Answering Christianity Research Center

Salam aleikum wa rahmatullahi wa baraketuh,

my dear brothers and sisters, I'd like to draw your attention to a certain rare video exposing the dubious origins of DSS and how these scrolls are connected to many archaeological forgeries (lamps, coins, etc.) that came out just about the same time and from the same place where DSS were supposedly found.

This is an excellent lecture by Harry Hubbard and Paul Schaffranke that was delivered in August 1997 at the Denver Workshop (Colorado).

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emUkL_WP3z8

PS. you'd love Harry's humor in his opening presentation

Salam aleikum everyone,

Being aware that the argument of Hira being mentioned in Isaiah 29:12, sooner or later, will have to face some criticism (especially from Christian apologists), I have figure out or typed several possible objections against this claim along with answers to each objection. I'll be insha'Allah gradually posting here my answers to these objections that will likely be posed by critics.


OBJECTION #1 The website’s inbuilt critical apparatus points to the originality of the sigma letter in the word χιρας

Some critics might say that the critical apparatus designed for the Codex Sinaiticus in the official website (attached to the transcription on the right window, see the link here: https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx) indicates that sigma (ς), at the end of the word χιρας (chiras), is original and not a later insertion made by the corrector Cb3. This means that the previous form originally written by scribe B was χιρας (chiras), not χιρα (chira).

ANSWER

First, it is important to ask: does sigma at the end of χιρας represent a lowercase final form, or is it a result of the „letter compression”?
 
Second, even if sigma was original (i.e. written by scribe B, not Cb3), it does not necessarily discredit the claim that χιρας (chiras) might still be reflecting a proper form name for Hira, and this is simply because in Ancient Greek the letter sigma was usually added at the end of place names. There are many examples in the Septuagint of transliterated proper names with a typical Hellenized ending -ας (as). Perhaps a perfect example is חִירָה (Ḥîrāh) from Genesis 38:1, a name of certain Adullamite person, which is transliterated in the Septuagint as Ιρας (Iras). Here, unexpectedly, for some unknown reasons, authors of the Septuagint chose ι (iota) instead of χ (chi) despite the fact that e.g. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, for example, has transliterated this name as Hiras (applying H not I). Later, in OBJECTION #4, I will show that the Septuagint has, in fact, transliterated many Hebrew names with initial letter ח (ha) using χ (chi) not ι (iota).

Now, as to the ending -ας added to place names, in the Book of Isaiah alone we find many examples: in Isaiah 8:4 we have שׁמרון (Samaria) which is transliterated by Septuagint as Σαμαρείας (Samareias), clearly having sigma at the end. The Greek text of Isaiah 11:11 mentions three place names (though they do not occur in the Hebrew text): Βαβυλωνίας (Babulonias = Babylon), Αἰθιοπίας (Aithiopias = Ethiopia) and Ἀραβίας (Arabias = Arabia), again having sigma attached at the end. Another example is Γομορρας (Gomorras = Gomora) in Isaiah 1:10. For instance, in Isaiah 11:13, the Hebrew personal name יהודה (Judah) is transliterated by the Septuagint as Ιουδας (Ioudas), with the sigma addition.

So yes, linguistically speaking, an ancient textual Greek form for the name Hira may well have had sigma at the end since it was something characteristic for Koine Greek to add this particular letter at the very end of proper names. In other words, the name Hira might well be written in ancient Greek as χιρας (chiras) or even χειρας (cheiras) since, surprisingly, there are orthographical variations of the same proper names, e.g. Χιραμ (Hiram) vs. Χειραμ (Heiram), and these variants are detectable especially when we collate/compare the so-called four great uncial codices: Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi. Regarding the initially proposed text-form χιρα (without sigma), it may be considered as its post-biblical “modernized” version, exactly as it appears in modern Greek literature about Islam, which I already demonstrated in my research here in the blog.

On the other hand, it is equally possible that the variant χιρας (with the sigma ending) is just a declinable form since in Greek proper nouns changes depending on the gender, number, and case (inflection rules). Also, biblical scholars acknowledges certain instances where the Greek translator of the Septuagint employs declinable forms for some "obscure" place names he couldn't recognize.

Take care,
Idris

@IDRIS

How can we tackle this verse in Hebrew


יב  וְנִתַּן הַסֵּפֶר, עַל אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יָדַע סֵפֶר לֵאמֹר--קְרָא נָא-זֶה; וְאָמַר, לֹא יָדַעְתִּי סֵפֶר.  {ס}   12
and the writing is delivered to him that is not learned, saying: 'Read this, I pray thee'; and he saith: 'I am not learned.

if we compare it to codex sinaiticus

we can clearly see word Hira, which corrector change into HEIRAS to mean hands


isaih in hebrew is older than codex sinaiticus in greek, so if someone say why do we not find word HIra or Hands/Heiras in hebrew bible isaih 29:12?

How do you respond to that?

Salam aleikum brother Dawud,

Well, if by "isaiah in hebrew is older than codex sinaiticus" you mean the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa-a) of Qumran, then I would say don't be naive, and don't let them fool you! This Isaiah scroll is not really ancient as IAA claim to the world. In fact, Solomon Zeitlin (1886-1976) has already proved that it’s a medieval copy (produced sometime after Islam, possibly in the 7th-8th century). Solomon Zeitlin wrote many important publications. He was a distinguished Jewish historian, Talmudic scholar, and in his time the world's leading authority on the Second Temple period, thus he was a scholar whose reputation could hardly be denied (See e.g. Solomon Zeitlin: Scholar Laureate: An Annotated Bibliography, 1915–1970, With Appreciations of His Writings, ed. Sydney B. Hoenig (New York: Bitzaron; Philadelphia: Dropsie University, 1971). He was one of those few brave scholars who "dared" to question the supposed antiquity of DSS. See e.g. S. Zeitlin, "The Alleged Antiquity of the Scrolls." Jewish Quarterly Review 40/1 (1949), pp. 57-78; Idem, "The Propaganda of the Hebrew Scrolls and the Falsification of History." Jewish Quarterly Review 46/1 (1955), pp. 1-39; Idem, "The Fallacy of the Antiquity of the Hebrew Scrolls Once More Exposed." Jewish Quarterly Review 52/4 (1962), pp. 346-366

Such a well-known and highly reputed scholar certainly would not claim they are medieval fabrication unless convinced it was true. Internal-paleographical evidence from the scrolls themselves indicates toward a medieval production. Some have stressed the fact that many scrolls are written on vellum (about 90% of them), further confirms that these documents are indeed a medieval production. What is even more strange, scholars noted the lack of cinnabar-based metallic deterioration on the manuscripts which normally occurs after just 200 years on ancient materials. Additionally, many of the reading variants that 1QIsa-a shares, and that are not attested by MT, can only be found in the private collections of Kennicott’s and de Rossi's Hebrew medieval manuscripts, thus again potentially betraying the medieval nature of DSS.

Besides Solomon Zeitlin, few other biblical scholars of great reputation such as Louis-Hugues Vincent (1872-1960), a French archaeologist of the École Biblique, and Johannes Petrus Maria van der Ploeg (1909-2004), a Dutch Dominican specialist in Hebrew, Dead Sea Scrolls and Syriac manuscripts, also thought that DSS are medieval, not ancient. See John C. Trever, The Untold Story of Qumran (Chicago: F.H. Revell Company, 1965), p. 108

A couple of years ago, I had an email conversation with a Christian scholar Frederick Peter Miller (1931–2018) who confirmed to me that there are many strange editorial markings and traces of later revisions (altered shapes of letters, numerals, punctuation, etc.) observed in between different DSS publications that seems to be anachronistic since they are more consistent with the Middle Ages rather than the Macabbean or Hasmonean period to which the scrolls are said to come from. He and David Cooper told me about Neil Altman who is an independent researcher and expert on DSS, and who carefully studied the scroll of 1QIsa-a, and he was about to release his findings in a journal of El Paso. Scholars posed many questions to IAA with regard to the existence of these strange markings but they never answered them.

We can delve deeper into some of the "unspoken" controversies (and scandals) surrounding DSS but it’s not the right place to talk about it. However, I will insha'Allah write on it more in another occasion. In any case, this whole Israeli propaganda is a mere deceptive strategy to gain a pre-Islamic attestation (and attention) for the antiquity of biblical writings. They urgently needed a certificate to "back up" and/or predate their masoretic text (written in 10th century AD) by claiming to have found a much older copies, and one of the reasons is that they have realized that the Quranic accusation of corrupting the Hebrew Bible, sooner or later, will be inconvenient, unfavorable, and burdensome to their theo-political interest.

Take care,
Idris (Ahmed)

Salam aleikum wa rahmatullah brother Dawud,

Currently I have some unexpected problems with my internet connection. Once I fix it (hopefuly this week) I will answer then insha’Allah to many objections (including yours) to the claim about Hira in Isaiah 29:12. I will explain among others that the form Hiras or even Heiras can well be understood as a proper name for Hira.

Eid Mubarak to you and to all our brothers and sisters!
Take care,
Idris

Quote from: Idris on August 08, 2019, 01:53:39 AM

No problem akhi. I have sent you my latest update to the section Evidence #1. This time I have added few articles and books written by scholars that confirms the spelling of Hira in its Greek transliterated form Χιρά. A very important info!

Did you actually opened the last file with my updates to Evidence #1 ?

Salam brother , i started a topic about this on FB and this brother Ijaz Ahamad, who is a debator with christians, tried to disprove your fiding, what can you say, can you get into the discussion on facebook with this brother if you have better argument than i have



our discussion on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/groups/130763117665481/596541127754342/?comment_id=597107107697744&reply_comment_id=597152174359904&notif_id=1572896796394919&notif_t=group_comment_mention

Salam aleikum wa rahmatullah brother, I can't comment brother Idjaz's post since I'm not a member of this group. Anyway, here is a message to him:


"Salam aleikum dear brother Ahmed Idjaz, thank you for your comments and I appreciate your critical voice on the topic.

From what I understand, your disagreement is basically related to the phonetic problem of some Greek consonants, specifically χ (chi) and how it is properly vocalized in Ancient Greek. Thus, you say "...in English it is easy to get HIRA, but how would you drop the 'C' in the letter χ to get an English 'H' to get that sound and written text?" […] "χ does not give the sound of English 'h'. The sound of χ is equivalent to Arabic خ. Unlike removing the dot to get ح. There's no change to χ that gives an H sound." [...] "that's a false analogy, they are semetically related. χ and ح are not." [...] “Maybe if the text was ιρα it would make sense, but since the χ (even as said in that article) was originally there, the claim simply does not add up.” etc.

Honestly, I don't see any problem here brother. Just look at the example of Hiram, Phoenician king of Tyre from the historical books of OT (Samuel & Kings). In the Masoretic text, his name appears under the form חירם (Ḥîrām). In the Arabic Bible and Arabic literature in general, the name of that king is always transliterated as حيرام (Ḥîrām) clearly using ح not خ. The Hebrew ח represents an alphabetic equivalent for the Arabic ح by which the name حراء (Hira) is composed. Now, the transliteration of the Hebrew proper name חירם (Ḥîrām) according to the Septuagint is Χιραμ or sometimes Χειραμ depending on the actual mss (refer to Hatch & Radpath’s concordance to the Septuagint, p. 158ff, here: https://archive.org/details/HatchRedpath3/page/n161). Notice the use of the letter χ for ח, plus a surprising exchange of ι and ει between the two orthographic variants (its seems that scribes didn’t care whether this name is spelled with an additional epsilon or without it). One scribe felt the need to put an epsilon to the name while others not. And since in ancient times scribes didn’t have any dictionaries or spell check, in many cases, the iotacism errors were of a minor significance (or even almost insignificant). This is why I personally call the iotacism phenomenon an „illusionary problem”, something that doesn’t really matter because diphthong ει and vowel ι were pronounced the same (who cares right?). However, there are exceptions of course. We are so lucky that in the case of χιρας from Isaiah 29:12 (according to Sinaiticus) the variant with diphthong ει or vowel ι alone would affect the meaning since – by strange coincidence? – it turns out that there is a Greek word taking almost identical graphic form, that is χειρ (cheir), which functions as a noun with a lexical meaning „hand”, and the form χειρας (cheiras) is its fourth declination (noun plural masculine accusative).

My question to brother Idjaz Ahmed: why the authors of the Septuagint, which is written in Koine Greek, chose to use the letter Χ (chi) in order to conform to Hebrew ח (ha) if both of these letters are not “semitically” related (according to your understanding)?


As a person who tends to be more critical and cautious than most of our Muslim apologists (fully accepting my mistakes), I’ll go further and I offer the following possible objections – likely to be posed by critics – against the argumentation about the name Hira in Isaiah 29:12


OBJECTION #1:
The critical apparatus in the official website of Sinaiticus indicates that sigma at the end of the word was original and not a later insertion made by Cb3. Thus, the previous form originally written by scribe B was χιρας (chiras) and it should be considered as a simple mistake for plural noun χειρας (cheiras) meaning “hands”.
OBJECTION #2:
Scribe B (who is responsible for Isaiah and other prophetic books) is generally viewed by Greek scholars as a poor speller, imperfectly acquainted with Greek, and thus he has made many orthographic errors connected with the iotacism that were later corrected by Cb3.
OBJECTION #3:
The syntactic construction of the verse (Isaiah 29:12) is generally problematic for the argument under question and should be disregarded on the following grammatical bases:

a) The preposition εἰς does not have the semantical value of „in” but rather „into” (indicating a direction of motion) and this would consequently make the literal rendition to be "into [the] Hira of a man…" which is implausible, unnatural and/or without sense.
b) The term Ἀνθρώπου is in the genitive, and the preposition εἰς always requires an accusative, otherwise, the grammatic rules of Greek would be violated in this case.
c) Proper names, especially those of foreign origin, almost always take a definite article which in the case of χιρας from Isaiah 29:12 is absent.

The answer to all of these objections will be included in my revision of the article about Hira. Alhamdulillah!

No problem akhi. I have sent you my latest update to the section Evidence #1. This time I have added few articles and books written by scholars that confirms the spelling of Hira in its Greek transliterated form Χιρά. A very important info!

Did you actually opened the last file with my updates to Evidence #1 ?

As-Salam aleikum wa rahmatullah dear brothers and sister,

I just wanted to say I am sorry for delaying my subsequent parts of my research on Hira in Isaiah 29:12. I was occupied with many other things (especially that it was a period of Ramadan, etc.). Anyway, I can give you a glimpse of what to expect in my upcoming research (the material excerpted from my future book):

In the Greek text of Isaiah 29:12, the illiterate who was given the Book in the place called Hira (as I proved in Evidence #1) is enigmatically addressed as "anthropos" (Gk. ανθρωπου) which means the "man" (some particular person). This Anthropos is mentioned in Balaam’s third and fourth oracle (Numbers 24:7, 17) and the term has a messianic overtones within its context as scholars noted. In the prophecies of Isaiah, this mysterious Anthropos is called otherwise "Glorious", and he is apparently a salvific figure who will come to Zion (Isaiah 35) which is in the "desert" or "wilderness" (used Hebrew 'arabah = Arabia). After exploring extensively Zion’s description, one can conclude without a shadow of doubt that it is a reference to Mecca. Now, in one of the Dead Sea Scrolls documents called 1QM (The War Scroll), a certain passage talks about a warrior who is called "Glorious" and who is a leader of the "army of light" (either angels or believers/saints):

English translation by Geza Vermes

[Rise up, O Hero!
Lead off Thy captives, O Glorious One!
Gather up] Thy spoils, O Author of mighty deeds!
Lay Thy hand on the neck of Thine enemies
and Thy feet [on the pile of the slain!
Smite the nations, Thine adversaries],
and devour flesh with Thy sword!
Fill Thy land with glory
and Thine inheritance with blessing!

That warrior is undoubtedly the same figure described in Isaiah 42:13ff (also Isa 49:1ff), Psalm 45:3-5 and Revelation 19:11-16 (compare these verses and you will notice striking similarities of some details).
Now, the remark about the illiterate being called "Anthropos" and then consequently "Glorious", is extremely important since it is quite consistent with what reported early Muslim exegetes like Ali ibn Rabban (8th century), an ex-Christian scholar influent in Syriac and Hebrew, who was able to identify the name Ahmad in Isaiah 35 (i.e. exactly where Anthropos/Glorious comes to Zion according to the Septuagint). Moreover, al-Tha'labi's Qisas al-Anbiya' (Stories of Prophets), narrates on the authority of Wahb ibn Munabbih, a Jewish scholar, that Isaiah recalled to the Israelites a prophecy about the illiterate prophet Ahmad which in Arabic precisely means "most Glorious", i.e. the one who glorify God in the highest degree (not 'Praised' or 'Praiseworthy' as many Muslims erroneously thinks), whose characteristic is in accordance with the servant of God from Isaiah 42, the very passage where Ka’b cited - according to the report of Ibn Asakir – the words "My servant Ahmad, the Chosen one" !

Now, Philo of Alexandria, in his "De Praemiis et Poenis", quotes the text of Numbers 24:7 (where Anthropos is mentioned), and he says of him the following:

"Some will even flee when no one pursues at all except fear, turning their backs towards the enemy, so as to afford a full mark of shooting, so that it will be very easy for the whole army to fall, being slain to a man; for a man (anthropos) will come forth [Numbers 24:7 LXX], says the word of God, leading a host and warring furiously, who will subdue great and populous nations, God sending that assistance which is suitable for pious men…” (See The works of Philo Judaeus, vol. 3, trans. C. D. Yonge (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1855), pp. 477-478. Here: https://archive.org/details/worksofphilojuda03phil/page/476)

By saying "leading a host and warring furiously [i.e. over his enemies]", Philo is indirectly making a reference to Isaiah 42:13 (he will stir up like a man of war, etc.). Notice that the beginning of the text "Some will even flee when no one pursues at all except fear, turning their backs towards the enemy, so as to afford a full mark of shooting, so that it will be very easy for the whole army to fall..." is a curious allusion to the first Muslims (who fought against Quraysh) who were defeated by being attacked from behind (this was a bitter lesson for Muslims because they disobeyed Prophet who commanded them to stay in their position but they didn't listened and consequently lost the battle). However, I'm not sure whether it happened during the Battle of al-Uhud or Battle of al-Badr. Read the rest of the text of Philo in page 478 and you will notice some allusion to the incident of the Jews of Khaibar who refused to accept Mohammed, they betrayed him and tried to kill him, but they were defeated and enslaved which is a reference to Isaiah 42:22-25 and Hosea 9:6-9 where the text according to the Septuagint says that "Mamadius will bury them" making an obvious reference to the massacre of Bani Qurajza (who were capitulated and buried in holes) after God put a judgement upon them so that the death would be a deserved punishment for them.

Moreover, my later research shows that this mysterious "Anthropos" seems to be a reference to the Quranic "Taha", the title of Sura 20 where Allah addresses Prophet Mohammed (SAAW) by this mysterious expression which means "O man" (according to an authoritative Quranic dictionary, here): https://books.google.fr/books?id=mclrIKdye5QC&pg=PA573&dq=Quran+20+Taha+means+O+man&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIlILh9tDiAhUSmRQKHdx4AtMQ6AEIMTAB#v=onepage&q=Quran%2020%20Taha%20means%20O%20man&f=false

See also this video below where it is explained that even in Hebrew and Syriac language, the term taha means "O man"(fragment of the video 7:43-8:42 min.):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_HtiVOJlow&t=8s

Now, the Samaritan tradition call the "prophet like Moses" from Deuteronomy 18:18 by the name "Tahab" making it strikingly similar to the Quranic "Taha". Coincidence? Read also the next verses that comes immediately after the word Taha (O Man): "We have not sent down to you the Qur'an that you be distressed" https://quran.com/20. This makes a parallel allusion to the Book given to the illiterate in Isaiah 29:12 who according to LXX is called the "man" (Anthropos). What is surprising also is the thematical agreement of later verses in Surat Taha. For example, it recalls the case of Moses (AS) and how he was sent to Pharaoh in Egypt. If you read Isaiah 30, you will notice the reference to Pharaoh and Egypt, magicians, etc. Again, is it a coincidence ?

Can you handle all of these crazy connections ? Actually, there are more details… there are TOO MUCH exciting details that must be investigated.

Alhamdulillah for all!

As-salam aleikum wa rahmatullah everyone,

brother shaad, what did you meant by using the abbreviation DTT? Is it a name for some Islamic institution ?
Yeah, as to the delay in responding to email messages, it is really irritating and I would say even disrespectful. But, Allah knows best!
In his last response to me, however, he proposed to me to join some WhatsApp group whose membership is specializing in the field of biblical prophecies about Prophet Mohammed (SAAW). I asked him, did they published any research so I can rate it and gives my feedback.

As to Isaiah 42, this is the main core of my research. When you go deep on this subject, by analyzing carefully Isaiah's passages, you will suddenly realize that e.g. the child from Isaiah 9:6 is related to the Servant of God from Isaiah 42. On the other hand, the child from Isaiah 9:6 is connected with Immanuel from Isaiah 7:14, etc. If you are creative in your ideas, well acquainted with Prophet Mohammed's (SAAW) biography and Islamic history, you will be able to notice on the surface of these texts many curious similarities. Since the texts were moved from their original places, the context is often illusionary and represents no longer the original contextual framework in relation to the previous narrative setting.