The Attitude of the Qur’an and Sunnah to the Christian Scriptures

Antoin MacRuaidh

---

1. Introduction

Islam is a prophetic-revelatory religion whose faith and practice centres on its holy book, the Qur’an. Muslims believe that there have been one hundred and four revelatory books – ten to Adam, fifty to Seth, thirty to Enoch, ten to Abraham, one to Moses, one to David, one to Jesus and one to Muhammad. All but those of Abraham, Moses David, Jesus and Muhammad have been taken up to Paradise, and the Book of Abraham is no longer extant. Those that remained, apart from that of Muhammad, are those revealed to Moses, the Tawrah (Torah), to David, the Zabur (Psalms), and that given to Jesus, the Injil(Gospel). The Mosaic and Davidic books mentioned in the Qur’an resemble the Jewish structure of the Tenak (Old Testament) – the Torah, Nebi’im and Kethubim – the Law, the Prophets and the Writings, the last-mentioned often termed ‘the Psalms’ after the first book in the section. Of course, there is no reference in the Qur’an to the Nebi’im, although Islam’s holy book does refer to a number of the prophets mentioned in the Bible, nor is there any reference to the Kethubim, and the reference to the Psalms being given to David indicates that only the individual book of that name is concerned, rather than the entire section of the Tenak sometimes denoted by the term.

The Muslim, as opposed to Qur’anic, charge of corruption against the Bible usually refers to al-tahrif al-lafzi, changing the actual text, rather than al-tahrif al-ma’nawi, misinterpreting such. It should be said at the outset that nowhere does either the Qur’an or the Hadith present us with the idea that the Books of Moses, David and Jesus have been lost, removed or even corrupted, despite the view of many Muslims on the issue. However, as we study the sources of Islamic revelation, we find that while there are similarities between the Jewish-Christian Scriptures and the Books mentioned in the Qur’an, there are also important differences. These distinctions, together with the obvious differences in theology between the Bible and the Qur’an, lie at the heart of the controversy over Scriptural identity between Islam and Christianity.

2. The Nature and Status of the Qur’an

The most difficult aspect of understanding the traditional Muslim view of the Christian Scriptures is caused by the distinct point of reference. Obviously, the Muslim looks at the Bible from the standpoint of that with which he is familiar – his holy book. A Muslim coming to the Bible for the first time finds it difficult to understand what he is encountering. It is not just that he has been continually regaled from infancy with tales of how the Bible has been changed. It is primarily because the nature, structure and teaching of the Bible do not adhere to that of the Qur’an. The Muslim, from his reading of the Qur’an,has a fixed idea not simply about the content of divine revelation (i.e. Islamic doctrine), but also its form and character. He looks at the Bible through the lens of the Qur’an, which he believes to be the ultimate inscripturated revelation from God. The holy book of Islam sets the pattern for the characteristic of an inspired Scripture. In order to see why the charge of corruption against the Bible has arisen among Muslims, we must first understand the nature of the Qur’an in Islam.

2.1 The Nature of the Qur’an

The Qur’an is believed by Sunnis (though not by Shi’is) to be the eternal, uncreated word of God. The source of this belief is found in the Qur’an itself, in the concept that there eternally exists in Paradise (and is therefore free from human influence) the Preserved Tablet, (Lawh-i-Mahfuz), the eternal Word of God, from which revelation descends to humanity. It is termed ‘The Mother of the Book ‘ (Umm-ul-Kitab). The Muslim Qur’anic translator and commentator Yusuf Ali says:

For: 43. 4

…The Mother of the Book, the Foundation of Revelation, the Preserved Tablet (Lauh Mahfuz. lxxxv. 22), is the core or essence of revelation…The Mother of the Book is in Allah’s own Presence…

The Islamic scholar Mawdudi states:

‘Umm al-Kitab’: the ‘Original Book’: the Book from which all the Books sent down to the prophets have been derived. In Surah Al Waqi’ah the same thing has been described as Kitab-um-Maknun (the hidden and preserved Book) and in Surah al-Buruj: 22 as Lauh-i Mahfuz (the preserved Tablet), that is, the Tablet whose writing cannot be effaced, which is secure from every kind of interference…Different Books had been revealed by Allah in different ages…they brought one and the same Din (Religion). The reason was that their source and origin was the same, only words were different…they had the same meaning and theme which is inscribed in a Source Book with Allah, and whenever there was a need, he raised a prophet and sent down the same meaning and subject matter clothed in a particular diction according to the environment and occasion…

Hence, according to Islam, there is a certain degree of progressive revelation, but not in the Christian sense of the unfolding drama of redemption whereby purely temporary physical phenomena such as the Temple, the Levitical priesthood, the political state, etc., were superseded by the New Testament Church, the common priesthood of all believers (based on the eternal priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchizedek) and the present Messianic Reign, or with respect to the gradual disclosure of Messianic prophecy. In the view of Islam, each book brought the same message, without any typological scaffolding such as prospective sacrifices for sin, etc., the major difference between the Books of Islam being that the previous scriptures predicted the coming of Muhammad, which the Qur’an records as fulfilled. Further, the nature of inspiration was the same, revelation being ‘sent down’ from the Eternal Tablet, and so, as we shall see in my other paper The Compilation of the Text of the Qur’an and the Sunni-Shia dispute, Muslims naturally affirm that the process of canonical compilation was also identical.

It should also be noted that Mawdudi’s point about a prophet bringing ‘…subject matter clothed in a particular diction according to the environment and occasion…’ in itself points to a difficulty Muslims experience with the Christian Scriptures. The ‘Great Commission’ in Matthew 28:18-20, where Jesus enjoins the universal proclamation of His message, contradicts Islamic dogma that all prophets prior to Muhammad were merely local messengers. As one Muslim author puts it,

…God was sending different prophets to the different nations. Jesus was one of these national prophets.

Necessarily, therefore, His Scripture was of purely local and temporary concern. This being the case, a further point in this regard which is often raised by Muslim apologists is the language of the gospels. We know that a principal reason for the New Testament being in Greek was because the Christian message was for all humanity, and Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman and Near Eastern world, comparable to the contemporary position of English today. Furthermore, Palestine itself had been heavily Hellenized since the time of Alexander the Great, as Martin Hengel has demonstrated. When Christ entered the Greek-speaking area of Tyre and Sidon, the Decapolis, or spoke to Roman officials such as the Centurion or Pontius Pilate, he evidently spoke in Greek, as it is most unlikely that the latter in particular would know either Hebrew or Aramaic. However, the usual Muslim position is that the true gospel must have been in Aramaic, since Jesus was a purely local prophet, and against all the evidence, Muslim polemicists hold that Jesus, as a Palestinian, would not have known Greek. Moreover, Muslims hold that revelation suffers in the translation, hence the reason that translations of the Qur’an are always qualified by titles such as ‘The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an’ (emphasis mine). Thus the Gospels are held to be unreliable simply because they are not in Hebrew or Aramaic.

Muhammad, however, being the Seal of the Prophets, was the universal Messenger for Mankind, S. 7:159; 21:107, and as his message was essentially the Qur’an, the same is true of his scripture – it alone was for all humanity. As the New Testament stands, the climactic and universal claims of Jesus give to Him, and thus to the New Testament itself, what Muslims hold in this respect belongs to Muhammad and the Qur’an. There is no theological and eschatological basis for future prophets and scriptures in the New Testament. Quite apart from the doctrinal problems this produces, it presents a picture of the previous Scriptures that does not tally with the Islamic idea of the characteristic of an earlier holy book. The Bible is self-sufficient and a complete, final revelation, and it is thus incompatible with the Qur’an on this basis.

2.2. Status of the Qur’an

Following from the idea that the Qur’an descends from an eternal Tablet in Paradise, we can see that a major problem is Christian-Muslim dialogue is the misunderstanding about comparison. Christians and Muslims often compare Muhammad to Christ, and the Qur’an to the Bible. Persons and Scriptures are compared with each other. On the Christian side, we make the point that the Bible reveals Christ – that it discloses him as the Word of God and the eternal Son of God, and that through faith in Him, and thus what is revealed about Him in the Bible, we receive eternal life, John 20:31. ‘The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.‘, John 1:14, and He ‘…came from the Father, full of grace and truth.‘ However, in Islam, it is Muhammad who reveals the Qur’an, the uncreated, eternal Word of God, which became a Book and is recited among us.

Moreover, the Qur’an, in its instructions to men, is the key to the knowledge of salvation – necessarily so, for it is the revelation of God giving them the sign of how to walk the Straight Path of obedience to the divine will – Islam. It is often said of Muhammad by Muslims that ‘his life was the Qur’an.’ It can be seen that on this basis the Qur’an is not exactly equivalent to the Bible in the Christian understanding: rather, as the means of salvation, it stands in Islam where Jesus stands in Christianity. Just as Christians believe that the impartation of spiritual life by the Spirit of Christ enables us to walk in conformity with the will of God, Romans 8:9, so the internalization of the Qur’an enables the Muslim to live the life of perfect submission to God, as exemplified by Muhammad. The true contrast is between Muhammad and the Bible on the one hand, and Jesus and the Qur’an on the other. It is noteworthy that Islam calls Jesus Kalimat’Allah (‘a Word from God’) and Ruh’Allah (‘the Spirit of God’). The concept is clearly linked to the idea of revelation, and of prophets as instruments of this What is interesting in this regard is that the title ‘the Spirit of God’ is also applied to the Qur’an in the Hadith. This being the case, Christians can understand from their own concept of the Holy Spirit what is the nature of the Qur’an for Muslims.

The Qur’an, in its instructions to men, is the key to the knowledge of salvation – necessarily so, for it is the revelation of God giving them the sign of how to walk the Straight Path of obedience to the divine will – Islam:

Surah: 2. Baqara Ayah: 135

135. They say: ‘Become Jews or Christians if ye would be guided (to salvation).’ Say thou: ‘Nay! (I would rather) the religion of Abraham the true and he joined not gods with Allah.’

136. Say ye: ‘We believe in Allah and the revelation given to us and to Abraham Isma`il Isaac Jacob and the Tribes and that given to Moses and Jesus and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord we make no difference between one and another of them and we bow to Allah (in Islam).’

AL-MUWATTA of Imam Malik

Malik ibn Anas

The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, ‘I have left two matters with you. As long as you hold to them, you will not go the wrong way. They are the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet.’

This is often difficult for Evangelical Protestants to understand, given their belief in Original Sin, Free Grace and spiritual regeneration effected by the Holy Spirit on the basis of Christ’s salvific work on the Cross. Since Islam does not regard Man as innately corrupt, but rather as morally neutral, spiritual regeneration is unnecessary. Further, in Islam, sin is not a matter of lack of conformity to the nature of God, but concrete acts which contravene the divine will, as revealed in Islamic law (Shari’ah), based upon the Qur’an and Sunnah. On the same basis, the salvific effects of Christ at Calvary are likewise redundant, because Man, in obedience to the Islamic law, can indeed ‘save’ himself with the help of God in the Qur’an and Sunnah. It follows therefore that what is needed is purely the revelation of God instructing Man on how to walk as the Creator would have him behave. Hence the emphasis on the Qur’an as being the Guide to salvation. There is no sense of Substitutionary Reconciliation or Federal Headship in Islam, because there is no concept of one being saving another. Nor is there the same inter-action between God and Man on the earthly scene. Rather, the transcendent deity sends down the Divine Guidance to salvation through angelic and human intermediaries, and the rest is up to Man himself. We may infer from this that the ultimate answer to Muslim attacks on the Bible is not textual, but Christological.

This being the case, it can be understood why a Muslim, looking at the Christian Scriptures in the light of the nature of the Qur’an, cannot fathom their character, especially given the absence of ‘legalism’ in the New Testament. The Qur’an points to itself as the ultimate revelation of God and means of relation to Him, whereas the Bible points to something – or rather someone – external to itself in this respect. Given, the nature of the holy book of Islam, it is incumbent upon a Muslim to revere the Qur’an. We can see why Salman Rushdie ‘s book, The Satanic Verses, caused so much offence – he committed the equivalent of blaspheming Christ. Islamic jurisprudence states that the Qur’an must not be treated with disrespect, so one must not write in it, or place in on the floor, etc.

A further point worthy of note in this regard is that the nature and status of the Qur’an flow from the belief that it is the miracle of Islam and Muhammad. Muhammad is said to have received revelations during a trance, and that extraordinary phenomena were associated with this, such as strange sounds, being gripped by an angel, perspiring in winter, etc. This indicates that both the act of inspiration and the contents thereof were miraculous. Muhammad himself specifically denied that he performed any miracle, other than conveying the Qur’anic revelation. Many Muslims believe it is impossible to read the Qur’an – at least in Arabic – without being converted to Islam. The claims to its being miraculous mainly relate to its language and style (hence the importance of its being read in Arabic). This in itself makes it difficult for a Muslim to accept the Bible as true Scripture, since its style in so many places is different from his holy book. Unlike the Bible for the most part, the Qur’an is written in a kind of rhythmic prose. This purportedly makes it easier to memorise. von Denffer uses the example of Surah 112 Al-Ikhlas:

Qul huwa llahu ahad

Allahu samad

Lam yalid wa lam yulad

wa lam yakun lahu kufuwan ahad

Thus, an encounter with the Qur’an is similar to the experience of Paul on the Damascus Road when the Christophany (manifestation of the Risen Christ) revealed the Son of God in his life, transforming him therein. The Qur’an is its own self-authenticating miracle, the evidence that Islam is the revelation of God. We may compare the way the Resurrection of Jesus is presented as the authenticating miracle of God which demonstrates the truth of His claims to Divine Sonship, Romans 1:4. Again, Muslims do not see the Bible as making quite the same claims about itself (although Paul makes the claim for the gospel that it is the power of salvation, Romans 1:16).

3. The Nature of the Books of Moses, David and Jesus

3.1 The Character of Inspiration and Authorship

In many ways the subject matter of this section belongs under the previous heading, since the character and mode of the inspiration of the Qur’an is crucial to understanding why the Books of Moses, David and Jesus mentioned in the Qur’an do not conform to the Muslim model of Scripture. However, in order to give a more immediate comparison with the Christian Scriptures, it is pertinent to address the issue here.

Whilst there are examples of Divine dictation in the Christian Scriptures, notably the command to inscripturate the Decalogue, Exodus 34:27-28, such is not the norm with respect to the entire Bible. The Christian concept of Scriptural inspiration is theanthropic – a coterminous work of God and Man, the latter being protected from error by the influence of the Holy Spirit, a concept usually called supervision, referring to the condescension of God in revealing His mind and will through human instrumentation and personality. To give an analogy from music, a ballad played on an Irish harp gives the sound of the strings, but the melody it expresses is that of the composer. Likewise, the same is true of a dirge by the same composer performed on Scottish bag-pipes by another player. The tune, theme and performer may be different in each case, and the personality of the individual musician will be obvious in the performance, but the composer is the same in both cases, and with respect to the Scriptures, we can be sure that God has chosen adequate performers!

The Scriptures are ‘God-breathed’ (qeopneustos – theopneustos) 2 Timothy 3:16, but are simultaneously the genuine work of human beings, as indicated by the reference in 2 Peter 3:15-16 ‘…just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him…His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.’ Hence, Both God and Paul were the Authors of Paul’s epistles, the former supernaturally inspiring the latter. 2 Peter 1:21 expresses it perfectly – ‘For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.’

This view is difficult for Muslims to understand. The Christian idea of supervision is analogous to the concept of hadith in Islam – the words of the Prophet, often with commentary by the narrator, true, divinely protected from error, and expressing the mind and will of the Almighty, but not usually direct revelation from the mouth of God. Hence, to a Muslim, the Gospel of Matthew at best seems a mish-mash of hadith and direct revelation – the words of God the Father, Jesus and the Historian writing the book. The Christian apologetic writer William Campbell addresses this issue by presenting how, for example, Luke 8:19-21 would look if presented in Islamic fashion:

According to James, the half-brother of Jesus (may God be pleased with him) the occasion for the revelation of Luke 8:21 was as follows,

Now my mother and brothers and myself came to see Jesus, but we were not able to get near him because of the crowd. Someone told him ‘Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.’

And then the verse was revealed, ‘My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice.’

This Hadith was transmitted by Luke and Mark in their books, which (along with those of Matthew and John) are the most valuable among the collections of Hadiths.)

Only the portion in bold would be regarded as Injil, and this would be recorded as a separate book from the hadith material.

Ahmad Deedat, viewed by many Muslims as their most effective anti-Christian apologist, presents the idea of ‘three grades of evidence’ – the Word of God, the Words of a Prophet of God, and the Words of a Historian. He goes on to claim

The bulk of the Bible is a witnessing of this THIRD kind.

{It should be noted that Deedat ignores elements in the Qur’an where others than God are held to be speaking in the first person – the classic case being Zechariah and Mary in Surah 19 Maryam, as well as other texts where Iblis, the jinn who became Satan, the Quraish, the prophet Jesus, whom Islam denies to be divine, and others, all speak. Moreover, as explained in my other paper The Compilation of the text of the Qur’an and the Sunni-Shia dispute, Muslims themselves hold that the Qur’an is incomplete without the Sunnah, revealed in the Hadith literature, which comments upon and explains the Qur’anic text. To deny the central import of the Sunnah is heresy, as can be seen from the words of a Muslim scholar on the subject:

…whoever believes in the Qur’an… must rely on… these reports of the sayings and deeds of the Prophet… a very large number of these Traditions form a valuable explanatory supplement to the Qur’an.

The nature of the Hadith is parallel to those very aspects of the gospels (and even epistles) which Deedat derogates – inspired historical comment and explanation. Whilst Evangelical Christians state that their source of authority is the Bible alone, Muslims always refer to their sources of authority as the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Thus, the complete authority for Islam is analogous to the Bible itself! Deedat is hung on his own petard.}

With regard to the Islamic view of the inspiration of the Qur’an, however, the nature and mode of inspiration was dictation, through the agency of the Archangel Gabriel. Essentially, the mode of revelation to Muhammad, apart from when the angel appeared to him, was usually one of trance. Again, we can see a major difference between the Christian and Islamic concepts of the mode and nature of inspiration. Apart possibly from the Apocalypse, the Christian concept is one whereby the agent of revelation is consciously involved in the formation of the scripture, although under divine guidance and protection from error. In the Islamic schema, however, the very fact that the recipient of revelation is in a trance indicates that he is merely a passive instrument of the divine will, like the pen of a writer, naturally so since a trance-like condition precludes conscious activity. The very word ‘Qur’an‘ probably derives from qara’a – to read or recite; the word iqraa – ‘speak’ is related to it. We see examples of this in the command to read or recite in the text itself, for example, the first text to be revealed, Surah: 96. Iqraa Ayah: 2. Hence the Prophet merely recited what had been dictated to him.

This is directly pertinent to our theme. In many ways the essence of Islam is the claim of Muhammad to be the ultimate prophet and apostle of God, in the line of Adam and Abraham. The collegiality of the divine messengers is a central tenet of Islamic faith. The nature of prophetic inspiration is necessarily the same with regard to all the messengers of God, as Surah 4 Nisaa Ayah 163 implies (q.v. footnotes). Hence, if Muhammad was a passive instrument in the revelation of the Qur’an, it follows that the same was true of other prophets. They did not participate in the authorship of the Books associated with their names; rather, they simply recited what was dictated to them. This can be seen in Surah 57 Hadiid Ayah 27, with its reference to Jesus having the Gospel ‘bestowed’ (Arabic aty’na’hu) on him; note also the role Gabriel played in bringing revelation to Jesus:

Surah: 2. Baqara Ayah: 87

87. We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of Apostles;

We gave Jesus the son of Mary clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit..

Hence, the Muslim idea is that Gabriel, the Holy Spirit, inspired Jesus the same way he revealed Scripture to Muhammad. It can be seen that a great deal of confusion is caused when Christians and Muslims tell each other that they both believe that Scripture comes by inspiration of the Holy Spirit; both the nature of inspiration and the identity of the Holy Spirit are very different in the distinct religious schemas. The references to the Book of Moses and the Psalms of David in the Qur’an likewise reflect this concept. Thus, for Muslims, the superscription in Psalm 51 ‘A psalm of David’, which claims authorship for David himself, and the text of which actually demonstrates this claim, illustrates that whatever the Biblical books may be, they are not the texts to which the Qur’an refers. For example, Ahmad Deedat states:

The Tauraat we Muslims believe in is not the ‘Torah’ of the Jews and the Christians… Moses was notthe author of the ‘books’ attributed to him by the Jews and the Christians. Likewise, we believe that the Zaboor was the revelation of God granted to Hazrat Dawood (David)… but that the present Psalms associated with his name are not that revelation… What about the Injeel?… of the 27 books of the New Testament, only a small fraction can be accepted as the words of Jesus.

Mawdudi similarly states:

There exists a common misconception about the Torah (Taurat) and the Gospel (lnjil) for the people generally take the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) for the Torah, and the Gospels (the first four books of the New Testament) for the Injil. The misconception creates doubts about Revelation itself and a question arises, ‘Are these books really the Word of God? And does the Holy Quran really confirm all their contents?’ As a matter of fact, the Torah, which the Quran confirms, is not the Pentateuch but is contained in it, and the Injil is not ‘the four Gospels’ but is within these books.

The Taurat consists of those commandments and injunctions which were given to Prophet Moses (Allah’s peace be upon him) during his Prophethood, which lasted for about forty years. Of these were the Ten Commandments which were inscribed on stone tablets and delivered to Moses on Mount Tur: as regards the remaining Commandments and injunctions he himself had put down in writing. Then he handed one copy of the Torah to each of the twelve tribes of Israel for guidance. One copy was entrusted to the Levites for safe custody, which along with the stone tablets, was deposited in the Ark.

That Taurat remained quite safe and sound as an entire book up to the first destruction of Jerusalem. But, by and by, the Israelites grew so indifferent to and negligent and unmindful of it that when the Temple of Solomon was under repair during the reign of Josiah, Hilkiah, the high priest came across it by chance but did not know that it was the Torah; he thought it was only a Law book and passed it on to the Royal Scribe as a curio. The latter presented it to king Josiah who tore his clothes and ordered Hilkiah and others to consult the Eternal about the terms of the book. (2 Kings, 22:8-13). Such was the condition of the Israelites when Nebuchadnezzar sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple, and they lost for ever even the very few copies of the Torah which had long lain neglected in some forgotten niches. The Old Testament was compiled by Ezra, when the Israelites returned home to Jerusalem after their captivity in Babylon and built the Temple anew. Ezra gathered together some prominent men of his community, and with their help compiled the whole history of Israel which now comprises the first 11 books of the Bible. Of these Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy tell the life history of Prophet Moses and include those verses of the real Taurat which became available to Ezra and his assistants, who incorporated them in those books at appropriate places in the chronological order of their revelation. Thus it is obvious that the Pentateuch as a whole is not the Taurat but includes it. The real Taurat comprises those verses which are scattered all over the life story of Prophet Moses, and it is not difficult even today to locate and recognize them. Such portions where the author says, ‘God said to Moses,’ or Moses said ‘the Lord your God says,’ the Taurat begins, and where the narrative of the life story is resumed, there that part of the Taurat ends. At those places the author of the Bible has inserted certain things by way of explanation or commentary, and it is here that the ordinary reader fails to distinguish the real Taurat from the commentary. However, those who have an insight into the nature of Divine Scriptures, can distinguish, to some degree of exactness, the explanatory notes from the revealed verses.

According to the Quran, only such scattered portions in the Pentateuch are the Taurat and it confirms them alone. And this can be testified by putting together these verses and comparing them with the Quran. Here and there one might come across a minor difference in their details, but one cannot find even the slightest difference between the fundamental teachings of the two. Even today one can see clearly that both the Scriptures have come from the same source.

Likewise, the Injil is the name of those inspired discourses and sayings which Jesus (Allah’s peace be upon him) uttered as a prophet during the last couple of years of his life. We have no means now of ascertaining whether these pious utterances were recorded and compiled during the lifetime of Jesus. In the introduction to his translation of the Bible, Moffat says, ‘Jesus wrote nothing and for a time his immediate disciples felt no impulse to write any account of him. The data of the historical Jesus, therefore is based on the vivid recollections and traditions of the primitive Palestinian disciples. How soon their materials took written shape we cannot tell, but at least one written record of them was probably in existence by about A.D. 50.’ Anyhow, when, long after his recall, the stories of Jesus were compiled in the shape of four Gospels, (the period of the composition of Mark, the first to be composed was 65-75 A.D.), some of his written or inspired sayings were also inserted at appropriate places in the historical sketches. Thus it is obvious that the first four Gospels are not the Injil, the discourses and sayings of Jesus, but they contain it. . We have no means of recognizing them from the works of the authors except this; Wherever the authors say, ‘Jesus said so or taught so and so’ there the Injil begins and whence they resume the narration, there it ends. According to the Quran, only such portions are the Injil and these alone are confirmed by it. If these portions are compiled together and compared with the Quran, one will find no serious difference between the two, and, if somewhere a trivial difference appears, it can be removed very easily with unbiased thinking.

However – and this must be emphasised – this commonly-held belief among Muslims about the corruption of the Biblical text is not supported by the Qur’an itself. Nowhere does the Qur’an distinguish between the Zabur and the Biblical Psalms of David, or between the Taurat and the Pentateuch, or between the Injil and the New Testament. It never advocates that the original books of the Prophets associated with Moses, David and Jesus have ceased to exist or been textually distorted. As we shall see, the Qur’an throughout presumes that the books to which it refers remain extant and in the possession of the Jews and Christians, and continuing to be the authoritative holy scriptures of the earlier Abrahamic confessions among whom the nascent Muslim community co-existed. Whatever the nature and mode of revelation and prophetic inspiration, the Qur’an clearly holds that the books of the three prophets were actually those in contemporary use by the People of the Book.

3.2 The Content of the Prophetic Books

As we have seen, a fundamental belief of Islam is the unity of the prophets. Surah Al-i-Imran 3:67 claims that Abraham was a Muslim rather than a Jew or a Christian. As Muhammad is considered as an Abrahamic Apostle, perfecting but reiterating the kernel of the revelation given to those who came before him, it is essential to claim that all prophets were Muslims with identical messages – specifically Islam, and that this was the religion of the Patriarchs (Surah Baqara 2:135-136). Muhammad is presented as being in the Patriarchal tradition, and the prophets are seen as prototypes of the Last Prophet. Linked to this idea is the crucial concept of Muhammad as the Seal of the Prophets. Just as the prophets all brought the same message, it follows that the essential teaching of their scriptures is the same. If this is the case, then when Muslims discover something in the Bible which contradicts Islam, it necessarily follows in their minds that Jews and Christians have altered their Scriptures, since there is a uniformity in divine revelation, as can be seen from the Qur’anic exposition of the ministry of certain prophets. To a Muslim, whatever Muhammad preached must be, in essence, what Abraham, Moses and Jesus proclaimed. There cannot be any distinction in their messages. For example, they all preached about the Antichrist (Ad-Dajjal al-Masih).

At times we can hear echoes of Biblical themes and stories in the Qur’an, but the differences in the contents of the biographical and kerygmatic material in the latter do not match the former. A crucial difference is the concept of Prophetic impeccability in Islam – ‘isma – prophets are free from sin. Sunnis and Shia dispute over the extent of the privilege of ‘isma: the former apply it from the time the prophetic ministry begins, whilst the latter view it as effective from birth. Certainly, however, it would be impossible for a man to sin once his prophetic ministry was in operation. For this reason alone, Psalm 51, being a text of repentance and supplication for forgiveness of the sin of David with respect to Uriah the Hittite is incomprehensible to Muslims. There is no reference in the Qur’an to David’s adultery with Bathsheba or murder of Uriah. The very idea horrifies Muslims, and is used in their propaganda against the Bible.

Most obviously, the idea that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, or God Himself, clearly contradicts the Qur’an, which explicitly denies these assertions. The Qur’an also contains material about Jesus not present in the New Testament; for example, it refers to the miracles of Jesus as an infant, such as creating clay birds, Surah Al-i-Imran 3:49, and speaking whilst yet in the cradle, Surah Maryam 19: 29-30. There is no support in the canonical scriptures for these assertions. It is possible that these ideas originated with the visit to Muhammad of the Christian delegation from the Arabian state of Najran. In the sira (biography of the Prophet) of Ibn Ishaq it is stated that the group was sixty strong, and included the political leader of Najran, Abdu’l-Masih, an administrator called al-Ayham, and a renowned bishop and theologian named Abu Haritha. The Mawdudi states that verses 33-63 of Surah 3, Al-i-Imran, were revealed at Medina at the time of the visit. According to the sira, they informed the Muslims that Jesus was God; the son of God; the third person of the Trinity ‘…which is the doctrine of Christianity.’ They supported their claims by pointing to his miracles. These apparently included making ‘…clay birds and breathe into them so that they flew away; and all this was by the command of God Almighty, ‘We will make him a sign unto men.”

The delegation pointed out Jesus had no human father, and that He ‘…spoke in the cradle…’ Further, they argued that Jesus is ‘…the third of three in that God says: We have done, We have commanded… if He were one he would have said I have done… but He is He and Jesus and Mary.’ The text goes on to say that the Qur’an (i.e. Surah Al-i-Imran) came down in answer to these assertions. The references to ‘clay birds’ derives from the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas and the ‘cradle’ story is taken from the so-called Gospel of the Infancy which is itself dependent upon the Gospel of Thomas.

The Qur’an asserts that holy war – jihad – is enjoined both by itself and by the Law and the Gospel. Whilst obviously the wars of the People of God in the Old Testament are somewhat analogous to this concept, especially the conquest of Canaan, there is no corresponding New Testament idea of sacred physical violence. The idea of ‘Crusade’ commands no support from the New Testament, and is indeed forbidden. Rather, the Christian ‘Holy War’ is specifically spiritual in nature – against demonic forces, not against human beings. Probably the most serious problem is that the Qur’an states that the advent of Muhammad was prophesied in both the earlier holy books. It is frequently claimed by many Muslims that Christian and Jews know this truth but have changed their Scriptures to conceal the predictions of Muhammad. Appeal is made to texts which impeach the character of Jews and Christians on the grounds that they are perverted transgressors. Yusuf Ali makes this assertion in his commentary. Considering the centrality of the prophethood of Muhammad for Islam, specifically in his role in bringing the Qur’an, we can see how glaring an omission this is for Muslims.

Nonetheless, whatever the differences between the Qur’an and the Bible, there is no evidence that the former is aware of any distinction between either the content or identity of the Christian holy books and the Qur’anic Taurat, Zabur and Injil.

3.3 The Identity of the Gospel

The crux of this matter will be addressed in the next section. One problem is that the Qur’an speaks of a single Injil, yet Muslims are often puzzled by the presence of four gospels in the New Testament, all ascribed to the evangelists rather than directly to Jesus Himself. This in itself has led some Muslims to believe in the textual corruption of the Christian Scriptures. For example, Yusuf Ali says in his textual commentary

The Injil…spoken of by the Qur-an is not the New Testament. It is not the four gospels now received as canonical. It is the single Gospel, which, Islam teaches, was revealed to Jesus, and which he taught.

However, it is likely that the term Injil was used in a technical sense for the whole New Testament, as Torah can be used for the whole Tenak. This is especially likely when we consider that the earliest definitive contacts of Muhammad with Christians were with a monk in Syria called Bohira. The Syrian Church had a translation of the gospels into Syriac, called the Diatessaron, made by Tatian the Assyrian around 172 A.D. It is most probable that the existence of a single document with which Muhammad was familiar is responsible for the Qur’an presenting the Christian Scriptures in the singular.

In passing, it should be noted that Ahmad Deedat commits a faux pas in this respect, and seems actually to contradict the Qur’an. He says ‘In his life-time Jesus never wrote a single word, nor did he instruct anyone to do so.’ Yet the Qur’an implies that the Injil had indeed been reduced to written material, and since the Muslim view of authorship would require either Him or an assisting scribe to inscripturate the revelation, it would seem that Deedat will have to revise his assertion.

4. The Integrity of the Bible in the Qur’an and Hadith

4.1 Qur’anic Testimony for the Extancy and Integrity of the Bible

All Qur’anic references to the books of Moses, David and Jesus seem to assume that the original revelation was still with the ahl-i-kitab. It is inconceivable that the People of the Book could read the Scripture with the right reading unless they possessed the uncorrupted text. It is clear that the ahl-i-kitab still possessed the original revelations from God – and these must have been the texts which we call the Bible. Yusuf Ali’s commentary says of Surah 2 Baqara Ayah 87/89:

The Jews, who pretended to be so superior to the people without Faith – the Gentiles – should have been the first to recognize the new Truth – or the Truth renewed – which it was Muhammad’s mission to bring because it was so similar in form and language to what they had already received. But they had more arrogance than faith. It is this want of faith that brings on the curse, i.e., deprives us (if we adopt such an attitude) of the blessings of God.

A similar verse makes the same point. Yusuf Ali’s commentary says of this ayah

I think that by ‘the Book of God’ here is meant, not the Quran, but the Book which the People of the Book had been given, viz., the previous Revelations. The argument is that Muhammad’s Message was similar to Revelations which they had already received, and if they had looked into their own Books honestly and sincerely, they would have found proofs in them to show that the new Message was true and from God. But they ignored their own Books or twisted or distorted them according to their own fancies…

For the ahl-i-kitab to look ‘into their own Books honestly and sincerely’ and thereby discover the ‘proofs’ therein they must have still possessed the original true Books of God. The text nowhere indicates that they changed or distorted the truth of God, simply that they ignored such.

Surah 3:113 refers to the ahl-i-kitab who were continuing to recite ‘the revelations of Allah’. Surely, the ‘revelations of Allah’ which they recited were the Jewish holy books, i.e. the Bible (or at least the Old Testament – the reference is to the Jews of Medina) – indicating the extancy of the Scriptures of Moses and David. They scarcely recited the Qur’an, else they would not be called ahl-i-kitab, since they would have become Muslims. Later, v119 states that Muslims believe in the ‘whole Book’, which Mawdudi renders as ‘…all the revealed Books.‘, indicating, as he himself states, that the reference is to the Torah. The concept looks back to the idea of the Qur’an as the completion of the revelatory process which bestowed the earlier Scriptures. This view of continuing extancy is confirmed by texts indicating that both the Taurat and the Injil were still in contemporary existence at the time of Muhammad, and still being used by the People of the Book, the most telling being Surah 5 Maida Ayah 43ff. The text of v43 implies that the Torah is sufficient for judgment, not needing the Qur’an, and that it was extant ‘…they have the Torah…’ Moreover, v44 indicates that it was the same text by which the Prophets, and other officials of the Israelite religion judged the people. In saying this, it is naturally affirming that the contemporary holy book was the same revelation used in Biblical times. Further, it is identified as ‘Allah’s Scripture‘. With respect to v47, it is surely obvious that in order for Christians to ‘judge’ in this way, the true Gospel must still have been in common possession, and thus the Injil must be that to which Christians refer as the New Testament. Note that the text says ‘the Gospel wherein isguidance and a light’ – indicating the continued presence of the true Gospel. Similarly, Surah 5:69 bemoans the failure of the People of the Book to adhere to the Bible. In order for the ahl-i-kitab to ‘stand fast’ by the Torah and Gospel, such must have been extant in its original form. It is significant that Mawdudi identifies the Torah references as Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. The text attacks them for failing in their conduct to follow their revelations, not for distorting the text thereof. Indeed, v71 goes on to warn the Jews and Christians that they have no ground upon which to stand, unless they follow the guidance in the Torah and Gospel. Given the fact that modern Muslim polemics engage in attacking practically every distinctive tenet in the Bible, and arguing that the texts are corrupted, one would have expected the Qur’an to say that the ahl-i-kitab will have no secure ground until they ignore the guidance in ‘their distorted‘ Torah and Gospel! The imperative in the Qur’anic text is incomprehensible if the Scriptures had indeed been falsified.

A very telling text in support of Biblical integrity is Surah 16 Nahl Ayah 43. The text calls upon pagans to question the possessors of earlier divine revelations about the prophets. Yusuf Ali’s Commentary on 16. 43 says;

If the Pagan Arabs, who were ignorant of religious and other history, wondered how a man from among themselves could receive inspiration and bring a Message from Allah, let them ask the Jews, who had also received Allah’s Message earlier through Moses, whether Moses was a man, or an angel, or a god. They would learn that Moses was a man like themselves, but inspired by Allah…

Mawdudi agrees with this interpretation:

‘… people who possess Admonition’ are the scholars of the people of the Books and others, who…had sufficient knowledge of the teachings of the revealed Books and were acquainted with the stories of the former Prophets.’

The point is, if the Torah had been corrupted by this time, it would surely be unhelpful to ask the People of the Book for help in this respect. What is even more startling and even more problematic for those Muslims purveying the idea of Biblical corruption is Surah 10 Yunus Ayah 95, where Muhammad himself is enjoined to question the ahl-i-kitab if he has any doubts. There would be no point in such an action unless the Scriptures they held were genuine and in common possession Similarly, the confession of faith in the Books of God in Surah 29 Ankaboot Ayah 46 is incomprehensible if the Biblical text had been distorted.

In several places the Qur’an accuses at least some of the ahl-i-kitab of concealing the truth of Scriptures, e.g. 2:101, 140, 146, 159, 174; 3:70, 71; 3:187; 6:91, 92. However, the emphasis in these texts seems to be on the Israelites suppressing in their own lives the authority of the Scripture by their misconduct. The Christians are probably not the subject in these verses. The text of Surah 6:91-92 is significant in this respect:

Surah: 6. An-aam Ayah: 91

91. Those are they whom Allah guideth, so follow their guidance. Say (O Muhammad, unto mankind): I ask of you no fee for it. Lo! it is naught but a Reminder to (His) creatures.

92. And they measure not the power of Allah its true measure when they say: Allah hath naught revealed unto a human being. Say (unto the Jews who speak thus): Who revealed the Book which Moses brought, a light and guidance for mankind, which ye have put on parchments which ye show, but ye hide much (thereof), and by which ye were taught that which ye knew not yourselves nor (did) your fathers (know it)? Say: Allah. Then leave them to their play of cavilling.

Apparently, the Jews still possessed the Torah on parchments – as was their common practice in Biblical times.

4.1.1 Changed Words?

What references there are to changing words, as in 2:59; 2:211; 7:162; all seem to indicate that the Children of Israel did not abide by what was revealed, but rather followed their own desires, and in each case it is said that God punished them for so-doing. Surah 2 Baqara Ayah 58 is an example of this. Yusuf Ali’s commentary says:

This probably refers to Shittim. It was the ‘town of acacias,’ just east of the Jordan, where the Israelites were guilty of debauchery and the worship of and sacrifice to false gods (Num. xxv. 1-2, also 8-9); a terrible punishment ensued, including the plague of which 24,000 died. The word which the transgressors changed may have been a pass-word. In the Arabic text it is ‘Hittatun’ which implies humility and a prayer of forgiveness, a fitting emblem to distinguish them from their enemies…

The only ‘Ayah’ (verse) that may support the idea of distortion is Surah 4 Nisaa Ayah 44. It should be noted that nowhere in this verse is there a claim of falsification of scripture; rather, as Yusuf Ali’s commentary explains, the reference is to Jews who opposed Muhammad by mispronouncing words:

A trick of the Jews was to twist words and expressions, so as to ridicule the most solemn teachings of Faith. Where they should have said, ‘We hear and we obey,’ they said aloud, ‘We hear,’ and whispered. ‘We disobey.’ Where they should have said respectfully. ‘We hear,’ they added in a whisper, ‘May you not hear,’ by way of ridicule. Where they claimed the attention of the Prophet, they used an ambiguous word apparently harmless, but in their intention disrespectful…. ‘Raina’ if used respectfully in the Arabic way, would have meant ‘Please attend to us.’ With a twist of their tongue they suggested an insulting meaning, such as ‘O thou that takest us to pasture!’ or in Hebrew. ‘Our bad one!

Yusuf Ali’s Commentary on 2:75ff says

The Jews wanted to keep back knowledge, but what knowledge had they? Many of them, even if they could read, were no better than illiterates, for they knew not their own true Scriptures, but read into them what they wanted, or at best their own conjectures. They planned off their own writings for the Message of God. Perhaps it brought them profit for the time being; but it was a miserable profit if they ‘gained the whole world and lost their own souls’ (Matt. xvi. 26). ‘Writing with their own hands’ means inventing books themselves, which had no divine authority.’

It is noteworthy that Yusuf Ali does not contend that the Jews changed the Torah. Rather, the Qur’an seems to imply that the Jews added to Scripture, and misinterpreted such. Moreover, there is not necessarily reference to all Jews everywhere here (it refers to some Medinan Jews) and certainly none to Christians.

4.2 The Testimony of the Sunnah Concerning the Bible

The testimony of the Sunnah is important for our understanding of the Qur’an, since the Sunnah of Muhammad is viewed by Islamic theologians as the sacred and ideal model. This concept derives directly from the Qur’an. Further, Muhammad’s speech was no ordinary converse; rather, it was divinely inspired. Muhammad was given the responsibility of explaining the Qur’an. The Sunnah of Muhammad was therefore the enacted exposition of the Qur’an, the essential hermeneutic of Islam’s Holy Book. Hence, the attitude and practice of Muhammad to the Scriptures used by the Jews and Christians of his time present an authoritative declaration of the trustworthiness or otherwise of these revelations.

4.2.1 Recitation of the Torah

There are several cases where Muhammad refers to the contemporary recitation of the Torah. There is nothing in these texts to suggest that Jews and Christians have corrupted the Bible. In one case the allegation is simply that they do not practice what is enjoined therein. For this hadith to have any meaning, the ahl-i-kitab must have still possessed the uncorrupted Bible. In another, Muhammad simply refers to the fact that the Jews sought to dazzle the Arabs with their knowledge of the Book in its original language and the latter were unable to refute their interpretations because of it. He does not say that the Book held by the Jews was false – indeed, he calls it the Torah.

4.2.2 The Presence of the Torah

There are a number of ahadith which refer to Muhammad calling for the Torah and having it read to him. Muhammad recognized the scrolls that were presented before him as Tawrat. These ahadith are incomprehensible unless the Torah was still extant and uncorrupted. Muhammad even instructed the Jews to act upon a moral imperative in the Torah (stoning for adultery). The same is true in a similar case. The respect and reverence Muhammad showed for the Torah in this situation precludes any idea of it being a distorted book. Indeed, he stated his faith in the book presented to him. In other cases it is clear that the Muslims had the Torah in their possession. This being so, unless the Muslims later lost the true Torah, it must have been the same book used by the Jews and Christians. Further, if the Torah had been corrupted, it is strange that they did not use this opportunity to expose the Jews for distorting the text. We have seen that the Qur’an holds that Muhammad was predicted in the Torah. A tradition elaborates on this belief. Whether Muhammad is indeed described is not the issue. The fact is that the genuine Torah was still available.

4.2.3 The Presence of the Injil

The earliest reference to the Gospel in the prophetic career of Muhammad is the story of his wife’s uncle, Waraqa, a Christian who translated the Gospel. Khadijah brought her husband to her uncle in order to assure him that his visions were not delusions or the onset of insanity. The different presentations of this story show that the true Injil was in the possession of Christians at this period. Likewise, the story of Salman, who is introduced as a believer in the two books, the Injil and the Qur’an, is clear testimony to the fact that the true Gospel was still extant at the time of Muhammad. Islamic eschatology upholds belief in the Second Coming of Christ, and a tradition states that at His return, Jesus will judge by the Qur’an, rather than the Injil. The emphasis here is on the fact that the Qur’an supersedes the Gospel, not upon its genuineness. The only text implying corruption is the following:

Abdullah ibn Abbas SAHIH AL-BUKHARI

Ubaydullah ibn Abdullah narrated that Abdullah ibn Abbas said, ‘O group of Muslims! How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about anything while your Book which Allah has revealed to your Prophet (peace be upon him) contains the most recent news from Allah and is pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the people of the Scriptures have changed some of Allah’s Books and distorted them and written something with their own hands and said, ‘This is from Allah,’ so as to have a minor gain for it.

Won’t the knowledge that has come to you stop you from asking them? No, by Allah, we have never seen a man from them asking you about that (the Book al-Qur’an) which has been revealed to you.’

In Islamic hermeneutics, as in Christian exegetical interpretation, the rule is that one interprets the lesser in terms of the greater, and there are far more ahadith testifying to the veracity and existence of the Torah and Injil than this one which may question such. Possibly, the reference is to Surah 4:44, where individual Medinan Jews are berated for corrupting isolated texts in their speech. However, the usual meaning of corruption is perhaps best explained by the following text:

Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-‘As MISHKAT AL-MASABIH

Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) heard some people disputing about the Qur’an. Thereupon he said: It was because of this that those gone before you had perished. They set parts of the books against the others (whereas the fact is) that the Book of Allah has been revealed with one part confirming the others.

Therefore, do not falsify some parts with the others and speak only that which you know; that which you do not know, refer it to one who knows it well.

Transmitted by Ahmad and Ibn Majah.

Clearly, ‘falsification’ refers to misinterpretation of Scripture, especially if deliberate distortion, rather than the corruption of the actual text itself. Bukhari, in ar-Rad, says:

‘They corrupt the word’ means ‘they alter or change its meaning’. yet no-one is able to change even a single word from any Book of God. The meaning is that they interpret the word wrongly.

This confirms the fact that the accusations against Christians in the Qur’an and Hadith are simply that they misunderstood or misrepresented the doctrines of the Scriptures, not that they changed the actual text.

4.3 The Testimony of the Shari’ah Concerning the Bible

The testimony of the Shari’ah appears to accept the veracity of the Jewish and Christian holy books, since the official ruling states that they are the books of God. Likewise, with regard to miraculous healing, it is inconceivable that Jews and Christians would use the Qur’an, so the ‘revelation from Allah’ must refer to the Torah and Gospel, which therefore must be extant. It is noteworthy that the official jurisprudence on the issue nowhere alleges the distortion of the Jewish-Christian Scriptures. If the Christians were consciously swearing on a corrupted Scripture, it is doubtful that a Muslim court could take seriously the evidence offered.

4.4 The Testimony of Muslim Scholars

Muhammad ‘Abduh (Egypt) – the charge of corruption

… makes no sense at all. It would not have been possible for Jews and Christians everywhere to agree on changing the text. Even if those in Arabia had done it, the difference between their book and those of their brothers, let us say in Syria or Europe, would have been obvious.

Mawlawi Muhammad Sa’id (Pakistan) –

Some Muslims imagine that the Injil is corrupted. But… not even one among all the verses of the Qur’an mentions that the Injil or Tawrat is corrupted… it is written that the Jews -… not the Christians… alter the meaning of the passages from the Tawrat while they are explaining them. At least the Christians are completely exonerated from this charge. Hence the Injil is not corrupted and the Tawrat is not corrupted…

Sayyid Ahmad Husayn Shawkat Mirthi –

The ordinary Muslim people…believe through hearsay…that the Injil is corrupted, even though they cannot indicate what passage was corrupted, when it was corrupted, and who corrupted it. Is there any religious community…whose lot is so miserable that they would shred their heavenly Book with their own hands…? To say that God has taken the Injil and the Tawrat into heaven and has abrogated them is to defame and slander God…

5. Conclusion

It can be seen from our study of the sources of Islamic authority – the Qur’an, the Hadith and the Shari’ah that the view of the Bible promulgated by some Muslim polemicists is merely an inferential prejudice, nowhere upheld in the holy texts of Islam. The Qur’an and Sunnah uphold the veracity of the Christian Scriptures, and it is obvious that what references there are to the books known as Tawrat, Zabur and Injil clearly refer to the canonical Old and New Testaments. In fact, if a Muslim fails to believe in the previous revelations, he effectively apostatises. Yet it is the very fact that Muslim sacred writings doregard the Jewish and Christian Scriptures as true which causes the problem, since any Muslim can tell that they do not agree with the Qur’an in doctrine or in form. Hence the inference that the Jews and Christians have conspired to change their sacred texts.

On our part, Christians have sometimes failed to properly comprehend the nature and role of the Qur’an in Islam, and so have responded inadequately to Muslim criticisms of the Bible. Because they do not understand the Muslim point of reference, they do not know from where the Muslims are coming in their criticisms of the Bible, and naturally any answer to Islamic polemics suffers as a result. It is essential for Christian scholars to acquaint themselves with a proper appreciation of the Muslim concept of Scripture in order to express more adequately the truth of Biblical revelation. The irony is that Muslim sacred texts actually uphold the veracity of the Christian Scriptures. This in itself is a useful point to make to our Muslim friends, especially those involved in apologetics. One of the greatest evidences to present to Muslims that the Bible has not been corrupted is the assumption of the Qur’an that the ‘previous scriptures’ are both extant and reliable. After all, if the Gospel had indeed been changed at the Council of Nicaea, it is remarkable that nearly three hundred years after the event, the Qur’an never alludes to it, nor charges the Christians with corruption of text.

6. Bibliography

A. Guillaume, Ibn Ishaq’s Life of Muhammad, 9th impression, OUP, Pakistan, 1990

A. Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary, Leicester, The Islamic Foundation, 1975

Ajijola, Alhaj A. D., The Myth of the Cross, Islamic Publications Ltd., Lahore, 3rd edition 1978

Baagil, H. M., Christian-Muslim Dialogue, Islamic Propagation Centre, Birmingham, 1984

Campbell, William, The Qur’an and the Bible in the light of history and science, Arab World Ministries, USA, 1986

Deedat, Ahmad, Is the Bible God’s Word?, 1987 UK reprint, Islamic Propagation Centre, Birmingham

von Denffer, Ahmad, ‘Ulum al-Qur’an, Islamic Foundation, Leicester, 1983

Dimashkiah, Abdul Rahman, Let the Bible Speak, International Islamic Publishing House, Riyadh, 1995

Ghiyathuddin Adelphi, and Hahn, Ernest, The Integrity of the Bible according to the Qur’an and the Hadith, Henry Martyn Institute of Islamic Studies, Hyderabad, India, 1977

Gibb and Kramers, Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1974

Hengel, Martin, Judaism and Hellenism, SCM, London, 1974.

Mawdudi, S. Abul A’la, The Meaning of the Qur’an, Islamic Publications Ltd., Lahore, 1993 edition.

Pickthall, Muhammad Marmaduke, The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an, Nusrat Ali Nasri for Kitab Bhavan, 1784, Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi, New Delhi-110 002, India, 5th Reprint 1993 (first published in Hyderabad, 1930).

The Holy Bible, New International Version, New York International Bible Society, Zondervan Corporation, Grand Rapids, USA, Eleventh Printing July 1980.

Tisdall, Rev. W. St. Clair, The Sources of Islam, T. & T Clark, Edinburgh

The Council of Nicaea: Purposes and Themes

Anthony N. S. Lane

---

In tackling this theme we will consider first the sources that are available to us concerning the Council of Nicaea, secondly the purpose for the calling of the council (looking especially at the events which led up to the council), thirdly the events of the council itself, fourthly the official documents of the council (creed canons and letter) and fifthly related letters written concerning the council. Finally we shall review this material in order to draw together some conclusions concerning the purposes and themes of the council.

---

I. The Sources for the Council

If any official minutes, or Acta, were kept of the Council of Nicaea, these have not survived. But fortunately, that does not mean that we are left in the dark. There are four different types of documents on which we can rely.

First, although there are no minutes, the Creed of the council and its twenty canons, or disciplinary decisions, are preserved in a variety of sources, as is a synodical letter that the council sent to the church of Alexandria. 1

Secondly, the council is described in a number of church histories from the period. Eusebius of Caesarea, the first church historian, concludes his famous Church History before the time of the council, but he does cover the events in his later Life of Constantine. 2 From the following century there are three important church histories which pick up from where Eusebius left off and which all, at or near the beginning, cover the events of Nicaea. These are by Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret, 3) all of whom wrote in the 440s. Although they were writing more than a hundred years after the event, they were using contemporary documents, for which they are valuable sources.

Thirdly, although there are no minutes, three of those who were present and deeply involved in events later describe the council. Eusebius of Caesarea’s Life of Constantine, already mentioned, covers the council but completely ignores the theological issues at stake. 4 He does, however, describe the doctrinal discussions in an important letter to his church justifying his own behaviour at the council. 5 Athanasius also describes the events of the council in two of his later works. 6Finally, Eustathius of Antioch’s account is preserved by Theodoret in his Church History. 7 As Eusebius and Eustathius were bitterly opposed to one another their two rival partisan accounts are valuable for reconstructing the course of the debate.

Finally, there are a few other documents which have survived independently of the above, such as the letter from the earlier Council of Antioch and Constantine’s letter naming Nicaea as the venue for our council.

---

II. The Prehistory of the Council

Why was there a Council of Nicaea? The sources are clear that the Emperor Constantine called the council in order to bring an end to dissension within the church. In particular, he was concerned about two specific issues which were causing disagreement: Arianism and the date of Easter. 8 Other matters were settled at the council, but these were the two that prompted the calling of the council.

Since the second century there had been rival ways of calculating the date of Easter. 9 Such diversity was tolerable in the pre-imperial persecuted church. It was not tolerable for the new Christian emperor and his imperial church. Constantine was influenced by the old pagan idea of the pax deorum, the idea that the purpose of the state religion was to win the favour of the gods by offering them acceptable worship. Their side of the deal was to bring peace and prosperity to the empire. Constantine the Christian held to a Christianised version of this. It was his duty as emperor to ensure that the Christian God received pure worship from a harmonious and undivided church. Internal harmony is always a greater priority for the politician than the theologian and this was especially true where Constantine was concerned. For the emperor, the primary scandal with Arianism and the diverse dates of Easter was not the fact of error but the fact of division. 10

The question of the date of Easter needs no further elaboration, but the Arian controversy is more complex. A brief review of the events leading to the council is in order. While the precise dating and order of some of the events is uncertain, what actually happened is clear enough, which is all that is necessary for our purposes. 11

Some time around AD 318/9 Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, was told about the unorthodox views of Arius, an influential presbyter in the same church. These views concerned the deity of Christ. Here is not the place for a full discussion of Arius’s views or their origin, about which there has been considerable discussion in recent years. 12 Fortunately, there is no serious question about the basic thrust of Arius’s teaching, which is all that needs concern us at present. Arius himself very accurately stated the issue in a letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, a leading bishop who supported him:

We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning. This is the cause of our persecution, and likewise, because we say that he is of the non-existent. And this we say, because he is neither part of God, nor of any essential being. 13

The two debated points were whether or not the Son had a beginning and whether or not he was created out of nothing. Behind these is the fundamental issue of the deity of Christ, which Arius denied. For him the Son was not to be identified with God himself but is the first and greatest of God’s creatures. He was made ex nihilo, although Arius (like the Jehovah’s Witnesses today) also affirmed that all of the rest of God’s creation was made through the Son. Since time is an aspect of the created universe, which was made through the Son, the latter existed before all time. 14 But he is not eternal and ‘before his generation he was not.’ The same idea was also expressed in the Arian slogan ‘there was once [before time] when he was not’—~jn pote “ote ohuk ~jn. These are the key points, to which Nicaea responded. Arius was also accused of teaching that the Son was morally mutable and liable to sin and change, 15 that he is called God’s Word and Wisdom only loosely or inaccurately as courtesy titles 16 and that he has no perfect or even direct knowledge of the Father. 17 The first of these is the charge most often repeated and is answered in the Creed of Nicaea.

Alexander took action against Arius, calling a synod of bishops and requiring him to sign a confession of orthodoxy. Arius declined to do so and was excommunicated. Arius and his supporters travelled, seeking and gaining support. Alexander responded by sending out an encyclical letter to all bishops. 18 A council was held in Bithynia which declared Arius orthodox and demanded his restoration by Alexander. Arius also wrote a conciliatory letter to Alexander, with a manifesto of his beliefs. 19 Arius received support from Eusebius of Caesarea and from a council of Palestinian bishops, which protested to Alexander about his treatment of Arius and in turn received a stern reply. Arius thereupon wrote a letter to another Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, 20 whose influence was then considerable since Nicomedia had become the site of an imperial palace. ‘When Eusebius received the epistle, he too vomited forth his own impiety,’ and wrote an important letter to a like-minded bishop, Paulinus of Tyre. 21

At this point the situation was transformed. Since 312 the western empire had been ruled by the newly converted Constantine, the eastern half by the pagan Licinius. Relations between the two had deteriorated and Licinius began to oppress the church in his domain. Matters came to a head in 324 when Constantine defeated Licinius in battle, becoming sole emperor. At this stage Constantine encountered the Arian controversy. Ever since 312 Constantine had had to wrestle with the Donatist schism, which had split the church in Roman Africa (roughly modern Algeria and Tunisia). He had hoped that the eastern church could help with resolving this dispute. Instead, he found the eastern church itself split over the Arian question. He promptly dispatched his ecclesiastical advisor, the Spanish bishop Hosius of Cordoba, to Alexandria with a letter rebuking Alexander and Arius for their needless squabble and commanding them to agree to differ. 22

On arriving at Alexandria Hosius saw at once how serious was this dispute. Constantine the politician was concerned for harmony. Hosius the bishop and theologian was concerned for truth. Hosius was totally on Alexander’s side and they organised a council which met at Antioch, early in 325. A letter which appears to be from this council was first identified and published in 1905. 23 That it comes from this council was initially contested, but is now widely accepted. 24 The letter strongly repudiates Arianism, but without using the terms which were to be coined at Nicaea, a strong indication of its pre-Nicene date. All but three of the bishops present accepted the conclusions, the dissidents including Eusebius of Caesarea, the church historian. These three were excommunicated but were also offered ‘the great and priestly synod at Ancyra as a place of repentance and recognition of the truth.’ This last point is the key to understanding Eusebius’s behaviour and role at Nicaea.

---

III. The Events of the Council

25

Constantine was not satisfied with the manner in which Hosius had summarily resolved the issue. He sent out a letter to all bishops inviting them to the coming council. The venue he changed from Ancyra to a more westerly location at Nicaea, for three reasons: ‘because the bishops from Italy and the rest of the countries of Europe are coming, and because of the excellent temperature of the air, and’ (the real reason) ‘in order that I may be present as a spectator and participator in those things which will be done.’ 26 He also ‘pledged his word that the bishops and their officials should be furnished with asses, mules, and horses for the journey at the public expense.’ 27

In due course the council opened on 19 June 325 not, as Socrates mistakenly held, on 20 May, 28 and lasted for two months. There is less certainty about the number of bishops present. There are imperfect copies of the list of bishops who signed at the end. These contain 228 names and do not include all of those known to have been present. 29 Reports of the council refer to ‘more than 250,’ 30 ‘about 270,’ 31 ‘300,’ 32 about 300, 33 ‘over 300,’ 34 ‘about 320,’ 35 and, finally, 318 bishops. 36 This last figure prevailed and became the norm. Its origin has been traced to the mystical significance of the number in Greek and to Genesis 14:14. The variation in numbers may be because not all of the bishops stayed for the duration of the council. Another explanation that has been given is that the Arian bishops were not counted, but only two remained obstinate out of an initial number of seventeen pro-Arians, 37 and the high figure of 318 is clearly meant to refer to the number assenting to the conclusions. There is a later Arabian tradition that over 2000 bishops were present. 38 This may be a simple error or may arise from counting all of those present, whether bishops or not. Theodoret describes how many of the bishops had been physically mutilated in earlier persecutions and comments that ‘the Council looked like an assembled army of martyrs.’ 39Eusebius also comments on the wide range of nations represented at the council, from countries as far away as Persia, Scythia and Spain. 40 While this may be true, the fact remains that all but a handful of the bishops were from the East, although this did not prevent the council from reaching conclusions highly congenial to the West.

What actually happened at the council? Some of the events are well documented. After his arrival, early in July, Constantine made an oration to the council at a special meeting in his palace in which he, as normal, laid considerable emphasis on the importance of harmony. 41 According to Theodoret, Constantine stressed the normative role of Scripture:

For the gospels, the apostolic writings, and the oracles of the ancient prophets, clearly teach us what we ought to believe concerning the divine nature. Let, then, all contentious disputation be discarded; and let us seek in the divinely-inspired word the solution of the questions at issue. 42

The question of Easter was amicably resolved. 43 The status of clergy involved in the Melitian schism was also resolved. 44Constantine met with Acesius, a bishop of the rigorist Novatian schism, which did not believe that those guilty of mortal sins should be restored to communion. Acesius approved the Creed of Nicaea and stated that it contained no new doctrine but the ancient faith. Constantine’s response to his rigorist stance was to urge him to ‘take a ladder and ascend alone to heaven.’ 45

Another noteworthy incident concerns the attempt to impose celibacy on the clergy. The precise proposal was to forbid those who were married at the time of their ordination from having intercourse with their wives, it being assumed that clergy would not marry after their ordination. The Egyptian bishop Paphnutius, one of whose eyes had been gouged out in the persecutions, earnestly opposed this, stressing that marriage itself is honourable and chaste and warning the council not to impose too strict a burden which would itself give rise to temptation and sin. 46

Constantine also arranged a splendid banquet at which, according to Eusebius, not one of the bishops was absent. Eusebius’s editor wryly comments that ‘one cannot help noting that the human nature of ancient and modern councils is the same,—much controversy and more or less absenteeism, but all present at dinner.’ 47 Finally, Constantine made a farewell speech to the council, in which he predictably stressed the benefits of peace and harmony. 48 Those at all familiar with the subsequent course of the Arian controversy will be aware how utterly ineffectual this exhortation proved to be.

One matter has not been mentioned: the discussion of the Arian issue and the production of the creed. For this we are largely dependent upon the three eye-witness accounts mentioned earlier. Eustathius states that ‘the formulary of Eusebius was brought forward, which contained undisguised evidence of his blasphemy. The reading of it before all occasioned great grief to the audience, on account of its departure from the faith.’ 49 To which Eusebius does he refer? Eusebius of Caesarea, the church historian, did present a creed as we shall see, but the description better seems to fit the stance adopted by the other Eusebius, of Nicomedia. This is confirmed by Athanasius’s account. He describes the arguments used by the Arian party, referring to them as ‘Eusebius and his fellows.’ He later refers to Eusebius of Caesarea, stating that he was ‘at first an accomplice of the Arian heresy.’ 50 Ambrose later speaks of a letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia being read at the council and provoking a negative reaction. 51 It is not possible to be certain, but it is very likely that Eustathius and Athanasius are describing the arguments put forward by Eusebius of Nicomedia and the Arian party.

What then of the other Eusebius? He duly signed the creed and was so embarrassed at the apparent inconsistency of this (in the light of his earlier teaching) that he hastily wrote a tortuous letter of explanation to his church. 52 He is clearly apprehensive about the reception that he will receive on his return and writes warning them not to pay heed to any rumours that they may have heard. He cites two creeds, one that he had submitted to the council and the Creed of Nicaea. But why should Eusebius have submitted a creed to the council? The answer, which has been realised only since the identification earlier this century of the letter of the Council of Antioch, is that Eusebius had been excommunicated and had been granted at Nicaea ‘a place of repentance and recognition of the truth.’ 53 Eusebius, understandably, does not draw attention to this fact. Eusebius proceeds to affirm his full commitment to the doctrines of the creed that he had submitted. He also goes on to affirm that the teaching of the Creed of Nicaea is identical to his, save only the addition of the single word homoousios, which will be discussed below. He then proceeds to give a blatantly minimising interpretation of the Creed of Nicaea.

Whose idea was the introduction of the word homoousios? Athanasius describes how the bishops first tried to reject Arianism by the use of scriptural terms alone, but found that the Arians could twist whatever terms they used to an unorthodox meaning. So just as the Arians ‘uttered their impieties in unscriptural terms,’ the council responded by condemning them by ‘unscriptural terms pious in meaning.’ 54) But why the word homoousios in particular? Eusebius states that it was proposed by the emperor. 55 Given the former’s considerable unease with the term, he would hardly have enhanced its prestige by attributing it to the emperor unless this was accurate. But why should the emperor have proposed it? There is some evidence to support the theory that it was suggested to him by Hosius, his ecclesiastical advisor, possibly in alliance with Alexander of Alexandria. 56 Constantine played a dominant role at the council and this meant that those who had his ear, especially Hosius, were able to lead events to the conclusion that they desired. The outcome reflected the interests not so much of the emperor as of the western-Alexandrian alliance of Hosius and Alexander.

---

IV. The Official Documents of the Council

There are three documents that survive from the council: the creed, the canons and a letter to the Egyptian church. There is an alleged decree of the council on Easter which is not generally considered to be authentic. 57

(a) The Creed of Nicaea

The most important document from the council is undoubtedly the creed. The Creed of Nicaea, often referred to as ‘N,’ is not to be confused with what is today known as the Nicene Creed. The latter originates from the Council of Constantinople (381) and is substantially different. 58 It probably acquired its name because it was seen as a reaffirmation of the faith of Nicaea.

Eusebius, in his letter to his church, states that the council approved his creed with the addition of the single word homoousios. This in the past led some to the erroneous conclusion that Eusebius’s Caesarean creed formed the basis for N, but it is clear that Eusebius is referring to doctrine, not to the use of documents. 59 Nicaea, he alleges, taught no more than does the Caesarean creed with the addition of homoousios.

What, then, was the origin of N? It is now generally accepted that it was produced by starting with a local eastern creed (probably of Syro-Palestinian provenance) and adding to it a number of anti-Arian statements. 60 The actual text is as follows, with the anti-Arian additions in italics: 61

We believe in one God the Father all powerful, maker of all things both seen and unseen.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten begotten from the Father, that is from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those in earth; for us humans and for our salvation he came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose up on the third day, went up into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead.

And in the Holy Spirit.

And those who say ‘there once was when he was not,’ and ‘before he was begotten he was not,’ and that he came to be from things that were not, or from another hypostasis or substance, affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration—these the catholic and apostolic church anathematises.

A brief comment on the additions is in order. 62 ‘That is from the substance of the Father’ was added in order to clarify the meaning of ‘begotten from the Father.’ Eusebius of Nicomedia had earlier pointed out that even the dew drops are begotten by God (Job 38:28). 63 The added clause makes it clear that creation is not in mind. The same point is made by the addition ‘begotten not made,’ which makes the contrast explicit. ‘True God from true God’ was added because the Arians followed an older tradition and, citing John 17:3, distinguished between the Father (who is true God) and the Son (who is not). ‘Consubstantial with the Father’ introduces the word homoousios which is the most controversial of the additions. There is much debate about its meaning, but in the present context it should be seen as affirming the full deity of Christ, as do all of the other additions so far.

The statements anathematised had all been made by Arius and/or his followers or were at least attributed to them. The first two deny the eternity of the Son. The first was used by Arians and the second had been used by Arius himself. 64 The next two state that the Son was created ex nihilo or that he came to be from some source other than the Father. 65 So far we have the condemnation of the ideas that the Son had a beginning and was created out of nothing, the points which Arius himself (correctly) identified as crucial to the debate. 66 The last point, that the Son is subject to change or alteration, Arius was accused of teaching 67 but denied. 68 Perhaps Arius held that the Son was changeable by nature (as a creature) but changeless by God’s grace.

(b) The Canons 69

A simple summary of the canons will serve to give a feel of their character and will also make it clear what subjects are and are not covered in them:

1. Those who in good health have castrated themselves are banned from the clergy, but this does not apply to those castrated forcibly or for medical reasons.

2. Those converted from paganism should not be promoted to be presbyters or bishops immediately after their baptism.

3. Clergy are not to have women living with them, except for a relative or someone who is above suspicion.

4. Bishops should ideally be appointed by all the bishops of a province and at least by three with the written approval of the others. The metropolitan bishop of the province 70 has the right of confirming the proceedings.

5. Those excommunicated in one place are not to be admitted elsewhere. Each province should hold a synod twice yearly to consider such cases.

6. The traditional authority of the bishops of Alexandria, Rome and Antioch is to be preserved. No one may become a bishop without the consent of his metropolitan.

7. The bishop of Aelia [Jerusalem] is to have his ancient honour, save only the dignity proper to the metropolitan.

8. Novatianist clergy who come over to the Catholic Church may retain their status after the laying on of hands, if they give a written undertaking to accept the rules of discipline of the Catholic Church. If a Novatianist bishop comes over where there is a Catholic bishop, he will have the rank of presbyter unless the bishop is willing to share the honour of his title.

9. If anyone has been ordained despite some sin which should have prevented it, with or without having concealed the sin, his ordination is not to be accepted.

10. Those who have been ordained despite having lapsed under persecution are to be deposed.

11. Those laity who lapsed without great pressure, if they genuinely repent are to be restored to communion in stages over a period of twelve years.

12. Those who renounced the army because of their faith and then return to it are to be restored to communion over a period of thirteen years, though the bishop may shorten the time for those who show especial sincerity.

13. Those at the point of death are not to be denied communion.

14. Catechumens who lapse are to be readmitted after three years as hearers only.

15. Clergy are not to transfer from city to city.

16. Clergy are not to be received in other churches but are to be returned to their own dioceses under pain of excommunication.

17. Any clergy who in future practise usury are to be deposed.

18. Deacons are not to give communion to presbyters, nor to receive it before bishops, nor to sit among the presbyters.

19. Followers of Paul of Samosata who seek to join the Catholic Church are to be rebaptised. Those who have been clergy may, if suitable, be ordained by the Catholic bishop.

20. On Sundays and during the season of Pentecost one should pray standing and not kneeling.

These are the twenty canons which today are accepted as genuine. Those are the only canons found in the earliest Greek and Latin collections, from the fourth and fifth centuries and it is precisely those canons that are found in medieval collections, both Greek and Latin. But there is an Arabic translation which contains eighty canons 71 or, in some manuscripts, eighty-four canons. What is the origin of these extra canons? Some of them are manifestly later than Nicaea, referring to events which are subsequent to 325 (such as the elevation of Byzantium to imperial and ecclesiastical honour or the appointment of bishops in Ethiopia) and rejecting heresies from later centuries (such as Monophysitism and Monothelitism).

How did these extra sixty canons come to be added? The answer is very simple. From early times it was the practice to collect the canons of different councils into one document. The canons of Nicaea came first and over time some copyists, deliberately or otherwise, neglected to mention the origin of subsequent canons from later councils, thus making it appear that these too were from Nicaea. An early example of this type of mistake came in 417-418 when Pope Zosimus claimed the right to hear appeals from Africa, citing as his authority a canon of Nicaea. The Africans were ignorant of this canon and appeals were made to the East for authentic copies, which confirmed that there were only twenty canons. Zosimus had cited a canon from the later council of Serdica, mistakenly attributing it to Nicaea. 72

There are other grounds on which it is alleged that Nicaea promulgated more than twenty canons. For example, Jerome states that we read that the Nicene Synod reckoned the Book of Judith as part of Holy Scripture. This is a reference not to a canon of the council but probably to the citation of the book as Scripture at the council. That this does not refer to any binding decision, such as a canon, is shown by the fact that later eastern fathers rejected the canonicity of the Book of Judith and Jerome himself questioned it. 73

(c) Letter of the council to Egyptian Church 74

This letter reports on the results of the council, mentioning the condemnation of Arius and of those who sided with him, the treatment of the Melitians and the settlement of the date of Easter.

---

V. Related Letters Written concerning the Council

(a) Letter of Constantine to the Alexandrian Church 75

The emperor also wrote personally to the Alexandrian church. He talks of those who had been blaspheming against the Saviour, teaching ‘contrary to the divinely inspired Scriptures.’ He also stresses that ‘that which has commended itself to the judgment of three hundred bishops cannot be other than the doctrine of God; seeing that the Holy Spirit dwelling in the minds of so many dignified persons has effectively enlightened them respecting the divine will.’

(b) Letter of Constantine to those bishops not present at Nicaea 76

Here Constantine returns to his favourite emphasis on harmony. The council examined the issues, ‘until that judgment which God, who sees all things, could approve, and which tended to unity and concord, was brought to light, so that no room was left for further discussion or controversy in relation to the faith.’ He proceeds to describe the agreement that had been reached on the date of Easter, stressing how unfitting it was to follow Jewish calendrical calculations in this matter and also how scandalous it had been for different Christians to celebrate Easter at different times. There is no mention of Arianism in this letter.

(c) Letter of Constantine about Arius’s Works 77

This letter relates to the condemnation of Arius, but it is not clear how soon after the council it was issued. In it Constantine orders all of Arius’s writings to be burnt. Anyone concealing a copy of any of his works and not being willing to surrender it is to be subject to the death penalty.

(d) Letter of Constantine to Eusebius of Caesarea concerning the Scriptures 78

This letter has no connection to the Council of Nicaea, but since it concerns Constantine and the Scriptures it is worthy of mention. Constantine wrote to Eusebius asking him to arrange for the production of ‘fifty copies of the Sacred Scriptures, both legibly described, and of a portable size, the provision of which you know to be needful for the instruction of the Church.’ This command has nothing whatsoever to do with the canon of Scripture but is simply the provision of the funds necessary for the making of extra copies, needed for new churches being built in Constantinople.

---

VI. Conclusions

What was the purpose of the Council of Nicaea? It was called by the Emperor Constantine with the aim of bringing peace and harmony to the church. The issues that needed to be resolved were the date of Easter and the Arian controversy. The spectacle of public theological disagreement was injuring the Christian cause. ‘To so disgraceful an extent was this affair carried, that Christianity became a subject of popular ridicule, even in the very theatres.’ 79

Constantine’s concern was above all for unity and harmony. The bishops, while sharing this concern, placed a higher premium on theological truth. For them the resolution of the Arian affair had to preserve the truth of the Gospel as well as the unity of the church. Those who were concerned to maintain the full deity of Christ had every reason to be satisfied with the creed that emerged from the council. But the deity of Christ is just one of the components of the doctrine of the Trinity and judged by this fuller criterion Nicaea is less satisfactory. The doctrine of the Trinity also includes the clear distinction between Father and Son. Not only did Nicaea fail to state this clearly enough for some but some of its leading supporters, such as Eustathius, were not totally orthodox in this area. Nicaea, therefore, while it affirmed the full deity of Christ was not in any way a final resolution of the doctrine of the Trinity. That happened only after another half century of controversy.

What were the achievements of the council? The two original aims were met in that Arianism was condemned and the date of Easter was fixed. Other disciplinary matters were also resolved in the canons of the council.

What did the council decide about the Scriptures? Absolutely nothing. The issue was not raised in any form.

---

References

1. These will be cited from Norman P. Tanner (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils vol.1 (London: Sheed & Ward and Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990) 1-19. Hereafter it will be cited simply as Decrees. They are also to be found in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church Second Series, 14 volumes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971 reprint) 14:1-56. This series was originally published in the 19th century but will be used here because it has the twin advantages of being comprehensive in its coverage and widely available, even on CD ROM. Anyone with access to this series will be able to verify most of what follows below and also to follow up any points of particular interest. Hereafter it will be cited simply as NPNF. References to works cited will be as they are given in this edition, even though chapter numbers sometimes vary slightly from other editions. Some readers may find it easier to refer to J. Stevenson, A New Eusebius(London: SPCK, 1957) or to the later edition of this revised by W.H.C. Frend (London: SPCK, 1987), where the numbering of items has been changed. Items that are found in this work will be cited as NE a/b, where a and b refer to the number of the item in the old and the new editions respectively.

2. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 2:61-73, 3:4-23 (NPNF 1:515-18,520-26).

3. Socrates, Church History 1:5-14 (NPNF 2:3-20); Sozomen, Church History 1:15-25 (NPNF 2:251-57); Theodoret, Church History 1:1-15 (NPNF 3:33-54). (Chapter numbers in Theodoret vary from edition to edition.

4. While Eusebius mentions the Arian controversy in Book 2, the account of the council in Book 3 makes no mention of Arius or the Arian controversy. A reader who knew only Eusebius’s Life of Constantine might not realise that the council had anything to do with the Arian issue.

5. Athanasius, Defence of the Nicene Definition 33(NPNF 4:74-76); Socrates, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 2:10-12); Theodoret, Church History 1:11 (NPNF 3:49-51); NE 301/291.

6. Athanasius, Defence of the Nicene Definition (NPNF 4:150-72 + 74-76) and his synodical letter To the Bishops of Africa (NPNF 4:489-94) include description of events at Nicaea.

7. Theodoret, Church History 1:7 (NPNF 3:44).

8. These two reasons are mentioned by Athanasius, To the Bishops 2 (NPNF 4:490); Socrates, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 2:8); Sozomen, Church History 1:16 (NPNF 2:252f.).

9. For a brief account, cf. E. Ferguson (ed.), Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (Chicago & London: St James Press, 1990) 696.

10. This is especially evident in Constantine’s letter to Alexandria prior to the council (Eusebius, Life of Constantine 2:64-72 (NPNF 1:515-18); Socrates, Church History 1:7 (NPNF 2:6f.); NE 297/287).

11. The order and dating followed here is that of R.P.C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988) 129-51, which follows the work of H.G. Opitz who published an important collection of original documents. For a slightly different reconstruction, see R. Williams, Arius. Heresy and Tradition (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1987) 48-61.

12. See, e.g., Williams, Arius, 95-178; Hanson, Search, 3-128.

13. Theodoret, Church History 1:4 (NPNF 3:41); NE 293/283. For the same ideas, cf. Socrates, Church History 1:5 (NPNF 2:3); Theodoret, Church History 1:1 (NPNF 3:34).

14. The NPNF translations frequently confuse this point by inserting the word time where it does not appear in the Greek. Some modern works are guilty of the same error.

15. Socrates, Church History 1:6,9 (NPNF 2:4,12); Theodoret, Church History 1:3,7f. (NPNF 3:35f.,45f.).

16. Socrates, Church History 1:6 (NPNF 2:4).

17. Socrates, Church History 1:6 (NPNF 2:4).

18. Socrates, Church History 1:6 (NPNF 2:3-5); NE 292/282.

19. Athanasius, The Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia 16 (NPNF 4:458); NE 294/284.

20. Theodoret, Church History 1:4 (NPNF 3:41); NE 293/283.

21. Theodoret, Church History 1:4 (NPNF 3:42).

22. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 2:64-72; Socrates, Church History 1:7 (NPNF 2:6); NE 297/287.

23. NE 298/288.

24. J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (London: Longman, 1972 – 3rd edition) 208-11.

25. For accounts of the events, see T.D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge (MA) & London: Harvard University Press, 1981) 214-19; Hanson, Search, 152-72; C.J. Hefele, A History of the Christian Councils, from the Original Documents, to the Close of the Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1871) 270-447 (H. Leclercq’s French translation of the second edition of the German original, Histoire des Conciles d’après les documents originaux, vol.1 (Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1907) is fuller); Kelly, Creeds, 211-30,249-54; I. Ortiz de Urbina, Nicée et Constantinople (Paris: Éditions de l’Orante, 1963) 53-68; G.C. Stead, ‘“Eusebius” and the Council of Nicaea,’ Journal of Theological Studies 24 (1973) 92-98, reprinted in his Substance and Illusion in the Christian Fathers (London: Variorum, 1985) item 5; Williams, Arius, 67-72.

26. NE 299/289. Nicaea was close to the imperial palace at Nicomedia.

27. Theodoret, Church History 1:6 (NPNF 3:43).

28. Kelly, Creeds, 211; Decrees, 1. Socrates, Church History 1:13 (NPNF 2:19) is followed by Hanson, Search, 152; Ortiz de Urbina, Nicée, 59.

29. Hefele, History of the Christian Councils, 296f.

30. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3:8 (NPNF 1:522).

31. Eustathius in Theodoret, Church History 1:7 (NPNF 3:44).

32. Athanasius, Councils 43 (NPNF 4:473), Defence against the Arians 23 (NPNF 4:112); Constantine in Socrates, Church History 1:9 (NPNF 2:14).

33. Athanasius, Defence of the Nicene Definition 2:3 (NPNF 4:152) and History of the Arians 66f. (NPNF 4:294f.).

34. Socrates, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 2:8), inaccurately citing Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3:8; Constantine in Socrates, Church History 1:9 (NPNF 2:13);.NE 303/293.

35. Sozomen, Church History 1:17 (NPNF 2:253).

36. Athanasius, To the Bishops 2 (NPNF 4:489) (a later work); Socrates, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 2:10); Theodoret, Church History 1:6,10 (NPNF 3:43,48).

37. Cf. Socrates, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 2:10); Sozomen, Church History 1:20f. (NPNF 2:255); Theodoret, Church History 1:6 (NPNF 3:44).

38. Hefele, History of the Christian Councils, 270f.

39. Theodoret, Church History 1:6 (NPNF 3:43).

40. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3:7 (NPNF 1:521), quoted also by Socrates, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 2:8).

41. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3:10-13 (NPNF 1:522f.); Sozomen, Church History 1:19 (NPNF 2:254f.); Theodoret, Church History 1:6 (NPNF 3:43f.).

42. Theodoret, Church History 1:6 (NPNF 3:44).

43. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3:14 (NPNF 1:523); Socrates, Church History 1:9 (NPNF 2:13); Sozomen, Church History 1:21 (NPNF 2:256); Theodoret, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 3:47). Cf. Hefele, History of the Christian Councils, 298-332.

44. Socrates, Church History 1:9 (NPNF 2:12f.); Sozomen, Church History 1:24 (NPNF 2:256f.); Theodoret, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 3:46f.).

45. Socrates, Church History 1:10 (NPNF 2:17f.); Sozomen, Church History 1:22 (NPNF 2:256).

46. Socrates, Church History 1:11 (NPNF 2:18); Sozomen, Church History 1:23 (NPNF 2:256).

47. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3:15 (NPNF 1:523f.). Cf. Sozomen, Church History 1:25 (NPNF 2:257).

48. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3:21 (NPNF 1:525f.).

49. Theodoret, Church History 1:7 (NPNF 3:44).

50. Athanasius, To the Bishops 5f. (NPNF 4:491f.).

51. Ambrose, The Christian Faith 3:15:125 (NPNF 10:260).

52. In Socrates, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 2:10-12); Theodoret, Church History 1:11 (NPNF 3:49-51); NE 301/291.

53. NE 298/288.

54. Athanasius, To the Bishops 5f. (NPNF 4:491f.

55. Socrates, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 2:11); Theodoret, Church History 1:11 (NPNF 3:49); NE 301/291.

56. Kelly, Creeds, 251-53. Williams, Arius, 69f., represents Eusebius of Caesarea as the architect of the unanimous acceptance of homoousios. This is not plausible given the tone of Eusebius’s letter.

57. Decrees, 4. Ortiz de Urbina, Nicée, 93-95,259f.,295f. accepts the decree. There is also the list of signatories (Hefele, History of the Christian Councils, 296f.). For other spurious documents, cf. Hefele, History of the Christian Councils, 439-47.

58. Kelly, Creeds, ch.10.

59. Kelly, Creeds, 217-26.

60. Kelly, Creeds, 227-30.

61. Decrees, 5. Cf. NPNF 14:3-7.

62. Cf. Kelly, Creeds, 234-54; Hanson, Search, 163-72; Ortiz de Urbina, Nicée, 69-92.

63. Theodoret, Church History 1:5 (NPNF 3:42).

64. Athanasius, Councils 16 (NPNF 4:458); NE 294/284; Theodoret, Church History 1:4 (NPNF 3:41); NE 293/283.

65. The denial that the Son came from any other hypostasis or ousia is ambiguous and potentially confusing. See Hanson, Search, 167f. It could be taken to equate the two words and thus deny that the Trinity are three hypostases. Since the majority of the bishops at the council held to the doctrine of three hypostases they are unlikely to have taken it that way. All that it is actually denied is that the Son takes his origin from some hypostasis or ousia distinct from the Father, not that Father and Son are two hypostases.

66. See at n.13, above.

67. See n.15, above.

68. Athanasius, The Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia 16 (NPNF 4:458); NE 294/284; Theodoret, Church History 1:4 (NPNF 3:41); NE 293/283.

69. Decrees, 6-16. Also in NPNF 14:8-42; NE 300/290. Cf. Ortiz de Urbina, Nicée, 95-117.

70. Roughly the same as a modern archbishop.

71. For the captions of these, see NPNF 14:46-50. None of them relate in any way to the question of the canon of Scripture.

72. For this and the previous paragraph, cf. Hefele, History of the Christian Councils, 355-67; NPNF 14:43-45.

73. For this paragraph, cf. Hefele, History of the Christian Councils, 367-75, esp. 370f.

74. Socrates, Church History 1:9 (NPNF 2:12f.); Theodoret, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 3:46f.); NE 302/292; Decrees, 16-19; NPNF 14:53f.

75. Socrates, Church History 1:9 (NPNF 2:13f.); NE 303/293.

76. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3:17-20 (NPNF 1:524f.); Socrates, Church History 1:9 (NPNF 2:14-16); Theodoret, Church History 1:9 (NPNF 3:47f.).

77. Socrates, Church History 1:9 (NPNF 2:14).

78. Socrates, Church History 1:9 (NPNF 2:16); Theodoret, Church History 1:15 (NPNF 3:53).

79. Socrates, Church History 1:6 (NPNF 2:5).

A New Chronology

Synopsis of David Rohl’s book “A Test of Time” by John Fulton

---

The concept of time for us today is taken to be an absolute unchangeable system. We measure time from the fixed point of Christ’s birth so that this is the one thousand, nine hundred and ninety-seventh year since he was born. The ancients, however, could not look forward to Christ’s birth; instead, they worked on a regnal dating system where events happened in the Nth year of the reign of a particular king.

For most of the Old Testament, we can find a good deal of archaeological evidence in the Middle East to corroborate the historical record e.g.: Moabite, Canaanite, Persian, Assyrian and Babylonian artefacts and excavation. This is not surprising as these neighbouring states had considerable interaction between them. However, from the period of the United Monarchy under Saul, David and Solomon back, only the Egyptian chronology and archaeology is good enough to corroborate the biblical record and here there has been supposedly very little evidence for the existence of Saul, David, Solomon, the Judges, Moses and Joshua or the Patriarchs. This has led some scholars, such as Professor Thomas L. Thompson of Copenhagen University in 1992, to say:

“If we reflect on how easy it is to challenge the historicity of not only a David or Solomon but of events in the reigns of Hezekiah or Josiah … the very substance of any historical project that attempts to write a history of the late second or early first millennium BC in Palestine on the basis of a direct integration of biblical and extra biblical sources … must appear not only dubious but wholly ludicrous.”

This was true until the recent work of David M. Rohl in his book A Test of Time: The Bible:- From Myth to History’ (Century, London 1995 – ISBN 0 7126 5913 7), of which this paper is a summary. Very simply stated, the problem is to correlate the archaeological ages, the Egyptian pharaonic chronology and the biblical chronology of early Israelite history with the absolute Christological timescale.

The biblical chronology is as follows, based on the widely-accepted work of Edwin Thiele:

1ST & 2ND TIMELINES – BIBLICAL & EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGIES

The Egyptian chronology is based partly on finds during excavation of the sites of ancient Egypt. These include tablets and statues with inscriptions, pottery fragments, tomb relics and hieroglyphic inscriptions. Also of great worth in determining the chronology are the works of early historians, who often used ancient records not available to us today. As the archaeological evidence of Egypt is more extensive than that of any other contemporary civilization, the chronology of Egypt is used as the basis on which the archaeological ages and the chronologies of neighbouring civilizations are built. The ages concerning us are:-

3RD TIMELINE – ARCHAEOLOGICAL AGES

Therefore we have:-

1. Egyptian History and Chronology

2. Israelite History and Chronology

3. Archaeological Ages

These are combined to form part of an integrated whole, the conventional timescale of the ancient world as we know it:

4TH TIMELINE – INTEGRATION OF 1ST, 2ND & 3RD

In order to integrate the knowledge gained from different civilizations into the timescale as a whole, we need to have common dates that can be used to link known events in two or more civilizations. Examples are battles or marriage alliances between kings. This done, the relation of these different nations can be ascertained.

There were three basic cross-links made by 19th century Egyptologists to synchronise Israelite and Egyptian history.

• The sacking of Thebes in 664 BC by the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal as punishment for a revolt led by Pharaoh Taharka of the 25th Dynasty of kings in Egypt. Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian and other sources make this a very firm date, fixing the history of Egypt after this time. This date is beyond contention.

• The identification of Pharaoh Shishak (who is recorded in I Kings 14:25,26 and II Chronicles 12:2-9 as having conquered Jerusalem when Rehoboam was king of Judah) with Pharaoh Shoshenk I of the 22nd Dynasty.

• The identification of Ramesses II (Ramesses the Great, a 19th Dynasty ruler) as the pharaoh of the oppression of the Israelites in Egypt.

The absolute dates for Shishak/Shoshenk I were calculated from the biblical chronology, i.e. counting back regnal years to Rehoboam, the son and successor of Solomon. From this date, the date for Ramesses II was calculated by counting back the regnal lengths of the pharaohs between Ramesses and Shoshenk I. Other Egyptian kings were spread to fill in the gaps between these dates and other data, e.g. from the Ebers Calendar and Leiden Papyrus used to support the chronology.

The problem then arose that when archaeologists searched for materials from the periods, Late Bronze Age to Iron Age IIC, there was little or no evidence of any kind to lend credence to the early biblical account right up to the division of the monarchy. This means that for many years, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges and large parts of Kings and Chronicles were relegated to the realm of mythology rather than historical fact. There was no evidence of the major events of Israelite history recorded in the Bible ever occurring. There were little or no data supporting an Israelite nation of several millions in Egypt, no evidence of the Exodus and none of a conquest of Canaan in the relevant archaeological strata of the Late Bronze Age. The Early Iron Age when Saul, David and Solomon were supposed to have reigned in such splendour was a relatively impoverished time with certainly no evidence of the great building works of Solomon that are recorded in the Bible. This has led many archaeologists of this period to doubt the historicity and validity of a large part of the Bible. What has happened? New evidence now revealed shows how the early Egyptologists, in their eagerness to find archaeological proof for the biblical record, made key assumptions which were wrong.

Ramesses

The first of these was the identification of Ramesses II as the pharaoh of the oppression based on the text of Exodus 1:8-11 which tells of the new pharaoh forcing the Hebrews to build the store cities of Pithom and Raamses. Ramesses II was a great building pharaoh and did build Raamses in Goshen (called Pi-Ramesse or city of Ramesses’). However, this is likely to be the same as saying that the present city of York was built by the Romans; the Romans never actually called their city York but Eboracum. The modern city of York gets its name from the Viking town Yorvik built on the same site. A biblical redactor writing after the event would naturally refer to the city built by the Israelites with the name Raamses to make it familiar to all his contemporaries.

It is remarkable that to identify the pharaoh of the oppression with Ramesses II, the period of the Judges must be reduced by 200 years, which is directly opposed to the biblical narrative. In Judges 11:26, Jephthah (one of the last of the Judges) states that the timespan from the first settlement in Transjordan during the Conquest to his own time, is 300 years. Also in I Kings 6:1, the time from the Exodus to the building of the temple by Solomon in 966 BC is recorded as 480 years, complementing the Judges date. These both place the Exodus around 1450 BC but Ramesses II reigned in the 13th Century (1279 – 1213 BC) under the conventional chronology. Genesis 47:11 also states that Jacob and the Patriarchs settled in the region of Ramesses’. This, however, is centuries before there was a pharaoh named Ramesses, let alone one who built a great city named after him. These early Egyptologists overlooked or ignored the biblical evidence in favour of equating Ramesses II with the pharaoh of the oppression.

Furthermore, the identification of the biblical Shishak (I Kings 14:25,26 and II Chronicles 12:2-9) with Pharaoh Shoshenk I has now been shown to be very shaky. It is based on a misreading of hieroglyphs to read that he captured the kingdom of Judah’. Shoshenk did indeed march north into Palestine but into the region of the Northern Kingdom of Israel; no mention is made of the capture of Jerusalem in this campaign.

The two main pillars of early Egyptian chronology have thus been shown to be unreliable and so the only firm date for tying this period to any timescale is 664 BC, the sacking of Thebes.

However, recent work has now come up with some very interesting finds. These start with archaeological conundrums or puzzles which, detailed in David Rohl’s book, shorten the entire length of the Third Intermediate Period (TIP) of Egypt (conventionally dated 1069-664 BC) by 200 years. In essence, there were a lot more co-regencies and parallel dynasties than was previously thought.

Secondly, research has revealed that Ramesses II was known in the Middle East by the hypocoristicon or nickname of Ss’. This comes from Hittite and Egyptian sources. The Egyptian S’is oftenn pronounced Sh’ in Hebrew and like Hebrew and Arabic, no vowels are used but some records indicate that the name ShSh’ is pronounced Shysha’. The ancient Hebrews may then have added the k’ as this would have given Ramesses the nickname Shysak’ which in Hebrew means the one who crushes underfoot’, a very appropriate title.

Thirdly and most convincing of all is a finding at the Theban Ramesseum. Ramesses II, in the eighth year of his reign, plundered the city of Shalem or Salem, which we know today as Jerusalem. He is therefore the only pharaoh recorded as having plundered this city and his nickname is Shysha!

Finally, there are three important ancient genealogies:-

• The graffito genealogy of Khnemibre in the Wadi Hammamat.

• The statue genealogy of Nespaherenhat in the Cairo Museum.

• The Memphite genealogy of the High Priests of Ptah, now in Berlin.

These all indicate that the length of the TIP has been artificially overestimated in the original piecing together of the Egyptian chronology. These evidences and more have enabled a new chronology to be established by David Rohl in his book which is summarised below:-

5TH TIMELINE – THE NEW CHRONOLOGY

The effect of all this archaeological research is that the biblical chronology, rather than being squeezed’ to fit into the accepted archaeological timeframe, is now being proved to be very accurate. The biblical timeframe is being verified by a whole wave of new data from the Middle East which under the new chronology of Egypt ties in extremely well with the biblical account.

Solomon

The first evidence of this is in the subsequent relocation of the Solomonic period to the Late Bronze Age. This was an age of wealth and prosperity in the Levant, reflecting the biblical narrative of the wealth of Solomon’s reign. Previously, Solomon was placed in a period of general impoverishment – the Early Iron Age. The contemporaries of Solomon in Egypt are now shown to have been Haremheb and Seti I. Excavations at Megiddo for this period, which I Kings 9:15 records as being built up by Solomon, revealed a Late Bronze Age palace 50 metres long with two-metre thick walls, a royal treasure-room with a magnificent hoard of treasures and the richest collection of Canaanite carved ivory yet discovered’ in Palestine (Yigael Yadin of the University of Jerusalem). One of these ivory pieces depicts a king on his throne flanked by two sphinxes with his queen before him. The queen is presenting the king with lotus flowers, a typical Egyptian scene. In I Kings 10:18-20, Solomon is said to have had a throne flanked with lions’. We also know that he married an Egyptian princess (I Kings 3:1). Could this piece, now in the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem, represent Solomon and his Egyptian queen at the height of their power? The architecture of Late Bronze Age Megiddo is identical to that described in the Bible as being performed by Phoenician craftsmen (I Kings 6:36).

In I Kings 9:15, Solomon is recorded as having built the Millo’ around Jerusalem. This was a massive stone terrace, erected to increase the building area on top of the City of David. This amazing construction was extensively excavated by Dame Kathleen Kenyon; however, due to the chronological problems already discussed, it was wrongly dated to a couple of centuries before Solomon. This has now been revised under the new chronology and given a date in the Late Bronze Age, contemporary with Solomon, the biblical builder.

Furthermore, it is stated in I Kings 7:8 and II Chronicles 8:11 that Solomon built a palace for his Egyptian wife in Jerusalem. The only Egyptian architectural remains ever to be found in Jerusalem now date in the new chronology to the Late Bronze Age II A/B. Previously, it was considered a mystery as to where they had come from and who had been responsible for them.

Saul and The Amarna Tablets

In 1887, 380 clay tablets were discovered in Egypt at a place called Tell el-Amarna and have come to be known as the Amarna tablets. These tablets were letters from foreign rulers, mainly of city-states but also of the more powerful northern kingdoms of present-day Syria, Turkey and Cyprus, as well as what was once Babylonia and Assyria. They were written to the Egyptian pharaoh of the day; this was Amenhotep IV who soon changed his name to the famous Akhenaten.

Under the old chronology these tablets contained little to interest Bible scholars; however, under the new chronology they are dated to the late 10th century of Saul and David, providing an amazing confirmation and even expansion of the biblical narrative. The tablets were carried to Egypt, transcribed onto papyrus from the original Akkadian/Cuneiform script into heiroglyphs for the pharaoh to read and then the original tablets stored at Amarna to be discovered some 3000 years later.

Akhenaten was the 18th Dynasty ruler who sought to change the entire religion and culture of Egypt to the worship of one deity, the sun-god Re, in the form of the Aten sun disc. Under his rule, however, Egypt became militarily weak and was brought to the brink of revolution. The superpower of the day was crippled, allowing a new power base to emerge in the Levant under the rule of firstly Saul, then David. This culminated in the reign of Solomon, with enough consolidated power to force a marriage alliance between himself and a later pharaoh’s daughter.

The Amarna tablets paint a picture of a tribal Palestine ruled by various city-state rulers of Canaanite, Philistine and Israelite/Hebrew origin as well as the larger state of Amurru/Aram to the north, very much corroborating the biblical picture of Samuel. They tell us that the coastal plains were in the hands of Philistines of Indo-European origin, dominated by city-state rulers with Indo-European names who communicate with Pharaoh Akhenaten in the Amarna letters. The Bible tells of the coastal plains being out of the control of Saul and under Philistine rule (p.207, fig. 244). The city of Gezer in the Amarna letters is under Canaanite rulers; Gezer in the Bible is under Canaanite rule until given to Solomon as a dowry by Pharaoh in I Kings 9:16.

Mentioned several times in the tablets are the Habiru’ people, who are stateless wanderers outside the rule of the city-states of Palestine and Syria, often employed as mercenaries by these rulers to protect their interests. Their lifestyle closely resembles that of the biblical Hebrews and yet posed problems for scholars under the old dating system as to why groups of Hebrews should be wandering in Palestine 100 years before the Exodus! Now, however, these are the Hebrews of David who finally enter the service of Achish, king of Gath, who quarters them in Gath. David and his Hebrews, portrayed as soldiers of fortune as in I Samuel 27:1-6!

In the Amarna letters, Jerusalem is ruled by Jebusites, a Hurrian elite race. In II Samuel 5:6,7, this is also the case until the city is conquered by David. The name of the ruler of Jerusalem is given in the Amarna letters as Abdiheba, a mixed Semitic/Hurrian name. The Amarna tablets tell of the whole region of Syria dominated by kings of Amorite stock including a king Aziru. The Bible in II Samuel speaks of this kingdom being Aram and the king being Hadadezer, one of David’s enemies. Aziru is considered to be the accepted shortening or hypocoristicon of a longer, more formal name. Given that Hadad was a prominent god of the Arameans and that -Aziru (or -ezer) means helper of’, it can be seen that the Amarna letters use the shortened name of the Aramean king Helper of Hadad’ or Hadadezer, a startling biblical confirmation.

The hill country to the north of Jerusalem is dominated in the Amarna letters by a king who shows scant respect for the Egyptian pharaoh. His hypocoristic or shortened name is Labayu, translated as Great Lion of (N)’ where N is a god’s name. The career of the Labayu in the Amarna letters is strikingly similar to that of Saul and this is an alternative name for the biblical Saul, the great lion’ of Yahweh.

Another clue to Saul’s other name is found in Psalm 57 where his bodyguards are called lebaim’, a unique word in the Old Testament meaning great lions’. It is amazing then that as David hides from Saul’s men in the cave of En-Gedi (I Samuel 24) he pens Psalm 57:4:-

“I am in the midst of lions (Hebrew ‘lebaim’); I lie among ravenous beasts – men whose teeth are spears and arrows, whose tongues are sharp swords.”

Labayu in the Amarna letters was active in fighting against the Philistines on the coastal plain to the south-west but was unable to conquer their cities. He was finally killed on Mount Gilboa by a Philistine confederacy. A rebellious king, he even wrote to Pharaoh to warn him not to meddle in his affairs. In letter EA 252 (p208 fig. 245), Labayu writes:-

“If an ant is struck, does it not fight back and bite the hand of the man who struck it?”

It is truly astounding to have in our possession a letter from King Saul. EA 252 was studied in 1943 by the great American archaeologist William Albright. He concluded that the writer knew little of the Akkadian language and that it was idiomatically pure Hebrew, i.e. written in Hebrew first by the king whose beginnings were insignificant (from the house of Benjamin and the least of its families’ – I Samuel 9:21) and then translated into Akkadian to be sent to Pharaoh. The untutored Labayu/Saul writes to warn off Pharaoh!

A number of other Amarna tablets attest to this king’s disruption of the area. EA 289 states:-

“Are we to act like Labayu when he was giving the land of Shechem to the Habiru?”

Habiru/Hebrews means wanderers’ and was a term of contempt used by the other Palestinian leaders. The Jews called themselves Israelites except when speaking of David’s Hebrews who were a mercenary group of drifters. Indeed, the Hebrews of David may be seen as a different group of Israelites e.g. I Samuel 13:3-5:-

“Jonathan smashed the Philistine pillar which was at Gibeah and the Philistines learnt that the Hebrews had risen in revolt. Saul had the trumpet sounded throughout the country and the whole of Israel heard the news: ‘Saul has smashed the Philistine pillar and now Israel has incurred the enmity of the Philistines.'”

This event is mentioned by Labayu as he writes to the Pharaoh in EA 252, to say that he was recapturing his home town which was taken by the Philistines, even after it had been agreed in the presence of the governor from Egypt that this would not happen!

In EA 254, Labayu’s third letter to Pharaoh, he reprimands his own son for consorting with the Habiru/Hebrews without his knowledge. This is also told in I Samuel 20:30,31.

The deaths of Saul and his sons, Jonathan, Abinadab and Malkishua are recorded in I Samuel 31. They occur at the battle of Mount Gilboa in a clash with the Philistines. After gathering at the fountain of Jezreel, the Israelites retreated into the mountains so that the Philistines could not make use of their chariots and cavalry. How the Philistines were successful in pursuing Saul up the mountains is not clear in the Bible but the Amarna tablets answer some intriguing questions. In EA 250, a ruler of a city-state reports to Pharaoh that Saul’s surviving sons have asked for help to inflict revenge on a city called Gina (biblical En-Ganim) for killing their father. Also, in EA 245, Biridiya, Philistine ruler of Megiddo, writes to say that when he arrived on the battle field, Labayu was already dead and so could not be taken alive and sent to Egypt for public execution as Pharaoh had wanted.

In a map of the battle 1, it can be seen that Saul took up position facing the Philistines over the steep, northern slopes. To the south of his position atop Mount Gilboa lay the gentle slopes of the Vale of Gina and the town of Gina. It is envisaged that the men of Gina had been positioned to guard the southern slopes but that they betrayed Saul and allowed the Philistine archers and chariots to outflank and surprise Saul’s army. Then, when the Philistine ruler Biridiya arrived on the battlefield with the main Philistine army, Saul and his sons were already dead. In the biblical account, Saul was mortally wounded by Philistine arrows; rather than being taken alive, he fell on his own sword to kill himself.

David

After the death of Saul/Labayu, we know from the biblical account that Saul’s son Ishbaal/Ish-Bosheth and David vied for power (II Samuel 3:1). Ishbaal fled across the Jordan after the death of his father and from there he wrote to Pharaoh the tablet EA 256 (in the British Museum) which reads:-

“Say to Yanhamu, my lord: Message of Mutbaal, your servant. I fall at the feet of my lord. How can it be said in your presence, Mutbaal has fled. He has hidden Ayab’? How can the king of Pella flee from the commissioner, agent of the king, his lord? As the king, my lord, lives, as the king my lord lives, I swear Ayab is not in Pella. In fact, he has been in the field (i.e. on campaign) for 2 months. Just ask Benenima. Just ask Dadua. Just ask Yishuya.”

There are several points of note in this extract:-

• Yanhamu is the official representative of Pharaoh in Palestine.

• Mutbaal is the Canaanite form of Ishbaal, son of Saul. Both mean Man of Baal’.

• Pella is one of the Israelite strongholds across the Jordan.

Who, however, is the Ayab that Pharaoh speaks of? It has been ascertained by linguists that Ayab is none other than Joab, commander of David’s Hebrew army! Furthermore, it has been worked out that Benenima is Baanah, one of Israel’s chieftains, Dadua is a form of the name David, king of Judah and Yishuya is the name Jesse (Heb. Yishay), the father of David.

As well as confirming the names of these characters, the Amarna letters even contain the name Goliath in its Akkadian form Gulatu (in EA 292 and 294)!

David’s power begins to rise after the death of Saul; after seven and a half years, he is king of all Israel. As his power increases, we read in the Amarna letters desperate pleas for help from Pharaoh against the rampaging Hebrews. Most poignant of all comes from the Jebusite king of Jerusalem, Abdiheba. In EA 288 he writes that he is an island amidst a sea of violence as cities fall to the Hebrews round about him. The fall of Lachish is recorded and Pharaoh is reminded that he has done nothing to help. The king asks to be brought to Egypt with his brothers for safety. However, there never was a rescue as in 1003 BC, David conquered Jerusalem; nothing is ever heard from Abdiheba again in the Amarna letters!

The Amarna letters are not a recent find but have been around for over a century. However, due to the chronological misinterpretation, they were not seen as letters dating from the time of Saul and David. Even then, it greatly puzzled scholars as to how strikingly similar the Palestine of the Amarna letters was to the biblical Davidic picture, because they thought that the letters dated from 100 years before the Exodus. Now with the new dating, the similarities are there because the Amarna letters describe the United Monarchy period of Israelite history. The time gap was simply an illusion of the conventional chronology.

Another document and astronomy confirm the new chronology date for the Amarna period as a record survives of a solar eclipse near sunset at Ugarit in April/May. In 1988, using powerful mainframe computers, it was determined that the only date in the whole 2nd millennium BC when this could have happened was 9th May 1012 BC. This is 350 years earlier than the reign of Amenhotep III was previously dated and backs up the new chronology of David Rohl.

It is interesting to note that the only other mention of David found to date is the Tell Dan Stela/Tablet, dated to the mid-9th century BC and mentioning the House of David’. In this light, the Amarna tablets are clearly an incredible find but the greatest amongst them must be the letter from the Israelite king Saul to Pharaoh, written by the untutored Benjamite king in Hebrew and then translated roughly into Akkadian to be sent off to Pharaoh, the most powerful man on earth at that time. EA 252 is surely a priceless artefact!

Moses and The Israelites

One of the most troubling problems for biblical archaeologists was the lack of archaeological evidence for Moses and the Israelites in Egypt. Prior to the Exodus, there were hundreds of thousands of Israelites in Egypt, yet little or no evidence of their existence has been found, even though the sojourn is recorded as lasting for centuries in the Scriptures!

The biblical chronology dates the birth of Moses to around 1527 BC. In the new chronology of Egypt, the pharaoh on the throne of Egypt was Neferhotep I of the 13th Dynasty.

The early Christian historian Eusebius in his work Evangelicae Preparationis’ quotes from a book Peri Ioudaion’ (Concerning the Jews) by the Jewish historian Artapanus. This work of Artapanus has not survived down to the present but is also quoted in Clement’s Stromata’. Artapanus, writing in the 3rd century BC, had access to ancient records in Egyptian temples and perhaps even the famous Alexandrian library of Ptolemy I.

Artapanus writes that a pharaoh named Palmanothes was persecuting the Israelites. His daughter Merris adopted a Hebrew child who grew up to be called prince Mousos. Merris married a pharaoh Khenephres. Prince Mousos grew up to administer the land on behalf of this pharaoh. He led a military campaign against the Ethiopians who were invading Egypt; however, upon his return, Khenephres grew jealous of his popularity. Mousos then fled to Arabia to return when Khenephres died and lead the Israelites to freedom. It may be only a Mosaic story with similarities to the biblical account, yet the only pharaoh with the name Khenephres was Sobekhotep IV, who took the name Khaneferre at his coronation. He reigned soon after Neferhotep I of the 13th Dynasty, as mentioned above, the pharaoh in power at Moses’ birth!

Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews’, with access to very old manuscripts and writing in AD 93, also mentioned Moses’ Ethiopian or Kushite war. Here, Moses led an Egyptian army down the Nile valley, past the Third Cataract, deep into Kush (modern Ethiopia). In the British Museum is a stela (page 261, fig. 289) which tells of a 13th Dynasty pharaoh undertaking a campaign south into the region of Kush. That pharaoh is none other than Khaneferre, the step-father of Moses according to Artapanus. He is the only 13th Dynasty pharaoh who is recorded as having campaigned into Upper Nubia or Ethiopia. At Kerma on the Nile an official Egyptian building was found, outside of which was discovered a statue of Khaneferre, so dating this building to the 13th Dynasty. This is many hundreds of kilometres south of the known boundaries of 13th Dynasty Egypt and may have been a governor’s residence’. It would have been built to secure Egyptian interests in the area after the military victory of the Egyptians led by Moses, as this was the only Kushite war at that time with Egypt. As Moses was a prince of Egypt and was 40 years old according to the Bible when he fled to Arabia, he could certainly have led this military operation – an Israelite leading an Egyptian army to war! If this part of Josephus’ account is true then it adds weight to the rest of his account of the life of Moses and also gives us some firmer evidence of the existence of this charismatic leader!

Avaris

Excavations have been continuing for over 30 years near the Egyptian village of Tell ed-Daba. Here in the Nile Delta region, a large Middle Bronze Age settlement has been uncovered. This is the region of Goshen and the excavation is at the location of the biblical city of Raamses or Pi-Ramesse, the city of Ramesses II (Exodus 1:11). Settlement here spans a period from the 12th to the 20th Dynasties of Egypt. The ancient city at its peak covered an area of ten square kilometres, making it one of the largest cities of the ancient world. It existed for 800 years before being abandoned, when its stones was used to build Tanis.

The city of Pi-Ramesse or Raamses is, of course, famous because it was here that the early Israelites settled as they sojourned in Egypt and here also that they were enslaved. Raamses, however, was not the original name for the city built by the Israelites but as discussed earlier, was a later redaction. The city of Pi-Ramesse was indeed built by the 19th Dynasty ruler Ramesses II (the Great) but, below it, the Austrian team led by Manfred Bietak uncovered a much older city called Avaris which was the actual city built by the Israelites, long before any pharaoh Ramesses had ever reigned.

Avaris was built on a series of sandy hillocks to avoid the annual floodwaters of the Nile. The people who lived in Avaris, however, were not Egyptian but Asiatic Palestinian or Syrian.

The finds there included numerous pottery fragments of Palestinian origin. Several factors about the graves were particularly fascinating:-

• 65% of the burials were of children under 18 months of age, the normal for this period being 20-30%. Could this be due to the killing of the male Israelite children by the Egyptians, recorded in Exodus 1:22?

• A disproportionately high number of adult women as opposed to adult men are buried here, again pointing to the slaughter of male Israelite babies.

• There are large numbers of long-haired Asiatic sheep buried which indicate these people to be shepherds.

• Large numbers of weapons found in the male graves indicate the warlike nature of the people.

The continuing archaeological discoveries here in the ancient city of Avaris mirror exactly the early Israelites revealed in the Old Testament. For two centuries no evidence was found for the Israelites when looking in the strata of the 19th Dynasty. Now that the chronologies have begun to be amended and the sojourn in Egypt placed in the 12th and 13th Dynasties, we have a wealth of archaeological evidence corroborating the biblical account.

Before Moses, the Bible records that the Israelites were enslaved by their Egyptian hosts (Exodus 1:8-14). In the Brooklyn Museum 2 resides a papyrus scroll numbered Brooklyn 35:1446 which was acquired in the late 19th century by Charles Wilbour. This dates to the reign of Sobekhotep III, the predecessor of Neferhotep I and so the pharaoh who reigned one generation before Moses. This papyrus is a decree by the pharaoh for a transfer of slaves. Of the 95 names of slaves mentioned in the letter, 50% are Semitic in origin. What is more, it lists the names of these slaves in the original Semitic language and then adds the Egyptian name that each had been assigned, which is something the Bible records the Egyptians as doing, cf. Joseph’s name given to him by pharaoh (Genesis 41:45). Some of the Semitic names are biblical and include:-

• Menahem – a Menahem is recorded as the 16th king of Israel in 743-738 BC

• Issachar and Asher – both Patriachs of Israel and sons of Jacob.

• Shiprah – the name carried by one of the Israelite midwives who were instructed in Exodus 1:15-21 to kill Israelite newborn males.

That 50% of the names are Israelite means that there must have been a very large group of them in the Egyptian Delta at that time, corroborating the testimony of Exodus 1:7 which alludes to how numerous the Israelites became. Also, the female slaves outnumber the male slaves on the papyrus by about 3 to 1, again hinting at the culling of male Hebrew children. There was no military campaign into Palestine in the 13th Dynasty to account for these large numbers of slaves.

The Tenth Plague to be sent on Egypt just before the Exodus was the plague on the first-born, recorded in Exodus 12:29,30. At the end of stratum G/1 at Tell ed-Daba or the ancient city of Avaris 3, archaeologists found shallow burial pits into which the victims of some terrible disaster had been thrown. These death pits were not carefully organised internments; the bodies were simply thrown in on top of one another. Could these be the burial pits of the first-born Egyptians? What is more, immediately after this disaster, the remaining population left Avaris en masse; this fits perfectly with the Exodus of the Israelites following the final terrible plague.

A completely new settlement of Avaris by a purely Asiatic people occurs approximately 50 years after the Exodus. These people are not Egyptianised’ like their predecessors the Israelites who had resided in Egypt for many generations. These are identified in Egyptian history as Hyksos hordes from Arabia – the biblical Amalekites. They invaded Egypt at the end of the 13th Dynasty, ravaging the country, establishing their own rule and appointing their own king to reign in the north of the country. They received tribute and levy from the rest of the land, dominating Egypt for more than two centuries. Their barbarity is shown in Avaris where ritual burials of young women have been uncovered, evidence of a cruel religious rite. Also, these Hyksos invaders plundered the tombs of previous pharaohs, their tomb relics being found in the Hyksos graves.

Although not directly confirming the biblical account, it does pose the question as to how these people were able to invade, settle and dominate the most powerful country on earth at that time. The Bible, of course, provides the answer as in Exodus 14:28 it records the complete destruction of Pharaoh’s army as the waters closed in over them after Moses parted the sea. Egypt without an army would be completely open to invasion by the Hyksos hordes.

The identity of the pharaoh of the Exodus is an interesting conundrum. The Bible dates the Exodus to 1447 BC. The new chronology suggests that the pharaoh at that time was Dudimose. A writer in Ptolemaic Egypt called Manetho records the invasion of the Hyksos hordes. He is quoted by Josephus as he writes:

“Tutimaos: In his reign, for what cause I know not, a blast of God smote us; and unexpectedly, from the regions of the East, invaders of obscure race marched in confidence of victory against our land (Egypt). By main force they easily seized it without striking a blow and having overpowered the rulers of the land, they then burned our cities ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of the gods and treated all our natives with cruel hostility, massacring some and leading into slavery the wives and children of others.”

Tutimaos is of course pharaoh Dudimose. The Hyksos invaders were confident of victory and could seize the land without striking a blow because Egypt’s army had perished! Again, a remarkable corroboration of the biblical chronology.

Joshua

Following the Exodus, the Israelites wandered in the desert of Sinai for 40 years. The book of Exodus closes with Moses’ death and the story of the conquest of the Promised Land begins in the book of Joshua. Until David Rohl’s new chronology, there was thought to be little evidence of the conquest in archaeology because the conventional chronology dated the conquest to the Early Iron Age IA. However, under the new chronology, the conquest is in the Middle Bronze Age IIB. Here there is a multiplicity of evidence, giving insight into the events recorded in the Bible.

The first major event recorded in the book of Joshua is the capture of Jericho. Excavations at Jericho have been carried out for almost 100 years but the most exacting work was done by Dame Kathleen Kenyon of the Institute of Archaeology, London, in 1952. With the old chronology, the history of Jericho which she found did not correlate to the accepted timing of the conquest. She found a substantial Middle Bronze Age city with a large outer wall 12 feet thick on top of a glacis or steep slope which was plastered smooth so that any enemy could not get a foothold to come near the wall. The slope was held in place by a large revetment wall of heavy field stones built along the bottom of the glacis. Beyond this wall was a deep ditch. The ditch was found to be filled with the remains of the bricks of the city wall.

The walls of Jericho had indeed come tumbling down’ (Joshua 6) and they had in many places filled the defensive ditch at the foot of the steep glacis slope, so enabling the Israelite troops to storm the city. Also found in Jericho were many large earthen jars of carbonised or burnt grain, indicating that the city had been captured rapidly and not after a long siege and famine, as there were lots of supplies. The city, after a sudden capture, had been burned to the ground as is recorded in Joshua 6:24. A layer of ash, in places up to a metre thick, was found, indicating the scale of the fire. Before the redating of the conquest to the Middle Bronze Age, the reason for the destruction of Jericho was unknown. However, now it can easily be viewed as the result of that which Joshua 6:24 speaks of. The city of Jericho after the conquest remained a desolate ruin for several centuries. I Kings 16:34 maintains that Jericho was not rebuilt until the reign of king Ahab in around 850 BC, 550 years later. This is now in the Late Bronze Age and is at the exact time that archaeologists have placed the building of a much smaller settlement at Jericho.

Of the other cities mentioned as having been captured and burned by the invading Israelites in the book of Joshua, excavation of their sites has revealed that 80% of them were destroyed by fire in the Middle Bronze Age, including Bethel, Lachish, Hazor, Debir, Arad and Hebron.

Another interesting find from the excavation of Jericho and other sites in Palestine are numerous scarabs with the name of the Anakite king Sheshai’ who ruled in the Middle Bronze Age. Joshua 15:14 and Judges 1:10 both record that Caleb defeated King Sheshi of Hebron during the conquest.

In 1992, the joint Israeli/Spanish mission were digging at the ruins of Hazor, the largest city of Palestine in the Middle Bronze Age. They found a tablet on which was recorded the name of the powerful king of the city 4. That name was Jabin, the same as the king of Hazor who Joshua defeated as recorded in Joshua 11:1,10! Again, Hazor was found to have been completely destroyed during the Middle Bronze Age as recorded in the biblical account of the conquest.

Archaeology at Shechem, one of the most prominent sites in the early biblical history of Israel, has revealed a remarkable consistency with the biblical account. Here Abraham rested under the Oak of Moreh (Genesis 12:6), here Jacob erected an altar to El, the God of Israel’ (Genesis 33:18-20). Joshua set up a large stone here as a memorial to the covenant God made with Israel (Joshua 24:25,26). Abimelech, son of Gideon, burned the people of Shechem alive in punishment for their rebellion against him, as they sheltered in their massive temple-fortress (Judges 9:46-49).

A temple dating to Middle Bronze Age IIB, the time of Joshua, has been found there. It has been identified as that in which the people of Shechem sheltered from Abimelech. The sacred stone which Joshua erected (Joshua 24:25,26) has been found and now stands for tourists to see; it was discovered in the earlier part of this century by Ernst Sellin who re-erected it in its place. This action was viewed with skepticism by many under the old chronology where the conquest was dated to the Early Iron Age. However, there can now be little doubt that this large white rock is indeed the stone erected by Joshua, standing to this day to witness the renewing of the covenant over 3000 years ago.

Sojourn

The length of the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt is now taken by many biblical scholars as around 215 years. The key verse in the determination of this is Exodus 12:40. In the Masoretic text, this verse says:-

“Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years.”

However, the Masoretic Hebrew text dates from the 4th century AD and the earliest surviving copy is from the 10th century. The Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX) was made under Ptolemy I in the 3rd Century BC and the earliest copy is centuries older than the oldest full Masoretic text we possess. It records the full version of Exodus 12:40 as:-

“Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt and Canaan, was 430 years.”

This rendering of the verse is also found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, again older than the Masoretic text. Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews’ (XV:2), writing in the 1st century, also gives the length of time from Abraham entering Canaan to the Exodus as 430 years. Therefore, in the Masoretic text, it is safe to say that the words “and Canaan” – i.e. the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – have been omitted in transcription over many centuries. Furthermore, I Chronicles 7:22-27 records ten generations from Joshua back to Joseph’s son Ephraim, who was a boy of around five years when Jacob arrived in Egypt. Taking a standard average generation length of 20 years, we again arrive at a sojourn time of approximately 200 years. Josephus (op.cit.) records that from the time of Jacob’s entry into Egypt until the Exodus there was a period of 215 years. Adding this to the Exodus date of 1447 BC from Edwin Thiele’s biblical chronology, we arrive at a date of 1662 BC for Jacob’s arrival in Egypt. Alternatively, by adding 430 years, we arrive at a figure of 1877 BC for Abraham’s arrival in Canaan.

Famine

Joseph was therefore appointed vizier of Egypt, second only to pharaoh, in the 12th Dynasty, according to the new chronology and specifically in the long reign of Amenemhat III.

Do we have any evidence of famine during the reign of Amenemhat III? Remarkably, we do! The Egyptians depended on the annual flooding of the Nile to irrigate and fertilise the Black Land’ of the Nile Valley and Delta. When the flood waters subsided, the enriched soil was then ploughed and sown for a reliable harvest. The German Egyptologist Karl Richard Lepsius, in 1844, worked at the Second Cataract of the Nile, at the ancient sites of the twin fortresses of Semna and Kumma. Here he found records for the heights of the Nile floods during the reign of Amenemhat III. The average height was eleven to twelve metres above the normal river level, which would have given a good harvest.

However, by the twelfth year of his reign, the floods recorded were around seventeen metres; this increased the silt deposited on the Delta and therefore gave richer, more abundant crops – the years of plenty’. This continued for seven to eight years. Then there is recorded a series of extra-high floods averaging 21 metres. This would have brought down three or four times the normal volume of water to the Delta. By the time the floodwaters receded, it would have been too late in the year to plant the crops, so resulting in a number of years of famine! It is interesting to note that Pharaoh’s dream, as recorded in Genesis 41:1-4, tells of seven fat and seven thin cows, representing the years of plenty and famine; both came up’ from the Nile, indicating that the Nile would have something to do with the famine! The grain produced in the Nile Delta was exported all over the Levant, so it is little wonder that the rest of the area suffered during the famine and Joseph’s brothers came to buy grain in Egypt.

Around the time of Amenemhat III, the power of the pharaohs was severely compromised by a number of baronies or local chieftains who controlled large parts of Egypt. Being quite rich, they could afford quite elaborate tombs to be buried in. Near the village of Beni Hasan, 39 of these tombs were found cut into a cliff face; the last dated to a period approximately 20 years before Amenemhat III. In this tomb, that of a chieftain called Khnumhotep III, was found a scene depicting a trading party of Asiatics arriving in Egypt 5. This party is very similar to the Midianite caravaneers to whom Joseph’s brothers sold him when he was brought to Egypt (Genesis 37). The inscription below one of these reliefs reads, The chief of the hill country, Abishai’ – a good biblical name! These caravaneers are wearing very colourful garments, again showing that it was the custom in the Levant at this time to wear such colourful clothes, cf. Joseph’s coat of many colours, presented to him by his father Jacob!

During the reign of Amenemhat III, these local chieftains or nomarchs ceased to build their tombs, indicating that they had had their power removed. At the same time, Amenemhat III rose to be one of the most powerful pharaohs of the 12th Dynasty. The reason for this is recorded in Genesis 47:13-21 where even the wealthy were forced to sell their land and possessions to Pharaoh in exchange for grain during the famine. So, the power of the local bigwigs was broken and Pharaoh reigned supreme in Egypt thanks to the works of Joseph.

Amenemhat’s pyramid in which he was buried at Hawara stands beside the ruins of one of the most impressive buildings of the ancient world – the Egyptian Labyrinth – built during his reign. This has thousands of storerooms and the reason for its building can be determined under David Rohl’s new chronology. This was Joseph’s administration centre, set up to organise the distribution of grain during the famine. It was only fitting that Pharaoh should wish to be buried beside the very means by which he had obtained absolute power in Egypt. Also nearby is an impressive water work undertaken during the time of Amenemhat III. A canal from the Nile to Lake Moeris (Birket Karun today) in the region of Faiyum was built to channel excess water from the annual Nile flood into this basin to help lower the Delta flood waters. Its modern name is Bahr Yussef – the waterway of Joseph! All these can now be looked at as the building works undertaken under the supervision of Joseph the Israelite.

The historians Herodotus, Manetho and Diodorus Siculus come together to agree that the Egyptian labyrinth was an amazing construction. Herodotus writes in the Hellenist period (Book II, 148):-

“I have seen it and indeed no words can describe its wonders. Though the pyramids were greater than words can tell and each one of them a match for many great monuments built by the Greeks, this maze surpasses even the pyramids.”

Jacob’s House in Egypt?

When Jacob and his family arrived in Egypt, the Bible numbers them at around 70 people. The excavations at Tell ed-Daba (ancient Avaris) show a small village dating to this time when Jacob settled in the land of Goshen (stratum G/4). An analysis of the human remains found at the site in this stratum by the Austrians Winkler and Wifling have shown that:-

• The male population derived from outside Egypt, probably from Syria or Palestine.

• The females formed a separate distinct ethnic group, originating from the Egyptians of the Nile Delta region.

This is consistent with an influx of foreign males, the early Israelites, who married the local Egyptian women; it therefore closely parallels the biblical account.

Underneath the palace of Joseph at Avaris (which we will come to shortly) in the lower stratum, dating to the time of the earliest settlement here, we have a building of Syrian design, classified by the Austrian team as a Mittelsaal Haus’ or Central Hall house’. This building was of quite modest proportion. The tombs unearthed during the excavation of the garden of this house contained numerous Asiatic artefacts, indicating the occupants to be of Syro-Palestinian origin. From this it is possible to say:-

• The earliest inhabitants of the settlement were not Egyptian.

• A man of some importance dwelt here.

This house, so different from the design of contemporary 12th Dynasty Egyptian houses, could possibly be the house Jacob built and lived in when he first arrived in Egypt and settled in Goshen.

Joseph’s Palace

Following the death of Jacob, the Bible records that Joseph went to live with his father’s family (Genesis 50:22). At this time, Joseph had ascended to the position of the second most important man in Egypt. It would be expected, therefore, that a large palace would be built for him. Immediately over Jacob’s house in the period of early Avaris, Bietak and his team found a magnificent Egyptian-style palace, dating to the 13th Dynasty. It is extensive with many rooms and a large garden, no doubt built for a very important man 6. In the garden, a tomb was uncovered of typical Egyptian style. It was found to be almost empty, having been broken into long ago. However, this was no ordinary tomb robbery as the robbers’ had taken everything, including the body! Normal robbers only remove valuables.

The Bible records that Joseph was embalmed after his death and laid in a coffin, with instructions that he be taken with the Israelites when they left Egypt; this was duly done (Genesis 50:22-26). However, Bietak did discover the desecrated remains of a twice life-size colossus or statue of the occupant of the tomb and palace. Over his right shoulder is a throw stick’, representing a holder of office and authority. The figure is Asiatic. The face has been mostly cleaved off and there are marks on the head where someone has tried to split the stone 7. Someone went to a lot of trouble to destroy the statue of Joseph; this is not surprising as the Egyptians were plundered and humiliated in the Exodus, which might very well prompt a vengeful attack on an Israelite statue! After this (stratum G at Avaris), the city is deserted for 50-70 years, to be resettled by the new Hyksos invaders setting up a base here after subduing Egypt.

Around the time of the Exodus, the Egyptians had a habit of making clay figurines of their enemies , inscribed with various curses. The figurines were then broken to activate the curse on the people whom they represented. 8. One of these execration texts found at Sakkara and now housed in the Brussels Museum dates to the late 12th and early 13th Dynasty, the time of bondage of the Israelites. On it are inscribed the names of none other than Jacob and Joseph himself, written in his non-Egyptian name! This is a dramatic confirmation of the existence of the biblical characters and also the anti-Israelite feeling as they were enslaved, leading up to the Exodus.

Conclusion

The Bible does not call itself a history book but it records the dealing of the real God with real people as they lived real lives in real times. It is important then that the biblical records of the Patriarchs and the early Israelites be lifted out of the category of fable and recognized as true stories. Where the Bible touches history, as it does in many places, then more and more the Word of God is coming out as remarkably accurate. To quote David Rohl, who is an agnostic, at the end of his book:-

“Without initially starting out to discover the historical Bible, I have come to the conclusion that much of the Old Testament contains real history.”

The events recorded in the Bible are not small events but include the building and destruction of cities and the movement of nations, as well as wars and battles affecting thousands of people’s lives. It details the rise and fall of empires as well as the parts played by individuals in that history. Although we may never come up with archaeological evidence for minor bit players’ in the story, major events should not be hard to find. What David Rohl and others are doing is looking at obvious evidence which has always been there and re-interpreting it in the light of new data to find that the broad brush-strokes of history portrayed in the Bible are very accurate. We are no longer waiting for one artefact to prove that the Israelites really were in Egypt but now we see their traces as very clear. The conquest is obvious, as are the reigns of Solomon, David and Saul. Our God did not deal with his people in secret but, as always, in the open for all to see (Acts 26:26). The legacy of how he led his people to create history is there to be discovered.

David Rohl’s book is essentially a new look at old discoveries to see the big picture’. However, as further work is done, more of the background to how the people of the Bible lived will be made known. Even now, hundreds of new discoveries are about to be published to further expand our knowledge of biblical history. Archaeologists have thousands more sites to dig but as they do this, they dig up new evidence in support of the historicity of the Bible.

Appendix – The Ebla Tablets

In 1964, Dr. Paolo Matthiae, professor of Near East archaeology at the University of Rome began to excavate Tell Mardikh in north-western Syria. It soon became clear that they were excavating the ruins of the ancient city of Ebla. In 1975, as the dig progressed down to Early Bronze Age levels, a remarkable find was made in the form of nearly 20,000 clay tablets which constituted the royal archives of the city. These tablets date back to the middle of the 3rd millenium BC, almost 4,500 years ago. They are written in Sumerian wedge-shaped cuneiform script which is the world’s oldest known written language. Deciphering these tablets, Professor Pettinato, also of the University of Rome, found the language used to be what he called Old Canaanite’ even though the script was cuneiform Sumerian. This very ancient language is closer in vocabulary and grammar to biblical Hebrew than any other Canaanite dialect’, including Ugaritic; this therefore gives evidence as to the age of the Hebrew language.

This mass of information from Ebla will take years to digest but already it is very exciting. The city was a large one of 260,000 inhabitants; it traded widely over the known world at that time. A flourishing civilisation existed with many skilled craftsmen in metals, textiles, ceramics, and woodwork. It existed 1,000 years before David and Solomon and was destroyed by the Akkadians in around 1600 BC.

To date, only about one third of the Ebla tablets have been translated. Already, however, Eber has been named as one of its kings. Eber was the great-great-great-great-grandfather of Abraham (Genesis 10:21). Could this Eber, King of Ebla, be the same Eber of the Bible? Other names found, later to be used by biblical men, include Abraham, Esau, Saul, Michael, David, Israel and Ishmael. The supreme god of Ebla was called Yah’, a shortened version of Yahweh’; so, some residual knowledge of the one true God was left at this time before Abraham. Another god was called El’, short for Elohim’, used later by the Hebrews as the generic name for God.

Tablet 1860 names the five cities of Genesis 14:2 in the same order, i.e. Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim and Zoar. Up until the discovery of the Ebla tablets, the existence of these biblical cities was questioned; yet, here they are mentioned as trade partners of Ebla. This record predates the great catastrophy involving Lot when Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.

Also included in the archive are very early Canaanite creation and flood stories which very closely resemble that of the Bible. This is not surprising as these people would have descended from the generation after the flood and so would have had a common history of these events!

These tablets provide much evidence of early life in Syro-Palestine and give a rich background to the lives of Abraham and the Patriarchs. It will be truly amazing once the excavations are completed and the tablets fully deciphered.

Postscript

As with all new research, David Rohl’s work needs to be carefully examined in order to be sure that the conclusions he has reached are sound and do not contradict clear evidence which is in opposition to it. As many of those who read this website will not be in a position to critically evaluate the arguments due to lack of knowledge and familiarity, we thought it would be useful to include a short summary of some correspondence which we have undertaken with both the author and Professor Kenneth Kitchen of Liverpool University. Professor Kitchen is a widely respected authority on the TIP and his book The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt’ (Warminster 2nd ed. 1986, augmented reprint 1996) was the first publication that brought together all the available evidence on the TIP and worked it into a whole framework of dating for the period. This was by all estimations a landmark publication; Professor Kitchen’s contributions to Egyptology are of undoubted significance, irrespective of whether or not the conventional chronology is proven to require adjustment, as is suggested by David Rohl’s work.

There now follow some of the main points raised by Professor Kitchen in reply to David Rohl’s book and, alongside them, David Rohl’s responses to those points. In order to explain a little more for those unfamiliar with the material, the main conclusion of David Rohl’s book with regard to redating was that the 21st and 22nd dynasties of pharaohs, instead of following on one from the other, actually occurred partly simultaneously, requiring a shrinking down of the conventional dates. This is a crucial part of the argument and so a large part of what follows concerns this overlapping of the two dynasties. Much of the detail has been left out in order not to confuse and it is therefore of necessity very brief. Those who have an interest are encouraged to study the topics in more depth. The books by David Rohl and Professor Kitchen, referenced in the main text, provide ample material and references for the hungry mind.

Professor Kitchen

David Rohl

The founder of the 22nd Dynasty, Shoshenk I, dedicated a statue to his immediate predecessor, Psusennes II, the last king of the 21st Dynasty. This obviously shows that the 21st and 22nd Dynasties did not overlap at all.

This inscription is certainly not conclusive. We know of two kings named Psusennes but are still in the dark as to which came first. Within the framework of the conventional chronology, it is assumed that the Psusennes recorded on this statue must be Psusennes II but there is no hard evidence on which to base this conclusion. Indeed, if Har-Psusennes turns out to be Psusennes I it is actually further proof that Dynasties 21 and 22 were contemporary.

Shoshenk I’s son Osorkon I married the daughter of Psusennes II, again demonstrating the continuity of the two dynasties. This is recorded on statue BM8 in the British Museum. The inscription does not inform us which king Osorkon it concerns. His identification is again dependent on the assumption that the two dynasties were continuous. It can easily be argued that if we are dealing with Osorkon II then the same evidence shows them to overlap.

There is a single line of high priests of Amun in Thebes and of Ptah in Memphis, both of which pass right through the change between 21st and 22nd Dynasties, removing any possibility of overlapping the two dynasties.

These lines of succession are, as before, totally dependent on key assumptions which are wrong. The data used are found on burial dockets which give the year of a king’s reign without specifying which king it is referring to. Once the underlying assumptions are shown to be wrong, the edifice comes crashing down.

An inscription from the reign of Merenptah of the 19th Dynasty relating to the annual inundation of the Nile shows conclusively that any folding-up of the dynasties is impossible. The data concern a specific point in a 1460-year cycle which can be accurately located in absolute time. There is thus no room for moving the dynasties around because of this firm date.

Professor Kitchen has not seen the inscription himself; he has referred to an article written by a man who has also not seen the inscription but only a facsimile of it. The published reading of the text is quite wrong and has been checked personally by David Rohl when in Egypt. The correct reading actually supports the revision of the dynasties as the fixed point referred to in the inscription has itself been wrongly dated due to the misreading.

1. p.218, fig. 259

2. p.276, fig. 310

3. p.293

4. p.317, fig.338

5. p.292

6. p.358, fig. 382

7. p.364, fig.390

8. p.351, fig.376

Does the Bible or the Qur’an have stronger historical corroboration?

The Qur’an

Does the Bible or the Qur’an have stronger historical corroboration? How would you support your argument, using specific examples?

Apologetic Paper (Jay Smith) – May 1995

---

Contents

1. Introduction

2. The Authority of the Qur’an

3. The Revelation of the Qur’an

4. The Inspiration of the Qur’an

5. The Qur’an’s Supposed Distinctive Qualities

   1. Its Holiness

   2. Its Superior Style

   3. Its Literary Qualities

   4. Its Pure Arabic

6. The Qur’an’s Supposed Universal Qualities

   1. The Inferiority of Women in the Qur’an

   2. The “Sword” found in the Qur’an

7. The Collation, or Collection of the Qur’anic Text

   1. The Periods of Revelation

   2. The Method of Collection

      1. Zaid’s Collection

      2. Competing Collections

   3. The Standardisation of One Text

   4. The Missing Verses

      1. Sura 33:23

      2. The Verse on Stoning

   5. The Variations Between the Codices

      1. Abdullah ibn Mas’ud’s Codex

      2. Ubayy Ka’b’s Codex

   6. Conclusions on the Collation of the Qur’anic Text

8. The Abrogation of Qur’anic Verses

9. Errors Found Within the Qur’an

   1. Contradictions With the Bible Which Point to Errors:

      1. Moses

      2. Yahya

      3. Trinity

      4. Ezra

   2. Internal Contradictions Which Point to Errors

      1. Mary & Imran

      2. Haman

   3. Errors Which Contradict Secular and Scientific Data

      1. Ishmael

      2. Samaritan

      3. Sunset

      4. Issa

      5. Mountains

      6. Alexander the Great

      7. Creation

      8. Pharaoh’s Cross

      9. Other Scientific problems

   4. Absurdities

      1. Man’s Greatness

      2. Seven Earths

      3. Jinns & Shooting Stars

      4. Solomon’s power over nature

      5. Youth and dog sleep 309 years

      6. People become apes

      7. Sodom & Gomorrah turned upside-down

      8. Jacob’s smell & sight

      9. Night/Day/Sun/Moon are subject to man

   5. Grammatical Errors

10. The Sources of the Qur’an

    1. Stories Which Correspond With Biblical Accounts

       1. Satan’s Refusal to Worship Adam

       2. Cain and Abel

       3. Abraham

       4. Mt Sanai

       5. Solomon and Sheba

       6. Mary, Imran and Zachariah

       7. Jesus’s Birth

       8. Heaven and Hell

    2. Stories Which do not Correspond with the Biblical Account

       1. Harut and Marut

       2. The Cave of 7 Sleepers

       3. The Sirat

11. Conclusion

12. References

---

A: Introduction

How many of you have been in a conversation with a Muslim, and you find that soon there are irreconcilable differences between you? You ask the Muslim why he or she says the things they do, and they respond that they only repeat what they have learned from the Qur’an. In reply you claim that what you believe also comes from the Word of God, the Bible. It doesn’t take long before you realize that neither side can agree because the authority for what you believe and say is at a variance to what they believe and say. Our Bible contradicts much of what their Qur’an says, and this fact alone will continue to negate many worthwhile conversations which we may wish to indulge in.

So, what is the solution? If two documents are in contradiction, the first thing to do is ascertain whether the contradictions can be explained adequately. And if not, then we must conclude that one of the two documents is false. Therefore, before we get into serious dialogue with a Muslim we must ask the question of whether the authority for our respective beliefs (the Qur’an and the Bible) can stand up to verification, and whether they can stand up to a critical analysis of their authenticity.

This is an immensely complex and difficult subject. Both Islam and Christianity claim to receive their beliefs from revealed truth, which they find in their respective scriptures. Consequently, to suspect the source for revealed truth, the scriptures for each faith, is to put the integrity of both Christianity and Islam on trial.

Obviously this is a task that no-one should take lightly, and I don’t intend to do so here. For that reason, I have decided not to attempt a simplistic analysis concerning the authority of the Qur’an and the Bible in one single paper. Instead I will begin by dealing with the authority of the Qur’an in this paper and then turn my attention to the authority for our own scriptures, the Bible, in a follow-up paper.

In no way do I claim to know all the answers, nor will I be so pretentious as to assume that I can exhaustively argue the question of authority for both the Qur’an and the Bible in these two papers. These studies are nothing more than mere “overviews,” with the hope that they will stimulate you to continue studying these very important areas in your own time, so that you too will “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:15).

When we observe the two faiths, we see immediately that they are in conflict with one another concerning their scriptures. Muslims believe that their scripture, the Qur’an, is the ‘final revelation,’ while Christians believe only the Bible (including the Old and New Testaments) can claim true authority.

If we were to delve into the contents of each scripture we would find that the two are at variance with one another in a number of areas: stories have changed, characters are missing and entire sections do not exist in one but do in the other.

In order to delineate which is correct, we will need to take each revelation separately and ask whether it can stand up to scrutiny, whether it can hold firm under critical analysis, and whether it can claim to be indeed the true revelation from God. Let us then start with the authority for the Qur’an

Normally when one begins any research into the Qur’an, the first question which should be asked is how we know that it is what it claims to be, the final word of God? In order to answer that question we would need to go to the sources of the Qur’an to ascertain its authenticity.

As you well know, going to the sources of the Qur’an is much more difficult then one would usually assume, as we have so little data with which to use. In another paper (The problems with Sources of Islam) I have dealt with the problems which exist when confronted by the dearth of material on the sources of the Qur’an, so I won’t repeat those arguments here.

Suffice it to say, that the only real source we have for the Qur’an is the book itself, and what Muslim Traditions tell us concerning how that book came to be created. Because of their late compilations (200-300 years after the event), and the contradicting documentation which we now possess prior to 750 C.E., I find it difficult to consider either of them as valid or authentic as source material.

However, since we are attempting to compare the Qur’an with our own scriptures, I will, for the time being, set aside my prejudices, and assume, for argument’s sake, that the traditions are correct. In other words, I will take the position of current orthodox Muslim scholarship and presume that the Qur’an was compiled in the years 646-650 C.E., from material which originated with the man Muhammad before his death in 632 C.E.

It is from this premise that I will attempt to respond to the question of whether the Qur’an can claim to be the final and most perfect revelation of God’s word to humanity.

---

B: The Authority for the Qur’an

The Arabic word ‘Qur’an’ is derived from the root ‘qara’a’, which means “to read” or “to recite.” This was the command which the angel Gabriel supposedly asked Muhammad three times to do when he confronted him in July or August 610 C.E. in the Hira cave, situated three miles north-east of Mecca (Mishkat IV p.354).

According to Muslims the Qur’an is the final revelation from Allah. In Arabic the Qur’an is also referred to as ‘Al-Kitab’ (the book), ‘Al-furkan’ (the distinction), ‘Al-mas’haf’ (the scroll), and ‘Al-dikhr’ (the warning), as well as other names.

For those who like statistics, you may be interested to know that the Qur’an consists of 114 chapters (suras), made up of 30 parts, 6,616 verses (ayas), 77,943 words, and 338,606 letters. According to Islamic scholars 86 of the suras were revealed in Mecca, while 28 suras were revealed at Medina. Yet, as portions of some suras were recited in both places, you will continue to find a few of the scholars still debating the origins for a number of them. The suras vary in length and are known by a name or title, which are taken from the general theme of that sura, or a particular subject, person or event mentioned in it. This theme may not necessarily appear at the beginning of the sura, however.

Each verse or portion of the sura is known as an ‘aya’, which means “miracle” in Arabic. Muhammad claimed that the Qur’an was his sole miracle, though the Qur’an did not exist in its written form during his lifetime. In fact much of the controversy concerning the chronology of the Qur’an can be blamed on the fact that he was not around to verify its final collation. But more about that later. To begin with, let’s start with the question of revelation: how does Islam understand this concept, and could their view on it be one of the reasons we don’t see eye-to-eye concerning our two scriptures?

---

C: The Revelation of the Qur’an

Islam, like Christianity, believes that God (Allah) desires to communicate with humanity. But, unlike Christianity, Islam tells us that Allah is remote, so he must not reveal himself to humanity at a personal level. It is for that reason that Allah is forced to employ appointed prophets, who are known as, rasul, meaning “the sent one.” These prophets are mere humans and so finite, though they are given a special status, and consequently protected by God.

Because Allah is so transcendent and unapproachable, revelation in Islam is simply one-way: from God to humanity, via the prophets. While each prophet supposedly fulfilled his mission by producing a book, the final revelation, and therefore the most important, according to Muslims, is that given to the final prophet Muhammad: the Qur’an.

The Qur’an, Muslims believe, is an exact word-for-word copy of God’s final revelation, which are found on the original tablets that have always existed in heaven. Muslims point to sura 85:21-22 which says “Nay this is a glorious Qur’an, (inscribed) in a tablet preserved.” Islamic scholars contend that this passage refers to the tablets which were never created. They believe that the Qur’an is an absolutely identical copy of the eternal heavenly book, even so far as the punctuation, titles and divisions of chapters is concerned (why modern translations still can’t agree what those divisions are is evident when trying to refer to an aya for comparison between one version and another).

According to Muslim tradition, these ‘revelations’ were sent down (Tanzil or Nazil) (sura 17:85), to the lowest of the seven heavens at the time of the month of Ramadan, during the night of power or destiny (‘lailat al Qadr’) (Pfander, 1910:262). From there it was revealed to Muhammad in instalments, as need arose, via the angel Gabriel (sura 25:32). Consequently, every letter and every word is free from any human influence, which gives the Qur’an an aura of authority, even holiness, and must be revered as such.

Left unsaid is the glaring irony that the claim for nazil revelation of the Qur’an, comes from one source alone, the man to which it was supposedly revealed, Muhammad. There are no outside witnesses before or at the time who can corroborate Muhammad’s testimony; nor are miracles provided to substantiate his claims.

In fact, the evidences for the authority of God’s revelation, which the Bible emphatically produces are completely absent in the Qur’an, namely, that the revelation of God must speak in the name of God, Yahweh, that the message must conform to revelation which has gone before, that it must make predictions which are verifiable, and that the revelation must be accompanied by signs and wonders in order to give it authority as having come from God. Because these are missing in the case of the prophet Muhammad and of the Qur’an, for those of us who are Christians, it seems indeed that it is the Qur’an and not the Bible which turns out to be the most human of documents.

Yet, Muslims continue to believe that the exact Arabic words which we find in the Qur’an are those which exist eternally on the original stone tablets, in heaven. This, according to them, makes the Qur’an the “Mother of books” (refer to sura 43:3). Muslims believe there is no other book or revelation which can compare. In fact, in both suras 2:23 and 10:37-38 we find the challenge to, “Present some other book of equal beauty,” (a challenge which we will deal with later).

This final revelation, according to Islam, is transcendent, and consequently, beyond the capacity for conjecture, or criticism. What this means is that the Qur’an which we possess today is and has always been final and pure, which prohibits any possibility for verification or falsification of the text.

Because Allah is revered much as a master is to a slave, so his word is to be revered likewise. One does not question its pronouncements any more than one would question a masters pronouncements.

What then are we to do with the problems which do exist in the Qur’an? If it is such a transcendent book, as Muslims claim, then it should stand up to any criticism. Yet, what are we to do with the many contradictions, the factual errors and bizarre claims it makes? Furthermore, when we look more carefully at the text that we have in our possession today, which is supposedly that of Uthman’s final codification of the Qur’an, compiled by Zaid ibn Thabit, from a copy of Hafsah’s manuscript, we are puzzled by the differences between it and the four co-existing codices of Abdullah Masoud, Abu Musa, and Ubayy, all of which have deviations and deletions between them.

Another problem concerns its very pronouncements. Because of its seeming transcendency we may not question its content, much of which, according to Muslim Tradition, originates from the later Medinan period of Muhammad’s life (the last 10 years), and so consists of basic rules and regulations for social, economical, and political structures, many of which have been borrowed from existing legal traditions of the Byzantine and Persian cultures, leaving us with a seventh-ninth century document which has not been easily adapted to the twentieth century.

As Christians, this question is important. The Bible, by contrast is not simply a book of rigid rules and regulations which takes a particular historical context and absolutizes it for all ages and all peoples. Instead, we find in the Bible broad principles with which we can apply to each age and each culture (such as worship styles, music, dress, all of which can and are being contextualized in the variety of cultures which the church finds itself today).

As a result the Bible is much more adaptable and constructive for our societies. Since we do not have a concept of Nazil revelation, we have no fear of delving into and trying to understand the context of what the author was trying to say (the process of historical analysis). But one would expect such from a revelation provided by a personal God who intended to be actively involved in the transmission of His revelation.

This, I feel is the crux of the problem between Islam’s and Christianity’s views on revelation.

Christians believe that God is interested in revealing Himself to His creation. Since the time of creation He has continued to do so in various ways. His beauty, power and intricate wisdom is displayed in the universe all around us, so that humanity cannot say that they have never known God. That is what some theologians like to call “general revelation.”

But God also chooses to reveal Himself more specifically; what those same scholars call “special revelation.” This He does by means of prophets, who are sent with a specific word for a specific time, a specific place, and a specific people. Unfortunately, much of what was revealed to those people was quickly forgotten. The human mind has a remarkable capacity to be completely independent of God, and will only take the time to think of Him (if at all) when they are in a crisis, or near to death.

Therefore, God saw the plight of His creation and in His love and compassion for His creation, decided to do something about it.

God decided to reveal Himself directly, without any intervening agent, to His creation. He did this also to correct that relationship which had been broken with humanity at the very beginning, in the garden of Eden. This is consistent with a God who is personally involved with His creation.

Simply speaking, God Himself came to reveal Himself to humanity. He took upon Himself the form of a human, spoke our language, used our forms of expression, and became an example of His truth to those who were His witnesses, so that we who are finite and human would better understand Him who is infinite and divine and beyond all human understanding.

As we read in Hebrews 1:1-2:

“God, who at various times and in diverse ways spoke in past times to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds.”

In Jesus Christ we see God perfectly revealed to humanity. This goes beyond special revelation. This is revelation personified!

The Bible, therefore, introduces the world to Jesus Christ. It is, for all practical purposes, a secondary revelation. It is simply the witness to the revelation of God. The Bible tells us about His life, mentioning what He said and did, and then expounds these teachings for the world today. It is merely a book which points to a person. Therefore, we can use the book to learn about the person, but ultimately, we will need to go to the final revelation, Jesus Himself to truly understand who God is.

And here is where revelation becomes specific for us today, because God did not simply stop revealing Himself with Jesus Christ. He still desires to be in relationship with His creation, and has continued to reveal Himself in an incarnational way. His ongoing revelation continues from that time right up until the present as He reveals Himself by means of Himself, the Holy Spirit, the comforter, convicting us of guilt in regard to sin, guiding us into all truth, telling us what is yet to come, and bringing glory to Jesus (John 16:7-15).

Jesus is the truest revelation. We find out about Him in the Bible. Yet, that is not all, for the Holy Spirit continues to make Him known to us even today, and that is why the scriptures become alive and meaningful for us.

For Muslims this must sound confusing, and possibly threatening, as it brings God’s infinite revelation down from its transcendent pedestal, and presents it within the context of finite humanity. Perhaps to better explain this truth to them we may want to change tactics somewhat. Instead of comparing the Qur’an with the Bible, as most apologists tend to do, it might be helpful to compare the Qur’an with Jesus, as they are both considered to be the Word of God, and stand as God’s truest revelation to humanity.

The Bible (especially the New Testament), consequently, is the testimony of Jesus’s companions, testifying about what He said and did. To take this a step further, we could possibly compare the Bible with their Hadiths, or the Tarikh, the Sira of the prophet and the Tafsir, all of which comment upon the history and teachings of the prophet and the Qur’an. While this may help us explain the Bible to a Muslim we must be careful to underline that though the New Testament speaks mostly about what Jesus said, about His message, it has little to say concerning how He lived. On the other hand the Hadiths and such talk primarily about the life of Muhammad, what he did, with here and there interpretations of what he said.

In this light there is no comparison between the two revelations, Jesus and the Qur’an. The Qur’an, a mere book with all its faults and inadequacies, its very authenticity weakly resting on the shoulders of one finite man, who himself has few credentials as a prophet, is no match against Jesus, the man, revered by Muslims and Christians alike as sinless, who, according to His sinless Word is God Himself, and therefore, the perfect revelation.

It may be helpful to use this argument to introduce Jesus to a Muslim, rather then begin with His deity, as it explains the purpose of Jesus before attempting to define who He is; in other words explaining the why before the how.

---

D: The Inspiration of the Qur’an

That then leads us into the question of inspiration. We have already said that God (or Allah) requires agents in the form of prophets to communicate his truth to his creation. Yet how does Allah communicate his thoughts and will to these prophets? How is revelation carried out?

The Arabic term which best explains the process of revelation is the word ‘Wahy’, which can mean ‘divine inspiration.’ According to the Qur’an the primary aim of Wahy is two fold:

1. to prove Muhammad’s call to prophet-hood (according to suras 13:30 and 34:50), and

2. to give him authority to warn people (according to sura 6:19).

Concerning the inspiration of the previous prophets, we are told very little.

In sura 42:51 we find Wahy explained as such:

“It is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a Messenger to reveal, with Allah’s permission, what Allah wills, for He is most high, most wise.”

According to the above sura there are three methods by which Allah communicates to his creation:

1. by direct inspiration

2. from behind a veil and

3. through a messenger (the implication is that of an angelic being).

Since the Qur’an tells us little concerning how Muhammad received his revelations, we refer to those who compiled the Sira of the prophet, men like Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham, Ibn Athir, and the Turkish writer ‘Ali Halabi to get a clearer insight. Their writings list seven forms of the experience of Wahy by Muhammad, some of which are quite revealing:

1. While the Wahy (inspiration) lasted, according to his wife Aisha, there were the sounds of bells ringing as he sweated profusely. He would become greatly perturbed and his face would change (Sahih Muslim). Muslim Tradition tells us that sometimes he would shiver and swoon, his mouth would foam, and he would roar like a camel (Mishkat IV p.359). At other times when the inspiration descended there was the sound near his face like the buzzing of bees (from ‘Umar ibnu’l Khattab), while at other times he felt a tremendous headache (from Abu Hurairah). Many times it seemed to his friends that he swooned and looked like someone intoxicated (Pfander 1910:346).

2. Wahy came to him in dreams.

3. Inspiration also came to him in visions while he was awake.

4. At times he saw an angel in the form of a young man (Pfander 1910:345).

5. At other times he saw angels in angelic form (sura 42:51).

6. During one evening (known as the Mi’raj) he was raptured through the Seven Heavens (according to the Hadith, Muhammad was taken to the highest heaven where he received the command to pray five times a day).

7. Allah spoke to him from behind a veil (sura 42:51).

When we look at all these examples of inspiration a picture begins to form, of a man who either had a vivid imagination, or was possessed, or suffered from a disease such as epilepsy. Muhammad, according to ‘Amr ibn Sharhabil, mentioned to his wife Khadijah that he feared he was possessed by demons and wondered whether others might consider him possessed by jinn
(Pfander 1910:345).

Even during his childhood Muhammad was afflicted with similar problems, causing concern to his friends who felt he had “become afflicted” (Pfander 1910:347).

Anyone acquainted with occult phenomena would be aware of the conditions of those who participate in seances. Occult phenomena in childhood, daydreams, the hearing of voices and calls, nightly meditations, excessive perspiration during trances and the subsequent exhaustion and swoon-like condition; as well as the ringing of bells are quite common. Even the
intoxicated condition resembles someone who is in a reasonably deep trance.

Also revealing is the report by Al Waqidi that Muhammad had such an aversion to the form of the cross that he would break everything brought into the house with a shape of the cross on it (Nehls 1990:61).

What we must ask is whether these manifestations point to true occurrences of inspiration, or whether they were simply a disease, or a condition of demonization? Historians inform us that certain great men (many of whom tended to be great warriors, such as Julius Caesar, the great Roman general, as well as the emperor Peter the Great of Russia, and Napoleon Bonaparte, the French Emperor), all exhibited the same symptoms mentioned above. But none of them claimed to be prophets or apostles of God, nor did their followers offer them such status.

While we want to be careful not to revel in trivial speculation, we must remember that the above statements concerning Muhammad’s condition did not originate from sources outside of Islam. These were statements by his friends and relatives, and those who most firmly believed in his claim to be the seal of the prophets. I am not an expert on these matters, so I leave it to you to decide whether the facts which we have learned concerning the condition of Muhammad at the time he received his revelations, can lead us to the conclusion that what he received were truly inspired.

---

E: The Qur’an’s Supposed Distinctive Qualities

Moving on, we now tackle the book itself, and ask whether its supposed qualities give it the right to claim a unique position alongside those of the previous scriptures.

E1: Its Holiness

While Muslims hold a high view for all Scriptures, including the Old and New Testaments, they demand a unique and supreme position for the Qur’an, claiming its ascendancy over all other scriptures, because, according to them, “initially, it was never written down by men and so was never tainted with men’s thoughts or styles.” As we mentioned earlier, it is often referred to as the “Mother of Books” (taken from sura 43:3).

Since the Qur’an is such a highly honoured book, it therefore is treated as if it, in itself, is holy. To enquire into its source is considered blasphemy. In most mosques which I have attended, no one would be permitted to let their Qur’an touch the floor. Instead, every individual was urged to use ornately decorated book-stands to rest their Qur’an on while reading from its contents. My Muslim friends were horrified to learn that Christians not only stacked Bibles alongside other lesser books, but that they wrote notes in the margins as well.

The function of the Qur’an, then, seems to be in opposition to that of the Bible. This points out another clear distinction between the two faiths view on revelation.

Take the example of an old man I met in a Pennsylvania mosque, who was highly revered due to his ability to quote, by memory, any passage from the Qur’an (and thus had the title of Hafiz). Yet, I never saw him lead any discussions on the Qur’an. A young Saudi Arabian man was given that responsibility. When I asked, “Why?” I was told that the old gentleman didn’t understand Arabic well (memorizing thus doesn’t command understanding).

It shocked me to find a man who had spent years memorizing the Qur’an, yet had no yearning to understand the content of its message. Is it no wonder, then, that Muslims find little desire to translate their most holy book? Merit is found in the rote reading of the Qur’an in Arabic, and not in its message.

Another example is that of a friend of mine here in London who considered the Qur’an the epitome of beauty, and offered me certain suras as examples. Yet, when I asked him to translate the texts he could not.

Some of the Pakistani students at the university I attend who could quote certain passages, admired the beauty of the text, but had great difficulty in explaining the meaning. I found it disconcerting that the “beauty of the Qur’an” had such an influence, yet its “beauty” seemed, in fact, to discourage its understanding, which becomes an enemy to its mystique.

Here then is the key which points to the difference between the scriptures of the Christians and that of the Muslims. The fact that Muslims accord the Qur’an a place of reverence and worship, while memorizing its contents without necessarily understanding it, sparks of idolatry, the very sin (“Shirk”) which the Qur’an itself warns against, as it elevates an object to the same level of reverence as Allah (suras 4:48; 5:75-76; 41:6).

In much of the Muslim world leather amulets worn on the body are sold outside the mosques (sometimes called Giri-giri). Within these amulets one can find folded pieces of paper with an aya, or verse from the Qur’an written on them. These verses supposedly have power to ward off evil spirits and diseases. For these Muslims the very letters of the Qur’an are imbued with supernatural power.

Christianity stands against this view of God’s written word. We believe that the power and authority for the scriptures comes not from the paper it is written on, but from the words it expresses. We believe that the Bible is merely the testimony of God’s revelation to humanity, and so is not holy in and of itself. It is a text which must be read and studied, much as a textbook is read and studied in school. Therefore, its importance lies in its content, rather than in its physical pages, just as a newspaper is read and thrown away, though the news it holds may remain imprinted on the readers mind for years to come.

Perhaps, the criticism by Muslims that Christians abuse the Bible is a result of this misunderstanding of its purpose. Once we understand the significance of the scriptures as nothing more than a repository of God’s word, we can then understand why Christians feel no injunction against writing in its margins, or against laying it on the floor (though most of the Christians I know would not do so out of respect for its message).

The high regard for the Qur’an carries over into other areas as well, some of which need to be discussed at this time.

E2: Its Superior Style

Many Muslims claim that the superiority of the Qur’an over all other revelations is due to its sophisticated literary style. They quote suras 10:37-38, or 2:23, or 17:88, which say: “Will they say ‘Muhammad hath forged it? Answer: “Bring therefore a chapter like unto it, and call whom ye may to your assistance, besides Allah, if ye speak truth.”

This boast is echoed in the Hadith (Mishkat III, pg.664), which says:

“The Qur’an is the greatest wonder among the wonders of the world… This book is second to none in the world according to the unanimous decision of the learned men in points of diction, style, rhetoric, thoughts and soundness of laws and regulations to shape the destinies of mankind.”

Muslims conclude that since there is no literary equivalent in existence, this proves that the Qur’an is a “miracle sent down from God, and not simply written by any one man.”

Ironically, we now know that many stories and passages in the Qur’an were borrowed, sometimes word-for-word, and sometimes idea-for-idea, from Second century apocryphal documents of Jewish and Zoroastrian origin (to be discussed later in this paper).

To support this elevated belief in their scripture, many Muslim Qur’anic translators have an inclination to clothe their translations in a style that is rather archaic and ‘wordy,’ so that the average person must run to the dictionary to enquire their meanings. Yet, these translations were not conceived hundreds of years ago. This is merely a ploy by the translators to give the text an appearance of dignity and age which, they hope, will in turn inspire trustworthiness.

In response, we must begin by asking whether the Qur’an can be considered a miracle written by one man, when we know from Muslim Tradition that the Qur’an which we have today was not written by Muhammad but was collated and then copied by a group of men who, fourteen to twenty years after the fact, took what they found from the memory of others, as well as verses which had been written on bones, leaves and stones and then burned all evidence of any other copies. Where is the miracle in that?

More current research is now eradicating even this theory. According to the latest data, the Qur’an was not a document which was even given to Muhammad. Much of what is included in the Qur’an were additions which slowly evolved over a period of 150-200 years, until they were made a canon sometime in the eighth or ninth century. If this is true, and it looks to be the best theory which we have to date, then the authority for the Qur’an as a miracle sent down from heaven is indeed very slim.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s ask whether the Qur’an can be considered unique in its style and makeup.

The logic of the claim to its uniqueness, according to Dr. Anis Shorrosh, is spurious as:

“… It no more proves its inspiration than a man’s strength demonstrates his wisdom, or a woman’s beauty, her virtue. Only by its teachings, its principles, and content can a book be judged rightly; not by its eloquence, elegance, or poetic strength” (Shorrosh 1988:192).

Furthermore, one must ask what criteria is used for measuring one literary piece against the other. In every written language there must be a “best piece” of literature. Take for example the: Rig-Veda of India (1,000- 1,500 B.C.), or the eloquent poems in Greek, the Odyssey and the Iliad by Homer, or the Gilgamesh Epic, the Code of Hammurabi, and the Book of the Dead from Egypt, all which are considered classic masterpieces, and all of which predate the Qur’an.

Closer to home: would we compare Shakespeare’s works against that of the Qur’an? No! They are completely different genres. Yet, while few people today dispute the fact that Shakespeare’s plays and sonnets are the best written in the English language, no-one would claim they were therefore divine.

To show the futility of such an argument, it would not take a very brilliant person to quote from classical pieces of literature in rebuttal. They could use such examples as the prayer written by Francis of Assisi (from the 12th century), or the prayer of Thomas Aquinas (in the 13th century), or portions of our own scripture, such as the 23rd Psalm and other Psalms, or even point to the imagery found in the gospel of John, or the sophistication evidenced in the letter to the Romans, or the chapter on Love in 1 Corinthians 13. These could all make the claim to be superior to the Qur’an and some of them definitely are, but that is not the point. We know the authors of each of these pieces of literature, humble men all; men who would shudder if we would consider their writings somehow elevated to that of the divine.

To make this distinction more clear, compare for example:

1. sura 76:29-30 (sura or 16:93) and I Timothy 2:4, Luke 15:3-4, John 10:14,18.

2. sura 111 and Francis of Assisi’s prayer (see Nehls, Christians Ask Muslims, example no.11, pg.75).

3. suras 4:74,84; 5:33; 48:16-17 and Matthew 5:3-12. sura 109 and Psalm 23.

4. sura 24:2 and John 8:3-12.

5. suras 2:222-223; 4:11,24,34,176 and Ephesians 5:22-25.

6. sura 9:29 and I Corinthians 13:4-7.

7. sura 33:53, 56-57 and Matthew 20:25-28.

8. suras 55:46-60; 56:22-26,35-38 and Revelation 21:1-8, 22-27; 22:1-6.

You may feel that the selection of the suras has been unfavorable in contrast to the quotations from the Bible and the prayer, and you are correct. But you must remember that the claim of the Qur’an is to “produce a chapter like it.” A chapter would mean any chapter, and certainly, as I have done here, those chapters which are similar in kind and content.

I am aware that the reverse could be done, that Biblical texts could be taken and opposed in similar fashion, but for what purpose? We make no claim, as has the Qur’an, that the Bible is superior to all pieces of literature.

In fact many statements and events described in the Bible are historical records, including quotations uttered by opponents of God, which do not necessarily reflect the consent, thought and will of God. Taken out of context such texts can and frequently are abused to support just about any view or opinion. Our intent here is to consider whether indeed the Qur’an has a superior style, such that it is unique among the scriptures of God. From what you now know, you, then, must decide.

E3: Its Literary Qualities

But what about the Qur’an’s supposed literary qualities?

While Christian or secular Arabic speakers are likely to appreciate the Qur’an’s poetic qualities, when anyone who is familiar with the Bible picks up a Qur’an and begins to read it through, there is the immediate recognition that he or she is dealing with an entirely different kind of literature than what is found in the Bible.

Whereas the Bible contains much historical narrative, the Qur’an contains very little. Whereas the Bible goes out of its way to explain unfamiliar terminology or territory, the Qur’an remains silent. In fact, the very structure of the Bible, consisting of a library of 66 books, written over a period of 1,500 years, reveals that it is ordered according to chronology, subject and theme.

The Qur’an, on the other hand, reads more like a jumbled and confused collection of statements and ideas, interposed many times with little relationship to the preceding chapters and verses. Many scholars admit that it is so haphazard in its make-up that it requires the utmost sense of duty for anyone to plow through it!

The German secular scholar Salomon Reinach in his harsh analysis, states that:

“From the literary point of view, the Koran has little merit. Declamation, repetition, puerility, a lack of logic and coherence strike the unprepared reader at every turn. It is humiliating to the human intellect to think that this mediocre literature has been the subject of innumerable commentaries, and that millions of men are still wasting time in absorbing it.” (Reinach 1932:176)

McClintock and Strong’s encyclopedia concludes that:

The matter of the [Koran] is exceedingly incoherent and sententious, the book evidently being without any logical order of thought either as a whole or in its parts. This agrees with the desultory and incidental manner in which it is said to have been delivered. (McClintock and Strong 1981:151)

Even the Muslim scholar Dashti laments the literary defects of the Qur’an, saying:

“Unfortunately the Qur’an was badly edited and its contents are very obtusely arranged.”

He concludes that:

“All students of the Qur’an wonder why the editors did not use the natural and logical method of ordering by date of revelation, as in ‘Ali ibn Taleb’s lost copy of the text” [Dashti 1985:28].

When reading a Qur’an, you will discover that the 114 suras not only have odd names for titles (such as the Cow, the Spoils, the Bee, or the Cave), but their layout is not at all in a chronological order. Size or length had more to do with the sequence of the suras than any other factor, starting with the longer suras and ending with the shortest. Even within the suras we find a mixed chronology. At times there is a mixture of Meccan and Medinan revelations within the same sura, so that even size is not an infallible guide in dating them.

Another problem is that of repetition. The Qur’an was intended to be memorized by those who were illiterate and uneducated since they could not read it. It therefore engages in the principal of endless repetition of the same material over and over again [Morey 1991:110]. This all leads to a good bit of confusion for the novice reader, and gives rise to much suspicion concerning its vaunted literary qualities.

In contrast to the Bible, which was written over several hundred years by a variety of authors, and flows easily from the creation of the world right through to the prophecies concerning the end of the universe; the Qur’an, supposedly written by just one man, Muhammad, during a span of a mere 20 years, seems to go nowhere and say little outside of the personal and political affairs of himself and his companions at one particular time in history.

With no logical connection from one sura to the next, one is left with a feeling of incompleteness, waiting for the story to give some meaning. Is it no wonder that many find it difficult to take seriously the claim by the Hadith that the Qur’an is “a book second to none in the world,” worthy of divine inspiration?

E4: Its Pure Arabic

Muslims believe that the Arabic language is the language of Allah. They also believe that the Qur’an, because it is perfect, is the exact representation of Allah’s words. For that reason only the Arabic Qur’an can be considered as authoritative. It, therefore, follows that those who do not know Arabic are still required to read and memorize the Qur’an in the Arabic language, as translations can never replace the language of Allah. Yet, is the Qur’an the Arabic document which Muslims claim it to be?

The answer is unequivocally “NO!” There are many foreign words or phrases which are employed in the Qur’an, some of which have no Arabic equivalent, and others which do.

Arthur Jeffrey, in his book Foreign Vocabulary of the [Koran], has gathered some 300 pages dealing with foreign words in the Qur’an, many of which must have been used in pre-Qur’anic Arabic, but quite a number also which must have been used little or not at all before they were included in the Qur’an. One must wonder why these words were borrowed, as it puts doubt on whether “Allah’s language” is sufficient enough to explain and reveal all that Allah had intended. Some of the foreign words include:

1. Pharaoh: an Egyptian word which means king or potentate, which is repeated in the Qur’an 84 times.

2. Adam and Eden: Accadian words which are repeated 24 times. A more correct term for “Adam” in Arabic would be basharan or insan, meaning “mankind.” “Eden” would be the word janna in Arabic, which means “garden.”

3. Abraham (sometimes recorded as Ibrahim): comes from the Assyrian language. The correct Arabic equivalent would be Abu Raheem.

4. Persian words

   1. Haroot and Maroot are Persian names for angels.

   2. Sirat meaning “the path” has the Arabic equivalent, Altareeq.

   3. Hoor meaning “disciple” has the Arabic equivalent, Tilmeeth.

   4. Jinn meaning “good or evil demons” has the Arabic equivalent, Ruh.

   5. Firdaus meaning “the highest or seventh heaven” has the Arabic equivalent, Jannah.

5. Syriac words: Taboot, Taghouth, Zakat, Malakout are all Syriac words which have been borrowed and included in the ‘Arabic’ Qur’an.

6. Hebrew words: Heber, Sakinah, Maoon, Taurat, Jehannim, Tufan (deluge) are all Hebrew words which have been borrowed and included in the ‘Arabic’ Qur’an.

7. Greek words: Injil, which means “gospel” was borrowed, yet it has the Arabic equivalent, Bisharah. Iblis is not Arabic, but a corruption of the Greek word Diabolos.

8. Christian Aramaic: Qiyama is the Aramaic word for resurrection.

9. Christian Ethiopic: Malak (2:33) is the Ethiopic word for angel.

---

F: The Qur’an’s Supposed Universal Qualities

Another claim by Muslims for the authority of the Qur’an is its universal application for all people and for all time. Yet is this the case?

There are many who believe that the Qur’an follows so closely the life and thought of the Arab world during the 7th-9th centuries, that indeed it was written for that specific environment, and not as a universal document for all peoples. suras 16:103; 26:195; and 42:7 point to its uniquely Arabic character.

In fact, the Qur’an, rather than being a universal document served to provide personal advantages for Muhammad. Examples of this can be found in suras: 33:36-38 (Zayd and Zaynab), 50-52 (rotation of wives and special privilege of Muhammad), 53-54 (privacy of Muhammad, and non marriage to his widows) and 66:1 (abstaining from wives or honey?-see Yusuf Ali’s note no.5529). Why would a document written for the benefit of all of humanity refer to personal incidents of one man? Do we find similar examples in the previous scriptures and prophets?

Indeed, it seems that Muhammad was the right prophet for the Arabs. He took their culture and universalized it. Take for instance these three examples:

1. The Arabs gloried in their language; Muhammad declared it the divine language, maintaining that the everlasting tablets in heaven recorded the original revelations in the Arabic script. Yet, he seemed to forget the fact that all the previous scriptures were written in Hebrew and Greek and not Arabic.

2. The Arabs gloried in their traditional practices and customs of the desert; practices such as predatory war, slavery, polygamy, and concubinage. Muhammad impressed upon all these usages the seal of a divine sanction. Yet it is these very areas which have proved such a stumbling-block to the western world ever since, as they reflect little of the ethos of the preceding scriptures; an ethos which guides the laws and practices of much of the modern world today.

3. The Arabs gloried in the holiness of Mecca. Muhammad made it the only portal whereby men could enter paradise. Yet there is no extra-Qur’anic documentation that Mecca was much more than a small nondescript hamlet until well into the 7th century. It was not situated on the coast, nor did it have an adequate water supply, like its neighbour Taif, which, unlike Mecca, was well-known as a rest-stop on the caravan routes.

Therefore, one can say that Muhammad took the Arab people just as he found them, and while he applied some new direction, he declared much that they did to be very good and sacred from change (Shorrosh 1988:180).

There are other examples of a specific Arabic influence on the Qur’an; two of which are the status of women, and the use of the sword.

F1: The Inferiority of Women in the Qur’an

Women in the Qur’an have an inferior status to that of men. While the Qur’an permits women to participate in battle, it also allows a Muslim husband to cast his wife adrift without giving a single reason or notice, while the same right is not reserved for the woman. The husband possesses absolute, immediate, and unquestioned power of divorce (suras 2:224-230 and 33:49).

Women are to be absolutely obedient, and can be beaten (or scourged) for being rebellious in sura 4:34 (Yusuf Ali adds “lightly,” yet the Arabic does not allow this inclusion). No privilege of a corresponding nature is reserved for the wife. Men have double the inheritance of women (sura 4:11,176). In addition to the four wives allowed by law, a Muslim man can have an unlimited number of slave girls as concubines (or sexual partners) according to sura al-Nisa 4:24-25.

Even paradise creates inequalities for women. suras 55:56; 56:36 and 78:33 state that paradise is a place where there are beautiful young virgins waiting to serve the “righteous” (sura 78:31). These virgins, we are told, will have beautiful, big, lustrous eyes (sura 56:22); they will be Maidens who are chaste, who avert their eyes out of purity (sura 55:56, Yusuf Ali’s note no.5210), and have a delicate pink complexion (sura 55:58, Yusuf Ali’s note no.5211). Nowhere are we told what awaits the Muslim women of this world in paradise: the Muslim mothers and sisters. One wonders who these virgin maidens are, and where they come from?

With Qur’anic pronouncements such as we have read in the preceding chapters it is not surprising that much of the Muslim world today reflects in its laws and societal makeup such a total bias against women?

Though statistics are hard to find, we do know that, currently, of the twenty-three countries with the worst records of jobs for women (women making up only ten to twenty percent of all workers), seventeen are Muslim countries (Kidron 1991:96-97). Similarly, of the eleven countries with the worst record for disparagement of opportunity between men and women, ten are Muslim states. The widest gaps were found in three Muslim countries: Bangla Desh, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt (Kidron 1991:57).

Another revealing statistic shows that of the twelve states with the worst records for unequal treatment of girls, seven are Muslim states. The bottom three listed are UAE, Bahrain, and Brunei (Kidron 1991:56).

While one may justifiably argue that this is not representative of true Islamic teaching, it does show us how those in Muslim countries, using the Qur’an as their foundation treat their women, and what we might expect if we were living in that type of environment.

With this kind of data before us we need to ask whether the Qur’an is God’s absolute word for all people for all time, and if so, then why only half of the world’s population (its males) receive full benefit from its laws, while the other half (its women) continue in an unequal relationship?

Does not the previous revelation, the Bible, have a more universalistic and wholesome concern for women? Take for instance Ephesians 5:22-25 where we find the true ideal for a relationship, saying: “husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her.” This scripture demands a sacrificial love by the husband, one which puts the interests of the loved one before that of his own. This sacrificial love is best explained in 1 Corinthians 13:1,4-8.

It is understandable, then, why so many people in the West see Islam as an archaic and barbaric religion, which forces people back into the mentality of the middle ages, where women had no rights or freedoms to create their own destiny, and where men could do with their wives as they pleased.

F2: The “Sword” Found in the Qur’an

Concerning the ‘sword’ in the Qur’an, the testimony of Islam today is that of a religion which condones violence for the sake of Allah.

Though many Muslims try to deny this, they have to agree that there are ample examples of violence found not only within the Qur’an, but also exemplified within the life of the prophet Muhammad.

While in Mecca, Muhammad was surrounded by enemies, and while there he taught his followers toleration, according to sura 2:256, which says, “Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error…” As a minor player, surrounded by enemies he did well to receive this ‘convenient’ revelation. But the call for toleration changed when his power was established in Medina, once the charter had been written which regulated life between the various differing groups.

Muhammad needed a livelihood for himself and those who had come with him from Mecca. Thus he undertook a number of “expeditions,” sending groups of his soldiers out to raid Meccan caravans in order to find booty.

Though there was a rule in the Hijaz at that time not to fight during the “holy month,” Muhammad, nonetheless sent a number of his troops to raid an unsuspecting trading caravan. This caused havoc in his own camp because a Meccan had been killed in the month in which bloodshed was forbidden. Promptly another ‘convenient revelation’ came which authorized the attack (read sura 2:217).

Later on, in 624 C.E., after having been in Medina for two years, a Meccan caravan of 1,000 men was passing close to the south-west of Medina. Muhammad, with only 300 men went out to attack it at the battle of Badr. He defeated the Meccans, and consequently received tremendous status, which helped his army grow.

The Medinans participated in further battles, some of which they won (i.e. the battle of the trenches) and others which they lost (the battle of Uhud). In fact, Muhammad himself is known to have conducted 27 battles and planned 39 others.

Muslims, however, continue to downplay any emphasis on violence within the Qur’an, and they emphatically insist that the Jihad, or Holy War was only a means of defence, and was never used as an offensive act. Sahih Muslim III makes this point, saying, “the sword has not been used recklessly by the Muslims; it has been wielded purely with humane feelings in the wider interest of humanity” (Sahih Muslim III, pg.938).

In the Mishkat II we find an explanation for Jihad:

“[Jihad] is the best method of earning both spiritual and temporal. If victory is won, there is enormous booty and conquest of a country which cannot be equalled to any other source of earnings. If there is defeat or death, there is ever-lasting Paradise and a great spiritual benefit. This sort of Jihad is conditional upon pure motive, i.e. for establishing the kingdom of Allah on earth (Mishkat II, pg.253) Also in Mishkat II we learn with regard to Jihad, that: Abu Hurairah reported that the Messenger of Allah said: To whichever village you go and settle therein, there is your share therein, and whichever village disobeys Allah and His Messenger, its one-fifth is for Allah and His Messenger, and the remainder is for you (Muslim, Mishkat II, pg.412).”

The claim that Muslims acted only in self-defense is simply untrue. What were Muslims defending in North Africa, or Spain, France, India, Persia, Syria, Anatolia or the Balkans? These countries all had previous civilizations, many of which were more sophisticated than that of Islam, yet they all (outside of France) fell during the conquests of Islam in the first few hundred years, and their cultures were soon eradicated by that of Islam. Does that not evidence a rather offensive interpretation for Jihad?

We can understand the authority for this history when we read certain passages from the Qur’an, which, itself stipulates a particularly strong use of violence. The full impact of invective against the unbeliever can be found in sura 9:5 which says, “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay those who join other gods with Allah wherever you find them; besiege them, seize them, lay in wait for them with every kind of ambush…” Of like nature is sura 47:4 which says, “When you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads, until ye have made a great slaughter among them…”

Similarly sura 9:29 states: “…Make war upon such of those to whom the scriptures have been given as believe not in Allah, or in the last day, and who forbid not what Allah and his apostle have forbidden… until they pay tribute…” And in sura 8:39 we find, “And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression. And there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.”

The murder of between 600-700 Banu Kuraiza Medinan Jewish males by the sword, and the slavery of their women give testimony to this sura (Nehls pg.117)

According to the Dictionary of Islam we read:

“When an infidel’s country is conquered by a Muslim ruler, its inhabitants are offered three alternatives:

the reception of Islam, in which case the conquered became enfranchised citizens of the Muslim statethe payment of Jizya tax, by which unbelievers obtained “protection” and became Dhimmis, provided they were not idolaters, anddeath by the sword to those who would not pay the Jizya tax.”

(Dictionary of Islam, pg.243).

War is sanctioned in Islam, with enormous rewards promised to those who fight for Allah, according to sura 4:74. Later in verse 84, Muhammad gives himself the divine order to fight. This is the verse which is the basis for calling Islam “the religion of the sword” (Shorrosh 1988:174).

In sura 5:33 the Qur’an orders those who fight Allah and his messenger to be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off; or they can be expelled out of the land. In sura 48:16-17, we read that all who die “fighting in the ways of the Lord” (Jihad) are richly rewarded, but those who retreat are sorely punished.

The first blood shed under Muhammad was carried out by a blind disciple named Umair, who stabbed and killed a woman named Asma while she slept suckling her baby because she had criticized Muhammad with poetic verses. Upon hearing of this Muhammad said “Behold a man that hath assisted the Lord and His prophet. Call him not blind, call him rather ‘Umair,’ the seeing.” (Nehls pg.122).

Therefore, when those of us who are Christians read these suras, and see the example of the prophet himself, we find a total rejection of the previous teachings of Jesus who calls us to live in peace and put away the sword. We then are incredulous when we hear Muslims claim that Islam is the religion of peace. The record speaks for itself.

For those countries who aspire to use Islamic law, statistics prove revealing. According to the 1994 State of the World Atlas, while only five northern countries (i.e. western) are categorized as “Terror States” (those involved in using assassination, disappearances and torture), twenty-eight of the thirty-two Muslim states fall into this category (except UAE, Qatar and Mali) (Kidron 1991:62-63).

Furthermore, it seems that most Muslim countries today are following the example of their prophet and are involved in some sort of armed conflict. It is difficult to know where the truth lies. While the West documents and publishes its criminal activities openly, the Muslim countries say very little. Lists which delineate where each country stands in relation to murders, sex offenses and criminality include most of the western countries, yet only four Muslim countries out of the thirty-two have offered statistics for the number of internal murders, while only six out of the thirty-two have offered a list of sex offenses, and only four of the thirty-two have divulged their level of criminality. Therefore, until more Muslim countries are willing to come forward with statistics, it is impossible to evaluate the claim which they make: that western states have a higher degree of degradation and criminality than that of Muslim states.

We do know, however, that in the 1980’s, of the fourteen countries who were involved in ongoing “general wars,” nine of them were Muslim countries, while only one was a non-western Christian country.

Why, we wonder, are so many Muslim countries embroiled in so many wars, many of which are against other Muslims? Muslims answer that these are not good examples because they are not authentic Muslim states. Yet, can we not say that to the contrary, these countries do indeed follow the examples which we find so readily not only within the text of the Qur’an, but within the life of the prophet, and in the history of the first few centuries of Islam. Muhammad’s life, and the Qur’an which he gave to the world, both give sufficient authority for the sword in Islam. While this may cause the 20th century western Muslim to squirm uncomfortably, it cannot be denied that there is ample precedent for violence within their scriptures and within their own history. What we choose to ask, however, is whether the witness of violence within Islam exemplifies the heart of a loving and compassionate God, one who calls Himself merciful; or whether it rather exemplifies the character of 7th century Arabia, with all its brutal desert tribal disputes and warfare?

Compare the opposing concept of Jesus:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one kilometre, go with him two kilometres. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:38-44)

So what can we say about the authority of the Qur’an? Can we say it is a divinely inspired book sent by Allah for all of humanity, for all time? Can it claim supernatural as well as literary qualities, which not only place it above other revelations, but point to its divine origins? Much of what I have offered you here points to the fact that the Qur’an lacks in all three qualities, and seems to reflect more the life and times of its supposed mediator than that of the heart of a universal God. The idolatrous tendency of Muslims towards the Qur’an, as well as the confusion of its literary makeup, and the special conditions given to Muhammad, point to a book put together by one man, or as we now know, a group of much later men, than an inspired piece of God’s revealed word.

If one were to contrast the 66 books of the Bible written over hundreds of years by at least 40 different authors, with the Qur’an which came through one man, Muhammad, during his lifetime, there would be no contest as to which was the superior literature. In the final analysis, the Qur’an simply does not fit the breadth of vision, nor the literary style or structure of that found in the Old and New Testament. To go from the Bible to the Qur’an is to go from the superior to the inferior, from the authentic to the counterfeit, from God’s perspective to that of an individual, caught up and controlled by his own world and times.

I end this section with a quote from an expert on the Qur’an, Dr. Tisdall, who says:

“The Qur’an breathes the air of the desert, it enables us to hear the battle-cries of the Prophet’s followers as they rushed to the onset, it reveals the working of Muhammad’s own mind, and shows the gradual declension of his character as he passed from the earnest and sincere though visionary enthusiast into the conscious imposter and open sensualist.” (Tisdall 27)

---

G: The Collation, or Collection, of the Qur’anic Text

We now take the discussion concerning the authority for the Qur’an away from its makeup and ask the question of how it came to us. We will give special emphasis on the problems which we find with its collation. We will also ask why, if it is the Word of God, so much of its content is not only self-contradictory, but is in error with the facts as we know them? From there we will then consider where the Qur’an received much of its material, or from where many of its stories were derived. Let’s then begin with the alleged collection of the Qur’anic text.

Muslims claim that the Qur’an is perfect in its textual history, that there are no textual defects (as they say we have in our Bible). They maintain that it is perfect not only in its content and style, but the order and script as we have it today is an exact parallel of the preserved tablets in heaven. This, they contend, is so because Allah has preserved it.

Therefore, the Qur’an, they feel, must be the Word of God. While we have already looked at the content and style of the Qur’an and found it wanting, the claim to its textual purity is an assertion which we need to examine in greater detail.

G1: The Periods of Revelation

According to Muslim Tradition the “revelations” of the suras (or books) were received by the prophet Muhammad, via the angel Jibril (Gabriel) within three periods. The first is referred to as the 1st Meccan period, and lasted between 611-615 C.E. During this time the suras contain many of the warnings, and much of the leading ideas concerning who Allah is, and what He expected of His creation (i.e. suras 1, 51-53, 55-56, 68-70, 73-75, 77-97, 99-104, 111-114).

The 2nd period, referred to as the 2nd Meccan period (between 616-622 C.E.) had longer suras, dealing with doctrines, many of which echoed Biblical material. It was during this time that Islam makes the claim of being the one true religion (i.e. suras 6-7, 10-21, 23, 25-32, 34-46, 50, 54, 67, 71-72, 76).

The third period, referred to as the Medinan period (between 623-632 C.E.) centered in Medina and lasted roughly ten years, until Muhammad’s death in 632 C.E. There is a distinct shift in content during this period. Divine approval is given for Muhammad’s leadership, and much of the material deals with local historical events. There is a change from the preaching of divine matters, to that of governing. Consequently, the suras are much more political and social in their makeup (suras 2-5, 8-9, 22-24, 33, 37, 47-49, 57-59, 60-66, 98, 110).

G2: The Method of Collection

While there is ongoing discussion concerning whether Muhammad ever received any revelations, there is considerably more skepticism concerning whether or not the Qur’an which we have today is indeed made up entirely of those revelations which he did supposedly receive.

Many Muslims ardently contend that the Qur’an which is in our hands today was in its completed form even before the death of Muhammad, and that the collation of the texts after his death was simply an exercise in amassing that which had already existed. There are even those who believe that many of the companions of the prophet had memorized the text, and it is they who could have been used to corroborate the final collation by Muhammad’s secretary, Zaid ibn Thabit. If these assertions are true, then indeed we do have a revelation which is well worth studying. History, however, points to quite a different scenario, one which most Muslims find it difficult to maintain.

Muslim Tradition tells us that Muhammad had not foreseen his death, and so had made no preparations for the gathering of his revelations, in order to place them into one document. Thus, according to tradition, it was left up to Muhammad’s followers to write down what had been said.

Al Bukhari, a Muslim scholar of the 9th-10th century, and the most authoritative of the Muslim tradition compilers, writes that whenever Muhammad fell into one of his unpredictable trances his revelations were written on whatever was handy at the time. The leg or thigh bones of dead animals were used, as well as palm leaves, parchments, papers, skins, mats, stones, and bark. And when there was nothing at hand the attempt was made by his disciples to memorize it as closely as possible.

The principle disciples at that time were: Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, Abu Musa, and Ubayy ibn Ka’b, all of whom were close companions of Muhammad.

According to Sahih Bukhari, during the years following Muhammad’s death, passages of the Qur’an were lost irretrievably when a number of reciters died at the Battle of Yamama. This incident together with the Qur’an’s automatic completion as a revelation, now that its mediator had passed away, compelled a companion of the prophet named Hazrat Omar to suggest to the current caliph, Abu Bakr, that the existing revelations be collected.

Initially the aging caliph demurred, as he was not willing to do what the prophet had not done. However, he later changed his mind, due to the crisis caused by the death of the reciters at Yamama. The secretary of Muhammad, Zaid ibn Thabit was commissioned by Abu Bakr to collect the sayings of the prophet and put them into a document.

G2i: Zaid’s Collection

Zaid’s reply, according to Bukhari, is interesting. He is purported to have said that it would have been easier if they had demanded that he shift a mountain then collect the suras of the Qur’an. The reason for this rather odd statement becomes obvious when we find that, in his search for the passages of the Qur’an he was forced to use as his sources the leg or thigh bones of dead animals, as well as palm leaves, parchments, papers, skins, mats, stones, bark, and the memories of the prophet’s companions (Bukhari, vol.6, pg.477).

This shows that there were no Muslims at that time who had memorized the entire Qur’an by heart, otherwise the collection would have been a simple task. Had there been individuals who knew the Qur’an by heart, Zaid would only have had to go to any one of the companions and write down what they dictated. Instead, Zaid was overwhelmed by the assignment, and was forced to “search” for the passages from these men who had memorized certain segments. He also had to refer to rather strange objects to find the ayas he needed. These are hardly reliable sources for a supposed “perfect” copy of the eternal tablets which exist in heaven.

What evidence, we ask, is there that his final copy was complete? It is immediately apparent that the official copy of the Qur’an rested on very fragile sources. There is no way that anyone can maintain with certainty that Zaid collected all the sayings of the prophet. Had some of the objects been lost, or thrown away? Did some of the ayas die with the companions who were killed at the battle of Yamama? We are left with more questions then answers.

In Sahih Bukhari (volume 6, page 478) Zaid is quoted as saying that he found the last verses of sura 9 (verses 128 and 129) from a certain individual. Then he continues by saying that he found this verse from no-one else. In other words there was no-one else who knew this verse. Thus had he not traced it from this one man, he would not have traced it at all!

This leads us to only one possible conclusion: that we can never be sure that the Qur’an which was finally compiled was, in fact, complete! Zaid concedes that he had to find this one verse from this one man. This underlines the fact that there was no-one who knew the Qur’an by heart, and thus could corroborate that Zaid’s copy was complete.

Consequently the final composition of the Qur’an depended on the discretion of one man; not on the revelation of God, but on an ordinary fallible man, who put together, with the resources which he had available, what he believed to be a complete Qur’an. This flies in the face of the bold claim by Muslims that the book is now, and was then, complete.

Zaid’s text was given to Hafsah, one of the wives of Muhammad, and the daughter of Umar, the 2nd Caliph. We then pick up the story with the reign of Uthman, the 3rd Caliph.

G2ii: Competing Collections

In Sahih Bukhari, (vol. 6, pg.479) we read that there were at this time different readings of the Qur’an in the different provinces of the Muslim world. A number of the companions of Muhammad had compiled their own codices of the text. In other words, though Zaid had collated the official text under Abu Bakr, there were other texts which were circulating which were considered
authoritative as well.

The two most popular codices were those of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, whose  manuscript became the standard for the area of Iraq, and Ubayy ibn Ka’b, whose manuscript became standard in Syria.

These and other extant codices were basically consistent with each other in their general content, but a large number of variant readings, many seriously affecting the text, existed in all the manuscripts such that no two codices were entirely the same (which we’ll talk about later).

In addition, the texts were being recited in varying dialects in the different provinces of the Muslim world. During the 7th century, Arabic was composed in a so-called scriptio defectiva in which only the consonants were written. Since there was no vowels, the vocalization was left to the reader. Some verbs could be read as active or passive, while some nouns could be read with different case endings, and some forms could be read as either nouns or verbs.

G3: The Standardization of One Text

Consequently, during the reign of Uthman, the third Caliph, a deliberate attempt was made to standardize the Qur’an and impose a single text upon the whole Muslim community.

The codex of Zaid ibn Thabit, taken from the manuscript of Hafsah, was chosen by Uthman for this purpose, to the consternation of both Mas’ud and Ibn Ka’b. Zaid ibn Thabit was a much younger man, who had not yet been born at the time Mas’ud had recited 70 suras by heart before Muhammad.

According to Muslim tradition Zaid’s codice was chosen by Uthman because the language used, the ‘Quraishi dialect,’ was local to Mecca, and so had become the standard Arabic. Tradition maintains that Zaid, along with three scholars of the Quraishi tribe of Mecca, had written the codice in this Quraishi dialect, as it had been revealed to Muhammad in this dialect. Linguists today, however, are still at a quandary to know what exactly this Quraishi dialect was, as it doesn’t exist today and therefore cannot be identified. Furthermore, the dialect which we find in the present Qur’an does not differ from the language which was current in other parts of the Hijaz at that time. While it makes for a good theory, it has little historical evidence with which to back it up.

A further reason for the choice of Zaid’s codice, according to tradition, was that it had been kept in virtual seclusion for many years, and so had not attracted the publicity as one of the varying texts, as had the codices of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy ibn Ka’b. Ironically, by virtue of their popularity, Mas’ud’s and Ka’b’s codices were rejected as sources for the final Qur’an and supplanted by the codice of an individual who neither had the notoriety, nor the experience, and whose text (as we shall soon discover) had never been selected as authoritative by the prophet, as had the other two.

Consequently, copies of Zaid’s codice were then sent out and dispersed throughout every Muslim province, while all the other manuscripts were summarily destroyed.

It is evident from this discussion that the final choice for an authoritative text had little to do with its authenticity, but had more to do with the fact that it was not a controversial manuscript. It is also evident that there were no two Qur’ans which existed at that time which were exactly alike. This tradition tells us that other whole copies did exist, yet not one of the other texts were spared the order for their destruction. We must conclude that the destruction of the other manuscripts was a drastic effort to standardize the Qur’anic text. While we may have one standard text today, there is no proof that it corresponds with the original. We can only say that it may possibly be similar to the Uthmanic recension, a recension which was one of many. Yet, what evidence is there that in all instances it was the correct one? We don’t know as we have no others with which to compare.

G4: The Missing Verses

This then brings up another difficult problem: how can we be sure that what Zaid ibn Thabit included in his codice (or manuscript) contained the full revelation of Muhammad’s revelation? The fact is we simply cannot. We are forced to rely on Muslim tradition to tell us. Yet, interestingly, it is Muslim tradition which informs us that Zaid himself initially cast doubt on his own codice.

G4i: Sura 33:23

According to Sahih Bukhari (volume 6, pg.79), despite the fact that Zaid’s text had been copied out and sent to the seven different cities, Zaid suddenly remembered that a verse which the prophet had quoted earlier was missing from his text. Zaid is quoted as saying that this missing verse was verse 23 of sura 33, which says, “Among the believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.” So he searched for the verse until he found it with Hussaima ibn al Ansari.

Thus, we find that after the copies had been sent out claiming to be the only authentic and complete copies of the Qur’an available, Zaid, and he alone, recorded a verse which was missing; a verse which, once again, was only found with one man. This resembles the previous occasion where a verse was only found with one man.

The conclusion is obvious: initially all of those seven copies which were sent out to the provinces were imperfect. But even more concerning is the fact that it was due to the recollection of one man, and the memory of another that the Qur’an was finally completed. Once again it is obvious that there simply could not have been any man at that time who knew the whole Qur’an by heart. This is yet another instance which contradicts the argument posed by Muslims that the Qur’an had been memorized by certain men during the early days of Islam.

But of more importance is the troubling question of whether there were perhaps other verses which were overlooked or were left out. The answer to this question can be found in another of the authoritative traditions, that of Sahih Muslim.

G4ii: The Verse on Stoning

Muslim maintains that key passages were missing from Zaid’s text. The most famous is the verse of stoning. All the major traditions speak of this missing verse. According to Ibn Ishaq’s version (pg. 684) we read:

“God sent Muhammad, and sent down the scripture to him. Part of what he sent down was the passage on stoning. Umar says, ‘We read it, we were taught it, and we heeded it. The apostle [Muhammad] stoned, and we stoned after him. I fear that in the time to come men will say that they find no mention of stoning in God’s book, and thereby go astray in neglecting an ordinance which God has sent down. Verily, stoning in the book of God is a penalty laid on married men and women who commit adultery.”

Therefore, according to Umar, the stoning verse was part of the original Qur’an, the revelation which Allah sent down. But now it is missing. In many of the traditions we find numerous reports of adulterous men and women who were stoned by the prophet and his companions. Yet today we read in the Qur’an, sura 24:32 that the penalty for adultery is 100 lashes. Umar said adultery was not only a capital offence, but one which demanded stoning. That verse is now missing from the Qur’an, and that is why Umar raised this issue.

Muslims will need to ask themselves whether indeed their Qur’an can claim to be the same as that passed down by Muhammad to his companions? With evidence such as this the Qur’an in our possession today becomes all the more suspect.

G5: The Variations Between the Codices

Yet that is not all. Another glaring problem with Zaid’s text is that it differed from the other codices which coexisted with his.

Arthur Jeffery has done the classic work on the variants of the early codices in his book Materials for the history of the Text of the Qur’an, printed in 1937. The three main codices which he lists are those which we have referred to earlier, and include:

1. Ibn Mas’ud (‘Abd Allah b. Mas’ud) (died 653), from Kufa, in Iraq. It is he who is reported to have learned 70 suras directly from Muhammad, and was appointed by Muhammad as one of the first teachers of Qur’anic recitation (according to Ibn Sa’d). Mas’ud became a leading authority on the Qur’an and hadith in Kufa, Iraq. He refused to destroy his copy of the Qur’an or stop teaching it when the Uthmanic recension was made official.

2. Ubayy b. Ka’b (died 649) a Medinan Muslim who was associated with Damascus, Syria. Prior to that he was a secretary for the prophet, and was considered by some to be more prominent than Mas’ud in Qur’anic understanding, during the prophet’s lifetime. Ubayy’s codice had two extra suras. He destroyed his codice after the Uthmanic recension.

3. Abu Musa (died 662), a Yemenite, though his codice was accepted in Basra, where he served as governor under Umar. His codex was large and it contained the two extra suras of Ubayy’s codex, and other verses not found in other codices (Jeffery, pp.209-211).

In addition to these three Jeffery classifies 12 other codices belonging to the companions of the prophet, which were considered as primary.

One of these Ali b. Abi Talib (d.661) a cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad, is said to have been the first to collect the Qur’an after the prophet’s death, and to have arranged the suras in some sort of chronological order.

According to Jeffery, there were thousands of variations between the different codices.

G5i: Abdullah ibn Mas’ud’s Codex

Take for instance the codice of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, a very close companion of the prophet, according to the traditions. As we know it was he who refused to hand over his manuscript after the order went out from Uthman for all existing copies to be burned.

There is much evidence today to show that, in fact, his text is far more reliable than Hafsah’s manuscript, which we know to be the one collated by Zaid ibn Thabit. Ibn Mas’ud alone was present with Muhammad when he reviewed the content of the Qur’an every year during the month of Rammadan.

In the well-known collection of traditions by Ibn Sa’d (vol. 2, pg.441), we read these words:

“Ibn Abbas asked, ‘Which of the two readings of the Qur’an do you prefer?’ [The prophet] answered, ‘The reading of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud.’ Verily the Qur’an was recited before the apostle of Allah, once in every Rammadan, except the last year when it was recited twice. Then Abdullah ibn Mas’ud came to him, and he learned what was altered and abrogated.”

Thus no-one knew the Qur’an better then he did. In the same tradition by Ibn Sa’d (vol. 2, pg.442) it says:

“No sura was revealed but I [Mas’ud] knew about it and what was revealed. If I had known anyone knowing more of the book of Allah than me, I would have gone to him.”

Ibn Mas’ud lays claim here to be the foremost authority of the text of the Qur’an. In fact, it is Sahih Muslim (vol. 4, pg.1312) who informs us that Mas’ud knew seventy suras by heart, and was considered to have a better understanding of the Qur’an then the other companions of the prophet. He recited these seventy passages before the prophet and the companions, and no-one disputed with him.

In Sahih Bukhari (vol. 5, pgs.96-97) we read that Muhammad himself singled out Abdullah ibn Mas’ud as the first and foremost authority on the Qur’an.

According to Ibn Sa’d (vol. 2, pg.444) Mas’ud learned his seventy suras while Zaid was still a youth. Thus his authority should have been greater as he knew so much of the Qur’an long before Zaid became a man.

Arthur Jeffery in his book points out several thousand variants taken from over thirty “main sources.” Of special note are those which he found between the codex of Ibn Mas’ud and that of Zaid ibn Thabit. He also found that Mas’ud’s codex agreed with the other codices which existed at the expense of Zaid’s text (while we don’t have the time to go into all the variations, it might be helpful if you could obtain a copy of Arthur Jeffrey’s book: Materials for the history of the Text of the Qur’an).

According to Jeffery, Abu Mas’ud’s Codex was different from the Uthmanic text in several different ways:

1. It did not contain the Fatiha (the opening sura, sura 1), nor the two charm suras (suras 113 and 114).

2. It contained different vowels within the same consonantal text (Jeffery 25-113).

3. It contained Shi’ite readings (i.e. suras 5:67; 24:35; 26:215; 33:25,33,56; 42:23; 47:29; 56:10; 59:7; 60:3; 75:17-19) (Jeffery 40,65,68).

4. Entire phrases were different, such as:

   1. sura 3:19: Mas’ud has “The way of the Hanifs” instead of “Behold, the [true] religion (din) of God is Islam.”

   2. sura 3:39: Mas’ud has “Then Gabriel called to him, ‘O Zachariah'”, instead of the Uthmanic reading: “Then the angels called to him as he stood praying in the sanctuary.”

   3. Only his codice begins sura 9 with the Bismilah, while the Uthmanic text does not (“bismi ‘llahi ‘l-rahmani ‘l-rahim” meaning, “In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate”).

5. Finally, the order of the suras in Ibn Mas’ud’s codex is different from the Uthmanic text in that Mas’ud’s list arranges the suras more closely in order of descending length.

G5ii: Ubayy Ka’b’s Codex

Ubayy Ka’b’s codex also had variations. Though there are those who disagree, it seems to have been less important than Ibn Mas’ud’s, as it was not the source of any secondary codices.

It included two suras not found in the Uthmanic or Ibn Mas’ud’s texts: the surat al-Khal’, with three verses, and surat al-Hafd, with six verses (Jeffery pg. 180ff). Al-Fadl b. Shadhan is said to have seen a copy of Ubayy’s 116 suras (rather than the 114 of Uthman’s) in a village near Basra in the middle of the 3rd century A.H. (10th century C.E.).

The order of suras in Ubayy’s codex is said to have differed from that of Uthman’s.

G6: Conclusions on the Collation of the Qur’anic Text

These variations in the codices show that the original text of the Qur’an cannot have been perfect. The fact that a little known secretary (Zaid ibn Thabit) was chosen as the final arbiter of the Qur’anic text points to possible political interference. The admission by this secretary that the task of collating the verses was unduly daunting and his consequent pronouncement that one verse was initially missing from his finished text (sura 33:23) while another verse, according to authoritative sources, is still missing (the stoning verse) puts even more suspicion on its authenticity.

On top of that, the many variations which exist between Zaid’s text and those of supposedly more authoritative collators (Mas’ud and Ka’b) can only add to the perception of many today that the Uthmanic Qur’an which we supposedly have today leaves us with more doubt than assurance for its authority as the perfect word of God.

Yet that is not all. We also know from Muslim tradition that the Uthmanic Qur’an had to be reviewed and amended to meet the Caliph’s standard for a single approved text even after Uthman’s death. This was carried out by al-Hajjaj, the governor of Kufa, who made eleven distinct amendments and corrections to the text, which were later reduced to seven readings.

If the other codices were in existence today, one could compare the one with the other to ascertain which could claim to be closest to the original. Even Hafsah’s copy, the original from which the final text was taken, was later destroyed by Mirwan, the governor of Medina. But for what reason???

Does this act not intimate that there were problems between the other copies, possibly glaring contradictions, which needed to be thrown out? Can we really believe that the rest were destroyed simply because Uthman wished to have only one manuscript which conformed to the Quraishi dialect (if indeed such a dialect existed)? Why then burn the other codices? If, as some contend today, the other codices were only personal reminisces of the writers, then why did the prophet give those codices so much authority during his lifetime? Furthermore, how could Uthman claim to judge one from the other now that Muhammad was no longer around?

There are certain scholars today who believe that Zaid ibn Thabit and his co-workers could have reworked the Arabic, so as to make the text literately sophisticated and thus seemingly superior to other Arabic works of its time; and thus create the claim that this was indeed the illiterate Muhammad’s one miracle.

There are others, such as John Wansbrough from SOAS, who go even further, contending that all of the accounts about companion codices and individual variants were fabricated by later Muslim jurists and philologers. He asserts that the collection stories and the accounts of the companion codices arose in order to give an ancient authority to a text that was not even compiled until the 9th century or later.

He feels that the text of the Qur’an was so fluid that the multiple accounts (i.e. of the punishment stories) represent “variant traditions” of different metropolitan centres (such as Kufa, Basra, Medina etc.), and that as late as the 9th century a consonantal textus receptus ne varietur still had not been achieved. Today, his work is taking on greater authority within scholarly circles.

Unfortunately we will never know the real story, because the originals (if indeed they ever existed) which could have told us so much were destroyed. All we have are the copies written years after the originals by those who were then ordered to destroy their originals. There are, therefore, no manuscripts to compare with to give the current Qur’an authenticity, as we have with the Bible.

For those who may wonder why this is so important, let me provide an example: If after I had read this paper out-loud, everyone was to then write down all I had said from memory when they returned home, there would certainly be a number of variations. But we could find out these variations by putting them all together and comparing the many copies one against the other, as the same errors would not be written at the same place by everyone. The final result would be a rendering which is pretty close to what I had said originally. But if we destroyed all of the copies except one, there would be no means of comparing, and all precision would be lost. Our only hope would be that the one which remained was as close to what I had said as possible. Yet we would have no other rendering or example to really know for sure.

Consequently, the greater number of copies preserved, the more certitude we would have of the original text. The Qur’an has only one doctored manuscript to go on, while the New Testament has over 24,000 manuscripts in existence, from a variety of backgrounds, from which to compare!!! Can you see the difference?!

It is therefore quite clear that that which is known as the Textus Receptus of the Qur’an (the text considered authoritative in the Muslim world today) cannot lay claim to be the Textus Originalis (the genuine original text).

The current Qur’anic text which is read throughout the Muslim world is merely Zaid’s version, duly corrected where necessary, and later amended by al-Hajjaj. Consequently, the ‘official’ text as it currently stands was only arrived at through an extended process of amendments, recensions, eliminations and an imposed standardization of a preferred text at the initiative of one caliph, and not by a prophetic direction of divine decree.

In conclusion one can safely say that there is relative authenticity of the text in the sense that it adequately retains the gist and content of what was originally there. There is, however, no evidence to support the cherished Muslim hypothesis that the Qur’an has been preserved absolutely intact to the last dot and letter, as so many Muslims claim (For further reading see Jam’ al-Qur’an, by Gilchrist).

Yet, even if we were to let the issue rest, concerning whether or not the Qur’an which we have now is the same as that which Muhammad related to his followers, we would still need to ask whether its authority might not be impinged upon due to the numerous errors and contradictions which can be found within its pages. It is to that question that we now proceed.

---

H: The Abrogation of Qur’anic Verses

The abrogation of Qur’anic verses presents a problem for Muslims today. As we all know, a man can make mistakes and correct them, but this is not the case with God. God has infinite wisdom and cannot contradict himself. Abrogation flies is the face of sura 6:34 (and 10:65) which state:

“…There is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah.” An even more damaging pronouncement is made in sura 4:82 which reads, “Do they not consider the Qur’an? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancies.”

Muslim authorities try to explain the internal contradictions in the Qur’an by stating that certain passages of the Qur’an are annulled (Mansukh) by verses revealed chronologically later than themselves. The verses which replace them are referred to as Nasikh. Yet, there is by no means any certainty as to which disagreeing verses are mansukh and which are nasikh, since the order in which the Qur’an was written down was not done chronologically but according to the length of the suras.

From the preceding section we have found that even the text at our disposal was found and collated piecemeal, leaving us little hope of delineating which suras were the more authentic. Furthermore, Muslim tradition admits that many of the suras were not even given to Muhammad in one piece. According to tradition, some portions were added to other suras under the direction of Muhammad, with further additions to the former suras. Therefore, within a given sura there may be found ayas which were early, and others which were quite late. How then could we know which were the more authoritative?

The law of abrogation is taught by the Qur’an in sura 2:106,108, stating: “We substitute one revelation for another…” This is echoed in sura 17:86, which reads, “If it were Our Will, We could take away that which We have sent thee by inspiration.” In sura 16:101 the law of abrogation is clearly defined as one verse being substituted by a better verse. Verse 101 read, “None of our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar- Knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?”

Jalalu’d-Din estimated the number of abrogations at between 5 to 500. Others say it stands closer to 225. What this shows us is that the science of abrogation is an inexact science indeed, as no-one really knows how many of the verses are to be abrogated. Underlying this claim of abrogation is another concern: How can a divine revelation be improved upon? Would it not have been perfect from the start?

Yusuf Ali in his defense of abrogation claims that there is a need for progressive revelation within scripture, saying: “its form may differ according to the needs and exigencies of the time”. Christians believe in progressive revelation as well, as God reveals and changes His will for a people as they change culturally over a period of generations. The problem with suras 2:106, 17:86 and 16:101 is that they do not refer to revelations given prior to Muhammad, but refer uniquely to the Qur’anic verses themselves. One cannot claim progressive revelation within a space of only 20 years (this was the time in which the Qur’an was written). The period found in the previous scriptures spans 1,500 years! People and cultures change in that amount of time. Thus the revelations would reflect those changes. To demand the same for a revelation of a mere 20 years suggests that God is not all-knowing. The only other option can be that the recorder made corrections, and then came up with a revelation to authenticate those corrections. While you decide, let’s look at some of these abrogations.

Some examples of these abrogations are:

1. In sura 2:142-144, we find the change of the Qibla, the direction of prayer from Mecca to Jerusalem, and back to Mecca.

2. The inheritance laws in suras 4:7; & 2:180, provides an equal share for women and men, and then is doubled for men in sura 4:11.

3. The change of night prayers from a full night in sura 73:2-4, to a half or less, or whatever was easy to do in sura 73:20.

4. The change of punishment for adulteresses, beginning with life imprisonment, found in sura 4:15, and then changed to 100 strokes by flogging, according to sura 24:2. Remember that these two examples make no mention of the previous ‘missing’ aya which prescribes the stoning for those who commit adultery. It is also interesting to note that Homosexuals were let off if they repented, according to sura 4:16, though this same allowance was not given for heterosexuals.

5. The change of the retaliation laws where retaliation for the crime (murder) was confined to people of equal rank (i.e. slave for slave) in sura 2:178, then it was to be carried out only against the murderer by the heir, sura 17:33 (note: Ali adds Qisas and forgiving to the Arabic).

6. The change of the days of creation from 6 (7:54; 25:59) to 8 (41:9-12).

7. The change of the hierarchy of prophets, where they were initially equal (suras 3:84;2:285;2:136) and then some are elevated above the others, sura 2;253 (see Ali’s note:289).

8. The changes in intercession; at first done by angels and Muhammad (suras 42:5; 24:62), and then were not acceptable to Allah (suras 74:48; 63:5; 34:23).

9. The Sword verses: the Call to “fight and slay the pagan (idolaters) wherever you find them” (sura 9:5); or “strike off their heads in battle” (sura 47:5); or “make war on the unbeliever in Allah, until they pay tribute” (sura 9:29); or “Fight then… until the religion be all of it Allah’s” (sura 8:39); or “a grievous penalty against those who reject faith” (sura 9:3). These all contradict “There is no compulsion in religion” (sura 2:256).

10. Sura 2:184 first allows a rich man to buy himself out of the fast by feeding an indigent. The following verse (185) allows no compensation.

11. Widows were to keep themselves apart for 4 months and 10 days after their husband’s death (sura 2:234), which is then changed to one year (2:240).

12. Sura 2:106 contradicts sweeping changes which follow: in the Qibla (vss.115,177,124-151), pilgrimage rites (vs.158), dietary laws (vss.168-174) law of talio (vss.178-179), in bequests (vss.180-182), the fast (vss.182-187), and the pilgrimage again (vss.196-203).

13. Sura 16:101 contradicts changes which follow in dietary laws (vss.114-119), and in the Sabbath laws (vs.124).

14. Muhammad will not forget the revelations which Allah gives him (sura 87:6-7), is then changed to withdrawing that which Allahs wills to withdraw (i.e. revelations) (17:86).

15. Allah commits himself as law to act mercifully, which implies cause and effect (sura 6:12), yet later in the same sura we find that “If Allah willed, he could have brought them all together to the guidance… Whom Allah will he sendeth astray, and whom he will he placeth on a straight path” (vss. 35 & 39).

16. Concerning predestination, in sura 57:22 we find the words, “No evil befalls on the earth, nor on your own souls but it is in a book before We bring into existence.” And in sura 76:29-31 it says, “..whosoever will may choose a way unto his Lord, Yet ye will not, unless Allah willeth… He maketh whom He will to enter His mercy…” Both of these contradict sura 42:30, which states, “Whatever of misfortune striketh you, it is what your right hands have earned.”

17. In sura 5:82, Pagans and Jews are considered the furthest from Muslims, while Christians are the nearest, yet in sura 5:51 & 57 Muslims are told not to have Christians as friends. Interestingly, in the same verse (51) it comments that Jews and Christians are friends, yet the only thing they have in common is their agreement on the authenticity of the Old Testament.

18. Muhammad was the first to bow down to Allah (i.e. the first Muslim) (sura 6:14,164; 39:12). Yet these passages forget that Abraham, his sons and Jacob were former Muslims (sura 2:132) as were all the earlier prophets (sura 28:52-53), and Jesus’ disciples (3:52).

19. Allah curses all liars, yet permits Muhammad to break an oath (sura 66:1-2), and though Allah alone may be worshipped, he demands Satan and the angels to worship Adam, with the result that Satan is eternally punished because he refused to do so (sura 2:32).

20. An abrogation evidenced by Muslims today is the claim that the Bible (which they admit is a revealed book) has been altered and corrupted. Yet sura 10:65 reads, “There is no changing in the Words of Allah,” and sura 6:33,34 reads, “There is none that can alter the decisions (revelations) of Allah.”

21. In sura 17:101 we find 9 plagues (or signs), whereas in sura 7:133 only 5 are listed (note Ali’s footnote no.1091 which adds the rod and leprous hand from verses 107 and 108, as well as the drought and short crops of verse 130 as plagues, to make up the nine).

22. In sura 51:57 we find that Jinn were created to worship Allah, yet in sura 7:176 we find that the Jinn were created for Hell.

23. In sura 17:103 we are told that Pharaoh was drowned with his army, yet in sura 10:90-92, upon admitting to the power of God, he is rescued as a sign to others.

24. Angels are commanded by Allah to bow down to Adam in suras 15:29-30; 20:116, which they do, yet Allah prohibits anyone worshipping any but him (suras 4:116; 18:110).

25. Lust is condemned in sura 79:40-41, yet in sura 4:24-25 Allah permits polygamy, divorce, and the use of female slaves as concubines (one needs to ask why a man needs a concubine if not to satisfy his lust). Furthermore, for those who are faithful lust is the primary, and unlimited reward in heaven (suras 55:46-78; 56:11-39). Surely if lust is wrong on earth and hateful to a Holy God, it cannot be pleasing to him in paradise.

26. On that same note, wine is forbidden while on earth (sura 5:91), yet rivers of wine await the faithful in paradise (suras 47:15; 76:5; 83:25)

27. Muslims Jews, Christians, and Sabians are all considered saved in sura 2:62, yet in sura 3:85 only Muslims are considered saved.

28. In sura 4:157 we read that Jesus did not die, yet in sura 19:33 we read that not only did he die, but he arose again! (note: Yusuf Ali has no rebuttal here, but in his footnote no.2485 refers to sura 19:15, which repeats the same words for Yahya, and then refers the reader to sura 4:157-a vivid example of using a Nasikh verse to abrogate one which is Mansukh in order to get out of a “jam”).

Some of these may not be serious contradictions, were it not for the claim that the Qur’an is “nazil” which means “brought down” from heaven without the touch of human hand. This implies that the original “un-created” preserved tablets in heaven, from which the Qur’an proceeds (sura 85:22), also contains these abrogations. How can they then claim to be Allah’s eternal word?

Equally disturbing is what this implies concerning the character of God. For, if Allah in the Qur’an manifests himself as the arbitrary God who acts as he pleases without any ties even to his own sayings, he adds a thought totally foreign to the former revelation which Muhammad claimed to confirm. Indeed, these abrogations degrade the integrity of the former revelations which were universally applicable to all peoples, for all time. The Qur’anic abrogations on the other hand fit the requirements of one specific man and his friends, for one specific place, and one specific time.

---

I: Errors Found Within the Qur’an

For centuries Muslims have been taught to believe that the Qur’an has been preserved in its original Arabic form since the beginning of time itself, and preserved intact from the period of the “sending down” of the book to Muhammad, right on down till the present. They have been taught that the text which we read now was uniquely inspired, in that there were no intermediary agents who could possibly pollute the integrity of the script.

At the same time they have also been taught that this suggested textual perfection of the book proves that the Qur’an must be the Word of God, as no one but Allah could have created and preserved such a perfected text. This sentiment has become so strongly established in the Muslim world that one will rarely find a Muslim scholar willing to make any critical analysis of its content or of its structure, as to do so would usually be detrimental to his or her health. However, when an analysis is made by a Western scholar upon the Qur’an, that analysis is roundly castigated as being biased from the outset, and even “satanic,” and therefore, unworthy of a reply.

But that does not stop the analysis from being undertaken, for the Qur’an when held up to scrutiny finds itself lacking in many areas.

As we have already discussed, we find problems with its sources, its collation, its literary makeup, its supposed uniqueness, and problems even with its content. It is not difficult to find numerous contradictions within the Qur’an, a problem which Muslims and the Qur’an has attempted to alleviate by conveniently allowing for the ‘law of abrogation.’ But even more devastating towards the integrity of this supposed perfect ‘divine book,’ are the numerous errors which are found in its pages. It is therefore to those errors which we will now turn in our continuing quest to ascertain whether, indeed, the Qur’an can claim to be the true, and “perfect” Word of God, as Muslims have so often maintained since the very inception of their faith.

I1: Contradictions With the Bible Which Point to Errors:

Many errors are found in the Qur’an which contradict the Biblical account. In the previous section we discussed a number of these contradictions in some detail, so I won’t repeat them here. Suffice it to say, that because the Qur’an followed these scriptures and made the claim to protect them (suras 6:34; 10:65; and sura 4:82) its integrity is put into doubt when it fails to adhere to the content of the very scriptures it claims to protect and confirm. Some contradictions I will mention, however, because they give doubt to the veracity of its content.

I1i: Moses

The first concerns the adoption of Moses by Pharaoh’s wife (in sura 28:9). This story contradicts the Biblical Exodus 2:10 version, which states that it was Pharaoh’s daughter who adopted Moses. It is important to note here that had Pharaoh’s wife adopted Moses, he would have consequently been adopted by Pharaoh himself, making him heir to the throne. This fact alone makes the subsequent story of Moses’s capture and exile rather incredulous.

I1ii: Yahya

According to the Qur’an, no-one bore the name of Yahya before John the Baptist (sura 19:7). Yet, we find that name mentioned in the Old Testament (2 Kings 25:23) implying that it was a well known name hundreds of years before the writing of the Qur’an.

It is interesting to note that Yusuf Ali, in his translation of sura 19:7 tries to circumvent this problem by translating this aya as, “on no-one by that name have We conferred distinction before.” Yet, the word ‘distinction’ does not appear in the Arabic at all. Is a translator permitted to change a text like this to correct an error? Obviously not! Ali is playing a dangerous game here. Is it no wonder, then, that Muslims refer to all English translations as simply interpretations. In his note (no.2461) Ali attempts to explain the problem by assuming that “Allah had, for the first time, called one of His elect by that name.” It would have been better had he left the text stand as it was written.

I1iii: Trinity

The Qur’an completely misrepresents the doctrine of the Trinity. The author of sura 5:116 mistakenly thought that Christians worshipped three gods: the Father, the Mother (Mary), and the Son (Jesus). But Christians don’t worship this doctrine of the Trinity at all! There was a heretical sect of Christianity called the Choloridians, who had a concept of the Trinity which included Mary, who would have been in Arabia during the time of Muhammad. They are possibly the source for this obvious error.

Another error is also found in sura 5:73-75, where the Qur’an says, “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three…” Obviously the accusation is against Christians, yet Christians do not believe God is one of three! We believe that God is one. Yusuf Ali does a grave injustice in his translation by adding the phrase, “Allah is one of three in a trinity.” The words “in a trinity” do not exist in the Arabic text! Ali puts it into his translation in an attempt to avoid the rather obvious mistake that Christians believe in three gods.

I1iv: Ezra

The Qur’an in sura 5:72 makes the mistake of claiming that the Jews believed that Ezra was the Son of God, the Messiah, just as Christians claim for Jesus. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I2: Internal Contradictions Which Point to Errors:

Some errors point to internal contradictions within the Qur’an itself. I have dealt with these in another paper as well, and so will only list them here to jog your memory.

I2i: Mary & Imran:

One of the best known errors is that concerning the confusion between Mary, recorded in the Qur’an as the sister of Aaron and the daughter of Imran (Biblical Amran) as well as the mother of Jesus (by implication in suras 19:28; 66:12; 20:25-30), though the two, Mary and Miriam, lived 1,570 years apart.

I2ii: Haman

Another well known passage is that of Haman. In the Qur’an Haman is referred to as a servant of Pharaoh, who built a high tower to ascend up to the God of Moses (sura 28:38; 29:38; 40:25,38). But the Babel tower occurs 750 years earlier (Genesis 11), and the name Haman is correctly found in the story of Esther in Babylon, 1,100 years after Pharaoh. Yusuf Ali believes that the reference here is simply that of another Haman, yet Haman is not an Egyptian name, but uniquely Babylonian.

I3: Errors Which Contradict Secular and Scientific Data

There are other stories in the Qur’an which do not stand up to the secular data which is available. These errors are possibly the most damaging for the credibility of the Qur’an as the perfect ‘Word of God’ because their veracity can be measured against the test of observable data, which is by definition neutral and binding.

I3i: Ishmael

The descendence of Ishmael by all Arabs is in doubt within the secular world, since historically the first father of the Arabs was Qahtan or Joktan (see Genesis 10:25-30). Some of his sons names are still found in geographical locations in Arabia today, such as Sheba, Hazarmaveth, Ophir, and Havilah. Abraham’s nephew Lot would be another ancestor to the Arabs via the Moabites and Ammonites (Genesis 24); as would Jacob’s twin brother Esau, and the six sons of Abraham’s third wife Keturah. Yet they are not even mentioned as ancestors to the Arabs in the Qur’an.

I3ii: Samaritan

The Qur’an says that the calf worshipped by the Israelites at mount Horeb was molded by a Samaritan (sura 20:85-87, 95-97). Yet the term ‘Samaritan’ was not coined until 722 B.C., which is several hundred years after the events recorded in Exodus. Thus, the Samaritan people could not have existed during the life of Moses, and therefore, could not have been responsible for molding the calf.

It is interesting to notice that while Yusuf Ali attempts to change this word to “Samiri” and Pickthall to “As Samirii,” Arberry in the English, and Kasimirski in the French both correctly translate it “Samaritan.” Yusuf Ali, in his footnotes, “bends over backwards” to explain his choice by suggesting that the name could mean “Shemer,” which denotes a stranger, or “Shomer,” which means a watchman, the equivalent of “Samara” in Arabic, which he implies is close enough to the Samari he is looking for. Once again we find an awkward example of Ali attempting to twist the translation in order to get out of a difficult scenario, similar to the examples of “Periklytos,” or the word “Machmad” which he uses to signify Muhammad in the Bible. The Arabic simply does not give Ali the leeway to concoct other meanings for this word. To be consistent with the Arabic he should keep his translation consistent with the text, as Arberry and Kasimirski have done.

I3iii: Sunset

In sura 18:86 it states, “Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a people: We said: O Dhu al Qarnayn! Either punish them,or treat them with kindness.” It is well known that only the superstitious in the age of Muhammad believed that the sun would set in a muddy spring.

I3iv: Issa

The name for Jesus in the Qur’an is given as “Issa.” Yet this is incorrect. Issa is the Arabic equivalent of Esau, the name for the twin brother of Jacob. The correct Arabic name for Jesus would be Yesuwa, similar to the Hebrew Yeshuwa, yet the supposedly “all-knowing” Qur’an has no mention of it.

I3v: Mountains

Suras 16:15; 21:31; 31:10; 78:6-7; 88:19 tell us that God placed (threw down) mountains on the earth like tent pegs to keep the earth from shaking. For pre-scientific man this would sound logical, since mountains are large and therefore, their weight would have seemingly, a stabilizing effect on the earth. Yet we now know this logic to be quite inaccurate. Mountains do not render the earth’s crust stable. In fact, the very existence of mountains is evidence of instability in the earth’s crust, as they are found and pushed up by the colliding of tectonic plates (i.e. the migration of Arabia toward Iran has resulted in the Zagros range, France pushing against Italy produced the Alps, and the Indian plate nudging Tibet has given us the Himalayas).

I3vi: Alexander the Great

In sura 18:83-100 we find the story of Dhu al Qarnayn, who is known as the Greek conqueror, Alexander the Great. According to this sura, his power was given to him by Allah (aya 84), which some Muslims contend is an assertion that he had the same prominence as a prophet. But of even more importance to our discussion is the contention, according to this sura, that he was  credited with building an enormous wall of iron and brass between two mountains, which was tall enough and wide enough to keep an entire army out (aya 96).

It is simple to test these claims because Alexander lived in the full light of history. Arrian, Quintus Curtius and other historians of repute have written the history of Alexander’s exploits. From their writings we know that Aristotle was his tutor. Yet, these historians equivocally make him out as a heathen general whose debauchery and drunkenness contributed to his untimely death at the early age of 33. They show that he was an idolater, and actually claimed to be the son of the Egyptian god Amun. How, therefore, could he be considered to have the same prominence as a prophet, or even, as aya 84 clearly asserts, that Allah was the agent for his power?

Yet, what is even more troubling, there is no historical evidence anywhere that he built a wall of iron and brass between two mountains, a feat which, indeed, would have proven him to be one of the greatest builders or engineers in the history of mankind.

When we find the Qur’an so inaccurate in regard to Alexander, whose history is well known, we hesitate to accept as valuable or even as reliable the statements of the Qur’an about other matters of past history.

I3vii: Creation

Sura 86:5-7 tells us that man is created from a gushing fluid that issues from between the loins and the ribs. Therefore, in this sura we find that the semen which creates a child originates from the back or kidney of the male and not the testicles.

I3viii: Pharaoh’s Cross

In sura 7:124 we find Pharaoh admonishing his sorcerers because they believe in the superiority of Moses’s power over theirs. Pharaoh threatens them with cutting off their hands and feet on opposite sides, and then says they will all die on the cross. But their were no crosses in those days. Crucifixion was first practised by the Phoenicians and the Carthaginians and then borrowed extensively by the Romans close to the time of Christ, 1700 years after Pharaoh!

I3ix: Other Scientific problems

1. Sura 16:66 mentions that cow’s milk comes from between the excrement and the blood of the cow’s abdomen. What does this mean?

2. In sura 16:69 we are told that honey, which gives healing, comes out of the bees abdomen. Again, what does it mean that honey comes out of a bees abdomen?

3. sura 6:38 says that all animals and flying beings form communities, like humans. I would like to ask whether this includes spiders, where in some species the female eats the male after mating has taken place. Is that a community like ours?

4. sura 25:45-46 maintains that it is the sun which moves to create shadows. Yet, I have always been taught that it was the rotation of the earth which caused shadows to move, while the sun remained quite still (i.e. thus the importance of sundials in earlier days).

5. sura 17:1 says Muhammad went to the “farthest Mosque” during his journey by night (the Mi’raj), which Muslims explain was the Dome of the Rock mosque, in Jerusalem. But there was no mosque in Jerusalem during the life of Muhammad, and the Dome of the Rock was not built until 690 C.E., by the Amir ‘Abd al Malik, a full 58 years after Muhammad’s death! There was not even a temple in existence at that time. The temple of Jerusalem had been destroyed by Titus 570 years before this vision. So what was this mosque Muhammad supposedly saw?

I4: Absurdities

There are other errors which are statements or stories which simply make no sense at all, and put into question the integrity of the writer or writers of the Qur’an.

I4i: Man’s Greatness

Sura 4:59 states,”Greater surely than the creation of man is the creation of the heavens and the earth; but most men know it not.” This implies that greatness is only measured by size; that the mere vastness of the physical universe make it greater than man, an argument which would make a football of immensely greater value than the largest diamond. Our scripture tells us that Man’s greatness lies not in his size, but in his relationship with God, that he is made in God’s image, a claim which no other animate or inanimate object can make.

I4ii: Seven Earths

Sura 65:12 reads, “It is God who hath created seven heavens and as many earths.” We would love to know where the other six earths are. If these refer to the planets in our solar system, then they are short by two (and now possibly three).

I4iii: Jinns & Shooting stars:

Meteors, and even stars are said to be missiles fired at eavesdropping Satans and jinn who seek to listen to the reading of the Qur’an in heaven, and then pass on what they hear to men in suras 37:6-10; 55:33-35; 67:5; & 72:6-9.

How are we to understand these suras? Can we believe indeed that Allah throws meteors, which are made up of carbon dioxide or iron-nickel, at non-material devils who steal a hearing at the heavenly council? And how do we explain the fact that many of earths meteors come in showers which consequently travel in parallel paths. Are we to thus understand that these parallel paths imply that the devils are all lined up in rows at the same moment?

I4iv: Solomon’s power over nature:

1. Birds and ants King Solomon was taught the speech of birds (sura 27:16) and the speech of ants (sura 27:18-19). In his battles, he used birds extensively to drop clay bricks on Abrah’s army (sura 105:3-4), and marched them in military parades (sura 27:17). He also used them to bring him messages of powerful queens (sura 27:20-27).Note: According to the historical record, Abrah’s army was not defeated by bricks dropped on their head. Rather, they withdrew their attack on Mecca after smallpox broke out among the troops (Guillame, Islam, pgs.21ff).

2. Jinn The Jinn were forced to work for Solomon, making him whatever he pleased, such as palaces, statues, large dishes, and brass fountains (sura 34:11-13). A malignant jinn was even commissioned to bring the Queen of Sheba’s throne in the twinkling of an eye (sura 27:38-44).

3. Wind The wind was subject to Solomon, travelling a month’s journey both in the morning and in the evening (though the wisdom of its timing is somehow lost in translation) (sura 3:11; 21:81).

4. Ants talk The ants, upon seeing Solomon and his army arriving in their valley (and by implication recognizing who he was), talk among themselves to flee underground so as not to be crushed (sura 27:18).

I4v: Youth and dog sleep 309 years

Sura 18:9-25 tells the story of some youths (the exact number is debated) and a dog who sleep for 309 years with their eyes open and their ears closed (Note Yusuf Ali’s attempts to delineate the exact time period of this story in footnote no.2365, and then concludes that it is merely a parable).

The object of this story is to show Allah’s power to keep those who trust in him, including the dog, without food or water for as long as he likes.

I4vi: People become apes

In suras 2:65-66 and 7:163-167, Allah turns certain fishing people who break the Jewish sabbath into apes for their disobedience. Had Darwin read the Qur’an, his theory on evolution may have parallelled “Planet of the Apes” rather then the other way around.

I4vii: Sodom & Gomorrah turned upside-down

In suras 11:81-83; 15:74 the two cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are turned upside-down and rained upon with clay-like brimstone, upon whose surface were marked the destiny of the wicked people who lived there.

I4viii: Jacob’s Smell & Sight:

In sura 12:93-96 Joseph sends his coat to his father as proof of his existence. But as the caravan leaves Egypt, Jacob, who is in Canaan smells Joseph, who is hundreds of miles away (aya 94). Then the coat, when it arrives, is placed over the face of his father Jacob and suddenly he receives his sight. Now we know why Andrew Lloyd Weber added the word “amazing” to the title of his musical, “Joseph’s Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.”

I4ix: Night/Day/Sun/Moon are subject to man:

In sura 16:12-15 the day and night as well as the Sun and Moon are surprisingly all made subject to man. That would imply that we had control over the rotation of our planet, as well as the entire movement of our solar system (Yusuf Ali’s explanation of this odd pronouncement in note no.2031 is rather interesting).

I5: Grammatical Errors

Muslims believe that since the Qur’an is the Word of God, it is without error in all areas. We have already dealt with the questions concerning the style and literary qualities of the Qur’an earlier, and found it to be quite defective in those areas. Yet, even more troubling are the grammatical mistakes which exist within its text. Can we expect an omnipotent and omniscient God to allow such deficiencies to creep into his supposedly ‘perfect’ and eternal revelation? Consider the following:

1. In sura 2:177, the word Sabireen should be Sabiroon because of its position in the sentence (since it is a human plural, it should remain in the masculine plural form?).

2. In sura 7:160, the phrase “We divided them into twelve tribes,” is written in the feminine plural: Uthnati Ashrat Asbaataan. Due to the fact that it refers to a number of people, it should be written in the masculine plural form: Uthaiy Ashara Sibtaan, as all human plurals are automatically male in Arabic.

3. In sura 4:162, the phrase “And (especially) those who establish regular prayer…” is written as al Muqiyhina al salaat, which again is in the feminine plural form, instead of the masculine plural: al Muqiyhuna al salaat (?). It is important to note that the two following phrases, “(those who) practice regular charity, and (those who) believe in Allah…” are both correctly written in the masculine human plural form.

4. In sura 5:69, the title al Sabioon, referring to the Sabians, should be written al Sabieen.

5. In sura 63:10, the phrase “I shall be” is written akun (which is in the 3rd person?). Yet since this word refers to the future (& is in the 1st person) it should be written akunu.

6. In sura 3:59, the words Kun feekunu should be written, Kun fakaana.

There are other grammatical errors which exist in the Qur’an as well, such as: suras 2:192; 13:28; 20:66 and the duals which replace the plurals in sura 55.

If we are still in doubt as to whether the Qur’an is subject to error, it might be helpful end this section by quoting a Muslim scholar, who, himself, comments on this very problem concerning grammatical mistakes in the Qur’an:

“The Qur’an contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning; adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concords of gender and number; illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent; and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects… To sum up, more than one hundred Qur’anic aberrations from the normal rules and structure of Arabic have been noted.” (Dashti, 23 Years, pgs.48-50)

---

J: The Sources of the Qur’an

In the earlier sections of this paper we discussed the problems which we observed concerning the claims which Muslims make towards their Qur’an. We noted the haphazard means by which the Qur’an was collected, and were appalled by the many abrogations and errors which exist in this supposedly “perfect” word of Allah. We came to the conclusion that the book could be nothing more than a man-made piece of literature, which could not stand alongside the great literary compositions that we have in our possession today. Yet, we found it troubling that there were so many inadequacies with this most ‘holy book’ for the Muslims.

As we approached the study on the collation of the Qur’an, we were shocked by the glaring deficiencies which were evidenced in its collection, forcing us to conclude that much of its content must have been added to much later.

If this be so, we are now left with the question as to where the author or authors went for their material? Where were the sources for many of the stories and ideas which we find in the Qur’an?

When we read the Qur’an we are struck by the large number of Biblical stories within its pages. Yet, these stories have little parallel with that which we read in our Bible. The Qur’anic accounts include many distortions, amendments, and some bizarre additions to that which we have heard our parents read to us at devotional times. So, where did these stories come from, if not from the previous scriptures?

Upon reading and observing these dubious teachings in the Qur’an we are forced to ask whether they contain stories which have parallels in pre-Islamic writings which were of questionable authenticity? If so, then we should be able to find these “apocryphal” accounts and compare them with that which we read in the Qur’an.

Fortunately, we do have much Jewish apocryphal literature (much of it from the Talmud), dating from the second century C.E. with which we can compare many of these stories. It is when we do so, that we find remarkable similarities between these fables or folk tales, and the stories which are recounted in the Qur’an.

The Talmudic writings were compiled in the second century C.E., from oral laws (Mishnah) and traditions of those laws (Gemara). These laws and traditions had been created to adapt the law of Moses (the Torah) to the changing times. They also included interpretations and discussions of the laws (the Halakhah and Haggadah etc.). Many Jews do not consider the Talmudic writings authoritative, but merely use them as windows with which to understand the times in which they were written.

So how did these non-authoritative Talmudic writings come to be a part of the Qur’an? In the Arabian Peninsula (known as the Hijaz), during the seventh century many Jewish communities could be found. They were part of the diaspora who had fled Palestine after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. A large number of these Jews were guided by these Talmudic writings which had been passed down orally from father to son for generations. Each generation embellished the accounts, or at times incorporated local folklore, so that it was difficult to know what the original stories contained. There were even those amongst the Jews who believed that these Talmudic writings had been added to the “preserved tablets” (i.e. the Ten Commandments, and the Torah which were kept in the Ark of the Covenant), and were believed to be replicas of the heavenly book.

When Muhammad came onto the scene, in the seventh century, some scholars believe he merely added to this body of literature the Qur’an. It is therefore, not surprising that a number of these traditions from Judaism were inadvertently accepted by Muhammad, or perhaps later redactors, and incorporated into the religion of Islam.

Those who are critical of these sources, yet who adhere to Muslim Tradition, and consider Muhammad as the ‘originator’of the Qur’an, contend that many of these stories came to Muhammad via the Jewish friends which he had in Medina. We do know from Muslim tradition that Muhammad’s uncle, Waraqa, translated portions of the Gospels into Arabic, and that Buhaira, a Nestorian monk, was his secret teacher (Tisdall, pg.15).

Muslim Tradition also maintains that Muhammad’s seventh wife, Raihana, and his ninth wife, Safiyya, were Jewesses. Furthermore, his first wife, Khadija, had a Christian background. His eighth wife, Maryam, also belonged to a Christian sect. It is likely that these wives shared with him much of their Old and New Testament literature, their dramas, and their prophetic stories.

Whether these wives understood the distinction between authentic Biblical literature and that which was apocryphal is not known. They would not have been literary scholars, but would have simply related the stories they had heard from their local communities, much of which was Talmudic in origin, as we shall soon see.

Another scenario is that many of the corresponding stories which we find in the Qur’an are from a later date (towards the end of the eighth century, or 100-150 years after the death of Muhammad), and have little to do with Muhammad. They were possibly written by later Persian or Syrian redactors, who simply borrowed stories from their own oral traditions (Persian Zoroastrians, or Byzantine Christians) as well as stories from the apocryphal Jewish literature which would have been around at that time. They then simply telescoped back the stories onto the figure of Muhammad in the seventh century. Whatever is the case, the Qur’anic accounts do have interesting parallels with the Jewish apocryphal literature from the second century C.E.

Let’s then look at a few of these accounts, and compare them with the parallels which we find in other co-existing, or pre-dating literature of that period.

J1: Stories Which Correspond With Biblical Accounts

J1i: Satan’s Refusal to Worship Adam

In suras 2:34 and 17:61 we find Satan (Iblis, who could be a fallen angel, or a jinn, according to sura 18:50) refusing to bow down to Adam. This story can be traced back to the second century Talmud.

J1ii: Cain and Abel

A better example is the story of Cain and Abel in sura 5:27-32: The story begins much as it does in our own Biblical account with Cain killing his brother Abel (though they are not named in the Qur’anic account). Yet in aya 31, after Cain slays Abel, the story changes and no longer follows the Biblical account (see sura 5:30-32 written out below, on the left). Where could this Qur’anic account have come from? Is this an historical record which is unknown to the Biblical writers?

Indeed it was, as the source for this account was drafted after the New Testament was written. In fact there are 3 sources from which this account is taken: the Targum of Jonathan-ben-Uzziah, The Targum of Jerusalem, and a book called The Pirke-Rabbi Eleazar. All these 3 documents are Jewish writings from the Talmud, which were oral traditions from between 150-200 C.E. These stories comment on the Laws of the Bible, yet are known to contain nothing more than Hebrew myths and fables. As we read this particular story from these 3 sources, we find a striking parallel to the Qur’anic account:

Qur’an- sura 5:31:

“Then Allah sent a raven, who cratched the ground, to show him how to hide the shame of his brother. ‘Woe is me!’ said he; ‘Was I not even able to be as this raven, and to hide the shame of my brother?’ Then he became full of regrets.”

Targum of Jonathan-ben-Uzziah:

“Adam and Eve, sitting by the corpse, wept not knowing what to do, for they had as yet no knowledge of burial. A raven came up, took the dead body of its fellow, and having scratched at the earth, buried it thus before their eyes. Adam said, ‘Let us follow the example of the raven,’ so taking up Abel’s body, buried it at once.”

Apart from the contrast between who buried who, the two stories are otherwise uncannily similar. We can only conclude that it was from here that Muhammad, or a later author obtained their story. Thus we find that a Jewish fable, a myth, is repeated as historical fact in the Qur’an.

Yet that is not all, for when we continue in our reading of sura 5, in the following aya 32 , we find a further proof of plagiarism from apocryphal Jewish literature; this time the Jewish Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5.

Qur’an- sura 5:32:

“On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person- unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land-it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people…”

Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5:

“We find it said in the case of Cain who murdered his brother, ‘the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth out’
[this latter is a quote from the Bible, Genesis 4:10], and he says, ‘it does not sayeth he hath blood in the singular, but bloods in the plural.’ Thou was created single in order to show that to him who kills a single individual, it should be reckoned that he has slain the whole race. But to him who has preserved the life of a single individual, it is counted that he has preserved the whole race.”

There is no connection between the previous verse (aya 31) and that which we have just read (sura 5:32 above). What does the death of Abel by Cain have to do with the slaying or saving of the whole people? Nothing. Ironically, this aya 32, in fact, supports the basis of the Old Testament hope for the finished work of Jesus, who was to take away the sins of the world (see John 1:29). Yet, it doesn’t flow from the verse which preceded it. So why is it here?

If we were to turn to the Jewish Talmud again, this time to the Mishnah Sanhendrin, chapter 4, verse 5 (above, on the right), we will find where the author obtained his material, and why he included it here.

In this account we read a Rabbi’s comments, where he interprets the word ‘blood’ to mean, “his own blood and the blood of his seed.” Remember, this is nothing but the comment of a Rabbi. It is his own interpretation, and one which is highly speculative at that.

Therefore, it is rather interesting that he then goes on to comment on the plural word for ‘blood.’ Yet this Rabbi’s comments are repeated almost word-for-word in the Qur’an, in aya 32 of sura 5! How is it that a Rabbi’s comments on the Biblical text, the muses of a mere human become the Qur’anic holy writ, and attributed to God? Did Allah learn something from the Rabbi, or was it Muhammad or a later author who learned this admonition from this Rabbi’s writings?

The only conclusion is that the later is the case, because there is no connection between the narrative concerning the killing of Cain in the Qur’an (aya 31), and the subsequent verse about the whole race (aya 32).

It is only when we read the Mishnah Sanhedrin that we find the connection between these two stories: a Rabbi’s exposition of a biblical verse and a core word. The reason why this connection is lacking in the Qur’an is now quite easy to understand. The author of sura 5 simply did not know the context in which the Rabbi was talking, and therefore was not aware that these were merely comments on the Biblical text and not from the Bible itself. He simply added them to the Qur’an, repeating what he had heard without understanding the implication.

It is rather ironic that in sura 25:4-5 this very charge of haphazard plagiarism is leveled at Muhammad by the unbelievers in Medina:

“But the unbelievers say: ‘Naught is this but a lie which he has forged, and others have helped him at it.’ In truth, it is they who have put forward an iniquity and a falsehood. And they say: ‘Tales of the ancients, which he has caused to be written: and they are dictated before him morning and evening.”

This charge rings closer to the truth than many Muslims are willing to admit. It seems that those who did not believe in Muhammad or in the later redactions, recognized the sources for these stories, since they had undoubtably heard the same myths and fables from the Jews who were not only living in that area at that time, but came from the surrounding countries to the fairs at Mecca and other trading towns in the Hijaz.

It seems quite obvious that the Qur’an cannot be accepted as the word of God, if there exists parallels in its narratives which exist from myths and commentaries of other religions, such as we find here.

J1iii: Abraham

In sura 21:51-71, we find the story of Abraham (due to its length, it is not written here- you can read it for yourself). In the Qur’anic account Abraham confronts his people and his father because of the many idols which they worship. After an argument between Abraham and the people, they depart and Abraham breaks the smaller idols, leaving the larger ones intact. When the people see this they call Abraham and ask if he is responsible, to which he replies that it must have been the larger idols which did the destruction. He challenges them to ask the larger idols to find out, to which they reply, “Thou knowest full well that these (idols) do not speak!” (aya 65). He gives a taunting retort, and they then throw him into a fire. But in aya 69 Allah commands the fire to be cool, making it safe for Abraham, and he miraculously walks out unscathed.

There are no parallels to this story in our Bible. There is a parallel, however, in a second century book of Jewish folktales called The Midrash Rabbah. In this account Abraham breaks all the idols except the biggest one. His father and the others challenged him on this, and with an added bit of humour, which is missing in the Qur’anic account, Abraham responds by saying that he had given the biggest idol an ox for all the idols to eat, but because the smaller idols went ahead and ate, they thus did not show respect. The bigger idol consequently smashed the smaller idols. The enraged father did not believe Abraham’s account, and so took him to a man named Nimrod, who simply threw him into a fire. But God made it cool for him and he walked out unscathed.

The similarity between these two stories is quite unmistakable. A second century Jewish fable, a folklore, and myth is repeated in the “holy Qur’an.” It is quite evident that Muhammad or another author heard this story from the Jews, but because he could not read their books, though he had heard snatches of the Biblical narratives, from visiting Jews, or even his wives, he simply assumed they came from the same source, and unwittingly wrote Jewish folklore into his Qur’an.

Some Muslims claim that this myth, and not the Biblical account, is in reality the true Word of God. They maintain that the Jews simply expunged it so as not to correspond with the later Qur’anic account. Without attempting to explain how the Jews would have known to expunge this very story, since the Qur’an was not to appear until centuries later, we nonetheless must ask where this folklore comes from?

The Bible itself gives us the answer.

In Genesis 15:7, the Lord tells Abraham that it was He who brought Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldeans. Ur is a place, also mentioned in Genesis 11:31. We have evidence that a Jewish scribe named Jonathan Ben Uziel mistook the Hebrew word “Ur” for the Hebrew word which means “fire.” Thus in his commentary of this verse he writes, “I am the Lord who brought you out of the fire of the Chaldeans.”

Consequently, because of this misunderstanding, and because of a misreading of the Biblical verse a fable became popular around this era, which stated that God had brought Abraham out of the fire.

With this information in hand, we can, therefore, discern where the Jewish fable originated: from a misunderstanding of one word in a Biblical verse by one errant scribe. Yet, somehow this errant understanding found its way into God’s “holy” word in the Qur’an.

It is obvious from these examples that the author of the Qur’an simply repeated what he had heard, and not being able to distinguish between that which he heard and that which was Biblical truth, he simply compiled them side-by-side in the Qur’an.

J1iv: Mt Sanai

The story found in sura 7:171 of God lifting up Mount Sinai and holding it over the heads of the Jews as a threat to squash them if they rejected the law is not recognizable from the Biblical account. And well it should not be, for it hails from another second century apocryphal Jewish book, The Abodah Sarah.

J1v: Solomon and Sheba

In sura 27:17-44 we read the story of Solomon, the Hoopoo bird and the Queen of Sheba. After reading the Qur’anic account of Solomon in sura 27, it would be helpful to compare it with the account taken from a Jewish folklore, the II Targum of Esther, which was written in the second Century C.E., nearly five hundred years before the creation of the Qur’an:

Qur’an- sura 27:17-44:

(aya 17) “And before Solomon were marshalled his hosts-of Jinns and men, and birds, and they were all kept in order and ranks.

(aya 20) “And he took a muster of the Birds; and he said: ‘Why is it I see not the Hoopoe? Or is he among the absentees?

(aya 21) “I will certainly punish him with a severe penalty, or execute him, unless he bring me a clear reason (for absence).

(aya 22) “But the Hoopoe tarried not far: he (came up and) said: ‘I have compassed (territory) which thou hast not compassed, and I have come to thee from Saba with tidings true.

(aya 23) “I found (there) a woman ruling over them and provided with every requisite; and she has a magnificent throne…

(aya 27) “(Solomon) said: ‘Soon shall we see whether thou hast told the truth or lied!

(aya 28) “Go thou, with this letter of mine, and deliver it to them: then draw back from them, and (wait to) see what answer they return.

(aya 29) “(The queen) said: “Ye chiefs! Here is- delivered to me-a letter worthy of respect.

(aya 30) “It is from Solomon, and is (as follows): ‘In the name of Allah, most Gracious, Most Merciful: Be ye not arrogant against me, but come to me in submission (to the true Religion).’

(aya 32) “She said: ‘Ye chiefs! Advise me in (this) my affair: no affair have I decided except in your presence.’

(aya 33) “They said: ‘We are endued with strength, and given to vehement war: but the command is with thee; so consider what thou wilt command.’

(aya 35) “She said…’But I am going to send him a present, and (wait) to see with what (answer) return (my) ambassadors.’

(aya 42) “So when she arrived…

(aya 44) “… she was asked to enter the lofty Palace: but when she saw it, she thought it was a lake of water, and she (tucked up her skirts), uncovering her legs. He said: ‘This is but a palace paved smooth with slabs of glass.'”

II Targum of Esther:

“Solomon…gave orders…I will send King and armies against thee…(of) Genii [jinn] beasts of the land the birds of the air.

Just then the Red-cock (a bird), enjoying itself, could not be found; King Solomon said that they should seize it and bring it by force, and indeed he sought to kill it.

But just then, the cock appeared in the presence of the King and said, ‘I had seen the whole world (and) know the city and kingdom (of Sheba) which is not subject to thee, My Lord King. They are ruled by a woman called the Queen of Sheba. Then I found the fortified city in the Eastlands (Sheba) and around it are stones of gold and silver in the streets.’

By chance the Queen of Sheba was out in the morning worshipping the sea, the scribes prepared a letter, which was placed under the bird’s wing and away it flew and (it) reached the Fort of Sheba. Seeing the letter under its wing (Sheba) opened it and read it.

‘King Solomon sends to you his Salaams. Now if it please thee to come and ask after my welfare, I will set thee high above all. But if it please thee not, I will send kings and armies against thee.’

The Queen of Sheba heard it, she tore her garments, and sending for her Nobles asked their advice. They knew not Solomon, but advised her to send vessels by the sea, full of beautiful ornaments and gems…also to send a letter to him.

When at last she came, Solomon sent a messenger…to meet her…Solomon, hearing she had come, arose and sat down in the palace of glass.

When the Queen of Sheba saw it, she thought the glass floor was water, and so in crossing over lifted up her garments. When Solomon seeing the hair about her legs, (He) cried out to her…”

It is rather obvious, once you have read the two accounts above, where the author of the story of Solomon and Sheba in the Qur’an obtained his data. The two stories are uncannily similar. The jinns, the birds, and in particular the messenger bird, which he couldn’t at first find, and then used as a liaison between himself and the Queen of Sheba, along with the letter and the glass floor, are unique to these two accounts. One will not find these parallels in the Biblical passages at all.

J1vi: Mary, Imran and Zachariah

In sura 3:35-37 we find the story of Mary, her father Imran, and the priest Zachariah.

Qur’an- sura 3:35-37:

(aya 35) “Behold! a woman of Imran said: ‘O my Lord! I do dedicate unto Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service: so accept this of me: for Thou hearest and knowest all things.’

(aya 36) “When she was delivered, she said: “O my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child!” And Allah knew best what she brought forth- “And no wise is the male like the female. I have named her Mary, and I commend her and her offspring to thy protection from the Evil One, the Rejected.”

(aya 37) “Right graciously did her Lord accept her; He made her grow in purity and beauty: to the care of Zakariya was she assigned.”

The Proto-Evangelion’s James the Lesser:

“And Anna (wife of Joachim) answered, ‘As the Lord my God liveth, whatever I bring forth, whether it be male or female, I will devote it to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in holy things, during its whole life’…and called her name Mary…And the high-priest received her; and blessed her, and said, ‘Mary, the Lord God hath magnified thy name to all generations, and to the very end of time by thee will the Lord shew his redemption to the children of Israel.”

After reading the passage from the Qur’an (on the left), notice the similarities between the Qur’anic story and that found in a spurious gospel account from The Proto-evangelion’s James the Lesser, which is a second century C.E. apocryphal Christian fable (on the right).

Both accounts speak of the child being either male or female. They also mention that the child is Mary, and that she is protected by either a high- priest, or Zachariah, who is inferred as the keeper of the sanctuary, where Mary is kept (though the Lukan account speaks of him as the father of John the Baptist).

J1vii: Jesus’ Birth

There are a number of accounts in the Qur’an which speak of the early childhood of Jesus. These accounts do not correspond at all with the Biblical story. But they do have parallels with other apocryphal Jewish documents:

1. The Palm Tree In sura 19:22-26 we read the story of Mary, the baby Jesus, the Palm Tree, and the rivulet which flows below it. This story is not found in the Biblical account, but first appeared in an apocryphal fable of the second century C.E. (see lower passage; from The Lost Books of the Bible, New York, Bell Publishing Co., 1979, pg.38). Notice the similarities between the two accounts.Qur’an- sura 19:22-26:

   “So she conceived him [Jesus], and she retired with him to a remote place. And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm tree: She cried (in her anguish): ‘Ah! would that I had died before this! would that I had been a thing forgotten and out of sight’! But (a voice) cried to her from beneath the (palm tree): ‘Grieve not! for thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee: And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm tree; it will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee. So eat and drink and cool (thine) eye.

   The Lost Books of the Bible:

   Now on the third day after Mary was wearied in the desert by the heat, she asked Joseph to rest for a little under the shade of a Palm Tree. Then Mary looking up and seeing its branches laden with fruit (dates) said, ‘I desire if it were possible to have some fruit.’ Just then the child Jesus looked up (from below) with a cheerful smile, and said to the Palm Tree, ‘Send down some fruit.’ Immediately the tree bent itself (toward her) and so they ate. Then Jesus said, ‘O Palm Tree, arise; be one of my Father’s trees in Paradise, but with thy roots open the fountain (rivulet) beneath thee and bring water flowing from that fount.’

2. The Baby Jesus Talking Later on in the same sura (19) in verses 29-33 we find that the baby Jesus can talk. Nowhere in any of the gospels do we find the baby Jesus talking. There is the account of Jesus disputing with the elders in the temple, but this story comes later, when Jesus has grown into a young boy. So where did this story come from? Once again, we need only turn to apocryphal writings from the 2nd century; this time to an Arabic apocryphal fable from Egypt, named The first Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ to find the same story:Qur’an- sura 19:29-33:

   “But she pointed to the babe. They said: ‘How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?’

   “He said: ‘I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet;

   “And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me prayer and charity as long as I live;

   “He hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;

   “So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!”

   The first Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ:

   “… Jesus spake even when he was in the cradle, and said to his mother: ‘Mary, I am Jesus the Son of God. That word which thou didst bring forth according to the declaration of the angel…’

3. Creating birds from clay Jesus, according to sura 3:49 breathed life into birds of clay. The source for this Qur’anic fiction is found in the earlier Thomas’ Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ, another apocryphal fable from the 2nd century:Qur’an- sura 3:49:

   “And (appoint him [Jesus]) a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message): ‘I have come to you, with a sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah’s leave…”

   Thomas’ Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ:

   “Then he took from the bank of the stream some soft clay, and formed out of it twelve sparrows…Then Jesus clapping together the palms of his hands called to the sparrows, and said to them: ‘Go, fly away.'”

J1viii: Heaven and Hell

There are Qur’anic accounts which deal with heaven and hell, which have no parallels with our Biblical accounts. It is not difficult, however, to find out where these stories originated. Take for instance the following:

1. Seven Heavens and Seven Hells In suras 15:43-44 and 17:44 we find reference to the seven hells and the seven heavens. Without asking where these seven heavens and hells are located, it will be helpful to note that the same number of hells and heavens can be found in the tradition called Jagigah and Zuhal.

2. Mi’raj In sura 17:1 we have the report of Muhammad’s journey by night from the Sacred mosque to the farthest mosque. From later traditions we know this aya is referring to Muhammad ascending up to the 7th Heaven, after a miraculous night journey (the Mi’raj) from Mecca to Jerusalem, on a “horse” called Buraq.More detail is furnished us in the Jewish Mishkat al Masabih. We can trace the story back to a fictitious book called The Testament of Abraham, written around 200 B.C., in Egypt, and then translated into Greek and Arabic.Another account is that of The Secrets of Enoch, which predates Muhammad by four centuries. In chapter 1:4-10 and 2:1 we read:

   “On the first day of the month I was in my house and was resting on my couch and slept and when I was asleep great distress came up into my heart and there appeared two men. They were standing at my couch and called me by name and I arose from my sleep. Have courage, Enoch, do not fear; The Eternal God sent us to thee. Thou shalt today ascend with us into heaven. The angels took him on their wings and bore him up to the first heaven.”

3. Hell The Qur’anic description of Hell resembles the descriptions of hell in the Homilies of Ephraim, a Nestorian preacher of the sixth century (Glubb, pg.36)

4. Balance The author of the Qur’an in suras 42:17 and 101:6-9, utilized The Testament of Abraham to teach that a scale or balance will be used on the day of judgment to weigh good and bad deeds in order to determine whether one goes to heaven or to hell.

5. Paradise The description of Paradise in suras 55:56-58 and 56:22-24,35-37, which speak of the righteous being rewarded with wide-eyed houris who have eyes like pearls, has interesting parallels in the Zoroastrian religion of Persia, where the name for the maidens is not houris, but Paaris.

J2: Stories Which do not Correspond With the Biblical Account

There are other stories which do not necessarily follow any Biblical accounts, but which have astonishing similarities with further apocryphal Jewish literature from the second century.

J2i: Harut and Marut

In sura 2:102 the two angels Harut and Marut are mentioned. Who exactly are these two characters? While Yusuf Ali believes these were angels who lived in Babylon, historical records show us that they were idols which were worshipped in Armenia. Their existence was inspired by Marut, the Hindu god of the wind. We find this story related in the Talmud (Midrash Yalzut, chapter 44).

J2ii: The Cave of the Seven Sleepers

The story which was mentioned in an earlier section of this paper, concerning the seven sleepers and a dog who slept for 309 years in a cave, is found in sura 18:9-25. It has a striking resemblance to a book called The Story of Martyrs, by Gregory of Tours. In this account it is a legendary tale of Christians who were under persecution, and who fell asleep in a cave for 200 years.

J2iii: The Sirat

Though not mentioned in the Qur’an by name, the bridge over which all must pass to their final destiny is referred to in sura 19:71. As in the case of the Mi’raj, we must go to the Hadiths to find out what the Sirat really is. And when we do, we wonder from whence such an idea originated. We don’t need to look far, for a similar bridge leading over the deep gulf of hell to Paradise is called Chinavad (the connecting link) in the Zoroastrian book Dinkart.

It is important to remember that none of the above extra-Biblical quotations are recognized by Biblical scholars, historians, or theologians as authentic events in the life of Christ, or in the scope of the Jewish faith. Consequently they are not included in the Bible. In fact their late dates (most are from the second century C.E., or A.D.) should make it obvious to any casual observer that they have little authenticity whatsoever.

---

K: Conclusion

We have now come to the end of our discussion on the authority of the Qur’an. We began our study by noting that a possible reason for so much misunderstanding between Muslims and Christians could be the way we viewed our respective scriptures; and the real differences which exist concerning our views on revelation and inspiration. It seems obvious to me that until we understand these differences in perception we will be condemned to continue talking at and past each other, without any hope of coming together in true dialogue.

We noted in our study the tendency by Muslims to elevate their Qur’an to a higher degree then what we do with our own Bible. Examples of this elevation can be found in their demand that no-one write in its margins, or let it touch the floor. By doing so they could almost be blamed for deifying it, a practice which sparks of idolatry, the very sin (Shirk) which the Qur’an itself warns Muslims not to do (suras 4:48; 5:75-76; 41:6).

From there we dealt with the claim by Muslims that Qur’anic authority is found in the miracle of its composition; that it has superior and unique literary qualities which exceed any known written work. It seems to be the consensus of a number of scholars, however, that with no logical connection from one sura to the next, the Qur’an not only is difficult to read, its content is so confusing that it takes an enormous amount of patience to understand it. With criticisms like these it is difficult to understand why Muslims continue to elevate its supposed literary qualities.

We noted that Muslims claim authority for the Qur’an as a universal document. Yet, we found the Qur’an to be a uniquely 7th-9th century Arab piece of literature, which simply reflected the mentality and culture of that time. This was made clear with two examples: the case for the inferiority of women and the profoundly violent nature of the Qur’an and its prophet, Muhammad. From there we continued on to the collection of the original documents, and asked the question of whether any document which comes from the hands of God could be tampered with as we have witnessed here in these examples. The incredible respect and awe which is evidenced by Muslims today for their Qur’an belies the seemingly cavalier attitude of the earlier Caliphs towards the original codices, evidenced by their burning of all extent manuscripts, even those which Muhammad himself had deemed to be authoritative.

We were astonished at how an “eternal divine document of God” could contain within its text not only abrogations of itself, but errors which give doubt to its entire veracity. If God’s word is to retain its integrity, it must remain above suspicion. Even the Qur’an demands such a standard. In sura 4:82 we read, “Do they not consider the Qur’an? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancies” (sura 4:82). The testimony of the material we have covered here convicts the Qur’an of failing in the very claims it purports to uphold, and sustain. This bodes ill for its claim to inspiration, while negating any hope of any recognized authority.

In conclusion, while we can concede that the Qur’an is a fascinating book to study, it simply cannot maintain its status as the final Word of God it claims to be. The declaration of textual perfection by the Muslims simply do not stand up to any critical analysis of their content. As we have seen, the Qur’an carries numerous inconsistencies with the former scriptures, while its narratives and stories help to discredit its claim to be the true Word of God. Popular sentiment and unquestioning fanatical devotion by Muslims are simply not adequate as a proof for the Qur’an’s authenticity. When we take a sober analysis of the sources of the Qur’an, we find conclusive evidence that the confidence of the Muslims for their scripture is simply unfounded.

It stands to reason that those whose responsibility it was to compile a “holy book” which could compete with the existing scriptures, would naturally turn to the myths and legends of the surrounding civilizations and borrow many of their stories. Due to the predominance of oral tradition in the 7th-9th centuries one can understand how many of the stories became embellished and distorted over time. It is these corrupted stories that we find all through the Qur’an, many of which were adapted from 2nd century Talmudic literature, which was popular amongst the Jews of that area. Consequently it is the glaring similarities which we find between the Qur’an and these errant sources which nullifies the claim that the Qur’an could hope to be the true Word of God.

The same test of verification is required of the Qur’an as that of all scriptures, including those which have preceded it (the Old and New Testament). For decades now scholars have attempted to find fault with our scriptures, applying to them the same critical investigation we have applied here and more, and for the most part we have welcomed it. Yet, through all the critical and sometimes polemical analysis which has been fomented against our scriptures, they have resolutely stood the test. It therefore comes as no surprise that the Bible continues to be the number one best-seller in the history of literature. Though we do not accord our scriptures the same sense of elevated worship which the Muslims demon- strate for their Qur’an, we do stand behind the veracity of our scriptures claim to divine inspiration. We do so because it has proven time and again to remain consistent to the claims it makes of itself and of all true revelations which come from the divine hand of God.

---

L: References Cited

Ali, ‘Abdullah Yusuf, The Holy Qur’an (Revised Edition), Brentwood, Amana Corporation, 1989

Campbell, Dr. William, The Qur’an and the Bible in the Light of History and Science, Middle East Resources

Copleston, F.S, Christ or Mohammed? The Bible or the Koran?, Harpenden, Nuprint, 1989

Gilchrist, John, Jam’ Al-Qur’an, The Codification of the Qur’an Text, South Africa, Jesus to the Muslims, 1989

Hoodbhoy, Pervez, Islam and Science, London, Zed Books ltd., 1989

Morey Robert, Islamic Invasion, Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House Publishers, 1992

Nehls, Gerhard, Christians Ask Muslims, Bellville, SIM International Life Challenge, 1987

Pfander, C. G., The Mizanu’l Haqq, (Balance of Truth), London, The Religious Tract Soc., 1910

Shorrosh, Anis A., Islam Revealed, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1988.

The Names and Titles of Christ in Islam and the Bible

Gerry Redman

Contents

Introduction

A. The Biblical View

1. Lord Jesus Christ

2. Son of David

3. Son of God

4. Son of Man

5. Servant of the Lord

6. Prophet

7. Word of God

8. Priest

9. Saviour

B. The Islamic View

1. ‘Isa Bin Maryam

2. Prophet

3. Al-Masih

4. Servant

5. Word

6. Spirit

Conclusion

References

Introduction

Whilst both the Qur’an and the Bible affirm unique titles to Jesus, of which some are similar in meaning, there are also important differences between the nomenclatures ascribed to Him in the distinct holy books. To some extent this reflects the negative thrust of Islamic Christology, the emphasis of which is to deny (in the Islamic estimation, ‘to correct’) more than to affirm. On the other hand, the Biblical titles of Jesus point to the continuity of His ministry with the salvation-history revealed in the Old Testament – that is, His names and titles demonstrate that He is the fulfilment of prophecy, the culmination of the divine plan of redemption. As we shall see, the same is not true of Islamic Christology. This in itself points to the historical picture of Jesus in the Bible as being the genuine article. In this paper we will examine and compare the names and titles of Jesus in Islam and the Bible.

A. The Biblical View

1. Lord Jesus Christ

(a) Jesus: ‘Jesus’ is Greek and Latin for ‘Joshua’, Hebrew for ‘YHWH Saves’, appropriate as a description of the work of Christ – He is the Saviour. The name points to the human Jesus, a true Man, a Palestinian Jew of 1st century A.D. He was a Galilean, and tri-lingual because of that. He would have been as equally at home in Aramaic and Koine Greek, given the cosmopolitan nature and geographical position of Galilee, which bordered on Gentile areas. As a pious Jew, he would also know Hebrew – primarily as liturgical language, no doubt.

Thus the name indicates His true humanity and divine commission – not a demigod, but true man, man as we are, save without sin. It should be noted that the final Victory is one where Man is exalted – Philippians 2:9-10 – it is at the name of Jesus, not Christ, that every knee bows: we may also be encouraged by the fact that a man is reigning now over the Earth – Acts 2:32, 33-35, and especially v36.

(b) Lord: This is used in differing, but not contradictory ways.

(i) Honorific: i.e. ‘Sir’ – e.g. Matthew 21:30; John 4:19; 9:35. Morris writes ‘Minus the article the Greek term was an ordinary form of polite address, much like our “Sir” It is used in this fashion by the son who said “I go, Sir” (Mt. 21:30)…’. 1 In such cases, the term does not necessarily indicate faith, and often does not.

(ii) Authority: i.e. ‘Master’, indicating ownership – Luke 16:3; Colossians 4:1. Milne states ‘This title occurs in NT times in the general sense of “master” or “owner”…’ 2 Paul uses it to indicate that we are the slaves of Christ – Romans 1:1, Galatians 1:1.

(iii) Deity: ‘YHWH’ – the Tetragrammaton, the Divine Name. In practice born of reverence, Jews preferred the circumlocution adonai, ‘lord’ as the Divine Name was considered too sacred to utter. Adonai was rendered by kurios (kuriov) in the Septuagint.

The claim by Christadelphians that Jesus is never expressly termed ‘Lord’ in sense of ‘YHWH’ until after the Resurrection is questionable. Luke 3:4,.quoting Isaiah 40:3-5, is unintelligible unless Jesus is YHWH, and it clearly has present reference. John 20:28; Romans 1:4, etc. merely indicate that the resurrection openly establishes the Lordship of Christ in terms of deity (Acts 2:36 means ‘king’), not that he becomes divine: Matthew 16:18 states that Jesus was Messiah in His contemporary state, not future, yet Acts 2:36 seems to indicate that the Resurrection ‘made’ Him Messiah; clearly the sense is one of public declaration. If Jesus was Messiah before resurrection, He was also YHWH before that event. Several texts in the Epistles and Revelation explicitly identify Jesus with YHWH:

Romans 10:13 looks back to v9 and v12, where Jesus is expressly termed kuriov; v13 quotes from Joel 2:32 –’whoever shall call on the name of the Lord (i.e. YHWH) shall be saved’. Ephesians 4:8 quotes Psalm 68:18 in respect to the Ascension of Christ Whilst the Hebrew text does not mention YHWH, v18 of Psalm 68 speaks of yah ‘elohim; Paul applies this to Christ. Philippians 2:9-11 quotes Isaiah 45:23, which looks back to v21, where the subject is YHWH. Not only is Jesus termed kuriovby Paul, but the wording – that every knee shall bow to Jesus – reflects the wording of Isaiah 45:23, where it is to YHWH that every knee bows. Hebrews 1:10 quotes Psalm 102:25 (LXX) in its discourse on the Son, identifying Him as kuriov, yet in the Psalm YHWH is the subject. We may also note that the eschatological Last Day in the Old Testament – Day of YHWH – has become the Day of the Lord Jesus (Christ) in the New Testament – 1 Corinthians 1:8; 2 Corinthians 1:14; Philippians 1:6, 10; 2:16; 2 Peter 3:10, 12. The renowned New Testament scholar Donald Guthrie observed about the New Testament usage of the title ‘In view of the frequent use of the title in OT citations, it is probable that the LXX usage of kyrios should be regarded as a key to an understanding the term when applied to Jesus (i.e. as an appelative for God). In NT usage the implication is that the same functions assigned to God are assigned to Christ.’ 3

(iv) Messianic King

Mark 12:35-37, quoting Psalm 110:1 identifies Jesus as the Messianic King, and this would also seem to be the import of Acts 2:36, given the parallelism of ‘Christ’ and ‘Lord’.

(c) Christ (Messiah)

Christos, Greek for Maschiach – ‘Anointed One’ Priests, Kings and Prophets were anointed with oil, symbolising the Holy Spirit, Isaiah 61:1, Zechariah 4:1-6 – i.e. the impartation of grace for office and visible appointment to such, together with establishment of particular relationship with God – 1 Samuel 16:13; 24:6; 26:9; 2 Samuel 1:14.

Prophets – 1 Kings 19:16, cf Psalm 105:15; Isaiah 61:1. High Priests – Leviticus 4:3, 5; 16:6.15; cf Exodus 28:41. The King was called the ‘Anointed of YHWH’ – 1 Samuel 24:10. 2 Samuel 7:12ff connects the promise of eternal Davidic dynasty with the coming of Mashiach, clarified in Ezekiel 37:21ff and Zechariah 9:9ff. Christ was anointed by God the Holy Spirit at His Baptism, Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32; cf. Isaiah 11:2; 42:1. Together with His offices of Priest and Prophet, the term emphasises His role as the Perfect Official – the Restorer and Deliverer of Israel – Luke 24:21; Acts 4:26.

In terms of the Jewish expectation of the Messiah, the Qumran Essene community, authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, expected two figures, the Anointed of Aaron and the Anointed of Israel (1QS 9:11) – the former Priestly, the latter Kingly, and thus inferior to former, (remembering that Qumran was a priestly community). The common hope of most Jews awaited a political/military deliverer who would overthrow the Romans and establish the Davidic Kingdom. Because of this, Jesus was reluctant to employ the term Messiah publicly, especially early in His ministry, so as to avoid misinterpretation. Jesus considered Himself not only the Bringer of the Kingdom of God, but its embodiment – Matthew 12:28; Mark 1:15, Once He had explained His concept of Messiahship, He was willing to accept the term, e.g. John 4:25-26; Mark 8:29, He had to clarify three points in particular:

1. That His Messiahship was characterised by universalism, rather than particularism – John 4:19-23, especially v21; Luke 13:29.

2. His kingdom was spiritual, rather than political – John 18:36.

3. He emphasised that the way to the Crown was the Cross – that the Messiah must suffer – Mark 8:31; John 12:32-34, a concept foreign to the Messianic concept held by current Judaism. For this reason, Jesus used the term ‘Son of Man’, which, whilst associated with authority, was not so linked to nationalistic aspirations.

Guthrie’s New Testament Theology examines the Hebrew background to the Messianic concept, and explains it as follows:

In the Old Testament much is said, especially in the prophets, about the coming messianic age which offered bright prospects to the people of God (cf. Is. 26-29; 40ff; Ezk. 40-48; Dn. 12; Joel 2:28-3:21), but little is said about the Messiah. The title is nowhere used of the coming deliverer. Indeed the agent for inaugurating the coming age was God himself. But though the absolute use of the term ‘Messiah’ does not occur, there are various uses of the word in a qualified way, such as the Lord’s Messiah (i.e. anointed one). The idea of anointing a person for a special mission appears in a variety of applications, but mainly of kings and priests (Lv. 4:3ff), also of prophets (1 Ki. 19:16) and patriarchs (Ps. 105:15) (cf 1 Sa. 24:6ff; 26:9ff), and even of a heathen king, Cyrus (Is. 45:1). This use of anointing to indicate a specific office became later applied in a more technical sense of the one who, par excellence, would be God’s chosen instrument in the deliverance of his people. The OT without doubt prepares the way for the Messiah and many OT messianic passages are cited in the NT.

During the intertestamental period, the meaning of the term underwent some modifications, in which the technical sense of the Lord’s anointed one becomes more dominant (cf. Psalms of Solomon 17-18). The hope of the coming Messiah took many different forms, but the predominant one was the idea of the Davidic king, who would establish an earthly kingdom for the people of Israel and would banish Israel’s enemies. The Messiah was to be a political agent, but with a religious bias. The concept was a curious mixture of nationalistic and spiritual hopes…

In the Apocalypses of Ezra and Baruch, both which were contemporary with the emerging church, the term occurs, and as in the intertestamental period seems to be linked with the idea of the Davidic son, specifically so in 4 Ezra 12:32-34.40 In the Targums there a frequent technical use of the word mesia, although in view of the difficulty of dating, the value of this evidence is doubtful.

From this brief survey of the background, it becomes clear that whereas the idea of a coming Messiah was widespread among the Jews, the origin and character of the coming Messiah was not clearly understood. Different groups tended to visualize a Messiah who would be conducive to their own tenets – priestly groups like Qumran in priestly terms, nationalist groups in political terms. In determining the approach of Jesus to the term ‘Messiah’ we must bear in mind that he would be concerned with the most popular understanding of the term and there is little doubt that popular opinion leaned heavily towards hope of a coming political leader who would deliver the Jewish people from the oppressive Roman yoke. When seen against this prevalent notion, it is understandable why Jesus avoided the use of the term. 4

We can see why Jesus was reticent about employing the term in public, because of the possibilities of misunderstanding. His kingdom was not of an earthly, political character, and he rejected the invitation to become a monarch of this nature, as can be inferred both from His rejection of Satan’s temptation to become the global ruler on the Devil’s terms, Matthew 4:8-10, and of the attempt of some Jews to install Him as their King, John 6:15. It is for this reason that He commanded His disciples to be silent about His Messianic identity, Matthew 16:20. A further problem was the means by which He would commence His Messianic reign – namely, His death. Immediately after the Petrine confession of faith in Jesus as Messiah in Matthew 16:16, Jesus begins to inform His disciples about His coming death, something they find it hard to understand. The Jews also did not understand, believing that the Messiah ‘remained forever’, John 12:34. This misunderstanding remained until after Jesus’ resurrection, when He informed the disciples about the necessity of His first enduring death as the means to obtaining His reign, Luke 24:26, and their misconceptions were not fully removed until after they received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and then they realised how it was only after His death, resurrection and ascension that He could begin His cosmic reign.

An essential aspect of Messianic identity is Davidic ancestry. In 2 Samuel 7:12-14, we encounter the promise to David that his offspring will be king – ‘I will establish your offspring after you… 13 …I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son…’ Psalm 72:17 celebrates the eternal, universal reign of the Davidic King: ‘His name shall endure for ever; His name shall continue as long as the sun: All nations shall be blessed in him; And men shall call him blessed’. It is significant, as we shall see, that another, closely-related title of Jesus is ‘Son of David’. This in itself proves the so-called Gospel of Barnabas to be fraudulent, since the forgery claims that Muhammad, rather than Jesus, is the Messiah, leaving aside the fact that the Qur’an appends this title only to Jesus, it is obvious that Muhammad, not being a descendant of David, could not claim this prerogative.

2 Samuel 7:14 states that the son of David would also be the son of God, reiterated in Psalm 2:7, which Acts 13:33 states is fulfilled in the Resurrection. We should note that the Septuagint rendering of 2 Samuel 7:12 says ‘anastasw to sperma mou meta se [anastaso to sperma mou meta se] which may be translated ‘I will resurrect your offspring after you…’ 5 Most importantly, it is clear that the throne of David is simultaneously the throne of the Lord God – 1 Chronicles 29:23 – ‘Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king…’ [Significantly, the Kingdom is stated to be both God’s and Christ’s – Ephesians. 5:5]. It is clear that the aspect of divine sonship involved here is synonymous with kingship – when the son of David mounted the throne, then he became the son of God in this sense. As the Heir of David the King, he was the Heir of God, but he was only inaugurated as such and entered into the full exercise of his power when he ascended the throne. This necessitated His death and resurrection, and thus His Ascension into heaven. In this context, we should note the import of Matthew 16:16 and John 20:31, where the titular use of ‘Christ’ is obviously synonymous with ‘Son of God’.

This causes problems for Muslims, since the very title ‘Son of God’ is anathema to them. Yet it can be seen from the Old Testament references the inter-relation of the two terms is not a Christian invention, still less a ‘Pauline’ or Nicene innovation. If Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, then He simultaneously claimed to be the Son of God. All of this is particularly significant since the Qur’an nowhere explains the meaning of Al-Masih. The Arabic, like the Hebrew, means ‘anointed’, but we are never told as what. We can only learn this from the Christian Scriptures. This in itself demonstrates the dependence of the Qur’an upon the Bible. Of course, this immediately raises problems for Muslims, since we can see that the Biblical definition of a Messiah is at variance with important aspects of Islamic Christology.

R. H. Fuller observes some important aspects of the Messianic hope of the Old Testament. In regard to Isaiah 7:10-16, he suggests that the term ‘Immanuel’, which of course is used of Jesus in Matthew 1:23, ‘refers to an ideal king of the Davidic line.’ 6 He ‘will reign as the true embodiment of God’s presence with his people…’ 7 We can see how this can be linked with Jesus’ identification with the Temple, the traditional place of divine indwelling, now superseded in His person – John 1:14; 2:19 (Mark 14:58); Colossians 2:9. Jesus, being the ultimate Davidic King, eternally reigns, and perpetually brings the presence of God among His people. This, of course, points to the incarnation. Significantly, the Davidic King in Isaiah 9:6-7 is portrayed as an eternal monarch, and he is explicitly termed ‘Mighty God’:

6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

These texts are rich with implications for Messianic identity, pointing to a figure who is not simply human, even if he is the scion of David. This is especially true of the title ‘Mighty God’, used of YHWH in Isaiah 10:21 and Jeremiah 32:18. The fact that this divine title is ascribed to the ultimate Davidic King – the Messiah – is a clue to the fact that the Messiah would be simultaneously divine-human. Again, this causes problems for Muslims in that this portrayal is not the result of Christian ‘innovation’, but rather is present in the Old Testament. The learned Old Testament scholar Alec Motyer comments on the passage and its meaning:

Wonderful Counsellor is (lit.) ‘wonder-counsellor’ and ‘wonder’ … means something like ‘supernatural’. The two possibilities are either ‘a supernatural counsellor’ or ‘one giving supernatural counsel’… The decisions of a king make or break a kingdom and a kingdom designed to be everlasting demands a wisdom like that of the everlasting God. In this case, like God because he is God, the Mighty God (‘el gibbor), the title given to the Lord himself in 10:21<22>. Plainly, Isaiah means us to take seriously the ‘el component of this name as of Immanuel… Mighty (gibbor, ‘warrior’) caps the military references in verses 3-5.

God has come to birth, bringing with him the qualities which guarantee his people’s preservation (wisdom) and liberation (warrior strength). Everlasting Father and Prince of Peace describe the conditions the King’s birth will bring. Father is not current in the Old Testament as a title of the kings. Used of the Lord, it points to his concern for the helpless (Ps. 68:5<6>), care or discipline of his people (Ps. 103:13; Pr. 3:12; Is. 63:16; 64:8<7>) and their loyal, reverential response to him (Je. 3:4, 19; Mal. 1:6). For similar ideas used regarding the Davidic King see Psalm 72:4, 12-14; Isaiah 11:4. Probably the leading idea in the name Father here is that his rule follows the pattern of divine fatherhood. As eternal/of eternity’, he receives such an epithet [as] could, of course, be applied to Yahweh alone’… When the people asked for a king they had in mind that a continuing institution would provide them with a security greater and more reassuring than the episodic rule of the judges. But total security requires more even than this stop-go rule and is achieved in a king who reigns eternally… The focal point of the kingdom is David’s throne… In the light of this, we understand that ‘son’ in verse 6 must mean ‘son of David’. Here is the Old Testament Messianic enigma: how can a veritable son of David be Mighty God and ‘Father of eternity’? This was precisely the tension in Old Testament truth which the Lord Jesus tried to make the blinkered Pharisees face in Matthew 22:41-46. 8

In Matthew 22:42ff, Jesus presents a question to the Jews about the Messiah which points to eternal, divine origins of the Messianic Son of David:

42 What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is he? They said to him, The son of David.

43 He said to them, Then why did David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying,

44 The LORD said to my Lord, Sit on my right hand, till I put your enemies under your feet? (Psalm 110:1)

45 If David then called him Lord, how is he his son?

As R. T. France explains, ‘the point of the pericope is not that Jesus is not Son of David, but that he is more than Son of David.’ 9 The implications are that Jesus is the divine Messiah. Another indication of the divine nature of the Messiah is seen in Psalm 44:7f where the Davidic King is addressed as ‘God’ by God; this text is applied in the Epistle to the Hebrews 1:8f to Jesus. He is the divine Davidic King. This is also indicated by a point we noted previously that Guthrie observed about the Messianic Age – that ‘the agent for inaugurating the coming age was God himself.’ The nature of God is revealed in His acts. There is a relationship between the functional and ontological aspects of deity – what God does reveals who He is. When God brought destructive miracles upon the Egyptians, they were revelations to both the Egyptians and the Israelites as to the person and character of God – e.g. Exodus 6:7, 7:5, 8:22. The miracles of Jesus are called signs – John 20:30. They demonstrate His unity with the Father – John 14:9ff. In Acts 7 Stephen reviews the historical acts of God to demonstrate that Jesus is the Messiah. It follows from this that if Jesus causes the arrival of the Messianic Age, then He is God Himself. Again, the inference we draw is that the Messiah is divine.

2. Son of David

This title is, of course, closely related to the term ‘Messiah’ such as to be virtually a synonym. The linkage of the term ‘Messiah’ with the Davidic line has its foundation in divine promise to David conveyed through the prophet Nathan in 2 Samuel 7:16, and is witnessed in the canonical prophets (Jeremiah 30:9, Ezekiel 34:23f, 37:24, Hosea 3:5, etc.). It is also found in the intertestamental literature of Judaism (Ecclesiasticus 47:11, 22; 1 Maccabees 2:57; Psalms of Solomon 17:21 – ‘Behold O LORD, and raise up to them their king, the son of David… their king the Anointed [i.e. Messiah] of the LORD), in the Qumran literature and in 4 Esdras 12:32ff in the first century AD. The term does not merely imply descent from David, but rather that Jesus is His Heir – i.e. King-Messiah – Matthew 20:30-31. It indicates that He was the One to restore the Davidic State – Amos 9:11, looking back to 2 Samuel 7. This restoration was not just ‘political’, it was spiritual bringing the people to a holy relationship with God. This Jesus effects by the Cross and the gift of the Holy Spirit in regeneration.

Jesus accepted this title when others offered it, but did not employ it Himself because of likely misconceptions, as we observed in our examination of the term ‘Messiah’. The True Israel – those with faith in Jesus – acclaim Him as ‘Son of David’ – Matthew 21:9, 15, the gospel presenting the Davidic Kingdom as embodied in Christ – cf. Mark 11:10. Matthew points out that Jesus was born of the house of David, 1:20, in Bethlehem, 2:1ff. What is especially interesting is that the term is associated with ‘healing power, either requested ([Matthew] 9:27; 15:22; 20:30f) or experienced (12:22f; 21:14f)… Mercy and healing are apparently understood to be the proper activities of the son of David…’ 10

This conception of the miracle-working Son of David points back to the expectation of God effecting cosmological wonders, especially the granting of light to those in darkness, and similarly sight to the blind – Isaiah 9:lff, 29:18, 35:5, 42:7, 16, 43:8, 61:1ff. This also includes spiritual darkness; in Matthew 12:22ff, Jesus exorcises a demon, leading to the multitudes asking ‘can this be the Son of David’, which is followed by Jesus’ assertion that His exorcism has made the Kingdom of God immediate, v28, indicating that as Son of David, He causes the Kingdom to come in. 11 This can be specifically linked to Messianic identity; in Matthew 11:2ff, we read of the ‘deeds of the Christ’:

2 Now when John heard in the prison the works of the Christ, he sent word by his disciples 3 and said to him, Are you the Expected One, or do we look for someone else? 4 And Jesus answered and said to them, Go and tell John the things which you hear and see: 5 the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have the good news preached to them.

The miraculous activity and preaching of the divine ‘good news’ reflects the passages in Isaiah we have already noted.

We also infer from Luke 1:68ff that the heir of David is the agent of salvation and redemption (cf. Acts 13:22ff). This Davidic heir causes the people to serve God in holiness and righteousness. The restoration of the Davidic State required – and effected – an ethical quality in the lives of its subjects – Isaiah 9:7; Jeremiah 23:5; 33:17- c.f. Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8; Revelation 5:5; 22:16. This in itself points to the spirituality of the Kingdom Jesus brought. Hence, when Jesus enters Jerusalem, recognised as Son of David, Matthew 21:9, He immediately cleanses the Temple, indicating the holy nature of His Reign. What is especially noteworthy is the linkage of the holy reign with miraculous activity. After Jesus cleanses the Temple, the blind and lame come to Him there for healing, v14. It can be seen that the Son of David simultaneously effects holiness and miracles. By doing so, He establishes the Kingdom of God.

3. Son of God

Three categories of person are given this title in the Old Testament: angels, e.g. Job 38:7, but this is always in the plural and played no part in the formation of Christology – Hebrews 1:5ff. The two others are:

a) Israel

Grogan points out that ‘In Exodus 4:22f. God appeals to Pharaoh as one father to another.’ 12 Israel was YHWH’s firstborn son – cf. Isaiah 1:2; 30:1; Hosea 11:1. The nature of this sonship is adoptive and its basis is election of purpose (i.e. redemptive mission – to be a blessing to the world – cf. Genesis 28:14; Exodus 19:6) expressed in Covenant relationship, and requiring obedience as its terms. Hence when Israel departed from terms of Covenant, the filial relationship with YHWH was cancelled – Hosea 1:9, The essence of sonship was obedience – Exodus 4:23 – the words of God through Moses to Pharaoh were ‘Let my son go, that he may serve me‘; Israel’s response to the divine revelation of the law was ‘All that the LORD has spoken will we do, and be obedient’, 24:7. Chesed, covenant-love, was not the experience of the infidel – Hosea 1:6. Cullmann writes: ‘In all these texts the title “Son of God” expresses both the idea that God has chosen this people for a special mission, and that this his people owes him absolute obedience.’ 13

This theme of obedient sonship is seen in the New Testament, in the life of Jesus. He is the Elect, i.e. Israel, because He is the Beloved Son – ‘o agaphtov ho agapetos – Mark 1:11, which is generally viewed as reflecting Isaiah 42:1 (and Psalm 2:7), and as such, is contrasted in the parable of the Wicked Tenants with infidel Israel of His day – 12:1-11, especially v6. Note especially the rejection of old Israel by God for killing His true Son – v9. As a result, as the Renowned Biblical scholar Alan Richardson observed, ‘The old Israel is rejected and is no longer God’s beloved “son”; the final act of disobedience is the killing of him of whom it might surely have been said, “They will reverence my son” (Mark 12:6).’ 14

Like Israel, the Son comes ‘out of Egypt’ to perform His mission and establish a new aspect of the eternal covenant, Hosea 11:1/Matthew 2:13-15. To quote Richardson again, ‘As Israel of old, the “son” whom God called out of Egypt, was baptized in the Red Sea and tempted in the Wilderness, so also God’s Son the Messiah is baptized and tempted; Matthew’s quotation of Hos. 11 (Matt, 2:15) contains profound theological truth…’ 15 Connected with this is the ‘love’ theme in the Gospel of John – 3:35 – ‘The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand.’ The son of Abraham was described as agaphtov – Genesis 22:2, 12 LXX. The ultimate Son of Abraham is greater – He is the beloved of God Himself. Similarly, the son of Abraham was meant to be sacrificed, only to be replaced by a lamb; Jesus, the unique, beloved Son of God, is the Lamb of God who gives His life to remove the sin of the world – John 1:29, 36. Further, the very phrase employed in John 1:29 echoes the words of Isaiah 40:9 – ‘Behold your God’.

Another parallel is that Israel alone possessed the knowledge of YHWH, by virtue of its election, Amos 3:2 – ‘You only have I known of all the families of the earth…’ Likewise, in the ‘bolt from Johannine blue’ Matthew 11:27/Luke 10:22 Jesus is described as possessing the unique knowledge of the Father – ‘no-one knows the Father except the Son’. The true knowledge of God is possessed only by the obedient Son. This demonstrates that Jesus is the ultimate Israel.

The setting of the Temptation by Satan in the desert, Matthew 4:1ff, is in the nature of fulfilment of prophecy. Jesus endures the same temptations as Israel faced whilst in the desert with Moses, but whereas Old Testament Israel miserably failed the test, Jesus passes with flying colours. Deuteronomy 8:2ff, looking back to Exodus 16:2-3, recalls how God tested Old Israel with hunger, a test, like the others, which would reveal whether Israel knew itself to be, and thus whether in truth it was the People of God. By its moaning and desiring to return to Egypt, Israel displayed itself devoid of faith and thus fails. Jesus, on the other hand, although hungry, does not respond to Satan, but quotes Deuteronomy 8:3 to display that His is the true Son of God, unlike the failed old ‘son’.

The Temple pinnacle temptation was to put God to the test. Faith in God does not require props, or constant dynamic displays. By threatening to stone Moses at Massah, Israel drew from the LORD the act that proved them to be His people – Exodus 17:1-7, so Satan tempts Jesus to seek outward evidence that He is God’s Son by forcing the hand of the LORD, but Jesus refuses, quoting Deuteronomy 6:16. The third temptation reflects the collapse into total lack of faith that characterised Israel in Exodus 34 when Moses was up the mountain. Israel committed idolatry. Deuteronomy 6:13-14 forbids the worship of other gods, and Jesus quotes this in passing the test here. The significance of this is that Israel was to secure its national existence by no compromises with the heathen, especially their gods. They were not to be a nation like any other, but rather to be a holy nation. Jesus refuses to the invitation to become a ruler like any other through the means Satan offers – obeisance to him, compromise with the forces controlling the world.

The consequence of all this is that ‘…Israel itself, the people of God, is seen as finding its “fulfilment” both in Jesus himself and in the community which is to result from his ministry.’ 16 Jesus is the ultimate Son of God – the fulfilment of Israel. This is a case of typological correspondence – Jesus is ‘something greater’ – than David, Matthew 12:3-4, so He is the ultimate Davidic King; greater than the prophet Jonah or the wisest of kings, Solomon, 12:41-42; greater than the temple, v6. Jesus is the climactic manifestation of that which they imperfectly represented. 17

(b) Davidic King

The King, of Davidic lineage, is termed Son of God in an adoptive sense – 2 Samuel 7:14; Psalm 2:7; 89; 27f. Jesus is such, John 1:49, but as He impresses upon Nathanael, He is more – He is supernatural and pre-existent, v51 – ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, you shall see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.’ This reflects Genesis 28:12, of which a tradition interpreted the Hebrew as referring not to the ladder – ‘on it’, but ‘on him’, which is linguistically possible. The Midrash Bereshith Rabbah 68:18 reflects this tradition. The idea is that the ascending and descending angels symbolised the connection of the earthly Jacob with the heavenly image of the true Israel – remembering that Jacob’s name was later changed to ‘Israel’. The noted Biblical scholar Barnabas Lindars writes about this verse:

The meaning of 1.51 in its context must be deduced from the remaining words about the angels. There is widespread agreement today that John has composed the saying in such a way as to recall Jacob’s dream (Gen. 28.12), ‘And he dreamed that there was a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it’.It is also recognized that the movement of the angels ‘upon the Son of Man’ has a parallel in rabbinic exegesis, in which ‘on it’ (the ladder) is taken to mean ‘on him’ (Jacob). This is possible in the Hebrew, but not in the Greek. In the rabbinic exegesis the angels are familiar with the heavenly archetype of the righteous man, and are now delighted to discover the earthly reality in Jacob. It may be conjectured that the ‘greater things (John 1.50) which Jesus’ audience will see are something that belongs to a similar line of exegesis. They will see an act in which the Son of Man on earth reflects a heavenly reality. There is a sense in which this is true of all the acts of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. But it is especially true of the passion, in which death and glorification are two sides of a single reality. 18

In John 1:51, Jesus describes Himself as ‘the Son of Man’, which we will see describes a heavenly being. Jesus thus corrects or improves Nathanael’s perception – indeed Jesus is the royal Messiah, the Son of God in this sense, but He is something more – He is a heavenly being. Likewise, He corrects Nicodemus’ perception of Him as merely a teacher sent from God, John 3:2 – rather, He is the one who was actually of divine generation, being ‘born above’, John 3:3, who descended from heaven, 3:13, indicating that He is not just a human being.

(c) Messiah

Scholars have debated whether the Messiah was so-termed, but the context of 2 Samuel 7:14, together with the many linkages of ‘Son’ and ‘Christ’ would seem to underline this. The New Testament scholar Verseput notes that ‘the messianic reference of 2 Sam 7.14 – “he shall be my son” – was not entirely overlooked by first century Judaism. The Qumran text of 4QFlor 1.10 explicitly applies this promise to the eschatological “scion of David”, while 1QSa 2.11 may allude to Ps 2.7 in regard to the begetting of the Messiah.’ 19 Various texts such as Matthew 16:16; 26:63f; Luke 4:41; Acts 9:20,22; the expression of the High Priest in Matthew 26:63 indicates that contemporary Judaism identified the Messiah as such, in a moral-religious sense. Christ’s resurrection appoints Him, as the Son of God with power – Romans 1:4. It vindicates His claims and ministry. Moo notes an important consideration of this verse:

In speaking this way, Paul and the other NT authors do not mean to suggest that Jesus only becomes the Son at the time of His resurrection. In this passage, we must remember that the Son is the subject of the entire statement in vv. 3-4: It is the Son who is ‘appointed’ Son. The tautologous nature of this statement reveals that being appointed Son has to do not with a change in essence – as if a man or human Messiah becomes Son of God for the first time – but with a change in status or function. 20

That to which Moo is referring is the structure of Romans 1:1-4, which testifies to the simultaneous deity and humanity of Jesus, that Jesus was in His divine nature eternally begotten by the Father, and in human nature, of the seed of David:

1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 which he promised before through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead; Jesus Christ our Lord…

To these aspects we add two categories of the term ‘Son of God’ that are unique to Jesus:

(i) Nativistic sonship

Matthew 1:18-24; Luke 1:35; John 1:13 – paternity by God through the creative act of the Spirit in Mary’s womb. What the virgin birth of Jesus in this regard does is to demonstrate His supernatural origins, cf. John 3:3. Jesus had no human father – His paternity was of a higher order.

(ii) Trinitarian sonship

Jesus is the Son of God because He is the Second Person of the Trinity – He is God; this is the primary meaning of the term as used by Jesus and New Testament writers. Significantly, at the Baptism, Jesus is hailed as the beloved Son of God by the heavenly voice (bat-qol). The baptism of Jesus is the climax of the ministry of John the Baptist, and it is significant how the ministry of the latter is described in Matthew 3:3 – ‘For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet, saying, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the LORD, make His paths straight.”‘ The quote from Isaiah 40:3 is unambiguously directed towards YHWH; yet here, John Baptist applies it to Jesus. Hence when the bat-qol describes Jesus as the beloved Son of God, the syntax and the theme of John presaging the ministry of Jesus indicates that the reference is not simply to concepts of royal Messiahship; something greater is contemplated. Jesus possesses a unique filial relationship to God.

There are several places where the absolute term The Son – rather than the technical phrase ‘Son of God’ – is employed with respect to Jesus. Whilst Israel and the reigning Davidic King could be described as the ‘Son of God’, the absolute term is unusual, and the contexts in which it is employed do not allow for the metaphorical usage associated with either the nation or the monarchy. We have previously noted that Matthew 11:27/Luke 10:22, ‘All things have been delivered to me by my Father: and no one knows the Son, except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal him.’ The use of absolute terms ‘the Father’ and ‘the Son’ points to an intimate relationship that goes beyond any adoptive sense. What is especially interesting is the reciprocal nature of the intimate knowledge Father and Son possess of each other. It would be expected that God the Father would have intimate knowledge of Jesus as He would of any individual.

However, two bold, surprising claims are made here; firstly, that Jesus, as the Son, possesses a corresponding knowledge of God, this in itself indicating that Jesus is not just human, since God is incomprehensible, with one clause in the verse agrees. Secondly, the text asserts that just as the Father is incomprehensible, so is the Son. So much so, that only the Father possesses such knowledge. This in itself points to the absolute term ‘the Son’ as indicating deity. Ladd writes:

In the process of revelation, the Son fills an indispensable role. ‘All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him’ (11:27). ‘All things’ refers to ‘these things’ in verse 25, namely, to the entire content of the divine revelation. God, the Lord of heaven and earth, has imparted to the Son the exercise of authority in revelation; it involves the act of entrusting the truth to Christ for communication to others. The ground of this impartation is Jesus’ sonship; it is because God is his Father (v.25) that God has thus commissioned his Son. Because Jesus is the Son of God, he is able to receive all things from his Father that he may reveal them to others. The messianic mission of revelation thus rests upon the antecedent sonship.

What is involved in this relationship is made clear in verse 27: ‘No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son.’ Something more is involved in this knowledge of God than a mere filial consciousness. Jesus knows the Father in the same way that the Father knows the Son. There exists between the Father and the Son an exclusive and mutual knowledge. God possesses a direct and immediate knowledge of the Son because he is the Father. It is very clear that this knowledge possessed by the Father is not an acquired knowledge based on experience, but a direct, intuitive and immediate knowledge. It is grounded in the fact that God is the Father of Jesus. In the same sense Jesus knows the Father. His knowledge of the Father is thus direct, intuitive and immediate, and is grounded upon the fact that he is the Son. Thus both the Father-Son relationship and the mutual knowledge between the Father and Son are truly unique and stand apart from all human relationships and human knowledge. Christ as the Son possesses the same innate, exclusive knowledge of God that God as the Father possesses of him.

Because Jesus is the Son and possesses this unique knowledge, God has granted to him the messianic mission of imparting to men a mediated knowledge of God. Man may enter into a knowledge of God only through revelation by the Son. As the Father exercises an absolute sovereignty in revealing the Son, so the Son exercises an equally absolute sovereignty in revealing the Father; he reveals him to whom he chooses. This derived knowledge of God, which may be imparted to men by revelation, is similar but not identical with the knowledge that Jesus has of the Father. The Son’s knowledge of the Father is the same direct, intuitive knowledge that the Father possesses of the Son. It is therefore on the level of divine knowledge. The knowledge that men gain of the Father is a mediated knowledge imparted by revelation through the Son. The knowledge of the Father that Jesus possesses is thus quite unique; and his sonship, standing on the same level, is equally unique. It is a derived knowledge of God that is imparted to men, even as the sonship that men experience through Jesus the Son is a relationship mediated through the Son.

It is clear from this passage that sonship and messiahship are not the same; sonship precedes messiahship and is in fact the ground for the messianic mission. Furthermore, sonship involves something more than a filial consciousness; it involves a unique and exclusive relationship between God and Jesus. 21

France echoes this observation, stating that ‘… “the Son” is seen to be in a unique relationship with God which is his by virtue of who he is, in contrast with the knowledge of the Father which others may indeed come to share, but only as a result of his mediation.’ 22 Jesus, as the Son, is unique. This must be emphasised, since whilst it is true that previous kings of Israel (and Israel as a nation) could claim metaphorical or adoptive divine sonship, Jesus is asserting something special – that He is uniquely the Son, that He possesses a unique knowledge of the Father, and that His own nature is unique such that only the Father knows Him.

Jesus also distinguishes Himself in His address to the Father. He uses the term ‘my Father’ distinctly; He calls God ‘My Father’, Matthew. 11:27; Luke 2:49; and ‘your Father’, Matthew. 5.16, 45; Luke 12:30; but never ‘our Father’, save as giving a prayer-form to disciples. He speaks in John 20:17 of ‘ my Father’ and ‘your Father’. The Jews recognised He claimed equality with God by the title – John 5:18. Again, the emphasis is on uniqueness. It has been noted that Jesus normally referred to God as ‘abba. This means ‘father’, and it has been claimed that it may also denote ‘daddy’, although this is now challenged. Although not unprecedented in Judaism, it not common for Jews to regularly address the Almighty in this intimate way, yet it was precisely by this form that Jesus generally spoke to God. The learned Biblical scholar James Dunn has observed ‘…Jesus regular approach to God as “Abba” appears to be unusual for his day.’ 23 Richardson comments with regard to Mark 14:36, ‘The use of ‘abba makes it difficult to deny that Jesus thought of himself as uniquely God’s Son, or to suppose that the church derived the idea of his Sonship from any other source than Jesus himself.’ 24

Another indication of the special character of the absolute term is found with relation to the end of the world. The date of the last day, Matthew 24:36/Mark 13:32, is known by ‘not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father’. Ladd observes, ‘The force of this saying is found in the fact that such things ought to be known to angels and to the Son as well as the Father. The point is that Jesus classes himself with the Father and the angels – all partaking normally of supernatural knowledge. At this point, contrary to expectations, the Son is ignorant.’ 25 Further, the use of the absolute term in the context of heavenly beings is significant, likewise a unique character the divine sonship of Jesus that is not comparable to the adoptive sonship of the Old Testament Davidic Kings.

We earlier noted the parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mark 12:1-6). The vineyard clearly represents the Land, the lord thereof is God, and the tenants are Israel – Leviticus 25:23 ‘…the land is mine: for you are aliens and my tenants’, cf. Isaiah 5:1-7. The servants sent by the lord of the vineyard are clearly the prophets, as Dunn recognises. 26 What is important in this context is that after the servants, the lord of the vineyard sends his ‘beloved son’ (‘uion agaphton) – the same term used at the Baptism and the Transfiguration in respect to Jesus. Again, the term ‘my son’ (‘uion mou) is employed in the Marcan text, v6. It would seem, therefore, that Jesus is distinguished from previous servants of God not simply by being the last or the greatest, but by being God’s Son. Ladd comments:

In the parable of the wicked husbandman (Mk. 12:1-12), sonship is again differentiated from messiahship and provides the antecedent ground of the messianic mission, After the visit of the several servants had proven fruitless, the landowner sent his son to receive the inheritance. It is because he was the son that the owner expects this last mission to be successful, and his sonship is quite independent of and anterior to his mission. It is because he is the son that he becomes the heir of the vineyard and is sent to enter into his inheritance. 27

A clear indication of the deity of the Son and the Trinity is found in the use of the absolute term in Matthew 28:19, where baptism is enjoined in the name (note the singular) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Obviously the Father is divine, and it is clear from Matthew 1:18; 1:20; 3:11; 12:32 that the same is true of the Holy Spirit. The fact that the absolute term ‘Son’ is used in concert with ascriptions of the Deity. This becomes even more apparent in the Gospel of John. The use of the absolute term is found on the lips of Jesus several times there as well. 28 A clear indication of deity is found in John 5:23 ‘that all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent him.’ The way one honours the Father is to worship Him – John 4:21ff. Hence, the same honour should be given to the Son – i.e. He should be worshipped, which means He must be God.

In John 5:21we read, unsurprisingly, that the Father ‘raises the dead’. What is arresting is that this statement is made in the context of analogy – ‘For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom he will.’ That is, the Son possesses what is normally seen as a divine prerogative – the action of resurrection, including the choice of whom to raise from the dead. The object of faith and obedience is not said to be first the Father, but the Son – 3:36 ‘The one who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.’ It is faith in the Son that leads to the resurrection of the righteous – 6:40 ‘For this is the will of my Father, that every one beholding the Son, and believing on him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.’

Furthermore, it is emphasised that the divine sonship of Jesus is unique – John 3:16 ton ‘uion ton monogenh – monogeneshas the sense of ‘unique’. William Walker observes ‘It is now generally agreed that monogenhv should be translated as “only” rather than “only-begotten”… monogenhv, as applied to Jesus, should be translated as “only one of its kind” or “unique”…’ 29Jesus is not just any son of God – He is the unique Son. As the New Testament scholar Walter Kümmel writes, ‘Thus the relationship of Father and Son appears to be that of complete equality, so that the Son stands beside God as a divine being and cannot actually be distinguished from God.’ 30 Kümmel also comments with respect to 8:38a (‘I speak the things that I have seen with my Father’), that ‘the Son’s present seeing and hearing has its ground in the Son’s pre-existent being with the Father.‘ 31

Hence, when the New Testament epistles take up this title, as in Romans 1:3-4; Galatians 4:4 (which indicates pre-existence); Colossians 1:3; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; Hebrews 1:2, 5, 8; 3:6, such usage is not a Pauline innovation, but rather reflects what Jesus Himself asserted – that He was the unique eternal Son of God. Ultimately, only God Himself – in the person of the Son, could effect the work of redemption.

4. Son of Man

This was the favoured self-expression of Jesus – used over eighty times by Him, and apart from only two occasions, by Him alone. The term is frequently misunderstood as an ascription of humanity. In fact, the term indicates that Jesus is a heavenly being. The existence of the Similitudes of Enoch, a Jewish apocalypse, does seem to indicate that there was a tradition of what Ladd describes as ‘a messianic title of a pre-existent heavenly figure who descends to earth…’ 32 The text of the Similitudes (62:7) presents the ‘Most High’ (i.e. God) as having ‘preserved him [i.e. the Son of Man] in the presence of his might…’He existed prior to creation, 48:2f. He is also described in 48:10; 52:4 as the ‘anointed one (Messiah) of the Lord of spirits’. The Son of Man later sits on his ‘throne of glory’, 62:5. The same chapter, v11, reveals his role in judgment.

A later Jewish work, 4 Esdras (Apocalypse of Ezra), displays a Son of Man (Syriac barnasa) identified with the Messiah (7:78, 29; 12:32), an apocalyptic Redeemer, who rides upon the clouds. Furthermore, God speaks of him as ‘my Son’, 13:32, 37, 52. He is described in 13:26 as the one ‘whom the Most High has been keeping for many ages, who will himself deliver his creation’. In 7:28-29, God refers to ‘my son the Messiah’, who will die. In 12:32-34 we read of ‘the Messiah whom the Most High has kept until the end of days, who will arise from the posterity of David, and will come and speak to them; he will denounce them for their ungodliness and for their wickedness, and will cast up before them their contemptuous dealings. For first he will set them living before his judgment seat, and when he has reproved them, then he will destroy them. But he will deliver in mercy the remnant of my people, those who have been saved…’ These works give an indication that the New Testament usage of the term was not innovative, nor was the connection between the Messiah and the Son of Man, nor the idea that this figure was also God’s Son.

(a) Origins of the Term

1. Psalm 8:4 – the parallelism would suggest that Son of Man simply means ‘man’. With this would agree the natural rendering of the Aramaic term bar nasha ‘a man’, ‘Man’, ‘the son of the man’. The psalm is used in Christological fashion in Hebrews 2. That this is not the meaning of the term as used by Jesus can be illustrated from an examination of Luke 9:58 – ‘And Jesus said to him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the heaven have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head.’ The great Biblical scholar T. W. Manson observed ‘…the simple meaning “man” is ruled out, since men in general have somewhere to lay their heads: the homeless man is the exception.’ 33

2. Ezekiel 37:3 – used vocatively ninety times in Ezekiel. Cf. similar usage in Daniel 8:17. In this case it would seem to indicate ‘Prophet’. Significantly, it is used of two men who had heavenly visions – Daniel and Ezekiel.

3. Psalm 80:17 – the context suggests that the term is equivalent to ‘Israel’. In this respect many scholars have seen equivalence between Son of Man and the Remnant of Israel, as we shall see. The Targum (Aramaic paraphrase) on this identifies the Son of Man as ‘King Messiah’.

4. Daniel 7:13, 14ff – a heavenly, supernatural being who comes to God to receive power and authority over all humanity. The contrast is with the beasts, representing the pagan nations, whilst the Son of Man represents, though is not identified with the Saints of the Most High – i.e. faithful Israelites. F. F. Bruce writes ‘…for Daniel the “one like a son of man” is not the symbolical personification of the saints but their heavenly representative.’ 34 In a sense, therefore, the Son of Man is the heavenly Israel – remembering the Midrash (rabbinic commentary) Bereshith Rabbah we observed earlier. It is clear that this is the usage employed by Jesus, so that this is the meaning intended by Him – e.g. Matthew 26:63-64; Mark 14:61-62; Luke 22:67-70 – as in Daniel 7, the Son of Man comes on the clouds. Matthew 28:18ff also reflects this – Jesus has been given cosmic authority. Stephen saw the Son of Man in heaven, at God’s right hand, i.e. the place of authority – Acts 7:56.

(b) Significance of the Term

(i) It stressed the heavenly origins and nature of Jesus – John 3:13-14. Jesus descended from heaven. There is no indication in the New Testament that Jesus is an angelic figure – in fact this is specifically rejected in Hebrews 1:4-7, 13. However, when we consider other aspects of the Gospel of John, especially Jesus’ clear affirmation of deity in 8:58, and the assertion of the Evangelist under divine inspiration in 1:1 of the deity of Jesus, we need have no doubt that when Jesus employed the term ‘Son of Man’, He was asserting His heavenly nature – i.e. that He was God.

To this we may add Luke 15:3-7; 19:10, which present the Son of Man as Shepherd of Israel – cf. Ezekiel 34:16; the Son of Man separates the Sheep from the Goats – and gives the kingdom to the saints – Matthew 25:31f, 34 – cf. Ezekiel 34:17, (and v13, 25). It is clear therefore, that far from indicating His humanity, the term implied His deity.

(ii) The term was His public substitute for Messiah – Mark 8:29, 31; John 12 v34; unlike the latter, the title ‘Son of Man’ possessed no ready-made Jewish ideas of nationalist aggression. It also allowed Jesus to indicate that He was the heavenly Messiah – E. J. Young in his commentary on ‘Daniel’ points out that ‘Among the Jews the Messiah came to be known as anani “Cloudy One” or bar nivli “Son of a Cloud.”‘ 35 Note also the connection of clouds with deity – Isaiah 19:1; Psalm 104:3. The noted Jewish scholar of early Judaism, Geza Vermes, observes the following points about the Messianic connotations of the Danielic figure in Jewish circles:

In the earliest comment available, that of Rabbi Akiba (died in AD 135), the mention of ‘thrones ‘in Daniel 7:9 is said to indicate that there will be two of them, one occupied by God, the other by ‘David’, the royal Messiah… A commentary on Genesis identifies the King Messiah as Anani, the last scion of the family of David mentioned in 1 Chronicles 3:24, by interpreting his name from Daniel 7:13, Anani = ‘clouds’ (‘anane): i.e. Cloud-Man. The same explanation is incorporated into the Targum of 1 Chronicles 3: 24:

Anani is the King Messiah who is to be revealed.

The second tour de force is that of the Babylonian Rabbi Nahman bar Jacob of the early fourth century AD, who obtained the obscure Messianic title, bar niphle (‘son of the Fallen One’ in Aramaic = the ‘son of David’) from Amos’s allusion to the raising up of the fallen tent of David. His Galilean interlocutor, Rabbi Isaac the Smith, was not impressed, no doubt because for him niphle was not an Aramaic but a Greek word meaning ‘cloud’ (nephele). It is in fact likely that in Galilee, where Jews were to some degree Hellenized, Daniel 7:13 was the source of the half-Aramaic, half-Greek Messianic title, bar nephele, ‘son of the cloud’. 36

In Mark 14:62 the High Priest questions Jesus ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ Jesus replies ‘I am: and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.’ Bruce writes about this statement:

It is as though Jesus meant ‘If “Christ” (“Messiah”) is the term which you insist on using, then I have no option but to say “Yes”; but if I may choose my own words, I tell you that you will see the Son of man…’ In this reply the language of Daniel 7:13f. is fused with that of Psalm 110:1, where one whom the psalmist calls ‘my lord’ is invited in an oracle to take his seat at Yahweh’s right hand until his enemies are subdued beneath his feet. 37

The conflation of the Davidic King with the Son of Man figure shows that Jesus both wished to avoid nationalist concepts of Messiahship by employing the Danielic term, and also to underline that He was not simply human. It is clear that the High Priest understood what Jesus was claiming, since he then accuses Jesus of ‘blasphemy’. Rowe notes that the Hebrew equivalent of bar nasha is ben ‘adam. 38 Rowe observes that in various Psalms, especially 80:17, this phrase is used of the Davidic King. As with the figure in Daniel 7:13-14, he is so closely associated with Israel as to be their representative. 39 Rowe notes that C. H. Dodd, an important Biblical scholar, in his book According to the Scriptures (p. 101f), saw that Psalm 80:17 with its identification of ‘”God’s right-hand Man” (the one who “sits at God’s right hand”) with the divinely strengthened “Son of Man,” might well be regarded as providing direct scriptural justification for the fusion of the two figures in Mark 14:62.’ 40 It can be inferred from this, and from the other Jewish traditions identifying the Son of Man with the Messiah and as the divine Son that the New Testament portrayal of a divine Messiah was not arbitrary or the result of Hellenising or pagan influences as Muslims claims; rather, it reflected existing Palestinian Jewish traditions, including, of course, those in the Old Testament.

(iv) The Son of Man is connected with judgment – cf. Daniel 7:26. The Son of Man has authority to forgive sins – Matthew 9:6; Mark 2:10; Luke 5:24. Jesus has authority to judge because He is Son of Man – John 5:27. This shows the influence of Daniel 12:2, especially v28f. The Son of Man specifically judges Israel (i.e. the generation to which Jesus came) – Matthew 24:30, referring to the judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70, presents the Roman destruction of the city as the vindication of Jesus’ Messiahship (the same point is there in Acts 7:55-56) – cf. Matthew 26:64. The ‘Great Tribulation’ of AD 70 displays that Jesus is enthroned in heaven (not ‘sky’ as NIV) – cf. Acts 2:30, 33, 34-35, 36 – and note v40, cf. Matthew 24:34: that is, the Judgment on the Jews of AD 70 establishes that Jesus is the Messianic King. The Son of Man is also the universal judge – Matthew 25:32, despatching the Lost to Hell and the Righteous to their inheritance – i.e. Heaven.

(d) The Son of Man is a royal figure – He is given authority and sovereignty – Daniel 7:14; Jesus received this upon the Ascension – v13, Acts 2:30 – He sits on a throne. He judges from a throne, Matthew 25:31, as King, v34. Again, this universal authority reflects Messianic expectations, as witnessed in Psalm 2:8. Moreover, He gives the kingdom to the saints – Daniel 7:18, 22, 27; Matthew 25:34; Luke 21:28, 31. Note that this occurs through judgment – Daniel 7:22, 26-27; Luke 21:27-28.

(e) The Son of Man is associated with suffering. Whilst the actual figure in Daniel does not suffer, we must remember he represents the Saints who are enduring harassment. In Daniel 7:21ff, we encounter the ‘little horn’, usually considered a reference to Antiochus Epiphanes, King of Coele-Syria, who began the religious/cultural persecution of Judæa in 168-167 BC, of which the most serious abuse was the desecration of the Temple in 167 by the erection of a pagan altar to Zeus – the ‘Abomination of Desolation’. 41 Bruce informs us what this meant in practice:

The idea of centralization of the worship was abolished along with the other distinctive features of the old order; altars in honour of ‘the lord of heaven’ were now set up throughout Judaea – in the market place of Jerusalem and in every town and village throughout the territory. The inhabitants of each place were required to sacrifice at these local altars, and severe penalties were imposed on those who refused, as also on those who persisted in observing those Jewish practices whose abolition had been decreed by the king. What followed was in effect a thorough-going campaign of persecution on Religious grounds – perhaps the first campaign of this kind in history. To circumcise one’s children, to be found in possession of a roll of the sacred law, to refuse to eat pork or the meat of animals offered on these illicit altars, were capital offences. 42

This persecution, which involved brutal and often indiscriminate execution, was resisted by the guerrillas known as the ‘Maccabees’, more properly the surname of Judas, the son of the priest Mattathiah who began the resistance. After a four-year fight they prevailed against Antiochus, and eventually in 142 BC Judæa won its independence. Bruce notes the reference to this in the apocryphal book of 1 Maccabees 13:41 – ‘In the 170th year [of the Seleucid era] the yoke of the Gentiles was removed from Israel.’ 43 The Saints of the Most High, after their suffering, were vindicated by victory, and received the kingdom. The text of Daniel 7:21ff predicts this outcome:

21 I saw, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; 22 until the ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom… 25 And he shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High; and he will intend to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and half a time. 26 But the judgment shall be set, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it to the end. 27 And the kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High: his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

Wright comments on the chapter: ‘But when the “most high”, the “Ancient of Days” takes his seat, judgment is given in favour of “the saints”/”one like a son of man” (verses 13, 18, 22, 27); they are vindicated and exalted, with their enemies being destroyed, and in their vindication their god himself is vindicated…’ 44 Later in the Book of Daniel, 9:25, we read of an ‘anointed one, a prince’. The Old Testament scholar John Goldingay suggests that since non-Israelite rulers in Daniel are otherwise described, the likelihood is that here we encounter an Israelite figure. 45 Later, this ‘anointed one’ is ‘cut off’, v26, as Rowe states, ‘presumably by an untimely death.’ 46 Rowe also comments that saints of the Most High ‘suffer persecution and apparent defeat at the hands of the final king (vv. 21, 25; cf. Rev. 13:7).’ 47 It is at this point that Rowe observes that ‘in some of the psalms the Davidic king is said to experience suffering, while in Psalm 80, as ben adam, he is identified with Israel in their tribulation prior to his exaltation.’ 48 Earlier, Rowe noted the suggestion that ‘the king appears in situations of profound suffering, as in Psalm 22. A consistent line of scholarship has maintained the likelihood that the king took part in a temple ritual… in which he suffered humiliation before being restored to his throne.’ 49 Bruce’s article on the background to the Son of Man sayings proposes a connection between the Isaianic Suffering Servant and the Son of Man, p. 58ff, and this seems to be borne out by the references in Enoch of the Son of Man being the ‘light of the Gentiles’, 48:4, and the ‘Chosen’, 46:2, terms usually attributed to the Servant, Isaiah 49:6; 41:8. In 4 Esdras 16:35 the subject is described as ‘servant of the LORD’. This suggests the existence of a tradition linking the Danielic and Isaianic figures.

From this, it can be understood that once the equation of the Son of Man with the Messiah is grasped, the New Testament concept of the suffering Messiah, as in Mark 10:45 (‘For the Son of Man also came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many’) is not a Christian innovation, but reflects Israelite history and Old Testament doctrine. The suffering Son of Man/Messiah that was Jesus died to ransom His people, but His suffering was vindicated when He rose again (and note the resurrection references in Daniel 12), and then came to God to receive universal royal authority, as does the son of man figure in Daniel 7. Just as the foes of the saints are destroyed in Daniel, Matthew 24:30 predicts the divine vengeance on the city where the Lord was crucified – and the days of vengeance did indeed invest Jerusalem in AD 70, the sign that Jesus is the Son of Man who ascended to heaven to receive cosmic kingship. It is important to note how this was achieved. Jesus spoke of His crucifixion as an exaltation and glorification, John 8:28; 12:23; 13:31. The cross was His avenue to the throne, and even on the cross He dies as King of Israel, John 19:19.

5. Servant of the LORD

In the prophecy of Isaiah, we encounter a figure called ebed YHWH – the Servant of the LORD. The ‘Servant Songs’ of Isaiah, 42:1-4; 49:1-6; 50:4-9; 52:13-53:12 deal with the activities of this figure. At times the figure appears to be Israel, at others he seems to be an individual. In Isaiah 42:1ff, the Servant appears to be an individual who is commissioned for service by being anointed with the Spirit, who brings forth justice (mishpat) to the Gentiles. In 49:1ff, at first the figure appears to be an individual, then is identified as ‘Israel’ in v3, and then in v5 is commissioned to return Israel to YHWH! It would appear from this description that the Servant is a prophet, and it should be noted that the phrase ‘my servants, the prophets’, is a frequent occurrence in the Old Testament – e.g. Jeremiah 44:4. In Isaiah 49:6, his commission is greater than a particular call to Israel – he is to be a light to the Gentiles. In 50:4ff, he seems to be definitely an individual, and in v6 is presented as suffering – ‘I gave my back to those striking me, and my cheeks to those who plucked out the beard; I did not cover my face from humiliation and spitting.’ Despite this, the figure trusts in the vindication of YHWH, vv. 7-9.

The paradox becomes greater in 52:13-15. God declares that His Servant will be ‘exalted’ (or glorified) and ‘lifted up’, the Septuagint employing the very words (dokew and ‘uqow) Jesus uses in texts such as John 12:23, 32 to describe His crucifixion, which will provide salvation for all humanity. 50 In the Isaianic text the Servant is simultaneously exalted whilst suffering, v14 – again, a parallel with Jesus in the gospel texts mentioned. In v15 it is stated that it is precisely through this means that he will sprinkle many nations (‘many’ is a Semitism for ‘all’). Motyer comments: ‘…the Servant “shall sprinkle… many nations”; his work is priestly, and many nations receive his priestly ministry…’ 51 Thus, the Servant is not just a prophet, he is simultaneously a priest. In 53:1-12, the Servant becomes a figure whose suffering is seen by others as the judgment of God, yet paradoxically, he suffers not for any wrong-doing of his own, but for the sin of everyone else, vv. 5, 12, and this by the determinate plan of God – vv. 6, 10, and through his suffering those for whom he is undergoing this scourging are declared righteous, v11.

Hence, when John 12:38ff quotes Isaiah 53, and v41 declares that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus and spoke about Him, the Gospel was not being arbitrary. Further, whilst other prophets may have suffered as a consequence of proclaiming their message to a sinful or apostate people, only this Servant suffers in the predestination of God as the very means of bringing salvation to those same sinners. We never encounter another person proclaimed to be a prophet whose suffering is seen as salvatory for others. Whatever privations Muhammad and his followers may have endured in Mecca prior to the Hijrah, it is never claimed that this suffering in itself was the actual means of salvation for those persecuting the Muslims. However vehemently Muslims assert the prophethood of Muhammad, they never claim that he was simultaneously a priest. Muslims are always loud in their denunciation of the idea of representative or vicarious suffering/sacrifice. 52 Yet it is precisely by the suffering of the Servant that redemption for all humanity is effected. His suffering does not bring salvation, justification, righteousness or anything similar for Himself, but rather for others. This figure cannot be Muhammad, but it clearly fits the Gospel portrayal of Jesus. As such, it demonstrates that the New Testament claims of His death being a priestly, sacrificial self-offering reflect the Old Testament and Jewish tradition.

(a) The Servant and the Son of Man

We earlier noted the suggestion in Bruce’s article on the background to the Son of Man sayings that there is a connection between the Isaianic Suffering Servant and the Son of Man, and parallel references in Enoch and 4 Esdras. 53 One of the reasons Bruce suggests this identification is that the sufferings of the Isaianic Servant ‘are explicitly said to procure the removal of sin for others… there is some reason to think that the Daniel texts we have been considering , and some others associated with them, had the Isaianic Servant Songs in view and were indeed intended to provide an Interpretation of them.’ 54 Bruce finds this association in the references to the ‘wise’ in Daniel:

One of the designations of the faithful in the time of trial depicted in Daniel’s visions is maskilim, the ‘wise’ or the ‘teachers’ (i.e. those who acquire wisdom or those who impart it, the latter activity naturally following from the former). The reference is especially to those who communicate to others the insight which they themselves have gained into the times of the end; ‘none of the wicked shall understand, but the maskilim shall understand’ (Dan. 12:10). Daniel himself is given such insight: when Gabriel is about to impart to him the revelation of the seventy heptads, he says, ‘I have come out to make you wise (le haskileká)… know therefore and understand (wetaskél) that… there are to be seven heptads…’ (Dn. 9:22, 25).

When the minds of many are shaken by the apostates, ‘those who make the people wise (maskilê ‘am) shall make many understand’, although their faithfulness involves them in severe persecution (Dn. 11:33). So severe will the persecution be, indeed, that some even of the maskilim will fall away, but their defection will but serve to refine those who remain faithful (Dn. 11:35). And when at last the righteous are delivered and the faithful departed are raised to everlasting life, ‘the maskilim shall shine like the brightness of the firmament, and those who turn many to righteousness (masdiqê hárabbin) like the stars for ever and ever’ (Dn. 12:1-3).

It would be rash to draw too certain inferences from the coincidence between these instances of the hiph’il conjugation of skl and the opening words of the fourth Servant Song, hinneh yaskil ‘abdî, ‘behold, my servant will deal wisely’ (Is. 52:13); but that we have to do with more than a mere coincidence is suggested by the statement in Isaiah 53:11 that the Servant will by his knowledge ‘make the many to be accounted righteous’ (yasdiq… lárabbîm) -i.e. he will fulfil the role assigned to the maskilim in Daniel 12:3. But if Daniel is thus providing an interpretation of the figure of the suffering Servant, it is a corporate interpretation. 55

To Bruce’s observations I would add another. As we noted at the beginning of this section, the Servant at certain times seem to be Israel, whilst at others the figure appears to be an individual. In Daniel 7, the Son of Man represents the Saints of the Most High – in other words, faithful Israel. Israel was depicted as God’s son, and so when Jesus was described as the Son of God, one aspect of the term referred to His being the true Israel, a point emphasised in the Gospel of Matthew by the reference to Him as ‘the Son of Abraham’, 1:1, and by the Wilderness Temptations. In the Gospel of John, Jesus declares Himself to be ‘the true Vine’, 15:1, in a context of sonship – ‘my Father is the vine-dresser’. By this Jesus did not mean that other vines were impostors, but that He was the true Israel. In Psalm 80:8, 14, Israel is described as the ‘vine’ God brought ‘out of Egypt’.

Parallel to the latter clause, we find Israel depicted as the son of God He rescued out of Egypt – Hosea 11:1 ‘When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.’ This is interpreted in Messianic terms in Matthew 2:14-15 ‘And he arose and took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt; and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the LORD through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt did I call my son.”‘ We have already examined the connection between Psalm 80 and the Son of Man figure, and it is significant that a variant of v15 in the psalm is ‘son’, rather than branch. At any rate, the representation of Israel as God’s Son, the link between faithful Israel and the Son of Man, and the fact that the Suffering Servant is depicted as Israel provides a connection between the different figures. Like the picture in Daniel, there is suffering, vindication and exaltation (cf. Isaiah 53:12).

(b) The Servant and the Messiah

There are indications in Isaiah itself that suggest a Messianic connection with the Servant. In 49:8 we read the following ‘Thus says the LORD, In an acceptable time have I answered you, and in a day of salvation have I helped you; and I will preserve you, and give you as a covenant for the people…’ As the Old Testament scholar Martens elaborates, ‘…the servant songs tapped the traditions of the exodus. Israel in exile is promise a return after the pattern of the earlier exodus… As at the exodus, Yahweh will have compassion on his afflicted (49:13; cf. Ex. 6:3)…. The servant delivers from a captivity which more than physical.’ 56 Earlier in Isaiah, we also read of the Second Exodus, but in this case, the agent is clearly a Messianic figure – ‘stem of Jesse’, a reference to David’s father. Motyer writes ‘The reference to Jesse indicates that the shoot is not just another king in David’s line but another David.’ 57 In this respect, we should note Grogan’s observation that the Servant in some ways ‘seems to sum up in himself elements of the three great offices of prophet, priest and king… like a king he wins victories and divides spoil (Isaiah 53:12) and is exalted to a place of great authority (Isaiah 52:13).‘ 58 Obviously, by definition, the Messiah is a king. Mark 1:11(the Baptism) conflates a messianic psalm, Psalm 2, with a Servant passage, Isaiah 42:1 – the Son is the Servant with whom God is pleased.

Like the Servant in 42:1; 61:1, the figure in Isaiah 11 is anointed with the Spirit, and like the Servant, whilst effecting the exodus, he also gathers the nations (Gentiles) to him:

1 And there will come forth a shoot out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch out of his roots will bear fruit.

2 And the Spirit of the LORD will rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD…

10 And it will come to pass in that day, that the nations will resort to the root of Jesse, who will stand as a sign of the peoples; and his resting-place will be glorious.

11 And it will come to pass in that day, that the LORD will set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, who remain, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.

12 And he will set up a standard for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

It should also be noted in 11:4 that the Davidic figure destroys the wicked – i.e. the enemies of God. We have previously noted the Isaianic references in John 12, and two aspects of the ‘lifting-up’, which is explicitly identified with the means of Jesus’ death in v32, is that this exaltation is the means of the vanquishing of the Devil, v31 ‘Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.’ Simultaneously this exalted death is the instrument for the gathering of all humanity to Himself – v32 ‘And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.’ Again, in v20, Gentiles come and request to see Jesus, at which point He declares the time had come for the Son of Man to be glorified, v23, another allusion to His death. His crucifixion is the means of bringing the Gentiles as well as the Jews into a covenant relationship with God. In Luke 9:31, at the transfiguration, Moses and Elijah refer to Jesus’ death in Jerusalem as His ‘exodov exodos. This is accompanied by the bat-qol in v35 identifying Jesus in terms of the Servant as ‘My Chosen’, as well s being God’s Son. Jesus death is the ultimate exodus that delivers people from spiritual darkness, in the way Martens suggested the Servant effects in the Second Exodus from Babylon.

(c) The Servant and Miracles

Both Islam and the Bible present Jesus as performing miracles, so this point is not contentious. What is interesting for this study is that just as the Messianic term ‘Son of David’ is associated with healing and deliverance, the Servant figure is likewise. In Matthew 8:16-17, we read the following, with reference to Isaiah 53:4:

16 ‘And when evening arrived, they brought to him many demon-possessed people: and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all that were sick: 17 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying: Himself took our infirmities, and bare our diseases.’

It follows that it is a common function of the Son of David and the Servant to heal and exorcise, indicating a Messianic connotation with the Servant figure. So, when Jesus heals or drives out demons, He does so as Messiah – as Son of David, and as the Servant of the LORD. This is important for the Christian-Muslim debate. When Jesus died on the cross, He did so to ‘exorcise’ the Devil – to cast out his dominion, John 12:31. This exorcising action is effected by the Isaianic paradox – i.e. by the suffering of the Servant. Similarly, the spiritual healing Jesus wrought by His suffering is demonstrated by 1 Peter 2:24, quoting Isaiah 53:5 – ‘He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin, and live to righteousness; by whose stripes you were healed.’ Jesus clearly saw Himself as the representative suffering Servant of Isaiah 53:12 – ‘numbered with the transgressors’, as witnessed in Luke 22:37 ‘For I say unto you, that this which is written must be fulfilled in me, “And he was numbered with transgressors”: for that which refers to me has its fulfilment.’ Jesus definitely saw Himself as the one who would suffer death for sinners to bring them redemption.

(d) The Servant and ‘the Anointed One’

France points to another Messianic connection with the Servant to be found in Isaiah:

Isaiah 61:1-3 describes a figure closely similar to the Servant as depicted in Isaiah 42:1-7: both are endued with the Spirit of Yahweh, open blind eyes, and bring prisoners out of darkness. Both are, in other words, sent and equipped by Yahweh to deliver the oppressed and wretched, and both are characterized by their gentleness. This similarity has many to regard Isaiah 61:1-3 as a fifth ‘Servant Song’. 59

As France observes, Jesus identifies Himself with this figure in the Nazareth synagogue, at the beginning of His public ministry. 60 Jesus claims the immediate fulfilment of the passage – ‘To-day this scripture has been fulfilled in your ears’, Luke 4:21, which France describes as ‘a deliberate identification of his work as that described in Isaiah 61:1-3. He is the Lord’s anointed; the Messiah has come.’ 61 To France’s suggestions we should add that the pericope in Luke follows the Wilderness Temptations, when Jesus is assaulted for being the Son of God, which itself follows the Baptism, where the bat-qol describes Jesus as the ‘beloved Son, with whom I am pleased’, reflecting Psalm 2 and Isaiah 42:1. There is thus a logical progression in the events of Jesus’ ministry, as both Servant and Messiah, and as the Anointed Deliverer.

It is also significant that after being anointed by the Spirit at the Baptism, Jesus is said to enter the Wilderness being full of the Spirit, Luke 4:1, where he battles the Enemy, and then after His victory in the desert, He returns ‘in the power of the Spirit into Galilee’, 4:14. The implication in v23, and suggested by Gospel parallels (Matthew 4:23ff; Mark 1:23ff), is that Jesus had been performing ‘the deeds of the Messiah’ as we examined earlier – works of healing and exorcism. As France notes, the pericope identifying these acts, Matthew 11:5/Luke 7:22, is based on Isaiah 61:1 and 35:5-6 – ‘God’s time of salvation has come. Jesus is the one anointed to be the bringer of that salvation.’ 62 The two Isaianic texts are also linked by the common theme of divine judgment, retribution or vengeance, 35:4; 61:2. A further point of significance is that 35:4 warns ‘behold your God’, indicating a divine epiphany, just as 40:3, quoted of the ministry of John Baptist preparing the way for Jesus, Matthew 3:3. This indicates that the anointed figure we encounter in Isaiah is also divine.

(e) The Servant and Mark 10:45

A text that both conflates the Son of Man and Servant figures in pointing to the redemptive death of Jesus is Mark 10:45 (Matthew 20:28) ‘For the Son of man also came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many’, which reflects Isaiah 53:12 ‘he bore the sin of many’. Guthrie observes ‘The idea of suffering would naturally link with the Isaianic figure.’ 63 We may compare this verse with Mark 8:31 ‘And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again’; cf. also Luke 19:10 – ‘For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost.’ At first glance this seems strange, for, as we have seen, the Son of Man, in Daniel does not suffer himself. However, he does represent people who are suffering, and as the Isaianic figure is presented, it is through such suffering that He enters into His glory (cf. Luke 24:25-26). Mark 10:45 does indeed seem to presents us with Jesus’ death being representative/vicarious, which definitely fits the description of the Servant figure. Thus the description of the Anointed One/Messiah/Son of Man/Servant is that he enters His reign by a sacrificial death which secures redemption for sinners.

Lindars writes about this text, and its Isaianic connotations, especially with respect to its sacrificial aspects:

The sacrificial significance of lutron in the present passage is fixed by the words which immediately follow it, ‘for many’ (anti pollon). An astonishingly similar phrase occurs in the formulaic passage 1 Tim. 2.6, ‘who gave himself a ransom for all’ (ho dous heauton antilutron huper panton); cf. Titus 2.14. Seeing that the sacrificial connotation of lutron derives from the idea of a ransom-price (e.g., for manumission of a slave), the most likely Aramaic equivalent would be kopher… The word ‘ransom’ (lutron) should be regarded as interpretative. It is not a quotation from Isa. 53:10, but… the ransom idea is a legitimate way of interpreting the prophecy as a whole… the feature which gives to the saying its sacrificial connotation, i.e. the prepositional phrase ‘for many’ (anti pollon), also occurs in Mark’s version of the eucharistic blessing of the cup (Mark 14:24, huper pollon), and this is reflected in Paul’s version of the blessing of the bread (1 Cor. 11:24, huper humon, ‘for you’). 64

The problem of ‘ransom’ (lutron) not being an exact equivalent of m#) (asham), the latter normally meaning an ‘offering for sin’, is answered by the fact that lutron usually translates into Hebrew as Kopēr, ‘a covering’, similar to the Aramaic term Lindars mentions. The noun in related to the verb kipper which in Leviticus 5:16 expresses the effect of the m#) – the term employed in Isaiah 53:10. France, explaining Mark 10:45 in terms of its Old Testament background, makes the following observations:

Firstly, the meaning of substitution is not absent from m#):aaa while in Numbers 5:7, 8 it is a restitution to the one wronged (though, presumably, except in cases of actual theft, the restitution of an equivalent), in other cases it signifies the sacrifice presented to make atonement for the sinner; he is guilty (m#)) but the presentation of an m#) in his place removes his guilt. This is hardly distinguishable from the substitution of an equivalent, or, therefore, from the meaning of lutron. So in Isaiah 53:10, ‘the Messianic servant offers himself as an m#) in compensation for the sins of the people, interposing for them as their substitute.’ lutron or whatever Aramaic word lies behind it, is therefore not far from equivalent to m#). Secondly, Isaiah 53 as a whole presents the work of the Servant as one of substitution, in that in his suffering and death he bears the sins of the people, resulting in their healing; God places their sins on him, and bruises him for their iniquities. This idea of substitution is admitted to be central to lutron, and is even more obvious in anti [i.e. ‘instead of’]. Even if no linguistic echo were established, dounai thn quchn autou lutron anti pollwn is a perfect summary of the central theme of Isaiah 53, that of a vicarious and redeeming death.

pollwn (‘many’). This is probably the most commonly noticed allusion to Isaiah 53 in Mark 10:45. mybris used in Isaiah 53:11, 12 to describe the beneficiaries of the Servant’s sacrifice (LXX polloiv, pollwn). Jeremias describes it as ‘a veritable keyword in Isa. 53’. Most scholars take it for granted that its occurrence in Mark 10:45 is a deliberate echo of Isaiah 53; it is hardly the word unless it had some such purpose. The other allusions to Isaiah 53 in this verse suggest that this too is a feature drawn from that chapter, where it is no less peculiar, and rendered conspicuous and memorable by its repetition.

The cumulative effect of these parallels in word and thought between Mark 10:45 and Isaiah 53 is sufficient to demand a deliberate allusion by Jesus to the role of the Servant as his own…The fact that the allusion occurs almost incidentally, as an illustration of the true nature of greatness, far from indicating that the redemptive role of the Servant was not in mind (for it is specifically the redemptive aspects of Isaiah 53 to which Jesus alludes), is in fact evidence of how deeply his assumption of that role had penetrated into Jesus’ thinking, so that it emerges even in an incidental illustration. ‘It is as if Jesus said, “The Son of Man came to fulfil the task of the ebed Yahweh“.’ 65

Similarly, Guthrie argues for the propriety of Mark 10:45 reflecting the Servant passages, and also points to Isaianic references in the Eucharistic words of Jesus ate the Last Supper:

There is, of course, no mention of ransom (lytron) in Isaiah 53, but there is a close connection between ransom and vicarious suffering. There is no great step from the servant making himself an offering (āšām) for sin (Is. 53:10), and the Son of man giving his life as a ransom (or equivalent substitute). Yet another pointer in the same direction is the use of ‘many’ both in Isaiah 53:12 and in Mark 10:45.

Some reference must be made to the possibility of an allusion to the servant concept in the words of institution at the last supper (Mk. 14:24 et par). Although the major background is clearly Exodus 24 and Jeremiah 31, it is possible that Isaiah 53 may also have contributed. The references to the covenant, to the ‘pouring out’, and to the ‘many’ all find parallels in the servant songs. It is not too much to claim that Jesus is here giving a definite theological explanation of his own. His statement is a contributory factor in our understanding of his function as servant of Yahweh. 66

The Eucharistic words of Jesus are an essential sign of the historicity of the Cross, an indication, if one were needed, that the Islamic denial of the Crucifixion is unhistorical. Jesus clearly foresaw that the redemption of sinners and the fulfilment of the Covenant demanded His death. Against the Muslim argument that such predictions were vaticinia ex eventu (prophecies after the event), the obvious response is that the nature of the Servant of the LORD as prophesied in Isaiah demanded such suffering, and demonstrated that this Passion would be both redemptive and vicarious/representative. Centuries before the advent of the New Testament Church, Israel was expected a Suffering Servant – one whose Passion would bring salvation for sinners. It really would require a miracle of ingenuity to invent such close correlation between the picture of the Servant in Isaiah and what Jesus predicted at the Last Supper in Mark 14:24. To quote France again:

The phrase ‘the blood of the covenant’ is… a typological reference to Exodus 24:8. However, the Servant is twice referred to as a covenant to the people. O. Cullmann goes so far as to rank the re-establishment of the covenant as one of the two ‘essential characteristics’ of the Servant. There are, of course, many other Old Testament references to the covenant, and this alone could not constitute an allusion to the Servant theme, but it does not stand alone. The following words are toekcunnomenon uper pollwn (‘which is poured out for many’; Mt. to peri pollwn ekcunnomenon).

The word ekcunnomenon is reminiscent of Isaiah 53:12 hreh ‘he poured out his soul’. But whereas in Isaiah 53 hreh is a strange and rather mysterious metaphor, in Mark 14:24 ekcunnomenon is the natural word for the shedding of blood, and need not in itself demand an Old Testament background. Like the reference to the covenant, its allusion to the Servant idea is only clearly established by its conjunction with the more obviously allusive phrase uper (peri) pollwn.

‘uper pollwn is as strange an expression for Jesus to use here as was anti pollwn in Mark 10:45, and the allusion to Isaiah 53 is as widely recognized here as there. In fact the two references reinforce each other. While ‘uper (and still more the Matthean peri) is not so clearly substitutionary as anti, it is a very appropriate word for the vicarious death of the Servant. So not only the word pollwn but the whole idea of ‘dying on be-half of’ which is central to Mark 14:24, renders an allusion to the Servant theme virtually certain.

The connection of these words with the covenant idea is significant. In Isaiah 42-53 Yahweh makes his Servant a covenant to the people, and this involves his vicarious death for their redemption. Jesus’ words at the Last Supper, whose primary purpose is to explain to the disciples how his coming death is to benefit them, are drawn not only from Exodus 24:8 (and probably Jeremiah 31:31), but also from Isaiah 53. His work is to re- establish the broken covenant, but this can be done only by fulfilling the role of the Servant in his vicarious death. To make this point Jesus chooses words from Isaiah 53 which are as deeply imbued as any with the redemptive significance of that death, in that they highlight its vicarious nature.

Thus here, if anywhere, we have a deliberate theological explanation by Jesus of the necessity for his death, and it is not only drawn from Isaiah 53, but specifically refers to the vicarious and redemptive suffering which is the central theme of that chapter. 67

(f) The Servant and the Triumphal Entry

Another Messianic connection, one indicating that the Messiah would suffer and die to establish His ministry, is found in the figure of the Shepherd-King of Zechariah 9-14. The Entry into Jerusalem, with Jesus riding humbly on an ass, Mark 11:1ff; Matthew 21:1ff; Luke 19:29ff, reflect the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9-10 – ‘9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, your king comes to you; he is just, and endowed with salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an ass. 10 … he shall speak peace unto the nations…’ Humility, of course, is a characteristic of the Suffering Servant, and contrasts with the usual royal perceptions. 68 More suggestive analogies are found with respect to Zechariah 12:12 and 13:7. In Zechariah 12:10-12, we find the following reference to mourning:

10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only son, and they will weep bitterly for him, like the bitter weeping for his first-born.

11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.

12 And the land shall mourn, every family by itself; the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves.

France points out that this figure is both Messianic and causes salvation to be effected through his murder, and thus provides a link with the Isaianic figure of the Suffering Servant. He also suggests this provides the basis for Matthew 24:30 – ‘then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory’:

Whatever the explanation of the strange first person yl) the one pierced is clearly connected with the Messianic figures of 11:4-14 and 13:7; in the former passage the subject is the rejection of the good shepherd by the people, and in the latter his smiting by the sword of God… these passages predict the hostile reaction of Israel to the Messianic king of 9:9-10, involving not only contemptuous rejection, but (whether figuratively or literally) his murder. It is only after they have murdered him that the memory of his martyrdom will cause their repentance, and thus, after thorough purification, their final salvation. It seems, then, that in this martyrdom with its issue in the salvation of God’s people Jesus saw a prediction of his own fate. 69

Hence, here we have a picture of a suffering Messianic figure. It should also be noted that the one pierced in the Zechariah passage is God. However, In John 19:37 and Revelation 1:7 the object of piercing is clearly Jesus, referring to the spear piercing Him on the Cross, John 19:34. The interchange between the figures of God and David in the Zechariah passage is significant for the portrayal of Jesus in the New Testament. The other Zechariah text, 13:7, is further evidence both of a suffering Messianic character and also an indication of the divinity of the figure: ‘Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, says the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered…’ France comment that this shepherd ‘is described by Yahweh as ytym(…rbg…y(r (‘my shepherd, the man that is my fellow’, RV), implying a close relationship with Yahweh.’ 70 Later, France observes that this designation indicates a peculiarly close relationship to YHWH:

Yahweh describes him as ytym(…rbg…y(r (RSV ‘My shepherd… the man who stands next to me’). tym(implies kinship; its only other use in the Old Testament is to describe a ‘fellow-Israelite’, and it is probably derived from a root denoting ‘family connection’. This figure is thus more than Yahweh’s ‘associate’ or even ‘companion’; he is his ‘kinsman’. Thus the two passages Zechariah 12:10 and 13:7 together suggest a relationship between Yahweh and his representative, the smitten Shepherd-King, which amounts at least to a close ‘kinship’, even to identification. And these two passages are both applied by Jesus to himself. In neither case is the phrase in question actually cited) but the identification of himself with this Messianic figure, which Jesus’ allusions take for granted, could not have been made without an awareness of the implication that he was closely related to Yahweh, and that his suffering was the suffering of Yahweh himself. 71

Similarly, Fairbairn, the great expert on Biblical typology, observed how this passage indicated that this shepherd was divine, and that this was one aspect of what Jesus was claiming in Matthew 26:31, since the passage claims that the figure is the LORD’s fellow ‘or rather His near relation – for so the word in the original imports; and hence, when spoken of any one’s relation to God, it can not possibly denote a mere man, but can only be understood of one who, by virtue of His divine nature, stands on a footing of essential equality with God.’ 72 The other point of course, is that this is ‘a Messianic personage’, as France suggests, and the text clearly indicates that He is made to suffer by God:

The terminology strongly suggests this exegesis, and it is strengthened by the close correspondence with 12:10, for in both passages the wounding of a figure closely associated with Yahweh leads, through mourning or refining, to salvation.

Jesus’ application of the passage is explicit. He is this Messianic shepherd, and as such he is to be smitten. His Messianic work is to be accomplished through suffering, for only so can the predicted salvation come. 73

It can be seen from this that when Jesus, in His Eucharistic words at the Last Supper cited this prophecy as being of Himself, clearly with relation to the Cross (Matthew 26:31 ‘Then Jesus said to them, All of you will fall away because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered’), He was not being arbitrary in presenting an image of a suffering Messiah. It should be remembered that in the Old Testament, Israel is portrayed as the Flock of which YHWH is ‘Shepherd ‘- i.e. ‘Ruler’ – e.g. Psalms 23; 78:52; 80:1; 95:7; 100:3. The term is also used of the Kings – under God, Kings were shepherds of Israel -1 Samuel 17:34-36; Jeremiah 23:1-4. Interestingly, it appears to be a definite Messianic term – Ezekiel 34:23 predicts a Davidic Shepherd, as does Jeremiah 23:4f. By this title, then, Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, seen especially in His calling of the Gentiles, John 10:16. He was also making an implicit claim to deity. Most pertinently, This displays that there was a tradition that a Messianic figure would suffer, representing His people.

McKenzie comments on this representative royal role ‘…the Jerusalem king became the representative of Israel before Yahweh, the leader of his people in cult and the recipient of the divine oracles by which the will of Yahweh was communicated to Israel.’ 74 The King caused the people to be either holy or sinful. For example, under Manasseh, the people were led astray – 2 Kings 21:7-9; 2 Chronicles 33:7-9. The Rule of an evil king caused the people to forsake the covenant and thus cease to fulfil the purposes of God. When, chastised and repentant, Manasseh obeyed the covenant, the people likewise conformed to the covenant – 2 Chronicles 33:15-17. Hence Kingship in loyalty to the Davidic Covenant causes the People of God to be holy. In this light, we can understand the import of Jesus dying as the representative ‘King of the Jews’ – in connection with the Servant theme, His crucified glorification, representing sinners, enables their sanctification.

(g) The Servant, the Davidic Covenant, and the Gentiles

A further point in connection with this is how both the Servant figure and the Davidic King are related to the incoming of the Gentiles. The Davidic Covenant, 2 Samuel 7:19, promises that the Dynasty will be eternal, and David’s response is to exclaim that this is the ‘Law for Humanity’ – tôrat hā‘ādām – not just for Israel. Walter Kaiser suggests the best translation for this is ‘charter for humanity’. 75 Personally, I feel that the obviously covenantal aspects of the promise are best served by retaining the reference to ‘law’. Certainly, Kaiser is correct when he argues that ‘the ancient plan of God would involve a king and a kingdom. Such a blessing would also involve the future of all mankind.’ 76 The Kingdom of Israel was ultimately to be worldwide. We find indications of this in Psalms 2:7-8; 72:8-11, Amos 9:11-12, and of course, in Zechariah 9:9-10. This concept of the Davidic King being the ‘Law for Humanity’ parallels the ministry of the Servant in being ‘a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles’, Isaiah 42:6.

To conclude on the Suffering Servant/Messiah theme, Vermes notes rabbinical traditions of a slain Messiah connected with the figure of Zechariah 12, including the Targum on the passage. 77 Chilton observes that the Isaiah Targum ‘The Targum shows us that the term “servant” could he taken as a designation of the messiah (cf. 43:10). This is particularly the case at 52:13 and 53:10. The Targum indeed interprets 52:13-53:12 as a whole so as to insist on the glorification of the messiah, but it also …refers to the possibility that the messiah might die (53:12 “he delivered his soul to death”).’ 78 Kümmel observes that 4 Ezra 7:29 states that ‘my servant the Messiah shall die’. 79 There does seem to have been a definite Jewish tradition, both in the Bible and in interpretations based upon it, of a suffering or slain Messiah. Jesus could appeal to the Biblical traditions of a lowly, humble Shepherd King, who would suffer, be vindicated, and then enter His glory, whilst securing redemption for sinners by his action, including the Gentiles. France notes that the emphasis of Jesus falls ‘almost exclusively on Zechariah 9-14, Isaiah 53, and Daniel 7, …where it can plausibly be claimed that the suffering of the Messiah is predicted.’ 80

(h) The Servant and the sword

Before ending this section, we should return to the character of Jesus in Luke 22:37, the verse followed by the enigmatic reference to ‘two swords’, and preceded by the apparent injunction of Jesus to purchase a sword. Of course, we never encounter Jesus engaging in political violence as did some of His contemporaries, nor did he wield the sword like Muhammad. Muslims often find this pacifism incomprehensible, especially since all prophets brought the same message, and presumably believed in jihad, as indeed the Qur’an affirms the Injil does – Surah Tauba 9:111. However, the fact that we encounter a reference to the Suffering Servant in this passage in Luke argues against what the Qur’an affirms. Bruce explains the meaning of this difficult text:

Luke certainly does not intend his readers to understand the words literally. He goes on to tell how, a few hours later, when Jesus was arrested, one of the disciples let fly with a sword -probably one of the two which they had produced at the supper table – and cut off an ear of the high priest’s slave. But Jesus said, ‘No more of this!’ and healed the man’s ear with a touch (Luke 22:49-51).

So what did he mean by his reference to selling one’s cloak to buy a sword? He himself was about to be condemned as a criminal, ‘reckoned with transgressors’, to use language applied to the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53:12. Those who until now had been his associates would find themselves treated as outlaws; they could no longer count on the charity of sympathetic fellow-Israelites. Purse and bag would now be necessary. Josephus tells us that when Essenes went on a journey they had no need to take supplies with them, for they knew that their needs would be met by fellow-members of their order; they did, however, carry arms to protect themselves against bandits.

But Jesus does not envisage bandits as the kind of people against whom his disciples would require protection: they themselves would be lumped together with bandits by the authorities, and they might as well act the part properly and carry arms, as bandits did. Taking him literally, they revealed that they had anticipated his advice: they already had two swords. This incidentally shows how far they were from resembling a band of Zealot insurgents: such a band would have been much more adequately equipped. And the words with which Jesus concluded the conversation did not mean that two swords would be enough; they would have been ludicrously insufficient against the band that came to arrest him, armed with swords and clubs. He meant ‘Enough of this!’ – they had misunderstood his sad irony, and it was time to drop the subject. T. W. Manson rendered the words ‘Well, well’. 81

A modern New Testament expert, Professor Richard Hays of Duke University, has also examined the text in depth, and his conclusions are similar to those of Bruce about the rejection of militant attitude in the passage:

Again in this passage the reference to a sword has a figurative purpose. On the night of his arrest, just after his last supper with the disciples, Jesus reminds his followers of an earlier phase in their mission when they could rely on the goodwill and hospitality of those to whom they preached; however, they must now be prepared for a time of rejection and persecution. They will need to take along their own provisions, and the sword serves as a vivid symbol of the fact that they must now expect to encounter opposition. As I. Howard Marshall observes, ‘The saying can be regarded only as grimly ironical, expressing the intensity of the opposition which Jesus and the disciples will experience, endangering their very lives.’ The disciples, however, give continuing evidence of their incomprehension of Jesus’ destiny by taking the figurative warning as a literal instruction: ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’ Jesus’ response is one of impatient dismissal, indicating that they have failed to grasp the point: ‘Enough, already!’ Joseph Fitzmyer explains that ‘the irony concerns not the number of the swords, but the whole mentality of the apostles. Jesus will have nothing to do with swords, even for defense.’ The truth of this reading is confirmed by the subsequent scene at Jesus’ arrest: The disciples ask, ‘Lord, should we strike with the sword?’ and one of them, without waiting for an answer, cuts off the ear of the high priest’s slave. Jesus, however, rebukes him (‘No more of this!’) and heals the injured slave (Luke 22:49-51). Here again, literal armed resistance is ex-posed as a foolish misunderstanding of Jesus’ message.

Such a misunderstanding is particularly ironic in view of Luke 22:37: the purpose of the figurative remark about buying a sword was to warn the disciples that the Scripture was about to be fulfilled. The passage cited is Isaiah 53:12: ‘And he was counted among the lawless.’ It should not escape the attention of Luke’s readers that this citation comes from the concluding verse of Isaiah’s prophetic description of the suffering servant, whose life was ‘handed over to death’ for the sake of the sins of many. This is the sort of dramatic irony that Luke, as an author, savors: while Jesus is trying to instruct the disciples about his destiny as the righteous sufferer, they are brandishing swords about, as though such pathetic weapons could promote God’s kingdom. No wonder Jesus impatiently puts an end to the conversation. 82

There are other indications that the Suffering Servant is a passive figure in this sense. In Matthew 12:14ff, we encounter the fulfilment of Isaiah 42:2-3. Jesus demonstrates that He is no Zealot, and is uninterested in the kind of militant confrontation that the Hadith presents of Him. The Suffering Servant is no Mujahid:

14 But the Pharisees went out, and took counsel against him, how they might destroy him. 15 And Jesus perceiving it, withdrew from there: and many followed him; and he healed them all, 16 and warned them not to make him known: 17 in order that what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet it might be fulfilled, saying, 18 Behold, my servant whom I have chosen; My beloved with whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my Spirit upon him, And he shall declare justice to the Gentiles. 19 He shall not quarrel, nor cry out; nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets. 20 A bruised reed he not will not break, and smouldering flax he will not quench, until he leads justice to victory. 21 and in his name the Gentiles will hope.

Clearly, Jesus’ attitude and conduct reflects the picture of the Servant in Isaiah, demonstrating that the New Testament portrayal of Jesus is neither arbitrary nor contrived. Jesus acted exactly as the Old Testament prophecy predicted He would behave. The Islamic picture of Jesus, whereby after His Second Coming He literally slays the Antichrist with a lance, is wholly innovative and contradictory to the ancient traditions of how the Servant would conduct himself.

6. The Prophet

Deuteronomy 18:18 predicts another prophet like Moses; Acts 3:22-23 explicitly identifies this with Jesus (22 Moses said, ‘the LORD God shall raise up a prophet to you like me from among your brothers. You will listen to everything he says to you. 23 ‘And it shall be, that every soul that will not listen to that prophet, will be utterly destroyed from among the people.’), and 7:37 (This is that Moses, who said unto the children of Israel, ‘God shall raise up a prophet to you like me from among your brothers’) implicitly makes this identification.

It has been a consistent polemic of Islamic apologetics that Deuteronomy 18:18 predicts Muhammad, rather than Jesus. 83Essentially, this rests upon the phrase ‘from among your brothers’. On the basis that Ishmael and Isaac were brothers, and on the claims that Arabs were descended from Ishmael, and so were brothers of the Israelites, the claim is presented that Muhammad is the eschatological prophet foretold in the passage. 84 Of course, the immediate objection is that even if the racial identification were correct, this would not be evidence that Muhammad was the prophet in question. Secondly, and a point that totally undermines the Muslim claim, it should be remembered that Isaac had two sons, Jacob, who became Israel, and Esau, also known as Edom, the father of the Edomites, later called the Idumeans, who were Judaised under the Maccabeans. Hence, the racial brothers of the Israelites were actually the Edomites/Idumeans, rather than the Ishmaelites. Logically, according to the Islamic position, the prophet should have come from this people, rather than the Ishmaelites/Arabs.

However, this ignores Deuteronomy 18:15 – ‘the LORD shall raise up to you a prophet like me from among you, of your brothers; you shall listen to him.’ The prophet is to come from the midst of the Israelites, and clearly this does not apply to Muhammad, though it does fit the picture of Jesus. Moreover, the Hebrew word used for ‘brother’ is x)= (‘âch). The term is also used elsewhere in Deuteronomy, notably in 17:15, where, permission having been granted Israel to establish a king over them, they are told of the restrictions upon his identity. Primarily, he must be the one chosen by the LORD. Secondly, he must be from ‘among your brothers; you may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.’ Clearly, the Kings of Israel had to be Israelites, and since the same terminology is employed here as in 18:15, 18, this demonstrates that the prophet had to be an Israelite. It is noteworthy that when King Herod Agrippa, c. 40-41 AD, read the passage about the ethnic identity of the king in Deuteronomy 17:14-20, ‘he burst into tears, as he bethought himself of his Edomite ancestry.’ 85Clearly, the reference to ‘brother’ was recognised as meaning ‘fellow-Israelite’.

(a) The Prophet and the Law

R. E. Clements observes that the text in Deuteronomy 18:15 is in the iterative imperfect tense, which ‘expresses a distributive sense.’ 86 For this reason he translates it ‘Yahweh your god will raise up for you from time to time a prophet like me from among you, from your own kin. Him you shall listen to.’ However, the Jews came to believe that an ultimate prophet ‘like Moses’ would arise from among them. Clements notes that ‘Early Jewish interpretation regarded the passage in an eschatological sense and took it to indicate the coming of of a special prophet in the future who would be like Moses, and who would fulfil a particular task in connection with the law.’ 87 Of course, this is what Jesus actually does perform such a work. Jesus claims authority to give a new Law – so like Moses, He is the Law-giver – the new Moses, antitype of the old. Moses was the Giver of the supreme revelation to Israel – the Torah: the parallel of John 1:17 suggests that Jesus brings a superior Torah (and we may link this with Hebrews 8:6). This is underlined by the Sermon on the Mount – Matthew 5:lff, e.g. v21, where Jesus, while not abolishing the Law, supersedes it by fulfilling it, rendering the perfect obedience to it, and dying on behalf of sinners, so that His faultless obedience could be accounted to sinners.

The Law was the revelation of the mind of God: it was His revelation to Man. The Torah was called the Ten Words (dabarim), Deuteronomy 4:13, and 5:5 terms it the ‘word of the Lord’. John 1:1 states that Jesus is the Word of God – the embodied expression of the mind of God, clearly associated with the Law, v17, and revelation, v18. This should be linked with 2 Samuel 7:19 – where, as we have seen, David responds to divine promise of an eternal dynasty by exclaiming ‘this is the Law for Mankind!’ – (tôrat hā‘ādām). Since Jesus is the eternal Davidic King, He is the embodied Torah. Moreover, torah basically means ‘a body of teaching’ – and Jesus is the Great Teacher – John 3:20. Jesus was

(b) The Prophet as the Servant and Taheb

The death of Jesus as the Righteous One who fulfilled the Law, and thereby being the one who would ‘fulfil a particular task in connection with the law’ is emphasised by two factors. As we have seen, Luke 9:31, at the transfiguration, Moses and Elijah refer to Jesus’ death in Jerusalem as His ‘exodov exodos – an obvious parallel with Moses. The bat-qol, identifying Jesus as ‘My Chosen’, in echo of the Isaianic Servant, points to how this special function of ‘the prophet like Moses’ involved His death for others, as the Servant. Fuller notes that the Isaianic Servant was considered ‘to be the eschatological prophet like unto Moses’. 88 he also observes ‘certain Mosaic functions are later ascribed to the Davidic Messiah…’ 89

Fuller also observes that the Samaritans had a Messianic expectation, though not linked to David, since they only accepted the Pentateuch as the canon. This Samaritan Messianic figure was called the Taheb, the ‘one who restores (or ‘returns’)’, and Fuller quotes Cullmann (Christology, p. 19) as observing that this figure ‘performs miracles, restores the law and true worship among the people, and brings knowledge to other nations’. 90 It should be remembered that Muhammad disavowed any claim to miracles, so clearly the passage in Deuteronomy 18 cannot apply to him if miracles are an essential function of the eschatological prophet. 91

The incident with the Samaritan woman in John 4:7ff should be understood in this light. When Jesus informs her that she has had several husbands, and is living with one who is not her husband, she replies, ‘Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet’, v19. Later, in v25, she states ‘I know that Messiah is coming (the one called Christ): when he comes, he will declare all things to us. 26 Jesus said to her, ‘I who speak to you am he.’ Clearly, in this case, Jesus was claiming to be the ‘Mosaic Messiah’ – the ultimate prophet, for that is how the woman would have understood it, and indeed, this is how she presents it to her compatriots – v29, on the basis of Jesus supernatural intuitive knowledge. It should be remembered that there is a special emphasis in the Gospel of John on Jesus as the divine revealer – His miracles are called shmeia ‘signs’, 2:11. Jesus is the specific revealer of God – 1:18.

(c) The Revelatory death of the Mosaic Prophet and ‘Righteous One’

Even the death of Jesus is revelatory – John 8:28 ‘When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am (‘egw ‘eimi)’, cf. Exodus 6:7; 7:5, where the exodus is a simultaneous revelation to the Israelites and Egyptians that the God of Israel is YHWH – ‘I am’. A further parallel is found in John 19:18 where Jesus is described as ‘enteuyen kai ‘enteuyenenteuthen kai enteuthen ‘one on either side’. This is an allusion to Moses’ arms being upheld by Aaron and Hur in Exodus 17:12 LXX, where Israel battled the enemy (Amalek), and prevailed as long as Moses kept his arms up. John 19:18 is thus presenting Jesus as the new Moses, who saves His People by being crucified (even to the point of physical resemblance, His arms being raised), therein destroying the enemy – Satan. Fuller comments on the New Testament picture of Jesus – ‘Jesus as the Mosaic servant-prophet – the Redeemer and saviour – leads the eschatological people of God into the promised land of the kingdom of God.’ 92

Fuller also observes that another title associated simultaneously with the Davidic Messiah, the eschatological prophet and the Servant was that of ‘o dikaiov ho dikaios ‘the Righteous One’. 93 This was a title of the Messiah, Zechariah 9:9 – ‘…your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation’; Jeremiah 23:5 (cf. Psalms of Solomon 17:35). It was also employed of the Servant, Isaiah 53:11 – ‘my righteous servant’. Barclay observes that the existence of the righteous averts the vengeance of God – Genesis 18:23-33. 94 Jesus is the Righteous One – Matthew 27:19; Luke 23:47; Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 1 Peter 3:18 – ‘Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God’; 1 John 2:1 – ‘if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous’.

(d) The prophetic silence and the bat-qol

One of the indications that Jesus was the ultimate prophet was the prophetic silence that had existed for four centuries. Dunn observes ‘The gift of prophecy was commonly thought to have ceased after the post-exilic period…’ 95 Especially significant in terms of Jesus’ experience of the bat-qol at both the Baptism and Transfiguration is the observation by Vermes that the bat-qol had been the only instrument of divine revelation during this prophetic silence. 96 He notes on the same page the famous decision by Judas Maccabaeus to remove the defiled Temple altar stones ‘until a prophet should arise who could be consulted about them’, 1 Maccabees 4:46. By contrast, the claimed prophetic ministry of Muhammad began totally in private – no public ‘heavenly voice’ confirmed his calling. The descent of the Spirit upon Jesus meant ‘that Jesus was both called and charismatically endowed to be God’s messenger…’ 97

The theological import of this is the context in which the heavenly voice speaks – eschatological fulfilment, the public announcement of Jesus’ ministry as divine Son, Messiah and Suffering Servant. The prophetic clock was now ticking again. The only prophet to immediately precede Jesus was John the Baptist, who proclaimed that he was only preparing the way for the one following him. Jesus claimed to be a prophet, Matthew 13:57; Luke 13:33. He was also recognised as ‘that prophet’ – the eschatological prophet. John the Baptist declined that designation, John 1:21, but Jesus was seen as fulfilling that role – 6:14 ‘This is truly the prophet who is to come into the world.’ Likewise the multitude in 7:40 exclaim ‘This is truly the prophet.’ The essence of a prophet was of a Man anointed with the Spirit, Hosea 9:7, commissioned by God to bring a message either condemning or encouraging, but always aimed at producing faith – cf. John 8:26-30. David saw his prophetic words as the work of the Spirit, 2 Samuel 23:2. Micah ascribes his prophecies to the Spirit, 3:8. Zechariah says that the ‘law’ (torah) and ‘words’ (dabarim) which the Lord spoke through the former prophets were ‘sent by His Spirit’.

Thus we see that the Spirit inspires the revelation of God; He is the author of prophecy. The Servant, the Superlative Prophet, who brings with His message social liberation and righteousness, Isaiah 61:1ff, does so because He is anointed with the Spirit, v1 (Isaiah 42 tells of how, because He is anointed with the Spirit, He brings Justice to the Gentiles, i.e. makes them worshippers of YHWH). We have already seen that in Luke 4:18f, Jesus declares Himself to be the fulfilment of Isaiah 61:1f. Significantly, Dunn observes that in the Qumran scroll 11QMelch, ‘the figure of Isa. 61:1 had been identified with the eschatological Prophet.’ 98 Dunn further notes that within Judaism, ‘to possess the Spirit of God was to be a prophet’. 99David Hill, Reader in Biblical Studies at Sheffield University, echoes this – ‘Within the Judaism of the time, the possession of the holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, was regarded as the mark of prophecy…’ 100 It is thus significant that John 3:34 records of Jesus ‘For He whom God sent speaks the words of God: for He does not give the Spirit by measure.’ In addition to Jesus’ possession of the Spirit, Dunn makes the important observation that Jesus’ actions were in themselves prophetic:

Jesus may have consciously set himself within the prophetic tradition by performing symbolic actions: the entry into Jerusalem, the purge of the temple, and above all the last supper (perhaps also the more obscure meal in the desert – ‘feeding the five thousand’ and the puzzling ‘cursing of the fig tree’) come to mind here. It is possible that Jesus thought of himself as the eschatological prophet, view of his application of Isa.61.1 to himself, but it would be more accurate to say that he saw his ministry as the fulfilment of several eschatological prophecies. 101

Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman demonstrated His possession of the gift of prophetic insight. Dunn comments: ‘This “ability” to lay bare “the thoughts of the heart” was regarded by Paul as the distinctive charisma which marked out the gift of prophecy (1 Cor. 14.24f…), and it appears to have been regarded as the mark of the prophet by Jesus’ contemporaries in the same way, if Luke 7.39 is any guide.’ 102 Jesus also predicted the future – e.g. Matthew 24:3-35. Of particular interest is that He predicted His own death and resurrection – Luke 9:22 presents Jesus as saying ‘The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up.’ In a sense, the Last Supper was a prophetic enactment of His death on behalf of sinners. Barclay makes the important observation that ‘the prophets were characteristically martyrs’, noting how Jezebel slew the prophets, 1 Kings 18:13; 2 Kings 9:7, cf. Jeremiah 2:30. 103 Jesus noted how the paradoxical characteristic of Jerusalem, the supposed holy city, was that it slew the prophets and messengers of God – Matthew 23:37. Jesus knew that Jerusalem would treat Him, as the ultimate prophet, in the same way – Luke 13:33. 

(e) The Prophetic message of Jesus

The central message of Jesus was the kingdom of God, i.e. the sovereign reign of God. He was the proclaimer of its restoration – Mark 1:15. This verse reflects Isaiah 52:7ff, which immediately precedes the Servant Song at v13. Ladd notes that ‘The prophets had promised a time when the good news would be proclaimed that God was visiting his people… A herald would appear publishing peace, announcing good tidings of salvation, saying to Zion, “Your God reigns…” In the synagogue at Nazareth, Jesus claimed that this gospel was no longer hope but event (Luke 4:18).’ 104 Jesus was both prophet and prophetic fulfilment. Moreover, the message of the kingdom was intrinsically a case of realised eschatology – ‘The gospel is itself the greatest of the messianic signs. The gospel was not a new teaching; it was itself event. Preaching and healing: these were the signs of the presence of the kingdom.’ 105 We have already noted the connection of these factors with the ministry of the Son of David and the Servant., and the ‘deeds of the Messiah’ in Matthew 11:4-5.

The Kingdom of God was characterised by the intervention of the Spirit against demonic power, and thus by the miraculous – Matthew 12:28. Ladd comments ‘The meaning of Jesus’ exorcism of demons in its relationship to the Kingdom of God is precisely this: that before the eschatological conquest of God’s Kingdom over evil and the destruction of Satan, the Kingdom of God has invaded the realm of Satan to deal him a preliminary but decisive defeat.’ 106

Jesus was the embodiment of this doctrine – Luke 17:21 – ‘the kingdom of God is in your midst’. Its dynamic expression culminated in the death of Jesus as King on the cross. We have already seen how the Cross exorcises Satan, demonstrating the dynamic, sovereign nature of the crucifixion, and the salvation its effects. Hence, Jesus as the ultimate prophet is a charismatic warrior against sin, Satan and sickness, bringing us back to the Servant and Anointed One figures of Isaiah. In this regard, His prophetic enactment of His death at the Last Supper was entirely in keeping with His being the Ultimate Prophet.

(f) Jesus as Apostle

Only once in the New Testament is Jesus explicitly termed an Apostle, in Hebrews 3:1 ‘Therefore, holy brothers, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession.’ It is significant that the term is parallel with ‘High Priest’. Barclay explains ‘The Greek word apostolos is really an adjective. It comes from the verb apostellein, which means “to send forth”…’ The nuance is similar, though not totally equivalent to the Muslim concept of rasul. Of course, even if the exact term is not employed, the concept is certainly present elsewhere in the New Testament, especially where apostellein is used. Jesus declared that He had been ‘sent’ – Matthew 10:40 ‘He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him that sent me.’

What is particularly striking, and an example of how Jesus united all these distinct but frequently related titles in Himself is how He could say that He was sent as the Son. The parable of the wicked tenants is especially helpful in this context. There, after the sending of several messengers, clearly the prophets, the prophetic climax is reached when the Son is sent. Moreover, this ultimate prophet, who is the Son, is killed. Jesus was clearly predicting His death as the ultimate prophet and divine Son. Again, we encounter this concept of the commission of the Son in the Gospel of John, e.g. 3.17, 28; 5.36; 6.29, 57; 8.42; 10.36; 12:49; 13:20; 14:24; 17.3, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25. We have previously noted the emphasis on revelation in the Fourth Gospel. On the one hand, this can be associated with the message Jesus brought – John 7:16 ‘Jesus therefore answered them and said, My teaching is not mine, but his that sent me’, cf. 3:34. The miracles attested His commission by the Father – 5:36. On the other, His ministry needs to be considered – as emphasised earlier, what is of special import is that Jesus was commissioned as the Son, who could be co-honoured with the Father, 5:23, and that the Son was sent to die – 3:16-17, so that those for whom He died could be saved. Jesus was sent to die.

Barclay observes an important aspect of the background to the term ‘apostle’ in Jewish usage:

Amongst the later Jews the word was in common use in its Hebrew form shaliach, which also means one ‘who is sent’. In all religious matters the Sanhedrin was the supreme governing body of all Jews not only in Palestine but also all over the world. When the Sanhedrin wished to despatch an instruction, a command, a warning to Jews in any part of the world, the bearer of it was known as a shaliach or apostolos… Saul, for instance, was the shaliach or apostolos of the Sanhedrin when he went to Damascus to organise a campaign of persecution against the Christians (Acts 9.1, 2). In Acts 28.21 the Jews of Rome say that they have received no letters from Judaea concerning Paul. That is to say, no shaliach or apostolos had come from the Sanhedrin with instructions as to how Paul was to be treated. 107

This understanding of apostolicity in Jewish usage aids our understanding of the revelatory ministry of Jesus. Jesus came as the representative of the Father to convey His will, John 4:34 ‘Jesus said to them, My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work.’ However, there is an even more pertinent nuance to the phrase that Barclay demonstrates:

It is here that a new and very important element enters the meaning of the word. To the Jew the apostolos or shaliach was not only a messenger; he was a delegate who for the time being and for the particular duty assigned to him exercised all the power and the authority of the Sanhedrin. Hence the rabbis said: ‘The one who sends (that is, his apostolos or shaliach) is the equivalent of the man himself.’ ‘A king’s ambassador is as the king himself.’ An apostolos is more than a messenger; on him power and the authority of the one who sent him. 108

This helps us understand the import of Matthew 9:6 ‘But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins (then he said to the paralytic), get up, and take up your bed, and go home.’ The One sent acted on the authority of the One who sent Him. The evidence was that the man was healed. To come back to the ‘prophet like Moses’, Barclay’s comments on the shaliach at this point are most illuminating:

To four great prophets the name of Shaliach was given, to Moses, to Elijah, to Elisha and to Ezekiel. It was given to them because God had in a very special way delegated his power to them so that they were able to perform miracles and to do the things which only the power of God could do. Moses brought water out of the rock; Elijah brought the rain, and restored to life one who had died; Elisha also restored one to life, and also opened a mother’s womb; and, based on Ezekiel 37, the rabbis said that Ezekiel would receive the key to the graves at the resurrection of the dead. The apostolos was not only the messenger of God; he exercised the power of God which had been delegated to him. It is in fact significant that in the passage of Hebrews in which Jesus is called apostolos the very next verse begins with a reference to Moses. By the power of God Moses delivered the people from Egypt; by the power of God Jesus delivered men from sin.

It is also to be noted that the writer to the Hebrews join in this same verse the two titles Apostle and High Priest. And one of the rabbinic titles for the High Priest was ‘the envoy, the shaliach, the apostolos, of the Merciful.’ And so the apostolos brings to men not only the power but also the mercy of God.

So, then, the word apostolos as applied to Jesus means that Jesus was uniquely sent by God, and that Jesus is delegated by God to bring to men both the power and the mercy of God. 109

It can be seen here that when Jesus indicated that the Father had sent Him to die, the priestly aspect of His ministry was inter-connected with that of His prophetic commission. To ensure that no one misconstrued that it was purely this commission which made Him equal to the Father, Jesus in his prayer in John 17:5 could speak of His pre-existent glory that He enjoyed with the Father. Finally, the concept of the shaliach helps us with an issue often problematic for Muslims – the fact that the gospels and epistles were not directly written by Jesus Himself, but by His apostles/disciples. In John 20:21, Jesus says ‘…as the Father sent Me, so I send you.’ Each Evangelist was the shaliach of Jesus, and so could speak (and write) on His authority. He commissioned them with His Spirit for this purpose. Thus, the New Testament most definitely is the revelation of Christ.

(g) Final thoughts on Deuteronomy 18

Hill comments on the employment of Deuteronomy 18 in the life of Jesus as follows, showing how the ministry of Jesus was seen as fulfilling this prophecy:

It is probable that we should understand the words ‘listen to him’ (Mark 9.7 and par.) as an intended allusion to the ‘him shall you heed’ of Deut. 18.15, and it is in the Transfiguration narrative of Matthew (17. 1-9), together with the Sermon on the Mount (chaps. 5-7) that the Mosaic-prophet theme comes to the fore with clarity, though not to the exclusion of other imagery and not just as ‘a second edition of Moses, as it were, on a grand scale, but one who supersedes him’. In John’s Gospel we find, as one aspect of the portrayal of Jesus, clear indications that he is the fulfilment of the Deuteronomic passage. The sayings in 7.40 and 6.14 are based on the expectation of the prophet like Moses. In the former verse the people affirm ‘This is really the prophet’, because it was expected that the prophet like Moses would repeat the miracle of the dispensing of water at Horeb: and if we adopt the reading of P66 in John 7.52 (as. in our view, we should) then what is contested is that the eschatological prophet (like Moses) will come from Galilee. After the miracle of the loaves it is said, ‘This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world’ (6.14), for what has been experienced is reminiscent of the miracle of the manna. In connection with this verse it should be noted that ho erchomenos is exactly the same expression as used in the Baptist’s question to Jesus: ‘Are voui he who is to come (ho erchomenos)?’ (Matt. 11.3, Luke 7.19) …this suggests that ho erchomenos had titular significance, possibly designation Messiah (cf. the LXX and Targumic interpretations of Gen. 49.10, and the Jewish interpretation of Hab. 2.3), but more probably a designation of the expected eschatological prophet. 110

7. The Word of God

John 1:1 presents Jesus as the ‘Word’. The context makes it clear that this means the divine Word, to the point that the Word is said to be God – ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ This is not a self-designation of Jesus, but rather a description employed by John of Jesus, though such depiction entirely agrees with Jesus’ own presentation of Himself as the ultimate revelation of God. Ladd states that John used it because it was ‘a term widely known in both the Hellenistic and the Jewish worlds in the interests of setting forth the significance of Christ.’ 111Ladd notes that Greek philosophers such as Heraclitus (6th century BC) and the Stoics employed the concept of the Logos. The Alexandrian Jew Philo (c. 20 BC – AD 42) used the concept as a bridge between the Hellenistic and Jewish worlds. 112

For Philo, the Logos is the first-born son of God – protogonov ‘uiovprotogonos huios – to the extent that he even calls the Logos a ‘second god’ – deuterovyeovdeuteros theos. Guthrie observes other interesting aspects of Philo’s concept:

1. The logos has no distinct personality. It is described as ‘the image of God… through whom the whole universe was framed’. But since it is also described in terms of a rudder to guide all things in their course, or as God’s instrument (organon) for fashioning the world, it seems clear that Philo did not think of logos in personal terms.

2. Philo speaks of the logos as God’s first-born son protogonos which implies pre-existence. The logos is certainly regarded as eternal. Other descriptions of the logos as God’s ambassador (presbeutēs), as man’s advocate paraklētos) and as high priest (archiereus), although offering interesting parallels with Jesus Christ, do not, however, require pre-existence.

3. The logos idea is not linked with light and life in Philo’s doctrine as it is in John’s…

4. There is no suggestion that the logos could become incarnate. This would have been alien to Greek thought, because of the belief in the evil of matter.

5. The logos definitely had a mediatorial function to bridge the gap between the transcendent God and the world. It can be regarded as a personification of an effective intermediary, although it was never personalized. Philo’s logos has, therefore, both parallels and differences from John’s logos… 113

However, Ladd observes that ‘Philo’s Logos concept is employed in the interests of a dualistic cosmology that removes God from immediate contact with creation, whereas John uses the Logos concept to bring God in Christ directly into his creation.’ 114 Neither is the Logos personally distinct in this conception, and it should be remembered that Hellenistic thought regarded matter as evil, so the Johannine concept of incarnation would be foreign to Philo, as well as to Greek philosophy in general. Fuller observes that the Gospel Logos doctrine ‘is not derived from the Greek philosophical tradition. The Logos of Heraclitus and the Stoics was the immanent principle of law and order in the universe, whereas the Logos of the prologue [of John] is a transcendent being who comes into this world from outside.’ 115 Nonetheless, the existence of the Philonic Logos shows that there was a tradition of the personified (though not personalised) Logos in Judaism. The Christian concept was neither arbitrary nor contrived.

This becomes more explicit when we consider the Old Testament background to the Logos. The Hebrew term for ‘word’ is rb1d1 dabar. The great Old Testament scholar, Professor Edmond Jacob of Strasbourg University, observed ‘That God reveals himself by his word is a truth confirmed by every one of the Old Testament books. It is by his word that he reveals himself as the living God…’ 116 He notes that the term has a ‘dynamic’ quality:

This dynamic quality of the word already appears in the names by which it is denoted. The most usual term and the one which has become classical for the word is dabar, which must probably be associated with a root which in Hebrew has the meaning of: to be behind and to push; dabar could then be defined as the projection forward of what lies behind, that is to say, the transition into the act of what is at first in the heart. The realistic character of dabar is always strongly stressed, so that the term will denote thing as well as word (Gen. 20.10; 22.1, 20; 40.1; 48.1 etc.) and no term throws into clearer relief the fact that the Hebrew mind did not distinguish between thought and action. Realism and dynamism are features equally characteristic of the root ‘amar; derived from a root having the sense to be raised up or to be clear, the word would be the visible manifestation of the thought and of the will. In distinction from dabar, the stress with ‘amar is chiefly upon the spoken word; the expression lemor which introduces speeches is generally preceded by dabar (wayedabber lemor) which alone possesses creative dynamism. 117

This dynamism is realised in the creative power of the divine word. The obvious texts that relate to this are Genesis 1:3ff, Psalms 33:6, 9 and 47:15ff. It was by His word that God created the universe. Guthrie observes that there is a corollary to this creative aspect of the divine word:

But not only is the Word creative: it is also sustaining. Such passages as Psalm 147:15-18; 148:8 show God’s providential care for his creation through his powerful Word. Indeed that Word is so powerful that it cannot fail to accomplish its purpose in the world (Is. 55:11; Ps. 147:15). Moreover, judgment is executed by the Word of God (Ho. 6:5). In these senses the Word of God is seen as the powerful agency of God. 118

Immediately, we can see parallels with the Logos concept in the Gospel of John. Jesus was the Word that created the cosmos – John 1:3 – ‘All things were made through him; and without him nothing was made that has been made.’ Jesus definitely accomplished the divine commission – 17:4 ‘I glorified you on the earth, having accomplished the work which you gave me to do’; in 19:30 He exclaims from the cross tetelestai ‘It is finished’. It is worth noting that what Isaiah 55:11 asserts about the word of God (‘So shall my word be that goes forth from My mouth: it shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish what I desire, and it shall succeed in the matter for which I sent it’) may provide the background to the Johannine motif of Jesus coming from, and going to God. 119 Jesus is also the Agent of divine judgment – 5:22. We also encounter Jesus as the Judge in the Synoptic gospels, e.g. Matthew 25:31ff.

We earlier noted the emphasis in the Gospel of John upon the revelatory nature of the ministry of Jesus. Jesus reveals the Father, 1:18; 17:26. His miracles are called ‘signs’; even His death is revelatory. In this respect, the concept of the Logosideally fits the nature and ministry of Jesus. Both Islam and the Bible hold that God is incomprehensible apart from His self-revelation. The only totally adequate revealer of God is God Himself, who can express the infinite. Yet the infinite must be expressed in terms of the finite because it is revealed to the finite. Hence, the Incarnation is a necessary action because of revelation alone – God, taking human nature alongside His divine nature, expresses the infinite in terms of the finite – John 1:14 – ‘the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us’.

In this respect Jesus reveals the nature of God in terms of His holiness, His love, His power, and His revelatory action. He is the climax of revelation, Hebrews 1:1-2 – ‘God has in these last days spoken by His Son’. To encounter Jesus is to encounter God Himself, and thus experience the infallible revelation – ‘Whoever has seen me has seen the Father’, John 14:9. However, the bodily revelation of Jesus is itself not the completion of the divine revelation, because He is not eternally bodily present on the earth, and because the transformation He works is not complete apart from the divine indwelling, which is effected by the Holy Spirit. Since all three persons share the same essence of deity, whenever the Spirit indwells a person, the latter has experienced the inward revelation of the Triune God. The revelation of God was effected by the Word entering the human scene by dwelling among us; ultimately, this is secured by His dwelling within us – John 14:16-20 – the triune God, through the Holy Spirit, dwells within everyone born of the Spirit.

The Father reveals the Son by sending Him, the Son reveals the Father by His presence and work, (Matthew 11:27), the Spirit reveals the Son and thus the Father by applying this work with His presence. Revelation points to the Triune nature of God. We know what God is like when we experience the Father, by the Holy Spirit, revealing the Son in our lives. This revelation is in conformity to the way God made men – as beings capable of intelligent relationship, especially love. Man is made in God’s image, and is social – made for relationship and fellowship. The expression of divine love and desire for fellowship is effected through divine revelation. The theanthropic Person of Jesus is the climactic expression of revelation in that in a unique way, God comes to Man. The perfect Man who is also God can express in human terms the mind of the Creator.

We have noted earlier that Jesus is the fulfilment of the Law – the Torah. Indeed, he specifically fulfils the Davidic covenant of the Torah for Humanity. It is noteworthy that the Ten Commandments are actually entitled the dabarim of the LORD.Jacob notes that in Judaism, the authority of the dabarim ‘became merged with that of God himself.’ 120 Indeed, Morris observes that in some Targums, ‘the Word’ (represented in the Targums by the technical phrase Memra’, equivalent to Biblical Hebrew ‘amar, a synonym for dabar) is employed as a periphrasis for God, and that in a Genesis Targum, the First Couple heard ‘the voice of the Word of God’ walking in the Garden, Genesis 3:8. 121 The structure and wording of John 1:1 very obviously reflects Genesis 1:1, so, in the light of Targumic usage, when we read in v14 that the Word became flesh, we can understand that the Gospel is not being arbitrary or contrived in presenting the Word as God; the distinctive element is that the divine Word was incarnated.

This is strengthened by links between the divine Name YHWH and Memra’. C. T. R. Hayward, suggests that Memra’ directly represented the name which God Himself revealed to Moses from the burning bush, YHWH (or ‘HYH, vocalised as ‘ehyeh), translated as I AM/WILL BE THERE (cf. Exodus 3:14b, ‘Say to the people of Israel: I AM THERE: (‘ehyeh) has sent me unto you.’). He notes that Codex Neofiti I in the Palestinian Targum renders Exodus 3:12 (‘And He said For I will be there (‘ehyeh) with you, rm( hyh) yk…’) as ‘And he said: For I will be there, My Memra’ with you, rm( yrmm ywwh) swr)…’ Other Targums read, ‘And He said: For My Memra’ will be for your support…’ 122 Hayward suggests that this employment of Memra’ as representing the Name ‘HYH was the original usage of the term, and only when this original meaning had been lost, did it come to be used as a replacement of YHWH. The expression ‘Name of the Memra’ of YYY‘ (‘YYY’ being a Targumic representation of the ‘Tetragrammaton‘ – YHWH), frequent in Codex Neofiti, ‘reveals that the spheres of meaning and content’ of Memra’ and YHWH ‘are not coterminous. Memra is not a replacement for YHWH.’ He infers from this that Memra’ is ‘God’s Name’ ‘HYH which by midrashic exposition refers to His presence in past and future creation, history and redemption. Memra’ is God’s mercy, by which the world is created and sustained.’ Hayward applies this perception to John’s use of logov and concludes:

St, John may have presented Jesus as the Memra’, the revealer of God’s merciful, active presence in creation, redemption, and covenant, as having come in flesh to tabernacle among men. Jesus personifies God’s ‘HYH, the living proof that the God revealed to Moses at the bush is with His people … As Memra’, Jesus would represent God’s ‘HYH the self-naming of God, one with God kai Yeov ‘hn ‘ologov …Jesus has manifested God’s Name to men, according to John 17:6. St. John, then, if our hypothesis be correct, depicts Jesus as the Memra’, who is God’s Name, manifesting God’s glory, full of the grace and truth of the covenant, dwelling with us in the flesh, which Jesus himself describes as a Temple (2.19), the very dwelling place of the Memra’ … if the Memra’s effect on the prologue is left out of account, an essential element of the Logos-doctrine will have been passed over in silence.’ 123

It should be noted that Targum Pseudo-Jonathan II on Exodus 3:14 reads ‘And the Memra’ of the LORD said to Moses…’ Where this becomes particularly relevant for the debate with Islam is the relationship between Logos and the ‘I AM’ sayings of Jesus. John 8:58, of course, clearly affirms the pre-existence of Jesus, and given the crowd’s reaction of attempting to stone Jesus for blasphemy, it is clear that they understood Him as claiming deity. Granted that Jesus does not explicitly proclaim Himself as Logos, the fact is that He does employ egw eimi ego eimi of Himself, as in 4:26; 6:20; 8:24, 58; 13:19; 18:5. Given that ‘the Word’ had become a representation of the divine Name YHWH, it can be observed that John’s usage was effectively reflecting Jesus’ own assertion of His identity as YHWH.

Similarly, H. Mowvley has suggested Exodus 33:7ff as a background to John’s use of Logos. The Tent of Meeting was where God used to speak to Moses, and ‘… just as Moses met God and heard his word in the Tent of Meeting, so men may now meet him and hear him in the flesh of Jesus.’ Behind John’s use of ‘eskhnwsen in 1:14, Mowvley sees reference to the Tent of Meeting in Exodus 33. Similarly the reference to his glory recalls the reference to the shining of Moses face (LXX dedoxastai‘h ‘oqiv tou crwmatov tou proswpou ‘autou) when he went in before the LORD in the Tent of Meeting. 124 The Biblical scholar M. D. Hooker sees the Prologue as concerned with the exegesis of the Divine Name and having a background in Exodus 33-34. 125 Ladd observes that ‘eskhnwsen ‘is a biblical metaphor for God’s presence.’ 126

With regard to the Palestinian Targum, represented by the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan and Codex Neofiti I, Martin McNamara has noted the Palestinian Targum’s treatment of Numbers 7:89, a passage relating to the same matter as Exodus 33:7ff. The Hebrew Text of Numbers 7:89 reads, ‘And when Moses went into the Tent of Meeting to speak with the Lord, he heard the Voice speaking with him from above the mercy-seat that was on the ark of the testimony from between the two cherubim and he spoke with him.’ Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan reads thus, ‘And when Moses went into the Tent of Meeting to speak with him, he heard the Voice of the Spirit that conversed with when it descended from the highest heavens above the mercy-seat above the ark of the testimony from between the two cherubim and from there the Word (Aramaic dibbēra’) conversed with him.’

Codex Neofiti I uses dibbēra’ twice in its paraphrase, ‘And when Moses used to go in to the Tent of Meeting to speak with him, he used to hear the Voice of the Word speaking with him … from there the Word used to speak with him.’ In similar fashion, Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan paraphrases Exodus 33:11, ‘Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend’, as follows ‘And the Lord spoke to Moses, speech to speech. He used to hear the Voice of the Word (dibbēra’) but the Glory of the countenance he used not to see, as a man speaks with his friend. And after the Voice of the Word had ascended, he returned to the camp and related the words to the congregation of Israel.’ 127 Again, we can see how the term ‘the Word of God’ was a synonym for YHWH Himself.

John’s employment of the term Logos also adequately conveyed a major emphasis of the Gospel we have already considered – the emphasis on Jesus’ ministry, including His death, as revelatory. In Exodus 3:14 God revealed Himself to Moses, specifically with a redemptive aim – to liberate the people of God from their demonic oppressors. We must remember that the conflict between YHWH (through Moses) and Pharaoh is presented as a cosmological conflict between YHWH and the false gods of Egypt – the demonic powers of darkness – Exodus 12:12. When YHWH brought the plagues upon the Egyptians, He demonstrated His superiority over the nature-gods of Egypt. When the Angel of death takes the life of every Egyptian first-born son not covered by the blood of the lamb, YHWH demonstrates His power over the living god of Egypt, Pharaoh. The deliverance from Egypt is presented as ‘redemption’ – Exodus 6:6, one that involves judgment. Equally, the redemption the Logos effects is a judgment against the demonic forces, John 12:31, whereby Jesus delivers people from the grasp of Satan. Just as the Exodus event was a revelation to Israel and the Egyptians, Exodus 6:7; 7:5, the death of Christ is both revelatory and redemptive, as well as being a judgment – John 8:28 ‘When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am (‘egw ‘eimi)’.

Guthrie comments on the relationship between the revelatory and legal characteristics of the dabarim:

Yet the more frequent idea of the Word in the OT is as the means of revelation. In the work and writings of the prophets, the expression ‘Thus says the Lord’ or similar words abound. Each prophet was conscious of being the mouthpiece of God… A development from this prophetical idea is when the ‘Word’ came to sum up the whole message of God to man as in Psalm 119:9, 105. It is virtually identified with the law, but the important feature is the emphasis on the divine revelation in its application to the psalmist’s way of life. 128

This becomes very pertinent to the Gospel of John when we consider tendencies within Judaism to regard the Torah as the pre-existent ‘first-born of God’, as God’s intermediary, Agent of creation, and means of spiritual life – the latter especially pertinent, since the Gospel asserts of Jesus in 1:4 that ‘In him was life; and the life was the light of men.’ We can see how this personification prepared the way for the incarnation, and how this explains the background of the Johannine concept, proving that it was not a contrived innovation:

The third Jewish source which has sometimes been appealed to is the rabbinic idea of the Torah,which was regarded as an intermediary between God and the world. There are several parallels between this and the Logos of John’s prologue.

First, the Torah was believed to have been created before the foundation of the world; in other words, its pre-existence is asserted. Secondly, the Torah lay on God’s bosom. Thirdly, ‘my daughter, she is the Torah.’ Fourthly, through the first-born, God created the heaven and the earth, and the first-born is no other than the Torah. Fifthly, the words of the Torah are life for the world.

In John’s prologue, however, the superiority of Jesus Christ, as the divine Logos, to Moses the law-giver is expressly brought out (Jn. 1:17). Moreover, whereas the law was ‘given’ through Moses, ‘grace and truth’ the distinguishing marks of the new law, ‘came through Jesus Christ’. In other words John’s assertions go beyond the assertions of the rabbis. Jesus more than fulfilled the function of the pre-existent Torah. 129

Indeed, the concept of the dabar in general was, in the progressive revelation of God, undergoing a personification that approached personalisation. Jacob observes this tendency:

The other attempt at crystallization appears in the tendencies towards making an hypostasis of the word. Although it is impossible to speak of an hypostasis of the word in the canonical hooks of the Old Testament, it must he recognized that many of the affirmations point in that direction. To speak of the word as a reality which. falls and which unlooses catastrophe (Is. 9.7), or as a devouring fire (Jer. 5.14; 20.8; 23.29), or as a reality which is present with someone like one person with another (2 Kings 3.12), is to look upon it less as an effect than as an active subject akin to the angel or the face of Yahweh. The same hypostatic function of the word, which receives its full development in the pseudepigrapha, has its roots in the Old Testament without any need to admit foreign influences. The tendency to hypostatize was more obvious in the case of wisdom than of the word, but it is the latter which provided a foundation for the theology of wisdom. 130

From all of this, we can understand what was involved in the Logos concept. Essentially, YHWH – the Word – became incarnate, John 1:14, to reveal Himself and redeem sinners. Moreover, the aim of the incarnation, revelation and redemption was similar to that of the Exodus – to bring Man into a spiritual relationship with God, one by which Man would enjoy personal knowledge of God through Jesus, John 10:14ff. 38. Because of the Incarnation, and through the reception of the Holy Spirit, human beings can know God, because in the person of Christ God has revealed Himself – His person, John 1:18, not just His will. Islam, by contrast, cannot wholly address this issue. Sunni Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the uncreated, eternal Word of God, which is almost a part of God – His Speech in fact. The purported revelation of Qur’an, according to Sunnis, is virtually equivalent to the Incarnation in Christianity, only that in the case of Islam, the Word became a Book, rather than flesh. In Islam, God reveals His will, not His person. Thus a Muslim, even if he memorises the Qur’an, never enters into an intimate, supernatural relationship with the person of God. Rather, he merely attempts to obey the divine precepts.

Moreover, as any Muslim will affirm, the Qur’an only truly exists when untranslated; that is, it is only really the Qur’an when it is in Arabic. The language of the Qur’an is an essential part of the revelation – S. 12:2; 13:37; 16:103; 41:44; 42:7; 43:30. Thus, despite its claim to be ‘mercy for mankind’, the Qur’an is contextually limited by time and space, especially in terms of accessibility. There is not the same revelatory action of interaction between God and Man, especially since the Qur’an is effectively limited to those who know Arabic. Jesus, however, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, is universally accessible, whatever the language or ethnic group, and this is demonstrated by His easy movement from Aramaic to Greek when He deals with Gentiles like the Centurion, and through the Spirit He still speaks to people of any language. The Word became Man, not specifically Meccan/Quraish (or any other language).

8. Priest

In the Old Testament the functions of Priest and King were rigidly separated, the former being reserved to the tribe of Levi, the latter to Judah, cf. 1 Samuel 13; 2 Chronicles 26:16ff. Clearly, Jesus, in order to be the Davidic King, had to spring from Judah, yet in order to offer sacrifice, He had to be a priest. Moreover, He had to be an eternal priest – Zechariah 6:12-13 states that the Messiah, who will build the Temple, will be a priest on his throne, uniting the two offices – ’12 …Thus says the LORD of hosts, “Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for He will branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the LORD; 13 Indeed, He will build the temple of the LORD; and He will bear the glory, and will sit and rule upon His throne; and He will be a priest upon his throne; and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices.”‘

We can see from this that the New Testament portrayal of Jesus as simultaneously a priest and king was not arbitrary or innovative, but rather a question of fulfilled prophecy. Before going further, we should note the following:

1. In contrast to the Prophet, the Priest is Man’s representative to God.

2. He has to be appointed by God – Hebrews 5:4, cf. 7:28.

3. He offers sacrifice – 7:27.

4. He blesses the people – Leviticus 9:22; cf. Luke 24:50-51.

5. He makes intercession for them – Hebrews 7:25.

6. The priestly ministry of Jesus does not depend upon ancestry, but life – v16.

7. Unlike the Aaronic, His is an eternal ministry – vs. 3, 8, 17, 21, 24-25, 28.

8. His ministry – i.e. the once-for-all sacrifice, v27, effects ‘perfection’ i.e. what Paul terms justification, which contrasts with the imperfect Levitical order – v11.

9. Based on Psalm 110:4, Jesus’ ministry is a royal priesthood – Hebrews 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:17.

The last-mentioned is crucial: Psalm 110 is the most quoted Old Testament passage in the New Testament. 131 We have seen its usage at the trial of Jesus before the High Priest, where in answer to whether Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed, He responds ‘I am: and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven’, Mark 14:61-62. This conflates Daniel 7:13ff with Psalm 110:1 – Jesus will sit at the right hand of God, i.e. enjoy the place of authority. We encounter the idea of the glorified Son of Man in Mark 13:26, in the Eschatological Discourse foretelling the destruction of the temple in AD 70. Hence, the sign of the heavenly Son of Man is in juxtaposition to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, and thus to the end of the sacrificial system of Judaism. This conclusion of the Jewish sacrificial cultus is also a theme of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 8:13.

The important point is that the ministry of the priestly order of Melchizedek is superior to that of the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood. Hebrews 7:6-8 points to Melchizedek, the Jebusite Priest-King of Salem, who received tithes from Abraham and blessed him, Genesis 14:18ff. The argument of the epistle is that Jesus derives His office from this priesthood – 7:17. Because Levi, in the loins of his ancestor, was blessed by Melchizedek, the latter priesthood is superior to the former, v9. Centuries after the incident with Abraham, Jerusalem, the city of Melchizedek, was conquered by David. As Bruce writes,

David thus became successor to the dynasty of which Melchizedek was the most illustrious representative. David belonged to the tribe of Judah, and so, therefore, did his descendant the Messiah, ‘great David’s greater Son’. There was therefore complete appropriateness in identifying Christ, of the tribe of Judah, with the one acclaimed by the divine oath as ‘a priest for ever after the order of Meichizedek’. And part of the argument of the letter to the Hebrews is designed to show that the priest of Melchizedek’s order is greater in every way than a priest of Aaron’s line. 132

Hence, the claim that Jesus was a priest after the order of Melchizedek is sound. Muslims might object that Jesus Himself does not use the self-designation of ‘priest’, but the fact is that He does employ the motif of Psalm 110 and apply it to Himself, indicating that He did see Himself as the Messianic priest-king after the order of Melchizedek. Moreover, inasmuch as He conflated the ministry of Isaianic Servant with that of the Son of Man and Messiah, He claimed a priestly ministry, the most obvious example being Mark 10:45. He had come to make a sacrificial offering to God on behalf of the people. Furthermore, He had been sent to do so by God the Father – John 3:16-17. We noted earlier the concept of shaliach/apostolos, and that, as we observed previously, one of the rabbinic titles for the High Priest was ‘the envoy, the shaliach, the apostolos, of the Merciful.’ The idea that Jesus was sent to perform a priestly ministry entirely agrees with this concept.

What is especially distinctive about the sacrifice Jesus offers is that unlike the Aaronic High Priest, He does not offer an animal, nor have to do this annually, and neither need He offer a sacrifice for Himself. Rather, He is Himself the sinless offering for the sins of the people. We have previously noted the connotations of the ‘Shepherd’ concept, but for our purpose here, we need only consider John 10:11 – ‘I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.’ The Messianic priest-king had come to sacrifice Himself for the sake of His sheep. We should also remember Mark 12:36-37, which quotes Psalm 110:1, and points to the deity of Jesus. The ‘Shepherd’ title was used of both God and the King. This points to a difference between the God of Islam and the God of the Bible. The former is depicted as demanding that His worshippers be ready to sacrifice their lives for Him; the latter is revealed as the God who takes human nature to die for human beings, specifically for sinners.

When Abraham was to sacrifice his son, he said ‘God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt-offering’. God indeed does precisely that, substituting a ram for Isaac – v13. The Binding of Isaac became known as the ‘Akedah. The daily sacrifice of a lamb in the Jerusalem temple was termed the Tamîd.The Midrash Leviticus Rabbah connects the Passover with the ‘Akedah– ‘When I see the blood of the Paschal Lamb… I will remember the blood of the ‘Akedah.‘ The Jerusalem Targum on Genesis 22, states ‘And now I pray for mercies before Thee, O Lord God that when the children of Israel offer in the hour of their need the Binding of Isaac, their father, Thou mayest remember on their behalf, and remit and forgive their sins, and deliver them out of all their need.’ Of course, the Passover lamb recalled the deliverance from Egypt, whereby the wrath of God did not fall upon those protected by the blood of the lamb. Guthrie asserts that the paschal lamb was intended as a sin-atonement, and draws attention to Pesahim 10:6 in this regard. 133

When John the Baptist saw Jesus coming to be baptised, He exclaimed ‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’, John 1:29, cf. 1 Corinthians 5:7; 1 Peter 1:18-19. Although the Baptist’s designation would draw on the cultic sacrifices we have examined, and thereby present Jesus as the priestly offering, it should also be noted that ‘the Lamb of God’ is also an allusion to the Servant in Isaiah 53:7 – ‘as a lamb that is led to the slaughter…’ Philip the deacon explains this passage as referring to Jesus in his encounter with the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:32ff. Guthrie observes that Isaiah 53:12 refers to the Servant bearing ‘the sins of many’ i.e. ‘all’ – which is the same as saying He bore the sins of the world. 134 Ladd observes that the Aramaic word talya may be translated as either ‘lamb’ or ‘boy, servant’. 135 There would appear to be a conflation of these closely-related concepts to underline that Jesus is the High priest who offers Himself for the life of the world. This is demonstrated by another passage in which Jesus stresses His heavenly origins, and that He came to die so that others might have eternal life – John 6:51 ‘I am the living bread which came down out of heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.’ That this was a priestly action is confirmed by John 10:15-18 – Jesus freely lay down His life for His sheep.

9. Saviour

This term in many ways sums up what has gone before. It has already been noted that Jesus means ‘YHWH saves’. Luke 2:11 presents Jesus as ‘Saviour’. The term is richer in meaning than is often appreciated. The Gospel of Luke has a strong emphasis on the restoration of the Kingdom, and of its liberating nature – 21:28, 31. In the Old Testament, the Judges have the title yasha – ‘saviours’, Judges 3:9, 15. The Septuagint terms Othniel and Ehud as soter – Greek for ‘saviour’, a title also given them by Nehemiah 9:27 – ‘en oiktirmoiv sou toiv megaloiv ‘edwkav ‘autoiv swthrav kai ‘eswsav ‘autouv ‘ek ceirov ylibontwn‘autouv. The context makes it clear that the deliverance involved is political/military liberation from alien oppression.

1. The same thought is apparent in Luke – note the liberation motif in 1:68-71, 2:30, and 3:6 – the idea of being rescued from ones enemies. Cf. 1 Samuel 11:13; 14:45; 19:4.

2. ‘Saviours’ are characterised by charismatic endowment by the Spirit – ‘The typical charismatic figures …are all heroes, most of them military leaders, who deliver Israel from its foes.’ 136 Jesus was likewise endowed with the Spirit – Luke 3:22; 4:18. Immediately upon being so-endued, He was deliberately impelled by the Spirit to enter the desert to combat Satan.

3. The saviour by His act wrought liberty and unity; the New Testament sees this in universal terms – John 4:42 – ‘Saviour of the World’, cf. Luke 2:31-32. His action unites Jew and Gentile – John 11:50-52. In this respect, Jesus is the ultimate and anti-typical Saviour – the ‘saviours’ of the Old testament typified His ministry. This provides a connection with the ministry of the Servant.

4. John 12:31-33 sees the Cross as a military engagement against Satan. Salvation is also from sin, Psalm 51:14; and from death, Hebrews 5:7. These are our foes.

5. God is Saviour – Psalms 24:5; 18.45:15,21; Luke 1:47; Titus 3:4, etc. Jesus is the Ultimate Saviour because He is divine.

6. The dramatic nature of salvation is seen in John 19:18, which we examined earlier – the crucifixion of Jesus is described as ‘enteuyen kai ‘enteuyen enteuthen kai enteuthen ‘one on either side’, an allusion to Exodus 17:12 LXX. John 19:18 is thus presenting Jesus as the new Moses, who saves His People by being crucified, therein destroying the enemy – Satan.

B. The Islamic view

1. ‘Isa bin Maryam

It is uncertain how the term ‘Isa emerged. The usual idea is that it derived from the Syriac Yeshū, which in turn derives from the Hebrew/Aramaic name Yeshua. 137 Normally, Arab Christians normally refer to Jesus as Yasu. In Christ in Islam, Ahmed Deedat makes a tremendous faux-pas about the origins of the name ‘Isa: ‘Actually, his proper name was Eesa (Arabic), or Esau (Hebrew); classical Yeheshua, which the Christian nations of the West latinised as Jesus.’ 138 In fact, Yeshua(0#$2334^w&hy” in the Old Testament is normally translated ‘Joshua’; ‘Esau’ r#51(9 means ‘rough’. The names have no connection with each other. The Greek for ‘Joshua’ is ‘ihsouv ‘iēsous, and this is not only used in the New Testament with regard to the Messiah, but is also used of Joshua the conqueror of Canaan and Joshua the High Priest (among others) in the Septuagint, e.g. Joshua 1:10′kai ‘eneteilato ‘ihsouv toiv grammateusin tou laou legwn‘ Zechariah 3:3’kai ‘ihsouv ‘hn‘endedumenov ‘imatia rupara kai ‘eisthkei pro proswpou tou ‘aggelou‘ Hence, since the Greek form is ‘ihsouv the ‘Latinised’ form to which Deedat objects is no arbitrary innovation of either the so-called ‘Christian nations’ or even the actual Christians themselves.

Deedat further compounds his incompetence by stating that ‘The word is very simply “ESAU” a very common Jewish name used more than sixty times in the very first booklet alone of the Bible, in the part called “Genesis”‘. In fact, it is only ever used of the brother of Jacob, which rather undermines Deedat’s assertions. Every reference in Genesis is to this individual. In Christ in Islam and Christianity, Gilchrist comments on Deedat’s blunder on this issue:

The Jews just simply did not call their children by this name. Jacob and Esau were enemies for most of their lives and their descendants, the Israelites and the Edomites, were often at war with each other. No Jewish children were ever named after the brother of Jacob, the father of the Israelites, for he stood against Jacob and was rejected by God (Hebrews 12:17). It is thus a fallacy to suggest that the original name of Jesus was Esau. 139

Zwemer considers the theory of one Dr Otto Pautz that ‘Isa did indeed derive from Esau, because the Jews in Medina caricatured Jesus in this way, although Zwemer rightly is guarded about this speculative hypothesis. 140Gilchrist finds this theory attractive:

For reasons that have never been apparent Muhammad chose to call him Isa. Deedat’s interpretation of this name as “Esau” tends to lend support to the suggestion made by some that the Jews in Arabic cunningly misled Muhammad by subtly perverting the true name of Jesus into the name of their forefather’s irreligious brother. If Deedat’s conclusion is correct, it militates heavily against the supposed divine origin of the Qur’an.

There can be no doubt, however, that Esau is no nearer to the original and true name of Jesus than Muhammad’s Isa. This fundamental error sets the tone for the whole of Deedat’s treatment of the contrast between Christ in Islam and Christianity and it is hard to resist the conclusion that the Jesus of the Bible, rather than the Isa of the Qur’an, is the true Jesus. 141

Cotterell also notes this theory that ‘the Jews referred contemptuously to Jesus as ‘Isā because of the obvious near-homophony with Esau (Hebrew ‘Esā), the despised brother of Jacob… Nöldeke suggest that Muhammad adopted the name in good faith, unaware of the pejorative overtones.’ 142 This would be in keeping with the Qur’an’s borrowing from a mixture of Jewish and Christian canonical and apocryphal sources. Another theory noted by Zwemer is that ‘Isā was probably formed to rhyme with Moses – Musa. 143 The Qur’an is indeed fond of such rhyming techniques. The difficulty, as Zwemer observes, is that ‘Isā is used in five cases of conjunction with Musa. However, Zwemer’s objection is not insurmountable. Rhythmic considerations may well have been the original impetus for its usage, and thereafter the name simply continued to be used elsewhere. It would be interesting to know what name the Arab Christians of Najran used for Jesus. Significantly, a Christian inscription to Rahman has been found in Yemen, and Muslims also employ this term for Allah. Perhaps archaeology may eventually be able to assist in this question.

The term ‘son of Mary’ does not exist as a title in the Bible, but only once as a description – Mark 6:3 ‘Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon?’ The reference to Jesus as the ‘brother’ of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon demonstrates that the usage is not titular. With regard to its Qur’anic usage, the term is used both as a proper name and as a title in Islam. An example of its titular usage in the Qur’an is found in Surah Az-Zukhruf 43:57 ‘When (Jesus) the son of Mary is held up as an example behold thy people raise a clamour thereat (in ridicule)!’ In the hadith, there seems to be greater emphasis on its titular employment, e.g.:

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.658

Narrated by Abu Huraira

Allah’s Apostle said “How will you be when the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you and he will judge people by the Law of the Qur’an and not by the law of Gospel?

Zwemer notes that in the twenty-five places where ‘Isā is used, in sixteen He is called the Son of Mary. 144 It has been frequently observed that much of what Islam asserts about Jesus is negatory in character, informing us much more about what He is not than what He is. With respect to the Incarnation, Islam denies the deity of Christ:

Surah Al-Baqarah 2:116116 They say: ‘Allah hath begotten a son’; Glory be to Him. Nay to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth; everything renders worship to Him.

Surah An-Nisaa 4:171171. O people of the Book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an Apostle of an Apostle of Allah and His Word which He bestowed on Mary and a Spirit proceeding from Him…

The term ‘Son of Mary’ is not actually explained in the Qur’an or Hadith, but it appears to be related to the Islamic dogma of the virgin birth, as well as a polemical denial of the eternal divine sonship of Jesus. Yusuf Ali makes this suggestion:

401 …Jesus is no more than a man. It is against reason and revelation to call him Allah or the son of Allah. He is called the son of Mary to emphasize this. He had no human father, as his birth was miraculous. But it is not this which raise him to his high position as a prophet, but because Allah called him to his office. The praise is due to Allah, Who by His word gave him spiritual strength-“strengthened him with the Holy spirit. The miracles which surround his story relate not only to the “Clear Signs” which he brought. It was those who misunderstood him who obscured his clear Signs and surrounded him with mysteries of their own invention.(3.62)

Cotterell also examines a possible Ethiopian origin for the term, but finds the evidence inadequate:

The suggestion that the title ‘Son of Mary’ originated in Abyssinia, and indicated a high view of Mary rather than a low view of Jesus, fails at two points. Firstly, it is supposed that the title was brought back from Abyssinia by returning Muslim refugees, after the first hijra. However, the title occurs in Meccan Suras, decisively in Sura 19 which, according to tradition, was recited to the Abyssinian Nagash (Eth. negūs, ‘king’) by the refugees. Secondly there is no evidence that the title ‘Son of Mary’ was used by the Abyssinian church: it does not appear in the Ethiopic Qiddase. In any event the use of the title by the Abyssinian church is highly unlikely since its strong monophysite position ensured that the deity of Christ all but eclipsed his humanity. 145

In the Arabic Infancy pseudo-gospel, ‘Son of Mary’ is used of Jesus a few times, (although not necessarily in a titular sense, save possibly when Satan addresses Him in v34). This may be the source of the term in the Qur’an, especially since this apocryphal work presents Jesus as speaking in the cradle. This is an attractive proposition since the work has a high Mariology, referring to the mother of Jesus as ‘Lady Mary’. For example, in v3, the following is said of her ‘Thou art not at all like the daughters of Eve. The Lady Mary said: As my son has no equal among children, so his mother has no equal among women.’ Islam appears to give a higher status to Mary than does the Bible. Surah 21:91 presents the virgin birth as being as much about Mary as it is about Jesus. They are jointly held to be a sign from Allah:

Surah An-Anbiyaa 21:91And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our Spirit and We made her and her son a Sign for all peoples.Surah An-Muminun 23:50And We made the son of Mary and his mother as a Sign: We gave them both shelter on high ground affording rest and security and furnished with springs.

The elevation of Mary herself to being a sign is perhaps an attempt to compensate for any pressing need for Jesus to be born of a virgin. This remains a major failing inadequacy of Islamic polemics – its failure to explain why Jesus had to be virgin-born. Yusuf Ali comments about this verse (21:91):

The virgin birth of Jesus was a miracle both for him and his mother. She was falsely accused of unchastity, but the child Jesus triumphantly vindicated her by his own miracles (xix. 27-33), and showed by his life the meanness of the calumny against his mother.

If the Infancy pseudo-gospel was indeed the source for this title, then whoever authored the Qur’an engaged in the most deliberate editing of a text to fit his/their presuppositions, since the text begins with the affirmation ‘In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God’ and as soon as Jesus is born, He speaks, saying ‘I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, whom thou hast brought forth, as the Angel Gabriel announced to thee; and my Father has sent me for the salvation of the world.‘ The absence of any canonical background for the titular use of ‘Son of Mary’ demonstrates the contrived nature of the term, in contrast to the firm basis in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition for the titles of Jesus. Clearly, the historical Jesus is the Biblical one.

2. A Prophet/Apostle

The Qur’an presents Jesus both a prophet and an apostle:

Surah Maryam 19:30He said: “I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet…Surah Nisaa 4:171171. O people of the Book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an Apostle of Allah…

According to Islam, Allah has sent messengers/apostles to every people. Every apostle (rasul) is a prophet (nabi) but not every prophet was an apostle. Surah Yunus 10:48 states that every nation has received a messenger. Islamic fiqh says the following about messengers:

AL-RISALA (Maliki Manual)

MESSENGERS AND MUHAMMAD

He sent Messengers to mankind to establish a plea against them. He completed their mission, admonition and prophethood with His prophet Muhammad – may Allah be pleased with him and please him – whom he made the last of the Messengers, giving glad tidings, warning and calling people to Allah, with His permission. The Prophet was an illuminating lamp and Allah revealed to him His book, which is full of wisdom. He explained through it His true religion and guided by it along the right path.

With regard to the distinction between prophets and apostles, the comments of Yusuf Ali on S. 19:51 are helpful:

Moses was (1) especially chosen, and therefore prepared and instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, in order that he might free his people from Egyptian bondage; there may also be a reference to Moses’s title of Kalimullah, the one to whom prophet (nabi), in that he received inspiration; and (3) he was a messenger (rasul) in that he had a Book of Revelation, and an Ummat or organised Community, for which he instituted laws.

Zwemer comments on the distinction as follows:

The number of prophets and apostles sent by God, according to Moslem teaching, amounts to 124,000. Others say 240,000, and others 100,000. These statements show that the words, prophet and apostle, in Moslem usage have not the same dignity, which we infer from their usage in the Old and New Testaments. Three hundred and thirteen are said to have been apostles who came with a special mission. A prophet, according to Moslem teaching, is a man inspired by God, but not sent with a special dispensation or book; while an apostle is one who comes either with a special dispensation or to whom a special book has been revealed. All apostles are prophets, but not all prophets are apostles. Jesus was both. 146

The Muslim author Suzanne Haneef appears to agree with this. She defines a prophet as one receiving divine revelations ‘…which constitute a source of guidance for men. If the revelation is in the form of a written scripture, the prophet is in addition a “messenger” (rasul) as well.’ 147 In the same passage she rejects predictive activity as part of the definition of prophethood. Vos defines the activity of the Biblical prophet (Hebrew nabhi) as ‘an authorized spokesman for the Deity’, in whose word ‘a divinely-communicated power resides.’ 148 This is the same as saying that a prophet was inspired by the Spirit of YHWH. Abraham is said to be a prophet, Genesis 20:17 and 2 Kings 16:13ff defines prophets as those servants of YHWH who attempt to restore the people to the covenant-law.

However, it is quite clear from the Old Testament that there was a predictive element, and from what we have seen earlier, much of this concerned the Messianic Age. Whilst there is some affinity between the Biblical and Islamic concepts of prophethood, the concept of apostleship held by Islam does not exactly correspond to the Biblical usage of the term, as can be inferred from what is said of the apostolic commission of Jesus. The Shaliach concept is rather different from the Muslim idea, and one suspects Muslims would find the notion objectionable. This in itself allows us to say that the Islamic concept of apostleship lacks Biblical and Jewish traditional background, being simply an innovation by Muslims.

As to the question of the prophetic message of Jesus, Muslims hold that He came to confirm the Shari’ah, the same legal-code revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai. The Islamic exegete Mawdudi comments:

…Jesus did not bring any new religion but followed the same way that was followed by all the Prophets before him and invited people to the same. He believed in what was intact in his time from among the original teaching of the Torah. The Injil also testifies the same (Matthew 5:17, 18 ). The Qur’an reiterates this fact over and over again that each and every Prophets who was set by Allah to any part of the world, confirmed the message of all the Prophets who had gone before him and exerted his utmost to complete the work which they had left as the holy heritage, for he did not come to refute them or efface their religion or establish his own religion instead. Likewise Allah did not send down any of His Books to refute any of His own previous books, but to support and confirm them. 149

That is, the message and ministry of Jesus was the proclamation of Islam and the Shari’ah, as stated in Surah Maida 5:49:

And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary confirming the law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light and confirmation of the law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.

In our examination of the Biblical concept of the Eschatological Prophet, we saw how the ministry of Jesus fulfils the law. He did not come simply to repeat it. Interestingly, the Qur’an appears to be self-contradictory in this regard, perhaps reflecting its borrowing from Christian sources which address this issue of fulfilment. Surah 3:50 states ‘(I have come to you) to attest the Law which was before me and to make lawful to you part of what was (before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah and obey me.’ Unlike the Biblical concept of fulfilment, this seems very arbitrary.

One difference between the Islamic and Biblical views is that Jesus is portrayed solely as a local prophet – to Israel – e.g. S. 3:49 – ‘And (appoint him) an Apostle to the Children of Israel’; S. 61:6 – ‘And remember Jesus the son of Mary said: “O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of Allah (sent) to you confirming the Law (which came) before me and giving glad Tidings of an Apostle to come after me whose name shall be Ahmad.”‘ Jamal Badawi asserts this restrictive mission – ‘MISSION specifically TO THE ISRAELITES (3:49, 5:75, 61:6)’. 150 Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 1.429 states that ‘…Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation exclusively but I [Muhammad] have been sent to all mankind.’

This reflects the traditional Muslim view as suggested by Badawi that Jesus was sent only to the Jews, although none of the texts Badawi mentions explicitly restrict the ministry of Jesus to Israel. Indeed, S. 5:110 could be interpreted as commissioning Jesus to speak to humanity as a whole – ‘When Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour unto thee and unto thy mother; how I strengthened thee with the holy Spirit, so that thou spakest unto mankind in the cradle as in maturity…’ {Pickthall). Moreover, Surah An-Anbiyaa 21:91 states – ‘We made her and her son a Sign for all the worlds‘ (the proper translation of the Arabic – even though Yusuf Ali renders it ‘for all peoples’). The phrase is used of Muhammad in v107 of the same chapter. Only the Hadith establishes the unique claims of Muhammad to universal prophethood. It follows that Islam is intrinsically inconsistent with regard to this issue. This inconsistency becomes more glaring when consider the Return of Christ. If Jesus was only sent to Israel, why at His return does He become the ruler of the global Islamic State? Surely this prerogative should be restricted to Muhammad?

It is important to recognise that Jesus is viewed purely as a prophet, rather than as the Prophet. Given that S. 33:40 presents Muhammad as ‘the Seal of the Prophets’, it is clear that in Islamic terms, such a description would apply only to him. In regard to Jesus, the Qur’an effectively belittles Him – S. 5:75 ‘Christ the son of Mary was no more than an Apostle; many were the Apostles that passed away before him.’ Jesus does nothing out of the ordinary, beyond bringing the Injil. There is nothing distinctive about Him as a Messenger that is not true of other prophets according to Islam (at least not before the Second Coming). This naturally involves Islam ignoring what is involved in being the Eschatological Prophet. We have seen the connection of the term with the Suffering Servant, whose passion is of a vicarious nature, something that Islam does not claim for Muhammad. It is noteworthy that Baagil, rather ludicrously, attempts to apply Isaiah 42:1 to Muhammad, but in doing so, he ignores the vicarious suffering that brings salvation in the other Servant Songs, and Muslims do not believe that Muhammad experienced a representative Passion that brings salvation to those with faith in him. 151 The term also has Messianic connotations, and the Qur’an is clear that only Jesus is termed ‘Messiah’. Whilst Muslims, such as Deedat, like to claim that Deuteronomy 18 is a prophecy of Muhammad, it is instructive that the Qur’an makes no such explicit assertion. To be sure, it does claim that the Torah predicted his coming, S. 7:157, but no specific verse or passage is identified as the source of this.

Another aspect of the Prophet in regard to the Servant and Messiah is the performance of miracles. We have already noted that Muhammad disavowed any claim to miracles, and thus, on that basis, Deuteronomy 18 cannot apply to him, since miracles are an essential, identifying function of the Eschatological Prophet. The Qur’anic Jesus does indeed perform miracles, but again, according to Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 6.504 ‘Every Prophet was given miracles…’ (with the exception of Muhammad). The performance of miracles is viewed as a general prophetic function. The Islamic Jesus performs some miracles found in both apocryphal and canonical texts, and does so as an Apostle:

Surah Al-i’ Imran 3:49

“And (appoint him) an Apostle to the Children of Israel (with this message): I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I make for you out of clay as it were the figure of a bird and breathe into it and it becomes a bird by Allah’s leave; and I heal those born blind and the lepers and I quicken the dead by Allah’s leave; and I declare to you what ye eat and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe.

3. Al-Masih (Messiah)

Islam believes that Jesus is the Messiah, e.g. S. 3:45, although it never explains or comments on the term, demonstrating that the term has been lifted from the Bible, and that Islam remains dependent upon Christian sources for an explanation of the title. Yusuf Ali comments: ‘Christ: Greek, Christos = anointed: kings and priests were anointed to symbolise consecration to their office. The Hebrew and Arabic form is Masih. (3.45)’ Given that neither the Qur’an nor the Hadith ever define the term, it is quite legitimate to point to the Biblical and traditional Jewish concepts as providing the only basis for the title – which, as we have seen, involves a Messiah who is the Son of God, divine Himself, and one who vicariously suffers for His people. Deedat comments on the term:

The word “Christ” is derived from the Hebrew word Messiah, Arabic Maseeh. Root word masaha, meaning “to rub”, “to massage”, “to anoint”. Priests and kings were anointed when being consecrated to their offices… Christos means “Anointed”, and anointed means appointed in its religious connotation. Jesus, peace and blessing be upon him, was appointed (anointed) at his baptism by John the Baptist, as God’s Messenger. Every prophet of God is so anointed or appointed. The Holy Bible is replete with the “anointed” ones. In the original Hebrew, he was made a Messiah… Although, every prophet of God is an anointed one of God, a Messiah, the title Maseeh or Messiah, or its translation “Christ” is exclusively reserved for Jesus, the son of Mary, in both Islam and in Christianity. 152

In presenting the concept this way, Deedat is forced to ignore the Biblical and Jewish traditional concept of a climactic Anointed figure, whether royal, prophetic or priestly. No one (and nothing else) in the Bible is ever presented as the Maschiach in the titular sense, a major failing of Deedat’s polemic. Neither the Bible nor the Qur’an present John the Baptist as ‘anointing’ Jesus; in the Bible, the Holy Spirit does that, as God’s Son, Messiah, Prophet and Servant, with its priestly connotations. There is nothing in the Qur’an to indicate that Jesus is King in the sense of a reigning executive. Nowhere in the Qur’an does Jesus ever rule. Nor is any implication that He was ‘anointed’, the meaning of ‘Messiah’, ever presented in either the Qur’an or the Hadith. Again, Deedat has to obscure the meaning by making it just mean ‘appoint’. No one in the Qur’an is ever presented as ‘anointed’, something Deedat also ignores.

At any rate, the Islamic use of the title is itself logically inconsistent, since a king is only a king if he reigns, and in the Qur’an, Jesus never does. The Hadith presents Jesus as ruling after His Second Coming, but He does so as Amir or Imam, rather than Messianic King. Moreover, even in this respect Islam is glaringly lacking in logical progression. There is no indication, and definitely no prediction in the Qur’an that Jesus would ever reign in any sense. The Hadith presents the Islamic Jesus ruling after His return, having slain the Antichrist and destroyed all other religions:

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 3.656Narrated by Abu Huraira

Allah’s Apostle said, “… the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (as charitable gifts).

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 3.425Narrated by Abu Huraira

Allah’s Apostle said, “…son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken from the non-Muslims who are in the protection of the Muslim government). Then there will be abundance of money and nobody will accept charitable gifts.

Another problem for Islam is that the Messiah, as Son of David, is specifically required to perform miracles. This, the Islamic Jesus does, it is true, but not as Messiah, but rather as an Apostle. We encounter no ‘deeds of the Messiah’ such as characterised the eschatological expected figure of Biblical hope and Jewish tradition. In fact, we see nothing in the Qur’an distinctive about the Messianic ministry of Jesus. Indeed, it is fair to say that in the Qur’an, Jesus has no ‘Messianic’ ministry – He does nothing as the Messiah. If the term were excised, the Qur’anic account would read just as well. The term is totally redundant and superfluous to His function and ministry in the Qur’an. This in itself demonstrates the borrowed nature of the term. The distinctive Christian belief over against Judaism is that Jesus is the Messiah, and Islam, claiming Muhammad was the climactic prophet in the line of Moses and Jesus, had to incorporate the title when it claimed Jesus as a prophet. However, by its ignorance of the connotations of the term, it has emptied the title of its meaning. Small wonder Deedat attempts to widen its employment, to play down its significance. This renders him dangerously close to heresy, since no one else in the Qur’an is entitled Al-Masih. Unwittingly, the Qur’an affirms the uniqueness of Jesus in this respect. This, and the emptiness of the Qur’anic use of the term indicates the Qur’an’s borrowing from Christian sources.

Largely as a result of a polemical debate with Medinan Jews, Islam denies the crucifixion, and so rejects the concept of a vicariously-dying Messiah – Surah An-Nisaa 4:157. That they said (in boast) “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary the Apostle of Allah”; but they killed him not nor crucified him but so it was made to appear to them…’ Hence, a major function of the Messiah – His vicarious suffering leading to His divine vindication – is lost. Montgomery Watt has argued that the Jewish-Muslim debate was the origin of the Qur’anic denial of the crucifixion. 153 The Medinan Jews are said to have responded to Muhammad’s claims of being a prophet in the line of Abraham, Moses and Jesus by denying the prophetic standing of Jesus, since they had been able to kill Him, which God would not have permitted if He had been a genuine divine emissary. Since that Muhammad claimed to be the prophetic successor to Jesus, the resultant implication is that if Jesus were a false prophet, Muhammad was likewise. Hence, we can comprehend Islam’s rejection of the reality of the death of Jesus, as being essential to safeguard not so much Him, but rather Muhammad against Jewish polemics. The Jews are not totally absolved of guilt, since the Qur’an definitely accuses them of attempted murder against Jesus.

4. A Servant of Allah

In Surah 19:30, the baby Jesus announces that He is ‘the servant (‘abd) of Allah’. However, whilst this is a description of Jesus, it does not appear to function as a title, and certainly not as a unique one (angels are described as servants in S. 4:172, and Zechariah is so-defined S. 19:2). There is no specific ministry that He accomplishes as a Servant. Zwemer in The Muslim Christ suggests that the statement in S. 4:172 ‘Christ will not scorn to be a slave unto Allah…’ (Pickthall) is a reference to ‘the title of the Messiah in Isaiah as the servant of Jehovah.’ 154 Whether this is so or not, there seems to be no specific theological necessity for Jesus to suffer according to Islam. Rather, the Qur’an simply makes the historical observation that this occurred, and notes that this was the common inheritance of the prophets:

Surah Al-Baqara 2:87ff87 We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of Apostles; We gave Jesus the son of Mary clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you an Apostle with what ye yourselves desire not ye are puffed up with pride? Some ye called impostors and others ye slay!

91 When it is said to them: ‘believe in what Allah hath sent down’ they say ‘We believe in what was sent down to us’; yet they reject all besides even if it be truth confirming what is with them. Say: ‘Why then have ye slain the prophets of Allah in times gone by if ye did indeed believe?’

Surah An-Nisaa 4:155155 (They have incurred divine displeasure): in that they broke their Covenant: that they rejected the Signs of Allah; that they slew the Messengers in defiance of right; that they said ‘Our hearts are the wrappings (which preserve Allah’s Word; we need no more)’; nay Allah hath set the seal on their hearts for their blasphemy and little is it they believe.

156 That they rejected faith: that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge.

157 That they said (in boast) ‘We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary the Apostle 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.

Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 6093Narrated by Ali ibn AbuTalib

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said to him, “You have a resemblance to Jesus whom the Jews hated so much that they slandered his mother…Ahmad transmitted it.

It is quite possible that the original references to Jesus being the Servant of Allah did reflect the traditional Christian usage, but its distinctives, being at odds with Islamic soteriology, were excised. We noted how a similar excision appears to have taken place with regard to material from the Infancy pseudo-gospel. This is likely, since the Qur’an has tampered with the prophecy of Genesis 3:15, where after the sin of the First Couple, God addresses the Serpent, saying ‘and I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.’ The text predicts a Deliverer who will undo the work of Satan at cost to Himself, pointing to the Sacrificial death of Christ. New Testament texts reflect this and apply the prophecy to Jesus, such as John 12:31, which specifically deals with the Cross – ‘now the ruler of this world shall be cast out’, and 1 John 3:8 ‘For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, to destroy the works of the devil.’

A comparison of Genesis 3:15 with the Qur’an reveals that instead of a promised Deliverer, there is a prediction of Guidance – S. 2:38 ‘We said: Go down, all of you, from hence; but verily there cometh unto you from Me a guidance; and whoso followeth My guidance, there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve’; S. 20:123 ‘He said: Go down hence, both of you, one of you a foe unto the other. But if there come unto you from Me a guidance, then whoso followeth My guidance, he will not go astray nor come to grief.’ It is clear that Guidance of this sort has a salvatory function from what is stated in S. 7:35 ‘O Children of Adam! If messengers of your own come unto you who narrate unto you My revelations, then whosoever refraineth from evil and amendeth there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.’ Thus in Islam, the ministry of guidance is equates with the Biblical ministry of sacrifice. hence, we should not be surprised to find Islam presenting not a Jesus who, as Suffering Servant willingly and in the divine plan suffers a sacrificial death, but rather merely a prophet who relays divine revelation.

The Qur’an presents the ministry of Jesus is portrayed as being met by unbelief and hostility. The Jews are depicted in the Qur’an as being guilty of unbelief with respect to the ministry and message of Jesus, S. 3:52ff. In particular, a major aspect of the suffering of the Islamic Jesus is found in S. 4:156, which indicates that Mary was accused of immorality, implying that Jesus was illegitimate: ‘That they rejected faith: that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge.’ Yusuf Ali comments: ‘The false charge against Mary was that she was unchaste. Cf. xix. 27-28. Such a charge is bad enough to make against any woman, but to make it against Mary, the mother of Jesus, was to bring into ridicule Allah’s power itself.’

However, for all this, there is no indication in the Qur’an that Jesus vicariously suffers for all humanity in order that they may be saved. Instead, the sufferings of Jesus at the hands of the Jews is employed to explain and justify the removal of prophethood from that people to the Arabs, and thus argue for the Apostolic/Prophetic ministry of Muhammad, Surah Maidah 5:78 – ‘Curses were pronounced on those among the Children of Israel who rejected faith by the tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary: because they disobeyed and persisted in excesses.’ Thus, instead of the sufferings of Jesus leading to blessing upon those for whom He suffered, it leads rather to disaster for them! Neither does the ministry of Jesus as the Servant bring salvation to the Gentiles, since He is supposedly only sent to the Jews (but consider the significance of Jesus as a sign for mankind, indicating that the Qur’anic redactors failed to eliminate all traces of the historical Jesus who suffers for humanity as a whole).

Of course, it is theologically impossible for Islam to accept the need for the crucifixion, since it rejects the concept of Vicarious Reconciliation, affirming the necessity of submission to God by obedience to Islamic law (the Shari’ah). The Muslim writer Abdalati declares on this subject that ‘Islam rejects the …Crucifixion… This rejection is based on the authority of God Himself as revealed in the Qur’an and on a deeper rejection of blood sacrifice and vicarious atonement for sins.’ 155 Perhaps, however, Islam did not completely succeed in excising the concept of the Suffering Servant. The following Hadith may reflect the original Christian concept of the death of Christ (although the prophet is unidentified), especially as Luke 23:34 says: ‘Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do’:

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 9.63

Narrated by Abdullah

As if I am looking at the Prophet while he was speaking about one of the prophets whose people have beaten and wounded him, and he was wiping the blood off his face and saying, ‘O Lord! Forgive my people as they do not know.’

5. A Word from Allah

One interesting title of Jesus in the Qur’an is Kalimat’Allah – Word of God. This on the surface presents a parallel with the Biblical concept of the Logos. However, Muslim tend to deny this. For example, Yusuf Ali denies that the term has an absolute sense, i.e. He is only a Word from God, not the Word of God:

381 Notice: “a Word from Allah”, not “the Word of Allah”, the epithet that mystical Christianity uses for Jesus. As stated in iii. 59 below, Jesus was created by a miracle, by Allah’s word “Be”, and he was. (3.39)

Gilchrist quotes a Christian writer, speaking of Surah 3.45, makes the same point about the form of the words in the text:

Further, in the verse from the Qur’an which we have quoted, Christ is called ‘His Word’, that is, ‘God’s Word’. The Arabic shows that it means ‘The Word of God’, not merely ‘a Word of God’. (Kalimatullaah, not kalimatimmin kalimaatullaah). Thus we see that Jesus is the word or expression of God, so that by Him alone can we understand the mind and will of God. No other prophet has been given this title, because none other is, in this sense, the special revelation of God’s mind and will. (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 15). 156

With respect to S. 3:39, this particular verse is difficult, since it refers to John the Baptist confirming a ‘Word from Allah’, and whilst this could refer to Jesus, it also could refer to Scripture. More obvious examples are found in the following two texts:

Surah Al-i-Imran 3:4545 Behold! the angels said ‘O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus the son of Mary held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah.

46 ‘He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity and he shall be (of the company) of the righteous.’

47 She said: ‘O my Lord! how shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?’ He said: ‘Even so: Allah createth what He willeth; when He hath decreed a plan He but saith to it ‘Be’ and it is!

Surah An- Nisaa 4:171171. O People of the Book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an Apostle of Allah and His Word which He bestowed on Mary and a spirit from him…

Zwemer comments that ‘modern Arabic usage clearly distinguishes between the Word of God in the sense of Holy Writ, which is always referred to as Kalâm Allah and the Word of God as His Messenger, which is Kalimet Allah. There are, however, only these two passages in which this New Testament title is given to out Saviour.’ 157 As with Al-Masih, there is no clear definition of what the term means in the Qur’an, but from what S. 4:171 states, it would appear that it means less than deity. In that verse He is presented as an apostle, a spirit from God, and God’s Word, in the context of the denial of Trinity. However, it is difficult to understand exactly its import. Baagil claims that it means that Jesus was directly created ‘in the womb of Mary’ without ‘the agency of sperm, just only with the decree of Allah’. 158 Jamal Badawi says much the same: ‘A WORD FROM ALLAH (3:39,45; 4:170). Word is not the “Logos” or the second person in Godhead. It is the creative command of Allah “KON” or “be” (2:117, 3:47,59, 6:73, 16:40, 19:35, 36:82, 40:68). ‘Words’ of Allah is used in (18:109, 8:7, 31:27) and others.’ 159Andrew Vargo, commenting on Badawi’s transmission on ‘Radio Al-Islam Channel RA 200’ on ‘Jesus in the Qur’an – Humanity’, reports Badawi as stating the following on the issue:

Host: The Qur’an calls Jesus the Word, just as the Bible, how is this different?

Jamal Badawi: The problem is the meaning of the term Word. There is a difference, the Christians believe that the Word is the absolute of God, John. This was the influence of Platonic philosophy. The Qur’an has nothing to do with the Logos, the Word means a command or sign from God. Sura 16:40:

For to anything which We have willed, We but say the word, “Be”, and it is.

We are all words of God because we are all created by God’s command. There are 12 places in the Qur’an where words of God are used, so it is not unique to Jesus. 160

On this basis, the thrust of the term is ontological, rather than functional, although Badawi has perhaps overstated his case, in that its unique usage in regard to Jesus would seem to indicate some connection with the virgin birth. Further, his comments about the Platonic origin of the term as used in the Gospel of John are plainly inaccurate, as we have seen, since it is obvious that the dominant influence has been Old Testament and Jewish tradition. Sam Shamoun heavily criticises Badawi’s Qur’anic exegesis:

In none of the examples that Badawi presents is a person ever called God’s Word. The verses without exception refer to God’s ability to create by his Word or refer to the fact that God’s words are inexhaustible… (see endnotes) We are again left wondering how do these verses parallel the fact that Jesus is the only being who is called the Word of God? Badawi cannot produce one single reference to show that other beings or prophets are called God’s very own Word. Instead, he hopes to confuse the situation by bringing in irrelevant issues such as the fact that the Quran mentions God’s words as being inexhaustible or that he creates what he likes by his command or Word. And? Whoever said that God’s words are not inexhaustible or that God cannot create whatever he chooses by his powerful Word? Yet, this still does not touch the issue that not a single being, including angels themselves, is ever called the Word of God except Jesus.

Badawi must assume that Jesus is called the Word of God solely because he was created by God’s command. There are two main problems with his argument. First, Jesus is not simply a by-product of God’s command, but is the very Word of God to man: Sura 3:39…John is to bear witness to a Word from God, namely Jesus the Christ. Here, Jesus is the one who is the Word from God. The fact that he is a Word from God implies preexistence, that Jesus preexisted as God’s Word. This point is brought out more clearly in the two following passages: Sura 3:45… According to this passage God’s Word is not a mere abstraction but rather a person. This is due to the fact that the Word of God is given a personal name, Jesus. This implies that Badawi’s argument that Jesus is only a by-product of God’s creative command cannot be sustained. Hence, according to this one passage the Word of God is personal and shall take on the name of Jesus.

[Commenting on 4:171] Jesus is both the Word of God, not just a word from him, given to Mary and a spirit that proceeds from God himself. Hence, in one sense the Quran denies the divinity of Jesus and yet in other places it affirms that he is the divine preexistent Word and Spirit from God. Secondly, if it were true that Jesus is God’s word solely because he was created by the command of God then we would expect to find Adam called the Word of God (according to Sura 3:59) since he was also created by God’s command. Yet, neither Adam nor anyone else is ever called the Word of God. 161

Even if we differ from Shamoun’s claim that the Qur’anic term definitely points to the pre-existence of Jesus, it is likely that the Biblical concept was the original form that the Qur’an adapted and emptied of meaning. It is definitely employed in a titular sense by Islam, both in the Qur’an and the Hadith, and only ever of Jesus, never any other prophet, not even Muhammad:

Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 5762

Narrated by Abdullah ibn Abbas

When some of the companions of Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) were sitting he came out, and when he came near them he heard them discussing. One of them said Allah had taken Abraham as a friend, another said He spoke direct to Moses, another said Jesus was Allah’s word and spirit, and another said Allah chose Adam. Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) then came out to them and said, “I have heard what you said, and you wonder that Abraham was Allah’s friend, as indeed he was; that Moses was Allah’s confidant, as indeed he was; that Jesus was His spirit and word, as indeed he was; and that Adam was chosen by Allah, as indeed he was. I am the one whom Allah loves, and this is no boast…

Sahih Muslim Hadith 380Narrated by AbuHurayrah and Hudhayfah

The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Allah, the Blessed and Exalted, would gather the people. The believers would stand until the Paradise is brought near them. They would come to Adam and say: O our father, open Paradise for us. He would say: What turned ye out from Paradise was the sin of your father, Adam. I am not in a position to do that; you should go to my son, Ibrahim, the Friend of Allah. He (the Holy Prophet) said: He (Ibrahim) would say: I am not in a position to do that. Verily I had been the Friend (of Allah) from a long time ago; you should approach Moses (peace be upon him) with whom Allah conversed. They would come to Moses (peace be upon him) but he would say: I am not in a position to do that; you should go to Jesus, the Word of Allah and His spirit. Jesus (peace be upon him) would say: I am not in a position to do that. So they would come to Muhammad (peace be upon him)…

It is the unique titular usage of Kalimat’Allah that is so interesting. The Qur’an makes other ontological points about Jesus, mainly negative, e.g. that He was not God, but none of them function as a title. Yet this term does just that. The question is why? The issue becomes even more intriguing when we consider that the titles of other prophets appear to be functional, rather than ontological in nature, again pointing to the uniqueness of Jesus. This last point undermines an assertion of Deedat:

Although, every prophet of God is an anointed one of God, a Messiah, the title Maseeh or Messiah, or its translation “Christ” is exclusively reserved for Jesus, the son of Mary, in both Islam and in Christianity. This is not unusual in religion. There are certain other honorific titles which may be applied to more than one prophet, yet being made exclusive to one by usage: like “Rasulullah“, meaning “Messenger of God”, which title is applied to both Moses (19:51) and Jesus (61:6) in the Holy Quran. Yet “Rasullullah” has become synonymous only with Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, among Muslims.

Every prophet is indeed a “Friend of God”, but its Arabic equivalent “Khalillullah” is exclusively associated with Father Abraham. This does not mean that the others are not God’s friends. “Kaleemullah“, meaning “One who spoke with Allah” is never used for anyone other than Moses, yet we believe that God spoke with many of His messengers, including Jesus and Muhammed, may the peace and blessings of God be upon all His servants. Associating certain titles with certain personages only, does not make them exclusive or unique in any way. We honor all in varying terms. 162

The titles of the prophets in Islam in each case describe a particular relationship that messenger enjoyed with God. It is significant that that the relationship that Jesus is said to enjoy with Allah is the only one that is ontological in nature. There surely must be more to the term than just the idea that Jesus was the result of a divine fiat. Gilchrist argues ‘The Qur’an says no more of Adam than that “he learnt from his Lord words of inspiration” (Surah 2.37), that is, the kalimaat were sent down mir-rabbihi, “from his Lord”, but in the case of Jesus it is said that he himself is the kalimatullah, the “Word of God”. As there is, nonetheless, no explanation of the title in the Qur’an, we shall have to turn, as we did with the title Al-Masih, to the Christian Bible to find its real meaning…’ 163 Zwemer observes about the term in relation to the titles of other prophets, ‘The title given to Moses is Kalim Allah, and the common explanation is that Moses was the mouth-piece of God in the sense that God spake to him, and made him His special confidant; but Jesus is the Kalimet Allah or Word of God, because He communicates God’s word, God’s will to men.’ 164 Zwemer further notes ‘If Christ were a Word of God, it would be clear that He was only one expression of God’s will; but since God Himself calls Him “the Word of God”, it is clear that He must be the one and only perfect expression of God’s will, and the only perfect manifestation of God.’ 165 Gilchrist’s observation is very pertinent:

There are two key factors that the Muslims are only too inclined to overlook – the application of the title to Jesus alone and the fact that he is clearly described in Surah 4.171 as “His Word”, meaning not a Word from God alone but the Word of God. Abdul-Haqq states the first factor quite plainly – the title is “an expression uniquely used of Jesus Christ”. The Qur’an, in Surah 3.59, states that “the likeness of Jesus with God is as the likeness of Adam” and promptly defines that likeness. God simply said “Be”, and he came to be (kun fayakuun), implying that both were made by the single word of God in the same way. If Jesus is called the Word of God purely as a result of the manner of his conception, then Adam too must be the Word of God for according to the Qur’an they were both created in the same manner. Now a real difficulty arises because Adam is not called the Word of God in the Qur’an. Nor are the angels, nor is any other creature so called in the Qur’an. Jesus alone is called the Word of God. 166

As stated earlier, the likelihood is that the title reflects the Christian usage, but that Qur’anic redaction has diluted its original significance. There appears to be no other reason for its employment. No doubt Muhammad and the early Muslims encountered Christians referring to Jesus as ‘the Word of God’, and so included it in their new religion, albeit in a slightly transformed fashion. It is important to recognise that the Christian usage claims a heavy background in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition, notably the targums. What background can the Islamic title claim, especially if it is interpreted as Badawi and Yusuf Ali assert? Especially as the Qur’an nowhere explains the function of the title? We noted earlier that probably because of the virgin birth, Jesus is described as a ‘sign’ to mankind. Possibly the concept of Jesus being ‘the Word’ is related to this as well. It would seem that the miraculous supernatural origins of Jesus are maintained even in the Qur’anic redaction, to some degree.

6. A spirit from Allah

Usually coupled with the previous title is the reference to Jesus as being a spirit from God – Ruh’Allah. The Spirit of God (Ruh’Allah) is to be distinguished from the Holy Spirit (Ruh-al-Quddus). The former is Jesus, the latter Gabriel. This often causes confusion for both Christians and Muslims. With regard to the title as used of Jesus, as in 4:171, Zwemer observes that ‘the commentators are not agreed as to its real significance, and whether it is a name that can be applied to Jesus Christ, or whether the passage simply signifies that Jesus, with all other mortals, was partaker of the creative Spirit of God.’ 167 Badawi observes about the term ‘A SPIRIT FROM ALLAH (4:171): same applies to other humans (15:29, 32:9, 38:72).‘ This makes it clear that he sees nothing singular about the term, although it should be noted that the texts to which Badawi refers concern the creation of Adam. The immediate question is that if this is all Islam means by the term, why has it become a defining title of Jesus, not least in the Hadith, as we have noted earlier with regard to ‘the Word’? For the text does not simply say that God breathed His spirit into the womb of Mary, but rather that Jesus was a spirit from Him. Gilchrist writes:

In Surah 3.45 we read that Jesus was a kalimatim-minhu, “a Word from him”. Now we read in Surah 4.171 that he was also a ruhun minhu, “a Spirit from him”. On both occasions it is clearly stated that the source of the man who bears these titles is God himself. Jesus is his Word and his Spirit. Once again no attempt is made to explain the title in the Qur’an, yet it frankly supports the Christian belief that Jesus was not a creature made out of dust but an eternal spirit who took on human form. It is the closest the Qur’an comes to admitting the pre-existence of Jesus before his conception on earth. The lack of any explanation of its meaning, however, or why it should be applied uniquely to Jesus just as the other two titles are, suggests that Muhammad once again heard and adopted Christian teachings and titles applying to Jesus without understanding them or seeing their ominous implications for his dogma that Jesus was only a prophet like all the other prophets.

Precisely in the passage already mentioned, where Muhammad uses the epithets ‘Logos’ and ‘Spirit’ with reference to Jesus and seems to approach the concept of trinity, it can be clearly understood that Muhammad did not realise the implication of these Christian expressions which he had acquired from hearsay. (Frieling, Christianity and Islam, p. 71). 168

The Muslim answer appears to be found in the Hadith, which gives the impression that all human spirits were characterised by some form of pre-existence, and that Jesus was simply one of these:

Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 122

Narrated by Ubayy ibn Ka’b

In regard to the words of Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, “Your Lord brought forth their offspring from the loins of the children of Adam.” (7:172) Ubayy said: He gathered them and paired them then fashioned them and endowed them with the power of speech and they began to speak. He then made an agreement and covenant with them. He made them bear witness about themselves (saying) Am I not your Lord. They said: Yes. He said: I call to witness seven heavens and seven earths regarding you and I call witness your father Adam regarding you lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection: We do not know this. Bear this in mind that there is no god besides Me and there is no Lord besides Me and do not associate anything with Me. It is I Who should be sending to you My messengers in order to remind you My agreement and My covenant and it is I who would send you My Books. They said: We bear witness to the fact that Thou art our Lord, Thou art our Object of worship. There is no Lord besides Thee and there is no object of worship besides Thee. They confirmed this (pledge). Adam was raised above them so that he would see them and he saw the rich and the poor, those having handsome faces and even those inferior to them and he said: My Lord, why is it that Thou hast not made Thy servants alike? He said: I wish that I should be thanked. And he also saw the Prophets, some amongst them like lamps with light in them, distinguished by another covenant regarding messengership and prophethood, viz. the words of the Blessed and the High: And when We made covenant with the prophets – up to His words: Jesus son of Mary (33:7). He was among those spirits and He sent him to Mary (peace be upon both of them). And it is narrated by Ubayy that he entered by her mouth.

Transmitted by Ahmad.

The doctrine of this tradition does not seem to agree with that of the Qur’an, and it smacks of being contrived, possibly with a view to countering Christian polemics about the eternal nature of Christ. At any rate, the provenance of the hadiths with regard to the Qur’an is debatable, whatever Muslims affirm. Certainly the text in S. 33:7 in no way implies the pre-existence of the prophets or human beings in general. If the term is simply a description of Jesus’ origins, it is strange that it has come to function as a title, and one that distinguishes Jesus from other Messengers. As with ‘the Word’, this title is never employed of any other prophet. Gilchrist observes how the term has come to be used in a titular sense:

Throughout the works of Hadith where purported sayings and anecdotes relating to Jesus are recorded, we find him always being addressed Ya Ruhullah (“O Spirit of Allah”). It is a very common title in many works. In one place his disciples are found saying to him:

“O Spirit of God, describe to us the friends of God (Exalted is He!) upon whom there is no fear, and who do not grieve”. (Robson, Christ in Islam, p. 86). 169

Even if the titles of the prophets are not exclusive as Deedat claims, it requires some explanation as to why an ontological description is applied uniquely to Jesus, whereas other prophets are known by functional or relational titles. No other human being in the Qur’an is ever described as a spirit in this way. Rather, the term Ruh is applied to angels, such as Gabriel, e.g. 70:4; 78:38; 97:4. In fact, the ‘Spirit’ in these texts is usually, though not universally identified as Gabriel. In this case, we have a heavenly being identified as a spirit. It is natural, consistent exegesis to interpret ruh in other cases as being of this nature. Gilchrist comments:

“Candid Muhammadan writers freely admit that this title ‘Spirit of God’ carries with it some speciality such as can be predicated of no other prophet” (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 21). It is very interesting to note that the very expression applied to Jesus in Surah 4.171, ruhun minhu, appears in exactly the same form in Surah 58.22 where we read that God strengthens true believers with “a spirit from him”. The Muslim translator Yusuf Ali appends the following comment to this verse:

Here we learn that all good and righteous men are strengthened by God with the holy spirit. If anything the phrase used here is stronger, “a spirit from Himself”. Whenever anyone offers his heart in faith and purity to God, God accepts it, engraves that Faith on the seeker’s heart, and further fortifies him with the divine spirit which we can no more define adequately than we can define in human language the nature and attributes of God. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p. 1518). 170

Although Jesus is not described as ‘the Spirit of God’, the close relationship He enjoys with the Third Person of the Trinity, being born through the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary, being anointed by Him at the Baptism, pouring out the Spirit on believers, no doubt led to confusion among early Muslims, very likely as the Qur’an misconstrues so many other Christian doctrines, not least the identity and nature of the Trinity, which it seems to view as God, Mary and Jesus, thereby excluding the Spirit. Of course, the Spirit is given the title ‘Spirit of Christ’ in Romans 8:9 and 1 Peter 1:11. In John 20:22 we read that Jesus breathed on the disciples saying ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’. In the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas the Israelite v10, (First Greek form) which many have suggested as one of the sources of the Qur’an, we find the crowd acclaiming the child Jesus after a miracle with the words ‘Truly the Spirit of God dwells in this child.’ In v15, we read of the child Jesus ‘He spoke by the Holy Spirit, and taught the law to those that were standing round.’ If Muhammad and the early Muslims misunderstood Christian doctrine on this point, their confusion might have led them to misconstrue the Spirit as another term for Jesus, and then they would have adapted and transformed the concept, diluting it to fit Islamic presuppositions. This would appear to be a likely source for the Qur’anic idea. Certainly, the title is ontological, rather than functional, and it is never actually explained in the Qur’an, suggesting that the Christian concept in some form is understood as its background.

---

Conclusion

It follows from our examination of the titles of Jesus in the Bible that the New Testament designations of Him were neither arbitrary nor contrived. They were rooted in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition. These names and titles described both the nature and function of Jesus. Even when a designation may not have been fully recognised as a title (or possibly, even at all), such as the term ‘Son of Man’, there was sufficient Old Testament and Jewish background to allow the hearers some measure of understanding. If people did misconstrue, such as thinking Jesus came to establish a political kingdom, His reference to the Suffering Servant helped to set the record straight. The tittles appear to be inter-related, and could only be fulfilled in their totality (as well as individually) by one person. There is an inner logical consistency in their concepts and in the application of them to Jesus. What emerges from the titles we examined is that Jesus is a divine figure who descended from heaven to die on our behalf, to atone for and liberate us from sin. We have been able to account for all the designations of Jesus in this way. Further, the titles explain both the ontological nature and functional roles of Jesus, the latter flowing naturally from the former.

With the Muslim titles, however, this logical coherence is largely absent. None of them can claim a background in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition. What background they possess appears largely to consist in a diluted transformation of canonical and apocryphal gospels. Throughout, their character betrays contrivance and innovation. They present a confused picture of Jesus’ origins, and frequently tell us little about His ministry. This is especially true of the cardinal title found in both the Bible and the Qur’an – the Messiah. The term is unexplained by the latter, and can only be understood by studying the former. In regard to other Biblical titles, it is clear that the Qur’an misunderstands the concept of ‘the Son of God’, and what it denies is not what Christians believe. It is possible that ‘Son of Mary’ arose as a Qur’anic title partly as a result of anti-Christian polemic. Other titles have been grossly diluted, such as the Servant, and virtually emptied of meaning. Titles such as ‘Son of Man’, ‘Son of David’, ‘Priest’ and ‘Saviour’ have disappeared altogether, probably because they could not be adapted, especially the priestly activity of the Servant. The understanding of Jesus’ prophetic and apostolic ministry in Islam is not identical to that in the Bible, not just to the New Testament, but to what the Old Testament and Jewish tradition expected of the Eschatological Prophet and the Shaliach. The lack of any basis in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition is crucial for the debate as to the identity of the historical Jesus. The Biblical Jesus conforms to this tradition, fitting the picture presented. The Islamic Jesus is frankly foreign to this picture. Naturally, because divine scriptural revelation ended with Jesus and those He appointed as His Shaliach representatives.

---

References

1. Morris, Leon, The Lord from heaven, (IVP, Leicester, 1958, 1974), pp. 57-58.

2. Milne, Bruce, Know the Truth, (IVP, Leicester, 1982), p. 137.

3. Guthrie, Donald, New Testament Theology, (IVP, Leicester, 1981), p. 301.

4. Guthrie, New Testament Theology, pp. 237-238.

5. Wright, N. T., The New Testament and the People of God, (SPCK, London, 1992), p. 330.

6. Fuller, R. H., The Foundations of New Testament Christology, (Fontana, London, 1965), p. 24.

7. Ibid.

8. Motyer, Alec, The Prophecy of Isaiah, (IVP, Leicester, 1993), pp. 102-103.

9. France, R. T., Matthew – Evangelist and Teacher, (Paternoster, Exeter, 1989), p. 285.

10. Ibid, p. 285.

11. Carson, D. A., ‘Christological ambiguities in Matthew’, Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology presented to Donald Guthrie, Rowdon, Harold. H. (ed.), (IVP, Leicester, 1982), p. 105.

12. Grogan, Geoffrey, I want to know what the Bible says about Jesus, (Kingsway, Eastbourne, 1979), p. 43.

13. Cullmann, Oscar, Christology of the New Testament, (SCM, London, 1975), p. 273.

14. Richardson, Alan, An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament, (SCM, London, 1959), p. 150.

15. Ibid.

16. France, Matthew – Evangelist and Teacher, p. 207.

17. Ibid., p. 189.

18. Lindars, Barnabas, Jesus Son of Man, (SPCK, London, 1983), pp. 148-149.

19. Verseput, Donald, ‘The Role and Meaning of the “Son of God” title in Matthew’s gospel’, New Testament Studies, Vol. 33, 1987, pp. 537-538.

20. Moo, Douglas, Romans 1-8, (Moody, Chicago, 1991), pp. 40-41.

21. Ladd, George Eldon, A Theology of the New Testament, (Eerdmans, USA, 1974), pp. 166-167.

22. France, Matthew – Evangelist and Teacher, p. 310.

23. Dunn, James, Jesus and the Spirit, (SCM, London, 1975), p. 23.

24. Richardson, An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament, p. 149.

25. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 167.

26. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, p. 36.

27. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 167.

28. John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his unique Son, that whoever believes on him should not perish, but have eternal life.
    John 3:17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him.
    John 3:35 The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand.
    John 3:36 He that believes on the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains with him.
    John 5:19 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing: for whatever things he does, these the Son also does in like manner.
    John 5:20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all things that he himself does: and greater works than these will he show him, that you may marvel.
    John 5:21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom he will.
    John 5:22 For neither does the Father judge any man, but he has given all judgment to the Son;
    John 5:23 that all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent him.
    John 5:26 For as the Father has life in himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in himself.
    John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one beholding the Son, and believing on him, shall have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
    John 8:36 If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.
    John 14:13 And whatever you shall ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
    John 17:1 Jesus spoke these things, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify your Son, that the son may glorify you.

29. Walker Jr., William O., ‘John 1:43-51 and “The Son of Man” in the Fourth Gospel’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, (Issue 54, 1994, Sheffield), p. 41.

30. Kümmel, Walter, The Theology of the New Testament, (SCM, London, 1974), p. 269.

31. Kümmel, The Theology of the New Testament, p. 270.

32. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 148.

33. Manson, T. W., The Teaching of Jesus, (C. U. P., Cambridge, 1931, 1935), p. 218.

34. Bruce, F. F., ‘The background to the Son of Man sayings’, Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology presented to Donald Guthrie, p. 58.

35. Young, E. J., The Prophecy of Daniel, (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1949), p. 154.

36. Vermes, Geza, Jesus the Jew, (SCM, London, 1973, Second edition), pp. 171-172.

37. Bruce, ‘The background to the Son of Man sayings’, p. 54.

38. Rowe, Robert D., ‘Is Daniel’s “Son of Man” Messianic?’, Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology presented to Donald Guthrie, p. 88.

39. Rowe, ‘Is Daniel’s “Son of Man” Messianic?’, p. 82.

40. Ibid.

41. Bruce, F. F., Israel and the Nations, (Paternoster, Exeter, 1963, 1983 revised edition), pp. 144-146.

42. Bruce, Israel and the Nations, p. 146.

43. Bruce, Israel and the Nations, p. 166.

44. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, p. 294.

45. Goldingay, John, Daniel, (Word, Dallas, 1987, UK edition 1991), p. 261.

46. Rowe, ‘Is Daniel’s “Son of Man” Messianic?’, p. 93.

47. Ibid.

48. Ibid.

49. Ibid., p. 75.

50. saiah 52:13-15: 13′idou sunhsei ‘o paiv mou kai ‘uqwyhsetai kai doxasyhsetai sfodra 14on tropon ‘eksthsontai ‘epi se polloi ‘outwv ‘adoxhsei ‘apo ‘anyrwpwn to ‘eidov sou kai ‘h doxa sou ‘apo twn ‘anyrwpwn 15′outwv yaumasontai ‘eynh polla ‘ep‘ ‘autw kai sunexousin basileiv to stoma ‘autwn ‘oti ‘oiv ‘ouk ‘anhggelh peri ‘autou ‘oqontai kai ‘oi ‘ouk ‘akhkoasin sunhsousin

51. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah, p. 426.

52. Baagil, H. M., Christian-Muslim Dialogue, (Revival of Islamic Heritage Society, Kuwait, 1984), p. 32.

53. Bruce, ‘The background to the Son of Man sayings’, p. 58ff.

54. Bruce, ibid., p. 58.

55. Bruce, ibid., pp. 58-59.

56. Martens, E. A., Plot and Purpose in the Old Testament, (IVP, Leicester, 1981), pp. 207-208.

57. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah, p. 121.

58. Grogan, I want to know what the Bible says about Jesus, p. 39.

59. France, R. T., Jesus and the Old Testament, (Tyndale, London, 1971), pp. 132-133.

60. France, ibid., p. 134.

61. France, ibid., p. 134.

62. France, ibid., p. 134.

63. Guthrie, New Testament Theology, p. 262.

64. Lindars, Jesus Son of Man, pp. 77-80.

65. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, pp. 120-121. (The quote about ebed Yahweh is from Cullman, Christology of the New Testament, p. 65.

66. Guthrie, New Testament Theology, pp. 262-263.

67. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, pp. 122-123.

68. France, Ibid., p. 106.

69. France, Ibid., pp. 106-107.

70. France, Ibid., p. 108.

71. France, Ibid., p. 154.

72. Fairbairn, Patrick, Typology of Scripture Vol. 1, (1900; reprint by Kregel, Grand Rapids, 1989), p. 371.

73. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, pp. 108-109.

74. McKenzie, John, A Theology of the Old Testament, (Chapman, London, 1974), p. 250.

75. Kaiser, Walter, Towards an Old Testament Theology, (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1978), p. 155.

76. Ibid.

77. Vermes, Jesus the Jew, pp. 139-140.

78. Chilton, Bruce, A Galilean Rabbi and his Bible, (SPCK, London, 1984), p. 200.

79. Kümmel, The Theology of the New Testament, p. 109.

80. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, p. 109.

81. Bruce, F. F., The Hard Sayings of Jesus, (Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1983), p. 241.

82. Hays, Richard B., The Moral Vision of the New Testament, (HarperSanFrancisco, New York, 1996), pp. 241-242.

83. Deedat, Ahmed, What the Bible says about Muhammad, (IPCI, Birmingham, undated), p. 5ff.

84. Ibid., p. 12.

85. Bruce, Israel and the Nations, p. 209.

86. Clements, R. E., Prophecy and Tradition, (Blackwell, Oxford, 1978), p. 12n.

87. Ibid., p. 13.

88. Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology, p. 47.

89. Ibid.

90. Ibid.

91. Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 6.504
    Narrated by Abu Huraira
    The Prophet said, ‘Every Prophet was given miracles because of which people believed, but what I have been given, is Divine Inspiration which Allah has revealed to me…’

92. Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology, p. 48.

93. Ibid., p. 47.

94. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, p. 82.

95. Barclay, William, Jesus as they saw him, (SCM, London, 1962), p. 367

96. Vermes, Jesus the Jew, p. 92.

97. Hill, David, New Testament Prophecy, (Marshall Morgan & Scott, Basingstoke, 1979), p. 49.

98. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, p. 57.

99. Ibid., p. 82.

100. Hill, New Testament Prophecy, p. 58.

101. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, p. 83.

102. Ibid.

103. Barclay, Jesus as they saw him, p. 238.

104. Ladd, George Eldon, The Presence of the Future, (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1974), p. 165.

105. Ibid., pp. 151-152.

106. Ibid., p. 151.

107. Barclay, Jesus as they saw him, p. 322.

108. Ibid. pp. 323-324.

109. Ibid., p. 323.

110. Hill, New Testament Prophecy, p. 54.

111. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 238.

112. Ibid., pp. 238-239.

113. Guthrie, New Testament Theology, pp. 322-323.

114. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 241.

115. Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology, p. 223.

116. Jacob, Edmond, Theology of the Old Testament, (Hodder & Stoughton, London,1958), p. 127.

117. Ibid., p 128.

118. Guthrie, New Testament Theology, p. 324.

119. Dahms, J. V., Isaiah 55:11 and the Gospel of John, (Evangelical Quarterly, April-June, 1981), pp. 78-88.

120. Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament, p. 129.

121. Morris, The Lord from heaven, p. 94.

122. Hayward, C. T. R., The Holy Name of the God of Moses and the Prologue of St. John’s Gospel (New Testament Studies 25, 1978) pp. 16-32.

123. Ibid.

124. Mowvley, H., John 1:14-18 in the Light of Exodus 33:7-34:35′, (Expository Times).

125. Hooker, M. D., The Johannine Prologue and the Messianic Secret, (New Testament Studies 21 1974), p. 40-58.

126. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 242.

127. McNamara, Martin, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum, (PBI, Rome, 1956), p. 184ff.

128. Guthrie, New Testament Theology, p. 324.

129. Ibid., p. 325.

130. Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament, p. 134.

131. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, p. 164.

132. Bruce, F. F., The Work of Jesus, (Kingsway, Eastbourne, 1979, 1984), p. 74.

133. Guthrie, New Testament Theology, p. 451.

134. Ibid.

135. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 250.

136. McKenzie, A Theology of the Old Testament, p. 248.

137. Cotterell, F. P., ‘The Christology of Islam’, Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology presented to Donald Guthrie, p. 284.

138. Deedat, Ahmed, Christ in Islam, http://www.afi.org.uk/other/50.html

139. Gilchrist, John, Christ in Islam and Christianity: A Comparative Study of the Christian and Muslim Attitudes to the Person of Jesus Christ, http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/christ.html

140. Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, pp. 34-35.

141. Gilchrist, Christ in Islam and Christianity, http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/christ.html

142. Cotterell, ‘The Christology of Islam’, p. 284.

143. Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, p. 33.

144. Ibid., pp. 26-27.

145. Cotterell, ‘The Christology of Islam’, p. 285.

146. Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, pp. 30-31.

147. Haneef, Suzanne, What everyone should know about Islam and Muslims, (Kazi Publications, Lahore, 1979), p. 20.

148. Vos, Geerhardus, Biblical Theology, (Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1948, 1975), p. 193.

149. Mawdudi, Abul A’la, The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 1 Al-Ma’idah, (Islamic Publications, Lahore, 1993), p. 47

150. Badawi, Jamal,Jesus (peace be upon him) in the Qur’an and the Bible, http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/6808/Jesus.html

151. Baagil, Christian-Muslim Dialogue, pp. 41-42.

152. Deedat, Christ in Islam, http://www.afi.org.uk/other/50.html

153. Watt, Montgomery, Muhammad in Medina, (Oxford University Press, 1988), p. 317.

154. Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, p. 28.

155. Abdalati, Hammudah, Islam in Focus, (American Trust Publications, 1975), p. 159.

156. Gilchrist, John, The Christian Witness to the Muslim, http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/

157. Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, p. 29.

158. Baagil, Christian-Muslim Dialogue, p. 21.

159. Badawi, Jamal, Jesus in the Qur’an and the Bible, http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/6808/Jesus.html

160. Vargo, Andrew, Responses to Jamal Badawi’s ‘Radio Al-Islam Channel RA 200′ http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Badawi/Radio/RA200B7.htm

161. Shamoun, Sam, Jesus Christ in the Qur’an and Bible Part III, http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/badawi-jesus3.htm
     Sura 2:117: ‘The Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it: ‘Be!’ – and it is.’
     Sura 3:47, 59: ‘She said: `O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has touched me.’ He said: `So (it will be) for Allâh creates what He wills. When He has decreed something, He says to it only: ‘Be!’ and it is’… Verily, the likeness of ‘Iesa (Jesus) before Allâh is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: `Be!’ – and he was.’
     Sura 6:73: ‘It is He Who has created the heavens and the earth in truth, and on the Day (i.e. the Day of Resurrection) He will say: ‘Be!’, – and it shall become. His Word is the truth. His will be the dominion on the Day when the trumpet will be blown. AllKnower of the unseen and the seen. He is the AllWise, Well-Aware (of all things).
     Sura 16:40: ‘Verily! Our Word unto a thing when We intend it, is only that We say unto it: ‘Be!’ and it is.’
     Sura 19:35: ‘It befits not (the Majesty of) Allâh that He should beget a son (this refers to the slander of Christians against Allâh, by saying that ‘Iesa (Jesus) is the son of Allâh). Glorified (and Exalted be He above all that they associate with Him). When He decrees a thing, He only says to it, ‘Be!’ and it is.’
     Sura 36:82: ‘Verily, His Command, when He intends a thing, is only that He says to it, ‘Be!’ and it is!’
     Sura 40:68: ‘He it is Who gives life and causes death. And when He decides upon a thing He says to it only: ‘Be!’ and it is.’
     Sura 18:109: ‘Say (O Muhammad SAW to mankind). `If the sea were ink for (writing) the Words of my Lord, surely, the sea would be exhausted before the Words of my Lord would be finished, even if we brought (another sea) like it for its aid.’ ‘
     Sura 8:7: ‘And (remember) when Allâh promised you (Muslims) one of the two parties (of the enemy i.e. either the army or the caravan) that it should be yours, you wished that the one not armed (the caravan) should be yours, but Allâh willed to justify the truth by His Words and to cut off the roots of the disbelievers (i.e. in the battle of Badr).’
     Sura 31:27: ‘And if all the trees on the earth were pens and the sea (were ink wherewith to write), with seven seas behind it to add to its (supply), yet the Words of Allâh would not be exhausted. Verily, Allâh is AllMighty, AllWise.’

162. Deedat, Christ in Islam, http://www.afi.org.uk/other/50.html

163. Gilchrist, The Christian Witness to the Muslim, http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/

164. Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, p. 29.

165. Ibid., p. 37.

166. Gilchrist, The Christian Witness to the Muslim, http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/

167. Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, p. 30.

168. Gilchrist, The Christian Witness to the Muslim, http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/5c.html

169. Ibid.

170. Ibid.

A Comparison of the Biblical and Islamic Views of the States of Christ

Gerry Redman

Part 1: The State of Humiliation (i)

Introduction
1. The Incarnation
2. The Baptism
3. The Transfiguration

Part 1: The State of Humiliation (ii)

4. The Sufferings of Christ
5. The Passion
6. The Descent Into Hades

Part 2: The State of Exaltation

Introduction
1. The Resurrection
2. The Ascension
3. The Heavenly Session
4. The Second Coming

The Bible and The Qur’an — An Historical Comparison

CONTENTS:

Introduction

Manuscript Evidence

The Qur’an
The Bible

Documentary Evidence

The Qur’an
The Bible

Archeological Evidence

The Qur’an
The Bible

Conclusion

References Cited

Overview