50,000 errors in Bible

[TrueReligion]

The Jehovah's Witnesses in their "AWAKE!" Magazine dated 8 September, 1957, carried this startling headline " "50000 ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?" (See below for the reproduction).

http://www.jamaat.net/bible/AwakeArticle(1957).html

What the christians have to say in this, is still remaining or they are removed? if removed? how many remaining now?

Then how come it becomes word of God?

[TrueReligion]

Like I said, translator and copying error can be noticed, but errors runing since 2000 yrs? and those errors were found in hebrew, greek, samaritan version as well. it means all are wrong rite?

You will have to be more specific since the bible has not existed for 2000 years. So in your eyes if a human makes an error when setting up the presses even a tiny one that particular error would make the actual work being printed wrong? Would you care to identify the "official" bible you are using to make the designation that one is wrong.

Wyvern, we all know that there is no official bible since the history of christianity,and all sects have their own, but even if we assume that Hebrew is the 1, this HEBREW is also contradicting with GreEK, and samaritan.
1 example
The period from Adam to the flood of Noah, as described by the Hebrew version, is
one thousand six hundred and fifty-six years, while according to the Greek version, it is two 153 thousand three hundred and sixty-two years47 and the Samaritan version gives it as one thousand three hundred and seven years. A table is given in the commentary of Henry and Scott where the age of every descendant has been given at the time when he gave birth to his son except Noah, whose age is given as at the time of the flood.

[Wyvern]

Wyvern, we all know that there is no official bible since the history of christianity,and all sects have their own, but even if we assume that Hebrew is the 1, this HEBREW is also contradicting with GreEK, and samaritan.
1 example
The period from Adam to the flood of Noah, as described by the Hebrew version, is
one thousand six hundred and fifty-six years, while according to the Greek version, it is two 153 thousand three hundred and sixty-two years47 and the Samaritan version gives it as one thousand three hundred and seven years. A table is given in the commentary of Henry and Scott where the age of every descendant has been given at the time when he gave birth to his son except Noah, whose age is given as at the time of the flood.

That's exactly the problem without a standard to measure them all by then you have no way to decide whether any are in error at all. See even with you making a single statement you obviously made an error in stating the greek years, because you made an error does that mean that the actual time stated in the book is wrong? Seems like you are trying to blame the failures of humans on god. And please don't go down the route of if it was written by god god would not have allowed such an error to happen. God won't even stop disasters or disease so why would it care about a book.

[TrueReligion]

Wyvern, we all know that there is no official bible since the history of christianity,and all sects have their own, but even if we assume that Hebrew is the 1, this HEBREW is also contradicting with GreEK, and samaritan.
1 example
The period from Adam to the flood of Noah, as described by the Hebrew version, is
one thousand six hundred and fifty-six years, while according to the Greek version, it is two 153 thousand three hundred and sixty-two years47 and the Samaritan version gives it as one thousand three hundred and seven years. A table is given in the commentary of Henry and Scott where the age of every descendant has been given at the time when he gave birth to his son except Noah, whose age is given as at the time of the flood.

That's exactly the problem without a standard to measure them all by then you have no way to decide whether any are in error at all. See even with you making a single statement you obviously made an error in stating the greek years, because you made an error does that mean that the actual time stated in the book is wrong? Seems like you are trying to blame the failures of humans on god. And please don't go down the route of if it was written by god god would not have allowed such an error to happen. God won't even stop disasters or disease so why would it care about a book.

Thats right , if its truly word of God, there wont be any error, whatver language u translate it. meaning should be same, but here many things are changed, and removed and added.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Historical Errors Of The Qur'an: Pharaoh & Haman

M S M Saifullah, Elias Karim, Abdullah David & Qasim Iqbal

Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.

First Composed: 20th November 2000

Last Updated: 4th June 2006

Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
1. Introduction

"Controversy has prevailed since the late 17th century CE about the historicity of a certain Haman, who according to the Qur'an, was associated with the court of Pharaoh to whom Moses was sent as a Prophet by Almighty God (Allah):

Pharaoh said: "O Haman! Build me a lofty palace, that I may attain the ways and means- The ways and means of (reaching) the heavens, and that I may mount up to the god of Moses: But as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!" [Qur'an 40:36-37]

Haman is mentioned six times in the Qur'an and is referred to as an intimate person belonging to the close circle of Pharaoh.

Many western scholars have concluded that Haman is unknown to Egyptian history. The name Haman is first mentioned in the Biblical book of Esther, some 1,100 years after Pharaoh. The name is said to be Babylonian, not Egyptian. According to the book of Esther, Haman was a counsellor of Ahasuerus (the Biblical name of Xerxes) who was an enemy of the Jews. It has been suggested that Prophet Muhammad mixed Biblical stories, namely the Jewish myths of the Tower of Babel and the story of Esther and Moses into a single confused account when composing the Qur'an.

We propose to examine the various aspects of the controversy in light of recent historical and archaeological discoveries.
2. Criticisms By Western Scholars

Prominent Orientalists have not been able to correctly identify the Haman of the Qur'an, and have thus questioned his historicity. They have suggested that the appearance of Haman in the Qur'anic story of Moses and Pharaoh has resulted from a misreading of the Bible, leading the author of the Qur'an to move Haman from the Persian court of King Ahasuerus to the Egyptian court of the Pharaoh.

The first writer to enter the list of critics was Ludovico Marraccio, confessor to Pope Innocent XI. Published in 1698 CE, the English rendering of critical Note 1 on page 526 of Marraccio's Latin translation of the Qur'an read:

Mahumet has mixed up sacred stories. He took Haman as the adviser of Pharaoh whereas in reality he was an adviser of Ahaseures, King of Persia. He also thought that the Pharaoh ordered construction for him of a lofty tower from the story of the Tower of Babel. It is certain that in the Sacred Scriptures there is no such story of the Pharaoh. Be that as it may, he [Mahumet] has related a most incredible story.[1]

George Sale in his translation of the Qur'an said:

This name is given to Pharaoh's Chief Minister, from which it is generally inferred that Muhammad has here made Haman, the favourite of Ahasueres, King of Persia, and who indisputably lived many ages after Moses, to be that Prophet's contemporary. But how-probable-so-ever this mistake may seem to us, it will be hard, if not impossible to convince a Muhammadan of it.[2]

In what has been hailed as a "classic" article by Theodor Nldeke that was published in Encyclopdia Britannica in 1891 CE and reprinted several times since, the author says:

The most ignorant Jew could never have mistaken Haman (the minister of Ahasuerus) for the minister of the Pharaoh...[3]

While dealing with the "wonderful anachronisms about the old Israelite history" in the Qur'an, Mingana says:

Who then will not be astonished to learn that in the Koran... Haman is given as a minister of Pharaoh, instead of Ahaseurus?[4]

On the mention of Haman in the Qur'an, Henri Lammens states that it is:

"the most glaring anachronism" and is the result of "the confusion between... Haman, minister of King Ahasuerus and the minister of Moses' Pharaoh."[5]

Similar views were also echoed by Josef Horovitz.[6] Charles Torrey believed that Muhammad drew upon the rabbinic legends of the Biblical book of Esther and even adapted the story of the Tower of Babel.[7] After talking about the apparent 'confusion' generated by this cobbling together of multiple sources, Arthur Jeffery says about the origin of the word 'Haman':

The probabilities are that the word came to the Arabs from Jewish sources.[8]

The Encyclopaedia Of Islam, which claims to have been prepared by a number of leading Orientalists, under "Haman" says:

Haman, name of the person whom the Kur'an associates with Pharaoh, because of a still unexplained confusion with the minister of Ahasuerus in the Biblical book of Esther.[9]

This claim has been repeated again by the Encyclopaedia Of Islam under "Firawn". It says:

As Pharaoh's counsellor there appears a certain Haman who is responsible in particular for building a tower which will enable Pharaoh to reach the God of Moses... the narrative in Exodus is thus modified in two respects, by misplaced recollection of both the book of Esther and the story of the tower of Babel (Genesis, xi) to which no other reference occurs in the Kur'an.[10]

Although the Encyclopaedia Of The Qur'an uses a mellowed down language when discussing Haman, it instead describes various possible views of who Haman was, it says:

There are conflicting views as to Haman's identity and the meaning of his name. Among them is that he is the minister of King Ahasuerus who has been shifted, anachronistically, from the Persian empire to the palace of Pharaoh... Other suggestion is that Haman is an Arabized echo of the Egyptian Ha-Amen, the title of a high priest second only in rank to Pharaoh.[11]

Consequently, it is not surprising to find Christian missionaries[12] and atheists like Ibn Warraq[13] exploiting these comments in order to "prove" that the Qur'an contains serious contradictions. Yet all of the above statements are based on the misrepresentation of the historical value of the Biblical book of Esther, a misunderstanding of the Qur'anic narrative in general and the unproven assumption that Muhammad copied and in some cases altered the Biblical material while he was allegedly composing the Qur'an. It can be said with certainty that this is the most "celebrated" contradiction in the Qur'an among the Christian missionaries on the internet.

Let us first examine the authenticity and reliability of the Biblical book of Esther from which Muhammad supposedly appropriated the character Haman.

3. A Critical Examination Of The Biblical Evidence Used Against The Qur'an

The criticisms of the non-Muslim scholars and Christian missionaries are based solely on the assumptions that:

1. Because the Bible has been in existence longer than the Qur'an, the Biblical account is the correct one, as opposed to the Qur'anic account, which is necessarily inaccurate and false.
2. The Bible is in conformity with firmly established secular knowledge, whereas the Qur'an contains certain incompatibilities.
3. Muhammad copied and in some cases altered the Biblical material when composing the Qur'an.

The whole basis for the Haman controversy is the appearance of a Haman in the Qur'an in a historical period different from that of the Bible. The claim that the Qur'anic account of Haman reflects confused knowledge of the Biblical story of Esther implies that any reference to a Haman must have come from the Bible. Furthermore, this assumption itself implies that either Haman is an unhistorical figure that never existed outside the Bible, or that if he was historical, then he would have to be the prime minister of the Persian King Ahasuerus, as depicted in Esther. Unsurprisingly, their assumptions obviously preclude the possibility that the Bible has its information wrong concerning Haman. Thus, only if the Book of Esther can be shown to be both historically reliable and accurate, are the non-Muslims justified in making the claim the Qur'an contradicts the earlier, more "reliable" historic Biblical account.
THE HISTORICITY OF THE BOOK OF ESTHER AND ITS CHARACTERS

One of the most important questions that come to mind is whether the book of Esther and the characters present in it have any historicity. This is not an issue which has been tackled by those claimants of a historical "error" in the Qur'an, even though this position leads to a circular argument. Let us now discuss the views of the Judaeo-Christian scholars concerning the historicity of the book of Esther and its characters.

That the Jewish and Christian scholars have denied the historicity of the book of Esther is something of an understatement. The people who subscribe to the historicity of the book of Esther are those whose dogmatic approach to historical and theological exegesis precludes the possibility of any historical problems arising from the Biblical narrative; included in this group are the Christian missionaries and apologists as well as other evangelical fundamentalist type Christians. While discussing the historical problems of the book of Esther, Professor Jon Levinson, Albert A. List Professor of Jewish Studies at Harvard Divinity School, says:

Even if we make this questionable adjustment, the historical problems with Esther are so massive as to persuade anyone who is not already obligated by religious dogma to believe in the historicity of the biblical narrative to doubt the veracity of the narrative.[14]

Naturally this statement does not sit comfortably with those evangelical fundamentalist type Christians for whom each and every book contained in the Bible is the infallible, inerrant, eternal "word" of God; even more so with those who have used the book of Esther to substantiate the historical "contradiction" in the Qur'anic account of Haman. The problems with the historicity of the book of Esther have been dealt with by Michael Fox, professor of Hebrew at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who also specializes in Egyptian literature and its relationship with the Biblical literature. He has detailed the arguments for and against the book's historicity.[15] Fox also mentions numerous inaccuracies, implausibilities and outright impossibilities in this Biblical book. After considering the arguments in detail, it is not surprising to see Fox conclude with the following negative assessment:

Various legendary qualities as well as several inaccuracies and implausibilities immediately throw doubt on the book's historicity and give the impression of a writer recalling vaguely remembered past.[16]

Similar assessments were made by Lewis Paton[17] and Carey Moore[18] and they both arrived at the conclusion that the story in the book of Esther is not historical.

The problems with the book of Esther would be evident as we discuss the information in various encyclopedias and commentaries. The Universal Jewish Encyclopaedia, under "Esther", says:

The majority of scholars, however, regard the book as a romance reflecting the customs of later times and given an ancient settings to avoid giving offence. They point out that the 127 provinces mentioned are in strange contrast to the historical twenty Persian Satrapies; that it is astonishing that while Mordecai is known to be a Jew, his ward and cousin, Esther, can conceal the fact that she is a Jewess - that the known queen of Xerxes, Amestris, can be identified with neither Vashti nor Esther; that it would have been impossible for a non-Persian person to be appointed prime minister or for a queen to be selected except from the seven highest noble families; that Mordecai's ready access to the palaces is not in consonance with the strictness with which the Persian harems were guarded; that the laws of Medes and Persians were never irrevocable; and that the state of affairs in the book, amounting practically in civil war, could not have passed unnoticed by historians if this had actually occurred. The very tone of the book itself, its literary craftsmanship and the aptness of its situations, point rather to a romantic story than a historical chronicle.

Some scholars even trace it to a non-Jewish origin entirely; it is, in their opinion, either a reworking of a triumph of the Babylonian gods Marduk (Mordecai) and Ishtar (Esther) over the Elamite gods Humman (Haman) and Mashti (Vashti), or of the suppression of the Magians by Darius I, or even the resistance of the Babylonians to the decree of Artaxerxes II. According to this view, Purim is a Babylonian feast which was taken over by the Jews, and the story of which was given a Jewish colouring.[19]

Published about one hundred years ago, The Jewish Encyclopaedia already asserted that:

Comparatively few modern scholars of note consider the narrative of Esther to rest on a historical foundation..... The vast majority of modern expositors have reached the conclusion that the book is a piece of pure fiction, although some writers qualify their criticism by an attempt to treat it as a historical romance.[20]

The more recent JPS Bible Commentary is quite frank about the exaggeration and the lack of historicity of the story in the biblical book of Esther. It labels the story in the book of Esther as a "farce":

The language, like the story, is full of exaggeration and contributes to the sense of excess. There are exaggerated numbers (127 provinces, a 180-day party, a 12-month beauty preparation, Haman's offer of 10,000 talents of silver, a stake 50 cubits high, 75,000 enemy dead)... Esther's attempt to sound like a historical work is tongue in cheek and not to be taken at face value. The author was not trying to write history, or to convince his audience of the historicity of his story (although later readers certainly took it this way). He is, rather, offering a burlesque of historiography... The archival style, like the verbal style, make the story sound big and fancy, official and impertinent at the same time - and this is exactly the effect that is required for such a book. All these stylistic features reinforce the sense that the story is a farce.[21]

The Peake's Commentary On The Bible discusses the historicity of the characters and events mentioned in the book of Esther. It aptly describes the book as a novel with no historical basis. Furthermore, it deals with possible identification of Esther, Haman, Vashti and Mordecai with the Babylonian and Elamite gods and goddess.

The story is set in the city of Susa in the reign of Akhashwerosh, king of Persia and Media. This name is now prove to refer to Xerxes, who reigned over Media as well as Persia. The book correctly states that his empire extended from India to Ethiopia, a fact which may well have been remembered long afterwards, especially by someone living in the East, but in other matters the author is inaccurate, for instance in regard to the number of provinces. Xerxes' wife was named Amestris, and not either Vashti or Esther. The statement in Est. 1:19 and 8:5 that the laws of Persia were unalterable is also found in Dan. 6:9, 13. It is not attested by any other early evidence, and seems most unlikely. The most probable suggestion is that it was invented by the author of Daniel to form an essential part of his dramatic story, and afterwards copied by the author of Esther.

It is therefore agreed by all modern scholars that Esther was written long after the time of Xerxes as a novel, with no historical basis, but set for the author's purposes in a time long past. It is pretty clear that the author's purpose was to provide an historical origin for the feast of Purim, which the Jews living somewhere in the East had adopted as a secular carnival. This feast and its mythology are now recognised as being of Babylonian origin. Mordecai represents Marduk, the chief Babylonian God. His cousin Esther represents Ishtar, the chief Babylonian Goddess, who was the cousin of Marduk. Other names are not so obvious, but there was an Elamite God Humman or Humban, and Elamite Goddess Mashti. These names may lie behind Haman and Vashti. One may well imagine that the Babylonian festival enacted a struggle between the Babylonian gods on the one hand and the Elamite gods on the other.[22]

The authors of The New Interpreter's Bible, like the other writers that we have mentioned earlier, state that the biblical book of Esther is work of fiction that happens to contain some historical elements. It then lists the factual errors in this book only to conclude that the book of Esther is not a historical record.

Although much ink has been spilled in attempting to show that Esther, or some parts of it is historical, it is clear that the book is a work of fiction that happens to contain some historical elements. The historical elements may be summarized as follows: Xerxes, identified as Ahaseurus, was a "great king" whose empire extended from the borders of India to the borders of Ethiopia. One of the four Persians capitals was located as Susa (the other three being Babylon, Ecbatana, and Persepolis). Non-Persians could attain to high office in the Persian court (witness Nehemiah), and the Persian empire consisted of a wide variety of peoples and ethnic groups. The author also displays a vague familiarity with the geography of Susa, knowing, for example, that the court was separate from the city itself. Here, however, the author's historical veracity ends. Among the factual errors found in the book we may list these: Xerxes' queen was Amestris, to whom he was married throughout his reign; there is no record of a Haman or a Mordecai (or, indeed, of any non-Persian) as second to Xerxes at any time; there is no record of a great massacre in which thousands of the people were killed at any point in Xerxes' reign. The book of Esther is not a historical record, even though its author may have wished to present it as history...[23]

Even the Roman Catholic scholars have not spared criticism of the book of Esther. The Jerome Biblical Commentary brands the book of Esther as a "fictitious story" and a book that was freely embellished and modified in the course of its transmissional history.

Literary Form. On this point, scholarly opinion ranges from pure myth to strict history. Most critics, however, favor a middle course of historical elements with more or less generous historical embellishments... The Greek additions in particular appear to be essentially literary creations. That neither author intended to write strict history seems obvious from the historical inaccuracies, unusual coincidences, and other traits characteristic of folklore... On the other hand, there is no compelling reason for denying the possibility of an undetermined historical nucleus, and the author's generally accurate picture of Persian life tends to support this possibility. Several details of Est [i.e., Esther] suggest a fictitious story. The very fact of variations between the Hebrew and the deuterocanonical additions show that the book was freely embellished in the course of its history. Then there are many difficulties concerning Mordecai's age, and the wife of Xerxes (Amestris). Moreover, the artificial symmetry suggests fiction: Gentile against Jews; Vashti as opposed to Esther; the hanging of Haman and the appointment of Mordecai as the vizier; the anti-Semitic pogrom and the slaying of the gentiles. A law of contrasts is obviously at work... As is stands, it has been developed very freely as the "festal legend" of a Feast of Purim, which is itself otherwise unknown to us.[24]

Interestingly enough, A New Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture correctly points out that the book is given credence only by those who believe that since the book of Esther is a biblical book, it must be true. It then goes on to wonder if there is a significance in the similarity between the names mentioned in the book of Esther and the Babylonian and Elamite gods and goddess.

To what extent the story of Esther is factual is debated. On the face of it, not many people would give much credence to Est [i.e., Esther] as history but for the fact that it is a biblical book and 'the Bible is true'. The evidence we have suggests that we have a tale set against an historical background, embodying at least one historical character (Xerxes) and some accurate references to actual usages of Persia, but a tale making no serious attempt to chronicle facts, aiming rather at producing certain moral attitude in the reader... Yet it appears that Xerxes' queen was neither Vashti nor Esther but Amestris; we have no further information inside or outside the Bible (e.g. Sir 44ff) of a Jewish queen who saved her people or of a pious Mordecai who rose to such heights in the Persian court... One may wonder whether there is a significance in the similarity between the name Esther and the name of the Babylonian goddess Ishtar, between the name Mordecai and the name of the god Marduk, so that one would have to look for the source of the tale among the myths of Elamite gods. But one can only wonder.[25]"


http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/ ... haman.html


Errors are the domain of humans, NOT infallible Dieties.

[Wyvern]

Wyvern, we all know that there is no official bible since the history of christianity,and all sects have their own, but even if we assume that Hebrew is the 1, this HEBREW is also contradicting with GreEK, and samaritan.
1 example
The period from Adam to the flood of Noah, as described by the Hebrew version, is
one thousand six hundred and fifty-six years, while according to the Greek version, it is two 153 thousand three hundred and sixty-two years47 and the Samaritan version gives it as one thousand three hundred and seven years. A table is given in the commentary of Henry and Scott where the age of every descendant has been given at the time when he gave birth to his son except Noah, whose age is given as at the time of the flood.

That's exactly the problem without a standard to measure them all by then you have no way to decide whether any are in error at all. See even with you making a single statement you obviously made an error in stating the greek years, because you made an error does that mean that the actual time stated in the book is wrong? Seems like you are trying to blame the failures of humans on god. And please don't go down the route of if it was written by god god would not have allowed such an error to happen. God won't even stop disasters or disease so why would it care about a book.

Thats right , if its truly word of God, there wont be any error, whatver language u translate it. meaning should be same, but here many things are changed, and removed and added.

How do you figure that? nearly all of the errors are from human errors during printing. As for different meaning that comes from the interpretation of the individual again how does that involve god?

Wow I tell you not to bother using the tired argument that if it is truly from god there would not be any error and that is exactly the argument you decide to use. You had best be careful claiming only an error free holy book proves your god is the real one even though you have said in other threads that the god of the three abrahamic religions is the same. So since you have said such a thing if you prove the bible is in error then you prove allah can not exist.

[Guest]

The Jehovah's Witnesses in their "AWAKE!" Magazine dated 8 September, 1957, carried this startling headline " "50000 ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?" (See below for the reproduction).

http://www.jamaat.net/bible/AwakeArticle(1957).html

What the christians have to say in this, is still remaining or they are removed? if removed? how many remaining now?

Then how come it becomes word of God?

Your link goes nowhere.

[TrueReligion]

Historical Errors Of The Qur'an: Pharaoh & Haman

M S M Saifullah, Elias Karim, Abdullah David & Qasim Iqbal

Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.

First Composed: 20th November 2000

Last Updated: 4th June 2006

Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
1. Introduction

"Controversy has prevailed since the late 17th century CE about the historicity of a certain Haman, who according to the Qur'an, was associated with the court of Pharaoh to whom Moses was sent as a Prophet by Almighty God (Allah):

Pharaoh said: "O Haman! Build me a lofty palace, that I may attain the ways and means- The ways and means of (reaching) the heavens, and that I may mount up to the god of Moses: But as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!" [Qur'an 40:36-37]

Haman is mentioned six times in the Qur'an and is referred to as an intimate person belonging to the close circle of Pharaoh.

Many western scholars have concluded that Haman is unknown to Egyptian history. The name Haman is first mentioned in the Biblical book of Esther, some 1,100 years after Pharaoh. The name is said to be Babylonian, not Egyptian. According to the book of Esther, Haman was a counsellor of Ahasuerus (the Biblical name of Xerxes) who was an enemy of the Jews. It has been suggested that Prophet Muhammad mixed Biblical stories, namely the Jewish myths of the Tower of Babel and the story of Esther and Moses into a single confused account when composing the Qur'an.

We propose to examine the various aspects of the controversy in light of recent historical and archaeological discoveries.
2. Criticisms By Western Scholars

Prominent Orientalists have not been able to correctly identify the Haman of the Qur'an, and have thus questioned his historicity. They have suggested that the appearance of Haman in the Qur'anic story of Moses and Pharaoh has resulted from a misreading of the Bible, leading the author of the Qur'an to move Haman from the Persian court of King Ahasuerus to the Egyptian court of the Pharaoh.

The first writer to enter the list of critics was Ludovico Marraccio, confessor to Pope Innocent XI. Published in 1698 CE, the English rendering of critical Note 1 on page 526 of Marraccio's Latin translation of the Qur'an read:

Mahumet has mixed up sacred stories. He took Haman as the adviser of Pharaoh whereas in reality he was an adviser of Ahaseures, King of Persia. He also thought that the Pharaoh ordered construction for him of a lofty tower from the story of the Tower of Babel. It is certain that in the Sacred Scriptures there is no such story of the Pharaoh. Be that as it may, he [Mahumet] has related a most incredible story.[1]

George Sale in his translation of the Qur'an said:

This name is given to Pharaoh's Chief Minister, from which it is generally inferred that Muhammad has here made Haman, the favourite of Ahasueres, King of Persia, and who indisputably lived many ages after Moses, to be that Prophet's contemporary. But how-probable-so-ever this mistake may seem to us, it will be hard, if not impossible to convince a Muhammadan of it.[2]

In what has been hailed as a "classic" article by Theodor Nldeke that was published in Encyclopdia Britannica in 1891 CE and reprinted several times since, the author says:

The most ignorant Jew could never have mistaken Haman (the minister of Ahasuerus) for the minister of the Pharaoh...[3]

While dealing with the "wonderful anachronisms about the old Israelite history" in the Qur'an, Mingana says:

Who then will not be astonished to learn that in the Koran... Haman is given as a minister of Pharaoh, instead of Ahaseurus?[4]

On the mention of Haman in the Qur'an, Henri Lammens states that it is:

"the most glaring anachronism" and is the result of "the confusion between... Haman, minister of King Ahasuerus and the minister of Moses' Pharaoh."[5]

Similar views were also echoed by Josef Horovitz.[6] Charles Torrey believed that Muhammad drew upon the rabbinic legends of the Biblical book of Esther and even adapted the story of the Tower of Babel.[7] After talking about the apparent 'confusion' generated by this cobbling together of multiple sources, Arthur Jeffery says about the origin of the word 'Haman':

The probabilities are that the word came to the Arabs from Jewish sources.[8]

The Encyclopaedia Of Islam, which claims to have been prepared by a number of leading Orientalists, under "Haman" says:

Haman, name of the person whom the Kur'an associates with Pharaoh, because of a still unexplained confusion with the minister of Ahasuerus in the Biblical book of Esther.[9]

This claim has been repeated again by the Encyclopaedia Of Islam under "Firawn". It says:

As Pharaoh's counsellor there appears a certain Haman who is responsible in particular for building a tower which will enable Pharaoh to reach the God of Moses... the narrative in Exodus is thus modified in two respects, by misplaced recollection of both the book of Esther and the story of the tower of Babel (Genesis, xi) to which no other reference occurs in the Kur'an.[10]

Although the Encyclopaedia Of The Qur'an uses a mellowed down language when discussing Haman, it instead describes various possible views of who Haman was, it says:

There are conflicting views as to Haman's identity and the meaning of his name. Among them is that he is the minister of King Ahasuerus who has been shifted, anachronistically, from the Persian empire to the palace of Pharaoh... Other suggestion is that Haman is an Arabized echo of the Egyptian Ha-Amen, the title of a high priest second only in rank to Pharaoh.[11]

Consequently, it is not surprising to find Christian missionaries[12] and atheists like Ibn Warraq[13] exploiting these comments in order to "prove" that the Qur'an contains serious contradictions. Yet all of the above statements are based on the misrepresentation of the historical value of the Biblical book of Esther, a misunderstanding of the Qur'anic narrative in general and the unproven assumption that Muhammad copied and in some cases altered the Biblical material while he was allegedly composing the Qur'an. It can be said with certainty that this is the most "celebrated" contradiction in the Qur'an among the Christian missionaries on the internet.

Let us first examine the authenticity and reliability of the Biblical book of Esther from which Muhammad supposedly appropriated the character Haman.

3. A Critical Examination Of The Biblical Evidence Used Against The Qur'an

The criticisms of the non-Muslim scholars and Christian missionaries are based solely on the assumptions that:

1. Because the Bible has been in existence longer than the Qur'an, the Biblical account is the correct one, as opposed to the Qur'anic account, which is necessarily inaccurate and false.
2. The Bible is in conformity with firmly established secular knowledge, whereas the Qur'an contains certain incompatibilities.
3. Muhammad copied and in some cases altered the Biblical material when composing the Qur'an.

The whole basis for the Haman controversy is the appearance of a Haman in the Qur'an in a historical period different from that of the Bible. The claim that the Qur'anic account of Haman reflects confused knowledge of the Biblical story of Esther implies that any reference to a Haman must have come from the Bible. Furthermore, this assumption itself implies that either Haman is an unhistorical figure that never existed outside the Bible, or that if he was historical, then he would have to be the prime minister of the Persian King Ahasuerus, as depicted in Esther. Unsurprisingly, their assumptions obviously preclude the possibility that the Bible has its information wrong concerning Haman. Thus, only if the Book of Esther can be shown to be both historically reliable and accurate, are the non-Muslims justified in making the claim the Qur'an contradicts the earlier, more "reliable" historic Biblical account.
THE HISTORICITY OF THE BOOK OF ESTHER AND ITS CHARACTERS

One of the most important questions that come to mind is whether the book of Esther and the characters present in it have any historicity. This is not an issue which has been tackled by those claimants of a historical "error" in the Qur'an, even though this position leads to a circular argument. Let us now discuss the views of the Judaeo-Christian scholars concerning the historicity of the book of Esther and its characters.

That the Jewish and Christian scholars have denied the historicity of the book of Esther is something of an understatement. The people who subscribe to the historicity of the book of Esther are those whose dogmatic approach to historical and theological exegesis precludes the possibility of any historical problems arising from the Biblical narrative; included in this group are the Christian missionaries and apologists as well as other evangelical fundamentalist type Christians. While discussing the historical problems of the book of Esther, Professor Jon Levinson, Albert A. List Professor of Jewish Studies at Harvard Divinity School, says:

Even if we make this questionable adjustment, the historical problems with Esther are so massive as to persuade anyone who is not already obligated by religious dogma to believe in the historicity of the biblical narrative to doubt the veracity of the narrative.[14]

Naturally this statement does not sit comfortably with those evangelical fundamentalist type Christians for whom each and every book contained in the Bible is the infallible, inerrant, eternal "word" of God; even more so with those who have used the book of Esther to substantiate the historical "contradiction" in the Qur'anic account of Haman. The problems with the historicity of the book of Esther have been dealt with by Michael Fox, professor of Hebrew at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who also specializes in Egyptian literature and its relationship with the Biblical literature. He has detailed the arguments for and against the book's historicity.[15] Fox also mentions numerous inaccuracies, implausibilities and outright impossibilities in this Biblical book. After considering the arguments in detail, it is not surprising to see Fox conclude with the following negative assessment:

Various legendary qualities as well as several inaccuracies and implausibilities immediately throw doubt on the book's historicity and give the impression of a writer recalling vaguely remembered past.[16]

Similar assessments were made by Lewis Paton[17] and Carey Moore[18] and they both arrived at the conclusion that the story in the book of Esther is not historical.

The problems with the book of Esther would be evident as we discuss the information in various encyclopedias and commentaries. The Universal Jewish Encyclopaedia, under "Esther", says:

The majority of scholars, however, regard the book as a romance reflecting the customs of later times and given an ancient settings to avoid giving offence. They point out that the 127 provinces mentioned are in strange contrast to the historical twenty Persian Satrapies; that it is astonishing that while Mordecai is known to be a Jew, his ward and cousin, Esther, can conceal the fact that she is a Jewess - that the known queen of Xerxes, Amestris, can be identified with neither Vashti nor Esther; that it would have been impossible for a non-Persian person to be appointed prime minister or for a queen to be selected except from the seven highest noble families; that Mordecai's ready access to the palaces is not in consonance with the strictness with which the Persian harems were guarded; that the laws of Medes and Persians were never irrevocable; and that the state of affairs in the book, amounting practically in civil war, could not have passed unnoticed by historians if this had actually occurred. The very tone of the book itself, its literary craftsmanship and the aptness of its situations, point rather to a romantic story than a historical chronicle.

Some scholars even trace it to a non-Jewish origin entirely; it is, in their opinion, either a reworking of a triumph of the Babylonian gods Marduk (Mordecai) and Ishtar (Esther) over the Elamite gods Humman (Haman) and Mashti (Vashti), or of the suppression of the Magians by Darius I, or even the resistance of the Babylonians to the decree of Artaxerxes II. According to this view, Purim is a Babylonian feast which was taken over by the Jews, and the story of which was given a Jewish colouring.[19]

Published about one hundred years ago, The Jewish Encyclopaedia already asserted that:

Comparatively few modern scholars of note consider the narrative of Esther to rest on a historical foundation..... The vast majority of modern expositors have reached the conclusion that the book is a piece of pure fiction, although some writers qualify their criticism by an attempt to treat it as a historical romance.[20]

The more recent JPS Bible Commentary is quite frank about the exaggeration and the lack of historicity of the story in the biblical book of Esther. It labels the story in the book of Esther as a "farce":

The language, like the story, is full of exaggeration and contributes to the sense of excess. There are exaggerated numbers (127 provinces, a 180-day party, a 12-month beauty preparation, Haman's offer of 10,000 talents of silver, a stake 50 cubits high, 75,000 enemy dead)... Esther's attempt to sound like a historical work is tongue in cheek and not to be taken at face value. The author was not trying to write history, or to convince his audience of the historicity of his story (although later readers certainly took it this way). He is, rather, offering a burlesque of historiography... The archival style, like the verbal style, make the story sound big and fancy, official and impertinent at the same time - and this is exactly the effect that is required for such a book. All these stylistic features reinforce the sense that the story is a farce.[21]

The Peake's Commentary On The Bible discusses the historicity of the characters and events mentioned in the book of Esther. It aptly describes the book as a novel with no historical basis. Furthermore, it deals with possible identification of Esther, Haman, Vashti and Mordecai with the Babylonian and Elamite gods and goddess.

The story is set in the city of Susa in the reign of Akhashwerosh, king of Persia and Media. This name is now prove to refer to Xerxes, who reigned over Media as well as Persia. The book correctly states that his empire extended from India to Ethiopia, a fact which may well have been remembered long afterwards, especially by someone living in the East, but in other matters the author is inaccurate, for instance in regard to the number of provinces. Xerxes' wife was named Amestris, and not either Vashti or Esther. The statement in Est. 1:19 and 8:5 that the laws of Persia were unalterable is also found in Dan. 6:9, 13. It is not attested by any other early evidence, and seems most unlikely. The most probable suggestion is that it was invented by the author of Daniel to form an essential part of his dramatic story, and afterwards copied by the author of Esther.

It is therefore agreed by all modern scholars that Esther was written long after the time of Xerxes as a novel, with no historical basis, but set for the author's purposes in a time long past. It is pretty clear that the author's purpose was to provide an historical origin for the feast of Purim, which the Jews living somewhere in the East had adopted as a secular carnival. This feast and its mythology are now recognised as being of Babylonian origin. Mordecai represents Marduk, the chief Babylonian God. His cousin Esther represents Ishtar, the chief Babylonian Goddess, who was the cousin of Marduk. Other names are not so obvious, but there was an Elamite God Humman or Humban, and Elamite Goddess Mashti. These names may lie behind Haman and Vashti. One may well imagine that the Babylonian festival enacted a struggle between the Babylonian gods on the one hand and the Elamite gods on the other.[22]

The authors of The New Interpreter's Bible, like the other writers that we have mentioned earlier, state that the biblical book of Esther is work of fiction that happens to contain some historical elements. It then lists the factual errors in this book only to conclude that the book of Esther is not a historical record.

Although much ink has been spilled in attempting to show that Esther, or some parts of it is historical, it is clear that the book is a work of fiction that happens to contain some historical elements. The historical elements may be summarized as follows: Xerxes, identified as Ahaseurus, was a "great king" whose empire extended from the borders of India to the borders of Ethiopia. One of the four Persians capitals was located as Susa (the other three being Babylon, Ecbatana, and Persepolis). Non-Persians could attain to high office in the Persian court (witness Nehemiah), and the Persian empire consisted of a wide variety of peoples and ethnic groups. The author also displays a vague familiarity with the geography of Susa, knowing, for example, that the court was separate from the city itself. Here, however, the author's historical veracity ends. Among the factual errors found in the book we may list these: Xerxes' queen was Amestris, to whom he was married throughout his reign; there is no record of a Haman or a Mordecai (or, indeed, of any non-Persian) as second to Xerxes at any time; there is no record of a great massacre in which thousands of the people were killed at any point in Xerxes' reign. The book of Esther is not a historical record, even though its author may have wished to present it as history...[23]

Even the Roman Catholic scholars have not spared criticism of the book of Esther. The Jerome Biblical Commentary brands the book of Esther as a "fictitious story" and a book that was freely embellished and modified in the course of its transmissional history.

Literary Form. On this point, scholarly opinion ranges from pure myth to strict history. Most critics, however, favor a middle course of historical elements with more or less generous historical embellishments... The Greek additions in particular appear to be essentially literary creations. That neither author intended to write strict history seems obvious from the historical inaccuracies, unusual coincidences, and other traits characteristic of folklore... On the other hand, there is no compelling reason for denying the possibility of an undetermined historical nucleus, and the author's generally accurate picture of Persian life tends to support this possibility. Several details of Est [i.e., Esther] suggest a fictitious story. The very fact of variations between the Hebrew and the deuterocanonical additions show that the book was freely embellished in the course of its history. Then there are many difficulties concerning Mordecai's age, and the wife of Xerxes (Amestris). Moreover, the artificial symmetry suggests fiction: Gentile against Jews; Vashti as opposed to Esther; the hanging of Haman and the appointment of Mordecai as the vizier; the anti-Semitic pogrom and the slaying of the gentiles. A law of contrasts is obviously at work... As is stands, it has been developed very freely as the "festal legend" of a Feast of Purim, which is itself otherwise unknown to us.[24]

Interestingly enough, A New Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture correctly points out that the book is given credence only by those who believe that since the book of Esther is a biblical book, it must be true. It then goes on to wonder if there is a significance in the similarity between the names mentioned in the book of Esther and the Babylonian and Elamite gods and goddess.

To what extent the story of Esther is factual is debated. On the face of it, not many people would give much credence to Est [i.e., Esther] as history but for the fact that it is a biblical book and 'the Bible is true'. The evidence we have suggests that we have a tale set against an historical background, embodying at least one historical character (Xerxes) and some accurate references to actual usages of Persia, but a tale making no serious attempt to chronicle facts, aiming rather at producing certain moral attitude in the reader... Yet it appears that Xerxes' queen was neither Vashti nor Esther but Amestris; we have no further information inside or outside the Bible (e.g. Sir 44ff) of a Jewish queen who saved her people or of a pious Mordecai who rose to such heights in the Persian court... One may wonder whether there is a significance in the similarity between the name Esther and the name of the Babylonian goddess Ishtar, between the name Mordecai and the name of the god Marduk, so that one would have to look for the source of the tale among the myths of Elamite gods. But one can only wonder.[25]"


http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/ ... haman.html


Errors are the domain of humans, NOT infallible Dieties.

We are not here for Quran, its errors in bible, do you accept that Bible has errors as acccepted by christian theologians and scholars?

[TrueReligion]

Wyvern, we all know that there is no official bible since the history of christianity,and all sects have their own, but even if we assume that Hebrew is the 1, this HEBREW is also contradicting with GreEK, and samaritan.
1 example
The period from Adam to the flood of Noah, as described by the Hebrew version, is
one thousand six hundred and fifty-six years, while according to the Greek version, it is two 153 thousand three hundred and sixty-two years47 and the Samaritan version gives it as one thousand three hundred and seven years. A table is given in the commentary of Henry and Scott where the age of every descendant has been given at the time when he gave birth to his son except Noah, whose age is given as at the time of the flood.

That's exactly the problem without a standard to measure them all by then you have no way to decide whether any are in error at all. See even with you making a single statement you obviously made an error in stating the greek years, because you made an error does that mean that the actual time stated in the book is wrong? Seems like you are trying to blame the failures of humans on god. And please don't go down the route of if it was written by god god would not have allowed such an error to happen. God won't even stop disasters or disease so why would it care about a book.

Thats right , if its truly word of God, there wont be any error, whatver language u translate it. meaning should be same, but here many things are changed, and removed and added.

How do you figure that? nearly all of the errors are from human errors during printing. As for different meaning that comes from the interpretation of the individual again how does that involve god?

Wow I tell you not to bother using the tired argument that if it is truly from god there would not be any error and that is exactly the argument you decide to use. You had best be careful claiming only an error free holy book proves your god is the real one even though you have said in other threads that the god of the three abrahamic religions is the same. So since you have said such a thing if you prove the bible is in error then you prove allah can not exist.

You are looking in different way, What is there to understand is, that God is same for Jews, Christians and Muslims.. (not Jesus).
God send books to prophets, like Moses, Jesus, Muhammad.

Historicaly its proven that Torah and Injeel is lost long time, and both MMoses, and Jesus never wrote in their life time, nor they adviced any1 to write it down. which meanns the word of God was not writen by these prophets.

Later on, Jews, and christians with their minds, try to write it in book form, through mostly traditions, word of mouth without authentication, their own faith etc etcc, which lead to many contradictions andd errors. Therefore these books are no longer as books send by God. and cannot be termed as word of God anymmore.

[TrueReligion]

The Jehovah's Witnesses in their "AWAKE!" Magazine dated 8 September, 1957, carried this startling headline " "50000 ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?" (See below for the reproduction).

http://www.jamaat.net/bible/AwakeArticle(1957).html

What the christians have to say in this, is still remaining or they are removed? if removed? how many remaining now?

Then how come it becomes word of God?

Your link goes nowhere.

You want me to post the errors?

[Guest]

The Jehovah's Witnesses in their "AWAKE!" Magazine dated 8 September, 1957, carried this startling headline " "50000 ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?" (See below for the reproduction).

http://www.jamaat.net/bible/AwakeArticle(1957).html

What the christians have to say in this, is still remaining or they are removed? if removed? how many remaining now?

Then how come it becomes word of God?

Your link goes nowhere.

You want me to post the errors?

It would help, along with authorship