Se você for novo aqui, você pode querer começar updates regulares através de Alimentação de RSS. Obrigado visitando!

O Sam Christian Shamoun do missionário escreve em seu rebuttal a Consciência Islamic‘ artigo, “é o Bible em nossas mãos o mesmos que durante a Época de Muhammad (P)?” como segue:

Parece que Saifullah confunde duas edições ao se dirigir às reivindicações de Jochen Katz que o Bible Holy do dia de Muhammad é o mesmo que nosso Bible atual do dia. Saifullah confunde o índice de Scripture com o canon de Scripture. O ponto não é o canon por si mesmo, mas se o índice de nosso Bible atual do dia está o mesmo que nos dias de Muhammad.

Deixe-nos examinar a reivindicação feita pelo missionário. Antes que nós prosigamos mais mais é importante fazê-lo cancelar o muçulmano posiciona no Bible. Há uma prova ampla ao believer que o theology Islamic considera certamente o Bible como corrupt e o Qur' é o Guardian (muhaymin) excesso todos scriptures restantes para filtrar para fora o falsehood da verdade, não obstante como os missionários misinterpret o Qur' e ahadeeth. A finalidade deste rebuttal é provar somente que o índice do Diatessaron não é o mesmo que o índice atual nos gospels do Testament novo.

A. Voobus, um scholar Biblical, informa-nos isso assim:

Tatian rearranjou não somente a tradição evangelical em uma harmonia, mas ao compôr Diatessaron esquerda suas impressões digitais em suas páginas.¹

Deixe-nos fazer exame desta oportunidade analisam o que estas impressões digitais eram.

O Divinity de Christ é um cornerstone de Christianity; conseqüentemente é seguro conclir isso se o Divinity de Christ não for mencionado no Diatessaron, então uma parte principal do Christianity falta. Deixe-nos ver o que os scholars têm que dizer sobre Diatessaron:

Ishodad de Merv (bishop do ANÚNCIO 850 de Hedhatta ca) em sua descrição do Diatessaron dito: “Tatianos…selected from the four gospels and combined and composed a Gospel and called it Diatessaron…and on the Divinity of Christ he did not write.”²

It is an indisputable fact that Tatian was considered a heretic due to his Encratite tendencies. Let us now analyse whether Tatian’s Diatessaron reflects his Christology.

Such touches have often been noted in the area of Tatian’s attitude towards marriage and in particular to the parents of Jesus³. So, for example, the following changes were made:

Matt 1:19: “her husband Joseph, being a just man…”
Diatessaron: “Joseph, because he was a just man…”⁴

Luke 2:33: “his father and his mother”
Diatessaron: “Joseph and his mother”⁵

Luke 2:41, 43: “his parents”
Diatessaron: “his kinsfolk…Joseph and his mother.”⁶

By means of these changes Tatian obscures the relationship between Joseph and Mary.⁷

Another notable tendency found in the Arabic Diatessaron is the substitution of “Jesus” for Luke’s references to “the Lord” in the narrative settings:

Luke Arabic Diatessaron:⁸

7:13: “when the Lord saw her…”
11.19 “Jesus saw…”⁹

7:19: “sent them to the Lord…”
13.39 “he sent them to Jesus”¹⁰

10:1a: “the Lord appointed seventy”
15.15 “Jesus appointed…”¹¹

10:41: “the Lord answered her…”
13.34 “Jesus answered…”¹²

11:39: “the Lord said to him…”
20.14 “Jesus said…”¹³

12:42: “And the Lord said….”
43.2: “Jesus said…”¹⁴

13:15:”Then the Lord answered…”
27.45 “Jesus answered…”¹⁵

19:8: “and said to the Lord…”
31.22 “…said to Jesus”¹⁶

22:61: “And the Lord turned…”
49.16 “Jesus turned…”¹⁷

Although this short exposition is not intended as an exhaustive rebuttal, it is sufficient to show that the missionaries are either pathological liars or extremely ignorant about the subject matter. The Diatessaron was in fact different at the time of the Prophet Muhammad(P) in content and in the canon as has been established by Islamic Awareness. Furthermore, from Sam Shamoun’s rebuttal, it is evident that the missionary has in fact accepted that Diatessaron was the only available Gospel at the time of Muhammad(P). Therefore, it is also equally clear that if the Diatessaron did indeed differ in content and canon, his whole argument falls flat on its face.

And Allah knows best.

1. A. Voobus, Early Versions of the New Testament (PETSE 6; Stockholm, 1954) 22 [back]
2. J.R. Harris, Fragments of the Commentary of Ephrem Syrus upon the Diatessaron (London, 1895) 14 [back]
3. Cf. Metzger, Versions, 34f [back]
4. Ephraem (Hill, Dissertation, 7:8; Persian I.4 (Messina, 17). [back]
5. Arabic Dia. 2.41; Persian I.6 (Messina, 23); Dutch: “Joseph and Mary” (Liege, 29). [back]
6. Arabic Dia. 3.25, 27; Persian (I.13; Messina, 31) follows the Arabic exactly, the Dutch supplies “Joseph and Mary” for the first, and simply “they did not know of it” for the second (Liege, 35f). [back]
7. For biographical information see J.M. Fuller, Tatianus, DCB IV (1887) 783-804; E. Preuschen, Untersuchungen zum Diatessaron Tatians, S.H.A.W. (Ph-h. Kl) IX:15 (1918) 8-30; Whittaker, Tatian, ix-xvii. [back]
8. None of the following are attested in Ephraem’s commentary. But all are supported by the Arabic and at least one of the other versions. [back]
9. Dutch: “Jesus” (Liege, 108); Persian: “Jesus” (I.69, Messina, 90f) [back]
10. Dutch: “Jesus” (Liege, 143); Persian: “Jesus” (I.70, Messina, 90f) [back]
11. Dutch: “Jesus” (Liege, 151); Persian: “Jesus” (III.7, Messina, 202f) [back]
12. Dutch: “Jesus” (Liege, 142); Persian: “Jesus” (III.26, Messina, 226f) [back]
13. Dutch: “Jesus” (Liege, 215); Persian: no intro (II.10, Messina, 112f) [back]
14. Dutch: not attested; Persian: “Jesus” (I.63, Messina, 82f) [back]
15. Dutch: “Jesus” (Liege, 329); Persian: “Jesus” (II.22, Messina, 128f) [back]
16. Dutch: “Jesus” (Liege, 398); Persian: “Jesus” (III.32, Messina, 232f) [back]
17. Dutch: “Jesus” (Liege, 701); Persian: “Jesus” (IV.40, Messina, 342f) [back]