Genesis Of A Holy Book

APPENDIX 2:

Confirmation of Extant Scripture?

Many statements in the Koran end up undermining the Koran itself.  This is no more evident than with the botched attempt to reconcile the Mohammedan revelations with the extant Abrahamic lore of the time.  The predicament was as follows: The authors of Islam’s holy book were compelled to both affirm extant Abrahamic scripture (specifically, the Torah and the Christian “Gospels”)…AND to reject it.  Why this dilemma?  In one sense, the NEW (and LAST) revelation from the Abrahamic deity needed to be in keeping with all that had gone before; YET–at the same time–it required a reason to be NEEDED.  Why was an update warranted?  How was it justified?  And how could this be squared with the fact that Abrahamic legacy had been right ALL ALONG?

Those in America are already well-acquainted with this scenario: A sect claims to rectify and/or amend an ancient creed that has–allegedly–become corrupted.  The (quasi-Christian) Church of Latter-Day Saints purports to be doing just this.  An arch-angel visits a man to notify him that it is delivering to him–and only him–the Final Revelation for mankind.  The message will re-affirm earlier dispensations; thereby validating earlier prophets.

This yarn is a familiar one: The new revelation will confirm the verity of the (now long-lost) original scripture…which had since been sullied by unscrupulous interlopers…who fraudulently acted under the aegis of the true Faith; and made proclamations in the name of the godhead.  In correcting the record, this fatidic up-date is supposed to set things aright.

As a result, the Koran ends up vacillating between embracing and distancing itself from the claims found in antecedent Abrahamic scripture.  In effect, the Koran instructs us: “Heed those scriptures because they were god’s word…YET you must reject them because they were corrupted.”  All along, Jews and Christians were kinda-sorta right, yet kinda-sorta wrong.  (10:93 intimates that they were right…until they were wrong.)

More than FORTY passages depict the Final Revelation as CONFIRMATION of extant Abrahamic scripture (Old and New Testaments).  In the first major chapter (Surah 2), we find this position taken in verses 4, 41, 91, 97, 136, and 285.

Other passages that do this include: 3:3-4/48-50/81-84, 4:136/162-163, 5:43-48/65-68/110, 6:92, 7:157, 9:111, 10:37/94-95, 11:17, 12:111, 13:36, 16:43-44, 18:27, 19:12/58, 20:133, 21:105, 25:35, 28:51-53, 29:46, 32:23, 35:31, 37:118-119, 40:23/53, 41:43, 42:13, 45:16, 46:10-12/30, 53:36-37, 61:6/14, 62:5, and 87:18-19.  In each case, the audience is exhorted to consult EXTANT scripture to confirm what has been relayed in the Final Revelation.

19:12 refers to pre-existing scripture that god had given (with regard to Zechariah).  25:35 and 40:23 refer to that which god had given Moses.

(The silliest of these is probably 7:157, in which it is claimed that MoM himself was foretold in the Hebrew Bible and the Gospels; so his existence is a fulfillment of Judeo-Christian prophecy.)

The Koran, then, is said to be confirmation of the sacred scriptures that had preceded it.  41:43 even goes so far to say that the Koran not only confirms all Abrahamic religions before it; but that it SAYS NOTHING NEW.  In other words, there is nothing in the Koran that was not already said; something that couldn’t possibly be true…as the Koran refers to recent events that were unique to the Mohammedan movement.  The Final Revelation to all mankind devotes prodigious time focusing on Arabians and their activities (specific battles), on MoM personally (don’t tarry after dinner!), and on novel rules that announce themselves as peculiarly specific to (the exigencies of) Hijazis during the Dark Ages.

All of this is OVERTLY new; as the focal point of the Hebrew Bible is CLEARLY not the Arabian deserts.  So much for eternality.

According to all the passages listed above, the Abrahamic scripture–as it existed at the time of MoM–was VALIDATED.  Not only that; the scripture that is being confirmed was available to the audience AT THAT TIME.  For it enjoins the audience: If you have any doubt that these new revelations CONFIRM extant scripture, then simply ask those (contemporaries) who are familiar with antecedent scripture.  This is especially clear in the passages that instruct the audience to refer to scriptures that they already had “between their hands”.

The passages listed thus far do not mention anything about the Judeo-Christian scriptures having been corrupted; as they stipulate the necessary texts STILL EXIST at the time of MoM’s ministry.  They indicates that one should heed the antecedent Abrahamic scriptures AS THEY ARE NOW (at the time of MoM’s ministry).  Note especially 7:157, which stipulates that both the Torah and Gospels ARE CURRENTLY WITH the followers of MoM.

The problem arises that this all corresponds to the Judeo-Christian scripture we STILL HAVE TODAY (in the 21st century).  For such material is the same as it was in the early 7th century, when MoM is said to have conveyed the Final Revelation.  Even worse, the historical record shows that the Christian scriptures–both canonical and apocryphal–were the same in the early 7th century as they had been since their inception in the late 1st century (i.e. when they were first written down).

Therefore the textual discrepancy on which Islamic apologia depends does not exist.  The Seal of the Prophets was referring to texts as they had been from the beginning; as they remained during his lifetime, and as they remain to this day.  This holds true even after we take into account the fact that the authors of the Koran were working primarily off of SYRIAC sources…which did not always coincide with the material that came to be included in the Roman canon (as that canon was primarily culled from Koine Greek sources).  Hence the case for corruption collapses.

Here’s the MAJOR problem.  The aforementioned declarations of confirmation are found even as elsewhere the Koran is forced to hold that those scriptures were IN-correct (a.k.a. “corrupted”), as explicated in 2:59/75, 3:78, 5:12-15/65-68/78-79, 11:110, 41:45, 57:27, and 62:2.  These ten passages are an explicit REPUDIATION of antecedent scripture (which had been corrupted), thereby IN-validating extant scripture (that is: scripture as it existed at the time).

The question remains: What was available to the audience at that time?  These passages contend that previous revelations were subsequently distorted.  Yet elsewhere the book insists that the scripture that “people of the book” NOW HAVE BETWEEN THEIR HANDS (or “what their hands have written”) is valid; and should be heeded.  Meanwhile, “sunan” Abu Dawood relays that the Seal of the Prophet himself summoned a hard copy of the Torah, placed it on a pillow, and proclaimed that he believed in the book and the one who revealed it (Book 38; no. 4434).

YET the “Final Revelation” was needed in order to correct the record–as the material had come to be corrupted (and so was unreliable).  This isn’t merely a confusing message; it is an inconsistent account.  This seemingly paradoxical scenario depends on two suppositions:

ONE: What we NOW KNOW as the Torah and Gospels are corrupted versions; thus accounting for the (alleged) errancy of Judaic and Christian lore; and explaining their disjuncture with Koranic accounts.  (The Koran stipulates that the Torah and Gospels in their ORIGINAL form were genuine; and in keeping with all Koranic accounts.)

TWO: That MoM and his contemporaries had available to them the original (un-corrupted) versions of the Torah and Gospels…which, by that time, most Jews and Christians were–regrettably–no longer using.

The problem with this is that we know what the Torah and Gospels looked at the time of MoM’s ministry.  For we HAVE COPIES of the Torah and Gospels from the 7th century; and even many copies from the centuries prior to that.  And those manuscripts (we can focus on scripture used by the Syriac “Eastern Church”; i.e. Nestorians) roughly correspond with the scripture we have today (and which the Assyrians STILL USE, in the form of the Peshitta).

Thus the authors of the Koran paint themselves into a corner.

To re-cap: In referring to antecedent scripture, the verse listed earlier specify: That which you can EVEN NOW hold in your hands.  (2:79 is clearly talking about physical books.)  5:43-48 goes so far as to stipulate that Christians who abide by the Gospel account (i.e. the synoptic Gospels plus the Infancy Gospel of Thomas) will be in god’s good graces.  This passage is especially revealing, as it states that there is no need for people to consult MoM, as they ALREADY HAVE the Torah to consult; which means that (at the time of the “Final Revelation” was being delivered) the Torah was still valid.

The Koranic passage then enjoins: Let the people of the Gospel judge according to what lies therein; which means the Gospels were also still valid–and AVAILABLE–at the time.  This wasn’t just about listening to what some people were saying.  The “Sahabah” were told that they could look to the Abrahamic scriptures that preceded the Final Revelation to SEE that the “Final Revelation” confirms the Torah and Gospels.

So what, then, of possible corruption?  There MIGHT have been corruptions in the ancient lore; but–even then–it would have already occurred by MoM’s lifetime.  In fact, corruption almost certainly DID occur; but would have occurred in the intervening period between the late 1st and 4th centuries: long before MoM’s time.  There is no alternate version (that is: one in keeping with the Koran) that would have existed at the time MoM lived…let alone an “original” version that would have existed since the 1st century up to that time…YET that somehow suddenly disappeared shortly after the “Final Revelation” was delivered (so that we are now no longer privy to it).

Hence the contention that MoM could look to the available scripture does not comport with the rationalization used for the claim that a rectification was needed.  The supposition that that the “Final Revelation” confirmed what went before it is therefore erroneous.

In sum: Claims of scriptural confirmation–insofar as they exist in the “Recitations”–are self-incriminating.  No amount of hermeneutic chicanery can elide this fact.  Attempts to reconcile these contradictory narratives involve exegetical shenanigans; but such shenanigans only serve to amplify the predicament they’re meant to resolve.

Another problem exists.  If the INITIAL scriptures were, indeed, corrupted, then JoN must have been teaching Islam.  This is explicated in 5:65-68, which asserts that the Torah and Gospel in their original form were, indeed, correct.

Another quandary: If the Abrahamic deity had the Koran in his back pocket all along, yet refrained from using it when delivering his message through JoN, then what was he waiting for?  Would he not have ANTICIPATED that JoN’s teachings (which were actually the Sunnah) would be corrupted?  According to this supposition, god allowed JoN to preach, then allowed the accounts of him to be corrupted.  Why this sequence of events?  It makes no sense.  Especially in light of statements like 5:68, which tell us to stand fast by the Torah and the Gospel.

In 5:65-68 effectively says that had the other “People of the Book” (read: Jews and Christians) only believed all that had been revealed to them (in the scripture originally given to them), they would have been admitted into heaven.  The “catch” here is that the Judeo-Christian scripture–as it had come to be BY THE TIME MoM WAS PREACHING–was corrupted.  Hence the non-Muslim “People of the Book” were, by that point in time, following an errant version of the revelation.

All of these passages essentially say (in one way or another) that followers of both the Old and New Testaments had been correct…at least, that is, up to some point in history (i.e. until MoM’s pivotal revelation).  How so?  The passages point to antecedent scripture as evidence for the veracity of the NEW scripture on offer (MoM’s “Recitations”), thereby tying the credence of the Koran TO the Gospels and Torah…which, we must assume, were corrupted by the time MoM undertook his ministry.  Yet 10:94-95 directs MoM himself to consult those (contemporaries) who have already read “the book” in order to ascertain what the proper message is.  We can only infer from this that MoM’s contemporaries still had available to them the message that had originally been given.

In other words: Such passages ostensibly validate the extant Abrahamic scripture.

Considering all this, we must STILL believe that a Final Revelation was necessary.  That suggests that what was available at the time somehow fell short.  What are we to make of this rebuke?  Again, the idea is that the original message was, at some point, distorted by careless scriveners–or deliberately modified by unscrupulous interlopers–at some point between the 1st century and 4th century (as Syriac scripture had been established in the 2nd century and the Nicene canon was established by the Edict of Thessalonica c. 380).  Consequently, by the time of MoM’s ministry, the version with which the world was dealing was errant; and therefore null and void…so the story goes.

The main point of contention (regarding errant doctrine) was Trinitarianism–as expressed in 5:72-73.  Ironically, here the Koran actually has a point.  For Trinitarianism was, indeed, NOT in the original Gospels.  Even so, in order for the claim (that the original version of Abrahamic scripture was corrupted) to hold water, it would have been necessary for there to have ACTUALLY BEEN an un-corrupted version that existed at some point prior to MoM’s ministry…yet that had fallen into obscurity and been transplanted by the fraudulent scriptures that came to prevail.  The archeological record does not support this; as the earliest versions are–it so happens–still available to us, and do NOT correspond with the “Recitations”.  In other words: Between the late 1st century manuscripts to the 7th century, the only thing that changed were the scriptures that different denominations favored / discarded…with one exception. {B}

The case CAN be made that subsequent versions of the Gospel were bastardizations of the original Gospel, that of Mark.  Yet the glaring incommensurability between THAT Gospel and the contents of the Koran remains.  The Koran rectified nothing; it simply introduced a novel take on Abrahamic lore–replete with a revamped version of “Issa” [Jesus of Nazareth], in which he was still considered the Messiah, but neither god incarnate nor god’s “son” (and shorn of vicarious redemption through resurrection).

So what of the alleged scriptural corruption?  4:46 explains that many Jews distorted the “word of god”; so have come to be deceived.  And that is why the Abrahamic deity saw fit to “send down” a Final Revelation: to set the record straight to a people who’d gone awry.  (Meanwhile, 3:78 and 5:13 specify that some Jews twist the Torah with their tongues, not necessarily changing the scripture itself…leaving the possibility open that the CORRECT scripture still existed, yet was being neglected.)  Yet even if we were to grant this, it is apparent that the material in the Koran was lifted from SYRIAC SOURCES, dating from Late Antiquity.

And so we are left in somewhat of an exegetical pickle.  The Koran both contravenes and affirms said texts, thereby contradicting ITSELF.

In light of these conflicting narratives, 2:144-146 is obliged to equivocate on the matter of whether Jews and Christians will recognize MoM’s message as truth or fabrication.  Ultimately, Islam’s holy book is forced to hold that Jews and Christians were errant in order to provide a raison d’etre for a SEAL of all Abrahamic prophets…even as 44:30-32 stipulates that the Jews were, indeed, the chosen people ALL ALONG.  This poses a cosmogenic conundrum, to put it mildly.

Interestingly, in 20:77, god even refers to the Jews as “my [current] servants”–an appellation that conflicts with most of the Koran’s other statements about the Jews.  2:122 makes allusions to Israelites / Hebrews being the chosen people, “preferred over the worlds” (whatever that means).  This is a peculiar thing when attempting to justify much of the rest of the Koran’s contents, which is a repudiation of those touting pre-Mohammedan versions of Abrahamic theology.

That the “children of Israel” were eventually led astray is crucial to the Koran’s narrative; but this need not be a problem for the rest of us NOW.  For, as 27:76 (ironically) informs us, the Koran will clarify everything (about which “people of the book” currently disagree).  Sounds good; except for the fact that the Koran does no such thing.  Indeed, it’s hard to makes heads or tails of passages like 2:87-91 (which pertains to those who turned away from previous revelations) and 3:65 (which simply reminds us that the Torah and Gospels were authored after Abraham).

Question: If the Abrahamic deity helped the Jews and then the Christians with their cause (as the Koran concedes in the aforementioned passages), and yet these groups were “misled” (due to errant scripture at a later date), then the obvious question arises: What in heaven’s name was the Abrahamic deity waiting for (that is: over such a long interim)?  And why did he permit people to hijack his holy writ? {C}

Regarding the matter of the alleged “corruption” (sabotage?) of former scriptures: Wouldn’t the Abrahamic deity have FORESEEN that development, and been able to address it (or even preclude it)?  The Koran is adamant that–BEING god’s word–it cannot be corrupted, because god wouldn’t ALLOW his word to be corrupted.  YET, he was (allegedly) perfectly fine with allowing the Hebrew Bible and New Testaments (originally a pristine record of his word) to be corrupted.  So what gives?  Are we to suppose that god learned from his mistakes…which, evidently, he had to make TWICE (Old and New Testaments), before he finally got it right the third time?

To cut to the chase: Why did god tarry if–all along–he knew that he would need to CORRECT said scripture by introducing a 7th-century update?

And we might inquire even further: If–as it repeatedly stipulates–the Koran somehow CORROBORATED the Abrahamic lore that already existed, how can it proceed to so blatantly contradict much of those books?  If the verify the scriptures that “the people of the book” were using…UP UNTIL Gabriel’s visit to MoM c. 610 A.D., and that material was STILL AVAILABLE for the audience to check, then why the need for the Final Revelation as it came to be?  Why not simply RE-ISSUE that which had been lost?

Unless there was supplemental material.  If so: Had god been holding some crucial revelations back ALL ALONG?

If, on the other hand, those texts were, indeed, “corrupted” (as Islam NEEDS them to be in order to justify its own existence), then all the Koranic passages that deign to confirm them do not make any sense.  Either way, all the statements in the Koran TAKEN TOGETHER fail to accord with one another…or to explicate a coherent narrative.

The contradictions go on and on.  3:50 CONTRADICTS 41:43 by explicitly stating that the Final Revelation makes lawful some of what had theretofore been forbidden.  This only makes sense if we interpret “that which has been forbidden to you” as “that which has been MISTAKENLY forbidden to you BY OTHERS, who have perverted what was originally revealed”, per 3:78.  But this is a stretch.  Instead, it seems to be admitting that it is offering novel material…which the Abrahamic deity had apparently been keeping in his back pocket for thousands of years.

Meanwhile, 36:7 makes little sense, as it says: “Already the word has come into effect upon most [people], so they do not believe.”  This is part of the pre-destination [“qadar”] motif–whereby god proclaims that he has intentionally mislead people (so as to damn them from the outset).  Thus: Many are doomed to disbelief, as the word has ALREADY been given to them and they didn’t believe it.

This is troubling.  Never mind the catch-22 we encounter when we read 36:11: The only people that can be warned are those who will believe the warning.

As if to add to the confusion, we get passages like 15:90-91, 34:44, 43:21-25, and 46:10…in which the authors of the Koran seem to be attempting to clarify the matter.  (Bewilderingly, the words “Fear god and obey me” are put into the mouth of Jesus of Nazareth.)  And 28:76 only further convolutes things.  The problem here is that the Koran is so horribly written, it is virtually impossible to ascertain what, exactly, the authors were attempting to say on this vexing matter.

If you’re not confused at this point, then you’re not paying attention.  This farrago of (unwitting) prevarication betrays a profound theologically disorientation.  Evidently, the authors of the Koran were grappling for a way to reconcile a half-baked creed with the claims of its (professed) antecedents.  In an effort to address the disjointed-ness of the new-fangled narrative, a jumble of disparate comments made their way into the final editions of the holy book.

JESUS?

Of the passages announcing the confirmation of extant scripture, 5:47 and 5:68 are especially peculiar, as they command Christians to judge according to what is proclaimed in their Gospels.  This (effectively) entails that almost everything else in the Koran needs to be rejected; as many of the claims of Christianity and of Islam are mutually exclusive.

3:52-55 and 5:111 explicitly state that Jesus of Nazareth (“Issa”) actually preached the Koran’s message.  No kidding.  The implication here is that the accounts were later altered…yielding the grossly errant scripture on which Nicene Christianity was based.  However, by the time the Final Revelation was finally delivered, the accounts were STILL VALID…given that his followers are instructed to refer to the scriptures as they currently existed (material that they had at their disposal: “between their hands”).  The dilemma of reconciling extant scripture with the Koran is thereby rendered insoluble.

It’s no secret that there are several passages in the Koran that validate the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth.  Notably, 19:16-21 describes him as divinely ordained, “a perfectly formed man”, “the messenger of your Lord”, “a pure son”, and “a revelation for mankind”.  (Mary’s immaculate conception is also stipulated.)  57:27 tells us that god “gave [Jesus] the Gospel, and placed kindness and mercy in the hearts of those who followed him.”  The early Mohammedans opted to give the New Testament their own, extensive edit–disregarding John entirely, as well as the Pauline Letters.  (Can we blame them?)  Having culled their version of Abrahamic lore almost exclusively from Syriac sources, they reveal the basis for their impressions.  (See my essay: “Syriac Source-Material For Islam’s Holy Book”.)

YET…there are problematic statements about the followers of Jesus.  3:55 and 61:14 tell us that Jesus’ disciples would be “upper-most” until the Day of Resurrection.  It might be feasible to square this claim with the ensuing six centuries.  However, it is impossible to square it with world history ever since.  With Judgement Day pending, god’s promise to Jesus (that his followers would be upper-most until his return) amounts to a prophetic snafu.  This snafu is hardly fixed by merely asserting that Jesus’ followers were really “Muslims” (as 3:52 and 5:111 do).  Moreover, there is a glaring theological glitch: Jesus’ following is irreconcilable with MoM’s following; considering their messages were  not in alignment.  (Indeed, the respective FOLLOWINGS THEMSELVES are obviously discordant.)

The only way out of this theological predicament is to suppose that the movement that came to be “Christianity” did not represent an authentic following of their savior-figure.  (A view with which I concur.)  However, the problem remains that the AUTHENTIC following of Jesus of Nazareth did not wind up being “upper-most” (whether we suppose they were members of “The Way” or the “Salaf”).  This ineluctable fact is in clear contradiction to the Koranic prophecy.  Alternately, if those who DID prevail were the authentic followers of Jesus (“The Way”), then Islam qua Islam has a problem–as ALL Abrahamic supplicants would then be forced to accord to Nicene Christianity a divinely ordained legitimacy.

An even more laughable prophecy can be found in 3:137, which enjoins followers to go around the world so that they may witness the demise (ruination) of those cultures of the past that did not acknowledge the Abrahamic deity.  This conceit (effectively: a prescription for schadenfreude) can only result from a festering resentment in desperate need of a palliative.

Such hubris is hardly in keeping with the message propounded by Jesus of Nazareth.

VALIDATION OF WHAT, EXACTLY?

One final matter is worth broaching.  When it comes to extant scripture, the authors of Islam’s holy book were working with a rather sordid Abrahamic heritage; and a raft of odious precedents.

In its open hostility toward transgression, the Koran was perfectly in keeping with antecedent Judaic tenets.  According to the Torah, what other ersatz crimes should we give people the death penalty for?  Here are some gems:

• Exodus 22:20 declares, “He who sacrifices to any god, save to Yahweh only, shall be utterly destroyed.”
• Exodus 22:18 declares, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”
• Exodus 35:2 declares, “Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord.  Whosoever does work therein shall be put to death.”
• Leviticus 20:13 declares, “If a man also lie with a man as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.  They shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
• Leviticus 24:13-16 declares, “And he that blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him, as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemes the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.”
• Deuteronomy 22:13-21 declares, “If any man take a wife [and find] her not a virgin…they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones so that she dies.”

Splendid.  (No need to mention how many innocent people were tortured and executed over the centuries due to such passages.)  Never mind other gems like Psalm 137:9, extolling mass-infanticide.

As if this weren’t bad enough, the Abrahamic deity announces that he is a jealous AND VINDICTIVE god, and so would visit punishment for the transgressions of one generation upon all their descendants…for FOUR GENERATIONS.  This is reiterated in Deuteronomy 5:8-10 and Numbers 14:8…as well as in Exodus 20:5 and 34:6-7.  In light of the character of the Abrahamic deity, the moral credence of the scripture becomes, at best, dubious. {A}

CONCLUSION:

During the long process of cobbling together and editing of manuscripts that eventually became the Koran, an equipoise between honoring and denouncing the incumbent scripture was contrived POST HOC.  This was done in an extremely shoddy manner.

In sum: The matter of (un)adulterated scripture is left un-resolved.   When asserting that God’s words cannot be altered once it has been given (as is done in 6:115 and 18:27) after declaring that the Torah / Gospels were God’s words (as is done in 3:3-4, et. al.), the conclusion is that antecedent Abrahamic scripture could NOT have been corrupted.  Add to this the claim that such (unsullied) scripture was still in existence at the (purported) time of the Recitations’ composition (as is stated in 7:157, et. al.), and the adjuration that other “People Of The Book” (who were contemporaneous with the Final Revelation) should judge according to the Torah / Gospel (5:43/47/68), which they had available to them at the time, and it is clear that there was nothing in need of correcting (that is: at the time MoM would have been conducting his ministry).

So WERE the extant Abrahamic scriptures corrupted?  Certainly, they NEED to have been corrupted in order for Islam’s holy book to hold water; and for Islam ITSELF to have a raison d’etre.  Yet the book insists that it confirms the scripture AS IT STILL EXISTED AT THE TIME.  That such a glaring paradox survived the editing process is rather odd.  The authors of the “Recitations” seem not to have thought things through before making statements concerning this matter.

{A  Visiting the sins of the fathers upon their descendants has a long history in Abrahamic lore.  The touting of this horrific protocol was not unique to the Torah; it was echoed throughout the rest of the Hebrew Bible.  In addition to the four passages already listed (from the Pentateuch), it crops up in First Kings (21:29), the Book of Lamentations (5:7), the Book of Jeremiah (32:18), the Book of Isaiah (65:6-7), the Book of Esther (9:6-16), and in the Psalms (109:14).  To add insult to injury, much of this involved COLLECTIVE punishment (a.k.a. genocide).  Be that as it may, the precedent seems to have been tacitly countermanded in Deuteronomy 24:16, Leviticus 26:40-42, Jeremiah 31:30, and Ezekiel 18:18-20.  Equivocation on such a pressing matter is indicative of a book that–LIKE THE KORAN–was cobbled together from disparate sources.  (No matter.  Those four deferential statements pertain to PEOPLE punishing transgressors; and so do not contradict GOD’S penchant for visiting the sins of the fathers upon their descendants.)  As is the case with Islam’s holy book, the Bible is a smorgasbord of mixed messages; thereby inviting one to extract whatever happens to suit one’s purpose.}

{B  At the behest of miaphysite theologians, Thomas of Harqel (bishop of Mabbug) and Paul of Tella, the “Orthodox” Syriac church ended up appending five books (including Revelation) to the Peshitta…yielding an updated edition (now known as the “Harklean” version) just THREE YEARS into MoM’s ministry (c. 616).  THAT edition had been inspired by the recommendations of Philo-xenus of Mabbug c. 508.  Miaphysites were adamantly anti-Nestorian, who were Dyophysites.  Here’s the catch: It was Nestorians (sans the Book of Revelation) who had the most influence on the germination of Mohammedan lore.  See my essay on “The Syriac Source-Material For Islam’s Holy Book”.}

{C  6:114-115 and 18:27 notify us that god’s Word [“logos”] cannot be changed.  This claim would seem to be self-evident; as nobody has power over the Abrahamic deity.  Meanwhile, the man-made RECORDS OF the (alleged) Word can be corrupted.  The issue here, then, is not about the nature of what god said PER SE, but about what various people CLAIMED that god said.  So we are faced with the quandary: Would god would ALLOW such corruption to take place in his name?}