WHAT DISTORTION OF THE BIBLE WAS THE PROPHET TALKING ABOUT?

In this article, we will focus on the relationship of the Koran to the Judeo-Christian Holy Scripture, to the Bible. In passing, the Qur'anic position regarding Jews and Christians was discussed in previous articles, where we showed that Islam recognizes the heavenly message of Moses and Jesus, emphasizes the divinity of the Bible (al-Kitab), with its two main parts-the Torah (at-Taurat) and the Gospel (Al-Injil)1, marking their followers with the honorific "the people of [the revealed one]". The Scriptures", or " the people of the Bible "(Ahl al-Kitab). It was also pointed out that religious diversity, the coexistence of Christianity, Judaism and other faiths, along with Islam, is fully consistent with God's plan for the world order; that doctrinal differences between different religions/confessions should not become a source of hostility and armed conflicts, but it is appropriate to leave controversial issues to God's decision on the Day of Judgment; that pending the adoption of In such a Court, people of different faiths should be open to each other, cooperate with each other for good, and compete for the common good. In order to deepen mutual understanding with other religions, the Qur'an encourages its adherents to engage in dialogue, especially with Christianity and Judaism - a dialogue that is friendly and as positive as possible:

Argue with the People of the Bible
Only
say to them in the best way possible:
"We believe in what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to you;
Our God and your God are one"

(29:46)

However, contrary to these pluralistic and tolerant attitudes, a significant number of theologians actually negate the Qur'anic recognition of Christianity and Judaism, with reference to the Qur'an itself, claiming that Christians and Jews fundamentally deviate from the true faith and that they substantially distort the original Bible. The Qur'anic criticism of certain Jewish and Christian sects in Arabia is wrongly extended to Judaism and Christianity in general.2

For previous articles, see: Orient (Oriens). 2006, N 3, pp. 58-70; N 4, pp. 70-83; N 5, pp. 48-62.

1 In the Qur'an, as in classical Muslim literature in general, "Torah" sometimes refers not only to the "Pentateuch", but also to the entire Jewish canon of the Bible, the "Old Testament", and "Gospel" - not only the four Gospels, but also the entire "New Testament".

2 Based on the thesis about the distortion of the Torah/Bible, some theologians-faqihs believed that the existing text of the Torah ceased to be completely sacred, so it is not subject to the cult regulations established regarding the Koran, in particular the ban on touching it in a state of ritual impurity. Hanafi faqihs and some Shafi'is also applied these precepts to the Bible.

page 42

Before starting to discuss the thesis of distortion (tahrif) of the heavenly, original text of the Bible, I would like to note the following feature of this issue in comparison with the topics discussed above, in relation to which modern Muslim thought is gradually moving away from the narrow-minded, polemical-confrontational approach of medieval theologians: in the question of the distortion of the Bible, everything is just the opposite, because the traditional, classical position was less radical and less categorical. And this is explained by the fact that modern polemicists use many of the results of Western liberal-reform and secularist criticism of the Bible (or rather, criticism of the traditional, Orthodox view of it). By appealing to this criticism, radical polemicists believe that they are thereby confirming and reinforcing the words of the Koran about the" distortion " of the Bible. But this is a real disservice to the Qur'an and Islam, since undermining the authority of the Bible also casts a shadow on the Qur'an, which-contrary to the assumptions of short - sighted polemicists-does not say that the Bible is distorted, but confirms its authenticity. Instead of gloating over such criticism, our theologians should, on the one hand, think more seriously about its theoretical and methodological aspects in order to rethink the traditional approach to these texts, and on the other hand, move from polemics to cooperation with Christian and Jewish theologians in order to develop worthy responses to modern challenges in the name of preserving and strengthening the positions of all the three messages of the one God - the Torah, the Gospel, and the Koran.

Quotes about distortion

In support of the thesis that the original text of the Bible was falsified, polemicist theologians primarily refer to the Qur'anic revelations, according to which adherents of the Bible "distort (yuharrifun) The Word of God (Kalam Allah)", or " distort the utterance (al-Kalim)" (2:75; 4:46; 5:13, 41). Sometimes the words of the Qur'an are added to these verses, saying that Christians and Jews "distort (yalvun) Writing with their own tongues "(3: 78); "writing with their own hands" (2: 79); "hiding" the truth or part of the Scripture (2:42; 3:187; 5:15; 6:91 "they forgot a part of [God's] Covenant to them" (5:13, 14); and so on.

But upon closer examination, it turns out that such references of theologians-polemicists to the Koran actually represent the very incorrect method of taking words out of context, which in the Muslim tradition is known as "the method of' do not pray! ' "(tariqa" la takrabu as-salata"). The words "do not pray!" are indeed found in the Qur'an, in Ayat 4:43, and someone may stop here, interrupting them from the subsequent ones - " being drunk." For the Qur'an itself clearly indicates what kind of distortion it is, and this distortion has nothing to do with falsifying the biblical text.

In fact, the expression "yuharrifun al-kalim" - "distort the word/speech" in the Qur'an occurs three times - in ayats 4:46, 5:13 and 5:41, and the expression "yuharrifunahu" - "distort it", i.e. distort Kalam Allah ("The Word of God") - only once, in ayat 2: 75. According to the last verse, " Some of them (Jews) heard the word of God/And when they understood it, they distorted it."3. But this ayat itself clearly indicates that it is about ip-

3 See: comments: "The Holy Qur'an constantly accuses Jews of failing to keep their holy books clean. Now the changes and perversions of various books of the Bible are proven and beyond doubt "[Holy Quran, 1997]; " Various abominations have spread among them (the Jews), diverting them from their faith in the truth, and some of them - the rabbis-listened to the Word of Allah and His commandments that were revealed in the Torah, but distorted the truth and they deliberately claimed an untruthful word" [al-Muntahab..., 2000]; "Jews were not only accused in the Koran of distorting their holy books" [Meaning and Meaning..., 2002].

page 43

It is not a distortion of the text, but a perversion of its interpretation. And many classical commentators (at-Tabari in particular) believe that Ayat refers to the Jews of the time of Moses, who were with him when he received the Ten Commandments, but to the latter they added that God left the fulfillment of these commandments to the discretion of the Israelites themselves, as they wished and could. In this case, we are dealing with some contemporaries of Moses who misinterpreted the revealed text, but not the text itself, for it is improbable that Moses, Aaron, and the prophets who followed them would have allowed such a thing.

If we assume that the Ayat implies the Torah of the time of the Prophet Muhammad (and this opinion seems more plausible to us), then the subsequent Ayats (2:76-77) clarify the essence of the "distortion": the Jews hid the revelations given to them in the Torah, announcing the arrival of a new messenger of God, Muhammad. With both interpretations, it means that we are not talking about falsifying the text, but only about hiding it or misinterpreting it.

Ayahs 4: 46, 5: 13 and 5: 41 tell us about the Arabian Jews of the time of the Prophet Muhammad, who distorted the Kalim ("word/speech"). But even here, the context of the verses clearly shows that they have nothing to do with changing the text of the Bible. Moreover, the first verse does not refer to the Bible at all4. For the full text of the ayat reads as follows:

Among the Jews there are such,
Who distorts speech
And he says to [the Prophet]:
"Sami'na wa - 'asaina",
"Isma' ghair musma '" and "Ra'ina",
Twisting [words] with your mouth
And mocking the [founder of the new] faith.
If they said:
"Sami'na wa-ata'na "
"Isma" and "unzurna",
It would be better and more honest...

As you can see, the Ayat refers to some of the Jews of Medina who, in conversation with the Prophet, were in the habit of throwing caustic remarks, playing up the double meanings of Arabic words or their sound in Arabic and Hebrew languages close to it. When they addressed him, they recited the formula they used during worship in Hebrew: "Shama'nu wa - 'asinu" - "We obey and obey", which corresponds to "Sami'na wa - 'atana" in Arabic and which, in a slightly modified form, sounds like "Sami'na wa- 'asaina" "We have heard, but we will disobey." Similarly, the expression "isma' ghair musma '"can mean:" Listen, so that you will not hear [anything bad]", or in another way: "Listen, so that you will not be heard again", in other words:"may you perish". And finally, "ra'ina" is an address that is a short form from "ra'ina sama'ak" - "turn your ear to us", "listen to us" and allows the interpretation: "oh, our shepherd" (o'ra'i - "shepherd"), and again: "oh, our reckless" (from the verb ra'una -

4 See comments: "The Holy Qur'an constantly refers to the distortion of the previous books, and, as these words clearly show, they mean both the distortion of the text itself and the false retelling of it" [Holy Qur'an, 1997, Ayat 4: 46]; " They (the Jews) distorted the text of the holy scriptures, distorted their meanings and meanings. the wording of" [Meaning and Meaning..., 2002, to 4: 46]; " in the Book that Allah revealed to Musa [i.e. To Moses. - T. I.], a lot has been changed: 1) added their own thoughts, which were then attributed to Allah... "[Meaning and Meaning..., 2002, to 5: 13]; " They (the Jews) distort [their Scripture. - T. N.], giving a false meaning to what was revealed in the Torah", "They say to their followers:" If [Muhammad] presents you with [a text that] corresponds to this (distorted Scripture), then take it and obey it, and if not, then beware and do not accept another! ""[al-Muntahab..., 2000, to Ayat 5: 41; we have corrected the Russian translation given here - not quite complete-according to the original, Arabic text of the commentaries].

page 44

"be reckless"). Unlike ra'in, the word unzurna ("turn your eyes on us", i.e. "listen to us") it does not allow such wordplay.

Similarly, in Ayat 5: 41, the following words clearly explain the" distortion of speech "that the Jews allow:" They say: / If [Muhammad] reveals to you such and such a [commandment], / Accept it, / And if it is not, beware." Apparently, the same" distortion " is also mentioned in Ayat 13 of the same Sura 5. And in this Surah, therefore, the "distortion" is not related to falsifying the text of the Bible, but to an unrighteous attitude towards the teachings of the Prophet, since they sought from him not the decision that corresponds to God's Law, but what satisfies their own inclinations.

According to a widespread tradition, usually found in the classical interpretation of Ayat 5:41, the Prophet was once approached by Jews about a man and a woman who had been convicted of adultery. By that time, the Jews themselves no longer applied the Torah-prescribed punishment of stoning to adulterers, but limited themselves to flagellation with disgrace. And they hoped that the Prophet would sanction their practice. At the same time, they decided to themselves: if the Prophet condemns the guilty to be flogged, they will accept his judgment, and this will be an excuse for them before God, since some prophet of God judged in this way, but if he sentences them to be stoned, then do not recognize his judgment. But the Prophet ruled in accordance with the Torah's injunction.

In one version of this tradition, it is said that in a dispute with the Jews of Medina, who denied the existence of the Torah instruction about stoning, the Prophet demanded to refer to the Scripture itself. When they brought the Torah and opened it, one of the Jews covered the verse about stoning with his hand and read out the preceding and subsequent verses. The wicked man was exposed, and the Jews had no choice but to recognize the existence of this verse in the Torah (B 4556; M 1699). It is also reported that when the Torah was brought, the Prophet took a pillow and placed it under the Scripture with the words: "I believe in you and in the One Who sent you down" (D 4449). And it is also reported that the Prophet stood up as a sign of respect when the Torah was brought out [Ibn Qasir, 1990, vol. 2, p. 148].

Therefore, if the" distortion " in Ayat 5: 41 is related to the Torah, it is only in the sense that the Jews of Medina misinterpreted its provision on the punishment of adulterers, changing stoning to flagellation. Consequently, all the verses that explicitly speak of "distortion" and are mainly referred to by proponents of the thesis of falsification of the biblical text do not in any way confirm this thesis.

Other candidates do not confirm this thesis either. In particular, the words of Ayat 3: 78 about those who "bend (yalvun) The Scripture with your own tongues, so that you may take it for a Scripture, even though it is not a Scripture at all, and they say, "This is from God." / But it is not from God - / They deliberately lie about It " 5, which can only mean a misinterpretation of the meaning of the corresponding biblical texts 6. The same distorted interpretation, but already in a written and recorded form, is mentioned, apparently, in Ayat 2: 79 - " They compose the Scripture with their own hands, / And then pass it off as [Scripture] God's word " 7.

5 Cf. Comments: "The Book that they were reading was not the one that Allah had revealed, but the book that they had written themselves" [The Holy Qur'an, 1997]; "Among them are those who distort the Book and say what is not there..." [al-Muntahab..., 2000].

6 This interpretation is found in the classical commentaries, and it is given in the "Meaning and Meaning of the Qur'an".

7 Cf. comments: "Changing and perverting the Bible - both the Old and New Testaments" [Holy Quran, 1997]; rabbis "write the books of Allah in a different way with their bad hands, using such sentences and phrases, after the introduction of which the text takes on a different meaning..." [al-Muntahab..., 2000"They not only... falsified their Writings, but also distorted the true meaning by their own interpretations" [Znachenie i smysl..., 2002].

page 45

As for ayats that refer to the concealment of a part of Scripture or the forgetting of the Covenant, 8 this, as indicated in the classical commentaries, 9 refers to the non-disclosure of the original text of the biblical revelations or to the concealment of their true meaning or to the failure to comply with the relevant prescriptions. In this connection, the verse about the punishment of adulterers by stoning and the verses announcing the coming of a new messenger of God, the Prophet Muhammad, are usually mentioned. The verse about stoning, as it was said, was preserved in the copy of the Bible that the Jews of Medina had, and it is present in the Judeo-Christian canon of the Bible. And medieval Muslim authors found hundreds of Bible verses with the gospel of the Prophet in them10. This means that we are not talking about any loss of the original biblical text.

And since the main verses of the Bible that were previously hidden - with the prescription for punishing adulterers and with prophecies about the messenger of Muhammad-have been made public, the topic of "concealment" has actually been removed from the agenda. And this is evidenced, in particular, by Ayat 15 of Surah 5:

O people of the Book!
Our Messenger
11

has come to you,
To discover much of that,
What have you hidden from the Scriptures,
And in order to forgive a lot of things.

According to some interpreters, the last line refers to the silence of a number of" hidden " precepts of the Bible, which are secondary and have already lost their significance for the human community. Other interpreters understand this line in the sense of forgiving the sins of those Jews. And Ayat 13 of the same Sura 5 calls for forgiveness, in which, after mentioning the distortion of utterances, forgetting part of the Covenant and the constant unfriendly manifestations of the Jews of Medina towards the Prophet, the instruction of God follows:

But forgive them and forgive them -
After all, God loves people who are generous.

Such a gentle tone would hardly be appropriate if it were a question of falsification (especially substantial) of the Biblical text. At the same time, this tolerance also contains an instructive lesson for us in terms of "the most appropriate dialogue" with representatives of other faiths.

Another lesson, this time about objectivity, is taught by Hashem in all the verses we have discussed above, when He constantly stipulates that distortion or concealment is not done by all Jews, but by "part" or "some" of them. This means that the distortion, if it is directly related to the biblical text, was not widespread and universal, even among the Jews of Medina. What then can we say about the Jews of the whole world and all times?!12

8 Cf. Comments: "The Jews and Christians have lost many truths, and their writings are not free from distortion" [The Holy Qur'an, 1997, verse 5:15]; "The Books have not been preserved intact" [The Holy Qur'an, 1997, Verse 6:91]; "This refers to a change in the Holy Qur'an. text of the Holy Scripture" [Meanings and meaning..., 2002, to Ayat 2: 42].

9 And also in the commentaries of the authors of al-Muntahab on the relevant verses.

10 See also the translation of A. Dawood's book "Muhammad in the Bible", which has been repeatedly published in Russian.

11 I.e. the Prophet Muhammad.

12 " Even if we accept that some of the words of the Torah that the Jews of Medina had at the time of the Messenger of God were changed after his messenger, we cannot say that every copy of it was changed everywhere in the world... After all, this is impossible "[Ibn Taymiyyah, 1995, vol. 2, p. 422].

page 46

And one more remark. All the verses that mention "distortion" refer exclusively to the Medinah period13, reflecting mainly the Prophet's polemic with the Medinah Jews, and Christians are not mentioned at all in this context, whereas polemicist theologians usually believe that "distortion" is more about the Gospel than the Torah. If the Prophet had already considered the Bible falsified and had come into the world to proclaim such a truth, it is unlikely that he would have avoided this topic during his thirteen-year ministry in Mecca. Moreover, such a question arises regarding the silence about the Gospel in the subsequent Medinah period.

Ten Quranic evidences of the Bible's authenticity

Theologians who attribute to the Qur'an the denial of the authenticity of the existing biblical text do not notice the numerous evidences of the Qur'an in favor of the authenticity of the modern Bible of the Prophet Muhammad and even the impossibility of distorting it. Here are some of these testimonies::

1. The Bible (Torah and Gospel) is the Word of God, and the Word of God, as emphasized in the Qur'an, cannot be changed or distorted by people (la mubaddilah-or: la tabdilah-whether kalimat Allah - 6:34, 115; 8:27; 10:64)14. God's assurance -" It is We who have sent down the Teaching (Dhikr),/And it is We who guard It " (14: 9) - is attributed by theologians to the Qur'an alone, based on what is said a few verses earlier (14:6) about the granting of Dhikr/Teachings to the Prophet Muhammad. At the same time, it is forgotten that in the Qur'an itself the word dhikr (or dhikr) is applied to the revelation of God in general, including the Bible (see, in particular, ayats 16:34; 21:48,105; 40:54)15.

2. The Koran calls the Bible, which is available to Jews and Christians in the time of the Prophet, "The Book of God."" (2:101; 3:23), " By the Word of God "(2: 75), "by the verses of God" (3:70; 4:155; 5:44). Is such a characterization of the Torah and the Gospel possible if they have already been distorted or perverted?!

3. The Qur'an instructs Muslims to "believe in what has been revealed to the Messenger [Muhammad]." The Book and the Book revealed before" (4:136), i.e., the Bible, and calls them to declare to the Jews and Christians of their time: "We believe in what has been revealed to us and in what has been revealed to you" (29:46). Moreover, numerous ayats indicate that the Qur'an itself appeared "to confirm the truth (Musaddikan) of the earlier Scriptures in general (bayn yadayh - 2:97; 3:3; 5:48; 6:92; 10:37; 12:111; 35:31; 46:30) and available to the Jews and Christians of the Bible (li-ma ma'kum / ma'hum, "available to you/them" - 2:41, 89, 91, 101; 3:81; 4:47), in particular. Once again, the question arises: how could the Qur'an confirm the truth of an already falsified book and encourage Muslims to believe in it?!

4. In the same vein, the Qur'an tells us that God told John the Baptist to "hold fast" to the Scriptures/The Torah (19: 12), that Jesus appeared with the confirmation of the Torah that came before him(3:50; 5:46; 61:6) and that Hashem taught him the Torah (3:49; 5:110).

13 Sura 6 is dated as Meccan, but the ayats containing polemics with the "People of the Book" are from the Madinah period.

14 Ayat 6: 34 speaks of this in the sense of the imminent fulfillment of God's promise to the prophets of victory over their fellow infidels - but is it not part of this promised victory to keep the revelation intact?!

15 Just as all three Scriptures - the Qur'an, the Torah, and the Gospel-are equally referred to in the Qur'an as "The Scriptures" (Kitab), "Salvation" / " Discernment "(Furqan), and so on.

page 47

5. The Qur'an indicates that the "People of the Book" of the Prophet's time read the original Bible 16. According to Ayat 2: 121, " Those to whom We gave the Book, reading it properly, are the true believers , but those who reject it are doomed." As al-Tabari, the greatest commentator on the Qur'an, explains, we are talking about Jews who were contemporaries of the Prophet, and by "proper reading" we mean following the Book revealed to Moses "as it was revealed to them "(ka-ma unzilah 'alayhim), without changing it or distorting it either by interpretation or interpretation. not anything else 17.

6. The Qur'an encourages Jews and Christians to adhere strictly to the Bible. According to Ayat 5: 66, " If they had kept (the akamah) The Torah and the Gospel, / [Fulfilling] what was revealed to them from their Lord, / Good would flow down to them from all sides, "and the subsequent 68th ayat of the same surah admonishes the "People of the Book": "You will have nothing [solid] under you until you observe (tuqimah) The Torah and the Gospel, / [Fulfilling] what has been revealed to you from your Lord"18. In addition, Ayat 5: 47 prescribes that "the followers of the Gospel should judge (yahkum) according to what God has revealed in it," and Ayat 5: 43 even expresses surprise at how the Jews turn to the Prophet Muhammad for judgment, " since they have the Torah, / which contains the judgment (hukmh) of God."?!".

7. In Ayat 2: 44, G-d, speaking to the children of Israel, asks:: "How can you command people to do good, / Forgetting [to do it] yourself, / Even though you read the Bible?!". In another verse, 2: 113, it is reported about mutual accusations of Jews and Christians, when each side considered the other "having nothing under it", and expresses surprise at this, because both sides read the same Scripture!19 If the Bible of that time had been greatly distorted, it would not have been surprising either in the first case or in the second.

8. Ayat 2: 85 threatens disgrace in this life and the most severe punishment in the hereafter for those Jews who " recognize a part of Scripture [the Bible] but reject another." Would the Koran have sent such threats to the Jews if it considered the Bible in their possession to be perverted?!20

16 In addition to the following testimony (in the main text), we note the verses 3:113-114 and 7:159 quoted above (in the first article), which indicate that in terms of faithfulness/unfaithfulness to the Covenant of God, "they are not all the same, the followers of the Bible" of the time of the Prophet, because among them there are such pious and pious people who " spends their nights reading the revelations (ayat) God's people", "who follows the path of truth" and "judges justly by it". These Christians and Jews would hardly deserve such praise if the revelations they read were falsified, if they followed distorted scripture. The same remark applies to Ayat 3: 199, which speaks favorably of those people in the Bible who "believe in God, in what has been revealed to you [i.e., Muslims], and in what has been revealed to them [i.e., the Bible]."

17 A similar interpretation is given by the "Jalalein", assuming, however, that it means visitors from Ethiopia [Christians].

The same al-Tabari rejects the interpretation of Ayat 2: 121 in the sense that it refers to Muslims and the Qur'an, respectively, because, as the commentator rightly notes, the entire context is devoted to the children of Israel. At the same time, some proponents of the view that the Bible is distorted cling to this second interpretation-in particular, M. Ali, the author of the famous translation of the Koran into English, from which the corresponding Russian translation was made, speaks. It is noteworthy that this ayat is left without comment in the translation of the Koran by E. Guliyev, and in the rather lengthy commentary to the Koran "The Meaning and meaning of the Koran". The authors of al-Muntahab believe that the Ayat refers to "a group of Jews and Christians" who have "delved" (tafaqqahu) into "their own authentic writings" (fi asfarihim al-'asilah), and they read them properly, "noticing the distortions in them" and therefore "believe [only] in them."] to the true part" of these scriptures!

18 In al-Muntahab, the interpretation of Ayat 5: 66 reads: "If only they had taken care of (hafizah) The Torah and the Gospel... in the form in which they were revealed", and Ayat 5: 68 - "You will not be on the straight path of religious truth until you declare all the covenants, commands and commandments revealed in the Torah and the Gospel...". The authors seem not to notice that such an interpretation of the first verse, which accuses Jews and Christians of distorting the original text of the Bible, does not agree with the interpretation of the second verse, according to which Jews and Christians are required to proclaim the original text in their possession.

19 According to classical commentators, God blames both because the Gospel confirms the message of Moses and the Torah confirms the message of Jesus.

20 Similarly, Ayat 3: 119, contrasting the followers of the Prophet with the "people of the Bible" who lived in their neighborhood, observes that Muslims "believe in the whole of the Book," while Muslims believe in only one part of it.

page 48

9. The Qur'an repeatedly calls for turning to the Bible to resolve a dispute with the Jews. Thus, in response to the statement of the Jews that "Hell will touch us with its flames only for a few days"21, God offered to appeal to the "Book of God" available to them, Torah 22, for a definition of the truth, but they refused (3: 23-24). And when there was a disagreement about food bans, the Prophet, at the suggestion of God, challenged the Jews: "Bring the Torah and read it, / If you are truthful" (3: 93). According to Ayat 2: 146, " Those to whom We have given the Book [the Bible] know it as they know their sons," i.e., they know about the coming of Muhammad as the Messenger of God or the revelation of the Qur'an as the Word of God. If the Prophet was not sure of the authenticity of the Bible, would he have used it as a witness to his message and as a judge in disputes with opponents?!

10. The Qur'an also repeatedly calls upon the Arab pagans, and indeed the Prophet himself, to turn to the "people of the Bible" for the resolution of doubts. Thus, regarding the Meccans 'doubts about God's revelation, the Qur'an suggests to the Medinans:" If you do not know about it, ask the People of the Book (az-Dhikr)" (16:43; 21:7). And, addressing the Prophet, God says: "If you are in doubt about what We have revealed to you, ask those who read the former Book "(10: 94). If the people of the Bible could not be trusted with their own Book, how could the Prophet and the Meccans be sent to them to find out the truth?

This list of arguments "from the Qur'an" in favor of the authenticity of the Bible could be continued. The relevant evidence of the Sunnah could also be added to it. Take, for example, the hadith: "Transmit from the Children of Israel without being disturbed by it "(B 3461; T 2669; X 6450).

Rational justifications for the impossibility of falsification

The thesis of possible falsification of the Bible is also opposed by theological and rational-logical considerations. After all, to justify falsification, you need to have the original text in front of you in order to compare the original with the fake. Where is the original Bible? If God or the Prophet considered the Bible to be falsified, then why does not the Qur'an or the Sunnah ever indicate a single passage of the Bible that would be changed or distorted?!

The thesis about the falsification of the Bible by its adherents themselves does not correspond to the axioms of religious faith. For it is impossible that Jews or Christians, believing in their own Scriptures, should go out to distort them. And even if we assume that some wicked people set out to do this, it is impossible to imagine that all the faithful agreed with this and did not resist such malicious intentions.

The assumption of possible falsification of the biblical text does not correspond to the religious idea of its fundamental purpose. After all, the Scriptures are given so that people can know God's truth, be guided by it, and then find eternal salvation. And if the Scripture can be changed, it means that it not only ceases to fulfill its driving mission, but also turns into an instrument of error. And what is the fault of those people who believe in the text that was traditionally considered God's revelation?23

21 According to the commentators, the Jews of Medina claimed that their sojourn in Hell would last only seven days, according to the period of peace of seven thousand years; or forty days, according to the period of worship of the Golden Calf.

22 "To the Qur'an", the authors of "al-Muntahab" believe, contrary to the classical interpretation and obvious meaning!

23" If some have distorted a part of the Book [revealed to a prophet], and others, without knowing it, have followed this [distorted] Book..., then the latter cannot be considered worthy of punishment "[Ibn Taymiyyah, 1995, vol. 2, p. 294]; " If [all] the disciples of [Jesus] (havariyun) or some of them, many of the people of the Bible, or most of them believed that Jesus himself was crucified, then they were wrong about it, but this mistake does not discredit their faith in Jesus... and it does not condemn them to [punishment in] Hell..., because the Gospels available in the Bible mention the crucifixion of Jesus "[Ibn Taymiyyah, 1995, vol. 2, pp. 302-303].

page 49

It is sometimes said that the heavenly Scripture given to the prophet Jesus-the Gospel-was hidden by the enemies of Christians from among the Jews at the earliest stages of Christian history, or that it was the Jews who distorted the four Gospels that Christians have. But this is illogical not only from the above point of view about the saving function of the Gospel, but also in the light of the Qur'anic promise to Jesus that his followers will be exalted by God, up to the Day of Judgment, over those who disbelieve in him (3: 55), and in the light of the Qur'anic testimony about God's support for the supporters of Jesus over the top (61: 14). What kind of victory is this, then, if Christians are left with falsified Scripture?!

There is also an opinion that reliable transmission (tavatur) The Torah was interrupted during the Babylonian captivity (6th century BC). According to one near-Koranic tradition, after the capture of Palestine by Nebuchadnezzar, the Jerusalem temple was destroyed and the Torah scrolls stored in it were burned, and the rabbis and scribes dedicated to it were destroyed. After the Jews returned from captivity to Palestine, Ezra (the Qur'anic Uzayr) restored Torah 24 for them. But even if we believe such a legend, with its incredible version about the destruction of all copies of the Torah without exception, then, first of all, Ezra/Uzayr, according to most Muslim theologians, was a prophet, and the prophets are infallible, and therefore the Torah restored by him must be authentic. Secondly , and most importantly , the same" post-Babylonian " Bible was taught by subsequent prophets raised up by God among the Israelites, including Zechariah, John the Baptist, and Jesus Christ, and the latter, as the above-mentioned Koranic testimonies tell us, were ordered by God to follow this Bible itself.

It is also impossible to distort the Biblical text in light of the fact that there are numerous conflicting interpretations in both Judaism and Christianity, not to mention disputes between Christians and Jews. And despite this, they all actually rely on the same text. It is difficult to imagine that all religions and sects, all people and peoples, on all continents and in all languages, conspire to distort the Word of God. To allow this is to allow the possible falsification of all sacred texts and all traditional evidence.25

The most serious objections to the assumption that the text of the Bible is distorted are presented by Biblical archaeology. For there are preserved manuscripts of the Torah dating back several centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ, and manuscripts of the Gospel dating back to the first centuries of our era. And the text of these manuscripts does not fundamentally differ from what is now recognized in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Therefore, whatever falsifications of the Biblical text were made by the Jews of Medina, this could not have affected the fate of the biblical text in any way, could not have had any relation to the generally accepted canon. And quite naive is the assumption, which is found not only in some medieval theologians, but also in a number of modern authors, that the notorious falsification of the biblical text occurred after the death of the Prophet (since he confirmed the truth of the Bible at that time).

Many of my co-religionists may not be aware that the view we have expressed about the authenticity of the Bible was widely represented in classical Muslim thought, which formulated almost all of the aforementioned Quranic and rational arguments. Fakhraddin al-Razi, in his interpretation of the ayats on corruption, reports that the majority of Mutaqallim theologians are of this opinion,

24 Version: from memory, for Uzair knew the Scriptures by heart as a child. In Judeo-Christian biblical studies, the name of Ezra is sometimes associated with the final fixation of the Torah canon/The Pentateuch.

25 With regard to a book transmitted by a large number of people (manqul bi-t-tawatur), it is impossible to distort the text (Taghiir al-lafz), writes Fakhraddin al-Razi in the commentary to the ayats on "distortion", expressing the prevailing opinion in classical Muslim theology.

page 50

considering that the distortion (tahrif, tabdil) can affect only the interpretation of the text, but not its words [see Also: Ibn Qasir, 1990, vol. 2, p. 149] 26.

And they will probably be even more surprised if they learn that this opinion was put forward by two of the greatest scholars of the Qur'an and Sunnah - Ibn Abbas and al-Bukhari. In the Sahih, al-Bukhari narrates the words of Ibn ' abbaas concerning the "distortion" of the Qur'an: "No mortal can change the text of any of the Scriptures of God (laysa li-ahad an-yuzil lafz kitab min qutub Allah), but only distort it by changing its meaning." 27 And al-Bukhari himself "did not reject this opinion, but agreed with it "[Ibn Qasir, 1990, vol. 2, p. 149] 28.

On the dogmas criticized in the Qur'an

In support of the thesis of falsification of the Bible, sometimes they refer to discrepancies between it and the Koran, and especially to the Koranic polemic with some religious provisions that were popular among the Arabian Jews and Christians of the time of the Prophet. Sometimes they also make purely rational arguments. This controversy, which primarily interests us here, will be discussed in more detail below. As for the reference to differences between the two Scriptures and to rational arguments, we will limit ourselves to a few general remarks.

First, about rational arguments. Some polemicist theologians, while proving the" distortion " of the Bible, are fond of searching for "inconsistencies" and "discrepancies" between different Biblical versions of the same story or "contradictions" of certain biblical propositions to certain historical or scientific facts. But such problems also exist, even to an incomparably lesser extent, in relation to our Muslim sacred texts. Let us recall, in particular, that in Muslim Qur'anic studies and Hadith studies there are special sections devoted to "apparent contradictions" (mushkil-in relation to ayats of the Qur'an, mukhtalif - in relation to hadiths of the Sunnah). Our theologians are quite successful in removing such "contradictions". Jewish and Christian theologians also have relevant responses regarding the" contradictions " in the Bible, and they should be listened to carefully.29

The differences between the Qur'anic and Biblical versions of the sacred story may seem more serious. But this is not the case. For "narrative plots"

26 Thus, theologians distinguished between " verbal distortion "(tahrif lafzi), a change in the text, and" semantic distortion " (tahrif ma'anawi), a misinterpretation.

27 These words are quoted by al-Bukhari before hadith No. 7553.

28" As for the authenticity of the words of the Scriptures that we have on hand, i.e. the Torah and the Gospel, some Muslims agree with them (the people of the Bible) in this, but most Muslims dispute this, although they agree with them about most of the words " (Ibn Taymiyyah, 1995, vol. 2, p. 380); "But those that talk about misrepresenting some words... They do not claim that the words were distorted in all copies, both in the east of the earth and in the west "[Ibn Taymiyyah, 1995, vol. 2, p. 418].

29 It should also be borne in mind that the established understanding of "revelation," "scripture," and "prophecy" in Muslim theology (including the infallibility of prophets) differs significantly from that in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Thus, in this tradition, the divinity of Scripture is not necessarily associated with a certain heavenly archetype, with a certain heavenly Tablet (al-Lauch al-mahfuz, "The Sacred Tablet"), on which the corresponding words were written from time immemorial, and later reproduced exactly in their earthly incarnation. Rather, this divinity is expressed in the inspiration of Scripture from its general meaning, which is verbally formed by people-prophets, their disciples, etc., which opens the possibility for individual differences in tradition and for the appearance of some (but not fundamental) inaccuracies. Therefore, the Gospel/The New Testament for Christians is not an analog of the Koran in the Muslim sense, but of the Sunnah. From this point of view, the four Gospels correspond to the six canonical hadiths.

page 51

in the Bible, and especially in the Koran, they are not so much historical events as moral and edifying stories on historical topics. Therefore, the criterion of historical science cannot be applied to them30. With this approach to the Biblical and Qur'anic narratives, there are many seemingly important" discrepancies " in the versions (or inconsistencies in the actual story). they lose all significance.

Speaking about incorrect conclusions from the comparison of the Bible and the Koran, we cannot but dwell on two rather common examples related to sacred history - it is very often necessary to hear them from the lips of both sufficiently educated and ordinary co-religionists. The first one concerns the creation of Adam: the Bible speaks of his creation "in the image and likeness" of God, but the Koran does not contain such words. And this is seen as a clear distortion of the original biblical version, since such anthropomorphism is incompatible with true monism. At the same time, they do not notice that the same anthropomorphism permeates the Quranic images about the inspiration in Adam "from the spirit" of God, about its creation "by God's own hands". Moreover, many people do not know that the identical formula " in One's own image "('ala suratih) appears in two of the most authoritative collections of hadith - both in al-Bukhari (N 6227) and Muslim (N 2841).

The second, and one of the most striking, evidence of the falsification of the Bible is found in the story of God's command to Abraham to sacrifice his son. In the Qur'an, the son is not named by name, but in the Bible, it is Isaac. According to the Qur'anic account, Ismail and his father built the Kaaba, later the main shrine of Muslims, to which they turn their faces during the ritual prayer-shushgaa and to which they perform the pilgrimage - hajj, culminating in the sacrifice of 32, which, according to widespread beliefs, commemorates the successful outcome of the test of Abraham. On this basis, most Muslims believe that the Qur'an refers to Ishmael as the son of sacrifice, and therefore the name of Isaac as the victim is no more than an insertion in the original text of the Bible.

Our task is not to analyze or evaluate the arguments in favor of one or another version of the victim - Ismail or Isaac. I would just like to point out that the tradition of the sacrifice of Ismail, for all its prevalence, is non-canonical: it is not included in any of the "six sets" of hadiths. 33 In addition, in the first centuries of Islam, the prevailing view was that of Isaac as a victim (and the Caliphs Umar and Ali are among the supporters of this opinion), so at-Tabari considered this version more plausible. Further, if the definition of the son is so fundamental, how can it be that both the Qur'an and the Sunnah ignore it?! Why wasn't the Bible followers pointed out their mistake?! How was it not among the "hidden things" that the Prophet made public?

Let us now turn to the actual Qur'anic controversy with the " People of the Book." Citing this controversy in support of the thesis about the distortion of the Bible, theologians-polemicists have created-

30 In the Qur'an, for example, God's dialogue with Satan, who refused to bow down to Adam, is described in four surahs, and each time it is expressed in a different way (see above).: 7:12 - 18; 15:31 - 44; 17:61 - 65; 38:75 - 85). According to the version of Surah 15, the angels announced the impending birth of a son to Abraham himself (15:53-56), and according to Surah 11, to his wife (11:71-73). Noteworthy in this respect is the Qur'anic account of the "young men of the cave" (18: 9-25), in which God categorically refuses to name the number of young men - three, five, or seven; or to name the length of their sleep - three hundred and nine years or another. Such figures are also important for the historian in historical writing, but not in divine pedagogy.

31 Even such authors as Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qasir, who take a rather moderate position on the question of the distortion of the Bible, emphasize it.

32 At the same time and locally, Muslims perform a sacrifice, and this "feast of sacrifice" (Eid al - Adha) is the main religious celebration of Muslims.

33 Also extra-canonical is the Prophet's widespread statement about himself as " the descendant of the two chosen to be sacrificed "(ibn az-Zabihayn), which implies his father, Abdallah, who was to be sacrificed, and his ancestor Ismail.

page 52

they give the impression that the dogmas criticized by the Koran are biblical. In fact, the vast majority of these propositions either do not appear at all in the Bible itself, or are theological interpretations of biblical texts. In addition, many of them were characteristic of the Jewish and Christian sects of Arabia, which rather acted as heresies, without representing the actual Jewish or Christian Orthodoxy. Not to mention this in the interpretation of the Koran in Arabic and in its translation into other languages means, to put it mildly, to give people a not quite adequate idea of these religions. Thus, in the first place among the dogmatic errors of the Jews in the Qur'an is the exaltation of the above-mentioned Ezra / Uzair as the son of God - in Ayat 9:30, his sonship with God is juxtaposed with the sonship with God of Jesus.

The Jews say,
" Ezra is the son of God."
And Christians say,
" Jesus is the son of God."..
Oh, my God, that's not true!

Unfortunately, medieval commentators, carried away by polemics with Judaism and Christianity, did not explain that such an opinion about Ezra was peculiar only to some Jewish Medinans. In the Bible itself, there is no reason for such a cult, and it is generally unknown to the Jewish tradition. More surprising are modern authors who do not find it necessary to point out this fact, leaving without appropriate comments this ayat, which can be understood as a general accusation against the Jews. In particular, in the comments to the translation of the Qur'an by E. Kuliyev, there was no place for a corresponding clarification of the addressee of this ayat, and the authors of al-Muntahab only emphasized its universalistic sound: "The Jews in their beliefs do not adhere to monotheism, but say that Uzayr is the son of Allah... May Allah destroy these disbelievers! " [al-Muntahab..., 2000]. In the Meaning and Meaning of the Qur'an, the following comments are given :" That the Jews considered Uzayr 'the son of God' is almost unknown today... The fact that the Qur'an mentions it is sufficient proof that there were some of them who claimed it, especially the Jews of Medina" (S. Qutb); "The Qur'an does not say that all the Jews called Uzayr the son of God. He means that the faith of the Jews has degenerated so much that some of them declared him to be such" (A. Maududi). From these same words, the average reader may get the impression that the cult of Ezra was widespread among the Jews, although this is not known today, or although "not everyone" adhered to it!

In fact, the same is true of the other censures of the Qur'an against Jews - the criticism is directed exclusively at the Jews of Medina (or Arabia) and cannot be attributed to all Jews, or even to a significant number of them. Do such statements correspond to Jewish Orthodoxy: "God is poor, but we are rich "(3: 181);"God's hand is clenched" (5:64), etc.?!

In general, there are no serious doctrinal discrepancies between the Koran and Orthodox Judaism. Even God's choice is not only not denied to the children of Israel, but it is also repeated many times in the Qur'an (for example, in Ayats 2: 47,122; 44: 32). The Qur'anic reproaches are related only to the vulgar understanding of this choice, which was expressed in proud statements about themselves as the only ones led by God (2:135) and the only ones worthy of paradise in the next world (2:111).

It is true that there is still some tension in the Islamic-Jewish dialogue over the issue of the Jews ' recognition of the heavenly messenger of our Prophet. 35-

34 I.e. stingy.

35 However, some prominent representatives of Jewish theological and philosophical thought (including Maimonides, d. 1204) were positive about the possibility of such recognition.

page 53

Therefore, we Muslims should understand the enormous complexity of the problem of interpreting the relevant biblical prophecies about the coming Messiah. This can be seen at least in the light of the fact that many of the messages in which we recognize our Prophet are associated by Christians with Jesus. No less complex is the problem that was raised in our classical theology and which did not find an unambiguous answer there: is it the fault of a person who, with all his desire and effort, could not be convinced of the truth of the messenger of this prophet?

As for the Qur'anic controversy with Christians, it focused on Christological dogmas - the Trinity ("do not speak of three [deities]" - 4: 171; "it is blasphemous to call God the third of the three" - 5: 73), the sonship of Jesus with God (4:171; 9:30; 19:34 35) and his crucifixion (4: 157). If we look at these dogmas from the perspective of their biblical origin, which is mainly of interest to our topic, we can state that the first two dogmas are only interpretations of the biblical text, in which there are no clear formulations on this subject, and they were established as dogmatic definitions only a few centuries after the emergence of Christianity.

In refutation of sonship with God, the Qur'an notes that God has no spouse (6:101; 72:3). Consequently, among the criticized Christians, sonship was understood physically-physically, in the human manner. And the condemnation of such vulgar views, which were widespread among some Christians in Arabia, will be signed with equal zeal by Orthodox theologians throughout the Christian world.

For the Arabian Christians, with whom, in fact, the Koran polemics, there was also a vulgar understanding of the Trinity, the actual confession of faith in three gods. And this heretical notion, known as Triteism (tritheism), was officially condemned by Christianity several centuries before the rise of Islam.

Among the Arabian adherents of such Trytheism, some taught about the Trinity consisting of God, His Wife and Son, while others (in particular, the Maryamites) professed the Trinity as part of God, the Most Holy Mary/Maryam and Jesus. And classical commentators believe that it is precisely against the latter that Ayat 5:116 is directed, condemning those who accept Jesus and Mary as deities along with God.

Thus, the Qur'an does not argue with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity in general, but only with some sectarian varieties of it. With regard to this teaching itself, let us briefly note that Christian thought is gradually moving away from traditional / medieval formulations towards a more refined (and more acceptable to Islam) interpretation, and that a number of our classical-era mutakallim theologians condescended to the Christian interpretation of the three hypostases in the manner of the Muslim understanding of God's attributes - in particular, as the Self (Zat), Word (Kalima)/Knowledge ('Ilm) and Life (Hayat).

The crucifixion of Jesus is described in all four versions of the Gospel as the testimony of Jesus ' disciples, but not of God himself. And by "Gospel" in the strict sense of the word, we should understand the Word of God proclaimed by Jesus. Therefore, even here the matter is not connected with the falsification of the text of God's Scripture itself.

The Qur'anic evidence can be understood in the sense of denying the crucifixion/murder of Jesus 36. But for an adequate interpretation of this denial, the context of this controversy is of fundamental importance. After all, the Qur'an does not argue with Christians on this issue, but with Jews. Rather, the denial of the crucifixion serves as a defense of Christianity against those Jews who called Jesus the son of a harlot, rejected his message, and refused to accept the cross.

36 The analysis of the Qur'anic revelations concerning the end of Jesus ' earthly life, which are subject to various interpretations, is not included in the scope of the topics discussed here.

page 54

they saw in the tradition of his " shameful "(from their point of view) death on the cross proof of his"imposture". That is why the Qur'an says:

[The Jews were cursed by God for this],
That they made a great lie about Mary,
And for their words:
"We killed the Messiah,
Jesus, son of Mary,
[Allegedly] a messenger of God."
Indeed, they did not kill him,
They did not crucify him:
It was just their imagination...

(4:156 - 157)

Consequently, the Qur'anic controversy with certain dogmas of Christianity and Judaism does not support the thesis of falsification of the Biblical text. And in general, the Koranic revelations do not give any basis for concluding that such falsification is possible.

list of literature

Al-Askalyani. Fatah al-Bari bi-sharh Sahih al-Bukhari. Beirut, 1990.

["Jalalyain"]. Tafsir al-Jalalein. Beirut, 1385x. [1965-1966].

The meaning and meaning of the Qur'an. Translated by A. S. Al-Mansi and S. Afifi. [Under the auspices of] the Islamic Congress, Moscow, 2002.

Ibn Kathir. Al-Bidaya wa-n-nihaya. Beirut, 1990.

Ibn Kathir. Tafsir al-Qur'an al - ' azim. Riyadh, 1999.

Ibn Taymiyyah. Al-Jawab al-sahih. Riyadh, 1414h. [1995].

Al-Muntahab. Interpretation of the Holy Quran. [Under the auspices of] Al-Azhar, the Ministry of Waqfs and the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs of the Arab Republic. Cairo, 2000.

Ar-Razi, Fakhraddin. Mafatih al-Ghayb. Beirut, 1981.

The Holy Quran / Translated and commented by M. Ali. USA: Lahore INC., 1997.

Semantic translation of the Holy Quran / Translated by E. Kuliev. [Under the auspices of] Min. islamic Affairs of Saudi Arabia. Medina: 1425x [2004-2005].

At-Tabari. Jami 'al-bayan' an ta'wil ai al-Qur'an. Beirut, 1988.

Permanent link to this publication: