Nakba, the Palestinian catastrophe (1948) - Christianity

WHAT WAS THE SIGN OF JONAH?

nospam@example.com (Waheed) — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:46:13 +0000

"CHRIST" NOT A NAME

Over a thousand million Christians today blindly accept that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ. They produce "a thousand and one" prophecies from the Jewish Bible (the Old Testament) to prove their claim that Jesus was the Messiah promised to the Jews. Let us hold the thousand" prophecies in abeyance for a moment and examine the only unequivocal claim made by Jesus in the Gospels and examine whether he fulfilled his promise to the Jews.

We must admit that the word CHRIST is not a name. It is a title. It is a translation of the Hebrew word Messiah, meaning "anointed." The Greek word for "anointed" is Christos from which we get the word Christ.

Priests and kings were "anointed" when being consecrated to their office. The Holy Bible confers this title even on a heathen king CYRUS (Isaiah 45:1).

We are reminded in the Gospel of St.Luke that "WHEN EIGHT DAYS WERE ACCOMPLISHED FOR THE CIRCUMCISING OF THE CHILD, HIS NAME WAS CALLED JESUS, WHICH WAS SO NAMED OF THE ANGEL BEFORE HE WAS CONCEIVED IN THE WOMB." (Luke 2:21). The name that was given to Mary for her yet unborn son was JESUS and NOT Christ. It was only after his baptism at the hands of John the Baptist that he, Jesus, claimed to be the Christ. The Jews were not the ones to accept his claim on its face value. They wanted proof!

MIRACLE AS PROOF

Matthew records that the learned men among the Jews - the Scribes and Pharisees came to Jesus and asked, "MASTER, WE WOULD SEE A SIGN FROM THEE". (Matthew 12:38). What they really wanted was some "magic trick," some "sleight of hand" like producing a rabbit out of a hat or walking on the water or flying in the air or trodding on burning coal. This is the type of "sign" or MIRACLE they were looking for. The Jews mistook him for a sorcerer, a wizard, a charlatan.

NO "SIGN" BUT ONE

With righteous indignation Jesus replies: "AN EVIL AND ADULTEROUS GENERATION SEEKETH AFTER A SIGN; AND THERE SHALL NO SIGN (no miracle) BE GIVEN TO IT, BUT THE SIGN (miracle) OF THE PROPHET JONAS: FOR AS JONAS WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE WHALE'S BELLY; SO SHALL THE SON OF MAN BE THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE HEART OF THE EARTH." Matthew 12:39-40). Jesus says, "NO SIGN." He does not refer the Jews to blind Bartimeus whose sight he had restored. He does not speak about the "woman with issues" who was healed by merely touching him; or about the 2000 pigs he had destroyed to heal "a man possessed;" or the 5000 and the 3000 people he had fed and satiated with a few pieces of fish and a few pieces of bread. "No sign," says Jesus, BUT ONE! -"THE SIGN OF THE PROPHET JONAS!" He is putting all his "eggs" in one basket. His claim to being the Messiah (Christ) stands or falls the ONLY "sign" he was prepared to give.

Did Jesus fulfill the only sign he gave? Christendom answers with a unanimous Y-E-S! without heeding the Biblical advice - 'not to take things for granted.' - but "PROVE ALL THINGS!" (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

JONAH FLEES HIS CALL

What was the "sign" (miracle) of Jonah? We have to go to the "Book of Jonah" in the Old Testament to find out. God commanded Jonah to go to Nineveh and warn the Ninevites to repent from their "evil ways, and from the violence that is in their hands." (Jonah 3:8) But Jonah was loath to go as a warner unto the Ninevites, so he goes to Joppa instead of Ninevah, and takes a boat to run away from the Lord's command.

While at sea, there was a terrible tempest. According to the superstition of the mariners, a person fleeing from his Master's command creates such a turmoil at sea. They began to enquire among themselves and said, "COME, AND LET US CAST LOTS, (like the tossing of a coin, "head" or "tail") THAT WE MAY KNOW FOR WHOSE CAUSE THIS EVIL IS UPON US. SO THEY CAST LOTS, AND THE LOT FELL UPON JONAH." (Jonah 1:7). Though here was a temporary lapse on the part of Jonah in fulfilling his mission, he manfully and most outrageously volunteers: "AND HE SAID UNTO THEM TAKE ME UP, AND CAST ME FORTH INTO THE SEA; SO SHALL THE SEA BE CALM UNTO YOU: FOR I KNOW THAT FOR MY SAKE THIS GREAT TEMPEST IS UPON YOU." (Jonah 1:12)

DEAD OR ALIVE?

Since Jonah was selflessly offering himself as a "vicarious" sacrifice there was no need for strangling him before throwing him into the sea, no need to spear him or break his arm or limb. In his own words: "TAKE ME UP AND CAST ME FORTH." The question now arises, that when the shipmaster and the crew threw him overboard, was Jonah dead or alive? Any Christian child who has attended Sunday School will give an immediate reply: "ALIVE!" The storm subsides. Was this perhaps a coincidence? A fish swallows Jonah. Was he dead or alive when swallowed? The answer again is "ALIVE" Was he dead or alive when "JONAH PRAYED UNTO THE LORD HIS GOD OUT OF THE FISH'S BELLY?" (Jonah 2:1)

Surely dead men don't cry and don't pray! The answer again is "ALIVE" For three days and three nights the fish takes him around the ocean: dead or alive? "ALIVE!" is the answer. On the third day it vomits him on the seashore: dead or alive? A-L-I-V-E, of course! What had Jesus prophesied about himself? He said: "AS JONAH WAS ..... SO SHALL THE SON OF MAN BE" LIKE JONAH. And how was Jonah? Was he dead or alive for three days and three nights? Alive! ALIVE! ALIVE! is the unanimous answer from the Jew, the Christian and the Muslim!

UNLIKE JONAH

If Jonah was alive for three days and three nights, then Jesus also ought to have been alive in the tomb as he himself had foretold! But Christianity hangs on the flimsy thread of the death" of Jesus for its salvation. So it has to answer that Jesus was DEAD for three days and three nights. The contradiction between his utterance and its fulfilment is obvious. Jonah ALIVE, Jesus DEAD! Very UNLIKE Jonah! Jesus had said "LIKE Jonah" not UNLIKE Jonah. If this is true then according to his own test Jesus is not the TRUE Messiah of the Jews. If the Gospel record is genuine then how can we blame the Jews for rejecting "CHRIST".

THREE AND THREE = 72 HOURS?

The Doctor of Divinity and the Professor of Theology replies that in Matthew 12:40 under discussion, the emphasis is on the TIME factor - "as Jonas was THREE days and THREE nights in the belly of the whale, so shall the son of man be THREE days and THREE nights in the heart of the earth." "Please note," says the learned theologian, "that the word "THREE" is repeated F-O-U-R times in this verse to prove that Jesus was going to fulfil the prophecy as regards the length of time he was going to remain in the tomb, and NOT 'As Jonas was' in relation to his being alive or dead. If it is the time factor that Jesus was stressing then let us ask whether he fulfilled that aspect of his promise to the Jews as well. The Christian dogmatist answers: "OF COURSE!"

PUBLIC HOLIDAY

The question arises: when was Christ crucified? The whole Christian world answers: "FRIDAY!" Is this the reason we celebrate "Good Friday" -as a Public Holiday in every Christian nation from America to Zambia, from Abyssinia to Zaire at Easter? What makes Good Friday" so good? "it is the death of Christ on the Cross on this day to wash off our sins," says the Christians. So he was killed on the cross on a Friday, 19xx years ago? "YES!" says the Christians. From the Gospel records we gather that the Jews were in a hurry to eliminate Jesus. Hence the midnight trial, and then dispatching him off to Pilate in the morning; from Pilate to Herod and then back again to Pilate. The vested interests were afraid of the general public. Jesus was their hero. He had been their benefactor. His enemies had to do away with him quickly, and succeeded in doing so. However, as much as they were in a hurry to hang him on the cross, they were in equal hurry to bring him down from the cross before sunset on Friday because of the Sabbath. The Sabbath starts at about 6 p.m. on Friday and the Jews were warned in Deuteronomy 21:23 that the victim of crucifixion was an "accursed of God" and was not to be permitted to remain hanging on the Sabbath day, "that thy land be not defiled which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance."

To satisfy the religious scruples of the Scribes and Pharisees the "secret disciples" of Jesus took down the body from the cross. They gave the body the Jewish burial-bath, plastered it with "one hundred pounds weight of aaloes and myrrh" (John 19:39), then placed the shrouded body into the sepulcher before night-fall.

WHY "SUPPOSED"?

There are numerous differences between the various sects and denominations of Christianity, but on the above they are unanimous. Jesus is SUPPOSED to be in the tomb on the night of Friday. He is still SUPPOSED to be in the tomb on the day of Saturday. He is still SUPPOSED to be in the tomb on the night of Saturday. Christians agree whole-heartedly with this. It will be noted that I have repeated the word 'SUPPOSED' three times. The reason is that the Gospels are silent as to when exactly Jesus came out of the tomb. He could have been taken away on Friday night by his "secret disciples" to a more congenial and restful place, but I have no right to assume about what the Gospel writers are silent. I have, therefore, repeated the word 'SUPPOSED' three times.

In the final analysis, let us see whether Jesus was THREE days and THREE nights in the tomb:-

EASTER WEEK	IN THE SEPULCHER
	DAYS	NIGHTS
FRIDAY -placed in tomb just before sunset	- nil	One night
SATURDAY - supposed to be in tomb	One day	One night
SUNDAY -missing before sunrise	- nil	- nil
TOTAL	One Day	Two Nights

You will no doubt note that the GRAND TOTAL is ONE day and TWO nights, and NOT three days and three nights. According to the Christian Scriptures Jesus had failed a SECOND time. FIRST he was unlike Jonah, who was ALIVE in the belly of the fish, which is the exact opposite of what the Christians claim had happened to their master Jesus, who was DEAD for the same period of time as Jonah was ALIVE.

SECONDLY, we discover that he also failed to fulfill the TIME FACTOR as well. The greatest mathematician in Christendom will fail to obtain the desired result -THREE days and THREE nights. We must not forget that the Gospels are explicit in telling us that it was "before sunrise" on Sunday morning (the FIRST day of the week), that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb of Jesus and found it empty.

"GOOD" WEDNESDAY

The Armstrong family has debunked the whole Christian world. They seem to know their arithmetic! Mr. Robert Fahey of the "Plain Truth" magazine, delivered a lecture recently at the "Holiday Inn,' Durban, where I was present. Mr. Fahey attempted to prove to his Christian audience that Jesus Christ was crucified on a Wednesday and not on Friday, as is supposed by Orthodox Christianity for the past two thousand years. According to him if one counts backwards from Sunday morning deducting 3 DAYS and 3 NIGHTS, one ought to get WEDNESDAY as the answer.

I congratulated Mr Fahey for his ingenuity. I asked him, how was it possible for the past two thousand years the whole Christian world celebrated GOOD FRIDAY instead of GOOD WEDNESDAY. Thus the 1,200,000,000 Christians of the world today are ignorant of the correct day of the so called crucifixion! It means that even the Roman Catholic Church – which claims an unbroken chain of Popes from Peter to this day - according to Mr Fahey are mislead.

GOD OR THE DEVIL?

The question arises, who deceived the millions of Christians for the past TWO THOUSAND years. GOD or the DEVIL? Mr Fahey categorically answered: "THE DEVIL!" "If the devil," I said, "can succeed in confusing the Christians in the most elementary things of their Faith, whether to celebrate a Good Friday or a Good Wednesday, then how much easier for him to mislead Christians in other things concerning God?" Mr Fahey blushed and walked away.

If this is the belief of the trend-setters of the Christian Faith in the world today, may we not then ask: is this not the mightiest hoax in history?

"Resurrection or Resuscitation?" By Ahmed Deedat

nospam@example.com (Waheed) — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:53:43 +0000

In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate
"Resurrection or Resuscitation?" By Ahmed Deedat

In one of my books - "Who Moved the Stone?" I had promised to deal with the anomaly, where believers were reading simple English, yet were so conditioned that they were understanding exactly the opposite of what they were reading. The following story from real life will not only illustrate the point but will also elucidate our present case -

"Resurrection or Resuscitation"

I was about to leave for the Transvaal (South Africa) on a lecture tour, so I phoned my friend Hafiz Yusuf Dadoo of Standerton, informing him of my impending visit, as well as to inquire whether he needed anything from Durban. He said that as he was taking up Hebrew, I should try and obtain a Bible in the Hebrew language with a translation in English side by side.

I went to the "Bible House" in Durban. Without any difficulty I found the appropriate Bible for my friend, the "Authorized Version," also known as the King James Version, looking for one with the best print and at the cheapest price, I noticed the lady behind the counter had lifted up the telephone to speak to someone. I was out of hearing distance, nor was I interested, but after an exchange with the person on the other side of the line she put her hand on the mouthpiece and addressed me: "Excuse me, sir, are you Mr. Deedat?" I said: "Yes." She said: "The Supervisor of the Bible Society would like to meet you," I agreed. She spoke a few more words into the telephone and replaced the receiver. I said with a smile: "I thought that you were ringing the police." (Perhaps because of the number of Bibles I was handling!). - She laughed and said: "No, it was the Rev. Roberts, the Supervisor, who wishes to speak to you."

Winning a Convert

Presently, Rev. Roberts approached me and after introducing himself he gestured to me to hand over to him the Bible which I was holding in my hand. I handed the book. He opened it and began reading to me: "And this is life eternal that they should know Thee the only True God and Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent." (John 17:3). (Subsequently, I checked up the Gospel references of his quotations).

After having listened to his reading of this scripture, I responded with the words: "I accept!"

- meaning the implication of the Message he was trying to convey to me. I did not tell him then that what he was trying to convey to me was the same as the Holy Qur’ân was telling mankind for the past fourteen hundred years -that all must believe in the One and Only God Almighty, and Jesus Christ is only a Messenger of God. The words of the Holy Qur’ân are as follows: -

"Most Certainly the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, was an apostle of Allah and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary and a Spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His Apostles" (The Holy Qur’ân 4:171)

Love One Another

Rev. Roberts must have been elated to hear my words "I Accept," to his first quotation. He quickly opened the Bible in another place and began reading these words attributed to Jesus:-

"A new commandment I give unto you. That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love for one another." (John 13:34-35)

A New Convert?

When he had finished reading these verses, I remarked: "Very good!" He was greatly encouraged with my comment. I sincerely meant what I said and there was no pretense. The Reverend found yet another quotation to clinch a convert for Christ. He began:-

"Judge not that ye be not judged." "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7:1-2)

To this quotation I responded with the words, "I agree!" My only reason for agreeing and accepting everything that the Reverend was reading to me was not of the "special discount" I was getting from the Bible Society on my purchases, but because these particular quotations were conveying the same message and ideals which Allah subhanahoo wa ta'aala was commanding the Muslims to preach and practice. I would be spiritually jaundiced to take exceptions to what was common to both of us - the Muslim and the Christian. For me to say that an identical message from my Book (the Holy Qur’ân) was very good, but the same message in his Book (the Holy Bible) was very bad would be hypocritical in the extreme. It would be soul shaming untruth.

The Purpose

What was the real purpose of the Reverend's reading the Scripture to me? Indeed, I was getting a special discount on all my purchases from the Bible Society and I was perhaps the only non-Christian to get such a discount, though it was depending purely on a business transaction, and this information must have been passed on the Reverend as the Head of the Bible Society; that I was a Muslim there was no mistaking my identity, for my beard and my headgear were the badges of my Faith, easily recognized as such in this part of the world; and that, despite my numerous purchases of the Bibles in English (various versions), in Zulu, Afrikaans, Urdu, Arabic and other languages, I was not yet converted. Perhaps, what I really needed was a gentle push, the Supervisor must have been told. Hence the recitation of the preceding quotations to me. The implication of this reading was that I had probably not read those beautiful passages; how else was it possible, then, that I had not yet embraced Christianity?

A Problem

The Reverend gentleman had taken the role of a teacher who wanted to teach, who wanted to impart new knowledge to his pupil.

Since I am commanded by my Prophet, peace be upon him, to seek knowledge I wanted to learn. I said: "I agree with all that you have read to me, but I have a problem with your Bible." "What problem have you got?" he asked. I said: "Please open the Gospel of St. Luke, chapter 3 verse 23." This he did. I said: "Please read." He read:-

"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli," (Luke 3:23)

I drew the Reverend's attention to the words -"(As was supposed)." I said: "Do you see that the words 'As was supposed' are written within brackets?" He said that he saw that. I asked him: "Why are the brackets there?" He acknowledged, "I don't know, but I could find out for you from some Bible scholars." I admired his humility. Though I knew that all Supervisors of Bible Houses in South Africa are retired reverends, it was possible that this aspect of Bible knowledge was beyond their sphere. I said: "If you do not know, then let me tell you what the brackets are doing there in this verse. You do not have to take the trouble of looking for a Bible scholar."

I explained that in the "most ancient" manuscripts of Luke, the words "As was supposed" are not there. Your translators felt that without this interpolation the, ordinary Christians, not well grounded in faith, might slip and fall into the error of believing that Joseph the Carpenter was the actual physical father of Jesus. So they took the precaution of adding their own comment in brackets to avoid any misunderstanding. I said: "I am not trying to find fault with your system of adding words in brackets to assist the reader, but what intrigues me is that in all translations of the Bible in the African and Eastern languages you have retained the words "as was supposed" but have removed the brackets! Couldn't the nations of the Earth besides the English understand the meaning and purpose of the brackets?

What is wrong with the Afrikaner? Why have you eliminated the brackets from the Afrikaans Bible? The Supervisor protested: "I didn't do it." I said: "I know that you personally did not do it but why have the Bible Society that you represent and your Bible scholars been playing with the 'Word of God?' If God Almighty did not see fit to preserve Luke from error what right has anybody to add to or delete from words in the 'Book of God?' What right have you to manufacture 'God's Words?'

Interpolations

The translator's own addition of words in brackets can easily be put into the mouth of St. Luke by merely removing the brackets, and by implication, if Luke was inspired by God to write what he did, then the interpolations automatically become the Word of God, which really is not the case. (More will be said on this subject in the forthcoming publication Is the Bible God's Word?) I concluded my explanation with the words - 'Your theologians of the day have succeeded where the alchemists of yore failed - of turning baser metal into shining gold.'"

The English Language

At this stage the Reverend introduced irrelevancies into the discussion and the subject changed. He made some claims which made me say: "You see, sir, you English people do not know your own language." (With apologies to my readers whose mother tongue is English). He quickly retorted: "You mean to say that you know my language better than I do?" I said: "It would be presumptuous on my part to tell -an Englishman - that I understand your language better than you do." "Then what do you mean that we English people do not know our own language?" he demanded. I said again: "You see, sir, you read your Holy Scripture in your mother tongue, like every Christian belonging to a thousand different language groups, and yet each and every Christian language group understands the facts, opposite to what he is reading." "What are you referring to?" he asked.

A Ghost

I continued: "Do you remember the occasion when Jesus returned to that upper room after his alleged crucifixion: 'And saith unto them, (his disciples), 'Peace be unto you'' (Luke 24:36), and his disciples were terrified on recognizing him?" He answered that he remembered that incident. I inquired: "Why should they be terrified?" When one recognizes one's long-lost friend or one's beloved, the natural reaction is to feel overjoyed, elated and one wants to embrace and kiss the hands and feet of the beloved. Why did they get terrified?" The Reverend replied that they (the disciples) thought that they were seeing a ghost." I asked: "Did Jesus look like a ghost?" He said: "No." "Then why did they think that they were seeing a ghost when he did not look like a ghost?" I queried. The Reverend was clearly puzzled. I said: "Please allow me to explain."

Disciples Not Eye Witnesses

"You see, sir, the disciples of Jesus were not eye-witnesses or ear-witnesses to the actual happenings of the previous three days, as vouched for by St. Mark who says that at the most critical juncture in the life of Jesus: "they all forsook him and fled." (Mark 14:50). All the knowledge of the disciples regarding their Master was from hearsay. They had heard that their master was hanged on the Cross; they had heard that he had given up the Ghost; they had heard that he was dead and buried for three days. If one is confronted by a person with such a reputation then the conclusion is inescapable; they must be seeing a ghost. Little wonder these ten brave men were petrified."

"To disabuse their minds from the fear that gripped them, Jesus reasoned with them. He said: 'Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself' To put it in colloquial English, this is how he told them: 'What is wrong with you fellows, can't you see that I am the same person - who walked and talked with you, broke bread with you - flesh and blood in all respects.'

Why do doubts enter your minds? 'Handle me and see, for a spirit has no flesh and bones as you see me have.' (Luke 24:39). In other words he is telling them: 'If I have flesh and bones, then I am not a ghost, not a spook and not a spirit!'" "Is that right?" I asked. "Yes," he replied. I continued that, Jesus is telling them, as recorded in this verse, in basic English, that what the disciples were asked to "handle and see" was not a translated body, not a metamorphosed body and not a resurrected body, because a resurrected body is a spiritualised body. He is telling them in the clearest language humanly possible that he is not what they were thinking. They were thinking that he was a spirit, a resurrected body, one having been brought back from the dead. He is most emphatic that he is not!"

Spiritualization

"But how can you be so sure that the resurrected body cannot materialize physically as Jesus had obviously done?" murmured the Reverend. I replied: "Because Jesus had himself pronounced that the resurrected bodies get spiritualised." When did he say any such thing?" inquired the Reverend. I answered: "Do you remember the incident as recorded in the Gospel of St. Luke, chapter 20, where the learned men of the Jews- "the chief priests and the scribes with the elders"- had come to him with a number of posers, and among them was one about a Jewess who had seven husbands in turn, one after another according to a Jewish custom, and in time all seven husbands and the woman too died?" The Reverend said that he did remember the occasion. I continued: "The trap that the religious hierarchy was trying to spring on him was; which one of the seven husbands was going to possess the woman on the 'Other side'- at the resurrection?- since they reasoned with Jesus that the seven brothers had her.

There was no problem while they fulfilled their obligation of trying to give her a child, because they had possessed her one by one in turn, and it was after the death of one that the other had taken her to wife. But since at the resurrection all seven will be brought to life simultaneously, there will be strife in heaven because all seven would want to get at her at the same time, specially if they had pleasure with her."

"Jesus debunked their false notion of the resurrection, by saying that at the resurrection: 'neither shall they die any more' (Luke 20:36) meaning that the resurrected persons will be Immortalised. They will not be subject to death any more, no more hanger or thirst, no more fatigue. In short, all the instruments of death will be powerless against the resurrected body. Jesus continues to explain: 'for they (the resurrected bodies) are equal unto the angles,' that is, that they will be Angelised - spiritualised, that they will become spirit-creatures, i.e. Spirits;'and the children of God, for such are the children of the resurrection." (Luke 20:36).

Jesus Not Spiritualised

I was taken off from the theme I was expounding two paragraphs above by the Reverend with the challenge: "But how can you be so sure..?" To continue from where I had deviated above - He is Not what they were thinking, that he was not a Spirit, not a Ghost, not a Spook. To assure them further after having offered his hands and feet for inspection and verification that his was a material, physical body, and that all their bewilderment and disbelief was unjustified, he asked his disciples: "Have you here any meat?" (Meaning something to eat). "And they gave him a piece of broiled fish and of a honeycomb, and he took it, and did eat before them." (Luke 24:41-43)

A Drama?

What was Jesus trying to prove by all his demonstrations of wanting his hands and feet to be handled and chewing and masticating broiled fish and honeycomb? Was all this a pretense, make-belief, an act or drama? "No!" Said Schleliermacher in 1819, a hundred years before I was born. Albert Schweizer records him saying: "If Christ had only eaten to show that he could eat, while he really had no need of nourishment, if would have been a pretense, something docetic."( In Quest of the Historical Jesus, page 64).

I had not know of Schleliermacher and other Christian scholars who over a hundred years ago doubted the death of Jesus on the cross as recorded by Albert Schweizer, when I was discussing this subject with the head of the Bible Society.

No Resurrection

"What is wrong with you (Christian) folk?" Jesus is telling you in the most unambiguous language that he is not a spirit - not spiritualised, not a resurrected person, and yet the whole Christian world believes that he was resurrected, i.e. spiritualised. Who is lying, you or him? How is it possible that you, each and every Christian, are reading your Bible in your own mother tongue and yet each and every groups is made to understand the exact opposite of what they are reading? If you read the Bible, say, in Hebrew, and pleaded that you did not understand what you were reading, I can appreciate this fact. If you read it in Greek and pleaded that you did not really understand the implications of what was written; I can appreciate this fact also. But the anomaly is that you are reading the Book, each and every one, in his own mother tongue, and are trained to understand the opposite of what is written. How have you been brainwashed, or rather, how have you been "Programmed," as the Americans would put it?

"Please tell me as to who is lying? Is it Jesus or a thousand million Christians of the world? Jesus says: "No!" to his being resurrected, and all of you say: "Yes!" Whom are we Muslims to believe, Jesus or his so called disciples? We Muslims would rather believe the Master. Did he not say: "The disciple is not greater than the Master."? (Matthew 10:24)

This was more than the Reverend had bargained for. He politely excused himself by saying that as he had to get ready to close his office, he would look forward to meeting me again. This was sheer evasive politeness!

With the Bible Society, I won the debate but lost the discount! No more discount for me from the Bible Society. But let my loss be your gain. If you dear reader, can remove a few cobwebs from your thinking on the subject of the Crucifixion, I will be amply rewarded.

Now here are the verses discussed put together :

"..Jesus himself stood in their midst, and said unto them, Peace be unto you...But they were terrified, and supposing that they were seeing a spirit... And he said unto them,.. 'Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me and see; for a spirit has no flesh and bones, as you see me have'... And showed them his hands and feet... And while they yet believed not for joy and wondered, he said unto them, 'Have ye here any meat?'.. And they gave him a piece of broiled fish, and of a honeycomb... And he took it, and did eat before them." (Luke 24:36-43)

Introduction to Christianity

nospam@example.com (Waheed) — Wed, 21 May 2008 18:42:25 +0000

Gary Miller talks about Christianity, primarily to a muslim audience, to explain what Christianity is and what it isn't.

Modern History of Christianity

nospam@example.com (Waheed) — Wed, 21 May 2008 18:33:23 +0000

Gary Miller discusses the history of Christianity, and how Jesus(pbuh) was portrayed by his contemporaries and how his image was changed to a divine being.

A Concise Reply to Christianity

nospam@example.com (Waheed) — Wed, 21 May 2008 18:26:51 +0000

Gary Miller discusses the topic of divinity of Jesus(pbuh).

A Rejoinder to James Part 2B (NEW)

nospam@example.com (Waheed) — Mon, 12 May 2008 22:42:45 +0000

Shabir Ally and James White Seattle, October 19, 2007

Topic: Was Jesus Christ Crucified as a Willing Sacrifice for the Sins of God’s People?

Rejoinder to White (Part 2B)

This is a my answer to a claim made by Dr. James’s R. White’s “Further Response to Shabir Ally (Part 2)” regarding my appeal to Raymond Brown. As for the other questions raised by James in that “Response,” I have already dealt with those in Part 2A of my “Rejoinder.”

Do my citations of Raymond Brown capture his nuances?

During the debate I drew attention to the fact that in the Marcan account Pilate, when first requested to release the crucified body of Jesus for burial, expressed amazement that Jesus had died so soon. It is obvious that Luke and Matthew make no mention of this. Why? For the answer, I drew on Raymond Brown who thinks that the reason Matthew and Luke omitted mention of this, is that readers of Mark learning of Pilate’s initial doubt may entertain the same doubt. Not wanting their own Gospels to contribute to such doubt, Matthew and Luke omitted mention of Pilate’s initial skepticism. Subsequent to the debate James has traced the matter to the relevant section of Reverend Brown’s book, and thinks he has discovered that I have overused this important reference. James writes:

      There is also a rather expansive use of Brown's own words here (The Death of the Messiah I: 1219-1222). Brown's comments are far more nuanced than "Matthew and Luke both rewrite the episode...in such a way as to omit mention that Pilate had this doubt." This is going well beyond even Brown's comments (p. 1222). Brown does not make the case Ally does here at all. In fact, some of his comments are:

            Overall, then, it was not impossible that Jesus died relatively quickly, and there is nothing egregiously unlikely about Pilate's reaction to Jesus' reported death in 15:44-45. (1222)

      In fact, when he then raises the question of what the "later Evangelists" thought of Mark's inclusion of this material, he refers to the idea that they had concerns about the apologetic impact of its inclusion as "not a perfect solution." Again, I refer the reader to Brown's own words, for Ally is putting far too much weight upon these comments.

These comments from James have prompted me to review the section of Brown’s book. The section is actually found in the second volume, but the above typo is inconsequential. The page numbering is continuous from the first volume, and James has correctly noted the page numbers of the section in question. I hope the following analysis will help to shed light on whether or not my appeal to this source was faithful, and whether or not James’ own reference to this text is accurate.

On page 1219, Brown begins the section with the following subject heading:

      Pilate’s Reaction to Joseph’s Request (15:44-45).

By this he indicates that this section is a study of Pilate’s reaction as mentioned in Mark’s Gospel (15:44-45). Because readers of Brown are expected to have these verses in view, it would not be out of place to have them appear here:

      But Pilate was amazed that he had already died; and having called over the centurion, he questioned him if [Jesus] was dead for some time And having come to know from the centurion, [Pilate] granted the corpse to Joseph (15:44-45 Brown’s translation).

In his first sentence in this section of his book, Brown introduces the specific problem he will discuss:

      A common contention is that in all or in part these verses were added to Mark by a redactor for apologetic purposes, i.e., to prove by the double witness of Pilate and the centurion that Jesus was truly dead, so that his resurrection was not simply a resuscitation from a coma. (The Death of the Messiah II: 1219-1222)

Brown then explains the position of the scholars who contend that these verses were added into Mark’s Gospel by a later redactor. Their main argument is that these verses are missing from both Matthew and Luke, and therefore they must have been absent from the copy of Mark’s Gospel which was used by Matthew and Luke.

In response to this position, Brown examines the style and vocabulary of the disputed two verses and cautions that “one cannot settle the redactional question by appealing to style or vocabulary” (p. 1221). He adds that some of the analyzed features seem unMarkan, but these “are outnumbered by distinctively Markan words and patterns” (1221). He concludes: “Overall it seems more logical to posit that Mark wrote the passage than to introduce a redactor who imitated Mark so closely” (1221).

Brown then turns to another argument that relates to the plausibility of what these verses relate. He sets out to address this issue while noting that he does not see how the plausibility of what the verses relate will help in deciding the question of who wrote the passage. The most one might say, is that if the content of these verses is thoroughly implausible then this may explain why both Matthew and Luke decided to omit them. He adds, however, that “few have argued in that way, for the action is not thoroughly implausible” (1221).

To support his conclusion, already given in advance, that the action of Pilate as described in the verses is not thoroughly implausible, Brown then addresses the question: Would Pilate “have been likely to check on the death of a criminal”? (1221). He adds that we do not know how a Roman governor might have acted, but the author of John’s Gospel “did not think it implausible to have a Roman soldier test to see if Jesus was dead” (1221). Here Brown is obviously referring to the spear thrust, or prod, as reported in John 19:32-34. He adds a note about the Jewish attitude to this question. Brown’s note 41 reads:

      Mishna Yebamot 16.3 shows how cautions the rabbis were: Even if a person was publicly crucified, evidence establishing death may be offered only after an interval for the soul to have gone out of the body. (Brown, II, p. 1221, note 41)

The next question Brown address that may shed light on the plausibility of Pilate’s reported action is the length of time Jesus was on the cross: “Was the length of time that Jesus had hung on the cross so short that his death might have amazed an authority?” From Mark’s Gospel Brown gathers that “Jesus was on the cross some six hours before he died” (1222). He notes that Seneca “takes it for granted that the crucified could last a long time,” and that according to Origen “it was not rare for the crucified to survive the whole night and the next day” (1222). This means that Jesus died “sooner than most” crucified victims, and judging from John’s Gospel he died “sooner than” the two others who were crucified along with him (1222). Brown concludes:

      That factor could have amazed the governor, making him suspicious that a deceit was being practiced. (1222)

On the other side of the coin, Brown gives reasons that would support the plausibility of an early death. Crucified men lasted different lengths of time depending on their own state of health, the severity of the torture they received prior to crucifixion, and the manner in which they were crucified (whether they were nailed, and whether their bodies rested on supports). That some may die sooner than others is seen in Josephus’ report:

      Josephus tells of seeing three of his friends hanging on crosses; he went and told Titus, who gave orders that they should be taken down; two of them died while under treatment of physicians, while the third survived. (1222)

Brown asks his readers to note here “how the chief Roman official responds to a request about the crucified” (1222). Brown concludes this paragraph:

      Overall, then, it was not impossible that Jesus died relatively quickly, and there is nothing egregiously unlikely about Pilate’s reaction to Jesus’ reported death in 15:44-45. (1222)

The one major question that remains for Brown to answer if he is to insist that Mark 15:44-45 was not added to the Gospel by a later hand, as some scholars contend, is as follows: “How could Matt[hew] and Luke independently have been led to omit the passage?” (1222). Brown begins his answer with the observation that a similar omission of two verses has occurred in the story of the young man who fled naked from the scene of Jesus’ arrest. Brown writes: “Apparently each evangelist found the scene too scandalous a portrait of a disciple to retain” (1222). In the present case about Pilate’s surprise, most scholars who hold that the two verses were added by a later redactor contend that the addition was for “apologetic purposes to show that Jesus was truly dead” (1222). Brown continues:

      Did the later evangelists think that the apologetics had backfired by even raising the question of the truth of Jesus’ death and by showing that a Roman governor doubted it? That independently such a reaction could have caused each evangelist to omit this passage from Mark is not a perfect solution, but in my judgment it is more likely than the theory that a shadowy redactor (otherwise not well established) added the verses to Mark early enough for them to appear in all known copies but after Matt and Luke had drawn upon the Gospel. (1222)

With that statement, Brown ends the section.

Now, it should be clear that Brown is dealing in the whole section with a very specific problem: the contention of those scholars who hold that the two verses in which Pilate is shown to have initially doubted the death of Jesus. They claim that since Matthew and Luke were drawing upon Mark’s Gospel in composing their own Gospels, the fact that they did not copy these two verses is proof that these two verses did not exist in the copy of Mark’s Gospel they were using. Otherwise, they argue, both Matthew and Luke would not have independently chosen to omit these verses from their own Gospels.

In answering these scholars, Brown examined the vocabulary and style of the two verses to show that though these are not definite indicators, they nevertheless point to Mark as the author. Next, he dealt with the plausibility of Pilate’s reaction to see if perhaps both Matthew and Luke may have omitted the story on the presumption that Pilate could not have reacted in the manner as reported by Mark. But Brown shows here that there are two sides to this question of the plausibility of Pilate’s reaction. On one side of the coin, Jesus was reported to have died so early that Pilate, on hearing the news, may have suspected that some deception was at work. On the other side of the coin, it is not impossible that Jesus could have died so soon. These two sides of the coin would explain both actions of Pilate: first, his questioning the death of Jesus; and, second, his subsequent granting the release of the body for burial.

Since the story as it stands in Mark is not implausible, this could not have been grounds for Matthew and Luke to have each independently omitted the story. What then were their grounds? Brown sheds light on this question by showing that in another instance, that of the naked disciple, both Matthew and Luke omitted the narrative due, apparently, to its scandalous nature. In the story of Pilate’s doubt, likewise, it may have seemed to these two Gospel writers that what Mark has written may be causing his readers to entertain a doubt similar to Pilate’s initial doubt. Whereas other scholars hold that these verses were inserted into Mark for the apologetic purpose of proving that Jesus was dead, Brown maintains that these may have been written by Mark himself for the same purpose. Then Matthew and Luke may have omitted them because of their perception that the apologetics is backfiring: rather than give confidence that Jesus died, the story is now causing some doubt about his death.

In sum, for Brown the choices are reduced to one of these two views on the reason for the story to not appear in Matthew and Luke even though it appears in Mark:

   1. Mark himself wrote the verses, but Matthew and Luke omitted them because they thought that they are now counterproductive to the apologetic intent of proving that Jesus was truly dead.
   2. Matthew and Luke used a copy of Mark’s Gospel that did not contain the two verses. The verses were later inserted into Mark’s Gospel by some shadowy redactor. The edition which Matthew and Luke used are now lost to us.

According to Brown, the first of these two views is not a perfect solution to the problem, but it is better than the alternative. The problem he sees with the second view is that it requires the belief in a shadowy redactor who is otherwise not well attested. Moreover, it requires that we believe that the verses were added to Mark at such an opportune time as to now appear in all copies of Mark’s Gospel known to us, but not in the copy which was known to Matthew and Luke.

This summary of the relevant section of Brown’s book, and the exposition of his final paragraph within that section should help us evaluate James’ claims. As seen above, James writes:

      Brown's comments are far more nuanced than "Matthew and Luke both rewrite the episode...in such a way as to omit mention that Pilate had this doubt." This is going well beyond even Brown's comments (p. 1222). Brown does not make the case Ally does here at all.

It should be obvious from the above summary and exposition, however, that this is precisely the case that Brown is making. To capture all of Brown’s nuances took many pages to describe. But his position can be rightly summed up in the very words to which James objects: "Matthew and Luke both rewrite the episode ... in such a way as to omit mention that Pilate had this doubt." If James feels that there is a more efficient manner of summarizing Brown’s position that will capture some essential nuance that I happened to miss I would be interested in knowing what that is.

James’ summary treatment of what Brown was dealing with hardly captures the problem:

      In fact, when [Raymond Brown] then raises the question of what the "later Evangelists" thought of Mark's inclusion of this material, he refers to the idea that they had concerns about the apologetic impact of its inclusion as "not a perfect solution."

It is true that Brown said that this is not a perfect solution. But what was the problem for which this is a solution? And what is the other solution which Brown would have to choose if he gives up this imperfect one? James does not say. The problem, as I have explained above, is that there needs to be an explanation for the omission of this material in Matthew and Luke. Moreover, from James’ summary one would not learn that this is actually Brown’s own solution to the problem. One might be excused for wondering if in fact Brown is distancing himself from this particular solution. The fact is that this is his solution, and, to him, though it is not a perfect solution, it is certainly better than the alternative. But certainly James is not recommending the alternative, which posits that the two verses in question is a later insertion into the Gospel of Mark.

Hence I do not believe that I omitted anything significant by not mentioning that this is not a perfect solution. To begin with, hardly any historical reconstruction is a perfect one. This goes without saying, and one does not need to mention it. That Brown mentioned it is fine, given the detailed treatment he affords everything in his book. But a summary treatment can omit this nuance without consequence unless one wants to ignore the substance of the argument and quibble over inconsequential details.

Second, if one mentions that this is not a perfect solution one then assumes the obligation of explaining to readers what the alternative solution is, and why it is not acceptable. In the context of live debate, one will have to explain the whole discussion from Brown’s book to the audience. But this would not only be impossible given the time constraints, but quite unnecessary. It was enough to say that according to Brown Matthew and Luke rewrote the episode about Pilate to omit from their own Gospels any mention that Pilate initially doubted that Jesus died so soon.

James draws attention to the fact that Brown wrote:

      Overall, then, it was not impossible that Jesus died relatively quickly, and there is nothing egregiously unlikely about Pilate's reaction to Jesus' reported death in 15:44-45. (1222)

The words are correctly reproduced, but the meaning seems to be missed. The second word in that citation shows this to be a conclusion from a preceding discussion. James does not say what specifically Brown was discussing. As I have explained above, Brown had just finished explaining the two sides to the question of the plausibility of Pilate’s doubting the report about Jesus’ death. Brown’s summary of that discussion, as reproduced by James, may be understood as follows. On one side of the coin, “it was not impossible that Jesus died relatively quickly,” for various victims took various lengths of time to die depending on their general state of health, the degree of pre-crucifixion torture they receive, and the manner in which they are hung on the cross. On the other side of the coin, “there is nothing egregiously unlikely about Pilate's reaction to Jesus' reported death” since in fact he died sooner than most crucified victims, including the two who hung beside him” (1221-22).

For Brown, it is this latter side of the coin that accounts for Pilate’s question, since Brown concludes that Pilate’s question was not implausible. Hence, while it was not impossible that Jesus died so soon, it may have still appeared initially to Pilate that a possible deception was at work in the report of Jesus’ death.

I may add here that I never claimed that Brown said that the death of Jesus was impossible at the time. Hence James certainly could not have intended this citation to be a counter to anything I claimed. But there is a vast difference between ‘the possible’ and ‘the likely’. Not everything that is possible is likely. If we accept that it is not impossible that Jesus had died, that does not mean we accept that Jesus definitely died, or that it is even likely that he died.

A Rejoinder to James Part 2A(NEW)

nospam@example.com (Waheed) — Mon, 12 May 2008 22:38:35 +0000

Shabir Ally and James White Seattle, October 19, 2007

Topic: Was Jesus Christ Crucified as a Willing Sacrifice for the Sins of God’s People?

Rejoinder to White (Part 2A)

This is a rejoinder to Dr. James R. White’s “Further Response to Shabir Ally (Part 2)” except for the question James has raised therein about my appeal to Raymond Brown. I deal with that specific question in Part 2B of this series of rejoinders.

Remaining Questions on the Meaning of salaba (to crucify)

Dr. White asks where I get the idea that salaba means merely to hang upon a cross without this being a means of execution. I think I have already explained that it was the classical Quran commentators who treated the verb with this meaning. For my part, I have used the verb to indicate the act of killing by means of hanging on a cross. As far as I can tell, James is not disputing but rather supporting the meaning I have applied. His quarrel on this score seems to be not with me, but with those who hold to the classical view that someone else was put on the cross instead of Jesus.

Hence my thanks are due to James for providing dictionary support for the meaning of the verb salaba as indicating a method of execution. He is puzzled, however, by the Omar’s Dictionary of the Holy Quran. I confess that I am not familiar with this dictionary, and from James’ description of its contents I fail to see what is puzzling about it. It seems that the dictionary consistently applies the meaning of ‘hanging on a cross till death’ in all the Quranic uses of the verb. It appears that James’s puzzle is over the fact that the dictionary translates Quran 4:157 as, “They did not cause (his) death by crucifixion.” But the negation of ‘till death’ here is due to the fact that in this verse the action of the verb is negated. Hence the dictionary remains consistent.

Meanwhile, I have clarified, in earlier responses to James, how salaba ‘to crucify’ may be used generally, and the specific meaning it takes on in the Quran. I trust that it will be clear from what I wrote, especially in Part One of this rejoinder, that there are two meanings of ‘to crucify’. Mark’s Gospel says that it was the third hour when they crucified Jesus (Mark 15:24). But Jesus did not expire until about the ninth hour. ‘They crucified Jesus’ here does not mean ‘they killed Jesus’, but merely ‘they hanged Jesus on the cross’. The classical Muslim exegetes would deny that ‘they hung Jesus on the cross’. But I do not deny this. Hence I do not deny that ‘they crucified Jesus’ in the meaning with which Mark used the term in this instance. But I do deny that they killed Jesus by crucifixion. Hence I maintain with Mark that they hung him on the cross in the hope that he would die on the cross; and I maintain with the Quran that their hope did not materialize.

James denies that the second denial in the verse, ‘they did not crucify him’, takes on a concessive meaning. I agree. As I have explained, in the verse the verb qatala means ‘to kill by means other than crucifixion’; and salaba means ‘to kill by crucifixion’. Both acts of killing are denied. The second denial does not make a concession to the first. It simply means in sum that the Jewish opponents of Jesus killed him neither by their usual means of stoning nor by the Roman means of crucifixion. This meaning was not clear to early exegetes of the Quran. But nothing should prevent us from seeing its clarity now.

My exposition, according to James, is a minimalist view, an attempt to make the verse say as little as possible. According to him my view has the advantage of being “far easier to defend” than “the view dogmatically expounded in much of Islam today.” But to him my view became necessary because the verse is “not clear, but confusing, muddled, and without context.” In response, I have shown that the confusion is not due to the text, but to the expositions of it which failed to consider the meaning of the verb salaba as it occurs in the Quran. Once the meaning of the verb as it occurs everywhere else in the Quran is applied also in 4:157, the said verse becomes clear. It also seems that a part of the confusion James is experiencing is due to that fact that the exposition I have advanced is true to the Quran and yet it does not deny anything that is reasonably established in any historical reminiscence regarding Jesus. Against the classical Muslim view James has a ready defense; against mine he has no reasonable defense.

Some Christian scholars who seek rapprochement between Islam and Christianity have suggested that the Quran does not deny that Jesus was crucified, but only that the Jews crucified him. They point out that the fact is that crucifixion was a Roman form of execution, and this is proof enough that it was the Romans, and not the Jews, who killed him. In that case, they grant that the Quranic statement is true. I do not deny the possibility that this interpretation could be correct. However, I believe that the interpretation I have advanced has much more in its favour, and it remains my preference.

Is there a normative translation of Quran 3:55 and of 19:33 that I refuse to accept?

To answer this question, I would have to first know what the “normative” translations of these verses are. As for 3:55, the use of the verb tawaffa is ambiguous. The verb technically means to 'receive' or 'to take hold of'. But it is commonly used as a euphemism to signify a person 'being taken in death' or more simply 'to die'. Hence it is possible to find a translation that says here that God took Jesus and raised him to himself, and another that says that God caused Jesus to die and then raised him to himself. Which is the normative translation that James is asking about? There is no normative translation of this verse as far as I can tell.

Quran 19:33 has Jesus speaking early in life, when he says, "Peace be on me the day I was born, the day I shall die, and the day I shall be raised alive." There is hardly any dispute over the translation of this verse. The translation remains the same whether one accepts the view that Jesus died, or that Jesus was raised to heaven without having died. The difference in this case is over the interpretation of the verse, or for that matter, over its common translation. Does it mean that Jesus already died as did John the Baptist (Yahya) who made a similar declaration about himself? Or does it mean that when he returns to earth he will eventually die and subsequently be raised on the Day of Judgment as will John the Baptist whose declaration about himself could only refer to this last day? Hence it turns out that what James really wants me to accept here is not merely the normative translation, which I already accept, but one of the two varied interpretations.

James is, nevertheless, correct in his assessment that had it not been for Quran 4:157 it would not have become a part of Muslim dogma to deny that Jesus was killed by his enemies. We may have had other reasons for denying that Jesus died on the cross, but such a denial would not have been seen as a requirement of our faith. James further objects elsewhere that it is unreasonable to build such a doctrine on a single verse of the Quran. He compares the Christian approach which does not rest a significant point of doctrine on a single verse of the Bible. I believe, however, that James is incorrect here both about Christian doctrine and about his comparison of the Bible with the Quran.

First, an important Christian doctrine may, in principle, rest on a single Bible verse. How many times does God have to say something for it to be taken as true? It so happens, however, that once a doctrine is settled numerous verses of the Bible may be cited in its support regardless of the reasons that led to its initial acceptance. If the supporting verses are then examined closely, it will sometimes be found that they do not quite support the said doctrine.

Second, the comparison between the two books is not valid in this one respect. For Muslims every verse of the Quran is absolutely the Word of God. For Christians, a verse of the Bible is not necessarily the Word of God. Many verses which are included in the Bible are considered by James, for example, to be later additions into the Bible. Hence it would be reasonably cautious of Christians not to depend on a single verse for an important doctrine. On the other hand, Muslims, given their uncompromising belief in every verse of the Quran, will continue to accept in principle that the Quran only has to say something once for it to be taken seriously. We do grant, however, that those statements which are repeated in the Quran probably state beliefs which are to be taken as relatively more important than statements which are made only once. Since the denial that Jesus was killed by his enemies was made only once, this belief is relatively less important than the belief that there is only one God, a belief which is stated repeatedly.

The main question in this context is the relationship between this set of verses and how they may be read in the light of each other. As we have shown, a reasonable interpretation of Quran 4:157 yields the belief that Jesus was not killed by his enemies and that he did not die on the cross. Moreover, the following verse (4:158) says that God raised Jesus to himself, and this statement is presented as the alternative to Jesus being killed or crucified.

We have already mentioned that 3:55 has an ambiguous meaning as reflected in various translations. The ambiguity is due to the use of the verb tawaffa which has a technical meaning, ‘to receive’; and a popular use, ‘to receive in death’. Reading this in conjunction with 4:157, the reason for the use of this ambiguous term becomes clear. In 4:157 we learn that Jesus appeared to be dead. Hence for the populace Jesus was dead. But for the select few Jesus was alive. The use of the term tawaffa which has a dual interpretation is due to the two ways in which Jesus’ exit from the world may be perceived. For those who evaluate the story from the point of view of naturalism, Jesus died. But from the point of view of the faith of Muslims and Christians, he is alive.

Quran 19:33 announces in advance that he will die some time between the announcement and the Day of Judgment, but does not specify at what point in this long interval the death will occur. One may presume on the basis of this verse alone that Jesus died as humans usually do. And there is nothing in 3:55 to count against this natural presumption. On the contrary, it will find support in one interpretation of 3:55 which takes tawaffa with its popular meaning.

But the combination of 4:157 and 158 does seem to count against the view that Jesus died a natural death, although this too does not preclude such an event. One may assume that after Jesus survived the cross, as seems to be indicated by 4:157, Jesus eventually died and was raised by God to heaven. But a Muslim who does not balk at the miraculous sees little reason to posit the death of Jesus prior to the heavenly ascension. Hence the common interpretation that holds off on Jesus’ death as a future event is not totally unfounded, and does not fail to consider the verses cited by James.

The Quran’s Combination of Clear and Unclear Verses?

The Quran's repeated assertion is about its own clarity. Yet, as even Muslims can attest, the Quran is often far from clear. This appears to be a contradiction which James naturally exploits. But in his repeated emphasis on this point he fails to take account of my answer to this as already given in the debate. I am not demanding that he agrees with my answer, for his agreement can only be assured based on the persuasiveness of my case. And it is up to me to work at clarifying what remains unpersuasive. That, however, would be greatly facilitated if James would acknowledge my answer and show what parts of it fails to make the grade.

As I have explained, the Quran, in addition to saying that it is a clear book also says that it contains a combination of clear and unclear verses (Quran 3:7). Moreover, we are to follow the clear verses and guard against those of evil intent who may use the unclear verses to cause dissention. Hence the presence of ambiguous verses in the Quran is no surprise to the Quran itself.

We may add that the Quran accomplishes its objectives through this combination of clear and unclear verses. There are some aspects of Muslim belief which must be made extremely clear. And there are other aspects of faith and practice which may be left to be worked out either in the life and teachings of the prophet, or in the thinking of exegetes, theologians, and other Muslims. As a general rule, it seems that the more clarity the Quran gives to a question, the more important it is for Muslims; whereas the more ambiguous the more accommodated are a variety of views.

There are three main beliefs hammered out in the Quran:

   1. that there is no god but God:
   2. that God has communicated to humans through human prophets, and now again through the prophet Muhammad; and
   3. that God will hold humans responsible for their deeds which will be judged on the Last Day, following which rewards and punishments will be meted out.

These are the cornerstones of the Muslim faith, and there can be no doubt about their clarity in the Quran. This does not mean that the details of these beliefs are all spelled out. But we can be sure that God does not hold us responsible for more than we can reasonably know. Hence that which is not clarified is not accountable for. This combination creates a unity within a diversity. Muslims are free to hold a variety of views while remaining united on the basic beliefs which are so well documented in the sacred text.

One can describe more of the benefits of this duality in the Quran, but enough has been said here in the context of the present discussion between James and me. My purpose here is to establish that the presence of some ambiguity about the story of Jesus’ crucifixion is precisely because it is not necessary for all Muslims to hold to a singular view of what happened. The second of the three beliefs listed above implies the belief in prophets, but it does not require Muslims to hold a particular view of how each prophet died.

Do I Apply Dual Standards of Evidence?

One of James’ main concerns is that I apply a higher standard of evidence when evaluating Christianity than when I evaluate Islam. His case in point this time is that I am demanding proof that Jesus actually died at the time when the Gospels say he died. James asserts that if I were to demand the same level of evidence for the Prophet Muhammad’s observance of the practices of Islam as I now observe them I will find such evidence lacking. In that case, he adds, such an enquiry will result in my “throwing out the vast majority of Islamic piety and practice.” On the other hand, James seems to be hoping that if I keep to such Islamic piety and practice then I will “have to admit that the evidence in support of the crucifixion of Jesus is overwhelmingly superior.”

To begin with, this argument falls under the fallacy known as ad hominem. If James is successful in showing that I apply two standards in demanding evidence he does not thereby supply the demanded evidence. The discussion in fact points to his failure to supply the evidence. He detracts from this failure by arguing, in essence, that the person who made the demand for evidence normally accepts poor evidence, and therefore he ought not to raise his standard of evidence in this case. As I have explained in a paper following the Biola debate, James cannot hope to prove his case using a known fallacy.

It is important, however, to take note of the evidence by which Islamic piety and practice is linked to the prophet. First, there are many grades of actions included under this broad rubric of Islamic piety and practice. Some actions are ‘obligatory’ on one end of the spectrum; others are ‘neutral’ at the other end. The term ‘neutral’ here is at the point where negative acts begin. For positive acts, then, above ‘neutral acts’ there are ‘recommended acts’, ‘prophetic acts’, ‘essential acts’, and finally, ‘obligatory acts’. A major determinant of where in this classification system an act falls is the quality of the evidence that links the act to the practice of the prophet. Hence some acts are neutral because there is no evidence linking it to the prophet, or else the evidence is ambiguous; hence it does not matter if the acts are done or omitted. Other acts are merely recommended because the evidence that links them to the prophet is slightly better than that for neutral acts. Yet other acts are ‘prophetic acts’ because they are based on clear evidence of the Prophet’s practice. Above these are ‘essential acts’ which are so well attested that a Muslim cannot omit them without negative consequences. Highest on the scale are the ‘obligatory acts’ for which the highest level of evidence is demanded.

This classification system alone is evidence that as a Muslim I should care a lot for the manner in which a matter is established on evidence. But if those are the categories of positive acts, there are also categories of evidence. The Quran is the strongest evidence. Close to that are those hadiths which are so multiply attested as to make their falsity unreasonable to assert. Next are the hadiths which are not as multiply attested as the former group. In this latter group, the hadiths have to be each tested for their chain of narrators as well as their narrative content. The chain of narrators of each hadith must be continuous from the prophet to the final narrator or compiler. This means that the life-spans of each person in the chain must be known to have overlapped with the adjacent person on either side. A broken link renders the chain void. A weak link renders it questionable. A person in such a chain would be declared weak if a comparison of his narratives with those of others reveals that his narratives tend to vary from what is otherwise well attested without him.

The system is not foolproof, but that it is so elaborate is evidence of a high level of concern for evidence. Hence there is no reason for me to throw out the vast majority of Islamic piety and practice. On the other hand, suppose we were to approach the materials about Jesus with demands for the same level of evidence to establish what Jesus said and did. Mark’s Gospel, the shortest of the four found in the New Testament, is composed of 105 sections. Each of these may be considered as a hadith. If we were to apply the same level of scrutiny as we do for hadith, we would demand of Mark to name the person from whom he received each of these 105 sections, and to name also the persons from whom they in turn received the information all the way back to Jesus. If Mark is an unknown person, as many scholars think he is, then the test fails immediately even before we begin to ask for his informers. In any event, he does not name his informers.

Most scholars today hold that the Gospel of Mark was not written by a disciple of Jesus; and would doubt the claim that this Gospel was written from the memories of Peter who was a disciple. They would also hold that Matthew and Luke based their narratives on Mark’s Gospel. For such scholars, this is an indication that Matthew likewise is not a disciple of Jesus, for a disciple would not have depended on a non-eyewitness instead of giving his very own testimony of what he saw and heard. Luke’s Gospel has never been credited to a disciple of Jesus, but to the physician of Paul. Neither Paul nor his physician has been established as eyewitnesses of Jesus. John’s Gospel is regarded by its most recent premier scholar as combining historical recollections about Jesus as well as later material so interwoven that one cannot with certainty extract the actual sayings of Jesus from it. From this brief description it becomes obvious that the links from Jesus to the Gospels are either broken or weak. If as a Muslim I am even going to give the Gospels a fair reading I must begin by lowering my standards of evidence in their case while maintaining the usual standard in dealing with Islamic piety and practice.

Is this a job for the CSI team?

I welcome the humorous touch in James’ characterization of my position as a demand for Gill Grissom to have been at the side of the cross “to provide a medical examination before accepting the rather obvious fact that Jesus was dead.” I agree that it would be nonsensical to demand a fictional character to conduct a real medical examination. But my contention remains that a medical examination properly conducted would have given us reasonable assurance that Jesus was truly dead before he appeared alive again in flesh and bone. Given the Gospel records, it does not seem that such a medical examination was conducted. On the other hand, the centurion who assured the Governor of the death of Jesus did so while Jesus was still hanging on the cross, while the others who were crucified with him were still alive, and prior to his receiving the spear thrust. Hence the assurance of Jesus’ death which the Governor received from the centurion was not, as far as we can tell, based on any reasonable ground. Since no vital organ of Jesus was pierced by prior to this, we are left with no assurance that the centurion had good indicators of Jesus’ death. Nor is the spear thrust, which John’s Gospel alone reports, considered by most scholars to be historical. Hence it still is the case that no vital organ of Jesus was pierced.

We may ask what the centurion may have witnessed. According to Mark’s Gospel Jesus was hung on the cross at the third hour (Mark 15:24). Then there was darkness over the entire land for three hours from the sixth hour to the ninth hour. At the ninth hour Jesus shouted: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34). Some of the bystanders thought he was calling on Elijah to come and take him down. They ran and gave him a drink of sour wine from a sponge which they raised to his mouth on a lance. Then Jesus uttered another loud cry and expired (Mark 15:37). The veil of the temple tore in two. The centurion had been standing there opposite Jesus, and, “having seen that he thus expired, said, “Truly this man was God’s Son” (Mark 15:39). The narrative then shifts away from the centurion, and the next we hear from him is when Joseph of Arimathea requested Pilate to grant him the body of Jesus for burial. Mark reads:

      But Pilate was amazed that he had already died; and having called over the centurion, he questioned him if [Jesus] was dead for some time And having come to know from the centurion, [Pilate] granted the corpse to Joseph (15:44-45).

We do not have the actual words in which the centurion responded. Nor can we know if he even used words, or whether Pilate drew the conclusion from the centurion’s non-verbal clues. James has shown that the Governor here used a solemn demand for an answer, and I must defer to his knowledge of the Greek text. Yet I believe that James goes too far in attributing to the centurion these words: “Yes, he’s dead.” The statement is not unreasonable to imagine of the centurion. Yet, under the circumstances, this is not the only possible response imaginable.

We may still, therefore, go over the records to ascertain what the centurion actually saw. If this is not a Crime Scene Investigation where we get down and dirty with chemical tests, I would suggest that this is a sort of Cold Case Investigation where we go over the past records of a crime. What did the centurion see? We can recount the events from Mark’s brief narrative above. First, there was darkness for three hours. Jesus shouted the famous cry of dereliction. He is given a drink. He screams again. He expires. The veil of the temple was torn in two. The centurion saw that he had thus expired. Which of these events killed Jesus?

Unless the drink was poisoned, there is nothing in the narrative to show that anything the centurion saw could have been the cause of Jesus’ death. Nor does the text say that the centurion or any Roman representative gave the body a post-mortem examination of even the most rudimentary sort. At the time of the centurion’s testimony, Jesus was still affixed to the cross. Hence his pulse could not have been felt without special effort, and none is reported. Presumably, he was out of reach, as Jesus’ last drink had to be raised up to his mouth on a soaked sponge fixed to the end of a lance. What, then, did the centurion see that would have been taken as a definite sign that Jesus was already dead? Jesus was only recently screaming something meaningful, and bystanders offered him a drink. Obviously he was very much alive. We can only suggest that after the final scream, or in mid-scream, Jesus suddenly collapsed. And the centurion thought he died. But this is hardly an unmistakable sign of his death. Can we therefore rely on the testimony of the centurion which was apparently based on no more than the outward appearance of Jesus’ body?

How did crucified victims usually die?

To know what sort of evidence we are looking for to verify the death of Jesus, we must first gain some understanding of the process of crucifixion, and how it causes death. It is not clear to us now what precisely the physiological causes of death by crucifixion were. But we may delineate two distinct views:

   1. Some scholars believe that after hanging for long enough the victim dies from dehydration and shock.
   2. Others believe that the victim finds it difficult to exhale when his body sags. When he is no longer able to straighten out his body, he is no longer able to exhale much, and his lungs eventually fill up with carbon dioxide leading to asphyxiation.

In either case, the victim must hang for some considerable time. Usually the victim would remain on the cross for a couple of days until he dies.

Sometimes the legs of the crucified victims would be broken. The purpose of this is likewise not clear. On the first view above, this would serve to cripple the individual to prevent his eventual crawling out of his tomb in case he were buried. On the second view, crurifragium would prevent the person from straightening out his body on the cross, as his knees would no longer support him. Hence he asphyxiates more quickly.

Usually, crucified victims were not buried. They were left on the cross to be eaten by dogs and vultures. Sometimes, however, they may be given a burial.

It is a reasonable assumption that, regardless of the specific cause of death, crucified victims usually died. They either died on the cross from dehydration or from asphyxiation. Moreover, judging from John’s Gospel and from a historian, the crucified victim may also be speared in the side. Such a thrust could penetrate a vital organ thus leading to death.

Given the experience of the Romans in applying this horrible method of execution, victims can hardly expect to survive. And anyone hearing that a certain person was crucified would naturally conclude, without needing to be told, that the person died. There were of course exceptions. But the unusual nature of such exceptions meant that it would be unreasonable to assume that a victim survived, and it demanded that if a person did survive this would have to be stated explicitly.

As James is never tired of reminding us, the plain statement in the New Testament and in the writings of historians from the period is that Jesus died by crucifixion. Hence anyone claiming that he survived the cross would have to show why this unanimous testimony is not reliable, and how it might have been possible for Jesus to beat the odds.

We may begin by summarizing how the odds are usually stacked up against the victim to show why it was not stacked up in the same way against Jesus. If the victim was left to hang for a several days he would certainly die. According to the Gospels, Jesus was on the cross for only a few hours. If the legs of the victims were broken, this would either hasten death or prevent a person who survived the cross from crawling out of his tomb. According to John’s Gospel, Jesus’ legs were not broken. If the victim were speared, a vital organ may be pierced, thus leading to his death. But Jesus, pace John’s Gospel, was not speared. If the victim were left on the cross long enough the birds and beasts would devour his body thus guaranteeing his death. But Jesus’ body was not left on the cross to be devoured; it was given a burial. If a victim was buried in a shallow grave the dogs will dig him up and devour him; if in a deep grave the dirt piled upon him would stifle him. In either case he definitely dies. Instead, Jesus was entombed in a chamber that was large enough for several persons to go inside, apparently all at once (see Luke 24:3, 10). It does not seem likely that one would quickly suffocate in such a chamber. Moreover, we may note that even though the entrance of the tomb was initially blocked by a large stone, the stone was soon discovered removed (Matthew 28:2; Mark 16:3; and Luke 24:2).

It is clear from the preceding that there was not a single definite cause of death in every case of crucifixion. There were multiple causes of death. The victim usually died one way or another. He either suffocated or went into shock following dehydration. If he was left hanging he would be ingested by birds and beasts; if buried in a shallow grave, then by the dogs alone. If he was buried in a deep grave the weight of the soil will crush him. Hence if we hear of a person being crucified we can safely assume that he died from one or more of these causes. What is remarkable, however, is that the Gospel records show that none of these causes of death apply to Jesus.

I do not propose to know what happened, but usually on CSI and in real life we would assume that the time of a person’s death is some time after he was last seen alive. The Gospels report that Jesus was seen alive after the crucifixion. Luke informs us that he still had flesh and bone. If it could be proven that he really died before this, and that these reports of his reappearance from the dead are reliable, then we should conclude that a genuine miracle occurred. Otherwise, we should either conclude that Jesus did not die on the cross, or that the reports of his post-mortem appearances are mistaken. It is not up to Muslims to construct an alternative scenario that would account for all the Gospel narratives, for Muslims do not have any reason to press the case any more than this. On the other hand, I have already explained the logic that demands that Christian Apologists prove that Jesus really rose from the dead. And this necessitates a proof that he really died in the first place. To construct such a proof, they have to discount every reasonable alternative scenario as possible explanations for the facts of the case.

My Rejoinder to James

nospam@example.com (Waheed) — Mon, 12 May 2008 22:35:06 +0000

Shabir Ally and James White Seattle, October 19, 2007
Topic: Was Jesus Christ Crucified as a Willing Sacrifice for the Sins of God’s People?
A Rejoinder to James (Part 1)

In response to my Report on the Seattle Debate, Dr. James R. White has published some responses. I here offer a rejoinder to his “Further Response to Shabir Ally (Part 1)”. I hope that James and I are not simply being contentious with all of these rebuttals and counter-rebuttals. Some students of comparative religion have urged me to answer the questions raised by Dr. White. I hope we will all benefit from the exchange of information and viewpoints. As is already quite clear, I do not know everything that there is to know about the subjects being discussed. I therefore welcome the opportunity to bounce my ideas out there and to learn from the responses I receive.

Definitions of ‘Crucifixion’

The term ‘crucifixion’ and its related forms have been used in a variety of contexts with varied meanings that need to be defined before we proceed. For our purposes here, ‘crucifixion’ has two meanings: (1) merely hanging a person on a cross; and (2) killing a person by hanging him on a cross.

Whichever of these two meanings is intended will have to be determined by context. We use the word in our writings sometimes with one meaning, and sometimes with the other meaning. This is unavoidable. Both James and I have done it. Even the Bible does it.

I have maintained that the classical interpreters of the Quran took the Quranic statement, ‘they did not crucify him’ in the first sense, whereas we should really take it in the second sense. Hence, they thought that the verse means, ‘they did not even hang him on a cross’; but we should really take the verse to mean ‘they did not kill him by hanging him on a cross’.

Which Interpretation is More Quranic?

All the Quranic uses of the verb salaba (to crucify) is in the second meaning identified above: to kill by means of impaling. In one instance (Quran 5:33), the verb salaba (to crucify) is juxtaposed with the verb qatala (to kill). The choice there is between killing a person and crucifying him. In that verse it is clear that whereas qatala (to kill) means ‘to kill by some unspecified means other than crucifixion’, salaba (to crucify) means ‘to kill by the specific means of crucifixion’. The juxtaposition of the two verbs in Quran 5:33 is similar to their juxtaposition in Quran 4:157. Hence a reasonable manner of translating the relevant portion of 4:157 is: “They neither killed him in general, nor did they kill him by the specific means of impalement on a cross.”

James wonders if the meaning should not conform to what the Jews had in mind when they boasted, as the verse says they did: “We killed the Messiah, Jesus Son of Mary” (Quran 4:157). Of course! This is precisely my point. They meant that they killed Jesus by the specific means of impalement. Hence the Quran is answering them on that score. “They did not crucify him,” means, “They did not kill him by impaling him on a cross.” As James noted, the Jews would never have meant by their boast to say that Jesus was “hung on a cross but not killed.” Again, this is precisely what I am arguing.

James has a further objection. If the Quran wanted to deny that Jesus died by crucifixion it seems odd for the Quran to say: “They neither killed him nor crucified him.” The answer to this objection becomes clear when we consider that the Quran is in continuous dialectic engagement with its readers. It answers possible objections as these may arise in the minds of its readers, even unstated objections. Let’s look at the bare verse for a moment and then suggest an amplification that will include some possible implicit objections:

That they said (in boast) "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary the Apostle of Allah"; whereas they killed him not nor crucified him but so it was made to appear to them. And those who differ therein are full of doubts with no (certain) knowledge but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. (Quran 4:157)

It seems to me that the conversation between the Quran and its readers in this verse may be thought of along the following lines:

QURAN: That they said (in boast) "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary the Apostle of Allah"; whereas they killed him not …
READER: But didn’t they kill him on the cross?
QURAN: nor crucified him …
READER: But the Gospels say he died on the cross!
QURAN: but so it was made to appear to them. And those who differ therein are full of doubts with no (certain) knowledge but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. (Quran 4:157)

It seems clear then, that the Quran answers the objections as they arise. This would explain why the Quran first states a general denial that those who were boasting in this manner killed Jesus; and followed it with a more specific denial that they crucified him. The first denial was of their explicit claim: “We have killed Jesus.” The second denial was of their implicit objection: “But we did crucify him.” This implicit objection means, of course, “We killed him by getting him crucified.” The second denial, then, means that they did not kill Jesus by crucifixion.

Is it Possible to Survive a Roman Crucifixion?

We can agree with James that the Romans were such good executioners that only a small percentage of persons would have survived their methods if we count on chance alone. James suggests “it would be fair to say that in 99.999% of the cases the Romans proved to be excellent executioners.” But even so, what are we saying? Something like ten in a million escaped with their lives due to sheer chance alone? Now if it is claimed about one of these persons that he was actually dead and came back to life should we not wonder if the rumours of his death were greatly exaggerated?

Even if we rely on chance alone, the fact that Jesus is believed to have been seen alive after the crucifixion may mean that he survived the attempt on his life, unless we have clear evidence that he died in the process. Rumours of his death have been greatly exaggerated, and were picked up by historians and ordinary folks. The rumour obviously took on a life of its own. Citing more persons who picked up the rumour is not the same as providing concrete evidence that Jesus was tested for signs of life prior to the presumption of his death.

But of course the odds in favour of victims surviving crucifixion increases if, as James writes, the victims are “purposefully taken down to try and save their lives at the request of a person of influence and power.” He adds that history records such an occurrence in the case of a few folks, most of whom died anyway. He maintains, however, that this was not the case with Jesus. Well, how do we know?

Pilate was a person of influence and power. Did he want Jesus dead? According to the Bible it was public knowledge that Pilate was determined to free Jesus, but the crowds threatened to report him to Caesar if he does. Pilate then reluctantly handed Jesus over to be crucified. Now, if there was a way to let Jesus escape with his life without leaving the Jewish opponents of Jesus with a case to present to Caesar this would accomplish, at least in part, what Pilate was trying to grant in the first place. This does not need to involve a conspiracy. If Pilate’s underlings just did the minimum that would be required of them no one specific person could receive blame; meanwhile, Jesus would have slipped through the system alive.

Pilate’s wife was another person of potential influence even if the extent of her power is not known. According to the Bible she was having nightmares on account of Jesus. Due to these nightmares she cautioned her husband against harming Jesus. By the way, where was the Governor’s wife on the night of Jesus’ entombment? We may suppose that she was with her husband. But then again, where was her husband?

The centurion who was apparently in charge of the crucifixion proceedings was another person of some influence, at least in declaring Jesus dead. He was already a professed believer in Jesus before making this declaration. After his profession of faith, what interest would he have in completing the act of killing Jesus? And, by the way, where was the centurion on the night of the entombment of Jesus?

To sum up, given the claim that Jesus appeared alive again in the flesh to his disciples, a sheer analysis of the Gospel records about the death of Jesus coupled with a little common sense leads us to suspect that his death was a gross misdiagnosis from a distance.

But having exercised our reason, we should not neglect our faith. The Muslim belief is that it was God’s will to save Jesus instead of letting him die at the hands of his enemies. The person of greatest power and influence in all of this was God himself. He has the power to subtly influence the minds of people to carry out his ends. And God could surely have given Jesus the endurance to live through the pain of being affixed to a cross. Hence, while it does not require a specific visible miracle for Jesus to have survived the crucifixion, Muslims will nevertheless affirm that it is by the grace of God that he was saved. And that grace must have worked in Jesus’ favour in many subtle ways. If James can have faith in the expertise of Roman executioners, Muslims have more reason to have faith in the chief executor of all affairs: God.

Are We Debating Only Because of Forty Arabic Words?

It is true that Muslims are Muslims due to the Quran, and that there would have been no Muslim-Christian debates without the Quran. It is also true that Muslims have become interested in denying that Jesus died by crucifixion due mainly to Quran 4:157. Yet I believe that James overstates the case by putting the blame on the words that constitute this verse.

If this verse did not exist, and if the Quran did not deny the crucifixion, and if the Quran asserted that Jesus died without specifying that he died by crucifixion, I would still debate James on whether or not Jesus really died at the time that the Gospels say that he did. For, even in that case, he could have survived the cross and died later. The question about his death is raised not only by the Quran, but by the claim that he was raised from the dead, and by the failure of the Gospels to present convincing evidence that Jesus was really dead to begin with.

Paul has compounded the problem. Paul made the resurrection of Jesus from the dead the crux of Christianity. For him, everything stands or falls on this one question: Did Jesus really rise from the dead? Paul, however, declared that Jesus died as a curse for us, which means that he is admitting that Jesus died under the curse of God. Now what reason do we have for believing that God would vindicate a person who died under his curse? None! Atheists have no reason to believe this because they start with the hypothesis that there would be no God to vindicate the accursed person (or to put him under a curse in the first place). Believers have no reason to suppose that God would want to vindicate a person who died under his curse. If anyone says that this accursed person actually came back to life after he was once dead, and he was thus vindicated by God, we should be prepared to examine the records of this extraordinary event.

In examining testimony we have to be cautious of that testimony which is in accord with the testifier’s vested interest, whereas we may more readily accept testimony that he offers in his own disfavour. Hence when Paul, a promoter of Jesus, affirms that Jesus died as a curse, we may accept that he must be admitting this simply because it is factual. But when he affirms that Jesus rose from the dead we may be cautious about his testimony, as he would have a vested interest in seeing Jesus vindicated from being under a curse. Hence the need arises for someone to prove that Jesus really rose from the dead. And from this it follows that it is necessary to prove that in the first place Jesus was really dead.

Of course if Jesus did not die an accursed death then there is no problem in believing in him. Hence the Quran, which causes Muslims to believe that Jesus did not die this accursed death, is not the problem, but the solution. If James wants Muslims to believe in Jesus, the best way is to encourage them to keep believing in the Quran. For, if a Muslim disregards the Quran, then, logically, he has no reason to believe in Jesus.

James must be prepared to prove, whether he is debating Muslims, former Muslims, or anyone else, that Jesus was raised from the dead, and that he was really dead, not simply appearing to be dead from a distance, before he ‘came back to life.’

Am I Dependent on Naturalistic Scholars?

James has chided me since the Biola debate, and here again, of being inconsistent in my treatment of the two faiths: Christianity and Islam. He finds that I approach Islam with the assumptions of faith: God exists, he reveals the Quran to the Prophet Muhammad, etc. On the other hand, I seem to approach Christianity with the assumptions of atheistic naturalism: as if there is no God and no such thing as divine revelation. Hence he thinks that it must be on this basis alone that I reject the idea that Paul must have been a true disciple of Jesus Christ. That I of all persons should be guilty of such inconsistency is especially bad since I myself in former debates chided others for displaying a similar inconsistency.

But I believe that James has misunderstood the matter. Of course I do approach Islam with the eye of faith. But I also read materials which are highly critical of Islam and continuously make up my mind about what is true and false after carefully evaluating the evidence on all sides of a question as far as I come to know of them.

I also evaluate the claims of Christianity on the same basis. The fact that I believe that true revelation comes from God does not oblige me to believe that true revelation came also to Saint Paul. As I argued in the debate, Paul’s own writings show that he was in considerable dispute with the original followers of Jesus who can be presumed to be better informed about Jesus. I consistently apply the same standards when dealing with Islam. If someone who initially opposed the companions of the Prophet Muhammad suddenly claims that he understands the Prophet better than his companions do, I would tend to be skeptical of his claims.

Likewise, if I question the death and resurrection of Jesus this is not because of naturalistic assumptions. My belief is that God can raise someone from the dead if he wants to do so. This does not mean that he has raised a particular individual from the dead. If it is claimed about any specific individual, whether Jesus or someone else, I should ask how this fact was verified. Just because God can do it does not mean he did it.

My point against a Christian Apologist about what I perceived to be his inconsistency was along the following lines. I understood from his writings that Muhammad could not be a true prophet of God because the Quran which he presumably wrote contains teachings which were in existence prior to his claimed reception of such teachings as a revelation from God. I pointed out that this evaluation of the Prophet Muhammad is in fact based on the presumption of atheistic naturalism. The fact that such things were already known prior to the revelation does not preclude Muhammad from receiving his own education through a combination of such available knowledge and also (and especially) by direct tutelage through the angel of revelation. The only reason, therefore, that remains for rejecting the claim of divine revelation in this case is the presumption that God does not exist, and therefore there is no such thing as divine revelation.

I explained that the scholars who work with this presumption would apply it equally well against the Biblical revelation. Hence according to them, the Genesis creation and flood stories are a retelling of pre-biblical legends and myths, and cannot be believed in as divine revelation. It would be a mistake, therefore, for Christian Apologists to appeal to these scholars only in discounting the Islamic revelation. Their statements cut both ways, slicing away at Christianity as well.

James is correct in saying that it would be very wrong for me to commit the same fallacy of which I warned others. It is of course easy to fall into this error, because, as I have explained in the debate, I do naturally have a bias which I must constantly work to overcome. The fact that I am a Muslim will naturally colour my approach to the two faiths, especially in a debate setting where there is a struggle between two sides each trying to prove something. For this reason it will be helpful for James to point out where I do commit this error so that I could admit my mistake and be all the more on guard not to repeat such a gross misdemeanor.

I do not believe, however, that so far James has succeeded in showing that I have committed this error, though I am well aware of his numerous attempts. In the Biola debate, for example, it turned out that the opposite phenomenon was at work. James would not want me to apply the same critical standards I use to evaluate Islam’s hadiths now to evaluate the Gospels. Using these critical standards we grade hadiths and pronounce them as either authentic or inauthentic words of the Prophet Muhammad. Naturally, I would want to apply similar standards to the Gospels to determine if the words attributed to Jesus therein are really his. James did not seem to welcome this approach to the Gospels. Of course, if I do apply these strict standards, the Gospels would all fail the test in a wholesale fashion, for they would lack a continuous trace of reliable reporters from Jesus to the writer of the Gospels.

I leave aside these strict standards, however, in my attempt to give the Gospels a chance to speak to me as it speaks to Christians. But I have to apply at least some standards. The best I could rely on is the highly developed scholarship that builds upon centuries of previous scholarship. These are Christian Biblical scholars to whom I usually appeal. Some of them have reached some conclusions which can be used as the basis on which to question some aspects of the Christian faith. I do not believe that I am inconsistent in referring to these scholars.

James seems to be asking me to appeal to these same scholars when dealing with the Quran. I do not see the point. I refer to Biblical scholars for questions about the Bible, and to Quranic scholars for questions about the Quran. I feel that this is consistent behaviour.

It also seems that James wants me to apply Redaction Criticism to the Quran. How? Redaction Criticism, with reference to the Gospels, is a highly developed discipline that seeks to determine how each Gospel was shaped by the specific interests of its writer. The initial ground for this is undeniably established as a part of the Christian faith. The most conservative of Christians agree that each Gospel was written by a different person each with a specific interest. For example, Luke was said to be a doctor with an interest in the medical aspects of a story. After centuries of exploring the little ways in which the Gospels differ from each other it turns out that all the little ways add up to big differences. It was found that the writers did not only try to bring out harmless little bits of interesting material that reflect diverse personalities, but that they also modified the stories to reflect slightly different theologies. The work of Redaction Criticism continues to unravel the various ways in which they have done this.

I have tried to the best of my ability to familiarize myself with the arguments of those who apply this method of studying the Bible and also the arguments of those who demur. And I am convinced that the method is sound. Conservative scholars have tried their best to dismiss the method, but it is gradually taking hold even in conservative circles. In the debate itself I have cited many otherwise conservative scholars, such as Bruce Metzger, who use the method.

There are of course no four qurans on which to apply a similar method. This did not prevent scholars, mostly non-Muslims, from seeking to trace portions of the Quran to varied sources and to show differing emphases. Some scholars have tried to show a difference between the Meccan and Medinan verses. But the differences to which they point are in fact differences that are due to the application of the faith in two different situations. This difference is already recognized by Muslim scholars, and does not affect the faith of Muslims. I am not aware that anyone has succeeded in showing that Muslims altered the Quran to suit their theological interests, and that what we now have is such an altered text. Hence I remain consistent in trusting a reliable text as the Word of God and in questioning the reliability of a text which betrays the modifications which the human writers and scribes have wrought into them.

In short, when two things are similar in the case of the Bible and the Quran I have given them similar treatment. And when they are different I treat them differently. James has claimed, but not substantiated, that I have acted to the contrary.

When Did I Say That All of the New Testament Writers Were Dishonest?

James attributes to me “the assertion that Paul and all the NT writers were simply dishonest.” But I cannot recall ever making such an assertion. Surely this is a hasty conclusion James has arrived at as an incorrect inference from some of my actual statements.

It seems that James may have misunderstood how the modern Christian scholars whom I cite deal with discrepancies in the sacred sources. They do not accuse the authors of dishonesty; rather, they try to understand the nature of the writings, and the sources that were available to the writers.

It is common knowledge that there are various genres of writings. A modern bookstore would separate fiction from non-fiction. But sometimes the categories are not so neat. There is, for example, the genre of historical fiction. If we evaluate a historical fiction as if the author intended to write a purely non-fictional work, we would think that he or she dishonestly fudged the facts. But if we understand the work as it was intended, then we have to allow the author the usual literary license to modify non-essential details for the purpose of the entertainment value that fictive elements are expected to have.

The Gospels are not, of course, historical-fiction. Nor are they fiction. Nor are they simple history. Most scholars will classify the Gospels as theological treatises. Whatever history they contain is told not for the sake of history, but for the purpose of supporting a particular theological outlook. This genre at the time came with many literary licenses of which some of the Gospel writers made great use. When we discover the specific ways in which they used such latitude we do not accuse them of dishonesty.

Moreover, we try to understand the sources these writers used, and how the information derived from them may have been modified prior to reaching our authors. As far as scholars can tell, it seems that the teachings of Jesus at first circulated orally for many years. It is common experience that information changes as it passes from one mouth to another.

The information was also conveyed by preachers. It is also common experience that, when a preacher takes a saying of Jesus and works it over, a listener who is not already quite familiar with the saying may find it difficult to distinguish between the actual words of Jesus and the preacher’s exposition of those words. In this way, the words of Jesus are eventually remembered not by themselves, but as they have become subsumed into a wider discourse. When the whole discourse is represented as the saying of Jesus in a Gospel it is not that the writer is being dishonest. It is just that he is doing his honest best to recount for us what, to the best of his knowledge, the life and teachings of Jesus were like.

Furthermore, we try to understand how the individual authors themselves continued to do what their predecessors have done. They too are preachers, but now of the written word. If they modify the words slightly as their predecessors have done, this too is for the purpose of highlighting what they believe to be important, and for the purpose of bringing out what they believe to be the truth. As human beings, they naturally had slightly different ideas on some issues, and hence their writings show these differences. If they found a saying attributed to Jesus that seemed to be contrary to the truth as they understood it they tended to modify it. This was for the purpose of bringing out the truth that they believed Jesus must have meant to convey.

This positive evaluation of the work of the writers of the New Testament becomes strained, however, with regards to the writings which scholars deem to be pseudonymous. The question that arises in this case is about the legitimacy of writing in someone else’s name. Some scholars think that there is no harm in the fact that authors have done this, and that, according to the literary conventions at the time, it was legitimate to write in the name of one’s teacher. The purpose was not to defraud, but to practice humility, and to give credit to one’s teacher. In any case, the initial readers would have known at the time that the named author is long dead, and they would have understood the use of this literary device. Thus some scholars believe that Timothy and Titus wrote in the name of their great teacher: Paul. I see no reason to disagree with the positive evaluation reached by scholars in the case of these Deutero-Pauline epistles.

Some scholars think, however, that this is a sort of dishonesty, for it hides the true author and falsely ascribes the work to another, usually a person of greater authority. This negative assessment of pseudonymity no doubt is a reason for some believers to want to deny that such as phenomenon exists in the New Testament. But the case of 2nd Peter counts against such a denial, for the letter, as we have argued elsewhere, is recognized by Christian scholars both ancient and modern to have been written by someone else using Peter’s name long after his death. This letter refers to Paul’s writings as ‘Scripture’. But such a status for Paul’s writings was not recognized by Christians until long after the deaths of Peter and Paul. Also, many scholars interpret the letter as pacifying believers who were disappointed by the apparent failure of Jesus to return within the lifetime of his original disciples. Such a hope could only have been lost after the death of the Disciples, for the hope remained alive as long as they were alive. These and other factors point definitely to a post-Petrine authorship.

It seems to me that the negative judgment reached by some scholars regarding pseudonymity is difficult to deflect in the case of 2nd Peter. It is well known that there was a lasting tension between Peter and Paul, a tension which raises doubts about Paul’s credibility, since the credibility of Peter as one of the most important of Jesus’s Disciples was well established. It appears that this letter was calculated to show that Peter, after all, had reconciled with Paul.

But this admission is far from asserting that “all the NT writers were simply dishonest” as James thinks I have asserted.

The only other questionable case is that of Paul. As James has noted recently, I did say that Paul believed in what he was preaching. My belief that Paul was wrong in some of the things he taught, especially where these seem contrary to the teachings of Jesus, does not entail that I also think him dishonest. Incorrect doctrine is not an automatic indicator of insincerity. I have heard it said that Paul confessed his own dishonesty when he said: “But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory why am I still being condemned as a sinner?” (Romans 3:7 RSV). I regret that in my early years I repeated the same accusation. But I have since consulted some Bible commentaries which explain that Paul did not mean these to be his own words; he was only stating the position he sets out to refute in what he says later in the same chapter. I have taken it for granted that the great scholars I have consulted on this have correctly interpreted the passage. Since then I have refrained from using the passage in this way, and have cautioned other Muslims against a similar use.

On the other hand, Paul’s declaration that he is “all things to all men so that by any means possible he may win some to Christ” seems difficult to digest. This confession also makes it difficult to evaluate Acts 21. This chapter of Acts shows that when Paul came to Jerusalem James, the head of the Church there, advised him to undergo a sacrificial ritual in the temple to demonstrate his continued commitment to the Laws of the Old Testament. Knowing the contents of his letters, we might have expected him to say then and there that he no longer subscribes to these Laws, and that animal sacrifices have been done away with once and for all by the sacrificial death of Jesus. Instead, he engaged in the ritual, even paying the expenses of four other men to offer such sacrifices, just as James suggested.

Scholars are divided on how to evaluate this reported action. Here Paul appears to act contrary to his own letters, for the sake of appeasing those Jewish-Christian believers in the Mother Church who were skeptical of him. On the other hand, it is possible that Paul did not act in this way. In that case it would be said that the author of Acts wants to show that there was agreement among these great leaders of early Christians despite the deep-seated divisions that existed between them, as depicted in other sources. In that case Paul could not be charged with hypocrisy.

I must confess, however, that this is an area of scholarly dispute that I have not investigated fully to my satisfaction. For this reason my opinion on this question is liable to be swayed by the most recent scholarly materials I consult. Just prior to the debate I had been reading E. P. Sanders with whose scholarship on Paul I am highly impressed. Sanders would not charge Paul with dishonesty.

Muhammad, the Disciples of Jesus, and the Question of Literacy

If Paul was spreading incorrect teachings, why did the original disciples of Jesus not attempt to counteract his efforts by producing writings which would have explained the correct teachings? In my reply I stated that the original disciples such as Peter were Galilean fishermen: they probably were not literate. This would explain the lack of genuine writings stemming from them. Reflecting on the debate later, James laughs at this answer, since I maintain that Muhammad was illiterate. Muslims believe that although Muhammad was illiterate the contents of a book were inspired into his mind which he then dictated to his followers. Presumably the point of the comparison is that Peter and others could have employed secretaries to write down what they wanted to say.

Unlike Peter, however, Muhammad had good reasons for thinking it necessary to have his message preserved in its actual words both in the memories of his followers and in writing. First, the Quran would supplant the older revelations and stand on its own as the ultimate point of reference. Second, the Quran had to be preserved for posterity, as it would be supplanted by no further revelation. Third, the Quran does away with many of the Old Testament regulations and gives new ones in their place.

But the possibility of using secretaries is not the same as having the facility of freely composing unaided, on one’s own. This did not prove a hindrance to Muhammad due to the abundance of God’s grace on the final Prophet, and to the numerous followers he quickly obtained, many of whom memorized the Quran, and some of whom were able to preserve the text also in writing directly from the Prophet’s dictation.

We cannot, however, say the same for Peter and the other Disciples of Jesus. The fact is that we do not have many letters in the New Testament from these stalwarts of the faith. The letter attributed to James, the brother of Jesus, is thought now to be from one of James’s disciples. The letter attributed to Jude, possibly another brother of Jesus, is likewise thought to be of later origin. The Epistles of John are unlikely to be from one of the original Disciples. That leaves the letters of Peter about which we have already expressed the known scholarly positions. Hence the fact that Peter and others could have employed secretaries does not seem to have made them prolific writers.

If I may now expand the argument, I could add other reasons why the Disciples did not write much. First, they, like Jesus, may not have felt that their teaching needed to be conveyed in a written document to be added to the Old Testament. In Acts of the Apostles, chapter 15, it is evident that occasion arose for a new instruction to be generated for the sake of Gentile followers of Christ, and this was put in writing. But notice that the writing was sent along with spokespersons to convey the message orally. This seems to indicate that oral conveyance of a message ranked superior in their culture. Moreover, having written the brief instructions, James commented on the adequacy of this brevity with the reminder that the teachings of Moses are being read regularly in the Synagogues. Hence the original Disciples may not have felt the need to write down the teachings of Jesus. Paul, on the other hand, needed to spell out his doctrines in detail, for these were new and difficult to understand.

Second, the original disciples were probably not fully aware or fully certain about the extent of Paul’s variance from their own teachings. We have seen above that Paul was willing to be all things to all men. Even if we disregard the extreme example of this as would appear from Acts 21, thus crediting to Luke’s creativity the story of Paul sacrificing animals after Jesus’ crucifixion, we have no evidence that James and the other Disciples were fully informed of Paul’s teachings. Had they known, they just might have employed secretaries to counter such teachings. Reverend James Dunn thinks that The Epistle of James, written by one of James’ followers, must have been written intently as a counter to the views expressed by Paul in Romans and Galatians on the interplay between faith and works, and on the significance of the example of Abraham as a model of faithfulness.

Third, the piece of written instruction sent by James to the Gentiles, as described in Acts 15, would have served to counter some of Paul’s writings which speak of the Old Testament Kosher Food Laws as being cancelled.

Fourth, it is obvious from Paul’s writings that he would go into an area and gain converts; but later other missionaries visiting the area would convert the folks there to another interpretation of what it means to be a follower of Christ. In his letters he mostly refrains from naming his opponents, calling them derogatory names instead. But on occasion he names Jesus’ important Disciples Peter, James, and John, as those whose reputation he did not care for. Such Disciples, then, or their followers, seem to be the missionaries who have been countering Paul’s teachings and winning over his converts. But, as already noted, Paul’s religion ultimately suited the Gentiles best.

Fifth, we do not know the full extent of early Christian writings. We know of some gospels only by name, and that too only because they received negative mention in the writings of some Church Fathers. It is possible that there were writings produced by some of the early disciples but which are no longer extant. There were, for our purposes here, two streams of interpretation of the life and teachings of Jesus. The surviving documents we have in the New Testament are mainly from the Pauline side of the conflict.

Comments on the Dividing Line of Oct. 23, 2007 (FINAL)

nospam@example.com (Waheed) — Mon, 12 May 2008 22:32:56 +0000

Shabir Ally and James White Seattle, October 19, 2007
Topic: Was Jesus Christ Crucified as a Willing Sacrifice for the Sins of God’s People?
Conversing With a Caller on the Dividing Line of Oct. 23, 2007

In two separate articles I have already responded to the main points made by Dr. James R. White in the Dividing Line broadcast of Oct. 13, 2007. Here I respond to his conversation with a caller. A gentleman who was at the debate called in to speak to James, and three important points came up in the ensuing discussion. My comments are as follows:

The Story of Achan

As already seen, one of the points which some Christian scholars raise against the theory of penal substitution is about the injustice involved in crucifying the innocent to free the guilty. In response, James said in essence that I do not understand the idea of corporate justice as is known from the Bible. I was puzzled. James explained this with reference to the story of Achan. After the Battle of Ai, Achan had not turned over to the public treasury all of the spoils taken from the enemy. As a punishment for Achan’s withholding from the state treasury, Achan, his sons, his daughters, his cattle, his donkeys, and his sheep were stoned and then burned by the congregation under the direction of Joshua. As a result, the Lord turned from his fierce anger (Joshua 7:24-26).

When James mentioned this I volunteered that I did not know the story. He seems now on DL to delight over the fact of my ignorance. I do not mind this, for it is good now and again to remember that what I know is only a little. But it would also be important for James to recall what my response was to this story and to the corporate justice James thinks it establishes. My retort was that this too is injustice. Therefore this could not be used as an answer to the injustice of the cross as a means of Atonement. I added that if I point to one example of injustice and James points to another we now have two examples of injustice. Two wrongs do not make a right. In sum, James has succeeded in showing me an example of injustice in the Bible of which I had no previous knowledge.
Wasn’t Paul’s Religion Easy on the Gentiles?

During the debate I argued that the reason Paul’s religion became widespread in contradistinction to that of the original disciples of Jesus was that Paul’s religion was easier on the Gentiles. It did away with the requirements of circumcision, Sabbath observance, and dietary laws. This is such a truism that it was strange to hear James and the caller convincing each other that I am wrong on this score.

The proof against my case, according to them, was that Paul was stoned at Lystra (Acts 14:19). But this hardly proves that Paul’s religion was not generally more attractive to Gentiles for the reasons already explained. In fact, the brief description in Acts does not show what Paul preached to the folks at Lystra prior to this stoning. On the contrary, it is clear that they understood little of Paul’s religion, for they were making sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas, taking them to be gods despite the fervent plea of the two Apostles.

The reason given in Acts for Paul to be stoned is not related specifically to something Paul said, but to the fact that some Jews, newly arrived, stirred up the crowd against him (Acts 14:19). But notice that later Paul returned to Lystra to strengthen the disciples there (14:21). So, obviously, he did have some followers there. It seems that when the dust of debate settles it is his religion that wins over Gentiles much more than the religion of the Jews or of the Jewish Disciples of Jesus who were hand-picked by Jesus himself.
Did Peter Write the Second Letter of Peter?

Against the hypothesis that Peter and Paul were at odds with each other is the Second Letter of Peter which ostensibly is from Peter. The letter regards Paul as a brother, and his writings as Scripture. But Christian scholars, both ancient and modern, generally hold that this is not an authentic letter of Peter. This means that someone wrote it using Peter’s name in order to lend it greater authority and to show that Paul is acceptable to Peter.

In support of the pseudonymous nature of 2nd Peter, I cited Bruce Metzger with the specific qualification that I know him to be a scholar for whom James has high regard. James wanted to argue with the reasons for this conclusion, and asked me to state them. I offered to read the list from Metzger’s book. But James changed the subject to now deal with the First Letter of Peter.

As I have explained, scholars differ about 1st Peter. Some think Peter wrote it; others think that, like 2nd Peter, it is pseudonymous. Obviously, one can dispute the authorship of 1st Peter, but that of 2nd Peter is settled among the scholars. What James really needed to deal with is the fact that 2nd Peter, though stating plainly that it is from Peter is actually from someone else who wrote it after Peter’s death as though he were Peter. And the scholar I cited in support of this was not Bart Ehrman, hence there is no reason to drag him into this. It was Bruce Metzger. Let’s deal with him.

Comments on the Dividing Line of Oct. 23, 2007 (PART 2)

nospam@example.com (Waheed) — Mon, 12 May 2008 22:27:07 +0000

Shabir Ally and James White Seattle, October 19, 2007
Topic: Was Jesus Christ Crucified as a Willing Sacrifice for the Sins of God’s People?
More Comments on the Dividing Line of Oct. 23, 2007

I have already responded to several comments made by Dr. James R. White in the Dividing Line broadcast of Oct. 13, 2007. Here I respond to the remainder of the important points raised in his broadcast. I deal separately with his conversations with a caller.

The Current Debate Among Christian Scholars on the Nature of the Atonement

Some of James’s comments relate to that part of the debate in which I repeated the statements of some Christian scholars on the meaning and significance of Christ’s death, and in what manner it may be said that he died for us. I must retrace the argument here before addressing James’ criticisms.

This is especially necessary since James seems to address the issues from a singular perspective. The framework of our debate necessitated an allotment of equal time and space for the advancement of our respective views. Now that the debate is over, James has published his written speeches alone, thus upsetting that balance. Moreover, on the DL broadcast he simply reads off his own brief notes, which he took during my presentation, and proceeds to respond to my points one by one. It is as if he has continued debating with me in my absence. I have to now state here what I said in my opening speech to show what it is that James is responding to on DL. I was not working from a prepared speech, but to the best of my recollection here is what transpired (I hope that if a transcript of the debate is ever produced the results for the relevant portion will be substantially as follows):

I mentioned that in preparation for the debate I read an interesting book which was on the recommended reading list provided by Dr. James R. White, a book by James Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, The Nature of the Atonement. The book is a collection of articles from four Evangelical scholars each representing a slightly different view of the Atonement, and responding to each other. Thomas R. Schreiner represents the view most akin to that of Dr. James R. White. According to this view, Jesus’ death was a penal substitution for the death of others. He took the place of others on the cross in order to placate God and appease his wrath.

The other scholars did not all reject this view. But even those who did not altogether reject this view nevertheless preferred other ways of speaking of the significance of Christ’s death, and mentioned some objections to Schreiner’s view. Their comments of course, by implication, would go against Dr. White’s view as well; hence their relevance to our debate.

Schreiner himself is aware of the objections that have been previously advanced by these and other scholars. He notes that recently in the UK another Evangelical scholar Steve Chalke in his book, The Lost Message of Jesus, expressed the view that penal substitution is “cosmic child abuse” and contrary to the love of God.

Joel B. Green has his own objections to the penal substitution view, which he has expressed in a book co-authored with Mark D. Baker: Recovering the Scandal of the Cross. I have not read the latter, but Schreiner has summarized for us the criticisms which Green and Baker have launched against such a view. During the debate I read out these criticisms as summarized by Schreiner, who informs us that according to Green and Baker the penal substitution theory

   1. only has the “appearance of being biblical” and “is foreign to the Bible”;
   2. divides the Father from the Son;
   3. supports an abstract view of justice that doesn’t speak to people today and departs from the relational and covenantal views found in the Scriptures;
   4. wrongly understands “God’s wrath as retributive punishment”;
   5. restricts God’s love by this “abstract concept of justice”;
   6. omits the necessity of the resurrection;
   7. distorts what the Bible says; and
   8. removes the need for ethics.

According to Schreiner, since Green and Baker criticized the penal substitution theory in this way, and since they failed to say anything in its defense in their book, they have in effect abandoned this aspect of the Christian faith.

I would have expected, in the light of this accusation, that Green would have responded to Schreiner by reaffirming his commitment to the theory in question. But he did not, as far as I can tell. This seems to indicate that Schreiner is fairly accurate in his characterization of Green.

Gregory Boyd for his part mentioned what he referred to as “a host of insurmountable difficulties that plague the penal substitutionary view.” These include:

   1. How are we to understand sin and guilt literally being transferred from a guilty person to an innocent person (or to innocent animals with the Old Testament sacrifices)?
   2. What sort of justice is it that punishes an innocent person (or animals) for what another person did?
   3. How are we to reconcile the idea that the Father needs to exact payment from or on behalf of his enemies with Jesus’ teaching (and example) that we are to love unconditionally and forgive without demanding payment?
   4. Along the same lines, how are we to reconcile the idea that God cannot be reconciled with sinners without his wrath being satisfied with blood with the pervasive scriptural depiction of God forgiving people without needing his wrath appeased (e.g., Lk 15:11-32)? If God must always get what is coming to him in order to forgive (namely “a kill”), does God ever really forgive?
   5. How is the view that God requires a kill to have his rage placated essentially different from the pagan or magical understanding of divine appeasement found in primordial religions throughout history?

I did not add further objections from Bruce R. Reichenbach who is among the four contributors to the book. I remarked, however, that it is interesting that Reichenbach had argued that it was not necessary for God to exact retribution in this way, and that if he wanted he could have effected the Atonement in some other way. I would have expected Schreiner to disagree with this, but he seemed to agree with Reichenbach that God could have done it in some other way.

These are the objections that I mostly read off from the cited book. Schreiner, for his part, has responded to many of them. But I wanted to hear James’s response. As one may expect, James did attempt to respond, and no doubt some of his responses were very good. These are preserved on tape for our edification.

On DL, however, he attempted a further response based on his cryptic notes. Green is wrong to think that this view of the Atonement divides the Father from the Son, since the Son voluntarily gives himself up for the purpose. The fact that it does not appeal to people today is nothing new, as even in New Testament times the cross proved a stumbling block to the Jews and seemed foolishness to the Gentiles. It does not cancel the need for ethics because the fact that the price of sin is paid is the very foundation of Christian ethics. These responses will no doubt prove satisfactory to those already committed to the theory. But, reading again the list of objections, I do not feel that James’s answers, of even Schreiner’s measure up.

I have to admit that I was taken by complete surprise at James’ attempt to strip these scholars, except Schreiner, of course, of their honour as reputable Christian scholars. As far as I can tell, although Chalke’s comments about ‘cosmic child abuse’ are no doubt unusual, he himself still commands respect as an Evangelical Christian activist in the UK. Joel Green is the author of exhaustive commentaries on some of the books of the New Testament, and it seems to me that his comments are quite conservative. Gregory Boyd has an impressive list of books to his name, and from reading his contribution to the cited volume I find nothing to indicate that he is an atheist. On the contrary, what I find is that these authors are deeply committed Christians who feel that the penal substitutionary view is problematic, and that there are better ways of speaking of the work of Christ.

James questions my judgment in citing liberals and Arminians to his group. This, he argues, is akin to his quoting none but Shiite scholars to a group of Sunnites. It is true in hindsight that my expectations in citing these scholars were unrealistic. I should have known better than to expect that these scholars will hold respect with James simply because the book that contains their contributions is on his list of recommended readings. But, as I explained in the debate, I believe that James still needs to answer the objections these scholars raised. It is not enough to lambaste the scholars who hold these ideas. Most of the objections are based on logic and reason. The points are valid in and of themselves regardless of who says them. They carry, of course, more force when they are said by Christians.

We can look at the arguments again without reference to the scholars who are offering them and see that the objections are real. It is not, for example, simply the fact that modern people do not like the idea of the Atonement as already described. It is just that it does not make sense to people. And to say that it never made sense to people, as James seems to be saying in his response, already referred to above, simply reinforces the point of the objection. I was simply asking the Christian folks in the audience if it is really necessary to keep insisting that God crucified his Son whereas common sense, and the Bible, and some of these scholars indicate that Christianity can do without this doctrine.

To James’ assertion that some of these scholars are atheists I have already given my response in my earlier comments. Now on DL he asserts that Boyd and others reject the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible. But so do many Christians today. I do not believe that this is a sufficient basis on which to stifle the voices of these scholars.

James recalls my saying in the debate that I have read books which are critical of Islam, and of the Quran, and yet I retain my faith despite such criticism. He now wonders if I would accept his citation of such critical scholars with reference to the Islamic faith. But he has answered his own question by saying that ultimately what matters is not that a scholar holds a view, but rather the basis on which the scholar grounds his view. This I agree with. The points we make stand or fall not on the basis of who says them, but on the basis of the reason, evidence and proof on which they stand. Hence even if we reject what a scholar says we should do so on the basis of reason, evidence and proof -- not on the basis that something is wrong with the scholar.
Paul vs. James

James made a brief mention of the fact that in the debate I raised the difficulties inherent in the conflict between Paul on the one hand, and the original disciples of Jesus on the other. It is now well known that James, the brother of Jesus, was the head of the Jerusalem Church, and that Paul’s teachings were at variance with those of James and other key followers of Jesus. Dr. White insists that Paul was not teaching something different, but my reference to Reverend James Dunn and his book The Evidence for Jesus in support for this point shows that it rests on sound scholarship. The fact of this conflict could be demonstrated with reference to Paul’s own letters, but since James has said little about this, I likewise remain brief.

Ransom vs. Sacrifice

During the debate I pointed out that Stephen Finlan in his book, Problems with Atonement, has shown that there is a clear distinction between a sacrifice for sin, and a ransom. The sin sacrifice is presented to God based on which God is appeased and he excuses the sinner. Ransom is a different concept. We all know what ransom means. If someone is kidnapped, for example, we may pay a ransom to the kidnappers to secure the release of the victim.

To say that Jesus died as a ransom for us is riddled with difficulties. This would have been appropriate if the devil held us captive and if God made a deal to get us released by offering up his Son in our place. Although many early Church Fathers did in fact say this, James rightly rejects the idea that God made a deal with the devil.

This shows why we cannot use Mark 10:45 to prove that Jesus died as a sacrifice for sins. That passage has him saying that he came to die as a ransom for many. Since ransom and sacrifice are two different concepts, we cannot take a statement about ransom and make it speak about sacrifice. But James wants to retain the use of the word ‘ransom’, obviously because it is biblical. He retorted in the debate that I need to understand this in the light of Isaiah 53. I then challenged him to find in Isaiah 53 any mention of ransom. He made an attempt, but I could not hear in what he said anything about ransom with reference to Isaiah 53. Even if we understand that passage as speaking of Jesus, it says nothing of Jesus being a ransom for anyone. James must have felt this himself, for he added a reference to a Deutero-Pauline epistle which speaks of us being redeemed. He explained this as meaning that we have been purchased. But this brought us right back to the original question even if now in a slightly varied form: Purchased from whom?

Did Jesus Really Say, “Do this in remembrance of me!”?

These words are attributed to Jesus in the Bible in Luke’s Gospel 22:19b-20: “Do this in remembrance of me!” In this way, we learn, Jesus instituted the regular observance of the Eucharist, the use of bread to symbolize the eating of Jesus’ flesh; and wine to symbolize the drinking of his blood. I pointed out in the debate that these words are missing from some very important early manuscripts, and for this reason many scholars deem it a later addition. Hence this cannot be taken as a reliable proof that Jesus said these words.

James seems to have forgotten what the point was. On DL he asserts that I reject these words simply because they disagree with Quranic teaching. He then uses this as a starting point to launch an attack on the prophet Muhammad. But I think it is important that we do not become side-tracked. These problems exist apart from Muhammad and the Quran. If I reject the words on the basis that they disagree with Islam, on what basis do many Christian scholars reject them? And on what basis were they removed from the 1952 edition of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible?

A Study of Luke and Acts of the Apostles

During the debate I mentioned that in the Gospel of Luke, and in the preaching of the original disciples of Jesus in the Acts of the Apostles in the Bible we can see that the forgiveness of sins is not dependent on the death of Jesus on the cross. In response, James now cites the preaching of Paul in the Acts of the Apostles. Such a response would have been adequate if I had said that nowhere in the Acts of the Apostles such a doctrine can be found. To contradict me, James has to find one of the original disciples in the Acts of the Apostles preaching this. That he could only find Paul preaching this serves to confirm what I have been saying all along about the difference between Paul and the original apostles.

As cited in Beilby and Eddy, The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views (Downers Grove: IVP, 2006) p. 70.

Ibid, p. 71.

Ibid, p. 104.

James chides me for referring to the Christian Fathers as ‘scholars’. I am sorry if I have used the wrong terminology. I did not intend anything sinister. I took it for granted that the Church Fathers were scholars.

Comments on the Dividing Line of Oct. 23, 2007

nospam@example.com (Waheed) — Mon, 12 May 2008 22:26:11 +0000

Shabir Ally and James White Seattle, October 19, 2007
Topic: Was Jesus Christ Crucified as a Willing Sacrifice for the Sins of God’s People?

In the Dividing Line of Oct. 13, 2007, Dr. James R. White made several comments on our debate. I would like here to respond to his most important points.

Luke 13:33 as evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross

I will not belabor the point here. But James asserts that this point was only marginally related to the Atonement. I would have expected him to comment on the point I was making. I was using this verse as evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross. In fairness, I did explain in my earlier report that James has an explanation with which he may be satisfied that my point does not hold. Yet I press forward with the point here as being at least a piece of evidence that points to a reality other than that to which the Gospels wish to convey. They assure us that Jesus died on the cross. But this verse has Jesus saying that it is impossible for a prophet to die outside of Jerusalem. And John's Gospel does say that the crucifixion took place outside of Jerusalem. James agrees that Jesus said this in self-reference. This means that Jesus himself is the prophet who cannot die outside of that city. It follows logically that Jesus did not die on the cross. James dismisses this implication with the assumption that Jesus did not mean to speak strictly of Jerusalem but to allow for Jerusalem and its immediate environs to be included in the mention of Jerusalem. Yet it remains that this is a verse that should be placed on the side of the evidence that supports the view that Jesus did not die on the cross.

Did Jesus Die for Everyone?

James wonders if I was aware of the differences among Christians on the question of whether Jesus died for everyone or just for those whom God decided in advance to save. He is surprised that neither I nor anyone else brought this up. I chose not to raise this question, as it may have proved a distraction from the main matter at hand. In arguing that Jesus died for no one, I was by implication arguing that Jesus did not die for God's people. I could, of course point to various Bible verses to show that various authors seemed to have different opinions about this. Some thought that Jesus died for everyone; others thought that Jesus died only for the pre-selected few. This difference among the writers of the New Testament and the differences among later Christians highlight a problematic question with regards to the atoning value of Jesus' death. If his blood was sufficient to wash away the sins of everyone, why are only a limited number saved as in the Calvinist view? I chose, however, not to raise this problem at the time as there were other larger problems with the Atonement to deal with.

What Is the Purpose of Debate?

James and I both believe strongly in our own respective religions and in the importance of sharing the faith with others. We seem, however, to have two slightly different approaches to debating as expressed in my opening comments and his comments on DL. I can agree with him that we each have a case that we want to prove. However, I believe that I should temper my desire to prove my case with my need to learn and to adjust my thoughts and conclusions in the light of what transpires during the debate. I hope that debates will help participants to learn from each other. This can only happen if we have some openness to such learning, and the humility that this must entail.

James' Belittling of the Scholars whom I cite.

Where I refer to recent research James claims that I am referring to the work of Naturalistic Scholars or Liberal Christians. My counter during the debate was to say that if these designations fit these scholars then we must ask why the scholars become this way. I asserted that while there may be certain persons who start out with the desire to disprove Christianity, the scholars I have been citing are people who have generally given their lives to Christianity. They start out going to Bible colleges until they eventually become the teachers at such colleges and in other academic institutions. They are the writers of many works on the Bible including detailed commentaries. These scholars have, however, found problems that they cannot but deal with. Eventually they do admit the sort of problems I refer to. Some even become atheists or agnostics. Such dissatisfaction with the faith will continue to plague scholars unless Christians are willing to rethink some of the items they have traditionally taken to be essential to Christianity but which Christianity may do better without. Stephen Finlan has said something along the same lines in his book: Problems with Atonement, as I mentioned in the debate. I also mentioned that Hugh Ross in his book, The Creator and the Cosmos noted that most atheists were once Christians.

After listening to this episode of DL I must agree with James that I had misunderstood the purpose of his recommended reading list. I cited the scholars therein as reputable Christian Scholars, whereas James did not intend for them to be taken as such. But I would still like to know why scholars such as Raymond Brown and N.T. Wright should not be cited as reputable authorities regarding the doubtful historicity of some aspects of the Bible. I would understand that Father Brown's Catholicism would be treated with caution by Protestants. But, as a New Testament scholar dealing with issues that are not specifically Catholic, he remains unparalleled. His volumes that are included in the Anchor Bible series and his two volume work The Death of the Messiah have received wide acclaim. James should cite specific deficiencies in Revered Brown's scholarship rather than simply dismiss him as unworthy.

As for N.T. Wright, he is well known as a conservative scholar standing against the general trend of critical scholars. I cited him because of his wide recognition among conservatives whom I have debated over time, and because of the prestige I thought he held with James as well. But again I stand corrected. James explains that he and Wright would be at loggerheads and disagreement over a number of issues. My misunderstanding resulted from the fact that in the Biola Debate James made a citation from this scholar in favor of his own case. As James explains, however, he did not intend by his citation to endorse the scholar, but merely to establish from his words that we do not know when the gospels were written, and hence we cannot know, as I was claiming, that Matthew and Luke copied Mark while changing the stories as they did. I was encouraged by James' use of this scholar's words, for I found that a fuller citation of his views on this question would prove extremely helpful to my own case. In The Original Jesus Tom Wright writes that not only do we not know when the Gospels were written, we do not even know who wrote them (pp. 126-27). I would have liked to hear James' response to this statement instead of a mere disclaimer about his own past use of the scholar's words.

Can Someone Die for the Sins of Another?

James' answer to this is that whereas a sinner cannot die for other sinners a sinless person can die for sinners. One who is under the curse is not capable of dying for those who are likewise under the curse. But Jesus had the required ability and character and he was willing to die on behalf of sinners. James is satisfied with this explanation, but I am sorry to say that it does not really answer my objections. Why would God want to do it this way? Why does he not merely forgive the sinners? Is it justice to crucify an innocent person in order to let the guilty go free? If Jesus dies as a sacrifice, who is offering him up to whom? In the Old Testament believers were instructed to offer sacrifices to God and God would forgive them. Are we then to conceive of ourselves as offering up Jesus as a sacrifice to God instead of sacrificing animals? Or is God offering the sacrifice to himself? We can explore all the variations and show major problems to attach to each possibility.

I never asked how one sinner could die for other sinners. I was objecting to the view that a sinless person died for sinners. I was asking how this could be right. James simply ignored the objections and restated the view to which the objections apply. How does this constitute an answer to the objections?

Did the Torah Evolve?

James made brief mention of my chain that the. Torah was not all written by Moses. It seems that from his brief notes James could not recall what the objection to Mosaic authorship was, so he left that alone and went on to another subject. My point was that the last chapter of the book of Deuteronomy mentions the death of Moses and describes the mourning of the people for him as a past event. This proves that Moses did not write this part, and we must therefore wonder how many other parts were added by a later hand.

Does the Quran Deny the Crucifixion?

James agrees with me that the Quran in 4:157 does not have to be understood as denying that Jesus was ever put on the cross. What, then, is the problem? This is why I find James' opening presentation to be very strange. He was debating scholars who were not scheduled to speak that night. He had listened to and publicly analyzed my view on the crucifixion and on the meaning of the relevant verses as expressed in some of my recent debates. Yet he spent the greater part of his opening presentation deconstructing not my view but that of the classical tradition.

If this were not enough, his summary statement, also a written speech planned in advance, continued to drum the same message which is essentially in agreement with mine. Even now in the DL broadcast he is still debunking the classical view using a variety of arguments. This is in a program in which he set out to refute me. Yes, he would like to debate someone who holds the classical view. But I think he first needs to deal with my objections to his view. If he is unable to answer the serious objections to the view that Jesus actually died on the cross as opposed to dying later in the tomb, for example, which no historian could deny as a possibility, what does this do for his view of the Atonement? I have shown that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke changed the basic narrative that is found in Mark to the effect that Jesus had died so soon. What is James's response to this? Where is his proof that Jesus actually died on the cross apart from the assertion of the New Testament writers and the later historians?

As for the New Testament writers, they have a vested interest in proving to us that Jesus died for others. Hence we cannot take their word for it if we wish to approach the matter according to the demands of a neutral approach to the subject which the setting of a debate necessitates. As for the historians, they are working with the commonsense presumption that a man who lived some time ago and is no longer around must be presumed dead even if the cause of his death was unknown. Even if the person was simply missing for a period of time long enough to have used up the years of life mortal man is usually known to have been granted, we would declare him dead.

Moreover, historians as a matter of principle take the ostensible record of an event as being factual unless there is some reasonable ground to reject such a record. In declaring Jesus to be dead, the historians are simply taking the commonly known naturalistic explanation for what happened to Jesus. They think that Jesus died as a common criminal under the aegis of the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate and that he remained dead. I believe that if these very historians were debating in my place they should suspend their own declaration that Jesus was dead and ask James to prove that he was really dead before he began appearing again to his disciples. They must have known at the time they were writing that Christians were claiming that Jesus had come back to life. But obviously they did not, as historians of the period, take this seriously. In short, such historians hold that Jesus was dead only on condition that death kept its hold on him.

James must recall my point, made with support from E. P. Sanders, that if a person once presumed dead is said to have appeared again to his disciples we are within our rights to wonder if he was dead in the first place (Paul: A Short Introduction, p. 29). None of the historians James cited had first-hand information about the Crucifixion event. Neither did any of the second-century Christian witnesses he cites. As for the Gospels, even if we accept that they were written by eyewitnesses, they do not give us any reason to believe that anyone applied even the simplest test to determine the death of Jesus while he was on the cross or ever thereafter. The Gospel of John mentions the spear-thrust into the side of Jesus which many would now take as the wound that killed him. Others dispute the efficacy of such a spear-thrust as a definite cause of death.

More important, however, is the point I have made: the spear thrust is not to be taken as historical. Many Christian scholars believe that this did not actually occur, but that John mentioned it in his Gospel for theological reasons. Leaving aside this spear-thrust, then, what would have killed Jesus? We must ask the same question along with Raymond Brown. Instead of answering this question and proving that Jesus was verified to be dead beyond the mere appearance to be dead, James concentrated on attacking the scholars I cited. But since crucifixion pierces no vital organ I may still ask, along with Father Brown, about the actual cause of the death of Jesus.

James continues to claim that I did not respond to his presentation of such overwhelming evidence from the period. But the single response to this, which I did give, was to say that once it is claimed about any man who lived some time ago that he appeared alive to his friends after he was once dead we should ask how we can be sure that he was really dead in the first place. It was James' turn to provide reasonable evidence to prove this. But he simply kept appealing to the writers whose presumption that Jesus was dead is now under question.

Sunnites, Ahmadis, and the Crucifixion

James made a passing reference to the view of the Ahmadiyyah with regards to the crucifixion. I should clarify here the differences between the classical Islamic view, a Sunnite view that is becoming increasingly popular, and the Ahmadiyyah view.

The view found in all the classical commentaries I have checked is that someone else was made to look like Jesus and that this someone else was put on the cross whereas Jesus was taken up to heaven.

In modern times several writers have adopted the view that the Quran is not denying that Jesus was put on the cross, but is only denying that he died on the cross. The details of this position have yet to be fully articulated with all its nuances and support from classical Islamic sources. Tarif Khalidi made a brief remark showing that he has this view in his introduction to The Muslim Jesus. Ruqayyah Waris Maqsood gave this a more detailed treatment in The Mysteries of Jesus. It is this view with which I align myself.

The Ahmadiyyah view is that Jesus was put on the cross, but he did not die on the cross. Instead, he recovered of his wounds and walked all the way to Kashmir in India where he eventually died and remains buried. This view coincides with the previous one only insofar as holding that Jesus survived the crucifixion. Generally, Muslims do not subscribe to the Ahmadiyyah view that Jesus died in Kashmir. Neither do I.

Does the Quran Require Christians to engage in Redaction Criticism?

James finds it incredible that the Quran would tell Christians to judge by the Gospel if indeed the Gospel is corrupted. The verse he refers to is as follows in the Yusuf Ali translation:
Let the people of the Gospel Judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed they are (no better than) those who rebel. (Quran 5:47)

From this verse James argues as follows:
1. This verse approves of the Gospels as they are;
2. Muhammad who authored the Quran did not know the contents of the Gospels to realize that his own teachings contradict the Gospels; and
3. Muslims now seeing the contradiction between the Quran and the Gospels defend their faith by inventing the doctrine of biblical corruption.

In the first place, however, this verse does not approve of the Gospels as they are. It calls on Christians to judge not ‘by the Gospels’ but ‘by what God has revealed in the Gospel’. There is a difference between Gospel and Gospels. One is singular; the other plural. God taught the Gospel to Jesus, and we may presume that this is the Gospel that Jesus preached. Now in the Bible there are four Gospels which contradict each other on essential points. Obviously God did not reveal such contradictory statements in the Gospels.

Second, it is no secret now, nor was it a secret in the time of the Prophet, that the Gospels teach that Jesus is the Son of God. Yet the Quran says that this is an invented claim matching that of those who disbelieved of old:

The Jews call Uzair a son of Allah and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouths; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth! (Quran 9:30)

Hence it is incorrect to say that Muhammad did not realize that the Quran contradicts the Gospels on this point.

Third, Muslims did not need to invent a doctrine of biblical corruption, because the errors in the Bible were already plain for everyone to see. Some early Church Fathers did acknowledge that the Bible contained errors. But later, the doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible became generally accepted after the Quranic revelation was already established. Therefore at the time of the Quranic revelation it was not necessary to go to great lengths to debunk the doctrine. The Quran mostly took a passive stance of merely correcting the narratives that are known from the Bible. On occasion, however, the Quran does make statements about the invention of scripture such as in the verse already cited, and in 2:79:
Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say: "This is from Allah" to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write and for the gain they make thereby. (Quran 2:79)

Redaction criticism is of course a highly developed aspect of modern Biblical studies. It would seem ridiculous to assert that the Quran was asking Christians in the seventh century to engage in an activity which will not become known until the twentieth century. But this does not mean that people at the time were naïve. Even at the time people could differentiate between what God revealed in the Scripture and what people invented without sanction from God.

At the time people could see that what Jesus preached was in many respects different from the later claims made about him. It was already obvious that the Gospel of John presented a highly developed Christology, for example, that could not be credited to the historical Jesus. People at the time could ask themselves, even if they did not do so before: Is not everything in the Scripture inspired by God? Why would anyone say, “Judge by what God has revealed therein”?

We should recall that at the time the Canon of the Eastern Syriac Christians was still being worked out. For a long time they had accepted only twenty-two of the now twenty-seven books that now make up the New Testament. Hence it would still be fresh in the minds of Christians that the inspiration of Bible is not self-evident, and needs some human judgment to accept or reject certain books.

At the time the Quran did charge believers with the responsibility of verifying news that came to them. Based on this principle Muslims soon developed elaborate measures to sift conflicting claims about what our prophet said, and did. This was their version of Redaction Criticism, even though they did not use this term. There is no reason to suppose that Christians were not capable of doing something similar which would eventually develop into full-blown redaction criticism.

But the fact that the Quran did not require seventh-century Christians to engage in Redaction Criticism with all its modern apparatuses does not mean that the Quran would excuse present-day folks from exercising their mental faculties. The Quran requires us to use our faculty of reason, and God will hold us responsible for that which we are capable. If the tools and thinking were not developed at the time people would not be responsible for applying it, but now that they are available we would be held responsible if we reject their use.

James’ Mention of Bart Ehrman

It is already evident to me from the Biola debate that mention of Bart Ehrman will not help to advance my point with James. In the Seattle Debate, therefore, I did not appeal to Bart Ehrman, proving my case instead either by (a) presenting the actual proof that leads to my conclusions, by (b) citing scholars other than Bart Ehrman, or by doing both (a) and (b).

But the fact of Bart Ehrman’s importance in modern discourse on the Bible is also evident from the fact that James himself cannot seem to avoid mentioning him.

Aside from the recognition that this scholar must receive, however, James’ mention of him creates the very distraction I wished to avoid. If I had cited him James would have attacked him. I did not mention him and James is still attacking him while attempting to refute me. Why?

James needs to deal with the scholars whom I did cite in specific reference to Redaction Criticism, such as Scott McKnight, James Dunn, and Raymond Brown. But it seems that he is unable to attack these scholars, and he picks on Ehrman instead. Even if we do not like the man, is it fair to keep criticizing him like this? Moreover, even if this scholar is the worst devil around, how does James’ attack on him disprove my points which I supported with reference to McKnight, Dunn, and Brown whom James evidently does not dare attack in a similar fashion?

James’ Understanding of Redaction Criticism

James expresses the view that Bart Ehrman starts with the assumption that the synoptic Gospels are giving different views of Jesus. He asks why it should be necessary to assume that, whereas a more reasonable hypothesis would be that the various writers were addressing different audiences.

I am sorry to say that this manner of putting the matter does not demonstrate adequate knowledge of Redaction Criticism. The ‘assumption’ that the Gospels give different views of Jesus is not an assumption with which scholars such as Ehrman, McKnight and Dunn begin. Rather, it is the conclusion that comes from a careful examination of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Of course this is now an inherited conclusion from previous generations of scholars who, having conducted such investigations found this conclusion unavoidable.

But even if one starts with the assumption that the writers were addressing different readers, a fair mind will be compelled, on examining the evidence, to conclude, all over again, that Matthew and Luke in using Mark have each in their own way modified the information about Jesus to make him conform to the writer’s own view of Jesus. In our debates I have shown clear evidence of an author modifying the facts of the story about Jesus, such as in the story of Jairus’ daughter. In this particular case James admitted that Matthew has telescoped the story; and I as I have pointed out, this gave Matthew the license to take what one man said and put in into the mouth of another man at a different point in the story.

The Story of Jairus’ Daughter And Its Relevance to the Seattle Debate

nospam@example.com (Waheed) — Mon, 12 May 2008 22:25:01 +0000

Shabir Ally and James White Seattle, October 19, 2007
Topic: Was Jesus Christ Crucified as a Willing Sacrifice for the Sins of God’s People?

In his “A Stormy Night in Seattle,” Dr. James R. White criticized me for raising again a point in Seattle that we had previously discussed in the Biola debate. The point of his criticism is that this discussion was irrelevant to the Seattle debate. I wish here to recount the story of Jairus’ daughter, and the discussion it entailed, to show why it was relevant to the latter debate.

The story of Jairus’ daughter is told in the three synoptic gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Mark, the earliest of the New Testament’s four gospels, relates that one of the synagogue rulers, Jairus by name, came and besought Jesus saying:
My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well, and live.” (Mark 5:23 RSV)

While Jesus was on his way to heal the girl, however, some people came from the ruler’s house saying:
“Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the Teacher any further?” (Mark 5:35)

Ignoring them, Jesus continued on his way, exhorting Jairus to believe and not fear. Arriving at the house, Jesus assured the crowd of mourners: “The child is not dead, but sleeping” (Mark 5:39). Entering where the girl lay, he commanded her to arise. Immediately the girl got up and walked.

Luke’s version of the story (Luke 8:40-56) is quite similar to that of Mark. Matthew’s report is shorter than that of Mark, but this fact has not been my point of objection. Rather, I agree that there is some benefit in summarizing the story even as we have done herein above. However, Matthew’s version is not a mere précis of the story. Matthew’s story is different in an important respect. Matthew has Jairus saying to Jesus from the start:
“My daughter has just died; but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live.” (Matthew 9:18)

I argued in the Biola debate that Matthew’s change in the story line fits a larger pattern, not only involving other such changes within Matthew’s Gospel, but across the Gospels in general. Modern scholars are in considerable agreement that Mark is the first of the four Gospels; that John is the last; and that Matthew and Luke used Mark as one of their sources.

My point about the raising of the dead girl is that both Muslims and Christians believe that Jesus raised the dead. Muslims believe thus on the strength of the Quran’s testimony. The Quran does not show precisely how Jesus brought a dead person back to life, but merely says that he raised the dead by God’s permission. One can easily understand that Jesus may have had some knowledge, given to him by God, of how to resuscitate near-dead persons who, at the time, would have been declared dead. Mark’s story especially lends itself to this simple interpretation. Jesus himself had assured the crowd that the girl was not dead but merely asleep.

The Gospels, however, give us four such dead-raising stories. Curiously, the time between the person being declared dead and the raising of the person gets progressively longer as we go from Mark to Matthew and Luke, and finally to John. In John the possibility of resuscitation is definitely ruled out, as the person’s body had already been rotting, and we must conceive of the event as no less than a resurrection from the dead.

It is true that Luke did not modify the Marcan story of Jairus’s daughter in this respect. But Luke has another story of such a near-death experience: the story of the son of the widow of Nain. In this story the man was already being carried away to be buried when Jesus halted the process by raising him and handing him over to his mother alive (Luke 7:11-17).

John has neither the story of Jairus’s daughter nor that of the widow of Nain’s son. Instead, he has a remarkable story of Jesus raising his friend Lazarus. This man had been dead and entombed for four days (John 11:17), and by this time there was a bad odor coming from the tomb (11:39). Jesus nevertheless commanded Lazarus to come out of the tomb, and “the dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face” (11:44 NIV). Clearly, this story is of a different character from those of the synoptic gospels. Whereas those could be explained in terms of resuscitation, there is no question of resuscitation here in John’s Gospel.

Now we can see a pattern in which the story evolves. The most dramatic story is told only in John’s Gospel, the last of the four. The next dramatic story is told only in Luke’s Gospel. The least dramatic story is found in the earliest of the four Gospels: Mark. It seems that there was a tradition that Jesus raised a person back to life, somewhat like the story of Mark’s Gospel where the girl is still in her bed and may be thought to be in a deep sleep resembling death. Over time this evolved into two other more dramatic stories: one where an unnamed man is already being borne away to be buried, and another where a named man had been in his tomb for four days such that his body is rotting.

With reference to this evolving story, I made two points at Biola about Matthew’s Gospel. First, the changes wrought therein were a part of that progressive increase in the length of time between the pronouncement of death and the declaration of life in the once-dead individuals. If Jairus had from the start declared his daughter dead, as in Matthew’s Gospel, then the girl had been dead longer than if news of her death comes subsequently from someone else as in Mark. Second, in order to effect this change, Matthew changed the words of Jairus. As seen above, in Mark Jairus says:
My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well, and live.” (Mark 5:23 RSV)

But at the same point in the story in Matthew’s version Jairus says to Jesus:
“My daughter has just died; but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live.” (Matthew 9:18)

Dr. White’s answer to this, ignoring the further development in Luke and John, was that Matthew did nothing wrong in summarizing the story. He referred to Matthew’s action as ‘telescoping’, by which he obviously means that Matthew has drawn in the ends of the story to make it shorter. He correctly pointed out that Matthew achieved brevity by omitting the later part about someone else coming with news of the girl’s death. To Dr. White, Matthew did not change the broad facts of the story in having Jairus declare the girl dead from the start, since we still get the same basic information from both Matthew and Mark.

I maintained my objection that this manner of changing the fact of the girl’s condition, and of changing a person’s quoted speech, was unacceptable. Moreover, in my conclusion, I emphasized that the fact that the Gospel writers have telescoped their narratives in this way implies that no speech of any person in the Gospels can be taken as the Gospel Truth. We can no longer have confidence that any of the reported speeches of Jesus, for example, are really his. These too may have been ‘telescoped’ in the sense of having been changed significantly as has been the speech of Jairus in Matthew’s Gospel.

Though Dr. White would not agree with that conclusion, the relevance of this discussion to the Biola debate is beyond dispute. However, Dr. White questions my judgment in bringing this up again in the Seattle debate. On the contrary, I feel that this discussion does much to decide the outcome of this debate as well. Both debates hinged on the question of the authority and authenticity of the Gospels. This was more clearly expressed in the title of the Biola debate, but is latent in the Seattle debate. If, as I have argued in both debates, the Gospel of Matthew has changed the stories from they way they appear in Mark’s Gospel, then the Gospels are not entirely reliable. One has to be on the lookout for ways in which Matthew and others have evolved the tradition about Jesus, and one may expect that Mark has likewise, in his own way, altered the traditions available to him.

In my earlier “Report on the Seattle Debate,” I argued that it was James’s responsibility to prove three things: that Jesus died on the cross; that he died as a sacrifice for sins; and that he died willing to be such a sacrifice. James’s support for each of these three points comes from the more evolved stages of the Gospel tradition as I have shown in the debate. The later the Gospel the more it proves that Jesus definitely died; that he was a sacrifice for sins, and that he came into the world for the very purpose. If it is true that the stories evolved in this way, then James’s assertions fall flat.

Now we should distinguish between a fact and the significance of that fact. From our discussion at Biola as well as in Seattle, it is clear that James and I agree as a matter of fact that Matthew has changed the speech of Jairus. What we disagree on is the significance of this change. For James Matthew has legitimately telescoped the narrative. For me, Matthew has taken what someone else said later in the story, and put that into the mouth of Jairus earlier. This is unacceptable. But I count it as a step forward in our dialogue that James and I at least agree on the fact of the change if not its significance.

Naturally, in any subsequent debate or dialogue we should build on what gains are already achieved rather than start again from square-one. My hope is that even if James does not see the significance of this fact the audience will. This is why when he asked if I really wanted him to comment on the story again in the Seattle debate I indicated that we have a new audience who needs to hear of it.

Someone in the audience did see the connection between this point and the question of the inspiration and inerrancy of the Gospels. He put the question to James, and, as was mutually agreed, I had the chance to comment on it as well. James can hardly fault me, as he does in “A Stormy Night in Seattle,” for commenting on a question that he had already addressed in stride.

In sum, I believe that James’ acceptance of the fact of the change is a significant step towards seeing the significance of the change as a major point in my favour.

Shabir Ally
October 23, 2007

Report on the Seattle Debate - Shabir Ally

nospam@example.com (Waheed) — Mon, 12 May 2008 22:22:57 +0000

Shabir Ally and James White Seattle, October 19, 2007
Topic: Was Jesus Christ Crucified as a Willing Sacrifice for the Sins of God’s People?

The recordings of the debate will soon be available for those who are interested to give it a full review. In the meantime, James has already published some comments on what he feels to be the outcome of the debate (www.aomin.org, “A Stormy Night in Seattle,” October 20, 2007). I feel that it is necessary to balance the picture he has presented by offering some comments of my own.

James had to prove three things. First, that Jesus was crucified. Second, that he was crucified as a sacrifice for the sins of God’s people. Third, that he was willing to be this sacrifice. As for the term ‘crucified’, it is clear that in this context it does not mean merely to be hung on a cross, but actually to die on the cross. This is because no Christian doctrine of the cross allows for Jesus to come down from the cross alive and still be a sacrifice for anyone’s sins. It is only by proving all three of these points that James can come out successful.

As for the first point, James in his report simply concentrates on what he presented in his opening statement and follows that with the incredible assertion that I did not respond to his points. I hope that reviewers will find that I did in fact respond as follows. I explained that the Quranic verse 4:157 does not require the interpretation that someone else was put on the cross instead of Jesus. Although this has been a widely circulated classical interpretation, I agreed with James that there is no report attributed to the Prophet, on whom be peace, to verify this. In sum, although this is an early interpretation it is not binding on Muslims to hold it. What precisely happened at the cross is not spelled out in the Quran, and it is up to Muslims to investigate the question using credible or available historical sources.

The earliest Muslims such as Ibn Abbas used the sources at their disposal. They looked at the literal text of a part of that verse, but only a part, and concluded that two things were being denied: first, that Jesus was killed by his enemies; and second, that he was hung on a cross. Assuming that crucified means merely being hung on a cross, they then enquired of Jews and Christians as to what scenario could possibly explain the Quran’s statement that Jesus was neither killed nor crucified. Eventually they arrived at the basic interpretation that someone else was made to look like Jesus and that that person was crucified instead, whereas God raised Jesus into heaven. On all other aspects of the scenario that would get this other person onto the cross, even who this other person was, the commentators differed widely, revealing the paucity of their sources and the degree of speculation that went into the commentary.

The best reconstruction of the meaning is what has been mentioned by Tarif Khalidi in the introduction to his book: The Muslim Jesus. The Quran seems to mean no more than to deny that the Jews killed Jesus.

I explained all of this in the debate, adding that the Indian scholar Abdul Majid Daryabadi in his four-volume exegesis: Tafsir-ul-Quran, while following the classical interpretation of the verse in his translation nevertheless in his notes defined crucifixion in a way that supports Khalidi’s interpretation. Daryabadi defined crucifixion as ‘the act of putting to death by nailing to a cross’. Keeping this definition in mind, we notice that the verse says: “They killed him not, nor crucified him.” Substituting Daryabadi’s definition of crucifixion, the verse would mean: “They killed him not, nor put him to death by nailing him to a cross.” I argued that this means in essence that the Quran is first denying in a general manner that they killed Jesus, and immediately following up with a parallel denial that they killed Jesus by the specific means of crucifixion.

James in his presentation allowed that the Quran could mean that the Jews did not kill Jesus, since the Romans did. Therefore James did not really have a problem with the Quran as such, but only with the classical interpretation. And since I was not determined to defend the classical interpretation in this debate he was really barking up the wrong tree. Much of what he said in this respect was irrelevant as far as proving his case goes. He had to prove, in response to my specific objections, that Jesus actually died on the cross. This he failed to do.

I made reference to Raymond Brown who, in his two-volume work: The Death of the Messiah, writes that since crucifixion pierces no vital organ, we must therefore wonder: what was the physiological cause of the death of Jesus? Moreover, Brown notes that Mark’s Gospel, the earliest of the four, indicated that there was some doubt on the part of the Roman Governor Pilate that Jesus could have died at the time when the Gospels indicate to be his time of death. Brown points out that Matthew and Luke both rewrite the episode in their own Gospels in such a way as to omit mention that Pilate had this doubt. The obvious reason for this rewriting, according to Brown, is that readers of Mark’s Gospel would start entertaining the same doubt which Pilate had. Matthew and Luke wanted that their own Gospels should not encourage such doubts.

But now, of course, we know that such doubts once existed. James seems satisfied that when he had asked me if the New Testament writings had asserted that Jesus actually died on the cross I answered in the affirmative. He is working with only a partial recall, for my presentation and arguments throughout show that there were tell-tale signs that Jesus had not died on the cross despite this assertion.

I added further that the Jews, according to Matthew’s Gospel, felt deceived. In keeping with the requirements of their Sabbath observance, they had left the crucifixion scene on that Friday evening with the assurance that the legs of the crucified victims would be broken. But they must have found out by morning that the legs of Jesus were not broken. They hurried into Pilate’s court to request that the tomb of Jesus should be sealed up. They were apprehensive lest the disciples of Jesus should steal his body and then proclaim that he had risen from the dead. According to Matthew’s Gospel, they claimed that in case “the second deception would be worse than the first.” I asked what the first deception was, and suggested that they felt deceived in the first place because while they had the reasonable assurance that the legs of the victims would be broken, those of all the victims were broken except those of Jesus.

Matthew’s Gospel shows that Pilate granted their request to have the tomb sealed up. But there is a lapse in the logic of the report. Matthew does not say that they actually checked to see if Jesus’ body was still in the tomb before they sealed it up.

I believe that reviewers of the debate will find that James did not answer these points. His numerous citations of historians who asserted that Jesus had died by crucifixion do not answer the specific point I am making. In response to these citations, I explained that from the point of view of history Jesus died by crucifixion on the assumption that he did not again appear alive to his disciples. The moment anyone begins claiming that he appeared alive again we would have to ask, as E. P. Sanders in his book Paul: A Very Short Introduction suggests that we would naturally ask: “How do you know he was really dead?”

My presentation on this question shows that there was considerable doubt as to whether Jesus really died on the cross. And this, I maintained, is what the Quran meant when it said:

And those who differ about the matter are in doubt concerning it. They have no knowledge of the matter, but follow only a conjecture. They killed him not for certain. But God raised him to himself. And God is Mighty, Wise. (4:157)

In the cross examination, I pointed to another piece of evidence to indicate that Jesus did not die on the cross. According to John’s Gospel, the crucifixion occurred outside of Jerusalem. But Luke’s Gospel has a remarkable episode in which Jesus says he must press on to Jerusalem, because “it is impossible for a prophet to die outside of Jerusalem” (Luke 13:33). I asked James if there were not prophets who did in fact die outside of Jerusalem. He answered that indeed there were. But he added that Jesus meant only himself as the prophet who could not die outside of Jerusalem. Now, logically, if Jesus cannot die outside of Jerusalem, and the cross was outside of Jerusalem, then Jesus did not die on the cross. James explained that when Jesus mentioned Jerusalem he did not mean strictly Jerusalem. In that case, he claims, it does not matter that he actually was crucified and died just outside the city gates. I leave it to reviewers of the debate to comment on this part of our discussion.

On the whole, I do not believe that James came anywhere near to proving the first part of the topic: that Jesus died on a cross. I will have much more to say on the other parts of the topic, especially about the difficulty James had in dealing with the logic of God killing his son. But I really think that this sort of analysis should be done independently of James or me. I only felt it necessary to respond to James’s incredible claim that I did not in fact respond to his points about the Quran’s denial of the crucifixion. I hope that reviewers will find that the response I have given here corresponds roughly to what happened in the debate itself.

Shabir Ally

October 21, 2007

Nine Undeniable Contradictions in the Bible

nospam@example.com (Waheed) — Wed, 07 May 2008 23:10:41 +0000

They further attempt to show how these errors could have come about due to copyist mistakes. But that does not change matters much. Your main point as a caller to Islam is that today’s Bibles contain error. Anyone who wishes to deny that should check with the missionaries who answered for the Bible and could not deny these contradictions. The reply is authored by Joseph Smith and three other missionaries in the UK, and appear under the title "101 Cleared-up Contradictions in the Bible." The reply can be read at www.answering-islam.org. The title of the reply gives the impression that all the one hundred and one contradictions are cleared up. But first impressions can be deceiving. Actually, within the book the authors Smith and others admit that some of the contradictions are still in the text of today's Bible. They call these errors copyist errors and attempt bizarre explanations of how such errors could possibly have occurred in the first place. But the main thing for you is that no matter how the missionaries might have tried, they could not deny that these errors are in their Bible today. The list below retain the numbers which they were assigned in the booklet "101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible." You can read the entire list at our website: www.islaminfo.com.

Contradiction #5
How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
(a) Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26).
(b) Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2).

Contradiction #6
How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?
(a) Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8).
(b) Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9).

Contradiction #11
When David defeated the King of Zobah, how many horsemen did he capture?
(a) One thousand and seven hundred (2 Samuel 8:4).
(b) Seven thousand (1 Chronicles 18:4).

Contradiction #12
How many stalls for horses did Solomon have?
(a) Forty thousand (1 Kings 4:26).
(b) Four thousand (2 Chronicles 9:25).

Contradiction #13
In what year of King Asa’’s reign did Baasha, King of Israel die?
(a) Twenty-sixth year (1 Kings 15:33 - 16:8).
(b) Still alive in the thirty-sixth year (2 Chronicles 16:1).

Contradiction #15
Solomon built a facility containing how many baths?
(a) Two thousand (1 Kings 7:26).
(b) Over three thousand (2 Chronicles 4:5).

Contradiction #22
Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the total number of the whole assembly was 42,360. Yet the numbers do not add up to anything close. The totals obtained from each book is as follows:
(a) 29,818 (Ezra).
(b) 31, 089 (Nehemiah).

Contradiction #23
How many singers accompanied the assembly?
(a) Two hundred (Ezra 2:65).
(b) Two hundred and forty-five (Nehemiah 7:67).

Contradiction #94
Who killed Goliath?
(a) David (1 Samuel 17:23, 50).
(b) Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19).

IS THE BIBLE HISTORICALLY TRUE?

nospam@example.com (Waheed) — Wed, 07 May 2008 23:10:04 +0000

Since the faith of Jews and Christians depend on the historical circumstances narrated in the Bible, the question about the historicity of the Bible is ultimately a question about the validity of the faith.

This question is addressed in the book The Bible as History by Werner Keller. In the postscript by Joachim Rehork, the importance of the question is first addressed:

For the majority of Bible readers . . . as well as for a large number of Biblical scholars, a great deal still depends on the question whether statements in the Bible can be proved. The Dominican father, Roland de Vaux, for example, one of the most prominent figures in the history of Biblical antiquity, regarded the capacity to survive of the Jewish and Christian faiths as dependent upon the agreement between “religious” and “objective” history. He stated his opinion thus: “. . . if Israel’s historical faith does not have its roots in history, then it is wrong and the same is true of our faith.”1

Now what about the answer to this question? Is the Bible historically true? Rehork writes:

It is full of problematical statements with the consequence that representatives of the most diverse disciplines, “schools” and opinions have racked their brains again and again over contradictions, repetitions and inconsistencies in the Biblical text–inconsistencies of which the following are a few examples.

Then Rehork lists some examples of which I number three here:

1. In the Bible there are two accounts of the Creation (Genesis 1: 1-2, 3; and Genesis 2:4ff). In the first of these two accounts of the Creation, God created man last; in the second, however, God created him first, that is to say, before all other creatures. In one case God created mankind from the beginning as “male and female”; then, however, only the man came into being from “the dust of the ground”, while woman was formed subsequently from a rib of the man.

2. The name of Moses’s father-in-law has been transmitted in three different forms, once as Jethro (Exodus 3:1; 4:18; 18:1-12), once as Reuel (Exodus 2:18) and finally as Hobab ((Judges 4:11).

3. How could Moses describe his own death (Deuteronomy 34)? Or to put the question another way: can the first five books of the Bible really have been written by Moses when they tell us of his death?

After listing such problems, Rehork continues: “These are only a few examples of inconsistencies in the Bible.”2

Rehork is careful to clarify that the question about the Bible being true can be answered on different levels. He is not concerned in the book with those truths for which history cannot provide confirmation. Belief, religious conviction, and the subjective feeling that something is right fall within a domain outside of historical confirmation. History cannot prove or disprove a document of faith. Where historical investigation ends, faith begins. We can produce proofs for or against the Bible as a historical source, but the Bible has a different level of being right.

But is the Bible always right? Rehork poses this question and then in his answer reveals something of the difficulty some scholars face in trying to make clear their findings. He writes that as far as Biblical statements are confirmed by archeological discoveries and parallel sources we can answer in the affirmative. For statements that are not so confirmed, we can look for another form of rightness. The Bible is right in some passages in giving us some insight into the thought and behavior of the people who wrote the book. And perhaps one day we will be able to affirm that the Bible is right after all, “as seen through the eyes of the people of its times!”3

Such ambivalence is an indication of the sort of difficulty Biblical scholars face when they cannot make their findings clear. On the one hand he affirms that the Bible is inconsistent; on the other hand he affirms that the faith is fine. On the one hand he was able to say about the Bible: “There is no end to the problems.”4 On the other hand, he finds a way to maintain that the faith is true.

I conclude by referring back to what Father Roland de Vaux said: “. . . if Israel’s historical faith does not have its roots in history, then it is wrong and the same is true of our faith.”5 We began by asking whether or not the Bible is historically accurate--whether it is true. We have seen that it is “full of problematical statements,” that it contains “inconsistencies” and that there is “no end to the problems.”

NOTES:

1. Werner Keller, The Bible as History, 2nd revised edition (US: Bantam, 1988) p. 434
2. Ibid, p. 435
3. Ibid, p. 438
4. Ibid, p. 436
5. Ibid, p. 435