69 million page views

Yes, your comments are clear

Reader comment on item: Istinja' with the Torah and New Testament
in response to reader comment: corrupted

Submitted by Kepha Hor (United States), Oct 11, 2010 at 18:44

I understand your English well. But, here's my question:

It's one thing to say the Bible (the Old and New Testaments) is corrupted. It is quite another to point to the actual evidence. Neither you nor Ahmed Deedat nor anyone else has shown me the actual corrupted texts.

Muslims say that different Christian movements have large differences in their Bibles. If you're saying that the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics include the Apocrypha (a group of 14 intertestamental books that were traditionally included in the Greek Septuagint but not in the Hebrew canon), I would agree that that is a significant difference. But even this is qualified by Hieronymus--the man who gave us the Roman church's Latin Vulgate--who saw the apocrypha as having a lesser status than the Hebrew books.

But, if I compare a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox New Testament or portion of the Old Testament taken from the Hebrew, I have to work very, very hard to find very minor differences--ones which make no difference to story, doctrine, or ethics. For instance, no manuscript of the New Testament supports that Jesus did not die on the cross, as the Qu'ran claims. Similarly, I know of no manuscript of either the Old or New Testament that puts Mary and Jesus in the line of Amram ('Imran), who was of the line of Levi rather than in that of Judah via David. Nor do I know of any version of the New Testament that fails to put Jesus in the House of Judah (via David) and puts him in that of Levi via Amram.

Indeed, when I as a Protestant argue with a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox brother about points of doctrine or ethics, I find that their position depends on accepting post-biblical tradition as a source of revelation--not because we have radically different Bibles.

Further, if I read a Jewish translation of the Tanach (Torah, Prophets, and Hagiographa), the main difference between it and the Old Testament that occupies 3/4-4/5 of my Christian Bible is that the order of books is somewhat different. But if I read the Jewish translation of Proverbs, Psalms, Jeremiah, Genesis, or Deuteronomy, etc. (individual books of the Old Testament), I quickly realize that I am reading the same story, prophecy, or aphorism that I read in my Christian version of the Old Testament. Indeed, if I read Rabbi Leeser's English translation, I find that about 85-90% is virtually verbatim the same as the version King James' Protestant Christian translators produced 1604-1611 A.D. This is not to accuse R. Leeser of laziness or plagiarism, for he plainly stated that he saw no reason to change points where he thought that the Christian translators had done a good job translating the Hebrew--yet Christians of his day would not have hesitated to say Leeser was in error for refusing to recognize Jesus as Messiah; while Leeser would have readily seen the Christians as following a false Messiah.

So, if the Jews and Christians corrupted the Old Testament while they refused to cooperate with each other, how come they ended up reading the same Hebrew text? As for Leeser, his cooperation with Christians was limited to the Christians' willingness to sell him a copy of theKing James version.

And, in an earlier post, it was noted that many Christian denominations let stand points in the Geek text of the New Testament that witness against their practices and beliefs. For instance, those who teach the perpetual virginity of Mary still publish New Testaments (even in translation for simple laypeople!) where Jesus is described as Mary's "firstborn" in Matthew and which state that Jesus had brothers and sisters in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Those who believe in one bishop per city still publish Paul's letter to the Philippians in which plural bishops in ancient Philippi are addressed right at the beginning. And, since such churches were responsible for the manuscript transmission of the text for a millennium before printing came to the West, I am very, very hesitant to accuse them of tampering with the original text, even when I hold [more biblical] doctrines that contradict theirs. I see those monkish transmitters as too devout to lie about the text, even when lying could have served their purposes better.

This is why I say that the Muslims assert, but give no proof.

And, I believe that I have given some evidence that the book on some Christian shelf is a basically trustworthy translation of a faithful transmission of the Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Old Testament and Greek text of the New. Yes, there are translations which I will not buy, because I think they are badly done, and by persons unskilled or inattentive to the originals languages; but I recognize that the real message can be had from most of the major translations.

And as for the minor differences in the manuscripts, what would we see with the Qu'ran when we take into account certain North African rescensions and special readings recognized only by the Shi'ah?

Finally, since you state you will not perform istinja with the Bible because of names it contains, I would urge you to buy a copy in your own language and read it very seriously.

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Submit a comment on this item

<< Previous Comment      Next Comment >>

Reader comments (47) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
Whatever Happened to Dena Milany? [5 words]Geoffrey GomersallApr 10, 2015 17:12222801
2this story about torah istinja bible [49 words]AmaalMar 4, 2013 23:37204040
How Crazy Is This Nonsense? [30 words]AmboydukeApr 8, 2011 12:33184075
it's a book.... [33 words]fezApr 9, 2011 03:35184075
Alternative to screenshots for viewing old versions of websites [113 words]James ForsythDec 27, 2010 19:25181306
4bigotry [109 words]Peter HerzSep 28, 2010 05:33178768
4Ahamdinejad follows this [49 words]Peter HerzSep 26, 2010 15:14178714
13I have seen this practice myself [39 words]GarySep 22, 2010 10:57178570
4All's fair in love and war [147 words]Rebecca MouldsSep 22, 2010 09:27178569
3It started in the 7th century AD [158 words]Kepha HorSep 25, 2010 23:26178569
1praise [40 words]siegfriedNov 19, 2010 00:31178569
4Is It Not Plain Enough Yet? [153 words]M. ToveySep 21, 2010 19:03178538
How true [3 words]Kepha HorSep 26, 2010 00:04178538
3traduction big troubles [124 words]abdellah lasriSep 21, 2010 18:24178536
3no difference [144 words]the Grand Infidel of KaffiristanSep 25, 2010 21:00178536
4Where are the Old and New Testaments corrupted [733 words]Kepha HorSep 26, 2010 00:02178536
translation big problems [179 words]abdellah lasriSep 27, 2010 10:20178536
corrupted [214 words]abdellah lasriSep 27, 2010 10:38178536
2What We Have Here is a Failure to Communicate. [403 words]M. ToveySep 27, 2010 12:29178536
1Again, no evidence [187 words]Kepha HorSep 28, 2010 05:28178536
10The Islamic tradition and al-khara' wa al-istinja' and other sordid matters [1111 words]dhimmi no moreSep 28, 2010 18:18178536
to dhimmi no more [546 words]abdellah lasriSep 29, 2010 03:06178536
2use Scotts - it's a lot softer [320 words]the Grand Infidel of KaffiristanSep 29, 2010 03:28178536
3Islamic ... [152 words]dhimmi no moreSep 29, 2010 07:21178536
1There is No Corruption of Absolute Truth - Only Corruption in the Human Handling of It. [681 words]M. ToveySep 29, 2010 17:40178536
1the Greatly Disturbed [122 words]the Grand Infidel of KaffiristanSep 30, 2010 05:36178536
Do Try Reading Several Bibles Side By Side [385 words]D.K.Milgrim-HeathSep 30, 2010 08:30178536
1Islam and fatwas and the absurd [153 words]dhimmi no moreOct 1, 2010 07:00178536
2More about the fatwa and the funny istinja' [1234 words]dhimmi no moreOct 2, 2010 08:43178536
1another excellent example of cofusion [148 words]the Grand Infidel of KaffiristanOct 2, 2010 22:15178536
2Abdella cannot be an Arab [147 words]dhimmi no moreOct 4, 2010 07:20178536
By the Way - Understanding The Holy Bible is Hard Without the Spirit [127 words]M. ToveyOct 4, 2010 19:46178536
1running & hiding [103 words]the Grand Infidel of KaffiristanOct 5, 2010 03:32178536
Furthering Understanding - Why Islam MUST Oppose the Holy Bible [362 words]M. ToveyOct 6, 2010 18:32178536
Yes, your comments are clear [877 words]Kepha HorOct 11, 2010 18:44178536
1I've taken your advice [156 words]Kepha HorOct 12, 2010 17:09178536
1corruption of islam [58 words]yehudaNov 4, 2010 11:16178536
I am back [154 words]Debanjan BanerjeeDec 1, 2010 21:15178536
But What Have you Learned From Reading the HOLY BIBLE [201 words]M. ToveyDec 5, 2010 20:41178536
My learning of HOLY BIBLE is given below [251 words]Debanjan BanerjeeDec 6, 2010 20:55178536
3Our dear Deb is worried about our native people but does he worry about his own Hindu ancestors? [108 words]dhimmi no moreDec 8, 2010 07:53178536
Dig Deeper in the Hebrew Holy Bible for Its Truth in Your Life [733 words]M. ToveyDec 8, 2010 19:12178536
The True Message of the Torah and the New Testament - Love of Almighty God [724 words]M. ToveyDec 15, 2010 11:04178536
1The exception or the rule? [51 words]Alain Jean-MairetSep 21, 2010 14:40178524
5Arabic word: "istinja' " [66 words]Charlie GriffithSep 21, 2010 12:59178515
4islam [41 words]seraphimeSep 21, 2010 10:26178509
11muslims have been brainwashed to hate the Bible, Torah, Christians, Jews, Israel, non muslims. [87 words]Phil GreendSep 21, 2010 04:31178499

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)