Reasons for differences between the Quran & the Old Testament

[Valke2]

Is anyone arguing that bolded part is part of the Oral law brought down by Moses and therefore the literal word of God?

Yes. Originally, I thought it was a commentary on the oral law, and therefore to have it included in Koran would be very odd, because it would essentially be quoting a rabbi. But since it is the Mishna itself, and since it can be argued theologically, that the Mishna was the word of God given to Moses, I suppose an Islamic apologist could argue that there is nothing contradictory in the Koran quoting the word of God via the Mishna.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Valke2:

Rodrigo:

Is anyone arguing that bolded part is part of the Oral law brought down by Moses and therefore the literal word of God?

Yes. Originally, I thought it was a commentary on the oral law, and therefore to have it included in Koran would be very odd, because it would essentially be quoting a rabbi. But since it is the Mishna itself, and since it can be argued theologically, that the Mishna was the word of God given to Moses, I suppose an Islamic apologist could argue that there is nothing contradictory in the Koran quoting the word of God via the Mishna.

Far be it for me to educate Jews but not everything in the Talmud is the literal word of God. It is made up of many sections. The Sanhedriin is included in the Talmud even though it is the deliberations of that body because it contains commentary on the religious texts.

Now, one can date the Mishnah from the context. Tractate Sanhedrin Folio 37a can be dated and it can be shown that it is not the literal word of God handed down to Moses but a commentary by later Rabbis on Genesis 4:10.

There is no doubt that Genesis 4:10 is commonly held to have been transmitted to Moses but it does not follow that the commentary on Gen 4:10 was given to Moses as well.

Note that this section lays down the rules on the procedures of the Sanhedrin in capital cases - which dates it to before 70AD when capital punishment was abolished by the Sanhedrin.

So when was 37a written? If it was written after the fourth century BC when coins were first introduced into the Holy Land. Note that metal coins were first invented by the Lydians in the 7th century BC - which makes them at least 1,000 years post-Moses.

If we read the rest of Sanhedrin 37 we see this passage:

FOR IF A MAN STRIKES MANY COINS FROM ONE MOULD, THEY ALL RESEMBLE ONE ANOTHER, BUT THE SUPREME KING OF KINGS

Thus proving that Sanhedrin 37 was written by Rabbis after the 4th century BC but before 70AD.

For info on the earliest coins in the Holy Land:

www2.imj.org.il/eng/archaeology/numismatics/minting.html

In the Holy Land coins were first minted no earlier than 400 BCE.

For info on the Lydian invention of metal coins you can google - it is common knowledge.

Hope this adds to the debate,
Rodrigo

 

[Valke2]

Far be it for me to educate Jews but not everything in the Talmud is the literal word of God. It is made up of many sections. The Sanhedriin is included in the Talmud even though it is the deliberations of that body because it contains commentary on the religious texts.

I’ll explain in greater detail. Talmud is made up of Mishna, Gemara and other commentaries. All of Mishna is what traditional judiasm believes was told to Moses at Sinai. Everything else is commentary on Mishna. The Mishna, or “Oral Torah” is not commentary. It was given concurrently with the written Torah.

Note that this section lays down the rules on the procedures of the Sanhedrin in capital cases - which dates it to before 70AD when capital punishment was abolished by the Sanhedrin.

The Sanhedrin did not abolish capital punishment. When the Sanhedrin ceased to function, there was no institution with the authority to impose capital punishment.

So when was 37a written? If it was written after the fourth century BC when coins were first introduced into the Holy Land. Note that metal coins were first invented by the Lydians in the 7th century BC - which makes them at least 1,000 years post-Moses.

Unless you can show me that coins were not used anywhere in Egypt at the time of Sinai or the surrounding areas, then this doesn’t work for dating the passage. I’ll google and see what it says, however.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

I’ll explain in greater detail. Talmud is made up of Mishna, Gemara and other commentaries. All of Mishna is what traditional judiasm believes was told to Moses at Sinai. Everything else is commentary on Mishna. The Mishna, or “Oral Torah” is not commentary. It was given concurrently with the written Torah.

I don’t think it is true since the Mishna is comprised of many text - and it is clear that the rabbis did make a lot of commentary in it.

Valke2:

The Sanhedrin did not abolish capital punishment. When the Sanhedrin ceased to function, there was no institution with the authority to impose capital punishment.

I’m sorry. I remember a Jewish member did show in some other forum that capital punishment was abolished by the Sanhedrin - I may have got the dates mixed up as it is entirely from my memory.

Valke2:

Unless you can show me that coins were not used anywhere in Egypt at the time of Sinai or the surrounding areas, then this doesn’t work for dating the passage. I’ll google and see what it says, however.

It is common knowledge that coins were invented by the Lydians around the 7th century BC. coin-gallery.com/cgearlycoins.htm

Note we’re not talking about the early metallic money which were not minted - the Mishnah mentions minted coins and that is held to have been invented by the Lydians.

 

[Valke2]

If we read the rest of Sanhedrin 37 we see this passage:

FOR IF A MAN STRIKES MANY COINS FROM ONE MOULD, THEY ALL RESEMBLE ONE ANOTHER, BUT THE SUPREME KING OF KINGS

That is not from the Mishna, however. It is from the Gemara, which everyone agrees post dates the Mishna. While the Mishna was written down by 200 CE we believe it was transmitted orally from Sinai. To say Sanhredrin 37 was written by Rabbis after the 4th century BC doesn’t address the issue, because your quote, while from the Talmud, is not from the Mishna.

 

[Valke2]

If we read the rest of Sanhedrin 37 we see this passage:

FOR IF A MAN STRIKES MANY COINS FROM ONE MOULD, THEY ALL RESEMBLE ONE ANOTHER, BUT THE SUPREME KING OF KINGS

That is not from the Mishna, however. It is from the Gemara, which everyone agrees post dates the Mishna. While the Mishna was written down by 200 CE we believe it was transmitted orally from Sinai. To say Sanhredrin 37 was written by Rabbis after the 4th century BC doesn’t address the issue, because your quote, while from the Talmud, is not from the Mishna.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

I don’t understand. The ‘save a life’ passage in Sanhedrin 37a is given above by Joseph Alison and I have read the copies elsewhere.

Now, a Muslim like Joseph Alison might argue that since it is from the Mishnah it is the oral law and hence the literal word of God handed down to Moses.

Prima facie that is hard to argue with.

Until we read the entire passage and notice that minted coins are also mentioned IN THE SAME PASSAGE.

This proves that the passage was a commentary by rabbis after the invention of minted coins.

I know even the Jews say the Mishnah is the Oral Law - but that is just a glib generalization - if I reads the Mishnah I can see rabbis making commentaries all over the place. Sanhedrin 37a is no different.

Thus, I think the mention of the minting of coins in Sanhedrin 37a shows it is a rabbinical commentary on Gen 4:10 and not the word of God through Moses. Gen 4:10 might have been the word of God through Moses but not the rest of the passage.

Otherwise, you might have to conclude that Moses knew about the minting of coins which is impossible from what we know of the history of coinage.

 

[Valke2]

I don’t know what you mean when you say the Mishna was composed of many texts. The Mishna is the codification of the ORal Law given to Moses at Sinai. Again, the Mishna is contained in the Talmud, but the entire Talmud is not the Mishna.

It is true that more than one scholar worked on codifing the Mishna. But it is the codification of the oral law that was given to Moses. Now, you may argue that what was written is not word for word what said (and you might have a strong argument). But traditional Judaism would disagree.

 

[Valke2]

I don’t understand. The ‘save a life’ passage in Sanhedrin 37a is given above by Joseph Alison and I have read the copies elsewhere.

Now, a Muslim like Joseph Alison might argue that since it is from the Mishnah it is the oral law and hence the literal word of God handed down to Moses.

Prima facie that is hard to argue with.

Until we read the entire passage and notice that minted coins are also mentioned IN THE SAME PASSAGE.

This proves that the passage was a commentary by rabbis after the invention of minted coins.

I know even the Jews say the Mishnah is the Oral Law - but that is just a glib generalization - if I reads the Mishnah I can see rabbis making commentaries all over the place. Sanhedrin 37a is no different.

Thus, I think the mention of the minting of coins in Sanhedrin 37a shows it is a rabbinical commentary on Gen 4:10 and not the word of God through Moses. Gen 4:10 might have been the word of God through Moses but not the rest of the passage.

Otherwise, you might have to conclude that Moses knew about the minting of coins which is impossible from what we know of the history of coinage.

It is not mentioned in the same passage. It’s mentioned in the same page. Each page of Talmud consists of the Mishna, surrounded by the Gemara (the commentary on the Mishna).

 

[Valke2]

I am agreeing that the portion on coins is rabbinic commentary.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

I’m sorry but it’s the same passage, bud. Look at this reference to Sanhedrin.

The Mishnah is written in capitals and the Gemara in normal text.

come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_37.html

I will bold the relevant passages:

MISHNAH. HOW WERE THE WITNESSES INSPIRED WITH AWE? WITNESSES IN CAPITAL CHARGES30 WERE BROUGHT IN AND INTIMIDATED [THUS]: PERHAPS WHAT YE SAY IS BASED ONLY ON CONJECTURE,31 OR HEARSAY,32 OR IS EVIDENCE FROM THE MOUTH OF ANOTHER WITNESS,33 OR EVEN FROM THE MOUTH OF A TRUSTWORTHY PERSON:34 PERHAPS YE ARE UNAWARE THAT ULTIMATELY WE SHALL SCRUTINIZE YOUR EVIDENCE BY CROSS EXAMINATION AND INQUIRY? KNOW THEN THAT CAPITAL CASES ARE NOT LIKE MONETARY CASES. IN CIVIL SUITS, ONE CAN MAKE MONETARY RESTITUTION35 AND THEREBY EFFECT HIS ATONEMENT; BUT IN CAPITAL CASES HE IS HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS BLOOD [sc. THE ACCUSED’S] AND THE BLOOD OF HIS [POTENTIAL] DESCENDANTS UNTIL THE END OF TIME,36 FOR THUS WE FIND IN THE CASE OF CAIN, WHO KILLED HIS BROTHER, THAT IT IS WRITTEN: THE BLOODS OF THY BROTHER CRY UNTO ME:37 NOT THE BLOOD OF THY BROTHER, BUT THE BLOODS OF THY BROTHER, IS SAID — i.e., HIS BLOOD AND THE BLOOD OF HIS [POTENTIAL] DESCENDANTS. (ALTERNATIVELY, THE BLOODS OF THY BROTHER, TEACHES THAT HIS BLOOD WAS SPLASHED OVER TREES AND STONES.)38 FOR THIS REASON WAS MAN CREATED ALONE, TO TEACH THEE THAT WHOSOEVER DESTROYS A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL,39 SCRIPTURE IMPUTES [GUILT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD DESTROYED A COMPLETE WORLD; AND WHOSOEVER PRESERVES A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE ASCRIBES [MERIT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD PRESERVED A COMPLETE WORLD.40 FURTHERMORE, [HE WAS CREATED ALONE] FOR THE SAKE OF PEACE AMONG MEN, THAT ONE MIGHT NOT SAY TO HIS FELLOW, 'MY FATHER WAS GREATER THAN THINE, AND THAT THE MINIM41 MIGHT NOT SAY, THERE ARE MANY RULING POWERS IN HEAVEN; AGAIN, TO PROCLAIM THE GREATNESS OF THE HOLY ONE, BLESSED BE HE: FOR IF A MAN STRIKES MANY COINS FROM ONE MOULD, THEY ALL RESEMBLE ONE ANOTHER, BUT THE SUPREME KING OF KINGS,42 THE HOLY ONE, BLESSED BE HE, FASHIONED EVERY MAN IN THE STAMP OP THE FIRST MAN, AND YET NOT ONE OF THEM RESEMBLES HIS FELLOW. THEREFORE EVERY SINGLE PERSON IS OBLIGED TO SAY: THE WORLD WAS CREATED FOR MY SAKE.43

I think it is hard to argue with the evidence from the Sanhedrin itself.

 

[Valke2]

Here is the Mishna:

THE HOLY ONE,
BLESSED BE HE, FASHIONED EVERY MAN IN THE STAMP OP THE FIRST
MAN, AND YET NOT ONE OF THEM RESEMBLES HIS FELLOW. THEREFORE
EVERY SINGLE PERSON IS OBLIGED TO SAY: THE WORLD WAS CREATED
FOR MY SAKE.(43)

Then there would be commentary (Gemara) on the Mishna. On the same page. The commentary discussed the minting of coins.

 

[Valke2]

I’m sorry but it’s the same passage, bud. Look at this reference to Sanhedrin.

The Mishnah is written in capitals and the Gemara in normal text.

come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_37.html

I will bold the relevant passages:

MISHNAH. HOW WERE THE WITNESSES INSPIRED WITH AWE? WITNESSES IN CAPITAL CHARGES30 WERE BROUGHT IN AND INTIMIDATED [THUS]: PERHAPS WHAT YE SAY IS BASED ONLY ON CONJECTURE,31 OR HEARSAY,32 OR IS EVIDENCE FROM THE MOUTH OF ANOTHER WITNESS,33 OR EVEN FROM THE MOUTH OF A TRUSTWORTHY PERSON:34 PERHAPS YE ARE UNAWARE THAT ULTIMATELY WE SHALL SCRUTINIZE YOUR EVIDENCE BY CROSS EXAMINATION AND INQUIRY? KNOW THEN THAT CAPITAL CASES ARE NOT LIKE MONETARY CASES. IN CIVIL SUITS, ONE CAN MAKE MONETARY RESTITUTION35 AND THEREBY EFFECT HIS ATONEMENT; BUT IN CAPITAL CASES HE IS HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS BLOOD [sc. THE ACCUSED’S] AND THE BLOOD OF HIS [POTENTIAL] DESCENDANTS UNTIL THE END OF TIME,36 FOR THUS WE FIND IN THE CASE OF CAIN, WHO KILLED HIS BROTHER, THAT IT IS WRITTEN: THE BLOODS OF THY BROTHER CRY UNTO ME:37 NOT THE BLOOD OF THY BROTHER, BUT THE BLOODS OF THY BROTHER, IS SAID — i.e., HIS BLOOD AND THE BLOOD OF HIS [POTENTIAL] DESCENDANTS. (ALTERNATIVELY, THE BLOODS OF THY BROTHER, TEACHES THAT HIS BLOOD WAS SPLASHED OVER TREES AND STONES.)38 FOR THIS REASON WAS MAN CREATED ALONE, TO TEACH THEE THAT WHOSOEVER DESTROYS A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL,39 SCRIPTURE IMPUTES [GUILT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD DESTROYED A COMPLETE WORLD; AND WHOSOEVER PRESERVES A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE ASCRIBES [MERIT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD PRESERVED A COMPLETE WORLD.40 FURTHERMORE, [HE WAS CREATED ALONE] FOR THE SAKE OF PEACE AMONG MEN, THAT ONE MIGHT NOT SAY TO HIS FELLOW, 'MY FATHER WAS GREATER THAN THINE, AND THAT THE MINIM41 MIGHT NOT SAY, THERE ARE MANY RULING POWERS IN HEAVEN; AGAIN, TO PROCLAIM THE GREATNESS OF THE HOLY ONE, BLESSED BE HE: FOR IF A MAN STRIKES MANY COINS FROM ONE MOULD, THEY ALL RESEMBLE ONE ANOTHER, BUT THE SUPREME KING OF KINGS,42 THE HOLY ONE, BLESSED BE HE, FASHIONED EVERY MAN IN THE STAMP OP THE FIRST MAN, AND YET NOT ONE OF THEM RESEMBLES HIS FELLOW. THEREFORE EVERY SINGLE PERSON IS OBLIGED TO SAY: THE WORLD WAS CREATED FOR MY SAKE.43

I think it is hard to argue with the evidence from the Sanhedrin itself.

You may be right. I’ll have to re-examine my understanding of the Mishna.

 

[pro_universal]

Amazing. The resident wiki-scholar knows Islam better than Muslims, Christianity better than Catholics, and Judaism better than Jews.

Rodrigo, there is a very simple concept here that underlies Valke2’s posts, and I think you’re missing it.

The concept is: there may be text of different ages on the same page.

For example, I have a copy of the Quran on my desk. On every page, there are footnotes at the bottom. That doesn’t prove that all the text of the pages is only as old as the footnotes.

You seem to be presuming that because two lines are written on one page, they must be of equal antiquity. I have no idea where you got this bizarre assumption, but Valke2’s clear explanation should have been enought to dispel it.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

I don’t know what you mean when you say the Mishna was composed of many texts. The Mishna is the codification of the ORal Law given to Moses at Sinai. Again, the Mishna is contained in the Talmud, but the entire Talmud is not the Mishna.

It is true that more than one scholar worked on codifing the Mishna. But it is the codification of the oral law that was given to Moses. Now, you may argue that what was written is not word for word what said (and you might have a strong argument). But traditional Judaism would disagree.

I meant tractates. I find it difficult to believe that Moses transmitted everything in the Mishnah - much of it seems rather like commentaries to me.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

It’s something called scholarship, pro. Something you will never understand.

Note how I will discuss Judaism with Jews because I have actually read the relevant text. I won’t discuss Judaism in general but I think I have sufficient knowledge on this particular issue having discussed it with Jews.

Note also how a Muslim (Joseph Alison) can discuss Sanhedrin 37a even though he’s not a Jew but I can’t.

Someone uncharitable might say you are being hypocritical, but far be it for me to say that since you know I will never be uncharitable to you.

 

[pro_universal]

It’s something called scholarship, pro. Something you will never understand.

Note how I will discuss Judaism with Jews because I have actually read the relevant text. I won’t discuss Judaism in general but I think I have sufficient knowledge on this particular issue having discussed it with Jews.

Googling particular phrases based on what people pose to you in forums and then reading the wiki passage is not scholarship.

It’s amazing…if we could model your brain, it would be like a simple inference engine that uses only answering-islam, google, and wikipedia as its rule bases.

I have to say though, I commend you for finally learning to change a few words in your posts so that I can’t google them to see immediately what site you cut and pasted them from. Now if I want to see who you’re plagiarizing, I actually would have to spend some time. (It’s still plagiarism, anyway.)

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Did I mention wikipedia in this entire discussion? No. So what’re you on about with your ad hominem to add to your hypocrisy?

I can’t discuss Sanhedrin 37a because I’m not a Jew? So how come Joseph Alison can do just that?

I will leave it to the readers to see if my evidence and logic are right or wrong - I’m sure they will come to see I am actually discussing this in a scholarly manner while all you have contributed are insults.

Good show, pro. I’m so proud of you, buddy.

 

[pro_universal]

Did I mention wikipedia in this entire discussion? No. So what’re you on about with your ad hominem to add to your hypocrisy?
.

Of course you didn’t. But then again, you didn’t mention your sources all the other times you cut and pasted directly from someone else’s website and represented the material as your own.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Thanks for showing the readers you have nothing to add to the discussion and as always engage in your favorite tactic of ad hominem.

Take your character assasination slime elsewhere, pro. You’re not adding to this discussion at all.

What you’re doing is showing everyone what a twisted hateful character you are. Go ahead and believe in your Muhammad who copied the words of rabbis into his Quran as the word of God. Now, that’s plagiarism for you.