#textualcriticism

The Quran: A Critical Review

By Bible Researcher & Author Eli Kittim 🎓

Islamic Origins

Aside from the fact that the Quran was initially built on bloodshed and violence——in which the founder of Islam, Muhammad, participated in many military battles to convert neighbouring peoples and tribes——there are many other problem areas with the history of Islam as well. Many Jews were slaughtered who would not convert, as well as many other innocent people. The motto is the same now as it was then: “convert or be killed by the sword.” The question is, would the pure and holy God of Heaven and earth condone, or even encourage, such behavior? It’s true that during the Middle Ages the Catholic Church did the same. However, the founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ, did not engage in any military battles or in any terrorist attacks to convert people to Christianity by force. Muhammad did! One began with peace; the other with war. That’s the main difference.

Bloodshed and violence also marked the beginning of the Islamic period following the death of Muhammad. Rival Muslim leaders were vying for control of the Caliphate. Many killed their rivals or were themselves assassinated. Even Ali (aka ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib)——a cousin, son-in-law, and companion of Muhammad——was himself assassinated in 661 AD. That’s when the Shia–Sunni split began. Since then, there have been so many different splintering sects (denominations) and myriads of different schools and branches of Islamic theology that it is downright misleading to claim that there’s only one interpretation of the Quran:

Islamic schools and branches have

different understandings of Islam. There are

many different sects or denominations,

schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and

schools of Islamic theology, or ʿaqīdah

(creed). Within Islamic groups themselves

there may be differences, such as different

orders (tariqa) within Sufism, and within

Sunnī Islam different schools of theology

(Aṯharī, Ashʿarī, Māturīdī) and jurisprudence

(Ḥanafī, Mālikī, Shāfiʿī, Ḥanbalī). Groups in

Islam may be numerous (the largest

branches are Shīʿas and Sunnīs), or

relatively small in size (Ibadis, Zaydīs,

Ismāʿīlīs). Differences between the groups

may not be well known to Muslims outside

of scholarly circles, or may have induced

enough passion to have resulted in political

and religious violence (Barelvi, Deobandi,

Salafism, Wahhabism). There are informal

movements driven by ideas (such as Islamic

modernism and Islamism) as well as

organized groups with a governing body

(Ahmadiyya, Ismāʿīlism, Nation of Islam).

Some of the Islamic sects and groups

regard certain others as deviant or not truly

Muslim (Ahmadiyya, Alawites, Quranists).

Some Islamic sects and groups date back

to the early history of Islam between the 7th

and 9th centuries CE (Kharijites, Sunnīs,

Shīʿas), whereas others have arisen much

more recently (Islamic neo-traditionalism,

liberalism and progressivism, Islamic

modernism, Salafism and Wahhabism) or

even in the 20th century (Nation of Islam).

Still others were influential in their time but

are not longer in existence (non-Ibadi

Kharijites, Muʿtazila, Murji'ah).

—- Wikipedia (Islamic schools and

branches)

Another criticism that has been levelled against the Quran is that it has not been critically scrutinized rigorously in the same manner as the Bible, neither does it have a critical edition, nor is the manuscript evidence made available to scholars for serious study. There’s a secrecy surrounding it that seems to prevent scholarly investigations. For example, because it lacks a critical edition, there are no footnotes in the Quran to notify the reader about manuscript evidence, textual discrepancies, or omissions!

Textual and Linguistic Problems with the Quran

But these are not the only problems. There are many more problems with the Quran. While the Bible remained uniform, even though it was revealed to many different authors and prophets——written in different languages, during different time periods, and in many different locations——the Quran was only revealed to one man who happened to be illiterate. And how good was his memory? We don’t know. How much of what he heard was he able to retain? Let’s face it, the Quran is a relatively large book that is virtually impossible to memorize word for word, especially in the consonantal language of its day. Add to this the fact that in 632 CE, following Muhammad’s death, the Battle of Yamama ensued where a great number of those who had supposedly retained the Quran in their memory (hafiz) actually died. How then can Muslims claim the preservation of the Quran through memory and oral transmission?

Muslims often claim that the Quran is a reliable, uncorrupted text because there is supposedly only one Quran. However, that is actually a misleading and fallacious argument. For one, Classical Arabic was a consonantal language that had no vowels and was thus open to various interpretations. It was different from the Arabic of today. For another, the controlled transmission of the Quran makes it impossible to know what was the original text. Hence its textual integrity has been seriously compromised. The text was in fact controlled by one person, the khalifa, as attested by Uthman's authority to recall and uniformly revise all the manuscripts. Therefore, when Uthman ibn Affan (the 3rd Caliph of Islam) burned all the existing variant copies of the Quran, he uniformly corrupted it in a textually undetectable manner. That’s actually a manipulation of the evidence. Why? Because the Quran doesn’t allow us to come any closer to the original text than the Uthmanic Revised Standard Version 20 years removed from Muhammad. Any errors which found their way into the URSV would be permanent and uncorrectable. And, unfortunately, historical accounts from early Islam tell us that such errors existed because we have, for example, the “Sanaa manuscript,” which contains earlier developments of the Quran, demonstrating textual variances that diverge from the Uthman copy. Besides, there are so many different “readings” of the Quran which give rise to so many different Islamic interpretations.

Moreover, Islam has nothing new to offer by way of revelation. Its doctrine could simply be classified as a modified theological redundancy of the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Biblical heritage that preceded it. The main difference between Islam and Christianity is this. Unlike the Quran’s singular witness and source——given that it was only revealed to *one* man (Muhammad)——the revelations of the New Testament were imparted to many different people, thereby authenticating its message by multiple attestations and witnesses!

But there is more. With regard to source criticism——that is, the sources that the Quran’s message is derived from——there are some very serious issues of forgery involved. For example, there are well-known parallelisms between the Quran and the extra-biblical, non-inspired book of Talmud (e.g. Surah 5:32; cf. Sanhedrin 37a) as well as borrowing from Christian apocryphal works. Case in point, the Quran copies from the non-canonical Infancy Gospel of Thomas in which Jesus gives life to clay birds. The Quran also uses the Second Treatise of the Great Seth, an apocryphal Gnostic text of the 3rd century. This is one of the texts where the idea that Jesus was not crucified comes from. The text claims that Simon of Cyrene was crucified in Jesus’ place. Jesus is seen as standing by and supposedly "laughing at their ignorance.” The Quran also employs the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, an “uninspired” text that is part of the New Testament apocrypha. This text also denies the crucifixion of Jesus and suggests that there was a substitute. This is attested in the Quran, which says that Jesus was neither killed nor crucified (Sura 4:157-158). So, the Quran clearly employs Jewish and Christian apocryphal works that were never accepted as “inspired” either by the Jews or the Christians. Thus, the sources of the Quran are highly dubious, even though they are described within the text as “revelations” from God.

Theological and Historical Discrepancies

Muslims claim that the Quran is neither corrupted nor influenced by Judeo-Christian sources, and yet upon further scrutiny the book clearly incorporates passages from both the Jewish Talmud and from various Christian apocryphal works. Plagiarism abounds, and so does forgery. Therefore, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to maintain that it’s a “revelation” when at least some of the sources of the Quran are highly dubious! In fact, the evidence suggests that the Quran is the product of a late *Gnostic Christian revolt* against Byzantine Orthodoxy. What I am proposing is that the *Gnostic-Christian Sects* that were marginalized by Byzantine Orthodoxy from the fourth century onwards didn’t go away quietly but seemingly conspired against the Church during the early part of the dark ages! The result of those efforts eventuated in the Book we now call the Quran. The syncretistic-gnostic elements present in the Quran suggest that it was in fact an amalgamation of heresies that characterized many different Gnostic Christian sects. In other words, Islam was originally a heretical Eastern-Christian sect!

The aforementioned textual criticisms are further compounded when we realize that the Quran contains further theological discrepancies. For example, there are numerous verses in the Quran where Allah is swearing by created things that are less-than-God, thus committing “shirk” (i.e. the sin of ascribing divine status to any other beings beside Allah). Here’s a case in point. In sura 81:15, Allah says: “But nay! I swear by the stars.” Another example is sura 91 verse 1: “I swear by the sun and its brilliance.” When God supposedly swears by something which is less than himself the truth value of his assertion is obviously weakened. By definition, an oath is meant to buttress an argument, not to decrease the weight thereof. Therefore, the truth value of an oath is equivalent to, and connected with, the truth value of the one who declares it. As such, Allah’s oaths (swearing by created things) directly contradict his so-called divine status. By contrast, the God of the Bible swears by Himself, since there is nothing greater to swear under (cf. Gen. 22.16; Isa. 45.23; Heb. 6.13). By definition, an oath is a solemn attestation of the truth of one's words. In this case, how can Allah’s oaths be trustworthy if they appeal to something that is less than himself? Answer: they cannot! It appears, then, that the aforementioned oaths in the Quran are reflecting a human rather than a divine author.

These are just some of the problems of the Quran. But there are many, many more. The Quran lacks historicity. Mecca and Medina, for example, were deserts without water or vegetation, making it highly unlikely for a civilization to live there, let alone thrive, according to Islamic expert Dr. Jay Smith. Not to mention that these cities are not mentioned anywhere until the late 8th century. This would strongly suggest that the stories concerning these locations are probably nothing more than historical fiction.

The Biblical Stories are Altered in the Quran

There’s also a great deal of deliberate misinformation that is coming from Islamic scholars. For example, I’m currently reading “The Clear Quran Series: A Thematic English Translation” (Lombard: Book of Signs Foundation, 2016), translated by Dr. Mustafa Khattab, with chief editors: Abu-Isa Webb, Aaron Wannamaker, and Hisham Sharif. They are affiliated with the site: TheClearQuran.org. In the preface, Dr. Khattab says (p. xvi):

Arab Muslims, Christians, and Jews call

God ‘Allah.’

This is false. Neither Jews nor Christians call God Allah. In providing a definition for the name, Dr. Khattab is disingenuous because he fails to inform readers that Allah was a pre-Islamic god who was worshipped long before the writing of the Quran. On the same page, he makes another linguistic error by stating that “Jesus used ‘Alaha’ to refer to God.” This is false. Jesus never called God Alaha. On the following page (xvii), Dr. Khattab begins a paragraph with the title “Was the Quran Copied from the Bible?” He writes:

It is worth mentioning that the first Arabic

translation of the Bible was done centuries

after the Prophet’s death.

He attributes the similarities between the Quran and the Bible not on “intertextuality” (i.e. literary copying) but rather on “divine revelation.” However, this is another misleading argument. The Bible had been translated into Syriac, Coptic, Aramaic, and Latin within the first few centuries of the common era, which makes it highly improbable that the first Arabic translation occurred in the 9th century. Just because we haven’t found earlier Arabic manuscripts doesn’t mean they did not exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Besides, we know that there existed an Arab-Christian community long before the time of Muhammad. There were certainly Christian churches in the East where the Bible was regularly preached. Textual criticism demonstrates a literary dependence of the Quran on various spurious works of a Christian and Jewish bent. Scholars can trace many of the stories of the Quran back to the Bible and the early Gnostic apocryphal texts. How would the early Muslims know about these texts or be able to copy them if they were not written in Arabic? Dr. Khattab makes many other erroneous and fallacious comments that I will not mention at this juncture because they will divert us from the topic in question.

Things actually get much worse once we start reading the Quran. Dr. Khattab claims that it is a masterpiece of Arabic literature, something akin to Shakespeare. But once you start reading it, it quickly becomes apparent that it doesn’t have the majestic refinement, eloquence, elegance, loftiness, or the wisdom of the Bible. In fact, it is so crude, unrefined, and tasteless that it doesn’t even sound “inspired,” let alone revealed. It actually reads like a second rate text in which a very insecure author is trying to establish himself either by gaslighting the readers or by blowing smoke about his knowledge of the Bible via the use of repetitive phrases such as “remember” Moses, “remember” Abraham, etc. But who gave him the literary license to alter the Biblical stories and to present them mangled and distorted? How is the reader supposed to “remember” the Bible if the author of the Quran is constantly interpolating new material and changing the stories, either deliberately or because he never really understood them?

As I started to read the Quran, I noticed that God is not talking in the first person. Rather, there seems to be a human narrator, which begs the question: how is this text divine? The preface claims that the Quran is scientifically accurate, yet Surah 2:22 refers to God who made “the sky a canopy.” The sky is obviously not a canopy. Also, the author seems to have little confidence because he’s constantly challenging the reader to defy him. God would not speak in that tone. As you read on, it becomes apparent that the author wants to discredit the Christian Trinity. But he devised a clever rhetorical device to do so. He has God supposedly saying “We” did this, or “We” did that. And then he explains that God is talking to the Angels. This would suggest that God used the help of angels to co-create. This would elevate the status of angels to “co-creators,” which is certainly a theological and hermeneutical contradiction! This is also theologically problematic because when God says in Genesis 1.26 “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness,” he is obviously not talking to angels because humankind is not made in the image of (created) angels but rather in the image of (the uncreated) God! Yet the Quran (Surah 2:30) directly contradicts this by claiming that God was talking to the angels about the creation of human beings:

‘Remember’ when your Lord said to the

angels, ‘I am going to place a successive

‘human’ authority on earth.’

Further theological discrepancies occur in Surah 2:32 in which the angels admit to not knowing “the names of all things” (Surah 2:31). But, surprisingly, “God said, ‘O Adam! Inform them of their names’ “ (Surah 2:33). In other words, the human Adam had more extensive knowledge than the divine angelic host combined. I’m not sure how a finite and limited human being who doesn’t have access to divine knowledge can possibly know more than the angelic beings who have existed for aeons upon aeons before the creation of the universe! This passage is yet another instance that reveals Allah’s lack of confidence, in which he’s constantly challenging the angels in order to prove that he knows more than they do. To make matters worse, the author once again invokes the memory of an episode that doesn’t exist in the Bible. So, there’s actually nothing to “remember.” This is a fabrication out of whole cloth. Yet, in Surah 2:34, the author writes:

And ‘remember’ when We said to the

angels, ‘Prostrate before Adam,’ so they all

did——but not Iblis [Satan], who refused

and acted arrogantly.

This Quranic commandment actually violates the 1st commandment of the Torah: “You shall have no other God’s before me.” In the New Testament, Romans 1:25 also condemns those who have “worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” The Book of Revelation 19.10 strictly prohibits people from worshipping even angels, let alone humans. Therefore, this Quranic passage not only directly contradicts the Bible but is also ironically forcing us to “remember” a false memory, namely, that God commanded the angels to worship Adam. But there’s no evidence that God ever said that. So how can anyone “remember” something that never happened? This is nothing short of literary gaslighting.

What is more, Surah 2:35-36 directly contradicts the Genesis creation account by claiming that Adam and Eve lived “in Paradise,” and after the fall had to “Descend from the heavens ‘to the earth.’ “ This also contradicts the Bible which states that Adam was created on earth (Genesis 1:27). In Surah 2:51-52, the author says that even though “you worshipped the calf in his [Moses’] absence, … We ‘still’ forgave you.” It appears that the angels have the power to forgive sins. I thought only God forgave sins. Apparently, the angels forgive, too. Then, in Surah 2:57, the author says to the Israelites:

And ‘remember when’ We shaded you with

clouds and sent down to you manna and

quails, ‘saying’, ‘Eat from the good things

We have provided for you.’ The evildoers

‘certainly’ did not wrong Us, but wronged

themselves.

Since the author will later deny the Trinity by proclaiming that God is one, it begs the question: who does the plural pronoun “We” refer to? It seems as if the author of the Quran is trying to reinterpret the plural pronoun “Us” in Genesis 1.26—-when God said “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness”——by suggesting that God was talking to the angels. Thus, the “We” plural pronoun, once again, suggests a reference to the angelic host. However, this theological language is problematic because God wouldn’t speak about the angels as being co-creators or providers of the human race. On the contrary, Philippians 4:19 says that it is God (and God alone) who supplies “every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.” Furthermore, God wouldn’t share his glory with the angels by implying that they’re co-creators, co-providers, and co-forgivers. Isaiah 42:8 reads:

I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not

yield my glory to another or my praise to

idols.

Therefore, in using the plural pronoun “We” to describe the joint efforts of God and the angels, the author of the Quran clearly demonstrates that he has misunderstood the theology of the Old and New Testaments. That’s precisely why the Quran doesn’t sound like divine scripture. It doesn’t have the ring of truth; it doesn’t sound genuine. This unbiblical conflation of God with angels is seen again in Surah 2:59, which reads: “We sent down a punishment from the heavens upon them for their rebelliousness.” Notice, it is not God who sent it; “We sent” it! Not to mention that God’s language in the Quran is rather vulgar and insulting. Surah 2:65 records the punishment for the Sabbath-Breakers:

You are already aware of those of you who

broke the Sabbath. We said to them, ‘Be

disgraced apes!’

A very insulting and demeaning language is used that is uncharacteristic of a pure and holy God. This is certainly not the language of the Bible. Incidentally, Jesus also broke the Sabbath and healed a man who had been unable to walk for 38 years (John 5:1-18). Is the author of the Quran alluding to Jesus as well, calling him an ape? How insulting!

Then comes a projection. We already know that Muhammad was illiterate. We also know that the Quran knows nothing about Holy Scripture because it keeps getting the stories wrong, misinterpreting them, distorting them, and adding to them. But, ironically, instead of admitting this, the author of the Quran pronounces a condemnation on those who do these things. But that’s exactly what the Quran is doing. He writes in Surah 2:78-79:

And among them are the illiterate who know

nothing about the Scripture except lies, and

‘so’ they ‘wishfully’ speculate. So woe to

those who distort the Scripture with their

own hands [writings] then say, ‘This is from

God’——seeking a fleeting gain! So woe to

them for what their hands have written.

In Surah 2:102, the Quran talks of magical themes:

They ‘instead’ followed the magic promoted

by the devils during the reign of Solomon.

This reference is not found anywhere in Scripture. As far as I know, the only known text to discuss demonic magic during the time of Solomon is a pseudepigraphical text, ascribed to King Solomon, which is known as The “Testament of Solomon.”

Another linguistic problem with the Quran is that it has God openly disrespecting Christians and Jews and their scriptures in a manner that is not theologically persuasive or convincing. God would not talk down to Christians and Jews by mocking their Scriptural beliefs. This is uncharacteristic of the holy and pure God of Scripture (see e.g. Surah 2:111, 113, 120). The Quran is also embellishing and contradicting the Scriptural stories by adding extraneous elements. If these stories were revealed in the 7th century, why were they not known to the earlier prophets or mentioned in Scripture? Nowhere throughout the Old and New Testaments is there the slightest clue, for example, that Abraham was in Mecca. So how are the readers supposed to remember this story? Yet Surah 2:126 declares:

And ‘remember’ when Abraham said, ‘My

Lord, make this city ‘of Mecca’ secure and

provide fruits to its people.

Unless this is copied from a spurious, apocryphal Gnostic text, there’s really nothing to remember. What is more, the Quran distorts Scripture. In the Bible, Ishmael and Hagar are disowned by Abraham. In Genesis 21:8-21, Abraham sends Hagar and Ishmael away. Moreover, Isaac is the promised seed or the heir of the promises (see Gen. 13:15; 15:5; 22:17). But in the Quran it’s the exact opposite. It is Ishmael who is the promised one, and Abraham celebrates him. This is called “twisting God’s Word,” which is a manipulation of the Scriptural evidence. It represents a kind of underhanded (sleight of hand) Islamic apologetics. It is as if we have a new film director who decided to change the plot. In this 7th century (dark ages) sequel to the Bible, it’s all about Abraham and Ishmael. And we have another plot twist in which the second commandment that prohibits the worship of idols is broken. There’s also an allusion to the Kaaba in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, which was also venerated in pre-Islamic pagan times. Paradoxically, Surah 2:125 urges the reader to remember a time that never existed. I suppose it’s a clever way of attempting to historicize a fictional narrative that has no basis in history or literature:

And ‘remember’ when We made the Sacred

House [Ka’bah] a centre and a sanctuary

for the people ‘saying’, ‘You may take the

standing-place of Abraham as a site of

prayer.’ And We entrusted Abraham and

Ishmael to purify My House for those who

circle it, who meditate in it, and who bow

and prostrate themselves ‘in prayer’.

Then there is a theological fabrication of the one true God which departs from Scripture and tradition. It also falsifies Hebrew Scripture which never mentions Yahweh as the God of Ishmael. Surah 2:133 declares:

Or did you witness when death came to

Jacob? He asked his children, ‘Who will

you worship after my passing?’ They

replied, ‘We will continue to worship your

God, the God of your forefathers——

Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac——the One

God. And to him we all submit.’

There is also a seeming allusion to the Christians, whom the anonymous author of the Quran is denouncing as polytheists (see Surah 2:135). The author of the Quran obviously doesn’t understand the theological concept of the Trinity. It doesn’t evoke polytheism. The Triune God is defined as one God who exists in three coeternal, coequal, consubstantial divine persons. An analogy would be the fingers of a hand. Although there may be 5 fingers, it is still one (1) hand!

——-

For further details on the Trinity, see the following article:

Is the Trinity a Biblical Teaching?

https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/631800420436754432/is-the-trinity-a-biblical-teaching

——-

The Quran Contradicts Itself

Finally, I will put forth one last statement before I make my closing arguments. The anonymous author of the Quran claims that he follows the revelations of the Hebrew patriarchs and of Jesus. He writes (Surah 2:136):

Say, O believers, ‘We believe in God and

what has been revealed to us; and what

was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac,

Jacob, and his descendants; and what was

given to Moses, Jesus, and other prophets

from the Lord. We make no distinction

between any of them.

There are two things, here, worthy of consideration. On the one hand, the author claims to accept the revelation of Jesus. On the other hand, he contradicts the revelation of Jesus by saying that Jesus is no different than anyone else. Well, which is it? Does he accept Jesus’ revelation or not? He’s violating the law of non-contradiction, which states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. Jesus claimed that God is a trinity. Matthew 28.19, for example, is an authentic verse that is part of the New Testament critical edition. In this verse, Jesus describes what God is:

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the

nations, baptizing them in the name of the

Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

If the anonymous author of the Quran accepts Jesus’ revelation, as he claims, then it is incumbent upon him to also accept the revelation of the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! Moreover, if this author accepts Jesus’ revelation, then it is incumbent upon him to also accept the divinity of Jesus! Otherwise he is contradicting himself.

The Deity of Jesus Christ

In John 1:1 (“the word was God”); Colossians 2:9 (“in him the whole fullness of the godhead [θεότητος] dwells bodily”); Hebrews 1:3 (“The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of his being”); Titus 2:13 (“our great God and Savior Jesus Christ”); Philippians 2:6 (“being in very nature God”); Colossians 1:15 (“The Son is the image of the invisible God”); 2 Peter 1:1 (“our God and Savior Jesus Christ”). And in John 1:3 and Hebrews 1:2 Jesus is the creator and the “heir of all things, through whom he [God] also created the worlds.” John 1:3: “All things came into being through him [Jesus], and without him not one thing came into being.”

——-

Jesus’ Incarnation Prophesied in the Tanakh (Old Testament)

Leviticus 26.12:

“I will walk among you and be your God”

Micah 5.2:

“out of you will come forth for Me One to be ruler over Israel—One whose origins are of old, from the days of eternity.”

Daniel 7.13-14:

“one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. … He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him.”

Isaiah 53.3-5:

“He was despised and rejected …, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. … Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.”

Zechariah 12:10

“They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn”

Isaiah 9.6 (emphasis added):

“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, MIGHTY GOD, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

You have to be exegetically ignorant or completely illiterate not to notice that the divine Messiah was prophesied in both the Tanakh and the Habrit Hachadashah. If the author of the Quran accepts Jesus as the Messiah——as well as Jesus’ revelation, and his future coming——then he must also accept the aforementioned revelations!

Conclusion

The Use of ἄλλος and έτερος in the New Testament

By Author & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

The Greek terms ἄλλος (allos) and ἕτερος (heteros) primarily mean “other,” or “another.” The standard koine Greek teaching that the definitions of the words ἄλλος and ἕτερος are qualitatively different has been taught throughout the world in many seminaries, universities, and Bible institutes. The difference between the two words is often explained as follows: állos means “another of the same kind,” whereas héteros means another “of a different kind.” Therefore, entrenched in Biblical scholarship is the notion that ἄλλος and ἕτερος are qualitatively *different* terms.

However, according to a published article by Dr. James Keith Elliott——Emeritus Professor of New Testament Textual Criticism at the University of Leeds——the terms ἄλλος and ἕτερος are essentially interchangeable and synonymous. Dr. Elliott writes:

Ετερος in Classical Greek is used of

division into two parts: in New Testament

Greek the sense of the dual has largely

disappeared and έτερος is often confused

with άλλος. Attempts by commentators and

grammars to differentiate the two words

are often strained. In the New Testament

the words are interchangeable and

synonymous as can be seen most clearly at

I Cor 12 10 … and Hbr 11 35-36.

(James Keith Elliott, “The Use of έτερος in

the New Testament,” Zeitschrift für die

neutestamentliche Wissenschaft [Vol. 60,

Issue 1-2, 1969]).

What Dr. Elliott is saying is that the aforesaid distinction in Classical Greek largely disappeared in New Testament times. He insists that the “attempts by commentators and grammars to differentiate the two words are often strained.” He asserts that the two “words are interchangeable and synonymous.” Let’s take a look at one example which, he claims, proves this point. It is a passage where Paul enumerates the various charismatic gifts that the Holy Spirit gives to believers for the purpose of building up the “church.” 1 Cor. 12.10-11 (SBLGNT) reads:

ἄλλῳ ἐνεργήματα δυνάμεων, ἄλλῳ

προφητεία, ἄλλῳ διακρίσεις πνευμάτων,

ἑτέρῳ γένη γλωσσῶν, ἄλλῳ ἑρμηνεία

γλωσσῶν · πάντα δὲ ταῦτα ἐνεργεῖ τὸ ἓν

καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα, διαιροῦν ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστῳ

καθὼς βούλεται.

Translation (NRSV):

to another the working of miracles, to

another prophecy, to another the

discernment of spirits, to another various

kinds of tongues, to another the

interpretation of tongues. All these are

activated by one and the same Spirit, who

allots to each one individually just as the

Spirit chooses.

Notice that “all these [gifts] are activated by one and the same Spirit.” So we are not talking about qualitative differences “of a different kind.” Observe also that the two words ἄλλῳ and ἑτέρῳ are used as interchangeable and synonymous terms! The aforementioned distinction between ἄλλος “of the same kind” versus έτερος “of a different kind” doesn’t apply in this particular context. Let’s now look at the second example, which Dr. James Keith Elliott provides, namely, Heb. 11.35-36:

ἔλαβον γυναῖκες ἐξ ἀναστάσεως τοὺς

νεκροὺς αὐτῶν · ἄλλοι δὲ ἐτυμπανίσθησαν,

οὐ προσδεξάμενοι τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν, ἵνα

κρείττονος ἀναστάσεως τύχωσιν · ἕτεροι δὲ

ἐμπαιγμῶν καὶ μαστίγων πεῖραν ἔλαβον, ἔτι

δὲ δεσμῶν καὶ φυλακῆς ·

Translation:

Women received their dead by resurrection.

Others were tortured, refusing to accept

release, in order to obtain a better

resurrection. Others suffered mocking and

flogging, and even chains and

imprisonment.

In this pericope, the author of Hebrews is praising the giants of faith who were all unquestionably “of one kind,” and “not of another.” But notice that in discussing the faith of the Patriarchs——who were afflicted, persecuted, and tortured——the words ἄλλοι and ἕτεροι are used interchangeably. The people thus described are not qualitatively different. On the contrary, they are of the same kind: the heroes of faith! Once again, the assumed qualitative distinction between ἄλλοι and ἕτεροι does not exist.

In many instances, Dr. James Keith Elliott says that “scribes simply replace έτερος by άλλος.” For example, at Mt 10.23 some manuscripts read έτέραν, “but most Greek witnesses read άλλην.“ Mt. 10.23 reads:

ὅταν δὲ διώκωσιν ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ,

φεύγετε εἰς τὴν ἑτέραν · ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω

ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ τελέσητε τὰς πόλεις τοῦ

Ἰσραὴλ ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.

Translation:

When they persecute you in one town, flee

to the next; for truly I tell you, you will not

have gone through all the towns of Israel

before the Son of Man comes.

Dr. Elliott argues that “In both places έτέραν is used in a non Classical way and is likely therefore to be what the original author wrote.” Elliott points to similar variants that occur for the same reasons in Lk. 10.1 (άλλους); Acts 8.34 (άλλον); Lk. 14.20 (άλλος); Lk. 4.43 (έτερος); Lk. 11.26 (ἕτερα); Lk. 22.65 (ἕτερα); and Jn 9.9 (ἄλλοι). In other words, in New Testament times, άλλην and έτέραν are seen as interchangeable and synonymous terms. Elliott writes:

At Lc 16 18 some mss. read άλλην for

an original έτέραν where assimilation to Mt

19 9 and Mc 10 11 may have been

responsible for the variant. This parallel

shows how easily έτερος and άλλος were

interchangeable within the New Testament

period itself.

If that’s the case, then let’s look at Lk. 16.18, which uses the word ἑτέραν:

Πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ

γαμῶν ἑτέραν μοιχεύει, καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην

ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς γαμῶν μοιχεύει.

Translation:

Anyone who divorces his wife and marries

another commits adultery, and whoever

marries a woman divorced from her

husband commits adultery.

Now let’s compare Lk. 16.18 to a parallel passage, Mt 19.9, which uses the alternative term ἄλλην. Mt. 19.9 says thusly:

λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν

γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ

ἄλλην μοιχᾶται καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην

γαμήσας μοιχᾶται.

Translation:

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife,

except for unchastity, and marries another

commits adultery.

Notice how ἑτέραν in Lk. 16.18 becomes ἄλλην in Mt. 19.9, which demonstrates that the two terms are indeed interchangeable. Let’s also follow Elliott’s advice and compare yet another parallel, namely, Mk. 10.11:

καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς · Ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν

γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται

ἐπ’ αὐτήν.

Translation:

He said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife

and marries another commits adultery

against her.’

Let’s now explore a different set of passages. Specifically, let’s look at Lk 8.6 and compare it to the parallel passage in Mk. 4.5. Lk 8.6 employs the term ἕτερον and reads as follows:

καὶ ἕτερον κατέπεσεν ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν, καὶ

φυὲν ἐξηράνθη διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ἰκμάδα.

Translation:

Some fell on the rock; and as it grew up, it

withered for lack of moisture.

However, the parallel passage in Mk. 4.5 uses the word ἄλλο instead. It reads:

καὶ ἄλλο ⸃ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὸ πετρῶδες ὅπου

οὐκ εἶχεν γῆν πολλήν, καὶ εὐθὺς

ἐξανέτειλεν διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν βάθος γῆς ·

Translation:

Other seed fell on rocky ground, where it did

not have much soil, and it sprang up

quickly, since it had no depth of soil.

Elliott also adds Mt. 13.5 (ἄλλα) to the mix as a counterpoint:

ἄλλα δὲ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὰ πετρώδη ὅπου οὐκ

εἶχεν γῆν πολλήν, καὶ εὐθέως ἐξανέτειλεν

διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν βάθος γῆς.

Translation:

Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where

they did not have much soil, and they

sprang up quickly, since they had no depth

of soil.

Let’s now examine a completely different set of parallel passages and verbal agreements. According to Elliott, “at Mt. 16.14b έτεροι is read where the parallel passages in Mc 8 28 and Lc 9 19 read άλλοι.” So, let’s take a quick look at these final examples before we end our study. Mt. 16.14 uses both words (ἄλλοι and ἕτεροι) and says:

οἱ δὲ εἶπαν · Οἱ μὲν Ἰωάννην τὸν βαπτιστήν,

ἄλλοι δὲ Ἠλίαν, ἕτεροι δὲ Ἰερεμίαν ἢ ἕνα

τῶν προφητῶν.

Translation:

And they said, ‘Some say John the Baptist,

but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah

or one of the prophets.’

Notice that the parallel passage in Mk. 8.28 uses ἄλλοι in the same place where Mt. 16.14 used ἕτεροι. Mk 8.28 reads as follows:

οἱ δὲ εἶπαν αὐτῷ λέγοντες ⸃ ὅτι Ἰωάννην

τὸν βαπτιστήν, καὶ ἄλλοι Ἠλίαν, ἄλλοι δὲ

ὅτι εἷς ⸃ τῶν προφητῶν.

Translation:

And they answered him, ‘John the Baptist;

and others, Elijah; and still others, one of

the prophets.’

Lk. 9.19 is yet another parallel passage which uses the variant ἄλλοι. Lk. 9.19 reads:

οἱ δὲ ἀποκριθέντες εἶπαν · Ἰωάννην τὸν

βαπτιστήν, ἄλλοι δὲ Ἠλίαν, ἄλλοι δὲ ὅτι

προφήτης τις τῶν ἀρχαίων ἀνέστη.

Translation:

They answered, ‘John the Baptist; but

others, Elijah; and still others, that one of

the ancient prophets has arisen.’

Conclusion

A Critique of Form Criticism

By Bible Researcher & Award-Winning Goodreads Author Eli Kittim 🎓

What is Form Criticism?

Form criticism is a discipline of Bible studies that views the Bible as an anthology of conventional stories that were originally transmitted orally and later codified in writing. Therefore, form criticism tries to identify scriptural literary patterns and trace them back to their particular oral tradition. Hermann Gunkel (1862–1932), a German Old Testament Bible scholar, was the founder of form criticism. He was also one of the leading proponents of the “history of religions school,” which employed the methods of historical criticism. While the methods used in *comparative religion* studies were certainly important, these liberal theologians nevertheless began their formal inquiry with the theoretical presupposition that Christianity was equal to all other religions and they, therefore, rejected its claims to absolute truth. However, this underlying presumption involves circular thinking and confirmation bias, which is the habit of interpreting new evidence as confirmation of one's preexisting beliefs or theories. Despite the usefulness of the approach, form criticism involves a great deal of speculation and conjecture, not to mention blatant unbelief. One of its biggest proponents in the twentieth century was German scholar Rudolf Bultmann (1884—1976). Similar to other form-critics who had a bias against supernaturalism, he too believed that the Bible needed to be “demythologized,” that is, divested of its miraculous narratives and mythical elements.

Form criticism is valuable in identifying a text's genre or conventional literary form, such as narrative, poetry, wisdom, or prophecy. It further seeks to find the “Sitz im Leben,” namely, the context in which a text was created, as well as its function and purpose at that time. Recently, form criticism's insistence on oral tradition has gradually lost support in Old Testament studies, even though it’s still widely used in New Testament studies.

Oral Tradition Versus Biblical Inspiration

Advocates of form criticism have suggested that the Evangelists drew upon oral traditions when they composed the New Testament gospels. Thus, form criticism presupposes the existence of earlier oral traditions that influenced later literary writings. Generally speaking, the importance of historical continuity in the way traditions from the past influenced later generations is certainly applicable to literary studies. But in the case of the New Testament, searching for a preexisting oral tradition would obviously contradict its claim of biblical inspiration, namely, that “All Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3.16). It would further imply that the evangelists——as well as the epistolary authors, including Paul——were not inspired. Rather, they were simply informed by earlier oral traditions. But this hypothesis would directly contradict an authentic Pauline epistle which claims direct inspiration from God rather than historical continuity or an accumulation of preexisting oral sources. Paul writes in Galatians 1.11-12 (NRSV):

For I want you to know, brothers and sisters,

that the gospel that was proclaimed by me

is not of human origin; for I did not receive it

from a human source, nor was I taught it,

but I received it through a revelation of

Jesus Christ.

Moreover, the gospels were written in Greek. The writers are almost certainly non-Jews who are copying and quoting extensively from the Greek Old Testament, not the Jewish Bible, in order to confirm their revelations. They obviously don’t seem to have a command of the Hebrew language, otherwise they would have written their gospels in Hebrew. And all of them are writing from outside Palestine.

By contrast, the presuppositions of Bible scholarship do not square well with the available evidence. Scholars contend that the oral traditions or the first stories about Jesus began to circulate shortly after his purported death, and that these oral traditions were obviously in Aramaic. But here’s the question. If a real historical figure named Jesus existed in a particular geographical location, which has its own unique language and culture, how did the story about him suddenly get transformed and disseminated in an entirely different language within less than 20 years after his purported death? Furthermore, who are these sophisticated Greek writers who own the rights to the story, as it were, and who pop out of nowhere, circulating the story as if it’s their own, and what is their particular relationship to this Aramaic community? Where did they come from? And what happened to the Aramaic community and their oral traditions? It suddenly disappeared? It sounds like a non sequitur! Given these inconsistencies, why should we even accept that there were Aramaic oral traditions? Given that none of the books of the New Testament were ever written in Palestine, it seems well-nigh impossible that the Aramaic community ever existed.

Besides, if Paul was a Hebrew of Hebrews who studied at the feet of Gamaliel, surely we would expect him to be steeped in the Hebrew language. Yet, even Paul is writing in sophisticated Greek and is trying to confirm his revelations by quoting extensively not from the Hebrew Bible (which we would expect) but from the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament. Now that doesn’t make any sense at all! Since Paul’s community represents the earliest Christian community that we know of, and since his letters are the earliest known writings about Jesus, we can safely say that the earliest dissemination of the Jesus story comes not from Aramaic oral traditions but from Greek literary sources!

Conclusion

It doesn’t really matter how many sayings of Jesus Paul, or anyone else, reiterates because it’s irrelevant in proving the impact of oral tradition. The point is that all the sayings of Jesus may have come by way of revelation (cf. Gal. 1.11-12; 2 Tim. 3.16)!

And why are the earliest New Testament writings in Greek? That certainly would challenge the Aramaic hypothesis. How did the Aramaic oral tradition suddenly become a Greek literary tradition within less than 20 years after Jesus’ supposed death? That kind of thing just doesn’t happen over night. It’s inexplicable, to say the least.

Moreover, who are these Greek authors who took over the story from the earliest days? And what happened to the alleged Aramaic community? Did it suddenly vanish, leaving no traces behind? It might be akin to the Johannine community that never existed, according to Dr. Hugo Mendez. It therefore sounds like a conspiracy of sorts.

And why aren’t Paul’s letters in Aramaic or Hebrew? By the way, these are the earliest writings on Christianity that we have. They’re written roughly two decades or less after Christ’s alleged death. Which Aramaic oral sources are the Pauline epistles based on? And if so, why the need to quote the Greek Septuagint in order to demonstrate the fulfillment of New Testament Scripture? And why does Paul record his letters in Greek? The Aramaic hypothesis just doesn’t hold up. Nor do the so-called “oral traditions.”

What is Textual Criticism?

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim

Definition of Textual Criticism

Textual criticism is a branch of textual studies, which comprise various disciplines whose aims are to transcribe, edit, or annotate texts and documents. Textual criticism is a branch of philology (the study of language in oral and written historical sources) and literary criticism, which is interested in the identification of textual variants or different versions of books or manuscripts. Simply put, textual criticism is a method by which scholars try to determine what an original text actually said. Whereas *higher criticism* is concerned with the origins of the original text (e.g. its authorship, date & place of composition), *lower criticism* (i.e. “textual criticism”) seeks to determine the original linguistic-grammatical structure of the text.

The Process of Textual Criticism

In ancient times, prior to the 15th century invention of the printing press, scribes were usually employed to copy documents by hand. During the copying process, however, intentional and unintentional alterations were made, the former sometimes due to political or religious reasons, the latter out of sheer misunderstanding or negligence. Thus, the aim of the textual critic is to understand the historical composition and transmission of a text and its variants. In so doing, the textual critic may be able to produce a so-called “critical edition,” which is a scholarly edition of a corrected text in conjunction with a critical apparatus that records editorial changes, names of manuscripts, and the like.

As already noted, prior to the printing press, literary works were copied by hand and, as expected, copyists produced different variations at certain places in the text. Given that different scribes introduced various errors, the task of textual reconstruction usually requires a selection of readings gathered from multiple sources. Such an edited text is called “eclectic.” In contrast to the multiple-sources approach, however, a number of textual critics will only seek to identify the best extant text with regard to textual reconstruction. When considering various documents (i.e. “witnesses”) of an original text, the linguistic or grammatical differences or variations are called “variants” or “variant readings.” So, through various comparative methods, textual criticism tries to ascertain how the variants were introduced into the text——whether accidentally (via duplication or omission) or intentionally (by way of censorship or harmonization)——as scribes copied from the original autograph and then transmitted these writings across the then-known world.

Guidelines of Textual Criticism

We have hundreds of extant copies of ancient works, thousands as far as the Bible is concerned, but their relationship to the original text is often unclear. Thus, in order to ascertain which readings are faithful (most closely related to the autograph), textual scholars typically debate which sources appear to be derived from the original text. Typically, when there’s no known original manuscript but only several extant copies or versions, certain guidelines/methods of textual criticism are employed in an attempt to *reconstruct* the original text (i.e. the autograph) as faithfully as possible. In order to determine the most accurate readings of a text, scholars have devised certain guidelines (i.e. “canons”) of textual criticism. Without going into great detail, one of the most prominent rules was established by Koine-Greek scholar Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687–1752), who also produced an edition of the Greek New Testament. In his commentaries, Bengel (aka Bengelius) established the rule that “the harder reading is to be preferred.” That’s because the most difficult reading is probably the one that is less tampered with. A number of these guidelines, which were initially designed for Biblical textual criticism, are now applied to all literary texts that have been exposed to errors of textual transmission!

Conclusion

Textual Criticism is important in determining the original words of texts. But it’s especially important in Bible studies with regard to establishing “the word of God” (Hebrews 4:12), that is, the things that God originally said and revealed in holy writ, since it is said therein that “All Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16)!