by Ibn Anwar

“1 Timothy 3:16″ speaks of a personal manifestation of God – God in the second person was manifested” (The Impeccable Christ) [1]

The above and many other such similar remarks and statements are commonly found in Christian literature that favour Jesus’ divinity. In my own exchanges with Christians when discussing the alleged divinity of Jesus they would more likely than not reference 1 Timothy 3:16 as evidence for the incarnation of God into this world and that Jesus(the incarnation) is indeed God. Many of them do not realise however, that the reading that they so quickly grab and utilise is untenable. “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”  This is the reading of 1 Timothy 3:16 that would be championed by so called KJV only Christian fundamentalists and those whose agenda is to deify Jesus. The evidence will show that their position and belief is unwarranted and without good foundation.

The reading which has “God manifested in the flesh”(theos ephanerothe en sarki) is found in the King James Version which is based on the Textus Receptus or Received Text which is the work done by Desiderius Erasmus and published in 1516. The standard position in modern Biblical studies is that the Textus Receptus is an inferior text as it is based on very late mss. of the Byzantine tradition(12th and 13th century) as Prof. Raymond Brown states, “Scholarship at the end of the 19th century finally won the battle to replace the inferior Textus Receptus by new editions of the Greek NT based on the great uncial codices and other evidence made available since Erasmus’ time…”[2] Michael A. Barber summarises the situation of the TR nicely in the following:

“The translators of the King James version of the 1611 used the Textus Receptus, the Received Text, for their translation. At that time this Greek text was so highly regarded that many considered it to be inspired of God. Its text read “God was manifest in the flesh.” However, the value of the Textus Receptus has since been discredited by scholars and superseded by the three major manuscripts (among others), all of them of great antiquity, and therefore nearer to the original writings of the inspired penmen: The Vatican manuscript No. 1209 of the 4th century, the Sinaitic manuscript also of the 4th century (discovered by Tischendorf at a monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai in 1844) and the Alexandrine manuscript of the early 5th century.” [3]

The Trinitarian fundamentalist Christian who is predisposed to the KJV’s reading of 1 Timothy 3:16 is evidently at least on shaky grounds as the book itself is based on the inferior Textus Receptus. The text in question has been proven to have undergone alteration. In both Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus the original reading was hos ephanerothe en sarki with the relative pronoun “hos” rather than the noun “theos” as found in the Textus Receptus. Any child can tell the difference between a pronoun and a noun. Clearly, there has been a change. The question is how did the change occur? In brief, the word hos orthographically looks quite similar with the abbreviation for theos. Hos in Greek looks like OΣ(omicron and sigma) whilst the abbreviation for theos(which is called a nomina sacra) looks like θΣ (theta and sigma) with a horizontal line on top of the sigma. In Greek to change a sigma to an omicron one need only add a horizontal line in the middle of the O which will yield a theta θ. There are two ways of approaching this anomaly in Textual Criticism. Some scholars argue that the change was accidental/coincidental without any theological motives behind it whilst another group of scholars argue that it was intentionally done with the obvious theological implication. James White in his book The King James Controversy favours the former position. The foremost textual critic Bruce Metzger in his The Text of the New Testament briefly mentions the error in 1 Timothy 3:16 as an item under the discussion of “UNINTENTIONAL CHANGES” under the subheading of “ERRORS ARISING FROM FAULTY EYESIGHT” which means that in this 1968 work he favours the position of accidental change. [4] In a later work(1975) however, he does admit intentional change as a possibility(though with less probability) of what happened with the text. He explains this in the following:

“The reading which, on the basis of external evidence and transcriptional probability, best explains the rise of the others is ὅς. It is supported by the earliest and best uncials (א* A*vid C* Ggr) as well as by 33 365 442 2127 syrhmg, pal goth ethpp Origenlat Epiphanius Jerome Theodore Eutheriusacc. to Theodoret Cyril Cyrilacc. to Ps-Oecumenius Liberatus. Furthermore, since the neuter relative pronoun ὅ must have arisen as a scribal correction of ὅς (to bring the relative into concord with μυστήριον), the witnesses that read ὅ (D* itd, g, 61, 86 vg Ambrosiaster Marius Victorinus Hilary Pelagius Augustine) also indirectly presuppose ὅς as the earlier reading. The Textus Receptus reads θεός, with אe (this corrector is of the twelfth century) A2 C2 Dc K L P Ψ 81 330 614 1739 Byz Lect Gregory-Nyssa Didymus Chrysostom Theodoret Euthalius and later Fathers. Thus, no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός; all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός. The reading θεός arose either (a) accidentally, through the misreading of ος as ΘΣ, or (b) deliberately, either to supply a substantive for the following six verbs, or, with less probability, to provide greater dogmatic precision.” [5]

One of Metzger’s top students, Prof. Bart Ehrman favours the second option stating the following:

“The change must have been made fairly early, at least during the third century given its widespread attestation from the fourth century on. It can therefore best be explained as an anti-adoptionistic corruption that stresses the deity of Christ.” [6]

Reiterating the same point  in his popularly received Misquoting Jesus he states, “This would be an example of an antiadoptionistic change, a textual alteration made to counter a claim that Jesus was fully human but not himself divine.” [7]

Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger disagree with Ehrman’s position though they do concur that there is a “scribal switch” in 1 Timothy 3:16 and that the original reading is not “God manifested in the flesh”. [8] Biblical scholars Keith Elliot and Ian Moire’s position lends support to Ehrman’s thesis in their own work as they write the following:

“Another reason for the deliberate change from ‘who’ to ‘God’ is that the church may have wished here to emphasize its belief in the divinity of Jesus…’God’ was the preferred reading of a later generation and the change in those manuscripts was no mere accidental misreading. It seems ‘who’ is the text to print.” [9]

Reporting on the findings of textual critics Biblical scholar and theologian Sir Anthony Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting write:

“Some manuscripts have inserted the word “God” for the words “he who.” The alteration is admitted by modern translators to be unwarranted. “God” is most unlikely to have been part of the older manuscripts. Such interpolations, like the famous spurious Trinitarian addition in 1 John 5:7, which is omitted by modern translations, suggests that someone was trying to force a new idea on the original text.” [10]

Echoing the same point with more elaboration in his latest work he writes:

“Modern versuibs have corrected the word “God” to “He who.” The alteration of an original “He who” (in Greek ὅς) was very sneakily accomplished when some scribes changed the O (omicron) into a θ (theta) giving θς (theta sigma). The reading THS was an abbreviated form of the Greek word theos, God. All that had to be done was to draw a little line across the middle of the O to produce the Greek letter theta (θ). Then the text was made to sound Trinitarian and to support the Incarnation: God was manifested in the flesh.” “He who” (Oς) was made to read “God” (θς).” [11]

As if copying from one another(though obviously they have not) Michael Barber writes:

The very old manuscripts used abbreviations for commonly used words such as THE.OS’, “God,” and KU’RI.OS, “Lord,” etc. The abbreviation for THE.OS’ was ΘϹ(with a horizontal line on top). However, were it not for those two horizontal lines, this is identical to the word OC, meaning “who.” The Alexandrine manuscript was found to have originally read OC, who, but this ‘much later hand’ added those two small lines, changing the reading to ΘϹ(with a horizontal line on top), THE.OS’, “God.” It was only examination by microscope which revealed this!

The Sinaitic manuscript and the Vatican manuscript No. 1209 read OC, “who,” giving the most accurate reading:

“Who was manifest in the flesh.” – 1 Timothy 3:16 ” [12]

The reading “God” is so insignificant in terms of providing any material meaning to New Testament christology that Raymond Brown in discussing dubious Biblical references that use the title “God” as a reference to Jesus  relegates the 1 Timothy 3:16 to just a footnote and remarks:

“I shall discuss only those that I think have some merit, ignoring, for instance, 1 Timothy 3:16, where some witnesses have a reference to God being manifested in the flesh instead of a pronominal reference to Jesus. The attestation for such a reading is not strong enough to warrant serious consideration.” [13]

In conclusion, whether 1 Timothy 3:16 was changed deliberately or accidentally what all experts of the Bible excluding fundamentalist KJV groupies agree on is that the original reading of 1 Timothy 3:16 does not have “God” in it. The word theos was a later insertion, that is, a corruption of the text.

References:

[1] Best, W. E. (1971). The Impeccable Christ. U.S. : Lightning Source Inc. p. 23

[2] Brown, R. E. (1997). An Introduction to the New Testament. U.S. : Yale University Press. p. 52

[3] Barber, M. A. (2006). Should Christians Abandon the Doctrine of the Trinity?. Boca Raton, Florida: Universal Publishers. p. 47

[4] Metzger, B. M. (1968). The Text of the New Testament : Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 2nd ed. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. p. 187

[5] Metzger, B. M. (2002). A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 4th ed. London: United Bible Societies. pp. 573-574

[6] Ehrman, B. D. (1993). The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. Madison Avenue, New York: Oxford University Press.

[7] Ehrman, B. D. (2005). Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. New York: HarperSanFrancisco. pp. 157-158

[8] Kostenberger, A. J., & Kruger M. J.(2010). The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway. p. 222

[9] Elliot, K., & Moir, I. (1995). Manuscripts and the Text of the New Testament: An Introduction for English Readers. London: T&T Clark Ltd. p. 73

[10] Buzzard, A., & Hunting, C. F. (1998). The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound. Lanham, Maryland: International Scholars Publications. p. 303

[11] Buzzard, A. (2007). Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian: A Call to Return to the Creed of Jesus. Morrow, Georgia: Restoration Fellowship. pp. 257-258

[12] Barber, M. A. Op. Cit. p. 48

[13] Brown, R. E. (1994). An Introduction to New Testament Christology. Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press. p. 177

by Ibn Anwar

Before we delve into the topic proper we should briefly establish the relevant framework upon which the whole discussion will be built so as to get better clarity. For a long time Biblical scholars have noticed distinct similarities and dissimilarities between the first three Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke. This relationship that is shared by all three Gospels gave rise to what is called Synoptic problem. The term “Synoptic” means that the three Gospels are interrelated and can be seen together. [1] Most New Testament scholars today subscribe to the Markan/Marcan priority hypothesis which was first proposed in 1863. What that means is that Mark was the first Gospel to be written which was then followed  by Matthew and Luke. Directly related to the Marcan priority is the idea that both Matthew and Luke employed Mark as a common source for their respective Gospels. The Marcan material present in Matthew and Luke is described as the “Triple Tradition” and in terms of statistics, eighty percent of Mark’s verses are found in Matthew while sixty five percent are found in Luke. [2] This position is called the “Two-Source hypothesis” which is according to Dr. L. Michael White “the most commonly used theory among New Testament scholars…”. [3] Writing about the Two-Source Hypothesis Mark Goodrace says:

“Right down to the present, this has remained the most popular way to solve the SynopticProblem. It has been finely tuned, has been given many variations, and has been challenged from many quarters, but this basic two-pronged hypothesis has remained fairly effectively intact. In Germany it is still very much what one might call ‘critical orthodoxy’. Famously, in the mid 1960s, one biblical critic spoke about abandoning use of the term ‘hypothesis’ to describe it altogether. ‘We can in fact regard it as an assured findings’, he said.” [4]

Thus, Mark was written first then the authors of Matthew and Luke employed the Gospel of Mark as a common source for their own productions. In this article we will analyse one out of many of the examples of how a story that was first produced in Mark is reproduced by the other two Synoptic Gospels with some modifications resulting in certain theological implications. The example that we will focus on in this discussion is the story of Jesus and the fig tree which is found in Mark 11, Matthew 12 and Luke 13 which is reproduced by the author in a rather different form as we shall see.

The following is Mark’s version of the incident which is the earliest among the Gospels:

“On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. And he said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard it.” (Mark 11:12-14) *In Mark’s version of the episode the tree withered overnight rather than immediately(verse 20).

The following is Matthew’s version of the incident:

“In the morning, as he was returning to the city, he became hungry. And seeing a fig tree by the wayside, he went to it and found nothing on it but leaves. And he said to it, “May no fruit ever come from you again!” And the fig tree withered at once.”(Matthew 21:18-19)

The following is Luke’s version:

“And he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. And he said to the vinedresser, ‘Look, for three years now I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and I find none. Cut it down. Why should it use up the ground?” (Luke 13:6-7)

Reading the earliest version in Mark one gets the impression that Jesus was literally hungry and sought to satisfy that by looking for fruits on a fig tree. He got disappointed as he found the tree without fruit because it was not yet its season to bear fruit. In his disappointment he curses it and the tree withers and dies. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary states that, “The way the story is told suggests that Jesus really expected to find fruit on the tree and destroyed it out of disappointment.” [5] Thus according to the author of Mark, Jesus was very human in this episode and out of ignorance he sought to find fruit on a barren tree in order to satiate his craving. The author of Matthew retells essentially the same episode but with some small, yet significant improvements. In Mark’s version the reader may notice the section that has been emphasised namely, “it was not the season for figs”. This enables readers to make the conclusion that Jesus did not know that the tree would be barren as he was not familiar with the seasons which in the words of the New Jerome Biblical Commentary makes Jesus’ behaviour seems “irrational”.[6]  This means that  Mark’s account of this incident has a low Christology of Jesus. Low Christology means that the depiction of Jesus in a particular scenario is less than what the typical mainstream Christian depiction presents i.e. both human and totally divine. High Christology on the other hand presents a superior Jesus with superior attributes. Working on the Marcan material the author of Matthew improves the narrative as any reasonable reader can see. What the author of Matthew did was to remove the offending low Christology part that says, “it was not the season for figs”. By removing that section Jesus is no longer seen as unreasonably ignorant which is a quality unfitting for Matthew’s Jesus. Thus the New Jerome Biblical Commentary remarks, “Matthew omits Mark’s detail that it was not the season for figs, because this would make Jesus’ expectation unreasonable and capricious, and changes a wish into a curse.” In addition, while Mark’s Jesus made the tree wither overtime, Matthew’s Jesus on the other hand destroyed the tree with his command immediately and so the New Jerome Biblical Commentary admits that Matthew “…hightens the miraculous by having the withering tree occur immediately rather than overnight.” [7] What the author of Luke does is totally different. Rather than reporting Jesus’ experience with the fig tree he transforms it into a parable told by Jesus. Commenting on this the New Jerome Biblical Commentary says, “Luke omits this story in its historicized form because he has already reported a parabolic form of it in 13:6-9.”[8]

Was the whole thing just a parable? Many Christians that I have spoken to try to excuse the clear embarrassing implications of the story in Mark to Jesus’ alleged divinity by saying that it’s a parable. Is it really just a parable? No, it is not simply a parable according to the authors of Mark and Matthew as they actually go on to describe the tree literally withering as witnessed by the disciples as Mark 11:20 says, “As they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots.” In Matthew’s version the disciples marvelled at what they had seen and asked Jesus why it had withered at once to which Jesus gave the assurance that they would be able to do far greater things than what they had witnessed(Matthew 21:20-22). The excuse given by such Christians clearly do not hold water. In sum, the earliest version of the incident among the Synoptics is Mark which essentially shows Jesus going through hunger with the natural desire to satiate it with fruits from a fig tree without realising or knowing that the tree would not have any fruit on it because it was not its season. The expression regarding the season in Mark is especially significant as it necessarily implies that the tree itself is not inherently barren, but will in fact bear fruit when the season comes sometime in the future, yet Jesus for some untold reason destroys it anyway. In the words of the New Jerome Biblical Commentary which is an excellent Christian publication, “Jesus’ behaviour seems irrational and destructive.”[9]

In essence Mark’s low Christology version paints a portrait of Jesus that is embarrassing to Christians. It certainly does not help the Trinitarian Christian cause which aims  to deify him. The story has strong setbacks for the Trinitarian agenda. Shabir Ally in his book makes an excellent case on this point:

Now, a few things are clear from this episode.

1. Jesus did not know the tree had no fruit until he went up to the tree and found nothing but leaves.
2. When Jesus saw leaves from a distance he hoped to find fruit on the tree.
3. It was not fig season, and this is why the tree had no figs. This comment from Mark clearly, implies that it was a perfectly good tree. If the tree was barren, Mark’s comment about the season would have been pointless and misleading.
4. Jesus did not know it was not fig season. If he had known this, he would not have expected the tree to have fruit, and he would not have cursed the tree for having no fruit.
5. The whole thing began when Jesus felt hungry.

Now it is easy to understand that the human Jesus felt hunger, and that the human Jesus did not know it was not fig season and so mistakenly expected the tree to have fruit. A divine Jesus would have known all these, and would not have to go to the tree to discover it had no fruit; he would not have been hungry in the first place. Now the cursing of the tree is a little more difficult for those who assert the divinity of Jesus. His miracles, they say, are performed by his divine nature. Okay, so the divine Jesus cursed the tree. But why? Why ruin a tree which in Mark’s view was a perfectly good tree? Come fig season this tree would have had fruit and others could have eaten from it. The reason was that the human Jesus made a mistake. But why did the divine Jesus act upon the mistake of the human Jesus? Does the human mind in Jesus guide the divine nature of him? Actually, there is no warrant for all this speculation, for scripture nowhere says that Jesus has two natures. Those who want to believe contrary to scripture that Jesus was fully human yet fully divine can go on speculating. [10]

Excursus

Credit is due to our frequent visitor The Bull whose comment gave the author the encouragement to write this article:

The Bull said

February 11, 2012 at 7:27 pm e

Hi Rocko

Why don’t you investigate it (figs) via google search, you’ll find an answer or answer(s).

References:

[1] Brown, R. E. (1997). An Introduction to the New Testament. U.S. : Yale University Press. p. 111

[2] Ibid.

[3] White, L. M. (2010). Scripting Jesus: The Gospel in Rewrite. U.S. : HarperOne. p. 428

[4] Goodrace, M. (2001). The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze. London: Sheffield Academic Press. p. 21

[5] Harrington, D. J. (1990). The Gospel According to Mark. In Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer & Roland E. Murphy (Eds.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. p. 620

[6] Ibid. p. 620

[7] Viviano, B. T. (1990). The Gospel According to Matthew. In Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer & Roland E. Murphy (Eds.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. pp. 664

[8] Ibid.

[9] Harrington, D.J. Op. Cit. p. 619

[10] Shabir Ally (2008). Is Jesus God? The Bible says No!. Ontario, Canada: Al-Attique Publishers Inc. pp. 57-58

by Ibn Anwar

This article is a response to a section of a debate that took place on the subject of the resurrection of Jesus between the Islamic scholar Shabir Ally and the Christian scholar Dr. William Lane Craig which can be viewed here. The following is a transcript of the section that this article aims at addressing:

“The first one, the crucifixion is universally agreed upon by all historians and here Shabir says that he doesn’t deny that Jesus was crucified but what he suggests is that he was taken down alive from the cross and God raised him out of the tomb into heaven. This is a fantastic hypothesis and an incredible concession on the part of an Islamic theologian to Christian claims about Jesus. Basically it is an attempt to resurrect the old Apparent Death theory which was popular among German rationalists during the late 17th hundreds and I’ve got to say no historian or New Testament scholar would defend this Apparent Death theory today. It’s sort of the theological equivalent of the flat earth theory. Why is this hypothesis abandoned? Well, one thing is that there is simply no doubt that the crucifixion was fatal. The Romans were professional executioners and they ensured the deaths of their victims by a spear thrust into the heart of the victim so that even if the victim had simply lapsed into a comatose state on the cross he would certainly be killed by the thrust of the spear into his heart and this is exactly what happened in Jesus’ case.”

Is the crucifixion universally agreed upon by all historians? No, it isn’t. Bruno Bauer, J.M. Robertson, Paul-Louis Couchoud, Earl Doherty, Tom Harpur and G.A. Wells have all argued against the existence of Jesus although Wells have actually revised his original position. It goes without saying that if Jesus did not exist then his alleged crucifixion did not happen. This means that there are those from among non-Muslim historians and Biblical scholars who do in fact disagree that Jesus was historically crucified, hence demolishing Dr. Craig’s confident declaration that it is “universally agreed upon by all historians”. Dr. Craig describes Shabir Ally’s proposition as fantastic without actually specifically qualifying what he meant by this. In any case, is the idea that Jesus survived the crucifixion and was later assumed to heaven any more stupendous than the Christian claim that Jesus came back alive after being dead for three days and then went up into heaven? Both are remarkable theological claims and for a Christian to suggest that Shabir’s proposition is fantastic to the point of unbelief is unwarranted. To compare the so called Apparent Death theory to the flat earth theory is simply absurd. Whilst there is possibility for the former in the realm of logic and reason there is no possibility for the latter. Dr. Craig said that the Apparent Death theory has been successfully refuted and buried because “there is simply no doubt that the crucifixion was fatal”. At this point it is clear that Dr. Craig forgot Mark 15:44. Here we have Pilate himself who was responsible for condemning Jesus to death doubting that Jesus had died. The verse says, “Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died.” If as Dr. Craig would have it that there is no doubt that the crucifixion was fatal then why was Pilate surprised at hearing Jesus’ alleged death? The answer is quite simple, that is, the crucifixion is only truly fatal if the victim is left on the cross for a sufficiently long enough period which was not at all the case with Jesus. In fact, we know that there are those who were fixed on the cross for three days and yet they were still alive. A particularly pertinent account is recorded by Josephus. The New Testament expert, Geza Vermes mentions the story:

“Less extreme believers in Jesus’ survival argue that recovery after crucifixion was possible, as it is attested by Flavius Josephus. In his autobiography, Josephus recalls that on an occassion when he was returning to the capital, he saw many crucified Jews by the roadside. Among them he recognized three of his friends who were still alive. On his pleading, Titus, the future emperor, promptly ordered them to be taken down and treated by Roman physicians, and as a result one of the three survived (Life 420).” [1]

If ordinary men were able to survive for over three days on the cross and upon release one was actually able to recuperate why exactly did Jesus die in much less than half a day? Oh, it was because of the spear thrust that Dr. Craig mentioned right? Prof. Raymond E. Brown who is hailed by Dr. Craig as one of the best New Testament scholars of modern times deny that there was actually a spear thrust  in John 19.34. Rather, he believes that it  merely involved prodding and nothing more than that. Prof. Brown says, “Crucifixion pierces no vital organ, and so inevitably one must wonder what physical or organic factor caused Jesus to die. The extremely brief Gospel descriptions of the death of Jesus are of little help in answering this question.” [2] The quotation clearly shows that Prof. Brown unlike Dr. Craig does not consider spear thrusting(that penetrates the flesh) as part of the crucifixion process. Many other Biblical scholars simply deny that there was any such incident of piercing or thrusting. Geza Vermes opines, “One may further speculate that the piercing of his side by one of the executioners was a later invention introduced by John (Jn 19:34) to dispel doubts about whether Jesus was dead.” [3] Around the time when the Gospel of John was being written a group of Gnostics called the Docetists were  in operation circulating doubts concerning Jesus’ actual and physical death on the cross, hence the introduction of the spear thrusting into the story was meant to quell those doubts. The New American Bible states, “John probably emphasizes these verses to show the reality of Jesus’ death, against the Docetist heretics.” [4]  Willem Nicol states, “…it is probable that 1:14; 6:53ff. and 19:34 contain a hidden polemic against docetists.” [5] (emphasis added) One need only read the next few lines after verse 34 to confirm that this is John’s unique invention. The author of John connects the spear thrust to an Old Testament  scriptural text that was supposedly fulfilled in the incident, “They will look on the one they have pierced”. This text is extracted from Zechariah 12:10:

“And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.”

A careful reading of the above verse’s context will lead any reasonable reader to the understanding that it is not about Jesus. It is about Jerusalem that is besieged by aggressive surrounding nations all of which will suffer total destruction according to God’s plan. It has nothing to do with salvation through the sacrifice of a single individual called Jesus. The verse itself from which the line in John 19:37 is taken from tells us that the ones responsible for the piercing “will mourn for him…and grieve bitterly…” Where did the Sanhedrin, the centurions or Pilate mourn and grieve bitterly for Jesus’ death? The context then goes on to say that on that day the whole of Jerusalem including all the clans and their wives will start weeping/crying. Where is this recorded exactly? Which clan cried for Jesus on the day of his crucifixion and piercing? The answer is none which brings us to the ultimate conclusion that the spear thrusting is nothing more than John’s own invention. In conclusion, the reason that invalidates the idea that Jesus could have survived the crucifixion as presented by Dr. William Lane Craig is untenable and without foundation.

References:

[1] Vermes, G. (2008). The Resurrection: history and myth. United States: Doubleday. p. 145

[2] Raymond E. Brown. The Death of the Messiah, Vol. 2(1994). New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc. p. 1088

[3] Vermes, G. Op. Cit.

[4] The New American Bible, Revised Edition (2011). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 1236

[5] Nicol, W. (1972). The Semeia in the fourth gospel: Tradition and redaction. Brill Archive. p. 135

by Ibn Anwar

     In my many discussions with Trinitarian Christians on the divinity of Jesus Christ one favourite passage that is often used as a proof text is Hebrews 1 with specific reference to verse 8 which reads as follows:

“Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever.”

One Christian apologist remarked, “Here we have God calling Jesus God which means he is indeed God.” If God calling someone “God” makes that person truly God himself, then I suppose Moses ought to be worshipped by these Christians too as we see him being called God by God:

“I have made you God over pharoah, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.” (Exodus 7:1)

What is very apparent is that Moses isn’t just called God in the above verse, but is said to have his own prophet! Does that make him God? Following the Christian logic it apparently does. But I suppose Satan is God too as we read in the following verse:

“The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” (2 Corinthians 4:4)

The New Living Translation of the Bible identifies the identity of this god in its translation:

“Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don’t understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.”

As a matter of fact most commentaries agree with the NLT’s interpretation and identify ho theos(the god) in 2 Corinthians 4:4 as a reference to the devil. So is Satan literally the God of this world? It is curious that Satanists haven’t tried to exploit this verse to their advantage.

What about the judges in Psalms 82 which is cited by Jesus in John 10?

“I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’ (Psalms 82:6)

Are the judges literally gods like the Supreme Being because they are called gods?

If one were to go by the Trinitarian way of thinking with regards to Hebrews 1:8 then we would have the following dilemma:

“The Father is God, Jesus is God, Satan is God, Moses is God and the judges are God.”

Is it just me or do Christian arguments tend to send them into polytheism?

To be honest I have no problem with Hebrews 1:8 being referred to Jesus. In fact, this verse is a quotation from Psalms 45:6. The context of Psalms 45:6 refutes the idea that the verse is about the Most High and Supreme God.

My heart is stirred by a noble theme
as I recite my verses for the king;
my tongue is the pen of a skillful writer.

You are the most excellent of men
and your lips have been anointed with grace,
since God has blessed you forever.

Gird your sword on your side, you mighty one;
clothe yourself with splendor and majesty.
In your majesty ride forth victoriously
in the cause of truth, humility and justice;
let your right hand achieve awesome deeds.

Let your sharp arrows pierce the hearts of the king’s enemies;
let the nations fall beneath your feet.
Your throne, O God,will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.

Verse one begins with identifying the subject of the praise that is woven which is the king. This king is definitely not God as he is described as “the most excellent of men” whom “God has blessed…” Verse seven describes the king as having God who sets him above his companions and anoints him with the oil of joy. Thus any good reader can see that the king who is addressed as “God” in verse six is a man(human being) that is distinct from the Most High and Supreme God. The New International Version Bible in its footnote to verse six refutes the Trinitarian fallacy by stating plainly that,”Psalm 45:6 Here the king is addressed as God’s representative.” [1] Prof. Anthony Buzzard says, “The king of Israel had been called “God” (Ps. 45:6), and this title was applied in Hebrews 1:8 to Jesus as Messiah.”[2] In a footnote to this Buzzard adds:

“The Roman Catholic translation of the Bible (NAB) very helpfully has “Your throne, O god, stands forever; your royal scepter is a scepter for justice.” The notes observe that “god” is a courtly royal title describing a human being who represents God. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament confirms that “In Ps. 45:6 the Elohim undoubtedly refers to a man i.e., the king, and not to Yahweh”(Eerdmans, 1965, rep. 2006, 3:96).” [3]

The eminent Biblical scholar James Dunn says:

“For in Hebrews 1.8 the writer quotes Psalm 45.6 as an address to the Son:”Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’…we should recall that Psalm 45.6-7 was probably addressed to Israel’s king, a fact that the writer of Hebrews was probably aware of since he carries on the quotation to Psalm 45.7, which speaks of the king as having been anointed by ‘God,your God.’” [4]

James Luther Mays states, “…the term elohim need not indicate a belief in a king who is divine by nature but rather a divinely chosen and gifted person.” [5] Confirming and joining the ranks is Artur Weiser who explains:

“[6-7] The picture of the prince of peace is placed side by side with that of the great royal warrior. It is probably not by accident that in this very context the king is called ‘God’…it cannot , however, be proved from any Old Testament any passage that a deification of the king took place such as was practiced by the Egyptians and the Babylonians. The insurmountable distinction between Yahweh and the king, between God and man is everywhere maintained and is explicitly expressed also in v. 7 (‘Yahweh, your God‘; see Intr. 62f. The designation ‘divine king’ (Gottlicher) signifies in the Old Testament the function of the king as the righteous ruler rather than a specific quality. It is in this sense that he becomes the representative of God in the midst of his people through his anointment as king.” [6] (emphasis added)

The Biblical scholar Artur Weiser hit the nail on the head by clearly stating that there is an explicit insurmountable distinction made between the king who is addressed as ‘God’ in verse six and the Most High, God in verse seven. This means that because this verse is applied to Jesus he is the human king that is anointed who is not the Most High and Supreme God. The title is merely symbolic of the king’s function as God’s representative. It does not make him literally God in any way.

References:

[1] New International Version. Psalm 45. Retrived from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+45&version=NIV

[2] Buzzard, A. (2007). Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian: A Call to Return to the Creed of Jesus. Morrow, GA: Restoration Fellowship. p. 116

[3] Ibid.

[4] Dunn, D. G. (2010). Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?: The New Testament Evidence. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 136

[5] Mays, J. L. (1994). Psalms. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching.  Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 181

[6] Weiser, A. (1959). The Psalms (Herbert Hartwell, Trans.). Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 363

by Ibn Anwar

The verse reads as follows :

“He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”

The Christian Jesus-worshiper will claim that the above verse shows Jesus as deity because it says that everyone will worship him. First of all, notice that the verse says that “all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him”. Does it say that they will worship him? No, it does not. It says that they DID worship him. So it’s not actually talking about everyone from time immemorial to the end of days. The Christian will claim that the verse says that all authority, glory and sovereign power is given to him so that makes him God. Notice that the verse says that authority was given to him. When was Jesus given authority? Authority was given to Jesus approximately 1920 something years ago as Matthew 28:18 says, “Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” When we take Matthew 28:18 into consideration and compare it to Daniel 7:14 we can safely confirm that the latter isn’t referring to the former. The person in Daniel 7:14 was given authority in Daniel’s time or before it, but Jesus was only given authority in his time centuries after Daniel. However, coming back to the first point, does Jesus being worshiped makes him God? First of all, the verse does not have to be translated as worshiped. The New Living Translation translates it as follows:

“He was given authority, honor, and sovereignty over all the nations of the world, so that people of every race and nation and language would obey him. His rule is eternal–it will never end. His kingdom will never be destroyed.”

Obeying Jesus makes him God? Other versions of the Bible render the word as ‘serve’. Serving Jesus makes him God? If that is the case then those who serve in governments around the world must be serving God. How many governments are there in the world? They are all Gods? The clever Christian will say something along the lines of, “Wait a minute, if you go back to the Hebrew the world is yiflichun which comes from palach and rendered as latreuo in the Spetuagint. These are terms that can only be used for God.”

The following is the explanation that I provided in a previous article on this very point:

What does Daniel 7:14 actually say? The verse in English reads as follows:

“And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.”

The key word in that verse which according to Trinitarians designates Jesus as God is ‘serve’ which according to them is letreuo in the Septuagint. This conclusion is actually inaccurate because there are two readings of the same verse in Greek. The one that is appealed to by Trinitarians is the LXX  manuscript Codex Syro-hexaplaris Ambrosianus 88 reading which is as follows:

καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία, καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς κατὰ γένη καὶ πᾶσα δόξα αὐτῷ λατρεύουσα· καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος, ἥτις οὐ μὴ ἀρθῇ, καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ, ἥτις οὐ μὴ φθαρῇ.

The above reading certainly does have the word λατρεύουσα or latreousa. However, many scholars will argue that a better reading comes from Theodotian’s Greek text which reads as follows:

καὶ αὐτῷ ἐδόθη ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ βασιλεία, καὶ πάντες οἱ λαοί, φυλαί, γλῶσσαι αὐτῷ δουλεύσουσιν· ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος, ἥτις οὐ παρελεύσεται, καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ οὐ διαφθαρήσεται.

As opposed to the LXX, Theodotian’s text reads douleusousin which comes from douleo. The theologian Sir Anthony Buzzard commenting on this says, “The Septuagint chooses latreuo (worship) in 7:14, but Theodotian, another Greek version of the Old Testament, uses the verb douleuo, a neutral word meaning to serve. The word latreuo, used in the Greek New Testament only of divine service, is not applied to Jesus.”[3] In the same discussion Buzzard cites Professor of New Testament Emeritus at Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Arthur Wainwright who says in his book The Trinity in the New Testament, “there is no instance of latreuein [to do religious service to] which has Christ as its object”. [4] Agreeing with Buzzard, Biblical scholar Dr. T.J. Meadowcroft of the Auckland Bible College says, “Incidentally, in v. 14 θ chooses to translate פלח with δουλεύω, a term which we have noted is more generally applicable than λατρεύω to human relationships of subservience.” [5] Elsewhere he notes that “As a rule, the θ translator follows the sense of the Aramaic closely but not slavishly.” (The θ [theta] symbol represents Theodotian’s Greek text) This means that douleuo is a close rendering of the Aramaic פלח (palach). The Eminent British Biblical scholar and Lightfoot Professor of Divinity Emeritus at the University of Durham, James Dunn unequivocally says, “Cultic worship or service (latreuein, latreia) as such is never offered to Christ…”[6]. In conclusion, Jesus did not receive unique worship as the Father did which clearly shows that he is lower in status to the Father, hence doing away with the Athanasian creed which suggests equality between the two.The verdict is NOT to worship Jesus as one would worship the Creator God.

-end of quote- (taken from Is Jesus God because he was worshiped?)

What about the fact that the verse says that “He was given authority, glory and sovereign power…His rule is eternal–it will never end. His kingdom will never be destroyed.”

If being given authority, glory and sovereign power with an eternal kingdom makes the person(supposedly Jesus) God then the saints must be God too! Consider the following verses from the same passage:

“But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever-yes, for ever and ever.’ “(Daniel 7:18)

“until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.” (Daniel 7:22)

“And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them.’ “(Daniel 7:27)

So according to the above verses everything that is given to the person in Daniel 7:14 will be given to the saints too! According to the Christian logic the saints are equally Gods. How many Gods are there exactly?

Jesus is said to reign everything and sit on a throne. These in the Christian view which are discerned from Daniel 7:13 and other such verses makes him God. Following this logic the saints are yet again promoted to divinity as we read the following:

“I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. ” (Revelation 20:4; See also Revelation 22:5)

The above says that others who will also be sitting on thrones to judge will reign with Jesus for a thousand years, but Revelation 22:5 says they will reign forever and ever. Either way, they must be Gods too according to the Christian line of thought! It is a sad thing that Christians though claiming to be staunch monotheists time and again inadvertently create for themselves a pantheon of Gods and Deities, hence making them polytheists.

by Ibn Anwar

    In my numerous exchanges with Trinitarian Christians in discussing Jesus’ alleged divinity one thing that undoubtedly will not be missed is the notion that Jesus is given worship, hence making him God. At a glance the issue seems quite simple, at least to the uninitiated. God is the one who deserves worship and if Jesus is indeed given worship he must be that God. In reality, the issue is not as simple as that. In this article we will explore and dissect the main arguments that are usually propelled by Trinitarians in this regard to promote Jesus’ alleged deity. The following are some of the verses(from the KJV) that are often cited to prove that Jesus deserves our worship and as such is God:

And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. (Matthew 8:2)

While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live. (Matthew 9:18)

Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God. (Matthew 14:33)

Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. (Matthew 15:25)

Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him. (Matthew 20:20)

And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. (Matthew 28:9)

And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. (Matthew 28:17)

But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him, (Mark 5:6)

In every single one of the above instances the word translated ‘worshipped’ comes from the Greek proskynein which is equivalent to the Hebrew shachah which as James Dunn explains means, ” ‘bow down, prostrate oneself, make obeisance before.’ It denotes the act of homage before a monarch or a superior, or prostration before God in worship.” [1] He then cites the scholars Walter Bauer and F.W. Danker who define proskynein as, ” ‘to express in attitude or gesture one’s complete dependence on or submission to a high authority figure, so ” (fall down and) worship, do obeisance to, prostrate oneself before, do reverence to, welcome respectfully” ‘.” [2] Thus the above cited verses are rendered alternatively in other various Bible versions in the following manner:

A man with leprosy came and knelt before him and said, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.” (Matthew 8:2, New International Version)

While he was saying this, a ruler came and knelt before him and said, “My daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live.” (Matthew 9:18, New International Version)

The men in the boat bowed down in front of Jesus and said, “You are truly the Son of God.” (Matthew 14:33, God’s Word Translation [The Dhuay-Rheims has in its place 'adored'])

The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. (Matthew 15:25, New International Version)

Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him. (Matthew 20:20, New International Version)

and as they were going to tell to his disciples, then lo, Jesus met them, saying, ‘Hail!’ and they having come near, laid hold of his feet, and did bow to him. (Matthew 28:9, Young’s Literal Translation [The Dhuay-Rheims has in its place 'adored'])

When they saw him, they bowed down to him, but some doubted (Matthew 28:17, World English Bible)

When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him. (Mark 5:6, New International Version)

Some versions of the Bible have retained ‘worship’ as the favoured translation in several cases due to theological motives. Even in such cases one should bear in mind that the word comes from the Greek proskynein which does not have to signify religious worship as we have already pointed out. Further more the same word proskynein is used for others time and again apart from Jesus as we see in the following verses:

Then Abraham rose and bowed down before the people of the land, the Hittites. (Genesis 23:7)

The Hebrew word for ‘bowed down’ in the verse is the verb vaiyishtachu which comes from the root shachah which as we have noted earlier corresponds to the Greek proskynein. The KJV like all the other versions of the Bible chose to translate the word as ‘bowed down’ rather than worship. The fast and loose manner by which they translate the word is due to theological reasons as we have already stated. The Greek of Genesis 23:7 reads as follows:

ἀναστὰς δὲ Αβρααμ προσεκύνησεν τῷ λαῷ τῆς γῆς, τοῖς υἱοῖς Χετ,(the word is bold letters is prosekunisen which comes from proskynein)

Genesis 33:3 has Jacob bowing down(shachah;proskynein) his brother, Esau seven times! What is even more telling is what happened between King Nebuchadnezzar and the prophet Daniel. The following is from the Revised Standard Version:

Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face, worshiped(shachah;proskynein) Daniel, and commanded that a grain offering and incense be offered to him. (Daniel 2:46)

Here is an instance of a person who is described in Daniel 2:37 as ‘the King of Kings’ giving worship(προσεκύνησεν) to Daniel. There isn’t a single instance anywhere in the New Testament of a king giving worship to Jesus. Following the line of reasoning of many Trinitarians Daniel should be a greater God than Jesus since he was given worship by not just any Tom, Dick or Harry, but by ‘the King of Kings’. Some might say in an attempt at rebuttal, “yes, I agree, but those are people and actions in the Old Testament.” Firstly, even if it is in the Old Testament that does not negate the ethical and doctrinal value discernible from the verses that have been cited. Afterall, Jesus himself said that he did not come to destroy the Law or the Prophets in Matthew 5:17. Secondly, a careful reading of the New Testament will reveal that the instances found in the Old Testament recurs in the New Testament e.g. Acts 10:25:

And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.

ὡς δὲ ἐγένετο τοῦ εἰσελθεῖν τὸν Πέτρον, συναντήσας αὐτῷ ὁ Κορνήλιος πεσὼν ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας προσεκύνησεν(proskunisen)

It is thus clear that the occurrence of proskynein for Jesus does not make him deserving of worship in the sense that God the Creator deserves it. It does not make him God just as it does not make Abraham, Esau, Daniel and Peter God. Other instances of people given proskynein/schachah include 1 Samuel 25:23, 2 Kings 4:37, Genesis 50:18, 2 Samuel 19:18 etc.

The ordinary Evangelist would by now have been defeated. However, the learned and clever Evangelist will persist. He will insist that Jesus deserves worship just like the Father. To do this they will start talking about the term letreuein/latreia. They will argue in the following manner:

Evangelist : In the Bible the term latreuo is a specific and unique term which means religious service or devotion. It is always used for worshipping deity and never for a human being. Did you know that Jesus is given latreuo?  That makes him God like the Father!

Inquirer: Really? Where is it in the Bible?

Evangelist: Daniel 7:14. The Septuagint uses the term latreuo there for the Son of Man and in Mark 16:62 Jesus uses that verse for himself.

-end of hypothetical exchange-

What does Daniel 7:14 actually say? The verse in English reads as follows:

“And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.”

The key word in that verse which according to Trinitarians designates Jesus as God is ‘serve’ which according to them is letreuo in the Septuagint. This conclusion is actually inaccurate because there are two readings of the same verse in Greek. The one that is appealed to by Trinitarians is the LXX  manuscript Codex Syro-hexaplaris Ambrosianus 88 reading which is as follows:

καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία, καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς κατὰ γένη καὶ πᾶσα δόξα αὐτῷ λατρεύουσα· καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος, ἥτις οὐ μὴ ἀρθῇ, καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ, ἥτις οὐ μὴ φθαρῇ.

The above reading certainly does have the word λατρεύουσα or latreousa. However, many scholars will argue that a better reading comes from Theodotian’s Greek text which reads as follows:

καὶ αὐτῷ ἐδόθη ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ βασιλεία, καὶ πάντες οἱ λαοί, φυλαί, γλῶσσαι αὐτῷ δουλεύσουσιν· ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος, ἥτις οὐ παρελεύσεται, καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ οὐ διαφθαρήσεται.

As opposed to the LXX, Theodotian’s text reads douleusousin which comes from douleo. The theologian Sir Anthony Buzzard commenting on this says, “The Septuagint chooses latreuo (worship) in 7:14, but Theodotian, another Greek version of the Old Testament, uses the verb douleuo, a neutral word meaning to serve. The word latreuo, used in the Greek New Testament only of divine service, is not applied to Jesus.”[3] In the same discussion Buzzard cites Professor of New Testament Emeritus at Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Arthur Wainwright who says in his book The Trinity in the New Testament, “there is no instance of latreuein [to do religious service to] which has Christ as its object”. [4] Agreeing with Buzzard, Biblical scholar Dr. T.J. Meadowcroft of the Auckland Bible College says, “Incidentally, in v. 14 θ chooses to translate פלח with δουλεύω, a term which we have noted is more generally applicable than λατρεύω to human relationships of subservience.” [5] Elsewhere he notes that “As a rule, the θ translator follows the sense of the Aramaic closely but not slavishly.” (The θ [theta] symbol represents Theodotian’s Greek text) This means that douleuo is a close rendering of the Aramaic פלח (palach). The Eminent British Biblical scholar and Lightfoot Professor of Divinity Emeritus at the University of Durham, James Dunn unequivocally says, “Cultic worship or service (latreuein, latreia) as such is never offered to Christ…”[6]. In conclusion, Jesus did not receive unique worship as the Father did which clearly shows that he is lower in status to the Father, hence doing away with the Athanasian creed which suggests equality between the two.The verdict is NOT to worship Jesus as one would worship the Creator God.

Addendum

A question that might arise from the above discussion is whether Daniel 7:14 is actually about Jesus or some other person. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary in its commentary on Daniel 7 markedly makes no mention of Jesus at all. The following is W.H. Green Professor of Old Testament literature, Princeton Theological Seminary, Rev. James Barr’s commentary on Daniel 7:14:

13-14 One like a Son of Man – The word ‘man’ in Heb. and Aram. is generic in sense and means ‘mankind’. ’Son of Man’ is therefore a normal expression for a single human being. The first point is therefore the contrast between this figure and the bestial figures preceding. It is commonly held that here he is a human figure representing Israel as the beasts represented the other empires. But the fact that he comes with the clouds of heaven, i.e that he is a celestial being, unlike the other beings who arise from the earth or sea, is also important. The appearance or likeness of a man is in fact a normal expression for an angelic manifestation (Ezek. I). The ‘son of man’ or rather the One like a Man is then what we would call an angel, one of the holy ones or their representative. He has a relation to Israel, for he serves the God of Israel; but is more than a figure for Israel. In the interpretations following he merges back into the host of the holy ones. The further comprehension of his significance depends on the question why what we call ‘angels’ are so often described as ‘man’ and why on the other hand ‘man’ is sometimes brought so close to God, especially in his capacity as a ruler( Gen. 1-2; Ps. 8 ); and with this place of man as ruler hangs together the question of the relation of the ‘Man’ here to the Messiah. There is no specific reference here to the Messiah as such, but there is a certain overlapping and community of expression; the Messiah is the king, and the king is also ben’adham, ’man’, in PS. 80:17, cf. 146:3. Nor can we neglect the use of ‘son of man’ for Daniel himself (see on 8:17). But what we have here in essence is an eschatological appearance of an angelic being as man in heaven. [7](emphasis added)

Though being a Christian himself like the New Jerome Biblical Commentary he too markedly leaves Jesus out. Rather he proposes that the subject in question is an angelic being(and not a divine one!). E. P. Sanders says about Matthew 26:63 which parallels Mark 16:62, “The word ‘but’ (Greek plen) is adversative: ‘But on the other hand’, and thus, according to Matthew, Jesus claimed to be expecting a heavenly figure, not his own return.”[8] Commenting on Mark’s version he says, “It is not possible to come to a firm conclusion about Jesus’ use of the phrase ‘Son of Man. He used it; sometimes he used if of himself; he expected the Son of Man to come from heaven; but it is not certain that he identified himself as that future Son of Man.” [9] Historically, one cannot firmly conclude that Jesus saw himself as that ‘Son of Man’  and as Prof. Rev. Barr notes “there is no specific reference here to the Messiah…” in Daniel 7.

References:

[1] Dunn, J. D. G. (2010). Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?: The New Testament Evidence. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 8

[2] Ibid. pp. 9

[3] Buzzard, A. (2007). Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian: A Call to Return to the Creed of Jesus. Morrow, GA: Restoration Fellowship. pp. 143

[4] Ibid.

[5] Meadowcroft, T.J. (1995). Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 198. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press Ltd. pp. 229

[6] Dunn, J. D. G. Op. Cit. pp. 27

[7] Barr, J. (1962). The Book of Daniel. In Matthew Black & H. H. Rowley (Eds.), Peake’s Commentary on the Bible. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. pp. 597-598

[8] Sanders, E.P. (1995). The Historical Figure of Jesus. England: Penguin Books. pp. 247

[9] Ibid. pp. 247-248

by Ibn Anwar

    According to several reputed scholars  there was rivalry between the early followers of John the Baptist and Jesus. Matthew 11:11 is one passage that contains a clue to the tension that existed between the followers of Jesus and John. The verse reads as follows:

“I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”

After citing the above verse Clarik Williamson states, “We know that the Jesus movement was involved in a strong rivalry with John’s community until late in the first century.” [1] Though the literary evidence isn’t explicit, a close and critical analysis of the relevant texts such as Matthew 11:11 do reveal a tension between John’s community and Jesus’ as Cynthia Bourgeault states, “You have to read beneath the surface to see this of course — but just barely beneath the surface. The gospels all reveal a growing rivalry between the John and Jesus camps…”. [2] Also citing the verse in question is James L. Weaver who mentions the possibility of rivalry between the followers of the two personalities saying, “In the Gospels, we have echoes of possible rivalry between the disciples of John and Jesus(see Matthew 9:14 and 11:11).”[3] According to critical scholars the first part of the verse was probably uttered by Jesus and circulated popularly among both John’s followers and Jesus’. It is the second part of the verse which circumvents the first part which is most probably not from Jesus and is in fact an addition that was inserted later by those who did not like the idea of John being in anyway superior to Jesus. How does the verse put John on a greater pedestal than Jesus? Well, the first part has Jesus saying that “among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist”. Jesus must necessarily be included since he too was born of a woman(Mary). That would mean that John in actual fact is greater than Jesus. This bit of information was obviously not palatable to those who saw Jesus as the epitome of perfection and the only sinless man to have ever walked the earth. But what were  they able to do since the saying was already in popular circulation? The clever plan was to add an extra bit to be attached to the existing saying that would usurp the superior position designated to John. Thus we have the part which can be traced back to Jesus, that is, “among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist” and the section that was added later, that is, “yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” Benedict T. Viviano in the New Jerusalem Biblical Commentary states that, “Verse 11b may be an early Christian gloss”[4] However, thinking that they would resolve the issue they actually introduced further problems to it.

Let’s have a look at some of those problems that were inadvertently introduced into the text. It says that the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John the Baptist. Which Christian devoid of humility will impertinently say that he is greater than John the Baptist when the latter actually met Jesus and even baptised him? Is a Christian believer superior to one who was martyred for his unwavering belief in God and was in fact appointed by Him? Further more, Jesus is said to have identified the “least in the kingdom of heaven” in Matthew 5:19 and they are those who break God’s laws and commandments. Does that mean that the lawless who according to the Law is unrighteous and deserving of God’s wrath, yet for some reason will be in the kingdom of heaven will be greater than the lawful John the Baptist? If the prophets including Abraham etc. will dine with Jesus in the kingdom of heaven[5] does that not include John the Baptist who is a fellow prophet? Thus if he is in the kingdom of heaven and even the least in it will be greater than he will he be greater than himself since he will be the least since the least(others) will be greater? Can you see the logical fallacy involved? Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover and the Jesus Seminar in The Five Gospels state:

“Jesus is probably the only speaker in Christian sources who would have called John the Baptist the greatest among all human beings (v. 11). Yet the second part of the saying downplays the first by excluding John from God’s domain. This qualification reflects the subsequent rivalry between the followers of the two leaders (the Baptist movement did survive and is known today as the Mandean religion in the Mesopotamia valley).”[6]

References:

[1] Williamson, C. M. (1993). Post-Holocaust Church Theology: A Guest in the House of Israel. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press. pp. 57

[2] Bourgeault, C. (2010). The Meaning of Mary Magdalene: Discovering the Woman at the Heart of Christianity. Boston, Massachusetts: Shambhala Publications. pp 99-100

[3] Weaver, J. L. (2008). Workbook for lectors and gospel readers. Chicago: Liturgy Training Publications. pp. 45

[4] Viviano, B. T. (1990). The Gospel According to Matthew. In Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer & Roland E. Murphy (Eds.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. pp. 653

[5] Sanders, E.P. (1995). The Historical Figure of Jesus. England: Penguin Books. pp. 186

[6] Funk, R. W., Hoover, R. W. & The Jesus Seminar (1993). The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. pp. 179

by Ibn Anwar

The first Muslim apologist to mention this verse as an argument against Christianity was Shabir Ally in a debate that he had with Sam Shamoun. In the debate the former cited the eminent theologian Prof. William Barclay after Sam Shamoun charged him with misrepresenting the text. Sam Shamoun came back and dismissed William Barclay’s interpretation as erroneous and offered his own instead. Shabir Ally rebutted saying that Sam Shamoun hadn’t read William Barclay and how then could he simply dismiss Barclay’s interpretation as erroneous. Some weeks ago I posed the verse to a Christian who goes by the nick name ‘madmanna’ on Paul William’s blog which prompted a rather interesting discussion between the two of us that later unfortunately turned somewhat stale.

In this article I wish to shed some light on the verse further and show that alternative views abound despite conservative ones that are taken for granted by those like madmanna. The verse in question reads, “It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins. It is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These have been redeemed from mankind as firstfruits for God and the Lamb,”. Echoing conservative interpretation of the text madmanna simply says that the verse is symbolic and metaphorical and should not be taken literally to mean that virgins without any experience in sexual intercourse in or out of wedlock are being spoken of here, but rather those who keep themselves spiritually clean from moral impurity and idolatry. Commentaries that can be cited to support madmanna’s position include Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, Liberty Bible Commentary and others. Is there a consensus view among Christian scholars that the verse ought to be taken metaphorically or symbolically rather than literally? The answer is of course no. I have mentioned earlier that Shabir Ally cited William Barclay who propounds an interpretation that does not agree with madmanna’s or Shamoun’s stance. Barclay says:

Rev. 14:4a

These are they who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins.

We take this half verse by itself, for it is one of the most difficult sayings in the whole of the Revelation, and it is of the utmost importance to get its meaning clear. It describes the unsullied purity of those who are in the company of the Lamb, but in what does that purity consist?

(i) Does it describe those who in sexual relationships have been pure? That can hardly be the case, for the people in question are described, not simply as pure, but as virgins, that is, as those who have never known sexual relations at all.

(ii) Does it describe those who have kept themselves free from spiritual adultery, that is, from all disloyalty to Jesus Christ? Again and again in the Old Testament we find it said of the people of Israel that they went awhoring after strange gods (Exo.34:15; Deut.31:16; Judg.2:17; Judg.8:27,33; Hos.9:1). But this passage does not read as if it was metaphorical.

(iii) Does it describe those who have remained celibate? The days soon came when the Church glorified virginity and held that the highest Christian life was possible only for those who renounced marriage altogether. The Gnostics held that “marriage and generation are from Satan.” Tatian held that “marriage is corruption and fornication.” Marcion set up churches for those who were celibates and from which all others were barred. One of the greatest of the early fathers, Origen, voluntarily castrated himself to ensure perpetual virginity. In the Acts of Paul and Thecla (11) it is the charge of Demas against Paul that “he deprives young men of wives and maidens of husbands by saying that in no other way shall there be a resurrection for you save by remaining chaste and keeping the flesh chaste.” There is a record of a Roman trial (Ruinart: Acts of the Martyrs, 27th April, 304) in which the Christians are described as “the people who impose upon silly women and tell them that they must not marry and persuade them to adopt a fanciful chastity.” This is precisely the spirit which was to beget the monasteries and the convents, and the implication that everything to do with sex and the body is wrong.

This is far from the teaching of the New Testament. Jesus glorified marriage, saying that for this cause a man left his own family and was so closely united to his wife that they were one flesh, and warning that what God has joined no man may put asunder (Matt.19:4-6). In his highest teaching Paul glorified marriage, likening the relationship of Christ to his Church to the relationship between man and wife (Eph.5:22-33). The writer to the Hebrews lays it down: “Let marriage be held in honour among all” (Heb.13:4).

What, then, are we to say of our present passage? If we are to treat it honestly, we cannot avoid the conclusion that it praises celibacy and virginity and belittles marriage. There are two possible explanations.

(a) It is possible that the writer of the Revelation did mean to exalt celibacy and virginity; the likelihood is that he was writing about A.D. 90 when this tendency was already in the Church. If that is so we will have to lay this passage on one side, because, tested by the rest of the New Testament, it is not a correct statement of the Christian ethic.

(b) There is another possible interpretation. When scribes were copying New Testament books they often added notes and comments in the margin, to explain the text. It may well be that some scribe in later days, copying this passage wished to give his opinion as to who the one hundred and forty thousand were; and added in the margin: “This means those who never defiled themselves with women and who remained virgins.” This is all the more likely since many of the later scribes were monks. When the manuscript was recopied, the comment in the margin may well have been included in the text as very commonly happened. This would then mean that the first half of Rev. 14:4 is not the words of John at all but the comment of a scribe. [1] (emphasis added)

Thus according to Barclay Revelation 14:4 (These are they who have not made themselves unclean with women; for they are virgins. These are they who go after the Lamb wherever he goes. These were taken from among men to be the first fruits to God and to the Lamb.) :

1. Is not metaphorical

2. Is an exhortation to virginity and celibacy

3. Is against Christian ethic when tested against the New Testament

4. Is an interpolation by a monkish scribe later

Is Barclay alone in the above points that he makes in his commentary? No, he is not. On points one and two Harvey Blaney in The Wesleyan Bible Commentary says:

“Here their purity is described in terms of truthfulness and virginity. This latter quality harks back to the Levitical ritual concerning sexual purity (Exod. 19:15), and may be associated with their following the Lamb whersoever he goeth, the One who never experienced the wedded state on earth.” [2]

Judith Covacs and Christopher Rowland in interpreting the verse cites Origen who believes that this refers to an elite group in the church and that: “He(Origen) interprets 14:4 as a call to pursue perfection: the ‘virgins’ – that is, the celibate – are also called the ‘first-fruits’.”[3] They continue saying:

“The virginity of the multitude indicates the importance of continence and virginity (cf. Vir. iv). In the Coptic Apocalypse of John, the seer himself is described as a ‘holy virgin’, and the Second Apocalypse of John speaks of humans who live like angels in this age (i.e. without sexual relations, see Luke 20:34-6), although without direct reference to Rev. 14:4 (in Court 2000:47).” [4]

On point three we find support in The Book of revelation by Robert H. Mounce which says, “The major difficulty with this interpretation, however, is that it implies that the sexual relationships within marriage are defiling. This is contrary to the clear teaching of the NT.” [5] Echoing Covacs and Rowland, Mounce says:

“A number of commentators understand John to be describing the 144, 000 as an elite group of saints who have attained the utmost in spirituality by renouncing marriage with its detracting sexual relationships. They are celibates and virgins.”[6]

In a footnote(ft. 5) to the above Mounce cites Kiddle, who says that “in John’s opinion the married Christian is further from the godly ideal than the unmarried.”

Explaining further he says:

“That certain segments of the early church came to exalt celibacy is perfectly true. Jesus had spoken with approval of eunuchs (Mt 19:12), and Paul wished that all men possessed the gift of continence so as to serve without hindrance the cause of Christ (1 Cor 7:1; 7:32). As early as the second century, Marcion had established a church solely for celibates. Origen, the great theologian and apologist, was said to have castrated himself to insure chastity.”[7]

Even more forward and direct are the words of Pablo Richard who remarks:

“First, “these are they who were not defiled with women: they are virgins.” This line sounds horrible to our ears today, and, however it might be explained, it still sounds horrible. Hence it should be eliminated from new translations, and a different reading should be put in its place, one that faithfully expresses the meaning of the original text.”[8]

Richard is so horrified by the obvious meaning that the verse conveys that he suggests that it be eliminated and substituted with a new translation. Though he does not arrive at every point made by Barclay concerning the verse he does to an extent agree with point three. To resolve the problematic message imparted by the verse he suggests a fresh new translation for the verse to replace those “from new translations”. The problem with this is that the translation that Barclay gives which is found in many modern day versions of the Bible too can be traced back to the oldest translation of the Bible into English namely the Wycliffe Bible which renders the verse thus:

“These it ben, that ben not defoulid with wymmen; for thei ben virgyns. These suen the lomb, whidir euer he schal go; these ben bouyt of alle men, the firste fruytis to God, and to the lomb.”

Hence it is not a matter of new translations or old translations, but rather it is a matter of the actual meaning that is found in the text. As the verse stands today Richard does concede the point that it is ” horrible to our ears today, and, however it might be explained, it still sounds horrible.”

Although there is currently no manuscript evidence for the claim that the verse was originally a marginal note by a monk that crept into the text as stated by Mounce, he does convey the idea mentioned by Barclay that, “A more common tack is to suggest that this part of the verse was originally a marginal note of some monkish scribe and later copied into the text by mistake.” [9] Similarly, Rev. Nigel Turner says, “The idea of this author, that celibacy is a particularly high Christian calling (the first fruits), has included Dr Charles to suspect that the reference is an interpolation of monkish scribes.”[10] He also points out that, “these virgins who accompany the Lamb are men, not women…” [11]  which means that Shabir Ally was right on the mark in saying that the verse suggests that “women will not enter paradise”. Some conservative quarters especially in the Protestant tradition attempt to interpret the text in a way that does not give rise to disharmony with the rest of the New Testament suggesting for example that the celibacy  implied here is not total sexual abstinence, but is rather a call to observe general sexual morality. Rev. Turner rejects such feeble attempts in no uncertain terms:

They are male ‘celibates’. It is beside the point to say that elsewhere in the NT celibacy is not particularly commended, and that therefore these saints are celibates only in the sense that they are not immoral. This author is not necessarily in line with the rest of the NT. To twist his words out of all resemblance to their real meaning, in the interest of making his ideas more palatable, is not in accord with the best traditions of Christian scholarship. [12]

The implications that the verse has are clearly pejorative to women which is why Christian scholars like Barclay are led to suggest that the verse is not authentic and even the less “liberal” like Pablo Richard is horrified by the meaning discernible from the text as it stands today.

References:

[1] Barclay, W. (1960, June).  The Daily Study Bible Series. Revelation. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from http://www.dannychesnut.com/Bible/Barclay/Revelation,%20Part%20II.htm

[2] Blaney, H.J.S. (1966). Revelation. In Carter, C. W. (Ed.), The Wesleyan Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans. pp. 477

[3]Kovacs, J.L. & Rowland, C. (2004). Revelation: the apocalypse of Jesus Christ.  United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Mounce, R.H. (1977). The Book of Revelation: The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans. pp. 269

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Pablo, R. (1995). Apocalypse: a people’s commentary on the book of Revelation. New York: Orbis Books. pp. 119

[9] Mounce, R.H. Op. Cit.

[10] Turner, N. (1962). Revelation. In Matthew Black & H. H. Rowley (Eds.), Peake’s Commentary on the Bible. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. pp. 1053

[11] Ibid. pp. 1052

[12] Ibid.

by Ibn Anwar

     Most Christians believe that Psalms 22 is a prophesy that was fulfilled by Jesus Christ at Calvary when he was allegedly crucified at the behest of the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate. The reason why Christians think that Psalms 22 foretells Jesus’ alleged crucifixion is because their New Testament makes abundant references to it as Daniel Estes says, “Psalm 22 is regarded as a messianic psalm because it is frequently quoted or alluded to in the New Testament narratives of the passion of Christ.”[1] Hence if  a Christian were to be asked why is Psalms 22 taken as a passage that prefigures Jesus Christ the typical answer that will be given is, “because the New Testament says so.” This is an excellent example of the kind of circular reasoning that missionaries and evangelists fall into as they try to prove their version of Jesus. In this article we will analyse some of the those relevant passages often used in missionary circles and see whether the Christian claim holds any water or not.

   Most frequently cited is the first verse which reads in English as, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”(Psalms 22:1). The relevant New Testament “citations” are Mark 15:34 and Matthew 27:46. Both places in modern versions of the Bible mention that Jesus cried out at the ninth hour the words, “My God, my God why have you forsaken me?”. At a simple glance both reports seem to correspond with one another verbatim, however upon further inspection we find that they do not exactly match in the textual witnesses available. In Mark 15:34 the transliteration in Greek variously reads, “ἑλωῒ ἑλωῒ λεμὰ σαβαχθανεί (Eloi eloi lema sabachtanei[Tischendorf]); Ελωι ελωι λαμμᾶ σαβαχθανι(Eloi eloi lamma sabachtani[Textus Receptus]); ελωι ελωι λιμα σαβαχθανι (Eloi eloi lima sabachtani[Byzantine text type]); ἐλωι ἐλωι λαμα σαβαχθανι (Eloi eloi lama sabachtani[Westcott/Hort]). In Matthew 27:46 the transliteration in Greek variously reads, ” ἐλώι ἐλώι λεμὰ σαβαχθανί (Eloi eloi lema saabachtani[Westcott/Hort); ἡλεὶ ἡλεὶ λεμὰ σαβαχθανεί (Elei elei lema sabachtanei [Tischendorf]); Ηλι ηλι λαμὰ σαβαχθανι (Eli eli lama sabachtani[Textus Receptus]); ηλι ηλι λιμα σαβαχθανι (Eli eli lima sabachtani[ Byzantine text type]). In a footnote to Matthew’s Eli, eli lema sabachtani Raymond E. Brown says:

“Variant ms. readings harmonize the form of God’s name in Mark/Matt so that both read Eloi or Eli. Similarly, there are attempts to harmonize the lama and lema difference, and witnesses in the Koine tradition read lima in Mark. The exotic sabachtani is written sabaktanei in Codex Vaticanus of Matt, sabapthanei in Vaticanus of Mark, and sabachtanei in Sinaiticus of Matt, sibakhthanei in Alexandrinus of Mark.”[2]

In the next footnote to the above Brown dismisses the variant Elei in Mark and Matthew as “an unimportant orthographic variant of Eli.” [3] What about Eli and Eloi and the other pervading variances? According to Brown the Eloi of Mark resembles Aramaic whilst the Eli of Matthew resembles Hebrew  and the lama of Mark resembles Hebrew whilst the lema of Matthew resembles Aramaic which has led some scholars to suggest a mixed Hebrew-Aramaic tradition that Brown says is not a necessary conclusion.[4] Brown also mentions that in Codex Washingtonensis of Matthew it reads Eli, eli ma sabachtanei. The following are the Aramaic and Hebrew renditions of Psalms 22:1/2 given by Brown[5]:

Mesoretic text in Hebrew: Eli, Eli, lama azabtani

Aramaic: Elahi, elahi, lema sebaqtani

Codex Bezae: Elei, elei, lama zaphthani

Though scholars may say that these differences are minor they do have an impact on our current concern namely, what exactly did Jesus say and “quote” if indeed he said or quoted Psalms 22:1/2 at all?

The following is a table comparing the variances in Matthew and Mark to the actual Aramaic and Hebrew of Psalms 22:1/2

     Any reasonable reader will be able to come to the conclusion that none of the available variances in the New Testament match the available readings of the actual verse in the Old Testament. So what exactly did Jesus quote if he quoted anything at all? Let us move on to what could have been meant by Jesus according to the authors of Matthew and Mark.

    The translation offered by Matthew concerning his “quotation” in Greek is, “thee mou, thee mou, hinati me egkatelipes”(θεε μου θεε μου ινα τι με εγκατελιπες) and Mark’s translation is,”ho theos mou, ho theous mou, eis ti egkatelipes me”(ο θεος μου ο θεος μου εις τι εγκατελιπες με). However, Codex Bezae gives a variant witness to Mark: ho theos mou, ho theos mou, eis ti oneidisas me. Though the choice of words in Matthew and Mark differ they are essentially semantically the same, but the verse in Mark according to Codex Bezae takes a radical shift.The word egkatelipes in the standard Marcan reading which means ‘to desert’ is substituted by oneidisas which means ‘to revile or insult’ as Brown notes, “this codex has a remarkable rendition in oneidisas: “Why have you reviled me?”.”[6] Most Christians would abandon this reading and contend that the scribe handling Bezae changed the word from forsaken to reviled because the former was theologically offensive to him. However, Brown asks a rather pertinent question, “Is God’s reviling Jesus any less offensive than God’s forsaking him?” Brown also makes mention of the fact that Harnack gives an argumentation that Bezae’s rendering is actually the original verb rather than the standard egkatelipes which according to him is a later harmonisation with the LXX reading.[7] In my humble view to abandon someone in most cases is less offensive than insulting him especially if the person is one’s beloved. If Bezae’s scribe was a Christian it is unfit to suggest that he would have introduced a worse description for Jesus than what was already available especially in light of the fact that Matthew’s rendering remains intact in i.e. egkatelipes in the same codex. It is then quite possible if not likely that it was Matthew who modified the original reading from oneidas to egkatelipes in following the LXX rendering. The reading in Codex Bezae is supported by the maledixisti of Codex Bobiensis and in oprobrium dedisti of Porphyrius.[8] The LXX reading of Psalms 22:2 is ho theos, ho theos mou, prosches moi hina ti egkatelipes me(ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός μου πρόσχες μοι ἵνα τί ἐγκατέλιπές με). The LXX is a literal translation of the Mesoretic text but adds the first possessive pronoun and there is an insertion of a clause petitioning attention (prosches moi).[9] This means that though Matthew and Mark may have adopted certain wordings from the LXX they also omitted others as they saw fit. Is that a true report on what Jesus had actually said or meant? It is very possible that things were modified or quite possibly invented as well considering the facts discussed thus far. In addition, there is a curious tradition, albeit rejected as a later invention in the second century Gospel of Peter which has this reading for the verse under inspection: he dynamis mou, he dynamis, kateleipsas me(Η δυναμις μου, η δυναμις, κατελειψας με). This reading according to those who favour Mark and Matthew is inaccurate. If it was possible to invent a false reading and apply it to Jesus’ speech during a time when there was already much sophistication in the Christian communities i.e. more literacy what is to dismiss the possibility of the invention of Mark 15:34 during a time when there was less literacy and less sophisticated intellectual Christian communities? There is no way to clearly and unequivocally prove that Jesus actually said ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” since the witnesses are all but in disagreement.

    The next verse that is often cited as prophesy for Jesus’ alleged crucifixion is Psalms 22:16/17. Unlike the Psalms 22:1/2 this verse has absolutely no parallel in the New Testament. The rendition of Psalms 22:16/17 that is often grappled by Christians is as follows:

“For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.”

If the crucifixion involved piercing(or nailing) would the authors of the gospels not have utilised this verse? Were they unfamiliar with the verse? According to Daniel Estes cited earlier they were intimately familiar with Psalms 22 and he goes on to cite Mays who says:

“…features of the psalm’s description of the psalmist’s experience appear in the Gospel narrative (v. 7 in Mark 15:29, Matt. 27:39; v. 8 in Matt. 27:43; v. 15 in John 19:28; and v. 18 in Mark 15:24; Matt. 27:35; Luke 23:34; and John 19:24).”[10]

Notice that Mays does not mention John 20 which is the only place that somewhat alludes to the traditional depiction of the crucifixion i.e. nailing on the cross. Why does John 20 leave out Psalms 22:16? Why does Luke 24:30 leave out Psalms 22:16? Both authors do cite Psalms 22 in other passages such as the ones mentioned by Mays. It is inconceivable to accept that they chose to leave out Psalms 22:16 if indeed it is correctly rendered as,”they pierced my hands and my feet” and that the crucified Jesus was truly nailed on the cross. In his discussion on this very issue Raymond E. Brown cites John 20:25,17, Luke 24:39, the Gospel of Peter 6:21 where it says,”the nails from the hands of the Lord.”, Ignatius who says Jesus was “truly nailed”(Smyrneans 1.2), and the Commentary on the Diatessaron 20.31 (Armenian; SC 121.365) speaking of Jesus’ hands as nailed and his feet tied. After mentioning all those references he concludes, “…none of the above passages that refer to nails only in hands echoes the LXX wording or imagery of the psalm.” He goes on to say that some scholars are puzzled by the failure of the authors of the gospels “to exploit” the scriptural passage.[11] Brown also cites J. W. Hewitt who wrote, “There is astonishingly little evidence that the feet of a crucified person was ever pierced by nails.”[12] The next question that should be asked is, “does the verse really say pierced?” The answer is yes and no. Yes, it says ‘pierced’ in many translations of the Bible and no, it says something else in many other translations of the Bible. Before we review the accuracy of either translation allow me to produce a comparative table containing the translations of Psalms 22:16/17(in some versions the verse is designated as 16 whilst others designate it as 17) found in the first English versions and Bibles up to the recent major ones.

*delueden is Middle English for ‘to dig’. Had he meant pierced he would have used the word berien or brochen both of which means ‘to pierce’. [13]

Undoubtedly, most English versions of the Bible has the word ‘pierce or pierced’ in Psalms 22:16/17, but this does not necessarily mean that it is the correct rendering. Other equally well known and well attested versions of the Bible depart from ‘pierced’ and offer alternative translations as seen above. It is noteworthy that most if not all the translations that support the reading ‘pierced’ are Christian produced Versions and Bibles with vested interest in the crucifixion. The alternative renderings of the word provided in the left column in the table above vary from Christian to non-Christian productions. In fact, the value of something claimed against one’s own position is higher than that which compliments or promotes. What evidence is there to suggest that ‘pierced’ is an accurate representation of the original reading in Psalms 22:16/17? In researching this topic I have discerned that Christian apologists and missionaries make the following contentions to prove their case for “pierced’:

1. The Dead Sea Scrolls at Nahal Hever attests the reading ‘they pierced’.

2. The LXX attests the reading ‘to pierce’

3. The text only makes sense with the word ‘pierced’ in it.

Contention 1: The Dead Sea Scrolls at Nahal Hever attests the reading ‘they pierced’.

First and foremost none of the Bibles prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls(DSS) had any access to the Nahal Hever fragment (HHev/Se 4). All the major early English translations of the Bible were based on the Mesoretic text and the LXX. Hence the first contention has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the value of the translation ‘pierced’ given in the Coverdale Bible, Bishop’s Bible, the Geneva Bible and the King James Version. The Mesoretic reading of the word in question is כָּאֲרִי (ka’ari) which means ‘like a lion’. The same word occurs in several places such as in Numbers 24:9, Isaiah 38:13 and Ezekiel 22:25. The King James Version and others correctly translate the word as ‘like a lion’ in such places. Why then have they opted for ‘they pierced’ in Psalms 22:16/17 instead of ‘like a lion’ as in the JPS? The reason could vary from as simple as a conjecture made based on their theological beliefs to somewhat more complex ones like the import given to one variant reading in one manuscript or fragment over the other. The clue perhaps lies in the earliest English translation of the Bible, that is, the Wycliffe Bible where the word ‘to dig’ is favoured. The origin of this meaning can be traced back to the LXX that was indeed available to Bible translators prior to the DSS which we will discuss in the second contention. In the meantime let us return to the claim that the DSS at Nahal Hever supports the translation ‘they pierced’. The word in the Nahal Hever Psalms fragment is כּארי (ka’ari) which means ‘like a lion’, but missionaries have postulated that the final letter isn’t an elongated yod, but is rather a vav which would mean that the word is actually כּארו (ka’aru). Let us say that the missionary claim is true. Jewish critics have pointed out rightly that the word ka’aru does not exist in the Hebrew language. However, if the aleph is removed from the word then it would be karu whose root is karah which means ‘to dig’. This would resemble the LXX reading which we will see later. However, the word karah which occurs 15 times in the Old Testament such as in Psalms 57:6 is never understood as ‘pierced’. It means to dig a hole, trench,pit, ditch etc. Many Christians have claimed that the Mesoretic reading of the word is corrupt. Marko Marttila for example makes the claim that, “The third colon of the Mesoretic Text is corrupt. The expression כּארי does not make any sense in its context.[14] Magne Saebo notes that,”Ps. 22:17 a famous crux interpretum left Christian interpreters able to argue that Jewish scribes had altered a text that once read “they have pierced my hands and my feet”, a reading well adapted to the crucifixion of Jesus.” [15] Marttila reasons that because the expression found in the Mesoretic text, that is, ka’ari makes no sense in the context so it should be dismissed. This is the kind of circular reasoning that I mentioned at the beginning of the article that many Christians tend to fall prey to. Whoever made it a rule that every single passage and word in the Bible(s) have to be meaningful and understandable to readers? Today scholars admit that some words in the Bible are simply unknown such as Selah which occurs time and again throughout the Old Testament, yet no one knows what it really means. Of course, Christians will reject the Mesoretic reading since it does not support their Christological view as Samuel L. Terrien remarks, “The MT of Ps 22:17 does not support the image of Jesus’ hands and feet being pierced with nails, but the word is uncertain and may mean “like a lion” or “dug” as with an agricultural instrument (cf. LXX, Aquila, and Symmachus).”[16] Even if one were to agree that ka’ari is a corruption of ka’aru or karu it will still not yield the result that Christian apologists and missionaries would like.If the author wanted to convey the idea of piercing he could have used words like daqar or ratza that are commonly used to refer to piercing in the Old Testament as Asher Norman says:

“The Hebrew word, “ka’are” was mistranslated as “pierced,” although it means “like a lion”. If King David wanted to write, “pierced”, he would have said (in Hebrew) “daqar” or “ratza,” both of which are commonly used in the Hebrew Bible. Amazingly, the Christian Bible correctly translates “ka’are” in the same chapter of Psalms 22!”[17]

In addition, the Nahal Hever fragment is dated to the second century CE according to Geza Vermes[18] which means that it is quite possible that a Christian scribe changed כָּאֲרִי to כּארו(if this is indeed the correct reading in the fragment) hence making it appear like the word כָּרוּ (they dug) in hopes of aligning it with Christian doctrine. This would mean that instead of the Mesoretes corrupting the text seven to eight hundred years later it was actually the Christians who did.

Contention 2: The LXX attests the reading ‘to pierce’

Does the LXX really support the reading ‘pierced’? No, it does not. The word used in the LXX is ὤρυξαν(oruksan) which is the exact same word used in Psalms 57:6 which reads in English as, “They spread a net for my feet–I was bowed down in distress. They dug a pit in my path–but they have fallen into it themselves. Selah”. There isn’t a single English Bible that translates the word oruksan here as “pierced”! Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott in their An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon defines oruksan as ‘to dig’, as in [to] dig a trench. Nowhere do they suggest that the word could mean ‘pierced’. Although Marttila questions the meaningfulness of the LXX rendering he indicates correctly the meaning of the word and says,”…the Septuagint reflects this meaning in its rendering ὤρυξαν (basic form ορυσσω ‘to dig’).”[19] His concern for the meaningfulness of the LXX rendering need not move us as we have already shown that a word or expression in the Bible does not have to be meaningful to readers in order to be the correct reading.Is digging the same as piercing? No, it is not. Digging involves unearthing something by making a hole with tools such as a spade. It is the removal of medium to another location, hence creating a crevice in the ground. To pierce is not to dig. Poking a pole into the sand or ground(hence piercing it) has nothing at all to do with digging. So to suggest that the LXX supports ‘pierced’ is baseless as Marttila himself sees no connection between the two.

Contention 3: The text only makes sense with the word ‘pierced’ in it.

Does the notion of digging placed in the verse render it unintelligible as per Marttila’s assertion? Flavius Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator in his Expositio Psalmorum certainly did not think so. He favoured the rendering, “They have dug my hands and feet” and gave his interpretation based on that.[20] What about the Jewish rendering “like a lion”? Does it make sense? Jewish authorities certainly do think so. Norman says:

“King David’s metaphor of the dog and the lion (menacing beasts) symbolizes David’s bitter foes that continuously sought to destroy him. The verse is in the past perfect tense, “have surrounded me,” describing an historical event. It is not a messianic prophecy. The “me and my” in the text refers to King David, not the “son god”. There are no capital letters in Hebrew.”[21]

As we have seen the three contentions that are normally raised by missionary Christians do not at all prove their case for reading the text as ‘pierced’ in order to fit in the traditional crucifixion imagery. The missionary’s choice is obviously the King James Version’s rendering (or those other versions that retain “pierced” in the verse), but the latest revision of the KJV by 30 eminent Christian and Jewish scholars certainly disagree. The KJV reads as follows:

“For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.”

The Revised Standard Version on the other hand differs:

For dogs are all around me; a company of evildoers encircles me. My hands and feet have shriveled.

In its footnote to “shriveled” the RSV candidly states,”Meaning of Hebrew uncertain”. Perhaps they were incompetent to translate? Paul D. Wegner in his excellent work Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and the Development of the Bible says about the RSV:

“The translation committee for the New Revised Standard Version, still at work, is composed of thirty men and women from Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Jewish groups, many of whom are well-known scholars from large institutions: Joseph Blenkinsopp (Notre Dame), Paul D. Hanson (Harvard), Walter Harrelson (Vanderbilt), William Holladay (Andover-Newton), S. Dean McBride (Garrett), Patrick Miller (Union), and Marvin Pope (Yale)… The New Revised Standard Version became available in 1989, with and without the Apocrypha. On May 19, 1989, the National Council of Churchers met in Louisville, Kentucky, to authorize the revision for use in the churches of its membership and the motion was overwhelmingly approved.”[22]

The chairman of the translation committee was none other than Prof. Bruce Metzger himself from Princeton Theological Seminary who has been described as a “world-renowned authority on translating the New Testament from the original Greek” according to an article on him published in the New York Times.[23] Surely, these were competent scholars who knew what they were doing when they opted for “shriveled” over “pierced”? And when they say that the Hebrew is uncertain does that make them incompetent or honest in their translation endeavour? According to their credentials the former should be eliminated in favour of the latter. The KJV has thus far undergone seven revision beginning with the English Revised Version (NT, 1881; entire Bible, 1885) followed by the American Standard Version (1901), the Revised Standard Version (1952), New American Standard Bible (1971), King James II Version (1971), New King James Version (1982) and the latest New Revised Standard Version (1989).[24] Though the Revised Standard Version mainly relied on Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia for its Old Testament translation they were aware of both the LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls including those found at Nahal Hever. As Bruce Metzger says:

“Following the publication of the RSV Old Testament in 1952, significant advances were made in the discovery and interpretation of documents in Semitic languages related to Hebrew. In addition to the information that had become available in the late 1940s from the Dead Sea texts of Isaiah and Habakkuk, subsequent acquisitions from the same area brought to light many other early copies of all the books of the Hebrew Scriptures (except Esther), though most of these copies are fragmentary. During the same period early Greek manuscript copies of books of the New Testament also became available.”[25]

They were certainly aware of the Hebrew word used in the Nahal Hever fragment of Psalms, yet they revised “pierced” to “shriveled” and admit that the Hebrew meaning is uncertain. This means that reasonable persons ought to dismiss the rendering found in all previous revisions of the KJV and the 1611 version itself. The New Interpreter’s Study Bible concurs with the NRSV and uses the same translation, “My hands and feet shrivelled”. In its footnote to the verse it also says, “meaning of Hebrew uncertain”.[26] Rodney R. Hutton in the New Oxford Annotated Bible also concurs with the NRSV finding retaining its translation, “My hands and feet are shrivelled” with a footnote stating, “textually obscure,:(lit.:”like a lion my hands and feet.)”.[27] Alternatively, a rather interesting translation is offered in the Catholic Study Bible (already cited in the comparative table above) which renders the verse as, “So wasted are my hands and feet”. [28] This particular translation is approved by the Administrative Committee/Board of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the United States Catholic Conference. Some other scholars have suggested the meaning “bound”(they bound my hands and feet) from the Hebrew karkhu, but as Robert Alter who himself suggests this reading in his translation concedes that,”there is admittedly no ancient textual warrant for this reading.” [29] We have yet another unique translation from The Essential Study Bible which renders the verse as “tearing at my hands and my feet” with its footnote saying, “e. tearing at: One possible meaning for the difficult Hebrew text.” [30] The New Jerome Biblical Commentary describes the verse as “very difficult” saying, “17. Very difficult: lit., “Like a lion my hands and feet.” Suggested transls. include: “They have pierced [ lit., "dug"] my hands and my feet”; “they have picked clean my hands and my feet”; “my hands and my feet are shriveled up (by illness).” [31]

    The clear absence of Psalms 22:16/17 in the New Testament even though it makes several references to other verses in Psalms 22 is a strong argument against its alleged connection to how Jesus was allegedly crucified. Had the authors of the gospels understood the verse as how Christian missionaries and evangelists today do they would certainly have made use of it. The verse itself does not say “pierced” despite missionary semantic games. The New Oxford Annotated Bible, The New Interpreter’s Study Bible and the New Revised Standard Version all agree that the Hebrew is unclear and as such it is of no value in terms of proving the alleged crucifixion of Jesus.

   A careful reading of the entire passage will convince the unbiased reasonable observer that to suggest Jesus is being foretold by Psalms 22 is folly. Christian missionaries have to decide whether the passage covers the crucifixion only or a larger context than that lest they do violence to the passage and haphazardly force their christalogical interpretation into it. In verse two it says, “O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer; and by night but find no rest.” How long did the crucifixion last? According to the gospels it lasted only for a few hours and did not span from day to night. Further more, the same Christian missionaries claim that Isaiah 53:7 describes Jesus’ passion wherein it says, “he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.” The verse says three times that he was silent and said nothing, yet according to verse two in Psalms 22, the person is crying out to God day and night! The Christian missionaries cannot have their cake and eat it too. In verse six the person agonises and says, “I am a worm, and not a human.” Is such language appropriate for the Messiah? Recently, I had a discussion with a Christian who goes by the nick name ‘the Bull’ on this site and on this same issue. He claimed that whilst on the cross bearing the sins of all he did indeed become like a worm. The verse itself does not actually say “like a worm” and nowhere does it indicate that the worm like nature was acquired for a limited time only on a specific occasion. The Christian has to import his theology from the New Testament and force it into the text in order to arrive at such an understanding. However, let us say for the sake of argument that it appropriately describes Jesus’ state of being while he was on the cross and that the the word worm is simply hyperbolic and figurative. The same expression is found in Job 25:6, ““how much less man, who is but a maggot–the son of man, who is only a worm!”. The context shows that this maggot of a man(all of mankind) and THE SON OF MAN who is only a worm are impure. Jesus is called ‘son of man’ 83 times in the New Testament. Is he impure like all men(maggots) in Job 25:6? Christian missionaries may say, “Yes, he was when he was on the cross he took all sin upon himself”. Notice that the verses do not really say this. Prior to Job 25:6, but still in the same book he says,””Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one!”(Job 14:4). Wasn’t Jesus’ mother a woman? As a woman was she totally pure? Catholic theology (Immaculate conception) says yes, but the bulk of Protestants say no. Does that mean Jesus was impure since Job 14:4 says “no one can bring what is pure from the impure?”. Later in verse 7 of Psalms 22 it says, “All who see me mock at me; they make mouths at me, they shake their heads;”. Is this lamentation in line with what is presented in the gospels? Throughout Jesus’ ministry everyone who came to him accepted him with the exception of some scribes and Pharisees. Matthew 4:23-25 say, “News about him(his “fame” in the NRSV) spread all over Syria, and people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed; and he healed them. Large crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him.” In the next chapter it says he had to go atop a mountain(not a hill or a rock) to speak to the congregation of people who came to meet him. That’s how accepted he was by the people. In Matthew 9:8, the multitude praised God for giving such authority to men(Jesus). The clever Christian missionary will say, “but you see Psalms 22:7 is not referring to Jesus’ entire ministry, but only when he was crucified.” Is that so? According to Matthew 27:32, a Simon of Cyrene went to assist Jesus with the cross which wouldn’t have made sense if he was of those who mocked Jesus. In John 19:25-26, Jesus’ mother, her sister and Mary Magdelene along with the “disciple whom he loved” were present when Jesus was allegedly on the cross. Surely the missionary Christians do not believe they mocked Jesus. The Christian missionary fails yet again upon their own criterion. Some of the authors of the New Testament may have believed that Psalms 22 prophesied Jesus’ crucifixion, but our discussion has shown that that is not the case at all.

Related articles:

A Critique on the Crucifixion

A Critical Study of Isaiah 53

References:

[1] Estes, D. J. (2005). Handbook on the Wisdom Books and Psalms. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.

[2] Brown, R.E. (1994). The Death of the Messiah: from gethsemane to the grave: a commentary on the Passion narratives in the four Gospels, Vol. 2 . New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group. pp. 1051

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid. pp. 1052

[5] Ibid. pp. 1051

[6] Ibid. 1055

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid. 1054

[10] cited in Estes, D.J. Op. Cit.

[11] Brown, R.E. Op. Cit. pp. 949

[12] Ibid. pp. 950

[13] Mayhew, A.L. & Skeat,W.W.(n.d.). A Concise Dictionary of Middle English from A.D. 1150 to 1580. Dodo Press. pp. 69, 92, 149.

[14] Marttila, M. (2006). Collective Reinterpretation in the Psalms: A study of the redaction history of the Psalter. Tubingen : Mohr Siebeck. pp. 91

[15] Hobbs, R.G. (2008). Pluriformity of Early Reformation Scriptural Interpretation. In Magne Saebo(ed.), Hebrew Bible Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation. Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. pp. 507

[16]Terrien, S. L. (2002). The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co. pp. 233

[17] Norman, A. (2007). Twenty-six reasons why Jews don’t believe in Jesus. Los Angeles, California: Black White and Read Publishing. pp. 250

[18] Vermes, G. (1999). An Introduction to the Complete Dead Sea Scrolls. Fortress Press. pp.24

[19] Marttila, M. Op. Cit.

[20]  Senator, F. M. A. C. (1990). Expositio Psalmorum (P. G. Walsh, Trans.) Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press.  pp. 224 (Original Work published 580)

[21] Norman, A. Op. Cit. pp. 251

[22] Wegner, P. D. (2004). Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic. pp. 332

[23] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/16/obituaries/16metzger.html

[24] Wegner, P.D. Op. Cit. pp. 334

[25] Ibid. pp. 251

[26] Harelson, W. J. (2003). The New Interpreter’s Study Bible. Nashville: Abingdon Press. pp. 771

[27] Hutton, R.R. (2010). Psalms. In Michael D. Coogan (Ed.), The New Oxford annotated Bible. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 790

[28] Senior, D & Collins, J.J. (2006). The Catholic Study Bible. Oxford University Press. pp. 697

[29] Alter, R. (2007). The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary. New York: Norton. pp. 74

[30] American Bible Society(2007). The Essential Study Bible. New York: Penguin Group. pp. 720

[31] Kselman, J.S. & Barre, M.L. (1990). Psalms. In Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer & Roland E. Murphy (Eds.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. pp. 530

by Ibn Anwar

Death comes to us all. If there is one fact that no human being in human history can deny is that every man since the dawn of creation is absolutely subject to death. The Holy Qur’an emphatically reminds us of this inescapable truth in Surah al-Ankabut(29), verse 57:

كل نفس ذائقة الموت ثم إليناترجعون

“Every soul shall taste death: In the end to Us shall you be brought back.”

*The same reminder is repeated in Surah al-Imran(3), verse 185

No king or pauper can hide from the inevitable clutches of death:

اينماتكونوا يدرككم الموت ولوكنتم فى بروج مشيدة

“Wherever you are, death will come to you, even if you are in towers built up strong and high”(Surah Al-Nisa’(4), verse 78)

The exact time and hour of our demise is Allah’s prerogative as the Qur’an says in Surah al-Imran(3), verse 145:

… وماكان لنفس أن تموت إلا بإذن الله

“Nor can a soul die except by Allah’s permission…”

However, before we die every single one of us experiences life on earth. Life and death come in one package. Because life and death are inseparable opposites like the yin and yang symbol the former has a direct bearing on the latter. In Islamic doctrine the state of death and life after death that every individual will experience is directly affected by his or her way of living (deeds and misdeeds; good and bad choices) whilst on earth. This brings us to the question, “Why do we live?”

In answering this age old question ( i.e. what is the purpose of life?) the Qur’an says in no uncertain terms that we have been made to serve Him.

وما خلقت الجن والْإنس إلَّا ليعبدون

“I have not created the jinn and mankind except to serve Me.” (Al-Dhariyat(51), verse 56)

Serving God entails following His commandments and avoiding His prohibitions, that is, to do good and avoid evil. This life is but a temporary station in which we are to try our level best to generate as much good as possible and shun misdeeds. The Qur’an says:

… الذى خلق الموت والحيوة ليبلوكم أيكم أحسن عملاً

“He who created death and life, that He may try which of you is best in deed…”(Surah Al-Mulk(67), verse 2)

The Prophet s.a.w. is recorded to have said:

كن فى الدنيا كأنك غريب اوعابر سبيل وعد نفسك فى اهل القبور

“Be in this world as though you are a foreigner or passerby on a road and count yourself as a member of the grave.”(Bukhari, Ahmad, Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah)

Recompense

Reward and punishment for our deeds gained on earth will take place in two different realms after death, but of a surety God will judge us for what we did when we were on earth.

فمن يعمل مثقال ذرة خيرا يره وميعمل مثقال ذرة شرا يره

“Then shall anyone who has done an atom’s weight of good see it! And anyone who has done an atom’s weight of evil, shall see it.”(Al-Zalzalah(99), verses 7-8)

The above refers to the final judgment after the resurrection which is also related in Surah Al-Anbiya’(21), verse 47, but before that comes the realm of the grave or ‘alam barzakh.

The realm of the grave is the realm between our world and the final judgment(hereafter). It is rightly called barzakh which literally means a barrier as it is the transit realm from this world to the hereafter. Like the earth it is also temporary, but it is an unseen reality in which good things or bad things will be experienced by the dead depending on his belief and deeds. Before that however, one must taste death. What happens at the moment of death?

The Qur’an says that the angelof death(identified as Izrail in hadith) is responsible at the behest of Allah to take away souls that are due to die.

قل يتوفكم ملك الموت الذى وكل بكم ثم إلى ربكم ترجعون

“Say:”The Angel of Death, put in charge of you, will take your souls: then shall you be brought back to your Lord.” (Al-Sajdah(32), verse 11)

The experience of death when the soul is taken by Izrail is described by the Prophet s.a.w. in the following narration from Al-Bara’ Ibn Azib:

“If an unbelieving servant is more concerned with the worldly life than he is about the other life, tarfaced angels descend from the sky. These angels, who are carrying bad smelling fragrance, sit near proximity to the dying unbeliever. Then the Angel of Death descends and places himself near the head of the unbeliever. The Angel of Death says: ‘O bad soul! Come out to Allah’s curse and anger.’ The Prophet s.a.w. said: The soul disperses in the dying person’s body. The Angel of Death grabs the soul like a sufud(a piece of metal stuck in wet wool). The Angel of Death takes the soul without letting it stay in his hands even for a moment. Then the angels put a rough garment that smells bad on the deceased’s soul. The soul comes out having a very bad smell.” The Qur’an describes the pangs of the soul extraction of the unbeliever in a several places e.g. 8:50-51 and 47:27-28. The good believer on the other hand experiences a soothing extraction:

“If the believing servant refrains from coveting material things in his temporal life and desires the hereafter, white-faced angels descends from the sky. Their faces shine as brightly as the sun. They carry with them funeral garb and hanut(fragrance) from Heaven. They sit in near proximity to the dying person. The Angel of Death comes and sits near the dying person’s head, saying: O good soul, come out to Allah’s mercy and forgiveness. The Prophet s.a.w. said, ‘The soul comes out like a drop of water pouring out. Then the Angel takes the soul, without letting it stand in his hand; he releases it like a blink. The other angels take the soul and clothe it in funeral garb and hanut. From the soul comes the best smell, one resembling the best musk found on earth.” (Ahmad H. Sakr, Life, Death and the Life After, p. 45-46)

The ease that righteous believers experience during the extraction phase is described in various places in the Qur’an such as in al-Waqi’ah:88-89)

The Prophet s.a.w. used to pray for husnul khatimah and not su’ul khatimah i.e. a good ending and not a bad ending:

اللهم إني أسألك حسن الخاتمة وأعوذبك من سوءالخاتمة

*The time of death is not negotiable as the Qur’an says in Surah al-A’raf(7), verse 34.

Does the soul or the body taste death? The answer of Ahl Sunnah Wal Jama’ah as mentioned by Ibn Qayyim is that the body experiences death whilst the death that the soul goes through is the extraction process mentioned earlier i.e. the separation from the physical body.

The realm of the grave/isthmus(‘alam qubr/barzakh)

ثم أما ته فأقبره

“Then he causes him to die, and puts him in his grave.”(‘Abasa(80), verse 21)

ومن ورآءهم برزخ إلى يوم يبعثون…

“Before them is a partition till the day they are raised up.”(Suraj al-mu’minun(23), verse 100)

In the grave or ‘alam barzakh(isthmus) the dead will undergo some trials. Most prominently is that he will be asked three questions namely:

من ربك؟ .1

(Who is your Lord?)

مادينك؟ .2

(What is your religion?)

ماكنت تقول في هذا الجل محمد؟.3

(What did you say about this man Muhammad?)

*The last question appears solitarily in Sahih Bukhari related by Qatadah through Anas Bin Malik(it is also related by others including Ibn Majah and Al-Baihaqi), but Abu Dawud records ahadith containing all three questions together with some slight variation in wording in the third question. Three groups of people will not be able to answer the question namely the munafiq(hypocrite), the kafir(disbeliever) and the murtad(apostate) and for that they will be rebuked and punished. The successful are the righteous believers who will testify that there is no God except Allah and Muhammad is His messenger. Upon answering successfully the angels will say to them:

نم كنومة العروس الذي لا يوقظه إلا احب أهله إليه

“Go to sleep like a bride that is not awoken except by his beloved kinsmen.”(Al-Tirmidhi; Kitab Al-Haqa’iq wa al-daqa’iq)

Does the punishment in the grave happen to the soul or the body? According to Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawzi in his Kitab Al-Ruh the agreed upon position in Ahl Sunnah Wal Jama’ah is that both will experience it. Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawzi talks about seven different categories or states of being that the deceased will experience and Hujjatul Islam Imam Al-Ghazali discusses four periodic stages in Al-Durra al-fakhira fi kashf ‘ulum al-akhira in the barzakh. Can the dead hear and are they aware of the living? Yes, they can hear and they are aware. This is variously proven by several Qur’anic verses and numerous accounts in hadith. Ibn taimiyya was asked if the dead are aware of the living who visit them. Ibn taimiyya replied : “There is no doubt that they are aware of the living that visit them.” And Ibn Taymiyyah quoted the following Hadith in his support: “The proof of dead awareness comes from two Sahih Books of Bukhari and Muslim in which Rasool Allah (alayhi salaat wa salaam) said that when people have buried a dead person and leave for home, the dead can hear the thumps of sandaled feet of those who leave.” (Ibn Taimiyyah, Majma al-Fatawa, vol. 24, page 362 )

The Special life of Muhammad s.a.w. in the barzakh

الأنبياء أحياء في قبورهم يصلون

“The Prophets are alive in their graves worshipping.”(Anas ibn Malik in the Musnad of Abu Ya’la, 6:147)

The Prophet’s shafa’ah is available to the believers even now.

حياتي خير لكم, تحدثون ويحدث لكم, ووفاتي خير لكم تعرض علي أعمالكم ما رأيت من خير حمدت الله, وما رأيت من شر استغفرت لكم

” My life is a great good for you, you will relate about me and it will be related to you, and my death is a great good for you, your actions will be presented to me, and if I see goodness I will praise Allah , and if I see evil I will ask forgiveness of Him for you.”

This sahih hadith has been narrated from Ibn Mas’ud from Muhammad s.a.w. by Al-Bazzar in his Musnad(1:397) with a chain declared sound by Imam Al-Suyuti in Manahil Al-Safa (pg.31, #8), Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami in Majma’ Al-Zawa’id (9:24 #91), Al-Iraqi in Tarh al-Tathrib (3:297), Al-Munawi in Fayd Al-Qadir (3:401), Al-Khafaji and Al-Qari in Sharh Al-Shifa’ (1:102) and others.

We are commanded to send our salawat to the Prophet s.a.w. who will hear it and answer it. The commandment to send our salawat upon Muhammad s.a.w. is found in Surah Al-Ahzab(33), verse 56. Allah will bless those who do so ten times every time as the hadith in Sahih Muslim relates:

من صلى علي صلاة صلى الله عليه بها عشرا

“Whoever sends his prayer upon me, Allah will bless him ten times.”

The Day of Assembly/Judgment Day

The eschatological doctrine in Islam is that everything will perish(Surah Al-Rahman(55), verses 26-27; Surah Al-Zumar(39), verse 68) except Allah, the Creator. The Angel charged with the responsibility of ending and resurrecting all life will do so by blowing a horned trumpet three times. In a hadith related by Abu Hurayrah in Al-Tabarani’s Al-Matulat the events are summarised as follows:

قلت يا رسول الله وما الصور؟ قال: القرن, قلت: اي شئ هو؟ قال: عظم ان عظم دارة فيه كعرض السماء والارض فينفخ فيه ثلاث نخات الاولى نفخة الفزع, والثانية نفخة الصفق, والثالثة نفخة القيام لرب العالمين

“I asked: ‘What is the trumpet, Oh Messenger of Allah?’ He said: ‘The horn.’. I asked: What kind of horn is it? He answered: Very big the size of which stretched from the heaven to the earth. Thus, he(Israfil) will blow it three times. The first frightens(as a signal Surah Al-Naml, verse 87); the second causes death; the third resurrects for the Lord of the universe.”

Every single person will perish and be raised alive again to be gathered in a colossal assembly before their Lord and Creator, Allah s.w.t. This is the big yet very long period where all things will be revealed with nothing left untouched. The Day of Gathering prompted by the trumpet blast is mentioned in Surah al-Naba’(78), verse 18. According to a narration from Ibn Mas’ud as recorded by Ibn Abid Dunya, Al-Tabarani and Al-Hakim, the first people to the last people will be gathered by Allah(يجمع الله الاولين والاخرين) to a set time at a place of rising/standing for 40 years with their eyes open waiting for their Lord’s decision. In another narration from Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri relates that the Prophet s.a.w. said that a day during Judgment Day is over 50 000 years                         (يوم كان مقداره خمسين الف سنة), but for the believers it will be shortened to shorter than performing an obligatory prayer. (Ahmad, Abu Ya’la, Ibn Hibban) If the two narrations are brought together that means that on average many will have to way for approximately 73 0000000 (365 x 40 x 50 000) years until his fate is decided. The situation is compounded further by innumerable types of suffering that the unrighteous will have to endure. Generally, according to a narration in Sahih Muslim the sun will be extremely close to the people till about one mile. They will be sunken with their sweats according to their deeds. In a narration from Umar Bin Shu’ayb who heard tha Prophet s.a.w. saying the arrogant and boastful on earth will be raised like seeds that resemble men that are eaten by worms (الذر في صور الرجال يغشاهم الذلمن) and they will be enveloped by flames and drink from the ashes of hell that is muddy.

As mentioned earlier, the believers will have a better fate. The Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. will act as an intermediary between Allah and the believers. The minimum requirement is that they have to believe with all their heart and mind that there is no God except Allah and Muhammad is His messenger. These are those most fortunate to receive the Prophet’s shafa’ah or intercession:

اسعد الناس بشفاعتي يوم القيامة من قال لاله الا الله خالصا من قلبه او نفسه

(Sahih Bukhari)

A hadith that is often quoted about the people going from one prophet to the other is also from Sahih Bukhari. They will finally reach Muhammad s.a.w. who will be granted by Allah as their intercessor.

According to an agreed upon hadith from Abu Hurayrah who narrated that the Prophet s.a.w. said that seven groups of people will be protected from the heat of the sun mentioned in the hadith cited earlier. They include a just leader, a youth raised in the worship of Allah, a person whose heart is attached with mosques, two individuals who liked each other: stayed friends and departed as friends, a person who was seduced by a beautiful and high ranked woman, but refused due to his fear of Allah, a person who spent money privately that even his left hand did not know and a person whose tears came out of his eyes as soon as the name of Allah was mentioned.

The deeds of all will be put on the scales called mizan as mentioned in Surah Al-Anbiya’(21), verse 47.

ونضع الموازين القسط ليوم القيامة فلا تظلم نفس شيئا وإن كان مثقال حبة من خردل أتينا بها وكفى بنا حاسبين

“We shall set up scales of justice for the Day of Judgment, so that not a soul will be dealt unjustly in the least. And if there be the weight of a mustard seed, We will bring it (to account): and enough are We to take account.” (See also Al-A’raf, verse 8)

If the good deeds outweigh the bad deeds the person will not have much to fear. All of his deeds will be shown to him by Allah from a ‘book of records’ mentioned variously in the Qur’an e.g. (17:13-14; 69:19-21;25-29). Receiving the records in one’s right hand is a good sign whilst receiving it on the left isn’t. Our bodily parts will bear witness to our actions on earth. This is mentioned in several places in the Qur’an as well e.g. 24:24 and 41:20-23.

Mankind will all have to cross a bridge called the siraat that is fixed over hell fire. The bridge is sharper than a sword and finer than a hair span(أحد من السيف وأدق من اشعرة). The first to cross will be Muhammad s.a.w. along with the rest of the Prophets followed by the Ummah of Muhammad s.a.w. and the rest of humanity as mentioned in Sahih Bukhari. The unbelievers will fall into the pits of hell along with the unrighteous Muslims. Unlike the unbelievers however, Muslims who enter hellfire will be released after having served their time for whatever misdeeds carried out that were not forgiven during Judgment. This is the ijma’ or consensus of the ‘ulama or scholars of Ahl Sunnah Wal Jama’ah.

Heaven and Hell

The Qur’an says that the one unforgivable sin is associating partners with Allah.

Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed. (Surah Al-Nisa(4), verse 48)

Allah forgiveth not (The sin of) joining other gods with Him; but He forgiveth whom He pleaseth other sins than this: one who joins other gods with Allah, Hath strayed far, far away (from the right). (Surah Al-Nisa’(4), verse 116)

Those who die in the sin of shirk after Islam has been clearly shown to them they will perish forever in hell, but those who repent before their last breath will be saved.

And those who invoke not any other god along with Allah…and whoever does this shall receive the punishment…Except those who repent and believe (in Islâmic Monotheism), and do righteous deeds, for those, Allâh will change their sins into good deeds, and Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
And whosoever repents and does righteous good deeds, then verily, he repents towards Allâh with true repentance. (Al-Furqan(25), verses 68, 70-71)

The surest key to eternal bliss is a sincere belief in the Oneness of Allah as the following hadith makes clear:

من كان آخر كلامه , لا اله ال الله , دخل الجنة

“Anyone whose speech ends with ‘there is no god except Allah’ will enter paradise.” (Abu Ya’la from Abi Said)

In short, no believer will be left in hell for eternity(see ‘Umdat Al-Salik, under Khuruj al-muwahideen min al-nar).

*Those who were not fortunate enough to receive and accept or deny the message of Islam will not suffer the same fate as those who blatantly denied Islam. This is the position of the Ahl Sunnah Wal Jama’ah based on the Qur’anic verse:

“And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning)”(Al-Isra’(17), verse 15)

What happens in hellfire? The descriptions given in the Qur’an and hadith are innumerable. However, like all the other stages in the afterlife, the state of being of an individual depends on his deeds and belief.

Likewise, the descriptions given of heaven are innumerable. One of the verses of the Qur’an that nicely captures the pleasures of heaven is in Surah al-Zukhruf(43), verse 71 which says that in heaven will be anything that the soul desires.

Are men and women judged with equity and fairness in the hereafter? Yes, they are.

The Qur’an makes in explicit in the following verses:

And whoever does righteous deeds, whether male or female, while being a believer – those will enter Paradise and will not be wronged, [even as much as] the speck on a date seed. (Surah Al-Nisa(4), verse 124)

[It was] so that Allah may punish the hypocrite men and hypocrite women and the men and women who associate others with Him and that Allah may accept repentance from the believing men and believing women. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful. (Surah Al-Ahzab(33), verse 73)

All will judge everyone with fairness and justice:

“And the record [of deeds] will be placed [open], and you will see the criminals fearful of that within it, and they will say, “Oh, woe to us! What is this book that leaves nothing small or great except that it has enumerated it?” And they will find what they did present [before them]. And your Lord does injustice to no one(ولا يظلم ربك أحدا).”(Surah Al-Kahf(18), verse 49)

“On the Day you see the believing men and believing women, their light proceeding before them and on their right, [it will be said], “Your good tidings today are [of] gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein you will abide eternally.” That is what is the great attainment.” (Al-Hadid(57), verse 12)

سبحان الله والله اعلم

Glory be to Allah and Allah knows best!

The following is a brief list of references for further reading

Classical works

1. Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawzi, Kitab Al-Ruh
2. Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, al-Durra al-fakhira fi kashf ‘ulum al-akhira

Modern works

1. Ahmad H. Sakr, Life, Death and the Life After
2. Bahiruddin Mahmood, Doomsday And Life After Death
3. Hamid Muhammad Al-Abbadi, Menuju Ke Alam Barzakh
4. Jane Idleman Smith & Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad, The Islamic Understanding of Death and Resurrection

For further enquiries please proceed them to ibnanwar@yahoo.com

by Ibn Anwar

For centuries it was taken for granted within both conservative and orthodox Christian and Jewish circles that the first five books of the Old Testament were authored by Moses. Today, that attitude and belief has not changed in evangelist and conservative circles. The late evangelist Gleason Archer for example says:

“When all the data of the Pentateuchal text have been carefully considered, and all the evidence, both internal and external, has been fairly weighed, the impression is all but irresistible that Mosaic authorship is the one theory which best accords with the surviving historical data.” [1]

Disagreeing with the above designation Edward P. Blair states, “The Pentateuch nowhere clearly claims that Moses was the author of whole of it.”[2]

It was not until quite recently in history that the predominantly held view among Christian and Jewish scholars for Mosaic authorship of the Torah and the accuracy of details therein was seriously challenged. The German scholar Julius Wellhausen came to the scene in the 19th century(1876) and stirred the hornet’s nest  with his refined and elaborate ‘documentary hypothesis’ in Prolegomena to the history of Israel . Prior to him John Calvin questioned the literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis:

“John Calvin, the greatest systematic thinker in the Protestant tradition, argued during the sixteenth century that Genesis I did not reflect the facts of physics and astronomy, but described the creation of the earth for the benefit of ancient Hebrew observers who had no understanding of science.” [3]

However, Wellhausen was not the first scholar to question the traditional Mosaic authorship position. Five centuries before Calvin, a rabbi in Spain was critical of the traditional designation for Torah authorship. Meyers and Rogerson mentions the following:

“The first real criticism of the notion of Mosaic authorship came in a veiled remark by the eleventh-century Spanish rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra, in his commentary on Deuteronomy. Ibn Ezra pointed to five cases in the Torah (the Pentateuch) that clearly seem to be additions or expansions that originated after Moses’ time – the account of Moses’ own death and burial in Deuteronomy 34 being the most obvious instance. Ibn Ezra also correctly noted that the mention of the “mount of Yahweh” (i.e., the Temple Mount in Jerusalem) in the story of Isaac’s binding (Genesis 22:14 is anachronistic, because the Temple did not exist before King Solomon’s time.” [4]

Similarly, A.D.H. Mayes says:

“In so far as the rise of Pentateuchal criticisim is to be linked with the questioning of the tradition of its Mosaic authorship, the origins of the critical approach go back to Ibn Ezra in the Middle Ages, but it was not until the mid-eighteenth century that the classical critical theories began to be worked out.”[5]

There were several others not too far apart from Wellhausen’s time that contributed to the documentary hypothesis. A French physician named Jean Astruc made a novel attempt to identify alternative sources of Genesis in his Conjectures About the Original Memoirs Which It Appears Moses used to Compose the Book of Genesis. Astruc suggested that some of the sources can be determined by looking at the names used for God, Elohim and Yahweh. He pointed out that Genesis 1 indicates that the author knows only a God named Elohim whilst Genesis 2 indicates that the author only knows the name Yahweh for God. An instrumental contribution to the development of the documentary hypothesis is found in the work of Wilhelm M.L. DeWette in Beitrage zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament in 1807.  In the said work he postulated that none of the Pentateuch can be dated before David (1010-970 B.C.E.). He also posited that Deuteronomy was the book discovered by the priest, Hilkiah during Josiah’s reform mentioned in 621 as mentioned in 2 Kings 22:8. DeWette proposed that the last book was composed at the behest of Josiah in support on the emphasis given to a central place of worship which was to him necessary to stop the Jews from sacrificing at high locations in different places so as to inculcate better religious and political unity in his kingdom. [6]

In his exposition on the non-Mosaic origin of the Torah Stephen L. Harris writes:

“Although there is no verification that Moses wrote the Torah as we have it now, there are many elements that, taken together, may cause even the cursory reader to question Mosaic authorship. Moses is always referred to in the third person, as an author about him would do. Deuteronomy contains many repetitions of the phrase “until this day,” a clear indication that the writer looks back from his time to that of Moses (Deut. 3:14; 34:6; etc.). Deuteronomy’s last chapter even recounts the death of Moses, which could be interpreted as a postscript by a later hand were it not exactly in the same style as that of the rest of the book. Statements in Genesis, such as “At that time the Canaanites were in the land” (Gen. 12:6; 13:7), refer to an epoch centuries after Moses when Palestine’s original inhabitants had been expelled or assimilated by the Israelite population. References to the territories east of the Jordan River as lying beyond “the other bank” presuppose vantage point on the west side of the river, but the tribes did not occupy this western until long after Moses (Gen. 50:10; Num. 21:1; 32:32; 1:1, 5;3:8;4:46). Other anachronisms, such as the Genesis list of Edom’s rulers “before an Israelite king ruled” (Gen. 36:1), clearly indicate that the author(s) lived no earlier than the late eleventh century B.C.E. when the Israelite monarchy was first established.”[7]

The following is a summary of the developed documentary hypothesis according to R. N. Whybray[8] which is also commonly known as JEDP which stands for the four segments of development in the hypothesis.:

1. The earliest of this work is that of the ‘Yahwist’ (J). It began with what is now Gen. 2.4b, and its various parts are now found in Genesis, Exodus and Numbers, together with a few short passages in Deuteronomy. Whether it ended at this point or continued into the book of Joshua or beyond was disputed. It is not represented in Leviticus.

2. The ‘Elohist’ work (E) began with the story of Abraham in Gen. 15 and then followed the same general course as J.

3. J and E were subsequently combined to form ‘JE’ by a redactor (Rje). the process of redaction involved the omossion of parts of J and E, especially of the latter.

4. The third ‘document’, Deuteronomy (D), consists mainly of the book of that name.

5. D was subsequently appended to JE by a second redactor (Rd), who also inserted a few passages into JE and incorporated a few passages from JE into D.

6. The final work, the Priestly ‘document’ (P), began with what is now Gen. 1.1 and followed the same chronological scheme as J. Material from P predominates in Exodus and Numbers, and is the sole source of Exod. 25-31; 35-40 and of Leviticus.

7. P was subsequently combined with JED by a third redactor (Rp) to form the present Pentateuch.

8. A few passages (e.g. Gen. 14) are not derived from any of the main four documents but must be regarded as independent fragments. It is not possible to determine at what point in the above scheme they were inserted, but a late date for this is probable. A few other passages were added after the bulk of the Pentateucj was completed. Both Fragment and Supplement Hypotheses, therefore, retained a minor place in the scheme of the Documentary Hypothesis.

The following table containing brief explanatory notes on the JEDP by Harris [9] may provide further clarity:

Today, it is widely agreed upon by Biblical scholars that Moses did not pen the five books attributed to him, but are rather a collection of sources from different periods of time by different people as seen above. As Meyers and Rogerson says,”According to a broad consensus of scholarship since the end of the eighteenth century, the first five books of the Bible (the Pentateuch) were based upon varied sources.” [10]

Blair essentially echoes Meyers and Rogerson as he writes, “The majority of scholars today believe that the Pentateuch is the product of many minds from many centuries and a veritable treasure chest of Israel’s historical memories.”[11]

Historian Kenneth C. Davies says:

“As generations of scholars pursued this mystery, it became clearer that Moses was not the book’s author. They might be the Books of Moses, but they were not the Books by Moses. Equally important was the mounting evidence that the books attributed to Moses were composed at very different historical times.

…Today, the idea is widely accepted and taught by leading religious schools, including the divinity schools at Harvard and Yale, the Union Theological Seminary, and both the Jewish Theological Seminary and the Hebrew Union College.” [12]

Jaroslav Pelikan agrees partially by affirming the non-Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy:

“…most modern scholars are agreed that Deuteronomy was not written by the hand of Moses but was composed rather late in Israel’s history…”[13]

Though there are Christians and Jews who continue to believe that the Torah is Moses’ literary product, most in modern scholarship disagree and provide an alternative view that has a powerful explanatory scope. In short, Meyers and Rogerson says:

“From the late nineteenth century until the present day, most scholars of the Hebrew Bible have agreed that the five books of Moses represent an editorial compilation of four distinct sources, usually labeled in their chronological order as J, E, D, and P.” [14]

References:

[1] Archer, G.L.(1998). A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Moody Press. pp. 116-124

[2] Blair, E.P. (1983). Abingdon Bible Handbook. Nashville: Abingdon Press. pp. 82

[3] Meyers, E.M. & Rogerson, J. (1997). The World of the Hebrew Bible. In (N.A.) The Cambridge Companion to the Bible (pp. 39). New York: Cambridge University Press.

[4] Ibid. pp. 46

[5] Mayes, A.D.H. (2002). Historiography In the Old Testament. In Barton, J. (Ed.) The Biblical World. London: Routledge. pp. 73

[6] For further detailed discussion see Wolf, H. (1991). An introduction to the Old Testament Pentateuch. Chicago: Moody Publishers. pp. 72-74

[7] Harris, S.L. (1992). Understanding the Bible. California: Mayfield Publishing Company. pp. 52

[8] Whybray, R.N. (1987). The Making of the Pentateuch: a methodological study. England: JSOT Press. pp. 21

[9] Harris, S.L. Op. Cit. pp. 53

[10] Meyers, E.M. & Rogerson, J. Op. Cit. pp. 43

[11] Blair, E.P. Op. Cit. pp. 89

[12] Davies, K.C. (1998). Don’t know much about the Bible: everything you need to know about the Good Book but never learned. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc. pp. 19-20

[13] Pelikan, J (2004). Whose Bible is it? : a history of the Scriptures through the ages. New York: Penguin Books. pp. 35

[14] Meyers, E.M. & Rogerson, J. Op. Cit. pp. 44

by Ibn Anwar and al-Jamalullail

The transmission of hadith collections and even the compilation of new ones with very elevated isnads in the post-canonical era was an area in which women could excel. Because they often lived longer than men, women could become the most sought after transmitters of books. Major hadith scholars like al-Khatib al-Baghdadi traveled to Mecca to read Sahih al-Bukhari in the presence of Karima al-Marwaziyya (d. 463/1071, who had an especially elevated elevated isnad in the book, and Fatima al-Juzdaniyya was the main transmitter of al-Tabarani’s works. Until her death in 2008, Muslims students flocked to a small village in Yemen’s Hadramawt Valley to receive a hadith ijaza from the 105-year-old woman Safiyya al-’Amdiyya.

Independent collections of hadiths by women were very rare; in the early period of hadith they were non-existent. But we know of at least two selections of hadiths from the post-canonical period compiled by women. A twelfth-century woman named Shuhda al-Katiba (d. 574/1178-9) put together a list of 115 hadiths that she picked from books she had been authorised to transmit, often with shorter isnads than the hadiths in the actual books themselves. The Musnad of Amat Allah Miryam al-Hanbaliyya of Nablus (d. 758/1357) has also survived until today.

(Jonathan A.C. Brown. Assistant Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the University of Washington, Seattle) [1]

In the time of the companions the beloved wife of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w., Aishah r.a. soared prominently over both women and men as Cambridge scholar Timothy J. Winter(now Sheikh Dr. Abdul Hakim Murad) and John A. Williams of College of William and Mary cites a Sunni source that says, “‘A’isha was, of all the people, the one who had the most knowledge of law, the one who was most educated, and compared to those who surrounded her, the one whose judgment was the best.’” [2] Both men and women are obligated to search for and acquire knowledge as the hadith of the Prophet s.a.w. says:

في مسند أبي يعلى الموصلي عن أنس عن النبي (ص) :  طلب العلم فريضة على كل مسلم

 وهذا الحديث وإن لم يكن ثابتاً فمعناه صحيح  

“In the Musnad of Abu Ya’la al-Mawsuli, from anas who relates that the prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “Seeking knowledge is an obligation upon every Muslim.”

The meaning of this hadith, though the hadith itself is not well authenticated, is true.” [3]

Hence it is no surprise that many of the greatest minds in Muslim history were women. Winter and Williams make mention of Bint al-Kamal who lectured in Damascus to several leading scholars including the celebrated Muslim jurist/scholar and traveller Ibn Batuta whose journeys spanned more than 75, 000 miles (unsurpassed by any other until 450 years later in the Steam Age). Other reknown female scholars mentioned by Winter and Williams include Karima al-Marwaziyya (who was one of the most famous scholars during her time), Fatima bint al-Hasan, Shuhda the Scribe, Ajiba bint Abi Bakr (Bint al-Kamal’s teacher) and Umm hani who in Winter and Williams’ words “mastered all the great academic disciplines of her time including theology, law, history and grammar, before taking up senior lectuering positions in many of the great academies of Cairo.”[4]

One of the great scholars in the Shafi’i madhhab or school of thought is Imam Al-Suyuti who is described as “…one of the Friends of God and His Signs to creation, the Mujtahid Imam and Renewer of the ninth Islamic century, foremost hadith master, jurist, Sufi, philologist, Ash’ari theologian, and historian, he authored works in virtually every Islamic science.” [5] Among his numerous teachers and instructors were over thirty female scholars. [6]

The following is a rather long, yet non-exhaustive list of more than 259 Muslim female scholars excluding those from among the Prophet’s companions and their successors taken from the Oxford scholar Mohammad Akram Nadwi’s preface to his magnum opus Al-Muhaddithat: The Women Scholars in Islam [7] *:

1. ‘Aishah bt. ‘Abd al-Hadi
2. ‘Aishah bt. al-‘Ala’
3. ‘Aishah bt. ‘Abd al-Rahim al-Zujaj
4. ‘Aishah bt. ‘Ali al-Sinhajiyyah
5. ‘Aishah bt. Badr al-Din al-Zarkashi
6. ‘Aishah bt. Hasan al-Kinani
7. ‘Aishah bt. Hasan b.Ibrahim
8. ‘Aishah bt. Hasan al-Wa’izah
9. ‘Aishah bt. Al-Najm al-Balisiyyah
10. ‘Aishah bt. Ma’mar
11. ‘Aishah bt. Muhammad al-Hanbaliyyah
12. ‘Aishah bt. Sayf al-Din Qawaliji
13. ‘Aishah bt. Umar b.Rushayd
14. ‘Aishah bt. Al-Zayn
15. ‘Aishah bt. Al-Zubayr b. Hisham b. Urwah
16. Abidah al-Madaniyyah
17. Adliyyah bt. Abi Bakr b. ‘A’idh
18. Ajibah al-Baqdariyyah
19. Alti bt. Nasir al-Din
20. Amatullah ‘A’ishah
21. Amat al-Ghafur bt. Ishaq al-Dihlawi
22. Amat al-Khaliq bt. Zayn al-Din
23. Amat al-Rahim al-Yuniniyyah
24. Amat al-Salam bt. Al-Qadi Abi Bakr
25. Amatullah al-Dihlawiyyah
26. Amat al-Wahid bt. Al-Mahamili
27. ‘Aminah bt. Abi Sa’id al-Naysaburi
28. Aminah bt. Ahmad b. Rajih
29. Aminah bt. Al-Mu’ayyad
30. Aminah bt. Al-Habib al-Hibashi
31. Aminah bt. Muhammad b. Qudamah
32. Aminah bt.al-Wasitiyyah
33. Aminah bt. Muhammad b. al-Rar
34. As bt. Ahmad b. Hassan
35. Asma’ bt. Asad b. al-Furat
36. Asma’ bt. Abi Bakr b. Yunus al-Dimashqiyyah
37. Asiya bt. Jarullah al-Shaybani
38. Asma’ bt Kamal al-Din Musa al-Daja’i
39. Asiyah bt. Muhammad al-‘Irbili
40. Asiyah bt. Muhammad al-Iskaf
41. Asma’ bt. ‘Abdillah al-Mahraniyyah
42. Asma’ bt. Abi Bakr b. al-Khallal
43. Asma’ bt. Ahmad al-Bahraniyyah
44. Asma’ bt. Ahmad al-Harrani
45. Asma’ bt. Ibrahim b. Mandah
46. Asma’ bt. Al-Mardawi
47. Asma’ bt. Muhammad b. al-Hasan
48. Asma’ bt. Muhammad b. al-Kamal
49. Aymalik bt. Ahmad
50. ‘Azizah bt. ‘Ali al-Tarrah
51. Bay Khatun
52. Biba
53. Buran
54. Bulbul
55. Dunya bt. Hasan b. Balban
56. Fatimah bt. ‘Abd al-Hadi
57. Fatimah bt. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Qazwini
58. Fatimah bt. ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Harraniyyah
59. Fatimah bt. Ahmad al-‘Anazi
60. Fatimah bt. ‘Ali b. al-Husayn
61. Fatimah bt. ‘Ali b. Musa al-Rida
62. Fatimah al-Bata’ihiyyah
63. Fatimah bt. Sl-Daqqaq
64. Fatimah bt. Al-Tawusiyyah
65. Fatimah bt. Ibrahim al-Ba’labakkiyyah
66. Fatimah bt. al-Juzdaniyyah
67. Fatimah (Sutaytah) bt. Kamal al-Din Mahmud b. Shirin al-Hanafi
68. Fatimah bt. Al-Samarqandiyyah
69. Fatimah bt. Al-Manshawiyyah
70. Fatimah bt. Al-Aqra’
71. Fatimah bt. Al-Malik al-Muhsin Ahmad b. al-Sultan Salah al-Din
72. Fatimah bt. Al-Mubarak
73. Fatimah bt. Al-Munajja
74. Fatimah bt. Al-Hasan b. ‘Ali al-Mu’addib
75. Fatimah bt. Al-Zayyat
76. Fatimah bt. Ishaq al-Wasiti
77. Fatimah bt. Ja’far b. Muhammad al-Sadiq
78. Fatimah bt. Maik b. Anas
79. Fatimah bt. Musa b. Ja’far
80. Fatimah bt. Muhammad al-Dimashqiyyah
81. Fatimah bt. ‘Abd al-Hadi
82. Fatimah bt. Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Sharik
83. Fatimah bt. Muhammad b. ‘Ali
84. Fatimah bt. Muhammad al-Samarqandi
85. Fatimah bt. Salim
86. Fatimah bt. Sa’d al-Khayr
87. Fatimah bt. Shams al-Sa’igh
88. Fatimah bt. Muhammad b. Yusuf al-Dayruti
89. Fatimah bt. Shukrullah al-Kuraniyyah
90. Fatimah bt. Hamad al-Fudayli
91. Fatimah Shams Jahan al-Jarkasiyyah
92. Fatimah bt. Ibrahim b. ‘Abdullah b. Abi ‘Umar
93. Fatimah bt. Al-Munajja
94. Fawz bt. Muhammad
95. Ghazal(slave of al-Qalqashandi)
96. Ghazal al-Nubiyyah
97. Ghufayrah bt. Waqid
98. Habibah bt. ‘Abd al-Haqq al-Sanbati
99. Habibah bt. Ibrahim b. Abi ‘Umar
100. Habibah bt. al-Zayn
101. Hadiyyah bt. ‘Ali b. ‘Askar
102. Hafsah bt. Mula’ib
103. Hajir bt. al-Sharaf al-Maqdisi
104. Hasanah bt. Muhammad b. Kamil
105. Hasnah bt. Abi l-Yumn al-Makkiyyah
106. Hind bt. Ja’far b. ‘Abd al-Razzaq
107. Hind bt. Muhammad b. ‘Ali al-Urmawi
108. Humaydah al-Asbahaniyyah
109. Husn(slave of Ahmad b. Hanbal)
110. Husn al-Makkiyyah
111. Ishraq al-Suwayda’
112. Jahan Ara Begum
113. Jumu’ah bt. Ahmad al-Mahmiyyah
114. Juwayriyah bt. al-Hakkari
115. Juwayriyah bt. al-Hafiz ‘Abd al-Rahim al-Iraqi
116. Karimah al-Marwaziyyah
117. Karimah bt. ‘Abd al-Wahhab
118. Karimah bt. Hashas al-Muzaniyyah
119. Khadijah bt. Abi ‘Abdillah al-Harraniyyah
120. Khadijah bt. Nur al-Din ‘Ali al-Ansari
121. Khadijah bt. Yusuf b. Ghunaymah
122. Khadijah al-Dihlawiyyah
123. Khadijah bt. ‘Abd al-Hamid b. ‘Uthman
124. Khadijah bt. ‘Umar b. Abi Bakr
125. Khadijah bt. Ahmad b. ‘Azzuz al-Fasiyyah
126. Khadijah bt. Ahmad b. Jandan
127. Khadijah bt. Abi Bakr al-Hamawi
128. Khadijah bt. Abi Bakr b. ‘Ali
129. Khadijah bt. Abi Muhammad al-Shatiyali
130. Khadijah bt. Abi l-‘Abbas al-Razi
131. Khadijah bt. Abi Ghanim
132. Khadijah bt. Sahnun
133. Khadijah bt. al-Mufaddal b. ‘Ali al-Maqdisi
134. Khadijah bt. Abi Tahir al-Silafi
135. Khadijah bt. Ibrahim al-Ba’labakkiyyah
136. Khadijah bt. Muhammad b. Sa’d b. ‘Abdillah al-Maqdisiyyah
137. Khadijah bt. Muhammad b. Abi Bakr b. ‘Abd al-Da’im
138. Khadijah bt. Muhammad al-Wa’izah
139. Khadijah bt. Muhammad b. Ibrahim al-Muqri al-Hanafi
140. Khadijah bt. Ibrahim b. ‘Abd al-Wahid al-Maqdisiyyah
141. Khatun bt. ‘Abdillah
142. Khayr al-Nisa’
143. Khunathah bt. Bakkar b. ‘Ali al-Ma’afiri
144. Lihaz al-Nisa’
145. Lu’lu’ah
146. Malikah bt. al-Jamal b. ‘Ali
147. Maryam al-Adhra’iyyah
148. Maryam al-Kashmiriyyah
149. Maryam bt. ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Nabulsiyyah
150. Maryam bt. Ahmad al-Asadiyyah
151. Maryam bt. Jahsh
152. Mu’minah bt. Muhammad b. Abi zayd
153. Nafisah bt. al-Hasan b. Zayd
154. Nudar bt. Abi Hayyan
155. Nur Sitti bt. ‘Abd al-Karim al-Razi
156. Qatlu al-Rumiyyah
157. Quraysh al-Tabariyyah
158. Rahmah bt. al-Jinan al-Miknasiyyah
159. Rabi’ah bt. Sa’d al-Khayr
160. Rabi’ah ‘Ali b. Mahfuz b. Sasra
161. Rayhanah(wife of Ahmad b. Hanbal)
162. Ruqayyah bt. Dawud
163. Ruqayyah bt. ISma’il al-Anmati
164. Sabirin al-Nubiyyah
165. Safiyah bt. ‘Abd al-Rahman b. al-Farra’
166. Safiyyah bt. Ahmad b. Qudamah
167. Safiyyah al-Makhzumiyyah
168. Salihah bt. ‘Inayat Rasul
169. Samanah bt. Hamdan
170. Sarah bt. ‘Umar al-Hamawiyyah
171. Sarah bt Numayr
172. Sarah bt Taqi al-Din al-Subki
173. Sayyidah al-Maraniyyah
174. Sayyidah bt. ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Ghirnatiyyah
175. Sayyidah bt. Musa al-Maraniyyah
176. Shams al-Nisa’ bt. Amir Hasan al-Sahsawani
177. Shaqsiyyah
178. Sharaf al-Ashraf al-Tawusiyyah al-Hasaniyyah
179. Shuhdah al-Baghdadiyyah
180. Sitt al-‘Arab bt. Ibn al-Bukhari
181. Sitt al-‘Arab bt. al-Sulami
182. Sitt al-‘Arab bt. Yahya al-Kindi
183. Sitt al-‘Arab Zaynab bt. ‘Ali b. ‘Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Abd al-Jabbar al-Maqdisi
184. Sitt al-Ahl bin ‘Alwan
185. Sitt al-Fuqaha’ bt. Ibrahim al-Wasitiyyah
186. Sitt al-Jalil bt. Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-warkani
187. Sitt al-Katabah bt. ‘Ali
188. Sitt al-Muluk Fatimah bt. ‘Ali b. ‘Ali b. Abi l-Badr
189. Sitt al-Sham bt. Khalil b. Nasr
190. Sitt al-Taraf
191. Sitt al-Wuzara’
192. Sitt Fatimah
193. Sitt Khanum
194. Sitt Quraysh Fatimah bt. Taqi al-Din b. Fahd
195. Sutaytah bt. al-Zayn
196. Tajanni al-Wahbaniyyah
197. Taqiyyah bt. ‘Ali b. ‘Abdillah al-Qurashi
198. Taj-Khatun
199. Umm ‘Isa al-Jazzar
200. Umm ‘Abd al-Hakam Sitt al-‘Ibad
201. Umm ‘Abdillah Zaynab al-‘Ijiliyyah
202. Umm al-Baha’ Fatimah
203. Umm al-Dalal Amat al-Rahman
204. Umm al-Fadl Zaynab bt. Ibrahim al-Qaysi
205. Umm al-Fityan Hantamah
206. Umm al-Hana’ Asma’ bt. al-Muraghi
207. Umm al-Karim b. Ahmad al-Lakhami
208. Umm al-Khayr Amat al-Khaliq al-Dimashqiyyah
209. Umm al-Khayr bt. ‘Abdillah b. Zahirah
210. Umm al-Khayr Fatimah bt. Abi l-Hasan ‘Ali
211. Umm al-Khayr Jamal al-Nisa’
212. Umm al-Khayr Halimah
213. Umm al-Raja’ Zubaydah
214. Umm al-Hasan al-Harazi
215. Umm al-Hasan bt. Muhammad al-makhzumi
216. Umm al-Hasan Fatimah bt. Khalil al-Kinani
217. Umm al-Hasan Fatimah bt. ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Farra’
218. Umm al-Hasan Karimah bt. Ahmad al-Abiwardi
219. Umm al-Haya Zuhra bt. Muhammad al-Anbari
220. Umm al-Haya’ Umamah
221. Umm al-Husn Kamal
222. Umm al-Zayni b. Muzhir
223. Umm Janub bt. Numaylah
224. Umm Kulthum bt. Musa b. Ja’far
225. Umm Kulthum ‘A’ishah bt. Muhammad al-Murshidi
226. Umm Salamah Aminah
227. Umm al-Shafi’i
228. Umm Habib Safwah
229. Umm Zaynab Fatimah bt. ‘Abbas al-Baghdadiyyah
230. Umm a-Fadl Nafisah
231. Uns bt. ‘Abd al-Karim
232. Wajihah bt. ‘Ali al-Ansariyyah
233. Zahidah bt. Ibrahim al-Khabbaz
234. Zahidah bt. Muhammad al-Zahiri
235. Zahrah bt. Kamal al-Din al-Hanafi
236. Zayb al-Nisa’
237. Zayn al-‘Arab bt. Kamal al-Din
238. Zayn al-Sharaf bt. ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Tabari
239. Zaynab al-Shi’riyyah
240. Zaynab bt. ‘Abdillah b. ‘Abd al-Jabbar
241. Zaynab bt. ‘Abdillah al-Yafi’i
242. Zaynab bt. Ahmad b. Shukr al-Maqdisi
243. Zaynab bt. Akta
244. Zaynab bt. al-‘Alam ahmad b. Kamil
245. Zaynab bt. ‘Ali al-Wasiti
246. Zaynab bt. al-Is’ardi
247. Zaynab bt. Isma’il b. Ahmad
248. Zaynab bt. Isma’il b. Anmati
249. Zaynab bt. al-Kamal
250. Zaynab bt. al-Khatib al-Harastani
251. Zaynab bt. al-Khabbaz
252. Zaynab bt. al-Khatib Yahya al-Sulami
253. Zaynab bt. Makki
254. Zaynab bt. Muhammad al-Ghazzi
255. Zaynab bt. Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Mu’ayyadi
256. Zaynab  bt. Muwaffaq al-Din ‘Abd al-Latif
257. Zaynab bt.Muhibb al-Din Abu b. Zahrah
258. Zaynab  bt. Shukr
259. Zaynab bt. ‘Umar al-Kindi

*The above is a rather short list compared to the 8000 names listed alongside their biographies in Nadwi’s massively complete 40-volume Al-Muhaddithat whose title means ‘female scholars of hadith’.

References:

[1] Brown, J.A.C. (2009). Hadith: Muhammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World. Oxford, England: Oneworld Publications. pp. 49

[2] Winter, T.J. & Williams, J.A. (2002). Understanding Islam and the Muslims. Louisville, Kentucky: Fons Vitae. pp. 36

[3] Ahmad Ibn Naqib Al-Misri (1994). Reliance of the Traveller (Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Trans.). Beltsville, Maryland: Amana Publications. (Original work published 1800). pp. 8-9

[4] Op. Cit. pp. 38-39

[5] Jalal al-din al-Suyuti (2008). The Remembrance of God (Sajeda Maryam Poswaal, Trans.). England: Amal Press. pp. 1

[6] http://www.sunnah.org/history/Scholars/suyutis_teachers.htm

[7] Nadwi, M. A. (2007). Al-Muhaddithat: The Women Scholars in Islam. Oxford, London: Interface Publications. pp. 305-308

by Ibn Anwar

What exactly is the  cause behind the fascination with blood sucking vampires in the western culture that has given rise to a plethora of vampire themed movies like Twilight and the like? Christianity is the predominant religion in the west. It spends so much time talking about drinking blood and its importance for the attainment of “eternal life”. Could it be that this blood based salvation/atonement doctrine is the impetus behind the popular culture phenomenon of vampires? In the vampire myth the creature sustains its existence by consuming blood. In Christian theology to attain eternal life one must accept the blood of Jesus and in Catholicism in particular the partaking of the Eucharist which involves the drinking and eating of the actual blood and flesh of Jesus is foundational. Can you see the parallel? Is it possible that the popular vampire myth has its roots in the Christian obsession with blood? I leave that for the readers to dwell upon. In this article we shall explore the issue of forgiveness in Christianity and if what it teaches is coherent and true or just plain false.

As we have mentioned above in Christian theology the shedding of Jesus’ blood is foundational. In fact, it is the key to forgiveness and salvation. One Christian blogger named John Chingford wrote an article entitled “Reply to a Rabbi Why There Can’t Be Forgiveness Without Blood Sacrifice”  in which he argues for the Christian case that blood is absolutely necessary to render void the sins of man. The Wiersbe Bible Commentary in its commentary on Hebrews 9 says, “God’s principle is that blood must be shed before sin can be forgiven (Lev. 17:11).”[1] The People’s New Testament Commentary on Hebrews 9:22 says, “Without shedding of blood is no remission. Every sin under the law required atonement, and no atonement could be made without blood.” [2] The average Christian says that the only way for sins to be absolved or atoned is through the blood of Jesus.

When we examine the Bible closely we see that what is preached by Christians and Hebrews 9:22 which says that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” are not compatible with the overwhelming verses and passages found in both the Old and New Testaments that convey the idea of forgiveness without the need of anyone’s blood, Jesus or otherwise. In Mark 1:4 we read,

“John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”

This was years before the alleged crucifixion ever took place. There was no blood involved. He was calling for the remission of sins from the baptism of repentance. The People’s New Testament says that John in the above verse, “makes the temple sacrifices unnecessary for forgiveness and reconciliation with God…”[3] which means that blood is not really necessary for forgiveness of sins after all! In the next chapter in Mark 2, verse 5 we read the following,

“When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”

Where was the blood atonement to remove the sins of the paralytic? This too took place long before the alleged crucifixion yet he was forgiven! What was the purpose behind the alleged sacrifice of Jesus exactly? Christians tell us that it is to facilitate the forgiveness of sins which is necessary for entrance into paradise. But we have just illustrated with two explicit verses that God is not incapable of forgiving sins without the shedding of blood. Be it the blood of Jesus, sheep, ram, bulls or cows. If God can forgive without blood then that clearly renders the alleged crucifixion redundant and simply cruel, inhumane and barbaric.

In Luke 15, verses 11 to 32 we read about the parable of the Prodigal Son. In this story the son runs away from the father and goes into difficulty and suffering. He later comes to his senses and makes a return to his father. The father is overjoyed and calls for celebration. The son confesses that he sinned against heaven and against his beloved father, but because of his realisation and repentance the father remarks, “For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found”. This parable captures the true and original teaching of Jesus about forgiveness and atonement. One has only to make a sincere resolution not to commit past errors and sincerely pray and ask God for forgiveness to earn His pleasure and be cleansed of sins. Blood is not necessary for the forgiveness of sins.

More passages dealing with this issue are cited in Salvation Only Comes Through Sacrifice!

References:

[1] Wiersbe, W.W. (2007). The Wiersbe Bible Commentary. Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook. p. 830

[2] Boring, M.E. & Craddock, F.B. (2004). The People’s New Testament Commentary. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 701

[3] Ibid. p. 107

by Ibn Anwar

I have been away from Unveiling Christianity for a good long while due to engagements elsewhere. However, a couple of days ago a friend of mine brought my attention to an article written by Sam Shamoun in rebuttal to my article on Mark 1:2. Though Sam Shamoun raises some interesting points in his “examination” his main argument boils down to a standard Christian apologetic ploy. In this article we will illustrate the deficiencies of Sam Shamoun’s position and reaffirm the conclusion that was made in my previous article on mark 1:2.  This is a counter-rebuttal to his claim “Mark’s Prologue Examined In light of the assertions of an Incompetent Dawagandist”. To begin let us reproduce the article that I wrote for the benefit of the readers.

Human Error or Divine Incompetence?

by Ibn Anwar

Can you imagine a book that claims to convey factual information and data making a terrible factual error in its first paragraph? Let’s say we have a book called “101 Facts on Animals” and in the first supposed fact it makes an UNFACTUAL claim. Would you be taking that book seriously anymore or will you consider chucking it in the bin and find other books instead? This is the predicament that Christians face when the claim is made that the Gospel according to Mark is divinely inspired or “god-breathed”. At the very beginning of the book and in the first chapter of Mark we have a truly irreconcilable textual error.

In the beginning was an error….. “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I am sending my messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way;” (Mark 1:2) I challenge every Christian in the world to show me where I can find in Isaiah the verse “Behold, I am sending my messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way”. Believe me when I say that not even the Pope can help you here. That is because the verse does not exist in Isaiah, although you can actually find it in the Old Testament. To be more specific it is in the Torah. To be even more specific it is in Exodus! The words are different but the meaning is basically the same. “See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared.” (Exodus 23:20) How far apart exactly is Exodus from Isaiah? The answer to that is about 1000 years! How could such a mistake happened if God was guiding the hand of the anonymous author of Mark? Did God forget that it was His prophet Moses and not Isaiah who mentioned the verse? God forbid! It is more reasonable to contend that the reason for the unequivocal error is because Mark was written by anonymous individual who was not guided by God. The text is a clear corruption that should not be attributed to the divine. Some might try to argue that the verse actually reads, “in the Prophets” as opposed to “in Isaiah” as found in the King James Version. No doubt that the KJV based on manuscripts containing such a reading does say that. But that reading is only to be found in the majority of rather late manuscripts e.g. A, E, F, G, H, P, W, S, family 13, the majority of minuscules, Syriac Harclean of the Byzantine version and others. The earliest witness for the reading “in the Prophets” dates only to the fourth century. On the other hand the reading for “in Isaiah” as retained in most Bibles today are based on the most ancient witnesses(manuscripts) such as in Aleph, B, L, D, Q, family 1, 33, 205, 565, 700, 892, 1071, 1241, 1243, 2427, Itala MSS (a, aur, b, c, d, f , ff², l, q, Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, Syriac Palestinian, Coptic and so on. The reading is widespread and is found in almost all the Alexandrian, Caesarean and Western witnesses.* Thus the reading “in Isaiah” is closer to the original. Even if for the sake of argument we were to entertain the veracity of the KJV reading “in the Prophets” the textual predicament still remains. Exodus was not by Prophets but by a Prophet i.e. Moses. The Old Testament according to Jewish tradition is divided into three categories namely, Torah, Nevi’im and Ketuvim. Nevi’im means Prophets referring to the books attributed to Prophets. If the reading “in the Prophets” were to be true then it would be referring to the category of Nevi’im which does not include the Torah wherein Exodus is found. Whichever position one takes Mark 1:2 remains nothing more than a corruption! Mark 1:2 is yet another falsehood in “the book of God”. *Daniel Wallace on Mark 1 -end of article on Mark 1- (http://unveilingchristianity.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/biblical-errancy-in-mark-1/)

In his response Sam Shamoun makes the claim that I have simply recycled “liberal attacks and criticisms” against the Bible:

Muslim dawagandist Ibn Anwar has become rather fond of rehashing the same old liberal attacks and criticisms against the Holy Bible that have been refuted over and over again. Just recently Ibn Anwar produced a short piece (1; 2) attacking Mark for ignorantly attributing a wrong quote to the Prophet Isaiah in Mark 1:2-3.

He then says that if I was honest I would do good to consult Bible commentaries that will provide me with the data to understand “what Mark was doing here”.

If Ibn Anwar was honest and truly interested in finding an answer to this alleged discrepancy all he had to do was consult some Biblical commentaries which would have provided him with the data to understand what Mark was doing here. In fact he could have found the answer on our site since we have addressed this assertion before, namely in response to another Muslim polemicist named MENJ.

The fact of the matter is that it is Ibn Anwar who is ignorant, not Mark, and he is the one who has made a gross blunder by erroneously assuming that Mark was mistaken since this exposes his ignorance of the Jewish exegetical practices employed during the time of Christ. It was a common practice amongst the Jews to take citations from different biblical writings – especially when such references touched on similar themes or ideas and/or used the same words – and attribute them to a single author. The rabbis even coined a term for this particular method of exegesis, namely gezera shewa.

From the above we can adduce that his main argument that I am wrong is that it was common practice for Jews to make citations  to different sources that have similar themes, ideas or words and attribute them to a single author. He then says that this is a particular method of exegesis used by Rabbis that is called gezera shewa. First of all, let us understand what this word means in the Judaic tradition.

The word itself literally means “equal category”. It is one of the Seven Rules of Hillel who is attributed as the earliest source for the said midrashic or Jewish exegetical principle.[1] Former Dean of the Yale Divinity school Harold W. Attridge explains:

“…the Rabbinic technique gezera shewa, which draws together two passages linked by a common word. At its simplest, this technique interpreted an ambiguous word in one context by its clear meaning in another. The technique could also link passages whose themes or motifs might be mutually illuminating.” [2]

A handbook for interpreting scripture for the clergy defines it similarly:

“The use of the same word (or phrase) in different contexts means the same considerations apply to each context and each passage helps interpret the other.” [3]

The following is a very detailed brief exposition from the Jewish Encyclopedia on the gezerah shawah,

“The second rule of Hillel and of Ishmael, and the seventh of Eliezer b. Jose ha-Gelili. This may be described as argument by analogy, which infers from the similarity of two cases that the legal decision given for the one holds good for the other also. The term “gezerah shawah” originally included arguments based on analogies either in word or in fact. Before long, however, the latter class was designated as “heḳḳesh,” while the phrase “gezerah shawah” was limited to analogy in the case of two different Biblical laws containing a word common to both. The gezerah shawah was originally restricted to a δὶς λερόμευον, i.e., a word occurring only in the two passages offering the analogy. Since such a word is found nowhere else, there is no reason to assume that it bears different meanings in the two passages. The gezerah shawah consequently attaches to the word in the one passage the entire sequence of ideas which it bears in the other. Such a gezerah shawah is purely lexicographical, as seeking to determine the exact signification of a word by comparison with another passage in which the full meaning of such word is clear. The rule thus demonstrates itself. An example will illustrate this more clearly. The phrase (“to wring off the head”) occurs only twice in the Pentateuch, namely, in Lev. i. 15 and ib. v. 8. In the latter passage, however, the meaning of the phrase is more closely defined by (“from the neck”). The Sifra (ed. Weiss, p. 9a) concludes, therefore, that the nearer definition, “from the neck,” in the second passage, is part of the concept of the word , and, consequently, that in the former passage, also, means “to wring the head from the neck.” At a later period, however, the gezerah shawah emerged from these narrow bounds and inferred the identity of legal requirements from the identity of their terminology, even when such terminology occurred in many passages besides the two which formed the analogy. Thereby the gezerah shawah lost its inherent power of demonstration; for it is wholly unreasonable to attribute to a word a meaning which happens to be associated with it in a single passage, when various other passages connect ideas entirely different with the same word. Since, moreover, each individual teacher might choose which two expressions he would select for a gezerah shawah, contradictory conclusions might be drawn, which would each have the same claim to validity, since both were obtained by a gezerah shawah. Consequently, in order to be binding, a gezerah shawah was obliged to conform to two requirements which, on the one hand, greatly restricted its application, and, on the other, gave legal decisions thus obtained the value of those deduced from a superfluous word in the Holy Scriptures. These conditions are: (a) (“No one may draw a conclusion from analogy upon his own authority”; Pes. 66a; Niddah 19b). This rule, however, is not to be regarded as implying that every gezerah shawah must have been handed down from Sinai, as Rashi (on the various passages) and many expositors who followed him explained it, but that the use of this method of hermeneutics is to be permitted only to an entire board or council, and is to be employed only when its results agree with the traditional halakah, which thereby acquires the importance of alaw implied in the Scriptures. In Yerushalmi this rule reads: (“From a gezerah shawah conclusions may be deduced which support tradition, but not such as are opposed to tradition”; comp. Maimonides in the introduction to his “Mishneh Torah”). (b) The words of the text which form the basis of the deduction from analogy must be free, i.e., they must be superfluous and non-essential, or they may not be used ( ). This limitation of the gezerah shawah, however, to superfluous words is not generally recognized. Akiba considers the gezerah shawah valid when neither of the two words is superfluous ( ). According to Ishmael, it is sufficient if the analogy is free on one side (), i.e., if one of the two words forming the basis of the analogy is pleonastic. Eliezer alone requires both words to be superfluous (; comp. Hoffmann, “Zur Einleitung in die Halachischen Midrashchim,” p. 6)” [4]

It was a common practice amongst the Jews to take citations from different biblical writings – especially when such references touched on similar themes or ideas and/or used the same words – and attribute them to a single author

One would not find fault with the definition that he gives starting from “it was common” right up to “the same words”, but, the part where he claims that they “attribute them to a single author” should be rejected. None of the definitions and explanations cited mention anything at all about lumping together different verses from different authors and attributing them all together to a single author. Prof. Michael Chernick states that a gezerah shawah is usually related to legalistic ideas. What is the legal feature of Mark 1:2? It is a theological citation and has nothing to do with laws. The Jewish Encyclopedia mentions the strict feature of the gezera shawah is that it should not be employed by a single author without support [ ("No one may draw a conclusion from analogy upon his own authority"; Pes. 66a; Niddah 19b)]. Was Mark helped by other authorities to apply this particular exegetical principle? No, he was speaking on his own. In fact, we do not even know who he is since the gospel according to Mark is an anonymous piece of literature! [6] Neither Attridge nor the clergy publication cited mention anything about attributing collated quotations from different persons to a single author either.

To prove his point Sam Shamoun cites nine different commentaries for support. He says:

Ibn Anwar has no excuse for not being aware of this information since this is common knowledge to NT scholars, whether liberal or conservative.

The first scholar that he cites as proof positive for his case is John C. Fenton,

Case in point, liberal NT scholar John C. Fenton refers to this Jewish practice in his commentary on Matthew 2:5-6 where the passage attributes Micah 5:2 and 2 Samuel 5:2 to the Prophet Micah:

“The prophecy is from Mic. 5.2, but it is not given in the LXX translation, nor is it an exact rendering of the Hebrew text, 2 Sam 5.2 may have been combined with the Micah prophecy; combining of similar Old Testament passages WAS A REGULAR FEATURE OF RABBINIC STUDY OF THE SCRIPTURES.” (Fenton, Saint Matthew (The Penguin New Testament Commentaries) [Penguin Books, 1963], p. 46; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Recalling the definitions given for gezerah shawah one would not find fault with the bolded and capitalised section in the above quotation from John C. Fenton. What one should ask however, is where exactly does Fenton agree with the idea of lumping together different quotations from different authors and attribute them to only one individual? It’s not mentioned is it? Furthermore, there is an underlying presumption behind Sam Shamoun’s argument. The presumption is that the author of Mark along with the other gospel writers were schooled in the intricacies of Rabbinical Jewish exegesis. Where is the proof for this? It is very convenient and also fallacious to simply equate two things because of apparent similarities without establishing clearly the connection between them.  He then goes on to quote Evangelical scholars Robert H. Gundry and Craig S. Keener who both refer to Matthew 27:9-10 thereafter putting it together with mark 1:2 as another example of the same utilisation of the alleged Jewish literary device found in the verse in question with Keener specifically invoking the gezera shewa. According to Sam Shamoun what he argues is common knowledge among New Testament scholars, “whether liberal or conservative”. If that is true why is it that the eminent Bible and Jewish History scholar Prof. Geza Vermes seems to be unaware of it?!? Commenting on the text cited by Gundry and Keener i.e. Matthew 27:9-10, Prof. Geza Vermes says: “The quotation is said to be of Jeremiah, but it is invented or is more exactly a garbled mixture of Zechariah 11:12-13 and Jeremiah 18-2-3, 36:6-15.” [7] The eminent New Testament scholar Prof. Raymond Brown who was hailed as the preeminent scholar of the New Testament by Sam Shamoun’s hero Dr. William Lane Craig did not know about this “common knowledge” that Shamoun talks about either as he says, “That conglomeration of words cited by Matt exists nowhere in the standard OT.” [8]As the other six quotations that Sam Shamoun cites propounds the same basic idea posited by Gundry and Keener we do not have to reproduce them here. Thus far Sam Shamoun’s defense can be listed as follows: 1. Mark 1:2 is an example of an exegetical device found in Judaism which is employed by the author of Mark. 2. The Bible commentaries provide support for Shamoun’s case. He further claims that point number 1 is common knowledge to New Testament scholars. 3. If we refer to bible commentaries then the issue will be clarified and Sam Shamoun’s position solidified, hence, he says,

“If Ibn Anwar was honest and truly interested in finding an answer to this alleged discrepancy all he had to do was consult some Biblical commentaries which would have provided him with the data to understand what Mark was doing here.”

Let us now turn our attention to some noted Bible commentaries as suggested and recommended by Sam Shamoun which as he contends would clarify the issue. Firstly, let us look at a New Testament commentary by a notable Jewish scholar, Prof. Samuel Tobias Lachs. His commentary according to Dr. Jeffrey H. Tigay who is A.M. Ellis Professor of Hebrew and Semitic Languages and Literatures in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at the University of Pennsylvania is based on Talmudic and Midrashic texts contemporaneous to and after the New Testament. Dr. Jeffrey Tigay says that, “In his book A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke (1987) he adduced Talmudic and Midrashic texts that were contemporary with, or a little later than, the New Testament, for the purpose of identifying and clarifying the Jewish elements in the New Testament.” [9] The following is from Prof. Samuel Tobias Lachs’ A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament:

“Mark, v. 1 in Isaiah the prophet As the text stands it is incorrect, since verses are taken from Mal. 3.1 and Isa. 40.3. “The mistake may have arisen because the Malachi quotation was added later or possibly St. Mark took the texts, already combined, from a testimony-book i.e. a collection of passages from the Old Testament put together by the early Church as throwing light on the life and work of Christ.” The variant reading “the prophets” if not original was substituted to solve the problem.” [10] (emphasis added)

Is it conceivable that this notable professor in Jewish studies was absolutely unaware of gezerah shawah? The above quotation sufficiently demolishes Shamoun’s argument whereby he claims that what he contends is common knowledge among scholars and that Bible commentaries will certainly explain. Yes, the above Bible commentary does explain. It explains that Mark 1:2 is a corruption/error. Dr. R. McL. Wilson was lecturer of New testament Language and Literature at St. Andrews University. He echoes the same message as Prof. Lachs in his commentary on Mark 1:2 in Peake’s Commentary on the Bible in which he says:

“2-8 The Ministry of John-The first quotation is from Mal. (3:1; cf. Exod. 23:20), hence some MSS emend to read ‘in the prophets’ ; whether Mk was in error or 2 is a later insertion (it is missing here from Mt. and Lk.), ‘in Isaiah the prophet’ is probably original.” [11] (emphasis added)

Though the gist of what Wilson says correlates with Lachs’ comments he adds something extra that deserves further attention. He talks about the absence of the text in Mark in the other gospels. That is to say if Mark 1:2 is true why is it absent in both Matthew and Luke? Matthew(3:3) and Luke(3:4) and also John(1.23) cite the same prophecy as Mark 1:3 i.e. Isaiah 40:3 and attributes it correctly to Isaiah omitting all together any reference that would corroborate Mark 1:2. This can be seen clearly when comparing the gospels together. [12] This additional datum gives further credence to our case particularly when we take into consideration the so called Synoptic Problem in which the vast majority of scholars today commonly concur that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a common source. The significance of this is that now one can effectively posit the contention that if the reading “in Isaiah” is original to Mark then the other authors of the gospels omitted that piece of information. They would not have done so had they been aware of Shamoun’s version of gezera shawah especially the author of Matthew who according to Shamoun uses the same technique in chapter 27. The only reasonable conclusion is that they noticed the error in Mark 1:2 and decided to simply omit it and retain only the prophecy that is correctly referenced to Isaiah(40:3) as Florence Harkness Professor of Religion at Case Western Reserve University and Editor-in-Chief of The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible, Timothy K. Beal notes in his The Rise and Fall of the Bible:

“In any case, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, both of which appear to have used Mark as one of their literary sources, implicitly correct Mark’s merging of the two prophetic passages by quoting the passage from Isaiah alone (Matthew 3:3 and Luke 3:4).” [13]

The Oxford New Testament scholar Prof. C.M. Tuckett in the Oxford Bible Commentary says:

“They first bring on to the stage not Jesus himself but the figure of John the Baptist, and in turn john is introduced by a (mixed) OT citation. (v. 2 is a mixture of Ex. 23:20 and Mal 3:1; v.3 is from Isa 40:3. The reference to Isaiah in the introductory words in v.2 is probably a mistake.) [14] (emphasis added)

The New Interpreter’s Study Bible which says:

“Verse b might be a conflation of Mal 3:1 and Exod 23:20, though the fit is not exact. Whatever its origin, it is not from the prophet Isaiah, which raises the question of the level of scriptural knowledge held by the author of Mark or the level the author believed the audience would have. Both Matthew and Luke remove the verse from the Isaiah quotation…” [22](emphasis added)

Let us now look at some major classical Bible commentaries for a change. Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible commentary says:

“(Intead of the words, “it is written in the Prophets,” there is weighty evidence in favour of the following reading: “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet.” This reading is adopted by all the latest critical editors. If it be the true one, it is to be explained thus-that of the two quotations, the one from Malachi is but a later development of the great primary one in Isaiah, from which the whole prophetical matter here quoted takes its name. But the received text is quoted by Iranaeus, before the end of the second century, and the evidence in its favour is greater in amount, if not in weight. The chief objection to it is, that if this was the true reading, it is difficult to see how the other one could have got in at all; whereas, if it be found its way into the text, as it removes the startling difficulty of a prophecy beginning with the words of Malachi being ascribed to Isaiah).” [16] (emphasis added)

Joining the ranks, the Methodist and Biblical scholar Adam Clarke remarks in his commentary on mark 1:2:

“As it is written in the prophets. Rather, “As it is written by Isaiah the prophet.” I think this reading should be adopted, instead of that in the common text. It is the reading of several MSS. and versions of great repute, and in several of the Fathers. As this prophecy is found in Isaiah and Malachi, early scribes probably changed the reading to the prophets, that it might comprehend both.” [17] (emphasis added)

What the above indicates is that Adam Clarke was not at all aware of the argument postulated by Sam Shamoun(and others) that he cited which says that it was common practice in Jewish studies of scripture to name a combination of verses from different authors with only one of them. The last part of the quotation is indicative that without altering the text to “the prophets” the reading “in Isaiah” stands confusing and erroneous which is why it was altered!

Robert A. Spivey in the Anatomy of the New Testament and Philip J. Cunningham in Mark: the good news preached to the Romans both cite Mark 1:2, but neither of them mention anything close to Sam Shamoun’s hypothesis which they should if it is indeed as Sam Shamoun claims “common knowledge” to New Testament scholars.

Ralph Earle, Professor of New Testament at Nazarene Seminary, Harvey J.S. Blaney, Professor of Religion and Chairman of the Graduate Division of Theological Studies at Eastern Nazarene College and Charles W. Carter, Professor of Philosophy and Religion at Taylor University in their The Wesleyan Bible Commentary say: “Isaiah the prophet is the correct reading here rather than “the prophets”(KJV). It is easy to understand why some copyists would change to the latter, since the first part of the quotation (v. 2) is from Malachi 3:1. Only in verse 3 does Mark quote from Isaiah (40.3). It would appear that he had mainly in mind the words from Isaiah and then inserted the ones from Malachi as “an afterthought”. Matthew (3:3) and Luke (3:4) have only the quotation from Isaiah.” [18] (emphasis added)

What any reasonable reader can elicit from the above is that the three scholars actually agree that Mark 1:2 with the reading “in Isaiah” is an incorrect attribution which is why the later scribes altered the passage. However, it is interesting to note they posit the hypothesis that what happened was that the author of Mark added in the quotation from Malachi as an “afterthought” which still affirms that the reference given is wrong. Say for example a person were to write, “it is written in the New Testament if a man strikes you on the right cheek give the other to him also.” And then sometime later a new verse that is related occurs in the person’s mind but it is a verse from the Old Testament. So what he does is he simply adds this new verse and retains the rest of what he initially wrote. So to his readers the only reference given to two different verses from two different books is one and the same, the New Testament. Is such a practice accurate and a reasonable method of writing? Of course not. Therefore, the “afterthought” hypothesised in the above quotation does not exonerate the error in Mark 1:2 if there are those who might think that it does. And the scholars do not give  any hints at all that it does away with the problem. In fact, as we can clearly see they state that, “It is easy to understand why some copyists would change to the latter, since the first part of the quotation (v. 2) is from Malachi 3:1. Only in verse 3 does Mark quote from Isaiah (40.3)”

The last quotation Sam Shamoun cites is from a Messianic Jewish commentator David H. Stern who received his Masters in Divinity from Fuller Theological Seminary. Stern lays the following claim as cited by Shamoun: “2-3 It is written in the prophet Yesha‘yahu. Only the last two lines quoted are from Isaiah; the first two are from Malachi. The scroll of the Prophets begins with Isaiah, and it was common to refer to a scroll by its first book; but see Mt 27:9 N. (Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary [Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc; 1st edition, October 1992], p. 87)”

The conservative textual critic Dr. Daniel Wallace in his assessment of Mark 1:2 questions the above hypothesis and candidly says, ” Some suggest that Isaiah headed up the scroll of the prophets and hence Mark meant “In the scroll of Isaiah.” This may be, but we are lacking sufficient proof. There are other suggestions as well, though no firm answers.” (emphasis added) It is noteworthy that Dr. Daniel Wallace does not mention Sam Shamoun’s hypothesis about the gezerah shawah at all as one of the excuses(and he mentions a few of them in his discussion) to continue t0 believe in the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy by propagators of inerrancy! Is it not clear enough now that Shamoun’s claim that the position he posits is “common knowledge” among New Testament scholars is self-defeating and without foundation? Sam Shamoun further argues:

Ibn Anwar also tries to prove that the reading found in the KJV, “As it is written in the prophets,” is not original but a scribal alteration. It seems that later scribes who were far removed from the time of Christ and who, much like Ibn Anwar, were ignorant of Jewish exegetical practices wrongly assumed that someone had mistakenly corrupted the original reading of Mark since they may have reasoned that Mark could not have attributed all of these quotes to Isaiah. They decided to “restore” the original reading by changing “in Isaiah” to “in the prophets.”

In other words, Sam Shamoun agrees that Mark 1:2 as it stands in the King James Version is a scribal alteration based on a theological motivation. That is good. So the scribes were incompetent and misled by the text. Here’s the thing though. The premise of Sam Shamoun’s whole thesis is that Mark 1:2-3 is merely an example of a Judaic practice in exegesis known as gezerah shawah(even thought we have shown that this is not the case). Granted that this was indeed an exegetical device, was it something that the ordinary man 2000 years ago knew? This exegetical device was used by Rabbis among Rabbis. The common people were illiterate. They were not expected to be able to read a whole sentence let alone carry the capability to understand and appreciate exegetical principles! If scribes who were able to read(according to Dr. Daniel Wallace they were even experts in OT writings) were themselves misled and compelled to change the text so as to facilitate comprehension as Adam Clarke mentions where would that put the common man? Was Mark written for a Rabbinical audience or for the average man and society at large? Biblical scholars are in agreement that the gospels are “propaganda material” as we find stated in the Cambridge Companion to the Bible:

“The primary sources of our knowledge of Jesus, therefore, are the gospels: the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. But as the title “gospel” (good news), implies, and as the opening word of Mark makes explicit, they are not objective reports but propaganda.” [19] (emphasis added)

If for the sake of argument we were to agree that indeed what is found in Mark 1:2 is a correct usage of gezera shawa why would it even be used? Why in the world would the author of Mark employ an exegetical device that the ordinary people both literate and illiterate did not understand when his aim was first and foremost to woo people into the faith? How many people have been deceived into thinking that “in the Prophets’ is the correct reading? The reading is still used in the KJV which is one of the most frequently used Bibles in the Protestant denomination. According to Sam Shamoun then the following commentaries along with the scholars who put them together are incompetent(which is ironic because he recommended me to go to Bible commentaries for answers in the first place):

“2-3 The forerunner had arrived according to the divine prediction: As it is written in the prophets (Mal 3:1 and Isa 40:3).” [20] The Geneva Bible is based on similar sets of manuscripts that the KJV is based on, hence the same reading “in the prophets” is retained instead of “in Isaiah”. Commenting on the verse the Geneva commentators say:

“This is the figure Metonymia, whereby is meant the bookes of the Prophets, Malachie and Esay.”

Thus, the invented reading has persisted into the modern day due to the confusion that was started by the author of Mark. It is unlikely that he would have intentionally given rise to the confusion as he was aiming to propagate and convert. He must have honestly thought that he had correctly quoted from Isaiah. We have shown that Sam Shamoun’s contentions are extremely flimsy at best. The internal evidence i.e. the absence of the part cited by the author of Mark(Mark 1:2) in the other gospels; the clear corruption in the text because scribes themselves recognised the error and actually changed it to make it look better; the absence of any material evidence for the strange type of gezerah shawahin Jewish literature articulated by Sam Shamoun and not supported by Jewish and Christian scholars cited at the beginning; the Christian and Jewish commentaries that refute Sam Shamoun upon his own recommendation are sufficient in totally demolishing Sam Shamoun’s rebuttal to my initial article on Mark 1:2. We reaffirm that Mark 1:2 is in error.

“Instead of “IN THE PROPHETS” the B/ALEPH texts and the English versions have “IN THE PROPHET ISAIAH.” Though Mark 1:3 does refer to the Isaiah 40:3, this verse 2 is found in Malachi 3:1 and NOT Isaiah! The way it stands in these false texts, it makes the Bible out as false and in error.” [21]

Shamoun’s rebuttal may be accessed here http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/ibnanwar/mark_isaiah_attribution.html

References:

[1] Longenecker, R.(1999). Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans. p. 20

[2] Barton, J. & Muddiman, J. (Ed.)(2001). Oxford Bible Commentary. United States: Oxford University Press. p. 1242

[3] Interpreting Scripture. (2004). Kansas City, MO: Nazarence Publishing House. p. 44

[4] http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=34&letter=T#163

[5] Chernick, M. Internal Restraints on Gezerah Shawah’s Application. The Jewish Quarterly Review, 80, 253-282

[6] http://unveilingchristianity.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/the-anonymous-four-gospels/

[7] Vermes, G. (2005). The Passion. London, England: Penguin Books. pp. 53

[8] Brown, R.E. (1994). The Death of the Messiah, Vol. 1. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc. pp. 648

[9]www.sas.upenn.edu/~jtigay/lachsajs.doc

[10]Lachs, S.T. (1987). A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament. U.S.A. : KTAV Publishing House. p. 38

[11] Wilson, R.M. (1962). Mark. In Matthew Black & H. H. Rowley (Eds.), Peake’s Commentary on the Bible. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. pp. 800

[12] Swanson, R. J. (1975).The Horizontal Line Synopsis of the Gospels. Dillsboro, North carolina: Western North Carolina Press, Inc. p. 5

[13] Beal, T. K. (2011). The rise and fall of the Bible: the unexpected history of an accidental book. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. pp. 105

[14] Barton, J. & Muddiman, J. Op. Cit. p. 888

[15] Harelson, W.J. (2003). The New Interpreter’s Study Bible. Nashville: Abingdon Press. pp. 1804

[16] The Bethany Parallel Commentary On the New Testament(1983).

[17] Ibid.

[18] Earle, R, Blaney, H.J.S., Carter, C.W. (1966). Wesleyan Bible Commentary vol. 4. U.S.: Baker Books House. p. 133

[19] Kee, H. C., Meyers, E. M. , Rogerson, J. & Saldarini, A. J. (1997). The Cambridge Companion to the Bible. Cambridge, U.K. : Cambridge University Press. p. 447

[20] Falwell, J., Hindson, E. E. III & Kroll, W. (1982). Liberty Bible Commentary. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc. p. 101

[21]Waite, D.A.(1992). Defending the King James Bible. Collingswood, NJ: The Bible for Today. p. 146-147

by Ibn Anwar

Many Christian apologists argue that the Qur’an and hadith are historically unreliable. It is claimed that this is due to the scarcity of early manuscript evidence for either Qur’an or hadith. The latter is claimed to be far more unreliable because the earliest compilations date back to only Bukhari about 200 years after the fact. The following quotation is taken from a Christian paper on the subject captures the essence of such arguments raised against Islam by Christian missionaries :

“Documentary evidence for the Qur’an has always been difficult, due to the paucity of primary documents at our disposal (as was mentioned in the previous section). The oldest Muslim documents available are the Muslim Traditions, which were initially compiled as late as 765 A.D. (i.e. The Sira of Ibn Ishaq). Yet the earliest documents which we can refer to today are those compiled by Ibn Hisham (the Sira of the prophet), and the large Hadith compilations of al-Bukhari, Muslim and others, all written in the ninth century, and thus 200 to 250 years after the fact. They are much too late to be useful for our study here. Therefore we must go back to the seventh century itself and ascertain what documents are available with which we can corroborate the reliability of the Qur’an.” [1]

There are several erroneous claims made in the above quotation. The oldest surviving Muslim documents are not the ‘Muslim Traditions’, but rather the Qur’an itself. The so called “Qur’an of Uthman” at the Topkapi museum date to the late first century or early second century(hijri). Another so called “Qur’an of Uthman” which is kept at the Turk ve islam Eserleri muzesi is also dated to the late first century or early second century(hijri). Two other “Qur’an of Uthman” are found in Egypt (Masjid Al-Hussain, Cairo and Darul Kutub al-Misriyya) with similar dates. Then there are the first and late first century or early first century San’a manuscripts and codices. All of these and many more predate the the biographical works of Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham and also the hadith compilations of Bukhari and Muslim. The quotation also erroneously claim that all the hadith compilations date to the ninth century(200-250 after the fact). This is also false. The earliest documentation of hadith that has been discovered predate the Sihah Sittah(six authentic compilations e.g. Bukhari and Muslim) and it is the Sahifa of Hammam bin Munabbih written in the mid-first century(hijri). This has been noted by the hadith scholar Dr. M. Hamidullah in Sahifa Hammam bin Munabbih: The Earliest Extant Work On The Hadith. The compilations of hadith by the four great imams are also readily accessible today. All of them and others predate the compilations of Bukhari and the rest of the sihah sittah. The Christian missionary in the quotation claims that “They are much too late to be useful for our study here”. However, it has just been illustrated that this is an extremely inaccurate assertion. Nevertheless, the Christian author has made the judgment that anything that exceeds 200 years is too late to be of any use. Let us employ this criterion that he has used against Islam on his Holy Bible and see how it fairs. In order to do this I will produce scanned pages from Kurt and Barbara Aland’s The text of the New Testament [2] which was translated from their original Der text des Neuen Testaments in German. Both husband and wife(especially Kurt Aland) are notable textual critics and have worked with other prominent textual critics like Bruce Metzger. Kurt Aland was the head of the Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Germany and editor of the Nestle-Aland edition of Novum Testamentum Graece (Greek New Testament). Kurt and Barbara Aland list all the papyri, uncials and minuscules from the earliest to the latest. In the table one can easily ascertain that there are only two documents that can be definitely said to belong to the second century C.E. namely, p52 and p90. The other earliest papyri are p32, p46, p64+67, p66 and p77. They are dated to either the late second century or early/mid third century. Note that no single surviving document dates back to the first century in the table! The overwhelming majority of all the Greek texts date from the 3rd to as late as the 17th century! The following is the table from pages 159 to 162 of The text of the New Testament listing all the Greek texts and manuscripts.

Based on the criterion that the Christian writer and many other Christian apologists also use shall we now discount the whole New Testament as useless since it is not grounded upon any surviving written material from the first century? But what about those very very few papyri from the second century e.g. p52? They do not even account for one percent of the New Testament! If the Christian writer and those like him/her are honest and consistent with the method of assessment utilised then the New Testament must be chucked into the recycling bin as useless.

Reference:

[1] http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/qurdoc.htm

[2] Kurt & Barbara Aland. The test of the New Testament : an introduction to the critical editions and to the theory and practice of modern textual criticism(1989). The Netherlands: Eerdmans & E.J. Brill. p. 159-162

by Ibn Anwar

Some Christians (not all) cite Isaiah 21:7 as an example of a prophecy concerning Jesus. Jesus is said to have rode into Jerusalem on a donkey as mentioned in John 12:14 and elsewhere in the other gospels.  Tying that with Isaiah 21:7 which mentions a rider on an ass(donkey) they propose that Isaiah saw Jesus riding on a donkey into Jerusalem. That’s all fine, but what about the other part of the verse that mentions a rider on a camel? The gospels do not mention at all Jesus riding on a camel into any city. The following verse is from the Douay-Rheims version of the Bible which is based on the Septuagint.

“And he saw a chariot with two horsemen, a rider upon an ass, and a rider upon a camel: and he beheld them diligently with much heed.” (Isaiah 21:7)

It is worth mentioning that most of the modern versions of the Bible retain the Mesoretic reading which says chariots/troop of asses and camels. However, the Septuagint version in this case should be preferred (more so for Catholics)  since the authors of the gospels themselves clearly employed the Septuagint (e.g. Isaiah 7:14) as a basis for quotations from the Tanakh or Old Testament rather than the Hebrew text. We read the following words of Lancelot C. L. Brenton in Introduction to The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English, p. 4 :

“The Septuagint version having been current for about three centuries before the time when the books of the New Testament were written, it is not surprising that the Apostles should have used it more often than not in making citations from the Old Testament. They used it as an honestly-made version in pretty general use at the time when they wrote. They did not on every occasion give an authoritative translation of each passage de novo, but they used what was already familiar to the ears of converted Hellenists, when it was sufficiently accurate to suit the matter in hand.”

We also read in Translators for the reader, p. 21 :

“The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the original in many places, neither doth it come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, … which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the Word of God”

Thus if the rider of the ass was indeed Jesus a.s. then who was the rider of the camel? Like other Muslim writers before me I would contend that the rider of the camel must have been Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. Just as Jesus a.s. was riding an ass as a prophet and messenger of God so was Muhammad riding on a camel as a prophet and messenger of God. In fact, the parallel between the two is unmistakable. While Jesus a.s. as a massenger rode into a city (Jerusalem), Muhammad s.a.w. rode into a city (Yathrib or Medinah as it was later renamed). Just as Jesus was welcomed by a sizeable group of believers with shouts and singing of joy saying Hosanna, Hosanna as he arrived at the city so too was Muhammad s.a.w. greeted with shouts and singing of joy by a sizeable group of believers as he arrived at the city. We read about this momentous incident in the life of the Prophet Muhammad in Martin Lings classic work on Muhammad’s s.a.w. biography,

“After the prayer the Prophet mounted Qaswa (his camel), and Abu Bakr and others of Quraysh also mounted their camels and set off with him for the city. .. Never was a day of great rejoicing. “Come is the Prophet of God! Come is the Prophet of God!” was the joyous cry that went up from more and more voices of men and women and children who had lined the route.” [1]

Professor Emeritus of history Jaroslav Pelikan of Yale University writes in his bestseller and very well received Whose Bible is it?,

“Later in the Book of Isaiah, the Septuagint’s “And I saw two mounted horsemen, and a rider on an ass, and a rider on a camel” became an embarrasement to Christian apologists but a welcome support to Muslim disputants, because it seemed to be prophesying not only that Jesus would enter into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday riding on a donkey, as the Christian Gospel described his doing in the New Testament, but that he would be followed (almost exactly six centuries later) by the prophet Muhammad, who was a camel driver.” [2]

The following is the commendation of the Reverend Peter J. Gomes, Plummer Professor of Christian Morals, Harvard University, and Pusey Minister in the Memorial Church to Pelikan’s Whose Bible is it?

“No book is more central to our discourse than the Bible, and no scholar better suited to instruct us in its wily ways than Jaroslav Pelikan. We are all in his debt for this stunning guide to the world’s bestseller.”

References:

[1] Martin Lings. Muhammad his life based on the earliest sources(2005). Lahore, Pakistan: Suhail Academy. p. 123

[2] Jaroslav Pelikan. Whose Bible Is It? (2006).  United States: Penguin Books. p. 59

]]> http://unveiling-christianity.org/2010/06/04/isaiah-prophecies-prophet-muhammad-s-a-w/feed/ 1 Ibn Anwar http://unveiling-christianity.org/2010/01/28/critique-on-the-crucifixion/ http://unveiling-christianity.org/2010/01/28/critique-on-the-crucifixion/#comments Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:53:54 +0000 Ibn Anwar http://unveiling-christianity.com/?p=628 ]]> Difficulties, Contradictions and Problems in the Crucifixion tale

by Ibn Anwar

“…but they killed him not, nor crucified him…”(Qur’an 4:157)

Jesus’ Crucifixion is the bedrock of mainstream Christianity. It is such an important foundation in Christianity that even sects that have departed from “Orthodoxy” such as Unitarianism and the Jehovah’s Witness have retained the crucifixion. Paul says, “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain” (1 Cor. 15:14). Without crucifixion there is no resurrection. Because the preaching of Christianity is based on the resurrection it goes without saying that the crucifixion is equally significant and important which is also why the official symbol in mainstream Christianity is the cross.

It is often claimed in Evangelical circles and by Christian missionaries that there is a consensus among scholars and historians both conservative and liberal that Jesus certainly died on the cross. This is misleading. There are scholars who argue that because there is such a paucity in early reliable historical records attesting to Jesus’ existence  that must mean that he is a myth, a legend, a fiction. Granted that the circle of scholars of this persuasion is small in number that does not discount the fact that they are up and about. Tom Harpur who was professor of New Testament and New Testament Greek at Wycliffe(The Pagan Christ), Bruno Bauer (Critique of the Gospels and History of Their Origin), Earl Doherty(The Jesus Puzzle), Prof. G.A. Wells(The Historical Evidence for Jesus), Prof. Michael Martin(The Case Against Christianity) are some of the scholars who have questioned Jesus’ existence. Thus to continue claiming that all scholars both liberal and conservative agree on the crucifixion is untrue. Undoubtedly, a vast majority of scholars say the crucifixion happened, but not without  serious qualification. They do not say it as a fact, but rather as a probable occurence. Historians involved in this area of study base their judgment on probabilities rather than conclusive historical data. Using the historical method scholars comb through available  historical materials, assess them and thereafter produce what they think to be the most probable conclusion. Historians using the critical historical method do not recognise supernatural events because they are the least probable occurences which is why God cannot be in the equation hence discounting both resurrection and Jesus’ ascent to heaven as historical(at least according to the historical method). A person living 2000 years ago would be regarded as dead because it is highly improbable(or impossible) for a man to live for centuries.  Because Jesus lived around 2000 years ago historians conclude that he must have died.  This is of course according to the critical historical method. The real question that historians are interested in is how he died.  And for this they look at the historical records surrounding the person Jesus. According to their perspective based on their research the most probable explanation or cause for Jesus’ death is the crucifixion. Thus many modern (non-Muslim) historians have no qualms over Jesus’ death  itself not because they think that Jesus was factually and definitely crucified but because a man living 2000 years ago cannot still be alive.  In this article we will be looking closely at some of those major data and sources used to propose that Jesus died by crucifixion. God willing, we will illustrate  by proposing nine contentions(using historical and theological arguments) that the historical material employed are insufficient in  proving the crucifixion and that Jesus certainly did not die the shameful death of a crucified man.

How much do we know about Jesus? As we have mentioned before there is a paucity of material pertaining to him. This fact is noted in the Cambridge Companion to the Bible.

“However desirable it might be to have available records of Jesus’ words and deeds that were made during his lifeimte, we must acknowledge that we have none.”[1] (emphasis added)

“Reliable knowledge of Jesus, his life and teaching, is limited. The years of his adolescence and young manhood are shrouded in silence, and his active ministry of not over two or three years is treated only briefly in the Gospels. There are only four short accounts of Jesus’ ministry, and these record what people though of his as well as what he did and taught. Beyond the narrative of his teachings and actions nothing is known of his personality, physical appearance, or bearing that might account for the remarkable charismatic power which he held over his disciples and the masses who at one time followed him.” [2] (emphasis added)

Contention 1: The passion narratives are inconsistent which means they cannot be trusted.

If one were to compare the four gospels analytically(in a parallel fashion) one will find that there are many inconsistencies between the narratives given. However, in fairness it should be noted that there are fewer contradictions between Matthew and Mark. Some stories are found in one or two of the gospels but not in the others for example Jesus being troubled  prior to the crucifixion is mentioned in Matthew and Mark, but not in Luke and John. The excuse given by apologists is that the authors simply did not mention them as they had limited space to write and so had to make their writing more focused on what they thought were important(or perhaps they were not aware of their occurrence) and this does not actually give rise to contradiction. This excuse is untenable when the Gospels and external historical evidence are studied carefully as we shall see in due course. The Christian apologist would argue that in general there are many similarities between the passion narratives in the four Gospels. That’s all fine. But what about those serious discrepancies that we do find in the Gospels? Can two conflicting stories presented in two different books be equally and simultaneously true? According to Christian apologists they can. What they will do is try to harmonise the conflicting stories by building a new story where both are included  into one story with some suitable modifications for coherence purposes.  Is this a legitimate recourse? The eminent Bible scholar Bart D. Ehrman, the prodige of one of the greatest New Testament scholars of America, Bruce Metzger in Misquoting Jesus and Jesus Interrupted says that such a course of action does injustice to the gospels. Michael L. White in Scripting Jesus calls this ‘the Car Wreck Fallacy’. Harmonising the conflicting gospel accounts does violence to what the authors and their work intend to convey. Each author wrote with a specific intention in mind and a specific audience in sight hence mixing and mashing one author’s narrative with the other is unjustified. By merging and mashing together differing reports together from different gospels they are in reality reconstructing a gospel that none of the gospel writers had in mind. By doing such a thing they have in reality introduced a brand new gospel. Let us now consider some of those contradictions.

1. When was Jesus arrested? Was it on the Passover or before it?

The four Gospels place the crucifixion on a Friday (Mark 15:42, Matthew 27:62, Luke 23:54 and John 19:31), however John departs from the synoptics(Matthew, Mark and Luke) in that the incident occured on the day of rest of the Passover, that is one day earlier. The Synoptics on the other hand asserts that the Friday on which the crucifixion happened was the first day of the Passover.  Jewish law stipulates that the lamb of the Passover should be slaughtered in the evening of the 14th of the first month of the Jewish calender, Nisan. The lamb is then eaten on the same night as mentioned in Exodus 12:1-8). Based on Genesis 1:5 the Jews measure a day as that from sunset to sunset. So that means the night of the Passover is the start of the 15th of Nisan. According to the synoptics Jesus was arrested after having the Passover meal with his disciples which was the first night of the first day of the Passover (Mark 14:12-46, Matthew 26:19-50 and Luke 22:7-54). He was then crucified in the morning of the 15th of Nisan.

John on the other hand has it that Jesus was arrested and taken to Pilate early in the morning of the day of rest of the Passover which means that he was arrested the night before (john 18:28). The crucifixion then according to John’s time line should be placed on the 14th of Nisan some hours after the arrest. Thus according to John the day of the crucifixion was the Friday during the day of the rest of the Passover as opposed to the synoptics that place it on the first day of the feast.  In conclusion, John’s arrest and crucifixion is a day earlier than the synoptics version.  There is a reason why John has made the crucifixion coincide with the time of the slaughter of Passover lambs. John’s account is theologically motivated. He presents Jesus in the first chapter of his book as the “Lamb of God” (John 1:29 and 1:36). John wishes to pass Jesus off as the true Passover lamb. He makes Jesus fulfill a prophecy (John 19:36) with a description that the Old Testament uses for the Passover lamb. Because John’s timeline corresponds intimately with his Crucifixion theology some scholars have been led to dismiss his narrative as fiction. [3]

2. How many Passovers were there? Was it one or three?

Whilst the synoptics mention only one Passover that is the one during which Jesus was crucified John deviates by mentioning two extra Passovers (John 2:13, 2:23 and 6:4).

3. When was Jesus’ trial? Was it at night or in the morning?

Both Matthew and Mark agree that Jesus was arrested and put on trial before the Jewish council at night (Matthew 26:31-57 and Mark 14:30-53. John asserts the same in John 18:28. Luke on the other hand departs from them and says that the trial was in the morning in Luke 22:66 and omits any mention of a night trial.

4. Who questioned Jesus? Was it the Sanhedrin or the high priest?

According to Mark 14:53-55 and Matthew 26:57-59 it was the Sanhedrin who tried Jesus in the house of the high priest, Caiaphas. Who were the Sanhedrin? The Sanhedrin was a Jewish council that dealt with religious and Jewish legal matters consisting of 71 members. How is it that 71 people fitted in Caiaphas’ house 2000 years ago is a bit of a stretch unless he lived in a palace as Geza Vermes mentions in The Passion. Luke 22:66 says, “At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them.” One can understand from this that Luke may very well be referring to the Sanhedrin as Matthew and Mark does. But John departing from the synoptics claims that Jesus was first brought to the house of Annas, “Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus. They bound him and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year.”(John 18:12-13) Only after he had been interrogated by Annas that he was then taken to Caiaphas(John 18:24). There are mutiple problems with these narratives. Firstly, the Sanhedrin is totally missing in John’s account even though he says earlier in John 11:47-53 that Caiaphas led the Sanhedrin in planning to kill Jesus. If John saw it fit to mention the Sanhedrin’s plan to kill him why not also mention that Jesus was interrogated? The question then is was Jesus ever tried by the Sanhedrin as claimed by the synoptics? Who’s telling the truth? We will address this in more detail later. The second problem that we find is that two high priests(kohen gadol) are mentioned together namely, Annas and Caiaphas. Annas is addressed as the high priest repeatedly in John 18:15-22 and in the same passage in verse 24 Caiaphas is also described as the high priest. This cannot be true because the Old Testament , Josephus, Philo and Rabbinic material all agree that the position of high priest can be occupied by one person only at any one time.  The eminent authority in Jewish studies, Geza Vermes notes this and says that John’s claim in John 11:49,51 and John 18:13 that the high priesthood went through annual rotations is unhistorical.[4]

5. Who sentenced Jesus to capital punishment?

Matthew 26:66, Mark 14:64, Luke 24:20 and Acts 13:27 says that the Sanhedrin passed the death penalty on Jesus implying that they have the capacity to sentence someone to die. John departs from that and makes it clear that the Sanhedrin and the Jews in general have no legal power at all to put someone to death, “Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.’ The Jews said to him, ‘It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.’”(John 18:31) Looking at that verse carefully another problem arises. How is it that Pilate the Roman prefect who had been ruling the Jews for around four years and in charge of legal affairs did not even know that the Jews were not permitted to sentence anyone to death?

6. How many people tried Jesus?

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all agree that Jesus was brought before Pilate to be sentenced, but Luke deviating from the other three gospels adds something extra in that Jesus was also tried by Herod in Luke 23:6-12. In this episode Jesus gets mocked and ridiculed by Herod. Why is this event completely omitted in all the other three gospels? Could it be that it did not happen and was simply Luke’s invention to add more drama to the narrative?

7. How did Judas the traitor die?

This is quite relevant to the passion narratives because it happened during the same time and that he is charged with the responsibility of deserting and betraying Jesus to the Jewish leaders for some money(Mark 14:43-46, Matthew 26:47-50, Luke 22:47-54 and John 18:2-12).  According to Matthew the following is what happened to Judas Iscariot,

“Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

“Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.
And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; And gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me. ” (Matthew 27:3-10)

The passage cites a prophecy that is attributed to the prophet Jeremiah. No such prophecy exists in Jeremiah. Christian apologists have tried to reconcile the problem by mixing together Jeremiah 18:2-3 and Zechariah 11:12-13. This is utterly disingenuous because anyone can see that the author cited Jeremiah, not Jeremiah and Zechariah. Prof. Raymond E. Brown in his volume  1 or his 2 volume work on the crucifixion says about this confusion, “That conglomeration of words cited by Matt exists nowhere in the standard OT.” [5] The same is noted by Geza Vermes that, “The quotation is said to be of Jeremiah, but it is invented or is more exactly a garbled mixture of Zechariah 11:12-13 and Heremiah 18-2-3, 36:6-15.” [6] In the passage in Matthew Judas’ manner of death is mentioned, that is,  he hanged himself. Acts 1:18-20 relates the same incident, but the details differ greatly,

“(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms,” ‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’[d] and, ” ‘May another take his place of leadership.” (Acts 1:18-20)

As we can see the above passage presents a totally different picture of Judas’ death. Whilst Matthew says he hanged himself, Acts on the other hand says he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. If the latter is true why did Matthew not include it? Isn’t such a dramatic and gruesome death of a traitor to one’s Lord and Master worth mentioning? We can also see that a totally different prophecy is cited for the incident if it ever happened in the first place. One would think that the same prophecy would be applied for the same incident like the incident of Jesus going into Jerusalem on a donkey whereby the same prophecy from Zechariah 9:9 is quoted(though with variants). This means that the two authors are retelling different stories. The only real similitude is the person involved.

8. False promise by Jesus?

In Luke 23:43 we have Jesus making a promise to his fellow crucified victim,

“Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”"

This was during the crucifixion. According to the Creed of the Apostles which may well have been based on 1 Peter 3:18-20 Jesus went down to hell after the crucifixion, “Jesus who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, buried and descended into hell.” (Apostles’ Creed) Further more, in John 20:17 Jesus says, “Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ” Where is the father? The Father is in heaven according to Matthew 6:9-13 and Matthew 23:9. What was the promise again? The promise was that he would see Jesus in heaven today i.e. on Friday. Apostles’ Creed says Jesus went to hell after he died and John 20:17 says Jesus did not yet ascend to the Father(in heaven) on Sunday. It is clearly a contradiction.

9. Who and where were the women at the crucifixion?

Matthew 27:56 claims that Mary Magdelene, Mary the mother of James, Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee were watching at the scene. Mark 15:40 claims that Mary Magdelene, Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses and Salome were watching. Luke 23:49 says, “And all his acquaintances and the women who had followed him from Galilee stood at a distance watching these things.” If Luke is correct then all the witnesses including the women were standing at a distance watching the incident. John goes against the rest and claims that Jesus’ mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdelene were standing close to the cross. It was so clase that Jesus was able to communicate with his mother.(John 19:25-26). Did you also notice that the women were all MARYS? Were there no other name among Jewish women other than Mary? How very coincidental that all the women mentioned are Marys. Is it easier to say it’s a coincidence or that they are inventions of the authors?

10. Who did Jesus appear to?

According to Paul, Jesus appeared to the 12:

“that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. ” (1 Corinthians 15:4-8)

In the Gospels we know that there were no 12 disciples soon after the crucifixion because Judas had gone. Some apologists might suggest that the 12 is merely an “appellation” and did not designate the actual remaining number of disciples. This is inconsistent with the fact that the Gospels treat the disciples as 11 when Judas was no longer around. Had it been an appellation i.e. a special designation for the disciples despite their actual number the gospel authors would have retained the 12, but they did not. There were 11 left so they were called the eleven and not the twelve e.g. Mark 16:14.

Luke 24:33- 43 tells us that Jesus appeared to the 11 and ate honeycomb and broiled fish in their midst in the upper room. However, John 20:24 tells us that Thomas was not around when Jesus appeared i.e. as related in Luke 24:33-43. That means that the number of disciples that were present should have been TEN at the most and not eleven as Luke 24:33 claims! Paul says 12, Luke says 11 and John asserts 10. Which one is true? Scholars like Dr. William Lane Craig have tried to reconcile this conundrum by proposing a sequence of events where Jesus is suggested to have first appeared in Jerusalem then the disciples went back to Galilee and after that they return to Jerusalem for Pentecost. Is this harmonising attempt coherent? One of the most eminent Bible scholars and praised as such by Dr. William Lane Craig, Prof. Raymond E. Brown disagrees. Such a sequential harmonising according to Prof. Raymond E. Brown, “does violence to the Gospel evidence”. [7] Raymond E. Brown in the same book postulates that the several appearances recorded in the gospels are actually fictitious inventions stemming from one single appearance.

11. Jesus’ trial could not have taken place at night and concluded with a verdict in the same night.

The Mishnah says about capital punishment,

“Civil suits are tried by day, and concluded at night. But capital charges must be tried by day and concluded by day. Civil suits can be concluded on the same day, whether for acquittal or condemnation; capital charges may be concluded on the same day with a favourable verdict; but only on the morrow with an unfavourable verdict. Therefore trials are not held on the eve of a sabbath or festival. In civil suits, and in cases of cleanness and uncleanness, we begin with [the opinion of] the most eminent [of the judges]; whereas in capital charges, we commence with [the opinion of] those on the side [benches]. (Sanh. 32a)

Matthew 26:31-57, Mark 14:30-53 and John 18:28 claim that Jesus’ trial took place at night. According to the Jewish law as we have read above this cannot be true unless the Jewish leaders and the high priest were altogether ignorant or perhaps they were involved in an evil conspiracy where they bent their own law? If that is true why isn’t the error of their actions exposed and rebuked in the gospels? Why did Jesus not himself question the manner in which he was tried being himself a learned Jewish teacher? As  Prof. Craig A. Evans tells us in his Context, Family and Formation in the Cambridge Companion to the Bible p. 19, “Jesus is frequently called ‘Rabbi’ or ‘Rabboni’, or its Greek equivalents ‘master’ (epistata) or ‘teacher’ (didaskalos).” So, Jesus was no doubt a Rabbi(Mark 12:29). Being a Rabbi and learned in the Jewish law he would have questioned the Jewish leaders concerning the unconstsitutional nocturnal trial. But, no such disagreement is found either from Jesus or from anyone else in the entire New Testament. Apologists might argue that the Mishnah(from which the Sanhedrin tractate comes) is not a valid proof source for trials during Jesus’ time because of its redaction date which is about 200 C.E. However, as pointed out by Geza Vermes the Mishnah is not the only evidence there is.

“…the Mishnah passage is not the only relevant evidence. First-century AD sources, such as Philo and the Dead Sea Scrolls, also testify to the illegality of court business on Sabbaths/feast days. Thus Philo writes: ‘Let us not…abrogate the laws laid down for its [the Sabbath's] observance and…institute [on that day] proceedings in court’ (Migration of Abraham 91), and the Damascus Document from Qumran states just as firmly that ‘no one shall judge’ on the Sabbath day (10:17-18).” [8]

The Sanhedrin trial is filled with problems and inconsistencies. Vermes says,

“…the reliability of the account of Jesus’ appearance before the Sanhedrin and his condemnation to death is seriously undermined by the repeated contradictions and historical and legal improbabilities of Mark’s account, which has been copied in substance by Matthew. Luke and John further muddy the waters.” [9]

Earlier we argued against the location of Jesus trial which took place at the house of the high priest. This is very unusual in Jewish tradition since the place of assembly was the hall of cut stone located within the temple as Geza Vermes notes in his The Passion and Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz mentions their The Historical Jesus.

12. Charges levelled against Jesus have no basis

None of the charges levelled against Jesus during the night trial would amount to the death penalty in Jewish law. Neither claiming to be the son of God or the Messiah are blasphemies deserving of death in Jewish tradition. Geza Vermes explains,

“…no Jewish law of any age suggests that messianic claim amounted to the crime of blasphemy… It would therefore seem that the Synoptic tale of the night proceedings against Jesus lacks real foundation.” [10]

It would appear that the authors of the Gospel took their own Christology behind the title ‘Son of God’ as meaning something more than just a person having a special bond with God, but one who shares in some way the divine nature developed during the last decades of the first century  and weaved it in their night trial narratives.[11] It seems the gospel authors have yet again invented history. Faith historicised.

13. Barabbas the mythical rebel

The story of the release of Barabbas in conjunction with the Passover is related by all four gospels. The alleged event is known as the Paschal privilege where the Roman governor supposedly has the right to offer a criminal amnesty. The incident is related in Matthew 15:6-11, Matthew 27:15-20, Luke 23:17-19 and John 39-40. There are serious problems to this story. Firstly, the narratives themselves differ in detail, that is, in the manner the offer is conveyed. Secondly, in Mark and Matthew the people persuaded by the chief priests present shouted and clamoured for the death and crucifixion of Jesus. The story line is simply absurd. How is it that this popular religious figure, Jesus whose image was widespread as a miracle worker, a compassionate teacher, and a Prophet loved by many even by those in Jerusalem(the chief priests were afraid of the people revolting  if they apprehended Jesus because of his popularity Mark 14:1-2, Matthew 26:3-5 and Luke 22:2) became the outcast and hated criminal in a matter of minutes in the eyes of the same Jewish population before Pilate? Geza Vermes remarks, “It is hard, indeed almost impossible, to imagine a nationalist Jewish crowd encouraging the Romans to kill one of their own countrymen.” [12]

Thirdly, if Barabbas was a real person then he was in prison for insurrection according to the gospels. That means he was already found and declared guilty. Why would such a troublemaker be freed by Pilate whose job was exactly to keep and maintain Roman sovereignty in his jurisdiction? The problem is compounded further when we take into consideration that Jesus was found faultless and innocent by Pilate. How is it that someone found guilty is given the opportunity to freedom and not someone who is found innocent? It is senseless.

Last but not least, there is no indication outside of the Gospels that there was such a person as Barabbas or even such a thing as a special Passover amnesty afforded by the Prefect. Geza Vermes states clearly, ” such an amnesty is nowhere mentioned outside the Gospels, not even in Josephus, who was so well informed about first-century AD matters, and the evangelists themselves fail to agree on its precise nature… Hence the historicity of the amnesty is questionable.” [13]

There are many more discrepencies, contradictions and difficulties in the Gospels concerning the crucifixion and other things besides. However, the 13 inconsistencies that we have contended are sufficient in proving our point. The anonymous gospels are far from consistent in their narratives. If we can’t establish which incident actually happened how can we be certain that any of them happened at all? In order to have a reasonable commentary on the events one should be able to know what truly happened first. The inconsistencies give proof to the Qur’anic declaration concerning the crucifixion that, “…those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no certain knowledge, but they only follow conjecture.” (Qur’an 4:157)

Christian apologists tend to argue that the crucifixion is true based on a multitude of independent multiple attestations. This brings us to our second contention.

Contention 2: There are no reliable multiple independent attestions

The following are some of the historical sources appealed to by Christians that are considered independent historical attestations.

1. Flavius Josephus.

Flavius Josephus is popularly quoted by Christians to substantiate the crucifixion tale. They quote the very famous passage that is attributed to him known as the Testimonium Flavianum.

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” (Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3) [14]

Scholars have long suspected the above to be spurious. Questions regarding the authenticity of this particular passage have been raised since the 16th century as Raymond Brown notes in his volume one of The Death of the Messiah on page 374. Today it is widely  rejected as a forgery attributed to Josephus. Raymond E. Brown on the same page of his work cites a number of authorities who rejected the text as outright inauthentic which includes Battifol, Birdsall, Burkitt, Conzelmann, Hahn, L. Hermann, Lagrange, Norden and Zeitlin. It is historically known that Josephus was a Jew and died as one. He did not convert to Christianity at any point in time. It goes without saying that being a Jew he would have hardly attested Jesus’ Christhood and his rising again fulfilling the prophecies of the prophets of old. Had he believed in such Christian doctrines he would have been a Christian. The early church father Origen explicitly states in Against Celcus, 1.47 and in his Commentary on Matthew, 10.17 that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ. Had the passage been authentically written by Josephus surely the early church fathers of the second and third centuries quoted him especially when they cite him regarding Old Testament interpretations. The earliest citation of the text is from the fourth century by Eusebius of Caesaria in Demonstratio Evangelica or  The Proof of the Gospel. That’s over 400 years of a gap which is more than enough time to fake a document. Impossible to be traced back to Josephus it is indeed a fake. It is noteworthy that Raymond E. Brown prefers the position of partial-interpolation where Josephus is thought to have written the basic text and the special references to Jesus e.g. as Messiah are later Christian interpolations. In discussing this however, Brown does not offer any definite substantiation for this position. In fact, he merely describes it as “plausible”. The Testimonium  is found in all the mss. of Ant. [15] and none omits the special references to Christ which leads us to contend that the whole text must have been forged.

2. Cornelius Tacitus.

The work involved in Tacitus’ Annals. This work was written in approximately 117 CE. In it Jesus’ death is mentioned.

“Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus…” (Annals, 15.44) [16]

Several scholars have questioned the authenticity of this passage. It is claimed that Tacitus made use of Roman documents in reporting the above. If that is true surely he would not have made the error with Pilate. Pilate is identified as a procurator rather than a prefect. This is a historical problem that has been noted by scholars. Those two positions are not one and the same. A procurator is a financial administrator(civilian) whilst a prefect is a military position. Historically Judea was ruled by a prefect appointed by Rome from 6 CE to around 44 CE. It was after that period that the governor was procurator. In fact, an inscription that was found at Caesarea Maritima, ludaea there is an inscription dedicated to Pilate which reads, “praefectus iudaeae” which means “prefect of Judea”.  Raymond E. Brown notes, “In calling Pilate a procurator Tacitus was reflecting the later terminology of the 1^st cent., still in vogue at the time of his writing.” [17]Secondly, official Roman documents could not possibly have referred to Jesus as “Christus” as G.A. Wells points out in The Historical Evidence for Jesus.[18] So where did Tacitus get his information from? Well, isn’t it obvious? Christians were already quite known then. He could have easily gotten his information from the Christians as R.T France, E.P. Sanders, G.A. Wells and others have pointed out. This means that even if Tacitus authentically wrote the information it is almost 100 years after the happenings and does not rely on independent sources.

Other historical sources that Christians appeal to include Lucian of Samosata’s The Passing of Peregrinus, Mara Bar Serapion, Thallus and Jewish Rabbinic literature. All these historical sources are late second to third century cources that can hardly be described as independent. And many of them suffer from historical inaccuracies as we have seen inTacitus’ Annals.

Contention 3: There are no prophecies that truly predict the crucifixion

An often quoted passage in support of the crucifixion is Isaiah 53 which we have discussed in another article. Please click on A Critical Study of Isaiah 53 to read it. We have also seen earlier that the Gospel writers committed blunders in trying to fit Jesus into what they percieved as prophecies from the Old Testament.

We will later show that there are clear prophecies and promises in the Old Testament that should ensure Jesus’ safety from any harm that his enemies could have wished to inflict upon him.

Contention 4: Jesus could not have been crucified outside of Jerusalem.

We will prove from Jesus’ own words that he could not have possibly suffered at the hands of his enemies. Let us begin with the proof text for our premise namely Luke 13:33.

The context of Luke 13:33 starts at verse 31. It says that the Pharisees came to Jesus and warns him of an impending threat from Herod who supposedly wants him dead. In response to this warning Jesus responds,

12. Go tell that fox, ‘I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.

13. In any case, I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day – for surely no prophet can die outside of Jerusalem!

The last part in verse 13 is a clear negation by Jesus regarding the impossibility of a Prophet to die outside of Jerusalem. The prophet that is mentioned is a reference to his own person. The verse itself and the context does not allow a different interpretation unless the Christians wish to tell us that Moses died in Jerusalem which he obviously did not. There may be Christians out there who think that Jesus was not a prophet(and I have met quite a few myself). Let us assure them that Jesus was indeed a prophet according to their own books,

“And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.”(Matthew 21:11)

“But Jesus said to them, “A PROPHET is not without honour except in his own country and his own house.”(Matthew 13:57)

“But Jesus said to them, “A PROPHET is not without honour except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house.”(Mark 6:4)

“Then he said, “Assuredly, I say to you, no PROPHET is accepted in his own country.”(Luke 4:24)

“And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:”(Luke 24:19)

“And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us”(Luke 7:16)

“Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.”(John 7:40)

Some of you may raise the question, “If Jesus was speaking about himself in Luke 13:33 surely he would have said something like , ‘I cannot die outside of Jerusalem’ instead of ‘a prophet cannot die outside of Jeruslame’ which is in the third person.” That is a legitimate question. And the answer to that is given in the verses you just read i.e. Matthew 13:57, Mark 6:4 and Luke 4:24. They are all relating about the same incident and Jesus is clearly addressing himself as a prophet in the third person. Thus the question raised has secured our premise further, alhamdulillah.

Clutching at straws some Christians(of whom I have met) may try to insist that the verse does not totally negate the possibility of Jesus dying outside of Jerusalem and that it just says that he cannot like in the KJV, NASB and other translations of the verse. First of all, granted that the KJV and the NASB have translated the verses correctly what does the word ‘cannot’ mean? If I said, “I cannot go to the USA” does it mean I can? It’s a silly question I know, but the question raised by the Christians in this regard is also silly. The word cannot is a negation which means not able to or not possible. In fact, that is what the Greek says. The verse reads,

πλὴν δεῖ με σήμερον καὶ αὔριον καὶ τῇ ἐχομένῃ πορεύεσθαι, ὅτι οὐκ ἐνδέχεται προφήτην ἀπολέσθαι ἔξω Ἱερουσαλήμ

The words in question are the ones highlighted which transliterates into ou endechetai. The particle ou is a negative and it can mean no, not or even never. The verb enedechetai means possible. Joined together it means not possible. Therefore, Young’s Literal Translation correctly translates the verse thus,

“but it behoveth me to-day, and to-morrow, and the day following, to go on, because it is not possible for a prophet to perish out of Jerusalem.”

God’s Word Translation also translates it in the following manner,

“But I must be on my way today, tomorrow, and the next day. It’s not possible for a prophet to die outside Jerusalem.”

So “cannot” as found in the KJV, NASB etc. or “no prophet can” as found in the NIV translation for the verse really means NOT POSSIBLE.

Before we move on let us reiterate it one more time lest we forget, that is, the prophet mentioned in verse 13 is no other than Jesus himself.

By now, you must be wondering what the point is. In fact, some of you may be sitting in your chair saying to the screen, “Okay, so what if Jesus said he cannot die outside of Jerusalem? What does that prove?” Well, the point will be unveiled very shortly.

Where did Jesus allegedly die?

According to the records that we have in the gospels he supposedly died at a place called Golgotha in Aramaic, Calvary in Latin and Kranious Topos in Greek(Matthew 27:23, Mark 15:22, Luke 23:33 and John 19:17). Let’s just take one of the four.

“And when they came to a place called Gol’gotha (which means the place of a skull),”

So, according to the verse Jesus was taken to Golgotha to be crucified.

Where was Golgotha?

According to an article by Keith W. Stump published on two Christian websites http://www.wcg.org/lit/jesus/golgotha.htm and http://www.towards-success.com/dejnarde_files/golgotha.htm Golgotha was outside of Jerusalem.

“What does the Bible tell us about the location? The Gospel writers call the place where Jesus was crucified Golgotha—an Aramaic word meaning “the skull.” Calvary is the Latin form of the word. Scripture does not reveal the precise location of Golgotha. It simply states that Jesus’ crucifixion took place outside the city of Jerusalem, though near it (John 19:20; Hebrews 13:12). Jewish law did not permit executions and burials inside the city.” (emphasis added)

HarperCollins’ Bible Dictionary informs,

“John 19:20 and Jewish and Roman execution customs indicate that it was located outside of Jerusalem’s city walls”. [19]

Mercer Dictionary of the Bible tells us,

“Jewish and Roman law would likely have required capital punishment to take place outside the city walls (John 19:20; Heb 13:12).” [20]

According to Encyclopedia Brittanica Golgotha was outside Jerusalem,

“The hill of execution was outside the city walls of Jerusalem, apparently near a road and not far from the sepulchre where Jesus was buried.” (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/238060/Golgotha) (emphasis added)

According to Online Etymology Dictionary it was near Jerusalem,

“hill near Jerusalem,” via L. and Gk., from Aramaic gulgulta, lit. “place of the skull,” from Heb. gulgoleth “skull.” So called in reference to its shape (see Calvary)” (GOLGOTHA.” Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. 23 Apr. 2009. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/GOLGOTHA>.) (emphasis added)

In John 19:20 which is cited by Keith W. Stump in his article we read that the place was NEAR the city(Jerusalem),

“Therefore many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin and in Greek.”

The word is eggus which literally means near. What does it mean to be near? Near indicates being outside! If you said, “I am near my house.” What does it mean? Does it mean you’re inside your house? NO. It means you’re in close proximity to your house, but it is outside. If you said that you are near New York, you are not inside it but rather outside. So according to John Jesus was taken to a place called Golgotha which was near(outside) of Jerusalem. If that is true then it is in clear opposition to Jesus’ own testimony in Luke 13:33 which we read and analysed earlier. There are really only two options for reconciliation.

1. Jesus lied in Luke 13:33

2. Jesus did not lie in Luke 13:33.

In Matthew 7:24 Jesus says,”Everyone, them, who listens to this sayings of Mine and puts them into practice will be like a thoughtful man who built his house on the rock.” Who is your master? Is he Jesus or the anonymous author of John? My master is Jesus and I would like to follow and believe in what he says. What about you? Luke 13:33 clearly denies what is told about his alleged crucifixion. Unless he died in Jerusalem the whole incident was no incident at all. In fact, it was a lie. Jesus was never crucified nor killed as the Qur’an clearly declares in Chapter 4.

Contention 5: People were forgiven before Jesus so his sacrifice was not necessary for atonement. If his sacrifice was not necessary then there was no point behind the crucifixion.

In Jonah 3 an entire community is forgiven by God when they repented of their sins.

“Then if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. ” (2 Chronicles 7:14)

The above verse clearly shows that what enables forgiveness is sincere repentence. This is further affirmed in Jeremiah 36:3, ““Perhaps the people of Judah will repent when they hear again all the terrible things I have planned for them. Then I will be able to forgive their sins and wrongdoings.”

A Jesus is not required for atonement.

“Unfailing love and faithfulness make atonement for sin. By fearing the Lord people avoid evil.” (Proverbs 16:6)

“For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgement of God rather than burnt offerings” (Hosea 6:6)

Because it was not necessary for Jesus to sacrifice himself to enable atonement of sins God would have saved him. More on this later.

Related to this is the matter concerning Jesus’ sinlessness and perfection. Christians contend that Jesus is the only one who can die for mankind because of his uniqueness as the sinless and perfect man.

How can such a claim be true when Job is clearly described as PERFECT in Job 2:3?

“Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason.”

Most Bible translators render the highlighted part in like manner. However, the KJV has retained the meaning of perfectness,

“And the LORD said to Satan, Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that fears God, and eschews evil? and still he holds fast his integrity, although you moved me against him, to destroy him without cause.” (KJV)

The same is retained in the following versions.

“And Jehovah said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job? for there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and turneth away from evil: and he still holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.” (American Standard Version)

“And Jehovah said to Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God and abstaineth from evil? and still he remaineth firm in his integrity, though thou movedst me against him, to swallow him up without cause.”(Darby Bible Translation)

“And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job? for there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and art upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil: and he still holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.”(English Revised Version)

“And the LORD said to Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and shunneth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.”(Webster’s Bible Translation)

In fact the Bible in Basic English renders it in the following manner,

“And the Lord said to the Satan, Have you taken note of my servant Job, for there is no one like him on the earth, a man without sin and upright, fearing God and keeping himself far from evil? and he still keeps his righteousness, though you have been moving me to send destruction on him without cause.”

The Arabic Bible uses the word كامل KAMIL which means COMPLETE or could even mean PERFECT. The original Hebrew word is tam which does mean perfect, sinless and blameless.

A similar word is found in Deuteronomy 32:4, “He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.” The word used here is tamiym which means the same thing as tam.

So if God had required a perfect man to die in order to save mankind he could have used Job or even Zecharias and Elizabeth both of whom are described as righteous and blameless(sinless) in Luke 1:6. Jesus’ candidacy and the crucifixion are both absolutely unnecessary.

Contention 6: Jesus was a very righteous man and a great prophet so it would have been in God’s interest to save him especially if he had asked.

Jesus prayed earnestly to God to save him!

“And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.”(Matthew 26:39, Mark 14:36 and Luke 22:42)

Jesus was asking to be removed from being harmed by his enemies. Make no mistake about it! Even Christian commentaries admit that the cup in the verse symbolises the impending hardships. The People’s New Testament commentary says, “This cup is the betrayal, the trial, the mocking, the scourging, the cross, and all besides which our thoughts cannot reach.”

Was Jesus’ prayer answered? If he was a righteous servant it should have been answered according to the Old Testament.

The following are verses and prophecies assuring Jesus’ safety:

“If you would earnestly seek God and make your supplication to the Almighty, if you were pure and upright, surely now He would awake for you, and propser your rightful habitation.” (Job 8:5-6)

“But I call upon God, and the Lord will save me.” (Psalms 55:16)

“..what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you do care for him?(Psalms 8:4)

Who is the son of man if not Jesus who is described as just that 83 times in the New Testament!

“ The Lord answer you in the day of trouble.” (Psalms 20:1)

“When the righteous cry for help, the Lord hears, and deliver them out of all their troubles.”((Psalms 34:17)

“Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord delivers him out of them all.” (Psalms 34:19)

“The Lord delivers him in the day of troubles.” (Psalms 41:1)

“The lord protects him and keeps him alive; he is called blessed in the land, you do not give him up to the will of his enemies.” (Psalms 41:2)

“For he stands at the right hand of the needy, to save him from those who condemn him to death.” (Psalms 109:31)

“He will fulfill the desire of them that fear him: he also will hear their cry, and will save them.” (Psalms 145:19)

Jesus himself taught that if a righteous person prayed the Father would answer in Matthew 6:6, Matthew 7:7-8 and  Matthew 18:19. Jesus said explicitly,

“if you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.” (Matthew 21:22)

God hears the worshipper as John 9:31.

Was Jesus’ prayer answered? Amazingly, the Bible says yes and in the book of Hebrews at that!

“During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death,  and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered.” (Hebrews 5:7-8)

The above is clear indication that Jesus’ fervent prayer was answered. The following Bible commentary by Dr. Paul Ellingworth on Hebrews 5:7 explains the meaning of the verse in detail concluding with the Orthodox Christian position, but at the same time admits that the verse likely means Jesus was asking to be saved from death/being killed:

“σωζω here has the literal meaning of preservation or rescue from physical death (cf. Σωτηρία in 11:7), not the extended meaning of preservation from eternal death, as in 7:25… σῴζειν αὐτὸν ἐκ θανάτου may mean either “prevent him from being killed” (cf. Pr. 15:24; Jas. 5:20; 2 Clem. 16:4) or “rescue him by raising him out of death” (cf. Wis. 14:4; Jn. 12:27; absolutely, Lk. 8:50; more generally, of rescue from the threat of death, Ps. 107:20 [LXX 106:19]; Ho. 13:14; Sir. 51:12). If the reference is specifically to Gethsemane, the first alternative is more likely…”[21] (emphasis added)

Contention 7: The crucifixion is unjustified.

According to Christian apologists Jesus’ death was in accordance with Roman law which stipulated that rebels should be executed. Jesus according to the same apologists was a rebel since he called himself the King of the Jews thus usurping Roman authority. The following is an explanation concerning the Crucifixion method by Joel B. Green who is professor of New Testament interpretation at Fuller Theological Seminary:

“In the context of any discussion of the material aspects of crucifixion it is crucial to remember that Rome did not embrace crucifixion as its method of choice for execution on account of the excruciating pain it caused. The acts of the crucifixion resulted in little blood loss and death came slowly, as the body succumbed to shock. This form of capital punishment was savage and heinous, but for other reasons. Executed publicly, situated at a major crossroads or on a well-trafficked artery, devoid of clothing, left to be eaten by birds and beasts, victims of crucifixion were subject to optimal, unmitigated, vicious ridicule.

Rome did not expose its own citizens to this form of heinous punishment, but reserved crucifixion above all for those who resisted imperial rule.” [22]

Generally, modern scholars argue that Pilate’s active part in Jesus’ punishment was justified due to a political threat that he posed by claiming that he ‘s the King of the Jews. There is no explicit verse anywhere in the Bible where Jesus unequivocally claimed to be a king of anyone, let alone a king of an entire nation. Jesus was not the military messiah that the Jews were anticipating. He was the spiritual messiah that was generally passive in his mission. In the gospel records there is no indication that Jesus intended to usurp the Roman empire. He gave them no justified reason to have him executed as a rebel. In fact, when asked about the accusation thrown against him concerning his alleged worldly kingship he denied it.

“Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” “Is that your own idea,” Jesus asked, “or did others talk to you about me?”
“Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?” Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.” “You are a king, then!” said Pilate.
Jesus answered, “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” “What is truth?” Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him.” (John 18:33-38)

In the above passage we see Jesus clearly denying a worldly kingship and instead affirmed a spiritual one(Matthew 18:3, Mark 10:15 and Luke 18:17). As a result of this Jesus was found innocent by Pilate. His verdict was, “I FIND NO BASIS FOR A CHARGE AGAINST HIM.” The same verdict is found in Luke 23 repeated twice in the same passage(verses 14-22)!

In John 6:14-15 we are told that when Jesus thought that people wanted to make him King he withdrew into seclusion to the mountain.

The following passage is very telling,

“When they came to Capernaum, those who collected the two-drachma tax came to Peter and said, “Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?” He said, “Yes.” And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?” When Peter said, “From strangers,” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are exempt. However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me.” (Matthew 17:24–27)

Jesus obeyed the regulations of Rome and taught his followers to pay taxes. In fact, we have the famous statement from Jesus,

“Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” And they were amazed at him.” (Mark 12:17)

How can such an obedient subject of the Roman empire be condemned to a rebel’s death? Geza Vermes says, “contrary to the claim of some contemporary New Testament interpreters, the general context of the portrait of Jesus in the Synoptics and in the rest of the New Testament shows that he was not a pretender to the throne of David, or a would-be leader of a revolt against Rome.” [23]

Christian apologists may offer a counterargument by arguing that it did not really matter what Jesus himself personally believed or practiced, but what the Jews told Pilate. However, if Pilate had believed the Jews in that Jesus was a threat to Rome surely his followers would have been persecuted too. But nothing like that happened in ensuing years. People were allowed to convert to Christianity and follow Jesus’ teachings as Bart D. Ehrman mentions in Misquoting Jesus. The earliest official Christian persecution by Rome was during Emperor Nero’s rule around 54 to 68 CE. However, this was not because of the charges levelled against Jesus by the Jewish leaders. The idea that a very powerful Roman prefect could be pressured into believing tall tales after he himself found the person innocent is fantastically absurd. As a matter of fact, John says that he did not fall for the accusations and continued to affirm Jesus’ innocence, “Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.”(John 19:6) Were Roman prefects so callous and unjust? This is akin to a modern judge in a court of law declaring a person innocent, but sending him to the gallows regardless. Does that make sense? It is absolutely absurd!

As we have seen there is no sufficient or satisfactory reason for Jesus’ crucifixion, which must lead us to the conclusion that many of the tales surrounding his trials have been fabricated. What else have been fabricated?

Contention 8: The earliest Gospel has no passion narrative in it!

You might be saying that I’ve gone bonkers for claiming that the earliest Gospel has no passion narrative. You might think I’m talking about Mark which is considered by scholars to be the first of the four canonical Gospels to be written. No, I am not talking about Mark. Rather, I am talking about a Gospel that predates even the Gospel of Mark. I’m talking about the lost Gospel “Q”. To understand what the Gospel Q is one needs to understand some background concerning the first three Gospels. The first three Gospels are labelled as Synoptics which means “seen together” the reason of which is due to the fact that the passages and pericopes in the three bear numerous stark similarities. Biblical scholars considered this as the “Synoptic Problem”. The conclusion that they arrived at was that both Matthew and Luke relied heavily on a common source namely, the Gospel according to Mark. However, Mark cannot account for a considerable number of verses that are found in Matthew and Luke. These are verses that Matthew and Luke share in common, but are missing in Mark. To solve this issue German Biblical scholars postulated another source that Matthew and Luke relied upon which they have simply dubbed “Q” which is short for the German word Quelle meaning source. Though there are scholars who contest the existence of “Q”, the majority accept it as the most tenable explanation for the parallels found between Matthew and Luke that are not accounted for in Mark. Most scholars have dated the “Q” Gospel to approximately 50 CE predating the Canonical Gospels.[24]

By comparing Matthew and Luke closely the scholars have reconstructed this “Q” Gospel. What does it contain? A lot of things, but most importantly is that it has no passion or resurrection narrative at all. One of the foremost scholars on the “Q” Gospel notes, “…the Sayings Gospel has no passion narrative or resurrection stories…”[25]. Bart D. Ehrman also notes, “Most striking was the circumstance that in none of the Q materials (that is, in none of the passages found in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark) is there an account of Jesus’ death and resurrection.” [26]
Gospel “Q” came about around the same time Paul was writing his letters and teaching the theology of the crucifixion and resurrection as essential to the Christian faith. If the crucifixion truly happened and indeed necessary for salvation and that Jesus definitely raised from the dead why is it not mentioned in this gospel that was made usedby Matthew and Luke? We contend that the reason why it does not contain either passion or resurrection narrative is because Jesus was not killed on the cross and they are indeed unessential to the real faith that Jesus brought.

Contention 9: Even if (for the sake of argument) Jesus was put on the cross he could not have died so fast!

The Roman method of crucifixion was not to cause instant or immediate death of the victim. Historically, the Roman method was to fix someone upon the cross either by tying or nailing and to allow him to die a shameful and above all else a slow painful, agonising death. The Gospel narratives give conflicting time lines for Jesus’ crucifixion and time of expiration/death, but none exceed 6 hours. What exactly was the blow that caused his death if indeed he was put on the cross? In discussing this issue Prof. Raymond E. Brown says clearly, “Crucifixion pierces no vital organ, and so inevitably one must wonder what physical or organic factor caused Jesus to die. The extremely brief Gospel descriptions of the death of Jesus are of little help in answering this question.” [27] Christian apologists are fond of citing some medical professionals who have delved into this matter to argue for the impossibility of surviving the cross and  finallyaffirm Jesus’ death on it. Regarding this Raymond E. Brown says, “In my judgment the major defect of most of the studies I have reported on thus far is that they were written by doctors who did not stick to their trade and let a literalistic understanding of the Gospel accounts influence their judgments on the physical cause of death of Jesus. There is no evidence that the evangelists personally knew anything about that matter…” [28]

The conclusion:

The crucifixion of Jesus is a tale that is indeed fascinating and quite fitting for a bedtime story and can be safely placed in the fiction section in any library or bookstore. We are satisfied with concluding that the cumulative 9 contentions proposed in this critique soundly and sufficiently disprove the tale of Jesus’ crucifixion as historical fact and it should instead be called the CRUCIFICTION(coined by the late Ahmed Deedat). We submit that the Qur’an is absolutely right when it says,

“And their saying: “We killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, messenger of God.” They did not kill him and they did not crucify him, but it was made to seem so to them. Those who argue about him are in doubt about it. They have no real knowledge of it, just conjecture. But they certainly did not kill him. ” (4:157).

References:

[1] Howard Clark Kee, Eric M. Meyers, John Rogerson, Anthony J. Saldarini. The Cambridge Companion to the Bible(1997). Cambridge, U.K. : Cambridge University Press. pp. 447

[2] Obert C. Tanner, Lewis M. Rogers, Sterling M. McMurrin. Toward Understanding the New Testament(1990). Salt Lake City: Signature Books. pp. 30

[3] Ed Parish Sanders. The Historical Figure of Jesus(1995). England: Penguin Books. pp. 72

[4] Geza Vermes. The Changing Faces of Jesus(2000). London, England: Penguin Books. pp. 43

[5] Raymond E. Brown. The Death of the Messiah, Vol. 1(1994). New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc. pp. 648

[6] Geza Vermes. The Passion(2005). London, England: Penguin Books. pp. 53

[7] Raymond E. Brown. An Introduction to the New Testament(1997). New York: Doubleday.

[8] Geza Vermes. The Passion(2005). Op.Cit. pp. 100

[9] Ibid. pp. 49

[10] Ibid. pp. 102

[11] Ibid. pp. 103

[12] Ibid. pp. 61

[13] Ibid. pp. 95

[14] Flavius Josephus. Jewish Antiquities(1998). Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

[15] Raymond E. Brown. Op. Cit. (1997).

[16] Tacitus. Annals (1962). London: William Heinmann Ltd.

[17] G.A. Wells. The Historical Evidence for Jesus(1988). London, England: Prometheus Books. pp. 16-17

[18] Raymond E. Brown. Op. Cit. (1997). pp. 337

[19] Paul J. Achtemeier. HarperCollins’ Bible Dictionary(1996). HarperCollins. pp. 164

[20] Watson E. Mills. Mercer Dictionary of the Bible(1990). Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press. pp. 128

[21] Paul Ellingworth. The Epistle to the Hebrews, A Commentary on the Greek Text (1993). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

[22] Joel B. Green. Crucifixion, The Cambridge Companion to Jesus(2001). Cambridge University Press. pp. 91

[23] Geza Vermes. Op. Cit. pp. 181

[24] Bart D. Ehrman. Lost Christianities(2003). New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 58

[25] http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=542

[26] Bart D. Ehrman. Op. Cit. pp. 57

[27] Raymond E. Brown. The Death of the Messiah, Vol. 2(1997). Op. Cit. pp. 1088

[28] Ibid. pp. 1092

————————————————————————————

Recommended reading:

The Mystery of The Historical Jesus by Louay Fatoohi

The Mystery of the Crucifixion: The Attempt to Kill Jesus in the Qur’an, The New Testament, and Historical Sources by Louay Fatoohi

200+ ways the Qur’an Corrects the Bible by Mohamed Ghounem

Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman

Jesus Interrupted by Bart D. Ehrman

An Introduction to the New Testament by Raymond E. Brown

The Truth About the Crucifixion of Jesus by A.S. Abraham

by Ibn Anwar

The activity of Christians promoting their faith through deceit all over the world is not something new to Muslims. We are well aware of the sly tactics employed by Evangelical and Christian missionaries in delivering the message of Christianity to the unbelievers. We know about the Christian Evangelical ship Logos that sails around the world making stops in third world countries like Indonesia and luring the people by giving them gifts in exchange for belief in Christ. How many times have you heard missionary propagandists like Christian Prince and Sam Shamoun throwing accusations of so called “Islamic taqiyyah” at Muslims saying that Islam teaches its followers to use deceit as one of the ways to deliver Islam. The word Taqiyyah comes from the root waqa which means to “to shield/protect oneself”. However, when Christian missionaries talk about Taqiyyah what they mean is that Muslims lie to spread their religion. In this article we will unequivocally show that Christians are the ones who lie and deceive to spread their faith which is incidentally taught by  their Holy Bible(s).

Please watch the following news coverage before you continue reading.

These guttersnipes try to lure and deceive Muslims by pretending to be Muslims themselves. Of course, they are merely projecting the teachings of their supreme master Paul of Tarsus :

“Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak.”(1st Corinthians 9:19-22)

The following verse will clarify what exactly he meant by the above :

“But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.“(2nd Corinthians 12:16)

guile = lie

We see in the following verses even more clear permission, nay recommendation to Christians to employ deceit in missionary activities.

“But what does it matter? Nothing matters except that, in one way or another, people are told the message about Christ, whether with honest or dishonest motives, and I’m happy about that. Yes, I will continue to be happy.” (Philippians 1:18)

“But if the truth of God through my lie abounded unto his glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?” (Romans 3:7)

We do not only call upon Muslims, but the whole of mankind to be very wary of Christian missionary activities for they are knaves who do not hesitate to lie and utilise other conniving tactics to achieve their goals.

Related article :

Arab Christians Caught Lying Red Handed

by Ibn Anwar

Can you imagine a book that claims to convey factual information and data making a terrible factual error in its first paragraph? Let’s say we have a book called “101 Facts on Animals” and in the first supposed fact it makes an UNFACTUAL claim. Would you be taking that book seriously anymore or will you consider chucking it in the bin and find other books instead? This is the predicament that Christians face when the claim is made that the Gospel according to Mark is divinely inspired or “god-breathed”. At the very beginning of the book and in the first chapter of Mark we have a truly irreconcilable textual error.

In the beginning was an error…..

“As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I am sending my messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way;” (Mark 1:2)

I challenge every Christian in the world to show me where I can find in Isaiah the verse “Behold, I am sending my messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way”. Believe me when I say that not even the Pope can help you here. That is because the verse does not exist  in Isaiah, although you can actually find it in the Old Testament. To be more specific it is in the Torah. To be even more specific it is in Exodus! The words are different but the meaning is basically the same.

“See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared.” (Exodus 23:20)

How far apart exactly is Exodus from Isaiah? The answer to that is about 1000 years! How could such a mistake happened if God was guiding the hand of the anonymous author of Mark? Did God forget that it was His prophet Moses and not Isaiah who mentioned the verse? God forbid! It is more reasonable to contend that the reason for the unequivocal error is because Mark was written by anonymous individual who was not guided by God. The text is a clear corruption that should not be attributed to the divine.

Some might try to argue that the verse actually reads, “in the Prophets” as opposed to “in Isaiah” as found in the King James Version. No doubt that the KJV based on manuscripts containing such a reading does say that. But that reading is only to be found in the majority of rather late manuscripts e.g. A, E, F, G, H, P, W, S, family 13, the majority of minuscules, Syriac Harclean of the Byzantine version and others. The earliest witness for the reading “in the Prophets” dates only to the fourth century. On the other hand the reading for “in Isaiah” as retained in most Bibles today are based on the most ancient witnesses(manuscripts) such as in Aleph, B, L, D, Q, family 1, 33, 205, 565, 700, 892, 1071, 1241, 1243, 2427, Itala MSS (a, aur, b, c, d, f , ff², l, q, Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, Syriac Palestinian, Coptic and so on.  The reading is widespread and is found in almost all the Alexandrian, Caesarean and Western witnesses.* Thus the reading “in Isaiah” is closer to the original.  Even if for the sake of argument we were to entertain the veracity of the KJV reading “in the Prophets” the textual predicament still remains. Exodus was not by Prophets but by a Prophet i.e. Moses. The Old Testament according to Jewish tradition is divided into three categories namely, Torah, Nevi’im and Ketuvim. Nevi’im means Prophets referring to the books attributed to Prophets. If the reading “in the Prophets” were to be true then it would be referring to the category of Nevi’im which does not include the Torah wherein Exodus is found. Whichever position one takes Mark 1:2 remains nothing more than a corruption! Mark 1:2 is yet another falsehood in “the book of God”.

*Daniel Wallace on Mark 1

]]> http://unveiling-christianity.org/2010/01/22/biblical-errancy-in-mark-1/feed/ 34 Ibn Anwar http://unveiling-christianity.org/2009/09/06/unveiling-polycarp/ http://unveiling-christianity.org/2009/09/06/unveiling-polycarp/#comments Sun, 06 Sep 2009 08:44:18 +0000 Ibn Anwar http://unveiling-christianity.com/?p=601 ]]> A dialogue between Ibn Anwar and Polycarp

I am not quite sure who Mr. Polycarp is, but it does seem fairly certain that he is a Christian apologist. He first appeared on Unveiling-Chrisianity on the Trinity Challenge post where he simply posted a reference, that is,  Matthew 28:19 in answer to Ibn Sa’ad’s challenge to produce a single verse that teaches the Trinity in the Bible(s).  I in turn replied and directed him to an article I had written on Matthew 28:19. Thereafter, we had some very interesting exchanges that you may follow here.  On August 16, he also comented on another article. The article is on Paul written by my friend Sami Zaatari the Muslim apologist. Naturally, I responded and that led to some further exchanges until finally Polycarp relented and asked for time out so he could gather his sources and provide much more meaningful rebuttals. I had no objection to it and opined that maybe he could even produce a whole thesis on the subject to which he said, “maybe I will!”. The thesis isn’t forthcoming, but of course one understands that thesis’ are time consuming and take a while to complete. So, we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and give him at least 2 years to finish it. Neverheless, he has returned and produced the following response which is his latest.

You may read our exchanges on Zaatari’s article on Paul here.

The following is Polycarp’s latest response,

Assalamu’alaikum,

Well I made it home, and so I look forward to continuing our dialogue as time permits on both ends. I’m going to start from scratch with regards to this post, since it has been about two weeks or so since we’ve dialogued about Paul’s visionary experiences listed in Acts. Now that I’m back home, I can actually give you quotes from sources and an actual dialogue that is idiosyncratic, rather than jotted down thoughts and ideas from memory.

The Oxford Guide to the Bible describes Paul’s Christian conversion as something that was not a disenthralling from Judaism, since he was clearly dedicated to a biblical faith (Galatians 1:14; Philippians 3:4b-6). Instead it was the “conversion experience that changed his life and played a major part in the development of his theology…he discovered that Jesus was no longer dead, but alive”(Metzger pg.578). Gerd Ludemann in “The Resurrection of Christ,” reinforces the idea that Paul had zealousness towards the law, as “evident…by his condemnation of their [Christians] proclamation of a crucified Messiah and… their [Christians] de facto disregard of the Torah”(Ludemann pg. 167). This of course raises the question again, what caused Paul to convert from his deeply rooted Jewish beliefs? Answering this question, Bart Erhman states in his book, “Peter Paul and Mary Magdalene,” that “there is little doubt, historically, about what converted Paul. He had a vision of Jesus raised from the dead” (Ehrman pg.111). Gerd Ludemann reverberates this by never denying Paul had a visionary experience of the risen Lord; rather, Gerd Ludemann likens it to a personal hallucination of the risen Christ. This idea can be seen in his debate with William Lane Craig, which is available in book form (Jesus’ Resurrection Fact or Figment?). He expounds on this notion a little more in his book “The Resurrection of Christ,” where he puts Paul’s vision in the same category as the Old Testament Prophets and affirms the hallucination theory by stating, “rather I adopt a psychological viewpoint in proposing the Paul experienced something that many people from his culture did…”(Ludemann pg.48). Continuing on, John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg in their book, “The First Paul,” describe Paul’s transformation of church persecutor to saint, as a “dramatic experience” Paul had with the risen Christ. They also point to the scholar, Peter Berger’s findings that, “Saul becomes Paul in a moment of religious ecstasy” (Borg pg.18).This of course is a reference to Paul’s visionary experience in Acts. The only explanation for Paul’s conversion is a dramatic experience such as this. As no credible scholar will deny that Paul was a pious Jewish Pharisee who was extremely devoted to the Torah and detested the new Jewish sect, Christianity. So whether the visionary experience was in fact a physical event or a hallucination, there is no denying that Paul experienced something arcane on the road to Damascus. If you continue to read the paragraph in Bart Ehrman’s book, “Peter Paul and Mary Magdalene,”you will find that he does not dismiss the visions themselves as not happening because of the differences in the narratives, like Sami Zataari does or as your history professors do. Rather he notes, “There are differences among these three accounts, making it difficult to know what, exactly, the author of Acts wants us to think happened. But the basic story line is similar” (Ehrman pg. 111). Borg and Crossan both echo Ehrman’s words that the primary details of the story are the same; Paul saw a light, he heard a voice and addressed it as Lord, the voice identified itself as Jesus, and the experience transformed him (Borg pg.22). This of course is what I have iterated once before, the differences in the secondary details do not necessarily throw something out. Granted, if you’re looking at it from a historical perspective, you may have to accept that some details did not occur or perhaps not in that order. This does not dismiss the event as not happening though. Bart Ehrman, in an email discussion I had with him, essentially agrees with what I just stated. The eyewitnesses maybe valuable as to what happened, but the eyewitnesses may not have recorded/remembered the events correctly and thus may not be accepted as getting it down to perfection. I fully accept that all three accounts may not be 100% historically accurate, as is the case in many of antiquities historical writings. However, the point is the main points do not sway, nor do they differ. At the very least, yours and Mr. Zataari’s conclusions are incorrect on this matter.

I do want to touch upon a point you brought up in regards to the beliefs of Marcus Borg. If you read his book “Reading the Bible Again for the First Time,” he sort of outlines his views on how to take the Bible. A Wikipedia article sort of summarizes this if you want to get the most basic idea of his view. But he takes a “metaphorical historical” view of the Bible, and on page 46 of this book; he gives a list of ideas that he considers to be symbolic in the relationship of God and man. If you notice, the events he labels as metaphoric, both in the New and Old Testaments, are all stories that would involve miracles. He further defines his criteria of knowing if something is metaphoric by what he calls, “limits of the spectacular.” In other words, if the event goes beyond what we think is possible, it falls into this category. With that being said Marcus Borg is one of the more “conservative” members of the Jesus Seminar, still more “liberal” then what I consider myself to be, which is seen on page 47 of his book, where he does paint a more open view towards miracles. He further states, that because no one else has performed miracles or these miracles, such as the virgin birth, multiplying loaves of bread, or turning water into wine, he cannot fully accept that Jesus did these miraculous actions, labeling these actions as “metaphorical narratives.” So despite that he is more “open” to miracles, he still goes into the text presupposing they did not occur. My view is similar to that of Dr. William Lane Craig’s which is, natural explanations should be what we turn to first, but if there are no natural explanations that can explain the “miracle” event without the explanation becoming ad hoc or outrageous, we may have to turn to a supernatural explanation. Even though it sounds like Marcus Borg’s belief, it isn’t. Borg doesn’t accept miracles from the get go, and won’t unless it can be historically certain the supernatural events occurred before.

1. Borg, Marcus J. Reading the Bible Again For the First Time Taking the Bible Seriously But Not Literally. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002. Print.
2. Borg, Marcus J., and John D. Crossan. The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church’s Conservative Icon. New York: Harper collins, 2009. Print.

3. Ehrman, Bart D. Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene the followers of Jesus in history and legend. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2006. Print.
4. Jesus’ resurrection fact or figment? : A Debate between William Lane Craig & Gerd Lüdemann. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity, 2000. Print
5. Ludemann, Gerd. The Resurrection Of Christ A Historical Inquiry. New York: Prometheus Books, 2004. Print.
6. Metzger, Bruce M., and Michael D. Coogan, eds. “Paul.” Oxford Guide to the Bible. New York: Oxford UP, 1993. 578. Print.

-End of Comment-

The following is my response.

Pax Vobiscum,
Well, I’m glad to hear that you’ve reached your home safely. I hope you had a pleasant journey back from wherever you were. Let’s get on to business, shall we?

I thank you for taking the time to share with us your thoughts. I must say that I enjoyed reading your latest response, but do not mistake that as concession or approval :p. You quoted three sources; Metzger, Ludemann and Borg to substantiate your proposition. That’s fine. But, let us recapitulate your initial comment on Zaatari’s article and see what exactly was it that you disagreed to which then prompted my reply.

You said in your first comment dated 16th of August,

“This is a common ploy among those who go on the offensive with the Bible. They point to varying accounts saying,”this indeed throws the story out, as there is conflicting reports of how the story is told, thus it did not happen!” This however is not how history is determined my dear friend.”

After that thesis statement you went on to talk about the Punic Wars and mentioned that there are discrepencies in the accounts given by the two sides involved i.e. Roman and Carthage. You did this in an attempt to illustrate that discrepencies in a story does not render it fictitious. The following is what you said,

“”I heard him tell the story two different times to various people with slightly varying details, as Pauls slightly varied…however the event still happened despite these varying details, as I myself witnessed it.”

Readers may refer to my reply to ascertain the rebuttal I gave to this false comparison utilised by Polycarp which he failed to counter-rebut in all his follow-up responses. You then made the claim that you’re a historian and further detailed that the conflicts in the narratives do not render the story moot and finally to substantiate your propositon further you cited Gerd Ludemann who is the professor of history and literature of early Christianity at Georg-August-University Göttingen, Germany. You said about him,

“Even the highly critical New Testament scholar Gerd Ludemann believes this vision to be something that really happened to Paul, as evident in the change of Paul’s beliefs ( he just takes a slightly different approach to it).”

Any ordinary person after having gone through your response may leave with the impression that Ludemann supports your initial proposition that historically, Paul certainly did meet Jesus on the road to Damascus despite the apparent discrepencies in the narratives in Acts. A critical evaluator however, would not be so gulliable and will for example notice that you have tried to conflate the words story, meet and vision together as if they are the same thing. Let us have a look at each word so as to get a better idea as to what we’re dealing with here.

Story,

1. a description of events and people that the writer or speaker has invented in order to entertain people.

2. an account, often spoken, of what happened to somebody or of how something happened.

Meet(in the context of our discussion I will only pick one definition that is most relevant),

5. to see and know somebody for the first time; to be inroduced to somebody: [vn] Where did you first meet your husband?

Vision,

2. [C] an idea or  picture in your imagination: He had a vision of a world in which there would be no wars.

(Taken from the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary)

As you can see the three words are not the same at all. They have totally different meanings. You said in the first instance,

“This is a common ploy among those who go on the offensive with the Bible. They point to varying accounts saying,”this indeed throws the story out, as there is conflicting reports of how the story is told, thus it did not happen!” This however is not how history is determined my dear friend.”

The above and the rest of your response imply that the story is true and that Paul certainly did meet Jesus(which the article was out to disprove). Why have I bolded the ord meet? Well, I want to draw to your attention that you have not at all used it in your response, rather you opted for the word vision. Now, the article was written to disprove the alleged meeting of Paul and Jesus on the road to Damascus. Meeting implies physical, tangible and actual happening where two parties or more face each other. The word vision on the other hand at least in this context implies a metaphysical or supernatural phenomenon that is neither physical nor tangible. Zaatari’s article was not composed to disprove that Paul actually experienced some kind of vision himself, but rather to discard the narratives that are attributed to him by the anonymous author of Acts regarding an actual worldly meeting with Jesus on a road along with other human beings who accompanied Paul. To this effect I do not believe Ludemann actually postulates that Paul truly met Jesus physically along with the accompaniment on the road to Damascus. This would be truly ahistorical especially to the likes of Ludemann since in the first place Jesus had already died according to popular belief. To accede to an actual meeting on the road to Damascus which the other people experienced as well would be to allow resurrection which Ludemann and Ehrman and other historians staunchly deny. So what Ludemann said was that Paul probably had a vision and this changed his disposition. Nowhere in this admittance that you have provided for us in quotation form do we find him actually attesting to the veracity of the conflicting narratives in Acts. Rather, he has merely attested that Paul probably experienced a vision like how Sybill may have experinced “visions” that to her predicted the future. Paul may well have experienced a vision of Jesus(for the sake of argument), but that does not necessitate the authenticity of the conflicting reports in Acts. If Ludemann actually believed in the meeting aon the road to Damascus we would not find the following on his book Paul: The Founder of Christianity published in 2002,

“Based on a life-changing vision of the risen Christ, Paul’s belief in the resurrection of the crucified Jesus naturally became the centerpiece of his interpretation of this new religion. But Lüdemann contends that however sincerely motivated he was we must in the final analysis judge Paul’s belief as self-deception. Paul never knew Jesus, and he had only a passing acquaintance and a strained relationship with Jesus’ immediate disciples. As a result, he was not in a position to give an accurate representation of Jesus’ teachings.” (emphasis added)

As such in your latest response you testified that,

“Gerd Ludemann reverberates this by never denying Paul had a visionary experience of the risen Lord; rather, Gerd Ludemann likens it to a personal hallucination of the risen Christ. This idea can be seen in his debate with William Lane Craig, which is available in book form (Jesus’ Resurrection Fact or Figment?).”

You then quoted his own words,

““rather I adopt a psychological viewpoint in proposing the Paul experienced something that many people from his culture did…”(Ludemann pg.48)

Nowhere in what you have said regarding Ludemann or in the quotations from him do we see an affirmation that Paul and his company actually experienced something strange on the road to Damascus and that Paul himself did MEET Jesus there. Allow me to reiterate one more time that the purpose of Zaatari’s article was not to disprove that Paul had a personal vision of Jesus in a psychological state or something similar. Rather, the whole purpose was to show that the stories in Acts about an alleged meeting experienced by Paul and his company did not really take place. To this effect Zaatari concluded at the end of his article,

“So three contradictions and a logical fallacy, Paul lied, Acts is unreliable, the Bible is corrupt, the Quran said so, the Quran is true, come to Islam!” (emphasis added)

Let’s read the following again,

“I heard him tell the story two different times to various people with slightly varying details, as Pauls slightly varied…however the event still happened despite these varying details, as I myself witnessed it.”

In the above one can see that you tried to downplay the significant discrepencies that one can see in the said narratives. Before I detail the clear errors in the narratives let us remind ourselves that just like the above comment you have never once denied the existence of discrepencies in the narratives throughout our discussion and have as a matter of fact conceded that variances exist, but added that they do not change the historicity of the event. Let’s have a look at the variances closely and see whether they are “slightly varied” as Polycarp claimed.

There are three versions of the story in Acts. The first is in Acts 9: 3-7

“And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.”

Compare the above with the following from Acts 22:6-10,

And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me.
And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
And I said, What shall I do, LORD? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.

Comments:

In the first narration we are informed that the men that journeyed with him heard the voice, but did not see a man. This was what made them stand speechless. The narration conveys to the discerning reader that what caused them to stand speechless was the voice that they heard coming from nowhere. In comparison, the second narration tells us the cause for their fright was not the voice, but rather what they saw,

“And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.”

The discrepencies are two-fold.

What did they see and hear?
1. They did not see a man(implies the absence of anything visible) VERSUS they saw a light.

2. They heard the voice VERSUS they heard no voice.

What was the cause of their fright?

3. The voice that they heard caused them to stand speechless(fright) VERSUS they saw a visible light and this caused them to be frightened and not the voice which they did not hear.

The critical reader will also notice that the first narration is in the third person and the second is in the first person. The first narration is a retelling of the story by the author of Acts while the second narration is a retelling of the story by Paul that is recorded in Acts(but, not written by Paul). The following are Malik Ali’s comments on the narrations.

“In the first  we have a record of Paul’s men, hearing a voice and seeing no man (ie Jesus). In the second narration, we have Paul claiming that the men saw Jesus, but did not hear a voice. The possibility of Paul manipulating this “event” is clearly revealed in  the second narration, we have Paul defending himself before the Hebrew counsel, and twisting the point that his companions saw a light, but did not hear the voice; apperantly adds more credibility to his phenomenal vision. As a voice could be anyones voice for what the Jews care. Yes there is a contradiction, but from what we have seen from the character of Paul, it should not come as a surprise. In the third narration, he omits any mention of the specific incident.”

Let us now consider the third narration from Acts 26:12-20.

Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests,
At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.
And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:
But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.Comments:

In the first two narrations readers will notice that Paul is singled out as the one who falls down(and no one else). However, in the third version we see that the story becomes a bit more dramatic where all of them together with Paul fell down. In this narration the subject audience was King Agrippa. Perhaps to impress the King some extra drama were in order and so Paul describes the phenomenon dramatically(assuming this report captures what Paul actually said to Agrippa),

“At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.
And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”

Comparing the first and second narrations against the third the critical reader will notice the following problem.

“And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.”

“And I said, What shall I do, LORD? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.”

Though there are slight differences in the choice of words in the two narrations above the gist of it is retained. That is to say when Paul wanted to know what he should do he was told by what was supposedly Jesus that he has to wait until he reached Damascus before he is told what he must do. The two narrations are in stark contrast with the third where as we have seen Paul received the full commission as to what was his purpose on the road to Damascus and not when he had reached Damascus. So then the discrepency is as follows,

In Acts 9 and 22 we are told that Paul wanted to know what he must do, but the information was withheld with the promise of clarification upon his arrival at Damascus VERSUS In Acts 26 where Paul does not ask what he must do as he is told BEFORE reaching Damascus right at that moment what he must do. Applying the critical historical aproach any historian will be able to see how the story gets developed as the target audience changes.

There is yet another interesting problem that we should note. When Paul first saw the light did he know who or what it was? The answer is definitely, no. This is because we see in the narrations that he asks for the identity of the light. If he had already known, there was no need to ask. The fact that he asks shows that he is unaware in which case we find quite troubling how he could address the strange unknown light as “LORD” in the first instance. According o scholars and you yourself Polycarp, Paul was very much grounded in Judaism. If that is so then he must have known that in Judaic lore satan and demons can disguise themselves in the form of light. In fact, in Isaiah 14:12 we see a text that is classically interpreted as a reference to Satan or the representative of satan who is described as LIGHT-BEARER or Morning Star. Paul himself in 2 Corinthians 11:14 says that satan can masquerade as an angel of light. It does not bode well for Paul that he immediately addressed the strange light with the title Lord before ascertaining its identity. It would appear that there is an objective, motive and even propaganda behind the narrations i.e. Paul met the real Jesus and believed in him and became a true disciple thus, he called him Lord even at the very beginning of their meeting. For additional details  on this particular issue please proceed to my article Did Paul really meet Jesus?

In your article you have also cited Ehrman and Borg. I do not see any radical difference between Ehrman and Borg from what Ludemann holds as per the summary of their views and the quotations you have provided in your latest comment. Neither Ehrman nor Borg is seen to explicitly endorse the historicity of the event narrated in Acts. Let’s have a look at one of the quotes from Ehrman that you have provided. But, let’s also look at the preceding comment you made prior to the citation.

“If you continue to read the paragraph in Bart Ehrman’s book, “Peter Paul and Mary Magdalene,”you will find that he does not dismiss the visions themselves as not happening because of the differences in the narratives, like Sami Zataari does or as your history professors do. Rather he notes, “There are differences among these three accounts, making it difficult to know what, exactly, the author of Acts wants us to think happened. But the basic story line is similar” (Ehrman pg. 111).

Granted, that Ehrman does not dimiss the events simply because there are conflicting details in them one would go further still to say that he does not endorse their historicity either! The quotation that you have provided nowhere shows Ehrman saying that he believes the event to have actually taken place as told in Acts. Prior to the above you made the following statement,

“So whether the visionary experience was in fact a physical event or a hallucination, there is no denying that Paul experienced something arcane on the road to Damascus.”

Well, I will grant you that many historians lean towards the notion that Paul did experience something that drastically changed his disposition from disbeliever to believer. I will not however, throw myself into that pool. Rather, I will offer an alternative view in a moment. In the quotation above you claim that there is “no denying that Paul experienced something arcane”. Why didn’t you also mention the others who were with Paul? Often people focus on the main subject, Pau but forget the rest of the people who were with him! If Paul’s experience is true then the experience of those with him must be equally true. If this is so then what scholars have to do is now discern as to what exactly did the people with Paul experience because all three narrations evidently give different pictures that conflict with one another. The only conistent part in the narrations is the idea that Paul spoke to a source that identified itself as Jesus. But then the details of the exchange between Paul and supposedly Jesus differ significantly so that that part in the story itself becomes problematic. If scholars cannot establish what really happened with the people who accompanied him what logically follows is that they should not presume that what happened with Paul truly took place either because that story of Paul’s is contingent on the others who were Paul’s only witnesses. What happened to them? Did they become Paul’s disciples? What were their names? Why did they not accompany Jesus to the other disciples to Jerusalem to corroborate his story and help Paul in his newfound mission? It would appear to any reasonable reader that the company who accompanied Jesus is mere fiction. A fiction that was contrived so as to give a sense of credibility to the story since a lone meeting without witnesses would receive much suspicion if not discarded entirely especially considering the fact that Paul was an avid attacker of Christianity in the first place. You would say that it is not reasonable to say that Paul changed his beliefs so drastically. To bridge this dichotomy you would quote Ludemann and others and say that Paul experienced a life changing vision that altered his views and made him into a staunch believer. Before answering this I would like to pose the following question,

If all the details in the story are skewed and conflicting and yet they come from the same(one and only) source i.e. the author of Acts how do we know that it actually happened? It would be more reasonable to say that it did not happen. After all, Bart Ehrman himself says in his latest work Jesus Interrupted on the nature of conlicting reports that both cannot be true, one must be untrue or both can be untrue. I would say that due to the many problems with the reports in Acts regarding the alleged meeting as we have elucidated it is safe to conclude that the incident did not happen at all. After all, the author of both Luke and Acts is known for making mistakes and confusing things as I have already mentioned in my previous reply. Here is the link once again Historial Inaccuracy in Luke.

Before we proceed to the alternative view it is necessary to evaluate Paul as a person whether he was trustworthy or not.

Was he a truthful person?

“But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless being crafty, I CAUGHT YOU WITH GUILE” (2 Corinthians 12:16)

“For if the truth of God,  hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory: why yet am I also judged as a sinner?” (Romans 3:7)

Gaining people through pretense!

“For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more
And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them under the Law, that I might gain them that are under the Law;
To them that are without the law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ) that I might gain them that are under the law.
To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.” (1 Corinthians 9:19:22)

These and other such verses are signs that Paul isn’t as trustworthy as Christians may think. If he could pretend to gain supporters as we read in 1 Corinthians 9 what is to stop him from pretending that he met Jesus or received God’s guidance?

The alternative view

Paul was actually an agent of Rome working closely with them. You might start laughing and dismiss this as a funny conspiracy theory, but hear me out first. It is universally accepted that Paul was a persecutor of Christians, right? Yet, this evil man somehow converted and believed in Jesus later. This does not make sense. How can someone evil and hated a group of people join their ranks out of the blue? Ah, but you Polycarp will not say that he joined them out of the blue, rather he had a VISION or a meeting with Jesus which led him to believe. This then is used as a means to brudge the dichotomy between his anti-Christian stance and his later apprently pro-Christian stance. To me this explanation is unreasonable and compounded further by the fact that the stories regarding it do not match, very ill-consistent and is never once mentioned in detail outside of Acts which makes one wonder if it had not been created by the author of Acts who is quite evidently an admirer of Paul(though never having met him in his life)

If this is a cogent explanation for the apparent drastic change of beliefs in Paul as suggested by Polycarp then why does it not stand with the actual disciples of Jesus? Even they had their reservations about Paul’s transformation. In fact, Peter had quite significant disagreements with Paul’s teachings, though how far the disciples truly disagreed with Paul will probably remain a mystery as we do not have any reliable firsthand testimony about them. What we do have are secondary reports about them by Acts which might as well be called ‘Acts according the Fan of Paul’ instead of the Acts of the Apostles and also Paul in his epistles. If Paul’s story was reasonable and believable the disciples would not have hesitated to embrace Paul. The fact of the matter is that his conversion is almost unbelievable for a number of reasons.

1. After critically assessing the narrations in Acts, I believe it is safe to conclude that if a vision truly happened to Paul then it was his own and was not shared by a group of people who supposedly accompanied him. Why would Jesus appear to Paul in the manner he did and not to his own chosen disciples?

2. Paul himself was a staunch Jew and did not hesitate to persecute the Christians on behalf of the Jewish authorities and the Romans.

3. The teachings of Paul significantly contradict the teachings of the historical Jesus as Ludemann concludes in his Paul:The Founder of Chistianity. On the back of the book we read the following,

“Though other scholars have previously made the point that Paul’s interpretation of the Christian message actually obscured the original teachings of Jesus, Lüdemann goes further. His painstaking historical research shows that Paul created the major tenets of the Christianity we know today and that his theology–an original synthesis of Hebrew and Greek belief systems–differs significantly from what we now know the historical Jesus to have preached.”

Thomas Jefferson remarked that Paul was, “the first orrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.”

Why would Jesus leave his own chosen disciples to believe in the way they did and then appear to this persecutor of Christians, Paul and inspire him vastly different teachings than that which he(Jesus) taught?

4. Jesus’ own disciples had their reservation, but if we had their own testimony instead of a retelling by Paul’s fan in Acts it would not come as a surprise if they actually totally rejected him. They may well have.

There are many telling clues scattered throughout Acts and Paul’s epistles indicating that he conspired with the Romans or at least had the motive to keep the Romans in power. The following is just one of them.

“This roused the whole city: people came running from all sides; they seized Paul and dragged him out of the Temple, and the gates were closed behind them. They would have killed him if a report had not reached the tribune of the cohort that there was rioting all over Jerusalem.” (Acts 21:30-31)

Why would the Romans rescue Paul in the midst of the clamour if indeed there was “rioting all over Jerusalem”? How did they know where to find Paul in the midst of all the commotion? How come they had the time to ascertain that Paul was the cause of the riot? These are some very important questions that should be pondered. Immeditely after being rescued Paul asked to speak to the inflammed crowd and only made them angrier. If the purpose of rescuing Paul was to maintain the peace why did they allow this trouble maker to speak more?

After Paul was taken away he was placed under arrest and supposedly tortured and interrogated. He was taken to Caesarea where he tried to make a personal appeal to the Emperor himself to ‘hear his case’. Who is this person that he could contact the emperor? Paul was also on familiar grounds with the Roman procurator Antonius Felix. In 13:1 there is evidence that Paul was high up in society and had links with the ruling class. In Romans 16:11 is it mere coincidence that his relative is named Herodion? These and many other reasons have led scholars like Prof. Robert Eisenman to conclude that Paul was a Roman agent.

The Christian masses at that time were growing in number, and there were radical groups that threatened to undermine the rule of Rome such as the Zealots. They were influential so much so that going against their beliefs could incur the wrath of the masses and trigger a lot of disturbances as we see in Acts 21:30-31. Is it beyond the pale of possibility that Paul was employed by the Romans to pacify the Christians and the threat that they may pose should they grow out of proportion? Nay, it is not just possible it is likely. Why would Paul teach that Rome was instituted by God and as such should be obeyed?

“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” (Romans 13:1-7)

Can anyone be more emphatic, clear and so obvious?!? How is it that anyone can miss the significance of the above in that it shows Paul as a Roman sympathiser? Eisenmann remarks, “NOT ONLY is Paul’s pro-Roman and by extension pro-Herodian political philosophy clear from the general tenor of his missionary activities in Acts, it is made explicit in the enunciation of this philosophy in Rom. 13.”(source)

Paul was first chosen to persecute the Christians who were considered rebels and blasphemers, but when that did not bear fruit and the Christian community just kept growing there was a need for reconsideration and ultimately a change in tact. That tactic or plan was to then subvert the teachings of Jesus and truly pacify the Christians into a bunch of peaceful and docile sheep which was indeed successful for a good 300 years prior to the with Constantine. When Paul’s duty was finished or when his employer thought that it was time to get rid of the agent who may spill the beans otheriwse he was executed and so the truth died with him(but not for good).  Why is it that historians shy away from this theory? I think despite the atheistic and liberal leanings of scholars like Ludemann they may still have at least an ounce of sympathy for Christianity and do not have what it takes to take the whole nine yards and tell their Christian friends and potential buyers that Paul was a pretender and a liar from the start.  To accuse him of hallucination and delusion is much more diplomatic and digestible for the masses. Or perhaps in their view the evidence for this position isn’t strong enough. Either way, it is in my view a more feasible explanation historically speaking than to say that he truly met Jesus or that he was somehow deranged and suffered dementia. Thus I would propose that the following is stronger in bridging the obvious dichotomy.

ANTI-CHRISTIAN TENDENCIES –> ROMAN COLLABORATOR –> PRO-CHRISTIAN TENDENCIES

I would recommend Thijs Voskuilen and Rose Mary Sheldon’s Operation Messiah: St. Paul, Roman Intelligence and the Birth of Christianity for further reading. Both authors are historians in their own rght and Thijs earned his MA with a thesis on this very subject.

The following are excellent debates on the subject of resurrection which is directly related to our discussion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qswkA57tpTo&feature=channel_page (Shabir Ally VS John Gilchrist)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWhgW1pzKws&feature=channel_page (Bart D. Ehrman VS Michael Licona)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTsBRrgILdo&feature=channel_page (Shabir Ally VS William Lane Craig)

And my personal favourite

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3wjPLQLNXY (Shabir Ally VS Michael Licona)

You can see in the debate how nervous Licona was to stand on the same platform as Shabir Ally. Watch his Adam’s apple and how he swallows hard throughout the debate. The debate between Shabir and Lane Craig is also excellent. Both scholars made lucid presentations and gave good points for their positions. However, objectively speaking Shabir took the prize as he usually does.

In conclusion, there is hardly any strong evidence to establish beyond doubt that Paul truly met Jesus on the road to Damascus. The story must have either been imagined by Paul or simply fabricated(and embllished) by him and his proponents to push for his credibility as a ticket for him to preach his version of Christianity which eventually supplanted the historical Jesus’ teachings as Ludemann points out. Interestingly enough it was this version that the Roman authorities favoured some 230 years later.

]]> http://unveiling-christianity.org/2009/09/06/unveiling-polycarp/feed/ 21 Ibn Anwar http://unveiling-christianity.org/2009/08/23/whose-canon-is-divinely-inspired/ http://unveiling-christianity.org/2009/08/23/whose-canon-is-divinely-inspired/#comments Sun, 23 Aug 2009 15:31:36 +0000 Ibn Anwar http://unveiling-christianity.com/?p=587 ]]>   The many Christian canons

by Ibn Anwar

    The word canon comes from the Greek kanna which accoding to Prof. Bleddyn J. Roberts means ” ‘reed’ or ‘cane’; which gives the idea of a measuring-rod, and it was first used in this sense when Athanasius applied it to the books of the NT.” [1] In the Biblical sense canon refers to a select number of books that are considered authoritative and divinely inspired, hence, their inclusion in a particular Bible volume. Many Christians, especially from the west are pretty much familiar with the 66 books canon - 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament. The Protestants would be less familiar with the Catholic canon which consists 73 books containing 7 extra books. The so-called Deuterocanonical books are regarded as apocryphal(doubtful) by the Protestants, but the Catholics consider them canonical. One may think that the existence of different canons end at the Catholic-Protestant traditions. One would be very wrong to think that. As a matter of fact throughout Christian history there have been numerous different canons that differ from one another. In this article we shall have a glimpse at those many Christian canons. The main purpose of this article is to show that those Christians out there who want to talk about Qur’anic manuscripts burned by Uthman r.a. and try to undermine its credibility from that approach need to reconsider their tactic.

Early Christian Canons

The first Christian canon in Christian history was actually put together by Marcion whom the Church or so-called Orthodoxy deemed a heretic and his teachings heretical. Christian scholars have argued that it was Marcion’s canon that gave the ‘orthodox’ Christians the impetus to canonise scripture. [2]  So, can you imagine that the first canon of scripture was instituted by a pagan? Prof. Bart D. Ehrman says, ” Marcion was the first Christian that we know of who produced an actual “canon” of scripture – that is, a collection of books that, he argued, constituted the sacred texts of the faith.” [3] His canon consisted of the following books,

- Luke, Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Romans, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians and Philemon. He totally rejected the Old Testament. [4]

Iranaeus’ canon which came about at around the end of the 2nd century(200 years after Jesus) consisted the following books,

- Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,  Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 & 2 John, Revelations, Hermas and Acts. [5] That’s 23 books with Hermas in it.

Another major early Christian figure is Tertullian. He was Iranaeus’ contemporary who later became a ‘heretic’ when he converted to Montanism. His canon consisted the following books,

- Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1  John, Revelations and Jude. He also accepted Hermas until he converted to Montanism. He knew about Hebrews and attributed it to Barnabas, but rejects it.[6] That’s only 21 books or 22 if Hermas is concluded.

We have yet another contemporary scholar of Iranaeus by the name Clement of Alexandria. His canon consisted the following books,

- Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Gospel according to the Hebrews, Gospel according to the Egyptians, Hebrews(which he attributes to Pauline origin), Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 & 2 John, Jude, Barnabas, Acts, Revelations, Apocolypse of Peter, 1 Clement, Didache and Hermas. [7] That’s over 31 books all together!

The so-called Muratorian Canon is an anonymous fragment that has 85 lines in it. According to Sanders its origin is Roman. The fragment lists books that are counted as apostolic and that should be read in the church. The following are the books that are accepted as canonical in the Muratorian fragment,

- Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 & 2 John, Jude, Revelations, Wisdom of Solomon, the Apocolypse of Peter. It also accepts Hermas, but not as sacred text. [8]

Origen who came to the scene around 254 introduced the idea of ‘acknowledged and disputed’ books. His acknowledged books or canon consist of the following,

- Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelations and Acts. [9] That’s only 21 books.

Eusebius’ canon or acknowledged books are the same with Origen’s, but he hesitated to accept Revelations as scriptural. [10]

Where is the canon of 27 books? It was not until 367 years after Jesus in the late 4th century that the canon of 27 books came about. Athanasius the Bishop of Alexandria was responsible for this. [11] Athanasius’ canon consists of the 27 books in the following order,

-Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2 & 3 John, Jude, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians,  Hebrews, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon and Apocolypse of John(Revelations). [12]

Professor Roland H. Bainton summarises the development of the Christian New Testament canon as follows,

“First the letters of Paul were accepted, and the four Gospels, and the book of The Acts. The other writings of our New Testament were slower in finding a place and even John’s Gospel had a struggle. So did he book of Revelation. Hebrews, II Peter, Jude, James, and the second and third etters of John only gradually were marked upon the ruler*. Not until the fourth century was the canon closed.” [13]

For over four centuries the Christians argued, bickered and debated over which scripture was authoritative and which  wasn’t. According to Bainton the issue was resolved in the fourth century. Is this true?

The Church and their Bibles and/or Canons

The Catholic Church (Canon: 73 books)

The Catholic church as we have mentioned carries a canon of 73 books that includes Tobit, Judith, Greek additions to Esther(from the LXX), Sirach, Baruch, the letter of Jeremiah, three Greek additions to Daniel (the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the three Jews, Susanna, and Bell and the Dragon), 1 and 2 Maccabees. [14]

The Protestant Church (Canon: 66 books)

Unlike the Catholic Church, the Protestant Church does not follow the Septuagint or the Latin Vulgate in its canon of scripture. Rather, it follows the Hebrew canon and the 27 books of the New Testament. [15] This yields a total of 66 books as mentioned at the beginning of the article.

Greek Orthodox Church (Canon: 77 books)

The canon of the Greek Orthodox Church includes the all the books of the Catholic canon and in addition to that it also includes 1 Esdras, the prayer of Menasseh, Psalms 151, and 3 Meccabees. That means the Greek Orthodox canon consists of 77 books. The Slavonic canon on the other hand includes 2 Esdras, but designates 1 and 2 Esdras as 2 and 3 Esdras. Other eastern churches have 4 Meccabees as well. [16]

The Coptic Church(Canon: 29 books in NT)

The canon of the Coptic Church contains all the 27 books, but, adds the two epistles of Clement.[17] This means the Coptic New Testament canon consists of 29 books.

The Ethiopic Church (Canon: 81 books)

The Ethiopic canon is divided into what is called the ‘narrower’ canon and ‘broader’ canon.

“The Ethiopic church has the largest Bible of all, and distinguishes different canons, the “narrower” and the “broader,” according to the extent of the New Testament. The Ethiopic Old Testament comprises the books of the Hebrew Bible as well as all of the deuterocanonical books listed above, along with Jubilees, I Enoch, and Joseph ben Gorion’s (Josippon’s) medieval history of the Jews and other nations. The New Testament in what is referred to as the “broader” canon is made up of thirty-five books, joining to the usual twenty-seven books eight additional texts, namely four sections of church order from a compilation called Sinodos, two sections from the Ethiopic Book of the Covenant, Ethiopic Clement, and Ethiopic Didascalia. When the “narrower” New Testament canon is followed, it is made up of only the familiar twenty-seven books, but then the Old Testament books are divided differently so that they make up 54 books instead of 46. In both the narrower and broader canon, the total number of books comes to 81.” [18] (emphasis added)

List of many early versions of the New Testament [19]

1. The Latin Versions

a) The Latin versions before Jerome

b) Jerome’s Latin Vulgate

2. The Syriac Versions

a) The Old Syriac Versions

b) The Peshitta Syriac Version

c) The Philoxenian and/or Harclean Versions

d) The Palestianian Syriac Version

3. The Coptic Versions

a) The Sahidic Version

b) The Bohairic Version

c) Other Coptic Versions

4. The Gothic Version

5. The Armenian Version

6. The Georgian Version

7. The Ethiopic Version

8. The Nubian Version

9. The Old Arabic Versions

10. The Old Slavic Versions

 How did the Christian canons come to be? Prof. Bart D. Ehrman tells us,

“The New Testament did not emerge as an established and complete set of books immediately after the death of Jesus. Many years passed before Christians agreed concerning which books should comprise their sacred scriptures, with debates over the contour of the “canon” (i.e. the collection of sacred texts) that were long, hard, and sometimes harsh.” [20]

Why is one canon superior than the other? Has there ever been a supreme canon? Philip R. Davies says that no particular canon ever reigned.

“For no single Christian canon has ever reigned: the Catholic, Protestant, Ethiopic, Orthodox(Greek and Russian), Coptic and Syrian canons differ. In many cases canons were, and are, a matter of uncertainty(the contents of the vulgate were not settled until 1546). ‘Canon’, then, like ‘bible’, is a category of which there are several members. Whether a piece of writing is ‘canonical’ and whether it is in a bible is a matter of where and when you choose to ask. For the earliest stages in the devlopment of both, ‘biblical’ is easier to define than ‘canonical, of course, because we can consult an ancient bible and see immediately what was in it. And anything that was in it was obviously ‘biblical’: there is no other rational definition! Any book that has been included in a bible is, after all, a biblical a book: that is a matter of fact and not for discussion. Whether the contents of the earliest bibleare ‘canonical’ is a different matter, involving an understanding of what the term might have meant at any particular time. (Canonical criticism, then, is not cenral to biblical studies but concerns a related topic.) Thus, for example, the New Testament of he Peshitta (dating from the fifth century) omits four of the Catholic epistles (2 and 3 John, Philemon, 2 Peter). The Ethiopic New Testament canon has 35 books. But no Ethiopic biblical manuscripts contain the whole New Testament…” [21]

In the history of the Qur’an what was to constsitute the Qur’an was agreed upon by the immediate companions of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. themselves. Utterly dinstinct from the Islamic tradition, the Christian sacred texts as we have illustrated in this article went through virtually hundreds of years of arguing and debating and even today it is not totally settled with numerous different versions that differ from one another. Even the earlier Christian theologians themselves were not certain which books to include as sacred. As a matter of fact, the first person to introduce a canon was a pagan who believed in two gods i.e. Marcion. One cannot help but laugh when the Christian missionaries and propagandists try to point fingers at the Qur’an and yell corruption.

References:

[1] Matthew Black, B. J. Roberts. Peake’s Commentary on the Bible( 1987). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. p. 73

[2] Bart D. Ehrman. Misquoting Jesus(2005). New York: HarperCollins Publishers. p. 34 ;  Matthew Black, J. N. Sanders. Peake’s COmmentary on the Bible(1987). Ibid. p. 680

[3] Bart D. Ehrman. Ibid. p. 33

[4] J. N. Sanders. Op. Cit. p. 680

[5] Ibid. p. 681

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Bart D. Ehrman. Lost Scriptures(2003). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 331  ; J.N. Sanders. Ibid.

[9] J.N. Sanders. Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Op. Cit. Misquoting Jesus. p. 36

[12] Op. Cit. Lost Scriptures. p. 340

[13] Roland H. Bainton. The Church of Our Fathers(1941). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. p. 29

[14] Bruce M. Metzger, Michael D. Coogan. The Oxford Companion to the Bible(1993). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 79

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Bruce M. Metzger. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Significance & Development(1997). New York, United States: Oxford University Press Inc. p. 225

[18] Bruce M. Metzger, Michael D. Coogan. Op. Cit. p. 79

[19] Matthew Black, Bruce M. Metzger p. 671-674

[20] Op. Cit. Lost Scriptures. p. 1

[21] Philip R. Davies. Whose Bible is it Anyway? (1995). Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press Ltd. p. 64

Related articles:

When did the Bible come to be?

 The Oldest Text of the New Testament?

The Anonymous Four Gospels

Historical Inaccuray of Luke

Corruption of the Bible, the final judgment!

by Ibn Anwar

   Christian missionaries often accuse Islam of mistreating women. They claim that the Qur’an and the Sunnah teach that women are inferior and that this particular sex is oppressed by Allah and his Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. Na’udhubillah. In this article we will be comparing and contrasting the Biblical teachings on women versus those in Islam as found in the Qur’an and Sunnah.

Women presented as inferior at the very beginning

“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel. To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” (Genesis 3:12-13)

We see in the above that women are punished with a three-fold curse. Firstly, she is cursed with the pains of child birth. Secondly, she is cursed with having her desire for her husband and thirdly, she is cursed with bing RULED by the husband. The word rule here is mashal which means ‘to have dominion over’. It’s the same word found in Judges 8:22 where Gideon is given rule over Israel. Further more, if you read the passage you will see that the punishment for women is mentioned first and then only the man’s. And if yu look critically you will be able to notice that the punishments are not even out. In fact, for the man instead of him getting cursed, the ground gets it! Genesis 3:17 says, “cursed is the ground because of you(Adam/man)”. What did the ground do to deserve getting cursed for Adam’s fault?

The Qur’an narrates a better picture than that presented in Genesis.

“But the Shaitan made them both fall from it, and caused them to depart from that (state) in which they were; and We said: Get forth, some of you being the enemies of others, and there is for you in the earth an abode and a provision for a time. Then Adam received (some) words from his Lord, so He turned to him mercifully; surely He is Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.” (2: 36-37)

“But the Shaitan made an evil suggestion to them that he might make manifest to them what had been hidden from them of their evil inclinations, and he said: Your Lord has not forbidden you this tree except that you may not both become two angels or that you may (not) become of the immortals. And he swore to them both: Most surely I am a sincere adviser to you. Then he caused them to fall by deceit; so when they tasted of the tree, their evil inclinations became manifest to them, and they both began to cover themselves with the leaves of the garden; and their Lord called out to them: Did I not forbid you both from that tree and say to you that the Shaitan is your open enemy? They said: Our Lord! We have been unjust to ourselves, and if Thou forgive us not, and have (not) mercy on us, we shall certainly be of the losers. He said: Get forth, some of you, the enemies of others, and there is for you in the earth an abode and a provision for a time.” (7:20-24)

Notice that in the Qur’anic narrative the woman is not singled out to carry the blame or most of the blame. Which is kinder upon the woman? Ask yourselves that question.

In the Bible the woman is singled out and more blame is given to her. This is seen in verse 12 of Genesis 3 where Adam makes Eve as a scapegoat, “And the man said, the woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” Here we see that Adam does not own up to his mistake according to Genesis, but instead lays the blame on Eve. But, even more than that he actually BLAMED God when he said, “whom YOU GAVE to be with me”. Yet, even then the woman gets punished more than the man as shown in Genesis 3:16, “To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.”

In fact, this singling Eve, the mother of women out as the culprit is emphasised in the New Testament in Timothy 2:14-15,

“And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.”

This mysogenistic attitude of the Bible towards women is refuted in the Qur’an.

“But the Shaitan made an evil suggestion to him; he said: O Adam! Shall I guide you to the tree of immortality and a kingdom which decays not? Then they both ate of it, so their evil inclinations became manifest to them, and they both began to cover themselves with leaves of the garden, and Adam disobeyed his Lord, so his life became evil (to him). Then his Lord chose him, so He turned to him and guided (him). ” (20:120-122)

Women must be punished after a good deed

  Please read this analogy carefully. Let us say that a robber breaks into your house. You are alerted to this and a fight between you and the robber ensues. The assailant is quite strong so you find it hard to overpower him. Your wife hears the commotion and runs to your rescue. She swings her hand and punches the assailant’s private part to weaken him as that’s the best part to weaken any man. As a result of your wife’s heroic stunt the robber is overpowered and escapes. You are saved and so is your family. After the ordeal an authority arrives at your doorstep and gives you this notice, “Your wife just saved you. Now chop off her hand immediately and shw no mercy.” What will you do to such an impertinent person? What would you think of such an order? Here’s what we find in the Bible,

“When men fight together one with another, and the wife of the one come near to rescue her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and stretch out her hand, and seize him by his secret parts then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.” (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

CHOP OFF HER HAND AND SHOW NO PITY! Where is da love?

You will never find such a morbid law anywhere in the Qur’an or Sunnah. In fact, the Qur’an stresses equality in punishment when it comes to breaking the law e.g. 24:2

A divorcee must die alone without a husband or a family

The Bibles teaches that if a woman is divorced and a man marries her, he would be committing ADULTERY! Adultery is a sin punishable by death according to the Torah. No decent man who adheres to the teachings of the Bible would go against its clear commandments and commit adultery. As a result of this such poor women will be left untouched and to rot away alone with no husbands EVER!

“Whosoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery”. (Matthew 5:32)

This Biblical predicament is reconciled by the Qur’an in 2:229-230.

“Divorce may be (pronounced) twice, then keep (them) in good fellowship or let (them) go with kindness; and it is not lawful for you to take any part of what you have given them, unless both fear that they cannot keep within the limits of Allah; then if you fear that they cannot keep within the limits of Allah, there is no blame on them for what she gives up to become free thereby. These are the limits of Allah, so do not exceed them and whoever exceeds the limits of Allah these it is that are the unjust. So if he divorces her she shall not be lawful to him afterwards until she marries another husband; then if he divorces her there is no blame on them both if they return to each other (by marriage), if they think that they can keep within the limits of Allah, and these are the limits of Allah which He makes clear for a people who know. “

Kick out your ex-wife quickly

“When a man has taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he has found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorce, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.” (Deuteronomy 24:1)

So, after marrying a woman and you’ve found her unsatisfactory because of some uncleanness in her just give her a bill of divorce and kick her out!

What an amazing law, don’t you agree?

The Qur’an teaches that men do not have the right at all to kick their divorced wives out of their homes and leave her homeless without shelter.

“O Prophet! when you divorce women, divorce them for~ their prescribed time, and calculate the number of the days prescribed, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, your Lord. Do not drive them out of their houses, nor should they themselves go forth, unless they commit an open indecency; and these are the limits of Allah, and whoever goes beyond the limits of Allah, he indeed does injustice to his own soul. You do not know that Allah may after that bring about reunion.” (65:1)

“And among His signs is this: That He created mates for you from yourselves that you may find rest, peace of mind in them, and He ordained between you love and mercy. Lo, herein indeed are signs for people who reflect.” (30:21)

The Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. taught,

“The most perfect believers are the best in conduct and best of you are those who are best to their wives.” (Ibn-Hanbal, hadith 7396)

There can be no inheritance for widows and sisters!

“Further, you shall speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘If a man dies and has no son, then you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter. ‘If he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers. ‘If he has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his father’s brothers. ‘If his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his nearest relative in his own family, and he shall possess it; and it shall be a statutory ordinance to the sons of Israel, just as the LORD commanded Moses.” (Numbers 27:8-11)

From the passage we can deduce the following,

1. daughters do not inherit if there are sons. Only if there are sons then they may inherit.

2. If there are neither sons nor daughters then the inheritance will be given to the deceased brothers. The sisters will get nothing.

3. Widows or sisters of the man will get nothing.

The Qur’an saves the women and says,

“Men shall have a portion of what the parents and the near relatives leave, and women shall have a portion of what the parents and the near relatives leave, whether there is little or much of it; a stated portion.” (4:7) See also the verses that follow. Thus in Islam women are automatically guaranteed inheritance.

Rape victims are commanded to be married to  their rapists!

“If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.” (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

Can you possibly imagine getting raped and then made to marry the dog who did it to you and never be able to be free of him as long as he lives? It even involves a transaction of 50 shekels! A small payment to the father for the misery that the woman will have to endure her whole life married to her rapist! This is lunacy of the highest order!

The Qur’an refutes this horrible idea clearly.

“O you who believe! it is not lawful for you that you should take women as heritage against (their) will, and do not straighten them in order that you may take part of what you have given them, unless they are guilty of manifest indecency, and treat them kindly; then if you hate them, it may be that you dislike a thing while Allah has placed abundant good in it.” (4:19)

We have a sahih hadith from Aishah r.a. who narrates from the Prophet s.a.w. that, “It is essential to have the consent of a woman(for marriage).” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, volume 9, Book 86, Hadith 101)

Men are cleaner and worth more than women!

The Bible teaches that if a woman gives birth to a boy she goes through a period of ritual uncleanness for 40 days, however, if it’s a girl then she has to go through a period of 80 days(double the period) of UNCLEANNESS! What does this imply if not that women are unclean and causes uncleanness more than men?

“When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean. ‘On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. Then she shall remain in the blood of her purification for thirty-three days; she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until the days of her purification are completed. But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean for two weeks, as in her menstruation; and she shall remain in the blood of her purification for sixty-six days.” (Leviticus 12:1-5)

This idea that women are worth less than man is seen in the following passage also,

“‘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.’Or if it is a female, then your valuation shall be thirty shekels.”

For a male child he would be counted with the value of 50 shekels and the woman will be valued at 30 shekels which is 20 less than the former. Who’s superior and more valuable?

None of these weird teachings are to be found anywhere in the Qur’an or Sunnah. Neither men nor women are valued with shekels or dinars or dollars. And the passage about cleanliness and non-cleanliness for male and female children is an instigation against the status of women. The Qur’an teaches,

“O people! be careful of (your duty to) your Lord, Who created you from a single being and created its mate of the same (kind) and spread from these two, many men and women; and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, by Whom you demand one of another (your rights), and (to) the ties of relationship; surely Allah ever watches over you.” (4:1)

“And whoever does good deeds whether male or female and he (or she) is a believer — these shall enter the garden, and they shall not be dealt with a jot unjustly.” (4:124)

“Whoever does good whether male or female and he is a believer, We will most certainly make him live a happy life, and We will most certainly give them their reward for the best of what they did.” (16:97)

The Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. taught about daughters that,

“Whosoever supports two daughters till they mature, he and I will come in the day of judgment as this (and he pointed with his two fingers held together).” (Ibn Hanbal, Hadith 2014)

Kill a woman who does not shout out for help if she gets raped

“If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.” (Deuteronomy 22:24)

What if the girl’s mouth was forcibly covered by the man? What if she did yell, but it was not loud enough and peple did not hear? None of these will be considered and she will just be killed. This is a harsh law that makes little sense. The Qur’an rebukes this and says,

“And those who accuse chaste women [of adultery] and then do not produce four witnesses — lash them with eighty lashes and do not accept from them testimony ever after. And those are the defiantly disobedient. Except for those who repent thereafter and reform, for indeed Allaah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (24:2-5)

Ibn Qudamah in Al-Mughni says,

“If a woman becomes pregnant without having a husband or a master, she may not be punished and, in stead, she should be asked about it, if she claimed that she was coerced into it or that she committed adultery under dubious circumstances, or if she simply does not confess adultery then she will not be punished. This is the saying of Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi’i, because she may be pregnant as a result of a forceful intercourse or dubious circumstances. Punishment will be abandoned in case suspicion exists. It is well known that a woman could become pregnant without committing the real intercourse. The woman may become pregnant if sperm is manually inserted into her vagina. This would explain how a virgin becomes pregnant.”

Selling daughters into slavery is okay!

The Bible gives the green light to the slave trade and says that fathers can trade their daughters into slavery!

“If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her.” (Exodus 21:7-8)

The Qur’an says,

“O you who believe! it is not lawful for you that you should take women as heritage against (their) will, and do not straighten them in order that you may take part of what you have given them, unless they are guilty of manifest indecency, and treat them kindly; then if you hate them, it may be that you dislike a thing while Allah has placed abundant good in it.”(4:19)

The birth of a daughter is a LOSS!

“The birth of any daughter is a loss” (Ecclesiasticus 22:3, New Jerusalem Bible)

Though Ecclesiasticus is not accepted by Protetestants it is indeed accepted as canonical by Catholics who number over 1.1 billion of the total 2 billion Christian population.

This is a horrible statement about women that should be rejected. The Qur’an says, “To Allah belongs the dominion ofthe heavens and the earth. He creaes what He wills. He bestows male or female according to His Will,” (42:49)

In the same Ecclesiasticus we find the following statement,

“”No wickedness comes anywhere near the wickedness of a woman…..Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die” (Ecclesiasticus 25:19,24)

Women must SHUT UP. Women must learn in submission and obedience!

“The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.” (1 Corinthian 14:34-35)

“A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.” (1 Timothy 2:11-12)

“Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)

The word uses there in Greek is the adverb hos which means ‘just as’.

The Biblical passages above show that women have absolutely no right to speak in the churches and definitely no instructing men for the latter’s authority is supreme over women. The last verse shows the total subjugation of women by men just as mankind are subjugated by the Lord.

Such a dastardly notion is not found anywhere in the Qur’an. In fact, the Qur’an alludes to an incident that happened with the Prophet s.a.w. It involved the woman Khaulah bint Tha’labah who not just spoke to the Prophet s.a.w., but even argued with him. The Qur’an says,

“Allah indeed knows the plea of her who pleads with you about her husband and complains to Allah, and Allah knows the contentions of both of you; surely Allah is Hearing, Seeing.” (58:1)

Let us now look at some famous Christian figures throughout history and what they have said regarding women.

Tertullian said,

“”Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil’s gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die.”

Saint Augustine said,

“What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman……I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children.”

So, acording to Augustine women is no good except for sex and thereafter produce children!

The church figure who tried to bridge science and religion Saint Tomas Acquinas said,

“As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence.”

After seeing such remarks a Protestant may simply discard them on the basis of their background as Catholic theologians. I would remind such Protestants that the FOUNDER of their religion Dr. Martin Luther said,

“If they become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that’s why they are there”

Their remarks are but reflections of the inspiration that they received from the Bibles that clearly teaches the inferiority of women before men and God and degrade them to the level of slaves as we have seen from all those amazing verses. Let us conclude the Biblical mysogenistic an chauvenistic tendencies with the following,

“I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare….while I was still searching but not finding, I found one upright man among a thousand but not one upright woman among them all” (Ecclesiastes 7:26-28).

Let us conclude the beauty of Islam with the words of its Prophet s.a.w. who said regarding mothers without whom there can be no children.

“O Messenger of God, who among the people is the most worthy of my good company? The Prophet s.a.w said, Your mother. The man said then who else: The Prophet s.a.w. said, Your mother. The man asked, Then who else? Only then did the Prophet s.a.w. say, Your father.”(Muttafaqun ‘alayh or Al-Bukhari and Muslim)

To quote Dr. Jamal Badawi, ‘if this was the Olympics the mother gets the gold medal, the silver medal and the bronze medal. The father may get a consolation prize.”

Can there be any question that Islam upholds the sacred dignity of women whilst the Bible dump them into the garbage bin?

Why don’t Christians teach these things?

by Ibn Anwar

   Google ‘Jesus is the prince of peace’ and millions of websites will appear on the search engine. Christians love to quote Isaiah 9:6 for Jesus and make him out to be the most peace loving being to have ever walked this earth. The teachings of Jesus are pure love and Christianity is love and the Bible is love. How many times have you heard this script? It is really unfortunate that the Christians who peddle these notions either do not really read their Bibles or even if they did they misunderstand or simply chuck them aside in favour of Church dogma. In this article we will look at samples of passages that are rarely taught in the Christian churches or missionary circles.

Christian polemic: The teachings of Jesus are based on love!

“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.” (Luke 14:26) 

And Jesus illustrates the above love in his treatment of his own mother.

“Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call himA crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You.” Answering them, He said, “Who are My mother and My brothers?” Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He said, “Behold My mother and My brothers!” (Mark 3:31-34)

Is that how you honour, respect and love your parent? If your mother came looking for you and have walked all the way from her place to yours and appears on your doorstep and her presence is announced to you would you ignore her and instead look at your close friends and ask out loud with your mother there waiting for you, “Who is my mother?” and then you say your friends are your mother? Can a rational and loving son ever do such a thing seriously? One would not expect a loving and respectful son to do something so silly. One would expect a loving son to graciously welcome the mother into the house and perhaps offer her a foot massage after the walk she has taken. And you know what? The passage ends there! It does not say that Jesus invited her mother into the house and gave her a fruit punch or a cup of tea. The message is clearly disrespect. Undoubtedly we have a passage wherein Jesus calls for honouring parents as the law dictates in the Old Testament and we also have Colossians 3:20 saying that children must obey their parents. These passages however do not change the fact that Luke 14:26 and Mark 3:31 to 34 teach people to dishonour and disrespect their parents. Both set of opposing passages cannot be true unless you have schizophrenia. The conflicting passages are contradictions. Nevertheless Luke 14:26 and Mark 3:31 to 34 are strengthened by two other passages from Jesus.

“I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism* to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father* against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (Luke 12:49-53)

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:34-39)

These passages are explicit in showing that the Biblical Jesus was adamant to break the family unit. No wonder if we go to many Christian societies today we find that their children have no respect for their parents at all. In fact, in America and such places it is considered culturally TABOO to stay with one’s parents after high school.

Now, when we put the passages together the ones that preach family breakdown clearly win out against the solitary passage attributed to Jesus about honouring one’s parents. It’s 4(Luke 14:26, Mark 3:31-34, Luke 12:49-53, Matthew 10:34-39) versus a small section in Matthew 19:19 which says, “honour your father and mother”. The four very explicit and quite elaborate passages win!

Thus, according to the Bible(s) the teaching of Jesus is founded on HATE as Luke 14:26 clearly conveys.

Christian polemic: Jesus is the Prince of Peace and Bible is peaceful!

We have already seen that Matthew 10:34-39 and Luke 49-53 teach that Jesus denies bringing peace on earth. If Jesus himself denies bringing peace how can anyone say he is the prince of peace and that he’s all for it? It makes no sense! In fact, we read in the Gospel of Thomas though not counted as ‘canonical’ a more explicit version of Jesus teaching that he had not come to bring peace on earth.

“Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war. For there will be five in a house: there’ll be three against two and two against three, father against son and son against father, and they will stand alone.” (Gospel of Thomas)

According to some scholars the words that are found in the Gospel of Thomas are more accurate than those in the ‘canonical’ Gospels.

In fact, Jesus taught that those who will not accept him as king must be slain.

“But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”(Luke 19:27)

What Christian commentators have understood from this text is that after the ‘period of grace’ has ended Jesus will return to wage war against those who refuse him and call for their deaths. As Jamieson-Fausset-Brown commentary says, “bring hither, &c.-(Compare 1Sa 15:32, 33). Referring to the awful destruction of Jerusalem, but pointing to the final destruction of all that are found in open rebellion against Christ.” [1]

Let’s have a look at the passage they have asked us to compare with Luke 19:27.

“Then Samuel said, “Bring me Agag king of the Amalekites.” Agag came to him confidently, thinking, “Surely the bitterness of death is past.” But Samuel said, “As your sword has made women childless, so will your mother be childless among women.” And Samuel put Agag to death before the LORD at Gilgal.” (1 Samuel 32-33)

The same is mentioned by Matthew Henry in his commentary, “Bring them hither, to have their frivolous pleas overruled, and to receive sentence according to their merits. Bring them, and slay them before me, as Agag before Samuel.”

“19:27. In contrast with the two servants who had axpected the king’s return, the enemies of the king were put to the death in the king’s presence. The analogy of this parable was clear to Jesus’ hearers. Jesus was going away to receive a kingship.” [2]
What the above means is that Jesus will kill or order the killing of those who do not recognise him as king just like the analogy in Luke 19 shows.

The commentator Adam Clarke differs from other Christian commentaries in that he proposes the slaying mentioned by Jesus should occur shortly after Jesus said those words in verse 27.

“Those mine enemies… bring hither. The Jews, whom I shall shortly slay by the sword of the Romans.” [3]

The same fate will befall those who do not accept Jesus. They will be utterly killed. What peace is the Christian missionary trying to offer?

The point of Luke 19:27 is quite clear in conveying the picture of death and destruction of those who do not accept Jesus. Where is the peace?

Christian polemic: Love your enemies, but don’t invite them into your house!

   Do you know why Christian missionaries love to darken your doorstep rather than inviting you to their own homes? In fact, those Christians who do invite Muslims or people of other religion into their abodes MUST STOP! This practice is expressly prohibited by their sacred text.

“Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him.” (2 John 1:9-10)

Christian polemic: Muslim law is barbaric! Why do you chop off people’s hands for stealing?

   What these Christians fail to realise is that their own teacher teaches amputation.

“And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.” (Matthew 5:30)

The same message is repeated in Matthew 18:8,

“If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.”

We see the same message again in Mark 9:43,

“If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire”

You should even gouge your eye out!

“So if your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your body parts than to have your whole body thrown into hell.” (Matthew 5:29)

These laws are too heavy for the henpecked and emasculated Christians romanticised by so called humanitarianism that they have altogether abrogated these laws from Jesus by saying that they are mere parables and metaphores not meant to be taken literally. The Christians really need to be consistent with themselves. In the exact same passage we find those verses so loved by Christians that they cannot miss a day without quoting them namely, verses 39 and 44. One says “if someone strikes you on the right cheek, give him the other also” and the other says “love your enemies”. These two are taken to mean literal but those verses prior to them should not? This is laughable. The fact is Jesus taught those things literally. Just because Christians do not have the stomach to follow his words to the letter does not render them moot. The Christians need to start listening to Jesus and pluck their eyes out for all the sins they have committed!

References:

[1] Philip W. Comfort. New Commentary on the Whole Bible(1990). Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. p. 213

[2] John F. Walvrood, Roy B. Zuck. The Bible Knowledge Commentary(1983). USA: Victor Books. p. 253

[3] The Bethany Parallel Commentary on the New Testament(1983). Minneapolis, Minnesota. p. 466

by Ibn Anwar

According to Christians the sacrifice that Jesus allegedly made on the cross at calvary is the ultimate sacrifice that absolves all sins. So for example we read the following declaration from a Christian based missionary website,

“The life of the sinner was under the sentence of death until Christ by the shedding of His blood in the death on the cross released and cleansed us of all sin (Eph. 1:7; 1 Peter 1:18-19; Rev. 1:5; 5:9). Christ bore the divine penalty and God is now free to forgive all sin and declare the believing sinner just in His sight (1 Peter 2:24; 3:18).” (source)

Does the sacrifice of Jesus truly absolve all sins according to the Bible(s)? Well, let’s look at the following verses that clearly contradict this Christian position.

“And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but to him that blasphemes against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.” (Luke 12:10)

The above verse shows tha if anyone blasphemes the Holy Ghost he will NOT be forgiven. In fact, another verse that is pretty much related to that is even more explicit.

“But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.” (Mak 3:29)

The word used in the verse is ουκ which means never as is rendered above. It further says that the person who commits such a sin is guilty of an eternal sin. The word is αιωνιου which literally means everlasting as correctly translated in the Dhuay-Rheims version. But, of course eternal is also correct. The point is that anyone who commits such a sin will be guilty forever and it will never be forgiven. These verses utterly undermine the notion that the ‘blood’ of Jesus renders all sins forgiven. The blood of Jesus is overpowered by this sin. This sin triumphs over Jesus’ so called ‘ultimate sacrifice’. Perhaps we need another sacrifice?

On the other side of the coin the verses totally undermine the Trinity in that they designate the Holy Spirit a special position that is not shared at all by the other two persons in the ‘godhead’ i.e. the Father and Jesus. In fact, the verse in Luke says that if you say anything against the ‘Son of Man’ who is Jesus the second person in the Trinity you will be forgiven. In Mark 3:28 it says that “all blasphemies of men will be forgiven them”. The key word in that verse is “all” and then the next verse identifies an exception with the Holy Spirit. This means that Mark 3:28 to 29 tell us that blasphemy against both the Father and the Son is okay, but, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not. What this leads to is the total destruction of the concept of the Trinity which suggests that all three persons are ‘co-equal’. When the verses place such an emphasis on the Holy Spirit the other two are lowered in distinction. What this means is that the Holy Spirit is more important than both the Father and the Son so much so that if you blaspheme it you will NEVER be forgiven. The Trinity formula then should be changed to in nomine spiritus sancti, et petris, et fili or in the name ‘the Holy Spirit, the Father and the Son’ as opposed to the standard established formula the ‘Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit’ with the most important(according to the verses discussed) in the last position. It should occupy the first position! I sincerely hope however that this article will not bring about the creation of a new form of Trinity and a new batch of Trinitarians.

Related articles:

Salvation ONLY comes through sacrifice!

Jesus denies the crucifixion!

by Ibn Anwar

“The greater the sin, the greater the redemption.”

The following is a compilation of articles that I have written on beautiful Christian behaviour. The Christians must accept the standard set by their own ‘sacred text’ that says, “Judge them by their fruits”.

Reverend Gary Albridge dies of asphyxiation with a d**** in his anus.

http://unveiling-christianity.com/2007/11/16/jesus-children/

Christian missionaries using deceit to spread the word in Iraq

http://unveiling-christianity.com/2007/11/19/christian-evangelical-mission-in-iraq/

Teachers of the church doing things to their children

http://unveiling-christianity.com/2007/11/21/are-these-the-inheritors-of-jesus/

Sam Shamoun, Chrisian champion spewing ‘nice’ words

http://unveiling-christianity.com/2007/11/25/is-this-an-examplary-christian/

Arab Christians caught lying red handed

http://unveiling-christianity.com/2007/12/02/arab-christians-caught-lying-red-handed/

Christian theologian and missionary Dr. Anis Shorrosh arrested

http://unveiling-christianity.com/2008/05/18/dr-anis-shorrosh-arrested-for-arson/

The Catholic church is filthy rich

http://unveiling-christianity.com/2008/11/17/the-catholic-church-is-rich-or-poor/

Famous Christians caught in their acts

http://unveiling-christianity.com/2008/11/22/christian-hall-of-fame/

Pastor Kerney Thomas cons people on live-tv

http://unveiling-christianity.com/2009/04/19/speaking-in-tongues-and-miracles/