An Intentional Change in Mark 15:34

Written by Dr. Bart D Erhman.

I have started giving some instances of what appear to be “intentional” changes made by scribes, as opposed to simple, accidental, slips of the pen.  In my previous post I pointed to an example in Mark 1:2, in which scribes appear to have altered a text because it seems to embody an error.   If I’m wrong that this is the direction of the change – that is, if the text that I’m arguing is the “corruption” is in fact the original text – then there is still almost certainly an intentional change still involved, but made for some other reason.   But either way, the change does not appear to have been made simply by inattention to detail.

Here I’ll give a second instance from Mark of what appears to be an intentional change.  I stress that these alterations “appear” to be intentional since, technically speaking, we can never know what a scribe intended to do.   I use the term I simply to mean an alteration to the text that a scribe appears to have made on purpose because he wanted to change it for one reason or another.  Part of the historical task is trying to reconstruct what might have been a plausible reason.

One of the most intriguing variations in Mark’s Gospel comes in the Passion narrative, in the final words attributed to Jesus in the Gospel.   Jesus is being crucified, and he says nothing on the cross until he cries out his final words, which Mark records in Aramaic:  “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?”   Mark then translates the words into Greek:  “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”   Jesus then utters a loud cry and dies.

What is striking is that in one early Greek manuscript (the fifth-century codex Bezae — an erratic manuscript that nonetheless on very rare occasions preserves an original reading when all other Greek manuscripts say something else) and several Latin manuscripts, that often agree with it, Jesus’ cry is translated into Greek as:  “My God, my God, why have you mocked me?”

I have long been fascinated by this change.  One great scholar, Adolph von Harnack (arguably the greatest scholar of Christian antiquity of the 20^th century), argued that this alternative reading was in fact original, that scribes changed it from “mocked me” to “forsaken me” because they did not approve of the theology involved with the idea of God mocking his son.  Moreover, since this “cry of dereliction” (as it is called) is a quotation of Scripture (Psalm 22:1), and the Hebrew of Ps. 22:1 (as well as the Greek) is clearly “forsaken” instead of “mocked,” then it is likely that scribes would have changed the original “mocked” in order to improve its theology and into line with how the verse is found in the Old Testament itself (and into line with how Matthew records the cry).

In addition, as Harnack pointed out, the word “mocked” fits the literary context of Mark very well.  In this scene, in Mark’s Gospel, everyone mocks Jesus:  the people passing by his crucifixion, the Jewish leaders, and even both criminals being crucified with him (15:29-32).   Now even God himself mocks him.

This was a very powerful argument by an unusually insightful and powerfully intelligent scholar.  But it never won very many adherents.  Most scholars simply were never convinced.  And for several reasons.  For one thing, if Matthew’s Gospel indicates that Jesus said “forsaken” and not “mocked” – his source for the passage was Mark!  That would suggest that this word is also what Mark had.  Moreover, Mark first cites the cry in the original Aramaic.  The word in Aramaic for “mocked” is different for the word “forsaken.”  The Aramaic word Mark uses is “forsaken.”  So why would he even both giving the Aramaic if what he wanted to do was to have Jesus cry out “mocked”?  He simply would have given the Greek form of the text.

Moreover, every single Greek manuscript (there are many hundreds) has “forsaken” rather than “mocked”, as does every manuscript in every other language (except the few Latin in support of codex Bezae) and every church father who quotes the verse.  All of this is very hard to explain, especially in combination, if Mark originally said “mocked.”

So probably Mark’s version originally said “Why have you forsaken me?”

Why then would a scribe have changed it?   On one hand, one could argue that it was precisely in order to make the words fit more closely with their context – everyone else mocks Jesus in the immediately preceding verses and now, so too, does even God.   That was part of what it meant for Jesus to be crucified for the sake of others.

That would be a strong argument.   Another would be that the text was changed because a scribe was not comfortable with what it might mean to say that God had “forsaken” Jesus.  This, in my view, is an even stronger argument.

Literally, the Greek word usually translated “forsaken” means “left behind.”   Why would that be a problem?   Because there were Christians in the second century (various “Gnostics”) who believed that on the cross, the divine element within Jesus – the god residing in him – left him to return to its heavenly realm whence it came.

In this Gnostic view, Jesus Christ was not one being who was both human and divine.  He was two beings, one human and one divine.   The man Jesus, for these Gnostics, was a real, pure, flesh-and-blood human being, a righteous man, born from the sexual union of his parents, who was more holy than all others and who was chosen by a divine being come from heaven, the Christ, to be his (Christ’s) dwelling place during Jesus’ public ministry up to the time until his death.  The divine Christ came into the man Jesus at his baptism (when the Spirit came down from heaven and entered into Jesus) and left him at his death (since the divine cannot suffer or die).

And so, for some Gnostics, Jesus cried out, asking why the divine element had left him:  “My God, my God, why have you left me behind?”  We know that some Gnostics interpreted this passage that way, because of the surviving Gnostic Gospels.  The Gospel of Philip, for example, a Valentinian Gnostic text, quotes the verse and explains that Jesus uttered these words because “it was at the cross that he was divided.”  That is to say, the previously unified Jesus Christ again divided into two beings, when the Christ left Jesus.

The controversy over what these words might mean was raging in the second century.  That is almost certainly when the text was changed in the ancestor to the text of codex Bezae (that’s widely believed for rather complicated reasons).   Why was it then changed?

Possibly to make it fit better in its literary context in Mark (where everyone – and now even God – mocks Jesus).  But possibly also because now it cannot be used as easily by Gnostics who want to argue that at the cross the divine element left Jesus behind to die alone.  Now, in the changed text, Jesus does not wonder why he has been left behind.   With the change, the verse is no longer usable for these Gnostic Christians.

He cant be God!

He was conceived by the Holy Ghost. (Matthew 1:18)

He was breastfed. (Luke 11:27)

He was circumcised. (2:21)

He was growing up in wisdom and statute. (Luke 2:52)

He was admonished by his mother. (Luke 2:58)

He cried. (John 11:35)

He slept. (Mark 4:38)

he eat and drank. (Luke 22:17-19)

he was afraid and fled. (Matthew 14:12)

he prayed. (Matthew 26:39)

he didn’t know the when was the last hour. (Matthew 24:36)

he didn’t know what season it was. (Mark 11:12-14)

he has his feet wiped by a prostitute. (John 12:3)

he lied. (John 7:8-10)

he was rebuked by his follower. (Matthew 16:11)

he asked his followers to look out for him. (Matthew 26:40)

he was arrested by roman soldiers. (Matthew 26:50)

he was questioned by Jewish rabbis and Pilate. (Matthew 26:59/ Matthew 27:11)

he was beaten. (Matthew 27:26)

he was naked. (john 19:23)

he was crucified by the Romans. (Matthew 27:35)

DOES THAT SOUND LIKE THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD OR MAN? ASK YOURSELF COULD YOU REALLY SEE GOD ALMIGHTY IN SUCH CONDITIONS. LOOK HOW SATAN HAS DEVIATED THE CHRISTIANS.

Story of Jonah Pbuh in detail.

The Book of Jonah is one of the Prophets in the Bible. It tells of a Hebrew prophet named Jonah son of Amittai who is sent by God to prophesy the destruction of Nineveh but tries to escape the divine mission.^[1] Set in the reign of Jeroboam II (786–746 BC), it was probably written in the post-exilic period, some time between the late 5th to early 4th century BC. (a)

It is possible that some of the traditional materials taken over by the book were associated with Jonah at an early date, but the book in its present form reflects a much later composition. It was written after the Babylonian Exile (6th century bc), probably in the 5th or 4th century and certainly no later than the 3rd, since Jonah is listed among the Minor Prophets in the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus, composed about 190. Like the Book of Ruth, which was written at about the same period, it opposes the narrow Jewish nationalism characteristic of the period following the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah with their emphasis on Jewish exclusivity. Thus the prophet Jonah.. (b)

The book does not bear the least evidence of having been written by the prophet or even during his time; and its age must be gathered from different indications. It has long since been held that it is one of the latest books of the Hebrew canon. This is proved in the first place by the language, as considered lexically, grammatically, and stylistically (comp. on this point the commentaries, and books like S. R. Driver's "Introduction"). Only Esther, Chronicles, and Daniel are of later date. Again, the way in which Nineveh is referred to shows that the city had long since vanished from the face of the earth and had faded into legend (comp. iii. 3). The King of Nineveh, also (iii. 6), could have been referred to only in a late myth; and the legendary atmosphere of the whole story, from beginning to end, is in accord with the length of time that had elapsed since the events recounted took place. This becomes evident both in the episode of the fish which swallows a man and then casts him up alive after three days, and in that of the plant which in one night grows high enough to overshadow Jonah. These things might, it is true, be considered as divine miracles; but such an explanation can not be offered for the three days' time that it takes to pass through Nineveh (iii. 3), nor for the fasting, sackcloth, and penitent cries of the animals (iii. 7 et seq.), much less for the conception that an Israelitish prophet could preach penitence to the city of Nineveh, and that the king and the citizens would listen to him. Everything about the story is, and was intended to be, miraculous and legendary. (c)

Jean C. McGowan writes: "Commentators who have interpreted the book as an historical narrative identify Jonah with the 8th-cent. Prophet mentioned in 2 Kgs 14:25 and consider him to be the author of the book. However, the majority of scholars today deny Jonah's authorship and date the bok between 400 and 200 BC. Their arguments can be summarized as follows. The satirical tone in which the author writes about the Prophet in the third person suggests that he was not writing about himself. The lack of significant details, such as the name of the land where the fish left Jonah and the name of the king of Nineveh, suggest that the author was not writing about contemporary events. The language of the book is not that of the 8th-cent. A number of words used are not found elsewhere in the OT but only in later Hebr literature. The use of a number of Aramaisms indicate a date later than the 8th cent. (cf. A. Gelin, R-T 1, 745; Loretz, BZ, 5, 19-25). The mentality of the author is more like the mentality of the mid-5th cent. Other OT books, such as Ezr, Neh, and Ru, bear witness to the fact that in post-exilic Israel there was a strong current of interest in the question of Israel's relations to the nations, which would form a natural background for the theme of Jon. For these reasons, this book of unknown authorship is dated between 400-200." (d)

footnote

(a)  Mercer Dictionary of the Bible.

(b) Encyclopaedia Britannica

(c) Jewish encyclopaedia

(d) (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, vol. 1, p. 633)

It’s clear from the above sources that the Hebrew prophet Jonah son of Amittai was not the author of the book of Jonah. This means an unknown person wrote the story of Jonah. Now this is no surprise when it comes to the authorship of books found in the Bible. Majority of the Books in the Bible were written by unknown scribes. The reason why I’m touching on this topic is, because of a Facebook post made by a certain Christian by the name of korede. On his post, he wrote:

“Can you “fully” understand and “tell” the story of Jonah with the Qur’an without the help of the Bible?

How absurd! Truly this guy is ignorant towards his own book. We have demonstrated, how the Book of Jonah was not written by Jonah. The Book of Jonah was written by an unknown author, or possibly by multiple authors. How does korede explain this problem of authorship which is damaging its authenticity and making the Book of Jonah unreliable?

He is basing the Quranic narrations on a book found in the bible which is unauthentic? Is he out of his mind! On what grounds is he thinking of using such method. Is he forgetting the changes made in the Bible throughout centuries have only made it worse to give an accurate account on many stories.

Now coming to the Quranic narration of the Story of Jonah Pbuh. The story of Jonah Pbuh was being told to Muslims well before they story from the bible even reached them. Muslims throughout generations would read from the Quran and Tafsir and read the entire story of Jonah, without the mention of Bible.

The Quran related many stories of the Prophets Pbut to us. Those stories are a lesson to us, we learn important lessons from them which we are to use during our daily lives. One way or another these important stories reflect our lives. Take for example the story of Joseph Pbuh, he brothers tricked him, he was sold as a slave, he was tempted by the chiefs wife, he was in prison, he was saved and become the ruler  of Egypt. Now this is a reflection on our lives, we get into family feud, many have been tricked into human trafficking, many are seduced by women, many are in prison. But what is the goal from this story what are the lessons that we can learn and implement into our lives. The struggle and patience the Prophets went through. Each story has his own unique lesson and teaching. The Quran uses small snippets of story that has the larger meaning within the story itself. This larger meaning is explained and elaborated by Prophet Muhammed Pbuh and his Companions Ra. The entire story could be found in commentaries of the Quran in great detail.  If korede thinks Muslims need the Bible to explain the Quranic stories then let him dream on. Below are verses from the Quran Allah Swt tells us Prophet Muhammed Pbuh was sent to explain the Quran.

 PROPHET MUHAMMED (Pbuh) WAS SENT TO EXPLAIN THE QUR’AN

We raised the Messengers earlier with Clear Signs and Divine Books, and We have now sent down this Reminder upon you that you may elucidate to people the teaching that has been sent down for them, and that the people may themselves reflect. (Surah 16:44)

We have sent down the Book that you may explain to them the truth concerning what they are disputing and that the Book may serve as a guidance and mercy for those who believe in it. (Surah 16:64)

Our Lord! Raise up in the midst of our offspring a Messenger from among them who shall recite to them Your verses, and instruct them in the Book and in Wisdom, and purify their lives. Verily, You are the Most Mighty, the Most Wise.” (Surah 2:129)

He it is Who has sent to the gentiles a Messenger from among themselves,  one who rehearses to them His verses, purifies their lives, and imparts to them the Book and the Wisdom although before that they were in utter error; (Surah 62:2)

O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination. (Surah 4:59)

Let us now read from Islamic sources the story of Jonah without using the Bible.

 

Yunus (Jonah) - Description of Jonah's People

Prophet Jonah (Yunus) also known as Dhan-Nun. About his people Almighty Allah said: Was there any town (community) that believed (after seeing the punishment), and its Faith (at that moment) saved it (from the punishment)? (The answer is none,) - except the people of Jonah; when they believed, We removed from them the torment of disgrace in the life of the (present) world, and permitted them to enjoy for a while. Surah 10: 98

The inhabitants of the town of Nineveh were idolators who lived a shameless life. Prophet Jonah was sent to teach them the worship of Allah. The people disliked his interference in their way of worship, so they argued: "We and our forefathers have worshipped these gods for many years and no harm has come to us."

Yunus (Jonah) - Jonah Leaves His People

Try as he might to convince them of the foolishness of idolatry and of the goodness of Allah's laws, they ignored him. He warned them that if they kept on with their foolishness, Allah's punishment would soon follow. Instead of fearing Allah, they told Jonah that they were not afraid of his threats. "Let it happen," they told him. Jonah was disheartened. "In that case I will leave you to your misery!" So saying, he left Nineveh, fearing that Allah's anger would soon follow. And (remember) Dhan-Nun (Jonah), when he went off in anger, and imagined that We shall not punish him (i.e., the calamities which had befallen him)! Surah 21:87

Yunus (Jonah) - The People are Forgiven

Hardly had he left the city when the skies began to change color and looked as if they were on fire. The people were filled with fear by this sight. They recalled the destruction of the people of 'Ad, Thamud and Noah. Was theirs to be a similar fate? Slowly faith penetrated their hearts. They all gathered on the mountain and started to beseech Allah for His mercy and forgiveness. The mountains echoed with their cries. It was a momentous hour, filled with sincere repentance.

Allah removed His wrath and showered His blessings upon them once again. When the threatening storm was lifted, they prayed for the return of Jonah so that he could guide them.

yunus (Jonah) - The Storm at Sea

Meanwhile, Jonah had boarded a small ship in the company of other passengers. It sailed all day in calm waters with a good wind blowing at the sails. When night came, the sea suddenly changed. A horrible storm blew as if it were going to split the ship into pieces. The waves looked wild. They rose up as high as mountains then plunged down like valleys, tossing the ship and sweeping over the deck.

Behind the ship, a large whale was splitting the water and opening its mouth. A command had been issued from Almighty Allah to one of the greatest whales of the sea to surface. It obeyed. The whale hurried to the surface of the sea and followed the ship as it had been commanded.

The tempest continued and the chief crewman asked the crew to lighten the ship's heavy load. They threw their baggage overboard, but this was not enough. Their safety lay in reducing the weight further, so they decided among themselves to lighten their load by removing at least one person.

Yunus (Jonah) - Jonah Jumps into the Sea

The captain directed: "We will make lots with all the travelers' names. The one whose name is drawn will be thrown into the sea." Jonah knew this was one of the seamen's traditions when facing a tempest. It was a strange polytheistic tradition, but it was practiced at that time. Jonah's affliction and crisis began.

Here was the prophet, subjected to polytheistic rules that considered the sea and the wind to have gods that riot. The captain had to please these gods. Jonah reluctantly participated in the lot, and his name was added to the other travelers' names. The lot was drawn and "Jonah" appeared.

Since they knew him to be the most honorable among them, they did not wish to throw him into the angry sea. Therefore, they decided to draw a second lot. Again Jonah's name was drawn. They gave him a final chance and drew a third lot. Unfortunately for Jonah, his name came up again.

Jonah realized that Allah's hand was in all this, for he had abandoned his mission without Allah's consent. The matter was over, and it was decided that Jonah should throw himself into the water. Jonah stood at the edge of the ship, looking at the furious sea. It was night and there was no moon. The stars were hidden behind a black fog. But before he could be thrown overboard, Jonah kept mentioning Allah's name as he jumped into the raging sea and disappeared beneath the huge waves.

Yunus (Jonah) - The Whale Swallows Jonah

The whale found Jonah floating on the waves before it. It swallowed Jonah into its furious stomach and shut its ivory teeth on him as if they were white bolts locking the door of his prison. The whale dived to the bottom of the sea, the sea that runs in the abyss of darkness.

Three layers of darkness enveloped him, one above the other: the darkness of the whale's stomach, the darkness of the bottom of the sea, the darkness of the night. Jonah imagined himself to be dead, but his senses became alert when he found he could move. He knew that he was alive and imprisoned in the midst of three layers of darkness. His heart was moved by remembering Allah. His tongue was released soon after saying: "La ilaha illa Anta (none has the right to be worshipped but You (0, Allah), Glorified (and Exalted) be You above all that (evil) they associate with You. Truly, I have been of the wrong-doers." Surah 21:87

Jonah continued praying to Allah, repeating this invocation. Fishes, whales, sea-weeds, and all the creatures that lived in the sea heard the voice of Jonah praying, heard the celebration of Allah's praises issuing from the whale's stomach. All these creatures gathered around the whale and began to celebrate the praises of Allah in their turn, each in its own way and in its own language.

The whale also participated in celebrating the praises of Allah and understood that it had swallowed a prophet. Therefore it felt afraid; however, it said to itself: "Why should I be afraid? Allah commanded me to swallow him."

Yunus (Jonah) – Allah Forgives him Jonah

Allah Almighty saw the sincere repentance of Jonah and heard his invocation in the whale's stomach. Allah commanded the whale to surface and eject Jonah onto an island. The whale obeyed and swam to the farthest side of the ocean. Allah commanded it to rise towards the warm, refreshing sun and the pleasant earth.

The whale ejected Jonah onto a remote island. His body was inflamed because of the acids inside the whale's stomach. He was ill, and when the sun rose, its rays burned his inflamed body so that he was on the verge of screaming for the pain. However, he endured the pain and continued to repeat his invocation to Allah.

Almighty Allah caused a vine to grow to considerable length over him for protection. Then Allah Exalted caused Jonah to recover and forgave him. Allah told Jonah that if it had not been for his praying to Him, he would have stayed in the whale's stomach till the Day of Judgment.

Yunus (Jonah) - Summary of Jonah's Story

Almighty Allah recounted: And, verily, Jonah was one of the Messengers. When he ran to the laden ship, he (agreed to) cast lots, and he was among the losers, - Then a (big) fish swallowed him and he had done an act worthy of blame. Had he not been of them who glorify Allah, he would have indeed remained inside its belly (the fish) till the Day of Resurrection. But We cast him forth on the naked shore while he was sick, and We caused a plant of gourd to grow over him. And We sent him to a hundred thousand (people) or even more. And they believed; so We gave them enjoyment for a while. Surah 37: 139-148

Yunus (Jonah) - Jonah's People – Changed

 

Gradually he regained his strength and found his way to his hometown, Nineveh. He was pleasantly surprised to notice the change that had taken place there. The entire population turned out to welcome him. They informed him that they had turned to believe in Allah. Together they led a prayer of thanksgiving to their Merciful Lord.

Yunus (Jonah) - Porphet Muhammad's Saying About Jonah (PBUT)

Ibn 'Abbas narrated: "The prophet Muhammad said: 'One should not say that I am better than Jonah Ibn Matta."

SubhanAllah the entire story explained without the use of the Bible. Guess korede was wrong when he thought the Quranic Story cannot be understood. He is forgetting we use the Quran and Sunnah. We have the explanation of the Quran through Sunnah. The other problem is korede is not a jew and we know from Jewish studies the Torah/ Tanack has also an explanation Book known as the Talmud. The Jews explain the Old Testament through the Talmud, that is their Oral Law.

false prophecy

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)

6 verses later during the same time of the above prophecy, Yahweh would be shaving legs.

In that day the Lord will shave with a razor that is hired beyond the River—with the king of Assyria—the head and the hair of the feet, and it will sweep away the beard also. (Isaiah 7:20)

The question is if Isaiah 7:14 was a prophecy of Jesus, then when did Yahweh start shaving legs? Note the verse 20 starts off by saying “in that day” it was a continuation from verse 14. Christians being Christians would try and use the metaphorical twist, saying this isn’t literal shaving is metaphorical. Suppose we even took their word for it. Let’s hear how they explain this verse in conjunction to verse 14.

”In that day the Lord will shave with a razor that is hired beyond the River—with the king of Assyria—the head and the hair of the feet, and it will sweep away the beard also.”

Not to mention other events happened during the birth of this son.

In that day the LORD will whistle for the fly that is at the end of the streams of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. And they will all come and settle in the steep ravines, and in the clefts of the rocks, and on all the thornbushes, and on all the pastures. (Isaiah 7:18-19)

Again we would like to know from our Christian friends, how the above verses correlates with verse 14 and 20. If neither of the above events did not take place during the birth of Jesus, then we can conclude Isaiah 7:14 is not a prophecy of Jesus.

It’s absurd, for Christians to reject proceeding events in relation to a specific event they want us to focus on. All events are related then why stick to one? In conclusion Isaiah 7:14 is not a prophecy of Jesus, unless Christians can show us from the Gospels the proceeding prophecies taking place.

Was the name John part of priestly family?

And his mother answered and said, Not so; but he shall be called John. And they said to her, There is none of your kindred that is called by this name. (Luke 1:60-61)

-------------

Cambridge Bible for school and colleges commentary

61. none of thy kindred] We find a John among hierarchs in Acts 4:6; Acts 5:17. Those priests however who passed the High Priesthood from one to another

Annas the high priest was there, and so were Caiaphas, John, Alexander and others of the high priest's family. (Acts 4:6)

Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. (Acts 5:17)

Matthew poole’s Commentary

Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas; both these are said to be high priests, Luke 3:2; whether they bare this office by turn each other year, as some think, or that the Roman power put in and out whom they pleased, and in courtesy he that was laid aside still retained the title during his life, is not very material.

John, thought to be the son of Annas.

Alexander, a man of great repute amongst them, as Josephus says.

As many as were of the kindred of the high priest; their relation many times preferring them to a place in their great council, or sanhedrim.

John Gills exposition of the Bible commentary

and John;

who is thought by Dr. Lightfoot to be the same with Jochanan, or John ben Zaccai; a famous Jewish Rabbi, who lived at this time, and until, and after the destruction of Jerusalem: this Rabbi was (Nhk) , "a priest" F20, as this John was, of the kindred of the high priest; he lived also at Jerusalem; for it is said of him {u}, that he sat in the shadow of the temple, and expounded all the whole day; and a very remarkable story is told of him, which happened just about this time F23; which is, that

``forty years before the destruction of the temple--the doors of the temple opened of themselves, when Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai reproved them, saying, O temple, temple, wherefore dost thou fright thyself? I know thee, that thine end shall be, to be destroyed; for so prophesied of thee Zechariah, the son of Iddo, ( Zechariah 11:1 ) . "Open thy doors, O Lebanon"''

Looks like the Bible got it wrong, Elizabeth did have kindred with the name of John. Just for the record Elizabeth was from the priestly family. Which means Luke 1:61 was a bad error.

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
(Luke 1:5)


----------------------

By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, by the breath of His mouth, all their host. (Psalm 33:6)

------------

Christians make a joke claim that Jesus being the Word of God must also be God, since the Word of God belongs to him and anything coming out of God is part of God.  This means the  heavens and all its host must also be God. Think of it, according to Psalm 33:6 by the "Word" of God the heaven were made, and by his "Breath" all its host. If his Word makes Jesus part of him, what about his Breath does it not belong to him?  Both Word and Breath belong to God, thus the heavens and all its host are also God, that is if we are to think like Christians.

The Gemara asks: Does it refer to the repetition of the phrase: “And He said” in Genesis? There are only nine such phrases, not ten. The Gemara answers that the phrase “In the beginning” is also considered an utterance, as it is written: “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made” (Psalms 33:6), which indicates that all of creation came into existence through a single utterance, after which all matter was formed into separate and distinct entities by means of the other nine utterances. (Talmud Rosh Hashanah 32a:19)

Interesting John the Baptist, according to Luke was also the Word of God

Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. For no word from God will ever fail.” (Luke 1:36-37)

Notice after mentioning Elizabeth, the Angel says " For no word from God will ever fail" telling us John the Baptist was also the Word of God. It gets even more interesting when Mary of the Bible wishes for the "WORDS OF GABRIEL" to be fulfilled

“I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her. (Luke 1:38)

Here "your Word" is directed to the Angel. so it wasn't Yahweh who made it happen, it was Angel Gabriel who made it happen.

-----------------

who named him Jesus, Joseph or Mary?

according to Matthew Book, Joseph was commanded by the Angel to keep his name Jesus.

But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

And she will have a son, AND YOU (Joseph) ARE TO NAME HIM JESUS...  (Matthew 1:20-21)

the above verse is contradicted by Luke according to his Book, Mary was commanded by the Angel Gabriel to keep his name Jesus.

"Don't be afraid, Mary," the angel told her, "for you have found favor with God!

Listen! You will become pregnant and give birth to a son, AND YOU (Mary) ARE TO NAME HIM JESUS. (Luke 1:30-31)

What a contradiction, neither of the writers knew, who the angel commanded to name him Jesus. seems like the Holy Ghost gave them mix messages.

Does the Bible condemn Child Marriage?

Christians often bring up the subject of child marriage and target Islam. They have nothing better to discuss about then subjects which they themselves have no understanding of.  Now one has to understand during ancient times child marriage was a norm and had no negative effects on its people unlike now. it must also be understood that different times had different lifestyles. one cannot imagine how they lived  during those ancient times, where technology had no room in any home.  Picture this, your living at a time where there is no electricity, phones, tv/radio, cars/ planes,  school/university, judicial law, a government, hospitals, nothing like what we have and depend on.

Ask yourself this question, what kinds of rights did women have during those days? what kind of a life would a person who lives with such hardship offer his daughter? women during ancient times were not allowed to inherit property nor were they allowed to speak for themselves. they did what they were told to do. During ancient times, a girl wouldn’t go school because there was no school. She would stay home and learn household work. Learn how to cook clean maintain the home. So at an early age young girls and boys would get married. It was a norm during those time a common practice.

Just for the record, I want to emphasis Islam is the only religion which gave women their rights. Women were allowed inheritance, to study and teach. They were given a voice where they can speak for themselves and live with dignity. Women were given to choice on marriage, and the list goes on.

Think of it what would a young girl do during ancient time? There was nothing she could possibly do other then get married and be a house wife. It was a custom and tradition during those days. It was their way of life, it wasn’t only in Arabia this was happening all around the world. All countries during ancient times had their daughters married at a very young age. Christianity was no exception. It is clear from the New Testament and old Testament that marrying a young girl was a norm. let’s read a both the New and Old Testament.

But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. (1 Corinthians 7:36)

-------------------

Matthew Henry Commentary

7:36-40 The apostle is thought to give advice here about the disposal of children in marriage. In this view, the general meaning is plain. Children should seek and follow the directions of their parents as to marriage.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 36. - Uncomely. If any father thinks, by keeping his virgin daughter unmarried, he is acting in a way which may cause sin or scandal, then let him permit her to marry her suitor.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

36. behaveth … uncomely—is not treating his daughter well in leaving her unmarried beyond the flower of her age, and thus debarring her from the lawful gratification of her natural feeling as a marriageable woman.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

36. his virgin] i.e. his daughter. The advice here given is to parents. In St Paul’s time, and in most continental countries now, it is the parents who decide on the marriage of their children. In France, and in some other foreign countries, the young people very often do not even see one another before they are contracted. But St Paul thinks it might in some cases be ‘unseemly’ conduct on the part of a parent to refuse a proposal of marriage for a daughter who desired to serve God in the married state.

Geneva Study Bible

{17} But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he {h} sinneth not: let them marry.

(17) Now he turns himself to the parents, in whose power and authority their children are, warning them that according to the former doctrine they consider what is proper and convenient for their children. That they neither deprive them of the necessary remedy against incontinency, nor force them to marry, if neither their will does lead them, nor any necessity urges them. And again he praises virginity, but of itself, and not in all.

We can clearly read from the New Testament child marriage was allowed. Paul is encouraging parents to marry their daughters at an early age. Commentators have no difficulty expressing this. Again it was a norm during those days for children’s to get married. How about the Old Testament?

We have a little sister, and her breasts are not yet grown. What shall we do for our sister on the day she is spoken for? (songs of Solomon 8:8)

There’s no need to elaborate the above verse, it’s crystal clear. Young girl, no breast, no marriage! There are many many verses found in the Old Testament speaking of child brides.

Rabecca was a child bride

Dinah was a child bride

Esther was a child bride

Abhishag was a child bride

Ruth was a child bride

if the Bible has no shame in speaking of child bride, why then do Christians feel so awkward? What are Christians so embarrassed of bringing up Bible verses which speaks of child marriage. If child marriage was such a problem why then did Jesus not make mention of it? . why is the Bible silent on the age consent for marriage? 

a peer-reviewed academic journal by Bruce W. Winter on 1 Corinthians 7:36. He provides evidence the subject could be either male or female using Greek. He also states the verse is speaking about young couples who are engaged thus, not to delay their marriage (child marriage)

As a father figure (12:14; 1 Cor 4:15), Paul has arranged for his children’s betrothal (11:2; see comment on 1 Cor 7:36–38).207 Fathers were responsible for protecting their daughters’ virginity from sexual predators (Deut 22:15–

21), [1-2 Corinthians Craig S. Keener pp. 225]

Joshua took a stone as witness

19Joshua said to the people, “You are not able to serve the Lord. He is a holy God; he is a jealous God. He will not forgive your rebellion and your sins. 20If you forsake the Lord and serve foreign gods, he will turn and bring disaster on you and make an end of you, after he has been good to you.” 21But the people said to Joshua, “No! We will serve the Lord.” 22Then Joshua said, “You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen to serve the Lord.” “Yes, we are witnesses,” they replied. 23“Now then,” said Joshua, “throw away the foreign gods that are among you and yield your hearts to the Lord, the God of Israel.” 24And the people said to Joshua, “We will serve the Lord our God and obey him.” 25On that day Joshua made a covenant for the people, and there at Shechem he reaffirmed for them decrees and laws. 26And Joshua wrote these words in the Book of the Law of God. Then he took a large stone and set it up there under the oak near the holy place of the Lord. 27“See!” he said to all the people. “This stone will be a witness against us. It has heard all the words the Lord has said to us. It will be a witness against you if you are untrue to your God.” (Joshua 24:19-27)

Right from the beginning of the chapter Joshua gathers the children of Israel, and reminds them of the favours which God did for them. He reminds them from the time of Terah all the way down to pharaoh the children of Israel went through much hardship, but God kept his promise and saved them. After making mention of all past happenings, Joshua called them to reject all false deities and worship the only one true God. he made a covenant with them and they accepted his request.

Now here comes the interesting part. We read in verse 26-27 Joshua recorded all these things in the book of Law and took a large stone place it under the oak, and said those people were present there with him “This stone will be a witness against us. It has heard all the words the Lord has said to us. It will be a witness against you if you are untrue to your God.”

Joshua made a Stone as a witness? Not only did me make a Stone witness the stone also heard all the words spoken by Joshua and his people, and will be a witness against them if they break the covenant.

Now I want to specifically ask my Christian friends. How can a stone hear the words and be a witness? Now just for the record I want to make one thing clear. Muslims don’t have a problem with such narrations of Stones hearing or made as a witness or even speaking against someone. I’m only trying to make a point to my Christian friends because of their understanding with certain issues, like Muslims kissing the black stone, or Jews kissing the western wall etc. I’m trying to show that for a Jew Joshua taking a stone as witness which someday would peak against those who broke the covenant is not something detrimental. Rather for Jew or Muslim it’s God Almighty who has created this stone, and with his power be able to make it speak. On the other hand our Christian friends may find it hard how a stone can talk and reject this by saying it’s not literal, but rather symbolic. The problem we have with that ruling is, why would Joshua make it clear that if the covenant it broken then the Stone will speak against them? If this wasn’t a literal meaning then the Jews could of easily said, this Stone can’t hear or speak so even if we broke the covenant how would this Stone testify against us? The Jews believed Joshua spoke in a literal sense, that this Stone is real and would real speak against you.

Now to the second point which does raise a problem to us Muslims, unlike the stone hearing or speaking. We read in verse 26 “26And Joshua wrote these words in the Book of the Law of God.” . again reading from context, Joshua wrote all these words i.e. the meeting he had with the Children of Israel all in the Book of the Law. The question is, where in the Book of the Law is this conversation between Joshua and the children of Israel recorded? The verse is clear that Joshua wrote these words in the Book of the Law, not in the Book of Joshua. Also, the Book of Joshua is not the Law. It’s ironic, how the very book of Joshua called the Book of Moses the Law

7Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest. 8This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. (Joshua 1:7-8)

Was Joshua even allowed to write anything in the Book of the Law? Deuteronomy 4:2 tells us:

Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you. (Deuteronomy 4:2)

It’s clear from the Book of Deuteronomy, to add or subtract anything to the command of God prohibited. One may say Joshua didn’t add or subtract a new law, rather he merely wrote down the agreement he made with the children of Israel. but note the Law would be out of place if a agreement between Joshua and the children of Israel was added. Was it a marginal note? If so why is it absent from the present Torah? Also, which scroll did Joshua write this marginal note on? If a marginal note was written in the Book of the Law wouldn’t this nullify the Book to be from God, as man has added his own words? Why didn’t Joshua write this agreement in a different parchment and keep it safe for al generations to see.

Here’s another problem added to Joshua found in the Book of Deuteronomy:

24After Moses finished writing in a book the words of this law from beginning to end, 25he gave this command to the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord: 26“Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God. There it will remain as a witness against you. (Deuteronomy 31:24-26)

Notice how verse 24 reads “After Moses finished writing in a book the words of this law from beginning to end,” this is evidence from the Bible that Moses finished writing the law and place in the ark so it would be safeguarded. Did Joshua take the scrolls out of the ark and write his agreement on it? Or did he have his own law scrolls which Moses did not make mention of or verify it as authentic? The ultimate question is where is those written agreement which Joshua wrote in the Book of the Law that is the Pentateuch. Note during the time of Joshua there would of only been the Law of Moses as scriptures. Psalm, Isaiah, Ezra, were not available during Joshua’s time, which means the only Law would have been the Law of Moses.