Bart Ehrman - Different forms of early Christian doctrine and beliefs - Lost Christianities

The Varieties of Ancient Christianity

"The wide diversity of early Christianity may be seen above all in the theological beliefs embraced by people who understood themselves to be followers of Jesus. In the second and third centuries there were, of course, Christians who believed in one God. But there were others who insisted that there were two. Some said there were thirty. Others claimed there were 365. In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that God had created the world. But others believed that this world had been created by a subordinate, ignorant divinity. (Why else would the world be filled
with such misery and hardship?) Yet other Christians thought it was worse than that, that this world was a cosmic mistake created by a malevolent divinity as a place of imprisonment, to trap humans and subject them to pain and suffering. In the second and third centuries there were Christians who  believed that the Jewish Scripture (the Christian “Old Testament”) was inspired by the one true God. Others believed it was inspired by the God of the Jews, who was not the one true God. Others believed it was inspired by an evil deity. Others believed it was not inspired.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that Jesus was both divine and human, God and man. There were other Christians who argued that he was completely divine and not human at all. (For them, divinity and humanity were incommensurate entities: God can no more be a
man than a man can be a rock.) There were others who insisted that Jesus was a full flesh-and-blood human, adopted by God to be his son but not himself divine. There were yet other Christians who claimed that Jesus Christ was two things: a full flesh-and-blood human, Jesus, and a fully divine being, Christ, who had temporarily inhabited Jesus’ body during his ministry and left him prior to his death, inspiring his teachings and miracles but avoiding the suffering in its aftermath.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that Jesus’ death brought about the salvation of the world. There were other Christians who thought that Jesus’ death had nothing to do with the salvation of the world. There were yet other Christians who said that Jesus never died. How could some of these views even be considered Christian? Or to put the question differently, how could people who considered themselves Christian hold such views? Why did they not consult their Scriptures to see that there were not 365 gods, or that the true God had created the world, or that Jesus had died? Why didn’t they just read the New Testament?

It is because there was no New Testament. To be sure, the books that were eventually collected into the New Testament had been written by the second century. But they had not yet been gathered into a widely recognized and authoritative canon of Scripture. And there were other books written as well, with equally impressive pedigrees—other Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses claiming to be written by the earthly apostles of Jesus. "

The above extract is taken from Bart Ehrman's book, Lost Christianities (Pages 2-3).

In a nutshell, it is difficult to identify whether the Christianity that exists today is the true Christianity or better put - religion preached by Jesus peace be upon him and his followers.

CL Edwards - Exposed as another FAKE Ex Muslim

Assalamalaikum Warehmatullahi Wabarakatuhu,

CL Edwards is one of the apologists doing the rounds on ABN SAT and has debated prominent Muslims such as Shadid Lewis in recent times. He is active on YouTube and Facebook proclaiming the Gospel of Christ to Muslims, in particular. I had the opportunity to speak to him recently on his Facebook page. It initiated with him posting a video where one of the sub sects of Islam was seen performing certain actions contrary to the teachings of Islam.

Below is a snapshot of the video that CL posted including his comments on the video itself.

To be honest, most Muslims including myself are skeptical about CL's claims of being an ex Muslim. The portrayal on his twitter page shows him to be an Ex Salafi Muslim with an appearance of a devout Muslim as confirmed by his friend, David Wood on his website. See below:

In light of the above, my contention is that a devout Salafi should know the names and practices of the different sub sects of the people in the video that CL shared on his Facebook page. Salafis keep close track of all other sects and denominations as they adhere to a strict form of Islam distancing themselves from additions and innovations into the religion. The practices in the video are regarded as an innovation and treated with disdain by Salafi Muslims.

So, I questioned him on the sect of Islam in his video post. His response was somewhat strange albeit it was supposed to be a simple answer for an Ex Salafi Muslim.

Shouldn't he have known the sect already by name? Barelwis who follow the concept of pir and fakir? He just responded with what the writer of the initial video wrote in the first place.

I followed it up with another question.

And it got worse for him as he kept responding to the comments. No straightforward answer forthcoming with resorting to answering a question with a question - a clear indication of him avoiding the question.

He failed to answer basic questions about salah, deen and the name of the sect in his video post thus far. Now he throws in a few blows in the opposite direction totally unrelated to the topic. Notice he still hasn't answered basic questions.

  

Futile in my efforts to get a respond from CL Edwards, I decided to end the conversation with the following post.

It is clear that CL Edwards was NEVER an Ex Salafi Muslim let alone a Muslim. His association with deceptive apologists such as David Wood and Sam Shamoun who have publicly advertised CL Edward's ex Muslim affiliation only adds more weight to the claim.

He could not answer basic questions on Islam. His tactics of avoiding the question and writing in the manner that he did is what we have come to expect from Christian Evangelicals. It has become the norm.

Stay vigilant and stay alert. Alot of Ex Muslims have been exposed to be frauds. More prominent frauds include Ergun Caner, Walid Shoebat and Nabeel Qureshi. We can safely put CL Edwards into that category. He knows in his heart and his affair lies with the One who created him. But we have to make naive Muslims and Christians aware of their tactics.

If a person, is a known liar, what more reason do we have to listen to him? None.

Wsalam,
Shehzad
(darkness2noor)

Bart Ehrman - Missing verses in the Gospel of Mark Chapter 16 Verses 9-20

Extract from Bart Ehrman's book 'Misquoting Jesus'

What Bart Ehrman has to say about the missing verses from the most ancient manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark are as follow:

"The Last Twelve Verses of Mark The second example that we will consider may not be as familiar to the casual reader of the Bible, but it has been highly influential in the history of biblical interpretation and poses comparable problems for the scholar of the textual tradition of the New Testament. This example comes from the Gospel of Mark and concerns its ending.

In Mark's account, we are told that Jesus is crucified and then buried by Joseph of Arimathea on the day before the Sabbath (15:4247). On the day after Sabbath, Mary Magdalene and two other women come back to the tomb in order properly to anoint the body (16:12). When they arrive, they find that the stone has been rolled away. Entering the tomb, they see a young man in a white robe, who tells them, "Do not be startled! You are seeking Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has been raised and is not here—see the place where they laid him?" He then instructs the women to tell the disciples that Jesus is preceding them into Galilee and that they will see him there, "just as he told you." But the women flee the tomb and say nothing to anyone, "for they were afraid" (16:48).

Then come the last twelve verses of Mark in many modern English translations, verses that continue the story. Jesus himself is said to appear to Mary Magdalene, who goes and tells the disciples; but they do not believe her (vv. 9-11). He then appears to two others (vv. 12-14), and finally to the eleven disciples (the Twelve, not including Judas Iscariot) who are gathered together at table. Jesus upbraids them for failing to believe, and then commissions them to go forth and proclaim his gospel "to the whole creation." Those who believe and are baptized "will be saved," but those who do not "will be condemned." And then come two of the most intriguing verses of the passage:

And these are the signs that will accompany those who believe: they will cast out demons in my name; they will speak in new tongues; and they will take up snakes in their hands; and if they drink any poison, it will not harm them; they will place their hands upon the sick and heal them. (vv. 17-18).

Jesus is then taken up into heaven, and seated at the right hand of God. And the disciples go forth into the world proclaiming the gospel, their words being confirmed by the signs that accompany them (vv. 19-20).

It is a terrific passage, mysterious, moving, and powerful. It is one of the passages used by Pentecostal Christians to show that Jesus's followers will be able to speak in unknown "tongues," as happens in their own services of worship; and it is the principal passage used by groups of "Appalachian snakehandlers," who till this day take poisonous snakes in their hands in order to demonstrate their faith in the words of Jesus, that when doing so they will come to no harm.

But there's one problem. Once again, this passage was not originally in the Gospel of Mark. It was added by a later scribe.

In some ways this textual problem is more disputed than the passage about the woman taken in adultery, because without these final verses Mark has a very different, and hard to understand, ending. That doesn't mean that scholars are inclined to accept the verses, as we'll see momentarily. The reasons for taking them to be an addition are solid, almost indisputable. But scholars debate what the genuine ending of Mark actually was, given the circumstance that this ending found in many English translations (though usually marked as inauthentic) and in later Greek manuscripts is not the original.

The evidence that these verses were not original to Mark is similar in kind to that for the passage about the woman taken in adultery, and again I don't need to go into all the details here. The verses are absent from our two oldest and best manuscripts of Mark's Gospel, along with other important witnesses; the writing style varies from what we find elsewhere in Mark; the transition between this passage and the one preceding it is hard to understand (e.g., Mary Magdalene is introduced in verse 9 as if she hadn't been mentioned yet, even though she is discussed in the preceding verses; there is another problem with the Greek that makes the transition even more awkward); and there are a
large number of words and phrases in the passage that are not found elsewhere in Mark. In short, the evidence is sufficient to convince nearly all textual scholars that these verses are an addition to Mark.

Without them, though, the story ends rather abruptly. Notice what happens when these verses are taken away. The women are told to inform the disciples that Jesus will precede them to Galilee and meet them there; but they, the women, flee the tomb and say nothing to anyone, "for they were afraid." And that's where the Gospel ends.

Obviously, scribes thought the ending was too abrupt. The women told no one? Then, did the disciples never learn of the resurrection? And didn't Jesus himself ever appear to them? How could that be the ending! To resolve the problem, scribes added an ending.

Some scholars agree with the scribes in thinking that 16:8 is too abrupt an ending for a Gospel. As I have indicated, it is not that these scholars believe the final twelve verses in our later manuscripts were the original ending—they know that's not the case—but they think that, possibly, the last page of Mark's Gospel, one in which Jesus actually did meet the disciples in Galilee, was somehow lost, and that all our copies of the Gospel go back to this one truncated manuscript, without the last page.

That explanation is entirely possible. It is also possible, in the opinion of yet other scholars, that Mark did indeed mean to end his Gospel with 16:8. It certainly is a shocker of an ending. The disciples never learn the truth of Jesus's resurrection because the women never tell them. One reason for thinking that this could be how Mark ended his Gospel is that some such ending coincides so well with other motifs throughout his Gospel. As students of Mark have long noticed, the disciples never do seem to "get it" in this Gospel (unlike in some of the other Gospels). They are repeatedly said not to understand Jesus (6:51-52; 8:21), and when Jesus tells them on several occasions that he must suffer and die, they manifestly fail to comprehend his words (8:31-33; 9:30-32; 10:33-40). Maybe, in fact, they never did come to understand (unlike Mark's readers, who can understand who Jesus really is from the very beginning). Also, it is interesting to note that throughout Mark, when someone comes to understand something about Jesus, Jesus orders that person to silence—and yet often the person ignores the order and spreads the news (e.g., 1:43-45). How ironic that when the women at the tomb are told not to be silent but to speak, they also ignore the order—and are silent!

In short, Mark may well have intended to bring his reader up short with this abrupt ending—a clever way to make the reader stop, take a faltering breath, and ask: What? "

(Pages 65-68 - Misquoting Jesus)

Bart Ehrman - Was Jesus Violent or Peaceful? Is it clear who the Historical Jesus was?

Extract from Bart Ehrman's book - 'Jesus:Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium'

" I should stress, though, that not every modern scholar has shared this view of Jesus. Quite the contrary, in recent years, in particular, it has come under serious attack. Books about Jesus have proliferated at an alarming rate, with competent scholars (not to mention incompetent ones) setting forth their own understandings of who Jesus must have been. Many of these have tried to deny that Jesus was essentially an apocalypticist—that is, one who thought that the apocalyptic climax of history was soon to appear. And so, just within the past thirty years, we have seen books (many of which you can still find at your local bookstore) arguing, instead, that Jesus was a violent revolutionary who urged his followers to take up the sword against their oppressive Roman overlords; or that he was a kind of proto-Marxist social reformer who urged his followers to adopt a new economic structure of complete equality and community of  goods; or that he was an ancient precursor of the feminist movement, principally concerned with gender issues and the oppression of women; or that he was a magician—not the sleight-of-hand type but the kind that could actually perform stupendous feats of magic; or, most recently, that he was an ancient "Cynic" philosopher who was chiefly concerned with teaching his followers to remove themselves from the concerns and trappings of this life, to give away everything they owned, to beg for a living, and to compel everyone else to do likewise.1 And these are only some of the more serious proposals!

Why is it that scholars who have devoted their entire lives to studying the historical Jesus have come up with such radically different answers? Isn't knowing about Jesus a straightforward matter of reading the New Testament Gospels and seeing what they say? With four such high-quality sources as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, why should
there be any serious disagreements at all? Can't we take these ancient witnesses at face value, and thereby discount all of these scholarly constructs, not to mention the more far-fetched ones (which sometimes sell much better!) ? "

(Pages 20-21- Jesus - Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium)

Did the Quran copy the Bible? - Quranic verse on Similarities in accounts between the Quran and the Bible - Surah 46:10

بِسۡمِ اللهِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِيۡمِ

Often times, we find our Christian/Jewish brothers telling us the Quran was copied/borrowed/plagiarised from the Bible. Meaning that certain stories/passages and ideas have been taken from the Old and New Testament.

Since the Old and New Testament precede the Quran, their claim might have some basis.

Some of the stories that are similar to the Quran that come to mind are the Story of Adam and Eve, The story of Ain and Cabel, the story of Abraham and the sacrifice, the creation of the heavens and earth in six days/periods, David and Goliath, Moses and the Exodus and many others.

But did Allah the Almighty address this thought in the Quran? In Surah 46:10, Allah mentions...

(In Various Translations)

Sahih International

Say, "Have you considered: if the Qur'an was from Allah , and you disbelieved in it while a witness from the Children of Israel has testified to something similar and believed while you were arrogant... ?" Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.

Muhsin Khan

Say: "Tell me! If this (Quran) is from Allah, and you deny it, and a witness from among the Children of Israel ('Abdullah bin Salam) testifies that this Quran is from Allah [like the Taurat (Torah)], so he believed (embraced Islam) while you are too proud (to believe)." Verily! Allah guides not the people who are Zalimun (polytheists, disbelievers and wrong-doing). 
 

Pickthall

Bethink you: If it is from Allah and ye disbelieve therein, and a witness of the Children of Israel hath already testified to the like thereof and hath believed, and ye are too proud (what plight is yours)? Lo! Allah guideth not wrong-doing folk.
 

Yusuf Ali

Say: "See ye? If (this teaching) be from Allah, and ye reject it, and a witness from among the Children of Israel testifies to its similarity (with earlier scripture), and has believed while ye are arrogant, (how unjust ye are!) truly, Allah guides not a people unjust."

The Arabic word that is used is "Mithlihi". The meaning according to the Arabic dictionary by Abdul Mannan Omar is as below:

So we see the words (to it's like/to it's similarity) being mentioned in this verse.

Implying that the similarities in the Bible and Quran are a means to acquire faith in the Quran. Allah is showing that this is a continuation and perfection of the stories mentioned in the Bible. 

Whereas on one hand, the Jews and the Christians are telling us that because there are similar stories in the Quran and the Bible, and the Quran came later, so it is natural to assume that the Quran copied the Bible. But Allah SWT on the other hand is telling us, that the very reason to believe in this Quran is because of this similarity in accounts. That these books have come from the same divine source.

One such example of continuation and perfection of the stories can be witnessed in the creation of the heavens and earth in 6 days. Both the Quran and the bible speak about it. But the difference is that in the book of Genesis, God 'rested' after the creation whereas in the Quran, Allah highlights that 'no weariness touched Him'.

A counter question that can be asked of the critics of Islam is that, if there were no similar accounts in the Quran in relation to the Bible, would the critics than accept it as the word of God or will be more skeptical in their approach?

In conclusion, for the Quran to be a divine revelation, it is not necessary for it to be different or unique from the previous scriptures which it claims to be a continuation of. 

Anything wrong that I have said are from the evils of my own self. Anything good from this is from Allah Subhanawa Taala the Highest of the High and Purest of the Pure.

 

Bart Ehrman (Misquoting Jesus) - Fabricated accounts in the New Testament - The Woman taken in Adultery

Bart Ehrman has highlighted in his book Misquoting Jesus on one very  popular passage that is often found in Hollywood movies about Jesus and also in preachings and seminars in the Church. But it is astonishing to know that this story might have been a fabrication edited by a later scribe as it is not found in the oldest manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Let's read what Bart Ehrman has to say about this. 

Bart Ehrman's Book

Misquoting Jesus 

(Pages 63,64,65)

 

The Woman Taken in Adultery

The story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery is arguably the best known story about Jesus in the Bible; it certainly has always been a favorite in Hollywood versions of his life. It even makes it into Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, although that movie focuses only on Jesus's last hours (the story is treated in one of the rare flashbacks). Despite its popularity, the account is found in only one passage of the New Testament, in John 7:53-8:12, and it appears not to have been original even there.

The story line is familiar. Jesus is teaching in the temple, and a group of scribes and Pharisees, his sworn enemies, approach him, bringing with them a woman "who had been caught in the very act of adultery." They bring her before Jesus because they want to put him to the test. The Law of Moses, as they tell him, demands that such a one be stoned to death; but they want to know what he has to say about the matter. Should they stone her or show her mercy? It is a trap, of course. If Jesus tells them to let the woman go, he will be accused of violating the Law of God; if he tells them to stone her, he will be accused of dismissing his own teachings of love, mercy, and forgiveness.

Jesus does not immediately reply; instead he stoops to write on the ground. When they continue to question him, he says to them, "Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her." He then returns to his writing on the ground, while those who have brought the woman start to leave the scene—evidently feeling convicted of their own wrongdoing—until no one is left but the woman. Looking up, Jesus says, "Woman, where are they? Is there no one who condemns you?" To which she replies, "No one, Lord." He then responds, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."

It is a brilliant story, filled with pathos and a clever twist in which Jesus uses his wits to get himself—not to mention the poor woman— off the hook. Of course, to a careful reader, the story raises numerous questions. If this woman was caught in the act of adultery, for example, where is the man she was caught with? Both of them are to be stoned, according to the Law of Moses (see Lev. 20:10). Moreover, when Jesus wrote on the ground, what exactly was he writing? (According to one ancient tradition, he was writing the sins of the accusers, who seeing that their own transgressions were known, left in embarrassment!) And even if Jesus did teach a message of love, did he really think that the Law of God given by Moses was no longer in force and should not be obeyed? Did he think sins should not be punished at all?

Despite the brilliance of the story, its captivating quality, and its inherent intrigue, there is one other enormous problem that it poses. As it turns out, it was not originally in the Gospel of John. In fact, it was not originally part of any of the Gospels. It was added by later scribes.

How do we know this? In fact, scholars who work on the manuscript tradition have no doubts about this particular case. Later in this book we will be examining in greater depth the kinds of evidence that scholars adduce for making judgments of this sort. Here I can simply point out a few basic facts that have proved convincing to nearly all scholars of every persuasion: the story is not found in our oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John; its writing style is very different from what we find in the rest of John (including the stories immediately before and after); and it includes a large number of words and phrases that are otherwise alien to the Gospel. The conclusion is unavoidable: this passage was not originally part of the Gospel. 

How then did it come to be added? There are numerous theories about that. Most scholars think that it was probably a well known story circulating in the oral tradition about Jesus, which at some point was added in the margin of a manuscript. From there some scribe or other thought that the marginal note was meant to be part of the text and so inserted it immediately after the account that ends in John 7:52. It is noteworthy that other scribes inserted the account in different locations in the New Testament—some of them after John 21:25, for example, and others, interestingly enough, after Luke 21:38. In any event, whoever wrote the account, it was not John.

That naturally leaves readers with a dilemma: if this story was not originally part of John, should it be considered part of the Bible? Not everyone will respond to this question in the same way, but for most textual critics, the answer is no.

Linguistic Miracle - Quran Gems - Word placement - Prophet Zakariya Old Age and Wife Barren

بِسۡمِ اللهِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِيۡمِ

 
Words are placed in the Quran not randomly out of chance. There is a whole meaning and context to a certain Surah and placement of words that Allah wishes to highlight to the reader. One such example can be found in the story of Zakariya alaihsalam in the Quran.

Just reading through these passages one wouldn't come to notice this subtlety unless we do what Allah tells us to do in Surah 4:82 (Ponder/Reflect/Think Deeply) about the Quran.

Notice the two verses below and how the plea of Zakariya alaihsalam is the same but the words (his old age and his wife being barren) are swapped around.

 

قَالَ رَبِّ أَنَّىٰ يَكُونُ لِى غُلَـٰمٌ۬ وَقَدۡ بَلَغَنِىَ ٱلۡڪِبَرُ وَٱمۡرَأَتِى عَاقِرٌ۬‌ۖ قَالَ كَذَٲلِكَ ٱللَّهُ يَفۡعَلُ مَا يَشَآءُ 

  
(Please note it's Qala Rabbi and not Rabba as shown above - copying error) 
He said: "O my Lord! How can I have a son when I am very old, and my wife is barren?" (Allâh) said: "Thus Allâh does what He wills."

(Surah Ale Imran - 3:40)

قَالَ رَبِّ أَنَّىٰ يَكُونُ لِى غُلَـٰمٌ۬ وَڪَانَتِ ٱمۡرَأَتِى عَاقِرً۬ا وَقَدۡ بَلَغۡتُ مِنَ ٱلۡڪِبَرِ عِتِيًّ۬ا

(Please note it's Qala Rabbi and not Rabba as shown above - copying error)
He said: My Lord! How can I have a son when my wife is barren and I have reached infirm old age? 
(Surah Maryam - 19:8)

A brief recap into the story is essential for us to try to understand why this placement of words by Allah Almighty.

The story of Zakariya alaihsalam is mentioned in the Quran in two places - one in Surah Ale Imran (Surah 3) and the other in Surah Maryam (Surah 19). There is another mention of Zakariya alaihsalam in Surah 21 but not in as much detail as in Surah 3 and 19.

The main theme behind the story of Zakariya alaihsalam is that both him and his wife were very old - way past the age of a normal couple having children. And he longed for a son so that the Prophetic legacy can continue from his forefathers down to his offspring (if he had one). But his wife had remained barren during their life. 

Analysing Surah Ale Imran:

35. The wife of Imran said, "My Lord, I have vowed to You what is in my womb, dedicated, so accept from me; You are the Hearer and Knower." 

36. And when she delivered her, she said, "My Lord, I have delivered a female," and God was well aware of what she has delivered, "and the male is not like the female, and I have named her Mary, and have commended her and her descendants to Your protection, from Satan the outcast."

37. Her Lord accepted her with a gracious reception, and brought her a beautiful upbringing, and entrusted her to the care of Zechariah. Whenever Zechariah entered upon her in the sanctuary, he found her with provision. He said, "O Mary, where did you get this from?" She said, "It is from God; God provides to whom He wills without reckoning."
(Comment: When he is given the duty to take care of Maryam salamunalaiha, he sees that she gets provision from her Rabb without measure. Hence he makes a dua to Allah asking him for a son - somewhat alluding to a miracle happening because of his old age and wife being barren.)
38. Thereupon Zechariah prayed to his Lord; he said, "My Lord, bestow on me good offspring from Your presence; You are the Hearer of Prayers." 

(Comment: One of the key words here is  هُنَالِكَ
"Thereupon, Zakariyya prayed to his Lord" - From the Arabic Dictionary - hunalika means at that place at that time from the word huna. Some translators have translated it as 'At that time'. So we learn that Zakariya alaihsalam already had this thought of wanting to have a child in his mind. Then upon seeing the power of Allah when he saw the provision miraculously being provided for Maryam salamunalaiha, he made the dua for himself at that time.)

39. Then the angels called out to him, as he stood praying in the sanctuary: "God gives you good news of John; confirming a Word from God, and honorable, and moral, and a prophet; one of the upright."

40. He said, "My Lord, how will I have a son, when old age has overtaken me, and my wife is barren?" He said, "Even so, God does whatever He wills." 

Surah Ale-Imran (Verses 35-40) 

The interesting thing is when he made the dua instantenously (sort of) he spoke straight away of his main concerns - looking at himself first. Therefore he said, I'm old first and then his secondary concern was that his wife was barren.

For example if I want to make a dua for myself about having a child. And I see a couple walking down a street with a beautiful baby. And at that moment, I just wished that I was a father too. Then a thought strikes me looking at them (just like Zakariyya alaihsalam made dua after seeing the provision of Maryam salamunalaiha) that "Oh Allah! Please grant me a child!". Then the first thing that will come to my mind is 'am I capable of having a child?'. Thoughts about my income, my economical situation, my circumstances and then secondary to these would be thoughts about my spouse, my family situation etc etc. The idea is that first of all I will think instantaneously about myself.

Hence the mentioning of his concerns of old age first and then his wife being barren in this passage.


  Analyzing Surah Maryam:

2. A mention of the mercy of your Lord towards His servant Zechariah.

3. When he called on his Lord, a call in seclusion. 

(Comment: From this verse, we learn that Zakariya alaihsalam is making this dua in seclusion. In seclusion also tells us, he has had more time to think and reflect on his dua. In comparison to Surah 3:38, where he made the dua 'at that time'.)

4. He said, "My Lord, my bones have become feeble, and my hair is aflame with gray, and never, Lord, have I been disappointed in my prayer to you.

5. "And I fear for my dependents after me, and my wife is barren. So grant me, from Yourself, an heir.

(Comment: Notice also in the passage in Ale-Imran he doesn't mention his wife being barren. He also pours out his thoughts more to Allah in this passage. Raising concerns about his bones and grey hair.)

6. To inherit me, and inherit from the House of Jacob, and make him, my Lord, pleasing."

7. "O Zechariah, We give you good news of a son, whose name is John, a name We have never given before." 

8. He said, "My Lord, how can I have a son, when my wife is barren, and I have become decrepit with old age?"

(Comment: As he has more time to reflect, now he talks about his wife being barren as the primary concern because if she is barren, then there is nothing he can do. So that is now a bigger concern than his old age hence the words coming before his old age. This is the powerful wisdom in the Quran.) 

9. He said, "It will be so, your Lord says, 'it is easy for me, and I created you before, when you were nothing.'"

(Comment: Notice here, where the primary concern is his wife being barren, which requires a miracle to be granted from Allah, Allah replies that it is indeed easy for Allah to create a baby in a barren womb because he created man before when he was nothing even without a womb - creation of Adam alaihsalam. In comparison to the reply in Ale-Imran where the angels replied - 'Allah does what he wills') 

Surah Maryam (Verses 2-9) 

Interestingly, can an old man still have children? Medically and scientifically, yes he can. It is not out of the realms of possibility.

But can a barren woman have children? Well, medically and scientifically she can't. Unless a miracle is bestowed upon her by Allah Almighty.

So the wife being barren is the bigger hindrance to him having a child rather then him being old.

Hence the mentioning of his concerns of his wife being barren first and then his old age in this passage.
 
Conclusion:

The Quran quite beautifully highlights the human behavior and thought patterns. Men of great wisdom such as the Messengers of Allah have more guidance and wisdom in their speech and thoughts. The changing around of these two concerns is not by random chance and randomly swapped places. Allah is teaching us something even if it is in minute detail such as this. By seeing the words swapped places, we will reflect more on these passages and extract more from the teachings of the Quran.

When we make duas for ourselves instantly, our primary concerns are normally to look within our capacities. When a dua is made in seclusion, with more time to reflect then the bigger concern could be not much to do with ourselves, but secondary factors could play a bigger role in our wishes to be fulfilled.

How does the Quran do this time and time again? How can a man from the desert with no literary skills come up with brilliance of this magnitude? 

The Ultimate knowledge lies with Allah the Most High. Hence ending with the words

'Allah knows best'.

All Guidance is from Allah the Most High.

Inspiration for Quranic literary exploration is from Bro Nouman Ali Khan (may Allah grant him and his family the best in this dunia and the next)

If there is anybody (native Arabic speakers probably) who has more knowledge of these words that have been highlighted, maybe can help us understand this exquisite choice of words from Allah SubhanawaTaala much better. 

If Bro Nouman or anyone who knows Bro Nouman, you do read this post by any chance, let me know if what I've said makes any sense and if you've highlighted this before in any of your works :) 

Anything good from this is from Allah the Most High. Any shortcomings are from the evils of my own self. 

May the Peace/Blessings and Mercy of Allah be on all of you.

(I'm not doing any ijtehaad from the Quran as is haraam(forbidden) for a layman like me to do. I'm just presenting what strikes me as powerful example by Allah the Most High and if I have erred then I seek refuge in Allah and I stand to be corrected.)

Linguistic Miracle - Quran Gems - Exquisite Word Choice - Prophet Zakariya and Maryam

  بِسۡمِ اللهِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِيۡمِ

As we all know, the Quran is a literary marvel in style,content and precision in word choice. Here we will look into the exquisite word choice that Allah uses in the Quran - highlighting to us that this Quran is not the work of a man.

Let's begin.

Zakariya alaihsalam asks Allah for a boy even though he is in his old age, his wife is old as well and on top of that, she has been barren. They have never had a child. The angels come to him with the good news of a son (Yahya alaihsalam).

‏

قَالَ رَبِّ اَنّٰى يَكُوۡنُ لِىۡ غُلٰمٌ وَّقَدۡ بَلَغَنِىَ الۡكِبَرُ وَامۡرَاَتِىۡ عَاقِرٌ‌ؕ قَالَ كَذٰلِكَ اللّٰهُ يَفۡعَلُ مَا يَشَآءُ‏

He said, "My Lord, how will I have a boy when I have reached old age and my wife is barren?" The angel said, "Such is Allah ; He does what He wills." 

(Surah Ale-Imran - 3 Verse 40)

In the same passage 7 verses later, Allah describes Maryam salamunalaiha responding in a very very similar manner when the Angel Gibrael alaihsalam comes to her with the good news of a child (Isa alaihsalam). 

 

قَالَتۡ رَبِّ اَنّٰى يَكُوۡنُ لِىۡ وَلَدٌ وَّلَمۡ يَمۡسَسۡنِىۡ بَشَرٌ ‌ؕ قَالَ كَذٰلِكِ اللّٰهُ يَخۡلُقُ مَا يَشَآءُ‌ ؕ اِذَا قَضٰٓى

اَمۡرًا فَاِنَّمَا يَقُوۡلُ لَهٗ كُنۡ فَيَكُوۡنُ‏

She said, "My Lord, how will I have a child when no man has touched me?" [The angel] said, "Such is Allah ; He creates what He wills. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, 'Be,' and it is.

(Surah Ale-Imran - 3 Verse 47)

Point 1

Notice how for Zakariya alaihsalam, Allah used the words 'have a boy' (ghulamun) and for Maryam salamunalaiha, Allah uses the words 'have a child' (waladun). It is perfect speech and perfection in choice of words because for Zakariya alaihsalam being a male, the words 'have a boy' is more appropriate rather than 'having a child'. That is a term normally used for mothers. Due to only her being capable of bearing a child (waladun).

Point 2 

Secondly, Allah chose the word 'does' (yafalu) when Allah addresses the concern of Zakariya alaihsalam that he is very old and his wife is barren. Interestingly for Maryam salamunalaiha, Allah uses the word create. This is slightly more obvious for the fact that Maryam salamunalaiha conceived Prophet Isa alaihsalam without any male intervention. It was a supernatural creation. Hence the word 'create' (yakhluqu - root word khalaq) is used. And incidentally in the same Surah (Surah 3:59), Allah uses the same word 'khalaqa' for Isa alaihsalam:

Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam. He created Him from dust; then He said to him, "Be," and he was. 

(Surah Ale-Imran - 3 Verse 59) 

Allah uses the word 'does what he wills' instead of 'creates what he wills' for Zakariya alaihsalam because it is even though a rare possibility of old people to have a child, it is still not beyond the realms of this existence. But for the miraculous birth of Isa alaihsalam, he uses the word 'create'. 

This makes it all the more 'almost impossible' for it to be the work of a group of very intelligent humans, let alone an unlearned/unlettered man.

For it to happen continously in the Quran is nothing short of a miracle.

The Ulitmate knowledge lies with Allah the Most High. Hence ending with the words

'Allah knows best'.

All Guidance is from Allah the Most High.

Inspiration for Quranic literary exploration is from Bro Nouman Ali Khan (may Allah grant him and his family the best in this dunia and the next)

If there is anybody (native Arabic speakers probably) who has more knowledge of these words that have been highlighted, maybe can help us understand this exquisite choice of words from Allah SubhanawaTaala much better. 

If Bro Nouman or anyone who knows Bro Nouman, you do read this post by any chance, let me know if what I've said makes any sense and if you've highlighted this before in any of your works :) 

Anything good from this is from Allah the Most High. Any shortcomings are from the evils of my own self. 

May the Peace/Blessings and Mercy of Allah be on all of you.

Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted - Are there any forgeries in the New Testament

Extract from Bart Erhman's book - Jesus Interrupted

Of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, only eight almost certainly go back to the author whose name they bear: the seven undisputed letters of Paul (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon) and the Revelation of John (although we aren’t sure who this John was).

The other nineteen books fall into three groups.

• Misattributed writings
As we have already seen, the Gospels are probably misattributed. John the disciple did not write John, and Matthew did not write Matthew. Other anonymous books have been wrongly attributed to someone famous. The book of Hebrews does not name Paul as its author, and it almost certainly was not written by Paul. But it was eventually admitted into the canon of Scripture (see chapter 7) because church fathers came to think it was written by Paul.

• Homonymous writings
The term “homonymy” means “having the same name.” A “homonymous writing” is one that is  written by someone who has the same name as someone who is famous. For example, the book of James was no doubt written by someone named James, but the author does not claim to be any particular James. It was an extraordinarily common name. Later church fathers accepted the book as part of Scripture because they claimed that this James was James the brother of Jesus. In the book itself there is no such claim.

• Pseudepigraphic writings
Some books of the New Testament were written in the names of people who did not actually write them. Scholars have known this for well over a century. The term for this phenomenon is “pseudepigraphy”—literally, “writing that goes under a false name.” Scholars have not been overly precise in their use of this term and tend to use it because it avoids the negative connotations associated with the term “forgery.” Whichever term they use, biblical scholars have argued for a long time that there are New Testament books whose authors knowingly claimed to be someone other than who they were.

(Jesus Interrupted - Pages 112-113)
 
Bart Ehrman said on a radio broadcast that about 75 percent of the New Testament documents are supposedly forged. He has written a separate book on it - Forged.