For some literal-minded Christians, it was traumatic to discover that the ending of the Gospel of Mark, describing encounters with the resurrected Jesus, is stylistically different from the rest of Mark and is widely regarded by scholars as a later addition.Read the whole article here.
Likewise, Biblical scholars distressed the faithful by focusing on inconsistencies among the gospels. The Gospel of Matthew says that Judas hanged himself, while Acts describes him falling down in a field and dying; the Gospel of John disagrees with other gospels about whether the crucifixion occurred on Passover or the day before. For those who considered every word of the Bible literally God’s word, this kind of scholarship felt sacrilegious.
Now those same discomfiting analytical tools are being applied to the Koran.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Kristof: Koran entering a period of critical scholarship
Nicholas Kristof, writing an Op-ed in the New York Times, notes that the Koran is now undergoing a period of critical scholarship challenging the consistency and accuracy of the text akin to biblical scholarship of the 1800s: