Parallelism: Sanhedrin 37a - Revision history

Exmoose: Protected "Parallelism: Sanhedrin 37a": Deprecated ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))

2025-01-24T02:59:18Z

Protected "Parallelism: Sanhedrin 37a": Deprecated ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))

← Older revision

Revision as of 02:59, 24 January 2025

Asmith at 04:57, 18 December 2024

2024-12-18T04:57:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:57, 18 December 2024
Line 2:		Line 2:
	{{parallelism_qjcs}}		{{parallelism_qjcs}}
	For the full article with many more examples than are included in this series, see {{Main\|Parallelism Between the Qur'an and Judeo-Christian Scriptures}}		For the full article with many more examples than are included in this series, see {{Main\|Parallelism Between the Qur'an and Judeo-Christian Scriptures}}

			This is an old stub article, the main article has been moved to [[Parallels Between the Qur'an and Late Antique Judeo-Christian Literature]], please do not make any edits here.

	The Qur'an parallels a passage in the Talmud, specifically a rabbinical commentary in the Book of Sanhedrin.		The Qur'an parallels a passage in the Talmud, specifically a rabbinical commentary in the Book of Sanhedrin.

Lightyears at 21:23, 6 January 2023

2023-01-06T21:23:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:23, 6 January 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{QualityScore\|Lead=1\|Structure=4\|Content=4\|Language=3\|References=4}}		{{QualityScore\|Lead=1\|Structure=4\|Content=4\|Language=3\|References=4}}
	{{parallelism_qjcs}}		{{parallelism_qjcs}}
	For the full article with many more examples than are included in this series, see {{Main\|Parallelism Between the Qur~~%27an~~ and Judeo-Christian Scriptures}}		For the full article with many more examples than are included in this series, see {{Main\|Parallelism Between the Qur'an and Judeo-Christian Scriptures}}

	The Qur'an parallels a passage in the Talmud, specifically a rabbinical commentary in the Book of Sanhedrin.		The Qur'an parallels a passage in the Talmud, specifically a rabbinical commentary in the Book of Sanhedrin.

Lightyears: Pasted from the rewritten and much more up to date Parallelism article

2023-01-06T21:19:01Z

Pasted from the rewritten and much more up to date Parallelism article

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:19, 6 January 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{QualityScore\|Lead=1\|Structure=1\|Content=4\|Language=2\|References=4}}		{{QualityScore\|Lead=1\|Structure=4\|Content=4\|Language=3\|References=4}}
	{{parallelism_qjcs}}		{{parallelism_qjcs}}
	~~It may surprise~~ many ~~that~~ the Qur'an parallels a passage in the Talmud, specifically a rabbinical commentary in the Book of Sanhedrin.		For the full article with many more examples than are included in this series, see {{Main\|Parallelism Between the Qur%27an and Judeo-Christian Scriptures}}

			The Qur'an parallels a passage in the Talmud, specifically a rabbinical commentary in the Book of Sanhedrin.

	===Talmudic Mishnah===		===Talmudic Mishnah===
Line 13:		Line 15:
	'''The salient points are:'''		'''The salient points are:'''

	*<p>a. The Qur'an itself admits to ~~the borrowing,~~ with the phrase, 'We <u>decreed</u> (katabnā) for the Children of Israel…’</p><p>This word katabnā كَتَبْنَا is from the same Arabic root as kitāb, meaning book, as in 'People of the Book', and the verb ~~katabā~~ literally means he wrote. It is used a few verses later (wakatabnā) in {{Quran\|5\|45}} regarding some things that are certainly in the written Torah, and in another example {{Quran\|7\|145}} it is used for Allah writing on the stone tablets. Lane's Lexicon includes 'prescribed', 'ordained' among its definitions for this verb <ref>katabā [http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume7/00000118.pdf Lane's Lexicon book 1 page 2590]</ref>, though it is likely that this usage arose from royal decrees and legal rulings being written down. In some other verses exactly the same word is translated 'We have written'. It is quite obvious that the author believed that this 'decree' was in the law book of the Jews, the written Torah.</p>		*<p>a. The Qur'an itself admits to Judeao-Christian origin of this story with the phrase, 'We <u>decreed</u> (katabnā) for the Children of Israel…’</p><p>This word katabnā كَتَبْنَا is from the same Arabic root as kitāb, meaning book, as in 'People of the Book', and the verb kataba literally means he wrote. It is used a few verses later (wakatabnā) in {{Quran\|5\|45}} regarding some things that are certainly in the written Torah, and in another example {{Quran\|7\|145}} it is used for Allah writing on the stone tablets. Lane's Lexicon includes 'prescribed', 'ordained' among its definitions for this verb <ref>katabā [http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume7/00000118.pdf Lane's Lexicon book 1 page 2590]</ref>, though it is likely that this usage arose from royal decrees and legal rulings being written down. In some other verses exactly the same word is translated 'We have written'. It is quite obvious that the author believed that this 'decree' was in the law book of the Jews, the written Torah.</p>

	*b. The Sanhedrin parallel is not in the Torah as it is merely a rabbinical commentary on Cain’s murder of Abel, derived from the use of the plural, "bloods", in Genesis 4:10. It is a Mishnayot – a teaching of a Jewish sage~~. Thus~~, it ~~cannot be of divine origin~~.		*b. The Sanhedrin parallel is not in the Torah as it is merely a rabbinical commentary on Cain’s murder of Abel, derived from the use of the plural, "bloods", in Genesis 4:10. It is a Mishnayot – a teaching of a Jewish sage, and not from the biblical tradition as such but rather an extension of it.

	*c. The Qur'anic verse relates to the story of Cain's murder of Abel {{Quran\|5\|27-31}}, as does the Sanhedrin parallel.		*c. The Qur'anic verse relates to the story of Cain's murder of Abel {{Quran\|5\|27-31}}, as does the Sanhedrin parallel.
Line 23:		Line 25:
	Some Muslims (e.g. [http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBCandA.html Dr Saifullah]) claim that the parallelism is inexact, as the Sanhedrin 37a should be limited to ‘whoever destroys a single soul <u>of Israel</u>’. They claim that since the Qur'an lacks this reference to the 'single soul of Israel' but instead, generalizes the injunction to any soul, then the charge of parallelism has failed.		Some Muslims (e.g. [http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBCandA.html Dr Saifullah]) claim that the parallelism is inexact, as the Sanhedrin 37a should be limited to ‘whoever destroys a single soul <u>of Israel</u>’. They claim that since the Qur'an lacks this reference to the 'single soul of Israel' but instead, generalizes the injunction to any soul, then the charge of parallelism has failed.

	~~===Muslim Objections Refuted===~~		'''Problems with this argument'''

	'''~~Dr Saifullah has made a number of errors here:~~'''

	# ~~No one claims the parallelism is an ‘exact copy’. That’s why the term ‘parallelism’ is used. By implying thus,~~ Dr Saifullah ~~has created a straw man~~ argument.		#Dr Saifullah's argument that the two stories are not exact copies doesn't hold water, since stories usually change in transmission.
	# "of Israel" [http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_37.html#37a_39 is absent in some manuscripts] of this passage in the Babylonian Talmud, and we don't know which version Muhammad might have heard.		#"of Israel" [http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_37.html#37a_39 is absent in some manuscripts] of this passage in the Babylonian Talmud, and we don't know which version Muhammad might have heard.
	# The commentary also appears in the Jerusalem Talmud, [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mishnah/Seder_Nezikin/Tractate_Sanhedrin/Chapter_4/5 Sanhedrin 4/5], which omits the phrase, ‘of Israel’. There is no evidence that Muhammad had to rely on the Babylonian Talmud and not the Jerusalem Talmud, even though the former is considered more authoritative. ~~Thus~~, ~~Dr Saifullah has committed another straw man argument~~.		#The commentary also appears in the Jerusalem Talmud, [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mishnah/Seder_Nezikin/Tractate_Sanhedrin/Chapter_4/5 Sanhedrin 4/5], which omits the phrase, ‘of Israel’. There is no evidence that Muhammad had to rely on the Babylonian Talmud and not the Jerusalem Talmud, even though the former is considered more authoritative. Joseph Witztum is even more emphatic that "of Israel" is merely a secondary reading.<ref>Joseph Witztum (2011) [https://www.docdroid.net/EBk1ghM/the-syriac-milieu-of-the-quran-the-recasting-of-biblical-narratives-pdf The Syriac milieu of the Quran: The recasting of Biblical narratives], PhD Thesis, Princeton University footnote on p. 123</ref>

	'''Prima facie''' - this is a clear-cut case of ~~Muhammad erroneously thinking~~ the Sanhedrin 37a is from the Torah and therefore~~, he included it in~~ the ~~Qur'an~~. There is no other explanation for the phrase, ‘We decreed / have written’ (katabna) in the verse~~. If Allah had indeed decreed/ordained/prescribed/made binding/written for~~ the ~~Children of Israel where is~~ the ~~corresponding verse in~~ the ~~Torah?~~ The claim that it is lost because the Torah is corrupted stretches credulity because the parallelism exists in the Talmud, and it is unlikely that something lost from the Torah should find its way almost unchanged into the Talmud as a commentary of a narrative (i.e. a mishnayot). If the Rabbi had in mind a verse in the Torah that has since been lost, ~~why does~~ he ~~quote~~ verbatim from Genesis 4:10 ('it is written...'), but then when making his main point not ~~quote~~ directly this hypothetical lost verse? It is not a law, despite being in the Talmud (Oral Law) but a commentary by a Jewish sage, who explains his reasoning.		'''Prima facie''' - this is a clear-cut case of the Qur'an taking a story from apocryphal literature as scripture, since Sanhedrin 37a is from the "oral" Torah and therefore not part of the original biblical canon. There is no other explanation for the phrase, ‘We decreed / have written’ (katabna) in the verse-- it appears the Qur'an considers this apocryphal tradition to be on the same level as the biblical canon. The claim that it is lost because the Torah is corrupted stretches credulity because the parallelism exists in the Talmud, and it is unlikely that something lost from the Torah should find its way almost unchanged into the Talmud as a commentary of a narrative (i.e. a mishnayot). If the Rabbi had in mind a verse in the Torah that has since been lost, he would not have quoted verbatim from Genesis 4:10 ('it is written...'), but then when making his main point not quoted directly this hypothetical lost verse. It is not a law, despite being in the Talmud (Oral Law) but a commentary by a Jewish sage, who explains his reasoning.

	Thus~~, it seems perplexing that Allah should~~ katabna / decreed / ordain / prescribe / write something ~~that is~~ a commentary written by a Jewish Rabbi.		Thus the use of the word "katabna" / decreed / ordain / prescribe / write something was used for a commentary written by a Jewish Rabbi. The conclusion seems to be that the Qur'an sees this tradition as being on the same level as the Bible, or else is not aware that it does not in fact stem from the Bible.

	==References==		==References==

IbnPinker at 02:04, 12 November 2020

2020-11-12T02:04:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:04, 12 November 2020
Line 41:		Line 41:

	__NOTOC__		__NOTOC__
	~~[[Category:Parallelism]]~~

IbnPinker at 16:04, 31 July 2020

2020-07-31T16:04:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:04, 31 July 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{QualityScore\|Lead=1\|Structure=1\|Content=4\|Language=2\|References=4}}
	{{parallelism_qjcs}}		{{parallelism_qjcs}}
	It may surprise many that the Qur'an parallels a passage in the Talmud, specifically a rabbinical commentary in the Book of Sanhedrin.		It may surprise many that the Qur'an parallels a passage in the Talmud, specifically a rabbinical commentary in the Book of Sanhedrin.

Lightyears: added reflist

2014-05-28T11:30:43Z

added reflist

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:30, 28 May 2014
Line 34:		Line 34:
	Thus, it seems perplexing that Allah should katabna / decreed / ordain / prescribe / write something that is a commentary written by a Jewish Rabbi.		Thus, it seems perplexing that Allah should katabna / decreed / ordain / prescribe / write something that is a commentary written by a Jewish Rabbi.

			==References==
			{{reflist}}

	{{pn\|prev=Parallelism: Talking Baby Jesus\|next=Parallelism: The Raven and the Burial of Abel\|prevtitle=Talking Baby Jesus\|nexttitle=The Raven and the Burial of Abel}}		{{pn\|prev=Parallelism: Talking Baby Jesus\|next=Parallelism: The Raven and the Burial of Abel\|prevtitle=Talking Baby Jesus\|nexttitle=The Raven and the Burial of Abel}}

Lightyears: /* Muslim Objections Refuted */

2014-05-28T11:29:41Z

Muslim Objections Refuted

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:29, 28 May 2014
Line 30:		Line 30:
	# The commentary also appears in the Jerusalem Talmud, [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mishnah/Seder_Nezikin/Tractate_Sanhedrin/Chapter_4/5 Sanhedrin 4/5], which omits the phrase, ‘of Israel’. There is no evidence that Muhammad had to rely on the Babylonian Talmud and not the Jerusalem Talmud, even though the former is considered more authoritative. Thus, Dr Saifullah has committed another straw man argument.		# The commentary also appears in the Jerusalem Talmud, [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mishnah/Seder_Nezikin/Tractate_Sanhedrin/Chapter_4/5 Sanhedrin 4/5], which omits the phrase, ‘of Israel’. There is no evidence that Muhammad had to rely on the Babylonian Talmud and not the Jerusalem Talmud, even though the former is considered more authoritative. Thus, Dr Saifullah has committed another straw man argument.

	'''Prima facie''' - this is a clear-cut case of Muhammad erroneously thinking the Sanhedrin 37a is from the Torah and therefore, he included it in the Qur'an. There is no other explanation for the phrase, ‘We ~~decreed’~~ (katabna) in the verse. If Allah had indeed decreed/ordained/prescribed/made binding for the Children of Israel where is the corresponding verse in the Torah? The claim that it is lost because the Torah is corrupted stretches credulity because the parallelism exists in the Talmud, and it is unlikely that something lost from the Torah should find its way almost unchanged into the Talmud as a commentary of a narrative (i.e. a mishnayot). It is not a law, despite being in the Talmud (Oral Law) but a commentary by a Jewish sage, who explains his reasoning.		'''Prima facie''' - this is a clear-cut case of Muhammad erroneously thinking the Sanhedrin 37a is from the Torah and therefore, he included it in the Qur'an. There is no other explanation for the phrase, ‘We decreed / have written’ (katabna) in the verse. If Allah had indeed decreed/ordained/prescribed/made binding/written for the Children of Israel where is the corresponding verse in the Torah? The claim that it is lost because the Torah is corrupted stretches credulity because the parallelism exists in the Talmud, and it is unlikely that something lost from the Torah should find its way almost unchanged into the Talmud as a commentary of a narrative (i.e. a mishnayot). If the Rabbi had in mind a verse in the Torah that has since been lost, why does he quote verbatim from Genesis 4:10 ('it is written...'), but then when making his main point not quote directly this hypothetical lost verse? It is not a law, despite being in the Talmud (Oral Law) but a commentary by a Jewish sage, who explains his reasoning.

	Thus, it seems perplexing that Allah should katabna / decreed / ordain / prescribe / ~~made binding~~ something that is a commentary written by a Jewish Rabbi.		Thus, it seems perplexing that Allah should katabna / decreed / ordain / prescribe / write something that is a commentary written by a Jewish Rabbi.

Lightyears: /* Qur'anic Verse */ katabna shows the the author believed it to be in the written Torah

2014-05-28T11:19:28Z

Qur'anic Verse: katabna shows the the author believed it to be in the written Torah

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:19, 28 May 2014
Line 12:		Line 12:
	'''The salient points are:'''		'''The salient points are:'''

	*a. The Qur'an itself admits to the borrowing, with the phrase, ~~‘we~~ <u>decreed</u>~~/ordained/prescribed/made binding~~ (~~katabna~~) for the Children of Israel…’		*<p>a. The Qur'an itself admits to the borrowing, with the phrase, 'We <u>decreed</u> (katabnā) for the Children of Israel…’</p><p>This word katabnā كَتَبْنَا is from the same Arabic root as kitāb, meaning book, as in 'People of the Book', and the verb katabā literally means he wrote. It is used a few verses later (wakatabnā) in {{Quran\|5\|45}} regarding some things that are certainly in the written Torah, and in another example {{Quran\|7\|145}} it is used for Allah writing on the stone tablets. Lane's Lexicon includes 'prescribed', 'ordained' among its definitions for this verb <ref>katabā [http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume7/00000118.pdf Lane's Lexicon book 1 page 2590]</ref>, though it is likely that this usage arose from royal decrees and legal rulings being written down. In some other verses exactly the same word is translated 'We have written'. It is quite obvious that the author believed that this 'decree' was in the law book of the Jews, the written Torah.</p>

	*b. The Sanhedrin parallel is not in the Torah as it is merely a rabbinical commentary on Cain’s murder of Abel, derived from the use of the plural, "bloods", in Genesis 4:10. It is a Mishnayot – a teaching of a Jewish sage. Thus, it cannot be of divine origin.		*b. The Sanhedrin parallel is not in the Torah as it is merely a rabbinical commentary on Cain’s murder of Abel, derived from the use of the plural, "bloods", in Genesis 4:10. It is a Mishnayot – a teaching of a Jewish sage. Thus, it cannot be of divine origin.

	*c. The Qur'anic verse relates to the story of Cain's murder of Abel {{Quran\|5\|27-31}}, as does the Sanhedrin parallel.		*c. The Qur'anic verse relates to the story of Cain's murder of Abel {{Quran\|5\|27-31}}, as does the Sanhedrin parallel.

	===Muslim Objections===		===Muslim Objections===

Lightyears: /* Talmudic Verse */ Shown in context since some misunderstand the problem here

2014-05-27T17:44:25Z

Talmudic Verse: Shown in context since some misunderstand the problem here

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:44, 27 May 2014
Line 2:		Line 2:
	It may surprise many that the Qur'an parallels a passage in the Talmud, specifically a rabbinical commentary in the Book of Sanhedrin.		It may surprise many that the Qur'an parallels a passage in the Talmud, specifically a rabbinical commentary in the Book of Sanhedrin.

	===Talmudic ~~Verse~~===		===Talmudic Mishnah===

	{{Quote\|[http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_37.html Talmud: Sanhedrin 37a]\|~~“For~~ this reason was man created alone, to teach that ~~whoever~~ destroys a single ~~life~~, ~~it is~~ as if he ~~has~~ destroyed ~~an entire~~ world; and ~~whoever~~ preserves a single ~~life~~, ~~it is~~ as if he ~~has saved an entire~~ world.”}}		{{Quote\|[http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_37.html Talmud: Sanhedrin 37a]\|For thus we find in the case of Cain, who killed his brother, that it is written: the bloods of thy brother cry unto me: not the blood of thy brother, but the bloods of thy brother, is said — i.e., his blood and the blood of his [potential] descendants. (alternatively, the bloods of thy brother, teaches that his blood was splashed over trees and stones.) '''For this reason was man created alone, to teach thee that whosoever destroys a single soul of israel, scripture imputes [guilt] to him as though he had destroyed a complete world; and whosoever preserves a single soul of israel, scripture ascribes [merit] to him as though he had preserved a complete world.''' Furthermore, [he was created alone] for the sake of peace among men, that one might not say to his fellow, 'my father was greater than thine, and that the minim might not say, there are many ruling powers in heaven;}}

	===Qur'anic Verse===		===Qur'anic Verse===