Dan Wallace Response to Yusuf Ismail

Okay, this morning I I woke up and I didn't have my computer with me I'd had to leave it at the office to do a backup. So I was using my iPad and here comes an email from Dan Wallace and I was really I'm always excited to get an email from Dan Wallace, but given that he may be the busiest man on the planet.

There are a number of us vying for that particular title right now. But anyway. But what was exciting about this was back in February March, I think it's February I had sent Dan a clip from the debate at the Juma Masjid in Durban with Yusuf Ismail and The clip contained the section of Yusuf's presentation on the Gospel of John relevant directly Dan Wallace where he had shown Dan's book and he had made comments about John 1 1 and In my rebuttal, I'm gonna show you all this in a moment, but in my rebuttal I had basically said well Hate to say this Yusuf, but you'd fail my Greek class and I'm pretty sure he'd failed Dan Wallace's Greek class, too.

Well, I had hoped that Dan might have time to come on the dividing line. He's come on the DL before but he's just so busy and so many things going on In his life that it didn't look like anything to work out.

But what ended up happening. Is I get this email and Dan has attached a sound file where he has recorded his response To the clip that I sent to him and not only that. But right after this and I'm really glad I included this in the clip.

I almost didn't. Yusuf had made reference to a particular article In regards to the Coptic of John 1 1 and it turns out that Dan was the doctoral advisor to both of the men I think both of the men who wrote the article and So he's very very familiar with the article and responded that as well.

So what's exciting is it's pretty rare to have the opportunity to have someone Who has been cited as an authority in the debate? Who a is still alive and we're thankful that Dan is and B then has the opportunity to respond specifically to the in this case Misutilization of his material now as I said, I explained these things in the debate.

I didn't have nearly the time that Dan will have to respond to these things, but I did explain these things in the debate and in essence Dan is is verifying that my replies were Perfectly consistent with his own perspective.

And so you've got the two of us versus Yusuf on this particular issue. And I I've already written Yusuf let him know I'm going to clean this up. Because my hope obviously is that this also means that we won't hear this anymore from Yusuf because I have to assume You simply hear this Understand this and go all right, we put that in the bad arguments not to be used again file and move forward from there because Both Yusuf and I have expressed the fact that our desire that we want these debates to move forward and the only way for them to move forward is if we stop using a lot of the arguments that just simply aren't aren't valid and I'm afraid that especially when it comes to to use of your use of Unitarians.

They're they're not the best source in in any way shape or form and We'll see that in this and for everybody else. Hopefully this will be very useful to you as well especially in regards to John 1 1 and The use of the anarthritis the OSS there in John 1 1 C.

So let's start off with what Yusuf said. Then I'm gonna play a section of my response. It's not everything I said it would just take too long to go through all of it because it Came up more than once during the course of the discussion.

But I'll play the section especially where I was calling for equal standards. And then that led pretty much right into my statement that he would have failed the Greek class because he made a number of mistakes and then I will play Dan's comments on John 1 1 and Specifically the material that Yusuf brought up and That'll pretty much do it.

And hopefully that will be useful to everybody. So let's let's start with This material this is this is actually the clip that I sent to Dan. So here's what Dan saw. This is what he will be responding to.

An adjective than a noun and describes rather the class or the sphere towards which other things in fact belong to. This is a book which is recommended by James White. It's a book called Greek grammar beyond the basics.

In an email encounter with him I asked James is this book recommend would you recommend this book? He says he even used this book. He taught at one of the colleges in the United States and he sees this as a book of authorities by written by a friend of His uh, someone called Daniel Wallace and Daniel Wallace in referring to John 1 1 says the following.

He says the most likely candidate for theos is qualitative. Meaning equality if I say this food is divine. Does it mean the food is god? If I say you are godly, does it mean you're almighty god? And so he says this is true for the largest pre-verbal anaphros.

Predicate nominatives that fall into this category. Wow. And basically what he's saying it's like when you defer a noun a barn red barn blue lorry yellow lorry and so on and so forth. And so he says that possible translations in respect of that John 1 1 is what god was the word was it doesn't mean that the word was almighty god.

And he concludes by saying such an option meaning adopting the idea that the word god should be qualitative. Does not impugn necessarily on the divinity of christ. Does it not. Of course it does. So why does Daniel Wallace go out of his way after explaining a basic rule in greek grammar to go and emphasize?

That this option doesn't impugn on the divinity of christ. Why? What's his motive? We know why because he's a trinitarian. So he has to justify his position at the end of the day that even though this is not With a definite article.

It doesn't mean god almighty. It's qualitative. However, it doesn't impact on the divinity of christ. Can you see can you see the agenda that's at play? And of course, that's the amazon's testimony on greek grammar that's a book which is recommended by james white.

I'm, not making up anything check it up. See what daniel wallace says. He says that john 1 -1 the god in the last instance should be viewed as Qualitative as opposed to being viewed as almighty god and i'll leave you with the sahidic coptic.

If you look at sahidic coptic translation of the new testament. This is it here those of you who can read it In october 2011 in the journal of theological studies both brian wright and tim rishuti reason that the indefinite article In the coptic translation of john 1 -1 has a qualitative meaning.

Basically means if I were to say you are divinely you are godlike. If I were to for example say this is a comment. If I say james white is the man I use a definite article before both james and man and I therefore identify james with someone an apologist renowned apologist from the united states.

But if I say james white is man. Then i'm basically omitting the definite article. I mean that james must be classified as a man. He's not a alien or something. He's a human being. Can you see the distinction between the two?

So john 1 -1 is qualitative in nature and what becomes problematic is when people Through their bias prejudice have to basically change The entire foundations of greek grammar in order to prove certain theological points that becomes unnecessary and that becomes problematic.

Equal Standards in Handling Scripture and Debate

Okay, so there's there's what uh, I sent to dan. There's uh, the comments from the opening statement that yusuf ismail Uh presented in the mosque now, here are a couple minutes of My opening well actually my response to this um, they're in the mosque and First i'm calling for equal standards.

Then I get to the statement that I made about the errors that. That yusuf had made though in this particular clip. I don't go into the details. Regarding the anarthro stuff and his misunderstanding the qualitative stuff.

I did that a little bit later on. This is just a a part of the response that I provided. I am not here this evening for any gotcha moments. I am not here this evening to try to score debate points. I have come literally halfway across the world for each and every one of you.

I am thrilled to see you here this evening. First of all, I compliment you on being able to sit on a floor a lot longer than a christian ever could. Uh, it is amazing how you can do that. But it is such a pleasure for me and an honor for me.

For you to be here and to hear what I have to say. I want to show you respect. Especially in the next half of the debate when I speak about what the quran teaches. I hope you will hear that I have done everything in my power To accurately handle your text and to handle it with respect even when i'm in disagreement.

And that's what I ask of you when you handle my text my divine scriptures. That you would apply the same standards to my scriptures that you would apply to your own. In fact, the quran speaks of having equal scales does it not?

Of being fair in the analysis that we are to make i'm simply asking you you are the judges this evening. There's no debate judges. There's no there's no score this evening. You are the debate judges. What i'm going to ask you to do is hold us both to the same standard.

See if we will apply the same standard to our own scriptures that we apply to the other person's scriptures. Will you do that for me? Because I think that's very very important. I hope you understand that i'm here this evening because I think.

That we need to move the debate forward from simply repeating the same debate topics over and over again. We already know what the issues are. We've had a billion debates on was muhammad a prophet. Was jesus just a prophet deity of christ the quran versus the bible.

Etc, etc, etc. We have to move forward my friends in understanding each other and hearing each other. And I want you to hear me this evening and to hear my heart. Yusuf has just talked to you about the gospel of john and He talked at the beginning about what certain types of scholars believe well.

If I cited the same kind of scholarship about the quran that yusuf cites about the gospel of john. I could find all sorts of scholars that believe that the quran was edited and redacted and it wasn't in the In the form that it's in today and all sorts of silly.

All of us can find unbelieving scholarship, but it's interesting just a few moments ago Yusuf was saying well most bible translators are trinitarian. So they're biased um. When you look at translations of the quran.

Don't you look for translations done by believing muslims? Do you look for liberal translations done by unbelievers as the type of translation you're going to use the quran? So why should we be looking to liberal translations of the bible done by people who don't believe?

That it's even what the quran says. It is. What does the quran say about the torani angel? It's nuts all it's sent down it contains what light and guidance, right? And so if we're going to be consistent.

Then I need to cite the same kind of scholarship about your book. And you need to cite believing scholarship about the bible and when we do that we discover that there really is no reason to question The gospel of john as to its originality as to its coming from the first century.

And in fact If you'll take the time to look at the debate that yusuf and I did at paterson university last year. You can listen to us engaging some of the issues about the text. Listen to the debates i've done with shabir ali at university of petoria university of biola.

We've engaged all those things i'm here this evening to compare and contrast the christology of the gospel of john With that of the quran and so let's let's let's do that and i'll cover some of the other stuff and rebuttal If I have time to do so.

You have had a lot of greek thrown at you a lot of slides thrown at you this evening. I didn't make a presentation. I didn't think we'd be able to do that in the mosque and so i'm gonna have to explain it to you, but I have had the opportunity the joy of teaching many people the greek language.

I deal with the greek language all the time and with all due respect to yusuf. If yusuf took my first year greek class i'd have to fail him this evening. Because he made a lot of errors because he's following really bad scholarship that just isn't up to date.

He quoted my friend dan wallace. Dan wallace would fail him as well i'm afraid because he just hasn't understood. Especially the greek article. It's one of the most difficult parts the greek language.

So, uh, I I don't put him down for that. So there you go. Um, and later on I did talk about the significance of the article and so on and so forth, but that's why I said I i'd have to fail you and and uh, basically that's.

That's what dan said, too. Um to be perfectly honest with you, so here is dan wallace's response. To the clip I played at first um, and all i've got is. It was sent as a garage band thing. I've never used this program before but i'm glad I had it.

Because nothing else will play it. But uh, here's. Here's dan wallace responding to yusuf ismail. On the subject of john 1 1 and at the end, he will also comment on the coptic Material as well. Thank you.

Once again dan for taking the time to do this. Uh, here we go.

Dan Wallace on John 1:1 and the Meaning of Qualitative Theos

James white debated yusuf ishmael earlier this year in durban south africa. I understand that the debate or at least part of it dealt with the deity of christ. James was kind enough to send me a three and a half minute clip.

In which mr Ishmael was citing my work greek grammar beyond the basics and attempting to show that my own analysis of john 1 1 argues against christ's divinity. Frankly, I was surprised at how sloppy. Mr. Ishmael was in using my grammar.

Not only did he quote it incorrectly and at a crucial point no less, but he also completely butchered my argument. What i'd like to do in this brief critique is to address these two points. Mr. Ishmael is speaking about my treatment of the last clause of john 1 1 Which is traditionally translated and the word was god.

I argue that the word translated god Is qualitative in force that is it has virtually the force of an adjective and could appropriately be translated divine. I'm quick to add. However that such a qualitative force Needs to be seen for what it is.

It is saying something about the essence of a thing. Here's what I wrote in my grammar on this point. In the second translation divine is acceptable only if it is a term that can be applied only to true deity.

However in modern english we use it with reference to angels theologians. Even a meal. Thus divine could be misleading in an english translation. The idea of a qualitative thos here is that the word had all the attributes And qualities that the god of 1 1 b had.

In other words. He shared the essence of the father. Though they differed in person. Mr. Ishmael refers to my argument as follows. Daniel wallace in referring to john 1 1 says the following. And he quotes the most likely candidate for thos is qualitative.

Meaning equality is what he adds. And then he adds if I say this food is divine. Does it mean that the food is god? If I say you are godly, does it mean you are almighty god? What is truly remarkable here is that I explicitly state That modern english uses divine in a way that could include even a meal.

But that is not what divine would mean in greek yet. Mr Ishmael not only ignores what i'm saying about the difference between modern english And ancient greek but even uses the very illustration that I reject.

He adds that calling someone godly does not of course mean that they are almighty god. Here he is taking an english adjective godly as though it meant the same thing as divine. Again, this is based on english etymology and has nothing to do with greek.

Mr. Ishmael then puts up a slide that begins. Wallace has to concede. As though the qualitative understanding of thos is in any way a concession on my part. Instead I make the point that qualitative thos here underscores the real deity of jesus christ.

Mr. Ishmael goes on as though quoting me with the following. And so he says that possible translations in respect of that john 1 1 is. What god was the word was? And then Mr. Ishmael adds his understanding of what i'm saying.

He doesn't mean that the word was almighty god. The he here can only mean me. Mr. Ishmael is saying that in my grammar. I don't mean that calling the word divine Is the same thing as claiming that he is almighty god.

Where does he see that in my grammar? I explicitly discuss on the very page that Mr. Ishmael is incorrectly quoting page 269 for those of you who care to look it up. What I mean by qualitative. Here's the quote.

The idea of qualitative thos here is that the word had all the attributes and qualities that the god of 1 1 b had. In other words, he shared the essence of the father. Though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea Was the most concise way he could have stated that the word was god.

And yet was distinct from the father. Now in the space of less than a minute, Mr Ishmael has made numerous mistakes in both quoting for my grammar and understanding even the immediate context. I tell my students that when they quote some source in their papers.

They had better triple check their work to make sure that they quoted the source correctly. I think Mr. Ishmael must have missed that memo. It is imperative to get it right when quoting someone whether you agree with them or not.

Here's Mr. Ishmael again and he referring to me concludes by saying. Such an option meaning adopting the idea that the word god should be qualitative does not impugn necessarily on the divinity of christ.

There is no kind way to put this. Mr. Ishmael has not only badly misquoted my grammar. He has misrepresented the argument significantly. One more time. Here's Mr. Ishmael's quote of my grammar. Such an option does not impugn necessarily on the divinity of christ.

But here's what I really said. Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of christ. I immediately add rather it stresses that although the person of christ is not the person of the father. Their essence is identical.

At the end of this diatribe Mr. Ishmael then adds i'm not making up anything. Check it up. I think he meant check it out. See what Daniel Wallace says. Okay, I did. He misrepresented what I had to say.

I am left with one of two views about Mr. Ishmael's discussion of my treatment of John 1 1. First he either totally misread what I had to say about John 1 1 and really was urging people to read my grammar for themselves.

Thinking that they would find the same thing. He thought that he found. Or he assumed that his audience would not look at my grammar, but instead he was using a typical debater's ploy. Cite a source, although he doesn't give the page number and ostensibly encourage people to check it out.

But assume or hope that they will not. If it is the former. This impugns Mr. Ishmael's intelligence because he is apparently not capable of reading even the narrowest context to get an author's meaning.

If it is the latter it impugns Mr. Ishmael's character from this case. He would be intentionally deceptive. Both in his representation of what I wrote and in his half-hearted plea for his audience to look it up for themselves.

Either way, there is blatant misrepresentation here. Mr. Ishmael then invokes an article by Brian Wright and Tim Rashidi on a sahidic coptic of John 1 1. An article which was published in the journal of theological studies in 2011.

This is a well-known and very well respected journal. It publishes quality articles regardless of the viewpoint the authors take. Mr. Ishmael Notes that the authors quote reason that the indefinite article in the coptic translation of John 1 1 Has a qualitative meaning.

He seems to be implying here that Wright and Rashidi are on his side. Namely that Jesus is not described as true deity in John 1 1. He doesn't elaborate much on this at least not in the clip that I heard.

But had Mr. Ishmael actually read the article by Wright and Rashidi, he would have realized that they were not saying what he is claiming. Here's a direct quote from page 509 of their article. This qualitative descriptive understanding makes the best sense within john's prologue.

The copts that is the coptic people understood john to be saying that the word has the same qualities As the god of the bible. In some Mr. Ishmael has not only butchered what I wrote in my grammar. But he has apparently misunderstood what Wright and Rashidi wrote in their article.

All of us would claim that John 1 1 affirms and affirms strongly unequivocally the deity of Christ. And the basis for that claim is both hellenistic greek grammatical usage and sahidic coptic usage. For Mr. Ishmael to claim that a qualitative thos In john 1 1 means anything less than true deity.

Is to not only misrepresent what we are saying. But also to misrepresent what the bible is saying.

Um. Well, there you go. And uh again, I am very appreciative to Dan Wallace for taking the time to do that. I know that this time is very very precious um. Pretty straightforward. Don't know how you could get much clearer than that.

Affirming that Yusuf's understanding of his material was in error just as I said it was uh, and also affirming What qualitative actually means as defined in the sources that yusuf was using. Um. It's it's intriguing to me.

It's important to me That we would be having this discussion with yusuf with shabir ali With abdullah kunda. I'll be having this conversation next week a week from tomorrow uh with with sheikh mustafa umar.

I've had this discussion with so many muslims. And yet very few of those muslims Have shown an understanding of what it is. The new testament actually teaches. And what's important to recognize is there is nowhere In the quran and even yusuf even tried to Provide somewhat of an argument here In the second half of the debate.

Even quoting from a new book that now that i've had the opportunity of reading it I'm, really not sure why he was quoting it because he certainly doesn't believe the vast majority of what it says. But then again, he doesn't believe what dan wallace had to say either um but In he tries to make you know, the argument that the author of the quran does understand what christians believe and yet There just isn't anything in the quran That that begins to show any level of interaction whatsoever with what?

Is in the new testament or with what christians believe in in the sixth and seventh centuries? And i've i've mentioned this so many times that I see such a such an intimate relationship between The new testament and the hebrew scriptures.

The new testament writers know the hebrew scriptures in depth and they interact with them. The author of the quran does not know the content of those scriptures he's clearly operating off of An oral history stories that he's heard but not intimate familiarity with the text itself.

Which of course raises all the issues relating to the authorship of the quran and the nature of the heavenly tablet and and and gabriel and Layla talqader and all these things that we won't get into today, but it does have an impact um on the conversations that we're trying to have and so There you have dan wallace's Confirmation that not only You know dan hasn't had a chance to watch that debate but I can assure you That he would Affirm what I said in that debate in regards to the grammar of john 1 -1 as well as my comments and Other texts john 8 john 20 28, etc, etc um You know dan wallace.

I do not see everything eye to eye uh, just in case you're wondering yusuf, uh, one of the most pleasurable uh experiences i've had in a scholarly context was at the Um Evangelical theological society back about well, I don't know it was 98 I forget what it was.

It was a number of years ago now. But dan and I stood at the net booth. He'll confirm this we stood at the net booth. And we had a lengthy discussion on the carmen christi philippians 2 5 through 11 And the differences that he and I have in regards to the interpretation of the greek at that point.

And I later wrote an article in the cri journal which is available that specifically included Um interaction with dan's viewpoint. So it's not just we don't just follow each other lockstep and so on and so forth.

Uh, but the point is that what I said on this subject and what dan wallace is on this subject same thing and uh, so hopefully yusuf We won't hear that material being used again in the future because I really think that when the author Provides that level of refutation you need to go, you know, I don't expect you to all of a sudden just go okay, I now believe the deity of christ, but the arguments that you've used especially in regards to john 1 1 They're just vacuous.

They they have no substance to them and Yusuf, I have to assume That the people you want to reach are the most serious of the allah lingeel Not the least serious. I want to reach the most thinking muslim the one that has that really wants to know truth.

And if that's what you want to do, too. Then I think you need to change your approach there. I don't know that the quran actually provides you with a way of doing that Because I don't believe the author ever interacted with these things even knew these things but There you go.

I hope this has been useful not only to yusuf ismail But to the wider audience of the church as as well and my thanks once again to dan wallace for Providing us with that sound file that allowed us to do this.

Thanks for watching. God bless.