Broken Telephone - living under the Redactor's spell..

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem




At the end of this post is an extract from a well known THEOLOGY college, concerning the role of a Redactor in the bible. Redactors were used both for the old testament and the new testament. Essentially these were people who were given a bunch of texts and were not told they all come from different authors, some of those authors in fact unknown. It is the Redactor's job, according to the article below, to "shape the material he has received for a purpose. Sometimes the purpose of the redactor is in harmony with the author and sometimes it is not" Sometimes, indeed the redactor him/herself does not know the purpose.

Given that:
1) The old testament and new testament both have gone through a number of "redactors" issued by different governments
2) These governments clearly stated their purpose of redaction was to develop a work with a common message that fits into the economic and political agenda of the time
3) Bible redactors who refused to participate in changes beyond a certain point were put to death
4) Despite redactors there are over 28 000 versions of the bible from which sprang churches so completely different that some are polygamous, some are not, some believe in "communion" and some do not, some believe in prophesy and some do not

...Is it not then in the mind of any sane person, extraordinarily dangerous to place one's eternal salvation in the hands of hand-me-down policies and redacted texts of which there is such variety??

 

Christians say that the changes made were slight, merely "editorial". Looking at the article at the end of this blog post, please note that the BOLD was EMBOLDENED BY the theology institute not by me, they did so, claiming to know that these WERE THE CHANGES made to these verses- do these look like "minor editorial/grammar/spelling changes" to you? Does this text not in its very essence put words into the son of MAN as though he be the son of GOD? Who then in his/her right mind would follow a text that had been so radically altered?

The article is at the end of this blog post. For now, let's look at JUST ONE of the verses which they've taken out of the so-called original text in the bible as per the theology college in question (as original as the 2nd redactor found it, so yeah... a pinch of salt here too....) - and then let's see if it DOES change with the presence of the redactor, shall we?

So - apparently (although how the even know this is beyond me since nobody does!) - the original text said::

"Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. He came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God." Jesus answered him, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above." Nicodemus said to him, "How can anyone be born after having grown old?" Jesus answered, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. Do not be astonished that I said to you, 'You must be born from above.' Nicodemus said to him, "How can these things be?" Jesus answered him, "Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things? "Very truly, I tell you, we speak of what we know and testify to what we have seen; yet you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. "
Let us understand this tiny bit of the "bible" from a Quranic and Islamic perspective (before the redactor's change):

• "no-one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God." (Islam has no problem with the presence of God - his BREATH, (spirit/ruh) is what gave Adam (as) life
• no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above." - the Quran says that we come from HIM and to HIM we do return. There are also many descriptions of the seven heavens, references to these being above us and to angels coming "down" to us, to hear our duahs. We are therefore born "from above" not "OF above" which indicates a fatherhood type relationship born of water and Spirit - This points directly to the islamic interpretation of creation. Adam (as) was created from clay (soil) and Allah breathed his ruh (breath/spirit) into Adam (as). Herein is the spirit. The Quran tells us that we are created from a drop of Nutfah (a drop of impure water). Therefore as creations from that drop of nutfah and descendents from Adam (as); we are created from both, and we know it.
• just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. " How did Moses lift up the serpent?  The quran tells us, upon Moses (Musa as) going up to the mountain (the story of the burning bush in the bible) "As Prophet Musa (A) obeyed, he heard the voice ask him to throw his staff onto the ground. At once it changed into a serpent, scaring him. He was then commanded to lift the snake without fear and as he did so, it changed back into a stick." IN OTHER WORDS - he did not KILL the snake. The snake did not DIE and then get resurrected; it was lifted up. Moses put his hand down, and lifted up the snake- he didn't kill it first! Just the same way, Jesus (Essa as) is telling everyone that just as miraculously as a snake is picked up and held in Moses' hand, the  stick could be put back down (and was, in front of the pharoah) and turn back into a snake, SO TOO Allah would reach out, and LIFT Jesus up to the heavens (ASCENSION) and will be put back onto the earth. And whomsoever believes IN THAT - MAY HAVE ETERNAL LIFE. No-where does Jesus say that you are to believe that he will be killed and rise from the dead. The snake was not killed; it was LIFTED UP. The quran says that Jesus (Essa as) was lifted up.. Now Christians will say "oh but if he was lifted up he had to be dead." But Jesus (Essa as) is not the first person to have ascended, and christians indeed believe in the ascension of not ONLY Jesus (Essa as) but others.

Let us now look at the SAME verse AFTER the redactor's change? (Redactor's Changes are highlighted)

"Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. He came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God." Jesus answered him, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above." Nicodemus said to him, "How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be astonished that I said to you, 'You must be born from above.' The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit. Nicodemus said to him, "How can these things be?" Jesus answered him, "Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things? "Very truly, I tell you, we speak of what we know and testify to what we have seen; yet you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. "Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God."

Read that again, for yourself - HAS the message changed?

In the first (more original, so they say) version, Jesus speaks of being lifted up, and no-where does he claim God as FATHER - let's look at what these additions are:

• Can one enter a second time into the mother's womb and be born?" - So much for Chrisitans "rebirth" right?

• What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.  - this is completely contradictory since Jesus said that one must be born of water AND spirit - right in this same verse!

• The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.  Who said that? Doesn't Jesus say you must be born of water AND the spirit? Now this says you should ONLY be born of the spirit/ let's go back to the PURPOSE for the redaction - what on earth could it have been?

• No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And   Said who? Did JESUS say this? But how Christians stand by this when they believe in the ascention of Elija and Elisha, of Moses, and of Mary? hmm...  a slight editorial change, you say? To homogenise things, you say? Methinks there be a hornet in this nest!

• For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. "Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God." - This is possibly one of the most quoted and cited verses in christianity today. AND YET - THIS was actually written by a redactor? Well well well... Nonetheless, let's look at this... it does NOT say that those who believe he was raised up and not killed are "unsaved" - it says that THOS WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN HIS NAME... (in his existance, per chance?) Muslims DO believe in Jesus (Essa as).. And WHERE did this "SON OF GOD come in, when Jesus has referred to himself the whole time in this verse as the son of Man? The redactor just said that you are EITHER born of "flesh" or born of the spirit, leading the reader to think "oh, Jesus was born of the spirit" - and JESUS says he is the son of man (who is flesh). so GOD refers to the "spirit" only, then Jesus is EITHER mere flesh, or he is the son of God (Spirit) - he cannot be both because the redactor says what is born of the flesh is flesh and what is born of the spirit is spirit.  The answer? ISLAM says that we are FLESH into which the BREATH (spirit) of God has been breathed through Adam (as). Seems to me we are the believers in what Jesus said, far more than christians appear to be...

The choice, dear christian reader, is clear - you believe a Redactor, or you believe JESUS. And if you believe JESUS, then by all descriptions above from Jesus:

1)you believe in ONE God,

2)you believe Jesus is the son of MAN (not God),

3)you believe Jesus is flesh and spirit, as we all are.  Why? Because THAT is what Jesus said, among the bits some unknown redactor added in there.. And people wonder why muslims don't believe in the bible? We believe in the INJEEL - the word, the living word that was put into Jesus (the man) which he taught and lived by.. but we do not believe in some 4 redactor's version of the truth - and the above is why!

I don't know what's worse - that the redactions are taken as "gospel truth" (pardon the pun) or that they appear to KNOW what some of the redactions are and defend these despite the fact that it changes SO much!

 So here's the article - feel free to do a similar evaluation of the 2nd verse.

Redaction Criticism is the study of editorial activity. A redactor is simply an editor who shapes the material he has received for a purpose. Sometimes the purpose of the redactor is in harmony with the author and sometimes it is not. In this segment of our study we will be examining the methods used to discover editorial work and how it can be distinguished from the authors own work. Performing redaction criticism is simply a matter of (again) asking questions of the text. The first question that must be asked is, does the segment of text I am looking at show "seams" or "stitches". Seams or stitches are obvious comments in the text which interrupt the flow of the narrative. These are called "commentary" by literary critics. (NB: It must be noted that the various methods of criticism overlap in places). If there is an obvious seam, then one must ask- does this seam attempt to clarify the passage; or does it seem to take the passage in another direction? The following passage will illustrate these questions. The BOLD face type are those words deemed editorial comments. The normal face type is the original narrative. The student will note that the editorial comments serve either to explain a word or phrase, or to make a theological comment which explains the text. The passage is John 3:1ff.

"Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. He came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God." Jesus answered him, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above." Nicodemus said to him, "How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be astonished that I said to you, 'You must be born from above.' The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit. Nicodemus said to him, "How can these things be?" Jesus answered him, "Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things? "Very truly, I tell you, we speak of what we know and testify to what we have seen; yet you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. "Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God."

The bold print can clearly be seen to interrupt the flow of the narrative and the it frequently offers clarification or explanation. This is what redaction critics mean when they talk of edited text. The student can find these editorial insertions and clarifications in most passages in the Bible. The passage above is offered simply because it is very well known. The purpose of these editorial insertions is to make explicit what the editor saw as the underlying theological message. The editor thus saw himself as simply making plain what he may have considered to be unclear. Redaction criticism is a very subjective method and the student should make sure that there is a clear seam before assigning a passage to the editor. A very famous, and yet plainly clear example of editorial work is found in the so called "long ending" of Mark. The oldest manuscripts of Mark do not contain Mark 16:9ff (see the text criticism module). The verses appended by a later editor clearly attmempt to harmonize the ending of Mark with the endings of Matthew and Luke. Here, the editor wanted to make sure that the "Great Commission" and the post resurrection appearences were included in Mark. He saw their absence as a possible source of confusion- so he clarified by adding them in! Here is Mark 16. Again, the BOLD face type are the editorial insertions while the plain type is the original narrative of the author:

"When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. They had been saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?" When they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had already been rolled back. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. But he said to them, "Don't be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you." So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. Now after he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went out and told those who had been with him, while they were mourning and weeping. But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it. After this he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. Later he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were sitting at the table; and he upbraided them for their lack of faith and stubbornness, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover." So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and proclaimed the good news everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that accompanied it."

This editoritorial addition can be seen by anyone. In the original narrative, the women leave the tomb terrified and speak to no one. In the editorial addition the women speak to the disciples! The student should also note the harmonization with the other Gospels which takes place in this editorial addition. When one is able to use the method of Redaction criticism, one is able to separate the strands of the author and the editor. This is a very important task in the theological explication of the Bible.

Who wrote the bible?

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem

The wrote the bible - the greatest "WHODUNIT" of all time..



The following is part one of what is possibly the most important topic that I have found. It's claims are easily verified and the writing is easy to read. It does not stand in favour of or against the bible but simply states the facts. I'd like to do the same. Pelase set aside a good few minutes if this is a subject you are intersted in. Although I will be posting ALL parts of this discussion, you may visit the authors to view the other parts.

Note: this article is a total TRIP in history and theology- it deserves time to be propperly read through.

All credit  for the writing is given to: http://www.straightdope.com a non-denominational and educative site that offers information on a myriad of topics. The pictures are my own insertions.

A Staff Report from the Straight Dope Science Advisory Board

 

Who wrote the Bible? (Part 1)

January 7, 2002

Dear Straight Dope:

Who wrote the Bible? I hear the Catholics did some pretty heavy editorializing back in 300 A.D. or so. But where does the original text trace its origins to?

— Concerned Pagan

The answer is neither simple nor straightforward--just the way we at the Straight Dope like it. But this subject is complicated even for us. Rather than try to pack the answer into one article, we've decided to split it into sections and give a detailed account, to be presented over several days.

• Part 1 - Who wrote/compiled/edited (and when) the first five books of the Bible, called the Torah or Pentateuch or Five Books of Moses?

These reports were written bySDSTAFF Eutychus andSDSTAFF Dex, with valuable assistance from Straight Dope Message Board contributors tomndebb and CMKeller, and also from Dex's friend Pastor Allan, who has a Ph.D. in early Christian writings. Volumes have been written about this topic--the Cambridge History of the Bible alone is three large books. The answers are seldom clear cut. The best we could do is summarize and condense. We hope you enjoy.

Now to the first part of our story. Who wrote/compiled/edited (and when) the first five books of the Bible, called the Torah or the Pentateuch or the Five Books of Moses?

The five scrolls or books of the Pentateuch tell the history of the Israelites from the creation of the universe, through the exodus from Egypt and the revelation at Mount Sinai to their entry into the Promised Land. The first book, Genesis, contains most of the stories--the creation, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, and Noah; and the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, etc., ending with the story of Joseph and the arrival of the Israelites in Egypt. The book of Exodus tells the story of the enslavement in Egypt, the exodus, the revelation of the Ten Commandments and the Law at Mount Sinai, the golden calf, and the construction of the Tabernacle (a portable house of worship, carried through the desert). The book of Numbers tells of the Israelites' wanderings in the desert and the legal and religious structure of their society. The book of Leviticus deals largely with the rules of the priesthood, sacrifice, and worship. The book of Deuteronomy is essentially Moses' farewell address to the Israelites as they are about to enter the Promised Land, recapping much of what was covered in the prior three books.

How did these books come to be written? There's a wide range of opinion. We'll only present the two most commonly held views--what we'll call the "traditional view" and the "scholarly view." This is perhaps misleading terminology, since there are many profound scholars on both sides. We use the term "scholarly" in the sense of "academic" or "scientific", although neither of those terms are right, either. Perhaps the best term is "documentarist", but that's cumbersome. So we shall stick to "traditional" and "scholarly", without implying lack of scholarship on the other side.

The traditional explanation is that the Five Books of Moses were written by Moses himself. There are several variants of this explanation:

• Traditional Judaism and fundamentalist Christianity believe that the text was dictated by God to Moses on Mount Sinai, letter for letter (or pretty much letter for letter).
• Other religious groups still ascribe authorship to Moses, but use words like "divinely inspired" rather than "dictated letter for letter."
• Still others say Moses was the sole author, but there's nothing "divine" about it except in the sense that all great works of literature and poetry are "inspired."

Mosaic authorship would mean the five books were written around 1280 to 1250 BC, the most commonly accepted range of dates for the exodus from Egypt, give or take 30 years.

It has long been recognized that there were a few problems with the traditional view of Moses as author. The text reports the death of Moses--how could Moses have written of his own death? It also describes Moses as "the most humble man who ever lived"--how could Moses write that about himself? But these are minor issues. Some say Moses' successor Joshua wrote the few lines that describe the death of Moses; others say that Moses himself was commanded to write that text before it happened. None of this represents a serious challenge to Mosaic authorship.

A listing of a FEW of the translations available, and from each of these have emerged many christian churches with many different takes of how to live as a christian.

As time went on, however, scholars became increasingly skeptical of the idea of Moses as single author. Among their objections:

• Several stories are repeated, with different characters or different emphasis (called "doublets"). For instance, there are two creation stories (Gen 1 and Gen 2). There are three stories of a patriarch traveling among pagans and pretending his wife is his sister. There are two stories of Moses striking a rock to produce water. There are two versions of the Ten Commandments (one in Exodus, one that Moses recaps in Deuteronomy) with slightly different wording. There are, in fact, a lot of these doublets.
• There are internal inconsistencies. The number of days of the Flood story don't add up right. At one point, Noah takes two of each animal; at another point, he takes two of some, seven of others. Joseph is sold into slavery to Ishmaelites in one verse, to Midianites a few verses later. The Mountain of Revelation is sometimes called Sinai and sometimes Horeb. Moses' father-in-law is sometimes called Yitro and sometimes Ruel, and so on.

Scholars in late 18th century Germany noted that in most of the duplicated stories, one set described God using the Hebrew word Elohim (usually translated "God") while the other set tended to use God's four-lettered Name Y-H-W-H (usually translated "Lord," sometimes miscalled "Jehovah.") This gave rise to the theory that there were two different authors, one called E and one called J (German for Y), whose works were somehow combined to form a single text.

Later analysis of the grammar, vocabulary, and writing style provided evidence for two other authors--called P for the Priestly author (mostly Leviticus, and lots of the genealogy) and D for the Deuteronomist, since the book of Deuteronomy seemed different (grammatically and politically) from the earlier books. The multiple-author view has come to be called the "Documentary theory."

We interject at this point to say that traditionalists have answers to all the points raised by Documentary scholars. The E-word for God is used when God's justice is predominant; the J-name is used when God's mercy is predominate. The doublet stories are complementary, offering different interpretations and insights. For example, each of the creation stories has a different emphasis, one on the physical universe and one on the pre-eminence of mankind. Textual differences (such as in the different versions of the Ten Commandments) make a point by comparison. For example, "Remember the Sabbath" and "honor the Sabbath" means to do both.

Another version of the bible, "flavoured" for New Age supporters.

 

Documentary theorists see a much more complicated story, with four different texts by four different authors (although some think "schools" of authors might be responsible for each text rather than a single author). These were later combined by an editor, called the Redactor. (my note - but NOBODY knows who that is.. so who are the people following who follow today's old testament?)  The Redactor sometimes put the different authors' stories one after the other (as with the creation stories) and sometimes interwove them (as with the two stories of Noah's Flood and of Joseph's mistreatment by his brothers). The Redactor also added comments like "Now it came to pass, after these things . . ." as a transition between sections.

Scholars differ on when the various authors wrote and when the Redaction occurred. No one today knows who the initial authors were--the predominant view is that many of the stories were handed down orally for generations before being written down. It's not clear which texts are older (although the Song at the Sea in Exodus 15:1-8 is usually acknowledged as among the oldest verses), or which author wrote which verses. Nor is there agreement on the gender of the authors. Some scholars believe the J-writer was a woman, as described in The Book of J by David Rosenberg and Harold Bloom (1990).

Our favorite interpretation of the Documentary theory is presented by Richard E. Friedman in his book, "Who Wrote the Bible?" It's a marvelous book, written for the lay person, and you feel like you're reading a detective story as Friedman disentangles various threads and ties the authorship to historical events. Friedman's version is summarized below (most dates are rough approximations).
 

1250 to 1000 BC - Conquest of the land of Canaan begins before 1200, and the tribes of Israel form a loose confederation. The histories of the tribes of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses are told orally, handed down from generation to generation.

Around 1000 to 950 BC - The tribes are united under King David. Many of the stories are written down by the author J. These stories describe the creation of the universe, the birth and history of the tribes and their special relationship with God. The stories have an intense focus on morality, on examples of behavior, reward and punishment. Even the ancestral heroes are depicted as having human faults and weaknesses.

920 BC to 722 BC - following the death of Solomon (around 920 BC), the kingdom splits in two, Judah in the south with the royal capital at Jerusalem, and Israel/Ephraim in the north with major shrines at Shechem and Bethel. The J-stories primarily reflect the Davidic (southern) point of view. In the north, some stories begin to accumulate twists reflecting the political situation there. The stories from the south stress the importance of Jerusalem, Aaron and the priesthood, and the centralization of sacrifice. Those from the north are about sacrifices conducted anywhere and de-emphasize Aaron in favor of Moses.
 

The essence of the stories remains the same but the details vary. In the north, the mountain of significance is Horeb, not Sinai, and greater emphasis is placed on Joseph, his mother, and his son Ephraim (one of the largest of the northern tribes). In the southern version, Judah (head of the chief tribe of the south) saves Joseph from being killed by the other brothers; in the northern version, it's Reuben (head of the chief tribe of the north.)

The northern stories--let's call them E-stories--are written down and become the E-document. Northern prophets such as Amos (2:9) and Hosea (12:2-6) use the E-stories in their messages to the people. By the eighth century BC, then, we have two sets of stories, E-versions (northern) and J-versions (southern), both evolved from a single tradition.

722 BC - Israel is conquered by Assyria and the ten tribes of the north are scattered and exiled. Many refugees flee to Judah in the south. Although they are all Israelites, those from the north have somewhat different versions of stories from those in the south. Both texts are viewed as ancient and sacred, so someone combines the two to form a single document, called JE. As they're sitting around hearing the consolidated story read, the people from the north hear familiar phrases and elements and say, yep, that's the story my grandpa told me, all right. The people from the south, ditto. The combined text helps the process of social integration and tribal distinctions disappear.

The JE version subordinates the E-stories to the J-stories, since Judah (the southern kingdom) was politically dominant. Some of the E-stories may have been lost at this time--there aren't separate versions of all the stories. Perhaps in some cases there weren't any differences. Perhaps the southern authors who combined the stories dropped northern variants they couldn't accept. We don't know, and some say the absence of a complete E-document is a weakness in the Documentary theory.

770 BC to 600 BC - A third work appears, mostly concerned with Temple rites, sacrifices, priestly garb, genealogy (focused on the priestly tribe), etc. This is identified as the P-document. The P-stories in all likelihood are very old and handed down from oral tradition. Arguably many of them were compiled as a pro-Aaron response to the anti-Aaron slant of E. Where JE mentions God speaking to Moses, P mentions God speaking to Moses and Aaron. Where JE talks of the staff of Moses, P talks of the staff of Aaron. P accounts for the largest amount of text in the Torah, containing most of the legal sections, rules of sacrifice, genealogies, and priestly matters.

The dating of the P document is hotly debated among Documentary scholars. Some date P as late as Second Temple times (after 580 BC), but we find Friedman's argument compelling, that it appeared in response to JE.
 

640 BC to 609 BC - Reign of King Josiah. The book of II Kings describes (23:8-13) how a "lost" scroll of Moses was found by Halkiah around 622 BC and read to King Josiah. Most scholars argue (based on internal evidence) that this was the book of Deuteronomy--in fact, this was suggested by the early Church fathers, including Jerome. (Traditionalists usually say the entire written Torah had been lost, the people had strayed so far.) Deuteronomy largely recapitulates the other books, but also contains new material. The Documentary theory labels this last author D, the Deuteronomist.

The content of Deuteronomy is very old, although the literary style seems to be from the later period of Josiah. The D-author, in attributing the writings to Moses himself, certainly felt he was simply reviving Moses' teachings, as understood 600 years later. In much the same way a modern biographer might put together a collection of the sayings of Thomas Jefferson for a modern audience.

So at this point, there are three different texts: JE, P, and D. There were doubtless other texts as well (Genesis makes reference to the "Book of the Wars of the Lord," for example) which are long lost.

587 BC to 536? BC - The southern kingdom of Judah is conquered by Babylon in 587 BC. The people are exiled for 50 years, then return to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple and restore their religion. There is no longer a king of the line of David, but a high priest. The process is not easy. Other exiled peoples were assimilated by their conquerors and disappeared; the Israelites remained faithful to their homeland and their God. But the religion had been weakened by the exile, and needed to be strengthened and consolidated. (yet again...some changes - my note)
 
 

Approximately 450 BC - This is perhaps the most remarkable part of the story, as the Redactor emerges on the scene. He  (WHO IS THAT??! my note)sees the need for religious revival and renewal, for strengthening and centralization. So he combines the three documents (JE, P, and D) into one smooth flowing narrative--the five books of Moses.

The Redactor did lots of cutting and pasting. Genealogies that probably started all together in a P-text were interspersed throughout JE, acting as bridging material or section dividers. Materials that told the same story from pro-Aaron and anti-Aaron viewpoints (for example) were neatly woven together.

The Redactor was respectful of his sources and kept them largely intact (largely.. hmm- my note). These were all sacred and ancient texts/traditions, so the Redactor presumably didn't drop material--duplication was preferable to omission. Sometimes he combined the different texts; sometimes he left the two stories side by side.

The single document became the center of the Israelite religion, under the prophets Ezra and Nehemiah. Authorship was ascribed to Moses. This wasn't deception. The Redactor in all likelihood knew nothing of the prior 500 year history of authorship and honestly believed the material he was editing had all been handed down from Moses. (Come on, now, you have to be giggling by now!! -my note) 

From 450 BC on the document was fixed--no more changes. The oldest existing parchments, the Dead Sea scrolls, date from around 100 BC. They're almost word-for-word identical to the versions we have today (although there are occasional transcription errors, most so small they would be noticed only by an experienced scholar). (my note - so a question arises - why do the christian bibles, totalling more than 28000 versions contain changes? - another question - if the Quran states that the original texts were changed, is this not proof so far that the Quran is telling us the truth?)

That's the story as viewed by Friedman, and we venture to say it comes closest to representing the consensus among Documentary scholars. We like Friedman's approach because he neatly connects the political history (as described in the text and as known to archaeology) with the religious and social history. He also draws on the grammar and vocabulary of the different authors to form a coherent explanation of the text's evolution.

Some Documentary scholars advocate different time lines. All agree on the four basic authors (J, E, P, and D) (versus one Quran, and one author) but some separate D into D1 (around 600 BC) and D2 (around 550 BC). Some say that P is older than D, some put E as oldest, some date all the documents much later. Archaeological finds occasionally shed some light (for instance, on the question of "household gods" in Genesis 31:19), helping to date the origin of a story or a phrase. But for the most part there's no firm evidence for one view over another. It's mostly a matter of trying to analyze internal elements such as writing style, vocabulary, and grammar--a highly subjective business. Arguments are waged over which author wrote which sentence.

Questions of provenance notwithstanding, the text is one of the great works of literature. It has endured for at least 2,500 years, parts of it for at least 3,200 years, and is still read today. There is hardly a work of art or writing in the western world that does not build from the five books or use images or phrases from them. Our notions of good and evil, of history as a linear process, of the relationship between the individual and morality, of the dignity of man ("created in the image of God"), all stem from this seminal work. The pagan nations surrounding Israel did not see anything wrong with mistreatment of animals, with leaving unwanted babies out in the woods, with working slaves without relief. The famous legal code of Hammurabi, often cited as a source for the laws of the Torah, declared that chopping off a man's hand was suitable punishment for stealing a loaf of bread. The Torah says the punishment must be proportionate to the crime. (However, the Torah also did not stop the killing of young girls who were buried alive because they were born GIRLS. Islam stopped this. The Torah did not give woman any rights - ISLAM gave them this. My note.. )
 

It's hard for us to consider the profound impact of this text on human history without thinking that there was a divine hand in its authorship, whether the human author was one or many.

BIBLIOGRAPHY BELOW:

 

Resources:

Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliot Friedman, 1987

Understanding the Old Testament, by Bernhard W. Anderson, 1986

The Art of Biblical Narrative, by Robert Alter, 1981

The Religion of Israel, by Yehezkel Kaufmann (trans: Moshe Greenberg), 1948

Surpassing Wonder, by Donald H. Akenson, 1998

— Dex and Eutychus

LOOK OUT FOR PART 2 - coming soon... as well as WHO WROTE THE QURAN (just because we know, have proof, and can verify the facts)..

Muslims say Jesus is Coming

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem

Surprised? It's true. Essa (as) as we call him WILL, indeed, return. Here's an explanation of what we believe, better than I could ever put it! What will happen? How will it happen? Whether christian or muslim, you're bound to enjoy this.



Subhaan'Allah !

Why say NO to Christmas?

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem

It is the "Silly Season" and let's face it, it's no secret that christians are so divided among themselves that they cannot agree on even the most basic of principles from wether or not a woman can preach to wether a christmas tree is "scriptural". There's no need to re-invent the wheel and try to find the answers to various christmas related questions. So here's an article written by a christian to christians, regarding christmas. Erm... need I say more?


PLEASE NOTE: I do not advocate the beliefs the writer advocates, I include extracts of his article here, simply because it is well researched and basically shows how the bible itself speaks against "christmas"..

All rights of the extracts of this article to its author David C Pack .

"Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911 edition, under “Christmas”: “Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church…the first evidence of the feast is from Egypt.” Further, “Pagan customs centering around the January calends gravitated to Christmas.” Under “Natal Day,” Origen, an early Catholic writer, admitted, “…In the Scriptures, no one is recorded to have kept a feast or held a great banquet on his birthday. It is only sinners (like Pharaoh and Herod) who make great rejoicings over the day in which they were born into this world” (emphasis mine).

The Encyclopedia Americana, 1956 edition, adds, “Christmas…was not observed in the first centuries of the Christian church, since the Christian usage in general was to celebrate the death of remarkable persons rather than their birth…a feast was established in memory of this event [ Jesus's birth] in the fourth century. In the fifth century the Western Church ordered the feast to be celebrated forever on the day of the Mithraic rites of the birth of the sun and at the close of the Saturnalia, as no certain knowledge of the day of Christ's birth existed.”

It was 300 years after Christ before the Roman church kept Christmas, and not until the fifth century that it was mandated to be kept throughout the empire as an official festival honoring “Christ.”

Can "Christ" Be Honored by Christmas?

The most common justification that one will hear regarding Christmas is that people have replaced old pagan customs and intents by asserting that they are now “focusing on Christ.” I have heard many say that they are “honoring Christ” in their Christmas-keeping. The problem is that God does not say this is acceptable to Him! Actually, He plainly commands against it! Keeping Christmas dishonors Christ! He considers everything about it to be an abomination! We will soon see why.

"Christ" said, “But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:9). Christmas is not a command of God—it is a tradition of men. "Christ" continued, “Full well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition” (Mark 7:9). Every year, throughout the world, on December 25th, hundreds of millions do just that!

We will see that God plainly commands, “Follow not the way of the heathen.” But most people do not fear God, and He allows them to make their own decisions. Human beings are free moral agents—free to obey or disobey God! (...)

Was "Christ" Born on December 25th?

"Christ" was born in the fall of the year. Many have mistakenly believed He was born around the beginning of winter—December 25th! They are wrong! Notice the Adam Clarke Commentary, volume 5, page 370, New York edition: “It was custom among Jews to send out their sheep to the deserts about the Passover [early spring], and bring them home at the commencement of the first rain.” The first rains began in early-to-mid fall. Continuing with this same quote: “During the time they were out, the shepherds watched them night and day. As…the first rain began early in the month of March-esvan, which answers to part of our October and November [begins sometime in October], we find that the sheep were kept out in the open country during the whole summer. And as these shepherds had not yet brought home their flocks, it is a presumptive argument that October had not yet commenced, and that, consequently, (Jesus) was not born on the 25th of December, when no flocks were out in the fields; nor could He have been born later than September, as the flocks were still in the fields by night. On this very ground, the nativity in December should be given up. The feeding of the flocks by night in the fields is a chronological fact…See the quotations from the Talmudists in Lightfoot.”

Luke 2:8 explains that when "Christ" was born, “there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.” Note that they were “abiding” in the field. This never happened in December. Both Ezra 10:9-13 and the Song of Solomon 2:11 show that winter was the rainy season and shepherds could not stay on cold, open fields at night.

Numerous encyclopedias plainly state that "Christ" was not born on December 25th! The Catholic Encyclopedia directly confirms this. In all likelihood, "Christ" was born in the fall! A lengthy technical explanation would prove this point.

Since we now know that December 25th was nowhere near "Christ's" actual birthdate, where did the festival associated with this date come from?

Now read this quote under “Christmas”: “In the Roman world, the Saturnalia (December 17) was a time of merrymaking and exchanging of gifts. December 25 was also regarded as the birthdate of the Iranian mystery god Mithra, the Sun of Righteousness. On the Roman New Year (January 1), houses were decorated with greenery and lights, and gifts were given to children and the poor. To these observances were added the German and Celtic Yule rites when the Teutonic tribes penetrated into Gaul, Britain and central Europe. Food and good fellowship, the Yule log and Yule cakes, greenery and fir trees, gifts and greetings all commemorated different aspects of this festive season. (..)” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed., vol. II, p. 903).

A final quote about the selection of December 25th as the birthdate of "Christ" is necessary. Note an article in The Toronto Star, December 1984, by Alan Edmonds, entitled, “We owe a lot to Druids, Dutch”: “The Reformation cast a blight on Christmas. By then, of course, clever ecclesiastical politicians had adopted the Pagan mid-winter festival as the alleged birthdate of Jesus, of Nazareth, and thrown in a few other Pagan goodies to make their takeover more palatable.”

December 25th was not selected because it was the birth of "Christ" or because it was even near it. It was selected because it coincided with the idolatrous pagan festival Saturnalia—and this celebration must be carefully examined. In any event, we do not know the exact date of "Christ's" birth. (...)

What About Santa Claus?

Parents reason that they owe the whole Christmas myth to their children! Christmas traditions are focused primarily on kids, and they are certainly the center of most of what happens. I know because I kept seventeen Christmases. My older sister and younger brother and I were the recipients of much and the givers of very little on that day—and it all started with the Santa Claus lie.

Some years ago, a priest in New Jersey told his Sunday school class that Santa was a myth. The outrage from parents and his supervisors was swift. He had “killed Santa!” He had “destroyed family tradition!” He had “usurped family authority,” the article continued. He was officially censored by his superiors for being “overzealous and insensitive.”

His crime? He told the truth!

According to Langer's Encyclo-pedia of World History, (article “Santa”), “Santa” was a common name for Nimrod throughout Asia Minor. This was also the same fire god who came down the chimneys of the ancient pagans and the same fire god to whom infants were burned and eaten in human sacrifice among those who were once God's people.

Today Santa Claus comes from “Saint Nicholas.” Washington Irving, in 1809, is responsible for remaking the original old, stern bishop of this same name into the new “jolly St. Nick” in his Knickerbocker History of New York. (Most of the rest of America's Christmas traditions are even more recent than this.) “Old Nick” has long been recognized as a term for the devil.

In Revelation 2:6 and 15, we read about a “doctrine of the Nicolaitanes,” which Christ twice tells His Church “[He] hates.” Let's analyze the word Nicolaitane. It means “follower of Nicholas.” Nikos means “conqueror, destroyer.” Laos means “people.” Nicolaitanes, then, are people who follow the conqueror or destroyer—Nimrod. If you have believed that following Christmas is an innocent Christian custom, let this truth sink in!

Is It "Scriptural" to Exchange Gifts?

Merchants regularly report that over 60% of their annual retail sales occur during the Christmas shopping season. This represents a tremendous amount of gift buying. Most today believe that gift-giving comes from the Bible example of the “three wise men” (the Bible gives no number) presenting gifts to Christ. Is this true? Where did exchanging gifts come from, and what does God's Word say about it?

The Bibliotheca Sacra states, “The interchange of presents between friends is a like characteristic of Christmas and the Saturnalia, and must have been adopted by Christians from the pagans, as the admonition of Tertullian plainly shows” (Vol. 12, pp. 153-155).

Like every other aspect of Christmas, the shocking truth is that even this supposed Christian custom does not come from the Bible. It is an irony that people love to believe they are following the custom of the wise men giving to Christ, when actually they are giving almost exclusively to each other! What hypocrisy! Christ is completely forgotten.

The Bible actually teaches that Christians should not keep birthdays. Numerous scriptures make this principle clear. (...) However, what if you went to a birthday party that had been prepared for you and everybody gave gifts to each other and you were left out? The idea is ridiculous! If this happened, you would say that people were being selfish and forgetting you. In fact, most people give to others on Christmas merely because they expect to receive gifts themselves!

Let's briefly return to the “wise men” who gave gifts to Christ. The scripture describing this is Matthew 2:1-11: “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where is He that is born King of the Jews?…And when they were come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto Him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.”

It is commonly supposed that these were birthday presents for “baby Jesus.” But is this what the Bible actually says? Absolutely not! First, it is important to note that they did give the gifts to Jesus. They did not stand in his presence and exchange gifts among themselves or give them to others. The gifts were “presented unto Him.” Also, they arrived well after his “birthday.” This is another reason these could not have been “birthday presents.” (...)

Origin of the Christmas Tree

No article about Christmas is complete without some explanation of the “Christmas tree.” We have touched on it without directly focusing on it. The modern Christmas tree originated in Germany. But the Germans got it from the Romans, who got it from the Babylonians and the Egyptians.

The following demonstrates what the Babylonians believe about the origin of the Christmas tree: “An old Babylonish fable told of an evergreen tree which sprang out of a dead tree stump. The old stump symbolized the dead Nimrod, the new evergreen tree symbolized that Nimrod had come to life again in Tammuz! Among the Druids the oak was sacred, among the Egyptians it was the palm, and in Rome it was the fir, which was decorated with red berries during the Saturnalia!” (Walsh, Curiosities of Popular Customs, p. 242).

Frederick J. Haskin's Answers to Questions states, “The Christmas tree is from Egypt, and its origin dates from a period long anterior to the Christmas Era.” Did you know this—that the Christmas tree long preceded Christianity?

Most aspects of Christmas are not referred to in the Bible. Of course, the reason is that they are not from God (The reader should remember this article was written by a christian writer, not by the blogger yesimmuslimdealwithit) (...) The Christmas tree, however, is directly mentioned in the Bible! Turn to Jeremiah 10:2-5, “Thus says the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen…For the customs of the people are vain: for one cuts a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.”

This plain description of the modern Christmas tree is clear. (The bible )directly refers to it as “the way of the heathen.” Just as directly, He commands His people to “learn not the way of the heathen,” calling these customs “vain.” Verse 23 adds a remarkable and powerful statement: “O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walks to direct his [own] steps.” God must teach people how to live. Man simply cannot figure out God's ways for himself. (Note from yesImMuslimDealwithit - please read this again - Christians will tell muslims that they do not need laws because they are set free.. so no, I'm not agreeing with the writer in all he says, but I want readers to note what christians themselves say about christmas - their OWN bible denounces it.)

There is no room in Jeremiah 10 to believe, as some have tried to suggest, that because these trees are powerless of themselves, it is not really forbidden to have a Christmas tree. God condemns the putting up of pagan (Christmas) trees with this plain Bible command!

The Source of Holly Wreaths, Yule Logs and Mistletoe

The Encyclopedia Americana states, “The holly, the mistletoe, the Yule log…are relics of pre-Christian time.” In other words, paganism! The Yule log was commonly used in a rite of Teutonic nature worship.

Frederick Haskin further states, “The use of Christmas wreaths is believed by authorities to be traceable to the pagan customs of decorating buildings and places of worship at the feast which took place at the same time as Christmas.”

The Encyclopedia Britannica, under “Celastrales,” exposes the origin of the holly wreath: “European pagans brought holly sprays into their homes, offering them to the fairy people of the forests as refuge from the harsh winter weather. During the Saturnalia, the Roman winter festival, branches of holly were exchanged as tokens of friendship. The earliest Roman Christians apparently used holly as a decoration at the Christmas season.”

There are dozens of different types of holly. Virtually all of them come in male and female varieties—such as “Blue Prince and Blue Princess” or “Blue Boy and Blue Girl” or “China Boy and China Girl.” Female holly plants cannot have berries unless a nearby male plant pollinates them. It is easy to see why the holly wreath found its way into pagan rituals as a token of friendship and fertility!

Christmas is incomplete to many unless it involves “kissing under the mistletoe.” This pagan custom was natural on a night that involved much revelry done in the spirit of drunken orgies. Just like today, this “kissing” usually occurred at the beginning of any modern Saturnalia/Christmas celebration. I will never forget having to always kiss my friends' mothers upon entering each of their houses every Christmas. It was the first thing that we did. I hated it—but it was something I “had to do”! Mistletoe was considered to have special powers of healing for those who “reveled” under it.

The Encyclopedia Britannica, under “Santalales,” states, “The European mistletoe is thought to have had special ritual significance in Druidical ceremonies and lives in folklore today, its special status as the Christmas mistletoe having come from Anglo-Saxon times.” Mistletoe is a parasite that lives on oak trees. (Recall that the Druids worshipped in oak tree groves.) The ancient Celtics (associated with the Druids) used to give mistletoe as an herbal remedy to barren animals to make them fertile. It is still referred to as “all healer” in Celtic. (Yesimmuslimdealwithit comment - and yes, it is a medicinal herb, but it should not be used for any spiritual purpose for only ALLAH heals!)

Like mistletoe, holly berries were also thought to be sacred to the sun god. The original “sun log” came to be called the yule log. “Yule” simply means “wheel,” which has long been a pagan representation of the sun. No wonder people today commonly speak of the “sacred yule-tide season.”

What Should You Do?

Finally, let's examine what God told His people they should do and the way they ought to teach their children.

Human beings do not want to obey God (Rom. 8:7). They would rather follow their own “imagination.” They do not understand that God wants their lives to go “well.” He wants happiness, joy and blessings to flow into people's lives. All these are the results of obeying Him.

God inspired Moses to warn parents of the grave responsibility that they have in what and how they teach their children. Notice His instruction in Deuteronomy 6:1, 6-7, 20-21, 25: “Now these are the commandments…which the Lord your God commanded to teach you, that you might do them in the land where you go to possess it…And these words, which I command you this day, shall be in your heart: And you shall teach them diligently unto your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up…And when your son asks you in time to come, saying, What mean the testimonies, and the statutes, and the judgments, which the Lord our God has commanded you? Then you shall say unto your son, We were Pharaoh's bondmen in Egypt; and the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand…And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as He has commanded us.”

God took Israel out of Egypt—out of the customs of the world around them and revealed His Law to them. He does not want His people going back to the traditions, customs and ways from which He has called them. (note by yesimmuslimdealwithit - the writer sounds like a muslim, doesn't he? After all, he's basically saying one should submit to the laws of Allah, as written in the thorah, right? Submission to Allah's will, to the will of God, has a name - its translated in arabic as "ISLAM".)

When all of the interconnected traditions, filled with the symbolism of worshipping an ancient pagan, humanly devised god, are taught, this is not worshipping the true Creator.

The prophet Isaiah was inspired to write, “Cry aloud, spare not, lift up your voice like a trumpet, and show My people their transgression” (58:1). I have done this.

Notes from yesimmuslimdealwithit - why would the writer weep for the transgressions of the christians, aren't christians free from all transgressions because of "the cross"  - oh wait - the cross is also a pagan symbol - !!
Wether you are christian or not, christmas is not. Wether you are christian or not, you should not be hanging up christmas trees, exchanging gifts or participating in anything remotely christmassy. May our muslim brothers and sisters who participate "FOR THE FUN OF IT" take heed - Shirk is not a game, and since christmas is actually orignated in PAGAN and IDOLATROUS beliefs, is it not, then, idolatry? May Allah guide us all, and grant us the truth, always, for truly if the christians believed that the truth would set them free, they would seek the truth. CONVENIENCE is not the same as faith.

The woman and the cover

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem

** If you're here for the freebie, see the free christian ebook at the bottom of this post

It seems that everywhere in the world there's much ado about the headscarf. In particular, the Hijab. (as a muslimah would wear a headscarf). But what exactly is the big deal? Why are people so averse to it, particularly non-muslims? In my opinion its pure ignorance of their own scriptures. Christians will always say that they are "covered by the blood of Jesus" and hence do not need a head covering. Erm... where abouts does that appear in any of the 28 000 plus versions of the bible?

Let's begin by looking at the view of biblical Christians on women, and their view on the scarf..




Christian or Muslim?



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1) NEW TESTAMENT:  WOMEN must cover, MEN need not.MAN is the head..

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. .... Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." 1 Corinthians 11:3-6; 13-16

Note: Interpretation concerning "the head of every man is Christ": The example he should follow is to live as Jesus (Isa as) did.. But leaving that aside for the moment..



"EVERY woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head - for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn" (shave her head).

Christians will turn around and say - oh but it says that "if a woman have long hair, then her hair is given her for a covering.".. but the statement IS qualified - it says "if the women BE NOT COVERED, let her also be shorn"..

In the same chapter (Corinthians, chapter 11), it says:
"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: (astaghfirullah) but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels." 1 Corinthians 11:7-10



Mantilla - a Christian head covering - may be made of any material


 ACCORDING to this verse-

1. Christian men need not cover their head
2. EVERY woman MUST cover her head
3. IF she doesn't cover she must have her hair shaved off - which was a disgrace at the time and hence she should be disgraced (yes, this is christianity 101, not the teachings of Islam)
4. Why? Because this verse claims,  man is superior to the woman - this verse claims that HE is the image of God.. and she is ... we... just the glory of man, hence, she needs to "obey her god (man)" she is not the image of God, she was created for the man.. and the angels are watching her so she better cover up!
5. It doesn't apply to the married woman because before the woman is married, the head of her house is a man - her father..

At least that's what I get from that verse - seems pretty straight forward from that angle.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2) NEW TESTAMENT :  The MAN is superior to the WOMAN: (in biblical christianity)

a) As above, in Corinthians - "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"  (after all, she's "just" a woman, right?)

b) 1 Timothy 2:8-15 New International Version (NIV)

^" Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. ⁹ I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

In other words, no children = Damnation to hell

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3) OLD TESTAMENT:  The woman is worth less than the man

Leviticus 27:1-7 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

27 "Again, the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ² “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When a man makes a difficult vow, he shall be valued according to your valuation of persons belonging to the Lord. ³ If your valuation is of the male from twenty years even to sixty years old, then your valuation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. ⁴ Or if it is a female, then your valuation shall be thirty shekels. ⁵ If it be from five years even to twenty years old then your valuation for the male shall be twenty shekels and for the female ten shekels. ⁶ But if they are from a month even up to five years old, then your valuation shall be five shekels of silver for the male, and for the female your valuation shall be three shekels of silver. ⁷ If they are from sixty years old and upward, if it is a male, then your valuation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4) OLD TESTAMENT: THE WOMAN HAS NO RIGHT TO PROTECTION:

Let's look at the King James Version: The book of Numbers, Chapter 5

1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Command the children of Israel, that they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead:
3 Both male and female shall ye put out, without the camp shall ye put them; that they defile not their camps, in the midst whereof I dwell.
4 And the children of Israel did so, and put them out without the camp: as the LORD spake unto Moses, so did the children of Israel.

 *****************
5 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
(...)
8 But if the man have no kinsman to recompense the trespass unto, let the trespass be recompensed unto the LORD, even to the priest;  (...)
9 And every offering of all the holy things of the children of Israel, which they bring unto the priest, shall be his. (belong to the priest, only, who is a man of course!)
*****************

A man is jealous, so the women is made to drink poison, and a curse. She then either falls pregnant by this abusive husband (if innocent) OR her thighs rot and she becomes a "curse" to society. NO witness is required, NO evidence is submitted:

11 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
12 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him,
13 And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and THERE BE NO WITNESS AGAINST HER, neither she be taken with the manner;
14 And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled: (IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE MAN IS JEALOUS OF HIS WIFE, OR SUSPICIOUS, WHETHER SHE BE GUILTY OR NOT:::::)15 Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance.
16 And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD:
17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water:
18 And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and UNCOVER  the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water THAT CAUSETH THE CURSE:
THE ACCUSED WOMAN IS CURSED AND MUST SAY AMEN WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE BEING PUT FORWARD!19 And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:
20 But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband:
21 Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;


-THE WOMEN MUST ACCEPT THE CURSE, NO DEFENSE, NO ARGUMENT:

22 And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.
23 And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:

24 And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter.

 - Go back to verse 13 - in other words, wether she is inocent or not, she will :
1) have her hair uncovered (be disgraced)
2) Made to drink poison, made with the dirt of the floor of the temple
3) Made to say AMen, AMen to the curse upon her

As if this isn't enough, she then needs to drink the water made with a handful of the jealousy offering which the woman brings (usually some animal) - after this has been burnt -

25 Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the offering before the LORD, and offer it upon the altar:
26 And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water.
27 And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.

This sounds a heck of a lot to me like witchcraft - put a 'hex' on her inocent or not - if she has some reaction, well she has to be guilty, right?... No witnesses... And what of the man who supposedly may or may not have "lain with her".. If she's inocent, well then she will fall pregnant - WONDERFUL - further being ensnared by this jealous guy who would on a whim feed her a poisoned curse... and if she's guilty, then she will basically have her thighs rot and she will be a curse among her people. GREAT CHOICE for an inocent gal, ei?... luuurvely... and they say ISLAM oppresses women.


**********************************************************************************
Oh - I asked - what of the man? The guy who slept with her, or even the husband who accused her?
31 Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity

********************  Just a quick one - go back to verse 18 -
  18 And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head,

**********************************

oh - so it is presumed a woman should cover? well that should clear up the confusion in Coritnthians, right? 

THE FREEBIE is coming up.... :

Christian covering commanded in the bible: (written by a christian woman)

 "You say that wearing a headcovering is a form of bondage?
I say it is an expression of my freedom in Christ.
You say that it oppresses women.
I say that it reminds me of the stole draped over my head when receiving the prayer of absolution after making confession.

You say that it is only "cultural" and does not apply to today.
I say, neither does turning the other cheek make sense in our culture.

Neither does "blessed are the poor in spirit".

Neither does "blessed are the meek".

You say your head is your own.
I say that I gave my head to Christ.
You say your hair is your glory and your covering.
I say that I can neither make my hair, make it grow, or keep it from falling out. Only my creator can do that.

The only things I can do with my hair are let it grow, cut it off, color it, or cover it.

I have done all these things.

But now I cover it.

What does this all mean? A question I have asked myself many times as the years have gone by. What does it mean that the husband is the head of the wife? Kephale in the Greek. Source. Submission. Harmony. And husbands love your wife as Christ loved the Church. Perhaps it is more than a "headship" covering. Perhaps it is a revolutionary statement. For more than just myself.
What does it mean, "on account of the angels"?

Oh, to serve God with the purity of an angel!
For whatever reason, this will not leave me alone.
I do not belong to myself..."

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

A question then - why are nuns made to cover, if they are supposed to be the "holiest women" and "examples" to the community?

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

CLICK  FOR YOUR FREEBIE - BOOKLET -

  Freeby title: THE BIBLICAL HEADCOVERING - A biblical, historical and practical examination of a neglected aspect of CHRISTIAN practice (written by a christian, for christians)

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

What does Islam say about the covering of the head:

وَ لاَ يُبْدِيْنَ زِيْنَتَهُنَّ إِلاَّ مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَ لْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلىَ جُيُوْبِهِنَّ...

“...and not display their beauty except what is apparent, and they should place their khumur over their bosoms...”

 (Chapter 24 verse 30)

There are two issues about this sentence.

Khumurخُمُرٌ is plural of khimarخِمَارٌ, the veil covering the head. See any Arabic dictionary like Lisanu ’l-‘Arab, Majma‘u ’l-Bahrayn or al-Munjid.

See http://muttaqun.com/malehijab.html for the covering for the men -

                             What does Islam say about those accused of adultery?

 

Chapter 24 verse 2

"The woman and the man guilty of illegal sexual intercourse, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allâh, if you believe in Allâh and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. (This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime but if married persons commit it, the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allâh's Law). " 

(but they must be tried, and found guilty.. otherwise - )

Chapter 24 - verse 4

"And those who accuse chaste women, and produce not four witnesses, flog them with eighty stripes, and reject their testimony forever, they indeed are the Fâsiqûn (liars, rebellious, disobedient to Allâh)."

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) has said in many places that adultery is one of the three major sins. However, the most interesting story is that of a young man who went to the Prophet. This man asked for permission to fornicate because he could not control himself. The Prophet dealt with him with reasoning and asked him if he would approve of someone else having illegal sex with his mother, sister, daughter, or wife. Each time the man said 'no'. Then the Prophet replied that the woman with whom you plan to have sex is also somebody's mother, sister, daughter, or wife. The man understood and repented. The Prophet prayed for his forgiveness.

                     So Simple, Isn't it?