The Highly Questionable Origins and Interpretations of the Scriptures of the 3 Abrahamic Religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam
1) Judeo-Christian scripture: “the” Bible Most objective and informed people, both believers and non-believers alike, know that ‘the’ Bible - both Old and New Testaments - is neither an original single document nor hails from a single and entirely transcendental source.
The use of this very term “The Bible” suggests an intended comprehensive and objective telling first of the history of the Jews; and then of the life, teachings and words of Jesus. But such is very far from the truth.
For those who are interested, an excellent resource as far as the Old Testament is concerned is "Who Wrote The Bible?" by Richard Friedman (and as this is from the Jewish perspective, the Old Testament is the only topic covered therein).
Therein he summarizes the most rigorous and in-depth analyses of the available texts in regards to both content, specific and clearly distinct writing styles; and also to the changing political states of affairs during those times in regards to the rival northern and southern kingdoms of ancient Israel. The crucial point to recognize is that as these dynasties came to power, they each promoted their own specific propagandas to both support their own status as the legitimate rulers of Israel, as well as to derogate that of their rivals. The famous heresy of the golden calf, for example, turns out to be a symbolic reference to the political exclusion of the priests of Shiloh, and Friedman provides a fascinating analysis of the reality of the political machinations that manifest in this tale.
As far as the New Testament is concerned ... the word 'the' in this regard is even more of a misdirection. There is no single 'New Testament,' no single and complete story or collection of stories written by a single author. Nor was there even any original intention to provide such - rather, so many different writers, of different letters and gospels, are represented in ‘the’ Bible - and so many more are not, intentionally omitted by its “official” compilers.
As far as the gospels are concerned, none of them were eye-witness accounts by actual contemporaries of Jesus. Religious scholars and historians in general agree that Mark is the earliest gospel, written by a second-generation Christian. There is no objective basis to accept them as unabridged accounts of what was actually spoken or enacted at the time. Rather, they have to be considered as more of the nature of ‘hearsay,’ and thus likely compromised by interpretation and exaggeration, and by any subjective sentimental prejudices and political agendas of the various writers. Such a charge affirmed by the fact that the gospels disagree in various major details of how the story is told; and is lent even greater weight by the discoveries of so many other gospels, some of which are considered older than Mark, as in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which contradict and even strongly oppose the familiar doctrines as passed down via the first officially sanctioned (Catholic) church.
Then the best we can say about the various letters and epistles is that they were each written by different specific individuals with their own specific takes on Jesus' mission and teachings, and then written, or spoken and later recorded, in respect to the needs and cultural contexts of the very specific audiences they were addressed to.
Meanwhile all the various separate elements that when taken together as a single ‘bible’ have been subjected to an enormity of censorship, editing and interpretation over the centuries. As early as the 2nd century Bishop Irenaeus engaged in a mission to eradicate the so-called gnostic gospels from the general body of sanctioned scriptural teachings (leading to the hiding of caches of such, as the one found at Nag Hammadi, i.e. the Dead Sea Scrolls). Many different schools developed, until Constantine determined that only one official church could be endorsed, for the sake of establishing unity of identity and purpose throughout his far-flung empire. Whereby the first council of Nicea was held in the early 4th century to decide upon the official dogma and beliefs, involving much behind-the-scenes strong-arming and politicking.
What was originally an incomplete collection of disparate oral and written accounts in various local dialects beginning with Aramaic ... became codified in Greek and then Latin before being ultimately rewritten into German and English. Meanwhile this all went on in accordance with the specific biases and intentions of all manner of dogmas and schisms (that each regarded itself as ‘the only true faith’ and all the rest as ‘heresies’) in the name of Christianity, such as Lutherism, Church of England, Roman and Greek Catholicism, etc.
Hopelessly mixed in with the original spiritual message of the gospel then (whatever the exact specifics of this were), were all the fears and ambitions of materially-minded people seeking to obtain and preserve power for themselves and their specific institutions. And so ‘the’ Bible continued to be developed under the ‘patronage’ and highly motivated ‘guidance’ of some of history’s more unsavory leaders such as Henry VIII and King James 1 of Scotland and England, as well as so many popes of ruthless ambition, eg those of the Medici family among others.
In conclusion, we can and should legitimately wonder, what in the Bible is original truth, in the sense that it presents, without any alteration or deviation or fanciful (mis)interpretation, the actual teachings and historical events of the life of Jesus, or of the previous and legitimate recipients of the direct spoken words of God? And what has been added, taken out, or changed, to fit the material sentiments and political ambitions of whichever individuals and organizations have been in a position to (re)write and redefine and reinterpret all the various editions of the bible that have been produced over the last 18 centuries?
2) The holy book of Islam - the Qu’ran
Most Moslems today accept the Qu’ran in the same way that Christians accept the Bible - as the original and unedited words of God, as coming though His messenger(s).
There is one very significant distinction however. The Bible has been written and rewritten in so many different languages - so almost no modern Christian can claim that they are familiar with its original wording (and as we can now know, there actually is no such thing, as was established above).
However, the Qu’ran is presented in the original Arabic language of the prophet Mohammed. So that every teacher of Islam can cite the original and untranslated verses. There are many different commentaries on the Qu’ran and also on the sayings of the prophet (the hadith) - but the Qu’ran itself is held to be original and unchanged.
In this regard I encourage any interested person to consider the presentation at the attached link, of which I copy an especially relevant piece below. The claims that author makes are based on established scholarship and historical evidences, that any reader is encouraged to freely research for themselves.
“It was not Allah who wrote the Qur’an; it was not even Muhammad alone who did this either. The Qur’an is not the creation of a single entity or a single person. There were several parties involved in the composition, scribing, amending, inserting and deleting the Qur’anic verses. The most important personalities involved in the creation of the Qur’an were: Imrul Qays, Zayd b. Amr, Hasan b. Thabit, Salman, Bahira, ibn Qumta, Waraqa and Ubayy b. Ka’b.
“Muhammad, himself, was involved in the make-up of a limited number of verses, but the most influential person who motivated Muhammad in the invention of Islam and the opus of the Qur’an, perhaps, was Zayd b. Amr who preached ‘Hanifism’. Muhammad later metamorphosed Zayd’s ‘Hanifism’ into Islam. Therefore, the assertion that Islam is not a new religion stands to be true.
“However, the important finding is that the Qur’an is definitely not the words of Allah—it is a human-made scripture which Muhammad simply passed up as Allah’s final words to mankind. Another important aspect of this essay is that among the ancient religions that the writers of the Qur’an incorporated in it, perhaps the practices of the Sabeans is crucial. In fact, the rituals of 5 prayers and the 30-day fasting were actually adapted from the Sabeans. Qur’an, thus, is a compilation of various religious books that existed during Muhammad’s time. Muhammad, not Allah, simply adopted, picked and chose from various sources and created the Qur’an.
“While many parties contributed to the Qur’an, Muhammad became its chief editor—to say it plainly.” (see http://www.faithfreedom.org/Article...)
And I would hold that this statement (in bold) is the point that summarizes all of the Abrahamic scriptures. That whatever original divine words and teachings may have been the foundation, ultimately they are all ‘anthologies’ at best, selected and edited by individual humans, identified with specific times and cultures, and whose own spiritual realization and motives must be questioned in regards to whether they are perfectly and transparently aligned with the intention of the original divine Speaker.
Replies