4,682
edits
Parallels Between the Qur'an and Late Antique Judeo-Christian Literature: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Parallels Between the Qur'an and Late Antique Judeo-Christian Literature (view source)
Revision as of 08:07, 23 May 2021
, 23 May 2021→Corruption of the Previous Scriptures
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
| Line 156: | Line 156: | ||
===Corruption of the Previous Scriptures=== | ===Corruption of the Previous Scriptures=== | ||
Similarities between the Qur'an and previous Abrahamic scriptures have been noticed since the inception of Islam. These Quranc narratives, however, often do not always follow their Judeao-Chistian forebearers. | Similarities between the Qur'an and previous Abrahamic scriptures have been noticed since the inception of Islam. These Quranc narratives, however, often do not always follow their Judeao-Chistian forebearers. Three possible explanations are usually offered for this: | ||
#The original Judeo-Christian scriptures have been corrupted (common Muslim apologetic claim). | #The original Judeo-Christian scriptures have been corrupted (common Muslim apologetic claim). | ||
| Line 162: | Line 162: | ||
#The Qur'an was corrupted. | #The Qur'an was corrupted. | ||
None of the early Christian texts support the Muslim contention of corruption of the Judeo-Christian scriptures, as there arguments fail to distinguish between apocryphal and canonical works. They fail to see the difference between mainstream texts and cultic/Gnostic texts. | None of the early Christian texts support the Muslim contention of corruption of the Judeo-Christian scriptures, as there arguments fail to distinguish between apocryphal and canonical works. They fail to see the difference between mainstream texts and cultic/Gnostic texts. There don't exist any earlier Christian texts which accord with the Muslim view of Jesus and early Christianity, and in order for the Christian scriptures to reflect this a conspiracy spanning centuries amongst disparate people speaking different languages and belonging to different Christian factions would be required. As such this possibility is usually rejected by modern historians. | ||
Hard textual evidence is needed to prove corruption in the manner asserted by modern Muslims, and this is totally lacking for the direction and manner of corruption that is alleged. The next possibility is to examine the change in the succession of early manuscripts – the historical approach. However, as far as is known, the Judeo-Christian scriptures are remarkably similar to historical manuscripts. The next possibility is to examine the extra-scriptural writings of the early Rabbis and early Church fathers. The variations found in the Qur'an do not tend to show up here either. | Hard textual evidence is needed to prove corruption in the manner asserted by modern Muslims, and this is totally lacking for the direction and manner of corruption that is alleged. The next possibility is to examine the change in the succession of early manuscripts – the historical approach. However, as far as is known, the Judeo-Christian scriptures are remarkably similar to historical manuscripts. The next possibility is to examine the extra-scriptural writings of the early Rabbis and early Church fathers. The variations found in the Qur'an do not tend to show up here either. | ||