canonical Gospels. The earliest surviving fragments are small and fragmentary.<br /> <br /> For Matthew, an early witness is 𝔓77, commonly dated to the 2nd–3rd century CE, containing Matthew 13:55–56 and 14:3–5.&lt;ref&gt;H. A. G. Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'' (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2025), xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For Mark, one possible early witness is 𝔓137, dated by some to the 2nd–3rd century CE, containing Mark 1:7–9; another important witness is 𝔓45, usually dated to the 3rd century CE, containing fragments of Mark.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For Luke, an early witness is 𝔓75, commonly dated to the 3rd–4th century CE, containing Luke 3:18–15:10.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For John, an early witness is 𝔓52, commonly dated to the 2nd–3rd century CE, containing John 18:31–33 and 18:37–38.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Even on optimistic dating, the manuscript evidence is fragmentary. The canonical Gospels are not supported by complete first-century manuscript copies. The manuscript trail begins with small fragments, while fuller witnesses come later.<br /> <br /> == Titles and names in the manuscript tradition ==<br /> <br /> The names of the Gospel authors were not necessarily circulated with the earliest Gospel manuscripts.<br /> <br /> One summary of the manuscript evidence notes that the earliest Gospel fragment with a title may be associated with Matthew and dates to the third century, while names of Gospel authors were added to Codex Sinaiticus by a corrector between the fourth and sixth centuries.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, Four Core Points section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This supports the distinction between the Gospel texts themselves and later title traditions. The presence of familiar Gospel names in later manuscripts does not prove that those names were attached from the beginning.<br /> <br /> == Manuscript dating and the problem of certainty ==<br /> <br /> The dates assigned to early Christian manuscripts are often less certain than popular apologetic presentations imply.<br /> <br /> Brent Nongbri argues that many early Christian manuscripts lack secure archaeological context. They were often discovered through the antiquities market, through unclear find stories, or without modern archaeological recording. This makes their provenance and dating difficult to establish with precision.&lt;ref&gt;Brent Nongbri, ''God’s Library: The Archaeology of the Earliest Christian Manuscripts'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018), prologue.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Nongbri also notes that paleography — dating a manuscript by handwriting — is a subjective exercise. It can suggest a range of possible dates, but it should not be treated as though it can normally deliver a precise year or decade.&lt;ref&gt;Nongbri, ''God’s Library'', chapter 2, “The Dating Game.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This matters because many early Christian manuscripts are dated mainly by paleography. When a manuscript is described as “around 150 CE” or “about 200 CE,” this often means a scholarly estimate, not a fixed archaeological fact.<br /> <br /> Nongbri further warns that labels such as “New Testament papyri” can be misleading. Some papyrus manuscripts may come from a time before the boundaries of the New Testament canon were fixed, and no extant papyrus manuscript contains anything close to the whole New Testament.&lt;ref&gt;Nongbri, ''God’s Library'', prologue.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Thus, early Christian manuscript evidence is valuable, but it must be handled carefully. It does not provide a simple chain of complete early Bibles reaching back to Jesus or the apostles.<br /> <br /> == The problem of the “original text” ==<br /> <br /> Modern textual criticism does not simply print “the original New Testament.” It attempts to reconstruct an earlier attainable text by comparing surviving witnesses.<br /> <br /> The issue is not whether the present New Testament contains any early material. The issue is whether the exact original wording of the New Testament books can be identified with certainty.<br /> <br /> Michael W. Holmes argues that the traditional goal of restoring the “original text” needs reconsideration because the term “original text” is itself ambiguous and because the history of textual transmission deserves study in its own right.&lt;ref&gt;Michael W. Holmes, “From ‘Original Text’ to ‘Initial Text’: The Traditional Goal of New Testament Textual Criticism in Contemporary Discussion.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Eldon J. Epp likewise argues that the phrase “original text” is multivalent and far more complex than earlier scholars assumed, since the problem includes canon, authority, language, oral tradition, pre-literary tradition, source criticism, compositional stages, and textual variants.&lt;ref&gt;Eldon J. Epp, “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ in New Testament Textual Criticism,” ''Harvard Theological Review'' 92, no. 3 (1999): 246–247.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Because of this, some scholars speak more cautiously of the “initial text” or the “earliest attainable text,” rather than confidently claiming direct access to the autographs.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 13–14.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == The obscure zone ==<br /> <br /> A major issue in New Testament textual criticism is the dark early period between the writing of the texts and the earliest substantial manuscript witnesses.<br /> <br /> This early period includes uncertainty about authorship, revision, early reception, circulation, and early translations.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 15.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ernest C. Colwell stated that without knowledge of the history of the text, the original reading cannot be established.&lt;ref&gt;Ernest C. Colwell, “The Greek New Testament with a Limited Critical Apparatus: Its Nature and Uses,” in Allen Paul Wikgren and David Edward Aune, eds., ''Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature'' (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 37.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Eberhard Nestle noted that the disappearance of the originals is understandable because much of the New Testament, especially the Epistles, consisted of occasional writings not originally intended for broad publication, while other writings had limited circulation.&lt;ref&gt;Eberhard Nestle, ''Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament'', trans. William Edie (Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1901), 29.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This early obscurity matters because later manuscript agreement cannot automatically prove that the text was perfectly stable from the moment of composition.<br /> <br /> == Greek manuscripts and the numbers argument ==<br /> <br /> Christian apologists often appeal to the large number of New Testament manuscripts. The number is important, but the raw number by itself can mislead.<br /> <br /> Michael W. Holmes notes that the common appeal to thousands of manuscripts is misleading if it does not mention that approximately eighty-five percent of those manuscripts were copied in the eleventh century or later, over a millennium after the writing of the New Testament. He adds that as one gets closer to the origin of the New Testament, manuscript evidence becomes increasingly scarce.&lt;ref&gt;Michael W. Holmes, “Text and Transmission in the Second Century,” in Robert B. Stewart, ed., ''The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace in Dialogue'' (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 61.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The closer one moves toward the date of composition, the fewer and smaller the manuscript witnesses become. The earliest evidence often consists of scraps rather than full books.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 38–39.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The existence of many later manuscripts does not by itself identify the earliest reading. As textual critics often say, manuscripts must be weighed, not merely counted.&lt;ref&gt;Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, ''The Text of the New Testament'', trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 280–281.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == No autographs and the need for textual criticism ==<br /> <br /> No original manuscript, or autograph, of any New Testament book has survived. This is why New Testament textual criticism exists.<br /> <br /> David Alan Black explains that the first reason textual criticism is necessary is that none of the original manuscripts of the New Testament has survived. The second reason is that the extant copies contain numerous mistakes, and these mistakes must be identified before interpretation, teaching, or preaching can proceed.&lt;ref&gt;David Alan Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide'' (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 12.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This point is important for dawah. The Christian does not possess the original manuscript of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, or Jude. What exists are later copies of copies, and those copies differ.<br /> <br /> Many variants are minor, such as spelling differences or word order. However, scholars also acknowledge that the New Testament manuscripts contain significant variants. Some affect translation and interpretation, and some are more important than others.&lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', 13.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The question, then, is not whether textual criticism is useful. The question is whether a scripture that requires reconstruction from later, differing copies can be treated as a perfectly preserved revelation identical to what was first revealed.<br /> <br /> == Types of scribal errors ==<br /> <br /> New Testament manuscript errors are usually divided into two broad categories: accidental and intentional.<br /> <br /> Accidental errors include:<br /> * faulty word division;<br /> * homoeoteleuton, where a scribe skips from one word or ending to a similar word or ending later in the text;<br /> * haplography, where something that should be written twice is written once;<br /> * dittography, where something is written twice instead of once;<br /> * metathesis, where letters or words are placed in the wrong order;<br /> * itacism, where similar vowel sounds are confused.<br /> <br /> Intentional changes include:<br /> * grammatical improvements;<br /> * liturgical changes;<br /> * elimination of apparent discrepancies;<br /> * harmonization of parallel passages;<br /> * conflation, where two or more readings are combined into one;<br /> * doctrinal changes.<br /> &lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', appendix “Types of Errors in the New Testament Manuscripts,” 59–61.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Examples include the doxology in the Lord’s Prayer at Matthew 6:13, harmonization of Matthew 19:17 with Mark 10:18, and the “Heavenly Witnesses” passage in 1 John 5:7–8, which has no non-suspect Greek manuscript support.&lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', 60–61.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This means that textual variation is not only a matter of random copying mistakes. Some changes were made because scribes thought they were improving grammar, clarifying doctrine, harmonizing passages, or correcting what they perceived to be an error.<br /> <br /> == Early papyri and textual fluidity ==<br /> <br /> The early papyri do not simply solve the problem of the original text. They provide valuable evidence, but they are incomplete, fragmentary, and textually varied.<br /> <br /> Philip W. Comfort acknowledged that Mark, the earliest canonical Gospel and a major source for Matthew and Luke, is not preserved in many early manuscripts. He also stated that 𝔓45, the earliest copy of Mark, is “not a very faithful copy” and that the scribe took many liberties, reproducing more the thought of the exemplar than the exact words.&lt;ref&gt;Philip W. Comfort, ''The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament'' (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 107.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Kenneth W. Clark concluded that 𝔓75, an early third-century papyrus, portrays a fluid state of the text around 200 CE, and that such scribal freedom suggests the Gospel text was little more stable than oral tradition.&lt;ref&gt;Kenneth W. Clark, “The Theological Relevance of Textual Variation in Current Criticism of the Greek New Testament,” ''Journal of Biblical Literature'' 85, no. 1 (1966): 15.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Colwell described the earliest period of the New Testament manuscript tradition as “wild,” “uncontrolled,” and “unedited.”&lt;ref&gt;Ernest C. Colwell, “Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program,” in ''Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament'' (Leiden: Brill, 1969), 164.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The early papyri therefore witness to an early textual situation that was fluid, varied, and difficult to reduce to a single unquestionably original form.<br /> <br /> == Versions and translations ==<br /> <br /> Textual critics also use ancient versions — translations of the New Testament into languages such as Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. These are useful witnesses, but they do not solve the problem of the original text.<br /> <br /> No version claims to be copied from the autograph. No version is identical to the modern critical text. The versions themselves witness to different text-types and divergent readings.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 52.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Diatessaron of Tatian, an early Gospel harmony, combines Gospel material into a single narrative, but no original copy survives, its original language is disputed, and its method of harmonization prevents it from simply preserving the exact text of the four canonical Gospels.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 53–54.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Old Latin versions show significant diversity. Jerome complained that there were almost as many forms of the text as manuscripts, and Metzger described the Old Latin as a living creation that was constantly growing.&lt;ref&gt;Bruce M. Metzger, ''The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), 325.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Coptic witnesses likewise appear late and varied, with early transmission remaining fluid and haphazard.&lt;ref&gt;Frederik Wisse, “The Coptic Versions of the New Testament,” in Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, eds., ''The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 133.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ancient versions help textual critics compare forms of the text, but they cannot independently restore the original New Testament.<br /> <br /> == Patristic citations ==<br /> <br /> Another common claim is that the New Testament could be reconstructed from quotations by the Church Fathers. These citations are useful, but they are not a simple path to the autograph.<br /> <br /> The list of “Fathers” used in textual criticism extends across centuries and includes writers from different regions and theological camps. This makes their testimony useful but mixed, not a simple recovered copy of the original New Testament.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 59–83.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Larry W. Hurtado notes that only a few explicit citations of New Testament writings are found in second-century Christian authors, and even those often show curious differences from the dominant manuscript text.&lt;ref&gt;Larry W. Hurtado, “The New Testament in the Second Century: Text, Collections and Canon,” in J. W. Childers and D. C. Parker, eds., ''Transmission and Reception: New Testament Text-Critical and Exegetical Studies'' (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006), 14–15.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> William L. Petersen observed that second-century Gospel citations show widespread harmonization, extra-canonical material mixed with canonical material, altered sequences, many variants, and vaguer parallels as one moves earlier into the second century.&lt;ref&gt;William L. Petersen, “The Genesis of the Gospels,” in A. Denaux, ed., ''New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis'' (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 54–55.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Patristic citations therefore confirm that the early Gospel tradition was living and textually complex. They do not provide a clean independent reconstruction of the original text.<br /> <br /> == Critical editions and reconstruction ==<br /> <br /> The modern printed Greek New Testament is a critical reconstruction. Textual critics compare manuscript variants and choose readings according to scholarly criteria. This means that the printed Greek New Testament is not identical to any one surviving ancient manuscript.<br /> <br /> A modern critical edition is not a newly discovered original Bible. It is a scholarly text produced through editorial judgment.<br /> <br /> The process relies on external and internal evidence. External evidence considers matters such as the date and character of manuscripts, geographical distribution, text-types, and the relationships between witnesses. Internal evidence considers transcriptional probabilities — what scribes were likely to do — and intrinsic probabilities — what the author was likely to write.&lt;ref&gt;Bruce M. Metzger, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), introduction.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> These principles are useful, but they are probabilistic. They do not give mathematical certainty.<br /> <br /> For example, earlier manuscripts are generally more important than later manuscripts, but an early manuscript may still preserve a corrupted reading, while a later manuscript may preserve an older and more reliable reading. A geographically widespread reading may be more likely to be original than a reading preserved in only one area, but this also remains a probability judgment.&lt;ref&gt;Metzger, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', introduction.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Internal evidence is likewise probabilistic. A more difficult reading may be preferred because scribes often smoothed difficult readings, but this principle cannot be applied mechanically. Sometimes a difficult reading may simply be the result of scribal error. Likewise, shorter readings may be preferred in some cases, but scribes also omitted material accidentally or intentionally.&lt;ref&gt;Metzger, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', introduction.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> William L. Petersen states that modern critical editions do not present the text current in 150, 120, or 100 CE, much less 80 CE.&lt;ref&gt;William Lawrence Petersen and Jan Krans, ''Patristic and Text-Critical Studies: The Collected Essays of William L. Petersen'' (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 410.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament apparatus also shows the extent of uncertainty in textual decisions. E. J. Edwards noted that in UBS3 and UBS4, 48.6% of rated variation units were marked “difficult” and 10.4% “extremely doubtful,” meaning that approximately 59% of rated variants were doubtful in some degree.&lt;ref&gt;E. J. Edwards, “On Using the Textual Apparatus of the UBS Greek New Testament,” ''The Bible Translator'' 28 (1977): 122.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The UBS ratings themselves show this:<br /> <br /> * '''A''' — virtual certainty;<br /> * '''B''' — some degree of doubt;<br /> * '''C''' — considerable degree of doubt;<br /> * '''D''' — very high degree of doubt.<br /> <br /> A critical edition is therefore not a manuscript handed down from Jesus or the apostles. It is a modern scholarly reconstruction built from competing witnesses and probability judgments.<br /> <br /> == Textus Receptus, Byzantine text, and modern critical text ==<br /> <br /> Different printed Greek New Testaments do not always contain the same text.<br /> <br /> The Textus Receptus is the Greek text associated with Erasmus and later Protestant editions. It stands behind the King James Version and related translations. Modern critical editions, however, are based on a different approach and rely heavily on earlier Alexandrian witnesses, along with broader comparison of manuscript evidence.<br /> <br /> Westcott and Hort’s 1881 Greek New Testament marked a major shift. Their text differed considerably from the manuscripts used by Erasmus, and they argued that the Byzantine text had been edited and was inferior to earlier Alexandrian witnesses.&lt;ref&gt;David Alan Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide'', 30.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Modern English translations such as the NASB, NIV, RSV, and NRSV generally follow a text much closer to Westcott and Hort than to Erasmus. The major exception is the New King James Version, which is based on the Textus Receptus.&lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', 31.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Major differences between the Textus Receptus and modern critical texts include the omission or addition of substantial passages such as:<br /> <br /> * Matthew 16:2b–3;<br /> * Mark 16:9–20;<br /> * Luke 22:19b–20, 43–44;<br /> * John 7:53–8:11;<br /> * 1 John 5:7–8.<br /> <br /> They also include shorter additions or omissions such as:<br /> <br /> * Matthew 6:13;<br /> * Matthew 17:21;<br /> * Matthew 18:11;<br /> * Matthew 21:44;<br /> * Mark 9:44, 46;<br /> * Luke 9:56;<br /> * Acts 8:37;<br /> * Romans 16:24.<br /> &lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', 31.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This shows that the issue is not merely spelling or punctuation. The Greek text underlying one Bible translation may differ from the Greek text underlying another in passages that readers can see in the printed Bible itself.<br /> <br /> == Significant and theological variants ==<br /> <br /> Some textual variants affect Christian theology, liturgy, or interpretation.<br /> <br /> Examples include John 1:18, where manuscripts differ between readings such as “only Son,” “only God,” and related forms.&lt;ref&gt;Philip W. Comfort, ''New Testament Text and Translation Commentary'' (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2008), discussion of John 1:18.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Another example is John 1:3–4, where punctuation and wording affect whether the text says that what came into being “in him was life.”&lt;ref&gt;Comfort, ''New Testament Text and Translation Commentary'', discussion of John 1:3–4.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Transfiguration accounts also show variation in the heavenly declaration: Matthew 17:5, Mark 9:7, and Luke 9:35 preserve related but distinct wording.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, Four Core Points section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Luke 3:22 is also textually significant because some witnesses preserve a form of the heavenly voice saying, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you,” while other witnesses have the more familiar wording.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', discussion of Luke 3:22.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Other famous examples include Mark 16:9–20, John 7:53–8:11, Acts 8:37, Matthew 6:13, and 1 John 5:7–8. These passages are disputed, omitted, bracketed, or footnoted in many modern Bibles because of manuscript evidence.&lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', 31, 60–61.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> These examples show why textual criticism is not a minor issue. Variant readings can affect how passages are translated, interpreted, preached, and used in doctrine.<br /> <br /> == The Gospels as shaped tradition ==<br /> <br /> The Gospels should not be treated as stenographic transcripts of Jesus.<br /> <br /> Ehrman states that the Gospels contain discrepancies, contradictions, embellishments, and historical problems, and that they cannot be taken at face value as straightforward historically reliable accounts in every detail.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Wilson likewise describes the Gospel narratives as highly creative works written for audiences far removed from Jesus’ original Galilean and Jewish setting. Each Gospel constructs its own portrait of Jesus for its own audience.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> David C. Parker argues that what we have in the Gospel tradition is a collection of interpretive rewritings of a tradition. He states that the concept of a Gospel as fixed in shape, authoritative, and final as a piece of literature must be abandoned.&lt;ref&gt;David C. Parker, ''The Living Text of the Gospels'' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Parker’s point is not that the Gospels are useless. Rather, the Gospels must be understood as living textual traditions that were transmitted, interpreted, rewritten, and stabilized over time.<br /> <br /> == Different Gospel portraits of Jesus ==<br /> <br /> The canonical Gospels do not present one neutral, identical portrait of Jesus. They share inherited material, but each Gospel writer selects, arranges, expands, omits, and interprets that material for a particular audience and theological purpose.<br /> <br /> This is not a minor detail. The Gospels were written decades after Jesus, in Greek, for communities far removed from his original Jewish setting in Galilee and Jerusalem. Their authors were not merely preserving a transcript of what Jesus said. They were presenting Jesus through later Christian concerns, later disputes, and later theological aims.&lt;ref&gt;Barrie A. Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah: Unlocking the Psalms of Solomon and Humanity’s Quest for a Savior'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Matthew, for example, presents Jesus in ways that echo Moses. Jesus gives teaching from a mountain, just as Moses is associated with receiving and giving instruction connected to Mount Sinai. Matthew’s Jesus is therefore shaped for an audience concerned with law, righteousness, Jewish scripture, and the claim that Jesus fulfills earlier revelation.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Luke presents a different portrait. In Luke, Jesus is calmer and more composed in suffering, and the Gospel is written for a wider Gentile audience. Luke’s narrative frames Jesus in a way that can be understood by readers outside the original Jewish world of Galilee and Jerusalem.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> John presents an even more openly theological and exalted portrait of Jesus. The Jesus of John speaks in a different style from the Synoptic Gospels and is framed through a much more developed theological lens. This is part of why John often feels different from Matthew, Mark, and Luke.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Wilson summarizes the issue by stressing that each Gospel writer has a different version of Jesus and is trying to persuade the reader that his version is the accurate one. The Gospel writers were not neutral broadcasters. They were partisan and polemical authors writing with specific agendas, audiences, and theological commitments.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This helps explain why the Gospels overlap yet differ. They are rooted in earlier tradition, but they are also overlaid with later concerns, community settings, theological interpretation, and narrative shaping.<br /> <br /> From an Islamic perspective, this strengthens the distinction between revelation given to Jesus and later writings about Jesus. The Injīl is revelation from God. The New Testament Gospels are later theological portraits produced by Christian communities.<br /> <br /> == Paul, Jewish Christianity, and later Christian theology ==<br /> <br /> The New Testament does not preserve one simple, uncontested continuation of Jesus’ original setting. The earliest Jesus movement was Jewish, while later Christian literature increasingly reflects Gentile, Greek-speaking, and Roman imperial contexts.<br /> <br /> Some scholars note tensions between Matthew’s presentation of Jesus and Pauline theology. In Matthew 5:17–20, Jesus is presented as affirming the abiding validity of the Torah, while Paul’s letters often argue that Gentile believers are not bound to the Mosaic law in the same way.&lt;ref&gt;Ulrich Luz, ''Matthew 1–7: A Commentary'', Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), discussion of Matthew 5:17–20.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This does not mean every New Testament text teaches the same theology in the same way. Rather, the New Testament reflects multiple early Christian voices, controversies, and attempts to interpret Jesus after his departure.<br /> <br /> From an Islamic perspective, this supports the need to distinguish between the revelation given to Jesus and later Christian theological developments about Jesus.<br /> <br /> == “Very words” and “voice” of Jesus ==<br /> <br /> Daniel B. Wallace distinguishes between the very words of Jesus and the very voice of Jesus, using the terms ''ipsissima verba'' and ''ipsissima vox''. He states that only rarely can scholars say that they possess the exact words of Jesus, though they may have confidence that some material reflects the “voice” of Jesus.&lt;ref&gt;Daniel B. Wallace, “Five More Myths about Bible Translations and the Transmission of the Text,” 28 December 2012.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This distinction matters because even conservative Christian scholars may admit that the Gospels often preserve the message, gist, or theological presentation of Jesus rather than exact verbal transcripts.<br /> <br /> == Muslim evaluation ==<br /> <br /> The prophetic call to the People of the Book begins with tawḥīd. Therefore, the Muslim critique of the Bible is not only that the text has variants, or that the canon developed over time, but that the present Bible cannot function as the final criterion over revelation. The Qur’an confirms what Allah truly revealed before it, exposes later corruption, and calls Jews and Christians back to the worship of Allah alone.<br /> <br /> The Muslim position is not that Allah never revealed scripture to Jews and Christians. Rather, Islam affirms that Allah revealed the Tawrat and the Injīl, while denying that the present Bible is identical to those original revelations.<br /> <br /> The Bible today is a collection of later textual traditions, translations, manuscript families, canon decisions, and critical reconstructions. The Old Testament is preserved through later witnesses such as the Masoretic tradition, Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Dead Sea Scrolls. The New Testament is preserved through later manuscripts, ancient versions, patristic citations, variants, and critical editions.<br /> <br /> The central issue is not merely whether some authentic material remains. The issue is whether the Bible available today is identical to the original revelation given by Allah to Moses and Jesus. From the Islamic perspective, it is not.<br /> <br /> The Bibles may contain truth, remnants of revelation, historical material, wisdom, and reports about prophets. However, it is not the original Tawrat or the original Injīl in pure form.<br /> <br /> The Muslim objection is therefore not merely that “variants exist.” The deeper objection is cumulative:<br /> * the Bible is not one single agreed text;<br /> * the Old Testament exists through later textual traditions, not original autographs;<br /> * the New Testament is not the Injīl revealed to Jesus;<br /> * the Gospels were written decades after Jesus, anonymously, in Greek, and for later communities;<br /> * the canon formed through later Christian dispute and selection;<br /> * no original New Testament manuscript survives;<br /> * the extant manuscripts contain accidental and intentional variants;<br /> * modern critical editions are scholarly reconstructions, not ancient autographs;<br /> * some variants affect translation, interpretation, liturgy, and doctrine.<br /> <br /> In sum, there is a serious difference between believing that scripture was originally revealed by God and claiming that the present Biblical text is a perfectly preserved copy of that original revelation.<br /> <br /> For this reason, Muslims affirm the original revelations given by Allah, while taking the Qur’an as the final preserved criterion over previous scripture. The present Bible is therefore assessed in light of the Qur’an, not the Qur’an in light of the present Bible.<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Bible]]<br /> [[Category:Christianity]]<br /> [[Category:Judaism]]<br /> [[Category:Islam and Christianity]]<br /> [[Category:People of the Book]]<br /> [[Category:Scripture]]<br /> [[Category:Textual criticism]]</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Bible&diff=58 2026-05-30T02:25:35Z

<p>TheIslampill: </p> <hr /> <div>'''The Bible''' is the name commonly given to the collection of scriptures used by Jews and Christians. From an Islamic perspective, the Bible must be distinguished from the original revelation that Allah gave to His prophets.<br /> <br /> Islam acknowledges that scripture was given to Christians and Jews; they are called '''Ahl al-Kitāb''' — the People of the Book. However, the disagreement begins with the very understanding of what “the Bible” is.<br /> <br /> To the Muslim, the '''Tawrat''' was given to Moses and the '''Injīl''' was given to the Messiah. This is as the Qur’an says:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “Indeed, We revealed the Torah, containing guidance and light…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:44.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> And:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah. And We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:46.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> The Qur’an presents the Injīl as a scripture given to the Messiah from God, just as the Tawrat was given to Moses from God. No Christian today believes that the New Testament was given by the Messiah to his disciples. The New Testament is therefore not identical to the Injīl.<br /> <br /> As Muslims, we believe that Christians and Jews today do not possess the original Torah or the original Gospel in their pure revealed form.<br /> <br /> == Islamic framework for revealed scripture ==<br /> <br /> Muslims believe that Allah sent revelation to His prophets for the guidance of mankind. This includes belief in the books Allah named, such as the Tawrat, Zabur, Injīl, and Qur’an.<br /> <br /> Belief in the books of Allah is part of īmān. The Qur’an says:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “The Messenger has believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord, and [so have] the believers. All of them have believed in Allah and His angels and His books and His messengers…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 2:285.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This means that the Muslim position is not a denial that revelation was given before the Qur’an. Rather, Muslims affirm that Allah revealed guidance before the Qur’an, while also affirming that the Qur’an is the final revelation, confirms the truth that remains from previous revelation, supersedes earlier scriptures, and judges over what people later attributed to God.<br /> <br /> The Qur’an describes itself as confirming previous scripture and as a criterion over it:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “And We have revealed to you the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:48.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This is why Muslims do not judge the Qur’an by the present Bible. Rather, the Qur’an confirms what remains true from previous revelation and judges what people later altered, concealed, misunderstood, or attributed to God.<br /> <br /> The issue with the present Bible is therefore not whether Allah ever revealed scripture to Moses or Jesus. Islam affirms that He did. The issue is whether the present Bible is identical to those original revelations in wording, meaning, canon, and authority.<br /> <br /> From the Islamic perspective, previous scriptures were altered in word and meaning, while the Qur’an remains the final preserved criterion for mankind.<br /> <br /> == Qur'anic criticism of textual corruption ==<br /> <br /> The Qur’an criticizes those who wrote scripture with their own hands and then claimed it was from God:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “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…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 2:79.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> The Qur’an also states that some from the People of the Book altered words from their proper places:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “So for their breaking of the covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their proper usages…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:13.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This is not merely a Muslim claim asserted without evidence. The textual history of the Old and New Testaments shows that “the Bible” is not one simple, unchanged text that all Jews and Christians have always possessed in a single stable form.<br /> <br /> == Calling the People of the Book back to tawḥīd ==<br /> <br /> The Qur’an’s address to the People of the Book is not merely a textual argument about manuscripts. It is first a call back to tawḥīd — the worship of Allah alone without partners.<br /> <br /> Allah says:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “Say, O People of the Scripture, come to a word that is equitable between us and you — that we will not worship except Allah and not associate anything with Him and not take one another as lords instead of Allah. But if they turn away, then say, Bear witness that we are Muslims.”<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 3:64.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This is also the prophetic method. When the Prophet ﷺ sent Muʿādh to Yemen, he told him that he was going to a people from the People of the Book, and that the first thing he should invite them to was the tawḥīd of Allah.&lt;ref&gt;Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 7372.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This matters because the question of the Bible is not only academic. The Muslim evaluates the Bible under the higher issue of revelation, worship, and the right of Allah over His servants. The purpose is not merely to show that manuscripts differ, but to call people back to the worship of Allah alone and to the final revelation He sent.<br /> <br /> == Which Bible? ==<br /> <br /> One of the first problems is the question: which Old Testament and which New Testament is meant?<br /> <br /> Examples of Old Testament textual traditions and sources include:<br /> <br /> * the Greek Septuagint;<br /> * the Hebrew Vorlage behind the Septuagint;<br /> * the Masoretic Text;<br /> * the Samaritan Pentateuch;<br /> * the Dead Sea Scrolls / Qumran scrolls;<br /> * the source or sources behind the Greek Septuagint.<br /> <br /> Examples of New Testament canons, manuscripts, or printed critical editions include:<br /> <br /> * Marcion’s canon;<br /> * Tatian’s ''Diatessaron'';<br /> * Codex Sinaiticus;<br /> * Codex Vaticanus;<br /> * Codex Alexandrinus;<br /> * Codex Bezae;<br /> * Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus;<br /> * Codex Washingtonianus;<br /> * the Textus Receptus;<br /> * Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament;<br /> * Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament editions;<br /> * United Bible Societies Greek New Testament editions.<br /> <br /> The problem is that there is no one simple “Biblical text” that all Christians or Jews have agreed upon across history. What is called the Bible today is a collected and translated text based on multiple textual traditions, manuscript witnesses, canons, and scholarly editorial decisions.<br /> <br /> == The Old Testament text ==<br /> <br /> The Old Testament text is not available today in its original autographs.<br /> <br /> Ernst Würthwein notes that with ancient writings, including the writings of the Old and New Testaments, the original documents have been lost, and the available texts exist only in copies separated from the originals by centuries and by an unknown number of intermediate copies.&lt;ref&gt;Ernst Würthwein, ''The Text of the Old Testament'', trans. Erroll F. Rhodes, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The copying process itself creates textual problems. A word may be missed or repeated; words may be transposed or replaced; and even scribal correction may introduce further corruption. Therefore, before interpretation, the text itself must first be established by comparing the available witnesses.&lt;ref&gt;Würthwein, ''The Text of the Old Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Those witnesses are not all equally reliable. Each has its own character and its own individual history, so a textual witness cannot simply be treated as a neutral copy of the original.&lt;ref&gt;Würthwein, ''The Text of the Old Testament'', xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Masoretic Text also should not be imagined as one perfect master copy of the original Old Testament. Roy E. Beacham argues that no such thing as “the Masoretic text” or one single Masoretic text actually exists, and that no single “master copy” of the entire Old Testament corpus exists today.&lt;ref&gt;Roy E. Beacham, “The Old Testament Text and the Version Debate,” in Roy E. Beacham and Kevin T. Bauder, eds., ''One Bible Only? Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible'' (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001), 64–65.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Beacham further argues that even if Jewish scribes had produced a master copy in the first century, there is no evidence that such a text was ever accepted, much less portrayed, as a perfect replica of the originals.&lt;ref&gt;Beacham, “The Old Testament Text and the Version Debate,” 64–65.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Old Testament as possessed today is therefore mediated through later textual families, recensions, manuscript traditions, and scholarly reconstruction.<br /> <br /> == The New Testament and the Injīl ==<br /> <br /> The New Testament is not the Injīl that Muslims believe was given to Jesus. The Qur’an describes the Injīl as revelation given to the Messiah. The New Testament, by contrast, is a later collection of writings about Jesus, his followers, and early Christian communities.<br /> <br /> Jesus preached in the 20s and 30s CE, in Aramaic, among Jews in Galilee and Jerusalem. The canonical Gospels were composed decades later, in Greek, for communities living in a post-Jesus and largely Gentile environment. This creates a major distinction between the Gospel given to Jesus and the later Gospel literature written about Jesus.<br /> <br /> The New Testament did not exist during the lifetime of Jesus. The writings of Paul came after Jesus, and the canonical Gospels were written later still.<br /> <br /> Bart D. Ehrman states that most scholars date Mark to around 65–70 CE, Matthew and Luke to around 80–85 CE, and John to around 90–95 CE.&lt;ref&gt;Bart D. Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee'' (New York: HarperOne, 2014), section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This places the canonical Gospels decades after Jesus. They were not written as transcripts, meeting minutes, or stenographic records of his ministry. They were written after stories about Jesus had circulated through communities, languages, theological disputes, preaching contexts, and oral transmission.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Barrie Wilson likewise warns against treating the Gospel writings as if they were direct reports or “student notes” from the time of Jesus. They are later literary compositions written for later audiences.&lt;ref&gt;Barrie A. Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah: Unlocking the Psalms of Solomon and Humanity’s Quest for a Savior''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The New Testament therefore represents a later Christian literary and theological corpus. It is not the same thing as the Injīl revealed by Allah to Jesus.<br /> <br /> == Difference between the Gospel and the New Testament ==<br /> <br /> The Islamic argument is not merely that Christians have different Bible translations. The deeper issue is that the Qur’an speaks of a revelation given to Jesus, while the New Testament consists of later writings about Jesus.<br /> <br /> The Qur’an says that Allah gave Jesus the Injīl:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah. And We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:46.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> The New Testament, however, is not a book given by Jesus to his disciples. It is a later Christian corpus consisting of Gospels, letters, and other writings produced after Jesus.<br /> <br /> The distinction may be summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> * Jesus preached in the 20s and 30s CE, in Aramaic, among Jews in Galilee and Jerusalem.&lt;ref&gt;Barrie A. Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah: Unlocking the Psalms of Solomon and Humanity’s Quest for a Savior'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * His earliest followers transmitted teachings orally before the later Gospel writings were composed.&lt;ref&gt;Bart D. Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee'' (New York: HarperOne, 2014), section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * A historical gap of roughly 40–70 years separates Jesus’ ministry from much of the later Gospel literature.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * The later Gospel writings were composed anonymously, in Greek, for communities living in a post-Jesus and increasingly Gentile environment.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels”; Dale B. Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * These writings were produced after the original Jewish setting of Jesus had been transformed by later disputes, Pauline influence, Gentile expansion, and the destruction of the Temple.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * The canonical Gospels were not books handed down by Jesus himself, nor do they present themselves as transcripts or recordings made at the time of the events.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * The New Testament canon developed over time through later Christian usage, dispute, selection, and exclusion.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This means that the New Testament should not be treated as though it were a book revealed to Jesus. It is a later collection formed by Christian communities.<br /> <br /> This also explains why the Muslim does not accept the New Testament as the Injīl. Even before discussing textual variants, manuscripts, or canon lists, the category itself is different: the Injīl is revelation given to Jesus; the New Testament is a later corpus about Jesus.<br /> <br /> The basic timeline is therefore:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> God → Jesus → disciples and early Jewish followers → oral transmission and community memory → later Greek Gospel literature → dominant Christian sect → apocrypha and New Testament canon.<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This timeline reflects the historical distinction between the ministry of Jesus and the later formation of Christian scripture. The first known attempt to identify a canon-like list of approved Christian writings was Marcion’s list in the first half of the second century, not a list preserved from Jesus or the disciples.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This is why the present New Testament cannot simply be identified with the Gospel revealed to Jesus.<br /> <br /> == Gospel development ==<br /> <br /> A simplified roadmap of Gospel development can be summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> individual sayings about Jesus and from Jesus → <br /> sayings collections and sayings Gospels → <br /> narrative miracle literature → <br /> canonical and non-canonical Gospels. &lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, notes dated 25 November 2025, “Summary Roadmap of Gospel Development.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This means that Gospel literature developed through sayings, memories, traditions, narrative shaping, miracle stories, theological interpretation, and manuscript transmission before arriving in the later forms known today.<br /> <br /> The earliest layers of Jesus tradition are often identified with sayings material. Sources such as the Gospel of Thomas and the hypothetical Q source do not center the crucifixion and resurrection in the way the later canonical Gospels do.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The first canonical Gospel is usually identified as Mark. Later Gospels such as Matthew and Luke are commonly understood to have used Mark as one of their sources.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah''; Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Gospel of Mark is not a strict biography in the modern sense. It is closer to a structured theological narrative built around miracle material, conflict material, and proclamation. Some summaries of Gospel development compare Mark’s miracle-oriented narrative to ancient miracle-story literature or aretalogy rather than to modern biography.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> According to the same summary, Mark includes three miracle sets: water miracles, healing miracles, and feeding miracles. The other canonical Gospels build upon, reorder, expand, and theologically shape earlier material.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The New Testament Gospel narratives are therefore not raw transcripts of Jesus’ speech. They are literary works built out of inherited material, community memory, theological concerns, and earlier sources.<br /> <br /> == Unknown sources and oral transmission ==<br /> <br /> The Gospel writers do not name the sources behind their narratives in the way modern historians normally cite sources. They do not provide named eyewitness chains for each episode, nor do they explain how each unit of tradition passed from the event to the written account.<br /> <br /> This is important because the Gospel writings are not transcripts, recordings, minutes, or direct reports made at the time of Jesus. They are not stenographic records of what Jesus said and did, but later literary compositions based on inherited materials, oral reports, community memory, and theological interpretation.&lt;ref&gt;Barrie A. Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah: Unlocking the Psalms of Solomon and Humanity’s Quest for a Savior'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Barrie Wilson argues that the temptation to treat the four Gospel writings as direct reports made at the time of the events should be resisted. In modern terms, they are not “transcripts” or “recordings,” but creative writings composed from earlier materials in circumstances far removed from the original ministry of Jesus.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The problem is not merely that the Gospel authors used sources. The problem is that the sources are usually unknown. Even where scholars propose earlier sources behind the Gospels, such as Mark, Q, or other traditions, those sources themselves point back to earlier chains of oral and written transmission that cannot normally be reconstructed with certainty.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Wilson notes that, when trying to identify the sources of the Gospels, the historian is often left with anonymous chains of transmission: reports passed from person to person, over decades, before being composed into literary form. These reports were shaped by memory, preaching, selection, and community concerns before reaching the final Gospel writers.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ehrman makes the same point from another angle. The Gospel authors were not eyewitnesses, did not write in the same language as Jesus, and were not writing from the same Palestinian environment. Jesus and his earliest followers were Aramaic-speaking Jews in Palestine, while the Gospel writers wrote in Greek for later Christian audiences.&lt;ref&gt;Bart D. Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee'' (New York: HarperOne, 2014), section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Gospel traditions therefore passed through a historical gap. Jesus’ ministry occurred in the late 20s and early 30s CE, while the canonical Gospels were written decades later. During that gap, reports about Jesus were transmitted orally across communities before being written down.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels”; Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This means that the Gospel writers were not simply reporting events to people who already knew the world of Galilee and Jerusalem. They were addressing later audiences in different settings. Wilson stresses that the Gospel writers’ audiences were largely Greek-speaking Romans and Gentiles, living far from Jesus’ original Jewish environment and unfamiliar with many of its customs, beliefs, and expectations.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For that reason, the Gospels must be read as later theological-literary works shaped by transmission. <br /> <br /> They may preserve memories and traditions about Jesus, but they should not be treated as direct eyewitness transcripts or as the revealed Injīl given to Jesus.<br /> <br /> == Anonymous authorship and later attribution ==<br /> <br /> The four canonical Gospels were originally published anonymously. That is, the texts themselves do not name their authors.<br /> <br /> Dale B. Martin notes that the four Gospels were published anonymously, not pseudonymously: they were not written under false names, but rather with no authors’ names attached. Later titles were attached to them, but the titles themselves are not historical proof of authorship.&lt;ref&gt;Dale B. Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Martin also notes that Papias and other early Christians preserved traditions about Gospel authorship, but modern scholars doubt many of these traditions, including the claims that Mark wrote Peter’s version, Matthew compiled Matthew, Luke wrote as a disciple of Paul, and John son of Zebedee wrote John.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ehrman argues that the later attributions are difficult because Jesus’ followers were lower-class Aramaic-speaking Jews, whereas the Gospel authors were highly educated Greek-speaking Christians of a later generation, writing in a different language, in different parts of the world, and at a later time.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The traditional names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John therefore belong to later ecclesiastical attribution, not to authorial self-identification inside the Gospel texts themselves.<br /> <br /> == Did the Gospel authors validate one another? ==<br /> <br /> There is no evidence that the claimed authors of the canonical Gospels personally validated one another’s Gospels. There is also no evidence that they exegeted or commented upon each other’s Gospel texts as a fixed four-Gospel canon during their own lifetimes.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Instead, the Gospels show literary dependence, reuse of material, differences in sequence, theological shaping, and later harmonizing activity by scribes and interpreters.<br /> <br /> Origen, in his commentary on John, acknowledged that the Gospel writers sometimes changed place, time, or sequence in order to preserve a spiritual or theological aim, even where the material presentation differed.&lt;ref&gt;Origen, ''Commentary on the Gospel of John'', Book X.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The need for later harmonization itself shows that Christians inherited multiple Gospel narratives with tensions and differences. The problem was not solved by preserved authorial commentary from Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, but by later interpretation, canon formation, and theological reading.<br /> <br /> == Canon formation ==<br /> <br /> The New Testament canon did not appear all at once.<br /> <br /> Marcion, in the first half of the second century, is identified as the first known Christian leader to produce something close to an authoritative list of accepted Christian writings.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Marcion selected a form of Luke and a collection of Pauline letters. He rejected the Old Testament and believed that other apostles had adulterated the pristine Gospel taught by Jesus by introducing “judaizing” tendencies.&lt;ref&gt;Dale B. Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This is important because the first known attempt to identify a particular set of Christian writings as an authoritative scriptural list came not from Jesus, nor from the disciples, but from Marcion. Later Christians rejected Marcion, yet his project forced the broader question: which writings should count as Christian scripture? &lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The second century contained many different kinds of Christianity, and the later boundaries between “orthodoxy” and “heresy” were not yet fixed in the way they would be in later centuries.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Some second-century Christian writers argued that the Church should accept four Gospels because they believed those Gospels were connected to real apostles: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This was partly a response to Marcion’s selection of only Luke.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Other Christians handled Gospel plurality differently. Tatian’s ''Diatessaron'' wove Gospel material into one harmonized narrative instead of preserving four separate Gospel accounts. &lt;ref&gt;Sami Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God: The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament and the Qur’an in Light of Textual and Historical Criticism'' (Minneapolis: Thoughts of Light Publishing, 2013), 53–54.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The later 27-book New Testament canon also took time to stabilize. Athanasius’ Festal Letter 39 in 367 CE is commonly identified as the first surviving list matching the later 27-book New Testament canon. The Synod of Hippo in 393 CE is commonly identified as the first council to list the same 27 books.&lt;ref&gt;Athanasius, ''Festal Letter 39''; Synod of Hippo, 393 CE.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Even then, the matter was not simply settled everywhere. Books continued to waver in and out of canon lists for centuries, such as Revelation in the East and Laodiceans in the West. Different Christian traditions, including Syriac and Ethiopian traditions, continued to preserve different canonical histories.&lt;ref&gt;Edmon L. Gallagher and John D. Meade, ''The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Eusebius of Caesarea classified writings into accepted, disputed, and rejected categories. Among the disputed writings he listed James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation, while other works such as the Shepherd, the Apocalypse of Peter, Barnabas, and the Didache were rejected or treated separately.&lt;ref&gt;Eusebius, ''Ecclesiastical History'', Book 3, Chapter 25.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Synod of Laodicea listed 26 of the later 27 New Testament books and omitted Revelation, reflecting an Eastern pattern in which Revelation remained disputed.&lt;ref&gt;Synod of Laodicea, canon list; Gallagher and Meade, ''The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Cyril of Jerusalem likewise excluded Revelation from his list, instructing readers to receive the four Gospels, Acts, the Catholic Epistles, and the fourteen Epistles of Paul, while putting other writings aside.&lt;ref&gt;Cyril of Jerusalem, ''Catechetical Lecture'' 4.36.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Gregory of Nazianzus also omitted Revelation and stated that anything beyond his listed books was not genuine.&lt;ref&gt;Gregory of Nazianzus, ''On the Genuine Books of Divinely Inspired Scripture''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Amphilochius of Iconium reported that some accepted Revelation, but that the majority said it was spurious.&lt;ref&gt;Amphilochius of Iconium, ''Iambics to Seleucus''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Jerome acknowledged that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not received by Latin custom in the same way as in the Greek churches, while the Greek churches did not receive the Apocalypse of John in the same way. He nevertheless accepted both on the basis of earlier writers rather than simply following the custom of his own time.&lt;ref&gt;Jerome, Letter 129 to Dardanus.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The canon was therefore not simply handed down as a fixed list from Jesus or the disciples. It developed through later Christian disputes, preferences, exclusion, harmonizations, regional usage, ecclesiastical authority, and attempts to identify which writings should count as Christian scripture.<br /> <br /> == Citations do not settle the canon ==<br /> <br /> Appeals to early Christian citation are also not enough by themselves to establish the canon.<br /> <br /> A writer may quote or use a book without necessarily including it in his canon list. Likewise, a book may be valued, read, or cited in Christian communities without being treated as canonical in the final sense.<br /> <br /> Gallagher and Meade note that citations are a problematic criterion for determining which books someone would list as canon. Citations can show how early Christians used and valued writings, but the list of writings cited — even cited “as Scripture” — does not always correspond to the list of canonical writings provided by individual authors.&lt;ref&gt;Gallagher and Meade, ''The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This matters because canon is not established merely by finding an early Christian writer who quotes a book. One must distinguish between use, edifying reading, liturgical reading, disputed status, ecclesiastical status, and final canonical authority.<br /> <br /> == Earliest Gospel manuscripts ==<br /> <br /> There are no complete first-century manuscripts of the canonical Gospels. The earliest surviving fragments are small and fragmentary.<br /> <br /> For Matthew, an early witness is 𝔓77, commonly dated to the 2nd–3rd century CE, containing Matthew 13:55–56 and 14:3–5.&lt;ref&gt;H. A. G. Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'' (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2025), xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For Mark, one possible early witness is 𝔓137, dated by some to the 2nd–3rd century CE, containing Mark 1:7–9; another important witness is 𝔓45, usually dated to the 3rd century CE, containing fragments of Mark.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For Luke, an early witness is 𝔓75, commonly dated to the 3rd–4th century CE, containing Luke 3:18–15:10.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For John, an early witness is 𝔓52, commonly dated to the 2nd–3rd century CE, containing John 18:31–33 and 18:37–38.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Even on optimistic dating, the manuscript evidence is fragmentary. The canonical Gospels are not supported by complete first-century manuscript copies. The manuscript trail begins with small fragments, while fuller witnesses come later.<br /> <br /> == Titles and names in the manuscript tradition ==<br /> <br /> The names of the Gospel authors were not necessarily circulated with the earliest Gospel manuscripts.<br /> <br /> One summary of the manuscript evidence notes that the earliest Gospel fragment with a title may be associated with Matthew and dates to the third century, while names of Gospel authors were added to Codex Sinaiticus by a corrector between the fourth and sixth centuries.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, Four Core Points section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This supports the distinction between the Gospel texts themselves and later title traditions. The presence of familiar Gospel names in later manuscripts does not prove that those names were attached from the beginning.<br /> <br /> == Manuscript dating and the problem of certainty ==<br /> <br /> The dates assigned to early Christian manuscripts are often less certain than popular apologetic presentations imply.<br /> <br /> Brent Nongbri argues that many early Christian manuscripts lack secure archaeological context. They were often discovered through the antiquities market, through unclear find stories, or without modern archaeological recording. This makes their provenance and dating difficult to establish with precision.&lt;ref&gt;Brent Nongbri, ''God’s Library: The Archaeology of the Earliest Christian Manuscripts'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018), prologue.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Nongbri also notes that paleography — dating a manuscript by handwriting — is a subjective exercise. It can suggest a range of possible dates, but it should not be treated as though it can normally deliver a precise year or decade.&lt;ref&gt;Nongbri, ''God’s Library'', chapter 2, “The Dating Game.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This matters because many early Christian manuscripts are dated mainly by paleography. When a manuscript is described as “around 150 CE” or “about 200 CE,” this often means a scholarly estimate, not a fixed archaeological fact.<br /> <br /> Nongbri further warns that labels such as “New Testament papyri” can be misleading. Some papyrus manuscripts may come from a time before the boundaries of the New Testament canon were fixed, and no extant papyrus manuscript contains anything close to the whole New Testament.&lt;ref&gt;Nongbri, ''God’s Library'', prologue.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Thus, early Christian manuscript evidence is valuable, but it must be handled carefully. It does not provide a simple chain of complete early Bibles reaching back to Jesus or the apostles.<br /> <br /> == The problem of the “original text” ==<br /> <br /> Modern textual criticism does not simply print “the original New Testament.” It attempts to reconstruct an earlier attainable text by comparing surviving witnesses.<br /> <br /> The issue is not whether the present New Testament contains any early material. The issue is whether the exact original wording of the New Testament books can be identified with certainty.<br /> <br /> Michael W. Holmes argues that the traditional goal of restoring the “original text” needs reconsideration because the term “original text” is itself ambiguous and because the history of textual transmission deserves study in its own right.&lt;ref&gt;Michael W. Holmes, “From ‘Original Text’ to ‘Initial Text’: The Traditional Goal of New Testament Textual Criticism in Contemporary Discussion.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Eldon J. Epp likewise argues that the phrase “original text” is multivalent and far more complex than earlier scholars assumed, since the problem includes canon, authority, language, oral tradition, pre-literary tradition, source criticism, compositional stages, and textual variants.&lt;ref&gt;Eldon J. Epp, “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ in New Testament Textual Criticism,” ''Harvard Theological Review'' 92, no. 3 (1999): 246–247.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Because of this, some scholars speak more cautiously of the “initial text” or the “earliest attainable text,” rather than confidently claiming direct access to the autographs.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 13–14.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == The obscure zone ==<br /> <br /> A major issue in New Testament textual criticism is the dark early period between the writing of the texts and the earliest substantial manuscript witnesses.<br /> <br /> This early period includes uncertainty about authorship, revision, early reception, circulation, and early translations.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 15.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ernest C. Colwell stated that without knowledge of the history of the text, the original reading cannot be established.&lt;ref&gt;Ernest C. Colwell, “The Greek New Testament with a Limited Critical Apparatus: Its Nature and Uses,” in Allen Paul Wikgren and David Edward Aune, eds., ''Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature'' (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 37.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Eberhard Nestle noted that the disappearance of the originals is understandable because much of the New Testament, especially the Epistles, consisted of occasional writings not originally intended for broad publication, while other writings had limited circulation.&lt;ref&gt;Eberhard Nestle, ''Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament'', trans. William Edie (Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1901), 29.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This early obscurity matters because later manuscript agreement cannot automatically prove that the text was perfectly stable from the moment of composition.<br /> <br /> == Greek manuscripts and the numbers argument ==<br /> <br /> Christian apologists often appeal to the large number of New Testament manuscripts. The number is important, but the raw number by itself can mislead.<br /> <br /> Michael W. Holmes notes that the common appeal to thousands of manuscripts is misleading if it does not mention that approximately eighty-five percent of those manuscripts were copied in the eleventh century or later, over a millennium after the writing of the New Testament. He adds that as one gets closer to the origin of the New Testament, manuscript evidence becomes increasingly scarce.&lt;ref&gt;Michael W. Holmes, “Text and Transmission in the Second Century,” in Robert B. Stewart, ed., ''The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace in Dialogue'' (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 61.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The closer one moves toward the date of composition, the fewer and smaller the manuscript witnesses become. The earliest evidence often consists of scraps rather than full books.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 38–39.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The existence of many later manuscripts does not by itself identify the earliest reading. As textual critics often say, manuscripts must be weighed, not merely counted.&lt;ref&gt;Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, ''The Text of the New Testament'', trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 280–281.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == No autographs and the need for textual criticism ==<br /> <br /> No original manuscript, or autograph, of any New Testament book has survived. This is why New Testament textual criticism exists.<br /> <br /> David Alan Black explains that the first reason textual criticism is necessary is that none of the original manuscripts of the New Testament has survived. The second reason is that the extant copies contain numerous mistakes, and these mistakes must be identified before interpretation, teaching, or preaching can proceed.&lt;ref&gt;David Alan Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide'' (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 12.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This point is important for dawah. The Christian does not possess the original manuscript of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, or Jude. What exists are later copies of copies, and those copies differ.<br /> <br /> Many variants are minor, such as spelling differences or word order. However, scholars also acknowledge that the New Testament manuscripts contain significant variants. Some affect translation and interpretation, and some are more important than others.&lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', 13.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The question, then, is not whether textual criticism is useful. The question is whether a scripture that requires reconstruction from later, differing copies can be treated as a perfectly preserved revelation identical to what was first revealed.<br /> <br /> == Types of scribal errors ==<br /> <br /> New Testament manuscript errors are usually divided into two broad categories: accidental and intentional.<br /> <br /> Accidental errors include:<br /> * faulty word division;<br /> * homoeoteleuton, where a scribe skips from one word or ending to a similar word or ending later in the text;<br /> * haplography, where something that should be written twice is written once;<br /> * dittography, where something is written twice instead of once;<br /> * metathesis, where letters or words are placed in the wrong order;<br /> * itacism, where similar vowel sounds are confused.<br /> <br /> Intentional changes include:<br /> * grammatical improvements;<br /> * liturgical changes;<br /> * elimination of apparent discrepancies;<br /> * harmonization of parallel passages;<br /> * conflation, where two or more readings are combined into one;<br /> * doctrinal changes.<br /> &lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', appendix “Types of Errors in the New Testament Manuscripts,” 59–61.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Examples include the doxology in the Lord’s Prayer at Matthew 6:13, harmonization of Matthew 19:17 with Mark 10:18, and the “Heavenly Witnesses” passage in 1 John 5:7–8, which has no non-suspect Greek manuscript support.&lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', 60–61.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This means that textual variation is not only a matter of random copying mistakes. Some changes were made because scribes thought they were improving grammar, clarifying doctrine, harmonizing passages, or correcting what they perceived to be an error.<br /> <br /> == Early papyri and textual fluidity ==<br /> <br /> The early papyri do not simply solve the problem of the original text. They provide valuable evidence, but they are incomplete, fragmentary, and textually varied.<br /> <br /> Philip W. Comfort acknowledged that Mark, the earliest canonical Gospel and a major source for Matthew and Luke, is not preserved in many early manuscripts. He also stated that 𝔓45, the earliest copy of Mark, is “not a very faithful copy” and that the scribe took many liberties, reproducing more the thought of the exemplar than the exact words.&lt;ref&gt;Philip W. Comfort, ''The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament'' (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 107.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Kenneth W. Clark concluded that 𝔓75, an early third-century papyrus, portrays a fluid state of the text around 200 CE, and that such scribal freedom suggests the Gospel text was little more stable than oral tradition.&lt;ref&gt;Kenneth W. Clark, “The Theological Relevance of Textual Variation in Current Criticism of the Greek New Testament,” ''Journal of Biblical Literature'' 85, no. 1 (1966): 15.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Colwell described the earliest period of the New Testament manuscript tradition as “wild,” “uncontrolled,” and “unedited.”&lt;ref&gt;Ernest C. Colwell, “Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program,” in ''Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament'' (Leiden: Brill, 1969), 164.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The early papyri therefore witness to an early textual situation that was fluid, varied, and difficult to reduce to a single unquestionably original form.<br /> <br /> == Versions and translations ==<br /> <br /> Textual critics also use ancient versions — translations of the New Testament into languages such as Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. These are useful witnesses, but they do not solve the problem of the original text.<br /> <br /> No version claims to be copied from the autograph. No version is identical to the modern critical text. The versions themselves witness to different text-types and divergent readings.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 52.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Diatessaron of Tatian, an early Gospel harmony, combines Gospel material into a single narrative, but no original copy survives, its original language is disputed, and its method of harmonization prevents it from simply preserving the exact text of the four canonical Gospels.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 53–54.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Old Latin versions show significant diversity. Jerome complained that there were almost as many forms of the text as manuscripts, and Metzger described the Old Latin as a living creation that was constantly growing.&lt;ref&gt;Bruce M. Metzger, ''The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), 325.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Coptic witnesses likewise appear late and varied, with early transmission remaining fluid and haphazard.&lt;ref&gt;Frederik Wisse, “The Coptic Versions of the New Testament,” in Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, eds., ''The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 133.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ancient versions help textual critics compare forms of the text, but they cannot independently restore the original New Testament.<br /> <br /> == Patristic citations ==<br /> <br /> Another common claim is that the New Testament could be reconstructed from quotations by the Church Fathers. These citations are useful, but they are not a simple path to the autograph.<br /> <br /> The list of “Fathers” used in textual criticism extends across centuries and includes writers from different regions and theological camps. This makes their testimony useful but mixed, not a simple recovered copy of the original New Testament.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 59–83.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Larry W. Hurtado notes that only a few explicit citations of New Testament writings are found in second-century Christian authors, and even those often show curious differences from the dominant manuscript text.&lt;ref&gt;Larry W. Hurtado, “The New Testament in the Second Century: Text, Collections and Canon,” in J. W. Childers and D. C. Parker, eds., ''Transmission and Reception: New Testament Text-Critical and Exegetical Studies'' (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006), 14–15.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> William L. Petersen observed that second-century Gospel citations show widespread harmonization, extra-canonical material mixed with canonical material, altered sequences, many variants, and vaguer parallels as one moves earlier into the second century.&lt;ref&gt;William L. Petersen, “The Genesis of the Gospels,” in A. Denaux, ed., ''New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis'' (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 54–55.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Patristic citations therefore confirm that the early Gospel tradition was living and textually complex. They do not provide a clean independent reconstruction of the original text.<br /> <br /> == Critical editions and reconstruction ==<br /> <br /> The modern printed Greek New Testament is a critical reconstruction. Textual critics compare manuscript variants and choose readings according to scholarly criteria. This means that the printed Greek New Testament is not identical to any one surviving ancient manuscript.<br /> <br /> A modern critical edition is not a newly discovered original Bible. It is a scholarly text produced through editorial judgment.<br /> <br /> The process relies on external and internal evidence. External evidence considers matters such as the date and character of manuscripts, geographical distribution, text-types, and the relationships between witnesses. Internal evidence considers transcriptional probabilities — what scribes were likely to do — and intrinsic probabilities — what the author was likely to write.&lt;ref&gt;Bruce M. Metzger, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), introduction.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> These principles are useful, but they are probabilistic. They do not give mathematical certainty.<br /> <br /> For example, earlier manuscripts are generally more important than later manuscripts, but an early manuscript may still preserve a corrupted reading, while a later manuscript may preserve an older and more reliable reading. A geographically widespread reading may be more likely to be original than a reading preserved in only one area, but this also remains a probability judgment.&lt;ref&gt;Metzger, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', introduction.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Internal evidence is likewise probabilistic. A more difficult reading may be preferred because scribes often smoothed difficult readings, but this principle cannot be applied mechanically. Sometimes a difficult reading may simply be the result of scribal error. Likewise, shorter readings may be preferred in some cases, but scribes also omitted material accidentally or intentionally.&lt;ref&gt;Metzger, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', introduction.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> William L. Petersen states that modern critical editions do not present the text current in 150, 120, or 100 CE, much less 80 CE.&lt;ref&gt;William Lawrence Petersen and Jan Krans, ''Patristic and Text-Critical Studies: The Collected Essays of William L. Petersen'' (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 410.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament apparatus also shows the extent of uncertainty in textual decisions. E. J. Edwards noted that in UBS3 and UBS4, 48.6% of rated variation units were marked “difficult” and 10.4% “extremely doubtful,” meaning that approximately 59% of rated variants were doubtful in some degree.&lt;ref&gt;E. J. Edwards, “On Using the Textual Apparatus of the UBS Greek New Testament,” ''The Bible Translator'' 28 (1977): 122.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The UBS ratings themselves show this:<br /> <br /> * '''A''' — virtual certainty;<br /> * '''B''' — some degree of doubt;<br /> * '''C''' — considerable degree of doubt;<br /> * '''D''' — very high degree of doubt.<br /> <br /> A critical edition is therefore not a manuscript handed down from Jesus or the apostles. It is a modern scholarly reconstruction built from competing witnesses and probability judgments.<br /> <br /> == Textus Receptus, Byzantine text, and modern critical text ==<br /> <br /> Different printed Greek New Testaments do not always contain the same text.<br /> <br /> The Textus Receptus is the Greek text associated with Erasmus and later Protestant editions. It stands behind the King James Version and related translations. Modern critical editions, however, are based on a different approach and rely heavily on earlier Alexandrian witnesses, along with broader comparison of manuscript evidence.<br /> <br /> Westcott and Hort’s 1881 Greek New Testament marked a major shift. Their text differed considerably from the manuscripts used by Erasmus, and they argued that the Byzantine text had been edited and was inferior to earlier Alexandrian witnesses.&lt;ref&gt;David Alan Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide'', 30.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Modern English translations such as the NASB, NIV, RSV, and NRSV generally follow a text much closer to Westcott and Hort than to Erasmus. The major exception is the New King James Version, which is based on the Textus Receptus.&lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', 31.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Major differences between the Textus Receptus and modern critical texts include the omission or addition of substantial passages such as:<br /> <br /> * Matthew 16:2b–3;<br /> * Mark 16:9–20;<br /> * Luke 22:19b–20, 43–44;<br /> * John 7:53–8:11;<br /> * 1 John 5:7–8.<br /> <br /> They also include shorter additions or omissions such as:<br /> <br /> * Matthew 6:13;<br /> * Matthew 17:21;<br /> * Matthew 18:11;<br /> * Matthew 21:44;<br /> * Mark 9:44, 46;<br /> * Luke 9:56;<br /> * Acts 8:37;<br /> * Romans 16:24.<br /> &lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', 31.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This shows that the issue is not merely spelling or punctuation. The Greek text underlying one Bible translation may differ from the Greek text underlying another in passages that readers can see in the printed Bible itself.<br /> <br /> == Significant and theological variants ==<br /> <br /> Some textual variants affect Christian theology, liturgy, or interpretation.<br /> <br /> Examples include John 1:18, where manuscripts differ between readings such as “only Son,” “only God,” and related forms.&lt;ref&gt;Philip W. Comfort, ''New Testament Text and Translation Commentary'' (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2008), discussion of John 1:18.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Another example is John 1:3–4, where punctuation and wording affect whether the text says that what came into being “in him was life.”&lt;ref&gt;Comfort, ''New Testament Text and Translation Commentary'', discussion of John 1:3–4.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Transfiguration accounts also show variation in the heavenly declaration: Matthew 17:5, Mark 9:7, and Luke 9:35 preserve related but distinct wording.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, Four Core Points section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Luke 3:22 is also textually significant because some witnesses preserve a form of the heavenly voice saying, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you,” while other witnesses have the more familiar wording.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', discussion of Luke 3:22.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Other famous examples include Mark 16:9–20, John 7:53–8:11, Acts 8:37, Matthew 6:13, and 1 John 5:7–8. These passages are disputed, omitted, bracketed, or footnoted in many modern Bibles because of manuscript evidence.&lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', 31, 60–61.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> These examples show why textual criticism is not a minor issue. Variant readings can affect how passages are translated, interpreted, preached, and used in doctrine.<br /> <br /> == The Gospels as shaped tradition ==<br /> <br /> The Gospels should not be treated as stenographic transcripts of Jesus.<br /> <br /> Ehrman states that the Gospels contain discrepancies, contradictions, embellishments, and historical problems, and that they cannot be taken at face value as straightforward historically reliable accounts in every detail.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Wilson likewise describes the Gospel narratives as highly creative works written for audiences far removed from Jesus’ original Galilean and Jewish setting. Each Gospel constructs its own portrait of Jesus for its own audience.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> David C. Parker argues that what we have in the Gospel tradition is a collection of interpretive rewritings of a tradition. He states that the concept of a Gospel as fixed in shape, authoritative, and final as a piece of literature must be abandoned.&lt;ref&gt;David C. Parker, ''The Living Text of the Gospels'' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Parker’s point is not that the Gospels are useless. Rather, the Gospels must be understood as living textual traditions that were transmitted, interpreted, rewritten, and stabilized over time.<br /> <br /> == Different Gospel portraits of Jesus ==<br /> <br /> The canonical Gospels do not present one neutral, identical portrait of Jesus. They share inherited material, but each Gospel writer selects, arranges, expands, omits, and interprets that material for a particular audience and theological purpose.<br /> <br /> This is not a minor detail. The Gospels were written decades after Jesus, in Greek, for communities far removed from his original Jewish setting in Galilee and Jerusalem. Their authors were not merely preserving a transcript of what Jesus said. They were presenting Jesus through later Christian concerns, later disputes, and later theological aims.&lt;ref&gt;Barrie A. Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah: Unlocking the Psalms of Solomon and Humanity’s Quest for a Savior'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Matthew, for example, presents Jesus in ways that echo Moses. Jesus gives teaching from a mountain, just as Moses is associated with receiving and giving instruction connected to Mount Sinai. Matthew’s Jesus is therefore shaped for an audience concerned with law, righteousness, Jewish scripture, and the claim that Jesus fulfills earlier revelation.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Luke presents a different portrait. In Luke, Jesus is calmer and more composed in suffering, and the Gospel is written for a wider Gentile audience. Luke’s narrative frames Jesus in a way that can be understood by readers outside the original Jewish world of Galilee and Jerusalem.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> John presents an even more openly theological and exalted portrait of Jesus. The Jesus of John speaks in a different style from the Synoptic Gospels and is framed through a much more developed theological lens. This is part of why John often feels different from Matthew, Mark, and Luke.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Wilson summarizes the issue by stressing that each Gospel writer has a different version of Jesus and is trying to persuade the reader that his version is the accurate one. The Gospel writers were not neutral broadcasters. They were partisan and polemical authors writing with specific agendas, audiences, and theological commitments.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This helps explain why the Gospels overlap yet differ. They are rooted in earlier tradition, but they are also overlaid with later concerns, community settings, theological interpretation, and narrative shaping.<br /> <br /> From an Islamic perspective, this strengthens the distinction between revelation given to Jesus and later writings about Jesus. The Injīl is revelation from God. The New Testament Gospels are later theological portraits produced by Christian communities.<br /> <br /> == Paul, Jewish Christianity, and later Christian theology ==<br /> <br /> The New Testament does not preserve one simple, uncontested continuation of Jesus’ original setting. The earliest Jesus movement was Jewish, while later Christian literature increasingly reflects Gentile, Greek-speaking, and Roman imperial contexts.<br /> <br /> Some scholars note tensions between Matthew’s presentation of Jesus and Pauline theology. In Matthew 5:17–20, Jesus is presented as affirming the abiding validity of the Torah, while Paul’s letters often argue that Gentile believers are not bound to the Mosaic law in the same way.&lt;ref&gt;Ulrich Luz, ''Matthew 1–7: A Commentary'', Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), discussion of Matthew 5:17–20.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This does not mean every New Testament text teaches the same theology in the same way. Rather, the New Testament reflects multiple early Christian voices, controversies, and attempts to interpret Jesus after his departure.<br /> <br /> From an Islamic perspective, this supports the need to distinguish between the revelation given to Jesus and later Christian theological developments about Jesus.<br /> <br /> == “Very words” and “voice” of Jesus ==<br /> <br /> Daniel B. Wallace distinguishes between the very words of Jesus and the very voice of Jesus, using the terms ''ipsissima verba'' and ''ipsissima vox''. He states that only rarely can scholars say that they possess the exact words of Jesus, though they may have confidence that some material reflects the “voice” of Jesus.&lt;ref&gt;Daniel B. Wallace, “Five More Myths about Bible Translations and the Transmission of the Text,” 28 December 2012.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This distinction matters because even conservative Christian scholars may admit that the Gospels often preserve the message, gist, or theological presentation of Jesus rather than exact verbal transcripts.<br /> <br /> == Muslim evaluation ==<br /> <br /> The prophetic call to the People of the Book begins with tawḥīd. Therefore, the Muslim critique of the Bible is not only that the text has variants, or that the canon developed over time, but that the present Bible cannot function as the final criterion over revelation. The Qur’an confirms what Allah truly revealed before it, exposes later corruption, and calls Jews and Christians back to the worship of Allah alone.<br /> <br /> The Muslim position is not that Allah never revealed scripture to Jews and Christians. Rather, Islam affirms that Allah revealed the Tawrat and the Injīl, while denying that the present Bible is identical to those original revelations.<br /> <br /> The Bible today is a collection of later textual traditions, translations, manuscript families, canon decisions, and critical reconstructions. The Old Testament is preserved through later witnesses such as the Masoretic tradition, Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Dead Sea Scrolls. The New Testament is preserved through later manuscripts, ancient versions, patristic citations, variants, and critical editions.<br /> <br /> The central issue is not merely whether some authentic material remains. The issue is whether the Bible available today is identical to the original revelation given by Allah to Moses and Jesus. From the Islamic perspective, it is not.<br /> <br /> The Bibles may contain truth, remnants of revelation, historical material, wisdom, and reports about prophets. However, it is not the original Tawrat or the original Injīl in pure form.<br /> <br /> The Muslim objection is therefore not merely that “variants exist.” The deeper objection is cumulative:<br /> * the Bible is not one single agreed text;<br /> * the Old Testament exists through later textual traditions, not original autographs;<br /> * the New Testament is not the Injīl revealed to Jesus;<br /> * the Gospels were written decades after Jesus, anonymously, in Greek, and for later communities;<br /> * the canon formed through later Christian dispute and selection;<br /> * no original New Testament manuscript survives;<br /> * the extant manuscripts contain accidental and intentional variants;<br /> * modern critical editions are scholarly reconstructions, not ancient autographs;<br /> * some variants affect translation, interpretation, liturgy, and doctrine.<br /> <br /> In sum, there is a serious difference between believing that scripture was originally revealed by God and claiming that the present Biblical text is a perfectly preserved copy of that original revelation.<br /> <br /> For this reason, Muslims affirm the original revelations given by Allah, while taking the Qur’an as the final preserved criterion over previous scripture. The present Bible is therefore assessed in light of the Qur’an, not the Qur’an in light of the present Bible.<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Bible]]<br /> [[Category:Christianity]]<br /> [[Category:Judaism]]<br /> [[Category:Islam and Christianity]]<br /> [[Category:People of the Book]]<br /> [[Category:Scripture]]<br /> [[Category:Textual criticism]]</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Bible&diff=57 2026-05-30T02:13:26Z

<p>TheIslampill: </p> <hr /> <div>'''The Bible''' is the name commonly given to the collection of scriptures used by Jews and Christians. From an Islamic perspective, the Bible must be distinguished from the original revelation that Allah gave to His prophets.<br /> <br /> Islam acknowledges that scripture was given to Christians and Jews; they are called '''Ahl al-Kitāb''' — the People of the Book. However, the disagreement begins with the very understanding of what “the Bible” is.<br /> <br /> To the Muslim, the '''Tawrat''' was given to Moses and the '''Injīl''' was given to the Messiah. This is as the Qur’an says:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “Indeed, We revealed the Torah, containing guidance and light…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:44.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> And:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah. And We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:46.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> The Qur’an presents the Injīl as a scripture given to the Messiah from God, just as the Tawrat was given to Moses from God. No Christian today believes that the New Testament was given by the Messiah to his disciples. The New Testament is therefore not identical to the Injīl.<br /> <br /> As Muslims, we believe that Christians and Jews today do not possess the original Torah or the original Gospel in their pure revealed form.<br /> <br /> == Qur'anic criticism of textual corruption ==<br /> <br /> The Qur’an criticizes those who wrote scripture with their own hands and then claimed it was from God:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “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…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 2:79.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> The Qur’an also states that some from the People of the Book altered words from their proper places:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “So for their breaking of the covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their proper usages…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:13.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This is not merely a Muslim claim asserted without evidence. The textual history of the Old and New Testaments shows that “the Bible” is not one simple, unchanged text that all Jews and Christians have always possessed in a single stable form.<br /> <br /> == Calling the People of the Book back to tawḥīd ==<br /> <br /> The Qur’an’s address to the People of the Book is not merely a textual argument about manuscripts. It is first a call back to tawḥīd — the worship of Allah alone without partners.<br /> <br /> Allah says:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “Say, O People of the Scripture, come to a word that is equitable between us and you — that we will not worship except Allah and not associate anything with Him and not take one another as lords instead of Allah. But if they turn away, then say, Bear witness that we are Muslims.”<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 3:64.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This is also the prophetic method. When the Prophet ﷺ sent Muʿādh to Yemen, he told him that he was going to a people from the People of the Book, and that the first thing he should invite them to was the tawḥīd of Allah.&lt;ref&gt;Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 7372.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This matters because the question of the Bible is not only academic. The Muslim evaluates the Bible under the higher issue of revelation, worship, and the right of Allah over His servants. The purpose is not merely to show that manuscripts differ, but to call people back to the worship of Allah alone and to the final revelation He sent.<br /> <br /> == Islamic framework for revealed scripture ==<br /> <br /> Muslims believe that Allah sent revelation to His prophets for the guidance of mankind. This includes belief in the books Allah named, such as the Tawrat, Zabur, Injīl, and Qur’an.<br /> <br /> Belief in the books of Allah is part of īmān. The Qur’an says:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “The Messenger has believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord, and [so have] the believers. All of them have believed in Allah and His angels and His books and His messengers…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 2:285.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This means that the Muslim position is not a denial that revelation was given before the Qur’an. Rather, Muslims affirm that Allah revealed guidance before the Qur’an, while also affirming that the Qur’an is the final revelation, confirms the truth that remains from previous revelation, supersedes earlier scriptures, and judges over what people later attributed to God.<br /> <br /> The issue with the present Bible is therefore not whether Allah ever revealed scripture to Moses or Jesus. Islam affirms that He did. The issue is whether the present Bible is identical to those original revelations in wording, meaning, canon, and authority.<br /> <br /> From the Islamic perspective, previous scriptures were altered in word and meaning, while the Qur’an remains the final preserved criterion for mankind.<br /> <br /> == Which Bible? ==<br /> <br /> One of the first problems is the question: which Old Testament and which New Testament is meant?<br /> <br /> Examples of Old Testament textual traditions and sources include:<br /> <br /> * the Greek Septuagint;<br /> * the Hebrew Vorlage behind the Septuagint;<br /> * the Masoretic Text;<br /> * the Samaritan Pentateuch;<br /> * the Dead Sea Scrolls / Qumran scrolls;<br /> * the source or sources behind the Greek Septuagint.<br /> <br /> Examples of New Testament canons, manuscripts, or printed critical editions include:<br /> <br /> * Marcion’s canon;<br /> * Tatian’s ''Diatessaron'';<br /> * Codex Sinaiticus;<br /> * Codex Vaticanus;<br /> * Codex Alexandrinus;<br /> * Codex Bezae;<br /> * Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus;<br /> * Codex Washingtonianus;<br /> * the Textus Receptus;<br /> * Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament;<br /> * Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament editions;<br /> * United Bible Societies Greek New Testament editions.<br /> <br /> The problem is that there is no one simple “Biblical text” that all Christians or Jews have agreed upon across history. What is called the Bible today is a collected and translated text based on multiple textual traditions, manuscript witnesses, canons, and scholarly editorial decisions.<br /> <br /> == The Old Testament text ==<br /> <br /> The Old Testament text is not available today in its original autographs.<br /> <br /> Ernst Würthwein notes that with ancient writings, including the writings of the Old and New Testaments, the original documents have been lost, and the available texts exist only in copies separated from the originals by centuries and by an unknown number of intermediate copies.&lt;ref&gt;Ernst Würthwein, ''The Text of the Old Testament'', trans. Erroll F. Rhodes, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The copying process itself creates textual problems. A word may be missed or repeated; words may be transposed or replaced; and even scribal correction may introduce further corruption. Therefore, before interpretation, the text itself must first be established by comparing the available witnesses.&lt;ref&gt;Würthwein, ''The Text of the Old Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Those witnesses are not all equally reliable. Each has its own character and its own individual history, so a textual witness cannot simply be treated as a neutral copy of the original.&lt;ref&gt;Würthwein, ''The Text of the Old Testament'', xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Masoretic Text also should not be imagined as one perfect master copy of the original Old Testament. Roy E. Beacham argues that no such thing as “the Masoretic text” or one single Masoretic text actually exists, and that no single “master copy” of the entire Old Testament corpus exists today.&lt;ref&gt;Roy E. Beacham, “The Old Testament Text and the Version Debate,” in Roy E. Beacham and Kevin T. Bauder, eds., ''One Bible Only? Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible'' (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001), 64–65.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Beacham further argues that even if Jewish scribes had produced a master copy in the first century, there is no evidence that such a text was ever accepted, much less portrayed, as a perfect replica of the originals.&lt;ref&gt;Beacham, “The Old Testament Text and the Version Debate,” 64–65.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Old Testament as possessed today is therefore mediated through later textual families, recensions, manuscript traditions, and scholarly reconstruction.<br /> <br /> == The New Testament and the Injīl ==<br /> <br /> The New Testament is not the Injīl that Muslims believe was given to Jesus. The Qur’an describes the Injīl as revelation given to the Messiah. The New Testament, by contrast, is a later collection of writings about Jesus, his followers, and early Christian communities.<br /> <br /> Jesus preached in the 20s and 30s CE, in Aramaic, among Jews in Galilee and Jerusalem. The canonical Gospels were composed decades later, in Greek, for communities living in a post-Jesus and largely Gentile environment. This creates a major distinction between the Gospel given to Jesus and the later Gospel literature written about Jesus.<br /> <br /> The New Testament did not exist during the lifetime of Jesus. The writings of Paul came after Jesus, and the canonical Gospels were written later still.<br /> <br /> Bart D. Ehrman states that most scholars date Mark to around 65–70 CE, Matthew and Luke to around 80–85 CE, and John to around 90–95 CE.&lt;ref&gt;Bart D. Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee'' (New York: HarperOne, 2014), section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This places the canonical Gospels decades after Jesus. They were not written as transcripts, meeting minutes, or stenographic records of his ministry. They were written after stories about Jesus had circulated through communities, languages, theological disputes, preaching contexts, and oral transmission.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Barrie Wilson likewise warns against treating the Gospel writings as if they were direct reports or “student notes” from the time of Jesus. They are later literary compositions written for later audiences.&lt;ref&gt;Barrie A. Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah: Unlocking the Psalms of Solomon and Humanity’s Quest for a Savior''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The New Testament therefore represents a later Christian literary and theological corpus. It is not the same thing as the Injīl revealed by Allah to Jesus.<br /> <br /> == Difference between the Gospel and the New Testament ==<br /> <br /> The Islamic argument is not merely that Christians have different Bible translations. The deeper issue is that the Qur’an speaks of a revelation given to Jesus, while the New Testament consists of later writings about Jesus.<br /> <br /> The Qur’an says that Allah gave Jesus the Injīl:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah. And We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:46.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> The New Testament, however, is not a book given by Jesus to his disciples. It is a later Christian corpus consisting of Gospels, letters, and other writings produced after Jesus.<br /> <br /> The distinction may be summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> * Jesus preached in the 20s and 30s CE, in Aramaic, among Jews in Galilee and Jerusalem.&lt;ref&gt;Barrie A. Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah: Unlocking the Psalms of Solomon and Humanity’s Quest for a Savior'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * His earliest followers transmitted teachings orally before the later Gospel writings were composed.&lt;ref&gt;Bart D. Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee'' (New York: HarperOne, 2014), section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * A historical gap of roughly 40–70 years separates Jesus’ ministry from much of the later Gospel literature.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * The later Gospel writings were composed anonymously, in Greek, for communities living in a post-Jesus and increasingly Gentile environment.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels”; Dale B. Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * These writings were produced after the original Jewish setting of Jesus had been transformed by later disputes, Pauline influence, Gentile expansion, and the destruction of the Temple.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * The canonical Gospels were not books handed down by Jesus himself, nor do they present themselves as transcripts or recordings made at the time of the events.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * The New Testament canon developed over time through later Christian usage, dispute, selection, and exclusion.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This means that the New Testament should not be treated as though it were a book revealed to Jesus. It is a later collection formed by Christian communities.<br /> <br /> This also explains why the Muslim does not accept the New Testament as the Injīl. Even before discussing textual variants, manuscripts, or canon lists, the category itself is different: the Injīl is revelation given to Jesus; the New Testament is a later corpus about Jesus.<br /> <br /> The basic timeline is therefore:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> God → Jesus → disciples and early Jewish followers → oral transmission and community memory → later Greek Gospel literature → dominant Christian sect → apocrypha and New Testament canon.<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This timeline reflects the historical distinction between the ministry of Jesus and the later formation of Christian scripture. The first known attempt to identify a canon-like list of approved Christian writings was Marcion’s list in the first half of the second century, not a list preserved from Jesus or the disciples.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This is why the present New Testament cannot simply be identified with the Gospel revealed to Jesus.<br /> <br /> == Gospel development ==<br /> <br /> A simplified roadmap of Gospel development can be summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> individual sayings about Jesus and from Jesus → <br /> sayings collections and sayings Gospels → <br /> narrative miracle literature → <br /> canonical and non-canonical Gospels. &lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, notes dated 25 November 2025, “Summary Roadmap of Gospel Development.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This means that Gospel literature developed through sayings, memories, traditions, narrative shaping, miracle stories, theological interpretation, and manuscript transmission before arriving in the later forms known today.<br /> <br /> The earliest layers of Jesus tradition are often identified with sayings material. Sources such as the Gospel of Thomas and the hypothetical Q source do not center the crucifixion and resurrection in the way the later canonical Gospels do.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The first canonical Gospel is usually identified as Mark. Later Gospels such as Matthew and Luke are commonly understood to have used Mark as one of their sources.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah''; Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Gospel of Mark is not a strict biography in the modern sense. It is closer to a structured theological narrative built around miracle material, conflict material, and proclamation. Some summaries of Gospel development compare Mark’s miracle-oriented narrative to ancient miracle-story literature or aretalogy rather than to modern biography.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> According to the same summary, Mark includes three miracle sets: water miracles, healing miracles, and feeding miracles. The other canonical Gospels build upon, reorder, expand, and theologically shape earlier material.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The New Testament Gospel narratives are therefore not raw transcripts of Jesus’ speech. They are literary works built out of inherited material, community memory, theological concerns, and earlier sources.<br /> <br /> == Unknown sources and oral transmission ==<br /> <br /> The Gospel writers do not name the sources behind their narratives in the way modern historians normally cite sources. They do not provide named eyewitness chains for each episode, nor do they explain how each unit of tradition passed from the event to the written account.<br /> <br /> This is important because the Gospel writings are not transcripts, recordings, minutes, or direct reports made at the time of Jesus. They are not stenographic records of what Jesus said and did, but later literary compositions based on inherited materials, oral reports, community memory, and theological interpretation.&lt;ref&gt;Barrie A. Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah: Unlocking the Psalms of Solomon and Humanity’s Quest for a Savior'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Barrie Wilson argues that the temptation to treat the four Gospel writings as direct reports made at the time of the events should be resisted. In modern terms, they are not “transcripts” or “recordings,” but creative writings composed from earlier materials in circumstances far removed from the original ministry of Jesus.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The problem is not merely that the Gospel authors used sources. The problem is that the sources are usually unknown. Even where scholars propose earlier sources behind the Gospels, such as Mark, Q, or other traditions, those sources themselves point back to earlier chains of oral and written transmission that cannot normally be reconstructed with certainty.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Wilson notes that, when trying to identify the sources of the Gospels, the historian is often left with anonymous chains of transmission: reports passed from person to person, over decades, before being composed into literary form. These reports were shaped by memory, preaching, selection, and community concerns before reaching the final Gospel writers.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ehrman makes the same point from another angle. The Gospel authors were not eyewitnesses, did not write in the same language as Jesus, and were not writing from the same Palestinian environment. Jesus and his earliest followers were Aramaic-speaking Jews in Palestine, while the Gospel writers wrote in Greek for later Christian audiences.&lt;ref&gt;Bart D. Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee'' (New York: HarperOne, 2014), section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Gospel traditions therefore passed through a historical gap. Jesus’ ministry occurred in the late 20s and early 30s CE, while the canonical Gospels were written decades later. During that gap, reports about Jesus were transmitted orally across communities before being written down.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels”; Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This means that the Gospel writers were not simply reporting events to people who already knew the world of Galilee and Jerusalem. They were addressing later audiences in different settings. Wilson stresses that the Gospel writers’ audiences were largely Greek-speaking Romans and Gentiles, living far from Jesus’ original Jewish environment and unfamiliar with many of its customs, beliefs, and expectations.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For that reason, the Gospels must be read as later theological-literary works shaped by transmission. <br /> <br /> They may preserve memories and traditions about Jesus, but they should not be treated as direct eyewitness transcripts or as the revealed Injīl given to Jesus.<br /> <br /> == Anonymous authorship and later attribution ==<br /> <br /> The four canonical Gospels were originally published anonymously. That is, the texts themselves do not name their authors.<br /> <br /> Dale B. Martin notes that the four Gospels were published anonymously, not pseudonymously: they were not written under false names, but rather with no authors’ names attached. Later titles were attached to them, but the titles themselves are not historical proof of authorship.&lt;ref&gt;Dale B. Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Martin also notes that Papias and other early Christians preserved traditions about Gospel authorship, but modern scholars doubt many of these traditions, including the claims that Mark wrote Peter’s version, Matthew compiled Matthew, Luke wrote as a disciple of Paul, and John son of Zebedee wrote John.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ehrman argues that the later attributions are difficult because Jesus’ followers were lower-class Aramaic-speaking Jews, whereas the Gospel authors were highly educated Greek-speaking Christians of a later generation, writing in a different language, in different parts of the world, and at a later time.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The traditional names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John therefore belong to later ecclesiastical attribution, not to authorial self-identification inside the Gospel texts themselves.<br /> <br /> == Did the Gospel authors validate one another? ==<br /> <br /> There is no evidence that the claimed authors of the canonical Gospels personally validated one another’s Gospels. There is also no evidence that they exegeted or commented upon each other’s Gospel texts as a fixed four-Gospel canon during their own lifetimes.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Instead, the Gospels show literary dependence, reuse of material, differences in sequence, theological shaping, and later harmonizing activity by scribes and interpreters.<br /> <br /> Origen, in his commentary on John, acknowledged that the Gospel writers sometimes changed place, time, or sequence in order to preserve a spiritual or theological aim, even where the material presentation differed.&lt;ref&gt;Origen, ''Commentary on the Gospel of John'', Book X.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The need for later harmonization itself shows that Christians inherited multiple Gospel narratives with tensions and differences. The problem was not solved by preserved authorial commentary from Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, but by later interpretation, canon formation, and theological reading.<br /> <br /> == Canon formation ==<br /> <br /> The New Testament canon did not appear all at once.<br /> <br /> Marcion, in the first half of the second century, is identified as the first known Christian leader to produce something close to an authoritative list of accepted Christian writings.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Marcion selected a form of Luke and a collection of Pauline letters. He rejected the Old Testament and believed that other apostles had adulterated the pristine Gospel taught by Jesus by introducing “judaizing” tendencies.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This is important because the first known attempt to identify a particular set of Christian writings as an authoritative scriptural list came not from Jesus, nor from the disciples, but from Marcion. Later Christians rejected Marcion, yet his project forced the broader question: which writings should count as Christian scripture? &lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The second century contained many different kinds of Christianity, and the later boundaries between “orthodoxy” and “heresy” were not yet fixed in the way they would be in later centuries.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Some second-century Christian writers argued that the Church should accept four Gospels because they believed those Gospels were connected to real apostles: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This was partly a response to Marcion’s selection of only Luke.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Other Christians handled Gospel plurality differently. Tatian’s ''Diatessaron'' wove Gospel material into one harmonized narrative instead of preserving four separate Gospel accounts. &lt;ref&gt;Sami Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God: The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament and the Qur’an in Light of Textual and Historical Criticism'' (Minneapolis: Thoughts of Light Publishing, 2013), 53–54.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The first known canon-like list was not a preserved list from Jesus or the disciples. It appears in the second century with Marcion, whose own canon was later rejected by the same broader Christian tradition that was still debating which writings should count as scripture.&lt;ref&gt;Dale B. Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The later 27-book New Testament canon also took time to stabilize. Athanasius’ Festal Letter 39 in 367 CE is commonly identified as the first surviving list matching the later 27-book New Testament canon. The Synod of Hippo in 393 CE is commonly identified as the first council to list the same 27 books.&lt;ref&gt;Athanasius, ''Festal Letter 39''; Synod of Hippo, 393 CE.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Even then, the matter was not simply settled everywhere. Books continued to waver in and out of canon lists for centuries, such as Revelation in the East and Laodiceans in the West. Different Christian traditions, including Syriac and Ethiopian traditions, continued to preserve different canonical histories.&lt;ref&gt;Edmon L. Gallagher and John D. Meade, ''The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Eusebius of Caesarea classified writings into accepted, disputed, and rejected categories. Among the disputed writings he listed James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation, while other works such as the Shepherd, the Apocalypse of Peter, Barnabas, and the Didache were rejected or treated separately.&lt;ref&gt;Eusebius, ''Ecclesiastical History'', Book 3, Chapter 25.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Synod of Laodicea listed 26 of the later 27 New Testament books and omitted Revelation, reflecting an Eastern pattern in which Revelation remained disputed.&lt;ref&gt;Synod of Laodicea, canon list; Gallagher and Meade, ''The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Cyril of Jerusalem likewise excluded Revelation from his list, instructing readers to receive the four Gospels, Acts, the Catholic Epistles, and the fourteen Epistles of Paul, while putting other writings aside.&lt;ref&gt;Cyril of Jerusalem, ''Catechetical Lecture'' 4.36.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Gregory of Nazianzus also omitted Revelation and stated that anything beyond his listed books was not genuine.&lt;ref&gt;Gregory of Nazianzus, ''On the Genuine Books of Divinely Inspired Scripture''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Amphilochius of Iconium reported that some accepted Revelation, but that the majority said it was spurious.&lt;ref&gt;Amphilochius of Iconium, ''Iambics to Seleucus''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Jerome acknowledged that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not received by Latin custom in the same way as in the Greek churches, while the Greek churches did not receive the Apocalypse of John in the same way. He nevertheless accepted both on the basis of earlier writers rather than simply following the custom of his own time.&lt;ref&gt;Jerome, Letter 129 to Dardanus.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The canon was therefore not simply handed down as a fixed list from Jesus or the disciples. It developed through later Christian disputes, preferences, exclusion, harmonizations, regional usage, ecclesiastical authority, and attempts to identify which writings should count as Christian scripture.<br /> <br /> == Citations do not settle the canon ==<br /> <br /> Appeals to early Christian citation are also not enough by themselves to establish the canon.<br /> <br /> A writer may quote or use a book without necessarily including it in his canon list. Likewise, a book may be valued, read, or cited in Christian communities without being treated as canonical in the final sense.<br /> <br /> Gallagher and Meade note that citations are a problematic criterion for determining which books someone would list as canon. Citations can show how early Christians used and valued writings, but the list of writings cited — even cited “as Scripture” — does not always correspond to the list of canonical writings provided by individual authors.&lt;ref&gt;Gallagher and Meade, ''The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This matters because canon is not established merely by finding an early Christian writer who quotes a book. One must distinguish between use, edifying reading, liturgical reading, disputed status, ecclesiastical status, and final canonical authority.<br /> <br /> == Earliest Gospel manuscripts ==<br /> <br /> There are no complete first-century manuscripts of the canonical Gospels. The earliest surviving fragments are small and fragmentary.<br /> <br /> For Matthew, an early witness is 𝔓77, commonly dated to the 2nd–3rd century CE, containing Matthew 13:55–56 and 14:3–5.&lt;ref&gt;H. A. G. Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'' (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2025), xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For Mark, one possible early witness is 𝔓137, dated by some to the 2nd–3rd century CE, containing Mark 1:7–9; another important witness is 𝔓45, usually dated to the 3rd century CE, containing fragments of Mark.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For Luke, an early witness is 𝔓75, commonly dated to the 3rd–4th century CE, containing Luke 3:18–15:10.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For John, an early witness is 𝔓52, commonly dated to the 2nd–3rd century CE, containing John 18:31–33 and 18:37–38.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Even on optimistic dating, the manuscript evidence is fragmentary. The canonical Gospels are not supported by complete first-century manuscript copies. The manuscript trail begins with small fragments, while fuller witnesses come later.<br /> <br /> == Titles and names in the manuscript tradition ==<br /> <br /> The names of the Gospel authors were not necessarily circulated with the earliest Gospel manuscripts.<br /> <br /> One summary of the manuscript evidence notes that the earliest Gospel fragment with a title may be associated with Matthew and dates to the third century, while names of Gospel authors were added to Codex Sinaiticus by a corrector between the fourth and sixth centuries.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, Four Core Points section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This supports the distinction between the Gospel texts themselves and later title traditions. The presence of familiar Gospel names in later manuscripts does not prove that those names were attached from the beginning.<br /> <br /> == Manuscript dating and the problem of certainty ==<br /> <br /> The dates assigned to early Christian manuscripts are often less certain than popular apologetic presentations imply.<br /> <br /> Brent Nongbri argues that many early Christian manuscripts lack secure archaeological context. They were often discovered through the antiquities market, through unclear find stories, or without modern archaeological recording. This makes their provenance and dating difficult to establish with precision.&lt;ref&gt;Brent Nongbri, ''God’s Library: The Archaeology of the Earliest Christian Manuscripts'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018), prologue.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Nongbri also notes that paleography — dating a manuscript by handwriting — is a subjective exercise. It can suggest a range of possible dates, but it should not be treated as though it can normally deliver a precise year or decade.&lt;ref&gt;Nongbri, ''God’s Library'', chapter 2, “The Dating Game.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This matters because many early Christian manuscripts are dated mainly by paleography. When a manuscript is described as “around 150 CE” or “about 200 CE,” this often means a scholarly estimate, not a fixed archaeological fact.<br /> <br /> Nongbri further warns that labels such as “New Testament papyri” can be misleading. Some papyrus manuscripts may come from a time before the boundaries of the New Testament canon were fixed, and no extant papyrus manuscript contains anything close to the whole New Testament.&lt;ref&gt;Nongbri, ''God’s Library'', prologue.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Thus, early Christian manuscript evidence is valuable, but it must be handled carefully. It does not provide a simple chain of complete early Bibles reaching back to Jesus or the apostles.<br /> <br /> == The problem of the “original text” ==<br /> <br /> Modern textual criticism does not simply print “the original New Testament.” It attempts to reconstruct an earlier attainable text by comparing surviving witnesses.<br /> <br /> The issue is not whether the present New Testament contains any early material. The issue is whether the exact original wording of the New Testament books can be identified with certainty.<br /> <br /> Michael W. Holmes argues that the traditional goal of restoring the “original text” needs reconsideration because the term “original text” is itself ambiguous and because the history of textual transmission deserves study in its own right.&lt;ref&gt;Michael W. Holmes, “From ‘Original Text’ to ‘Initial Text’: The Traditional Goal of New Testament Textual Criticism in Contemporary Discussion.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Eldon J. Epp likewise argues that the phrase “original text” is multivalent and far more complex than earlier scholars assumed, since the problem includes canon, authority, language, oral tradition, pre-literary tradition, source criticism, compositional stages, and textual variants.&lt;ref&gt;Eldon J. Epp, “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ in New Testament Textual Criticism,” ''Harvard Theological Review'' 92, no. 3 (1999): 246–247.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Because of this, some scholars speak more cautiously of the “initial text” or the “earliest attainable text,” rather than confidently claiming direct access to the autographs.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 13–14.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == The obscure zone ==<br /> <br /> A major issue in New Testament textual criticism is the dark early period between the writing of the texts and the earliest substantial manuscript witnesses.<br /> <br /> This early period includes uncertainty about authorship, revision, early reception, circulation, and early translations.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 15.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ernest C. Colwell stated that without knowledge of the history of the text, the original reading cannot be established.&lt;ref&gt;Ernest C. Colwell, “The Greek New Testament with a Limited Critical Apparatus: Its Nature and Uses,” in Allen Paul Wikgren and David Edward Aune, eds., ''Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature'' (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 37.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Eberhard Nestle noted that the disappearance of the originals is understandable because much of the New Testament, especially the Epistles, consisted of occasional writings not originally intended for broad publication, while other writings had limited circulation.&lt;ref&gt;Eberhard Nestle, ''Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament'', trans. William Edie (Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1901), 29.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This early obscurity matters because later manuscript agreement cannot automatically prove that the text was perfectly stable from the moment of composition.<br /> <br /> == Greek manuscripts and the numbers argument ==<br /> <br /> Christian apologists often appeal to the large number of New Testament manuscripts. The number is important, but the raw number by itself can mislead.<br /> <br /> Michael W. Holmes notes that the common appeal to thousands of manuscripts is misleading if it does not mention that approximately eighty-five percent of those manuscripts were copied in the eleventh century or later, over a millennium after the writing of the New Testament. He adds that as one gets closer to the origin of the New Testament, manuscript evidence becomes increasingly scarce.&lt;ref&gt;Michael W. Holmes, “Text and Transmission in the Second Century,” in Robert B. Stewart, ed., ''The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace in Dialogue'' (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 61.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The closer one moves toward the date of composition, the fewer and smaller the manuscript witnesses become. The earliest evidence often consists of scraps rather than full books.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 38–39.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The existence of many later manuscripts does not by itself identify the earliest reading. As textual critics often say, manuscripts must be weighed, not merely counted.&lt;ref&gt;Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, ''The Text of the New Testament'', trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 280–281.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == No autographs and the need for textual criticism ==<br /> <br /> No original manuscript, or autograph, of any New Testament book has survived. This is why New Testament textual criticism exists.<br /> <br /> David Alan Black explains that the first reason textual criticism is necessary is that none of the original manuscripts of the New Testament has survived. The second reason is that the extant copies contain numerous mistakes, and these mistakes must be identified before interpretation, teaching, or preaching can proceed.&lt;ref&gt;David Alan Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide'' (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 12.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This point is important for dawah. The Christian does not possess the original manuscript of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, or Jude. What exists are later copies of copies, and those copies differ.<br /> <br /> Many variants are minor, such as spelling differences or word order. However, scholars also acknowledge that the New Testament manuscripts contain significant variants. Some affect translation and interpretation, and some are more important than others.&lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', 13.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The question, then, is not whether textual criticism is useful. The question is whether a scripture that requires reconstruction from later, differing copies can be treated as a perfectly preserved revelation identical to what was first revealed.<br /> <br /> == Types of scribal errors ==<br /> <br /> New Testament manuscript errors are usually divided into two broad categories: accidental and intentional.<br /> <br /> Accidental errors include:<br /> * faulty word division;<br /> * homoeoteleuton, where a scribe skips from one word or ending to a similar word or ending later in the text;<br /> * haplography, where something that should be written twice is written once;<br /> * dittography, where something is written twice instead of once;<br /> * metathesis, where letters or words are placed in the wrong order;<br /> * itacism, where similar vowel sounds are confused.<br /> <br /> Intentional changes include:<br /> * grammatical improvements;<br /> * liturgical changes;<br /> * elimination of apparent discrepancies;<br /> * harmonization of parallel passages;<br /> * conflation, where two or more readings are combined into one;<br /> * doctrinal changes.<br /> &lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', appendix “Types of Errors in the New Testament Manuscripts,” 59–61.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Examples include the doxology in the Lord’s Prayer at Matthew 6:13, harmonization of Matthew 19:17 with Mark 10:18, and the “Heavenly Witnesses” passage in 1 John 5:7–8, which has no non-suspect Greek manuscript support.&lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', 60–61.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This means that textual variation is not only a matter of random copying mistakes. Some changes were made because scribes thought they were improving grammar, clarifying doctrine, harmonizing passages, or correcting what they perceived to be an error.<br /> <br /> == Early papyri and textual fluidity ==<br /> <br /> The early papyri do not simply solve the problem of the original text. They provide valuable evidence, but they are incomplete, fragmentary, and textually varied.<br /> <br /> Philip W. Comfort acknowledged that Mark, the earliest canonical Gospel and a major source for Matthew and Luke, is not preserved in many early manuscripts. He also stated that 𝔓45, the earliest copy of Mark, is “not a very faithful copy” and that the scribe took many liberties, reproducing more the thought of the exemplar than the exact words.&lt;ref&gt;Philip W. Comfort, ''The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament'' (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 107.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Kenneth W. Clark concluded that 𝔓75, an early third-century papyrus, portrays a fluid state of the text around 200 CE, and that such scribal freedom suggests the Gospel text was little more stable than oral tradition.&lt;ref&gt;Kenneth W. Clark, “The Theological Relevance of Textual Variation in Current Criticism of the Greek New Testament,” ''Journal of Biblical Literature'' 85, no. 1 (1966): 15.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Colwell described the earliest period of the New Testament manuscript tradition as “wild,” “uncontrolled,” and “unedited.”&lt;ref&gt;Ernest C. Colwell, “Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program,” in ''Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament'' (Leiden: Brill, 1969), 164.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The early papyri therefore witness to an early textual situation that was fluid, varied, and difficult to reduce to a single unquestionably original form.<br /> <br /> == Versions and translations ==<br /> <br /> Textual critics also use ancient versions — translations of the New Testament into languages such as Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. These are useful witnesses, but they do not solve the problem of the original text.<br /> <br /> No version claims to be copied from the autograph. No version is identical to the modern critical text. The versions themselves witness to different text-types and divergent readings.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 52.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Diatessaron of Tatian, an early Gospel harmony, combines Gospel material into a single narrative, but no original copy survives, its original language is disputed, and its method of harmonization prevents it from simply preserving the exact text of the four canonical Gospels.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 53–54.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Old Latin versions show significant diversity. Jerome complained that there were almost as many forms of the text as manuscripts, and Metzger described the Old Latin as a living creation that was constantly growing.&lt;ref&gt;Bruce M. Metzger, ''The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), 325.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Coptic witnesses likewise appear late and varied, with early transmission remaining fluid and haphazard.&lt;ref&gt;Frederik Wisse, “The Coptic Versions of the New Testament,” in Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, eds., ''The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 133.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ancient versions help textual critics compare forms of the text, but they cannot independently restore the original New Testament.<br /> <br /> == Patristic citations ==<br /> <br /> Another common claim is that the New Testament could be reconstructed from quotations by the Church Fathers. These citations are useful, but they are not a simple path to the autograph.<br /> <br /> The list of “Fathers” used in textual criticism extends across centuries and includes writers from different regions and theological camps. This makes their testimony useful but mixed, not a simple recovered copy of the original New Testament.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 59–83.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Larry W. Hurtado notes that only a few explicit citations of New Testament writings are found in second-century Christian authors, and even those often show curious differences from the dominant manuscript text.&lt;ref&gt;Larry W. Hurtado, “The New Testament in the Second Century: Text, Collections and Canon,” in J. W. Childers and D. C. Parker, eds., ''Transmission and Reception: New Testament Text-Critical and Exegetical Studies'' (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006), 14–15.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> William L. Petersen observed that second-century Gospel citations show widespread harmonization, extra-canonical material mixed with canonical material, altered sequences, many variants, and vaguer parallels as one moves earlier into the second century.&lt;ref&gt;William L. Petersen, “The Genesis of the Gospels,” in A. Denaux, ed., ''New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis'' (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 54–55.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Patristic citations therefore confirm that the early Gospel tradition was living and textually complex. They do not provide a clean independent reconstruction of the original text.<br /> <br /> == Critical editions and reconstruction ==<br /> <br /> The modern printed Greek New Testament is a critical reconstruction. Textual critics compare manuscript variants and choose readings according to scholarly criteria. This means that the printed Greek New Testament is not identical to any one surviving ancient manuscript.<br /> <br /> A modern critical edition is not a newly discovered original Bible. It is a scholarly text produced through editorial judgment.<br /> <br /> The process relies on external and internal evidence. External evidence considers matters such as the date and character of manuscripts, geographical distribution, text-types, and the relationships between witnesses. Internal evidence considers transcriptional probabilities — what scribes were likely to do — and intrinsic probabilities — what the author was likely to write.&lt;ref&gt;Bruce M. Metzger, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), introduction.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> These principles are useful, but they are probabilistic. They do not give mathematical certainty.<br /> <br /> For example, earlier manuscripts are generally more important than later manuscripts, but an early manuscript may still preserve a corrupted reading, while a later manuscript may preserve an older and more reliable reading. A geographically widespread reading may be more likely to be original than a reading preserved in only one area, but this also remains a probability judgment.&lt;ref&gt;Metzger, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', introduction.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Internal evidence is likewise probabilistic. A more difficult reading may be preferred because scribes often smoothed difficult readings, but this principle cannot be applied mechanically. Sometimes a difficult reading may simply be the result of scribal error. Likewise, shorter readings may be preferred in some cases, but scribes also omitted material accidentally or intentionally.&lt;ref&gt;Metzger, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', introduction.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> William L. Petersen states that modern critical editions do not present the text current in 150, 120, or 100 CE, much less 80 CE.&lt;ref&gt;William Lawrence Petersen and Jan Krans, ''Patristic and Text-Critical Studies: The Collected Essays of William L. Petersen'' (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 410.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament apparatus also shows the extent of uncertainty in textual decisions. E. J. Edwards noted that in UBS3 and UBS4, 48.6% of rated variation units were marked “difficult” and 10.4% “extremely doubtful,” meaning that approximately 59% of rated variants were doubtful in some degree.&lt;ref&gt;E. J. Edwards, “On Using the Textual Apparatus of the UBS Greek New Testament,” ''The Bible Translator'' 28 (1977): 122.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The UBS ratings themselves show this:<br /> <br /> * '''A''' — virtual certainty;<br /> * '''B''' — some degree of doubt;<br /> * '''C''' — considerable degree of doubt;<br /> * '''D''' — very high degree of doubt.<br /> <br /> A critical edition is therefore not a manuscript handed down from Jesus or the apostles. It is a modern scholarly reconstruction built from competing witnesses and probability judgments.<br /> <br /> == Textus Receptus, Byzantine text, and modern critical text ==<br /> <br /> Different printed Greek New Testaments do not always contain the same text.<br /> <br /> The Textus Receptus is the Greek text associated with Erasmus and later Protestant editions. It stands behind the King James Version and related translations. Modern critical editions, however, are based on a different approach and rely heavily on earlier Alexandrian witnesses, along with broader comparison of manuscript evidence.<br /> <br /> Westcott and Hort’s 1881 Greek New Testament marked a major shift. Their text differed considerably from the manuscripts used by Erasmus, and they argued that the Byzantine text had been edited and was inferior to earlier Alexandrian witnesses.&lt;ref&gt;David Alan Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide'', 30.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Modern English translations such as the NASB, NIV, RSV, and NRSV generally follow a text much closer to Westcott and Hort than to Erasmus. The major exception is the New King James Version, which is based on the Textus Receptus.&lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', 31.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Major differences between the Textus Receptus and modern critical texts include the omission or addition of substantial passages such as:<br /> <br /> * Matthew 16:2b–3;<br /> * Mark 16:9–20;<br /> * Luke 22:19b–20, 43–44;<br /> * John 7:53–8:11;<br /> * 1 John 5:7–8.<br /> <br /> They also include shorter additions or omissions such as:<br /> <br /> * Matthew 6:13;<br /> * Matthew 17:21;<br /> * Matthew 18:11;<br /> * Matthew 21:44;<br /> * Mark 9:44, 46;<br /> * Luke 9:56;<br /> * Acts 8:37;<br /> * Romans 16:24.<br /> &lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', 31.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This shows that the issue is not merely spelling or punctuation. The Greek text underlying one Bible translation may differ from the Greek text underlying another in passages that readers can see in the printed Bible itself.<br /> <br /> == Significant and theological variants ==<br /> <br /> Some textual variants affect Christian theology, liturgy, or interpretation.<br /> <br /> Examples include John 1:18, where manuscripts differ between readings such as “only Son,” “only God,” and related forms.&lt;ref&gt;Philip W. Comfort, ''New Testament Text and Translation Commentary'' (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2008), discussion of John 1:18.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Another example is John 1:3–4, where punctuation and wording affect whether the text says that what came into being “in him was life.”&lt;ref&gt;Comfort, ''New Testament Text and Translation Commentary'', discussion of John 1:3–4.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Transfiguration accounts also show variation in the heavenly declaration: Matthew 17:5, Mark 9:7, and Luke 9:35 preserve related but distinct wording.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, Four Core Points section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Luke 3:22 is also textually significant because some witnesses preserve a form of the heavenly voice saying, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you,” while other witnesses have the more familiar wording.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', discussion of Luke 3:22.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Other famous examples include Mark 16:9–20, John 7:53–8:11, Acts 8:37, Matthew 6:13, and 1 John 5:7–8. These passages are disputed, omitted, bracketed, or footnoted in many modern Bibles because of manuscript evidence.&lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', 31, 60–61.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> These examples show why textual criticism is not a minor issue. Variant readings can affect how passages are translated, interpreted, preached, and used in doctrine.<br /> <br /> == The Gospels as shaped tradition ==<br /> <br /> The Gospels should not be treated as stenographic transcripts of Jesus.<br /> <br /> Ehrman states that the Gospels contain discrepancies, contradictions, embellishments, and historical problems, and that they cannot be taken at face value as straightforward historically reliable accounts in every detail.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Wilson likewise describes the Gospel narratives as highly creative works written for audiences far removed from Jesus’ original Galilean and Jewish setting. Each Gospel constructs its own portrait of Jesus for its own audience.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> David C. Parker argues that what we have in the Gospel tradition is a collection of interpretive rewritings of a tradition. He states that the concept of a Gospel as fixed in shape, authoritative, and final as a piece of literature must be abandoned.&lt;ref&gt;David C. Parker, ''The Living Text of the Gospels'' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Parker’s point is not that the Gospels are useless. Rather, the Gospels must be understood as living textual traditions that were transmitted, interpreted, rewritten, and stabilized over time.<br /> <br /> == Different Gospel portraits of Jesus ==<br /> <br /> The canonical Gospels do not present one neutral, identical portrait of Jesus. They share inherited material, but each Gospel writer selects, arranges, expands, omits, and interprets that material for a particular audience and theological purpose.<br /> <br /> This is not a minor detail. The Gospels were written decades after Jesus, in Greek, for communities far removed from his original Jewish setting in Galilee and Jerusalem. Their authors were not merely preserving a transcript of what Jesus said. They were presenting Jesus through later Christian concerns, later disputes, and later theological aims.&lt;ref&gt;Barrie A. Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah: Unlocking the Psalms of Solomon and Humanity’s Quest for a Savior'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Matthew, for example, presents Jesus in ways that echo Moses. Jesus gives teaching from a mountain, just as Moses is associated with receiving and giving instruction connected to Mount Sinai. Matthew’s Jesus is therefore shaped for an audience concerned with law, righteousness, Jewish scripture, and the claim that Jesus fulfills earlier revelation.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Luke presents a different portrait. In Luke, Jesus is calmer and more composed in suffering, and the Gospel is written for a wider Gentile audience. Luke’s narrative frames Jesus in a way that can be understood by readers outside the original Jewish world of Galilee and Jerusalem.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> John presents an even more openly theological and exalted portrait of Jesus. The Jesus of John speaks in a different style from the Synoptic Gospels and is framed through a much more developed theological lens. This is part of why John often feels different from Matthew, Mark, and Luke.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Wilson summarizes the issue by stressing that each Gospel writer has a different version of Jesus and is trying to persuade the reader that his version is the accurate one. The Gospel writers were not neutral broadcasters. They were partisan and polemical authors writing with specific agendas, audiences, and theological commitments.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This helps explain why the Gospels overlap yet differ. They are rooted in earlier tradition, but they are also overlaid with later concerns, community settings, theological interpretation, and narrative shaping.<br /> <br /> From an Islamic perspective, this strengthens the distinction between revelation given to Jesus and later writings about Jesus. The Injīl is revelation from God. The New Testament Gospels are later theological portraits produced by Christian communities.<br /> <br /> == Paul, Jewish Christianity, and later Christian theology ==<br /> <br /> The New Testament does not preserve one simple, uncontested continuation of Jesus’ original setting. The earliest Jesus movement was Jewish, while later Christian literature increasingly reflects Gentile, Greek-speaking, and Roman imperial contexts.<br /> <br /> Some scholars note tensions between Matthew’s presentation of Jesus and Pauline theology. In Matthew 5:17–20, Jesus is presented as affirming the abiding validity of the Torah, while Paul’s letters often argue that Gentile believers are not bound to the Mosaic law in the same way.&lt;ref&gt;Ulrich Luz, ''Matthew 1–7: A Commentary'', Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), discussion of Matthew 5:17–20.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This does not mean every New Testament text teaches the same theology in the same way. Rather, the New Testament reflects multiple early Christian voices, controversies, and attempts to interpret Jesus after his departure.<br /> <br /> From an Islamic perspective, this supports the need to distinguish between the revelation given to Jesus and later Christian theological developments about Jesus.<br /> <br /> == “Very words” and “voice” of Jesus ==<br /> <br /> Daniel B. Wallace distinguishes between the very words of Jesus and the very voice of Jesus, using the terms ''ipsissima verba'' and ''ipsissima vox''. He states that only rarely can scholars say that they possess the exact words of Jesus, though they may have confidence that some material reflects the “voice” of Jesus.&lt;ref&gt;Daniel B. Wallace, “Five More Myths about Bible Translations and the Transmission of the Text,” 28 December 2012.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This distinction matters because even conservative Christian scholars may admit that the Gospels often preserve the message, gist, or theological presentation of Jesus rather than exact verbal transcripts.<br /> <br /> == Muslim evaluation ==<br /> <br /> The prophetic call to the People of the Book begins with tawḥīd. Therefore, the Muslim critique of the Bible is not only that the text has variants, or that the canon developed over time, but that the present Bible cannot function as the final criterion over revelation. The Qur’an confirms what Allah truly revealed before it, exposes later corruption, and calls Jews and Christians back to the worship of Allah alone.<br /> <br /> The Muslim position is not that Allah never revealed scripture to Jews and Christians. Rather, Islam affirms that Allah revealed the Tawrat and the Injīl, while denying that the present Bible is identical to those original revelations.<br /> <br /> The Bible today is a collection of later textual traditions, translations, manuscript families, canon decisions, and critical reconstructions. The Old Testament is preserved through later witnesses such as the Masoretic tradition, Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Dead Sea Scrolls. The New Testament is preserved through later manuscripts, ancient versions, patristic citations, variants, and critical editions.<br /> <br /> The central issue is not merely whether some authentic material remains. The issue is whether the Bible available today is identical to the original revelation given by Allah to Moses and Jesus. From the Islamic perspective, it is not.<br /> <br /> The Bibles may contain truth, remnants of revelation, historical material, wisdom, and reports about prophets. However, it is not the original Tawrat or the original Injīl in pure form.<br /> <br /> The Muslim objection is therefore not merely that “variants exist.” The deeper objection is cumulative:<br /> * the Bible is not one single agreed text;<br /> * the Old Testament exists through later textual traditions, not original autographs;<br /> * the New Testament is not the Injīl revealed to Jesus;<br /> * the Gospels were written decades after Jesus, anonymously, in Greek, and for later communities;<br /> * the canon formed through later Christian dispute and selection;<br /> * no original New Testament manuscript survives;<br /> * the extant manuscripts contain accidental and intentional variants;<br /> * modern critical editions are scholarly reconstructions, not ancient autographs;<br /> * some variants affect translation, interpretation, liturgy, and doctrine.<br /> <br /> In sum, there is a serious difference between believing that scripture was originally revealed by God and claiming that the present Biblical text is a perfectly preserved copy of that original revelation.<br /> <br /> For this reason, Muslims affirm the original revelations given by Allah while judging the present Bible by the Qur’an, not judging the Qur’an by the present Bible.<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Bible]]<br /> [[Category:Christianity]]<br /> [[Category:Judaism]]<br /> [[Category:Islam and Christianity]]<br /> [[Category:People of the Book]]<br /> [[Category:Scripture]]<br /> [[Category:Textual criticism]]</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Bible&diff=56 2026-05-29T23:01:44Z

<p>TheIslampill: </p> <hr /> <div>'''The Bible''' is the name commonly given to the collection of scriptures used by Jews and Christians. From an Islamic perspective, the Bible must be distinguished from the original revelation that Allah gave to His prophets.<br /> <br /> Islam acknowledges that scripture was given to Christians and Jews; they are called '''Ahl al-Kitāb''' — the People of the Book. However, the disagreement begins with the very understanding of what “the Bible” is.<br /> <br /> To the Muslim, the '''Tawrat''' was given to Moses and the '''Injīl''' was given to the Messiah. This is as the Qur’an says:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “Indeed, We revealed the Torah, containing guidance and light…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:44.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> And:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah. And We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:46.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> The Qur’an presents the Injīl as a scripture given to the Messiah from God, just as the Tawrat was given to Moses from God. No Christian today believes that the New Testament was given by the Messiah to his disciples. The New Testament is therefore not identical to the Injīl.<br /> <br /> As Muslims, we believe that Christians and Jews today do not possess the original Torah or the original Gospel in their pure revealed form.<br /> <br /> == Qur'anic criticism of textual corruption ==<br /> <br /> The Qur’an criticizes those who wrote scripture with their own hands and then claimed it was from God:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “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…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 2:79.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> The Qur’an also states that some from the People of the Book altered words from their proper places:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “So for their breaking of the covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their proper usages…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:13.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This is not merely a Muslim claim asserted without evidence. The textual history of the Old and New Testaments shows that “the Bible” is not one simple, unchanged text that all Jews and Christians have always possessed in a single stable form.<br /> <br /> == Which Bible? ==<br /> <br /> One of the first problems is the question: which Old Testament and which New Testament is meant?<br /> <br /> Examples of Old Testament textual traditions and sources include:<br /> <br /> * the Greek Septuagint;<br /> * the Hebrew Vorlage behind the Septuagint;<br /> * the Masoretic Text;<br /> * the Samaritan Pentateuch;<br /> * the Dead Sea Scrolls / Qumran scrolls;<br /> * the source or sources behind the Greek Septuagint.<br /> <br /> Examples of New Testament canons, manuscripts, or printed critical editions include:<br /> <br /> * Marcion’s canon;<br /> * Tatian’s ''Diatessaron'';<br /> * Codex Sinaiticus;<br /> * Codex Vaticanus;<br /> * Codex Alexandrinus;<br /> * Codex Bezae;<br /> * Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus;<br /> * Codex Washingtonianus;<br /> * the Textus Receptus;<br /> * Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament;<br /> * Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament editions;<br /> * United Bible Societies Greek New Testament editions.<br /> <br /> The problem is that there is no one simple “Biblical text” that all Christians or Jews have agreed upon across history. What is called the Bible today is a collected and translated text based on multiple textual traditions, manuscript witnesses, canons, and scholarly editorial decisions.<br /> <br /> == The Old Testament text ==<br /> <br /> The Old Testament text is not available today in its original autographs.<br /> <br /> Ernst Würthwein notes that with ancient writings, including the writings of the Old and New Testaments, the original documents have been lost, and the available texts exist only in copies separated from the originals by centuries and by an unknown number of intermediate copies.&lt;ref&gt;Ernst Würthwein, ''The Text of the Old Testament'', trans. Erroll F. Rhodes, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The copying process itself creates textual problems. A word may be missed or repeated; words may be transposed or replaced; and even scribal correction may introduce further corruption. Therefore, before interpretation, the text itself must first be established by comparing the available witnesses.&lt;ref&gt;Würthwein, ''The Text of the Old Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Those witnesses are not all equally reliable. Each has its own character and its own individual history, so a textual witness cannot simply be treated as a neutral copy of the original.&lt;ref&gt;Würthwein, ''The Text of the Old Testament'', xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Masoretic Text also should not be imagined as one perfect master copy of the original Old Testament. Roy E. Beacham argues that no such thing as “the Masoretic text” or one single Masoretic text actually exists, and that no single “master copy” of the entire Old Testament corpus exists today.&lt;ref&gt;Roy E. Beacham, “The Old Testament Text and the Version Debate,” in Roy E. Beacham and Kevin T. Bauder, eds., ''One Bible Only? Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible'' (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001), 64–65.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Beacham further argues that even if Jewish scribes had produced a master copy in the first century, there is no evidence that such a text was ever accepted, much less portrayed, as a perfect replica of the originals.&lt;ref&gt;Beacham, “The Old Testament Text and the Version Debate,” 64–65.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Old Testament as possessed today is therefore mediated through later textual families, recensions, manuscript traditions, and scholarly reconstruction.<br /> <br /> == The New Testament and the Injīl ==<br /> <br /> The New Testament is not the Injīl that Muslims believe was given to Jesus. The Qur’an describes the Injīl as revelation given to the Messiah. The New Testament, by contrast, is a later collection of writings about Jesus, his followers, and early Christian communities.<br /> <br /> Jesus preached in the 20s and 30s CE, in Aramaic, among Jews in Galilee and Jerusalem. The canonical Gospels were composed decades later, in Greek, for communities living in a post-Jesus and largely Gentile environment. This creates a major distinction between the Gospel given to Jesus and the later Gospel literature written about Jesus.<br /> <br /> The New Testament did not exist during the lifetime of Jesus. The writings of Paul came after Jesus, and the canonical Gospels were written later still.<br /> <br /> Bart D. Ehrman states that most scholars date Mark to around 65–70 CE, Matthew and Luke to around 80–85 CE, and John to around 90–95 CE.&lt;ref&gt;Bart D. Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee'' (New York: HarperOne, 2014), section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This places the canonical Gospels decades after Jesus. They were not written as transcripts, meeting minutes, or stenographic records of his ministry. They were written after stories about Jesus had circulated through communities, languages, theological disputes, preaching contexts, and oral transmission.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Barrie Wilson likewise warns against treating the Gospel writings as if they were direct reports or “student notes” from the time of Jesus. They are later literary compositions written for later audiences.&lt;ref&gt;Barrie A. Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah: Unlocking the Psalms of Solomon and Humanity’s Quest for a Savior''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The New Testament therefore represents a later Christian literary and theological corpus. It is not the same thing as the Injīl revealed by Allah to Jesus.<br /> <br /> == Difference between the Gospel and the New Testament ==<br /> <br /> The Islamic argument is not merely that Christians have different Bible translations. The deeper issue is that the Qur’an speaks of a revelation given to Jesus, while the New Testament consists of later writings about Jesus.<br /> <br /> The Qur’an says that Allah gave Jesus the Injīl:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah. And We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:46.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> The New Testament, however, is not a book given by Jesus to his disciples. It is a later Christian corpus consisting of Gospels, letters, and other writings produced after Jesus.<br /> <br /> The distinction may be summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> * Jesus preached in the 20s and 30s CE, in Aramaic, among Jews in Galilee and Jerusalem.&lt;ref&gt;Barrie A. Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah: Unlocking the Psalms of Solomon and Humanity’s Quest for a Savior'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * His earliest followers transmitted teachings orally before the later Gospel writings were composed.&lt;ref&gt;Bart D. Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee'' (New York: HarperOne, 2014), section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * A historical gap of roughly 40–70 years separates Jesus’ ministry from much of the later Gospel literature.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * The later Gospel writings were composed anonymously, in Greek, for communities living in a post-Jesus and increasingly Gentile environment.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels”; Dale B. Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * These writings were produced after the original Jewish setting of Jesus had been transformed by later disputes, Pauline influence, Gentile expansion, and the destruction of the Temple.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * The canonical Gospels were not books handed down by Jesus himself, nor do they present themselves as transcripts or recordings made at the time of the events.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * The New Testament canon developed over time through later Christian usage, dispute, selection, and exclusion.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This means that the New Testament should not be treated as though it were a book revealed to Jesus. It is a later collection formed by Christian communities.<br /> <br /> This also explains why the Muslim does not accept the New Testament as the Injīl. Even before discussing textual variants, manuscripts, or canon lists, the category itself is different: the Injīl is revelation given to Jesus; the New Testament is a later corpus about Jesus.<br /> <br /> The basic timeline is therefore:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> God → Jesus → disciples and early Jewish followers → oral transmission and community memory → later Greek Gospel literature → dominant Christian sect → apocrypha and New Testament canon.<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This timeline reflects the historical distinction between the ministry of Jesus and the later formation of Christian scripture. The first known attempt to identify a canon-like list of approved Christian writings was Marcion’s list in the first half of the second century, not a list preserved from Jesus or the disciples.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This is why the present New Testament cannot simply be identified with the Gospel revealed to Jesus.<br /> <br /> == Gospel development ==<br /> <br /> A simplified roadmap of Gospel development can be summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> individual sayings about Jesus and from Jesus → <br /> sayings collections and sayings Gospels → <br /> narrative miracle literature → <br /> canonical and non-canonical Gospels. &lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, notes dated 25 November 2025, “Summary Roadmap of Gospel Development.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This means that Gospel literature developed through sayings, memories, traditions, narrative shaping, miracle stories, theological interpretation, and manuscript transmission before arriving in the later forms known today.<br /> <br /> The earliest layers of Jesus tradition are often identified with sayings material. Sources such as the Gospel of Thomas and the hypothetical Q source do not center the crucifixion and resurrection in the way the later canonical Gospels do.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The first canonical Gospel is usually identified as Mark. Later Gospels such as Matthew and Luke are commonly understood to have used Mark as one of their sources.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah''; Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Gospel of Mark is not a strict biography in the modern sense. It is closer to a structured theological narrative built around miracle material, conflict material, and proclamation. Some summaries of Gospel development compare Mark’s miracle-oriented narrative to ancient miracle-story literature or aretalogy rather than to modern biography.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> According to the same summary, Mark includes three miracle sets: water miracles, healing miracles, and feeding miracles. The other canonical Gospels build upon, reorder, expand, and theologically shape earlier material.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The New Testament Gospel narratives are therefore not raw transcripts of Jesus’ speech. They are literary works built out of inherited material, community memory, theological concerns, and earlier sources.<br /> <br /> == Unknown sources and oral transmission ==<br /> <br /> The Gospel writers do not name the sources behind their narratives in the way modern historians normally cite sources. They do not provide named eyewitness chains for each episode, nor do they explain how each unit of tradition passed from the event to the written account.<br /> <br /> This is important because the Gospel writings are not transcripts, recordings, minutes, or direct reports made at the time of Jesus. They are not stenographic records of what Jesus said and did, but later literary compositions based on inherited materials, oral reports, community memory, and theological interpretation.&lt;ref&gt;Barrie A. Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah: Unlocking the Psalms of Solomon and Humanity’s Quest for a Savior'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Barrie Wilson argues that the temptation to treat the four Gospel writings as direct reports made at the time of the events should be resisted. In modern terms, they are not “transcripts” or “recordings,” but creative writings composed from earlier materials in circumstances far removed from the original ministry of Jesus.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The problem is not merely that the Gospel authors used sources. The problem is that the sources are usually unknown. Even where scholars propose earlier sources behind the Gospels, such as Mark, Q, or other traditions, those sources themselves point back to earlier chains of oral and written transmission that cannot normally be reconstructed with certainty.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Wilson notes that, when trying to identify the sources of the Gospels, the historian is often left with anonymous chains of transmission: reports passed from person to person, over decades, before being composed into literary form. These reports were shaped by memory, preaching, selection, and community concerns before reaching the final Gospel writers.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ehrman makes the same point from another angle. The Gospel authors were not eyewitnesses, did not write in the same language as Jesus, and were not writing from the same Palestinian environment. Jesus and his earliest followers were Aramaic-speaking Jews in Palestine, while the Gospel writers wrote in Greek for later Christian audiences.&lt;ref&gt;Bart D. Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee'' (New York: HarperOne, 2014), section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Gospel traditions therefore passed through a historical gap. Jesus’ ministry occurred in the late 20s and early 30s CE, while the canonical Gospels were written decades later. During that gap, reports about Jesus were transmitted orally across communities before being written down.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels”; Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This means that the Gospel writers were not simply reporting events to people who already knew the world of Galilee and Jerusalem. They were addressing later audiences in different settings. Wilson stresses that the Gospel writers’ audiences were largely Greek-speaking Romans and Gentiles, living far from Jesus’ original Jewish environment and unfamiliar with many of its customs, beliefs, and expectations.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For that reason, the Gospels must be read as later theological-literary works shaped by transmission. <br /> <br /> They may preserve memories and traditions about Jesus, but they should not be treated as direct eyewitness transcripts or as the revealed Injīl given to Jesus.<br /> <br /> == Anonymous authorship and later attribution ==<br /> <br /> The four canonical Gospels were originally published anonymously. That is, the texts themselves do not name their authors.<br /> <br /> Dale B. Martin notes that the four Gospels were published anonymously, not pseudonymously: they were not written under false names, but rather with no authors’ names attached. Later titles were attached to them, but the titles themselves are not historical proof of authorship.&lt;ref&gt;Dale B. Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Martin also notes that Papias and other early Christians preserved traditions about Gospel authorship, but modern scholars doubt many of these traditions, including the claims that Mark wrote Peter’s version, Matthew compiled Matthew, Luke wrote as a disciple of Paul, and John son of Zebedee wrote John.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ehrman argues that the later attributions are difficult because Jesus’ followers were lower-class Aramaic-speaking Jews, whereas the Gospel authors were highly educated Greek-speaking Christians of a later generation, writing in a different language, in different parts of the world, and at a later time.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The traditional names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John therefore belong to later ecclesiastical attribution, not to authorial self-identification inside the Gospel texts themselves.<br /> <br /> == Did the Gospel authors validate one another? ==<br /> <br /> There is no evidence that the claimed authors of the canonical Gospels personally validated one another’s Gospels. There is also no evidence that they exegeted or commented upon each other’s Gospel texts as a fixed four-Gospel canon during their own lifetimes.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Instead, the Gospels show literary dependence, reuse of material, differences in sequence, theological shaping, and later harmonizing activity by scribes and interpreters.<br /> <br /> Origen, in his commentary on John, acknowledged that the Gospel writers sometimes changed place, time, or sequence in order to preserve a spiritual or theological aim, even where the material presentation differed.&lt;ref&gt;Origen, ''Commentary on the Gospel of John'', Book X.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The need for later harmonization itself shows that Christians inherited multiple Gospel narratives with tensions and differences. The problem was not solved by preserved authorial commentary from Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, but by later interpretation, canon formation, and theological reading.<br /> <br /> == Canon formation ==<br /> <br /> The New Testament canon did not appear all at once.<br /> <br /> Dale B. Martin identifies Marcion, in the first half of the second century, as the first known Christian leader to produce something close to an authoritative list of accepted Christian writings.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Marcion selected a form of Luke and a collection of Pauline letters. He rejected the Old Testament and believed that other apostles had adulterated the pristine Gospel taught by Jesus by introducing “judaizing” tendencies.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This is important because the first known attempt to identify a particular set of Christian writings as an authoritative scriptural list came not from Jesus, nor from the disciples, but from Marcion. Later Christians rejected Marcion, yet his project forced the broader question: which writings should count as Christian scripture? &lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The second century contained many different kinds of Christianity, and the later boundaries between “orthodoxy” and “heresy” were not yet fixed in the way they would be in later centuries.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Some second-century Christian writers argued that the Church should accept four Gospels because they believed those Gospels were connected to real apostles: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This was partly a response to Marcion’s selection of only Luke.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Other Christians handled Gospel plurality differently. Tatian’s ''Diatessaron'' wove Gospel material into one harmonized narrative instead of preserving four separate Gospel accounts. &lt;ref&gt;Sami Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God: The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament and the Qur’an in Light of Textual and Historical Criticism'' (Minneapolis: Thoughts of Light Publishing, 2013), 53–54.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The first known canon-like list was not a preserved list from Jesus or the disciples. It appears in the second century with Marcion, whose own canon was later rejected by the same broader Christian tradition that was still debating which writings should count as scripture.&lt;ref&gt;Dale B. Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> The four-Gospel canon was therefore not simply handed down in complete form from Jesus. It emerged through later Christian disputes, preferences, exclusions, harmonizations, and attempts to identify which writings should count as Christian scripture.<br /> <br /> == Earliest Gospel manuscripts ==<br /> <br /> There are no complete first-century manuscripts of the canonical Gospels. The earliest surviving fragments are small and fragmentary.<br /> <br /> For Matthew, an early witness is 𝔓77, commonly dated to the 2nd–3rd century CE, containing Matthew 13:55–56 and 14:3–5.&lt;ref&gt;H. A. G. Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'' (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2025), xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For Mark, one possible early witness is 𝔓137, dated by some to the 2nd–3rd century CE, containing Mark 1:7–9; another important witness is 𝔓45, usually dated to the 3rd century CE, containing fragments of Mark.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For Luke, an early witness is 𝔓75, commonly dated to the 3rd–4th century CE, containing Luke 3:18–15:10.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For John, an early witness is 𝔓52, commonly dated to the 2nd–3rd century CE, containing John 18:31–33 and 18:37–38.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Even on optimistic dating, the manuscript evidence is fragmentary. The canonical Gospels are not supported by complete first-century manuscript copies. The manuscript trail begins with small fragments, while fuller witnesses come later.<br /> <br /> == Titles and names in the manuscript tradition ==<br /> <br /> The names of the Gospel authors were not necessarily circulated with the earliest Gospel manuscripts.<br /> <br /> One summary of the manuscript evidence notes that the earliest Gospel fragment with a title may be associated with Matthew and dates to the third century, while names of Gospel authors were added to Codex Sinaiticus by a corrector between the fourth and sixth centuries.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, Four Core Points section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This supports the distinction between the Gospel texts themselves and later title traditions. The presence of familiar Gospel names in later manuscripts does not prove that those names were attached from the beginning.<br /> <br /> == Manuscript dating and the problem of certainty ==<br /> <br /> The dates assigned to early Christian manuscripts are often less certain than popular apologetic presentations imply.<br /> <br /> Brent Nongbri argues that many early Christian manuscripts lack secure archaeological context. They were often discovered through the antiquities market, through unclear find stories, or without modern archaeological recording. This makes their provenance and dating difficult to establish with precision.&lt;ref&gt;Brent Nongbri, ''God’s Library: The Archaeology of the Earliest Christian Manuscripts'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018), prologue.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Nongbri also notes that paleography — dating a manuscript by handwriting — is a subjective exercise. It can suggest a range of possible dates, but it should not be treated as though it can normally deliver a precise year or decade.&lt;ref&gt;Nongbri, ''God’s Library'', chapter 2, “The Dating Game.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This matters because many early Christian manuscripts are dated mainly by paleography. When a manuscript is described as “around 150 CE” or “about 200 CE,” this often means a scholarly estimate, not a fixed archaeological fact.<br /> <br /> Nongbri further warns that labels such as “New Testament papyri” can be misleading. Some papyrus manuscripts may come from a time before the boundaries of the New Testament canon were fixed, and no extant papyrus manuscript contains anything close to the whole New Testament.&lt;ref&gt;Nongbri, ''God’s Library'', prologue.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Thus, early Christian manuscript evidence is valuable, but it must be handled carefully. It does not provide a simple chain of complete early Bibles reaching back to Jesus or the apostles.<br /> <br /> == The problem of the “original text” ==<br /> <br /> Modern textual criticism does not simply print “the original New Testament.” It attempts to reconstruct an earlier attainable text by comparing surviving witnesses.<br /> <br /> The issue is not whether the present New Testament contains any early material. The issue is whether the exact original wording of the New Testament books can be identified with certainty.<br /> <br /> Michael W. Holmes argues that the traditional goal of restoring the “original text” needs reconsideration because the term “original text” is itself ambiguous and because the history of textual transmission deserves study in its own right.&lt;ref&gt;Michael W. Holmes, “From ‘Original Text’ to ‘Initial Text’: The Traditional Goal of New Testament Textual Criticism in Contemporary Discussion.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Eldon J. Epp likewise argues that the phrase “original text” is multivalent and far more complex than earlier scholars assumed, since the problem includes canon, authority, language, oral tradition, pre-literary tradition, source criticism, compositional stages, and textual variants.&lt;ref&gt;Eldon J. Epp, “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ in New Testament Textual Criticism,” ''Harvard Theological Review'' 92, no. 3 (1999): 246–247.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Because of this, some scholars speak more cautiously of the “initial text” or the “earliest attainable text,” rather than confidently claiming direct access to the autographs.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 13–14.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == The obscure zone ==<br /> <br /> A major issue in New Testament textual criticism is the dark early period between the writing of the texts and the earliest substantial manuscript witnesses.<br /> <br /> This early period includes uncertainty about authorship, revision, early reception, circulation, and early translations.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 15.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ernest C. Colwell stated that without knowledge of the history of the text, the original reading cannot be established.&lt;ref&gt;Ernest C. Colwell, “The Greek New Testament with a Limited Critical Apparatus: Its Nature and Uses,” in Allen Paul Wikgren and David Edward Aune, eds., ''Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature'' (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 37.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Eberhard Nestle noted that the disappearance of the originals is understandable because much of the New Testament, especially the Epistles, consisted of occasional writings not originally intended for broad publication, while other writings had limited circulation.&lt;ref&gt;Eberhard Nestle, ''Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament'', trans. William Edie (Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1901), 29.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This early obscurity matters because later manuscript agreement cannot automatically prove that the text was perfectly stable from the moment of composition.<br /> <br /> == Greek manuscripts and the numbers argument ==<br /> <br /> Christian apologists often appeal to the large number of New Testament manuscripts. The number is important, but the raw number by itself can mislead.<br /> <br /> Michael W. Holmes notes that the common appeal to thousands of manuscripts is misleading if it does not mention that approximately eighty-five percent of those manuscripts were copied in the eleventh century or later, over a millennium after the writing of the New Testament. He adds that as one gets closer to the origin of the New Testament, manuscript evidence becomes increasingly scarce.&lt;ref&gt;Michael W. Holmes, “Text and Transmission in the Second Century,” in Robert B. Stewart, ed., ''The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace in Dialogue'' (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 61.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The closer one moves toward the date of composition, the fewer and smaller the manuscript witnesses become. The earliest evidence often consists of scraps rather than full books.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 38–39.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The existence of many later manuscripts does not by itself identify the earliest reading. As textual critics often say, manuscripts must be weighed, not merely counted.&lt;ref&gt;Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, ''The Text of the New Testament'', trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 280–281.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == No autographs and the need for textual criticism ==<br /> <br /> No original manuscript, or autograph, of any New Testament book has survived. This is why New Testament textual criticism exists.<br /> <br /> David Alan Black explains that the first reason textual criticism is necessary is that none of the original manuscripts of the New Testament has survived. The second reason is that the extant copies contain numerous mistakes, and these mistakes must be identified before interpretation, teaching, or preaching can proceed.&lt;ref&gt;David Alan Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide'' (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 12.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This point is important for dawah. The Christian does not possess the original manuscript of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, or Jude. What exists are later copies of copies, and those copies differ.<br /> <br /> Many variants are minor, such as spelling differences or word order. However, scholars also acknowledge that the New Testament manuscripts contain significant variants. Some affect translation and interpretation, and some are more important than others.&lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', 13.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The question, then, is not whether textual criticism is useful. The question is whether a scripture that requires reconstruction from later, differing copies can be treated as a perfectly preserved revelation identical to what was first revealed.<br /> <br /> == Types of scribal errors ==<br /> <br /> New Testament manuscript errors are usually divided into two broad categories: accidental and intentional.<br /> <br /> Accidental errors include:<br /> * faulty word division;<br /> * homoeoteleuton, where a scribe skips from one word or ending to a similar word or ending later in the text;<br /> * haplography, where something that should be written twice is written once;<br /> * dittography, where something is written twice instead of once;<br /> * metathesis, where letters or words are placed in the wrong order;<br /> * itacism, where similar vowel sounds are confused.<br /> <br /> Intentional changes include:<br /> * grammatical improvements;<br /> * liturgical changes;<br /> * elimination of apparent discrepancies;<br /> * harmonization of parallel passages;<br /> * conflation, where two or more readings are combined into one;<br /> * doctrinal changes.<br /> &lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', appendix “Types of Errors in the New Testament Manuscripts,” 59–61.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Examples include the doxology in the Lord’s Prayer at Matthew 6:13, harmonization of Matthew 19:17 with Mark 10:18, and the “Heavenly Witnesses” passage in 1 John 5:7–8, which has no non-suspect Greek manuscript support.&lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', 60–61.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This means that textual variation is not only a matter of random copying mistakes. Some changes were made because scribes thought they were improving grammar, clarifying doctrine, harmonizing passages, or correcting what they perceived to be an error.<br /> <br /> == Early papyri and textual fluidity ==<br /> <br /> The early papyri do not simply solve the problem of the original text. They provide valuable evidence, but they are incomplete, fragmentary, and textually varied.<br /> <br /> Philip W. Comfort acknowledged that Mark, the earliest canonical Gospel and a major source for Matthew and Luke, is not preserved in many early manuscripts. He also stated that 𝔓45, the earliest copy of Mark, is “not a very faithful copy” and that the scribe took many liberties, reproducing more the thought of the exemplar than the exact words.&lt;ref&gt;Philip W. Comfort, ''The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament'' (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 107.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Kenneth W. Clark concluded that 𝔓75, an early third-century papyrus, portrays a fluid state of the text around 200 CE, and that such scribal freedom suggests the Gospel text was little more stable than oral tradition.&lt;ref&gt;Kenneth W. Clark, “The Theological Relevance of Textual Variation in Current Criticism of the Greek New Testament,” ''Journal of Biblical Literature'' 85, no. 1 (1966): 15.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Colwell described the earliest period of the New Testament manuscript tradition as “wild,” “uncontrolled,” and “unedited.”&lt;ref&gt;Ernest C. Colwell, “Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program,” in ''Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament'' (Leiden: Brill, 1969), 164.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The early papyri therefore witness to an early textual situation that was fluid, varied, and difficult to reduce to a single unquestionably original form.<br /> <br /> == Versions and translations ==<br /> <br /> Textual critics also use ancient versions — translations of the New Testament into languages such as Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. These are useful witnesses, but they do not solve the problem of the original text.<br /> <br /> No version claims to be copied from the autograph. No version is identical to the modern critical text. The versions themselves witness to different text-types and divergent readings.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 52.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Diatessaron of Tatian, an early Gospel harmony, combines Gospel material into a single narrative, but no original copy survives, its original language is disputed, and its method of harmonization prevents it from simply preserving the exact text of the four canonical Gospels.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 53–54.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Old Latin versions show significant diversity. Jerome complained that there were almost as many forms of the text as manuscripts, and Metzger described the Old Latin as a living creation that was constantly growing.&lt;ref&gt;Bruce M. Metzger, ''The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), 325.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Coptic witnesses likewise appear late and varied, with early transmission remaining fluid and haphazard.&lt;ref&gt;Frederik Wisse, “The Coptic Versions of the New Testament,” in Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, eds., ''The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 133.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ancient versions help textual critics compare forms of the text, but they cannot independently restore the original New Testament.<br /> <br /> == Patristic citations ==<br /> <br /> Another common claim is that the New Testament could be reconstructed from quotations by the Church Fathers. These citations are useful, but they are not a simple path to the autograph.<br /> <br /> The list of “Fathers” used in textual criticism extends across centuries and includes writers from different regions and theological camps. This makes their testimony useful but mixed, not a simple recovered copy of the original New Testament.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 59–83.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Larry W. Hurtado notes that only a few explicit citations of New Testament writings are found in second-century Christian authors, and even those often show curious differences from the dominant manuscript text.&lt;ref&gt;Larry W. Hurtado, “The New Testament in the Second Century: Text, Collections and Canon,” in J. W. Childers and D. C. Parker, eds., ''Transmission and Reception: New Testament Text-Critical and Exegetical Studies'' (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006), 14–15.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> William L. Petersen observed that second-century Gospel citations show widespread harmonization, extra-canonical material mixed with canonical material, altered sequences, many variants, and vaguer parallels as one moves earlier into the second century.&lt;ref&gt;William L. Petersen, “The Genesis of the Gospels,” in A. Denaux, ed., ''New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis'' (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 54–55.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Patristic citations therefore confirm that the early Gospel tradition was living and textually complex. They do not provide a clean independent reconstruction of the original text.<br /> <br /> == Critical editions and reconstruction ==<br /> <br /> The modern printed Greek New Testament is a critical reconstruction. Textual critics compare manuscript variants and choose readings according to scholarly criteria. This means that the printed Greek New Testament is not identical to any one surviving ancient manuscript.<br /> <br /> A modern critical edition is not a newly discovered original Bible. It is a scholarly text produced through editorial judgment.<br /> <br /> The process relies on external and internal evidence. External evidence considers matters such as the date and character of manuscripts, geographical distribution, text-types, and the relationships between witnesses. Internal evidence considers transcriptional probabilities — what scribes were likely to do — and intrinsic probabilities — what the author was likely to write.&lt;ref&gt;Bruce M. Metzger, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), introduction.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> These principles are useful, but they are probabilistic. They do not give mathematical certainty.<br /> <br /> For example, earlier manuscripts are generally more important than later manuscripts, but an early manuscript may still preserve a corrupted reading, while a later manuscript may preserve an older and more reliable reading. A geographically widespread reading may be more likely to be original than a reading preserved in only one area, but this also remains a probability judgment.&lt;ref&gt;Metzger, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', introduction.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Internal evidence is likewise probabilistic. A more difficult reading may be preferred because scribes often smoothed difficult readings, but this principle cannot be applied mechanically. Sometimes a difficult reading may simply be the result of scribal error. Likewise, shorter readings may be preferred in some cases, but scribes also omitted material accidentally or intentionally.&lt;ref&gt;Metzger, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', introduction.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> William L. Petersen states that modern critical editions do not present the text current in 150, 120, or 100 CE, much less 80 CE.&lt;ref&gt;William Lawrence Petersen and Jan Krans, ''Patristic and Text-Critical Studies: The Collected Essays of William L. Petersen'' (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 410.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament apparatus also shows the extent of uncertainty in textual decisions. E. J. Edwards noted that in UBS3 and UBS4, 48.6% of rated variation units were marked “difficult” and 10.4% “extremely doubtful,” meaning that approximately 59% of rated variants were doubtful in some degree.&lt;ref&gt;E. J. Edwards, “On Using the Textual Apparatus of the UBS Greek New Testament,” ''The Bible Translator'' 28 (1977): 122.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The UBS ratings themselves show this:<br /> <br /> * '''A''' — virtual certainty;<br /> * '''B''' — some degree of doubt;<br /> * '''C''' — considerable degree of doubt;<br /> * '''D''' — very high degree of doubt.<br /> <br /> A critical edition is therefore not a manuscript handed down from Jesus or the apostles. It is a modern scholarly reconstruction built from competing witnesses and probability judgments.<br /> <br /> == Textus Receptus, Byzantine text, and modern critical text ==<br /> <br /> Different printed Greek New Testaments do not always contain the same text.<br /> <br /> The Textus Receptus is the Greek text associated with Erasmus and later Protestant editions. It stands behind the King James Version and related translations. Modern critical editions, however, are based on a different approach and rely heavily on earlier Alexandrian witnesses, along with broader comparison of manuscript evidence.<br /> <br /> Westcott and Hort’s 1881 Greek New Testament marked a major shift. Their text differed considerably from the manuscripts used by Erasmus, and they argued that the Byzantine text had been edited and was inferior to earlier Alexandrian witnesses.&lt;ref&gt;David Alan Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide'', 30.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Modern English translations such as the NASB, NIV, RSV, and NRSV generally follow a text much closer to Westcott and Hort than to Erasmus. The major exception is the New King James Version, which is based on the Textus Receptus.&lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', 31.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Major differences between the Textus Receptus and modern critical texts include the omission or addition of substantial passages such as:<br /> <br /> * Matthew 16:2b–3;<br /> * Mark 16:9–20;<br /> * Luke 22:19b–20, 43–44;<br /> * John 7:53–8:11;<br /> * 1 John 5:7–8.<br /> <br /> They also include shorter additions or omissions such as:<br /> <br /> * Matthew 6:13;<br /> * Matthew 17:21;<br /> * Matthew 18:11;<br /> * Matthew 21:44;<br /> * Mark 9:44, 46;<br /> * Luke 9:56;<br /> * Acts 8:37;<br /> * Romans 16:24.<br /> &lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', 31.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This shows that the issue is not merely spelling or punctuation. The Greek text underlying one Bible translation may differ from the Greek text underlying another in passages that readers can see in the printed Bible itself.<br /> <br /> == Significant and theological variants ==<br /> <br /> Some textual variants affect Christian theology, liturgy, or interpretation.<br /> <br /> Examples include John 1:18, where manuscripts differ between readings such as “only Son,” “only God,” and related forms.&lt;ref&gt;Philip W. Comfort, ''New Testament Text and Translation Commentary'' (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2008), discussion of John 1:18.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Another example is John 1:3–4, where punctuation and wording affect whether the text says that what came into being “in him was life.”&lt;ref&gt;Comfort, ''New Testament Text and Translation Commentary'', discussion of John 1:3–4.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Transfiguration accounts also show variation in the heavenly declaration: Matthew 17:5, Mark 9:7, and Luke 9:35 preserve related but distinct wording.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, Four Core Points section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Luke 3:22 is also textually significant because some witnesses preserve a form of the heavenly voice saying, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you,” while other witnesses have the more familiar wording.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', discussion of Luke 3:22.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Other famous examples include Mark 16:9–20, John 7:53–8:11, Acts 8:37, Matthew 6:13, and 1 John 5:7–8. These passages are disputed, omitted, bracketed, or footnoted in many modern Bibles because of manuscript evidence.&lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', 31, 60–61.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> These examples show why textual criticism is not a minor issue. Variant readings can affect how passages are translated, interpreted, preached, and used in doctrine.<br /> <br /> == The Gospels as shaped tradition ==<br /> <br /> The Gospels should not be treated as stenographic transcripts of Jesus.<br /> <br /> Ehrman states that the Gospels contain discrepancies, contradictions, embellishments, and historical problems, and that they cannot be taken at face value as straightforward historically reliable accounts in every detail.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Wilson likewise describes the Gospel narratives as highly creative works written for audiences far removed from Jesus’ original Galilean and Jewish setting. Each Gospel constructs its own portrait of Jesus for its own audience.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> David C. Parker argues that what we have in the Gospel tradition is a collection of interpretive rewritings of a tradition. He states that the concept of a Gospel as fixed in shape, authoritative, and final as a piece of literature must be abandoned.&lt;ref&gt;David C. Parker, ''The Living Text of the Gospels'' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Parker’s point is not that the Gospels are useless. Rather, the Gospels must be understood as living textual traditions that were transmitted, interpreted, rewritten, and stabilized over time.<br /> <br /> == Different Gospel portraits of Jesus ==<br /> <br /> The canonical Gospels do not present one neutral, identical portrait of Jesus. They share inherited material, but each Gospel writer selects, arranges, expands, omits, and interprets that material for a particular audience and theological purpose.<br /> <br /> This is not a minor detail. The Gospels were written decades after Jesus, in Greek, for communities far removed from his original Jewish setting in Galilee and Jerusalem. Their authors were not merely preserving a transcript of what Jesus said. They were presenting Jesus through later Christian concerns, later disputes, and later theological aims.&lt;ref&gt;Barrie A. Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah: Unlocking the Psalms of Solomon and Humanity’s Quest for a Savior'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Matthew, for example, presents Jesus in ways that echo Moses. Jesus gives teaching from a mountain, just as Moses is associated with receiving and giving instruction connected to Mount Sinai. Matthew’s Jesus is therefore shaped for an audience concerned with law, righteousness, Jewish scripture, and the claim that Jesus fulfills earlier revelation.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Luke presents a different portrait. In Luke, Jesus is calmer and more composed in suffering, and the Gospel is written for a wider Gentile audience. Luke’s narrative frames Jesus in a way that can be understood by readers outside the original Jewish world of Galilee and Jerusalem.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> John presents an even more openly theological and exalted portrait of Jesus. The Jesus of John speaks in a different style from the Synoptic Gospels and is framed through a much more developed theological lens. This is part of why John often feels different from Matthew, Mark, and Luke.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Wilson summarizes the issue by stressing that each Gospel writer has a different version of Jesus and is trying to persuade the reader that his version is the accurate one. The Gospel writers were not neutral broadcasters. They were partisan and polemical authors writing with specific agendas, audiences, and theological commitments.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah'', section “About the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This helps explain why the Gospels overlap yet differ. They are rooted in earlier tradition, but they are also overlaid with later concerns, community settings, theological interpretation, and narrative shaping.<br /> <br /> From an Islamic perspective, this strengthens the distinction between revelation given to Jesus and later writings about Jesus. The Injīl is revelation from God. The New Testament Gospels are later theological portraits produced by Christian communities.<br /> <br /> == Paul, Jewish Christianity, and later Christian theology ==<br /> <br /> The New Testament does not preserve one simple, uncontested continuation of Jesus’ original setting. The earliest Jesus movement was Jewish, while later Christian literature increasingly reflects Gentile, Greek-speaking, and Roman imperial contexts.<br /> <br /> Some scholars note tensions between Matthew’s presentation of Jesus and Pauline theology. In Matthew 5:17–20, Jesus is presented as affirming the abiding validity of the Torah, while Paul’s letters often argue that Gentile believers are not bound to the Mosaic law in the same way.&lt;ref&gt;Ulrich Luz, ''Matthew 1–7: A Commentary'', Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), discussion of Matthew 5:17–20.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This does not mean every New Testament text teaches the same theology in the same way. Rather, the New Testament reflects multiple early Christian voices, controversies, and attempts to interpret Jesus after his departure.<br /> <br /> From an Islamic perspective, this supports the need to distinguish between the revelation given to Jesus and later Christian theological developments about Jesus.<br /> <br /> == “Very words” and “voice” of Jesus ==<br /> <br /> Daniel B. Wallace distinguishes between the very words of Jesus and the very voice of Jesus, using the terms ''ipsissima verba'' and ''ipsissima vox''. He states that only rarely can scholars say that they possess the exact words of Jesus, though they may have confidence that some material reflects the “voice” of Jesus.&lt;ref&gt;Daniel B. Wallace, “Five More Myths about Bible Translations and the Transmission of the Text,” 28 December 2012.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This distinction matters because even conservative Christian scholars may admit that the Gospels often preserve the message, gist, or theological presentation of Jesus rather than exact verbal transcripts.<br /> <br /> == Muslim evaluation ==<br /> <br /> The Muslim position is not that Allah never revealed scripture to Jews and Christians. Rather, Islam affirms that Allah revealed the Tawrat and the Injīl, while denying that the present Bible is identical to those original revelations.<br /> <br /> The Bible today is a collection of later textual traditions, translations, manuscript families, canon decisions, and critical reconstructions. The Old Testament is preserved through later witnesses such as the Masoretic tradition, Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Dead Sea Scrolls. The New Testament is preserved through later manuscripts, ancient versions, patristic citations, variants, and critical editions.<br /> <br /> The central issue is not merely whether some authentic material remains. The issue is whether the Bible available today is identical to the original revelation given by Allah to Moses and Jesus. From the Islamic perspective, it is not.<br /> <br /> The Bibles may contain truth, remnants of revelation, historical material, wisdom, and reports about prophets. However, it is not the original Tawrat or the original Injīl in pure form.<br /> <br /> The Muslim objection is therefore not merely that “variants exist.” The deeper objection is cumulative:<br /> * the Bible is not one single agreed text;<br /> * the Old Testament exists through later textual traditions, not original autographs;<br /> * the New Testament is not the Injīl revealed to Jesus;<br /> * the Gospels were written decades after Jesus, anonymously, in Greek, and for later communities;<br /> * the canon formed through later Christian dispute and selection;<br /> * no original New Testament manuscript survives;<br /> * the extant manuscripts contain accidental and intentional variants;<br /> * modern critical editions are scholarly reconstructions, not ancient autographs;<br /> * some variants affect translation, interpretation, liturgy, and doctrine.<br /> <br /> In sum, there is a serious difference between believing that scripture was originally revealed by God and claiming that the present Biblical text is a perfectly preserved copy of that original revelation.<br /> <br /> For this reason, Muslims affirm the original revelations given by Allah while judging the present Bible by the Qur’an, not judging the Qur’an by the present Bible.<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Bible]]<br /> [[Category:Christianity]]<br /> [[Category:Judaism]]<br /> [[Category:Islam and Christianity]]<br /> [[Category:People of the Book]]<br /> [[Category:Scripture]]<br /> [[Category:Textual criticism]]</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Bible&diff=55 2026-05-29T22:53:43Z

<p>TheIslampill: </p> <hr /> <div>'''The Bible''' is the name commonly given to the collection of scriptures used by Jews and Christians. From an Islamic perspective, the Bible must be distinguished from the original revelation that Allah gave to His prophets.<br /> <br /> Islam acknowledges that scripture was given to Christians and Jews; they are called '''Ahl al-Kitāb''' — the People of the Book. However, the disagreement begins with the very understanding of what “the Bible” is.<br /> <br /> To the Muslim, the '''Tawrat''' was given to Moses and the '''Injīl''' was given to the Messiah. This is as the Qur’an says:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “Indeed, We revealed the Torah, containing guidance and light…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:44.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> And:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah. And We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:46.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> The Qur’an presents the Injīl as a scripture given to the Messiah from God, just as the Tawrat was given to Moses from God. No Christian today believes that the New Testament was given by the Messiah to his disciples. The New Testament is therefore not identical to the Injīl.<br /> <br /> As Muslims, we believe that Christians and Jews today do not possess the original Torah or the original Gospel in their pure revealed form.<br /> <br /> == Qur'anic criticism of textual corruption ==<br /> <br /> The Qur’an criticizes those who wrote scripture with their own hands and then claimed it was from God:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “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…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 2:79.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> The Qur’an also states that some from the People of the Book altered words from their proper places:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “So for their breaking of the covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their proper usages…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:13.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This is not merely a Muslim claim asserted without evidence. The textual history of the Old and New Testaments shows that “the Bible” is not one simple, unchanged text that all Jews and Christians have always possessed in a single stable form.<br /> <br /> == Which Bible? ==<br /> <br /> One of the first problems is the question: which Old Testament and which New Testament is meant?<br /> <br /> Examples of Old Testament textual traditions and sources include:<br /> <br /> * the Greek Septuagint;<br /> * the Hebrew Vorlage behind the Septuagint;<br /> * the Masoretic Text;<br /> * the Samaritan Pentateuch;<br /> * the Dead Sea Scrolls / Qumran scrolls;<br /> * the source or sources behind the Greek Septuagint.<br /> <br /> Examples of New Testament canons, manuscripts, or printed critical editions include:<br /> <br /> * Marcion’s canon;<br /> * Tatian’s ''Diatessaron'';<br /> * Codex Sinaiticus;<br /> * Codex Vaticanus;<br /> * Codex Alexandrinus;<br /> * Codex Bezae;<br /> * Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus;<br /> * Codex Washingtonianus;<br /> * the Textus Receptus;<br /> * Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament;<br /> * Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament editions;<br /> * United Bible Societies Greek New Testament editions.<br /> <br /> The problem is that there is no one simple “Biblical text” that all Christians or Jews have agreed upon across history. What is called the Bible today is a collected and translated text based on multiple textual traditions, manuscript witnesses, canons, and scholarly editorial decisions.<br /> <br /> == The Old Testament text ==<br /> <br /> The Old Testament text is not available today in its original autographs.<br /> <br /> Ernst Würthwein notes that with ancient writings, including the writings of the Old and New Testaments, the original documents have been lost, and the available texts exist only in copies separated from the originals by centuries and by an unknown number of intermediate copies.&lt;ref&gt;Ernst Würthwein, ''The Text of the Old Testament'', trans. Erroll F. Rhodes, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The copying process itself creates textual problems. A word may be missed or repeated; words may be transposed or replaced; and even scribal correction may introduce further corruption. Therefore, before interpretation, the text itself must first be established by comparing the available witnesses.&lt;ref&gt;Würthwein, ''The Text of the Old Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Those witnesses are not all equally reliable. Each has its own character and its own individual history, so a textual witness cannot simply be treated as a neutral copy of the original.&lt;ref&gt;Würthwein, ''The Text of the Old Testament'', xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Masoretic Text also should not be imagined as one perfect master copy of the original Old Testament. Roy E. Beacham argues that no such thing as “the Masoretic text” or one single Masoretic text actually exists, and that no single “master copy” of the entire Old Testament corpus exists today.&lt;ref&gt;Roy E. Beacham, “The Old Testament Text and the Version Debate,” in Roy E. Beacham and Kevin T. Bauder, eds., ''One Bible Only? Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible'' (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001), 64–65.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Beacham further argues that even if Jewish scribes had produced a master copy in the first century, there is no evidence that such a text was ever accepted, much less portrayed, as a perfect replica of the originals.&lt;ref&gt;Beacham, “The Old Testament Text and the Version Debate,” 64–65.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Old Testament as possessed today is therefore mediated through later textual families, recensions, manuscript traditions, and scholarly reconstruction.<br /> <br /> == The New Testament and the Injīl ==<br /> <br /> The New Testament is not the Injīl that Muslims believe was given to Jesus. The Qur’an describes the Injīl as revelation given to the Messiah. The New Testament, by contrast, is a later collection of writings about Jesus, his followers, and early Christian communities.<br /> <br /> Jesus preached in the 20s and 30s CE, in Aramaic, among Jews in Galilee and Jerusalem. The canonical Gospels were composed decades later, in Greek, for communities living in a post-Jesus and largely Gentile environment. This creates a major distinction between the Gospel given to Jesus and the later Gospel literature written about Jesus.<br /> <br /> The New Testament did not exist during the lifetime of Jesus. The writings of Paul came after Jesus, and the canonical Gospels were written later still.<br /> <br /> Bart D. Ehrman states that most scholars date Mark to around 65–70 CE, Matthew and Luke to around 80–85 CE, and John to around 90–95 CE.&lt;ref&gt;Bart D. Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee'' (New York: HarperOne, 2014), section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This places the canonical Gospels decades after Jesus. They were not written as transcripts, meeting minutes, or stenographic records of his ministry. They were written after stories about Jesus had circulated through communities, languages, theological disputes, preaching contexts, and oral transmission.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Barrie Wilson likewise warns against treating the Gospel writings as if they were direct reports or “student notes” from the time of Jesus. They are later literary compositions written for later audiences.&lt;ref&gt;Barrie A. Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah: Unlocking the Psalms of Solomon and Humanity’s Quest for a Savior''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The New Testament therefore represents a later Christian literary and theological corpus. It is not the same thing as the Injīl revealed by Allah to Jesus.<br /> <br /> == Difference between the Gospel and the New Testament ==<br /> <br /> The Islamic argument is not merely that Christians have different Bible translations. The deeper issue is that the Qur’an speaks of a revelation given to Jesus, while the New Testament consists of later writings about Jesus.<br /> <br /> The distinction may be summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> * Jesus preached among Jews in Galilee and Jerusalem.<br /> * His earliest followers transmitted teachings orally.<br /> * A historical gap of roughly 40–70 years separates Jesus’ ministry from much of the later Gospel literature.<br /> * The canonical Gospels were composed anonymously in Greek.<br /> * They were written for later Christian communities, not as documents handed down by Jesus himself.<br /> * The New Testament canon developed over time through later Christian usage, dispute, selection, and exclusion.<br /> <br /> This means that the New Testament should not be treated as though it were a book revealed to Jesus. It is a later collection formed by Christian communities.<br /> <br /> This also explains why the Muslim does not accept the New Testament as the Injīl. Even before discussing textual variants, manuscripts, or canon lists, the category itself is different: the Injīl is revelation given to Jesus; the New Testament is a later corpus about Jesus.<br /> <br /> == Gospel development ==<br /> <br /> A simplified roadmap of Gospel development can be summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> individual sayings about Jesus and from Jesus → <br /> sayings collections and sayings Gospels → <br /> narrative miracle literature → <br /> canonical and non-canonical Gospels. &lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, notes dated 25 November 2025, “Summary Roadmap of Gospel Development.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This means that Gospel literature developed through sayings, memories, traditions, narrative shaping, miracle stories, theological interpretation, and manuscript transmission before arriving in the later forms known today.<br /> <br /> The earliest layers of Jesus tradition are often identified with sayings material. Sources such as the Gospel of Thomas and the hypothetical Q source do not center the crucifixion and resurrection in the way the later canonical Gospels do.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The first canonical Gospel is usually identified as Mark. Later Gospels such as Matthew and Luke are commonly understood to have used Mark as one of their sources.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah''; Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Gospel of Mark is not a strict biography in the modern sense. It is closer to a structured theological narrative built around miracle material, conflict material, and proclamation. Some summaries of Gospel development compare Mark’s miracle-oriented narrative to ancient miracle-story literature or aretalogy rather than to modern biography.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> According to the same summary, Mark includes three miracle sets: water miracles, healing miracles, and feeding miracles. The other canonical Gospels build upon, reorder, expand, and theologically shape earlier material.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The New Testament Gospel narratives are therefore not raw transcripts of Jesus’ speech. They are literary works built out of inherited material, community memory, theological concerns, and earlier sources.<br /> <br /> == Unknown sources and oral transmission ==<br /> <br /> The Gospel writers do not name the sources behind their narratives in the way modern historians normally cite sources. They do not identify named eyewitness chains for each episode, nor do they explain how each unit of tradition passed from the event to the written account.<br /> <br /> Ehrman argues that the authors were not eyewitnesses, did not write in the same language as Jesus, and were not from the same Palestinian environment. The Gospel writers wrote in Greek, while Jesus and his earliest followers were Aramaic-speaking Jews in Palestine.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Gospel traditions circulated orally before being written down. Stories told from person to person, community to community, and city to city naturally change as they are retold. Ehrman compares this to the normal process by which oral stories become altered, expanded, shortened, or reshaped in transmission.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Wilson makes a similar point: the Gospels were written decades after the events they narrate, in a different linguistic and cultural setting, and after major historical disruptions in Judea. This creates a historical gap between Jesus’ original Galilean ministry and the later Gospel portraits of Jesus.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This does not mean the Gospels contain no memory of Jesus. It means they must be read as late theological-literary works shaped by transmission, not as direct eyewitness transcripts.<br /> <br /> == Anonymous authorship and later attribution ==<br /> <br /> The four canonical Gospels were originally published anonymously. That is, the texts themselves do not name their authors.<br /> <br /> Dale B. Martin notes that the four Gospels were published anonymously, not pseudonymously: they were not written under false names, but rather with no authors’ names attached. Later titles were attached to them, but the titles themselves are not historical proof of authorship.&lt;ref&gt;Dale B. Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Martin also notes that Papias and other early Christians preserved traditions about Gospel authorship, but modern scholars doubt many of these traditions, including the claims that Mark wrote Peter’s version, Matthew compiled Matthew, Luke wrote as a disciple of Paul, and John son of Zebedee wrote John.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ehrman argues that the later attributions are difficult because Jesus’ followers were lower-class Aramaic-speaking Jews, whereas the Gospel authors were highly educated Greek-speaking Christians of a later generation, writing in a different language, in different parts of the world, and at a later time.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The traditional names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John therefore belong to later ecclesiastical attribution, not to authorial self-identification inside the Gospel texts themselves.<br /> <br /> == Did the Gospel authors validate one another? ==<br /> <br /> There is no evidence that the claimed authors of the canonical Gospels personally validated one another’s Gospels. There is also no evidence that they exegeted or commented upon each other’s Gospel texts as a fixed four-Gospel canon during their own lifetimes.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Instead, the Gospels show literary dependence, reuse of material, differences in sequence, theological shaping, and later harmonizing activity by scribes and interpreters.<br /> <br /> Origen, in his commentary on John, acknowledged that the Gospel writers sometimes changed place, time, or sequence in order to preserve a spiritual or theological aim, even where the material presentation differed.&lt;ref&gt;Origen, ''Commentary on the Gospel of John'', Book X.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The need for later harmonization itself shows that Christians inherited multiple Gospel narratives with tensions and differences. The problem was not solved by preserved authorial commentary from Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, but by later interpretation, canon formation, and theological reading.<br /> <br /> == Canon formation ==<br /> <br /> The New Testament canon did not appear all at once.<br /> <br /> Dale B. Martin identifies Marcion, in the first half of the second century, as the first known Christian leader to produce something close to an authoritative list of accepted Christian writings.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Marcion selected a form of Luke and a collection of Pauline letters. He rejected the Old Testament and believed that other apostles had adulterated the pristine Gospel taught by Jesus by introducing “judaizing” tendencies.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This is important because the first known attempt to identify a particular set of Christian writings as an authoritative scriptural list came not from Jesus, nor from the disciples, but from Marcion. Later Christians rejected Marcion, yet his project forced the broader question: which writings should count as Christian scripture? &lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The second century contained many different kinds of Christianity, and the later boundaries between “orthodoxy” and “heresy” were not yet fixed in the way they would be in later centuries.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Some second-century Christian writers argued that the Church should accept four Gospels because they believed those Gospels were connected to real apostles: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This was partly a response to Marcion’s selection of only Luke.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Other Christians handled Gospel plurality differently. Tatian’s ''Diatessaron'' wove Gospel material into one harmonized narrative instead of preserving four separate Gospel accounts. &lt;ref&gt;Sami Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God: The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament and the Qur’an in Light of Textual and Historical Criticism'' (Minneapolis: Thoughts of Light Publishing, 2013), 53–54.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The four-Gospel canon was therefore not simply handed down in complete form from Jesus. It emerged through later Christian disputes, preferences, exclusions, harmonizations, and attempts to identify which writings should count as Christian scripture.<br /> <br /> == Earliest Gospel manuscripts ==<br /> <br /> There are no complete first-century manuscripts of the canonical Gospels. The earliest surviving fragments are small and fragmentary.<br /> <br /> For Matthew, an early witness is 𝔓77, commonly dated to the 2nd–3rd century CE, containing Matthew 13:55–56 and 14:3–5.&lt;ref&gt;H. A. G. Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'' (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2025), xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For Mark, one possible early witness is 𝔓137, dated by some to the 2nd–3rd century CE, containing Mark 1:7–9; another important witness is 𝔓45, usually dated to the 3rd century CE, containing fragments of Mark.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For Luke, an early witness is 𝔓75, commonly dated to the 3rd–4th century CE, containing Luke 3:18–15:10.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For John, an early witness is 𝔓52, commonly dated to the 2nd–3rd century CE, containing John 18:31–33 and 18:37–38.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Even on optimistic dating, the manuscript evidence is fragmentary. The canonical Gospels are not supported by complete first-century manuscript copies. The manuscript trail begins with small fragments, while fuller witnesses come later.<br /> <br /> == Titles and names in the manuscript tradition ==<br /> <br /> The names of the Gospel authors were not necessarily circulated with the earliest Gospel manuscripts.<br /> <br /> One summary of the manuscript evidence notes that the earliest Gospel fragment with a title may be associated with Matthew and dates to the third century, while names of Gospel authors were added to Codex Sinaiticus by a corrector between the fourth and sixth centuries.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, Four Core Points section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This supports the distinction between the Gospel texts themselves and later title traditions. The presence of familiar Gospel names in later manuscripts does not prove that those names were attached from the beginning.<br /> <br /> == Manuscript dating and the problem of certainty ==<br /> <br /> The dates assigned to early Christian manuscripts are often less certain than popular apologetic presentations imply.<br /> <br /> Brent Nongbri argues that many early Christian manuscripts lack secure archaeological context. They were often discovered through the antiquities market, through unclear find stories, or without modern archaeological recording. This makes their provenance and dating difficult to establish with precision.&lt;ref&gt;Brent Nongbri, ''God’s Library: The Archaeology of the Earliest Christian Manuscripts'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018), prologue.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Nongbri also notes that paleography — dating a manuscript by handwriting — is a subjective exercise. It can suggest a range of possible dates, but it should not be treated as though it can normally deliver a precise year or decade.&lt;ref&gt;Nongbri, ''God’s Library'', chapter 2, “The Dating Game.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This matters because many early Christian manuscripts are dated mainly by paleography. When a manuscript is described as “around 150 CE” or “about 200 CE,” this often means a scholarly estimate, not a fixed archaeological fact.<br /> <br /> Nongbri further warns that labels such as “New Testament papyri” can be misleading. Some papyrus manuscripts may come from a time before the boundaries of the New Testament canon were fixed, and no extant papyrus manuscript contains anything close to the whole New Testament.&lt;ref&gt;Nongbri, ''God’s Library'', prologue.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Thus, early Christian manuscript evidence is valuable, but it must be handled carefully. It does not provide a simple chain of complete early Bibles reaching back to Jesus or the apostles.<br /> <br /> == The problem of the “original text” ==<br /> <br /> Modern textual criticism does not simply print “the original New Testament.” It attempts to reconstruct an earlier attainable text by comparing surviving witnesses.<br /> <br /> The issue is not whether the present New Testament contains any early material. The issue is whether the exact original wording of the New Testament books can be identified with certainty.<br /> <br /> Michael W. Holmes argues that the traditional goal of restoring the “original text” needs reconsideration because the term “original text” is itself ambiguous and because the history of textual transmission deserves study in its own right.&lt;ref&gt;Michael W. Holmes, “From ‘Original Text’ to ‘Initial Text’: The Traditional Goal of New Testament Textual Criticism in Contemporary Discussion.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Eldon J. Epp likewise argues that the phrase “original text” is multivalent and far more complex than earlier scholars assumed, since the problem includes canon, authority, language, oral tradition, pre-literary tradition, source criticism, compositional stages, and textual variants.&lt;ref&gt;Eldon J. Epp, “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ in New Testament Textual Criticism,” ''Harvard Theological Review'' 92, no. 3 (1999): 246–247.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Because of this, some scholars speak more cautiously of the “initial text” or the “earliest attainable text,” rather than confidently claiming direct access to the autographs.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 13–14.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == The obscure zone ==<br /> <br /> A major issue in New Testament textual criticism is the dark early period between the writing of the texts and the earliest substantial manuscript witnesses.<br /> <br /> This early period includes uncertainty about authorship, revision, early reception, circulation, and early translations.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 15.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ernest C. Colwell stated that without knowledge of the history of the text, the original reading cannot be established.&lt;ref&gt;Ernest C. Colwell, “The Greek New Testament with a Limited Critical Apparatus: Its Nature and Uses,” in Allen Paul Wikgren and David Edward Aune, eds., ''Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature'' (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 37.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Eberhard Nestle noted that the disappearance of the originals is understandable because much of the New Testament, especially the Epistles, consisted of occasional writings not originally intended for broad publication, while other writings had limited circulation.&lt;ref&gt;Eberhard Nestle, ''Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament'', trans. William Edie (Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1901), 29.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This early obscurity matters because later manuscript agreement cannot automatically prove that the text was perfectly stable from the moment of composition.<br /> <br /> == Greek manuscripts and the numbers argument ==<br /> <br /> Christian apologists often appeal to the large number of New Testament manuscripts. The number is important, but the raw number by itself can mislead.<br /> <br /> Michael W. Holmes notes that the common appeal to thousands of manuscripts is misleading if it does not mention that approximately eighty-five percent of those manuscripts were copied in the eleventh century or later, over a millennium after the writing of the New Testament. He adds that as one gets closer to the origin of the New Testament, manuscript evidence becomes increasingly scarce.&lt;ref&gt;Michael W. Holmes, “Text and Transmission in the Second Century,” in Robert B. Stewart, ed., ''The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace in Dialogue'' (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 61.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The closer one moves toward the date of composition, the fewer and smaller the manuscript witnesses become. The earliest evidence often consists of scraps rather than full books.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 38–39.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The existence of many later manuscripts does not by itself identify the earliest reading. As textual critics often say, manuscripts must be weighed, not merely counted.&lt;ref&gt;Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, ''The Text of the New Testament'', trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 280–281.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == No autographs and the need for textual criticism ==<br /> <br /> No original manuscript, or autograph, of any New Testament book has survived. This is why New Testament textual criticism exists.<br /> <br /> David Alan Black explains that the first reason textual criticism is necessary is that none of the original manuscripts of the New Testament has survived. The second reason is that the extant copies contain numerous mistakes, and these mistakes must be identified before interpretation, teaching, or preaching can proceed.&lt;ref&gt;David Alan Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide'' (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 12.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This point is important for dawah. The Christian does not possess the original manuscript of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, or Jude. What exists are later copies of copies, and those copies differ.<br /> <br /> Many variants are minor, such as spelling differences or word order. However, scholars also acknowledge that the New Testament manuscripts contain significant variants. Some affect translation and interpretation, and some are more important than others.&lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', 13.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The question, then, is not whether textual criticism is useful. The question is whether a scripture that requires reconstruction from later, differing copies can be treated as a perfectly preserved revelation identical to what was first revealed.<br /> <br /> == Types of scribal errors ==<br /> <br /> New Testament manuscript errors are usually divided into two broad categories: accidental and intentional.<br /> <br /> Accidental errors include:<br /> * faulty word division;<br /> * homoeoteleuton, where a scribe skips from one word or ending to a similar word or ending later in the text;<br /> * haplography, where something that should be written twice is written once;<br /> * dittography, where something is written twice instead of once;<br /> * metathesis, where letters or words are placed in the wrong order;<br /> * itacism, where similar vowel sounds are confused.<br /> <br /> Intentional changes include:<br /> * grammatical improvements;<br /> * liturgical changes;<br /> * elimination of apparent discrepancies;<br /> * harmonization of parallel passages;<br /> * conflation, where two or more readings are combined into one;<br /> * doctrinal changes.<br /> &lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', appendix “Types of Errors in the New Testament Manuscripts,” 59–61.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Examples include the doxology in the Lord’s Prayer at Matthew 6:13, harmonization of Matthew 19:17 with Mark 10:18, and the “Heavenly Witnesses” passage in 1 John 5:7–8, which has no non-suspect Greek manuscript support.&lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', 60–61.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This means that textual variation is not only a matter of random copying mistakes. Some changes were made because scribes thought they were improving grammar, clarifying doctrine, harmonizing passages, or correcting what they perceived to be an error.<br /> <br /> == Early papyri and textual fluidity ==<br /> <br /> The early papyri do not simply solve the problem of the original text. They provide valuable evidence, but they are incomplete, fragmentary, and textually varied.<br /> <br /> Philip W. Comfort acknowledged that Mark, the earliest canonical Gospel and a major source for Matthew and Luke, is not preserved in many early manuscripts. He also stated that 𝔓45, the earliest copy of Mark, is “not a very faithful copy” and that the scribe took many liberties, reproducing more the thought of the exemplar than the exact words.&lt;ref&gt;Philip W. Comfort, ''The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament'' (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 107.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Kenneth W. Clark concluded that 𝔓75, an early third-century papyrus, portrays a fluid state of the text around 200 CE, and that such scribal freedom suggests the Gospel text was little more stable than oral tradition.&lt;ref&gt;Kenneth W. Clark, “The Theological Relevance of Textual Variation in Current Criticism of the Greek New Testament,” ''Journal of Biblical Literature'' 85, no. 1 (1966): 15.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Colwell described the earliest period of the New Testament manuscript tradition as “wild,” “uncontrolled,” and “unedited.”&lt;ref&gt;Ernest C. Colwell, “Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program,” in ''Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament'' (Leiden: Brill, 1969), 164.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The early papyri therefore witness to an early textual situation that was fluid, varied, and difficult to reduce to a single unquestionably original form.<br /> <br /> == Versions and translations ==<br /> <br /> Textual critics also use ancient versions — translations of the New Testament into languages such as Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. These are useful witnesses, but they do not solve the problem of the original text.<br /> <br /> No version claims to be copied from the autograph. No version is identical to the modern critical text. The versions themselves witness to different text-types and divergent readings.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 52.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Diatessaron of Tatian, an early Gospel harmony, combines Gospel material into a single narrative, but no original copy survives, its original language is disputed, and its method of harmonization prevents it from simply preserving the exact text of the four canonical Gospels.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 53–54.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Old Latin versions show significant diversity. Jerome complained that there were almost as many forms of the text as manuscripts, and Metzger described the Old Latin as a living creation that was constantly growing.&lt;ref&gt;Bruce M. Metzger, ''The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), 325.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Coptic witnesses likewise appear late and varied, with early transmission remaining fluid and haphazard.&lt;ref&gt;Frederik Wisse, “The Coptic Versions of the New Testament,” in Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, eds., ''The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 133.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ancient versions help textual critics compare forms of the text, but they cannot independently restore the original New Testament.<br /> <br /> == Patristic citations ==<br /> <br /> Another common claim is that the New Testament could be reconstructed from quotations by the Church Fathers. These citations are useful, but they are not a simple path to the autograph.<br /> <br /> The list of “Fathers” used in textual criticism extends across centuries and includes writers from different regions and theological camps. This makes their testimony useful but mixed, not a simple recovered copy of the original New Testament.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 59–83.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Larry W. Hurtado notes that only a few explicit citations of New Testament writings are found in second-century Christian authors, and even those often show curious differences from the dominant manuscript text.&lt;ref&gt;Larry W. Hurtado, “The New Testament in the Second Century: Text, Collections and Canon,” in J. W. Childers and D. C. Parker, eds., ''Transmission and Reception: New Testament Text-Critical and Exegetical Studies'' (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006), 14–15.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> William L. Petersen observed that second-century Gospel citations show widespread harmonization, extra-canonical material mixed with canonical material, altered sequences, many variants, and vaguer parallels as one moves earlier into the second century.&lt;ref&gt;William L. Petersen, “The Genesis of the Gospels,” in A. Denaux, ed., ''New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis'' (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 54–55.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Patristic citations therefore confirm that the early Gospel tradition was living and textually complex. They do not provide a clean independent reconstruction of the original text.<br /> <br /> == Critical editions and reconstruction ==<br /> <br /> The modern printed Greek New Testament is a critical reconstruction. Textual critics compare manuscript variants and choose readings according to scholarly criteria. This means that the printed Greek New Testament is not identical to any one surviving ancient manuscript.<br /> <br /> A modern critical edition is not a newly discovered original Bible. It is a scholarly text produced through editorial judgment.<br /> <br /> The process relies on external and internal evidence. External evidence considers matters such as the date and character of manuscripts, geographical distribution, text-types, and the relationships between witnesses. Internal evidence considers transcriptional probabilities — what scribes were likely to do — and intrinsic probabilities — what the author was likely to write.&lt;ref&gt;Bruce M. Metzger, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), introduction.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> These principles are useful, but they are probabilistic. They do not give mathematical certainty.<br /> <br /> For example, earlier manuscripts are generally more important than later manuscripts, but an early manuscript may still preserve a corrupted reading, while a later manuscript may preserve an older and more reliable reading. A geographically widespread reading may be more likely to be original than a reading preserved in only one area, but this also remains a probability judgment.&lt;ref&gt;Metzger, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', introduction.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Internal evidence is likewise probabilistic. A more difficult reading may be preferred because scribes often smoothed difficult readings, but this principle cannot be applied mechanically. Sometimes a difficult reading may simply be the result of scribal error. Likewise, shorter readings may be preferred in some cases, but scribes also omitted material accidentally or intentionally.&lt;ref&gt;Metzger, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', introduction.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> William L. Petersen states that modern critical editions do not present the text current in 150, 120, or 100 CE, much less 80 CE.&lt;ref&gt;William Lawrence Petersen and Jan Krans, ''Patristic and Text-Critical Studies: The Collected Essays of William L. Petersen'' (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 410.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament apparatus also shows the extent of uncertainty in textual decisions. E. J. Edwards noted that in UBS3 and UBS4, 48.6% of rated variation units were marked “difficult” and 10.4% “extremely doubtful,” meaning that approximately 59% of rated variants were doubtful in some degree.&lt;ref&gt;E. J. Edwards, “On Using the Textual Apparatus of the UBS Greek New Testament,” ''The Bible Translator'' 28 (1977): 122.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The UBS ratings themselves show this:<br /> <br /> * '''A''' — virtual certainty;<br /> * '''B''' — some degree of doubt;<br /> * '''C''' — considerable degree of doubt;<br /> * '''D''' — very high degree of doubt.<br /> <br /> A critical edition is therefore not a manuscript handed down from Jesus or the apostles. It is a modern scholarly reconstruction built from competing witnesses and probability judgments.<br /> <br /> == Textus Receptus, Byzantine text, and modern critical text ==<br /> <br /> Different printed Greek New Testaments do not always contain the same text.<br /> <br /> The Textus Receptus is the Greek text associated with Erasmus and later Protestant editions. It stands behind the King James Version and related translations. Modern critical editions, however, are based on a different approach and rely heavily on earlier Alexandrian witnesses, along with broader comparison of manuscript evidence.<br /> <br /> Westcott and Hort’s 1881 Greek New Testament marked a major shift. Their text differed considerably from the manuscripts used by Erasmus, and they argued that the Byzantine text had been edited and was inferior to earlier Alexandrian witnesses.&lt;ref&gt;David Alan Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide'', 30.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Modern English translations such as the NASB, NIV, RSV, and NRSV generally follow a text much closer to Westcott and Hort than to Erasmus. The major exception is the New King James Version, which is based on the Textus Receptus.&lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', 31.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Major differences between the Textus Receptus and modern critical texts include the omission or addition of substantial passages such as:<br /> <br /> * Matthew 16:2b–3;<br /> * Mark 16:9–20;<br /> * Luke 22:19b–20, 43–44;<br /> * John 7:53–8:11;<br /> * 1 John 5:7–8.<br /> <br /> They also include shorter additions or omissions such as:<br /> <br /> * Matthew 6:13;<br /> * Matthew 17:21;<br /> * Matthew 18:11;<br /> * Matthew 21:44;<br /> * Mark 9:44, 46;<br /> * Luke 9:56;<br /> * Acts 8:37;<br /> * Romans 16:24.<br /> &lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', 31.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This shows that the issue is not merely spelling or punctuation. The Greek text underlying one Bible translation may differ from the Greek text underlying another in passages that readers can see in the printed Bible itself.<br /> <br /> == Significant and theological variants ==<br /> <br /> Some textual variants affect Christian theology, liturgy, or interpretation.<br /> <br /> Examples include John 1:18, where manuscripts differ between readings such as “only Son,” “only God,” and related forms.&lt;ref&gt;Philip W. Comfort, ''New Testament Text and Translation Commentary'' (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2008), discussion of John 1:18.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Another example is John 1:3–4, where punctuation and wording affect whether the text says that what came into being “in him was life.”&lt;ref&gt;Comfort, ''New Testament Text and Translation Commentary'', discussion of John 1:3–4.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Transfiguration accounts also show variation in the heavenly declaration: Matthew 17:5, Mark 9:7, and Luke 9:35 preserve related but distinct wording.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, Four Core Points section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Luke 3:22 is also textually significant because some witnesses preserve a form of the heavenly voice saying, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you,” while other witnesses have the more familiar wording.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', discussion of Luke 3:22.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Other famous examples include Mark 16:9–20, John 7:53–8:11, Acts 8:37, Matthew 6:13, and 1 John 5:7–8. These passages are disputed, omitted, bracketed, or footnoted in many modern Bibles because of manuscript evidence.&lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', 31, 60–61.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> These examples show why textual criticism is not a minor issue. Variant readings can affect how passages are translated, interpreted, preached, and used in doctrine.<br /> <br /> == The Gospels as shaped tradition ==<br /> <br /> The Gospels should not be treated as stenographic transcripts of Jesus.<br /> <br /> Ehrman states that the Gospels contain discrepancies, contradictions, embellishments, and historical problems, and that they cannot be taken at face value as straightforward historically reliable accounts in every detail.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Wilson likewise describes the Gospel narratives as highly creative works written for audiences far removed from Jesus’ original Galilean and Jewish setting. Each Gospel constructs its own portrait of Jesus for its own audience.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> David C. Parker argues that what we have in the Gospel tradition is a collection of interpretive rewritings of a tradition. He states that the concept of a Gospel as fixed in shape, authoritative, and final as a piece of literature must be abandoned.&lt;ref&gt;David C. Parker, ''The Living Text of the Gospels'' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Parker’s point is not that the Gospels are useless. Rather, the Gospels must be understood as living textual traditions that were transmitted, interpreted, rewritten, and stabilized over time.<br /> <br /> == Paul, Jewish Christianity, and later Christian theology ==<br /> <br /> The New Testament does not preserve one simple, uncontested continuation of Jesus’ original setting. The earliest Jesus movement was Jewish, while later Christian literature increasingly reflects Gentile, Greek-speaking, and Roman imperial contexts.<br /> <br /> Some scholars note tensions between Matthew’s presentation of Jesus and Pauline theology. In Matthew 5:17–20, Jesus is presented as affirming the abiding validity of the Torah, while Paul’s letters often argue that Gentile believers are not bound to the Mosaic law in the same way.&lt;ref&gt;Ulrich Luz, ''Matthew 1–7: A Commentary'', Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), discussion of Matthew 5:17–20.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This does not mean every New Testament text teaches the same theology in the same way. Rather, the New Testament reflects multiple early Christian voices, controversies, and attempts to interpret Jesus after his departure.<br /> <br /> From an Islamic perspective, this supports the need to distinguish between the revelation given to Jesus and later Christian theological developments about Jesus.<br /> <br /> == “Very words” and “voice” of Jesus ==<br /> <br /> Daniel B. Wallace distinguishes between the very words of Jesus and the very voice of Jesus, using the terms ''ipsissima verba'' and ''ipsissima vox''. He states that only rarely can scholars say that they possess the exact words of Jesus, though they may have confidence that some material reflects the “voice” of Jesus.&lt;ref&gt;Daniel B. Wallace, “Five More Myths about Bible Translations and the Transmission of the Text,” 28 December 2012.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This distinction matters because even conservative Christian scholars may admit that the Gospels often preserve the message, gist, or theological presentation of Jesus rather than exact verbal transcripts.<br /> <br /> == Muslim evaluation ==<br /> <br /> The Muslim position is not that Allah never revealed scripture to Jews and Christians. Rather, Islam affirms that Allah revealed the Tawrat and the Injīl, while denying that the present Bible is identical to those original revelations.<br /> <br /> The Bible today is a collection of later textual traditions, translations, manuscript families, canon decisions, and critical reconstructions. The Old Testament is preserved through later witnesses such as the Masoretic tradition, Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Dead Sea Scrolls. The New Testament is preserved through later manuscripts, ancient versions, patristic citations, variants, and critical editions.<br /> <br /> The central issue is not merely whether some authentic material remains. The issue is whether the Bible available today is identical to the original revelation given by Allah to Moses and Jesus. From the Islamic perspective, it is not.<br /> <br /> The Bibles may contain truth, remnants of revelation, historical material, wisdom, and reports about prophets. However, it is not the original Tawrat or the original Injīl in pure form.<br /> <br /> The Muslim objection is therefore not merely that “variants exist.” The deeper objection is cumulative:<br /> * the Bible is not one single agreed text;<br /> * the Old Testament exists through later textual traditions, not original autographs;<br /> * the New Testament is not the Injīl revealed to Jesus;<br /> * the Gospels were written decades after Jesus, anonymously, in Greek, and for later communities;<br /> * the canon formed through later Christian dispute and selection;<br /> * no original New Testament manuscript survives;<br /> * the extant manuscripts contain accidental and intentional variants;<br /> * modern critical editions are scholarly reconstructions, not ancient autographs;<br /> * some variants affect translation, interpretation, liturgy, and doctrine.<br /> <br /> In sum, there is a serious difference between believing that scripture was originally revealed by God and claiming that the present Biblical text is a perfectly preserved copy of that original revelation.<br /> <br /> For this reason, Muslims affirm the original revelations given by Allah while judging the present Bible by the Qur’an, not judging the Qur’an by the present Bible.<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Bible]]<br /> [[Category:Christianity]]<br /> [[Category:Judaism]]<br /> [[Category:Islam and Christianity]]<br /> [[Category:People of the Book]]<br /> [[Category:Scripture]]<br /> [[Category:Textual criticism]]</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Bible&diff=54 2026-05-29T22:53:16Z

<p>TheIslampill: </p> <hr /> <div>'''The Bible''' is the name commonly given to the collection of scriptures used by Jews and Christians. From an Islamic perspective, the Bible must be distinguished from the original revelation that Allah gave to His prophets.<br /> <br /> Islam acknowledges that scripture was given to Christians and Jews; they are called '''Ahl al-Kitāb''' — the People of the Book. However, the disagreement begins with the very understanding of what “the Bible” is.<br /> <br /> To the Muslim, the '''Tawrat''' was given to Moses and the '''Injīl''' was given to the Messiah. This is as the Qur’an says:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “Indeed, We revealed the Torah, containing guidance and light…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:44.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> And:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah. And We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:46.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> The Qur’an presents the Injīl as a scripture given to the Messiah from God, just as the Tawrat was given to Moses from God. No Christian today believes that the New Testament was given by the Messiah to his disciples. The New Testament is therefore not identical to the Injīl.<br /> <br /> As Muslims, we believe that Christians and Jews today do not possess the original Torah or the original Gospel in their pure revealed form.<br /> <br /> == Qur'anic criticism of textual corruption ==<br /> <br /> The Qur’an criticizes those who wrote scripture with their own hands and then claimed it was from God:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “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…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 2:79.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> The Qur’an also states that some from the People of the Book altered words from their proper places:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “So for their breaking of the covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their proper usages…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:13.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This is not merely a Muslim claim asserted without evidence. The textual history of the Old and New Testaments shows that “the Bible” is not one simple, unchanged text that all Jews and Christians have always possessed in a single stable form.<br /> <br /> == Which Bible? ==<br /> <br /> One of the first problems is the question: which Old Testament and which New Testament is meant?<br /> <br /> Examples of Old Testament textual traditions and sources include:<br /> <br /> * the Greek Septuagint;<br /> * the Hebrew Vorlage behind the Septuagint;<br /> * the Masoretic Text;<br /> * the Samaritan Pentateuch;<br /> * the Dead Sea Scrolls / Qumran scrolls;<br /> * the source or sources behind the Greek Septuagint.<br /> <br /> Examples of New Testament canons, manuscripts, or printed critical editions include:<br /> <br /> * Marcion’s canon;<br /> * Tatian’s ''Diatessaron'';<br /> * Codex Sinaiticus;<br /> * Codex Vaticanus;<br /> * Codex Alexandrinus;<br /> * Codex Bezae;<br /> * Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus;<br /> * Codex Washingtonianus;<br /> * the Textus Receptus;<br /> * Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament;<br /> * Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament editions;<br /> * United Bible Societies Greek New Testament editions.<br /> <br /> The problem is that there is no one simple “Biblical text” that all Christians or Jews have agreed upon across history. What is called the Bible today is a collected and translated text based on multiple textual traditions, manuscript witnesses, canons, and scholarly editorial decisions.<br /> <br /> == The Old Testament text ==<br /> <br /> The Old Testament text is not available today in its original autographs.<br /> <br /> Ernst Würthwein notes that with ancient writings, including the writings of the Old and New Testaments, the original documents have been lost, and the available texts exist only in copies separated from the originals by centuries and by an unknown number of intermediate copies.&lt;ref&gt;Ernst Würthwein, ''The Text of the Old Testament'', trans. Erroll F. Rhodes, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The copying process itself creates textual problems. A word may be missed or repeated; words may be transposed or replaced; and even scribal correction may introduce further corruption. Therefore, before interpretation, the text itself must first be established by comparing the available witnesses.&lt;ref&gt;Würthwein, ''The Text of the Old Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Those witnesses are not all equally reliable. Each has its own character and its own individual history, so a textual witness cannot simply be treated as a neutral copy of the original.&lt;ref&gt;Würthwein, ''The Text of the Old Testament'', xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Masoretic Text also should not be imagined as one perfect master copy of the original Old Testament. Roy E. Beacham argues that no such thing as “the Masoretic text” or one single Masoretic text actually exists, and that no single “master copy” of the entire Old Testament corpus exists today.&lt;ref&gt;Roy E. Beacham, “The Old Testament Text and the Version Debate,” in Roy E. Beacham and Kevin T. Bauder, eds., ''One Bible Only? Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible'' (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001), 64–65.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Beacham further argues that even if Jewish scribes had produced a master copy in the first century, there is no evidence that such a text was ever accepted, much less portrayed, as a perfect replica of the originals.&lt;ref&gt;Beacham, “The Old Testament Text and the Version Debate,” 64–65.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Old Testament as possessed today is therefore mediated through later textual families, recensions, manuscript traditions, and scholarly reconstruction.<br /> <br /> == The New Testament and the Injīl ==<br /> <br /> The New Testament is not the Injīl that Muslims believe was given to Jesus. The Qur’an describes the Injīl as revelation given to the Messiah. The New Testament, by contrast, is a later collection of writings about Jesus, his followers, and early Christian communities.<br /> <br /> Jesus preached in the 20s and 30s CE, in Aramaic, among Jews in Galilee and Jerusalem. The canonical Gospels were composed decades later, in Greek, for communities living in a post-Jesus and largely Gentile environment. This creates a major distinction between the Gospel given to Jesus and the later Gospel literature written about Jesus.<br /> <br /> The New Testament did not exist during the lifetime of Jesus. The writings of Paul came after Jesus, and the canonical Gospels were written later still.<br /> <br /> Bart D. Ehrman states that most scholars date Mark to around 65–70 CE, Matthew and Luke to around 80–85 CE, and John to around 90–95 CE.&lt;ref&gt;Bart D. Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee'' (New York: HarperOne, 2014), section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This places the canonical Gospels decades after Jesus. They were not written as transcripts, meeting minutes, or stenographic records of his ministry. They were written after stories about Jesus had circulated through communities, languages, theological disputes, preaching contexts, and oral transmission.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Barrie Wilson likewise warns against treating the Gospel writings as if they were direct reports or “student notes” from the time of Jesus. They are later literary compositions written for later audiences.&lt;ref&gt;Barrie A. Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah: Unlocking the Psalms of Solomon and Humanity’s Quest for a Savior''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The New Testament therefore represents a later Christian literary and theological corpus. It is not the same thing as the Injīl revealed by Allah to Jesus.<br /> <br /> == Difference between the Gospel and the New Testament ==<br /> <br /> The Islamic argument is not merely that Christians have different Bible translations. The deeper issue is that the Qur’an speaks of a revelation given to Jesus, while the New Testament consists of later writings about Jesus.<br /> <br /> The distinction may be summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> * Jesus preached among Jews in Galilee and Jerusalem.<br /> * His earliest followers transmitted teachings orally.<br /> * A historical gap of roughly 40–70 years separates Jesus’ ministry from much of the later Gospel literature.<br /> * The canonical Gospels were composed anonymously in Greek.<br /> * They were written for later Christian communities, not as documents handed down by Jesus himself.<br /> * The New Testament canon developed over time through later Christian usage, dispute, selection, and exclusion.<br /> <br /> This means that the New Testament should not be treated as though it were a book revealed to Jesus. It is a later collection formed by Christian communities.<br /> <br /> This also explains why the Muslim does not accept the New Testament as the Injīl. Even before discussing textual variants, manuscripts, or canon lists, the category itself is different: the Injīl is revelation given to Jesus; the New Testament is a later corpus about Jesus.<br /> <br /> == Gospel development ==<br /> <br /> A simplified roadmap of Gospel development can be summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> individual sayings about Jesus and from Jesus → sayings collections and sayings Gospels → narrative miracle literature → canonical and non-canonical Gospels.<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, notes dated 25 November 2025, “Summary Roadmap of Gospel Development.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This means that Gospel literature developed through sayings, memories, traditions, narrative shaping, miracle stories, theological interpretation, and manuscript transmission before arriving in the later forms known today.<br /> <br /> The earliest layers of Jesus tradition are often identified with sayings material. Sources such as the Gospel of Thomas and the hypothetical Q source do not center the crucifixion and resurrection in the way the later canonical Gospels do.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The first canonical Gospel is usually identified as Mark. Later Gospels such as Matthew and Luke are commonly understood to have used Mark as one of their sources.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah''; Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Gospel of Mark is not a strict biography in the modern sense. It is closer to a structured theological narrative built around miracle material, conflict material, and proclamation. Some summaries of Gospel development compare Mark’s miracle-oriented narrative to ancient miracle-story literature or aretalogy rather than to modern biography.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> According to the same summary, Mark includes three miracle sets: water miracles, healing miracles, and feeding miracles. The other canonical Gospels build upon, reorder, expand, and theologically shape earlier material.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The New Testament Gospel narratives are therefore not raw transcripts of Jesus’ speech. They are literary works built out of inherited material, community memory, theological concerns, and earlier sources.<br /> <br /> == Unknown sources and oral transmission ==<br /> <br /> The Gospel writers do not name the sources behind their narratives in the way modern historians normally cite sources. They do not identify named eyewitness chains for each episode, nor do they explain how each unit of tradition passed from the event to the written account.<br /> <br /> Ehrman argues that the authors were not eyewitnesses, did not write in the same language as Jesus, and were not from the same Palestinian environment. The Gospel writers wrote in Greek, while Jesus and his earliest followers were Aramaic-speaking Jews in Palestine.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Gospel traditions circulated orally before being written down. Stories told from person to person, community to community, and city to city naturally change as they are retold. Ehrman compares this to the normal process by which oral stories become altered, expanded, shortened, or reshaped in transmission.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Wilson makes a similar point: the Gospels were written decades after the events they narrate, in a different linguistic and cultural setting, and after major historical disruptions in Judea. This creates a historical gap between Jesus’ original Galilean ministry and the later Gospel portraits of Jesus.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This does not mean the Gospels contain no memory of Jesus. It means they must be read as late theological-literary works shaped by transmission, not as direct eyewitness transcripts.<br /> <br /> == Anonymous authorship and later attribution ==<br /> <br /> The four canonical Gospels were originally published anonymously. That is, the texts themselves do not name their authors.<br /> <br /> Dale B. Martin notes that the four Gospels were published anonymously, not pseudonymously: they were not written under false names, but rather with no authors’ names attached. Later titles were attached to them, but the titles themselves are not historical proof of authorship.&lt;ref&gt;Dale B. Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Martin also notes that Papias and other early Christians preserved traditions about Gospel authorship, but modern scholars doubt many of these traditions, including the claims that Mark wrote Peter’s version, Matthew compiled Matthew, Luke wrote as a disciple of Paul, and John son of Zebedee wrote John.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ehrman argues that the later attributions are difficult because Jesus’ followers were lower-class Aramaic-speaking Jews, whereas the Gospel authors were highly educated Greek-speaking Christians of a later generation, writing in a different language, in different parts of the world, and at a later time.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The traditional names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John therefore belong to later ecclesiastical attribution, not to authorial self-identification inside the Gospel texts themselves.<br /> <br /> == Did the Gospel authors validate one another? ==<br /> <br /> There is no evidence that the claimed authors of the canonical Gospels personally validated one another’s Gospels. There is also no evidence that they exegeted or commented upon each other’s Gospel texts as a fixed four-Gospel canon during their own lifetimes.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Instead, the Gospels show literary dependence, reuse of material, differences in sequence, theological shaping, and later harmonizing activity by scribes and interpreters.<br /> <br /> Origen, in his commentary on John, acknowledged that the Gospel writers sometimes changed place, time, or sequence in order to preserve a spiritual or theological aim, even where the material presentation differed.&lt;ref&gt;Origen, ''Commentary on the Gospel of John'', Book X.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The need for later harmonization itself shows that Christians inherited multiple Gospel narratives with tensions and differences. The problem was not solved by preserved authorial commentary from Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, but by later interpretation, canon formation, and theological reading.<br /> <br /> == Canon formation ==<br /> <br /> The New Testament canon did not appear all at once.<br /> <br /> Dale B. Martin identifies Marcion, in the first half of the second century, as the first known Christian leader to produce something close to an authoritative list of accepted Christian writings.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Marcion selected a form of Luke and a collection of Pauline letters. He rejected the Old Testament and believed that other apostles had adulterated the pristine Gospel taught by Jesus by introducing “judaizing” tendencies.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This is important because the first known attempt to identify a particular set of Christian writings as an authoritative scriptural list came not from Jesus, nor from the disciples, but from Marcion. Later Christians rejected Marcion, yet his project forced the broader question: which writings should count as Christian scripture? &lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The second century contained many different kinds of Christianity, and the later boundaries between “orthodoxy” and “heresy” were not yet fixed in the way they would be in later centuries.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Some second-century Christian writers argued that the Church should accept four Gospels because they believed those Gospels were connected to real apostles: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This was partly a response to Marcion’s selection of only Luke.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Other Christians handled Gospel plurality differently. Tatian’s ''Diatessaron'' wove Gospel material into one harmonized narrative instead of preserving four separate Gospel accounts. &lt;ref&gt;Sami Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God: The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament and the Qur’an in Light of Textual and Historical Criticism'' (Minneapolis: Thoughts of Light Publishing, 2013), 53–54.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The four-Gospel canon was therefore not simply handed down in complete form from Jesus. It emerged through later Christian disputes, preferences, exclusions, harmonizations, and attempts to identify which writings should count as Christian scripture.<br /> <br /> == Earliest Gospel manuscripts ==<br /> <br /> There are no complete first-century manuscripts of the canonical Gospels. The earliest surviving fragments are small and fragmentary.<br /> <br /> For Matthew, an early witness is 𝔓77, commonly dated to the 2nd–3rd century CE, containing Matthew 13:55–56 and 14:3–5.&lt;ref&gt;H. A. G. Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'' (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2025), xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For Mark, one possible early witness is 𝔓137, dated by some to the 2nd–3rd century CE, containing Mark 1:7–9; another important witness is 𝔓45, usually dated to the 3rd century CE, containing fragments of Mark.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For Luke, an early witness is 𝔓75, commonly dated to the 3rd–4th century CE, containing Luke 3:18–15:10.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For John, an early witness is 𝔓52, commonly dated to the 2nd–3rd century CE, containing John 18:31–33 and 18:37–38.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Even on optimistic dating, the manuscript evidence is fragmentary. The canonical Gospels are not supported by complete first-century manuscript copies. The manuscript trail begins with small fragments, while fuller witnesses come later.<br /> <br /> == Titles and names in the manuscript tradition ==<br /> <br /> The names of the Gospel authors were not necessarily circulated with the earliest Gospel manuscripts.<br /> <br /> One summary of the manuscript evidence notes that the earliest Gospel fragment with a title may be associated with Matthew and dates to the third century, while names of Gospel authors were added to Codex Sinaiticus by a corrector between the fourth and sixth centuries.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, Four Core Points section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This supports the distinction between the Gospel texts themselves and later title traditions. The presence of familiar Gospel names in later manuscripts does not prove that those names were attached from the beginning.<br /> <br /> == Manuscript dating and the problem of certainty ==<br /> <br /> The dates assigned to early Christian manuscripts are often less certain than popular apologetic presentations imply.<br /> <br /> Brent Nongbri argues that many early Christian manuscripts lack secure archaeological context. They were often discovered through the antiquities market, through unclear find stories, or without modern archaeological recording. This makes their provenance and dating difficult to establish with precision.&lt;ref&gt;Brent Nongbri, ''God’s Library: The Archaeology of the Earliest Christian Manuscripts'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018), prologue.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Nongbri also notes that paleography — dating a manuscript by handwriting — is a subjective exercise. It can suggest a range of possible dates, but it should not be treated as though it can normally deliver a precise year or decade.&lt;ref&gt;Nongbri, ''God’s Library'', chapter 2, “The Dating Game.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This matters because many early Christian manuscripts are dated mainly by paleography. When a manuscript is described as “around 150 CE” or “about 200 CE,” this often means a scholarly estimate, not a fixed archaeological fact.<br /> <br /> Nongbri further warns that labels such as “New Testament papyri” can be misleading. Some papyrus manuscripts may come from a time before the boundaries of the New Testament canon were fixed, and no extant papyrus manuscript contains anything close to the whole New Testament.&lt;ref&gt;Nongbri, ''God’s Library'', prologue.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Thus, early Christian manuscript evidence is valuable, but it must be handled carefully. It does not provide a simple chain of complete early Bibles reaching back to Jesus or the apostles.<br /> <br /> == The problem of the “original text” ==<br /> <br /> Modern textual criticism does not simply print “the original New Testament.” It attempts to reconstruct an earlier attainable text by comparing surviving witnesses.<br /> <br /> The issue is not whether the present New Testament contains any early material. The issue is whether the exact original wording of the New Testament books can be identified with certainty.<br /> <br /> Michael W. Holmes argues that the traditional goal of restoring the “original text” needs reconsideration because the term “original text” is itself ambiguous and because the history of textual transmission deserves study in its own right.&lt;ref&gt;Michael W. Holmes, “From ‘Original Text’ to ‘Initial Text’: The Traditional Goal of New Testament Textual Criticism in Contemporary Discussion.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Eldon J. Epp likewise argues that the phrase “original text” is multivalent and far more complex than earlier scholars assumed, since the problem includes canon, authority, language, oral tradition, pre-literary tradition, source criticism, compositional stages, and textual variants.&lt;ref&gt;Eldon J. Epp, “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ in New Testament Textual Criticism,” ''Harvard Theological Review'' 92, no. 3 (1999): 246–247.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Because of this, some scholars speak more cautiously of the “initial text” or the “earliest attainable text,” rather than confidently claiming direct access to the autographs.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 13–14.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == The obscure zone ==<br /> <br /> A major issue in New Testament textual criticism is the dark early period between the writing of the texts and the earliest substantial manuscript witnesses.<br /> <br /> This early period includes uncertainty about authorship, revision, early reception, circulation, and early translations.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 15.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ernest C. Colwell stated that without knowledge of the history of the text, the original reading cannot be established.&lt;ref&gt;Ernest C. Colwell, “The Greek New Testament with a Limited Critical Apparatus: Its Nature and Uses,” in Allen Paul Wikgren and David Edward Aune, eds., ''Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature'' (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 37.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Eberhard Nestle noted that the disappearance of the originals is understandable because much of the New Testament, especially the Epistles, consisted of occasional writings not originally intended for broad publication, while other writings had limited circulation.&lt;ref&gt;Eberhard Nestle, ''Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament'', trans. William Edie (Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1901), 29.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This early obscurity matters because later manuscript agreement cannot automatically prove that the text was perfectly stable from the moment of composition.<br /> <br /> == Greek manuscripts and the numbers argument ==<br /> <br /> Christian apologists often appeal to the large number of New Testament manuscripts. The number is important, but the raw number by itself can mislead.<br /> <br /> Michael W. Holmes notes that the common appeal to thousands of manuscripts is misleading if it does not mention that approximately eighty-five percent of those manuscripts were copied in the eleventh century or later, over a millennium after the writing of the New Testament. He adds that as one gets closer to the origin of the New Testament, manuscript evidence becomes increasingly scarce.&lt;ref&gt;Michael W. Holmes, “Text and Transmission in the Second Century,” in Robert B. Stewart, ed., ''The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace in Dialogue'' (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 61.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The closer one moves toward the date of composition, the fewer and smaller the manuscript witnesses become. The earliest evidence often consists of scraps rather than full books.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 38–39.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The existence of many later manuscripts does not by itself identify the earliest reading. As textual critics often say, manuscripts must be weighed, not merely counted.&lt;ref&gt;Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, ''The Text of the New Testament'', trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 280–281.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == No autographs and the need for textual criticism ==<br /> <br /> No original manuscript, or autograph, of any New Testament book has survived. This is why New Testament textual criticism exists.<br /> <br /> David Alan Black explains that the first reason textual criticism is necessary is that none of the original manuscripts of the New Testament has survived. The second reason is that the extant copies contain numerous mistakes, and these mistakes must be identified before interpretation, teaching, or preaching can proceed.&lt;ref&gt;David Alan Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide'' (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 12.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This point is important for dawah. The Christian does not possess the original manuscript of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, or Jude. What exists are later copies of copies, and those copies differ.<br /> <br /> Many variants are minor, such as spelling differences or word order. However, scholars also acknowledge that the New Testament manuscripts contain significant variants. Some affect translation and interpretation, and some are more important than others.&lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', 13.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The question, then, is not whether textual criticism is useful. The question is whether a scripture that requires reconstruction from later, differing copies can be treated as a perfectly preserved revelation identical to what was first revealed.<br /> <br /> == Types of scribal errors ==<br /> <br /> New Testament manuscript errors are usually divided into two broad categories: accidental and intentional.<br /> <br /> Accidental errors include:<br /> * faulty word division;<br /> * homoeoteleuton, where a scribe skips from one word or ending to a similar word or ending later in the text;<br /> * haplography, where something that should be written twice is written once;<br /> * dittography, where something is written twice instead of once;<br /> * metathesis, where letters or words are placed in the wrong order;<br /> * itacism, where similar vowel sounds are confused.<br /> <br /> Intentional changes include:<br /> * grammatical improvements;<br /> * liturgical changes;<br /> * elimination of apparent discrepancies;<br /> * harmonization of parallel passages;<br /> * conflation, where two or more readings are combined into one;<br /> * doctrinal changes.<br /> &lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', appendix “Types of Errors in the New Testament Manuscripts,” 59–61.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Examples include the doxology in the Lord’s Prayer at Matthew 6:13, harmonization of Matthew 19:17 with Mark 10:18, and the “Heavenly Witnesses” passage in 1 John 5:7–8, which has no non-suspect Greek manuscript support.&lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', 60–61.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This means that textual variation is not only a matter of random copying mistakes. Some changes were made because scribes thought they were improving grammar, clarifying doctrine, harmonizing passages, or correcting what they perceived to be an error.<br /> <br /> == Early papyri and textual fluidity ==<br /> <br /> The early papyri do not simply solve the problem of the original text. They provide valuable evidence, but they are incomplete, fragmentary, and textually varied.<br /> <br /> Philip W. Comfort acknowledged that Mark, the earliest canonical Gospel and a major source for Matthew and Luke, is not preserved in many early manuscripts. He also stated that 𝔓45, the earliest copy of Mark, is “not a very faithful copy” and that the scribe took many liberties, reproducing more the thought of the exemplar than the exact words.&lt;ref&gt;Philip W. Comfort, ''The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament'' (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 107.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Kenneth W. Clark concluded that 𝔓75, an early third-century papyrus, portrays a fluid state of the text around 200 CE, and that such scribal freedom suggests the Gospel text was little more stable than oral tradition.&lt;ref&gt;Kenneth W. Clark, “The Theological Relevance of Textual Variation in Current Criticism of the Greek New Testament,” ''Journal of Biblical Literature'' 85, no. 1 (1966): 15.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Colwell described the earliest period of the New Testament manuscript tradition as “wild,” “uncontrolled,” and “unedited.”&lt;ref&gt;Ernest C. Colwell, “Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program,” in ''Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament'' (Leiden: Brill, 1969), 164.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The early papyri therefore witness to an early textual situation that was fluid, varied, and difficult to reduce to a single unquestionably original form.<br /> <br /> == Versions and translations ==<br /> <br /> Textual critics also use ancient versions — translations of the New Testament into languages such as Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. These are useful witnesses, but they do not solve the problem of the original text.<br /> <br /> No version claims to be copied from the autograph. No version is identical to the modern critical text. The versions themselves witness to different text-types and divergent readings.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 52.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Diatessaron of Tatian, an early Gospel harmony, combines Gospel material into a single narrative, but no original copy survives, its original language is disputed, and its method of harmonization prevents it from simply preserving the exact text of the four canonical Gospels.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 53–54.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Old Latin versions show significant diversity. Jerome complained that there were almost as many forms of the text as manuscripts, and Metzger described the Old Latin as a living creation that was constantly growing.&lt;ref&gt;Bruce M. Metzger, ''The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), 325.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Coptic witnesses likewise appear late and varied, with early transmission remaining fluid and haphazard.&lt;ref&gt;Frederik Wisse, “The Coptic Versions of the New Testament,” in Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, eds., ''The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 133.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ancient versions help textual critics compare forms of the text, but they cannot independently restore the original New Testament.<br /> <br /> == Patristic citations ==<br /> <br /> Another common claim is that the New Testament could be reconstructed from quotations by the Church Fathers. These citations are useful, but they are not a simple path to the autograph.<br /> <br /> The list of “Fathers” used in textual criticism extends across centuries and includes writers from different regions and theological camps. This makes their testimony useful but mixed, not a simple recovered copy of the original New Testament.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 59–83.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Larry W. Hurtado notes that only a few explicit citations of New Testament writings are found in second-century Christian authors, and even those often show curious differences from the dominant manuscript text.&lt;ref&gt;Larry W. Hurtado, “The New Testament in the Second Century: Text, Collections and Canon,” in J. W. Childers and D. C. Parker, eds., ''Transmission and Reception: New Testament Text-Critical and Exegetical Studies'' (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006), 14–15.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> William L. Petersen observed that second-century Gospel citations show widespread harmonization, extra-canonical material mixed with canonical material, altered sequences, many variants, and vaguer parallels as one moves earlier into the second century.&lt;ref&gt;William L. Petersen, “The Genesis of the Gospels,” in A. Denaux, ed., ''New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis'' (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 54–55.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Patristic citations therefore confirm that the early Gospel tradition was living and textually complex. They do not provide a clean independent reconstruction of the original text.<br /> <br /> == Critical editions and reconstruction ==<br /> <br /> The modern printed Greek New Testament is a critical reconstruction. Textual critics compare manuscript variants and choose readings according to scholarly criteria. This means that the printed Greek New Testament is not identical to any one surviving ancient manuscript.<br /> <br /> A modern critical edition is not a newly discovered original Bible. It is a scholarly text produced through editorial judgment.<br /> <br /> The process relies on external and internal evidence. External evidence considers matters such as the date and character of manuscripts, geographical distribution, text-types, and the relationships between witnesses. Internal evidence considers transcriptional probabilities — what scribes were likely to do — and intrinsic probabilities — what the author was likely to write.&lt;ref&gt;Bruce M. Metzger, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), introduction.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> These principles are useful, but they are probabilistic. They do not give mathematical certainty.<br /> <br /> For example, earlier manuscripts are generally more important than later manuscripts, but an early manuscript may still preserve a corrupted reading, while a later manuscript may preserve an older and more reliable reading. A geographically widespread reading may be more likely to be original than a reading preserved in only one area, but this also remains a probability judgment.&lt;ref&gt;Metzger, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', introduction.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Internal evidence is likewise probabilistic. A more difficult reading may be preferred because scribes often smoothed difficult readings, but this principle cannot be applied mechanically. Sometimes a difficult reading may simply be the result of scribal error. Likewise, shorter readings may be preferred in some cases, but scribes also omitted material accidentally or intentionally.&lt;ref&gt;Metzger, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', introduction.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> William L. Petersen states that modern critical editions do not present the text current in 150, 120, or 100 CE, much less 80 CE.&lt;ref&gt;William Lawrence Petersen and Jan Krans, ''Patristic and Text-Critical Studies: The Collected Essays of William L. Petersen'' (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 410.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament apparatus also shows the extent of uncertainty in textual decisions. E. J. Edwards noted that in UBS3 and UBS4, 48.6% of rated variation units were marked “difficult” and 10.4% “extremely doubtful,” meaning that approximately 59% of rated variants were doubtful in some degree.&lt;ref&gt;E. J. Edwards, “On Using the Textual Apparatus of the UBS Greek New Testament,” ''The Bible Translator'' 28 (1977): 122.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The UBS ratings themselves show this:<br /> <br /> * '''A''' — virtual certainty;<br /> * '''B''' — some degree of doubt;<br /> * '''C''' — considerable degree of doubt;<br /> * '''D''' — very high degree of doubt.<br /> <br /> A critical edition is therefore not a manuscript handed down from Jesus or the apostles. It is a modern scholarly reconstruction built from competing witnesses and probability judgments.<br /> <br /> == Textus Receptus, Byzantine text, and modern critical text ==<br /> <br /> Different printed Greek New Testaments do not always contain the same text.<br /> <br /> The Textus Receptus is the Greek text associated with Erasmus and later Protestant editions. It stands behind the King James Version and related translations. Modern critical editions, however, are based on a different approach and rely heavily on earlier Alexandrian witnesses, along with broader comparison of manuscript evidence.<br /> <br /> Westcott and Hort’s 1881 Greek New Testament marked a major shift. Their text differed considerably from the manuscripts used by Erasmus, and they argued that the Byzantine text had been edited and was inferior to earlier Alexandrian witnesses.&lt;ref&gt;David Alan Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide'', 30.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Modern English translations such as the NASB, NIV, RSV, and NRSV generally follow a text much closer to Westcott and Hort than to Erasmus. The major exception is the New King James Version, which is based on the Textus Receptus.&lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', 31.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Major differences between the Textus Receptus and modern critical texts include the omission or addition of substantial passages such as:<br /> <br /> * Matthew 16:2b–3;<br /> * Mark 16:9–20;<br /> * Luke 22:19b–20, 43–44;<br /> * John 7:53–8:11;<br /> * 1 John 5:7–8.<br /> <br /> They also include shorter additions or omissions such as:<br /> <br /> * Matthew 6:13;<br /> * Matthew 17:21;<br /> * Matthew 18:11;<br /> * Matthew 21:44;<br /> * Mark 9:44, 46;<br /> * Luke 9:56;<br /> * Acts 8:37;<br /> * Romans 16:24.<br /> &lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', 31.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This shows that the issue is not merely spelling or punctuation. The Greek text underlying one Bible translation may differ from the Greek text underlying another in passages that readers can see in the printed Bible itself.<br /> <br /> == Significant and theological variants ==<br /> <br /> Some textual variants affect Christian theology, liturgy, or interpretation.<br /> <br /> Examples include John 1:18, where manuscripts differ between readings such as “only Son,” “only God,” and related forms.&lt;ref&gt;Philip W. Comfort, ''New Testament Text and Translation Commentary'' (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2008), discussion of John 1:18.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Another example is John 1:3–4, where punctuation and wording affect whether the text says that what came into being “in him was life.”&lt;ref&gt;Comfort, ''New Testament Text and Translation Commentary'', discussion of John 1:3–4.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Transfiguration accounts also show variation in the heavenly declaration: Matthew 17:5, Mark 9:7, and Luke 9:35 preserve related but distinct wording.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, Four Core Points section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Luke 3:22 is also textually significant because some witnesses preserve a form of the heavenly voice saying, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you,” while other witnesses have the more familiar wording.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', discussion of Luke 3:22.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Other famous examples include Mark 16:9–20, John 7:53–8:11, Acts 8:37, Matthew 6:13, and 1 John 5:7–8. These passages are disputed, omitted, bracketed, or footnoted in many modern Bibles because of manuscript evidence.&lt;ref&gt;Black, ''New Testament Textual Criticism'', 31, 60–61.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> These examples show why textual criticism is not a minor issue. Variant readings can affect how passages are translated, interpreted, preached, and used in doctrine.<br /> <br /> == The Gospels as shaped tradition ==<br /> <br /> The Gospels should not be treated as stenographic transcripts of Jesus.<br /> <br /> Ehrman states that the Gospels contain discrepancies, contradictions, embellishments, and historical problems, and that they cannot be taken at face value as straightforward historically reliable accounts in every detail.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Wilson likewise describes the Gospel narratives as highly creative works written for audiences far removed from Jesus’ original Galilean and Jewish setting. Each Gospel constructs its own portrait of Jesus for its own audience.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> David C. Parker argues that what we have in the Gospel tradition is a collection of interpretive rewritings of a tradition. He states that the concept of a Gospel as fixed in shape, authoritative, and final as a piece of literature must be abandoned.&lt;ref&gt;David C. Parker, ''The Living Text of the Gospels'' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Parker’s point is not that the Gospels are useless. Rather, the Gospels must be understood as living textual traditions that were transmitted, interpreted, rewritten, and stabilized over time.<br /> <br /> == Paul, Jewish Christianity, and later Christian theology ==<br /> <br /> The New Testament does not preserve one simple, uncontested continuation of Jesus’ original setting. The earliest Jesus movement was Jewish, while later Christian literature increasingly reflects Gentile, Greek-speaking, and Roman imperial contexts.<br /> <br /> Some scholars note tensions between Matthew’s presentation of Jesus and Pauline theology. In Matthew 5:17–20, Jesus is presented as affirming the abiding validity of the Torah, while Paul’s letters often argue that Gentile believers are not bound to the Mosaic law in the same way.&lt;ref&gt;Ulrich Luz, ''Matthew 1–7: A Commentary'', Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), discussion of Matthew 5:17–20.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This does not mean every New Testament text teaches the same theology in the same way. Rather, the New Testament reflects multiple early Christian voices, controversies, and attempts to interpret Jesus after his departure.<br /> <br /> From an Islamic perspective, this supports the need to distinguish between the revelation given to Jesus and later Christian theological developments about Jesus.<br /> <br /> == “Very words” and “voice” of Jesus ==<br /> <br /> Daniel B. Wallace distinguishes between the very words of Jesus and the very voice of Jesus, using the terms ''ipsissima verba'' and ''ipsissima vox''. He states that only rarely can scholars say that they possess the exact words of Jesus, though they may have confidence that some material reflects the “voice” of Jesus.&lt;ref&gt;Daniel B. Wallace, “Five More Myths about Bible Translations and the Transmission of the Text,” 28 December 2012.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This distinction matters because even conservative Christian scholars may admit that the Gospels often preserve the message, gist, or theological presentation of Jesus rather than exact verbal transcripts.<br /> <br /> == Muslim evaluation ==<br /> <br /> The Muslim position is not that Allah never revealed scripture to Jews and Christians. Rather, Islam affirms that Allah revealed the Tawrat and the Injīl, while denying that the present Bible is identical to those original revelations.<br /> <br /> The Bible today is a collection of later textual traditions, translations, manuscript families, canon decisions, and critical reconstructions. The Old Testament is preserved through later witnesses such as the Masoretic tradition, Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Dead Sea Scrolls. The New Testament is preserved through later manuscripts, ancient versions, patristic citations, variants, and critical editions.<br /> <br /> The central issue is not merely whether some authentic material remains. The issue is whether the Bible available today is identical to the original revelation given by Allah to Moses and Jesus. From the Islamic perspective, it is not.<br /> <br /> The Bibles may contain truth, remnants of revelation, historical material, wisdom, and reports about prophets. However, it is not the original Tawrat or the original Injīl in pure form.<br /> <br /> The Muslim objection is therefore not merely that “variants exist.” The deeper objection is cumulative:<br /> * the Bible is not one single agreed text;<br /> * the Old Testament exists through later textual traditions, not original autographs;<br /> * the New Testament is not the Injīl revealed to Jesus;<br /> * the Gospels were written decades after Jesus, anonymously, in Greek, and for later communities;<br /> * the canon formed through later Christian dispute and selection;<br /> * no original New Testament manuscript survives;<br /> * the extant manuscripts contain accidental and intentional variants;<br /> * modern critical editions are scholarly reconstructions, not ancient autographs;<br /> * some variants affect translation, interpretation, liturgy, and doctrine.<br /> <br /> In sum, there is a serious difference between believing that scripture was originally revealed by God and claiming that the present Biblical text is a perfectly preserved copy of that original revelation.<br /> <br /> For this reason, Muslims affirm the original revelations given by Allah while judging the present Bible by the Qur’an, not judging the Qur’an by the present Bible.<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Bible]]<br /> [[Category:Christianity]]<br /> [[Category:Judaism]]<br /> [[Category:Islam and Christianity]]<br /> [[Category:People of the Book]]<br /> [[Category:Scripture]]<br /> [[Category:Textual criticism]]</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Bible&diff=53 2026-05-29T22:31:10Z

<p>TheIslampill: </p> <hr /> <div>'''The Bible''' is the name commonly given to the collection of scriptures used by Jews and Christians. From an Islamic perspective, the Bible must be distinguished from the original revelation that Allah gave to His prophets.<br /> <br /> Islam acknowledges that scripture was given to Christians and Jews; they are called '''Ahl al-Kitāb''' — the People of the Book. However, the disagreement begins with the very understanding of what “the Bible” is.<br /> <br /> To the Muslim, the '''Tawrat''' was given to Moses and the '''Injīl''' was given to the Messiah. This is as the Qur’an says:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “Indeed, We revealed the Torah, containing guidance and light…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:44.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> And:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah. And We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:46.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> The Qur’an presents the Injīl as a scripture given to the Messiah from God, just as the Tawrat was given to Moses from God. No Christian today believes that the New Testament was given by the Messiah to his disciples. The New Testament is therefore not identical to the Injīl.<br /> <br /> As Muslims, we believe that Christians and Jews today do not possess the original Torah or the original Gospel in their pure revealed form.<br /> <br /> == Qur'anic criticism of textual corruption ==<br /> <br /> The Qur’an criticizes those who wrote scripture with their own hands and then claimed it was from God:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “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…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 2:79.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> The Qur’an also states that some from the People of the Book altered words from their proper places:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “So for their breaking of the covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their proper usages…” &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:13.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This is not merely a Muslim claim asserted without evidence. The textual history of the Old and New Testaments shows that “the Bible” is not one simple, unchanged text that all Jews and Christians have always possessed in a single stable form.<br /> <br /> == Which Bible? ==<br /> <br /> One of the first problems is the question: which Old Testament and which New Testament is meant?<br /> <br /> Examples of Old Testament textual traditions and sources include:<br /> <br /> * the Greek Septuagint;<br /> * the Hebrew Vorlage behind the Septuagint;<br /> * the Masoretic Text;<br /> * the Samaritan Pentateuch;<br /> * the Dead Sea Scrolls / Qumran scrolls;<br /> * the source or sources behind the Greek Septuagint.<br /> <br /> Examples of New Testament canons, manuscripts, or printed critical editions include:<br /> <br /> * Marcion’s canon;<br /> * Tatian’s ''Diatessaron'';<br /> * Codex Sinaiticus;<br /> * Codex Vaticanus;<br /> * Codex Alexandrinus;<br /> * Codex Bezae;<br /> * Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus;<br /> * Codex Washingtonianus;<br /> * the Textus Receptus;<br /> * Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament;<br /> * Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament editions;<br /> * United Bible Societies Greek New Testament editions.<br /> <br /> The problem is that there is no one simple “Biblical text” that all Christians or Jews have agreed upon across history. What is called the Bible today is a collected and translated text based on multiple textual traditions, manuscript witnesses, canons, and scholarly editorial decisions.<br /> <br /> == The Old Testament text ==<br /> <br /> The Old Testament text is not available today in its original autographs.<br /> <br /> Ernst Würthwein notes that with ancient writings, including the writings of the Old and New Testaments, the original documents have been lost, and the available texts exist only in copies separated from the originals by centuries and by an unknown number of intermediate copies.&lt;ref&gt;Ernst Würthwein, ''The Text of the Old Testament'', trans. Erroll F. Rhodes, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The copying process itself creates textual problems. A word may be missed or repeated; words may be transposed or replaced; and even scribal correction may introduce further corruption. Therefore, before interpretation, the text itself must first be established by comparing the available witnesses.&lt;ref&gt;Würthwein, ''The Text of the Old Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Those witnesses are not all equally reliable. Each has its own character and its own individual history, so a textual witness cannot simply be treated as a neutral copy of the original.&lt;ref&gt;Würthwein, ''The Text of the Old Testament'', xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Masoretic Text also should not be imagined as one perfect master copy of the original Old Testament. Roy E. Beacham argues that no such thing as “the Masoretic text” or one single Masoretic text actually exists, and that no single “master copy” of the entire Old Testament corpus exists today.&lt;ref&gt;Roy E. Beacham, “The Old Testament Text and the Version Debate,” in Roy E. Beacham and Kevin T. Bauder, eds., ''One Bible Only? Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible'' (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001), 64–65.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Beacham further argues that even if Jewish scribes had produced a master copy in the first century, there is no evidence that such a text was ever accepted, much less portrayed, as a perfect replica of the originals.&lt;ref&gt;Beacham, “The Old Testament Text and the Version Debate,” 64–65.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Old Testament as possessed today is therefore mediated through later textual families, recensions, manuscript traditions, and scholarly reconstruction.<br /> <br /> == The New Testament and the Injīl ==<br /> <br /> The New Testament is not the Injīl that Muslims believe was given to Jesus. The Qur’an describes the Injīl as revelation given to the Messiah. The New Testament, by contrast, is a later collection of writings about Jesus, his followers, and early Christian communities.<br /> <br /> The New Testament did not exist during the lifetime of Jesus. The writings of Paul came after Jesus, and the canonical Gospels were written later still.<br /> <br /> Bart D. Ehrman states that most scholars date Mark to around 65–70 CE, Matthew and Luke to around 80–85 CE, and John to around 90–95 CE.&lt;ref&gt;Bart D. Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee'' (New York: HarperOne, 2014), section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This places the canonical Gospels decades after Jesus. They were not written as transcripts, meeting minutes, or stenographic records of his ministry. They were written after stories about Jesus had circulated through communities, languages, theological disputes, preaching contexts, and oral transmission.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Barrie Wilson likewise warns against treating the Gospel writings as if they were direct reports or “student notes” from the time of Jesus. They are later literary compositions written for later audiences.&lt;ref&gt;Barrie A. Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah: Unlocking the Psalms of Solomon and Humanity’s Quest for a Savior''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Gospel development ==<br /> <br /> A simplified roadmap of Gospel development can be summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> individual sayings about Jesus and from Jesus → sayings collections and sayings Gospels → narrative miracle literature → canonical and non-canonical Gospels.<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, notes dated 25 November 2025, “Summary Roadmap of Gospel Development.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This means that Gospel literature developed through sayings, memories, traditions, narrative shaping, miracle stories, theological interpretation, and manuscript transmission before arriving in the later forms known today.<br /> <br /> The earliest layers of Jesus tradition are often identified with sayings material. Sources such as the Gospel of Thomas and the hypothetical Q source do not center the crucifixion and resurrection in the way the later canonical Gospels do.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The first canonical Gospel is usually identified as Mark. Later Gospels such as Matthew and Luke are commonly understood to have used Mark as one of their sources.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah''; Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Gospel of Mark is not a strict biography in the modern sense. It is closer to a structured theological narrative built around miracle material, conflict material, and proclamation. Some summaries of Gospel development compare Mark’s miracle-oriented narrative to ancient miracle-story literature or aretalogy rather than to modern biography.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> According to the same summary, Mark includes three miracle sets: water miracles, healing miracles, and feeding miracles. The other canonical Gospels build upon, reorder, expand, and theologically shape earlier material.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Unknown sources and oral transmission ==<br /> <br /> The Gospel writers do not name the sources behind their narratives in the way modern historians normally cite sources. They do not identify named eyewitness chains for each episode, nor do they explain how each unit of tradition passed from the event to the written account.<br /> <br /> Ehrman argues that the authors were not eyewitnesses, did not write in the same language as Jesus, and were not from the same Palestinian environment. The Gospel writers wrote in Greek, while Jesus and his earliest followers were Aramaic-speaking Jews in Palestine.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Gospel traditions circulated orally before being written down. Stories told from person to person, community to community, and city to city naturally change as they are retold. Ehrman compares this to the normal process by which oral stories become altered, expanded, shortened, or reshaped in transmission.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Wilson makes a similar point: the Gospels were written decades after the events they narrate, in a different linguistic and cultural setting, and after major historical disruptions in Judea. This creates a historical gap between Jesus’ original Galilean ministry and the later Gospel portraits of Jesus.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This does not mean the Gospels contain no memory of Jesus. It means they must be read as late theological-literary works shaped by transmission, not as direct eyewitness transcripts.<br /> <br /> == Anonymous authorship and later attribution ==<br /> <br /> The four canonical Gospels were originally published anonymously. That is, the texts themselves do not name their authors.<br /> <br /> Dale B. Martin notes that the four Gospels were published anonymously, not pseudonymously: they were not written under false names, but rather with no authors’ names attached. Later titles were attached to them, but the titles themselves are not historical proof of authorship.&lt;ref&gt;Dale B. Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Martin also notes that Papias and other early Christians preserved traditions about Gospel authorship, but modern scholars doubt many of these traditions, including the claims that Mark wrote Peter’s version, Matthew compiled Matthew, Luke wrote as a disciple of Paul, and John son of Zebedee wrote John.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ehrman argues that the later attributions are difficult because Jesus’ followers were lower-class Aramaic-speaking Jews, whereas the Gospel authors were highly educated Greek-speaking Christians of a later generation, writing in a different language, in different parts of the world, and at a later time.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The traditional names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John therefore belong to later ecclesiastical attribution, not to authorial self-identification inside the Gospel texts themselves.<br /> <br /> == Did the Gospel authors validate one another? ==<br /> <br /> There is no evidence that the claimed authors of the canonical Gospels personally validated one another’s Gospels. There is also no evidence that they exegeted or commented upon each other’s Gospel texts as a fixed four-Gospel canon during their own lifetimes.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Instead, the Gospels show literary dependence, reuse of material, differences in sequence, theological shaping, and later harmonizing activity by scribes and interpreters.<br /> <br /> Origen, in his commentary on John, acknowledged that the Gospel writers sometimes changed place, time, or sequence in order to preserve a spiritual or theological aim, even where the material presentation differed.&lt;ref&gt;Origen, ''Commentary on the Gospel of John'', Book X.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The need for later harmonization itself shows that Christians inherited multiple Gospel narratives with tensions and differences. The problem was not solved by preserved authorial commentary from Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, but by later interpretation, canon formation, and theological reading.<br /> <br /> == Canon formation ==<br /> <br /> The New Testament canon did not appear all at once.<br /> <br /> Dale B. Martin identifies Marcion, in the first half of the second century, as the first known Christian leader to produce something close to an authoritative list of accepted Christian writings.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Marcion selected a form of Luke and a collection of Pauline letters. He rejected the Old Testament and believed that other apostles had adulterated the pristine Gospel taught by Jesus by introducing “judaizing” tendencies.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Martin notes that this is the first known attempt in Christianity to identify particular writings as an authoritative list of accepted Christian scripture and to reject others as not belonging to that list.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The second century contained many different kinds of Christianity, and the later boundaries between “orthodoxy” and “heresy” were not yet fixed in the way they would be in later centuries.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Some second-century Christian writers argued that the Church should accept four Gospels because they believed those Gospels were connected to real apostles: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This was partly a response to Marcion’s selection of only Luke.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Tatian’s ''Diatessaron'' also shows another response to Gospel plurality: rather than preserving the four Gospels separately, it wove them into a single harmonized narrative.&lt;ref&gt;Sami Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God: The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament and the Qur’an in Light of Textual and Historical Criticism'' (Minneapolis: Thoughts of Light Publishing, 2013), 53–54.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The four-Gospel canon was therefore not simply handed down in complete form from Jesus. It emerged through later Christian disputes, preferences, exclusions, harmonizations, and attempts to identify which writings should count as Christian scripture.<br /> <br /> == Earliest Gospel manuscripts ==<br /> <br /> There are no complete first-century manuscripts of the canonical Gospels. The earliest surviving fragments are small and fragmentary.<br /> <br /> For Matthew, an early witness is 𝔓77, commonly dated to the 2nd–3rd century CE, containing Matthew 13:55–56 and 14:3–5.&lt;ref&gt;H. A. G. Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'' (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2025), xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For Mark, one possible early witness is 𝔓137, dated by some to the 2nd–3rd century CE, containing Mark 1:7–9; another important witness is 𝔓45, usually dated to the 3rd century CE, containing fragments of Mark.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For Luke, an early witness is 𝔓75, commonly dated to the 3rd–4th century CE, containing Luke 3:18–15:10.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For John, an early witness is 𝔓52, commonly dated to the 2nd–3rd century CE, containing John 18:31–33 and 18:37–38.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Even on optimistic dating, the manuscript evidence is fragmentary. The canonical Gospels are not supported by complete first-century manuscript copies. The manuscript trail begins with small fragments, while fuller witnesses come later.<br /> <br /> == Titles and names in the manuscript tradition ==<br /> <br /> The names of the Gospel authors were not necessarily circulated with the earliest Gospel manuscripts.<br /> <br /> One summary of the manuscript evidence notes that the earliest Gospel fragment with a title may be associated with Matthew and dates to the third century, while names of Gospel authors were added to Codex Sinaiticus by a corrector between the fourth and sixth centuries.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, Four Core Points section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This supports the distinction between the Gospel texts themselves and later title traditions. The presence of familiar Gospel names in later manuscripts does not prove that those names were attached from the beginning.<br /> <br /> == The problem of the “original text” ==<br /> <br /> Modern textual criticism does not simply print “the original New Testament.” It attempts to reconstruct an earlier attainable text by comparing surviving witnesses.<br /> <br /> The issue is not whether the present New Testament contains any early material. The issue is whether the exact original wording of the New Testament books can be identified with certainty.<br /> <br /> Michael W. Holmes argues that the traditional goal of restoring the “original text” needs reconsideration because the term “original text” is itself ambiguous and because the history of textual transmission deserves study in its own right.&lt;ref&gt;Michael W. Holmes, “From ‘Original Text’ to ‘Initial Text’: The Traditional Goal of New Testament Textual Criticism in Contemporary Discussion.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Eldon J. Epp likewise argues that the phrase “original text” is multivalent and far more complex than earlier scholars assumed, since the problem includes canon, authority, language, oral tradition, pre-literary tradition, source criticism, compositional stages, and textual variants.&lt;ref&gt;Eldon J. Epp, “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ in New Testament Textual Criticism,” ''Harvard Theological Review'' 92, no. 3 (1999): 246–247.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Because of this, some scholars speak more cautiously of the “initial text” or the “earliest attainable text,” rather than confidently claiming direct access to the autographs.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 13–14.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == The obscure zone ==<br /> <br /> A major issue in New Testament textual criticism is the dark early period between the writing of the texts and the earliest substantial manuscript witnesses.<br /> <br /> This early period includes uncertainty about authorship, revision, early reception, circulation, and early translations.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 15.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ernest C. Colwell stated that without knowledge of the history of the text, the original reading cannot be established.&lt;ref&gt;Ernest C. Colwell, “The Greek New Testament with a Limited Critical Apparatus: Its Nature and Uses,” in Allen Paul Wikgren and David Edward Aune, eds., ''Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature'' (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 37.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Eberhard Nestle noted that the disappearance of the originals is understandable because much of the New Testament, especially the Epistles, consisted of occasional writings not originally intended for broad publication, while other writings had limited circulation.&lt;ref&gt;Eberhard Nestle, ''Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament'', trans. William Edie (Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1901), 29.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This early obscurity matters because later manuscript agreement cannot automatically prove that the text was perfectly stable from the moment of composition.<br /> <br /> == Greek manuscripts and the numbers argument ==<br /> <br /> Christian apologists often appeal to the large number of New Testament manuscripts. The number is important, but the raw number by itself can mislead.<br /> <br /> Michael W. Holmes notes that the common appeal to thousands of manuscripts is misleading if it does not mention that approximately eighty-five percent of those manuscripts were copied in the eleventh century or later, over a millennium after the writing of the New Testament. He adds that as one gets closer to the origin of the New Testament, manuscript evidence becomes increasingly scarce.&lt;ref&gt;Michael W. Holmes, “Text and Transmission in the Second Century,” in Robert B. Stewart, ed., ''The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace in Dialogue'' (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 61.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The closer one moves toward the date of composition, the fewer and smaller the manuscript witnesses become. The earliest evidence often consists of scraps rather than full books.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 38–39.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The existence of many later manuscripts does not by itself identify the earliest reading. As textual critics often say, manuscripts must be weighed, not merely counted.&lt;ref&gt;Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, ''The Text of the New Testament'', trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 280–281.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Early papyri and textual fluidity ==<br /> <br /> The early papyri do not simply solve the problem of the original text. They provide valuable evidence, but they are incomplete, fragmentary, and textually varied.<br /> <br /> Philip W. Comfort acknowledged that Mark, the earliest canonical Gospel and a major source for Matthew and Luke, is not preserved in many early manuscripts. He also stated that 𝔓45, the earliest copy of Mark, is “not a very faithful copy” and that the scribe took many liberties, reproducing more the thought of the exemplar than the exact words.&lt;ref&gt;Philip W. Comfort, ''The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament'' (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 107.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Kenneth W. Clark concluded that 𝔓75, an early third-century papyrus, portrays a fluid state of the text around 200 CE, and that such scribal freedom suggests the Gospel text was little more stable than oral tradition.&lt;ref&gt;Kenneth W. Clark, “The Theological Relevance of Textual Variation in Current Criticism of the Greek New Testament,” ''Journal of Biblical Literature'' 85, no. 1 (1966): 15.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Colwell described the earliest period of the New Testament manuscript tradition as “wild,” “uncontrolled,” and “unedited.”&lt;ref&gt;Ernest C. Colwell, “Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program,” in ''Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament'' (Leiden: Brill, 1969), 164.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The early papyri therefore witness to an early textual situation that was fluid, varied, and difficult to reduce to a single unquestionably original form.<br /> <br /> == Versions and translations ==<br /> <br /> Textual critics also use ancient versions — translations of the New Testament into languages such as Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. These are useful witnesses, but they do not solve the problem of the original text.<br /> <br /> No version claims to be copied from the autograph. No version is identical to the modern critical text. The versions themselves witness to different text-types and divergent readings.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 52.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Diatessaron of Tatian, an early Gospel harmony, combines Gospel material into a single narrative, but no original copy survives, its original language is disputed, and its method of harmonization prevents it from simply preserving the exact text of the four canonical Gospels.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 53–54.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Old Latin versions show significant diversity. Jerome complained that there were almost as many forms of the text as manuscripts, and Metzger described the Old Latin as a living creation that was constantly growing.&lt;ref&gt;Bruce M. Metzger, ''The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), 325.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Coptic witnesses likewise appear late and varied, with early transmission remaining fluid and haphazard.&lt;ref&gt;Frederik Wisse, “The Coptic Versions of the New Testament,” in Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, eds., ''The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 133.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ancient versions help textual critics compare forms of the text, but they cannot independently restore the original New Testament.<br /> <br /> == Patristic citations ==<br /> <br /> Another common claim is that the New Testament could be reconstructed from quotations by the Church Fathers. These citations are useful, but they are not a simple path to the autograph.<br /> <br /> The list of “Fathers” used in textual criticism extends across centuries and includes writers from different regions and theological camps. This makes their testimony useful but mixed, not a simple recovered copy of the original New Testament.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 59–83.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Larry W. Hurtado notes that only a few explicit citations of New Testament writings are found in second-century Christian authors, and even those often show curious differences from the dominant manuscript text.&lt;ref&gt;Larry W. Hurtado, “The New Testament in the Second Century: Text, Collections and Canon,” in J. W. Childers and D. C. Parker, eds., ''Transmission and Reception: New Testament Text-Critical and Exegetical Studies'' (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006), 14–15.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> William L. Petersen observed that second-century Gospel citations show widespread harmonization, extra-canonical material mixed with canonical material, altered sequences, many variants, and vaguer parallels as one moves earlier into the second century.&lt;ref&gt;William L. Petersen, “The Genesis of the Gospels,” in A. Denaux, ed., ''New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis'' (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 54–55.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Patristic citations therefore confirm that the early Gospel tradition was living and textually complex. They do not provide a clean independent reconstruction of the original text.<br /> <br /> == Critical editions and reconstruction ==<br /> <br /> The modern printed Greek New Testament is a critical reconstruction. Textual critics compare manuscript variants and choose readings according to scholarly criteria. This means that the printed Greek New Testament is not identical to any one surviving ancient manuscript.<br /> <br /> William L. Petersen states that modern critical editions do not present the text current in 150, 120, or 100 CE, much less 80 CE.&lt;ref&gt;William Lawrence Petersen and Jan Krans, ''Patristic and Text-Critical Studies: The Collected Essays of William L. Petersen'' (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 410.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament apparatus also shows the extent of uncertainty in textual decisions. E. J. Edwards noted that in UBS3 and UBS4, 48.6% of rated variation units were marked “difficult” and 10.4% “extremely doubtful,” meaning that approximately 59% of rated variants were doubtful in some degree.&lt;ref&gt;E. J. Edwards, “On Using the Textual Apparatus of the UBS Greek New Testament,” ''The Bible Translator'' 28 (1977): 122.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> A new critical edition is therefore not a newly discovered original Bible. It is a scholarly reconstruction produced by comparing variant readings and selecting preferred readings according to critical criteria.<br /> <br /> This is why the phrase “the Greek New Testament” can refer not to a single manuscript that existed in antiquity, but to an editorial reconstruction produced through comparison of many manuscript witnesses.<br /> <br /> == Theological variants ==<br /> <br /> Some textual variants affect Christian theology and belief.<br /> <br /> Examples include John 1:18, where manuscripts differ between readings such as “only Son,” “only God,” and related forms.&lt;ref&gt;Philip W. Comfort, ''New Testament Text and Translation Commentary'' (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2008), discussion of John 1:18.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Another example is John 1:3–4, where punctuation and wording affect whether the text says that what came into being “in him was life.”&lt;ref&gt;Comfort, ''New Testament Text and Translation Commentary'', discussion of John 1:3–4.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Transfiguration accounts also show variation in the heavenly declaration: Matthew 17:5, Mark 9:7, and Luke 9:35 preserve related but distinct wording.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, Four Core Points section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Luke 3:22 is also textually significant because some witnesses preserve a form of the heavenly voice saying, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you,” while other witnesses have the more familiar wording.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', discussion of Luke 3:22.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> These examples show why textual criticism is not a minor issue. Variant readings can affect how passages are understood doctrinally.<br /> <br /> == The Gospels as shaped tradition ==<br /> <br /> The Gospels should not be treated as stenographic transcripts of Jesus.<br /> <br /> Ehrman states that the Gospels contain discrepancies, contradictions, embellishments, and historical problems, and that they cannot be taken at face value as straightforward historically reliable accounts in every detail.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Wilson likewise describes the Gospel narratives as highly creative works written for audiences far removed from Jesus’ original Galilean and Jewish setting. Each Gospel constructs its own portrait of Jesus for its own audience.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> David C. Parker argues that what we have in the Gospel tradition is a collection of interpretive rewritings of a tradition. He states that the concept of a Gospel as fixed in shape, authoritative, and final as a piece of literature must be abandoned.&lt;ref&gt;David C. Parker, ''The Living Text of the Gospels'' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Parker’s point is not that the Gospels are useless. Rather, the Gospels must be understood as living textual traditions that were transmitted, interpreted, rewritten, and stabilized over time.<br /> <br /> == “Very words” and “voice” of Jesus ==<br /> <br /> Daniel B. Wallace distinguishes between the very words of Jesus and the very voice of Jesus, using the terms ''ipsissima verba'' and ''ipsissima vox''. He states that only rarely can scholars say that they possess the exact words of Jesus, though they may have confidence that some material reflects the “voice” of Jesus.&lt;ref&gt;Daniel B. Wallace, “Five More Myths about Bible Translations and the Transmission of the Text,” 28 December 2012.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This distinction matters because even conservative Christian scholars may admit that the Gospels often preserve the message, gist, or theological presentation of Jesus rather than exact verbal transcripts.<br /> <br /> == Muslim evaluation ==<br /> <br /> The Muslim position is not that Allah never revealed scripture to Jews and Christians. Rather, Islam affirms that Allah revealed the Tawrat and the Injīl, while denying that the present Bible is identical to those original revelations.<br /> <br /> The Bible today is a collection of later textual traditions, translations, manuscript families, canon decisions, and critical reconstructions. The Old Testament is preserved through later witnesses such as the Masoretic tradition, Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Dead Sea Scrolls. The New Testament is preserved through later manuscripts, ancient versions, patristic citations, variants, and critical editions.<br /> <br /> The central issue is not merely whether some authentic material remains. The issue is whether the Bible available today is identical to the original revelation given by Allah to Moses and Jesus. From the Islamic perspective, it is not.<br /> <br /> The Bible may contain truth, remnants of revelation, historical material, wisdom, and reports about prophets, but it is not the original Tawrat or the original Injīl in pure form.<br /> <br /> In sum, there is a serious difference between believing that scripture was originally revealed by God and claiming that the present Biblical text is a perfectly preserved copy of that original revelation.<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Bible]]<br /> [[Category:Christianity]]<br /> [[Category:Judaism]]<br /> [[Category:Islam and Christianity]]<br /> [[Category:People of the Book]]<br /> [[Category:Scripture]]<br /> [[Category:Textual criticism]]</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Bible&diff=52 2026-05-29T22:30:22Z

<p>TheIslampill: </p> <hr /> <div>'''The Bible''' is the name commonly given to the collection of scriptures used by Jews and Christians. From an Islamic perspective, the Bible must be distinguished from the original revelation that Allah gave to His prophets.<br /> <br /> Islam acknowledges that scripture was given to Christians and Jews; they are called '''Ahl al-Kitāb''' — the People of the Book. However, the disagreement begins with the very understanding of what “the Bible” is.<br /> <br /> To the Muslim, the '''Tawrat''' was given to Moses and the '''Injīl''' was given to the Messiah. This is as the Qur’an says:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “Indeed, We revealed the Torah, containing guidance and light…”<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:44.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> And:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah. And We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light…”<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:46.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Qur’an presents the Injīl as a scripture given to the Messiah from God, just as the Tawrat was given to Moses from God. No Christian today believes that the New Testament was given by the Messiah to his disciples. The New Testament is therefore not identical to the Injīl.<br /> <br /> As Muslims, we believe that Christians and Jews today do not possess the original Torah or the original Gospel in their pure revealed form.<br /> <br /> == Qur'anic criticism of textual corruption ==<br /> <br /> The Qur’an criticizes those who wrote scripture with their own hands and then claimed it was from God:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “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…”<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 2:79.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Qur’an also states that some from the People of the Book altered words from their proper places:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “So for their breaking of the covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their proper usages…”<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:13.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This is not merely a Muslim claim asserted without evidence. The textual history of the Old and New Testaments shows that “the Bible” is not one simple, unchanged text that all Jews and Christians have always possessed in a single stable form.<br /> <br /> == Which Bible? ==<br /> <br /> One of the first problems is the question: which Old Testament and which New Testament is meant?<br /> <br /> Examples of Old Testament textual traditions and sources include:<br /> <br /> * the Greek Septuagint;<br /> * the Hebrew Vorlage behind the Septuagint;<br /> * the Masoretic Text;<br /> * the Samaritan Pentateuch;<br /> * the Dead Sea Scrolls / Qumran scrolls;<br /> * the source or sources behind the Greek Septuagint.<br /> <br /> Examples of New Testament canons, manuscripts, or printed critical editions include:<br /> <br /> * Marcion’s canon;<br /> * Tatian’s ''Diatessaron'';<br /> * Codex Sinaiticus;<br /> * Codex Vaticanus;<br /> * Codex Alexandrinus;<br /> * Codex Bezae;<br /> * Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus;<br /> * Codex Washingtonianus;<br /> * the Textus Receptus;<br /> * Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament;<br /> * Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament editions;<br /> * United Bible Societies Greek New Testament editions.<br /> <br /> The problem is that there is no one simple “Biblical text” that all Christians or Jews have agreed upon across history. What is called the Bible today is a collected and translated text based on multiple textual traditions, manuscript witnesses, canons, and scholarly editorial decisions.<br /> <br /> == The Old Testament text ==<br /> <br /> The Old Testament text is not available today in its original autographs.<br /> <br /> Ernst Würthwein notes that with ancient writings, including the writings of the Old and New Testaments, the original documents have been lost, and the available texts exist only in copies separated from the originals by centuries and by an unknown number of intermediate copies.&lt;ref&gt;Ernst Würthwein, ''The Text of the Old Testament'', trans. Erroll F. Rhodes, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The copying process itself creates textual problems. A word may be missed or repeated; words may be transposed or replaced; and even scribal correction may introduce further corruption. Therefore, before interpretation, the text itself must first be established by comparing the available witnesses.&lt;ref&gt;Würthwein, ''The Text of the Old Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Those witnesses are not all equally reliable. Each has its own character and its own individual history, so a textual witness cannot simply be treated as a neutral copy of the original.&lt;ref&gt;Würthwein, ''The Text of the Old Testament'', xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Masoretic Text also should not be imagined as one perfect master copy of the original Old Testament. Roy E. Beacham argues that no such thing as “the Masoretic text” or one single Masoretic text actually exists, and that no single “master copy” of the entire Old Testament corpus exists today.&lt;ref&gt;Roy E. Beacham, “The Old Testament Text and the Version Debate,” in Roy E. Beacham and Kevin T. Bauder, eds., ''One Bible Only? Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible'' (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001), 64–65.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Beacham further argues that even if Jewish scribes had produced a master copy in the first century, there is no evidence that such a text was ever accepted, much less portrayed, as a perfect replica of the originals.&lt;ref&gt;Beacham, “The Old Testament Text and the Version Debate,” 64–65.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Old Testament as possessed today is therefore mediated through later textual families, recensions, manuscript traditions, and scholarly reconstruction.<br /> <br /> == The New Testament and the Injīl ==<br /> <br /> The New Testament is not the Injīl that Muslims believe was given to Jesus. The Qur’an describes the Injīl as revelation given to the Messiah. The New Testament, by contrast, is a later collection of writings about Jesus, his followers, and early Christian communities.<br /> <br /> The New Testament did not exist during the lifetime of Jesus. The writings of Paul came after Jesus, and the canonical Gospels were written later still.<br /> <br /> Bart D. Ehrman states that most scholars date Mark to around 65–70 CE, Matthew and Luke to around 80–85 CE, and John to around 90–95 CE.&lt;ref&gt;Bart D. Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee'' (New York: HarperOne, 2014), section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This places the canonical Gospels decades after Jesus. They were not written as transcripts, meeting minutes, or stenographic records of his ministry. They were written after stories about Jesus had circulated through communities, languages, theological disputes, preaching contexts, and oral transmission.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Barrie Wilson likewise warns against treating the Gospel writings as if they were direct reports or “student notes” from the time of Jesus. They are later literary compositions written for later audiences.&lt;ref&gt;Barrie A. Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah: Unlocking the Psalms of Solomon and Humanity’s Quest for a Savior''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Gospel development ==<br /> <br /> A simplified roadmap of Gospel development can be summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> individual sayings about Jesus and from Jesus → sayings collections and sayings Gospels → narrative miracle literature → canonical and non-canonical Gospels.<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, notes dated 25 November 2025, “Summary Roadmap of Gospel Development.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This means that Gospel literature developed through sayings, memories, traditions, narrative shaping, miracle stories, theological interpretation, and manuscript transmission before arriving in the later forms known today.<br /> <br /> The earliest layers of Jesus tradition are often identified with sayings material. Sources such as the Gospel of Thomas and the hypothetical Q source do not center the crucifixion and resurrection in the way the later canonical Gospels do.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The first canonical Gospel is usually identified as Mark. Later Gospels such as Matthew and Luke are commonly understood to have used Mark as one of their sources.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah''; Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Gospel of Mark is not a strict biography in the modern sense. It is closer to a structured theological narrative built around miracle material, conflict material, and proclamation. Some summaries of Gospel development compare Mark’s miracle-oriented narrative to ancient miracle-story literature or aretalogy rather than to modern biography.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> According to the same summary, Mark includes three miracle sets: water miracles, healing miracles, and feeding miracles. The other canonical Gospels build upon, reorder, expand, and theologically shape earlier material.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Unknown sources and oral transmission ==<br /> <br /> The Gospel writers do not name the sources behind their narratives in the way modern historians normally cite sources. They do not identify named eyewitness chains for each episode, nor do they explain how each unit of tradition passed from the event to the written account.<br /> <br /> Ehrman argues that the authors were not eyewitnesses, did not write in the same language as Jesus, and were not from the same Palestinian environment. The Gospel writers wrote in Greek, while Jesus and his earliest followers were Aramaic-speaking Jews in Palestine.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Gospel traditions circulated orally before being written down. Stories told from person to person, community to community, and city to city naturally change as they are retold. Ehrman compares this to the normal process by which oral stories become altered, expanded, shortened, or reshaped in transmission.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Wilson makes a similar point: the Gospels were written decades after the events they narrate, in a different linguistic and cultural setting, and after major historical disruptions in Judea. This creates a historical gap between Jesus’ original Galilean ministry and the later Gospel portraits of Jesus.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This does not mean the Gospels contain no memory of Jesus. It means they must be read as late theological-literary works shaped by transmission, not as direct eyewitness transcripts.<br /> <br /> == Anonymous authorship and later attribution ==<br /> <br /> The four canonical Gospels were originally published anonymously. That is, the texts themselves do not name their authors.<br /> <br /> Dale B. Martin notes that the four Gospels were published anonymously, not pseudonymously: they were not written under false names, but rather with no authors’ names attached. Later titles were attached to them, but the titles themselves are not historical proof of authorship.&lt;ref&gt;Dale B. Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Martin also notes that Papias and other early Christians preserved traditions about Gospel authorship, but modern scholars doubt many of these traditions, including the claims that Mark wrote Peter’s version, Matthew compiled Matthew, Luke wrote as a disciple of Paul, and John son of Zebedee wrote John.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ehrman argues that the later attributions are difficult because Jesus’ followers were lower-class Aramaic-speaking Jews, whereas the Gospel authors were highly educated Greek-speaking Christians of a later generation, writing in a different language, in different parts of the world, and at a later time.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The traditional names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John therefore belong to later ecclesiastical attribution, not to authorial self-identification inside the Gospel texts themselves.<br /> <br /> == Did the Gospel authors validate one another? ==<br /> <br /> There is no evidence that the claimed authors of the canonical Gospels personally validated one another’s Gospels. There is also no evidence that they exegeted or commented upon each other’s Gospel texts as a fixed four-Gospel canon during their own lifetimes.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Instead, the Gospels show literary dependence, reuse of material, differences in sequence, theological shaping, and later harmonizing activity by scribes and interpreters.<br /> <br /> Origen, in his commentary on John, acknowledged that the Gospel writers sometimes changed place, time, or sequence in order to preserve a spiritual or theological aim, even where the material presentation differed.&lt;ref&gt;Origen, ''Commentary on the Gospel of John'', Book X.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The need for later harmonization itself shows that Christians inherited multiple Gospel narratives with tensions and differences. The problem was not solved by preserved authorial commentary from Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, but by later interpretation, canon formation, and theological reading.<br /> <br /> == Canon formation ==<br /> <br /> The New Testament canon did not appear all at once.<br /> <br /> Dale B. Martin identifies Marcion, in the first half of the second century, as the first known Christian leader to produce something close to an authoritative list of accepted Christian writings.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Marcion selected a form of Luke and a collection of Pauline letters. He rejected the Old Testament and believed that other apostles had adulterated the pristine Gospel taught by Jesus by introducing “judaizing” tendencies.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Martin notes that this is the first known attempt in Christianity to identify particular writings as an authoritative list of accepted Christian scripture and to reject others as not belonging to that list.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The second century contained many different kinds of Christianity, and the later boundaries between “orthodoxy” and “heresy” were not yet fixed in the way they would be in later centuries.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Some second-century Christian writers argued that the Church should accept four Gospels because they believed those Gospels were connected to real apostles: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This was partly a response to Marcion’s selection of only Luke.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Tatian’s ''Diatessaron'' also shows another response to Gospel plurality: rather than preserving the four Gospels separately, it wove them into a single harmonized narrative.&lt;ref&gt;Sami Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God: The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament and the Qur’an in Light of Textual and Historical Criticism'' (Minneapolis: Thoughts of Light Publishing, 2013), 53–54.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The four-Gospel canon was therefore not simply handed down in complete form from Jesus. It emerged through later Christian disputes, preferences, exclusions, harmonizations, and attempts to identify which writings should count as Christian scripture.<br /> <br /> == Earliest Gospel manuscripts ==<br /> <br /> There are no complete first-century manuscripts of the canonical Gospels. The earliest surviving fragments are small and fragmentary.<br /> <br /> For Matthew, an early witness is 𝔓77, commonly dated to the 2nd–3rd century CE, containing Matthew 13:55–56 and 14:3–5.&lt;ref&gt;H. A. G. Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'' (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2025), xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For Mark, one possible early witness is 𝔓137, dated by some to the 2nd–3rd century CE, containing Mark 1:7–9; another important witness is 𝔓45, usually dated to the 3rd century CE, containing fragments of Mark.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For Luke, an early witness is 𝔓75, commonly dated to the 3rd–4th century CE, containing Luke 3:18–15:10.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For John, an early witness is 𝔓52, commonly dated to the 2nd–3rd century CE, containing John 18:31–33 and 18:37–38.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Even on optimistic dating, the manuscript evidence is fragmentary. The canonical Gospels are not supported by complete first-century manuscript copies. The manuscript trail begins with small fragments, while fuller witnesses come later.<br /> <br /> == Titles and names in the manuscript tradition ==<br /> <br /> The names of the Gospel authors were not necessarily circulated with the earliest Gospel manuscripts.<br /> <br /> One summary of the manuscript evidence notes that the earliest Gospel fragment with a title may be associated with Matthew and dates to the third century, while names of Gospel authors were added to Codex Sinaiticus by a corrector between the fourth and sixth centuries.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, Four Core Points section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This supports the distinction between the Gospel texts themselves and later title traditions. The presence of familiar Gospel names in later manuscripts does not prove that those names were attached from the beginning.<br /> <br /> == The problem of the “original text” ==<br /> <br /> Modern textual criticism does not simply print “the original New Testament.” It attempts to reconstruct an earlier attainable text by comparing surviving witnesses.<br /> <br /> The issue is not whether the present New Testament contains any early material. The issue is whether the exact original wording of the New Testament books can be identified with certainty.<br /> <br /> Michael W. Holmes argues that the traditional goal of restoring the “original text” needs reconsideration because the term “original text” is itself ambiguous and because the history of textual transmission deserves study in its own right.&lt;ref&gt;Michael W. Holmes, “From ‘Original Text’ to ‘Initial Text’: The Traditional Goal of New Testament Textual Criticism in Contemporary Discussion.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Eldon J. Epp likewise argues that the phrase “original text” is multivalent and far more complex than earlier scholars assumed, since the problem includes canon, authority, language, oral tradition, pre-literary tradition, source criticism, compositional stages, and textual variants.&lt;ref&gt;Eldon J. Epp, “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ in New Testament Textual Criticism,” ''Harvard Theological Review'' 92, no. 3 (1999): 246–247.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Because of this, some scholars speak more cautiously of the “initial text” or the “earliest attainable text,” rather than confidently claiming direct access to the autographs.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 13–14.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == The obscure zone ==<br /> <br /> A major issue in New Testament textual criticism is the dark early period between the writing of the texts and the earliest substantial manuscript witnesses.<br /> <br /> This early period includes uncertainty about authorship, revision, early reception, circulation, and early translations.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 15.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ernest C. Colwell stated that without knowledge of the history of the text, the original reading cannot be established.&lt;ref&gt;Ernest C. Colwell, “The Greek New Testament with a Limited Critical Apparatus: Its Nature and Uses,” in Allen Paul Wikgren and David Edward Aune, eds., ''Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature'' (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 37.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Eberhard Nestle noted that the disappearance of the originals is understandable because much of the New Testament, especially the Epistles, consisted of occasional writings not originally intended for broad publication, while other writings had limited circulation.&lt;ref&gt;Eberhard Nestle, ''Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament'', trans. William Edie (Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1901), 29.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This early obscurity matters because later manuscript agreement cannot automatically prove that the text was perfectly stable from the moment of composition.<br /> <br /> == Greek manuscripts and the numbers argument ==<br /> <br /> Christian apologists often appeal to the large number of New Testament manuscripts. The number is important, but the raw number by itself can mislead.<br /> <br /> Michael W. Holmes notes that the common appeal to thousands of manuscripts is misleading if it does not mention that approximately eighty-five percent of those manuscripts were copied in the eleventh century or later, over a millennium after the writing of the New Testament. He adds that as one gets closer to the origin of the New Testament, manuscript evidence becomes increasingly scarce.&lt;ref&gt;Michael W. Holmes, “Text and Transmission in the Second Century,” in Robert B. Stewart, ed., ''The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace in Dialogue'' (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 61.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The closer one moves toward the date of composition, the fewer and smaller the manuscript witnesses become. The earliest evidence often consists of scraps rather than full books.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 38–39.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The existence of many later manuscripts does not by itself identify the earliest reading. As textual critics often say, manuscripts must be weighed, not merely counted.&lt;ref&gt;Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, ''The Text of the New Testament'', trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 280–281.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Early papyri and textual fluidity ==<br /> <br /> The early papyri do not simply solve the problem of the original text. They provide valuable evidence, but they are incomplete, fragmentary, and textually varied.<br /> <br /> Philip W. Comfort acknowledged that Mark, the earliest canonical Gospel and a major source for Matthew and Luke, is not preserved in many early manuscripts. He also stated that 𝔓45, the earliest copy of Mark, is “not a very faithful copy” and that the scribe took many liberties, reproducing more the thought of the exemplar than the exact words.&lt;ref&gt;Philip W. Comfort, ''The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament'' (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 107.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Kenneth W. Clark concluded that 𝔓75, an early third-century papyrus, portrays a fluid state of the text around 200 CE, and that such scribal freedom suggests the Gospel text was little more stable than oral tradition.&lt;ref&gt;Kenneth W. Clark, “The Theological Relevance of Textual Variation in Current Criticism of the Greek New Testament,” ''Journal of Biblical Literature'' 85, no. 1 (1966): 15.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Colwell described the earliest period of the New Testament manuscript tradition as “wild,” “uncontrolled,” and “unedited.”&lt;ref&gt;Ernest C. Colwell, “Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program,” in ''Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament'' (Leiden: Brill, 1969), 164.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The early papyri therefore witness to an early textual situation that was fluid, varied, and difficult to reduce to a single unquestionably original form.<br /> <br /> == Versions and translations ==<br /> <br /> Textual critics also use ancient versions — translations of the New Testament into languages such as Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. These are useful witnesses, but they do not solve the problem of the original text.<br /> <br /> No version claims to be copied from the autograph. No version is identical to the modern critical text. The versions themselves witness to different text-types and divergent readings.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 52.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Diatessaron of Tatian, an early Gospel harmony, combines Gospel material into a single narrative, but no original copy survives, its original language is disputed, and its method of harmonization prevents it from simply preserving the exact text of the four canonical Gospels.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 53–54.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Old Latin versions show significant diversity. Jerome complained that there were almost as many forms of the text as manuscripts, and Metzger described the Old Latin as a living creation that was constantly growing.&lt;ref&gt;Bruce M. Metzger, ''The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), 325.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Coptic witnesses likewise appear late and varied, with early transmission remaining fluid and haphazard.&lt;ref&gt;Frederik Wisse, “The Coptic Versions of the New Testament,” in Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, eds., ''The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 133.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ancient versions help textual critics compare forms of the text, but they cannot independently restore the original New Testament.<br /> <br /> == Patristic citations ==<br /> <br /> Another common claim is that the New Testament could be reconstructed from quotations by the Church Fathers. These citations are useful, but they are not a simple path to the autograph.<br /> <br /> The list of “Fathers” used in textual criticism extends across centuries and includes writers from different regions and theological camps. This makes their testimony useful but mixed, not a simple recovered copy of the original New Testament.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 59–83.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Larry W. Hurtado notes that only a few explicit citations of New Testament writings are found in second-century Christian authors, and even those often show curious differences from the dominant manuscript text.&lt;ref&gt;Larry W. Hurtado, “The New Testament in the Second Century: Text, Collections and Canon,” in J. W. Childers and D. C. Parker, eds., ''Transmission and Reception: New Testament Text-Critical and Exegetical Studies'' (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006), 14–15.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> William L. Petersen observed that second-century Gospel citations show widespread harmonization, extra-canonical material mixed with canonical material, altered sequences, many variants, and vaguer parallels as one moves earlier into the second century.&lt;ref&gt;William L. Petersen, “The Genesis of the Gospels,” in A. Denaux, ed., ''New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis'' (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 54–55.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Patristic citations therefore confirm that the early Gospel tradition was living and textually complex. They do not provide a clean independent reconstruction of the original text.<br /> <br /> == Critical editions and reconstruction ==<br /> <br /> The modern printed Greek New Testament is a critical reconstruction. Textual critics compare manuscript variants and choose readings according to scholarly criteria. This means that the printed Greek New Testament is not identical to any one surviving ancient manuscript.<br /> <br /> William L. Petersen states that modern critical editions do not present the text current in 150, 120, or 100 CE, much less 80 CE.&lt;ref&gt;William Lawrence Petersen and Jan Krans, ''Patristic and Text-Critical Studies: The Collected Essays of William L. Petersen'' (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 410.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament apparatus also shows the extent of uncertainty in textual decisions. E. J. Edwards noted that in UBS3 and UBS4, 48.6% of rated variation units were marked “difficult” and 10.4% “extremely doubtful,” meaning that approximately 59% of rated variants were doubtful in some degree.&lt;ref&gt;E. J. Edwards, “On Using the Textual Apparatus of the UBS Greek New Testament,” ''The Bible Translator'' 28 (1977): 122.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> A new critical edition is therefore not a newly discovered original Bible. It is a scholarly reconstruction produced by comparing variant readings and selecting preferred readings according to critical criteria.<br /> <br /> This is why the phrase “the Greek New Testament” can refer not to a single manuscript that existed in antiquity, but to an editorial reconstruction produced through comparison of many manuscript witnesses.<br /> <br /> == Theological variants ==<br /> <br /> Some textual variants affect Christian theology and belief.<br /> <br /> Examples include John 1:18, where manuscripts differ between readings such as “only Son,” “only God,” and related forms.&lt;ref&gt;Philip W. Comfort, ''New Testament Text and Translation Commentary'' (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2008), discussion of John 1:18.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Another example is John 1:3–4, where punctuation and wording affect whether the text says that what came into being “in him was life.”&lt;ref&gt;Comfort, ''New Testament Text and Translation Commentary'', discussion of John 1:3–4.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Transfiguration accounts also show variation in the heavenly declaration: Matthew 17:5, Mark 9:7, and Luke 9:35 preserve related but distinct wording.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, Four Core Points section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Luke 3:22 is also textually significant because some witnesses preserve a form of the heavenly voice saying, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you,” while other witnesses have the more familiar wording.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', discussion of Luke 3:22.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> These examples show why textual criticism is not a minor issue. Variant readings can affect how passages are understood doctrinally.<br /> <br /> == The Gospels as shaped tradition ==<br /> <br /> The Gospels should not be treated as stenographic transcripts of Jesus.<br /> <br /> Ehrman states that the Gospels contain discrepancies, contradictions, embellishments, and historical problems, and that they cannot be taken at face value as straightforward historically reliable accounts in every detail.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Wilson likewise describes the Gospel narratives as highly creative works written for audiences far removed from Jesus’ original Galilean and Jewish setting. Each Gospel constructs its own portrait of Jesus for its own audience.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> David C. Parker argues that what we have in the Gospel tradition is a collection of interpretive rewritings of a tradition. He states that the concept of a Gospel as fixed in shape, authoritative, and final as a piece of literature must be abandoned.&lt;ref&gt;David C. Parker, ''The Living Text of the Gospels'' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Parker’s point is not that the Gospels are useless. Rather, the Gospels must be understood as living textual traditions that were transmitted, interpreted, rewritten, and stabilized over time.<br /> <br /> == “Very words” and “voice” of Jesus ==<br /> <br /> Daniel B. Wallace distinguishes between the very words of Jesus and the very voice of Jesus, using the terms ''ipsissima verba'' and ''ipsissima vox''. He states that only rarely can scholars say that they possess the exact words of Jesus, though they may have confidence that some material reflects the “voice” of Jesus.&lt;ref&gt;Daniel B. Wallace, “Five More Myths about Bible Translations and the Transmission of the Text,” 28 December 2012.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This distinction matters because even conservative Christian scholars may admit that the Gospels often preserve the message, gist, or theological presentation of Jesus rather than exact verbal transcripts.<br /> <br /> == Muslim evaluation ==<br /> <br /> The Muslim position is not that Allah never revealed scripture to Jews and Christians. Rather, Islam affirms that Allah revealed the Tawrat and the Injīl, while denying that the present Bible is identical to those original revelations.<br /> <br /> The Bible today is a collection of later textual traditions, translations, manuscript families, canon decisions, and critical reconstructions. The Old Testament is preserved through later witnesses such as the Masoretic tradition, Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Dead Sea Scrolls. The New Testament is preserved through later manuscripts, ancient versions, patristic citations, variants, and critical editions.<br /> <br /> The central issue is not merely whether some authentic material remains. The issue is whether the Bible available today is identical to the original revelation given by Allah to Moses and Jesus. From the Islamic perspective, it is not.<br /> <br /> The Bible may contain truth, remnants of revelation, historical material, wisdom, and reports about prophets, but it is not the original Tawrat or the original Injīl in pure form.<br /> <br /> In sum, there is a serious difference between believing that scripture was originally revealed by God and claiming that the present Biblical text is a perfectly preserved copy of that original revelation.<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Bible]]<br /> [[Category:Christianity]]<br /> [[Category:Judaism]]<br /> [[Category:Islam and Christianity]]<br /> [[Category:People of the Book]]<br /> [[Category:Scripture]]<br /> [[Category:Textual criticism]]</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Bible&diff=51 2026-05-29T22:25:24Z

<p>TheIslampill: </p> <hr /> <div>'''The Bible''' is the name commonly given to the collection of scriptures used by Jews and Christians. From an Islamic perspective, the Bible must be distinguished from the original revelation that Allah gave to His prophets.<br /> <br /> Islam acknowledges that scripture was given to Christians and Jews; they are called '''Ahl al-Kitāb''' — the People of the Book. However, the disagreement begins with the very understanding of what the Bible is.<br /> <br /> To the Muslim, the '''Tawrat''' was given to Moses and the '''Injīl''' was given to the Messiah. This is as the Qur’an says:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “Indeed, We revealed the Torah, containing guidance and light…”<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:44.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> And:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah. And We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light…”<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:46.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Qur’an explicitly presents the Injīl as a scripture given to the Messiah from God, just as the Tawrat was given to Moses from God. No Christian today believes that the New Testament was given by the Messiah to his disciples. These are therefore distinct books. The New Testament is not the Injīl.<br /> <br /> As Muslims, we believe that Christians and Jews today do not possess the original Torah or the original Gospel in their pure revealed form.<br /> <br /> == Qur'anic criticism of textual corruption ==<br /> <br /> The Qur’an criticizes those who wrote scripture with their own hands and then claimed it was from God:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “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…”<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 2:79.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Qur’an also states that some from the People of the Book altered words from their proper places:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “So for their breaking of the covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their proper usages…”<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:13.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This is not merely a Muslim assertion. The textual history of the Old and New Testaments themselves shows that “the Bible” is not a single simple text that all Jews and Christians have always possessed in one stable form.<br /> <br /> == Which Bible? ==<br /> <br /> One of the first problems is the question: which Old Testament and which New Testament is meant?<br /> <br /> Examples of Old Testament textual traditions and sources include:<br /> <br /> * the Greek Septuagint;<br /> * the Hebrew Vorlage behind the Septuagint;<br /> * the Masoretic Text;<br /> * the Samaritan Pentateuch;<br /> * the Dead Sea Scrolls / Qumran scrolls;<br /> * the source or sources behind the Greek Septuagint.<br /> <br /> Examples of New Testament canons, manuscripts, or printed critical editions include:<br /> <br /> * Marcion’s canon;<br /> * Tatian’s ''Diatessaron'';<br /> * Codex Sinaiticus;<br /> * Codex Vaticanus;<br /> * Codex Alexandrinus;<br /> * Codex Bezae;<br /> * Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus;<br /> * Codex Washingtonianus;<br /> * the Textus Receptus;<br /> * Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament;<br /> * Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament editions;<br /> * United Bible Societies Greek New Testament editions.<br /> <br /> The problem is that there is no one simple “Biblical text” that all Christians or Jews have agreed upon across history. What is called the Bible today is a collected and translated text based on multiple textual traditions, manuscript witnesses, canons, and scholarly editorial decisions.<br /> <br /> == The Old Testament text ==<br /> <br /> The Old Testament text is not available today in its original autographs.<br /> <br /> Ernst Würthwein explains that, with ancient writings including the Old and New Testaments, the original documents have been lost, and the available texts exist only in copies separated from the originals by centuries and by an unknown number of intermediate copies.&lt;ref&gt;Ernst Würthwein, ''The Text of the Old Testament'', trans. Erroll F. Rhodes, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Würthwein also notes that all such ancient writings have suffered through the process of copying: words can be missed, repeated, transposed, or replaced, and even attempted corrections can introduce further corruptions. Therefore the text to be interpreted must first be established through comparison of witnesses.&lt;ref&gt;Würthwein, ''The Text of the Old Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The available witnesses to the Old Testament text are not all equally reliable. Each has its own character and history, and must be examined in relation to the wider textual tradition.&lt;ref&gt;Würthwein, ''The Text of the Old Testament'', xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Masoretic Text should also not be imagined as one perfect master copy of the original Old Testament. Roy E. Beacham argues that “the Masoretic text” should not be perceived as a perfect copy of the originals because no such thing as one Masoretic text actually exists, and no single “master copy” of the entire Old Testament corpus exists today.&lt;ref&gt;Roy E. Beacham, “The Old Testament Text and the Version Debate,” in Roy E. Beacham and Kevin T. Bauder, eds., ''One Bible Only? Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible'' (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001), 64–65.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Beacham further argues that even if Jewish scribes had produced a master copy in the first century, there is no evidence that such a text was ever accepted, much less portrayed, as a perfect replica of the originals.&lt;ref&gt;Beacham, “The Old Testament Text and the Version Debate,” 64–65.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This means that the Old Testament, as possessed today, is transmitted through later textual families, recensions, manuscript traditions, and scholarly reconstruction.<br /> <br /> == The New Testament and the Injīl ==<br /> <br /> The New Testament is not the Injīl that Muslims believe was given to Jesus. The Qur’an describes the Injīl as revelation given to the Messiah. The New Testament, by contrast, is a later collection of writings about Jesus, his followers, and early Christian communities.<br /> <br /> The New Testament did not exist during the lifetime of Jesus. The writings of Paul began after Jesus, and the canonical Gospels were written later still.<br /> <br /> Bart D. Ehrman states that most scholars date Mark to around 65–70 CE, Matthew and Luke to around 80–85 CE, and John to around 90–95 CE.&lt;ref&gt;Bart D. Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee'' (New York: HarperOne, 2014), section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Barrie Wilson similarly warns against treating the four Gospel writings as transcripts or recordings made at the time of Jesus. They are not meeting minutes, documentary reports, or verbatim records of Jesus’ ministry.&lt;ref&gt;Barrie A. Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah: Unlocking the Psalms of Solomon and Humanity’s Quest for a Savior''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This matters because the Gospels were written decades after the events they narrate, in a different linguistic, social, political, and theological environment from the original ministry of Jesus.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Gospel development ==<br /> <br /> A simplified roadmap of Gospel development can be summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> individual sayings about Jesus and from Jesus → sayings collections and sayings Gospels → narrative miracle literature → canonical and non-canonical Gospels.<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This means that Gospel literature developed through sayings, memories, traditions, narrative shaping, theological interpretation, and manuscript transmission before arriving in the later forms known today.<br /> <br /> The first canonical Gospel to be written is usually identified as Mark. Later Gospels such as Matthew and Luke are commonly understood to have used Mark as one of their sources.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah''; Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Gospel of Mark is not a strict biography in the modern sense. Some summaries of Gospel development compare Mark’s miracle-oriented narrative to ancient miracle-story literature or aretalogy rather than to modern biography.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, notes dated 25 November 2025, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> According to the same summary, Mark contains three miracle sets: water miracles, healing miracles, and feeding miracles, while the other canonical Gospels build upon or respond to earlier Gospel material.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Anonymous authorship and later attribution ==<br /> <br /> The four canonical Gospels were originally published anonymously. That is, the texts themselves do not name their authors.<br /> <br /> Dale B. Martin notes that the four Gospels were published anonymously, not pseudonymously: they were not written under false names, but rather with no authors’ names attached. Later titles were attached to them, but the titles themselves are not the same as historical proof of authorship.&lt;ref&gt;Dale B. Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Martin also notes that Papias and other early Christians preserved traditions about Gospel authorship, but modern scholars doubt many of these traditions, including the claims that Mark wrote Peter’s version, Matthew compiled Matthew, Luke wrote as a disciple of Paul, and John son of Zebedee wrote John.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ehrman argues that the later attributions are difficult because Jesus’ followers were lower-class Aramaic-speaking Jews, whereas the Gospel authors were highly educated Greek-speaking Christians of a later generation, writing in a different language, in different places, and at a later time.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This does not mean the Gospels contain no historical memory. It means that they cannot be treated as direct eyewitness notebooks or first-person reports from the disciples.<br /> <br /> == Did the Gospel authors validate one another? ==<br /> <br /> There is no evidence that the claimed authors of the canonical Gospels personally validated one another’s Gospels. There is also no evidence that the claimed Gospel authors exegeted, commented upon, or authorized one another’s texts as a fixed four-Gospel canon during their own lifetimes.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Instead, the Gospels show literary dependence, reuse of earlier material, and later harmonizing activity by scribes and Christian interpreters. Differences between the Gospels were often handled by later harmonization, not by preserved authorial commentary from Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John themselves.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, FAQ section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Origen, in his commentary on John, acknowledged that Gospel writers sometimes changed place, time, or sequence in order to preserve a spiritual or theological aim, even where the material presentation differed.&lt;ref&gt;Origen, ''Commentary on the Gospel of John'', Book X.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Canon formation ==<br /> <br /> The New Testament canon did not appear all at once.<br /> <br /> Dale B. Martin identifies Marcion, in the first half of the second century, as the first known Christian leader to produce something close to an authoritative list of accepted Christian writings.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Marcion selected a form of Luke and a collection of Pauline letters. He rejected the Old Testament and believed that other apostles had adulterated the pristine Gospel taught by Jesus by introducing “judaizing” tendencies.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Martin notes that this is the first known attempt in Christianity to identify particular writings as an authoritative list of accepted Christian scripture and to reject others as not belonging to that list.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The second century contained many different kinds of Christianity, and the later boundaries between “orthodoxy” and “heresy” were not yet agreed upon in the way they would be in later centuries.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Some second-century Christian writers argued that the Church should accept four Gospels because they believed those Gospels were connected to real apostles: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This was partly a response to Marcion’s selection of only Luke.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The four-Gospel canon was therefore not simply handed down in complete form from Jesus. It emerged through later Christian disputes, preferences, arguments, exclusions, and attempts to identify which writings should count as Christian scripture.<br /> <br /> == Earliest Gospel manuscripts ==<br /> <br /> There are no complete first-century manuscripts of the canonical Gospels. The earliest surviving fragments are small and fragmentary.<br /> <br /> For Matthew, an early witness is 𝔓77, commonly dated to the 2nd–3rd century CE, containing Matthew 13:55–56 and 14:3–5.&lt;ref&gt;H. A. G. Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'' (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2025), xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For Mark, one possible early witness is 𝔓137, dated by some to the 2nd–3rd century CE, containing Mark 1:7–9; another important witness is 𝔓45, usually dated to the 3rd century CE, containing fragments of Mark.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For Luke, an early witness is 𝔓75, commonly dated to the 3rd–4th century CE, containing Luke 3:18–15:10.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> For John, an early witness is 𝔓52, commonly dated to the 2nd–3rd century CE, containing John 18:31–33 and 18:37–38.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Sami Ameri, summarizing the manuscript problem, notes that even on the more optimistic side, the only manuscripts Kurt and Barbara Aland dated to the second century were 𝔓52 and 𝔓90, both containing only small portions of John.&lt;ref&gt;Sami Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God: The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament and the Qur’an in Light of Textual and Historical Criticism'' (Minneapolis: Thoughts of Light Publishing, 2013), 46.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> It is therefore unreasonable to speak as if the canonical Gospels are supported by complete first-century manuscript evidence. The manuscript trail begins fragmentarily, and the fuller manuscript witnesses come later.<br /> <br /> == The problem of the “original text” ==<br /> <br /> Modern textual criticism does not simply print “the original New Testament.” It attempts to reconstruct an earlier attainable text by comparing surviving witnesses.<br /> <br /> Sami Ameri argues that the older Muslim-Christian debate has shifted. The question is no longer merely whether changes entered Christian scripture, but whether Christians have actually restored the original text after those changes.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 2–3.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ameri defines the problem of the “lost” original not as the claim that the present New Testament contains no authentic material, but as the loss of certainty that any given passage is exactly what the original author wrote.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 3.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Michael W. Holmes argues that the traditional goal of restoring the “original text” needs reconsideration because the term “original text” is itself ambiguous and because the history of textual transmission deserves study in its own right.&lt;ref&gt;Michael W. Holmes, “From ‘Original Text’ to ‘Initial Text’: The Traditional Goal of New Testament Textual Criticism in Contemporary Discussion,” cited in Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 10.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Eldon J. Epp likewise argues that the phrase “original text” is multivalent and far more complex than earlier scholars assumed, since the problem includes canon, authority, language, oral tradition, pre-literary tradition, source criticism, compositional stages, and textual variants.&lt;ref&gt;Eldon J. Epp, “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ in New Testament Textual Criticism,” ''Harvard Theological Review'' 92, no. 3 (1999): 246–247.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Because of this, some scholars speak more cautiously of the “initial text” or the “earliest attainable text,” rather than confidently claiming direct access to the autographs.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 13–14.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == The obscure zone ==<br /> <br /> A major issue in New Testament textual criticism is the dark early period between the writing of the texts and the earliest substantial manuscript witnesses.<br /> <br /> Ameri calls this the “obscure zone”: the period in which we lack secure knowledge about authorship, revision, early reception, circulation, and the early translations.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 15.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ernest C. Colwell stated that without knowledge of the history of the text, the original reading cannot be established.&lt;ref&gt;Ernest C. Colwell, “The Greek New Testament with a Limited Critical Apparatus: Its Nature and Uses,” in Allen Paul Wikgren and David Edward Aune, eds., ''Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature'' (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 37.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Eberhard Nestle also noted that the disappearance of the originals is understandable because much of the New Testament, especially the Epistles, consisted of occasional writings not originally intended for broad publication, while other writings had limited circulation.&lt;ref&gt;Eberhard Nestle, ''Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament'', trans. William Edie (Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1901), 29.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This obscure zone matters because if the earliest period of transmission is unknown, then later manuscript agreement cannot automatically prove that the text was perfectly stable from the moment of composition.<br /> <br /> == Greek manuscripts and the numbers argument ==<br /> <br /> Christian apologists often appeal to the large number of New Testament manuscripts. The number is important, but the raw number by itself can mislead.<br /> <br /> Michael W. Holmes notes that the common appeal to thousands of manuscripts is misleading if it does not mention that approximately eighty-five percent of those manuscripts were copied in the eleventh century or later, over a millennium after the writing of the New Testament. He adds that as one gets closer to the origin of the New Testament, manuscript evidence becomes increasingly scarce.&lt;ref&gt;Michael W. Holmes, “Text and Transmission in the Second Century,” in Robert B. Stewart, ed., ''The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace in Dialogue'' (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 61.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ameri emphasizes the same point: the closer one moves toward the date of composition, the fewer and smaller the manuscript witnesses become, with the earliest evidence often consisting of scraps rather than full books.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 38–39.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The existence of many later manuscripts does not by itself identify the earliest reading. As textual critics often say, manuscripts must be weighed, not merely counted.&lt;ref&gt;Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, ''The Text of the New Testament'', trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 280–281.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Early papyri and textual fluidity ==<br /> <br /> Some apologists argue that the early papyri allow reconstruction of the original New Testament. Ameri critiques this claim by noting that the early papyri do not provide complete coverage, and that their textual character is varied.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 45–48.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Philip W. Comfort himself acknowledged that Mark, the earliest canonical Gospel and a major source for Matthew and Luke, is not preserved in many early manuscripts. He also stated that 𝔓45, the earliest copy of Mark, is “not a very faithful copy” and that the scribe took many liberties.&lt;ref&gt;Philip W. Comfort, ''The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament'' (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 107.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Kenneth W. Clark concluded that 𝔓75, an early third-century papyrus, portrays a fluid state of the text around 200 CE, and that such scribal freedom suggests the Gospel text was little more stable than oral tradition.&lt;ref&gt;Kenneth W. Clark, “The Theological Relevance of Textual Variation in Current Criticism of the Greek New Testament,” ''Journal of Biblical Literature'' 85, no. 1 (1966): 15.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Colwell described the earliest period of the New Testament manuscript tradition as “wild,” “uncontrolled,” and “unedited.”&lt;ref&gt;Ernest C. Colwell, “Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program,” in ''Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament'' (Leiden: Brill, 1969), 164.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The early papyri therefore do not simply solve the problem. They witness to an early textual situation that was fluid, varied, and difficult to reduce to a single unquestionably original form.<br /> <br /> == Versions and translations ==<br /> <br /> Textual critics also use ancient versions — translations of the New Testament into languages such as Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. These are useful witnesses, but they do not solve the problem of the original text.<br /> <br /> Ameri summarizes the problem: no version claims to be copied from the autograph, no version is identical to the modern critical text, and versions themselves witness to different text-types and divergent readings.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 52.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Diatessaron of Tatian, an early Gospel harmony, is especially important. It combines Gospel material into a single narrative, but no original copy survives, its original language is disputed, and its method of harmonization prevents it from simply preserving the exact text of the four canonical Gospels.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 53–54.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Old Latin versions also show significant diversity. Jerome complained that there were almost as many forms of the text as manuscripts, and Metzger described the Old Latin as a living creation that was constantly growing.&lt;ref&gt;Bruce M. Metzger, ''The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), 325.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Coptic witnesses likewise appear late and varied, with early transmission remaining fluid and haphazard.&lt;ref&gt;Frederik Wisse, “The Coptic Versions of the New Testament,” in Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, eds., ''The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 133.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ancient versions help textual critics compare forms of the text, but they cannot independently restore the original New Testament.<br /> <br /> == Patristic citations ==<br /> <br /> Another common claim is that the New Testament could be reconstructed from quotations by the Church Fathers. These citations are useful, but they are not a simple path to the autograph.<br /> <br /> Ameri argues that patristic citations cannot bear the apologetic burden often placed upon them, since the citations come from authors across centuries, often cite loosely, sometimes harmonize, and themselves require textual criticism.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 59–83.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The list of “Fathers” used in textual criticism is broad and extends across centuries, including writers from different regions and theological camps. This makes their testimony useful but mixed, not a simple recovered copy of the original New Testament.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 60.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Larry W. Hurtado notes that only a few explicit citations of New Testament writings are found in second-century Christian authors, and even those often show curious differences from the dominant manuscript text.&lt;ref&gt;Larry W. Hurtado, “The New Testament in the Second Century: Text, Collections and Canon,” in J. W. Childers and D. C. Parker, eds., ''Transmission and Reception: New Testament Text-Critical and Exegetical Studies'' (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006), 14–15.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> William L. Petersen observed that second-century Gospel citations show widespread harmonization, extra-canonical material mixed with canonical material, altered sequences, many variants, and vaguer parallels as one moves earlier into the second century.&lt;ref&gt;William L. Petersen, “The Genesis of the Gospels,” in A. Denaux, ed., ''New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis'' (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 54–55.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Patristic citations therefore confirm that the early Gospel tradition was living and textually complex. They do not provide a clean independent reconstruction of the original text.<br /> <br /> == Critical editions and reconstruction ==<br /> <br /> The modern printed Greek New Testament is a critical reconstruction. Textual critics compare manuscript variants and choose readings according to scholarly criteria. This means that the printed Greek New Testament is not identical to any one surviving ancient manuscript.<br /> <br /> William L. Petersen states that modern critical editions do not present the text current in 150, 120, or 100 CE, much less 80 CE.&lt;ref&gt;William Lawrence Petersen and Jan Krans, ''Patristic and Text-Critical Studies: The Collected Essays of William L. Petersen'' (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 410.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament apparatus also shows the extent of uncertainty in textual decisions. E. J. Edwards noted that in UBS3 and UBS4, 48.6% of rated variation units were marked “difficult” and 10.4% “extremely doubtful,” meaning that approximately 59% of rated variants were doubtful in some degree.&lt;ref&gt;E. J. Edwards, “On Using the Textual Apparatus of the UBS Greek New Testament,” ''The Bible Translator'' 28 (1977): 122.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ameri uses this point to argue that the printed critical text is not merely a recovered original, but a scholarly product formed through difficult editorial judgments among variants.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 34–35.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This is why the phrase “the Greek New Testament” can refer not to a single manuscript that existed in antiquity, but to an editorial reconstruction produced through comparison of many manuscript witnesses.<br /> <br /> == Theological variants ==<br /> <br /> Some textual variants affect Christian theology and belief.<br /> <br /> Examples include John 1:18, where manuscripts differ between readings such as “only Son,” “only God,” and related forms.&lt;ref&gt;Philip W. Comfort, ''New Testament Text and Translation Commentary'' (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2008), discussion of John 1:18.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Another example is John 1:3–4, where punctuation and wording affect whether the text says that what came into being “in him was life.”&lt;ref&gt;Comfort, ''New Testament Text and Translation Commentary'', discussion of John 1:3–4.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Transfiguration accounts also show variation in the heavenly declaration: Matthew 17:5, Mark 9:7, and Luke 9:35 preserve related but distinct wording.&lt;ref&gt;Ijaz Ahmad, “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?”, Four Core Points section.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Luke 3:22 is also textually significant because some witnesses preserve a form of the heavenly voice saying, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you,” while other witnesses have the more familiar wording.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', discussion of Luke 3:22.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> These examples show why textual criticism is not a minor issue. Variant readings can affect how passages are understood doctrinally.<br /> <br /> == The Gospels as shaped tradition ==<br /> <br /> The Gospels should not be treated as stenographic transcripts of Jesus.<br /> <br /> Ehrman states that the Gospels contain discrepancies, contradictions, embellishments, and historical problems, and that they cannot be taken at face value as straightforward historically reliable accounts in every detail.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Wilson likewise says that the Gospel narratives are highly creative works written for audiences far removed from Jesus’ original Galilean and Jewish setting, and that each Gospel constructs its own portrait of Jesus.&lt;ref&gt;Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> David C. Parker argues that what we have in the Gospel tradition is a collection of interpretive rewritings of a tradition. He states that the concept of a Gospel as fixed in shape, authoritative, and final as a piece of literature must be abandoned.&lt;ref&gt;David C. Parker, ''The Living Text of the Gospels'' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Parker’s point is not that the Gospels are useless. Rather, the Gospels must be understood as living textual traditions that were transmitted, interpreted, rewritten, and stabilized over time.<br /> <br /> == “Very words” and “voice” of Jesus ==<br /> <br /> Daniel B. Wallace distinguishes between the very words of Jesus and the very voice of Jesus, using the terms ''ipsissima verba'' and ''ipsissima vox''. He states that only rarely can scholars say that they possess the exact words of Jesus, though they may have confidence that some material reflects the “voice” of Jesus.&lt;ref&gt;Daniel B. Wallace, “Five More Myths about Bible Translations and the Transmission of the Text,” 28 December 2012.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This distinction matters because even conservative Christian scholars may admit that the Gospels often preserve the message, gist, or theological presentation of Jesus rather than exact verbal transcripts.<br /> <br /> == Muslim evaluation ==<br /> <br /> The Muslim position is not that Allah never revealed scripture to Jews and Christians. Rather, Islam affirms that Allah revealed the Tawrat and the Injīl, while denying that the present Bible is identical to those original revelations.<br /> <br /> The Bible today is a collection of later textual traditions, translations, manuscript families, canon decisions, and critical reconstructions. The Old Testament is preserved through later witnesses such as the Masoretic tradition, Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Dead Sea Scrolls. The New Testament is preserved through later manuscripts, ancient versions, patristic citations, variants, and critical editions.<br /> <br /> Ameri argues that the challenge is no longer merely to prove that changes occurred in the Christian textual tradition, but to ask whether the original text has been recoverably restored after those changes.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 2–3.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> By contrast, Ameri argues that the Qur’an is transmitted through a different kind of textual history: oral recitation, communal memorization, early standardization, and manuscript evidence tied to the ʿUthmānic muṣḥaf.&lt;ref&gt;Ameri, ''Hunting for the Word of God'', 172–173.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Therefore, Muslims do not accept the Bible as a perfectly preserved scripture in the way Muslims accept the Qur’an. The Bible may contain truth, remnants of revelation, historical material, wisdom, and reports about prophets, but it is not the original Tawrat or the original Injīl in pure form.<br /> <br /> In sum, there is a serious difference between believing that scripture was originally revealed by God and claiming that the present Biblical text is a perfectly preserved copy of that original revelation.<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Bible]]<br /> [[Category:Christianity]]<br /> [[Category:Judaism]]<br /> [[Category:Islam and Christianity]]<br /> [[Category:People of the Book]]<br /> [[Category:Scripture]]<br /> [[Category:Textual criticism]]</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Bible&diff=50 2026-05-29T22:19:46Z

<p>TheIslampill: Created page with &quot;&#039;&#039;&#039;The Bible&#039;&#039;&#039; is the name commonly given to the collection of scriptures used by Jews and Christians. From an Islamic perspective, the Bible must be distinguished from the original revelation that Allah gave to His prophets. Islam acknowledges that scripture was given to the Christians and Jews; they are called &#039;&#039;&#039;Ahl al-Kitāb&#039;&#039;&#039; — the People of the Book. However, where Muslims disagree begins with the very understanding of what the Bible is. To the Muslim, the &#039;&#039;...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>'''The Bible''' is the name commonly given to the collection of scriptures used by Jews and Christians. From an Islamic perspective, the Bible must be distinguished from the original revelation that Allah gave to His prophets.<br /> <br /> Islam acknowledges that scripture was given to the Christians and Jews; they are called '''Ahl al-Kitāb''' — the People of the Book. However, where Muslims disagree begins with the very understanding of what the Bible is.<br /> <br /> To the Muslim, the '''Tawrat''' was given to Moses and the '''Injīl''' was given to the Messiah. This is as the Qur’an says:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “Indeed, We revealed the Torah, containing guidance and light…”<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:44.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> And:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah. And We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light…”<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:46.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Qur’an explicitly states that the Injīl was a scripture given to the Messiah from God, just as the Tawrat was given to Moses from God. No Christian today believes that the New Testament was given by the Messiah to his disciples. These are therefore distinct books. The New Testament is not the Injīl.<br /> <br /> As Muslims, we believe that Christians and Jews today do not have in their possession the original Torah or the original Gospel.<br /> <br /> == Qur'anic criticism of textual corruption ==<br /> <br /> The Qur’an criticizes those who wrote scripture with their own hands and then claimed it was from God:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “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…”<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 2:79.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Qur’an also states that some from the People of the Book altered words from their proper places:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “So for their breaking of the covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their proper usages…”<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;ref&gt;Qur’an 5:13.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This is not merely a Muslim claim asserted without evidence. The textual history of the Old and New Testaments themselves shows that “the Bible” is not a single simple text that all Jews and Christians have always possessed in one stable form.<br /> <br /> == Which Bible? ==<br /> <br /> One of the first problems is the question: which Old Testament and which New Testament is meant?<br /> <br /> Examples of Old Testament textual traditions and sources include:<br /> <br /> * the Greek Septuagint;<br /> * the Hebrew Vorlage behind the Septuagint;<br /> * the Masoretic Text;<br /> * the Samaritan Pentateuch;<br /> * the Dead Sea Scrolls / Qumran scrolls;<br /> * the sources behind the Greek Septuagint.<br /> <br /> Examples of New Testament canons, manuscripts, or printed critical editions include:<br /> <br /> * Marcion’s canon;<br /> * Tatian’s ''Diatessaron'';<br /> * Codex Sinaiticus;<br /> * Codex Vaticanus;<br /> * Codex Alexandrinus;<br /> * Codex Bezae;<br /> * Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus;<br /> * Codex Washingtonianus;<br /> * the Textus Receptus;<br /> * Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament;<br /> * Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament editions;<br /> * United Bible Societies Greek New Testament editions.<br /> <br /> The problem is that there is no one simple “Biblical text” that all Christians or Jews have agreed upon across history. What is called the Bible today is a collected and translated text based on multiple textual traditions and manuscript witnesses.<br /> <br /> == The Old Testament text ==<br /> <br /> The Old Testament text is not available today as the original autographs. Ernst Würthwein explains that, with ancient writings including the Old and New Testaments, the original documents have been lost, and the available texts exist only in copies separated from the originals by centuries and by an unknown number of intermediate copies.&lt;ref&gt;Ernst Würthwein, ''The Text of the Old Testament'', trans. Erroll F. Rhodes, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Würthwein also notes that the available witnesses to the Old Testament text must first be examined in order to reconstruct a text, and that textual witnesses are not all equally reliable, since each has its own character and history.&lt;ref&gt;Würthwein, ''The Text of the Old Testament'', xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Masoretic Text should also not be imagined as one perfect master copy of the original Old Testament. Roy E. Beacham argues that “the Masoretic text” is not one single perfect text, and that no single master copy of the entire Old Testament corpus exists today.&lt;ref&gt;Roy E. Beacham, “The Old Testament Text and the Version Debate,” in ''One Bible Only? Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible'', ed. Roy E. Beacham and Kevin T. Bauder (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001).&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This means that the Old Testament, as possessed today, is transmitted through later textual families, recensions, manuscript traditions, and scholarly reconstruction.<br /> <br /> == The New Testament and the Injīl ==<br /> <br /> The New Testament is not the Injīl that Muslims believe was given to Jesus. The Qur’an describes the Injīl as revelation given to the Messiah. The New Testament, by contrast, is a later collection of writings about Jesus, his followers, and early Christian communities.<br /> <br /> The New Testament did not exist during the lifetime of Jesus. The writings of Paul began after Jesus, and the canonical Gospels were written later still. Modern scholarship commonly dates the canonical Gospels to the latter part of the first century: Mark around 65–70 CE, Matthew and Luke later, and John around 90–95 CE.&lt;ref&gt;Bart D. Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee'' (New York: HarperOne, 2014), section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Gospel writings are not transcripts or recordings made at the time of Jesus. Barrie Wilson warns against treating the four Gospel writings as if they were direct transcripts or student notebooks from Jesus’ ministry.&lt;ref&gt;Barrie A. Wilson, ''Searching for the Messiah: Unlocking the Psalms of Solomon and Humanity’s Quest for a Savior''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Bart Ehrman similarly notes that the Gospels are not written by eyewitnesses, that the books are anonymous in the sense that their authors do not identify themselves in the texts, and that they circulated before later Christians attached the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to them.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Development of Gospel literature ==<br /> <br /> A simplified roadmap of Gospel development can be summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> individual sayings about Jesus and from Jesus → sayings collections and sayings Gospels → narrative miracle literature → canonical and non-canonical Gospels.<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This means that the Gospel literature developed through sayings, traditions, narrative shaping, theological interpretation, and manuscript transmission before arriving in the later forms known today.<br /> <br /> The first canonical Gospel to be written, Mark, is often treated by scholars as a foundation used by Matthew and Luke. The Gospel of Mark is not a strict biography in the modern sense, but contains structured miracle material and theological narrative.&lt;ref&gt;See the summary discussion in “How Did We Get the Four Gospels?” notes, citing Gospel development, Markan priority, and narrative miracle material.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Daniel Wallace distinguishes between the exact words of Jesus and the “voice” of Jesus, stating that only rarely can scholars claim to possess the very words of Jesus, though they may have more confidence in the general voice or message represented in the tradition.&lt;ref&gt;Daniel B. Wallace, “Five More Myths about Bible Translations and the Transmission of the Text,” 28 December 2012.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Anonymous publication and later attribution ==<br /> <br /> The four Gospels were published anonymously, meaning that the documents themselves do not name their authors. Later Christian tradition attached the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to them.<br /> <br /> Dale B. Martin notes that the Gospels were written anonymously and that modern scholars doubt many of the later traditions about their authorship.&lt;ref&gt;Dale B. Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Ehrman also argues that the later attributions are difficult because the followers of Jesus were lower-class Aramaic-speaking Jews, whereas the Gospel authors were highly educated Greek-speaking Christians of a later generation, writing in a different language, in different places, and at a later time.&lt;ref&gt;Ehrman, ''How Jesus Became God'', section “Problems with the Gospels.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Canon formation ==<br /> <br /> The New Testament canon did not appear all at once.<br /> <br /> Dale B. Martin identifies Marcion, in the first half of the second century, as the first known Christian leader to come up with something close to an authoritative list of accepted Christian writings. Marcion selected a version of Luke and letters of Paul, while rejecting other texts.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Martin also notes that the second century contained many different kinds of Christianity, and that the later boundaries between “orthodoxy” and “heresy” were not yet agreed upon in the way they would be in later centuries.&lt;ref&gt;Martin, ''New Testament History and Literature'', section “The Forming of Canon Lists.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The four-Gospel canon was therefore not simply handed down in a complete form from Jesus. It emerged through later Christian disputes, preferences, arguments, and attempts to identify which writings should count as Christian scripture.<br /> <br /> == Earliest Gospel manuscripts ==<br /> <br /> There are no complete first-century manuscripts of the canonical Gospels. The earliest surviving fragments are small and fragmentary.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Gospel<br /> ! Early manuscript witness<br /> ! Approximate date<br /> <br /> | ! Contents |<br /> | --------------------------------------------- |<br /> | Matthew |<br /> | 𝔓77 |<br /> | 2nd–3rd century CE |<br /> | Matthew 13:55–56 and 14:3–5 |<br /> | - |<br /> | Mark |<br /> | 𝔓137 / 𝔓45 |<br /> | 2nd–3rd century CE / 3rd century CE |<br /> | Mark 1:7–9; or fragments from Mark 4:36–12:28 |<br /> | - |<br /> | Luke |<br /> | 𝔓75 |<br /> | 3rd–4th century CE |<br /> | Luke 3:18–15:10 |<br /> | - |<br /> | John |<br /> | 𝔓52 |<br /> | 2nd–3rd century CE |<br /> | John 18:31–33 and 18:37–38 |<br /> | } |<br /> <br /> &lt;ref&gt;H. A. G. Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'' (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2025), xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The names of the Gospel authors were not necessarily circulated with the earliest manuscripts. The earliest Gospel fragment with a title may be associated with Matthew, and authorial names were added to some manuscripts by later correctors.&lt;ref&gt;Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', xiii–xiv.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Critical editions and reconstruction ==<br /> <br /> The modern printed Greek New Testament is a critical reconstruction. Textual critics compare manuscript variants and choose readings according to scholarly criteria. This means that the printed Greek New Testament is not identical to any one surviving ancient manuscript.<br /> <br /> William L. Petersen observed that modern critical editions do not give us the text current in 150, 120, or 100 CE, much less 80 CE.&lt;ref&gt;William Lawrence Petersen and Jan Krans, ''Patristic and Text-Critical Studies: The Collected Essays of William L. Petersen'' (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 410.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament apparatus also shows the extent of uncertainty in textual decisions. E. J. Edwards noted that, in UBS3 and UBS4, a large percentage of rated variant units were classified as doubtful or extremely doubtful.&lt;ref&gt;E. J. Edwards, “On Using the Textual Apparatus of the UBS Greek New Testament,” ''The Bible Translator'' 28, 122.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The result is that the New Testament used today is not a simple photocopy of an original apostolic document. It is an edited text reconstructed from variant manuscripts.<br /> <br /> == Textual variants and theology ==<br /> <br /> Some textual variants affect Christian theology and belief. Examples include:<br /> <br /> * John 1:18, where manuscripts differ between readings such as “only Son,” “only God,” and related forms;<br /> * John 1:3b–4a, where punctuation and wording affect whether life is described as coming through what was made;<br /> * the Transfiguration accounts, where the voice from heaven is expressed differently across Matthew, Mark, and Luke;<br /> * Luke 3:22, where some witnesses read, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.”<br /> <br /> &lt;ref&gt;See Houghton, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', xiii–xiv; Philip W. Comfort, ''New Testament Text and Translation Commentary''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> These examples show why textual criticism is not a minor issue. Variant readings can affect how passages are understood doctrinally.<br /> <br /> == The Gospels as shaped tradition ==<br /> <br /> Origen recognized that the Gospel writers sometimes arranged or changed material for theological purposes. In his commentary on John, he says that the writers sometimes dealt freely with things that happened differently, changing place, time, and sequence for spiritual aims.&lt;ref&gt;Origen, ''Commentary on the Gospel of John'', Book X.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> David C. Parker likewise argues that the Gospel tradition should not be imagined as fixed in one final shape from the beginning. He writes that the concept of a Gospel as “fixed in shape, authoritative, and final” has to be abandoned.&lt;ref&gt;David C. Parker, ''The Living Text of the Gospels'' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This does not mean the Gospels are useless as historical documents. It means they must be read as transmitted, interpreted, edited, and theologically shaped writings rather than as verbatim transcripts from Jesus.<br /> <br /> == Muslim conclusion ==<br /> <br /> The Muslim position is not that Allah never revealed scripture to Jews and Christians. Rather, Islam affirms that Allah revealed the Tawrat and the Injīl, while denying that the present Bible is identical to those original revelations.<br /> <br /> The Bible today is a collection of later textual traditions, translations, manuscript families, canon decisions, and critical reconstructions. The Old Testament is preserved through later witnesses such as the Masoretic tradition, Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Dead Sea Scrolls. The New Testament is preserved through later manuscripts, variants, and critical editions.<br /> <br /> Therefore, Muslims do not accept the Bible as a perfectly preserved scripture in the way Muslims accept the Qur’an. The Bible may contain truth, remnants of revelation, historical material, wisdom, and reports about prophets, but it is not the original Tawrat or the original Injīl in pure form.<br /> <br /> In sum, there is a serious difference between believing that scripture was originally revealed by God and claiming that the present Biblical text is a perfectly preserved copy of that original revelation.<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Bible]]<br /> [[Category:Christianity]]<br /> [[Category:Judaism]]<br /> [[Category:Islam and Christianity]]<br /> [[Category:People of the Book]]<br /> [[Category:Scripture]]<br /> [[Category:Textual criticism]]</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Fitrah&diff=49 2026-05-29T22:09:19Z

<p>TheIslampill: Created page with &quot;== What is the “Fiṭrah” (the innate human disposition)? == God has gifted human beings, instilling cognitive faculties to acquire &amp; understand true beliefs about Him. All mankind has an innate natural constitution (&lt;i&gt;fiṭrah&lt;/i&gt;) that urges them to recognize, know, and worship God. The Religion of the fiṭrah —of the sound human nature on which God has created us— is &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;Islam&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt;. The fiṭrah functions in tandem with other cognitive faculties to...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>== What is the “Fiṭrah” (the innate human disposition)? ==<br /> <br /> God has gifted human beings, instilling cognitive faculties to acquire &amp; understand true beliefs about Him.<br /> <br /> All mankind has an innate natural constitution (&lt;i&gt;fiṭrah&lt;/i&gt;) that urges them to recognize, know, and worship God.<br /> <br /> The Religion of the fiṭrah —of the sound human nature on which God has created us— is &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;Islam&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt;.<br /> <br /> The fiṭrah functions in tandem with other cognitive faculties to produce beliefs; when it functions properly, it triggers an immediate awareness of God within the heart/mind(&lt;i&gt;qalb&lt;/i&gt;).<br /> <br /> This awareness is produced by the fiṭrah's natural workings upon the heart/mind(&lt;i&gt;qalb&lt;/i&gt;), and arises from one's direct experience of the signs that God has placed in the world.<br /> <br /> We naturally &amp; meaningfully conceive belief in God by the rational projection of our inner workings.<br /> <br /> While there are a number of knowledge-bearing faculties such as perception, reason, &amp; the heart/mind(&lt;i&gt;qalb&lt;/i&gt;), the fiṭrah is not considered an independent faculty; it's a disposition that guides our cognition towards truth, that resides in the heart/mind(&lt;i&gt;qalb&lt;/i&gt;) &amp; has a power/urge to believe in truth, to know the Creator, &amp; to acknowledge His Oneness.<br /> <br /> The affirmation of God —and knowledge of Him— is innate &amp; necessary for those whose fiṭrah remains intact; and this knowledge originates through an apprehension or experience of God's signs.<br /> <br /> The Messengers are sent by God with some of these signs (in the form of miracles or revelation) to awaken the fiṭrah within all human beings.<br /> <br /> The Messengers serve as reminders to people and reawaken their intimate knowledge of God that was already present within them.<br /> <br /> The signs do not serve as proof without their intrinsic connection to fiṭrah; when the fiṭrah is sound, it apprehends the signs and produces basic beliefs about God that are immediate and involuntary.<br /> <br /> Without fiṭrah, speculative reasoning, demonstration, discourse, and language would not be possible.<br /> <br /> Fiṭrah is a divinely placed inclination that provides guidance to the intellect and separates right reason from misguided reasoning.<br /> <br /> It is through fiṭrah that one's knowledge of God is actualised by recognition of theistic signs in the natural world and scripture.<br /> <br /> Thus affirmation of God's existence &amp; perfection is innate &amp; necessary for those whose fiṭrah is unadulterated.<br /> <br /> Pure reason (&lt;i&gt;'aql ṣarīḥ&lt;/i&gt;) is always in alignment with sound religious tradition (&lt;i&gt;naql ṣaḥīḥ&lt;/i&gt;), and any apparent conflict between the two can be attributed to either contaminated rationality (&lt;i&gt;bid’ī 'aqlī&lt;/i&gt;) or contaminated revelation (&lt;i&gt;bid’ī naqlī&lt;/i&gt;).<br /> <br /> Ideal reason cannot conflict with true revelation; rather, it is &quot;concrete reason&quot; (such as the prevailing conception of reason in a given time) that conflicts with true revelation.<br /> <br /> Sources: &lt;i&gt;IslamQA&lt;/i&gt; (&lt;i&gt;11783 &amp; 103524 &amp; 248517&lt;/i&gt;), &lt;i&gt;Dr. Carl Sharif El-Tobgui&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;i&gt;Ustadh Jamie Turner&lt;/i&gt;</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Worship&diff=48 2026-05-29T22:07:37Z

<p>TheIslampill: Created page with &quot;== What is “worship”? == An object of worship— no matter what its nature is —is believed to have an unseen authority whose effect is reflected in reality. Worshippers try to draw closer to the worshipped, to gain benefit or ward off harm. On one hand, they may believe the unseen authority is predicated a self-authority; they consider the worshipped as one who independently benefits &amp; harms. This applies to worship of the sun and stars, believing in their effe...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>== What is “worship”? ==<br /> <br /> An object of worship— no matter what its nature is —is believed to have an unseen authority whose effect is reflected in reality.<br /> <br /> Worshippers try to draw closer to the worshipped, to gain benefit or ward off harm.<br /> <br /> On one hand, they may believe the unseen authority is predicated a self-authority; they consider the worshipped as one who independently benefits &amp; harms.<br /> <br /> This applies to worship of the sun and stars, believing in their effect on the laws of the universe and management of creation.<br /> <br /> On the other hand, they may believe that this unseen authority is not a self-authority; worshippers consider the worshipped an intermediary between them and a superior power that has an independent self-authority of inflicting harm and bringing about benefit.<br /> <br /> Worship of this object is to intercede for them with the one who possesses the power to benefit and harm.<br /> <br /> This applies to the polytheists who believe that their objects of worship get them closer to the Almighty and intercede for them.<br /> <br /> == What is the meaning of the words “ilaha” and “Allah”? ==<br /> <br /> A god/ilaha is an object of worship.<br /> <br /> This can be any entity.<br /> <br /> Money. Men. Women.<br /> <br /> Dogs. Rats. Cars.<br /> <br /> War. Carvings. Trees.<br /> <br /> An &quot;entity&quot; is a fundamental unit of existence, possessing discernible properties or attributes that distinguish it from others.<br /> <br /> The god/ilaha/entity that, alone, is deserving of all worship, is the One with maximally-great properties — having all of the attributes of perfection, and thus being without partner, likeness, or shortcoming.<br /> <br /> The word for this in Arabic, as ''ilaha'' is Arabic, and ''god'' is English — the object of worship that deserves of all worship; the One with all of the greatest properties and names; this is encompassed by &quot;Allah&quot;, the name being a contraction of &quot;ilaha&quot; (an object of worship), and &quot;Al-&quot; (the definite article — indicating the only One, besides Whom there is no other).<br /> <br /> This name therefore entails the reality of all other names of Allah.<br /> <br /> An absence of an understanding of &quot;worship&quot; will often lead to a misunderstanding of what an object of worship is.<br /> <br /> Worship in truth belongs to only One alone, without partners, upon Whom all depend:<br /> <br /> '''Allah''' — the Creator &amp; the Provider — the Lord of the Worlds.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Islamic theology]]<br /> [[Category:Tawhid]]<br /> [[Category:Worship]]<br /> [[Category:Allah]]</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Zakat&diff=47 2026-05-29T22:04:02Z

<p>TheIslampill: Created page with &quot;== What is Zakat/alms-tax? == This word, &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;zakat&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;, translates to “&#039;&#039;alms-tax&#039;&#039;”; this is the 3rd of the 5 Pillars of Islam. In the Arabic language, &#039;&#039;&#039;Zakat&#039;&#039;&#039; means &#039;&#039;growth&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;blessings&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;purification&#039;&#039;, and &#039;&#039;development&#039;&#039;. Islam requires Muslims to pay &#039;&#039;&#039;a proportion (typically 2.5%) of their qualifying wealth&#039;&#039;&#039; on an annual basis. Zakat can be summarised as an &#039;&#039;institutionalised act of worship to fulfill the needs of the believers&#039;&#039;, and &#039;&#039;to...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>== What is Zakat/alms-tax? ==<br /> <br /> This word, '''''zakat''''', translates to “''alms-tax''”; this is the 3rd of the 5 Pillars of Islam.<br /> <br /> In the Arabic language, '''Zakat''' means ''growth'', ''blessings'', ''purification'', and ''development''.<br /> <br /> Islam requires Muslims to pay '''a proportion (typically 2.5%) of their qualifying wealth''' on an annual basis.<br /> <br /> Zakat can be summarised as an ''institutionalised act of worship to fulfill the needs of the believers'', and ''to strengthen devotion to our Creator by facilitating the removal of barriers to faith &amp; progress'' as mentioned in [Qur’ān 9:60].<br /> <br /> This prescription ultimately facilitates devotion to God at an individual and collective level. The benefits of Zakat go back to the payer and to the society as a whole.<br /> <br /> The Creator, Allah Almighty, says, [Qur’ān chapter 9 verse 60]:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “Alms-tax is only&lt;br&gt;<br /> for the poor and the needy,&lt;br&gt;<br /> for those employed to administer it,&lt;br&gt;<br /> for those whose hearts are attracted to the faith,&lt;br&gt;<br /> for freeing slaves,&lt;br&gt;<br /> for those in debt,&lt;br&gt;<br /> for Allah's cause, and&lt;br&gt;<br /> for needy travelers.&lt;br&gt;<br /> This is an obligation from Allah.&lt;br&gt;<br /> And Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.”<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Zakat is the one pillar of Islam that scholars have long identified as having the most obvious dual function of being an act of obedience to the Creator, and a means by which to affect positively the lives of human beings.<br /> <br /> The above verse highlights eight categories of people deemed eligible to receive Zakat. They have been identified as:<br /> <br /> # '''''al-Fuqarā´''''' '''(the poor)'''<br /> <br /> # '''''al-Masākīn''''' '''(the needy)'''<br /> <br /> # '''''al-´Amilīna ´Alayhā''''' '''(administrators of Zakat)'''<br /> <br /> # '''''al-Mu´allafah Qulūbuhum''''' '''(bringing hearts together)'''<br /> <br /> # '''''fir-Riqāb''''' '''(those in bondage)'''<br /> <br /> # '''''al-Gharimīn''''' '''(those in debt)'''<br /> <br /> # '''''fi-Sabīlillah''''' '''(for God's cause)'''<br /> <br /> # '''''ibn al-Sabīl''''' '''(the stranded traveler)'''<br /> <br /> The categories address the following objectives and highlight the problems that arise from ignoring spending in any of these areas:<br /> <br /> === 1) al-Fuqarā´ (the poor) ===<br /> <br /> Poverty alleviation; the alternative is ongoing desperation, dislocation from the community, weakening of one's faith, and the possibility of denial of God altogether.<br /> <br /> === 2) al-Masākīn (the needy) ===<br /> <br /> Economic empowerment; the alternative is constant financial struggle and lack of communal resources since there would be fewer Zakat payers.<br /> <br /> === 3) al-´Amilīna ´Alayhā (administrators of Zakat) ===<br /> <br /> Efficient collection and efficient Zakat administration of the other seven categories; the alternative is diminished collection and haphazard distribution.<br /> <br /> === 4) al-Mu´allafah Qulūbuhum (bringing hearts together) ===<br /> <br /> Bringing people together through diplomacy, public relations, and social cohesion; the alternative is animosity, a lack of influence, and low social &amp; political capital.<br /> <br /> === 5) fir-Riqāb (those in bondage) ===<br /> <br /> Emancipation, providing basic equality of rights &amp; opportunity; the alternative is inequality and unfulfilled human potential.<br /> <br /> === 6) al-Gharimīn (those in debt) ===<br /> <br /> Removing burdensome financial constraints that result from debt; the alternative is poor mental health for those in debt, tension between lenders &amp; borrowers, and the discouragement of the practice of lending if there is no backup for lenders who face bad debts.<br /> <br /> === 7) fi-Sabīlillah (for God's cause) ===<br /> <br /> Supporting God's cause and providing internal &amp; external protection by aiding those in the community who give of their time to represent &amp; advocate on behalf of Islam &amp; Muslims, and by supporting scholarship so that scholars can guide people in a relevant way &amp; respond to the ideological &amp; intellectual challenges of the day; the alternative is weakness in the face of external challenges, moral decline within the community, and low religious literacy.<br /> <br /> === 8) ibn al-Sabīl (the stranded traveler) ===<br /> <br /> For emergency situations, dealing with temporary dislocation; the alternative is social tension within &amp; across communities if there is an inability to deal with stranded migrants or emergency scenarios.<br /> <br /> These categories deal with different needs:<br /> <br /> * Individual needs by five categories: 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8;<br /> * Collective needs of Muslims and Islam by two categories: 4 and 7; &amp;<br /> * Proper administrative capacity: category 3.<br /> <br /> The categories of Zakat recipients represent the challenges that affect the very fabric of a community: these categories address the root problems that hinder an individual's/communities' subservience to God; each category addresses a constraint in the lives of individuals and/or society that weakens their ability to practice Islam.<br /> <br /> In His Knowledge and Wisdom, the Creator tells Muslims to distribute Zakat to tackle the various challenges that can act as barriers to people being able to remember, thank, and serve Him in a sustainable way.<br /> <br /> As with all of the instructions of our Creator, they are only for our benefit in this life and the next.<br /> <br /> And Allah Most High certainly knows best.</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Dawah&diff=46 2026-05-22T23:35:48Z

<p>TheIslampill: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Dawah''' is the invitation to Islam, calling people to worship Allah alone and to live according to guidance with wisdom, mercy, clarity, and good conduct.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;And who is better in speech than he who [says: &quot;My Lord is Allâh (believes in His Oneness),&quot; and then stands firm (acts upon His Order), and] invites (men) to Allâh’s (Islâmic Monotheism), and does righteous deeds, and says: &quot;I am one of the Muslims.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;—Qur'an 41:33&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> == Definition ==<br /> <br /> The word “''dawah''” comes from the Arabic root meaning “to call,” “to invite,” or “to summon.”<br /> <br /> In Islamic usage, dawah refers to inviting people toward Allah, toward Islam, and toward what is true, beneficial, and pleasing to Allah.<br /> <br /> Argument or debate are not the primary goals of dawah.<br /> <br /> It includes teaching, clarification, good example, sincere advice, answering doubts, removing confusion, and calling people to worship Allah alone.<br /> <br /> Dawah is not limited to non-Muslims alone; it also includes inviting Muslims to proper worship, strengthening their faith, and doing good deeds.<br /> <br /> == Qur'anic basis ==<br /> <br /> The Qur'an commands inviting to the way of Allah with wisdom, good instruction, and the best manner of discussion.&lt;ref&gt;[https://quran.com/en/16/125 Qur'an 16:125]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> The Qur'an also praises the one who invites to Allah, does righteous deeds, and openly identifies as one of the Muslims.&lt;ref&gt;[https://quran.com/en/41/33 Qur'an 41:33]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Purpose ==<br /> <br /> The purpose of dawah is not to win arguments for their own sake. <br /> Its purpose is to clarify truth, call to worship of Allah alone, invite to guidance, and remove obstacles that prevent sincere understanding.<br /> <br /> A person engaged in dawah should care about the guidance and welfare of the person being addressed. The goal is not humiliation, domination, or display, but sincere clarification.<br /> <br /> == Method ==<br /> <br /> Dawah should be carried out with:<br /> <br /> * knowledge;<br /> * sincerity;<br /> * wisdom;<br /> * patience;<br /> * truthful speech;<br /> * good manners;<br /> * awareness of the listener’s state;<br /> * clarity about what is certain and what is uncertain.<br /> <br /> Different people require different forms of address. Some need basic explanation. Some need answers to doubts. Some need moral example. Some need correction of false assumptions. Some need time.<br /> <br /> == Dawah and good character ==<br /> <br /> Good character is part of dawah. A person may undermine the truth by presenting it harshly, ignorantly, or arrogantly. Likewise, good manners without truthfulness are incomplete. Dawah requires both truth and mercy.<br /> <br /> == Reward of guiding to good ==<br /> <br /> The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ taught that whoever guides someone to good receives a reward like the one who does it.&lt;ref&gt;[https://sunnah.com/muslim:1893a Sahih Muslim 1893a]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> * [[Islam]]<br /> * [[Tawhid]]<br /> * [[Theology]]<br /> * [[Comparative religion]]<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Islam]]<br /> [[Category:Theology]]<br /> [[Category:FAQ]]</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=English_DawahWiki:FeaturedArticle&diff=44 2026-05-22T23:24:11Z

<p>TheIslampill: </p> <hr /> <div>Dawah</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=English_DawahWiki:FeaturedArticle&diff=43 2026-05-22T23:23:54Z

<p>TheIslampill: </p> <hr /> <div>Shirk</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Dawah&diff=40 2026-05-22T23:19:12Z

<p>TheIslampill: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Dawah''' is the invitation to Islam, calling people to worship Allah alone and to live according to guidance with wisdom, mercy, clarity, and good conduct.<br /> <br /> == Definition ==<br /> <br /> The word “''dawah''” comes from the Arabic root meaning “to call,” “to invite,” or “to summon.”<br /> <br /> In Islamic usage, dawah refers to inviting people toward Allah, toward Islam, and toward what is true, beneficial, and pleasing to Allah.<br /> <br /> Argument or debate are not the primary goals of dawah.<br /> <br /> It includes teaching, clarification, good example, sincere advice, answering doubts, removing confusion, and calling people to worship Allah alone.<br /> <br /> Dawah is not limited to non-Muslims alone; it also includes inviting Muslims to proper worship, strengthening their faith, and doing good deeds.<br /> <br /> == Qur'anic basis ==<br /> <br /> The Qur'an commands inviting to the way of Allah with wisdom, good instruction, and the best manner of discussion.&lt;ref&gt;[https://quran.com/en/16/125 Qur'an 16:125]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> The Qur'an also praises the one who invites to Allah, does righteous deeds, and openly identifies as one of the Muslims.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;And who is better in speech than he who [says: &quot;My Lord is Allâh (believes in His Oneness),&quot; and then stands firm (acts upon His Order), and] invites (men) to Allâh’s (Islâmic Monotheism), and does righteous deeds, and says: &quot;I am one of the Muslims.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;—Qur'an 41:33&lt;ref&gt;[https://quran.com/en/41/33 Qur'an 41:33]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> == Purpose ==<br /> <br /> The purpose of dawah is not to win arguments for their own sake. <br /> Its purpose is to clarify truth, call to worship of Allah alone, invite to guidance, and remove obstacles that prevent sincere understanding.<br /> <br /> A person engaged in dawah should care about the guidance and welfare of the person being addressed. The goal is not humiliation, domination, or display, but sincere clarification.<br /> <br /> == Method ==<br /> <br /> Dawah should be carried out with:<br /> <br /> * knowledge;<br /> * sincerity;<br /> * wisdom;<br /> * patience;<br /> * truthful speech;<br /> * good manners;<br /> * awareness of the listener’s state;<br /> * clarity about what is certain and what is uncertain.<br /> <br /> Different people require different forms of address. Some need basic explanation. Some need answers to doubts. Some need moral example. Some need correction of false assumptions. Some need time.<br /> <br /> == Dawah and good character ==<br /> <br /> Good character is part of dawah. A person may undermine the truth by presenting it harshly, ignorantly, or arrogantly. Likewise, good manners without truthfulness are incomplete. Dawah requires both truth and mercy.<br /> <br /> == Reward of guiding to good ==<br /> <br /> The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ taught that whoever guides someone to good receives a reward like the one who does it.&lt;ref&gt;[https://sunnah.com/muslim:1893a Sahih Muslim 1893a]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> * [[Islam]]<br /> * [[Tawhid]]<br /> * [[Theology]]<br /> * [[Comparative religion]]<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Islam]]<br /> [[Category:Theology]]<br /> [[Category:FAQ]]</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Dawah&diff=39 2026-05-22T23:18:03Z

<p>TheIslampill: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Dawah''' is the invitation to Islam, calling people to worship Allah alone and to live according to guidance with wisdom, mercy, clarity, and good conduct.<br /> <br /> == Definition ==<br /> <br /> The word “''dawah''” comes from the Arabic root meaning “to call,” “to invite,” or “to summon.”<br /> <br /> In Islamic usage, dawah refers to inviting people toward Allah, toward Islam, and toward what is true, beneficial, and pleasing to Allah.<br /> <br /> Argument or debate are not the primary goals of dawah.<br /> <br /> It includes teaching, clarification, good example, sincere advice, answering doubts, removing confusion, and calling people to worship Allah alone.<br /> <br /> Dawah is not limited to non-Muslims alone; it also includes inviting Muslims to proper worship, strengthening their faith, and doing good deeds.<br /> <br /> == Qur'anic basis ==<br /> <br /> The Qur'an commands inviting to the way of Allah with wisdom, good instruction, and the best manner of discussion.&lt;ref&gt;[https://quran.com/en/an-nahl/125 Qur'an 16:125]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> The Qur'an also praises the one who invites to Allah, does righteous deeds, and openly identifies as one of the Muslims.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;And who is better in speech than he who [says: &quot;My Lord is Allâh (believes in His Oneness),&quot; and then stands firm (acts upon His Order), and] invites (men) to Allâh’s (Islâmic Monotheism), and does righteous deeds, and says: &quot;I am one of the Muslims.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;—Qur'an 41:33&lt;ref&gt;[https://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=41&amp;verse=33 Qur'an 41:33]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> == Purpose ==<br /> <br /> The purpose of dawah is not to win arguments for their own sake. <br /> Its purpose is to clarify truth, call to worship of Allah alone, invite to guidance, and remove obstacles that prevent sincere understanding.<br /> <br /> A person engaged in dawah should care about the guidance and welfare of the person being addressed. The goal is not humiliation, domination, or display, but sincere clarification.<br /> <br /> == Method ==<br /> <br /> Dawah should be carried out with:<br /> <br /> * knowledge;<br /> * sincerity;<br /> * wisdom;<br /> * patience;<br /> * truthful speech;<br /> * good manners;<br /> * awareness of the listener’s state;<br /> * clarity about what is certain and what is uncertain.<br /> <br /> Different people require different forms of address. Some need basic explanation. Some need answers to doubts. Some need moral example. Some need correction of false assumptions. Some need time.<br /> <br /> == Dawah and good character ==<br /> <br /> Good character is part of dawah. A person may undermine the truth by presenting it harshly, ignorantly, or arrogantly. Likewise, good manners without truthfulness are incomplete. Dawah requires both truth and mercy.<br /> <br /> == Reward of guiding to good ==<br /> <br /> The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ taught that whoever guides someone to good receives a reward like the one who does it.&lt;ref&gt;[https://sunnah.com/muslim:1893a Sahih Muslim 1893a]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> * [[Islam]]<br /> * [[Tawhid]]<br /> * [[Theology]]<br /> * [[Comparative religion]]<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Islam]]<br /> [[Category:Theology]]<br /> [[Category:FAQ]]</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Dawah&diff=38 2026-05-22T23:16:27Z

<p>TheIslampill: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Dawah''' is the invitation to Islam, calling people to worship Allah alone and to live according to guidance with wisdom, mercy, clarity, and good conduct.<br /> <br /> == Definition ==<br /> <br /> The word “''dawah''” comes from the Arabic root meaning “to call,” “to invite,” or “to summon.”<br /> <br /> In Islamic usage, dawah refers to inviting people toward Allah, toward Islam, and toward what is true, beneficial, and pleasing to Allah.<br /> <br /> Dawah is not merely argument or debate. <br /> <br /> It includes teaching, clarification, good example, sincere advice, answering doubts, removing confusion, and calling people to worship Allah alone.<br /> <br /> == Qur'anic basis ==<br /> <br /> The Qur'an commands inviting to the way of Allah with wisdom, good instruction, and the best manner of discussion.&lt;ref&gt;[https://quran.com/en/an-nahl/125 Qur'an 16:125]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> The Qur'an also praises the one who invites to Allah, does righteous deeds, and openly identifies as one of the Muslims.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;And who is better in speech than he who [says: &quot;My Lord is Allâh (believes in His Oneness),&quot; and then stands firm (acts upon His Order), and] invites (men) to Allâh’s (Islâmic Monotheism), and does righteous deeds, and says: &quot;I am one of the Muslims.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;—Qur'an 41:33&lt;ref&gt;[https://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=41&amp;verse=33 Qur'an 41:33]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> == Purpose ==<br /> <br /> The purpose of dawah is not to win arguments for their own sake. <br /> Its purpose is to clarify truth, call to worship of Allah alone, invite to guidance, and remove obstacles that prevent sincere understanding.<br /> <br /> A person engaged in dawah should care about the guidance and welfare of the person being addressed. The goal is not humiliation, domination, or display, but sincere clarification.<br /> <br /> == Method ==<br /> <br /> Dawah should be carried out with:<br /> <br /> * knowledge;<br /> * sincerity;<br /> * wisdom;<br /> * patience;<br /> * truthful speech;<br /> * good manners;<br /> * awareness of the listener’s state;<br /> * clarity about what is certain and what is uncertain.<br /> <br /> Different people require different forms of address. Some need basic explanation. Some need answers to doubts. Some need moral example. Some need correction of false assumptions. Some need time.<br /> <br /> == Dawah and good character ==<br /> <br /> Good character is part of dawah. A person may undermine the truth by presenting it harshly, ignorantly, or arrogantly. Likewise, good manners without truthfulness are incomplete. Dawah requires both truth and mercy.<br /> <br /> == Reward of guiding to good ==<br /> <br /> The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ taught that whoever guides someone to good receives a reward like the one who does it.&lt;ref&gt;[https://sunnah.com/muslim:1893a Sahih Muslim 1893a]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> * [[Islam]]<br /> * [[Tawhid]]<br /> * [[Theology]]<br /> * [[Comparative religion]]<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Islam]]<br /> [[Category:Theology]]<br /> [[Category:FAQ]]</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Dawah&diff=37 2026-05-22T23:16:12Z

<p>TheIslampill: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Dawah''' is the invitation to Islam, calling people to worship Allah alone and to live according to guidance with wisdom, mercy, clarity, and good conduct.<br /> <br /> == Definition ==<br /> <br /> The word “''dawah''” comes from the Arabic root meaning “to call,” “to invite,” or “to summon.”<br /> <br /> In Islamic usage, dawah refers to inviting people toward Allah, toward Islam, and toward what is true, beneficial, and pleasing to Allah.<br /> <br /> Dawah is not merely argument or debate. <br /> <br /> It includes teaching, clarification, good example, sincere advice, answering doubts, removing confusion, and calling people to worship Allah alone.<br /> <br /> == Qur'anic basis ==<br /> <br /> The Qur'an commands inviting to the way of Allah with wisdom, good instruction, and the best manner of discussion.&lt;ref&gt;[https://quran.com/en/an-nahl/125 Qur'an 16:125]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> The Qur'an also praises the one who invites to Allah, does righteous deeds, and openly identifies as one of the Muslims.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;And who is better in speech than he who [says: &quot;My Lord is Allâh (believes in His Oneness),&quot; and then stands firm (acts upon His Order), and] invites (men) to Allâh’s (Islâmic Monotheism), and does righteous deeds, and says: &quot;I am one of the Muslims.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;—Qur'an 41:33&lt;ref&gt;[https://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=41&amp;verse=33 Qur'an 41:33]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> == Purpose ==<br /> <br /> The purpose of dawah is not to win arguments for their own sake. <br /> Its purpose is to clarify truth, call to worship of Allah alone, invite to guidance, and remove obstacles that prevent sincere understanding.<br /> <br /> A person engaged in dawah should care about the guidance and welfare of the person being addressed. The goal is not humiliation, domination, or display, but sincere clarification.<br /> <br /> == Method ==<br /> <br /> Dawah should be carried out with:<br /> <br /> * knowledge;<br /> * sincerity;<br /> * wisdom;<br /> * patience;<br /> * truthful speech;<br /> * good manners;<br /> * awareness of the listener’s state;<br /> * clarity about what is certain and what is uncertain.<br /> <br /> Different people require different forms of address. Some need basic explanation. Some need answers to doubts. Some need moral example. Some need correction of false assumptions. Some need time.<br /> <br /> == Dawah and good character ==<br /> <br /> Good character is part of dawah. A person may undermine the truth by presenting it harshly, ignorantly, or arrogantly. Likewise, good manners without truthfulness are incomplete. Dawah requires both truth and mercy.<br /> <br /> == Reward of guiding to good ==<br /> <br /> The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ taught that whoever guides someone to good receives a reward like the one who does it.&lt;ref&gt;[https://sunnah.com/muslim:1893a Sahih Muslim 1893a]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> * [[Islam]]<br /> * [[Tawhid]]<br /> * [[Theology]]<br /> * [[Comparative religion]]<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Islam]]<br /> [[Category:Theology]]<br /> [[Category:FAQ]]</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Dawah&diff=32 2026-05-22T22:47:24Z

<p>TheIslampill: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Dawah''' is the invitation to Islam, calling people to worship Allah alone and to live according to guidance with wisdom, mercy, clarity, and good conduct.<br /> <br /> == Definition ==<br /> <br /> The word “''dawah''” comes from the Arabic root meaning “to call,” “to invite,” or “to summon.”<br /> <br /> In Islamic usage, dawah refers to inviting people toward Allah, toward Islam, and toward what is true, beneficial, and pleasing to Allah.<br /> <br /> Dawah is not merely argument or debate. <br /> <br /> It includes teaching, clarification, good example, sincere advice, answering doubts, removing confusion, and calling people to worship Allah alone.<br /> <br /> == Qur'anic basis ==<br /> <br /> The Qur'an commands inviting to the way of Allah with wisdom, good instruction, and the best manner of discussion.&lt;ref&gt;[https://quran.com/en/an-nahl/125 Qur'an 16:125]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Qur'an also praises the one who invites to Allah, does righteous deeds, and openly identifies as one of the Muslims.&lt;ref&gt;[https://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=41&amp;verse=33 Qur'an 41:33]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Purpose ==<br /> <br /> The purpose of dawah is not to win arguments for their own sake. <br /> Its purpose is to clarify truth, call to worship of Allah alone, invite to guidance, and remove obstacles that prevent sincere understanding.<br /> <br /> A person engaged in dawah should care about the guidance and welfare of the person being addressed. The goal is not humiliation, domination, or display, but sincere clarification.<br /> <br /> == Method ==<br /> <br /> Dawah should be carried out with:<br /> <br /> * knowledge;<br /> * sincerity;<br /> * wisdom;<br /> * patience;<br /> * truthful speech;<br /> * good manners;<br /> * awareness of the listener’s state;<br /> * clarity about what is certain and what is uncertain.<br /> <br /> Different people require different forms of address. Some need basic explanation. Some need answers to doubts. Some need moral example. Some need correction of false assumptions. Some need time.<br /> <br /> == Dawah and good character ==<br /> <br /> Good character is part of dawah. A person may undermine the truth by presenting it harshly, ignorantly, or arrogantly. Likewise, good manners without truthfulness are incomplete. Dawah requires both truth and mercy.<br /> <br /> == Reward of guiding to good ==<br /> <br /> The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ taught that whoever guides someone to good receives a reward like the one who does it.&lt;ref&gt;[https://sunnah.com/muslim:1893a Sahih Muslim 1893a]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> * [[Islam]]<br /> * [[Tawhid]]<br /> * [[Theology]]<br /> * [[Comparative religion]]<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Islam]]<br /> [[Category:Theology]]<br /> [[Category:FAQ]]</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Dawah&diff=31 2026-05-22T22:47:17Z

<p>TheIslampill: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Dawah''' is the invitation to Islam, calling people to worship Allah alone and to live according to guidance with wisdom, mercy, clarity, and good conduct.<br /> <br /> == Definition ==<br /> <br /> The word “''dawah''” comes from the Arabic root meaning “to call,” “to invite,” or “to summon.”<br /> <br /> In Islamic usage, dawah refers to inviting people toward Allah, toward Islam, and toward what is true, beneficial, and pleasing to Allah.<br /> <br /> Dawah is not merely argument or debate. It includes teaching, clarification, good example, sincere advice, answering doubts, removing confusion, and calling people to worship Allah alone.<br /> <br /> == Qur'anic basis ==<br /> <br /> The Qur'an commands inviting to the way of Allah with wisdom, good instruction, and the best manner of discussion.&lt;ref&gt;[https://quran.com/en/an-nahl/125 Qur'an 16:125]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Qur'an also praises the one who invites to Allah, does righteous deeds, and openly identifies as one of the Muslims.&lt;ref&gt;[https://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=41&amp;verse=33 Qur'an 41:33]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Purpose ==<br /> <br /> The purpose of dawah is not to win arguments for their own sake. <br /> Its purpose is to clarify truth, call to worship of Allah alone, invite to guidance, and remove obstacles that prevent sincere understanding.<br /> <br /> A person engaged in dawah should care about the guidance and welfare of the person being addressed. The goal is not humiliation, domination, or display, but sincere clarification.<br /> <br /> == Method ==<br /> <br /> Dawah should be carried out with:<br /> <br /> * knowledge;<br /> * sincerity;<br /> * wisdom;<br /> * patience;<br /> * truthful speech;<br /> * good manners;<br /> * awareness of the listener’s state;<br /> * clarity about what is certain and what is uncertain.<br /> <br /> Different people require different forms of address. Some need basic explanation. Some need answers to doubts. Some need moral example. Some need correction of false assumptions. Some need time.<br /> <br /> == Dawah and good character ==<br /> <br /> Good character is part of dawah. A person may undermine the truth by presenting it harshly, ignorantly, or arrogantly. Likewise, good manners without truthfulness are incomplete. Dawah requires both truth and mercy.<br /> <br /> == Reward of guiding to good ==<br /> <br /> The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ taught that whoever guides someone to good receives a reward like the one who does it.&lt;ref&gt;[https://sunnah.com/muslim:1893a Sahih Muslim 1893a]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> * [[Islam]]<br /> * [[Tawhid]]<br /> * [[Theology]]<br /> * [[Comparative religion]]<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Islam]]<br /> [[Category:Theology]]<br /> [[Category:FAQ]]</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Dawah&diff=30 2026-05-22T22:47:06Z

<p>TheIslampill: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Dawah''' is the invitation to Islam, calling people to worship Allah alone and to live according to guidance with wisdom, mercy, clarity, and good conduct.<br /> <br /> == Definition ==<br /> <br /> The word “''dawah''” comes from the Arabic root meaning “to call,” “to invite,” or “to summon.” <br /> In Islamic usage, dawah refers to inviting people toward Allah, toward Islam, and toward what is true, beneficial, and pleasing to Allah.<br /> <br /> Dawah is not merely argument or debate. It includes teaching, clarification, good example, sincere advice, answering doubts, removing confusion, and calling people to worship Allah alone.<br /> <br /> == Qur'anic basis ==<br /> <br /> The Qur'an commands inviting to the way of Allah with wisdom, good instruction, and the best manner of discussion.&lt;ref&gt;[https://quran.com/en/an-nahl/125 Qur'an 16:125]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Qur'an also praises the one who invites to Allah, does righteous deeds, and openly identifies as one of the Muslims.&lt;ref&gt;[https://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=41&amp;verse=33 Qur'an 41:33]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Purpose ==<br /> <br /> The purpose of dawah is not to win arguments for their own sake. <br /> Its purpose is to clarify truth, call to worship of Allah alone, invite to guidance, and remove obstacles that prevent sincere understanding.<br /> <br /> A person engaged in dawah should care about the guidance and welfare of the person being addressed. The goal is not humiliation, domination, or display, but sincere clarification.<br /> <br /> == Method ==<br /> <br /> Dawah should be carried out with:<br /> <br /> * knowledge;<br /> * sincerity;<br /> * wisdom;<br /> * patience;<br /> * truthful speech;<br /> * good manners;<br /> * awareness of the listener’s state;<br /> * clarity about what is certain and what is uncertain.<br /> <br /> Different people require different forms of address. Some need basic explanation. Some need answers to doubts. Some need moral example. Some need correction of false assumptions. Some need time.<br /> <br /> == Dawah and good character ==<br /> <br /> Good character is part of dawah. A person may undermine the truth by presenting it harshly, ignorantly, or arrogantly. Likewise, good manners without truthfulness are incomplete. Dawah requires both truth and mercy.<br /> <br /> == Reward of guiding to good ==<br /> <br /> The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ taught that whoever guides someone to good receives a reward like the one who does it.&lt;ref&gt;[https://sunnah.com/muslim:1893a Sahih Muslim 1893a]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> * [[Islam]]<br /> * [[Tawhid]]<br /> * [[Theology]]<br /> * [[Comparative religion]]<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Islam]]<br /> [[Category:Theology]]<br /> [[Category:FAQ]]</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Dawah&diff=29 2026-05-22T22:46:56Z

<p>TheIslampill: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Dawah''' is the invitation to Islam, calling people to worship Allah alone and to live according to guidance with wisdom, mercy, clarity, and good conduct.<br /> <br /> == Definition ==<br /> <br /> The word “''dawah''” comes from the Arabic root meaning “to call,” “to invite,” or “to summon.” In Islamic usage, dawah refers to inviting people toward Allah, toward Islam, and toward what is true, beneficial, and pleasing to Allah.<br /> <br /> Dawah is not merely argument or debate. It includes teaching, clarification, good example, sincere advice, answering doubts, removing confusion, and calling people to worship Allah alone.<br /> <br /> == Qur'anic basis ==<br /> <br /> The Qur'an commands inviting to the way of Allah with wisdom, good instruction, and the best manner of discussion.&lt;ref&gt;[https://quran.com/en/an-nahl/125 Qur'an 16:125]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Qur'an also praises the one who invites to Allah, does righteous deeds, and openly identifies as one of the Muslims.&lt;ref&gt;[https://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=41&amp;verse=33 Qur'an 41:33]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Purpose ==<br /> <br /> The purpose of dawah is not to win arguments for their own sake. <br /> Its purpose is to clarify truth, call to worship of Allah alone, invite to guidance, and remove obstacles that prevent sincere understanding.<br /> <br /> A person engaged in dawah should care about the guidance and welfare of the person being addressed. The goal is not humiliation, domination, or display, but sincere clarification.<br /> <br /> == Method ==<br /> <br /> Dawah should be carried out with:<br /> <br /> * knowledge;<br /> * sincerity;<br /> * wisdom;<br /> * patience;<br /> * truthful speech;<br /> * good manners;<br /> * awareness of the listener’s state;<br /> * clarity about what is certain and what is uncertain.<br /> <br /> Different people require different forms of address. Some need basic explanation. Some need answers to doubts. Some need moral example. Some need correction of false assumptions. Some need time.<br /> <br /> == Dawah and good character ==<br /> <br /> Good character is part of dawah. A person may undermine the truth by presenting it harshly, ignorantly, or arrogantly. Likewise, good manners without truthfulness are incomplete. Dawah requires both truth and mercy.<br /> <br /> == Reward of guiding to good ==<br /> <br /> The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ taught that whoever guides someone to good receives a reward like the one who does it.&lt;ref&gt;[https://sunnah.com/muslim:1893a Sahih Muslim 1893a]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> * [[Islam]]<br /> * [[Tawhid]]<br /> * [[Theology]]<br /> * [[Comparative religion]]<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Islam]]<br /> [[Category:Theology]]<br /> [[Category:FAQ]]</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Dawah&diff=28 2026-05-22T22:46:42Z

<p>TheIslampill: Created page with &quot;&#039;&#039;&#039;Dawah&#039;&#039;&#039; is the invitation to Islam, calling people to worship Allah alone and to live according to guidance with wisdom, mercy, clarity, and good conduct. == Definition == The word &#039;&#039;dawah&#039;&#039; comes from the Arabic root meaning “to call,” “to invite,” or “to summon.” In Islamic usage, dawah refers to inviting people toward Allah, toward Islam, and toward what is true, beneficial, and pleasing to Allah. Dawah is not merely argument or debate. It includes...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>'''Dawah''' is the invitation to Islam, calling people to worship Allah alone and to live according to guidance with wisdom, mercy, clarity, and good conduct.<br /> <br /> == Definition ==<br /> <br /> The word ''dawah'' comes from the Arabic root meaning “to call,” “to invite,” or “to summon.” In Islamic usage, dawah refers to inviting people toward Allah, toward Islam, and toward what is true, beneficial, and pleasing to Allah.<br /> <br /> Dawah is not merely argument or debate. It includes teaching, clarification, good example, sincere advice, answering doubts, removing confusion, and calling people to worship Allah alone.<br /> <br /> == Qur'anic basis ==<br /> <br /> The Qur'an commands inviting to the way of Allah with wisdom, good instruction, and the best manner of discussion.&lt;ref&gt;[https://quran.com/en/an-nahl/125 Qur'an 16:125]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Qur'an also praises the one who invites to Allah, does righteous deeds, and openly identifies as one of the Muslims.&lt;ref&gt;[https://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=41&amp;verse=33 Qur'an 41:33]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Purpose ==<br /> <br /> The purpose of dawah is not to win arguments for their own sake. <br /> Its purpose is to clarify truth, call to worship of Allah alone, invite to guidance, and remove obstacles that prevent sincere understanding.<br /> <br /> A person engaged in dawah should care about the guidance and welfare of the person being addressed. The goal is not humiliation, domination, or display, but sincere clarification.<br /> <br /> == Method ==<br /> <br /> Dawah should be carried out with:<br /> <br /> * knowledge;<br /> * sincerity;<br /> * wisdom;<br /> * patience;<br /> * truthful speech;<br /> * good manners;<br /> * awareness of the listener’s state;<br /> * clarity about what is certain and what is uncertain.<br /> <br /> Different people require different forms of address. Some need basic explanation. Some need answers to doubts. Some need moral example. Some need correction of false assumptions. Some need time.<br /> <br /> == Dawah and good character ==<br /> <br /> Good character is part of dawah. A person may undermine the truth by presenting it harshly, ignorantly, or arrogantly. Likewise, good manners without truthfulness are incomplete. Dawah requires both truth and mercy.<br /> <br /> == Reward of guiding to good ==<br /> <br /> The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ taught that whoever guides someone to good receives a reward like the one who does it.&lt;ref&gt;[https://sunnah.com/muslim:1893a Sahih Muslim 1893a]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> * [[Islam]]<br /> * [[Tawhid]]<br /> * [[Theology]]<br /> * [[Comparative religion]]<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Islam]]<br /> [[Category:Theology]]<br /> [[Category:FAQ]]</div>

TheIslampill https://en.dawah.wiki/index.php?title=Shirk&diff=26 2026-05-22T22:25:03Z

<p>TheIslampill: Created page with &quot;&#039;&#039;&#039;Shirk&#039;&#039;&#039; is the association of partners with Allah in worship, lordship, names, attributes, or rights that belong to Allah alone. == Overview == Write the overview here. == Definition == Write the definition here. == Types == Write types or classifications here. == See also == * Tawhid Category:Islam Category:Theology Category:Shirk&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>'''Shirk''' is the association of partners with Allah in worship, lordship, names, attributes, or rights that belong to Allah alone.<br /> <br /> == Overview ==<br /> <br /> Write the overview here.<br /> <br /> == Definition ==<br /> <br /> Write the definition here.<br /> <br /> == Types ==<br /> <br /> Write types or classifications here.<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> * [[Tawhid]]<br /> <br /> [[Category:Islam]]<br /> [[Category:Theology]]<br /> [[Category:Shirk]]</div>

TheIslampill