Redaction Criticism: On the Legitimacy and Illegitimacy of a Literary Tool D. A. Carson

Redaction Criticism: On the Legitimacy and Illegitimacy of a Literary Tool

D. A. Carson

INTRODUCTION

A British journal recently published a short series of articles under the general title “Slippery Words.”¹ Contributors treated such terms as myth, eschatology, and the like. No doubt the editor could have enlarged the list of entries had he chosen to do so; but for whatever reason, he did not. One expression that could lay large claim to consideration in any expanded list is “redaction criticism.”

The ambiguity is partly denotative and partly connotative. At the denotative level, “redaction criticism” can refer to a surprising range of literary activity. It can refer to the study of how an author who depends on an earlier document has used that document—e.g., changing order, editing, polishing, transforming emphases. Elsewhere, when the source document is no longer available, “redaction criticism” can serve as a comprehensive category that includes source criticism and tradition criticism, since it is very difficult to say much about redaction until one has some idea of what is being redacted. Others use the expression in a much weaker sense to refer to the study of an author’s particular emphases and tendencies.

The connotative ambiguities are not less diverse. To scholars with antisupernatural presuppositions, the practice of redaction criticism both confirms those presuppositions and serves as a tool for expressing them.² On the other hand, more than one conservative Evangelical has expressed strong (not to say, heated) reservations about the legitimacy of any use of redaction criticism.³

Before I can say anything useful about the legitimacy and illegitimacy of this literary tool, therefore, I will have to sketch in a little background. Having done this, I will offer a number of criticisms of the most common kinds of redaction criticism and provide a couple of examples. None of this material is original or comprehensive but it forms the necessary backdrop to the final section, in which I will suggest some guidelines for the use of redaction criticism by those who have a high view of Scripture. In other words, at that point I will offer some programmatic suggestions aimed both at advancing the debate among Evangelicals a little further and at demonstrating to non-Evangelicals that the reservations we maintain concerning redaction criticism are reasonable and that our use of the tool is not necessarily perversely idiosyncratic and inconsistent.

But first, something must be said about the development of the tool.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF REDACTION CRITICISM

The synoptic problem was widely recognized in the early church. The first known systematic attempt at harmonization is that of Tatian (c. 110–172); but for our purposes the fact that he made the attempt is more important than his solutions, for it is evidence of an awareness of some of the problems.

The synoptic problem, however conceived, involves some literary dependence; that is, some New Testament authors are using literary sources. That should not surprise us. Luke (1:1–4) tells us as much, and there is solid evidence of literary dependence elsewhere (e.g., 2 Peter/Jude). Assured that there were literary sources, modern critics of the past one hundred years or so have expended enormous amounts of energy on retrieving literary sources whose independent existence is not attested anywhere. Source criticism became one of the dominant interests of many New Testament critics at the turn of the century; and this, coupled with the prevailing rationalism, prompted many to date the Gospels (especially Matthew and Luke) rather late and to assess their historical trustworthiness as minimal (by conservative standards).

How, then, could very much be said about the historical Jesus? Once having removed the general reliability of the Gospels, scholars could not easily locate the historical Jesus. Based in part on source criticism and in part on a complete restructuring of first-century history, their studies produced highly diverse models of Jesus. Von Harnack constructed the classic liberal Jesus;⁴ and many scholars accepted this Jesus as indeed historical, retrieved from the Gospels by judicious source criticism and post-Enlightenment insight. Schweitzer, however, demonstrated how subjective this historical reconstruction really was. The quest for the historical Jesus was leading down blind alleys. Yet Schweitzer’s own reconstruction depended heavily on another selective ordering of the evidence: he thought the historical Jesus was an apocalyptic but misguided itinerant Palestinian preacher.⁵ It all depended on the “sources” retrieved and the nature of the history that had been worked up by the scholar. The general effect of Schweitzer’s work on radical criticism was nothing less than the tolling of the death-knell over the quest for the historical Jesus. The quest, hitherto judged difficult, was now deemed impossible.

In this environment, form criticism appeared and began to flourish. Developed in a systematic way by Hermann Gunkel for use in history-of-religions research into the Old Testament,⁶ form criticism was rapidly and rigorously applied to the New Testament, in particular to the Gospels, by K. L. Schmidt,⁷ M. Dibelius,⁸ and Rudolf Bultmann.⁹ Form criticism was a way of getting behind the written materials to the oral sources. Using the studies of folklorists and anthropologists concerned with the passing on of oral tradition in primitive cultures, the form critics theorized that various kinds of story, each with its technical name (“miracle story,” “apophthegm,” or whatever)¹⁰ necessarily tended to assume a certain shape or form in the course of being passed on from hearer to hearer. It was thought that if the form of any particular pericope in the Gospel is identical with the ideal form, that is solid evidence for a stable transmission of the story. If it breaks form, there have probably been a number of additions by later transmitters of the tradition or by the final redactor, who was no doubt motivated by theological concerns.

The early form critics went further, especially in two respects. First, they theorized regarding what situations in the early church (i.e., what “life-settings” or Sitze im Leben) would generate such stories. The church, then, does not merely pass on stories about Jesus; it creates them to meet various theological needs. Second, in the case of Bultmann in particular, his handling of form criticism was so tied up with his general historical reconstructions regarding pre-Christian Gnosticism and his presuppositional antisupernaturalism that the net effect of his studies was the conclusion that one could know almost nothing about the historical Jesus.

If such form-critical understanding of the formation of the Gospels is even approximately correct, then the Evangelists (i.e., those who put the four Gospels into their present form) were little more than compilers of discrete stories. Careful study of the Gospels, in this view, discovers very little about Jesus and a great deal about the life-settings of the church—or, more precisely, of various churches, since the churches behind the diverse Gospel pericopae were not thought to be much concerned with mutual conformity and consistency. The effect of this theory on Bultmann’s two-volume Theology is a mere thirty pages devoted to Jesus (and those thirty pages say little that is positive) as compared with one hundred pages devoted to the beliefs of the Hellenistic communities. Many scholars abandoned the quest for the historical Jesus.

If several Gospels preserve the same story, but with changes in emphasis and form, then it becomes theoretically possible to plot the changes in the tradition as the story gets passed along. By this means one can chart a trajectory of the form and its changing content. As is well known, the German word Formgeschichte is poorly rendered by “form criticism.” It might better be translated “form history” or “history of form.” Because of adopted convention, I will continue to use the term form criticism, but the German term opens a window onto what is entailed when this literary tool is used.

In time, it came to be noticed that the Evangelists (i.e., the final compilers) were not simply collectors of nice stories. Coupling form criticism with literary dependence, it was argued that the Evangelists shaped the traditions that came to them; that is, they omitted things; added details; and changed emphases, specific utterances, and locale. They were redactors; that is, they edited this inherited material to express their own theology and their own view of the materials they were passing on. They were creative theologians in their own right.

Of course, this view of the Evangelists’ task introduces a new problem. One must now distinguish between what is redactional and what is traditional—that is, between what the Evangelist has received in the tradition that has come to him and what he has added or changed himself. Discovering this distinction is the task of redaction criticism. Traditionally, if redaction criticism determines that some word or phrase is redactional, then even if it is ascribed to Jesus in the text it cannot possibly be authentic; that is, it cannot possibly derive from the historical Jesus in the days of His flesh. If, on the other hand, redaction criticism determines that some word or phrase is traditional, then at least it stretches back beyond the redactor. This does not guarantee its authenticity; it simply makes authenticity a live option. This slender distinction between redaction and tradition sparked off a new round of interest in the historical Jesus. The resulting pictures were still pretty minimalistic, but they offered more than Bultmann did.

The task of the redaction critic is to distinguish between what is redactional and what is traditional. To do this he establishes a number of criteria (some of which I will briefly consider in the next section). Hence, the validity of this initial distinction turns entirely on the validity of his chosen criteria, and redaction criticism itself turns in part on the validity of form criticism. Moreover, the expression “redaction criticism” came quickly to be used not only in the study of those places in the synoptic Gospels where there are literary parallels, but also in parts of the Gospels where there are no parallels, and in other kinds of documents (e.g., the letters of Paul). At that point redaction criticism is implicitly involved in source criticism and form criticism, because until something is known about the alleged source, not very much can be said about the way it is being redacted. In practice, source criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism collapse methodologically into one procedure, and the procedure is still called “redaction criticism.” But it needs to be pointed out that such redaction criticism is rather different from that practiced on passages that boast close literary parallels.¹¹

This rather potted history of the rise of redaction criticism is fairly well known and is detailed with rigor elsewhere.¹² The only detail I must add is that in the present discussion the expression “redaction criticism” is being used in much broader ways that are rather divorced from these methodological and philosophical roots. The expression is often taken to refer to the study of the particular emphases of the Evangelist (or other author) in question. For example, Mark characteristically uses εὐθύς and εὐθέως, whereas John uses κόσμος; how much do these linguistic distinctives reflect not Jesus’ usage but the respective Evangelists’ usage? How does the topical ordering of material and the selection of this pericope over that affect the thrust of each Evangelist’s message? Such questions begin to do justice to the contribution made by each Evangelist without necessarily bringing along the radical skepticism of the pioneering form critics and redaction critics. Moreover, methodologically the attempt to wrestle with such concerns was already well demonstrated in the careful and thought-provoking work of Ned B. Stonehouse.¹³ Although he never used the expression “redaction criticism,” he pioneered in developing what is in fact a rather conservative redaction criticism.

What should be clear at this point is that to comment on the legitimacy and illegitimacy of this particular literary tool raises a host of problems of definition. Osborne, for instance, aware of these problems, wants to use redaction criticism to distinguish between “tradition” and “redaction,” but in his use of the terms, the question of historicity does not arise. Both redactional material and traditional material are authentic, but the former refers to what the Evangelist added or changed or reworded, whereas the latter refers to the form of the tradition he received.¹⁴ The distinction that Osborne maintains assists him in detecting peculiar emphases and interests on the part of the Evangelists; but Osborne, especially in his most recent essay, attempts to distance himself from using redaction criticism to determine authenticity.

Between this conservative use of redaction criticism and the radical one, which developed the tool, stand a number of middle-of-the-road positions.¹⁵ Whatever their individual merits or demerits, one cannot escape two facts: redaction criticism is here to stay and it means different things to different people. Especially the latter fact must be borne in mind when we attempt to synthesize an evangelical position.

COMMON CRITICISMS LEVELED AGAINST REDACTION CRITICISM

Before attempting to synthesize an evangelical position, I will note some of the charges against various kinds of redaction criticism. This list is neither exhaustive nor, for the most part, original; and the entries are not in any particular order. But if we are to assess the legitimacy and illegitimacy of this literary tool, we must take rapid note of some of its widely acknowledged weaknesses.

1. A majority of New Testament scholars still hold that the most likely solution to the synoptic problem is the two-source hypothesis. If it is correct, then one may legitimately speak of the ways in which Matthew has changed, added to, or omitted something from Mark. With increasing frequency, however, the old Griesbach hypothesis has been dusted off and set up as an alternative option.¹⁶ For those who hold it to be the correct solution, it is illegitimate to speak of Matthew changing Mark; one must speak of Mark changing Matthew. In my view, both solutions are too simple: there is more probably a certain amount of interdependency. Perhaps Mark relied on an early (Aramaic?) Matthew, and Matthew relied on a finished Mark; I am uncertain. But certain parallel accounts can be more readily accounted for by assuming Mark borrowed from Matthew than vice-versa (e.g., the parable of the sower),¹⁷ even if, taken as a whole, the two-source hypothesis is more believable. If the situation is complex, one may legitimately speak of the differences and emphases peculiar to Matthew, Mark, or some other Evangelist; but only with some hesitation may one speak of one Evangelist changing or modifying the work of another.

2. It is common knowledge that the comparative studies of oral tradition (e.g., on the Maori civilization) deal with periods of three hundred years or longer. By contrast, the Gospels were written within at most sixty years of the events they purport to describe. The effects of this restriction have not been adequately considered. Some dates offered for the Gospels are improbably late; but early or late, the Gospels stand in relation to the life of Christ more or less as we stand in relation to World War II or the Great Depression—not as we stand in relation to, say, the Restoration in Britain, the flourishing of the coureurs de bois in Canada, or the settling of New Amsterdam. There were witnesses still alive when the New Testament documents were written; but the way many form critics write one would think that all witnesses to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ had been mysteriously snatched away the moment after the Ascension, and a new group had to begin all over again.¹⁸

3. Gerhardsson and Riesenfeld have argued for a stability in the tradition owing to memory patterns in instruction shared by Jesus and the rabbis.¹⁹ Even if they overstate the case, their most eloquent critic concedes there is something to it.²⁰

4. Recent research has argued for written records that go back to Jesus’ ministry.²¹ Patterns in oral tradition have no parallel in written tradition. The form-critical hypotheses are beginning to appear increasingly dubious.

5. A good case can still be made for Matthean authorship of the Gospel of Matthew.²² If that were once conceded, even as a possibility, then the first Evangelist, even if he relied on Mark (and why shouldn’t he?), was also an eyewitness. The wedge between redaction and tradition would become worthless as far as questions of authenticity are concerned.

6. Radical form criticism assumes we have a much greater knowledge of the life-settings of the church than we do. All we think we know of such settings is derived from speculation based on form-critical theories and fertile imaginations. Of course, such speculations may be sound, but they are at best nothing more than speculations.²³ As Humphrey Palmer has rather trenchantly remarked, whether or not the early church was adept at thinking up stories about Jesus to fit church settings, the form critics have certainly been adept at thinking up church settings to fit the stories about Jesus.²⁴

7. The radical reconstruction postulates postresurrection believers who cleverly think up a lot of profound sayings and then ascribe them all to Jesus. This is psychologically unconvincing. Worse, it tilts against the evidence, for the Gospel writers claim to be able to distinguish between what Jesus says before the Cross and what the disciples understand after that event (e.g., John 2:20–22).²⁵

8. The criteria that have been established to distinguish between redaction and tradition are for the most part so imprecise as to be not much more than silly. The criterion of dissimiliarity is the worst of these; that is, an authentic teaching of Jesus (it is argued) is one that can be paralleled neither in the early church nor in surrounding Judaism. This criterion has been ruthlessly shredded in several essays²⁶ but it is still defended in some circles. At best it might produce what is idiosyncratic about Jesus’ teaching but it cannot possibly produce what is characteristic about it. Is any method more than silly that requires that a historical person say nothing like what is said around him, and that, granted he is the most influential person of all time, so little influence his followers that no thought of theirs may legitimately be traced to him—even when those same followers deliberately make the connection?

To respond by saying that the criterion of dissimilarity at least has the advantage of affording the critic bedrock certainty regarding the authenticity of a few sayings out of the total complex of difficult material is nevertheless to agree with my point: the criterion is hopelessly inadequate for the task assigned it. Worse, there is an irresistible temptation to reconstruct the teaching of Jesus on the basis of this select material, and the result cannot possibly be other than a massive distortion.

9. The criterion of dissimilarity is doubly ridiculous when placed alongside the criterion of coherence. Unbounded subjectivity must be the result.²⁷ Moreover, the other criteria for distinguishing redaction from tradition do not fare much better.²⁸

10. Redaction criticism hangs far too much theological significance on every changed καί and δέ. Literature is not written that way. In any case, even if we suppose that Matthew used Mark as a source and effected his changes for various reasons, it is illegitimate to conclude (1) that only the changes reflect what Matthew believed, for if he used a source and left it unaltered, then surely he did so because it expressed what he wanted to say, and therefore one may legitimately deduce what Matthew believed only from his entire work, and not merely from the changes, and (2) that all changes are necessarily prompted by theological interests rather than an entire range of concerns. Redaction critics far too often see the knots on the trees; only occasionally do they see the trees. Rarely indeed do they perceive the forest.²⁹

11. We speak of redaction criticism as a tool, a word that somehow conjures up images of scientific precision. In fact, a glance at the available redaction critical works on any Gospel reveals how terribly subjective these literary tools usually are. “Of course,” Hooker comments, “NT scholars recognize the inadequacy of their tools; when different people look at one passage, and all get different answers, the inadequacy is obvious, even to NT scholars! But they do not draw the logical deduction from this fact”³⁰—viz., that the tools are incapable of providing an entirely neutral and agreed judgment as to what is authentic.

12. It is methodologically irresponsible to pit history against theology as if the two could not be compatible.³¹ Moreover, the oft-repeated claim that faith is independent of history is reasonable only if Christianity is reduced to purely existential categories. If, however, Christianity is grounded in what God in Christ did in history and if faith is related in some way to propositions about God’s acts in history, then even if historical recital or historical evidence is not sufficient to call faith to life, yet nevertheless faith under such premises is so bound up with historical events that a historical faith is both nonsensical and heterodox. Paul certainly thought so (see 1 Cor. 15:1–11).

13. It is too often forgotten that whatever else Jesus was, He was an itinerant preacher. As anyone who has done much itinerant preaching knows, minor variations of the same messages or rearrangements of them come out again and again. Form and redaction critics have developed no methodology for distinguishing between, on the one hand, similar sayings in separate Gospels that do reflect a trajectory of interpretation and, on the other, similar sayings in separate Gospels that are actually both authentic.³²

14. It is illegitimate to reject a priori as unhistorical all that is abnormal, the more so if the context has prompted the reader to expect the abnormal.³³

15. Individuals, not communities, write books (or chapters of books) and think creatively. No doubt the community is one of the factors that help to shape an individual, but that is not what the radical critics are saying. If it were, they would need to distinguish between what the hypothetical community believed and what the writer thought and make suggestions as to the methodological problem involved in distinguishing how much of the writer’s content springs from community influence and how much from other sources of influence.

16. Radical form criticism arbitrarily limits the genuine teaching of Jesus to basic simple sentences. The most influential mind in the history of the world was, as France nicely puts it, “apparently incapable of any complexity of thought or care in composition, any word of explanation or development of a theme, all of which are freely credited to his followers.”³⁴

17. Form and redaction criticism have not established adequate criteria for distinguishing between elements of a story that break with the theoretical standard form because they are late additions and elements of a story that break with the theoretical standard form because they are early reminiscences that have not yet been whipped out of the account by the process of oral transmission. A careful reading of any twenty pages of Bultmann’s History of the Synoptic Tradition brings to light numerous examples in which the learned Marburger proceeds by way of arbitrary declaration on this point, rather than by way of explanation. But if the distinction is incapable of rigorous justification, the plotting of entire trajectories is nothing more than arbitrary.

18. Similarly, inadequate thought has been given to criteria that might distinguish in the church between a Sitz im Leben that creates a story and one that preserves an authentic story. Unless unambiguous criteria are established to make this distinction, the results are arbitrary.

19. In any case, the suggestion that one can jump from a form to a particular creative setting in the church has been shown to be false. “Judgments about the Sitz im Leben of a pericope have often differed considerably.… Recent research into oral tradition points to a … flexible situation. Almost every ‘form’ of oral tradition may be used in a wide variety of ways. Similarly, any given situation can utilize very different forms.”³⁵

20. Current interest in literary criticism and structuralism is calling into question the validity of any approach that focuses so narrowly on a pericope, a phrase, or a word that the broad literary unit, the Gospel itself, is overlooked. These new critics are far more interested in how each phrase or word or symbol in, say, Mark functions within the context of the entire Gospel of Mark.³⁶ In his recent study of this Gospel, D.H. Juel adopts just such an approach and notes in passing that if we begin to treat Mark as a piece of literature, it is very difficult to distinguish between tradition and redaction.³⁷ The point seems pretty obvious but it is regularly overlooked by the redaction critics. This is not to say that these new literary critics are concerned to maintain the historicity of the Gospels. Quite the contrary: the most influential of them suspect that the redaction critics are finding more bedrock history than is really there.³⁸ But it is to say that other approaches that treat the Gospels in a more unified fashion are available; and they call into question the piecemeal approach of mainstream redaction criticism.

These are some—by no means all—of the criticisms that have been raised against redaction criticism and its necessary progenitor, form criticism. It must not be thought, however, that redaction criticism has been used solely in the service of skepticism. Evangelicals have recently written two massive commentaries that owe much of their volume to a mild form of redaction criticism.³⁹ Other scholars have used the tool to one degree or another to distinguish peculiar emphases in the individual passion narratives,⁴⁰ to argue for the essential unity of the Matthean birth narratives,⁴¹ and much more.

What, then, may be said in a programmatic or methodological way concerning the legitimacy and illegitimacy of redaction criticism? Before turning to such considerations, I would like to illustrate what has been written so far by examining two New Testament passages.

TWO EXAMPLES

I propose to offer a few observations (not thorough redactional studies) on two passages from Matthew. The first wrestles with questions of authenticity, and the second with questions of harmonization and emphasis. I will make no attempt to present in detail the meaning and/or history of the passages. Instead, my focus is exclusively on the italicized words, phrases, and clauses.

A. MATTHEW 5:17–20

¹⁷Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ¹⁸I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. ¹⁹Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. ²⁰For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

I propose to comment briefly on a select few of the redaction critical judgments currently in vogue.

1. Some see the separate verses as originally four discrete sayings that have been put together by the Evangelist.⁴² This does not seem compelling. Did Jesus speak only in one-liners? Despite the contention of Banks,⁴³ the connecting words like γάρ and οὖν constitute no proof that the sayings were once separate; in fact if they had been joined together, would there not have been a need for connecting particles? What criteria can be offered to distinguish the one case from the other?

2. Some hold that the words “Do not think that” are a late rhetorical device that does not go back to Jesus (so also in a structurally similar verse, Matthew 10:34).⁴⁴ What external evidence is there that this is a late rhetorical device? How does one explain that both here and in 10:34 Matthew ascribes these words to Jesus? If it is a late rhetorical device, and Jesus does not say precisely these words (in Aramaic or Greek), how does one methodologically distinguish between the possibility that Matthew made this part up and the possibility that even if the expression is Matthean the essential truth-content is to be traced to Jesus?

3. Several see the words “or the prophets” as a Matthean addition, since the disjunctive “or” occurs in thirteen other instances in this Gospel; and of these, nine are probably due to Matthew’s redactional activity. Moreover, it is agreed that eight of these betray a similar construction, viz., a conjunction followed by a noun.⁴⁵ However, it must be noted that (1) this is not a rare construction in the New Testament; (2) the nine probable redactional instances of “or” are not entirely indisputable; (3) “nine out of thirteen” provides a statistical basis with a massive margin for error (or, otherwise put, the ratio is not demonstrably significant); and (4) even if Matthew added the term to his tradition (What tradition, precisely, if he was an eyewitness?), the joint expression may mean no more than the simpler expression, since “law” can refer to the entire Old Testament Scriptures (e.g., John 12:34; 15:25; 1 Cor. 14:21).

4. The words “I tell you the truth” are rejected as unauthentic by some⁴⁶ on several grounds: (1) in the parallel saying in Luke 16:17, this clause is missing; (2) the clause might well have arisen in Greek-speaking Judaism, and (3) Matthew is the only New Testament writer to use this particular formula with γὰρ (ἀμὴν γάρ λέγω ὑμιν). But in response we may well ask: (1) Does Luke’s parallel seem to come from the same occasion? Is it certain the utterance was unattached in the tradition and nailed down in one place by Matthew and in another by Luke? How can this hypothesis be distinguished from the more plausible one—that an itinerant preacher says similar things on many occasions? And if the two accounts have the same source, how may we know Matthew added it, rather than supposing Luke dropped it? (2) Perhaps the clause arose in Greek-speaking Judaism, but perhaps not. Note the transliterated word ἀμήν. What does that suggest? And if the expression arose in such circles, perhaps Jesus was trilingual and invented it. And perhaps not. What methodological control is there to enable one to respond to any of these questions? (3) If Matthew is the only one to associate γάρ with the clause, might this not just as easily mean that only γάρ was added as that the entire clause is redactional? Is it not remarkable that only Jesus in the New Testament uses ἀμήν at the beginning of clauses—would this not argue for authenticity? In any case, though it is true that Matthew is the only New Testament writer to use γάρ with this expression, he does so in only four of thirty-two occurrences. That means he uses the expression without γάρ twenty-eight times, but Mark uses the expression (without γάρ) only thirteen times, and Luke a mere six. Perhaps, it may be argued, if Mark or Luke had used the expression more, they too would have slipped in the odd γάρ. In any case, since I am not worried about the ipsissima verba of Jesus but only about His ipsissima vox, might it be that where γάρ does appear there is simply a Matthean connection that reveals a connection that Jesus Himself made, whether by contextual implication, logic, explicit statement (in Aramaic?), or some other means? How does one methodologically eliminate such possibilities?

5. Banks argues that the italicized words, for, unless, righteousness, surpasses, and kingdom of heaven are probably all unauthentic and that the verse as a whole, though traditional, is probably not authentic. However, he insists that Matthew is nevertheless not imposing something essentially alien to Jesus’ intention but is simply drawing out some practical implications from the attitude Jesus maintains.⁴⁷ My problem with this approach is in part akin to my hesitations in all the other passages; but I will press on and ask a broader question. Did Matthew (according to Banks) simply make deductions about Jesus’ general attitude without ever hearing Jesus deal with this subject? If he did hear Jesus deal with it, might he not be giving the gist of what Jesus said (ipsissima vox)? And how, methodologically speaking, can Banks (or anyone else) distinguish between these two cases?

I must hasten to add that these reflections in no way prove the authenticity of this snippet or that. I am at the moment concerned only with the methodological problems inherent in redaction criticism; and I am trying to demonstrate that at least in this passage redaction criticism is intrinsically incapable of dealing believably with questions of authenticity. It is not really a “tool” in any precise sense: it is freighted with subjective judgments; it is based on too many implausible assumptions; and, worst of all, in each judgment it makes it ignores numerous questions that are not only relevant but that expose its fundamental weakness.

It is also fairly clear, in this example at least, that the distinction between redaction and tradition is often not only unhelpful but misleading when it comes to weighing probabilities of authenticity. “Redactional” comments may be prompted by purely theological considerations but equally they may be prompted by stylistic concerns or even by additional information springing from further research (Luke 1:1–4). This fundamental point is disappointingly overlooked in Jeremias’s last book on Luke.⁴⁸ Despite the formal rigor of the work, not only is there some methodological weakness in the attempt to distinguish tradition from redaction, but, far worse, Jeremias maintains the theoretical distinction between the two, maintaining that Luke is heard only in the redaction and that authenticity is possible only in the tradition. Such bifurcation is without methodological justification.

B. MATTHEW 19:16–21 AND PARALLELS

This is the first part of the parable of the rich fool. It is a particularly difficult example of somewhat divergent synoptic accounts of the same incident:

Matthew 19:16–20	Mark 10:17–21	Luke 18:18–22
¹⁶ Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”	¹⁷ As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”	¹⁸ A certain man asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
¹⁷ “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”	¹⁸ “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.	¹⁹ “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.
¹⁸ “Which ones?” the man inquired. Jesus replied, “ ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, ¹⁹ honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’ ”	¹⁹ You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.’ ”	²⁰ You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’ ”
²⁰ “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”	²⁰ “Teacher,” he declared “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”	²¹ “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said.
²¹ Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”	²¹ Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”	²² When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

The account of the rich young ruler according to the three synoptic Gospels plays a central role in the history of Gospel criticism. It is often taken as one of the few stories in which doctrinal development is unambiguous, and therefore it functions in much critical thought as a central justification for very elaborate schemes.

The questions raised are too complex for exhaustive treatment here; but the following observations bear directly on the concerns of this chapter:

1. The parallels cited above are from a much larger pericope: Matthew 19:16–30; Mark 10:17–31; and Luke 18:18–30. Mark’s account, with 279 words, is longer than the other two: Luke’s has 202, and Matthew’s, 270. The last figure is reduced to 225 if we eliminate Matthew 19:28, which has no parallel in the others. These figures are interesting insofar as they suggest that, given Markan priority, Matthew and Luke are not simply gratuitously expanding a simple account.

2. There are numerous minor variations from account to account. Only Matthew has ἰδού (“behold”; or, in the niv, “Now …”). Matthew refers to the questioner as “one” (εἷς), but later tells us he was young (19:20). Mark likewise calls him “one” (εἷς; niv, “a man”); but though he says nothing about this “one’s” age, he provides a little detail regarding the encounter: it was while Jesus was setting out on His way that a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him. Luke, like Matthew, provides neither of these details, but he mentions that the questioner was “a certain ruler” (τις ἄρχωυ). Mark and Luke have the questioner reply, “All these things I have kept since I was a boy”; but in Matthew the statement is briefer: “All these I have kept.” The reference to youth is preserved only in the fact that the man himself is described as “young.” In Mark and Luke, it is Jesus who says, “One thing you lack” (with some variation in the words—Mark: ἕν σε ὑστερεῖ; Luke: ἔτι ἕν σοι λείπει); But Matthew puts these words as a question on the young man’s lips: “What do I still lack?” Farther on (beyond what I have cited), in the resulting interchange with His disciples, Jesus speaks of the one who gives up family and goods “for me and the gospel” (Mark 10:29), or “for my sake” (Matthew 19:24), or “for the sake of the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:29). There are other less significant minor changes in grammar, word order, and the like.

It is difficult to see how some of these changes are anything other than stylistic. There is not much difference between ἕν σε ὑστερεῖ (Mark) and ἔτι ἕν σοι λείπει (Luke). The force of ἰδού in Hellenistic Greek is so weakened that its presence changes nothing of substance. It may give an impression (in Matthew) that this story happens hard on the heels of the previous one; but this is doubtful. In short, some of these changes are of minimal significance.

Other changes clearly add something or take something away. Mark’s statement “ran up to him and fell on his knees before him” has disappeared in Matthew and Luke; but with their shorter accounts, it appears that they are trimming and condensing a little. They certainly are not concerned to deny that the questioner ran up to Jesus and fell to his knees before him. Luke’s added information that the questioner was “a certain ruler” does not derive from Matthew or Luke. If we may assume the two-source hypothesis, then these words are certainly redactional. However, three points must be noted: (1) Luke himself assures his readers (1:1–4) that his research has included many written and oral sources, including eyewitnesses. It is therefore entirely gratuitous to leap to the conclusion that because the words are redactional they must not refer to what is historically true. Even the suggestion that Luke guesses the man was a ruler because he knows that he was rich is rather simple-minded. Were all synagogue rulers (or members of the Sanhedrin—the expression could mean either) rich? Were they the only ones who were rich? In the light of Luke’s description of his approach to writing the third Gospel, it is far more probable that Luke is relying on additional information for this redactional addition. (2) It is very difficult to detect theological significance in the change. It is historiographically responsible to read the three accounts and conclude that the questioner was a young, rich ruler. However, even if Luke had made something of the fact that he was a ruler, it would not necessarily follow that the additional information was not historically based. It might only mean that Matthew and Mark did not know this point, or that if they did, they chose not to make any capital out of it. What methodological way is there for distinguishing these options from one another? (3) It can hardly be overlooked that we have detected this redactional addition solely on the basis of the comparative passages and the assumption of the reliability of the two-source hypothesis. If at this point only Luke had preserved the narrative, there would have been no way to detect that ἄρχων was redactional; for the usual method, based on determining what words are particularly Lukan, yields false results in this case: Matthew uses the word thirteen times; Mark, twenty-eight; and Luke, thirty-one (which is proportionately fewer than Mark’s usage).

The other minor variations from Gospel to Gospel are no more difficult than these, provided we remember that the Evangelists do not purport to give verbatim quotes, that they do summarize, and that they use their own language to provide an accurate impression of the historical substance. It is difficult to justify radical criticism on the basis of the variations “for my sake,” “for me and the gospel,” and “for the sake of the kingdom of God,” since all of the Synoptists tie together Jesus, the gospel, and the kingdom as the ultimates for which a person must give up everything. Luke’s “for the sake of the kingdom of God” (18:29) may be a conscious assimilation to 18:25 in order to promote literary unity in the narrative; and Matthew’s brief “for my sake” may reflect the abbreviating of Mark’s account characteristic of several other verses. Whether the young man asks, “What do I still lack?” (Matthew), or Jesus says, “One thing you lack,” is scarcely a problem at all. It is possible that both the question and the answer were uttered: but if not, it is entirely within the range of reliable reporting to understand that the young man in fact was asking this question (with or without the words) by coming to Jesus with his dilemma and subsequent self-justification. He quite clearly thought of himself as perfectly obedient to the law, yet knew he was lacking something. No eyewitness would fail to perceive that he was in fact asking just this question, “What do I still lack?” whether he phrased it this way or not. Similar remarks could be made about Jesus’ response. It is difficult to see how any of the three accounts says anything at this point that is not implicit in the other two.

The final minor variation I have mentioned in this section is the contrast between “All these I have kept since I was a boy” (νεότης, Mark and Luke), and Matthew’s “All these I have kept,” followed by the notice, “the young man [νεανίσκος] said.” Schweizer says this is a “recasting”⁴⁹ of Mark’s account. To what end, he does not suggest. Historically, the questioner would no doubt have put himself under the law in a formal way when he was twelve years old, when Jewish boys assumed the yoke of the commandments and were held responsible for them (Ber. 2:2; cf. Luke 2:42). This is necessary background behind all three synoptic accounts; so it is difficult to perceive any theological reason why it should be omitted, unless Matthew thought either that it was not particularly interesting or relevant, or that it was already well known. It is puzzling that Matthew should add ὁ νεανίσκοςonly if we assume that he had no information of the event other than what he could glean from Mark. If on the other hand we allow for the likelihood that he had other information and for the possibility that he was himself an eyewitness, there is no reason to suppose that his information is not true.

3. Up to this point, I have dealt with the minor variations and avoided the pair of major variations. I must now turn to the latter. In Mark and Luke, the questioner asks, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus responds, “Why do you call me good? No one is good—except God alone.” In Matthew, however, the questioner opens the exchange with “Teacher, what good thing must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus responds, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only One who is good.” It is commonly taken for granted that Matthew introduces a change in Mark’s wording because he represents a later stage in the development of the church’s doctrine when the church could no longer tolerate even the suggestion that Jesus might be sinful.⁵⁰

The differences between Mark/Luke and Matthew at this point are indeed quite remarkable; but once acknowledged, this christological explanation for the differences must nevertheless not be adopted too hastily. Even if Matthew avoids the suggestion that Jesus was not “good,” he nevertheless preserves the saying, “There is only One who is good”—an obvious reference to God. The alteration therefore “implies nothing about Jesus’ status in relation to God,” as David Hill has put it.⁵¹ Stonehouse has argued at length, and convincingly, that christological concerns are not in this instance at the heart of any of the synoptic accounts.⁵² Rather, in the way the story develops in the ensuing discussion with the disciples, there is a move in all three synoptic Gospels toward recognizing “the indispensability of the sovereign action of divine grace for discipleship as one of the most foundational elements in this story.”⁵³ More telling yet, becoming perfect and following Jesus (not God) are seen as one act (Matt. 19:21); and farther on, the eschatological blessing is promised to those who have left all for Jesus’ sake (Matt. 19:29). And it is Matthew alone who describes the session of the Son of Man (19:28). When to these salient points is added the fact that in all of the Synoptics Jesus most frequently is concerned with God’s glory, God’s kingdom, God’s truth, God’s will, and God’s judgment and presents Himself as the Lord’s anointed, then perhaps there is good reason for thinking that the alteration in wording is not motivated by christological concerns. Jesus in the days of His flesh manifested Himself progressively, allowing those around Him to perceive only gradually who He really was, speaking in terms and categories that unveiled His splendor best in the hindsight gleaned after the Cross and the Resurrection.⁵⁴ It is a mark of the fidelity of the Synoptists (Matthew included) to the historical situation that they have preserved this intrinsically more ambiguous self-revelation.

It must also be pointed out that the christological explanation for Matthew’s alteration depends on a historical reconstruction that, however popular, takes constant liberties with the only text we have. Fair treatment of the New Testament documents does not support the view that a high christology was invented rather late.⁵⁵ The question is too large to be explored here; but it is surely a point for pause to note that Luke, apparently written after Matthew, does not detect any christological difficulty in Mark. Why then must we be so certain that Matthew’s alteration is due to anything more than whatever prompted the change that placed the words “What do I still lack?” on the lips of the young man?

In point of fact, several different suggestions for the alteration have been offered.⁵⁶ Harmonization by mere addition (“Good master, what good thing …?” followed by Jesus giving both answers), though logically possible, is not very convincing as a historical reconstruction—not least because of the kinds of changes the Evangelists have made elsewhere in the narrative. Pedantic precision and verbatim quotation do not seem to be their goals. Yet those same changes warn us against facile accusations that the writers are introducing errors of fact or substance. Just as a modern writer might condense a lengthy discussion and tell of it in his own idiom and in a fraction of the total number of words actually spoken, without being charged with lies, inventiveness, distortion, or deceit, so the Gospel writers must be allowed the same freedom. This is the nature of reportage, even reportage designed to make theological and historical points.

The question, then, is whether there is a likely reconstruction of the historical event that could have generated both Mark/Luke and Matthew on this point. To phrase the problem in this way presupposes that Matthew had access to knowledge regarding the event other than that gleaned from Mark; but I believe that is (to say the least) highly probable. If this assumption is correct, it is historiographically irresponsible not to attempt a reconstruction.

Suppose, then, as one possible reconstruction among several that I can think of, that the original question was something like this: “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Such a way of addressing a teacher was (as far as we can tell) extraordinary, but both the form of address and the question itself reveal the young ruler had not proper understanding of what absolute goodness, God’s goodness, really involved, nor of the need for divine initiative in order for a person to gain eternal life. If this were the opening remark, the idea of the good action or good deed is not spelled out, but is certainly bound up with the question as it stands; it is inconceivable that the ruler was asking about what neutral thing or wicked thing he would have to do to gain eternal life!

Suppose, further, that Jesus’ answer was something like this: “Why do you ask me [with me emphatic] questions regarding the good? There is only One who is good, namely God.” Such a statement, like many of Jesus’ aphorisms, could purposely be a trifle ambiguous, precisely because it bears on the ruler’s question in several complementary ways. It recognizes that the ruler’s concern is what good thing he must do, even though he has not thought about absolute goodness; and it recognizes that the man is addressing Jesus as good, equally without giving thought to the absolute nature of God’s goodness (cf. 1 Chron. 16:34; 2 Chron. 5:13; Ps. 106:1; 118:1, 29). The fact that the man did not in any ultimate sense wish to ascribe goodness to Jesus is revealed rather pathetically by the fact he did not wish to obey Him; and the same evidence shows his unconcern for ultimately good deeds. The root of the problem in all three synoptic Gospels is not christological, but an abysmal failure on the part of the ruler to recognize what kind of goodness is required in order to inherit eternal life. Jesus would not allow the fuzzy categories to stand.

If this reconstruction has any plausibility, then the alteration by Matthew is no more theologically significant than the other alterations he offers in this pericope. There is in Matthew a bit more emphasis against the merit theology presupposed by the ruler’s question as recorded in all the Synoptics, but the general thrust of the account remains the same in each Gospel. I am not arguing that this must have been what happened, still less that we should preach theoretical reconstructions (my own or anyone else’s). We must preach the Scriptures as they stand, for they, and not my reconstructions, constitute the Word of God written. On the other hand, I am certainly arguing that redaction criticism, which might legitimately find some small change of emphasis from Gospel to Gospel in this account, cannot be thought to have unearthed a major christological development. Such a theory requires the implausible notion that Matthew had no source other than Mark. Even if we accept such an unlikely suggestion, the exegesis of Matthew as the text stands does not encourage this kind of christological explanation, given the specific theological concerns Matthew preserves.

Christians, of course, might detect in Jesus’ response, recorded in Mark and Luke, a tacit identification of Jesus with God. But this is to go beyond what the texts actually say.⁵⁷ I think the response may be part of a pattern of replies by Jesus that betray His own self-consciousness of His true identity; but in relatively few instances do such christological self-affirmations spring unambiguously from Jesus’ lips. The subject is in any case too large to broach here; but it must be admitted that while radical critics have sometimes moved way beyond what the Synoptics actually say in this pericope, conservatives have sometimes done the same, if in an opposite direction.

The point of this lengthy section and its two Matthean examples is that redaction criticism is simply an inadequate tool for establishing authenticity; and although it is adequate for making a contribution to the study of an author’s particular interests, even there it is not a neutral tool. It is used in connection with a broad range of reconstructions, theories, and exegetical decisions. But these observations bring me to the central question of this chapter.

SUGGESTED GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF REDACTION CRITICISM

How legitimate, or illegitimate, is redaction criticism as a literary tool?

If its application to questions of authenticity depends on its roots in radical form criticism, the answer must surely be that redaction criticism is well-nigh useless. It can pick out eccentric bits here and there; but even then the distorted picture of Jesus thus drawn varies enormously from scholar to scholar. Redaction criticism that ignores the brevity of time between Jesus and the Evangelists, that utilizes comparative studies of oral tradition over centuries when it is dealing with a combination of written and oral tradition over decades at most, that disallows any firm connection between Jesus and Judaism or Jesus and the church, that depends on dogmatic certainties regarding the synoptic problem, and that disallows the ipsissima vox just because the idiom is that of the Evangelist is methodologically bankrupt and should be abandoned forthwith by all.

More recently, however, there have been efforts by some, notably Osborne and Stein,⁵⁸ to use the criteria of redaction criticism not so much to disallow the authenticity of certain sayings as to establish the authenticity of at least some of Jesus’ sayings. Stein’s important essay allows four of the eleven criteria he suggests to function negatively; the rest, he argues, may legitimately function only positively. This means that when a particular saying is not demonstrably authentic according to the criteria Stein lists, it still does not follow that the saying is not authentic, because the positive criteria are simply incapable, methodologically speaking, of making a negative judgment. Stein’s negative criteria could disallow the authenticity of some saying; but in my view, the application of those negative criteria is fraught with extra difficulties he does not discuss (and which, unfortunately, I cannot detail here).

The entire approach of Stein (and other conservatives who operate this way even if they do not spell out their method as clearly as Stein) has much more to be said for it than the radical redaction criticism to which we have become accustomed. Nevertheless, two important cautions must be adopted rather urgently. The first is that even Stein’s positive criteria are based, to a rather alarming extent, on a view of the descent of the tradition that still embraces critical orthodoxy but may well be called into question at point after point. If this criticism is basically sound—and my primary motive for including the earlier sections of this chapter was to demonstrate its reasonableness, at least in a preliminary way—then the conservative use of redaction criticism advocated by Stein and practiced by others must tread very cautiously lest it discover to its chagrin and danger that it has a tiger by the tail.

The second caution springs from the first. If conservative Evangelical scholars adopt redaction criticism of the conservative variety and, believing that it is an objective tool, ignore the doubtful historical assumptions that make up at least part of its pedigree, they are likely to find themselves in an intensely embarrassing position. Suppose, for instance, that in the defense of a high view of Scripture they use redaction criticism apologetically to establish the authenticity of this saying or that. What happens when they come to some saying where there are inadequate grounds to claim authenticity (on the grounds of this conservative redaction criticism) and perhaps some grounds, following Stein’s negative criteria, to plead unauthenticity? There are but three options:

(1) He may abandon the traditional conservative position. When that happens, the scholar should clearly admit it and not play games with the creeds to which he has hitherto affixed his signature. In my view, he is following current critical orthodoxy on very weak grounds, methodologically speaking; but I respect his integrity if he tells us frankly where he is going. (2) He may call into question his understanding of the power of redaction criticism and become more a critic of the tool than a practitioner—at least as far as the tool’s application to questions of authenticity is concerned. (3) He may wind up using redaction criticism only when it supports his high view of Scripture and appeal to other arguments when it seems to go against him. This leaves him open to the trenchant attack of James Barr,⁵⁹ who claims Evangelicals do this regularly and thereby demonstrate a serious want of scholarly integrity. Barr has a point, unless the scholar who is pursuing this option does so for purely apologetic reasons (in which case he has retreated to the second position). However, as long as a scholar feels that the results of redaction criticism are sure and reliable, he does not have the right to discount them because of his other beliefs. He must reconcile his disparate beliefs, abandoning those that engender contradiction,⁶⁰ or else he is open to the charge that he is not playing the redaction critical game with integrity. Embarrassing as it may be, Barr’s charge is often valid.

Part of the problem is that redaction criticism has so much come to the fore in questions of authenticity that older methods are ignored or even cursorily dismissed as out of date. The kind of argument developed by Grudem in chapter 1 of this volume is by and large unwelcome in the scholarly world; but it is important nevertheless. The approach that tests an author against outside sources—e.g., archaeology, knowledge of the times, historical details—wherever possible and, finding that author reliable in the testable areas, concludes he is reliable elsewhere is largely passed by in silence. Harmonization of parallel accounts (by which I do not necessarily mean the simple addition of both accounts!)⁶¹ is deprecated with the adjective easy. But surely only glib harmonizations ought to be dismissed; easy harmonizations ought to be given the most serious consideration. To adopt glib harmonizations is historiographically irresponsible, but refusal to adopt easy harmonizations is equally irresponsible.⁶² Of course, when someone dismisses a harmonization as “easy,” what he means is that it is glib. Nevertheless, my objection is more than semantic; for the underlying historiographical question—viz., When are harmonizations permissible, or even mandated?—gets buried under the euphemism “easy,” so that somehow harmonization is rejected as a cop-out, something that scholars who recognize how difficult (as opposed to easy) the material is will eschew.

Why have these and other tools, for many scholars, become out of date? They are certainly no weaker than radical redaction criticism; indeed, I would judge them much stronger. Like any literary and historical tool, they can be abused; but to fail to use them and give them grades at least as high as redaction criticism betrays a sort of contemporaneity chauvinism. To use a multiplicity of methods, to adopt several competing literary tools, is a necessary safeguard. Part of the problem with redaction criticism rests on the sad fact that, as often used, it disqualifies results from older methods as if those methods were invalid. The use of many tools is cumbersome; but the more qualified and nuanced results that emerge protect the scholar from Barr’s charges that the grounds for depending or not depending on redaction criticism are shifting and subjective. Far from it. Our reasons for adopting this or that conclusion turn on a multiplicity of methods and tools that are mutually limiting, and therefore there is methodological reason for doubting the results of one of these many tools at some particular point.

The one place where redaction criticism may offer considerably more help, and where it may function with some legitimacy, is in aiding us to discern more closely the Evangelists’ individual concerns and emphases. In one sense, of course, interpreters have always been interested in such questions. In the broadest sense, therefore, redaction criticism is nothing new. But if the examples in the last section of this chapter are typical, then even here redaction criticism must tread softly. The distinction between what is traditional and what is redactional is not a happy one; it is too fraught with overtones of “authentic” and “unauthentic.” And even when some snippet is demonstrably redactional, it does not follow that any particular alteration owes its existence to theological concerns. Moreover, if the method presupposes the entire package of radical form criticism and a simplistic adoption of the two-source hypothesis, then the results will inevitably prove not only slanted but ephemeral: a new scholarly fad is bound to shake one or both of these theories in years to come, jeopardizing a vast amount of current work.

It seems best, then, if redaction criticism as applied to discerning distinctive emphases is to produce work of lasting importance, that it should not take its pedigree too seriously and it should not speak too dogmatically, for instance, of Matthew’s change of Mark but rather of the variations between the two.

A brief example may be helpful. A comparison of Matthew 8:18 with Mark 4:35 shows that Matthew departs from Markan sequence: in Mark, the crowd in question surrounds Jesus after His second period of ministry in Capernaum, but in Matthew this is still Jesus’ first period. Matthew does not explicitly rule out Mark’s sequence, but one could not possibly reconstruct it simply by reading Mark. Why, then, does Matthew follow the order he does in chapter 8? The reasons are many, and the literary dependences complex, but one quite certain conclusion is that Matthew at this point is interested in developing the theme of Jesus’ authority. Jesus’ authoritative teaching is stressed in 7:28–29, and the second of the two healings at the beginning of Matthew 8 lays some emphasis on Jesus’ authority as a healer (8:9). Such authority extends to many diseases and to exorcism of demons and stands in fulfillment of the Scriptures (8:16–17). There is personal lowliness attached to Jesus’ authority, yet at the same time it brooks no half-hearted followers (8:18–22). It is so embracing that it extends to the realm of nature (8:23–27), the spirit world (8:28–34), the last judgment (8:29), and even to the forgiveness of sins (9:2–8)—a prerogative belonging to God alone. There are other themes holding these pericopae together, but it is clear that Matthew’s topical arrangement of his material forges certain themes that some other arrangement would not so explicitly reveal. Redaction criticism devoted to such study can be of genuine service to the interpretation of the Scriptures, provided the reservations already expressed are not ignored.

If redaction criticism is applied with these kinds of reservations to the study of the Gospels, it will certainly help us discern more precisely the distinctive witness of each Evangelist to Jesus Christ and may legitimately take its place along side other literary tools. But precisely because “redaction criticism” is in the category of slippery words, qualifications and reservations are needed to keep us from worshiping before a shrine that has decidedly mixed credentials.

APPENDED NOTE

Like so many other problems in the study of Christianity (or any other topic, for that matter), the role of redaction criticism is bound up with epistemology. Epistemological questions are addressed directly elsewhere in this volume, but perhaps the connection with redaction criticism should be briefly explored here.

At a learned society meeting some months ago, a young and gifted evangelical scholar told me that he uses redaction criticism as a neutral tool and that when he uses it he does not assume the inerrancy of Scripture. Up to that point, he asserted, he had discovered nothing that called his traditional belief into question. My reservations regarding the reliability of redaction criticism have already been expressed; I need not repeat them. But the next question to ask is how many times this scholar needs to find his beliefs taught or reinforced before he can treat them as functional nonnegotiables.⁶³ Everyone develops such nonnegotiables. Would he remain similarly “neutral” regarding certain points in christology or any and every other basic creedal point? Surely not. Then why this one?

Everyone, I have said, develops functional nonnegotiables of various strengths. For finite persons this is both desirable and unavoidable. These nonnegotiables can be overthrown (or else no one could ever change his “position” on anything), but such an overthrow is not easy. Our finiteness and our sinfulness combine to guarantee that our knowledge is always partial and frequently faulty, and therefore we need to walk humbly. But it is as reprehensible not to adopt certain nonnegotiables that are apparently taught again and again as it is to refrain from overthrowing nonnegotiables that do not stand up under close scrutiny.

In the traditional view, the knowledge that God is omniscient and without sin encourages us to believe that what He has revealed, though not exhaustively true, is nevertheless completely true. The person who holds this view thereby establishes an epistemological base of some strength. But how does he come to know this?

I hold (but cannot here defend my view) that such knowledge derives from a mixture of evidence, training, predisposition, and the secret work of the Spirit of God. The latter ingredient should not be taken as being necessarily apart from the others, since the Spirit may use any or all of them. The problem as I see it is partly paralleled by the well-known tension between Cornelius Van Til and Francis Schaeffer. The former establishes an essentially biblical epistemology but then wrongly demands a presuppositionalist apologetic. The latter often uses a modified evidentialist apologetic, but then comes perilously close (especially in He Is There and He Is Not Silent)⁶⁴ to an evidentialist epistemology and unwittingly falls into Lessing’s ditch. There is no necessary connection between epistemology and apologetics, for the evidences are surely things that the God of all truth uses to change predispositions. Such evidences by themselves do not guarantee that any particular individual will come to the truth, but this does not foreclose on our responsibility to appeal to evidences (as witness the apostles in Acts, or Paul in 1 Cor. 15). So also with respect to the doctrine of Scripture (or any other doctrine): the evidences per se (and there are many) guarantee nothing, just as a well-witnessed resurrection from the dead will not convince everyone of who Jesus is. Nevertheless the display of evidences is important, and the cool analysis of counterarguments not less so. The traditional view of Holy Scripture, which in my view is correct, can withstand the roughest scrutiny; but even so, it must be remembered that this view holds that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, not that our doctrine of the infallibility of the Word of God is infallible.⁶⁵

¹The Expository Times 89–90 (June–October 1978).

²See, e.g., W. H. Kelber, “Redaction Criticism: On the Nature and Exposition of the Gospels,” Perspectives on Religious Studies 6 (1979): 4–16.

³E.g., John Warwick Montgomery, “Why Has God Incarnate Suddenly Become Mythical?” in Perspectives on Evangelical Theology, ed. Kenneth S. Kantzer and Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), pp. 57–65. At the meeting at which Montgomery read his paper (a slightly more trenchant version of his chapter), advocating that we not make use of redaction criticism at all, another conservative rose to his feet in the ensuing discussion and gently warned him about the danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Montgomery replied, “Look, ________, you and I disagree. You think there’s a baby in the bathwater, and I think it’s all dirty bathwater.”

⁴Adolf von Harnack, esp. in his What Is Christianity?, trans. Thomas B. Saunders (New York: Putnam, 1902).

⁵Albert Schweitzer’s now-famous book was originally entitled Von Riemarus zu Wrede (1906) and later Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung. The English title is The Quest of the Historical Jesus (London: A. and C. Black, 1910).

⁶Cf., among others, Hermann Gunkel, The Psalms: A Form-Critical Introduction, trans. T. M. Horner (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967); idem, Genesis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1917).

⁷K. L. Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1919).

⁸M. Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (Tübingen: Mohr, 1919; later editions to 1959); ET, From Tradition to Gospel, trans. B. L. Woolf, ed. W. Barclay (London: James Clarke, 1971).

⁹The English translation is History of the Synoptic Tradition, trans. John Marsh (Oxford: Blackwell, 1963).

¹⁰The technical designations vary somewhat from form critic to form critic.

¹¹The distinction is clearly seen in recent discussions on the fourth Gospel. Recent commentators practice “redaction criticism” of the sort that separates out sources, distinguishes redaction from tradition, comments on the trajectory of the tradition, and expounds the significance of the retrieved redaction all in one step. By contrast, R. T. Fortna, in his Gospel of Signs (Cambridge: University Press, 1970), restricts himself to source criticism to isolate the principal source he thinks the Evangelist used, and then in later articles he proceeds to redaction criticism by analyzing the changes that have taken place in the (alleged) move from his (reconstructed) source to the Gospel as we have it. Cf. his “Source and Redaction in the Fourth Gospel’s Portrayal of Jesus’ Signs,” Journal of Biblical Literature 89 (1970): 156–65; idem, “From Christology to Soteriology,” Interpretation 27 (1973): 31–47. On recent source-critical approaches to the Gospel of John, cf. E. Ruckstuhl, “Johannine Language and Style,” L’Evangile de Jean, ed. M. de Jonge (Leuven: University Press, 1977), pp. 125–47; D. A. Carson, “Current Source Criticism of the Fourth Gospel: Some Methodological Questions,” Journal of Biblical Literature 97 (1978): 411–29.

¹²In addition to the standard introductions to the New Testament, cf. in particular the relevant sections of W. G. Kümmel, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems, trans. S. McLean Gilmour and Howard C. Kee (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972); Stephen Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament, 1861–1961 (Oxford: University Press, 1966); Norman Perrin, What Is Redaction Criticism? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970); G. E. Ladd, The New Testament and Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967); Stephen S. Smalley, “Redaction Criticism,” New Testament Interpretation, ed. I. H. Marshall (Exeter: Paternoster, 1977), pp. 181–95.

¹³Cf. esp. Stonehouse’s book The Witness of the Synoptic Gospels to Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker, reprint 1979 of two volumes, The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ and The Witness of Luke to Christ); idem, Origins of the Synoptic Gospels: Some Basic Questions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963). Cf. also the perceptive pair of essays by M. Silva, “Ned B. Stonehouse and Redaction Criticism, Part I: The Witness of the Synoptic Evangelists to Christ,” and “Part II: The Historicity of the Synoptic Tradition,” Westminster Theological Journal 40 (1977–78): 77–78, 281–303.

¹⁴G. R. Osborne, “The Evangelical and Redaction Criticism,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22 (1979): esp. pp. 311–12.

¹⁵Cf. esp. R. H. Lightfoot, History and Interpretation in the Gospels (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935), who, though dependent on the German form critics, actually anticipated the German redaction critics. See also many of the writings of Vincent Taylor, C. H. Dodd, and others.

¹⁶The many who have either moved toward the Griesbach hypothesis or else at the very least called into grave question the adequacy of the two-source hypothesis include E. P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition (SNTSMS 9; Cambridge: University Press, 1969); W. R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis (Dillsboro, N.C.: Western North Carolina Press, 1976); idem, “Modern Developments of Griesbach’s Hypothesis,” New Testament Studies 23 (1977): 275–95; T. R. W. Longstaff, Evidence of Conflation in Mark? A Study of the Synoptic Problem (SBLDS 28; Missoula: Scholars, 1977); Bernard Orchard, Matthew, Luke and Mark (Manchester: Koinonia, 1976); idem, “J. A. T. Robinson and the Synoptic Problem,” New Testament Studies 22 (1975–76): 346–52; J. B. Tyson, “Sequential Parallelism in the Synoptic Gospels,” New Testament Studies 22 (1975–76): 276–305; F. Neirynck, ed., The Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark (Leuven: University Press, 1974); F. Neirynck, “Minor Agreements Matthew-Luke in the Transfiguration Story,” in Orientierung an Jesus (Festschrift for J. Schmid; Freiburg: Herder, 1973), pp. 253–66; Roland Mushat Frye, “The Synoptic Problems and Analogies in Other Literatures,” in The Relationships among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue, ed. William O. Walker, Jr. (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1978), pp. 261–302. Cf. also the discussions and diverse perspectives presented by B. Orchard and T. L. W. Longstaff, ed., J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies, 1776–1976 (SNTSMS 34; Cambridge: University Press, 1978). Note, too, that far more complex theories have been advanced: e.g., Tim Schramm, Der Markus-Stoff bei Lukas (SNTSMS 14; Cambridge: University Press, 1971) argues that Luke appears to rely on some otherwise unknown source in some passages (e.g., Luke 21). Whether or not this suggestion is correct, Schramm shares the dissatisfaction of others with respect to the simple two-source hypothesis.

¹⁷Cf. esp. D. Wenham, “The Synoptic Problem Revisited: Some New Suggestions About the Composition of Mark 4:1–34,” Tyndale Bulletin 23 (1972): 3–38; idem, “The Interpretation of the Parable of the Sower,” New Testament Studies 20 (1974): 299–319.

¹⁸Cf. F. F. Bruce, “Are the New Testament Documents Still Reliable?” in Evangelical Roots, ed. Kenneth S. Kantzer (Nashville: Nelson, 1978), p. 55. Cf. the celebrated remark of Vincent Taylor (quoted also by Bruce) to the effect that if certain proponents of form criticism were right, “the disciples must have been translated to heaven immediately after the Resurrection” in his book The Formation of the Gospel Tradition (London: Macmillan, 1933), p. 41.

¹⁹B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript, trans. Eric J. Sharpe (Uppsala: Gleerup, 1964); idem, “Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity” Coniectanea Neotestamentica 20 (1964); H. Riesenfeld, “The Gospel Tradition and Its Beginnings: A Study in the Limits of ‘Formgeschichte,’ ” most readily accessible in The Gospel Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970), pp. 1–29. Cf. also the more recent work by B. Gerhardsson, The Origins of the Gospel Traditions (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979).

²⁰Viz., W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: University Press, 1966), App. XV, pp. 464–80, esp. p. 480: “[Gerhardsson and Riesenfeld] have made it far more historically probable and reasonably credible, over against the scepticism of much form-criticism, that in the gospels we are within hearing of the authentic voice and within sight of the authentic activity of Jesus of Nazareth, however much muffled and obscured these may be by the process of transmission.” Cf. also Peter H. Davids, “The Gospels and Jewish Tradition: Twenty Years After Gerhardsson,” Gospel Perspectives, vol. 1, ed. R. T. France and David Wenham (Sheffield: JSOT, 1980), pp. 75–99.

²¹Cf. esp. H. Schürmann, “Die vorösterlichen Anfänge der Logientradition,” in Der historische Jesu und der kerygmatische Christus, ed. H. Ristow and K. Matthiae (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1961), pp. 342–70; Robert H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel (Supplement to NovTest 18; Leiden Brill, 1967); E. Earle Ellis, “New Directions in Form Criticism,” in Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie, ed. G. Strecker (Tübingen: Mohr, 1975), pp. 299–315; cf. Rainer Riesner, “Jüdische Elementarbildung und Evangelienüberlieferung,” in Gospel Perspectives, vol. 1, ed. R. T. France and David Wenham (Sheffield: JSOT, 1980), pp. 209–23; and now his dissertation, Jesus als Lehrer (Tübinger: J. C. B. Mohr, 1981).

²²Cf. esp. Stonehouse, Origins, pp. 43–47.

²³Cf. among others, Humphrey Palmer, The Logic of Gospel Criticism (New York: St. Martin’s, 1968), p. 193; Morna D. Hooker, “On Using the Wrong Tool,” Theology 75 (1972): 570–81; C. S. Lewis, Fern-seed and Elephants (Glasgow: Collins, 1975), pp. 113–17.

²⁴Palmer, Logic, p. 185.

²⁵Cf. Hooker, “Wrong Tool,” p. 576; D. A. Carson, “Understanding Misunderstandings in the Fourth Gospel,” Tyndale Bulletin 33 (1982): 29–61.

²⁶In addition to the essays by Hooker, “Wrong Tool,” and Ellis, “Form Criticism,” cited above, cf. esp. R. T. France, “The Authenticity of the Sayings of Jesus,” History, Criticism and Faith, ed. Colin Brown (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1976), esp. pp. 110–14; David L. Mealand, “The Dissimilarity Test,” Scottish Journal of Theology, 31 (1978): 41–50 (though Mealand gives the test high marks for affirming the trustworthiness of the irreducible minimum).

²⁷Cf. Hooker, “Wrong Tool,” p. 577.

²⁸Cf., in addition to the major introductions, n. 26 and the literature cited there.

²⁹For a fine example, cf. H. Conzelmann’s redaction critical study, Die Mitte der Zeit (Tübingen: Mohr, 1964). On this, cf. Neill, Interpretation, pp. 264–65.

³⁰Hooker, “Wrong Tool,” p. 578.

³¹Cf. Morna D. Hooker, “In his own Image?” in What About the New Testament? ed. Morna Hooker and Colin Hickling (London: SPCK, 1975), pp. 28–44, esp. pp. 36–37, where she criticizes Perrin (see n. 12 above) for pitting history against theology. She charges Perrin with “a revealing comment” that he “makes on a study in Marcan theology written by Ernest Best, which he describes as ‘a strange book in that the author combines redaction criticism with the assumption “that Mark believes that the incidents he uses actually happened”!’ Now this is really an extraordinary statement. Why should the fact that Mark is a ‘theologian’ preclude him from writing about events which he thought had happened? Can a ‘theologian’ write only about imaginary events? This is obviously sheer nonsense. Against Perrin, we must quote Perrin himself: ‘Mark has the right to be read on his own terms.’ And what is the most obvious thing about Mark’s method of writing? It is that he presented his theology in a form which ‘misled’ generations of scholars into believing that he was writing an historical account! This, says Perrin, ‘is mute testimony to the skill of Mark as an author’. Mark may well be more skillful than has sometimes been allowed—but not if he succeeded only in concealing his purpose until the twentieth-century critic uncovered it! Was he perhaps using his skill to do precisely what he seems to be doing? He certainly gives the impression that he is writing Heilsgeschichte, and that theology and history are for him inextricably bound together. Is it not unlikely that he has chosen ‘to introduce his particular theology of the cross’ in narrative form because it is an exposition of what he understands to have actually happened?”

³²Cf. D. A. Carson, The Sermon on the Mount (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), pp. 145–47.

³³Cf. esp. France, “Authenticity,” pp. 106–7.

³⁴Ibid., pp. 117–18 and n. 45.

³⁵Ibid., p. 118.

³⁶Graham Stanton, “Form Criticism Revisited,” in What About the New Testament? ed. Morna Hooker and Colin Hickling (London: SPCK, 1975), p. 23.

³⁷D. H. Juel, Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS 31; Missoula: Scholars, 1977). Cf. also J. Delorme, “L’intégration des petits unités littéraires dans l’Evangile de Marc du point de vue de la sémiotique structurale,” New Testament Studies 25 (1979): 469–91.

³⁸Cf. esp. Erhardt Güttgemanns, Candid Questions Concerning Gospel Form Criticism: A Methodological Sketch of the Fundamental Problematics of Form and Redaction Criticism, tr. William G. Doty (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1979).

³⁹Viz., William L. Lane, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974); I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978).

⁴⁰G. R. Osborne, “Redactional Trajectories in the Crucifixion Narrative,” The Evangelical Quarterly 51 (1979): 80–96.

⁴¹M. J. Down, “The Matthean Birth Narratives: Matthew 1¹⁸–2²³,” The Expository Times 90 (1978–79): 51–52.

⁴²E.g., J. Schniewind, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (NTD; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1937), p. 53; R. Banks, “Matthew’s Understanding of the Law: Authenticity and Interpretation in Matthew 5:17–20,” Journal of Biblical Literature 93 (1974): 226–42.

⁴³Ibid., pp. 233, 238.

⁴⁴S. Leǵ́asse, “Jésus: Juif ou non?” Nouvelle Revue Théologique 86 (1964): 692; W. Trilling, Das wahre Israel (Münich: Kösel-Verlag, 1964), p. 171.

⁴⁵Banks, “Matthew’s Understanding,” p. 228.

⁴⁶Ibid., pp. 232–33. Cf. also E. Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975), p. 104.

⁴⁷Banks, “Matthew’s Understanding.”

⁴⁸J. Jeremias, Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums: Redaktion und Tradition im Nicht-Markusstoff des dritten Evangeliums (Meyers Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar Sunderband; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1980).

⁴⁹E. Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew, trans. David E. Green (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975), p. 388.

⁵⁰E.g., Hugh Anderson, The Gospel of Mark (NCB; Greenwood: Attic, 1976), pp. 248–49; G. M. Styler, “Stages in Christology in the Synoptic Gospels,” New Testament Studies 10 (1963–64): 398–409; R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, 2 vols. (Freiburg: Herder, 1977), 2:138.

⁵¹David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (NCB; Greenwood: Attic, 1972), p. 64. Cf. his entire discussion, pp. 64–65.

⁵²Stonehouse, Origins, pp. 93–112.

⁵³Ibid., p. 103.

⁵⁴Ibid., p. 105, and pp. 176–92 for an excellent discussion. I take this to have been necessary because of the exigencies of the salvation-historical setting.

⁵⁵Cf. among others, H. D. McDonald, Jesus—Human and Divine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1968); C. F. D. Moule, The Origin of Christology (Cambridge: University Press, 1977); I. Howard Marshall, The Origins of New Testament Christology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1976).

⁵⁶Cf. especially Vincent Taylor, The Gospel according to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1953), pp. 424–27. Taylor himself proposes a different solution to the one adopted here.

⁵⁷Marshall, Commentary, p. 684. Moreover, I have not here mentioned the text-critical problems.

⁵⁸G. R. Osborne, “The Evangelical and Traditionsgeschichte,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 21 (1978): 117–30; Robert H. Stein, “The ‘Criteria’ for Authenticity,” Gospel Perspectives, vol. 1, ed. R. T. France and David Wenham (Sheffield: JSOT, 1980), pp. 225–63.

⁵⁹James Barr, Fundamentalism (London: SCM, 1977), esp. pp. 120–59.

⁶⁰Cf. the excellent discussion by George I. Mavrodes, Belief in God: A Study in the Epistemology of Religion (New York: Random, 1970), esp. pp. 97–114.

⁶¹Exemplified in an embarrassing way by Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), pp. 175–76.

⁶²I cannot here raise other questions that affect authenticity, such as the literary genre of any book or pericope, or the position that posits that the church received words from the resurrected Christ through Christian prophets and read them back into the historical Jesus—a view that questions the authenticity not of the sayings but of the settings. Nor may I here lay out the epistemological base on which I would build a high view of Scripture.

⁶³I have developed these categories in “Historical Tradition and the Fourth Gospel—After Dodd, What?” Gospel Perspectives, vol. 2, ed. R. T. France and David Wenham (Sheffield: JSOT, 1981).

⁶⁴(London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1972).

⁶⁵I would like to record my gratitude to Dr. David Wenham for offering helpful suggestions while I was preparing this chapter.

Cleared-Up’ Contradictions In The Bible

‘Cleared-Up’ Contradictions In The Bible

By: Jay Smith, Alex Chowdhry, Toby Jepson, James Schaeffer and edited by Craig Winn

“The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.” (Proverbs 18:17)

The Charge of Contradiction

Muslims talk often about the many contradictions in the Bible. The number of contradictions vary depending on whom you are talking to. Kairanvi’s Izhar-ul-Haq presents 119 contradictions, while others such as Shabbir Ally have supposedly found 101. The problem as they see it concerns their supposition that any religious book claiming absolute divine authority must not include any contradictions, as a message emanating from an Omniscient being must be consistent with itself.

The Muslims quote from the Qur’an (4:82) which says “do they not consider the Qur’an (with care). Had it been from any other than Allah, they would have found there-in many a discrepancy.”

A Definition of Revelation:

In order to respond to this challenge it is important we understand the presupposition and thinking that underlies such a challenge. The principle of non-contradiction has been elevated to the status of an absolute criterion, capable of being applied by human beings in judging the authenticity of God’s word. This is not a proposition to which Christians can or should give assent. The Christian will gladly admit that scripture is ultimately non-self-contradictory. But the Christian cannot agree that the principle of non-contradiction is given to men as a criterion by which they are to judge God’s word. It is this criterion which the Muslims have imposed upon the discussion of revelation. And it is a criterion which is lethal to Islam as the QurÕan is filled with internal contradictions as well as errors of fact, history, and science.

Setting a false standard is a mistake which many of us fall into; measuring that which is unfamiliar to us by a standard which is more familiar; in this case measuring the Bible with the standard which they have borrowed from the Qur’an. Their book, the Qur’an, is falsely believed to have been ‘sent down’ from heaven unfettered by the hands of men. It is this misconception of scripture which they then impose upon the Bible. But it is wrong for Muslims to assume that the Bible can be measured using the same criteria as that imposed on the Qur’anÑa criterion upon which the QurÕan itself fails miserably.

The Bible is not simply one book compiled by one man as the Muslims errantly claim for their Qur’an, but a compilation of 66 books, written by more than 40 authors, over a period of 1500 years! For that reason Christians have always maintained that the entire Bible shows the imprint of human hands. Evidence of this can be found in the variety of human languages used, the varying styles of writing, the differences in the author’s intellects and temperaments, as well as the apparent allusions to the author’s contemporary concepts of scientific knowledge, without which the scriptures would not have been understood by the people of that time. That does not mean, however, that the Bible is not authoritative, for each of the writers received their revelation by means of inspiration.

A Definition of Inspiration:

In 2 Timothy 3:16, we are told that all Scripture is inspired. The word used for inspiration is theopneustos which means “God-breathed,” implying that what was written had its origin in God Himself. In 2 Peter 1:21 we read that the writers were “carried along” by God. Thus, God used each writer, including his personality to accomplish a divinely authoritative work, for God cannot inspire error.

The Bible speaks many times of its inspiration: In Luke 24:27,44; John 5:39; and Hebrews 10:7, Yahshua says that what was written about him in the Old Testament would come to pass. Romans 3:2 and Hebrews 5:12 refer to the Old Testament as the Word of God. We read in 1 Corinthians 2:13, “This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit.” This is corroborated in 2 Timothy 3:16, as we saw above. In 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Paul when referring to that which he had written says, “…you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the Word of God…” Peter speaks of the inspiration of Paul’s writings in 2 Peter 3:15-16, where he maintains that, “…Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters…” Earlier, in 2 Peter 1:21 Peter writes, “For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along [moved] by the Holy Spirit.” And then finally in Revelation 22:18,19 the writer John, referring to the book of Revelation states, “…if anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life…”

Charles Wesley summarizes this high view of inspiration brilliantly when he says, “The Bible must be the invention either of good men or angels, bad men or devils, or of God. However, it was not written by good men, because good men would not tell lies by saying ‘Thus saith the Lord;’ it was not written by bad men because they would not write about doing good, while condemning sin, and themselves to hell; thus, it must be written by divine inspiration” (McDowell 1990:178).

How does God inspire the writers? Does He simply move the writers by challenging their heart to reach new heights, much like we find in the works of Shakespeare, Milton, Homer and Dickens, all of which are human literary masterpieces? Or does that which He inspire contain the words of God-along with myths, mistakes and legends, thus creating a book in which portions of the Word of God can be found, along with those of finite and fallible men? Or are the scriptures the infallible Word of God in their entirety? In other words, how, Muslims will ask, is this inspiration carried out? Does God use mechanical dictation, similar to that which we find erroneously claimed for the Qur’an, or does He use the writersÕ own minds and experiences?

The simple answer is that God’s control was always with them in their writings, such that the Bible is nothing more than “The Word of God in the words of men” (McDowell 1990:176). This means that God utilized the culture and conventions of his penman’s milieu. Thus history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, and generalization and approximation as what they are. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: Since, for instance, nonchronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (for example, the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another if they can be explained or if they are minor. It is not right to set the so-called ‘phenomena’ of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved (as we have attempted in this paper), will encourage our faith. However, where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall not pretend to create one, but instead hope for future enlightenment. For example, not too long ago the OT was considered false because there was no evidence that the Hittites existed. Today, proof abounds.

This is not a blind hope in other areas either. For instance, a century ago there were about 100 parts of the body whose function were mysterious to doctors, and people would say “This is proof of evolution as these are left over parts which we don’t need anymore”. However, because of on-going and diligent research we are now left with only one organ in the body which appears to be redundant. In time, perhaps we will find a use for that organ as well. This principle can also be seen with the Bible. So many ‘discrepancies’ have also been cleared up due to greater research and understanding. Had Shabbir been around a century or even 25 years ago his list could easily have been 1001 contradictions. As new data is uncovered, we are continually finding answers to many of the historical mysteries. Therefore we have every reason to believe that, in God’s time, the rest will be solved as well.

We are fully aware that the Christian criteria for revelation is not acceptable to Muslims, as it is in seeming conflict with their erroneous view of the QurÕan. Yet, by simply measuring the Bible against the ‘sent down’ concept which they wrongly claim for their Qur’an, Muslims condemn themselves of duplicity, since they demand of the New Testament that which they do not demand of the previous revelations, the Taurat and Zabuur, though both are revered as equally inspired revelations by all Muslims. Muslims believe that Moses wrote the Taurat and David the Zabuur. However, neither claimed to have received their revelations by a means of a nazil (‘sent down’) transmission. So why insist on such for the New Testament, especially since the document makes no such claim itself? Especially since, the QurÕan fails miserably in this regard.

The underlying reason perhaps lies in the misguided belief by Muslims that the Qur’an, because it is the only revelation which came “unfettered” by human intervention, is thus the truest and clearest statement of Allah’s word, and therefore supersedes all previous revelations, even annulling those revelations, as they have supposedly been corrupted by the limitations of their human authors.

Left unsaid is the glaring irony that the claim for a nazil revelation for the Qur’an comes from one source alone, the man to which it was supposedly revealed, Muhammad. Yet there are no external witnesses both before or at the time who can corroborate Muhammad’s testimony. Not even miracles are provided to substantiate his claims, nor are there any known documents of such a Qur’an from the century in which it is claimed to have been revealed (see the paper on the historicity of the Qur’an versus the Bible.)

Even if we were to disregard the historical problems for early Qur’ans, a further problem concerns the numerous Muslim traditions which speak of the many differing copies of Qur’anic codices which were prevalent during the unverified collating of the Uthmanic recension in the mid-seventh century. Since the conflicting copies were allegedly destroyed, we cannot know today whether the Qur’an in our possession was even similar to that which was first revealed.

What Muslims must understand is that Christians have always maintained that the Word of God, the Bible, was indeed written by men, but that these men were always under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21). Further, the QurÕan was recited by a man who claimed to have forgotten much of it. Not only was it ultimately written down by men, it had to be passed along orally for decades. WhatÕs more, the resulting book is a jumbled mess, often plagiarized, and very poorly written. Even when one takes the worst passage of the Bible and contrasts it with the best of the QurÕan, the comparison is shocking.

God in the Bible deliberately chose to reveal His Word through inspired prophets and apostles, so that His Word would not only be conveyed to humanity correctly, and comprehensively but would be communicated to their understanding and powers of comprehension as well. This may be why the Qur’an says that only Allah understands portions of it.

There are other problems with the contention maintained by Muslims that the Bible is full of contradictions. For instance, what then will Muslims do with the authority which their own Qur’an gives towards the Bible? How can a book which the QurÕan says its God inspired not measure up to the standards it imposes?

The Qur’an gives authority to the Bible:

The Qur’an, itself, the highest authority for all Muslims, gives divine authority to the Bible and claims itÕs authentic, at least up to the seventh-ninth Centuries. Consider the following Suras:

Sura Baqara 2:136 points out that there is no difference between the scriptures which preceded and those of the Qur’an, saying, “…the revelation given to us…and Jesus…we make no difference between one and another of them.” Sura Al-I-Imran 3:2-3 continues, “Allah…He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)…as a guide to mankind.” Sura Nisaa 4:136 carries this farther by admonishing the Muslims to, “…Believe…and the scripture which He sent before him.” In Sura Ma-ida 5:47,49,50,52 we find a direct call to Christians to believe in their scriptures: “…We sent Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him. We sent him the Gospel… Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein, if any do fail to judge by the light of what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel…” Again, in Sura Ma-ida 5:68 we find a similar call: “People of the Book!…Stand fast by the law, the Gospel, and all revelation that hath come to you from YOUR LORD. It is the revelation that has come to thee from THY LORD.”

To embolden this idea of the New and Old Testament’s authority we find in Sura 10:94 that Muslims are advised to confer with these scriptures if in doubt about their own, saying: “If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee. The truth had indeed come to thee from thy Lord.” And as if to emphasize this point the advice is repeated in Sura 21:7, “…the apostles We sent were but men, to whom We granted inspiration. If ye realize this not, Ask of those who possess the message.” This is crucial as it doesnÕt say: Òthose who possessed the message.Ó That means according to the QurÕan at the time of this revelation in the seventh century the Bible was the uncorrupted Word of God.

Finally, in Sura Ankabut 29:46 Muslims are asked not to question the authority of the scriptures of the Christians, saying, “And dispute ye not with the people of the book but say: We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and that which came down to you.” This in itself is devastating to Islam as the ÒrevelationsÓ are mutually exclusive and completely incompatable.

If there is anything in these Suras which is clear, it is that the Qur’an emphatically endorses the Torah and the Gospel as authentic and authoritative revelations from God. In fact, nowhere is there any warning in the Qur’an that the former scriptures had been corrupted, nor that they were contradictory. If the Qur’an was indeed the final and complete revelation, if it was the seal of all former revelations the Muslims claim, than certainly the author of the Qur’an would have included a warning against that which had been corrupted in the earlier scriptures. But nowhere do we find even a hint that the Bible was contradictory, or indeed that it was corrupted.

There are some Muslims, however, who contend that according to sura 2:140 the Jews and Christians had corrupted their scriptures. This aya says (referring to the Jews), “…who is more unjust than those who conceal the testimony they have from Allah…?”Yet, nowhere does this aya state that the Jews and Christians corrupted their scriptures. It merely mentions that certain Jews have concealed “the testimony they have from Allah.” In other words the testimony is still there (thus the reason the afore-mentioned suras admonish Muslims to respect the former scriptures), though the adherents of that testimony have chosen to conceal it. If anything this aya is a ringing endorsement to the credibility of those former scriptures, as it assumes a testimony from Allah does exist amongst the Jewish community.

God does not change His Word

Furthermore, the Muslim Qur’an holds to the premise that God does not change His word and that it cannot be changed. Sura Yunus 10:64 says, “No change can there be in the words of Allah.” This is repeated in Sura Al An’am 6:34: “There is none that can alter the words of Allah,” found also in Sura Qaf 50:28,29. The QurÕanÕs law of abrogation found in Sura 2:106 contradicts these verses, but thatÕs just one of many QurÕanic anomalies.

In the Bible we, likewise, have a number of references which speak of the unchangeableness of God’s word; such as, Deuteronomy 4:1-2; Isaiah 8:20; Matthew 5:17-18; 24:35; and Revelation 22:18-20. If this is the recurring theme in both the Bible and the Qur’an, it is hardly likely that we would find a scripture with such a multiplicity of contradictions which Muslims claim are found in the Bible. What then should we do with the contradictions which the Muslims claim are there? If they are there, such an attack is suicidal for Islam.

Contradictions analyzed:

When we look at the contradictions which Muslims point out we find that many of these supposed errors are not errors at all but either a misunderstanding of the context or nothing more then a copyist mistake or translation error. The former can easily be explained, while the latter needs a little more attention. It is quite clear that the books of the Old Testament were written between the 17^th and the 5^th century BC on the only parchments available at that time, pieces of Papyrus, which decayed rather quickly, and so needed continual copying. We now know that much of the Old Testament was copied by hand for 3,000 years, while the New Testament was copied for another 1,400 years, in isolated communities in different lands and on different continents, yet they still remain basically unchanged.

Today many older manuscripts have been found which we can use to corroborate those earlier manuscripts. In fact we have an enormous collection of manuscripts available to which we can go to corroborate the textual credibility of our current document. Concerning the New Testament manuscripts (MSS) we have in our possession 5,300 Greek manuscripts or fragments thereof, 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts and at least 10,000 other early translations. In all we now have more than 25,000 manuscript copies or portions of the New Testament from which to use! Obviously this gives us much more material with which to delineate any variant verses which may exist. Where there is a variant reading, these have been identified and expunged and noted as footnotes on the relevant pages of the texts. In no way does this imply any defects with our Bible (as found in the original autographs).

Christians readily admit, however, that there have been ‘scribal errors’ in the copies of the Old and New Testament. It is beyond the capability of anyone to avoid any and every slip of the pen in copying page after page from any book, sacred or secular. Although Muslims are wont to deny it, these scribal errors have been proven to exist in their book as the earliest QurÕan fragments differ significantly from todayÕs text. Yet we may be sure that the original manuscript (better known as autograph) of each book of the Bible, being directly inspired by God, was free from all error. Those originals, however, because of the early date of their inception no longer exist as they all preceded the invention of paper, which is more durable, in the fourth century A.D.

The individuals responsible for the copying (scribes or copyists) were prone to making two types of scribal errors, well known and documented by those expert in the field of manuscript analysis. One concerned the spelling of proper names (especially unfamiliar foreign names), and the other had to do with numbers. The fact that it is mainly these type of errors in evidence gives credence to the argument for copyist errors. If indeed the originals were in contradiction, we would see evidence of this within the content of the stories themselves. (Archer 1982:221-222) In Hebrew numbers are a significant problem because they were designated by letters, not numerals.

What is important to remember, however, is that no well-attested variation in the manuscript copies that have come down to us alter any doctrine or teaching of the BibleÑnot one. To this extent, at least, the Holy Spirit has exercised a restraining influence in superintending the transmission of the text.

Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents were inspired. For that reason it is essential that we maintain an ongoing textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appears to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.

Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autograph. This is even true if the language is the same as time significantly alters the meaning of words. For example, the Religious Arabic of the QurÕan is so dated, it is no longer written or spoken apart from the QurÕan. And there are many words in which no one knows their meaning. Moreover, language itself is an imprecise tool. Meanings are heavily influenced by time, culture, circumstance, and even inflection. Often, the context of a passage is often as important to the meaning as the words themselves.

Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians are served with a host of translations and Hebrew and Greek dictionaries so they have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit’s constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader “wise for salvation through faith in Christ.” (2 Tim. 3:15)

With that in mind let’s look at the examples forwarded by Shabbir Ally in his pamphlet to better ascertain whether or not the scriptures can stand the test of authority espoused above?

While answering these challenges it became obvious that Shabbir made a number of errors in his reasoning which could easily have been rectified had he simply looked at the context. This may offer us an idea as to why Muslims in general seem so fond of looking for, and apparently finding “contradictions” in the BibleÑmost of which are very easily explained by appealing to the context. When we look at the Qur’an we are struck with the reverse situation, for the Qur’an has very little context as such to refer to. There is little narration, and passages interject other passages with themes which have no connection. A similar theme is picked up and repeated in another Sura, though with variations and even at times contradictory material (i.e. the differing stories of Abraham and the idols found in Suras 21:51-59 and 6:74-83; 19:41-49). It stands to reason, then, that Muslims fail to look in their Holy Book with a critical eye. Is it no wonder that they decline to do the same with the Bible.

On the second page of his booklet “101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible”, Shabbir Ally states “Permission Granted! Please copy this booklet and spread the truth.”

We, the authors of this paper, have been delighted to fulfill this request. Although we have not directly copied all his words, we have reproduced his alleged contradictions in this booklet and replied to them. Therefore, through these rebuttals we are doing what Shabbir requested, spreading the truth! Showing the firm foundation of the Bible, which is the truth. Please weigh the words of Mr. Ally against the rebuttals found herein.

1. Does God incite David to conduct the census of his people (2 Samuel 4:1), or does Satan (1 Chronicles 21:1)? (Category: misunderstood how God works in history)

This seems an apparent discrepancy unless of course both statements are true. It was towards the end of David’s reign, and David was looking back over his career, which had brought the Canaanite, Syrian, and Phoenician kingdoms into a state of vassalage and dependency on Israel. He had an attitude of pride and self-admiration for his achievements, and was thinking more in terms of armaments and troops than in terms of the mercies of Yahweh.

Yahweh, therefore, decided that it was time that David be brought to his knees. So he let him go ahead with his census, in order to find out just how much good it would do him, as the only thing this census would accomplish would be to inflate the national ego (intimated in Joab’s warning against carrying out the census in 1 Chronicles 21:3). As soon as the numbering was completed, a disastrous plague struck Israel bringing about an enormous loss of life (70,000 Israelites according to 2 Samuel 24:15).

What about Satan? Why would he get himself involved in this affair (according to 1 Chronicles 21:1)? It seems SatanÕs reasons were entirely malicious, knowing that a census would displease Yahweh (1 Chronicles 21:7-8), and so Satan incited David to carry it through.

Yet this is nothing new, for there are a number of other occurrences in the Bible where both Yahweh and Satan were involved in tests and trials:

In the book of Job, chapters one and two we find a challenge to Satan from Yahweh allowing Satan to bring upon Job his calamities. Yahweh ‘s purpose was to purify Job’s faith, and to strengthen his character by means of discipline through adversity, whereas Satan’s purpose was purely malicious, wishing Job as much harm as possible so that he would recant his faith in his God.

Similarly both Yahweh and Satan are involved in the sufferings of persecuted Christians according to 1 Peter 4:19 and 5:8. Yahweh’s purpose is to strengthen their faith and to enable them to share in the sufferings of Christ in this life, that they may rejoice with Him in the glories of heaven to come (1 Peter 4:13-14), whereas Satan’s purpose is to ‘devour’ them (1 Peter 5:8), or rather to draw them into self-pity and bitterness, and thus down to his level.

Both Yahweh and Satan allowed Yahshua the three temptations during his ministry on earth. Yahweh ‘s purpose for these temptations was for him to triumph completely over the tempter who had lured the first Adam to his fall, whereas Satan’s purpose was to deflect the savior from his Messianic mission.

In the case of Peter’s three denials of Yahshua in the court of the high priest, it was Christ himself who points out the purposes of both parties involvement when he says in Luke 22:31-32, “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.“

And finally the crucifixion itself bears out yet another example where both Yahweh and Satan are involved. Satan exposed his purpose when he had the heart of Judas filled with treachery and hate (John 13:27), causing him to betray Yahshua. YahwehÕs reasoning behind the crucifixion, however, was that Christ, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world should give his life as a ransom for many, so that once again sinful man could relish in the relationship lost at the very beginning, in the garden of Eden, and thereby enter into a relationship which is now eternal.

Thus we have five examples where both Yahweh and Satan were involved for different reasons and with entirely different motives. Satan’s motive in all these examples, including the census by David was driven by malicious intent, while Yahweh in all these cases showed a view to eventual victory, while simultaneously increasing the usefulness of the person tested. In every case Satan’s success was limited and transient; while in the end Yahweh’s purpose was well served furthering His cause substantially. (Archer 1982:186-188)

2. 2 Samuel 24:9 gives the total population for Israel as 800,000, whereas 1 Chronicles 21:5 says it was 1,100,000. (Category: misunderstood the historical context or misunderstood the author’s intent)

There are a number of ways to understand not only this problem but the next challenge as well, since they both refer to the same passages and to the same census.

It is possible that the differences between the two accounts are related to the unofficial and incomplete nature of the census (which will be discussed later), or that the book of Samuel presents rounded numbers, particularly for Judah.

The more likely answer, however, is that one census includes categories of men that the other excludes. It is quite conceivable that the 1 Chronicles 21:5 figure included all the available men of fighting age, whether battle-seasoned or not, whereas the 2 Samuel 24:9 account is speaking only of those who were ready for battle. Joab’s report in 2 Samuel 24 uses the word ‘is hayil, which is translated as “mighty men,” or battle-seasoned troops, and refers to them numbering 800,000 veterans. It is reasonable that there were an additional 300,000 men of military age who were neither trained nor ready to fight. The two groups would therefore make up the 1,100,000 men in the 1 Chronicles 21 account which does not employ the Hebrew term ‘is hayil to describe them. (Archer 1982:188-189 and Light of Life II 1992:189-190)

3. 2 Samuel 24:9 gives the round figure Of 500,000 fighting men in Judah, which was 30,000 more than the corresponding item in 1 Chronicles 21:5. (Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Observe that 1 Chronicles 21:6 clearly states that Joab did not complete the numbering, as he had not yet taken a census of the tribe of Benjamin, nor that of Levi’s either, due to the fact that David came under conviction about completing the census at all. Thus the different numbers indicate the inclusion or exclusion of particular unspecified groups in the nation. We find another reference to this in 1 Chronicles 27:23 where it states that David did not include those twenty years old and younger, and that since Joab did not finish the census the number was not recorded in King David’s Chronicle.

The procedure for conducting the census had been to start with the trans-Jordanian tribes (2 Samuel 24:5) and then shift to the northern most tribe of Dan and work southward towards Jerusalem (verse 7). The numbering of Benjamin, therefore, would have come last. Hence Benjamin would not be included with the total for Israel or of that for Judah, either. In the case of 2 Samuel 24, the figure for Judah included the already known figure of 30,000 troops mustered by Benjamin. Hence the total of 500,000 included the Benjamite contingent which causes the numbers to mesh perfectly.

Observe that after the division of the United Kingdom into the North and the South following the death of Solomon in 930 BC, most of the Benjamites remained loyal to the dynasty of David and constituted (along with Simeon to the south) thekingdom of Judah. Hence it was reasonable to include Benjamin with Judah and Simeon in the sub-total figure of 500,000, even though Joab may not have itemized it in the first report he gave to David (1 Chronicles 21:5). Therefore the completed grand total of fighting forces available to David for military service was 1,600,000 (1,100,000 of Israel, 470,000 of Judah-Simeon, and 30,000 of Benjamin). (Archer 1982:188-189 and Light of Life II 1992:189)

4. 2 Samuel 24:13 mentions that there will be seven years of famine whereas 1 Chronicles 21:12 mentions only three. (Category: misunderstood the author’s intent, and misunderstood the wording)

There are two ways to look at this. The first is to assume that the author of 1 Chronicles emphasized the three-year period in which the famine was to be most intense, whereas the author of 2 Samuel includes the two years prior to and after this period, during which the famine worsened and lessened respectively.

Another solution can be noticed by observing the usage of words in each passage. When you compare the two passages you will note that the wording is significantly different in 1 Chronicles 21 from that found in a 2 Samuel 24. In 2 Samuel 24:13 the question is “shell seven years of famine come to you?” In 1 Chronicles 21:12 we find an alternative imperative, “take for yourself either three years of famine…” From this we may reasonably conclude that 2 Samuel records the first approach of the prophet Gad to David, in which the alternative prospect was seven years; whereas the Chronicles account gives us the second and final approach of Nathan to the King, in which the Lord (doubtless in response to David’s earnest entreaty in private prayer) reduced the severity of that grim alternative to three years rather than an entire span of seven. As it turned out, however, David opted for a third option, and thereby received three days of severe pestilence. (Archer 1982:189-190 and Light of Life II 1992:190)

5. Was Ahaziah 22 (2 Kings 8:26) or 42 (2 Chronicles 22:2) when he began to rule over Jerusalem? (Category: copyist error)

Because we are dealing with accounts which were written thousands of years ago, we would not expect to have the originals in our possession today, as they would have disintegrated long ago. We are therefore dependent on the copies taken from copies of those originals, which were in turn continually copied out over a period of centuries. Those who did the copying were prone to making two types of scribal errors. One concerned the spelling of proper names, and the other had to do with numbers due to the fact that they were represented by letters and the convention changed over time.

The two examples of numerical discrepancy here have to do with a decade in the number given. Ahaziah is said to have been 22 in 2 Kings 8:26; while in 2 Chronicles 22:2 Ahaziah is said to have been 42. Fortunately there is enough additional information in the Biblical text to show that the correct number is 22. Earlier in 2 Kings 8:17 the author mentions that Ahaziah’s father Joram ben Ahab was 32 when he became King, and he died eight years later, at the age of 40. Therefore Ahaziah could not have been 42 at the time of his father’s death at age 40! Such scribal errors do not change Jewish or Christian beliefs in the least. In such a case, another portion of scripture often corrects the mistake (2 Kings 8:26 in this instance). We must also remember that the scribes who were responsible for the copies were meticulously honest in handling Biblical texts. They delivered them as they received them, without changing even obvious mistakes, which are few indeed. (Refer to the next question for a more in-depth presentation on how scribes could misconstrue numbers within manuscripts) (Archer 1982:206 and Light of Life II 1992:201)

6. Was Jehoiachin 18 years old (2 Kings 24:8) or 8 years old (2 Chronicles 36:9) when he became king of Jerusalem? (Category: copyist error)

Once again there is enough information in the context of these two passages to tell us that 8 is wrong and 18 right. The age of 8 is unusually young to assume governmental leadership. However, there are certain commentators who contend that this can be entirely possible. They maintain that when Jehoiachin was eight years old, his father made him co-regent, so that he could be trained in the responsibilities of leading a kingdom. Jehoiachin then became officially a king at the age of eighteen, upon his father’s death.

A more likely scenario, however, is that this is yet another case of scribal error, evidenced commonly with numbers. It may be helpful to interject here that there were three known ways of writing numbers in Hebrew. The earliest, a series of notations used by the Jewish settlers in the 5th century BC Elephantine Papyri (described in more detail below) was followed by a system whereby alphabetical letters were used for numbers. A further system was introduced whereby the spelling out of the numbers in full was prescribed by the guild of so-perim. Fortunately we have a large file of documents in papyrus from these three sources to which we can refer.

As with many of these numerical discrepancies, it is the decade number that varies. It is instructive to observe that the number notations used by the Jewish settlers in the 5th century BC Elephantine Papyri, during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, from which this passage comes, evidences the earlier form of numerical notation. This consisted of a horizontal stroke ending in a downward hook at its right end to represent the numbers in tens (thus two horizontal strokes one above the other would be 20). Vertical strokes were used to represent anything less than ten. Thus eight would be /III IIII, but eighteen would be virtually identical: /III IIII with the addition of a horizontal line and downward hook above it. Similarly twenty-two would be /I followed by two horizontal hooks, and forty-two would be /I followed by two sets of horizontal.

If, then, the primary manuscript from which a copy was being carried out was old, if the papyrus parchment became frayed, the dye blurred or smudged, one or more of the decadal notations could be missed by the copyist. It is far less likely that the copyist would have mistakenly seen an extra ten stroke that was not present in his original then that he would have failed to observe one that had been smudged, faded, or been lost in the weaving of the papyrus.

In the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, the corrections have been included in the texts. However, for clarity, footnotes at the bottom of the page mention that earlier Hebrew MSS include the scribal error, while the Septuagint MSS from 275 B.C. and Syriac as well as one Hebrew MSS include the correct numerals. It only makes sense to correct the numerals once the scribal error has been noted. This, however, in no way negates the authenticity nor the authority of the scriptures which we have.

Confirmation of this type of copyist error is found in various pagan writers as well. For example in the Behistun rock inscription set up by Darius 1, we find that number 38 gives the figure for the slain of the army of Frada as 55,243, with 6,572 prisoners, according to the Babylonian column. Copies of this inscription found in Babylon itself, records the number of prisoners as 6,973. However in the Aramaic translation of this inscription discovered at the Elephantine in Egypt, the number of prisoners was only 6,972. Similarly in number 31 of the same inscription, the Babylonian column gives 2,045 as the number of slain in the rebellious army of Frawartish, along with 1,558 prisoners, whereas the Aramaic copy has over 1,575 as the prisoner count. (Archer 1982:206-207, 214-215, 222, 230; Nehls pg.17-18; Light of Life II 1992:204-205)

7. Did king Jehoiachin rule over Jerusalem for three months (2 Kings 24:8), or for three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9)? (Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)

Here again, as we found in challenge number 2 and 4, the author of the Chronicles has been more specific with his numbering, whereas the author of Kings is simply rounding off the number of months, assuming that the additional ten days is not significant enough to mention.

8. Did the chief of the mighty men of David lift up his spear and killed 800 men (2 Samuel 23:8) or only 300 men (1 Chronicles 11:11)? (Category:misunderstood the historical context or misunderstood the author’s intent)

It is quite possible that the authors may have described two different incidents, though by the same man. One author may have only mentioned in part what the other author mentions in full. ItÕs even possible that the chief is being credited with the work of his soldiers in one account and not in the other. (Light of Life II 1992:187)

9. Did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem after defeating the Philistines (2 Samuel 5 and 6), or before (1 Chronicles chapters 13 and 14)? (Category: didn’t read the entire text)

Shabbir Ally should have continued reading on further to 1 Chronicles 15, as he would then have seen that David brought the Ark after defeating the Philistines. The reason for this is that the Israelites moved the Ark of the covenant twice. The first time, they moved it from Baal, prior to the defeat of the Philistines, as we see in 2 Samuel 5 and 6 and in 1 Chronicles 15. Once the prophet Samuel narrates David’s victory over the Philistines, he tells us about both times when the Ark was moved. However in 1 Chronicles, the order is as follows: the Ark was first moved from Baal; then David defeated the Philistines; and finally, the Ark was moved from the House of Obed-Edom.

Therefore the two accounts are not contradictory at all. What we have here is simply one prophet choosing to give us the complete history of the Ark at once (rather than referring to it later). In both cases the timing of events is the same.

While the BibleÕs chronologies are accurate in this regard, same cannot be said of the Qur’an. In Sura 2 we are introduced to the fall of Adam, then we jump thousands of years ahead to God’s mercy to the Israelites, followed by a giant leap backwards to Pharaoh’s drowning, followed by Moses and the Golden calf, followed by the Israelites complaint about food and water, and then we are introduced to the account of the golden calf again. Following this, we read about Moses and Jesus, then we read about Moses and the golden calf, and then about Solomon and Abraham. If one wants to talk about chronology, what does Moses have to do with Yahshua, or Solomon with Abraham? Chronologically the sura should have begun with Adam’s fall, then moved to Cain and Abel, Enoch, Abraham, Lot, Isaac, Jacob and Esau, Joseph, the sons of Israel and Moses, in that order. If such a blatant chronological mix-up can be found in this sura of the Qur’an, then Shabbir would do well to explain it before errantly criticizing the Bible. (Light of Life II 1992:176)

10. Was Noah supposed to bring 2 pairs of all living creatures (Genesis 6:19-20), or was he to bring 7 pairs of ‘clean’ animals (Genesis 7:2; see also Genesis 7:8,9)? (Category: misquoted the text)

This indeed is an odd question to raise. It is obvious that Shabbir Ally has misquoted the text in the 6^th chapter of Genesis, which makes no mention of any ‘clean’ animals in its figure, while the 7^th chapter specifically delineates between the clean and unclean animals. Genesis 7:2 says Noah was to bring in 7 pairs of ‘clean’ animals and 2 pairs of every kind of ‘unclean’ animal. Why did Shabbir not mention the second half of this verse which stipulates 2 pairs in his challenge? It is obvious that there is no discrepancy between the two accounts. The problem is the question itself.

The reason for including seven of the clean species is perfectly evident: they were to be used for sacrificial worship after the flood had receded (as indeed they were, according to Genesis 8:20). Obviously if there had not been more than two of each of these clean species, they would have been rendered extinct by their being sacrificed on the altar. But in the case of the unclean animals and birds, a single pair would suffice, since they would not be needed for blood sacrifice. (Archer 1982:81-82)

11. Did David capture 1,700 of King Zobah’s horsemen (2 Samuel 8:4), or was it 7,000 (1 Chronicles 18:4)? (Category: copyist error)

There are two possible solutions to these differing figures. The first by Keil and Delitzsh (page 360) is a most convincing solution. They maintain that the word for chariotry (rekeb) was inadvertently omitted by the scribe in copying 2 Samuel 8:4, and that the second figure, 7,000 (for the parasim “cavalrymen”), was necessarily reduced to 700 from the 7,000 he saw in his Vorlage for the simple reason that no one would write 7,000 after he had written 1,000 in the recording the one and the same figure. The omission of rekeb might have occurred with an earlier scribe, and a reduction from 7,000 to 700 would have then continued with the successive copies by later scribes. But in all probability the Chronicles figure is right and the Samuel numbers should be corrected to agree with that.

A second solution starts from the premise that the number had been reduced to 700 as it refers to 700 rows, each consisting of 10 horse men, making a total of 7,000. Either way, this like all of the numerical disunions is immaterial to the message and ultimately meaningless. (Archer 1982:184: Keil & Delitzsch 1949:360; Light of Life II 1992:182)

12. Did Solomon have 40,000 stalls for his horses (1 Kings 4:26), or 4,000 stalls (2 Chronicles 9:25)? (Category: copyist error, or misunderstood the historical context)

There are a number of ways to answer these puzzling differences. The most plausible is analogous to what we found earlier in challenge numbers five and six above, where the decadal number has been rubbed out or distorted due to constant use. The horizontal lines and downward hooks used to designate decadal numbers were easily lost in the grooves inherent in parchment fiber, especially as it aged.

Others believe that the stalls mentioned in 2 Chronicles were large ones that housed 10 horses each (that is, a row of ten stalls). Therefore 4,000 of these large stalls would be equivalent to 40,000 small ones. Another commentator maintains that the number of stalls recorded in 1 Kings was the number at the beginning of Solomon’s reign, whereas the number recorded in 2 Chronicles was the number of stalls at the end of his reign. We know that Solomon reigned for 40 years; no doubt, many changes occurred during this period. It is quite likely that he reduced the size of the military machine his father David had left him. (Light of Life II 1992:191)

13. According to the author, did Baasha, the king of Israel die in the 26^th year of king Asa’s reign (1 Kings 15:33), or was he still alive in the 36^th year (2 Chronicles 16:1)? (Category: misunderstood the historical context, or copyist error)

There are two possible solutions to this problem. To begin with, scholars who have looked at these passages have concluded that the 36th year of Asa should be calculated from the withdrawal of the 10 tribes from Judah and Benjamin which brought about the division of the country into Judah and Israel. If we look at it from this perspective, the 36th year of the divided monarchy would be in the 16th year of Asa. This is supported by the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel, as well as contemporary records, which follow this convention. (note: for a fuller explanation of this theory, see Archer, page 225-116).

Keil and Delitzsch (pp. 366-367) preferred to regard the number 36 in 2 Chronicles 16:1 and the number 35 in 15:19 as a copyist’s error for 16 and 15, respectively. This problem is similar to question numbers five and six above. In this case, however, the numbers were written using Hebrew alphabetical type (rather than the Egyptian multiple stroke type used in the Elephantine Papyri, referred to in questions 5 and 6). It is therefore quite possible that the number 16 could quite easily be confused with 36. The reason for this is that up through the seventh century BC the letter yod (10) greatly resembled the letter lamed (30), except for two tiny strokes attached to the left of the main vertical strokes. It required only a smudge or fiber separation from excessive wear on this scroll-column to result in making the yod look like a lamed. It is possible that this error occurred first in the earlier passage, in 2 Chronicles 15:19 (with its 35 wrongly copied from an original 15); then to make it consistent in 16:1, the same scribe (or perhaps a later one) concluded that 16 must be an error for 36 and changed it accordingly on his copy. (Archer 1982:226: Keil & Delitzsch 1949:366-367; Light of Life II 1992:194)

14. Did Solomon appoint 3,600 overseers (2 Chronicles 2:2) to build the temple, or was it only 3,300 (1 Kings 5:16)? (Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)

This is not a problem. The most likely solution is that the author of 2 Chronicles included the 300 men who were selected as reservists to take the place of supervisors who become ill, injured or died, while the author of the 1 Kings 5:16 passage includes only the engaged supervisory force. With the group as large as the 3,300, sickness, injury and death occured, requiring reserves who would be called up as the need arose. (Light of Life II 1992:192)

15. Did Solomon build a facility containing 2,000 baths (1 Kings 7:26), or over 3,000 baths (2 Chronicles 4:5)? (Category: misunderstood the author’s intent, or copyist error)

The Hebrew verb rendered “contained” and “held” is different from that translated “received”; and the meaning may be that the sea ordinarily contained 2,000 baths. But when filled to its utmost capacity it received and held 3,000 baths. Thus the chronicler simply mentions the amount of water that would make the sea like a flowing spring rather than a still pool. This informs us that 3,000 gallons of water were required to completely fill the sea which usually held 2,000 gallons.

Another solution follows a theme mentioned earlier, that the number in Hebrew lettering for 2,000 has been confounded by the scribe with a similar alphabetical number for the number 3,000.

It should be noted that Shabbir (in his debate on 25^th February 1998 against Jay Smith in Birmingham, UK) quoted this “contradiction” and added to it saying that if the bath had a diameter of 10 cubits it cannot possibly have had a circumference of 30 cubits as the text says (since ‘pi’ dictates that it would have a circumference of 31.416 or a 9.549 diameter). Shabbir made the humorous comment “Find me a bath like that and I will get baptized in it!” But Shabbir did not read the text properly or was more interested in a cheap laugh than truth. Why? Because the text says that it was about 8cm thick and had a rim shaped like a lily. Therefore it depends on where you measure. The top or bottom of the rim or the inside or outside of the vessel. Each would all give a different diameter; and depending on whether you measure at the top of the rim or at the narrower point, you would get a different circumference. In other words, Shabbir would get baptized if he were a man of his word. (Haley pg. 382; Light of Life II 1992:192)

16-21. Are the numbers of Israelites freed from Babylonian captivity correct in Ezra (Ezra 2:6, 8, 12, 15, 19, 28) or in Nehemiah (Nehemiah 7:11, 13, 17, 20, 22, 32)? (note: because numbers 16-21 deal with the same census, I have included them as one) (Category: misunderstood the historical context)

In chapter 2 of Ezra and in chapter 7 of Nehemiah there are thirty-three family units that appear in both lists of Israelites returning from Babylon to Judea. Of these 33 family units listed in Ezra and Nehemiah, nineteen family units are identical, while fourteen show discrepancies in the number of members within the family units (though Shabbir only lists six of them). Two of the discrepancies differ by 1, one differs by 4, two by 6, two differ by 9, another differs by 11, another two by 100, another by 201, another differs by 105, a further family differs by 300, and the largest difference is the figure for the sons of Azgad, a difference of 1,100 between the accounts of Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7.

How, then, are we to account for the 14 discrepancies? The answer is quite simple, and Shabbir, had he done any study into the history of these two accounts would never have bothered to waste his time in asking these questions. The fact that there are both similarities and discrepancies side-by-side should have pointed him to the solution as well (as you who are reading this are probably even now concluding).

There are two important factors to bear in mind when looking at these discrepancies between the two lists. The first is the probability that though members of the units or families had enrolled their names at first as intending to go; in the interval of preparation, some possibly died, others were prevented by sickness or other insurmountable obstacles, so that the final number who actually went was not the same as those who had intended to go. Anyone who has planned a school trip to the beach can understand how typical a scenario this really is.

A second and more important factor are the different circumstances in which the two registers were taken, an important fact of which Shabbir seems to be acutely unaware. Ezra’s register was made up while still in Babylon (in the 450s BC), before the return to Jerusalem (Ezra 2:1-2), whereas Nehemiah’s register was drawn up in Judea (around 445 BC), after the walls of Jerusalem had been rebuilt (Nehemiah 7:4-6). The lapse of so many years between the two lists (between 5-10 years) would certainly make a difference in the numbers of each family through death or by other causes.

Most scholars believe that Nehemiah recorded those people who actually arrived at Jerusalem under the leadership of Zerubbabel and Jeshua in 537 or 536 BC (Nehemiah 7:7). Ezra, on the other hand, uses the earlier list of those who originally announced their intention to join the caravan of returning colonists back in Babylon, in the 450s BC.

The discrepancies between these two lists point to the fact that there were new factors which arose to change their minds. Some may have fallen into disagreement, others may have discovered business reasons to delay their departure until later, whereas in some cases there were certainly some illnesses or death, and in other cases there may have been some last-minute recruits from those who first decided to remain in Babylon. Only clans or city-group’s came in with a shrunken numbers. All the rest picked up last-minute recruits varying from one to 1,100.

When we look at the names we find that certain names are mentioned in alternate forms. Among the Jews of that time (as well as those living in the East), a person had a name, title, and surname. Thus, the children of Hariph (Nehemiah 7:24) are the children of Jorah (Ezra 2:18), while the children of Sia (Nehemiah 7:47) are also the children of Siaha (Ezra 2:44). When we take all these factors into consideration, the differences in totals that do appear in these two tallies should occasion no surprise whatsoever. The same sort of arbitration and attrition has featured every large migration in human history. (Archer 1982:229-230 and Light of Life II 1992:219-220)

22. Both Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the totals for the whole assembly was 42,360, yet when the totals are added, Ezra – 29,818 and Nehemiah – 31,089? (Category: copyist error)

There are possibly two answers to this seeming dilemma. The first is that this is most likely a copyist’s error. The original texts had the correct totals, but somewhere along the line of transmission, a scribe made an error in one of the lists, and changed the total in the other so that they would match, without first totaling up the numbers for the families in each list. There is the suggestion that a later scribe upon copying out these lists purposely put down the totals for the whole assembly who were in Jerusalem at his time, which because it was later would have been larger.

The other possibility is forwarded by the learned Old Testament scholar R.K. Harrison, who suggests that at any rate the figure of 42,000 may be metaphorical, following “...the pattern of the Exodus and similar traditions, where the large numbers were employed as symbols of the magnitude of Yahweh, and in this particular instance indicating the triumphant deliverance that Yahweh achieved for His captive people” (Harrison 1970:1142-1143).

Such errors do not change the historicity of the account, since in such cases another portion of Scripture usually corrects the mistake (the added totals in this instance). As the well-known commentator, Matthew Henry once wrote, “Few books are printed without minor errors and typographical mistakes; yet, authors do not disown them on account of this, nor are the errors by the press imputed to the author. The candid reader amends them by the context or by comparing them with some other part of the work.” (Light of Life II 1992:201, 219)

23. Did 200 singers (Ezra 2:65) or 245 singers (Nehemiah 7:67) accompany the assembly? (Category: rounding)

As in question 7, a scribe copying the numbers in the Ezra account simply rounded off the figure of 245 to 200. That was acceptable at the time and remains so today.

24. Was King Abijah’s mother’s name Michaiah, daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2 Chronicles 13:2) or Maachah, daughter of Absalom (2 Chronicles 11:20 & 2 Samuel 13:27)? (Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

This apparent contradiction rests on the understanding of the Hebrew word bat, equivalent to the English daughter. Although usually used to denote a first generation female descendant, it can equally refer to more distant kinship. An example of this is 2 Samuel 1:24, which states: ‘O daughters of Israel, weep for Saul…’ As this is approximately 900 years after Israel (also called Jacob) actually lived, it is clear that this refers to the Israelite women, his distant female descendants.

When seen in this light, the ‘contradiction’ vanishes. 2 Chronicles 13:2 correctly states that Michaiah is a daughter of Uriel. We can assume that Uriel married Tamar, Absalom’s only immediate daughter. Together they had Michaiah who then married king Rehoboam and became the mother of Abijah. 2 Chronicles 11:20 and 1 Kings 15:2, in stating that Maachah was a daughter of Absalom, simply link her back to her more famous grandfather, instead of her lesser known father, to indicate her royal lineage. Abishalom is a variant of Absalom and Michaiah is a variant of Maachah. Therefore, the family tree looks like this:

       Absalom/Abishalom

             Tamar-----Uriel

Rehoboam-----Maachah/Michaiah

        Abijah

25. Joshua and the Israelites did (Joshua 10:23,40) or did not (Joshua 15:63) capture Jerusalem? (Category: misread the text)

The short answer is, not in this campaign. The verses given are in complete harmony and the confusion arises solely from misreading the passage concerned.

In Joshua 10, it is the king of Jerusalem that is killed: his city is not captured (verses 16-18 and 22-26). The five Amorite kings and their armies left their cities and went to attack Gibeon. Joshua and the Israelites routed them and the five kings fled to the cave at Makkedah, from which Joshua’s soldiers brought them to Joshua, who killed them all. Concerning their armies, verse 20 states: ‘the few who were left reached their fortified cities’, which clearly indicates that the cities were not captured. So it was the kings, not their cities, who were captured.

Joshua 10:28-42 records the rest of this particular military campaign. It states that several cities were captured and destroyed, these being: Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron and Debir. All of these cities are south-west of Jerusalem. The king of Gezer and his army were defeated in the field whilst helping Lachish (v.33) and in verse 30 comparison is made to the earlier capture of Jericho, but neither of these last two cities were captured at this time. Verses 40 & 41 delineate the limits of this campaign, all of which took place to the south and west of Jerusalem. Importantly, Gibeon, the eastern limit of this campaign, is still approximately 10 miles to the north-west of Jerusalem.

Jerusalem is, therefore, not stated as captured in Joshua 10. This agrees completely with Joshua 15:63, which states that Judah could not dislodge the Jebusites in Jerusalem.

26. Was Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or Heli (Luke 3:23) the father of Joseph and husband of Mary? (Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

The answer to this is simple but requires some explanation. Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives that of Mary, making Jacob the father of Joseph and Heli the father of Mary. This is shown by the two narrations of the virgin birth. Matthew 1:18-25 tells the story only from Joseph’s perspective, while Luke 1:26-56 is told wholly from Mary’s point of view. Both are important as one establishes the legal lineage to David while the other the blood lineage, fulfilling a Messianic requirement.

A logical question to ask is why Joseph is mentioned in both genealogies? The answer is again simple. Luke follows strict Hebrew tradition in mentioning only males. Therefore, in this case, Mary is designated by her husband’s name.

This reasoning is clearly supported by two lines of evidence. In the first, every name in the Greek text of Luke’s genealogy, with the one exception of Joseph, is preceded by the definite article (e.g. ‘the’ Heli, ‘the’ Matthat). Although not obvious in English translations, this would strike anyone reading the Greek, who would realize that it was tracing the line of Joseph’s wife, even though his name was used. The second line of evidence is the Jerusalem Talmud, a Jewish source. This recognizes the genealogy to be that of Mary, referring to her as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:4). (Fruchtenbaum 1993:10-13)

27. Did Jesus descend from Solomon (Matthew 1:6) or from Nathan (Luke 3:31), both of whom are sons of David? (Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

This is directly linked to ‘contradiction’ 26. Having shown that Matthew gives Joseph’s genealogy and Luke gives that of Mary, it is clear that Joseph was descended from David through Solomon and Mary through Nathan again fulfilling prophecy.

28. Was Jechoniah (Matthew 1:12) or Neri (Luke 3:27) the father of Shealtiel? (Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

Once again, this problem disappears when it is understood that two different genealogies are given from David to Yahshua, those of both Mary and Joseph (see #26). Two different genealogies mean two different men named Shealtiel, a common Hebrew name. Therefore, it is not surprising to recognize that they both had different fathers!

29. Which son of Zerubbabel was an ancestor of Jesus Christ, Abiud (Matthew 1:13) or Rhesa (Luke 3:27), and what about Zerubbabel in (1 Chronicles 3:19-20)? (Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

As with #28, two different Shealtiels necessitates two different Zerubbabels, so it is not surprising that their sons had different names. There was a Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel in both Mary’s and Joseph’s ancestry. Matthew tells us that Joseph’s father was named Jacob. Of course, the Bible records another Joseph son of Jacob, who rose to become the second most powerful ruler in Egypt (Genesis 37-47). We see no need to suggest that these two men are one and the same, so we should have no problem with two men named Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel.

The Zerubbabel mentioned in 1 Chronicles 3:19,20 could easily be a third. Again, this causes no problem: there are several Marys mentioned in the Gospels, because it was a common name. The same may be true here. This Zerubbabel would then be a cousin of the one mentioned in Matthew 1:12,13.

30. Was Joram (Matthew 1:8) or Amaziah (2 Chronicles 26:1) the father of Uzziah? (Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

This answer is of a similar nature to that in #24. Just as the Hebrew bat (daughter) can be used to denote a more distant descendant, so can the Hebrew ben (son). Yahshua is referred to in Matthew 1:1 as the son of David, the son of Abraham. Both the genealogies trace Yahshua’s ancestry through both these men, illustrating the usage of ‘son’. Although no Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew’s gospel are extant today, it is clear that he was a Jew writing from a Hebrew perspective and therefore completely at home with the Hebrew concept of son ship.

With this in mind, it can easily be shown that Amaziah was the immediate father of Uzziah (also called Azariah). Joram/Jehoram, on the other hand, was Uzziah’s great-great-grandfather and a direct ascendant. The line goes Joram/Jehoram – Ahaziah – Joash – Amaziah – Azariah/Uzziah (2 Chronicles 21:4-26:1).

Matthew’s telescoping of Joseph’s genealogy is acceptable, as his purpose is simply to show the route of descent. He comments in 1:17 that there were three sets of fourteen generations. This reveals his fondness for numbers and links in directly with the designation of Yahshua as the son of David. In the Hebrew language, each letter is given a value. The total value of the name David is fourteen and this is probably the reason why Matthew only records fourteen generations in each section, to underline Yahshua’ position as the son of David.

31. Was Josiah (Matthew 1:11) or Jehoiakim (1 Chronicles 3:16) the father of Jechoniah? (Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

This question is essentially the same as #30. Jehoiakim was Jeconiah’s father and Josiah his grandfather. This is quite acceptable and results from Matthew’s aesthetic telescoping of the genealogy, not from any error.

32. Were there fourteen (Matthew 1:17) or thirteen (Matthew 1:12-16) generations from the Babylonian exile until Christ? (Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

As Matthew states (1:17), there were fourteen. In the first section there are fourteen names, in the second fifteen and in the third, fourteen. The simplest way of resolving the matter is that in the first and third sections, the first and last person is included as a generation, whereas not in the second. Either way of counting is acceptable.

33. Who was the father of Shelah; Cainan (Luke 3:35-36) or Arphaxad (Genesis 11:12)? (Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

The most probable answer to this is that the genealogy in the Masoretic text of Genesis telescopes the generations as does Matthew in his list. When we look at the Septuagint (LXX), we find the name of Cainan included as the father of Shelah, echoing what we find in Luke. Luke, writing in Greek, would have used the Septuagint as his authority.

On that same note, if we refer to the Septuagint, when we look at Genesis 11:12 we find that Apharxad was 135 years old, rather than 35 (which would allow more time for him to be Shelah’s grandfather). ItÕs reassuring to know that the Septuagint, the oldest surviving copy of the OT, is the most accurate in numerical details, especially as they relate to decimal positions.

34. John the Baptist was (Matthew 11:14; 17:10) or was not Elijah to come (John 1:19)? (Category: misunderstood the historical context)

An unenlightened reading of Matthew would suggest that Yahshua is saying that John the Baptist was the Elijah who was to come, while John records John the Baptist denying it. The reason for this apparent inconsistency is a lack of awareness and context.

The priests and Levites came to John the Baptist and asked him if he was Elijah. Quite a funny question to ask someone, unless you know the Jewish Scriptures. For Yahweh says through the prophet Malachi: “See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful day of Yahweh comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers.” Therefore as the Jewish people were expecting Elijah, and the question was quite logical.

John was about 30 years when he was asked this question. His parents were already dead; he was the only son of Zechariah from the tribe of Levi. So when asked if he was Elijah who ascended up into heaven about 878 years earlier, the answer was obviously “No, I am not Elijah.” Yahshua also testifies, albeit indirectly, to John not being Elijah in Matthew 11:11 where he says that John is greater than all people who have ever been born. Moses was greater than Elijah, but John was greater than them both.

When Yahshua says to the priests of John “If you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come,” he is demonstrating that he is God because he knows the future. He knows that the priests will reject JohnÕs message and thus his first coming begins quietly and benignly; itÕs hardly Ògreat and dreadful.Ó And it ends with the cross, resurrection, and the indwelling of his spirit in men.

The angel Gabriel (Jibril in Arabic) speaks to Zechariah of his son, John, who was not yet born, saying “he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous – to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” (Luke 1:17) He correctly says that John will go Òin the spirit and power of ElijahÓ which is YahwehÕs spirit and power. Gabriel doesnÕt say that John is Elijah.

The Angel refers to two prophecies, Isaiah 40:3 (see Luke 3:4 to see this applied again to John the Baptist) and Malachi 4:5 mentioned above, which says “See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers”. “Elijah” whom Yahweh foretold through Malachi the prophet will return to usher in the Ògreat and dreadful dayÓ of Yahweh. At the second coming, Yahshua, who is Yahweh in the flesh, returns in great power and the day is dreadful as he obliterates the hundreds of millions of soldiers who have amasses in Medigo, ready to destroy Jerusalem and wipe out the Jewish people.

So, John wasnÕt Elijah, yet he spoke with the same spirit and power. His mission is the same, too, as both usher in the Messiah. Had the priests and Levites accepted his message, the first coming wouldnÕt have ended with a crucifixion.

Yahshua in Matthew 17:11 says that the prophecy of Malachi is true, and it is. He says that this “Elijah” will suffer, like he, will suffer, and he did. “The disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.” Therefore, once we understand the context it is clear; John was not the literal Elijah, but he was performing ElijahÕs role and was speaking with the same power and authorityÑpreparing the way for the Messiah, “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” John 1:29.

35. Jesus would (Luke 1:32) or would not (Matthew 1:11; 1 Chronicles 3:16 & Jeremiah 36:30) inherit David’s throne? (Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

This answer follows on directly from that to #26. Having shown that Matthew’s genealogy is that of Joseph, it is obvious from Jeremiah 36:30 that none of Joseph’s physical descendants were qualified to sit on David’s throne as he himself was descended from Jeconiah. However, as Matthew makes clear, Yahshua was not a physical descendant of Joseph. After having listed Joseph’s genealogy with the problem of his descendance from Jeconiah, Matthew narrates the story of the virgin birth. Thus he shows how Yahshua avoids the Jeconiah problem and remains able to sit on David’s throne. Luke, on the other hand, shows that Yahshua’s true physical descendance was from David apart from Jeconiah, thus fully qualifying him to inherit the throne of his father David. The announcement of the angel in Luke 1:32 completes the picture: ‘the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David’. This divine appointment, together with his physical descendance, make him the only rightful heir to David’s throne. (Fruchtenbaum 1993:12)

36. Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a colt (Mark 11:7; cf. Luke 19:35), or a colt and an ass (Matthew 21:7)? (Category: misread the text & misunderstood the historical context)

The accusation is that the Gospels contradict about how many donkeys Yahshua rode into Jerusalem on. It is based on not reading the text of Matthew properly and ignoring his point regarding this event.

It first should be noted that all four Gospel writers refer to this event. Shabbir Ali omitted the reference in John 12:14. Mark, Luke and John are all in agreement that Yahshua sat on a colt. Logic shows that there is no “contradiction” as Yahshua cannot ride on two animals at once. So, why does Matthew mention two animals? The reason is clear.

Even by looking at Matthew in isolation, we can see from the text that Yahshua did not ride on two animals, but only on the colt. For in the two verses preceding the quote in point (b) above by Shabbir, we read Matthew quoting two prophecies from the Old Testament (Isaiah 62:11 and Zechariah 9:9) together. Matthew says: “Say to the Daughter of Zion, ‘See, your king comes to you, gently and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey’.” Matthew 21:5

By saying “a donkey” and then “on a colt, the foal of a donkey” Zechariah is using classic Hebrew sentence structure and poetic language known as “parallelism,” simply repeating the same thing again in another way, as a parallel statement. Couplets are very common in the Bible (i.e. Psalm 119:105 mentions, “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path,” saying the same thing twice in succession). It is clear that there is only one animal referred to. Therefore Matthew clearly says Yahshua rode only on a colt, in agreement with the other three Gospel writers.

So why does Matthew say that the colt and its mother were brought along in verse seven? The reason is simple. Matthew, who was an eyewitness, emphasizes the immaturity of the colt, too young to be separated from its mother. As the colt had never been ridden the probability was that it was still dependent on its mother. It would have made the entry to Jerusalem easier if the mother donkey were led along down the road, as the foal would naturally follow her, even though he had never before carried a rider and had not yet been trained to follow a roadway. Here again we see that there is no contradiction between the synoptic accounts, but only added detail on the part of Matthew as one who viewed the event while it was happening.

This is just one of many of the prophecies that Yahshua fulfilled. He fulfilled ones that were in his control as well as ones which he could not manipulate, such as the time and place of his birth (Daniel 9:24-26, Micah 5:1-2, Matthew 2:1-6), and his resurrection (Psalm 16:10, Acts 2:24-32) to name but two of hundreds.

Muslims are told to believe that in the Taurat or Torah, there is reference to a prophecy which the Qur’an speaks of in Sura 7:157 and 61:6 concerning Muhammad. However, Muslims yet have to come up with one, confirming that the QurÕan is errant regarding one of its most crucial doctrines.

37. Simon Peter finds that Jesus was the Christ by a revelation from heaven (Matthew 16:17), or by His brother Andrew (John 1:41)? (Category: too literalistic)

The emphasis of Matthew 16:17 is that Simon did not just hear it from someone else; Yahweh had made it clear to him. That does not preclude him being told by other people. Yahshua’s point is that he was not simply repeating what someone else had said. He had lived and worked with Yahshua and he understood that Yahshua was none other than the Christ (Messiah), and thus Yahweh. Yahshua did not ask, “Who have you heard that I am?” but, “Who do you say I am?” There is all the difference in the world between these two questions, and Peter was not in doubt.

38. Jesus first met Simon Peter and Andrew by the Sea of Galilee (Matthew 4:18-22), or on the banks of the river Jordan (John 1:42-43)? (Category: misread the text)

The accusation is that one Gospel records Yahshua meeting Simon Peter and Andrew by the Sea of Galilee, while the other says he met them by the river Jordan. However this accusation falls flat on its face as the different writers pick up the story in different places. Both are true.

John 1:35 onwards says Yahshua met them by the river Jordan and that they spent time with him there. Andrew (and probably Peter too) were disciples of John the Baptist. They left this area and went to Galilee, in which region was the village of Cana where Yahshua then performed his first recorded miracle. “After this he went down to Capernaum with his mothers and brothers and disciples. There they stayed for a few days.” John 2:12.

Peter and Andrew were originally from a town named Bethsaida (John 2:44) but now lived in Capernaum (Matthew 8:14-15, Mark 1:30-31, Luke 4:38-39), a few miles from Bethsaida. They were fishermen by trade, so it was perfectly normal for them to fish when they were home during these few days (for at this time Yahshua was only just beginning public teaching or healing).

This is where Matthew picks up the story. As Peter and Andrew fish in the Lake of Galilee, Yahshua calls them to follow himÑto leave all they have behind and become his disciples. Before this took place, he had not asked them, but they had followed him because of John the Baptist’s testimony of him (John 1:35-39). Now, because of this testimony, plus the miracle in Cana, as well as the things Yahshua said (John 1:47-51), as well as the time spent with the wisest and only perfect man who ever lived, it is perfectly understandable for them to leave everything and follow him. It would not be understandable for them to just drop their known lives and follow a stranger who appeared and asked them to, like children after the pied piper! Yahshua did not enchant anyoneÑthey followed as they realized who he wasÑthe one all the prophets spoke of, the MessiahÑGod.

39. When Jesus met Jairus, his daughter ‘had just died’ (Matthew 9:18), or was ‘at the point of death’ (Mark 5:23)? (Category: too literalistic)

When Jairus left his home, his daughter was very sick, and at the point of death, or he wouldn’t have gone to look for Yahshua. When he met Yahshua he was not sure whether his daughter had already succumbed. Therefore, he could have uttered both statements; Matthew mentioning her death, while Mark speaking about her sickness. However, it must be underlined that this is not a detail of any importance to the story, or to us. The crucial points are clear: Jairus’s daughter had a fatal illness.All that could have been done would already have been. She was as good as dead if not already dead. Jairus knew that Yahshua could both heal her and bring her back from the dead. As far as he was concerned, there was no difference. Therefore it is really of no significance whether the girl was actually dead or at the point of death when Jairus reached Yahshua.

40. Jesus allowed (Mark 6:8), or did not allow (Matthew 10:9; Luke 9:3) his disciples to keep a staff on their journey? (Category: misunderstood the Greek usage)

It is alleged that the Gospel writers contradict each other concerning whether Yahshua allowed his disciples to take a staff on their journey or not. The problem is one of translation.

In Matthew we read the English translation of the Greek word “ktesthe,” which is rendered in the King James translation as “Provide neither gold, nor silver nor yet staves.” According to a Greek dictionary this word means “to get for oneself, to acquire, to procure, by purchase or otherwise” (Robinson, Lexicon of the New Testament). Therefore in Matthew Yahshua is saying “Do not procure anything in addition to what you already have. Just go as you are.”

Matthew 10 and Mark 6 agree that Yahshua directed his disciples to take along no extra equipment. Luke 9:3 agrees in part with the wording of Mark 6:8, using the verb in Greek, (“take“); but then, like Matthew adds “no staff, no bag, no bread, no money”. But Matthew 10:10 includes what was a further clarification: they were not to acquire a staff as part of their special equipment for the tour. Mark 6:8 seems to indicate that this did not involve discarding any staff they already had as they traveled the country with Yahshua.

This trivial difference does not effect the substantial agreement of the Gospels. We would not be troubled if this were a contradiction, for we do not have the same view of these Gospels as a Muslim is erroneously taught about the Qur’an. If indeed Christian scribes and translators had wished to alter the original Gospels, this “contradiction” would not have been here. It is a sign of the authenticity of the text as a human account of what took place, and is a clear sign that it has not been deliberately corrupted.

41. Herod did (Matthew 14:2; Mark 6:16) or did not (Luke 9:9) think that Jesus was John the Baptist? (Category: misread the text)

There is no contradiction here. In Luke 9:9, Herod asks who this incredible person could be, as John was now dead. In Matthew 14:2 and Mark 6:16 he gives his answer: after considering who Yahshua could be, he concluded that he must be John the Baptist, raised from the dead. By the time Herod actually met Yahshua, at his trial, he no longer thought that he was John (Luke 23:8-11). He had heard more about him and understood John’s claims about preparing for one who was to come (John 1:15-34). He may well have heard that Yahshua had been baptized by John, obviously ruling out the possibility that they were the same person.

42. John the Baptist did (Matthew 3:13-14) or did not (John 1:32-33) recognize Jesus before his baptism? (Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)

John’s statement in John 1:33 that he would not have known Yahshua except for seeing the Holy Spirit alight on him and remain, can be understood to mean that John would not have known for sure without this definite sign. John was filled with the Holy Spirit from before his birth (Luke 1:15) and we have record of an amazing recognition of Yahshua even while John was in his mother’s womb. Luke 1:41 relates that when Mary visited John’s mother, the sound of her greeting prompted John, then still in the womb, to leap in recognition of Mary’s presence, as the mother of the Lord.

From this passage we can also see that John’s mother had some knowledge about who Yahshua would be. It is very likely that she told John something of this as he was growing up (even though it seems that she died while he was young).

In the light of this prior knowledge and the witness of the Holy Spirit within John, it is most likely that this sign of the Holy Spirit resting on Yahshua was simply a confirmation of what he already thought. Yahweh removed any doubt so that he could be.

43. John the Baptist did (John 1:32-33) or did not (Matthew 11:2) recognize Jesus after his baptism? (Category: misread the text)

In the passage of John 1:29-36 it is abundantly clear that John recognized Yahshua. We should have no doubt at all about this.

Matthew 11:2 takes place later on, and many things have happened in the interim. John’s original knowledge of Yahshua was limited to a brief encounter and like all humans under extreme duress, he had become somewhat disillusioned. He did not know exactly what form Yahshua’s ministry would take during the first coming, or that he himself would be hauled off to prison. We are told from Matthew 3:11 some of what John knew: “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing-floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” This is the classic portrayal of the Messiah as the conquering king who would bring Yahweh’s judgment on all those who reject him, bringing peace and justice to those who follow him. John obviously understood this, but it relates to the second coming, not the first.

However, the Messiah was also portrayed in the scriptures as a suffering servant, in the first coming, who would suffer on behalf of His people. This is shown clearly in Isaiah 53, especially verse 12: “For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” John also understood this, as shown by his statement in John 1:29: “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”

What was sometimes not so well understood was how the two portrayals of the Messiah (i.e., the first and second coming) interacted. Many thought that the Messiah would bring his terrible judgment as soon as he came. In fact, this will occur when he returns (his return is alluded to in Acts 1:11, for example). Some were confused, therefore, by Yahshua’s reluctance to act as a military leader and release the nation of Israel from Roman oppression at that time as he will do at the battle of Armageddon upon his return.

This confusion is illustrated by Luke 24:13-33, where Yahshua spoke with two of his followers on the road to Emmaus after his resurrection. They were initially kept from recognizing him (v.16). They told him how they “had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel” (v.21). They were correct in this hope, but failed to understand the first stage in Yahweh’s redemptive process. Yahshua corrected their misunderstanding in v. 25,26: “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?“

It is most likely that a similar misunderstanding prompted John the Baptist’s question in Matthew 11:2. Despite having been so sure of Yahshua’s identity as the Messiah, pacifist and hellish events had clouded his certainty. After expecting Yahshua to oust the Romans and restore the kingdom of Israel, instead he had seen Yahshua ‘teach and preach in the towns of Galilee’ (Matthew 11:1), with no mention of a military campaign and ultimately he saw him attacked and crucified. John surely wondered what had gone wrong: had he misunderstood the Messiah’s role? Yahshua’s answer in Matthew 11:4-6 makes it clear: “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.”

These activities were Messianic prerogatives, as foretold by Isaiah 29:18; 35:5; 61:1. Although John’s disillusionment was a natural human reaction, he had been right all along. The Messiah was here and all would be revealed in its proper time. The Bible is showing us genuine human reactions and reporting them as the occurred because the Bible is YahwehÕs way of dealing with humans.

44. When Jesus bears witness to himself, is his testimony not true (John 5:31) or is his testimony true (John 8:14)? (Category: misunderstood the historical context)

“If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid” (John 5:31) compared with “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid” (John 8:14). It appears to be a contradiction, but only if the context is ignored.

In John 5 Yahshua is speaking about how he cannot claim on his own to be the Messiah nor Yahweh, unless he is in line with Yahweh’s revealed word. That is, without fulfilling the prophecies spoken in the Old Testament. But as Yahshua did fulfill them and was proclaimed to be the Messiah by John the Baptist who the prophets also spoke of as heralding the way for the Messiah (see #34), then Yahshua was indeed who he claimed to be, God. Yahshua says of the Jewish scriptures which his listeners studied diligently, “These are the Scriptures that testify about me”.

We read of a somewhat different setting in John 8. Yahshua has just claimed to be the Messiah by quoting Old Testament Messianic prophecies and applying them to himself (John 8:12, Isaiah 9:2, Malachi 4:2). “Then some Pharisees challenged him, ‘Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid’.” Verse 13.

It is to this statement that Yahshua responds “Yes it is”. Why? Because the Pharisees were using a law from Deuteronomy 19:15 which says “One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If a malicious witness takes the stand.” Therefore they broadened the law to mean more that it does actually say. Indeed, the testimony of one man was validÑhowever not enough to convict, but enough when used in defense to bring an acquittal. This law is not speaking about anyone making a claim about himself, only in a court when accused of a crime.

So when Yahshua says in reply to them “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid” he is right to do so according to the laws the Pharisees had come to judge him by. He also says that he knew exactly who he was, whereas they did not. He was God. Therefore his word could be trusted.

However, it is a good principle not to believe just anyone who claims to be the Messiah. Any claimant must have proof. Therefore the second thing Yahshua goes on to state in John 8 is that he has these witnesses too, the witnesses that the Pharisees were asking for. “I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father who sent me.” Verse 18. The same proclamation as in John 5 that he was fulfilling the prophecies that they knew (see just before this incident in John 7:42 for further proof of this point).

There is no contradiction, simply clarity and great depth which can be seen when Yahshua’s answers are viewed in the context of the scripture, Jewish culture and law.

45. When Jesus entered Jerusalem he cleansed (Matthew 21:12) or did not cleanse (Mark 11:1-17) the temple that same day, but the next day? (Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)

The key to understanding may be found in Matthew’s use of narrative. At times he can be seen to arrange his material in topical order rather than strict chronological sequence as do many writers. This is done for clarity, especially when related issues are more revealing combined than they are set in a chronology.

With this in mind, it is probable that Matthew relates the cleansing of the temple along with the triumphal entry, even though the cleansing occurred the next day. Verse 12 states that ‘Yahshua entered the temple’ but does not say clearly that it was immediately following the entry into Jerusalem. Verse 17 informs us that he left Jerusalem and went to Bethany, where he spent the night. Mark 11:11 also has him going out to Bethany for the night, but this is something that he did each night of that week in Jerusalem.

Matthew 21:23 states: “Yahshua entered the temple courts” in a similar fashion to verse 12, yet Luke 20:1 says that the following incident occurred “one day,” indicating that it may not have been immediately after the fig tree incident.

According to this interpretation, Yahshua entered the temple on the day of his triumphal entry, looked around and retired to Bethany. The next morning he cursed the fig tree on the way to Jerusalem (at which time it started to wither) and cleansed the temple when he got there. Returning to Bethany that evening, as it was getting dark, the withered fig tree may not have been noticed by the disciples. It was only the following morning in the full light of day that they saw what had happened to it. (Archer 1994:334.335)

46. Matthew 21:19 says the tree which Jesus cursed withered at once, whereas Mark 11:20 maintains that it withered overnight. (Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)

The differences found between the accounts of Matthew and Mark concerning the fig tree have much to do with the order both Matthew and Mark used in arranging their material. When we study the narrative technique of Matthew, we find (as was noted in #45 above) that he sometimes arranges his material in a topical order rather than in strict chronology, that is more characteristic of Mark and Luke.

For instance, if we look at chapters 5-7 of Matthew which deal with the sermon on the Mount, it is quite conceivable that portions of the sermon on the Mount teachings are found some times in other settings, such as in the sermon on the plain in Luke (6:20-49). Matthew’s tendency was to group his material in themes so that timeless truths could be assimilated more easily. We find another example of this exhibited in a series of parables of the kingdom of heaven that make up chapter 13. Once a theme has been broached, Matthew prefers to carry it through to its completion, as a general rule.

When we see it from this perspective it is to Mark that we look to when trying to ascertain the chronology of an event. In Mark’s account we find that Yahshua went to the temple on both Palm Sunday and the following Monday. But in Mark 11:11-19 it is clearly stated that Yahshua did not expel the tradesmen from the temple until Monday, after he had cursed the barren fig tree (verses 12 to 14). Matthew followed his topical approach, whereas Mark preferred to follow a strict chronological sequence. These differences are not contradictory, but show merely a different style in arranging material. Both are valid. (Archer 1982:334-335 and Light of Life III 1992:96-97)

It is interesting to note that they QurÕan uses neither chronological nor topical organization. It is a complete jumble of haphazardly repeated and conflicting stories, threats, torments, and violent demands. Its lack of organization is proof that it was not divinely inspired.

47. In Matthew 26:48 Judas came up and kissed Jesus, whereas in John 18:3 Judas could not get close enough to Jesus to kiss him. (Category: misquoted the text)

This is rather an odd discrepancy by Shabbir, for nowhere in the John account does it say (as Shabbir forthrightly maintains) that Judas could not get close enough to Yahshua to kiss him. Not being able to get close to him had nothing, therefore, to do with whether he kissed him or not. It seems that Shabbir imagines this to be the problem and so imposes it onto the text. The fact that John does not mention a kiss does not mean Judas did not use a kiss. Many times we have seen where one of the gospel writers includes a piece of information which another leaves out. That does not imply that either one is wrong, only that, as witnesses, they view an event from different perspectives, and so include into their testimony that which they deem to be important. (Light of Life III 1992:107)

48. Did Peter deny Christ three times before the cock crowed (John 13:38), or three times before the cock crowed twice (Mark 14:30, 72)? (Category: discovery of earlier manuscripts)

This accusation is that Yahshua says to Peter “the cock will not crow till you have denied me three times” (John 13:38) and also “Before the cock crows twice you will deny me three times” (Mark 14:30). However, as the King James translation has it the cock crowed prior to Peter’s third denial in Mark, while the prediction in John failed. This problem is one of manuscript evidence. Matthew 26:33-35, 74-75 “before the cock crows you will disown me three times” Luke 22:31-34, 60-62 “before the cock crows today, you will deny three times that you know me” John 13:38 “before the cock crows, you will disown me three times.“

Mark is therefore the odd one out. This is due to the second crow being a later addition to the original Gospel for some unknown reason. Early manuscripts of Mark do not have the words “a second time” and “twice” in 14:72, nor the word “twice” in 14:30, or the cock crowing a first time in verse 14:68 as in the King James translation. Therefore an erroneous addition is spotted by the clarity of having 4 accounts of the event and many early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark. As a relatively early English translation, the King James translators did not have nearly as many early Greek manuscripts to work with as we do today and they were considerably more reliant on the Latin Vulgate, which was itself a translation.

Another explanation is plausible, although not necessary as the issue does not arise in the oldest copies of Mark. If the first crow verse (68 in the King James) was not in the original but the others (“twice” in 30 and 72) were, as in the New International translation. For as a cock can (and often does) crow more than once in a row, there would be no contradiction (the first and second crows being together, with Peter remembering Yahshua’s prediction on the second crow), for since we may be very sure that if a rooster crows twice, he has at least crowed once. Mark therefore just included more information in his account than the other gospel writers.

49. Jesus did (John 19:17) or did not (Matthew 27:31) bear his own cross? (Category: misread the text or the texts are compatible with a little thought)

John 19:17 states that he went out carrying his own cross to the place of the skull. Matthew 27:31 tells us that he was led out to be crucified and that it was only as they were going out to Golgotha that Simon was forced to carry the cross.

Mark 15:20 agrees with Matthew and gives us the additional information that Yahshua started out from inside the palace (Praetorium). As Simon was on his way in from the country, it is clear that he was passing by in the street. This implies that Yahshua carried his cross for some distance, from the palace into the street. Weak from his floggings and torture, it is likely that he either collapsed under the weight of the cross or was going very slowly. In any case, the soldiers forced Simon to carry the cross for him. Luke 23:26 is in agreement, stating that Simon was seized as they led Yahshua away. Thus the contradiction vanishes. Yahshua started out carrying the cross and Simon took over at some point during the journey.

50. Did Jesus die before (Matthew 27:50-51; Mark 15:37-38), or after (Luke 23:45-46) the curtain of the temple was torn? (Category: misread the text)

After reading the three passages Matthew 27:50, Mark 15:37 and Luke 23:45, it is not clear where the apparent contradictions are that Shabbir has pointed out. All three passages point to the fact that at the time of Yahshua’s death the curtain in the temple was torn. It does not stand to reason that because both Matthew and Mark mention the event of Christ’s death before mentioning the curtain tearing, while Luke mentions it in reverse order, that they are therefore in contradiction, as Matthew states that the two events happened, ‘At that moment’, and the other two passages nowhere deny this.

They all agree that these two events happened simultaneously for a very good reason; for the curtain was there as a barrier between God and man. Its destruction coincides with the death of the Messiah, thereby allowing man the opportunity for the first time since Adam’s expulsion from God’s presence at the garden of Eden, to once again be reunited with Him. There is no discrepancy here, only good news and profound truth.

51. Did Jesus say everything openly (John 18:20) or did he speak secretly to his disciples (Mark 4:34, Matthew 13:10)? (Category: misunderstood the historical context)

The reason people say that Yahshua contradicts himself about saying things secretly or not, especially in relation to parables, is due to a lack of textual and cultural information. This answer requires significant background, some of which I hope to give briefly here.

Firstly a parable is a story given in order to clarify, emphasize or illustrate a teaching, not a teaching within itself. Yahshua was a Jewish Rabbi. In Rabbinical literature there are approximately 4000 parables recorded. It was thought by Rabbis to be good practice to divide their instruction of the people into three parts, the latter third typically being two parables representative to the first two thirds. Yahshua carries on in this tradition with just over one third of his recorded instruction being in the form of parables. He drew upon a wealth of images that the Israelis of his day knew, using common motifs such as plants, animals, and relationships. Therefore the point of each of Yahshua’s parables was clear to all the listeners, which can be seen from the Gospels too. Parables were so rich and also so subtle that not only could they drive home a clear and simple point to the ordinary listener, but the scholars could turn them over and over in their mind, deriving greater and greater meaning from them. So, Yahshua often expanded on the meaning of a parable to his disciples, his close students, in response to their inquiry or to instruct them further as any Jewish Rabbi would.

This can be seen from reading Mark 4:34 in context. For it says, “With many similar parables Yahshua spoke the word to them [the crowds], as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable [to clarify, emphasize or illustrate the teaching]. But when he was alone with his own disciples he explained everything [taught them more, for they could understand more than the crowds].” Mark 4:33-34.

Therefore parables were not secret teachings. They are not esoteric knowledge given only to the initiated. It makes no sense (nor has any historical basis) to say that Yahshua went around confusing people. He went around in order to teach and instruct people. So when Yahshua was asked while on trial in court (John 18:20) about his teaching, he says something to the words of “I taught publiclyÑeveryone heard my words. You know what I taught. I did not teach in secret.” He was right.

As all this is true, what are these “secrets of the kingdom of heaven” which Yahshua speaks of? The only ‘secret’ (“the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writing by the command of the eternal God, so that the nations might believe and obey him” (Romans 16:25-26) is that Yahshua is God!

This secret was that Yahshua’s mission was foretold by the prophets, that he was the fulfillment of these prophecies and the greatest revelation that would ever be given to mankind. His words were not only for the saving of people, but also for the judging of people because they were “ever hearing but never understanding, ever seeing but never perceiving” (Matthew 13:14) as many of the hearers of the parables were unwilling to accept the truth and form an eternal relationship with him.

Many people enjoyed Yahshua’s teaching, came for the nice moral discourses and the excellent parables, but not many followed him as the perceived cost was too great (see Luke 9:57, 14:25, 33). But it was these things his disciples were beginning to understand because they trusted Yahshua. The secrets of the kingdom of heaven were revealed to them and then to us through these disciples following (and explaining) Matthew 13:10: “But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear [unlike the crowds]. For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it” [as they did not live during the lifetime of Yahshua-all the prophets were before him].

The secret which was revealed is Yahshua is Yahweh, Yahshua is the one all the prophets spoke of, the salvation of mankind, God’s greatest revelation, the Alpha and the Omega (Revelation 21:6-8, 22:12-16), the only way to be right with Yahweh (John 3:36, Romans 6:23).

52. Was Jesus on the cross (Mark 15:23) or in Pilate’s court (John 19:14) at the sixth hour the day of the crucifixion? (Category: misunderstood the historical context)

The simple answer to this is that the synoptic writers (Matthew, Mark and Luke) employed a different system of numbering the hours of day to that used by John. The synoptics use the traditional Hebrew system, where the hours were numbered from sunrise (approximately 6:00am in modern reckoning), making the crucifixion about 9:00am, the third hour by this system.

John, on the other hand, uses the Roman civil day. This reckoned the day from midnight to midnight, as we do today. Pliny the Elder (Natural History 2.77) and Macrobius (Saturnalia 1.3) both tell us as much. Thus, by the Roman system employed by John, Yahshua’s trial by night was in its end stages by the sixth hour (6:00am), which was the first hour of the Hebrew reckoning used in the synoptics. Between this point and the crucifixion, Yahshua underwent a brutal flogging and was repeatedly mocked and beaten by the soldiers in the Praetorium (Mark 15:16-20). The crucifixion itself occurred at the third hour in the Hebrew reckoning, which is the ninth in the Roman, or 9:00am by our modern thinking.

This is not just a neat twist to escape a problem, as there is every reason to suppose that John used the Roman system, even though he was just as Jewish as Matthew, Mark and Luke. John’s gospel was written after the other three while he was living in Ephesus. This was the capital of the Roman province of Asia, so John would have become used to reckoning the day according to the Roman usage. Further evidence of him doing so is found in John 21:19: ‘On the evening of that first day of the week‘. This was Sunday evening, which in Hebrew thinking was actually part of the second day, each day beginning at sunset. (Archer 1994:363-364)

53. The two thieves crucified with Jesus either did (Mark 15:32) or did not (Luke 23:43) mock Jesus? (Category: too literalistic an interpretation)

This apparent contradiction asks did both thieves crucified with Yahshua mock him or just one. Mark 15:23 says both did. Luke 23:43 says one mocked and one defended Yahshua. It isn’t too difficult to see what it going on here. The obvious conclusion is that both thieves mocked Yahshua initially. However after Yahshua had said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing,” one of the robbers seems to have had a change of heart and repented on the cross, while the other continued in his mocking.

There is a lesson here which shouldn’t be overlooked; that the Lord allows us at any time to repent, no matter what crime or sin we have committed. These two thieves are symptomatic of all of us. Some of us when faced with the reality of Christ continue to reject him and mock him, while others accept our sinfulness and ask for forgiveness. The good news is that like the thief on the cross, we can be exonerated from that sin at any time, even while ‘looking at death in the face’.

54. Did Jesus ascend to Paradise the same day of the crucifixion (Luke 23:43), or two days later (John 20:17)? (Category: misunderstood how God works in history)

The idea that Yahshua contradicts himself (or the Gospels contradict themselves) concerning whether he had ascended to Paradise or not after his death on the cross is due to misunderstandings about the nature of Yahshua, time and paradise as well as the need to contextualize the nature of Yahweh and eternity in the fourth dimension. To fully appreciate the truths contained in these passages, one would need an entire book.

Yahshua says to the thief on the cross “Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Since there is no punctuation in Greek, linguistically the argument can be made that the comma is in the wrong place. Thus: “Truly I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise.” The statement is true either way. Paradise is outside of time. And even inside the constraints of time itÕs true as Yahshua is Yahweh so the thief would indeed be with God in paradise immediately upon his death as a result of his trusting Yahshua.

Yahshua says to Mary Magdalene, according to the rendering of the King James translation, that he had not yet “ascended” to his Father. However, this should be rendered “returned” to his Father. In Luke, Yahshua dies, and his spirit ascended to Paradise (see vs. 46). In John, Yahshua has been bodily resurrected, and in that state, he had not yet ascended to the Father.

Yahshua was with God, and was God, before the beginning of the world (John 1 and Philippians 2:6-11). Yahshua saying “for I have not yet returned to the Father” does not mean he wasnÕt in heaven between his death and resurrection in “our time.” By way of parallel (albeit an imperfect one), I do go to my original home and the area where I grew up without returning there. Returning as in myself being restored to what was and remaining there.

However, a more likely understanding of the text has to do with the context. Another way to say, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not ascended to my Father. Go instead to my brothers…”, would be, “Do not hang on to me MaryÑI have not left you physically yet. You will see me again. But now, I want you to go and tell my disciples that I am going to heaven soon.”

The complexity of time as a dimension and the fact that Yahshua is Yahweh is the Father makes this somewhat difficult to fully understand but the texts are not mutually exclusive. There is no contradiction.

55. When Paul was on the road to Damascus he saw a light and heard a voice. Did those who were with him hear the voice (Acts 9:7), or did they not (Acts 22:9)? (Category: misunderstood the Greek usage or the text is compatible with a little thought)

Although the same Greek word is used in both accounts (akouo), it has two distinct meanings: to perceive sound and to understand. Therefore, the explanation is clear: they heard something but did not understand what it was saying. Paul, on the other hand, heard and understood. There is no contradiction. (Haley p.359)

56. When Paul saw the light and fell to the ground, did his traveling companions fall (Acts 26:14) or did they not fall (Acts 9:7) to the ground? (Category: misunderstood the Greek usage or the text is compatible with a little thought)

There are two possible explanations of this point. The word rendered ‘stood’ also means to be fixed, to be rooted to the spot. This is something that can be experienced whether standing up or lying down.

An alternative explanation is this: Acts 26:14 states that the initial falling to the ground occurred when the light flashed around, before the voice was heard. Acts 9:7 says that the men ‘stood speechless’ after the voice had spoken. There would be ample time for them to stand up whilst the voice was speaking to Saul, especially as it had no significance or meaning to them. Saul, on the other hand, understood the voice and was no doubt transfixed with fear as he suddenly realized that for so long he had been persecuting and killing those who were following Yahshua. He had in effect been working against the God whom he thought he was serving. This terrible realization evidently kept him on the ground longer than his companions. (Haley p.359) When Muslims come to recognize that Allah was modeled after Satan, they have a similar response.

57. Did the voice tell Paul what he was to do on the spot (Acts 26:16-18), or was he commanded to go to Damascus to be told what to do (Acts 9:7; 22:10)? (Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Paul was told his duties in Damascus as can be seen from Acts 9 and 22. However in Acts 26 the context is different. In this chapter Paul doesn’t worry about the chronological or geographical order of events because he is talking to people who have already heard his story. In Acts 9:1-31 Luke, the author of Acts, narrates the conversion of Saul.

In Acts 22:1-21 Luke narrates Paul speaking to Jews, who knew who Paul was and had actually caused him to be arrested and kept in the Roman Army barracks in Jerusalem. He speaks to the Jews from the steps of the barracks and starts off by giving his credentials as a Jew, before launching into a detailed account of his meeting with Yahshua and his conversion.

In Acts 26:2-23 Luke, however, narrates the speech given by Paul, (who was imprisoned for at least two years after his arrest in Jerusalem and his speech in Acts 22,). This was given to the Roman Governor Festus and King Herod Agrippa, both of whom were already familiar with the case. (Read the preceding Chapters). Therefore they did not require a full blown explanation of Paul’s case, but a summary. Which is exactly what Paul gives them. This is further highlighted by Paul reminding them of his Jewish credentials in one part of a sentence, “I lived as a Pharisee,” as opposed to two sentences in Acts 22:3. Paul also later in the Chapter is aware that King Agrippa is aware of the things that have happened in verses 25-27.

58. Did 24,000 Israelites die in the plague in ‘Shittim’ (Numbers 25:1, 9), or was it only 23,000 Israelites who died (1 Corinthians 10:8)? (Category: confused this incident with another)

This apparent contradiction asks how many people died from the plague that occurred in Shittim (which incidentally is misspelt ‘Shittin’ in Shabbir’s pamphlet). Numbers 25:1-9 and 1 Corinthians 10:8 are contrasted. Shabbir is referring to the wrong plague here.

If he had looked at the context of 1 Corinthians 10, he would have noted that Paul was referring to the plague in Exodus 32:28, which takes place at Mt. Sinai in Western Arabia and not to that found in Numbers 25, which takes place in Shittim, amongst the Moabites. If there is any doubt refer to verse 7 of 1 Corinthians 10, which quotes from Exodus 32:6, “Afterwards they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.”

Now there are those who may say that the number killed in the Exodus 32 account were 3,000 (Exodus 32:28) another seeming contradiction, but one which is easily rectified once you read the rest of the text. The 3,000 killed in verse 28 account for only those killed by men with swords. This is followed by a plague which the Lord brings against those who had sinned against him in verse 35, which says, “And the Lord struck the people with a plague because of what they did with the calf Aaron had made.” It is to this plague which Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 10:8. (Geisler/Howe 1992:458-459)

Yahweh has no tolerance for false prophets, false gods, or false doctrines. Those who accept false religions have made their choice and have therefore damned themselves. To keep them from damning others, especially in proximity to his chosen people, he exterminates them. This is a lesson for Christians and Jews. We are not called to be tolerant of false prophets like Muhammad, false gods like Allah, or false religions like Islam. By tolerating them, their clerics and kings kill millions and damn billions.

59. Did 70 members of the house of Jacob come to Egypt (Genesis 46:27), or was it 75 members (Acts 7:14)? (Category: misunderstood the historical context)

This apparent contradiction asks how many members of the house of Jacob went to Egypt. The two passages contrasted are Genesis 46:27 and Acts 7:14. However both passages are correct. In the Genesis 46:1-27 the total number of direct descendants that traveled to Egypt with Jacob were 66 in number according to verse 26. This is because Judah was sent on ahead in verse 28 of Chapter 46 and because Joseph and his two sons were already in Egypt. However in verse 27 all the members of the family are included, including Joseph and his sons and Judah making a total number of 70, referring to the total number of Jacob’s family that ended up in Egypt not just those that traveled with him to Egypt.

In the older Septuagint and Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts the number given in verse 27 is 75. This is because they also include Joseph’s three grandsons and two great grandsons listed in Numbers 26:28-37, and in at least the Septuagint version their names are listed in Genesis 46:20. Therefore the Acts 7:14 quotation of Stephen’s speech before his martyrdom is correct because he was quoting from the Septuagint.

60. Did Judas buy a field (Acts 1:18) with money from betraying Jesus, or did he throw it into the temple (Matthew 27:5)? (Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)

This apparent contradiction asks, ‘What did Judas do with the money he received for betraying Yahshua? In Acts 1:18 it is claimed that Judas bought a field. In Matthew 27:5 it was thrown into the Temple from where the priests used it to buy a field. However, upon closer scrutiny it appears one passage is just a summary of the other.

Matthew 27:1-10 describes in detail the events that happened in regard to Judas betrayal of Yahshua, and their significance in terms of the fulfillment of the Scriptures. In particular he quotes from the prophet Zechariah 11:12-13 which many think are clarifications of the prophecies found in Jeremiah 19:1-13 and 32:6-9.

In the Acts 1:18 passage however, Luke is making a short resume of something that people already knew, as a point of clarification to the speech of Peter, among the believers (the same situation as we found in question number 57 earlier). This is illustrated by the fact that in verse 19 he says, “Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this.” Also it is more than probable that the Gospel record was already being circulated amongst the believers at the time of Luke’s writing. Luke, therefore, was not required to go into detail about the facts of Judas’ death.

61. Did Judas die by hanging himself (Matthew 27:5) or by falling headlong and bursting open with all his bowels gushing out (Acts 1:18)?(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

This alleged contradiction is related to the fact that Matthew in his Gospel speaks of Judas hanging himself but in Acts 1:18 Luke speaks about Judas falling headlong and his innards gushing out. However both of these statements are true.

Matthew 27:1-10 mentioned the fact that Judas died by hanging himself in order to be strictly factual. Luke, however in his report in Acts1:18-19 wants to cause the feeling of revulsion among his readers, for the field spoken about and for Judas, and nowhere denies that Judas died by hanging. According to tradition, it would seem that Judas hanged himself on the edge of a cliff, above the Valley of Hinnom. The rope snapped, was cut or untied and Judas fell upon the field below as described by Luke.

62. Is the field called the ‘field of blood’ because the priest bought it with blood money (Matthew 27:8), or because of Judas’s bloody death (Acts 1:19)? (Category: misunderstood the wording)

Once again, looking at the same two passages, Shabbir asks why the field where Judas was buried called the Field of Blood? Matthew 27:8 says that it is because it was bought with blood-money, while, according to Shabbir Acts 1:19 says that it was because of the bloody death of Judas.

However both passages agree that it was due to it being bought by blood-money. Acts 1:18 starts by saying, “With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field”. So it begins with the assumption that the field was bought by the blood-money, and then the author intending to cause revulsion for what had happened describes Judas bloody end on that piece of real estate.

63. How can the ransom which Christ gives for all, which is good (Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:5-6), be the same as the ransom of the wicked (Proverbs 21:18)? (Category: misunderstood how Yahweh works in history)

This contradiction asks, ‘Who is a ransom for whom?’ Shabbir uses passages from Mark 10:45 and 1 Timothy 2:5 to show that it is Yahshua that is a ransom for all. This is compared to Proverbs 21:18 which speaks of “The wicked become a ransom for the righteous, and the unfaithful for the upright.”

There is no contradiction here as they are talking about two different types of ransom. A ransom is a payment by one party to another. It can be made by a good person for others, as we see Christ does for the world, or it can be made by evil people as payment for the evil they have done, as we see in the Proverbs passage and throughout the Islamic Hadith and QurÕan.

The assumption being made by Shabbir in the Mark and 1 Timothy passages is that Yahshua was good and could therefore not be a ransom for the unrighteous. In this premise he reflects the Islamic denial that someone can pay for the sins of another, or can be a ransom for another. In Islam there is no savior, no cross, no redemption, and no choice. Islam is based upon predestination and good works which are invariably bad. It is obviously wrong to impose IslamÕs capricious and irrational criterion to Biblical interpretation. Despite the QurÕanÕs denials, Christ as a ransom for the many is clearly taught in the Bible.

Again Shabbir’s supposition relies upon quotations being taken out of their context. The Mark 10:45 passage starts off by quoting Yahshua as saying, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” This was spoken by Yahshua because the disciples had been arguing over the fact that James and John had approached Yahshua about sitting at his right and left side when Christ came into his glory. Here Yahshua is again prophesying his death which is to come and the reason for that death, that he would be the ransom payment that would atone for all people’s sin.

In 1 Timothy 2:5-6 Paul is here speaking, saying, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, Christ Yahshua, who gave himself as a ransom for all men-the testimony given in its proper time.”

This comes in the middle of a passage instructing the Early Church on worshiping Yahweh. These two verses give the reason and the meaning of worshiping Yahweh. The redemptive ransom given by Yahweh, that through Yahshua’s atoning work on the Cross, Yahweh may once again have that saving relationship with man.

The Proverbs 21:18 passage speaks however of the ransom that Yahweh paid through Egypt in the Exodus of Israel from Egypt, as is highlighted in the book of Isaiah, but particularly in Chapter 43:3: “For I am Yahweh, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior; I give Egypt for your ransom, Cush and Seba in your stead.”

This picture is further heightened in verses 16 and 17 of the same Chapter. This also has some foundation from the book of Exodus 7:5; 8:19; 10:7; 12:33. Chapters 13 and 14 particularly point to this. As history records for us in the Bible it was through this action that the Old Covenant was established between God and the Kingdom of Israel.

64. Is all scripture profitable (2 Timothy 3:16) or not profitable (Hebrews 7:18)? (Category: misunderstood how God works in history)

The accusation is that the Bible says all scripture is profitable as well as stating that a former commandment is weak and useless, and therein lies the contradiction. This is a contextual problem and arises through ignorance of what Yahweh promised to do speaking through the Prophets, concerning the two covenants which He instituted.

Muslims think that this is a contradiction only because they donÕt understand the central message of the BibleÑOld and New TestamentsÑwhich revolves around the Old and New Covenants, or old and new relationship between Yahweh and his creation, man. There is no choice in Islam and thus no love. With no love, there is no relationship between Allah and man in Islam and therefore no covenant. Further, in Islam, perverse deeds like murder and thievery are called good, and they from the basis for forgiveness of sin or bad deeds like not fighting or tolerance. In the Bible good deeds (which are defined quite differently from IslamÕs criterion) have no influence on the forgiveness of sin. Only sacrifice accomplishes that. ItÕs not unlike our legal system. Not murdering ten people does not serve as an offset for a murder nor free one from having to sacrifice oneÕs freedom or life as the just punishment for the crime. Not robbing a hundred banks will not free one from the sacrifice of time and money that the judge will require if you rob the bank on the second block.

Due to space this wonderful issue cannot be looked at in depth here. However, some background information will have to be given in order for a reader, unfamiliar with the Bible, to understand.

Yahweh’s word originates from him, and is indeed useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training as 2 Timothy states. That is a general statement which refers to all that which comes from Yahweh.

Hebrews chapter 7 speaks of a particular commandment given to a particular people at a specific time; under the old covenant, the sacrificial system in the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem. Yahweh established in the covenant with His people Israel a system where they would offer sacrifices, animals to be killed, in order for him to forgive them of their sins; particularly what God calls in Leviticus chapters 4 to 6, the “sin offering” and the “guilt offering”.

This concept of substitutional death is foreign to Islam, but is fundamental to Biblical Judaism and Christianity. Sacrificial offerings in Islam are designed to appease Allah and other idols rather than for the forgiveness of sin. In Judeo-Christianity, atonement must take place for sin. The penalty of sin is death, and someone has to pay that price. There is no forgiveness for sin without the shedding of blood, for Yahweh is just. He cannot ignore the crime of sin any more than an earthly judge can ignore the crimes of theft, murder, or rape. Anarchy would result.

Yahweh established this system of atonement as the Old Testament shows by referring to the need for atonement 79 times! However, it also records Yahweh saying “The time is coming, declares Yahweh, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand and led them out of Egypt” [i.e. at Mount Sinai where He gave the first covenant to the people of Israel just after he saved them from Egypt] (Jeremiah 31:31). The reason Yahweh gives for the change in covenants is that his people did not remain faithful to the old one and something needed to be done to resolve a broken relationship. He says that this new covenant will necessitate a once-for-all payment for their sins, unlike the previous covenant (Jeremiah 31:34, Daniel 9:24).

Yahweh also speaks in the Old Testament of the Messiah who would bring this about. A Messiah not from the Levitical priesthood, but a perfect man from the tribe of Judah. He, the MessiahÑYahweh in the fleshÑwould be the sacrifice that would pay for all sin in one go, and approach Yahweh not on the merit of his ancestry (as with the Levitical priests), but on his own merit, being like God, perfect, because he is God. If people follow this Messiah and accept his payment of the penalty for sin for them, then Yahweh will forgive their sin as His justice has been satisfied. He himself made the sacrifice. Those who accept this gift can draw near to Yahweh, for Yahweh wants to be in relationship with His creation (Genesis 3:8-11) and the sin which stops that, is now forgiven.

Obviously this is quite involved and only a comprehensive reading of the Old and New Testaments will explain it adequately. All scripture is profitable, including that concerning the sacrificial system as it is fulfilled in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. ItÕs the essence of the promised renewed covenant with His people. Clean animals, especially sheep and doves, in the original system were replaced with the perfect lamb and peace sacrifice of the Messiah, Yahshua, in the new covenant or relationship. ItÕs that simple. ItÕs that magnificent. ItÕs the Gospel.

Many scriptures describe the Messiah who would bring about the new covenant. In this Yahweh “makes his life a guilt offering” and we are told “Surely he took up our infirmities [sins] and carried our sorrows, he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace [with Yahweh] was upon him.” See Isaiah chapter 53. It is the best presentation of the Gospel message in the Bible.

You can pay the price for your sin if you wish, but it will cost you your life eternally. You will die for your own sin and go to hell. Or, because of the love of Yahweh and trust that the Messiah paid that price for you, and was pierced” in substitution for you, bringing you peace with God. Then Yahweh will permit you to enter heaven for eternity as His justice is satisfied. For as John the Baptist when seeing Yahshua mentioned, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the word!” He also said, “Whoever believes in the Son [Yahshua] has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” John 1:29, 3:36.

God teaches that He will do this. It was fulfilled in the death and resurrection of the Messiah, Yahshua, EXACTLY as the Old Testament said it would happen, and the new covenant was established. Sin was paid for once for all by the “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” as John the Baptist announced upon seeing Yahshua. He is the one Yahweh promised. So through his death the old system of sacrifices, offering animals over and over again, became unnecessary. Yahweh’s ultimate solution is equal parts consistent, just, superior and comprehensive. (Hebrews 8:7-13).

So, like clarification #92, Yahweh did not change His mind on His plan for enabling people to be right with Him. He simply provided the ultimate solution. It was His intention all along to use the new covenant to fulfill the old, as the Old Testament shows.

A further point needs to be addressed a here. These ceremonial laws were required of the Israelites alone, as they were the ones who operating within the stipulations, ordinances and decrees of the Mosaic covenant. Any Gentile, or non-Israelite, who wished to convert to Judaism, was obligated to observe these covenantal ordinances as well. But Christians are not converts to Old Covenant. They are believers in Yahshua, Yahweh, the Savior. They operate within the context of a “new covenant,” the one established in Yahshua’s blood by his atoning sacrifice, not the old covenant which God made with Israel at Sinai. Within this new covenant, Christians can learn a great deal about the nature of Yahweh, his desired relationship with us, and how to live from what is written in the Old Testament. So there is a clear line of continuity, revelation and renewal between the covenants, new and oldÑbecause both Israel and Christianity share the same scriptures, Messiah, and most importantly, God. Therefore all those Scriptures are profitable for studying, to know where we have come from, and where we are going. But not every commandment, ordinance or decree in the Old Testament is applicable to Christians in the same way it was (or is) to Israel. Though we have much in common, we have a new covenant, which present Jews need to read about and acquiesce to, as it fulfills all that they look for and continue to hope for.

65. Was the wording on the cross, as ( Matthew 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, and John 19:19) all seem to have different wordings? (Category: misread the text)

This seeming contradiction takes on the question, ‘What was the exact wording on the cross?’ It is argued that Matthew 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, and John 19:19 all use different words posted above Yahshua’s head while hanging on the cross. This can be better understood by looking at John 19:20 which says; “Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Yahshua was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek.”

It is interesting that Pilate is said to have written the sign and may have written different things in each of the languages according to Pilate’s proficiency in each of the languages. The key charge brought against Yahshua in all of the Gospels is that he claimed to be ‘King of the Jews.’ If this had been missing from any of the accounts then there may have been a possible concern for a contradiction here; but this is not the case. For a further explanation of this see Archer’s explanation. (Archer 1982:345-346).

66. Did Herod want to kill John the Baptist (Matthew 14:5), or was it his wife Herodias (Mark 6:20)?(Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)

The supposed contradiction pointed out by Shabbir is, ‘Did Herod want to kill John the Baptist?’ The passages used by Shabbir to promote his conjecture are Matthew 14:5 where it appears to say that Herod did and Mark 6:20 where Shabbir suggests that Herod did not want to kill him. However the passages in question are complimentary passages.

When we look at the whole story we see that Matthew 14:1-11 and Mark 6:14-29, as far as I have been able to see nowhere contradict each other. This seems to be a similarly weak attempt to find a contradiction within the Bible to that of contradiction 50. In both passages Herod has John imprisoned because of his wife Herodias. Therefore it is the underlying influence of Herodias on Herod that is the important factor in John’s beheading. Mark’s account is more detailed than Matthew’s, whose Gospel is thought to have been written later, because Matthew does not want to waste time trampling old ground when it is already contained within Mark’s Gospel. Notice also that Mark does not anywhere state that Herod did not want to kill John, but does say that Herod was afraid of him, because of John’s righteousness and holiness, and, as Matthew adds, the factor of John’s influence over the people.

67. Was the tenth disciple of Jesus in the list of twelve Thaddaeus (Matthew 10:1-4; Mark 3:13-19) or Judas, son of James (Luke 6:12-16)? (Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Both are correct. It was not unusual for people of this time to use more than one name. Simon, or Cephas was also called Peter (Mark 3:16), and Saul was also called Paul (Acts 13:9). In neither case is there a suggestion that either was used exclusively before changing to the other. Their two names were interchangeable.

68. Was the man Jesus saw sitting at the tax collector’s office whom he called to be his disciple named Matthew (Matthew 9:9) or Levi (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27)? (Category: misunderstood the historical context)

The answer to this question is exactly the same as the previous one in that both scriptures are correct. Matthew was also called Levi, as the scriptures here attest.

It is somewhat amusing to hear Shabbir drawing so much attention to this legitimate custom. In the run-up to a debate in Birmingham, England in February 1998, he felt free to masquerade under an alternative name (Abdul Abu Saffiyah, meaning ‘Abdul, the father of Saffiyah’, his daughter’s name) in order to gain an unfair advantage over Mr Smith, his opponent. By disguising his identity he denied Mr. Smith the preparation to which he was entitled. Now here he finds it contradictory when persons in 1^st century Judea uses one or the other of their names, a practice which is neither illegal nor duplicitous. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for using an alternative name. However, in the light of Mr. Ally’s unfair and deceitful practice outlined above, there is a ring of hypocrisy to these last two questions raised by himÑas there is to all of Islam.

69. Was Jesus crucified on the daytime after the Passover meal (Mark 14:12-17) or the daytime before the Passover meal ( John 13:1, 30, 29; 18:28; 19:14)? (Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Yahshua was crucified in the daytime before the Passover meal. The reason why Mark seems to say it was after is one of culture and contextualising.

The evidence from the Gospels that Yahshua died on the eve of the Passover, when the Passover meal would be eaten after sunset, is very solid. Before we delve (albeit briefly) into this issue, it is worth noting that Mark 14 records that Yahshua does not eat the Passover with his disciples.

Luke 14:12 says it was “the Feast of Unleavened Bread”, which is also called “Passover.” As the name suggests, part of the Passover meal was to eat bread without yeast. It is a commandment which Jewish people keep even today for the meal, for Yahweh makes it clear for reasons of prophecy and revelation that at Passover: “eat bread without yeast And whoever eats bread with yeast in it must be cut off from the community of Israel. Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you live, you must eat unleavened bread.” See also Exodus 12:1-20.

The Greek word for “unleavened bread” is ‘azymos’. This is the word used by Mark in “the Feast of Unleavened Bread”, chapter 14 verse 12. The Greek word for normal bread (with yeast) is ‘artos’. All the Gospel writers, including Mark, agree that in this last meal with his disciples the bread they ate was artos, in other words a bread with yeast. “While they were eating, Yahshua took bread [artos], gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying Take it; this is my body.” Mark 14:22. Therefore, this meal was not a Passover meal. The use of the different words in the same passage confirms this. For it would be unthinkable to them to eat something that Yahweh had commanded them not to eat (bread with yeast – artos), and not to eat something that they were commanded to eat (unleavened bread – azymos).

So what does Mark mean in verses 12-17? Firstly, we read, “when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb.” Exodus 20:1-8 says that this must happen on the 14th day of the Jewish month of Nisan. However, there was dispute as to when this day was, due to the debate on separate calendars which were used for calculating feast-days. It is possible that separate traditions were in vogue in Yahshua life. So, indeed it may have been “customary” to sacrifice the lamb on that day for some, although many, probably most, recognized the Passover as being the next evening.

Secondly, the disciples ask Yahshua “Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?” They had no idea that Yahshua was going to give his life for the sins of the world like the Passover lamb of Exodus 20 did to save the Israelites from God’s wrath upon Egypt. Yahshua had explained to them, but they did not grasp it for many reasons, including the hailing of Yahshua by the people as Messiah in the Triumphal Entry, which was still ringing in their ears. He does not state that he would eat it with them. He wanted to, but he knew he would not. There is no room for any dogmatic statement that the Passover must be eaten on the same day the room was hired or prepared. Indeed, Jewish people, because of Exodus 12, thoroughly prepared their houses for the Feast of Unleavened Bread in advance.

Thirdly, the Gospels couch the last supper in terms of fulfillment. Luke 22 records Yahshua saying that he had longed to eat “this” Passover meal with them. So, does Luke say it was the Passover meal? It is doubtful, due to the same use of artos and azymos, amongst other reasons. Yahshua did make this last supper a time of special fellowship with his disciples, his friends, being painfully aware of the agony he would go through, only a few hours later. He also wanted to show his disciples that the Passover spoke of him; that he was the sacrifice that would bring in the New Covenant He had promised (see questions #64 and #34) just like the lambs that was killed 1500 years earlier to save the people if Israel from His wrath. He illustrated through the meal that he is the “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” as John the Baptist called Yahshua (John 1:29). He wanted to eat it with them for he says, “I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the Kingdom of God” (Luke 22:16). His coming death was its fulfillment, “For Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed” (1 Corinthians 5:7).

So, there is no contradiction. Yahshua died before the Passover meal as he himself became the ultimate Òpassover.Ó

70. Did Jesus both pray (Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42) or not pray (John 12:27) to the Father to prevent the crucifixion? (Category: misread the text)

This apparent contradiction asks: ‘Did Yahshua pray to the Father to prevent the crucifixion?’ Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36 and Luke 22:42 are supposed to imply that he does. John 12:27, however, seems to say that he doesn’t.

This is a rather weak attempt at a contradiction and again wholly relies upon the ignorance of the reader. Matthew 26:39, Mark 14:36, and Luke 22:42 are parallel passages which take place in the Garden of Gethsemane just before the arrest of Yahshua. In all of these passages Yahshua never asks for the Crucifixion to be prevented but does express his anguish over the pain and suffering that he is going to encounter over the next few hours, in the form of his trials, beatings, whippings, and alienation from people on the Cross, the ordeal of crucifixion itself and the upcoming triumph over Satan. He does, however, more importantly ask for YahwehÕs will to be carried out over the next few hours knowing that this is the means by which he will die and rise again, and by doing so atone for all the sins of the world.

John 12:27 comes from a totally different situation, one which takes place before the circumstances described above. It is said while Yahshua is speaking to a crowd of people during the Passover Festival at the Temple in Jerusalem (in fact even before the gathering of the Twelve with Yahshua at the Upper Room). On this occasion Yahshua again says something very similar to the other passages above: “Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father save me from this hour’? No it was for this very reason that I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!”

Again we are reminded that he is feeling anguish. He knows events are fast unfolding around him. He knows exactly what is to come. Yet, this statement is said in reply to some Greeks who have just asked something of Yahshua through his disciples. Were they there to offer him a way out of his upcoming troubles? Perhaps, but Yahshua does not go to meet them and indeed replies to their request to meet him in this way.

71. Did Jesus move away three times (Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42) or once (Luke 22:39-46) from his disciples to pray? (Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

Shabbir asks how many times Yahshua left the disciples to pray alone at the Garden of Gethsemane on the night of his arrest. Matthew 26:36-46 and Mark 14:32-42, show three but Luke 22:39-46 only speaks of one. However once again there is no contradiction once you realize that the three passages are complementary.

Note that the Luke passage nowhere states that Yahshua did not leave the disciples three times to go and pray. Because he does not mention all three times does not imply that Yahshua did not do so. Obviously Luke did not consider that fact to be relevant to his account. We must remember that Luke’s Gospel is thought of as the third Gospel to have been put to paper chronologically, therefore it would make sense for him not to regurgitate information found in the other two gospels.

72. When Jesus went away to pray, were the words in his two prayers the same (Mark 14:39) or different (Matthew 26:42)? (Category: imposes his own agenda)

This apparent contradiction comparing Matthew 26:36-46 with Mark 14:32-42, and in particular verses 42 and 39 respectively, is not a contradiction at all. Shabbir asks the question: ‘What were the words of the second prayer?’ at the Garden of Gethsemane. It relies heavily once again upon the reader of Shabbir’s book being ignorant of the texts mentioned, and his wording of the supposed contradiction as contrived and misleading.

Shabbir maintains that in the passage in Mark, “that the words were the same as the first prayer (Mark 14:39).” Let’s see what Mark does say of the second prayer in 14:39: “Once more he went away and prayed the same thing.”

Nowhere in this verse does Mark say that Yahshua prayed the same words as the previous prayer, but what he does imply by the words used in the sentence is that the gist of the prayer covers the same thing. Unlike Islam, there are no meaningless and repetitive rituals in ChristÕs example. Prayer is a conversation with Yahweh, not a ritual to be preformed.

When we compare the first two prayers in Matthew (39 and 42) we see that they are essentially the same prayer, though not exactly the same wording. Then in verse 44 Matthew says that Christ prayed yet again “saying the same thing!” Yet according to Shabbir’s thinking the two prayers were different; so how could Yahshua then be saying the same thing the third time?

It seems that Shabbir is simply imposing a Muslim formula of prayer on the passages above which he simply cannot do. You would expect this to be the case if this was a rigidly formulated prayer that had to be repeated daily, as we find in Islam. But these prayers were prayers of the heart that were spoken by Yahshua because of the enormity of the situation before him. Ultimately that situation was secondary to the gravity, power, and loving bond that Yahshua had with the Father. ItÕs too bad Muslims are prevented from having a meaningful conversation with God.

73. Did the centurion say that Jesus was innocent (Luke 23:47), or that he was the Son of God (Mark 15:39)? (Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

The question being forwarded is what the centurion at the cross said when Yahshua died. The two passages quoted are Mark 15:39 and Luke 23:47. However as has been said before with other apparent contradictions these passages are not contradictory but complementary. Matthew 27:54 and Mark 15:39 agree that the centurion exclaimed that Yahshua, “was the Son of God!” Luke 23:47 however mentions that the centurion also refers to Yahshua as, “a righteous man.” Is it so hard to understand that the centurion said both?

74. Did Jesus say “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” in Hebrew (Matthew 27:46) or in Aramaic (Mark 15:34)? (Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

The question of whether Yahshua spoke Hebrew or Aramaic on the cross is answerable. However, the reason for Matthew and Mark recording it differently is due to the way the event was spoken of in Aramaic after it happened, and due to the recipients of the Gospel. However, the whole issue is not a valid criticism.

Mark 15:34 is probably the most quoted Aramaism in the New Testament, being “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabakthani.” However, it is doubtful that Yahshua spoke in the language that Mark records them in. The reason is simple; the people hearing Yahshua’s words thought he was calling Elijah (Matthew 27:47 and Mark 15:35). In order for the onlookers to have made this mistake, Yahshua would have to have cried “Eli, Eli,” not “Eloi, Eloi.” Why? Because in Hebrew Eli can be either “My God” or the shortened form of Eliyahu which is Hebrew for Elijah. However, in Aramaic Eloi can be only “My God.”

It is also worth noting that lama (“why”) is the same word in both languages, and sabak is a verb which is found not only in Aramaic, but also in Mishnaic Hebrew.

Therefore Yahshua probably spoke it in Hebrew. Why therefore is it recorded in Aramaic as well? Yahshua was part of a multilingual society. He spoke Greek (the common language of Greece and Rome), Aramaic (the common language of the Ancient Near East) and Hebrew, the sacred tongue of Judaism, which had been revived in the form of Mishnaic Hebrew in Second Temple times. Hebrew and Aramaic are closely related Semitic languages. That Hebrew and Aramaic terms show up in the Gospels is, therefore, not at all surprising.

That one Gospel writer records it in Hebrew and another in extremely similar Aramaic in a trilingual and multi-literate society is no problem to Christians, nor is it a criticism of the Bible. If Mark recorded his words in Arabic, then we would worry because Arabic wouldnÕt even be developed as a written language for another six centuries.

75. Were the last words that Jesus spook “Father into thy hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23:46), or “It is finished” (John 19:30)? (Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

What were the last words of Yahshua before he died is the question asked by Shabbir in this supposed contradiction. This does not show a contradiction any more than two witnesses to an accident at an intersection will come up with two different descriptions of that accident, depending on where they stood. Neither witness would be incorrect, as they describe the event from a different perspective. Luke was not a witness to the event, and so is dependent on those who were there. John was a witness. What they are both relating, however, is that at the end Yahshua gave himself up to death.

It could be said that Luke used the last words that he felt were necessary for his gospel account, which concentrated on the humanity of Christ (noted in the earlier question), while John, as well as quoting the last words of Yahshua, was interested in the fulfillment of the salvific message, and so quoted the last phrase “it is finished.”

John 17:4 records Yahshua’s prayer in the light of his forthcoming crucifixion, stating that He had completed the work of revelation (John 1:18), and since revelation is a particular stress of the Gospel of John, and the cross is the consummation of that commission (John 3:16), it is natural that this Gospel should centre on tetelestai. At any rate, if Yahshua said ‘It is finished; Father into your hands I commit my spirit’ or vice versa, it would be quite in order to record either clause of this sentence, as his last words. Luke-Acts reaches its conclusion without any climax, because the continuing ministry of the exalted Christ through the Holy Spirit and the Church has no ending prior to the Parousia, and to record tetelestai might have undermined this emphasis, or it could have been taken the wrong way. At any rate, no contradiction is involved; purely a distinction of emphasis.

76. Did the Capernaum centurion come personally to ask Jesus to heal his slave (Matthew 8:5), or did he send elders of the Jews and his friends (Luke 7:3,6)? (Category: the text is compatible with a little thought & misunderstood the author’s intent)

This is not a contradiction but rather a misunderstanding of sequence, as well as a misunderstanding of what the authors intended. The centurion initially delivered his message to Yahshua via the elders of the Jews. It is also possible that he came personally to Yahshua after he had sent the elders. Matthew mentions the centurion because he was the one in need, while Luke mentions the efforts of the Jewish elders because they were the ones who made the initial contact.

We know of other instances where the deed which a person tells others to do is in actuality done through him. A good example is the baptism done by the disciple’s of Yahshua, yet it was said that Yahshua baptized (John 4:1-2).

We can see why each author chose to relate it differently by understanding the reason they wrote the event. Matthew’s reason for relating this story is not the factual occurrence but to relate the fact of the importance of all nations to Christ. This is why Matthew speaks of the centurion rather than the messengers of the centurion. It is also the reason why Matthew spends less time relating the actual story and more on the parable of the kingdom of heaven. Matthew wants to show that Yahshua relates to all people.

Luke in his telling of the story does not even relate the parable that Yahshua told the people, but concentrates on telling the story in more detail, thereby concentrating more on the humanity of Yahshua by listening to the messengers, the fact that he is impressed by the faith of the centurion and the reason why he is so impressed; because the centurion does not even consider himself ‘worthy’ to come before Yahshua. Ultimately this leads to the compassion shown by Yahshua in healing the centurion’s servant without actually going to the home of the centurion.

77. Did Adam die the same day (Genesis 2:17) or did he continue to live to the age of 930 years (Genesis 5:5)? (Category: misunderstood how God works in history)

The Scriptures describe death in three ways; 1) Physical death which ends our life on earth, 2) spiritual death which is separation from God, and 3) eternal death in hell. The death spoken of in Genesis 2:17 is the second death mentioned in our list, that of complete separation from Yahweh, while the death mentioned in Genesis 5:5 is the first death, a physical death which ends our present life.

For obvious reasons Shabbir will see this as a contradiction because he does not understand the significance of spiritual death which is a complete separation from Yahweh, since he will not admit that Adam had any relationship with Yahweh to begin with in the garden of Eden. The spiritual separation (and thus spiritual death) is shown visibly in Genesis chapter 3 where Adam was thrown out of the Garden of Eden and away from God’s presence.

Ironically Adam being thrown out of the garden of Eden is also mentioned in the Qur’an (Sura 2:36), though there is no reason for this to happen, if (as Muslims believe) Adam had been forgiven for his sin. Here is an example of the Qur’an borrowing a story from the earlier scriptures without understanding its meaning or significance, and therein lies the assumption behind the supposed contradiction.

(For a clearer understanding of the significance of spiritual death and how that impinges on nearly every area of disagreement Christians have with Islam, read the paper entitled “The Hermeneutical Key” by Jay Smith.)

78. Did God decide that the lifespan of humans was to be only 120 years (Genesis 6:3), or longer (Genesis 11:12-16)? (Category: misread the text)

In Genesis 6:3 we read: “Then the LORD said, ‘My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.'” This is contrasted with ages of people who lived longer than 120 years in Genesis 11:12-16. However this is based, on a misreading or misunderstanding of the text.

The hundred and twenty years spoken of by Yahweh in Genesis 6:3 cannot mean the life span of human beings as you do find people older than that mentioned more or less straight away a few Chapters on into the book of Genesis (including Noah himself). The more likely meaning is that the Flood that Yahweh had warned Noah about doesn’t happen until 120 years after the initial warning to Noah. This is brought out further in 1Peter 3:20 where we read, “God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.” Therefore looking at the context of the Genesis 6:3 passage it would agree with what we find in chapter 11 of the same book. (Geisler/Howe 1992:41)

79. Apart from Jesus there was no-one else (John 3:13) or there were others (2 Kings 2:11) who ascended to heaven? Category: misunderstood the wording)

There were others who went to heaven without dying, such as Elijah and Enoch (Genesis 5:24). In John 3:13 Yahshua is setting forth his superior knowledge of heavenly things. Essentially what he is saying, “no other human being can speak from first hand knowledge about these things, as I can, since I came down from heaven.” He is claiming that no one has ascended to heaven to bring down the message. In no way is he denying that anyone else is in heaven, such as Elijah and Enoch. Rather, Yahshua is simply claiming that no one on earth has gone to heaven and returned with a message.

80. Was the high priest Abiathar (Mark 2:26), or Ahimelech (1 Samuel 21:1; 22:20) when David went into the house of God and ate the consecrated bread? (Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage & misunderstood the historical context)

Yahshua states that the event happened in the days of Abiathar the high priest and yet we know from 1 Samuel that Abiathar was not actually the high priest at that time; it was his father, Ahimelech.

If we were to introduce an anecdote by saying, ÒWhen king David was a shepherd-boy…Ó, it would not be incorrect, even though David was not king at that time. In the same way, Abiathar was soon to be high priest and this is what he is most remembered for, hence he is designated by this title. Moreover, the event did happen in the days of Abiathar, as he was alive and present during the incident. We know from 1 Samuel 22:20 that he narrowly escaped when his father’s whole family and their town was destroyed by Saul’s men. Therefore, Yahshua’s statement is quite acceptable. (Archer 1994:362)

81. Was Jesus’ body wrapped in spices before burial in accordance with Jewish burial customs (John 19:39-40), or did the women come and administer the spices later (Mark 16:1)? (Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

John 19:39,40 clearly states that Joseph and Nicodemus wrapped the body in 75 pounds of myrrh and aloes, along with strips of linen. We also know from the synoptic writers that the body was placed in a large shroud. There is no contradiction here. The fact that the synoptics do not mention the spices during the burial does not mean that they were not used.

If Mark 16:1 is taken to mean that the women were hoping to do the whole burial process themselves, they would need the strips of linen as well, which are not mentioned. They simply wished to perform their last act of devotion to their master by adding extra spices to those used by Joseph.

As Yahshua died around the ninth hour (Mark 15:34-37), there would have been time (almost three hours) for Joseph and Nicodemus to perform the burial process quickly before the Sabbath began. We need not suppose that there was only time for them to wrap his body in a shroud and deposit it in the tomb.

82. Did the women buy the spices after (Mark 16:1) or before the Sabbath (Luke 23:55 to 24:1)? (Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

Several details in the accounts of the resurrection suggest that there were in fact two groups of women on their way to the tomb, planning to meet each other there. See question 86 for more details of these two groups.

Now it becomes clear that Mary Magdalene and her group bought their spices after the Sabbath, as recorded by Mark 16:1. On the other hand, Joanna and her group bought their spices before the Sabbath, as recorded by Luke 23:56. It is significant that Joanna is mentioned only by Luke, thereby strengthening the proposition that it was her group mentioned by him in the resurrection account.

83. Did the women visit the tomb “toward the dawn” (Matthew 28:1), or “When the sun had risen” (Mark 16:2)? (Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

A brief look at the four passages concerned will clear up any misunderstanding. Matthew 28:1: ÒAt dawn…went to look at the tomb.Ó Mark 16:2 ÒVery early…just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb.Ó Luke 24:1: ÒVery early in the morning…went to the tomb.Ó John 20:1: ÒEarly…while it was still dark…went to the tomb.Ó

Thus we see that the four accounts are easily compatible in this respect. It is not even necessary for this point to remember that there were two groups of women, as the harmony is quite simple. From Luke we understand that it was very early when the women set off for the tomb. From Matthew we see that the sun was just dawning, yet John makes it clear that it had not yet done so fully. The darkness was on its way out but had not yet gone. Mark’s statement that the sun had risen comes later, when they were on their way. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that the sun had time to rise during their journey across Jerusalem.

84. Did the women go to the tomb to anoint Jesus’ body with spices (Mark 16:1; Luke 23:55-24:1), or to see the tomb (Matthew 28:1), or for no reason (John 20:1)? (Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

This answer links in with number 81 above. We know that they went to the tomb in order to put further spices on Yahshua’s body, as Luke and Mark tell us. The fact that Matthew and John do not give a specific reason does not mean that there was not one. They were going to put on spices, whether or not the Gospel authors all mention it. We would not expect every detail to be included in all the accounts, otherwise there would be no need for four of them!

85. When the women arrived at the tomb, was the stone “rolled back” (Mark 16:4), “rolled away” (Luke 24:2), “taken away” (John 20:1), or did they see an angel do it (Matthew 28:1-6)? (Category: misread the text)

Matthew does not say that the women saw the angel roll the stone back. This accusation is indeed trivial. After documenting the women setting off for the tomb, Matthew relates the earthquake, which happened while they were still on their way. Verse 2 begins by saying there was a violent earthquake, the Greek of which carries the sense of, now there had been a violent earthquake. When the women speak to the angel in verse 5, we understand from Mark 16:5 that they had approached the tomb and gone inside, where he was sitting on the ledge where Yahshua’s body had been. Therefore, the answer to this question is that the stone was rolled away when they arrived: there is no contradiction.

86. In (Matthew 16:2; 28:7; Mark 16:5-6; Luke 24:4-5; 23), the women were told what happened to Jesus’ body, while in (John 20:2) Mary was not told. (Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

The angels told the women that Yahshua had risen from the dead. Matthew, Mark and Luke are all clear on this. The apparent discrepancy regarding the number of angels is cleared up when we realize that there were two groups of women. Mary Magdalene and her group probably set out from the house of John Mark, where the Last Supper had been held. Joanna and some other unnamed women, on the other hand, probably set out from Herod’s residence, in a different part of the city. Joanna was the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod’s household (Luke 8:3) and it is therefore highly probable that she and her companions set out from the royal residence.

With this in mind, it is clear that the first angel (who rolled away the stone and told Mary and Salome where Yahshua was) had disappeared by the time Joanna and her companions arrived. When they got there (Luke 24:3-8), two angels appeared and told them the good news, after which they hurried off to tell the apostles. In Luke 24:10, all the women are mentioned together, as they all went to the apostles in the end.

We are now in a position to see why Mary Magdalene did not see the angels. John 20:1 tells us that Mary came to the tomb and we know from the other accounts that Salome and another Mary were with her. As soon as she saw the stone rolled away, she ran to tell the apostles, assuming that Yahshua had been taken away. The other Mary and Salome, on the other hand, satisfied their curiosity by looking inside the tomb, where they found the angel who told them what had happened. So we see that the angels did inform the women, but that Mary Magdalene ran back before she had chance to meet them.

87. Did Mary Magdalene first meet the resurrected Jesus during her first visit (Matthew 28:9) or on her second visit (John 20:11-17)? And how did she react? (Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

We have established in the last answer that Mary Magdalene ran back to the apostles as soon as she saw the stone had been rolled away. Therefore, when Matthew 28:9 records Yahshua meeting them, she was not there. In fact, we understand from Mark 16:9 that Yahshua appeared first to Mary Magdalene, which was after she, Peter and John had returned to the tomb the first time (John 20:1-18). Here, we see that Peter and John saw the tomb and went home, leaving Mary weeping by the entrance. From here, she saw the two angels inside the tomb and then met Yahshua himself.

As all this happened before Yahshua appeared to the other women, there was some delay in them reaching the apostles. We may understand what happened by comparing the complementary accounts. Matthew 28:8 tells us that the women (Mary the mother of James and Salome) ran away afraid yet filled with joy…to tell his disciples. Their fear initially got the better of them, for they said nothing to anyone. (Mark 16:8) It was at this time that Yahshua met them. (Matthew 28:9,10) Here, he calmed their fears and told them once more to go and tell the apostles.

There is a lot to the harmonization of the resurrection accounts. It has not been appropriate to attempt a full harmonization in this short paper, as we have been answering specific points. A complete harmonization has been done by John Wenham inEaster Enigma (most recent edition 1996, Paternoster Press). Anyone with further questions is invited to go this book.

It must be admitted that we have in certain places followed explanations or interpretations that are not specifically stated in the text. This is permissible, as the explanations must merely be plausible. It is clear that the Gospel authors are writing from different points of view, adding and leaving out different details. This is to be expected from four authors writing independently. Far from casting doubt on their accounts, it gives added credibility, as those details which at first appear to be in conflict can be resolved with some thought, yet are free from the hallmarks of obvious collusion, either by the original authors or any subsequent editors.

88. Did Jesus instruct his disciples to wait for him in Galilee (Matthew 28:10), or that he was ascending to God (John 20:17)? (Category: misread the text)

This apparent contradiction asks, ÒWhat was Yahshua’s instruction for his disciples?Ó Shabbir uses Matthew 28:10 and John20:17 to demonstrate an apparent contradiction. However the two passages occur at different times on the same day and there is no reason to believe that Yahshua would give his disciples only one instruction.

This ÒcontradictionÓ depends upon the reader of Shabbir’s book being ignorant of the biblical passages and the events surrounding the resurrection. The two passages, in fact, are complementary not contradictory. This is because the two passages do not refer to the same point in time. Matthew 28:10 speaks of the group of women encountering the risen Yahshua on their way back to tell the disciples of what they had found. An empty tomb! And then receiving the first set of instructions from him to tell the disciples.

The second passage from John 20:17 occurs some time after the first passage, (to understand the time framework read from the beginning of this Chapter) and takes place when Mary is by herself at the tomb grieving out of bewilderment, due to the events unraveling around about her. She sees Yahshua and he gives her another set of instructions to pass on to the disciples.

89. Upon Jesus’ instructions, did the disciples return to Galilee immediately (Matthew 28:17), or after at least 40 days (Luke 24:33, 49; Acts 1:3-4)? (Category: didn’t read the entire text and misquoted the text)

This supposed contradiction asks when the disciples returned to Galilee after the crucifixion. It is argued from Matthew 28:17 that they returned immediately, and from Luke 24:33 and 49, and Acts 1:4 that it was after at least 40 days. However both of these assumptions are wrong.

It would appear that Yahshua appeared to them many times; sometimes individually, sometimes in groups, as the whole group gathered together, and also at least to Paul and Stephen after the Ascension (see 1 Corinthians 15:5, and Acts 7:55). He appeared in Galilee, Jerusalem and other places. Matthew 28:16 is a summary of all the appearances of Christ, and it is for this reason that it is not advisable to overstress chronology in this account, as Shabbir seems to have done.

The second argument in this seeming contradiction is an even weaker argument than the one I have responded to above. This is because Shabbir has not fully quoted Acts 1:4 which says: ÒOn one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: ÔDo not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.ÕÓ Now the author of Acts, Luke in this passage does not specify when Yahshua said this. However, it is apparent from the Gospels of Matthew and John that some of the disciples at least did go to Galilee and encounter Yahshua there; presumably after the first encounter in Jerusalem and before the end of the forty day period before Christ’s Ascension into Heaven.

90. Did the Midianites sell Joseph “to the Ishmaelites” (Genesis 37:28), or to Potiphar, an officer of Pharoah (Geneis 37:36)? (Category: misunderstood the historical context)

This apparent contradiction is a very strange one because it shows a clear misunderstanding of the text in Genesis 37:25. The question is asked, ÒTo whom did the Midianites sell Joseph?Ó Verse 28 is used to say the Ishmaelites, and verse 36 Potiphar.

The traveling merchants were comprised of Ishmaelite and Midianite merchants who bought Joseph from his brothers, and they in turn sold him to Potiphar in Egypt. The words Ishmaelite and Midianite are used interchangeably. This would seem obvious once you read verses 27 and 28 together. A clearer usage for these two names can also be found in Judges 8:24.

91. Did the Ishmaelites bring Joseph to Egypt (Genesis 37:28), or was it the Midianites (Genesis 37:36), or was it Joseph’s brothers (Genesis 45:4)? (Category: misunderstood the historical context)

This supposed contradiction follows on from the last one and again illuminates Shabbir’s problem with the historical context, as well as his inability to understand what the text is saying. This time the question asked is, ÒWho brought Joseph to Egypt?Ó From the last question we know that both the Ishmaelites and the Midianites were responsible for physically taking him there (as they are one and the same people), while the brother’s of Joseph are just as responsible, as it was they who sold him to the merchants, and thus are being blamed for this very thing by Joseph in Genesis 45:4. Consequently, as we saw in the previous question all three parties had a part to play in bringing Joseph to Egypt.

92. Does God change his mind (Genesis 6:7; Exodus 32:14; 1 Samuel 15:10-11, 35), or does he not change his mind (1 Samuel 15:29)? (Category: misunderstood how God works in history & misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

This “contradiction” appears only in older English translations of the Biblical manuscripts. The accusation arises from translation difficulties and is solved by looking at the context of the event.

God knew that Saul would fail in his duty as King of Israel. Nevertheless, Yahweh allowed Saul to be king and used him to do His will. Saul was highly effective as leader, in stirring his people to have courage and take pride in their nation, and in coping with Israel’s enemies during times of war.

However, God made it clear long before this time (Genesis 49:8) that he would establish the kings that would reign over Israel, from the tribe of Judah. Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin. Therefore there was no doubt that Saul or his descendants were not God’s permanent choice to sit on the throne of Israel. His successor David, however, was from the tribe of Judah, and his line was to continue. Therefore God, who knows all things, did not change his mind about Saul, for he knew Saul would turn away from Him and that the throne would be given to another.

The word in Hebrew that is used to express what Yahweh thought and how he felt concerning the turning of Saul from him is “niham” which is rendered “repent” in the above. However, as is common in languages, it can mean more than one thing. For example, English has only one word for “love.” Greek has at least 4 and Hebrew has more. A Hebrew or Greek word for love cannot always simply be translated “love” in English if more of the original meaning is to be retained. This is a problem that translators have.

Those who translated the Bible under the order of King James (hence the King James translation, which Shabbir quotes from) translated this word niham 41 times as “repent,” out of the 108 occurrences of the different forms of niham in the Hebrew manuscripts. These translators were dependent on far fewer manuscripts than were available to the more recent translators; the latter also having access to far older manuscripts as well as a greater understanding of the Biblical Hebrew words contained within. Therefore, the more recent translators have rendered niham far more accurately into English by conveying more of its Hebrew meaning (such as relent, grieve, console, comfort, change His mind, as the context of the Hebrew text dictates).

With that in mind, a more accurate rendering of the Hebrew would be that Yahweh was “grieved” that he had made Saul king. God does not deceive or change his mind (unlike Allah which does both). Yahweh was grieved that he had made Saul king. God shows in the Bible that He has real emotions. He has compassion on people’s pain and listens to people’s pleas for help. His anger and wrath are roused when He sees the suffering of people from others’ deeds.

As a result of Saul’s disobedience pain was caused to God and to the people of Israel. But also, God had it in His plan from the beginning that Saul’s family, though not being from the tribe of Judah, would not stay on the throne. Therefore when Saul begs the prophet Samuel in verses 24 to 25 to be put right with God and not be dethroned, Samuel replies that Yahweh has said it will be this way. He is not going to change His mind. It was spoken that it would be this way hundreds of years before Saul was king.

There is no contradiction here. The question was “Does God change his mind?” The answer is, “No.” But He does respond to peopleÕs situations and conduct, in compassion and in wrath, and therefore can be grieved when they do evil. (Archer 1994)

93. How could Egyptian magicians convert water into blood (Exodus 7:22), if all the available water had been already converted by Moses and Aaron (Exodus 7:20-21)? (Category: didn’t read the entire text & Imposes his own agenda)

This is a rather foolish question. To begin with Moses and Aaron did not convert all available water to blood, as Shabbir quotes, but only the water of the Nile (see verse 20). There was plenty of other water for the magicians of Pharaoh to use. We know this because just a few verses later (verse 24) we are told, “And all the Egyptians dug along the Nile to get drinking water, because they could not drink the water of the river.” Not only has Shabbir not read the entire text, he has imposed on the text he has read that which simply is not there.

94. Did David (1 Samuel 17:23, 50) or Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19) kill Goliath? (Category: copyist error)

The discrepancy as to who killed Goliath (David or Elhanan) was caused by copyist or scribal error, which can be seen clearly. The text of 2 Samuel 21:19 reads as follows: “In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.”

As this stands in the Hebrew Masoretic text, this is a certainly a clear contradiction to 1 Samuel and its account of David’s slaying of Goliath. However, there is a very simple and apparent reason for this contradiction, as in the parallel passage of 1 Chronicles 20:5 shows. It describes the episode as follows: “In another battle with the Philistines, Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.”

When the Hebrew for these sentences is examined, the reason for the contradiction becomes quite obvious and the latter 1 Chronicles is seen to be the correct reading. This is not simply because we know David killed Goliath, but also because of the language.

When the scribe was duplicating the earlier manuscript, the fibers must have been frayed or the die faded at this particular verse in 2 Samuel. The result was that he made two or three mistakes (see Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, page 179). The sign of the direct object in 1 Chronicals was ‘-t which comes just before “Lahmi” in the sentence order. The scribe mistook it for b-t or b-y-t (“Beth”) and thus got BJt hal-Lahmi (“the Bethlehemite”) out of it. He misread the word for “brother” (‘-h , the h having a dot underneath it) as the sign of the direct object (‘-t) right before g-l-y-t (“Goliath”). Therefore he made “Goliath” the object of “killed” instead of “brother” of Goliath, as in 1 Chronicles. The copyist misplaced the word for “weavers” (‘-r-g-ym) so as to put it right after “Elhanan” as his family name (ben Y-‘-r-y’-r–g-ym, ben ya’^arey ‘or^e–gim, “the son of the forest of weavers”, a most improbable name for anyone’s father). In Chronicles the or^e–gim (“weavers”) comes straight after m^enr (“a beam of”)Ñthus making perfectly good sense.

To conclude: the 2 Samuel passage is an entirely traceable error on the part of the copyist in the original wording, which has been preserved in 1 Chronicles 20:5. David killed Goliath. This testifies to the honesty and openness of the scribes and translators (both Jewish and Christian). Although it would be easy to change this recognized error, this has not been done in favor of remaining true to the manuscripts. Although it leaves the passage open to shallow criticism as Shabbir Ally has shown, it is criticism which we are not afraid of. An excellent example of human copying error resulting from the degeneration of papyrus.

95. Did Saul take his own sword and fall upon it (1 Samuel 31:4-6), or did an Amalekite kill him (2 Samuel 1:1-16)? (Category: misread the text)

It should be noted that the writer of 1 & 2 Samuel does not place any value on the Amalekite’s story. Thus, in all reality it was Saul who killed himself, though it was the Amalekite who took credit for the killing. The writer relates how Saul died and then narrates what the Amalekite said. The Amalekite’s statement that he happened to be on Mount Gilboa (2 Samuel 1:6) may not be an innocent one. He had quite possibly come to loot the dead bodies. In any case, he certainly got there before the Philistines, who did not find Saul’s body until the next day (1 Samuel 31:8). We have David’s own testimony that the Amalekite thought he was bringing good news of Saul’s death (2 Samuel 4:10). It is likely, therefore, that he came upon Saul’s dead body, took his crown and bracelet and made up the story of Saul’s death in order that David might reward him for defeating his enemy. The Amalekite’s evil plan, however, backfired dramatically on him.

96. Is it that everyone sins (1 Kings 8:46; 2 Chronicles 6:36; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; 1 John 1:8-10), or do some not sin (1 John 3:1, 8-9; 4:7; 5:1)? (Category: misunderstood the Greek usage & Imposes his own agenda)

This apparent contradiction asks: ÒDoes every man sin?Ó Then a number of Old Testament passages that declare this are listed followed by one New Testament passage from 1 John 1:8-10: “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.”

After this it is claimed by Shabbir that: ÒTrue Christians cannot possibly sin, because they are children of God.Ó This is followed by a number of passages from the First Epistle of John showing that Christians are children of God. Shabbir is imposing his view on the text, assuming that those who are children of God, somehow suddenly have no sin. It is true that a person who is born of God should not habitually practice sin (James 2:14), but that is not to say that they will not occasionally fall into sin, as we live in a sinful world and impinged by it.

The last of the verses quoted is from 1 John 3:9 which says: “No-one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.” Shabbir in his quote uses an older translation for 1 John 3:9 and so states, “No one born of God commits sin…and he cannot sin…,” which is not a true translation of the Greek. In the newer translations, such as the NIV they translate correctly using the present continuous in this verse, as it is written that way in the Greek. Thus those born of God will not continue to sin, as they cannot go on sinning…, the idea being that this life of sinning will die out now that he has the help of the Holy Spirit in him or her.

It is interesting how Shabbir jumps around to make his point. He begins with 1 John 1, then moves to 1 John 3, then returns to the 1 John 1 passage at the beginning of the Epistle and re-quotes verse 8, which speaks of all men sinning, with the hope of highlighting the seeming contradiction. There is no contradiction in this as Shabbir obviously hasn’t understood the apostle’s letter or grasped the fact that the letter develops its theme as it goes on. Therefore quoting from the beginning of the letter, then moving to the middle of the letter, and finally returning to the beginning of the letter is not the way to read a letter.

The Scriptures clearly teach that all men have sinned except for one, Christ, therefore we have no quarrel with Shabbir on this point. As to Shabbir’s second point I am glad he has come to realize that Christians are children of God therefore we have no quarrel with him on this subject. It is Shabbir’s third point, however, which is a contentious one because it does not take on board the development of the themes of the letter, of which the one pointed out here is the call to holiness and righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins by Yahshua Christ’s atoning death. It is for that reason that we are called not to continue in our sinful ways but to be changed into Christ’s sinless likeness. In his attempt to show a contradiction Shabbir has mischievously rearranged the order in which the verses were intended to be read in order to force a contradiction, which doesn’t exist.

97. Are we to bear one another’s burdens (Galatians 6:2), or are we to bear only our own burdens (Galatians 6:5)? (Category: misread the text)

There is no contradiction here at all. This is not a case of ‘either/or’ but of ‘both/and’. When you read Galatians 6:1-5 properly you will notice that believers are asked to help each other in times of need, difficulty or temptation; but they are also called to account for their own actions. There is no difficulty or contradiction in this, as the two are mutually inclusive.

98. Did Jesus appear to twelve disciples after his resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:5), or was it to eleven (Matthew 27:3-5; 28:16; Mark 16:14; Luke 24:9,33; Acts 1:9-26)? (Category: misread the text)

There is no contradiction once you notice how the words are being used. In all the references given for eleven disciples, the point of the narrative account is to be accurate at that particular moment of time being spoken of. After the death of Judas there were only eleven disciples, and this remained so until Matthias was chosen to take Judas’ place. In 1 Corinthians 15:5 the generic term ‘the Twelve’ is therefore used for the disciples because Matthias is also counted within the Twelve, since he also witnessed the Death and Resurrection of Yahshua Christ, as the passage pointed out by Shabbir records in Acts 1:21-22.

99. Did Jesus go immediately to the desert after his baptism (Mark 1:12-13), or did he first go to Galilee, see disciples, and attend a wedding (John 1:35, 43; 2:1-11)? (Category: misread the text)

This apparent contradiction asks: ÒWhere was Yahshua three days after his baptism?Ó Mark 1:12-13 says he went to the wilderness for forty days. But John ‘appears’ to have Yahshua the next day at Bethany, the second day at Galilee and the third at Cana (John 1:35; 1:43; 2:1-11), unless you go back and read the entire text starting from John 1:19. The explanation about the baptism of Yahshua in John’s Gospel is given by John the Baptist himself. It was “John’s testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was” (vs. 19). It is he who is referring to the event of the baptism in the past. If there is any doubt look at the past tense used by John when he sees Yahshua coming towards him in verses 29-30 and 32. While watching Yahshua he relates to those who were listening the event of the baptism and its significance. There is no reason to believe that the baptism was actually taking place at the time John was speaking, and therefore no reason to imply that this passage contradicts that of Mark.

100. Did Joseph flee with the baby Jesus to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-23), or did he calmly present him at the temple in Jerusalem and return to Galilee (Luke 2:21-40)? (Category: misunderstood the historical context)

These are complementary accounts of Yahshua’s early life, and not contradictory at all. It would take some time for Herod to realize that he had been outsmarted by the magi. Matthew’s Gospel says that he killed all the baby boys that were two years old and under in Bethlehem and its vicinity. That would be enough time to allow Joseph and Mary the opportunity to do their rituals at the temple in Jerusalem and then return to Nazareth in Galilee, from where they went to Egypt, and then returned after the death of Herod

101. When Jesus walked on the water, did his disciples worship him (Matthew 14:33), or were they utterly astounded due to their hardened hearts (Mark 6:51-52)? (Category: didn’t read the entire text)

This is not a contradiction but two complementary passages. If Shabbir had read the entire passage in Matthew he would have seen that both the Matthew account (verses 26-28) and the Mark account mention that the disciples had initially been astounded, thinking he was a ghost. This was because they had not understood from the previous miracle who he was. But after the initial shock had warn off the Matthew account then explains that they worshiped him.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, once we have weighed the evidence, all of the seeming contradictions posed by Shabbir Ally can be adequately explained. When we look over the 101 supposed contradictions we find that they fall into 15 broad categories or genres of errorsÑmost all of which are his. Listed below are those categories, each explaining in one sentence the errors behind Shabbir’s contradictions. Alongside each category is a number informing us how many times he could be blamed for each category. You will note that when you add up the totals they are larger than 101. The reason is that, as you may have already noticed, Shabbir many times makes more than one error in a given question. Rather than impuning the Bible, Shabbir simply enabled us to demonstrate how miraculous YahwehÕs Book really is.

Categories of the errors evidenced by Shabbir in his pamphlet:

-he misunderstood the historical context – 25 times
-he misread the text – 15 times
-he misunderstood the Hebrew usage – 13 times
-the texts are compatible with a little thought – 13 times
-he misunderstood the author’s intent – 12 times
-these were merely copyist error – 9 times
-he misunderstood how God works in history – 6 times
-he misunderstood the Greek usage – 4 times
-he didn’t read the entire text – 4 times
-he misquoted the text – 4 times
-he misunderstood the wording – 3 times
-he had too literalistic an interpretation – 3 times
-he imposed his own agenda – 3 times
-he confused an incident with another – 1 time
-we now have discovered an earlier manuscript – 1 time

In Shabbir’s booklet, he puts two verses on the bottom of each page. It would seem appropriate that we give an answer to these quotes. First, “God is not the author of confusion…” (1 Corinthians 14:33) True. There is very little that is confusing in the Bible. When we understand all the original readings and the context behind them, any confusion disappears. Of course we need to think and read to understand everything in there, as we are 2,000 to 3,500 years and a translation removed from the original hearers.

The same could not be said for the Qur’an. It is hopelessly confused. Without chronology or context AllahÕs Book is a jumbled and chaotic mess. Worse, the historical Biblical characters stories upon which it is dependant, do not parallel the Bible but instead originate in second century Talmudic apocryphal writings. And because we can go to the historical context of those writings we now know that they could not have been authored by God, but were created by men, centuries after the authentic revelation of Yahweh had been canonized. Therefore, the best parts of the QurÕan are plagiarized from the worst possible source.

Second, “…A house divided against itself falls.” (Luke 11:17)The Bible is not divided against itself. Yahshua was talking about Satan destroying his own demonsÑthe very cast of characters that possessed Muhammad and ÒinspiredÓ his to recite the most vulgar ÒscriptureÓ known to man.

Shabbir not only found nothing material, he demonstrated that it was Islam that was a house divided. Shabbir was unable to understand the Bible because its message is the antithesis of the QurÕan, as is its god, and prophet. And thatÕs an impossible position for Islam because Allah claims that he inspired the Bible. Yet thatÕs irrational.

We conclude with two quotes of our own: “The first to present his case seems right… till another comes forward and questions him” (Proverbs 18:17) AndÉ”…our dear brother Paul also wrote to 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.” (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Bibliography:

Archer, Gleason, L., Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1994 Revised Edition, 1982, Zondervan Publishing House
Bivin, David, & Blizzard, Roy, Jr., Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, Revised Edition, Destiny Image Publishers, 1994
Blomberg, Craig, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, IVP, Leicester, 1987
France, R.T., Matthew, Tyndale IVP, 1985
Fruchtenbaum, A. ‘The Genealogy of the Messiah’. The Vineyard, November 1993, pp.10-13.
Geisler, Norman & Howe, Thomas, When Critics Ask, Victor Books, Wheaton, Illinois, 1992
Haley, John, W., Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, Whitaker House, Pennsylvania
Harrison, R.K., Old Testament Introduction, Tyndale Press, London, 1970
Keil, C.F., and Delitzsch, F., Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, 20 vols. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949
McDowell, Josh, Christianity; A Ready Defence, Harpendon, Scripture Press Foundation, 1990
Morris, Leon, Luke, Tyndale Press, 1974 (1986 reprint)
The True Guidance, Part Two, (‘False Charges against the Old Testament’), Light of Life, Austria, 1992
The True Guidance, Part Three, (‘False Charges against the New Testament’), Light of Life, Austria, 1992