E
Elisha Kai
Guest
Muslims depend upon anti-religious scholarship
To support their claim on Bible-corruption Muslims frequently turn to Western liberal scholarship. The usual statement goes like this: ?Your own Christian theologians admit and state that the Bible is inconsistent, corrupted or fabricated?.
It is a fact that we have scholarship in the West who propose these views; however it has to be noted, that these scholars are typically not Christians, neither do they support Bible-corruption implied by modern Muslims.
The Critical scholarship of the Bible is not Christian in nature; it originated through the Enlightenment Period of the 18th-20th century; mainly through Deistic and Atheistic circles. The purpose and agenda was simply to promote naturalism and exclude and refute elements of the supernatural.
Herman Reimarus (1694-1768) has usually been coined as the inaugurator of modern Biblical criticism. He wrote the book Fragmente eines Ungenannten, in which he blasts the Bible, Jesus and the Christian faith. However, it has be noted that behind his contribution and zeal there was the agenda, not to discover truth but to pave the way for naturalism (Charlotte Allen, The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus, Lion Publishing, 1998: 114). From this book the movement of Biblical criticism began, whose main agenda was exclude anything supernatural as mythological and fiction. This becomes evident in David Friedrich Strauss (1808-74) book, The Life of Jesus:
The hero of a biography, according to modern conceptions, should be entirely and clearly human. A personage half human, half divine, may figure plausibly enough in poetry and fable, but is never at the present day seriously chosen as the subject of historical narrative?In all biographies, influences of above kind are a matter of course. The hero is a finite individual, whose force is limited by other surrounding forces according to natural laws ?I offered the idea of the Myth as the key to the miraculous narrative of the Gospel?all narratives of this kind must be considered as fictions.
The modern Muslims are therefore correct, there is a Western movement that attacks the Bible; however, the claim that these are Christians is a misconception; their agenda is highly anti-Christian and non-religious.
Furthermore, we need to ask, whether this group and its proposition supports the Qur?an against the Bible?
The Qur?an explicitly states that Jesus received a book, in the very same manner as the Qur?an; this book is known as the Injeel. According to the Qur?an the Injeel was not corrupted, even in Muhammad?s lifetime:
This already contradicts the Qur?ans description about the Bible. However, if we were to presume that modern Muslims are correct in statement that the Bible was corrupted and even if the Qur?an verified this, it would still contradict Biblical Criticism. According to the Theory of Criticism the corruption of books did not take place, as no book was in existence.
Corruption focused rather on a person, Jesus, or the earliest oral sources about Jesus! In most cases critical scholarship asserts that the figure was distorted to describe to him miracles, divinity or fulfilment of Old Testament predictions mainly to attract followers (Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology, 1958: 11-18) (Sander, E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, 1993 1993:57-63); this contradicts the idea that Christians corrupted the Gospel as a book.
Furthermore, can the modern Muslim view on Bible corruption and Bible-criticism be equated?
In majority cases the Bible-critic leans toward the naturalist view; in other words the exclusion of supernatural occurrence. While the Muslim bases corruption upon the ideas found in the New Testament, which are absent and contradictory to the Qur?an, such as Jesus, divinity, son-ship, death and resurrection. The critic rejects the Gospels based upon its reference to Jesus divinity, virgin birth, miracles, resurrection and ascension to heaven.
The non-Muslim critic, such as atheists and deists approach the Scripture with the motive of excluding all supernatural elements e.g. his divinity, prophet-hood, miracles, revelations and his present existence. The critic is fully aware of Scripture, yet due to his denial of the supernatural, the facts and reality about Jesus must have been corrupted. Hence atheists and bible-critics very much like the Muslims claim that corruption has occurred. We must note however, that the corruption implied by the non-Muslim Bible critic and the Muslim varies significantly. The present non-Muslim Bible critic does not strictly assert that Scripture was deliberately corrupted, with the intention to change the original book. Rather, since supernatural forces are non-existent Jesus must have been an individual who possessed no such powers and exercised no such deeds. The gospel writings were therefore deliberately composed to add a flavour, mainly to attract followers.
Hence Bible-critic and the modern Islamic theory cannot be equated as they are based upon contradictory elements.
HISTORICAL EVIDENCES FOR THE NEW TESTAMENT
The idea promoted by Bultmann and his contemporaries proposed that the writings of the New Testament were not written until late 2 century and the third century. This conclusion which still is referred to by many has in its current research been rejected; the major reason is the discovery of ancient Biblical manuscripts.
Evidence from Ancient Biblical Manuscripts
Name of manuscript Amount Year Time-span
Codex Alexandrius (nearly entire NT) 400 AD 330-350 years after Jesus resurrection
British Library (London England)
Codex Sinaiticus (entire NT) 350 AD 300 years after Jesus resurrection
The British Library (London, England)
Codex Vaticanus (nearly entire Bible) 325-350 AD 275-300 years after Jesus resurrection
Citta Del Vaticano (Vatican, Rome, Italy)
Diatessaron (the four Gospels) 200 AD 170 years after Jesus resurrection
Chester Betty Papyri (most of NT) 90-200 AD 60-170 years after Jesus resurrection
Dublin Castle (Ireland)
Bodmer Papyrus II (John? Gospel) 150-200 AD 120-170 years after Jesus
Bibliotheca Bodmeriana (Geneva)
John Ryland (fragment of John) 120-130 AD 90-100 years after Jesus resurrection
John Ryland University Library (Manchester, England)
Cave 7 (fragments of NT) 60-70 AD 30-40 years after Jesus resurrection
Magdalene MS (Matthew 26) 50-60 AD 20 years after Jesus resurrection
Of great significance here is Chester Betty Papyri which contains portions of all four Gospels and Acts dated late first century or early second century. Secondly, we have ?Bodmer Papyri? which contains large parts of Luke 3?John 15 (Philip Wesley Comfort (ed.), The Origin of the Bible, Wheaton, Illinois; Tyndale House Publishers, Inc, 1998: 180).
Of even greater significance are the New Testament fragments from Cave Seven (the Dead Sea Scrolls) which according to some date 60-70 AD (Carsten Peter Thiede, The Earliest Gospel Manuscripts: The Qumran Fragment 7Q5 and its Significance for New Testament Studies, London; The Paternoster Press, 1992); these discoveries are still being debated.
These manuscripts are enough evidence to confirm that Gospels in the first century AD are the same which we possess today. It debunks the theory that the Gospels were written or fabricated beyond 100 AD.
The Evidence from Early Church Fathers
Further evidence derives from the writings of the early church fathers; these prove that the Biblical manuscripts were not only copied and circulated; in addition they prove that the New Testament writings became a part of external writings.
1. Justin Martyr (writing year 133 AD) refers to the Four Gospels, the Book of Acts and the Epistles 330 times.
2. Irenaeus (living late second century) refers to the Gospels 1038 times, Acts 194 times, Paul?s Epistles 499 times, the General Epistles 23 time and the Book of Revelation 65 times, with a total of 1819 times.
3. Clement of Alexandria (living 150-212) refers to the Gospels 1017 times, Acts 44 times, Paul Epistles 1127 times, Revelation 11 times, the General Epistles 207 times, with a total of 2406 times.
4. Origin (living 185-254) refers to the Gospels 9231 times, Acts 349 times, Paul Epistles 7778 times, the General Epistles 399 times, Revelation 165 times, with a total of 17.922 times.
When we collect all the sayings of the Fathers, from the first century to the third century, which particularly refer to the New Testament, the collection of these writing refer to the entire New Testament except for eleven verses.
Ancient Secular Manuscripts in Comparison to the New Testament
The early manuscript evidence and the writings of the Church Fathers cause severe problem for the critic who decides to believe in ancient history and philosophy. A comparison between the New Testament writings and the ancient non-Biblical and non-Christian writings reveals the Bible to be much more reliable. This comparison can be assessed through the number of manuscripts, date of writing and the time-gap between original and the earliest copy.
Aristotle:
1) Actual date of writing = 350 BC
2) Earliest copy in our possession = 1100 AD
3) Number of copies = 5
4) Time-span/gap between writing and earliest copy = 1400 year
Caesar:
1) Actual date of writing = 100-44 BC
2) Earliest copy = 900 AD
3) Number of copies = 9
4) Time-span/gap
New Testament:
1) Actual date of writing = 50-90 AD
2) Earliest copies = 60-200 AD
3) Number of copies up to 1000 AD = 24.000
4) Time span/gap = 30 years
New Testament authorship: the New Challenge
The new discoveries have forced scholars to change their views on the origin and dates of the New Testament. Both Maurice Casey and Sanders now propose that the New Testament was written in the first century; according to Casey, it was written within the first 60 years of Christianity (Casey, Maurice, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God, Westminster/John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky, 1991: 97; see also E.P. Sander, 1993, The Historical Figure of Jesus, Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, 1993: 57-63). Hence the dates of the New Testament writings have been forced back from the ninth century, to the third century, to the first century.
The new challenge no longer consists of dating of the Gospels but the authorship of the Gospels. According to Sanders, the Gospels were written in the first century, yet the authors names, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not added until the beginning of the second century, to provide them with apostolic authority. Hence, according to Sanders, the authenticity stands or falls upon the confirmation of the authorship of the four Gospels (E.P. Sander, The Historical Figure of Jesus, The Penguin Press, 1993: 63-66).
Yet if the only challenge left is proving that the authorship is a first century confirmation, rather than a second century addition, Christianity stands historically on strong ground.
Eusebius records in his Ecclesiastical History that Papias a listener of John the Apostle and a disciple of Polycarp wrote five treatises entitle: An Exposition of the Lord's Reports. Papias in his Ecclesiastical History (History of the Church) 3.39.1-7, 14-17 writes:
Eusebius dates Papias to Trajan?s reign (AD 98-117). However, Bartlet dates Papias writing to take place about AD 100; in all honesty we may date his writings to AD 125
If this is true, Sanders challenge has basically been met; but the fact remains that this particular source depends upon Eusebius? (AD 260-339) Ecclesiastical History. Hence in all fairness we need to assess whether any sources that predate Eusebius are in existence to verify whether these concepts were commonly held in the first and second history.
Peter himself confirms to be based in Babylon (most probably Rome) for a while and be accompanied by Silas and Mark (1 Peter 5: 12-13)
Here Justin Martyr becomes significance. Justin Martyr (Martyred 165 AD) a contemporary of Papias confirms Papias? statement. He also reveals knowledge of a Gospel collection, and if we possessed his work: ?Against Marcion?, which was known to Irenaeus and Eusebius (see Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.6.2 and Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4.11.8f). In his two works which have survived, his ?Dialogue with Trypho? and his two ?apologies? addressed to emperor Antonius Pius (138-161) and the Roman Senate (144-160). In the ?Dialogue? he refers to the ?memoirs of Peter? possibly Mark (Justin Martyr, Dialogue 106.3 and 100.4) and in his ?First apology? he refers to the ?memoirs of the apostles?, and points out that these memoirs are called Gospels and are read in church along with the ?compositions of the prophet? (First apology, 66.3; 67.3).
Interestingly Justin Martyr does not refer to the Gospels as Gospels, but as The Memoirs of the Apostles (100: 4), of which one is The Memoirs of Peter (Papias informs us the Gospel of Mark is in fact the Gospel of Peter) (106: 3); he refers to the changing of the names of the sons of Zebedee to Boanerges, which only is recorded in Mark (Mark 3: 16-17) and the visit of the Magi, which derives from Matthew 2.
A third confirmation from the middle the second century is Irenaeus (120-202 AD); we know he led the church in Lyons in 177 AD. In addition we know that he was a Polycarp, the disciple of John the Apostle. In his work Against Heresies he provides a great and detailed insight into the origins and authorships of the Gospel writings.
WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?
The Gospel writings themselves do not make any mention of any book entitled the Gospel; neither did Jesus receive any book, nor any revelation of the kind Muslims seem to presume. The Gospels do reveal a certain unity or relationship between the Father and Son, in which communication and the conveying of information was not excluded (Matthew 11: 25-27) (John 12: 50).
Thus the Gospel is not a book given to Jesus; it is simply the account of Jesus? person, work and teaching. Since no diverted idea derives from the Scripture, Church Fathers or history this has to be the reckoned as the only honest conclusion. The Scripture frequently refers to Gospel as an account, which contains the basic information about Jesus, he words and deeds; hence teaching and narrative. Furthermore, the apostles, who are eyewitnesses, are given the responsibility that this account is sustained accurately and propagated.
The apostles are chosen since they have been along since the beginning and have empirically experienced and observed the account, both events and teaching:
Because the apostles possess the empirical experience and calling to sustain and propagate the account, their account becomes the foundation for all its insight and information:
The Apostle John writes:
The Apostle Peter writes:
In some cases Scripture itself indicates that the apostles themselves wrote down the account; such as the Apostle John:
In some case there are indications to the historical verifications of the New Testament authorship. Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Eusebius all attest that Mark dictated the gospel account from the Apostle Peter?s teaching in Rome. Peter himself seems to confirm that he and Mark where indeed accompanying each in Rome:
The account will include Jesus? teaching:
It will include the events and narrative:
Furthermore the responsibility of the account will be aided and secured by the inspiration and help of the Holy Spirit:
The disciples will receive further Revelation:
This guidance of the Spirit refers to a multiple type of Scripture, whether Epistles or Apocalyptic writings such as the Revelation:
Paul indicates that it is Christ they portray crucified, which is in accordance with the account:
Furthermore the early churches seem to teach and focus on the teachings of Christ:
There is good reason to believe that the teachings of Christ and the Revelations were not only written and red but also memorized by the believers:
This debunks the Muslim claim that we are to base our belief on the book of Jesus, rather than the apostles. In fact the New Testament and external sources confirm that such a gospel never existed. Jesus wrote no book, conveyed no book and no book of his life, teaching or revelation existed in his life-ministry on earth.
Furthermore, Jesus does not require the future generations to read his book or even listen to his words, but rather listen to the Apostles who are eyewitnesses and have been entrusted with the account. This seems to be the view of the early Christians, e.g. Clement in his first epistle to the Corinthians:
Here Clement refers to an appointed order; from God to Jesus, from Jesus to the Apostles, from the Apostles to the church.
Both Origin and Eusebius considered Clement to have written the epistle. He was a fellow-worker of Paul. Furthermore, the Epistle has been dated anywhere between AD 80-140, which makes Clement a strong historical witness to the transmission of the Gospel from Christ to the future generations.
If the Muslim intends to prove his case:
1) he needs to present evidence contrary to these sources;
2) he needs to prove from the disciples of the apostles, that a Gospel existed which was given to Jesus, of which the Apostles had no responsibility;
3) he also needs to present evidences from the Apostolic circle and their associates from which the teachings of the present New Testament is rejected or at least contradictory.
Here the Muslim argument might question the value of the Gospel writings since they are written by men rather than being directly revealed by God.
However, according to the above information, the Gospel writings are not the writings of Matthew, Mark/Peter, Luke and John, but compilations of the testimony of the Apostles; the narrative and teachings that evolve around the Person, sayings and acts of Jesus Christ. This is why Justin Martyr coined the Gospels, ?The Memoirs of the Apostles? and ?The Memoirs of Peter?. They do not imply the imagination of the human mind, which Peter also pointed out in 2 Peter 1: 16-18. According to the Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Eusebius Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic. The Gospel of Matthew would therefore consist of Matthew?s memoirs under the inspiration and power of the Holy Spirit. As to Mark?s Gospel, its information consists of the memoirs of Peter, which Mark dictated. John?s Gospel consists of the memoirs of John; however, here we need to admit that John involves his own teaching and interpretation. This is not a problem however, as Jesus himself referred to further inspiration and divine guidance (Matthew 23: 34) (John 16: 12-14); furthermore, we ought to conclude that John being an apostle would possess the inspiration and authority to teach and interpret.
Luke enters the scene as an outsider, yet two issues remain significant here:
1) he depends upon the Apostolic account as is evident from his Gospel;
2) he is a author with historical skills, which debunks the typical argument that the Gospel is the product of superstitious minds which possess no skill to approach or investigate history.
Here we might assume that God included Luke as someone who as an outsider investigates the account from an historical angle.
Hence we see nothing here which debunks the reliability of the New Testament; history and the authorships in fact provide the account with incredible historical strength, as they approach the account from four angles; in other words, the account is confirmed by compilation of information handed down from three eyewitness (Matthew, Peter/Mark and John) and from an outsider (Luke) who investigates their claims by historical skills.
HOW RELIABLE IS THE QUR?ANIC ACCOUNT?
Furthermore, if the Muslims resort to approach the reliability of Scripture in this way and describe it as unreliable and negative, they need to comply by the same means when approaching their own holy writings and the fact of the matter is, this approach would debunk their own religion.
Chokingly to many Muslims a crucial paradox to the Muslim is the origin and the compilation of the Qur?an, in which far too many elements reveal that corruption and politic played a significant role of its content, compilation and creation.
The Qur?an did not exist as a book in Muhammad?s life-time; the launch to inaugurate such a compilation was caused by the death of those who memorized it, in a civil-war; furthermore the Bukhari reveals that the task would be complex (why would the task be complex if the Qur?an was so safely memorized and as some Muslim claims, that several written Qur?an were already in existence?):
In this civil-war entire passages of the Qur?an were lost forever (not only does Dawud confirm that entire passages of the Qur?an were lost, but he agrees with Bukhari that the Qur?an was not written down):
Some years later several Qur?ans have been compiled, and they differ, which might lead to another civil-war. All the various Qur?ans are collected and burned, except for the Qur?an compiled by Zaid Ibn:
The actual motive to select one Qur?an was to unite the people, not necessarily to pursue the truth:
The best memorizer was bin Masud:
He was commanded to submit his Qur?an to be burned:
The above information reveals
1) that no Qur?an existed in written form in Muhammad?s lifetime;
2) that a range of Muslims began compiling the Qur?an material after the death of Muhammad;
3) that the various compilations disagreed with each other and almost caused civil-war;
4) that all the compilations, except for one (Zaid bin) were collected and burned;
5) that Zaid bin?s Qur?an had to be rewritten from a different dialect into its assumed original dialect;
6) that the primary purpose was to unite the Arabic people;
7) that the best compilers and memorizers of the Qur?an were not in agreement;
8) that information acquired directly from Muhammad had to be destroyed!
As Christians we need to ask three vital questions:
1. How do we know which of the compilations were most authentic?
2. How can we be sure that the Qur?an of Zaid bin is correct since all the information to compare it has been burned?
3. How do we know whether the Qur?an Muslims read today truly convey the words, which Muhammad uttered?
In response to Muslim critic of New Testament authorship
1. Christians should ask to see the actual Qur?an from Muhammad in written form; if this one is non-existent Christians have no reason to believe that the Islam which Muslims follow today is in accordance with the original Islam.
2. Christians should deny the Qur?an Muslims read and follow today, since it is the Qur?an of Zaid bin (remember we do not believe in human authorship; whether it reveals historical facts or not), we would like to see the Qur?an of Muhammad only.
3. Christians should point out, that we have difficulties believing a book that survived in the manner as Zaid bin?s Qur?an. It seems that the early Muslims had something to hide; they were certainly unable to agree about the compilations.
4. Christians should point that the present Qur?an is untrustworthy since the best memorizers of the Qur?an were excluded and the information they received directly from Muhammad was destroyed.
5. Christians should point out that the Qur?an is untrustworthy, since it was written into its present dialect from after Muhammad (we may as well translate the Gospel writings into Aramaic and we have solved our problem).
The Muslim proposition that the Gospel is a Singular piece of literature
Muslims usually attack the concept of a multiple number of Gospels, since the Qur?an only refers to the singular Injeel (Gospel). Yet this is polemic which virtually fails to consider all the facts. First and most, Christians themselves referred to the Gospels as the Gospel:
In 2 Clement 8:5 (middle second century AD):
Irenaeus confirms that there is one Gospel, consisting of four Gospels bound together by one Spirit.
8
As we saw with the Chester Betty Papyri, the four Gospels were placed in one collection; from where the concept of a single Gospel emerges.
Ignatius (died 108 or 115) who lived before the Chester Betty Papyri were copied wrote in his letter to the Smyrnaeans (5: 1):
We know also that Tatian a pupil of Justin Martyr, who made a harmony of the four gospels, the Diatessaron (170 AD).
F.F. Bruce writes:
Even the Bukhari seems to make allusions to the multiple number of Gospels:
If the multiple number of Gospels reveals corruption and addition to the One and only Gospel revealed to Jesus, why does Bukhari state Waraqa ??used to write of the Gospels in Arabic as much as Allah wished him to write?.
Why is Bukhari not revealing that the Gospels are corrupt here? Why is he referring to a plural number of Gospels, and why is Bukhari not stating that he used to write of the Gospel (singular) rather than Gospels (plural)?
To support their claim on Bible-corruption Muslims frequently turn to Western liberal scholarship. The usual statement goes like this: ?Your own Christian theologians admit and state that the Bible is inconsistent, corrupted or fabricated?.
It is a fact that we have scholarship in the West who propose these views; however it has to be noted, that these scholars are typically not Christians, neither do they support Bible-corruption implied by modern Muslims.
The Critical scholarship of the Bible is not Christian in nature; it originated through the Enlightenment Period of the 18th-20th century; mainly through Deistic and Atheistic circles. The purpose and agenda was simply to promote naturalism and exclude and refute elements of the supernatural.
Herman Reimarus (1694-1768) has usually been coined as the inaugurator of modern Biblical criticism. He wrote the book Fragmente eines Ungenannten, in which he blasts the Bible, Jesus and the Christian faith. However, it has be noted that behind his contribution and zeal there was the agenda, not to discover truth but to pave the way for naturalism (Charlotte Allen, The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus, Lion Publishing, 1998: 114). From this book the movement of Biblical criticism began, whose main agenda was exclude anything supernatural as mythological and fiction. This becomes evident in David Friedrich Strauss (1808-74) book, The Life of Jesus:
The hero of a biography, according to modern conceptions, should be entirely and clearly human. A personage half human, half divine, may figure plausibly enough in poetry and fable, but is never at the present day seriously chosen as the subject of historical narrative?In all biographies, influences of above kind are a matter of course. The hero is a finite individual, whose force is limited by other surrounding forces according to natural laws ?I offered the idea of the Myth as the key to the miraculous narrative of the Gospel?all narratives of this kind must be considered as fictions.
The modern Muslims are therefore correct, there is a Western movement that attacks the Bible; however, the claim that these are Christians is a misconception; their agenda is highly anti-Christian and non-religious.
Furthermore, we need to ask, whether this group and its proposition supports the Qur?an against the Bible?
The Qur?an explicitly states that Jesus received a book, in the very same manner as the Qur?an; this book is known as the Injeel. According to the Qur?an the Injeel was not corrupted, even in Muhammad?s lifetime:
This already contradicts the Qur?ans description about the Bible. However, if we were to presume that modern Muslims are correct in statement that the Bible was corrupted and even if the Qur?an verified this, it would still contradict Biblical Criticism. According to the Theory of Criticism the corruption of books did not take place, as no book was in existence.
Corruption focused rather on a person, Jesus, or the earliest oral sources about Jesus! In most cases critical scholarship asserts that the figure was distorted to describe to him miracles, divinity or fulfilment of Old Testament predictions mainly to attract followers (Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology, 1958: 11-18) (Sander, E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, 1993 1993:57-63); this contradicts the idea that Christians corrupted the Gospel as a book.
Furthermore, can the modern Muslim view on Bible corruption and Bible-criticism be equated?
In majority cases the Bible-critic leans toward the naturalist view; in other words the exclusion of supernatural occurrence. While the Muslim bases corruption upon the ideas found in the New Testament, which are absent and contradictory to the Qur?an, such as Jesus, divinity, son-ship, death and resurrection. The critic rejects the Gospels based upon its reference to Jesus divinity, virgin birth, miracles, resurrection and ascension to heaven.
The non-Muslim critic, such as atheists and deists approach the Scripture with the motive of excluding all supernatural elements e.g. his divinity, prophet-hood, miracles, revelations and his present existence. The critic is fully aware of Scripture, yet due to his denial of the supernatural, the facts and reality about Jesus must have been corrupted. Hence atheists and bible-critics very much like the Muslims claim that corruption has occurred. We must note however, that the corruption implied by the non-Muslim Bible critic and the Muslim varies significantly. The present non-Muslim Bible critic does not strictly assert that Scripture was deliberately corrupted, with the intention to change the original book. Rather, since supernatural forces are non-existent Jesus must have been an individual who possessed no such powers and exercised no such deeds. The gospel writings were therefore deliberately composed to add a flavour, mainly to attract followers.
Hence Bible-critic and the modern Islamic theory cannot be equated as they are based upon contradictory elements.
HISTORICAL EVIDENCES FOR THE NEW TESTAMENT
The idea promoted by Bultmann and his contemporaries proposed that the writings of the New Testament were not written until late 2 century and the third century. This conclusion which still is referred to by many has in its current research been rejected; the major reason is the discovery of ancient Biblical manuscripts.
Evidence from Ancient Biblical Manuscripts
Name of manuscript Amount Year Time-span
Codex Alexandrius (nearly entire NT) 400 AD 330-350 years after Jesus resurrection
British Library (London England)
Codex Sinaiticus (entire NT) 350 AD 300 years after Jesus resurrection
The British Library (London, England)
Codex Vaticanus (nearly entire Bible) 325-350 AD 275-300 years after Jesus resurrection
Citta Del Vaticano (Vatican, Rome, Italy)
Diatessaron (the four Gospels) 200 AD 170 years after Jesus resurrection
Chester Betty Papyri (most of NT) 90-200 AD 60-170 years after Jesus resurrection
Dublin Castle (Ireland)
Bodmer Papyrus II (John? Gospel) 150-200 AD 120-170 years after Jesus
Bibliotheca Bodmeriana (Geneva)
John Ryland (fragment of John) 120-130 AD 90-100 years after Jesus resurrection
John Ryland University Library (Manchester, England)
Cave 7 (fragments of NT) 60-70 AD 30-40 years after Jesus resurrection
Magdalene MS (Matthew 26) 50-60 AD 20 years after Jesus resurrection
Of great significance here is Chester Betty Papyri which contains portions of all four Gospels and Acts dated late first century or early second century. Secondly, we have ?Bodmer Papyri? which contains large parts of Luke 3?John 15 (Philip Wesley Comfort (ed.), The Origin of the Bible, Wheaton, Illinois; Tyndale House Publishers, Inc, 1998: 180).
Of even greater significance are the New Testament fragments from Cave Seven (the Dead Sea Scrolls) which according to some date 60-70 AD (Carsten Peter Thiede, The Earliest Gospel Manuscripts: The Qumran Fragment 7Q5 and its Significance for New Testament Studies, London; The Paternoster Press, 1992); these discoveries are still being debated.
These manuscripts are enough evidence to confirm that Gospels in the first century AD are the same which we possess today. It debunks the theory that the Gospels were written or fabricated beyond 100 AD.
The Evidence from Early Church Fathers
Further evidence derives from the writings of the early church fathers; these prove that the Biblical manuscripts were not only copied and circulated; in addition they prove that the New Testament writings became a part of external writings.
1. Justin Martyr (writing year 133 AD) refers to the Four Gospels, the Book of Acts and the Epistles 330 times.
2. Irenaeus (living late second century) refers to the Gospels 1038 times, Acts 194 times, Paul?s Epistles 499 times, the General Epistles 23 time and the Book of Revelation 65 times, with a total of 1819 times.
3. Clement of Alexandria (living 150-212) refers to the Gospels 1017 times, Acts 44 times, Paul Epistles 1127 times, Revelation 11 times, the General Epistles 207 times, with a total of 2406 times.
4. Origin (living 185-254) refers to the Gospels 9231 times, Acts 349 times, Paul Epistles 7778 times, the General Epistles 399 times, Revelation 165 times, with a total of 17.922 times.
When we collect all the sayings of the Fathers, from the first century to the third century, which particularly refer to the New Testament, the collection of these writing refer to the entire New Testament except for eleven verses.
Ancient Secular Manuscripts in Comparison to the New Testament
The early manuscript evidence and the writings of the Church Fathers cause severe problem for the critic who decides to believe in ancient history and philosophy. A comparison between the New Testament writings and the ancient non-Biblical and non-Christian writings reveals the Bible to be much more reliable. This comparison can be assessed through the number of manuscripts, date of writing and the time-gap between original and the earliest copy.
Aristotle:
1) Actual date of writing = 350 BC
2) Earliest copy in our possession = 1100 AD
3) Number of copies = 5
4) Time-span/gap between writing and earliest copy = 1400 year
Caesar:
1) Actual date of writing = 100-44 BC
2) Earliest copy = 900 AD
3) Number of copies = 9
4) Time-span/gap
New Testament:
1) Actual date of writing = 50-90 AD
2) Earliest copies = 60-200 AD
3) Number of copies up to 1000 AD = 24.000
4) Time span/gap = 30 years
New Testament authorship: the New Challenge
The new discoveries have forced scholars to change their views on the origin and dates of the New Testament. Both Maurice Casey and Sanders now propose that the New Testament was written in the first century; according to Casey, it was written within the first 60 years of Christianity (Casey, Maurice, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God, Westminster/John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky, 1991: 97; see also E.P. Sander, 1993, The Historical Figure of Jesus, Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, 1993: 57-63). Hence the dates of the New Testament writings have been forced back from the ninth century, to the third century, to the first century.
The new challenge no longer consists of dating of the Gospels but the authorship of the Gospels. According to Sanders, the Gospels were written in the first century, yet the authors names, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not added until the beginning of the second century, to provide them with apostolic authority. Hence, according to Sanders, the authenticity stands or falls upon the confirmation of the authorship of the four Gospels (E.P. Sander, The Historical Figure of Jesus, The Penguin Press, 1993: 63-66).
Yet if the only challenge left is proving that the authorship is a first century confirmation, rather than a second century addition, Christianity stands historically on strong ground.
Eusebius records in his Ecclesiastical History that Papias a listener of John the Apostle and a disciple of Polycarp wrote five treatises entitle: An Exposition of the Lord's Reports. Papias in his Ecclesiastical History (History of the Church) 3.39.1-7, 14-17 writes:
Eusebius dates Papias to Trajan?s reign (AD 98-117). However, Bartlet dates Papias writing to take place about AD 100; in all honesty we may date his writings to AD 125
If this is true, Sanders challenge has basically been met; but the fact remains that this particular source depends upon Eusebius? (AD 260-339) Ecclesiastical History. Hence in all fairness we need to assess whether any sources that predate Eusebius are in existence to verify whether these concepts were commonly held in the first and second history.
Peter himself confirms to be based in Babylon (most probably Rome) for a while and be accompanied by Silas and Mark (1 Peter 5: 12-13)
Here Justin Martyr becomes significance. Justin Martyr (Martyred 165 AD) a contemporary of Papias confirms Papias? statement. He also reveals knowledge of a Gospel collection, and if we possessed his work: ?Against Marcion?, which was known to Irenaeus and Eusebius (see Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.6.2 and Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4.11.8f). In his two works which have survived, his ?Dialogue with Trypho? and his two ?apologies? addressed to emperor Antonius Pius (138-161) and the Roman Senate (144-160). In the ?Dialogue? he refers to the ?memoirs of Peter? possibly Mark (Justin Martyr, Dialogue 106.3 and 100.4) and in his ?First apology? he refers to the ?memoirs of the apostles?, and points out that these memoirs are called Gospels and are read in church along with the ?compositions of the prophet? (First apology, 66.3; 67.3).
Interestingly Justin Martyr does not refer to the Gospels as Gospels, but as The Memoirs of the Apostles (100: 4), of which one is The Memoirs of Peter (Papias informs us the Gospel of Mark is in fact the Gospel of Peter) (106: 3); he refers to the changing of the names of the sons of Zebedee to Boanerges, which only is recorded in Mark (Mark 3: 16-17) and the visit of the Magi, which derives from Matthew 2.
A third confirmation from the middle the second century is Irenaeus (120-202 AD); we know he led the church in Lyons in 177 AD. In addition we know that he was a Polycarp, the disciple of John the Apostle. In his work Against Heresies he provides a great and detailed insight into the origins and authorships of the Gospel writings.
WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?
The Gospel writings themselves do not make any mention of any book entitled the Gospel; neither did Jesus receive any book, nor any revelation of the kind Muslims seem to presume. The Gospels do reveal a certain unity or relationship between the Father and Son, in which communication and the conveying of information was not excluded (Matthew 11: 25-27) (John 12: 50).
Thus the Gospel is not a book given to Jesus; it is simply the account of Jesus? person, work and teaching. Since no diverted idea derives from the Scripture, Church Fathers or history this has to be the reckoned as the only honest conclusion. The Scripture frequently refers to Gospel as an account, which contains the basic information about Jesus, he words and deeds; hence teaching and narrative. Furthermore, the apostles, who are eyewitnesses, are given the responsibility that this account is sustained accurately and propagated.
The apostles are chosen since they have been along since the beginning and have empirically experienced and observed the account, both events and teaching:
Because the apostles possess the empirical experience and calling to sustain and propagate the account, their account becomes the foundation for all its insight and information:
The Apostle John writes:
The Apostle Peter writes:
In some cases Scripture itself indicates that the apostles themselves wrote down the account; such as the Apostle John:
In some case there are indications to the historical verifications of the New Testament authorship. Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Eusebius all attest that Mark dictated the gospel account from the Apostle Peter?s teaching in Rome. Peter himself seems to confirm that he and Mark where indeed accompanying each in Rome:
The account will include Jesus? teaching:
It will include the events and narrative:
Furthermore the responsibility of the account will be aided and secured by the inspiration and help of the Holy Spirit:
The disciples will receive further Revelation:
This guidance of the Spirit refers to a multiple type of Scripture, whether Epistles or Apocalyptic writings such as the Revelation:
Paul indicates that it is Christ they portray crucified, which is in accordance with the account:
Furthermore the early churches seem to teach and focus on the teachings of Christ:
There is good reason to believe that the teachings of Christ and the Revelations were not only written and red but also memorized by the believers:
This debunks the Muslim claim that we are to base our belief on the book of Jesus, rather than the apostles. In fact the New Testament and external sources confirm that such a gospel never existed. Jesus wrote no book, conveyed no book and no book of his life, teaching or revelation existed in his life-ministry on earth.
Furthermore, Jesus does not require the future generations to read his book or even listen to his words, but rather listen to the Apostles who are eyewitnesses and have been entrusted with the account. This seems to be the view of the early Christians, e.g. Clement in his first epistle to the Corinthians:
Here Clement refers to an appointed order; from God to Jesus, from Jesus to the Apostles, from the Apostles to the church.
Both Origin and Eusebius considered Clement to have written the epistle. He was a fellow-worker of Paul. Furthermore, the Epistle has been dated anywhere between AD 80-140, which makes Clement a strong historical witness to the transmission of the Gospel from Christ to the future generations.
If the Muslim intends to prove his case:
1) he needs to present evidence contrary to these sources;
2) he needs to prove from the disciples of the apostles, that a Gospel existed which was given to Jesus, of which the Apostles had no responsibility;
3) he also needs to present evidences from the Apostolic circle and their associates from which the teachings of the present New Testament is rejected or at least contradictory.
Here the Muslim argument might question the value of the Gospel writings since they are written by men rather than being directly revealed by God.
However, according to the above information, the Gospel writings are not the writings of Matthew, Mark/Peter, Luke and John, but compilations of the testimony of the Apostles; the narrative and teachings that evolve around the Person, sayings and acts of Jesus Christ. This is why Justin Martyr coined the Gospels, ?The Memoirs of the Apostles? and ?The Memoirs of Peter?. They do not imply the imagination of the human mind, which Peter also pointed out in 2 Peter 1: 16-18. According to the Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Eusebius Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic. The Gospel of Matthew would therefore consist of Matthew?s memoirs under the inspiration and power of the Holy Spirit. As to Mark?s Gospel, its information consists of the memoirs of Peter, which Mark dictated. John?s Gospel consists of the memoirs of John; however, here we need to admit that John involves his own teaching and interpretation. This is not a problem however, as Jesus himself referred to further inspiration and divine guidance (Matthew 23: 34) (John 16: 12-14); furthermore, we ought to conclude that John being an apostle would possess the inspiration and authority to teach and interpret.
Luke enters the scene as an outsider, yet two issues remain significant here:
1) he depends upon the Apostolic account as is evident from his Gospel;
2) he is a author with historical skills, which debunks the typical argument that the Gospel is the product of superstitious minds which possess no skill to approach or investigate history.
Here we might assume that God included Luke as someone who as an outsider investigates the account from an historical angle.
Hence we see nothing here which debunks the reliability of the New Testament; history and the authorships in fact provide the account with incredible historical strength, as they approach the account from four angles; in other words, the account is confirmed by compilation of information handed down from three eyewitness (Matthew, Peter/Mark and John) and from an outsider (Luke) who investigates their claims by historical skills.
HOW RELIABLE IS THE QUR?ANIC ACCOUNT?
Furthermore, if the Muslims resort to approach the reliability of Scripture in this way and describe it as unreliable and negative, they need to comply by the same means when approaching their own holy writings and the fact of the matter is, this approach would debunk their own religion.
Chokingly to many Muslims a crucial paradox to the Muslim is the origin and the compilation of the Qur?an, in which far too many elements reveal that corruption and politic played a significant role of its content, compilation and creation.
The Qur?an did not exist as a book in Muhammad?s life-time; the launch to inaugurate such a compilation was caused by the death of those who memorized it, in a civil-war; furthermore the Bukhari reveals that the task would be complex (why would the task be complex if the Qur?an was so safely memorized and as some Muslim claims, that several written Qur?an were already in existence?):
In this civil-war entire passages of the Qur?an were lost forever (not only does Dawud confirm that entire passages of the Qur?an were lost, but he agrees with Bukhari that the Qur?an was not written down):
Some years later several Qur?ans have been compiled, and they differ, which might lead to another civil-war. All the various Qur?ans are collected and burned, except for the Qur?an compiled by Zaid Ibn:
The actual motive to select one Qur?an was to unite the people, not necessarily to pursue the truth:
The best memorizer was bin Masud:
He was commanded to submit his Qur?an to be burned:
The above information reveals
1) that no Qur?an existed in written form in Muhammad?s lifetime;
2) that a range of Muslims began compiling the Qur?an material after the death of Muhammad;
3) that the various compilations disagreed with each other and almost caused civil-war;
4) that all the compilations, except for one (Zaid bin) were collected and burned;
5) that Zaid bin?s Qur?an had to be rewritten from a different dialect into its assumed original dialect;
6) that the primary purpose was to unite the Arabic people;
7) that the best compilers and memorizers of the Qur?an were not in agreement;
8) that information acquired directly from Muhammad had to be destroyed!
As Christians we need to ask three vital questions:
1. How do we know which of the compilations were most authentic?
2. How can we be sure that the Qur?an of Zaid bin is correct since all the information to compare it has been burned?
3. How do we know whether the Qur?an Muslims read today truly convey the words, which Muhammad uttered?
In response to Muslim critic of New Testament authorship
1. Christians should ask to see the actual Qur?an from Muhammad in written form; if this one is non-existent Christians have no reason to believe that the Islam which Muslims follow today is in accordance with the original Islam.
2. Christians should deny the Qur?an Muslims read and follow today, since it is the Qur?an of Zaid bin (remember we do not believe in human authorship; whether it reveals historical facts or not), we would like to see the Qur?an of Muhammad only.
3. Christians should point out, that we have difficulties believing a book that survived in the manner as Zaid bin?s Qur?an. It seems that the early Muslims had something to hide; they were certainly unable to agree about the compilations.
4. Christians should point that the present Qur?an is untrustworthy since the best memorizers of the Qur?an were excluded and the information they received directly from Muhammad was destroyed.
5. Christians should point out that the Qur?an is untrustworthy, since it was written into its present dialect from after Muhammad (we may as well translate the Gospel writings into Aramaic and we have solved our problem).
The Muslim proposition that the Gospel is a Singular piece of literature
Muslims usually attack the concept of a multiple number of Gospels, since the Qur?an only refers to the singular Injeel (Gospel). Yet this is polemic which virtually fails to consider all the facts. First and most, Christians themselves referred to the Gospels as the Gospel:
In 2 Clement 8:5 (middle second century AD):
Irenaeus confirms that there is one Gospel, consisting of four Gospels bound together by one Spirit.
8
As we saw with the Chester Betty Papyri, the four Gospels were placed in one collection; from where the concept of a single Gospel emerges.
Ignatius (died 108 or 115) who lived before the Chester Betty Papyri were copied wrote in his letter to the Smyrnaeans (5: 1):
We know also that Tatian a pupil of Justin Martyr, who made a harmony of the four gospels, the Diatessaron (170 AD).
F.F. Bruce writes:
Even the Bukhari seems to make allusions to the multiple number of Gospels:
If the multiple number of Gospels reveals corruption and addition to the One and only Gospel revealed to Jesus, why does Bukhari state Waraqa ??used to write of the Gospels in Arabic as much as Allah wished him to write?.
Why is Bukhari not revealing that the Gospels are corrupt here? Why is he referring to a plural number of Gospels, and why is Bukhari not stating that he used to write of the Gospel (singular) rather than Gospels (plural)?