Islamic Higher Criticism of Luke

A few objections that were raised with me, copied from the infamous AC.

Who wrote Luke?

Claim:

The following is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://newadvent.org/cathen/14625b.htm http://newadvent.org/cathen/14625a.htm

If Theophilus existed in either the 2nd or the 4th centuries then how could the writer of this gospel be the same Luke who is supposed to be with Jesus in the 1st century.

Did he live for 200 years?

Response:

Here, the claim is that the Gospel of Luke was written in either the 2nd or 4th century because - well, they identified two Theophilus' whom were alive in those periods. The arbitrary nature of this claim is simply laughable. How do we know it wasn't talking about Theophilus Lindsey (1723–1808)? Or some pre-Christian Theophilus? It seems that this very thorough investigative technique of typing 'Theophilus' into the New Advent search was sufficient to expose the heavly guarded secrets of the Roman Catholic Church.

Just to clarify - there is absolutely no reason to suggest that those two (of many) Theophilus' are whom the gospel of Luke was written to and for. Similarly, some reasons against the arbitrary dating would be that we physically have manuscript evidence of the Gospel of Luke dating to the 2nd half of the 2nd century (e.g. P4 & P75).

Pathetic Polemics: literary styles of the Bible

The state of Islamic polemics against Christianity is usually pathetic at best. Here is a clear example by 'Yahya Ahmed' in their article Carm.org agrees with the Quran on the Bible's corruption.

The argument:

"That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but 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)

Conjecture i.e Guesswork, fiction.

The above Quranic verse says that whoever differs in the matter of crucifixion and agrees that Christ (pbuh) was crucified are actually following conjecture(Guesswork,fiction).

See how Carm.org confirms the Quranic verse.

"The Bible contains many different styles of writing such as poetry, narration, fiction, history, law, and prophecy and must be interpreted in context of those styles. It is the source of the Christian religion in that the Bible contains the words of God and how the Christian is to apply the words of God to his life."

Response:

First things first. Does anyone other than Yahya see how the quote from Carm.org confirms the Qur'anic claim that:

1. Jesus was not crucified?
2. The Bible is corrupted?
   

The Carm.org quote says nothing of Jesus' crucifixion or Biblical corruption - and if you were to read the site an honest individual would struggle to claim the authors hold such positions.

To examining the quote. It seems that Yahya is attempting to persuade us that Carm.org is claiming the Bible is fiction. Even a cursory reading of the quote will not leave such a nonsensical belief in someone's mind - but alas, it is the deceptive meaning Yahya finds himself propagating.

The quote is rather clear- the bible contains "different styles of writing". No one can argue with that. As mentioned there is "poetry" such as is found in the Psalms, and there is "fiction" such as the parables. Although the parables were factually told the narrative recounted by Jesus is fiction - invented to illustrate a point.

I do not believe I have to comment any further. The pathetic nature of such dishonest attacks on Christianity, the Bible and apologists is what I have assuredly come to expect.

James White vs Osama Abdullah - A Preview

The integrity of a Christian debater versus the infamous Osama Abdullah of answering-Christianity. Whenever a Muslim defaults to copy/pasting Osama's arguments I do get rather disappointed. Anyway, here is a preview...

Super Brief Response to Gnostic Gospel Attacks

I link to a video - The Case for Christ: Gnostic vs Synoptic Gospels. I will just take a few minutes to deal with the claims coming up. [NB: This was a quick post so it is a tad incomplete - feel free to comment suggestions.]

The Gospel Dates

[T]he Gospel of Thomas Pre-dates the book of Revelation, & the "canonical" gospels were written in the about the year 100-150 from second and third hand accounts.

The two issues here are the dating of the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas and the dating of the canonical gospels. The claim above is clear- they want to make the reader believe that the 'alternative' gospels were written first and the canonical gospels were written far later.


Firstly, the majority view of respectable scholars is that the Gospel of Thomas was written into the second century - as the earliest alternative gospel. If we turn to scholars who are hostile to Christianity this point is clearly illustrated.

Professor Bart D. Ehrman[1] dates the Gospel of Thomas to the "early 2nd century"[2]. Regarding the contents of the text:

Collection of 114 sayings of Jesus, some possibly authentic, others embodying Gnostic concerns; discovered at Nag Hammadi.[3]

In general, Ehrman states:

For the record, I do not date any of the Gnostic Gospels to the first century...[4]

With regard to the claim that the canonical gospels were composed between 100-150, there is no academic push for such dating. I cannot think of a respect scholar who has dated the gospels that late - and we have physical evidence of the last gospel to be written, the Gospel of John, from the date 125AD.[5]



The Oldest Manuscripts

The oldest NT manuscript is only from the year 350

Apparently, the oldest New Testament manuscript is only from the year 350. Having personally seen NT Papyri that pre-date this time substantially, I find it difficult to follow. There are 10-13 manuscripts from the second century alone.[6]

According to the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung ten of these manuscripts from within the second century alone include:

P⁵² (100-150), P^{90, 104} (2^nd century), P⁶⁶ (c. AD 175-225), P^{46, 64+67} (c. AD 200), P⁷⁷, P¹⁰³, 0189 (2^nd or 3^rd century), P⁹⁸ (2^nd century?). [7]

Again, we find this attack unsubstantiated and historically inaccurate.


References:
1. Professor Bart D. Ehrman, James A. Distinguished Professor is author of a number of works attacking Christianity such as NY Times Bestseller 'Misquoting Jesus'. Just a note - I agree with Ehrman in a lot of his scholarly works, however, I often find conflict with his open conclusions, popular works and when he attempts to exegete. For a review of Misquoting Jesus I recommend Professor Dan B. Wallace's The Gospel According to Bart.
2. Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities p. xii
3. Ibid, p. xii
4. Bart D. Ehrman on the Textual Criticism Board
5. See dating of Papyrus 52
6. Daniel B. Wallace, Second Century Papyri: "This means that there are at least ten and as many as thirteen NT MSS"

N.T. Wright on Hyper-Scepticism

This quote got a chuckle out of me so I felt compelled to share it. Those of you not accustomed to the field of higher criticism may not understand where it is coming from - but I am sure it is something even the most Price-Deterring-esque 'scholar' would be compelled to reflect on:

The guild of New Testament studies has become so used to operating with a hermeneutic of suspicion that we find ourselves trapped in our own subtleties. If two ancient writers agree about something, that proves one got it from the other. If they seem to disagree, that proves that one or both got it wrong. If they say an event or saying fits a prophecy, they made it up to look like that. If there are two accounts of similar events, they are a "doublet" (there was only one event); but if a single account has anything odd about it, there must have been two events, which are now conflated. And so on. Anything to show how clever we are, how subtle, to have smoked out the reality behind the text...Suspicion is all very well; there is also such a thing as a hermeneutic of paranoia. Somebody says something; they must have a motive; they must have made it up.

N.T. Wright, 'The Meaning of Jesus' p.18

Muhammad in the New Testament Revisited

In a previous post of mine I set out a few quick ways to expose the claims that Muhammad is found in the Bible. From that list, regarding the New Testament, I have expanded it to 8 questions that must all be satisfied if Muhammad is the Parakletos of John 14/16.

They are as follows:

1) Was Muhammad sent in Jesus' name? (John 14:26)

2) Did Muhammad teach the disciples? (John 14:26)

3) Did Muhammad help the disciples remember Jesus' preaching? (John 14:26)

4) Was Muhammad invisible? (John 14:17)

5) Did Muhammad convict the world for not believing IN Jesus? (John 16:8-9)

6) Did Muhammad live forever? (John 14:16)

7) Did Muhammad abide with the disciples forever and abide with Christians forever?(John 14:16)

8) Was Muhammad in the disciples? (John 14:17)

In reality, Muhammad does not satisfy any of those requirements - and when put on the spot Muslims find a number of pathetic ways to try and avoid it. One of these responses I recently received and responded to is as follows:

NB: Their rebuttal is in Green, my responses in default black.

Codex Syriacus reads John 14:26 as " Paraklete, The Spirit" and NOT " Paraklete, The Holy Spirit"
Any difference between Spirit and Holy Spirit?
YES. A Spirit in Biblical language means a Prophet (see 1 John 4:1 &1 John 4:6 & 2 Thessalonians 2:2)
So in primary Conclusion The Paraklete can't be the Holy Spirit.

The fact that Codex Syriacus is NOT in Greek makes it impossible to contain the Greek word Parakletos - or any GREEK word. [1] The oldest witnesses in Greek (including those found at Sinai like Syriacus) read "ὁ δὲ παράκλητος, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον" identifying the Parakletos as the Pneuma hagion (Holy Spirit). [2] There are no variants that I am aware of in any of the families (Alexandrian, Western or Byzantine) to suggest an alternative reading to this.[3]

Regarding the claim that "[a] Spirit in Biblical language means a prophet", it is simply unfounded conjecture. The use of the word Spirit in 1 John 4:1 is not identifying the prophet as a spirit but the Pneuma is in regard to the spirit and force behind such a message. The allusion to false prophets is simply that the spirit for that 'prophecy' is not from God. If you have ever read any Jewish literature from around that period (such as Serekh Ha Yahad also known as 4QS of the Dead Sea Scrolls) you would understand how common the idea in verses 1 & 6 are. With regard to the Thessalonians verse, I see no logical way by which you concluded the Spirit was a prophet.

In short, there is no basis for the primacy conclusion you assert.

In John 16 it syas the the Parakelete will 'AKouo' & 'Laleo' which means MATERIAL HEARING and SPEAKING with human organs
One again the Parakelet can’t be the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit only inspires.

There is simply no justification for this statement. For "Akou" (actually ἀκούσει in the text) whether or not it is a literal quality or a personification is determined within the context. As we are speaking of a spiritual Pneuma (that the world cannot see, etc) there is no reason to even suspect that the ability to 'hear' or 'speak' implies a physical human body.

If we turn to John 9:31 the same word is used in relation to God.

“We know that God does not hear (ἀκούει) sinners; but if anyone is God-fearing and does His will, He hears him."
" οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἁμαρτωλῶν ὁ θεὸς (GOD) οὐκ ἀκούε (HEAR)ι, ἀλλʼ ἐάν τις θεοσεβὴς ᾖ καὶ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ ποιῇ τούτου ἀκούει (HEARS)."[4]

As is evident, there is no reason to entertain such an outrageous claim.

Jesus is also a Parakele, how ? :)
1 John 2:1 reads:
And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the "Paraklete" (see the Greek text).

This nonsensical claim stems from having no understanding of the word Parakletos. Parakletos - advocate/helper/etc is not a title but a description of the Holy Spirit in John 14-16. Jesus is a Parakletos just as a lawyer in a court case is a Parakletos. But in John 14 etc, the Parakletos of the text is a SPECIFIC Parakletos - identified as the Holy Spirit[5] - personifying such characteristics in the eight points above.

See how the deceiving translation translates the same word Paraklete one time to comforter and another to righteous.
Why this double standard in translation?

There is actually no deceptive translation here - the only deception is your false claim.
No translation translates Parakletos as "righteous". In 1 John 2:1 the word translated "righteous" is actually the word for righteous - "δίκαιον".

Τεκνία μου, ταῦτα γράφω ὑμῖν ἵνα μὴ ἁμάρτητε. καὶ ἐάν τις ἁμάρτῃ, παράκλητον (PARAKLETON) ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν δίκαιον· (DIKAION = righteous).[6]
1 John 2:1

John 14:26 reads "Another Paraklete"
Another from the same type or different type?
The word here is "ALLOS" = the same type like Jesus = Human
Once again the Paraklete can't be the Holy Spirit

No where in John 14:26 does the word 'allos' appear:
ὁ δὲ παράκλητος,(Parakletos) τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον (Holy Spirit), ὃ πέμψει ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα καὶ ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα ἃ εἶπον ὑμῖν.[7]

You are talking about John 14:26 which contains 'allon' (ἄλλον). I see no reason to infer that allon implies in human form as the text is specific that they will come as another comforter (Parakletos).

Finally is it Paraklytos or Periklytos?

As no text out of the thousands of Greek New Testament manuscripts mention "periklytos" it is a safe bet that the texts state what they clearly state - Parakletos.

Conclusion

None of the rebuttal points addressed my 8 questions above. All of the rebuttals were simply errant with much of the points simply being made up. Again, there is no reason to even entertain the possibility that Muhammad is the Parakletos - especially as Jesus identifies Him as the Holy Spirit.


_____________
1. "The Codex Syriacus is a 5 th century translation of the Gospels in Syriac..."
http://www.sinai4you.com/santa/
2. Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition
3. Bruce Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament
4. Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition: John 9:31 - interprative prompts mine.
5. See John 14:26
6. Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition: 1 John 2:1
7. Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition: John 14:26

Jesus said, "I and the Father are ONE"

I have decided to continue with the theme of the deity of Christ. In an earlier post, we have established that the earliest Christians believed Christ to be divine. Although some examples were previously provided, I have chosen to narrow down on two example of Christ's revelationary self-identification.

In John 10:30 Jesus makes a very important claim - a claim that those in his presence recognised and Christians and non-Christians alike recognise. This claim is one that sets Jesus' apart from the prophets (both from God and false).

Jesus said:

"I and the Father are one."

One of the greatest ways to understand this verse is to see how those living in Jesus' context saw it. So, how did they react?

"Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, CLAIM TO BE GOD." "
John 10:31-33

The enormity of the statement, “I and the Father are one,” within the context of the Gospel of John is difficult to overstate. There are several reasons for this. First, this is a type of “I am” statement for Jesus, this time “we are.” There is a continued reference to the divine name of Jehovah God, I AM (see John 8:58 below). Second, there is a further divine claim in obvious allusion to the famous Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4, “Hear O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” This was the monotheistic bedrock of the Jewish religion, that there was only one God. Yet Jesus has now included himself in this monotheistic confession. He does not mean that he has achieved some type of mystical unity with God that might be more at home with Hinduism. He is speaking of the very essence of his relationship with the Father, that there is a sameness about them. The theological math here is that 1 + 1 = 1 (cf. John 1:1). And yet a third element in this should be noted. Jesus does not say, “I am the Father.” Although he makes a mighty claim here, he continues to maintain a certain level of distinction between the Father and himself.

But this isn't the only time Jesus made this claim. We turn to John 8:58-59:

"Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham 1was born, I am.” "

Now, how did those Jews in Jesus' context react to this?

"Therefore they apicked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple. " (verse 59)

At this point Jesus makes one of the most sensational statements in all of the recorded Gospels, and one of the most staggering statements in John, “before Abraham was, I am.” This is the climax of the “I am” statements in John. Here the “I am” has two very important implications.

First, the “I am” (ἐγὼ εἰμί, egō eimi) is an intentional play upon the divine name of God found in the Old Testament. At the burning bush, when Moses asked God what his name was, the answer was “I am who I am” (Exod 3:14). In Hebrew, this name is יהוה (YHWH), which is sometimes transliterated as “Jehovah.” It is based upon the Hebrew verb for “being,” and so God’s personal name revealed to Moses is literally “the I am.” Here, as in verses 24 and 28, there is no complement for the verb. The statement is not “I am (something).” It is just “I am.” Jesus has already said that one must “believe that I am” (v. 24) and “know that I am” (v. 28). To make these demands is to claim the name of God for personal use. In some ways Jesus is saying, “I am the ‘I am.” I am God.”

Second, this claim has other enormous theological implications. By saying “before Abraham was, I am,” Jesus is asserting his transcendence over time and history. He does not say “I was there with Abraham.” In effect, he says “I am there with Abraham, and even before.” Time does not limit God, and it does not limit Jesus. As John has said, “In the beginning was the Word” (1:1; cf. Rev 22:13).

We must be careful here. For us these theological truths can be dangerously overstated as in the simplistic bumper-sticker theology that says, “Jesus is Jehovah.” Although we may not completely understand all the distinctions, Jesus does not remove everything that separates the Father from the Son. In fact if there is no difference between the Father and the Son, much of what Jesus has said in this chapter is nonsense: God is not his Father; he is his own “father.” The Father did not send him; he sent himself. He does not know the Father; he knows himself. This results in a loss of the humanity of Jesus, a loss that orthodox Christianity has never tolerated. At the end of the day we must affirm both the full humanity and the full divinity of Christ, and that is precisely one of the major agendas of the Gospel of John.

Time for talking is now over as far as the Jews are concerned. They understand exactly what is at stake in Jesus’ claim to be “I am.” He has gone far beyond being an irritation to them. He is now a dangerous blasphemer, a threat that cannot be ignored. Mob violence mentality takes control, and preparations for a stoning/ lynching begin. But this is not the time, place, or method for Jesus’ death, so the text says he hid himself and he gets away safely (implying a miraculous escape).

Hence, these two statements are so powerful that one cannot deny that Christ claimed to be divine.

[Related posts: The Myth: The Early Christians did Not believe Christ to be Divine| The Deity of Christ | The Subordination of Christ ]