Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
Good afternoon. Welcome along to premier Christian radio. I'm Justin Briley with you for the next hour and a half for unbelievable the show that gets Christians and non-christians Talking and a big thank you to everyone who turned out for our expelled screenings and debates at Imperial College last Saturday.
The events went very well. I'll be bringing some of your feedback from those events. So do stick around for the end of the program while we'll be hearing some of the attendees and what they thought of the screening and the debates of that Controversial intelligent design film right now though.
It's a time to launch into the program. This is as I said The show that gets Christians and non-christians talking to special programs coming up in the next two weeks with one of our guests. He's in conversation with a Muslim today.
Let's find out what they're talking about. And today we're doing a Quran versus Bible sort of show we often bring in a Christian and a Muslim on this program today is no exception. James White the director of Alpha and Omega ministries are Christian in the studio today.
He's over from the States and he's going to be with us for the next couple of weeks. Adnan Rashid is from the Hinton Institute and we'll be finding out about that and we get they're going to be asking which is more Trustworthy the Quran or the Bible?
What about the different ways that these manuscripts have come to us over the centuries? What about alternative readings and versions of them other scriptures that have been around in the past? What about particular events perhaps we'll touch on the different ways that they see the crucifixion of Jesus very pertinent as we approach Easter do hope you can stay with us right through to the end of the show.
Well a very warm welcome gentlemen to both of you. I'll start with you James because you've come the furthest distance in some sense to be with us all the way from across the pond. You were with us in the studio here a year or two ago and you joined us very kindly just last year by ISDN the wonders of modern technology, but you were you run a ministry out in Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, I think and Alpha and Omega ministries tell us about that.
What is exists for what what your role with them is?
Well, often. Omega has existed since 1983. I'm the co-founder and it's a Christian apologetics organization. We initially started off dealing primarily with the subject of Mormonism Which is very large in our area being the state immediately south of Utah with Salt Lake right there.
So but that has expanded out over the years and as I completed my education and Began the teaching and preaching in the church We've we've expanded out to a number of other subjects especially due to my study of Greek and textual criticism Teaching and writing in that area and then the starting about 2005 as I started to prepare for a debate with Shabir Ali At Biola University.
I really began my serious studies of Islam because I saw that a lot of the key areas that I had studied church history Textual criticism the doctrine the Trinity were the primary areas of concern there as well that combined with my study The persecuted church is what really gave me a passion to engage these particular subjects.
Fantastic now. Last time you were over you were doing some debates with Muslims and Again similarly on this occasion. You've been doing a debate or two. What what is it about? You know, what why particularly are you engaging with Muslims here in the UK?
What's your particular rationale for that? Well.
It's honestly difficult to arrange these things simply because they're a. Lot of the Muslim debaters want to address political issues primarily and I want to address Theological historical issues primarily and there are a limited number of folks who have experience in doing debates in November of 2008.
In studio, we had Abdullah al-Andalusi and and then I debated Rashid at a church this time. We reversed it without not in studio and I just debated Abdullah. So You know, there there are people here who are willing to engage the issues.
It's. How did that debate go down? Oh, I thought it was very enjoyable. We had a very good turnout.
And I think it was done the way it needs to be done. That is I think the people in the audience could tell that. Both of us were doing everything in our power to understand what the other person was saying.
And I think that's when real communication actually takes place is when you when you seek to hear What the other person is saying not in the sense of trying to find a mean of means of compromise. But so that at least you're speaking the same language and you're addressing the same issues.
I think very often we end up talking past each other if that type of communication isn't taking place.
Well, thank you for coming in and for making time in your schedule to come in and contribute to a couple of programs.
I'm a regular subscriber to the podcast. You've got a guy riding along out there in Arizona in the heat listening to Justin Barley's.
I get more emails now than I've ever done before from Arizona. And I just think it must be something to do with our friend Amiga ministries that we've got some listeners. Thanks to thanks to your being on the show.
Thanks for coming in our other guest Adnan Rashid Adnan. Welcome back to the program. You've been in before. I think we were debating Jay Smith and Beth Grove last time which it was a long time ago actually.
But tell us a little bit because I've said you're from the Hitton Institute. All I know that as at the moment is something on the bottom of your email. But tell us a little bit about what the Hitton Institute is and what you do there.
Bismillah Rahman Rahim.
Alhamdulillah was salatu was salamu ala rasool. Allah my bad. Thank you very much Justin first firstly For inviting me to this Positive interaction between me and dr. James White. I'm privileged to be here With such a scholar.
Hittin Institute is an institute which was initiated to tackle some of the misconceptions about Islam Deliberately or Unconsciously Pumped against Islam and Muslims in the media, so The role of this Institute is to demystify those misconceptions about Islam and clarify the position of Islam as it stands.
I.
Mean a lot of people obviously do. Pick up a negative view of Islam from certain aspects of what the media broadcast. I mean today we're doing particularly theological debate. Do you think people are aware of the theology of Islam what Islam stands for generally?
Or do you think that's an area that needs demystifying as well? I I agree with you that that's that's another area which needs to be.
Elaborated upon by the scholars and and the preachers in general. We need to See each other we need to converse we need to interact so that we can learn about each other to have better understanding and then Consequent consequently to coexist with each other in peace.
If we don't understand each other It would be it would be very difficult for societies to come about and live in peace as they were living in the past. During the Golden Age of Islam in Islamic Spain, which I have spoken about.
Yeah, well, thank you for coming in and I'm looking forward to today's discussion. We are inevitably gonna have disagreement here in the studio. That's really to some extent what the program is about but we're about airing those disagreements in a frank and open and honest way and It should be a very interesting interaction as we ask today.
Which is more trustworthy the Quran or the Bible and we're going to be touching on a few different areas in the course of the program. If you want to get in touch with anything you hear today, you're more than welcome to drop me an email.
That's unbelievable at premier .org UK. You can phone and leave me a voicemail message on oh eight four five six fifty two fifty two fifty two and select Option eight to do that. And don't forget you can find us online and many many podcasts in our archive there at premiere .org UK.
Unbelievable.
Unbelievable with Justin Briley.
Well, I mean sure. We maybe kick off with with you James. I Can guess what your answer is going to be. Which is more trustworthy the Quran or the Bible. What's your view overall of the state? In which we find the Bible to start with perhaps.
And you did a very quite a high-profile debate with Bart Ehrman who of course? Has been noted has been on this program talking about whether the Bible is Transmitted in a trustworthy way down the centuries.
I hope you saw Justin that your program got quoted in my debate with Bart. Did you see that? I My slides was a direct quote from unbelievable.
Wonder if he regretted coming on.
Don't think so, but no. Obviously I think in this in this particular Conversation the primary thing that we have to deal with is the fact that people don't understand where their sacred texts came from they they tend to think most Christians tend to think the Bible floated down of heaven in a calfskin cover with gold edges and thumb indexing and Replete the first time it appeared.
That's not how it came to us. That's not how it's been transmitted to us. And that's the same thing with the Quran. It's it's not like there was a Muhammad left a Perfectly inscribed codex and said here just photocopy this and everything.
It'll be fine. That's not how it works. Any book that has come to us from antiquity has a history to it and the primary difference between the New Testament prime and I'm focusing on the New Testament, especially and The Quran is the methodology by which has been transmitted to us.
One is a controlled methodology with the Quran. The other is an uncontrolled methodology with the New Testament. And that has a lot to do with the fact that the early history of both religions is very different that is Christianity is primarily a religion of The the poor the slaves and it is illegal from the time of Nero in the seventh seventh decade of the first century up until the piece of church in 313 under Constantine and While that persecution is not consistent during all that time it's actually the worst at the end of that time period and What does this have to do the transmission of the text?
Well, it was illegal to even copy or own the the Christian scriptures and especially at the end of that period of persecution. We know historically from records that have only recently been translated that literally thousands of codices of The Christian writings were destroyed by the Roman Empire.
They knew that the Christianity was a religion of the book. There was some connection here. And so there was a there was a Transmission of the text not by controlled scribes not by professionals. But you'd have portions of the text that people would literally risk their lives to copy.
Can you imagine Justin if if on Sunday next Sunday morning at your church? Everyone was asked only to bring a handwritten copy of the Bible that they himself themselves had copied out. It'd be pretty difficult.
Don't you think? And yet that's what the early Christians had to do. It was a tremendous risk on their part, but that creates this rich manuscript tradition. The important part is it's not controlled.
There was never any one person group of people. Group of churches anything else that controlled the text in New Testament had multiple authors. Writing to multiple audiences at different times. The books of the New Testament had a life of their own before they became collected into one edition.
And what's important about that is that we've all heard the claims that well, you know the Bible used to contain Reincarnation but the Council of Constantinople took it out and things like that. That kind of claim is just from his historical perspective completely fallacious.
It never could have happened. Because not only do we have texts that predate those counsels so we could compare to see you know. If any type of major changes took place. But it would simply be impossible for a persecuted minority.
To gather up manuscripts and be making changes as they as they did. So you have this free open transmission which results in textual variation. They didn't say show me your scribe card your training in the Institute card that you're gonna make a perfect copy here.
Instead of someone came into Christian fellowship and you heard someone a reading from a book. I've never heard that before. Well, this is this is Peters. These are Peters epistles. We don't have that in our fellowship.
Can I copy that? Manuscript p72 is a good example of that one. I've seen myself. That's obvious a guy who was not trained as a scribe I think I would have beat him in penmanship in first grade. But but he loved the Word of God and so he makes this copy.
The result is there are textual variations that we have to examine. Spellings of words. Skipping a phrase because you're copying from one thing to another that's very different than a controlled transmission of a text where you have a powerful organization that in essence can gather up the materials create a formal version and then promulgate that version because once you have that kind of editing going on if You don't have access to the previous materials that becomes the earliest point you can trace the text to.
And that then becomes the locus of inspiration and authority at that point. And this presumably is is the way you see the Quran is having.
Developed well the hadith of themselves record in In Albuquerque six five one nine and five ten the process by which this takes place. And that's not the only place we find from.
Other historical sources. The same story. Just for those who aren't immediately aware the hadiths are is there were a commentary on the the traditions.
The traditions that are collected over the two to three hundred years after the time of Muhammad, they're not commentaries in the Quran. That's that's that's that's Tafsir literature. The the hadith sahih al-bukhari sahih al-muslim are probably the two best-known Collections of hadith and in six five one nine five ten you have narrated there what happens under Uthman two different Time periods and to make it just just as simple as possible.
There is a real concern Amongst the Muslims that the Muslims would end up arguing about their scriptures like the Christians and the Jews did and so there is a Collection initially a collection very shortly after the death of Muhammad and then about 20 years later approximately There is a renewed concern about differences and how people are reciting the Quran.
And so there is a gathering together of all the materials both interestingly enough record Sections that were found with only one person at that particular point in time. Even 20 years later one verse is found with only one person.
But a an official version is made it is distributed to the primary centers of Islam and then most importantly according to Sahih al-bukhari six five ten. There is a burning of the previous materials the destruction of those materials.
Specifically quote Uthman sent every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied in order that all the other Quranic materials whether written in Fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies be burned that is.
That's massive for a textual critic for someone who is studying the transmission of the text. That's massive that has a big impact on what scholars discover when they examine the earliest manuscripts of the Quran.
Palimpsest manuscripts where you've you've had the original washed off because you're the leather manuscripts. And then you read that something written over top of it. You can frequently read what's underneath it by ultraviolet light.
They give evidence that there were other streams of readings specifically coming from Ibn Masud and by Ibn Ka 'b. That persisted in the manuscript tradition for a hundred to two hundred years after that period of time.
So it does have a textual history, but it's a very different textual history. It results in us in significantly fewer variations as you would expect. It's a much younger text. First of all, the New Testament has to go Approximately six hundred to seven hundred years longer in handwritten form.
Then then the Quran does but still you would expect because of that editing that it would be a much narrower Range because it's been controlled from the beginning. The question is is that the best way to transmit a text or not?
Fascinating stuff. Do you broadly agree with the way James has sort of outlined the Two different ways that you might see the the transmission of the two texts there. I agree with parts of what James actually said.
Firstly coming to the Bible itself because James talked about Bible first and then the Quran after and I'll do the same. We have many issues with the Bible. Firstly how the Bible was written down. Number one James is a man who believes in a concept called Sola Scriptura and and and he also believes that the Bible is the infallible Word of God as he stated in one of the debates with Pastor Sabian, he had a debate some time ago.
So for him to believe in the in the infallibility of this word This word must be proven to be infallible. Otherwise his claim his belief is worthless. So one once we go to the Bible itself to scrutinize it to see the text and see you see the authenticity and the transmission Of the Bible we come to realize that there are major problems with the text of the Bible.
Firstly Bibles are attributed to four evangelists Matthew Mark Luke and John. The manuscript tradition Tells us that the manuscripts were manuscripts which we have today at our disposal cannot could not have come from them.
Because there are so different. When we when we study them, how do I know this major scholars in the field such as Bart Ehrman whom? James White has debated and he states in his book misquoting Jesus.
Page number 89 to 90 with this abundance of evidence. What can we say about the total number of variants known today scholars differ significantly in their estimates? Some say there are 200 ,000 variants known some say 300 ,000 some say 400 ,000 or more.
We do not know for sure because despite impressive developments in in computer technology. No one has yet been able to count them all perhaps as I indicated earlier. It is best simply to leave the matter in comparative terms.
There are more variants among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament. This is a major issue. This is a big problem. Now another Christian show source the interpret interpret is the dictionary of the Bible states.
It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the manuscript tradition is wholly uniform. There is no comparison between the Bible in this sense.
Let before we go on to the next issue. Those are obviously two big things and and will allow James to respond to them in a moment. Moving on to the Quran what did you feel. James sort of represented the way that that I think James had a lot of time.
To address the issue of the Bible as well as the Quran. So I would like to have to be fair the same amount of time. So let me finish with the Bible first and then we can go on to the Quran now. Once we once we look at the manuscript tradition, we come to realize that there are major problems there.
If there are so many differences almost five thousand seven hundred manuscripts in Greek Are to be found. Today if there are so many difference in the manuscripts We we need to find out which manuscript comes from Matthew or Luke or Mark or John.
If they were inspired firstly, we have to establish whether they ever they were ever inspired if they were inspired Which manuscript is the inspired word of God because they all differ and then The dilemma is that the editors must decide which word Goes into the Bible now.
I have a book here Nestle famous Nestle and Allen Greek English and New Testament if we open the book It's called English translation with the Greek text Side by side and if we look look at the footnotes It gives us the variant readings what the text actually says, okay, and there are thousands of variant readings so My question is my contention is who made this text the Greek Testament who made it?
If if the manuscript tradition is uniform, then we would have one Bible coming from the evangelists themselves, but it's not uniform. Why do I say this Bruce Metzger one of the leading scholars in this field?
In his book a textual commentary on the Greek New Testament on the page number 11 He states of the approximately 5 ,000 Greek manuscripts of all or part of the New Testament That are known today no to agree exactly in all particulars confronted by a mass of conflicting readings editors must decide Which variants deserve to be included in the text and which should be relegated to the apparatus?
Although at first it seems it may seem to be a hopeless task Amid so many thousands of variant readings to sort out those that should be regarded as original textual scholars have developed certain generally acknowledged criteria of evaluation.
These considerations depend it will be seen upon probabilities and Sometimes the textual critics must weigh one set of public probabilities against another. The range and complexity of textual data are so great that no neatly arranged or mechanically Contrived set of rules can be applied with mathematical precision.
I'm finishing each and every variant reading needs to be considered in itself and not judge merely according to a rule of thumb so Metzger is what he's saying that It is the editors who decide what goes in the Bible obviously God or not Matthew Mark and Luke and effectively you've told us.
Essentially what James did that there were inevitably a number of variations in the manuscript transmission over time.
So just to conclude and my contention is not about the variation. My contention is that we don't have what Matthew Mark Luke and John wrote to even today.
Okay, so we're too far removed in terms of the copies to know what they originally wrote in there.
That's right. It is the editors who are deciding what goes in the Bible and just not.
Evangelist just briefly kind of to bring in the Quran aspect do you feel that therefore the Quran has some kind of superior way of Transmission. Because you have this kind of in a sense this quite controlled type of transmission where older versions were destroyed and when You know Osman was it Brought together in one if you like that the official version.
It's a very good question.
Firstly, there is no comparison between the Bible and the Quran as James pointed out because these two documents are Completely distinct documents. They're independent documents and they don't share Some similar history.
Bible was compiled during chaotic Three centuries of Christian experience under Roman persecution and the Quran was compiled under. So the Caliphs came together. Who was this man? The question is who is this man and is he copying the Quran from himself?
Is he making it up or is he copying an earlier source? Now James already pointed out and in the time of Abu Bakr who came to power immediately after Prophet Muhammad he was confronted by Omar and Omar came to him asking him to compile the Quran.
And then they came together and they decided that Quran should be put in one codex. Because at the time it was written written on many materials such as bones rocks leaves. So they collected the Quran in the time of Abu Bakr which is immediately after the death of the Prophet and Abu Bakr was one of the earliest companions of Prophet Muhammad.
Imagine if the Christians had this claim. Imagine if the Christians had Peter or James or one of the one of the disciples of Jesus Christ writing The Bible himself that would be a superior claim. I would accept that claim.
However, we don't have that claim coming from the Bible. Coming to the case of Uthman when he burned the copies. Uthman's compilation was purely to do with the text and it's Standardization rather than changing the text or adding or subtracting.
He had nothing to do with that. All he did was he unified the Arab tribes on one mode of recitation and that was the purpose of his compilation and the variant copies Which were written by illiterate Arabs for their own convenience and which were full of mistakes.
He asked them to burn them not that he sent armies out to burn them. He never forced anyone. There is no report suggesting that he asked people to burn them for for the sake of.
Unanimity on the text of the Quran. Well, we've had quite a long introductory section there. In fact, it's almost taken us to the end of this first part. So what I'll do is we'll we'll we'll end Slightly early here and allow James so that I don't have to break you in mid-flow in your response.
To come back on that in the next section and we'll be able to have a little more time To do that in the next section. You're listening to unbelievable. We're asking today, which is more trustworthy the Quran or the Bible?
We've been hearing about the different views from our guest James White and Adnan Rashid on how both texts have been transmitted down the centuries and We'll be asking questions. Like what about the different accounts that both have of Jesus's crucifixion?
What about other writings that were floating around at the time? We'll be finding out more from our guests in just a moment's time here on the show that gets you thinking.
You're listening to unbelievable on premiere Christian radio.
Welcome back to the show. It's the Quran and the Bible under discussion today, which is more trustworthy. We're asking and we've got with us Adnan Rashid from the hitting Institute Muslim on the show.
James White director of alpha and omega Ministries also with us. I'll send links to both these gentlemen's websites where you can find more information about their ministries. With the podcast of this show that's at premiere .org UK forward-slash unbelievable.
So coming back to James obviously and then a lot of information there, but I mean a lot of it you've obviously Come across directly before through a primary source of evidence. There was Bart Ehrman and what he has to say about the transmission and Metzger so so I think to sum up your contention Adnan it is that The Bible has arrived in this fashion where we can't get back to the original text.
Therefore we can't know if they were inspired. Anyway, we don't we certainly don't have the inspired version now Whereas the Quran it you know had this kind of as you described Controlled form of transmission which makes it a lot more reliable in that sense.
So your responses James. Well, one thing's for certain Bart.
Bruce Metzger did not come to that conclusion. Bart Ehrman has but our butterman is not a believer in God any longer. I lecture on this all the time and we just had I think a classic example of giving only part of the information when you Tell people there are 400 ,000 variants in the New Testament.
I start off my lectures giving that same information and I say well think about there's only 138 ,162 words in the Nessian Greek text of the New Testament. That's three variants per word and we just had the quote there is not one sentence uniform in the manuscript tradition.
These are these are statements that that Really do not deal honestly with the text of the New Testament. For a couple reasons first of all 99 of those variations cannot be translated into another language.
They have to do with spelling orthography the movable new things like that that in no way shape or form Can even be explained to someone who doesn't read Greek in the first place. There are approximately 1 ,500 to 2 ,000 Meaningful that is they change the meaning of the text and viable which means that they could possibly be original.
Ascribed in the 15th century who had a bad morning and introduced a reading No one had ever seen before is not exactly relevant to actually the establishment of the text in the New Testament. That number also needs to be understood on another basis.
And that is the more manuscripts you have the more variants you're gonna have. If you have only one manuscript of a book how many? Variants you're gonna have none, but how much we have thousands of manuscripts.
But I'm not I'm not addressing the issue of the current this moment I'm pointing out that if you have Five thousand seven hundred and approximately fifty nine manuscripts a catalog today. You're going that's approximately 1 .3 million pages of handwritten text remember the New Testament Existed almost twice as long as the Quran in a merely handwritten form.
Now when you actually look at the number of meaningful and viable variants it adds up to about one per three pages. It's a very different story than the numbers that were just presented. The reality is however that has nothing to do with either the authorship of the New Testament.
And it's not a matter that editors just sit around to turn what's in the Bible because the very same text that Adnan has there Gives you all that information and so for example as I'm preaching through the book of Hebrews right now in my church I examine all the textual variants that impact that even though the book of Hebrews has some of the fewest Textual variants of any New Testament book.
But still I'm going to examine those textual variants and if they're relevant as they were in Hebrews 2 9 I will raise those issues in my explication exegesis of the text. So it's not the editors that have come along and said oh This is all you get to see we Christians are wide open with this.
I mean we publish these things last evening I gave to my Islamic opponent a copy of the net any 27 diaglot that has even more textual information than that volume has. Here's here's our information. I would like to have a critical edition of the Quran.
That likewise provides and we're starting to get close the recent publication of the top copy manuscript from Turkey. Does have a list of textual variants between the major manuscripts produced within it?
But not to the point where you have for example, what's in this text? What's on my screen where I have the same information you can you can click on any of these manuscripts? You can see where they're housed when they were written what they contain and Eventually, I think you're gonna be able to click on all those and see images of them high-resolution images yourself.
So that it's not a bunch of editors telling me what's there I have the ability to look at this information myself.
And that's I think is already working on that. James just to come in to comment on James point. I know a German scholar personally is a friend of mine. His name is Michael Marx who is dealing with one of the collections of some of the earliest copies of the Quran and he has thousands of photographs coming from a collection which was done in the early 19th century by one of the German scholars in was lost and he studied these manuscripts and When he studied the text and I spoke to him personally. He showed me personally that there are no shocking Revelations in my findings.
There is no new worse. There is no old worse. There are no Major variants there are spelling mistakes common spelling Scribal errors and apart from that there are no shocks. But in the Bible is a totally different story now James is trying to put it very eloquently.
And he's trying to put the main issue aside. What I read from Metzger was Shocking for me when I read it for the first time I was amazed that how can scholars like James White claim the infallibility of the Bible when Metzger is very clearly stating and he's one of the major authorities in this field.
He's stating editors must decide and the text is based upon probabilities. So there there are heavy.
Editors are only deciding what is placed in the main reading of the text. Simply a matter. This is simply a matter of what is going to be the main reading and what is going to be in the notes. That's the only thing he's talking about there.
I don't just simply doesn't understand what Metzger is talking about if you read. If you if you if you read Metzger's own conclusions, he does not come to Adnan's conclusion and I would like to point out That if we do if we.
Well, he continued to believe that the Bible is the Word of God, sir. So it's just simply a matter of recognizing the difference between a what's the main reading of a text and what's placed in the footnotes which.
Metzger believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. This is my contention and I don't think he ever believed I guess.
You will get into a discussion on the whole area of what does infallible mean I suppose I mean. Without wanting to go too much down that road I do want to hear as well James. Your response to the way that the Quran is transmitted Now and then makes this point that as far as he's concerned, you know Muhammad's right-hand man was basically able to pick up from where Muhammad left off in giving us a sure account of what Muhammad.
Actually Muhammad told us at least we trust the Hadith that if you want to know what the Quran says you go to Ibn Masud. Not to those that actually did the compilation. That's one of the reasons that it Masud Did not appreciate what Uthman did and there's a lot of sources that indicate there was strong friction there.
And the fact that his readings continue, for example, if you look at the Foggs Palimpsest manuscript of Surah 2 222 you see evidence there by comparing the Foggs manuscript with the current Uthmanic version of not only Total editing but the word orders changed grammatical terminations are changed clear editing has taken place between those two versions now.
I'm hoping that the kind of work that he was just making reference to Would indicate these things would go through the early tafsir literature Which lists many variant readings they didn't have any problem with that at that time.
It hadn't the theology hadn't developed a point where that would be an issue. It was acceptable to discuss those things in in modern context that that has changed. But that needs to be a part of any type of critical edition of the Quran that would come out now.
I would expect that there would be again because the mechanism of transmission fewer of those Than you have in the free transmission. But again, this takes us back to In the hadith itself we are told that there are certain ayahs.
Mentioned specifically in those texts one is in surat al-tawbah in Surah 9 That was found with one person only one source now. We already know that many of the Qura had died the Battle of Yamama. And so This sort of brings us I think maybe transitionally to the discussion that you had also mentioned There's only one ayah in the Quran that denies the crucifixion of Jesus surah 4 157.
How do we know that there were not others that had been lost? There are early sources that specifically said that there were things that were lost because many of those Qura had died. How do we know in light of surah 4 with 157 which has no hadith commentary?
Just that is not just Surah 157. Is this.
Somewhat controversial part of the Quran which claims that Jesus did not die on the cross that he that it was. Well, there are different as I understand it interpretations of what it could mean whether he swooned and came back to life.
Or there was someone else was crucified in his very quickly. Let me deal with James.
Some of the contentions he raised he said Ibn Masud is the man Prophet asked his companions to go to if they want to learn The Quran. Prophet never said Ibn Masud is the only man to go to. He pointed out four personalities.
And Ibn Masud was one of them. Ubaid bin Ka 'b was another one. So there are other people you can go to learn the Quran from so Ibn Masud is not the only authority James pointed him out because he is a convenient reference the Christians use.
For their sessions now James has demonstrated Very poor knowledge of Islamic history, unfortunately. And I don't expect James to know the Islamic history accurately because his field is biblical theology and and textual criticism.
So let me educate James on the history of Islam. Ibn Masud never had a problem with Uthman. When it comes to the text of the Quran his contention was that I was one of the earliest Companions of Prophet Muhammad, and I wasn't consulted in The codification of the Quran which was codified by the Quran by Uthman.
And what do the scholars have to say about this. If James Did his homework, and he looked at looked at some of the major scholars in this field he would have. He would have been very careful in making these claims.
Watt and Bell Montgomery Watt was a practicing Christian scholar. And he states in his book introduction to the Quran that the Quran as it stands today is essentially Uthmanic and the companions of Prophet Muhammad carried out a very good job in Transmitting the text of the Quran and the manuscript variation he's talking about.
James is talking about they are to do with vowels Marks diacritical marks and and most of them are to do with the recitation of the Quran rather than the text itself rather than the missing verses. Added verses what we find with the Bible.
Bible has chunks missing and chunks at it. We know that I mean gospel of Mark chapter 16 verse 9 to 20. It's an addition later edition if we look at the textual tradition. Gospel of John chapter 7 verse 53 to 8 11 is another later edition.
John in comma another Example 1 John 5 7 another edition, so we don't have these problems in the Quran. We if James can pull out one of the manuscripts early manuscripts, which we have hundreds of them.
We have hundreds of them. And I can give you the source as well. Islamic awareness org is a website where you can find the pictures of these manuscripts. Coming from the mid first century of Islam. You can go and check whether there are any variants or whether whether there are any new or all verses now.
James made a point. That maybe the verses pertaining to Jesus Christian crucifixion God went missing. It's like Bible. Or the Quran. For that matter was transmitted by one or two people. No it wasn't the case.
Prophet Muhammad had hundred thousand companions. Every single of them had to recite the Quran five times a day every single day for the Quran. To go missing would have been a major issue. There would have been wars over this because the companions of Prophet Muhammad.
They argued with each other on minor issues for example praying to Two rakats. Two units of prayer or four units of prayer. They argued over these issues. How do we recite this? How do we recite that verse is going missing is out of question.
No scholar ever asserted this okay?
And yet surah 2 to 222 is not just vowel pointing because vowel pointing hadn't been introduced at that time. It is specific editing who by Eben Cobb had a different number of surahs. There are. It's it's unfortunate that we have to say well if you just do your homework.
Actually if we do We we discover that there's our other variants involved in these very early manuscripts. Which I do have in my library, and I've taken the time to obtain those things. But the reason I brought up surah 4157 is because the fact that it's the hadith that say it's not me saying.
It's the hadith that say that in both those compilations in 659 510 from sahih al-bukhari that there were particular portions of the Quran that were found with one person at each time and The one that was found the second time had been missed in the first compilation.
The point being that said okay, it may be a separate issue.
But you want to say the point being is how sense you. We only have one verse that denies the crucifixion. You see Christian theology. You don't build upon one verse, but here you have the entire.
Let's allow James to finish his but here you have the entire.
Presentation of the denial of the historical belief the crucifixion. Based upon a single verse that I think is what raises. Can you read the verse for us? Says and that they speaking of the Jews said and boasts we killed Christ Jesus son of Mary the Apostle of Allah.
But they killed him not nor crucified him But so it was made to appear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts with no certain knowledge But only conjecture to follow for of a surety they killed him not.
Then the next ayah 158 says now nay Allah raised him up unto himself and Allah is exalted in power and wise.
There are many interpretations of what that now for me this one interests me in the context of this program because this is a clear issue where there's a difference between the Quran and the Bible in terms of a historical event and.
The question if we're asking if we're applying it to this example, which is more trustworthy. Now, why do you say the Bible has to win on this particular issue that Jesus was crucified as the Bible tells us and died rather than the.
The Quran the only reason that Islam denies the crucifixion is based on 40 Arabic words. Written over 600 years after the event in a completely different language. Separated by over 700 miles from from the actual events themselves with no connection to first century sources of information.
All the first any source information that can reasonably be said to originate in the first century supports the crucifixion of Jesus. And at this point Bruce Metzger Bart Ehrman all of them would all be united on this.
Even the the liberals like a John Dominic Crossan who I've also debated Says that one of the most most basic facts of history that we can ascertain is the crucifixion of Jesus now. Of course, he believes Jesus is taken out for the cross buried in a shallow grave and then eaten by dogs.
So that doesn't really help a whole lot in the Jesus seminar perspective. But the point is the first century witness all of anything that comes in the first century the first hundred years after crucifixion speaks of Jesus being crucified and yet you go six centuries over half a millennium away and One verse becomes enough to throw overthrow all of that.
I think that illustrates the anachronistic nature of Islamic theology that looks backwards through the lens of the Quran is the final authority in all things and Anything that's contradictory of that is simply dismissed.
Just quickly. I would like to do with Jim James's point to do with two missing verses of the Quran. If James read the Hadith Volume 6 book 61 Hadith number 509 carefully you would come to realize that they've been sabit is talking about Collecting the Quran and the Quran has been collected entirely in this entirety Quran has been collected only two verses are missing.
What does he mean by missing he has memorized the Quran himself he knows the Quran by heart. When we go to another report reported by Hajar al-asqalani in his book of Fatwa body we come to realize that Abu Bakr the caliph at the time had ordered him to take the Quran in its written form.
With two witnesses who saw the Quran that very parchment written in the presence of the Prophet himself. And that is the only way he can accept the Quran. And put it down in writing in the Codex so they knew that verse by heart.
He knew that this verse exists. But what he was lacking was two witnesses with a written written parchment and only one man came forward with that parchment and the other Hadith clarifies this issue. This is why I insist that James knowledge About the textual preservation of Quran is superficial.
I would refer to James. I will refer James to go to another work known as the history of the text of the Quran done by Dr. Mustafa Azami an amazing piece of work and he breaks everything down. Beautifully and James can go back to that work and and probably come up with some more arguments in future coming back to the point of 157 that every single source Christian source from the first century Talks about the crucifixion and it's in one of the established facts.
And historians agree upon this and I accept that I accept the major Biblical historians are in agreement as far as the crucifixion of Christ is concerned because that's what the information states. This is what the text states and the other text is quite for example gospel of Thomas, which is another Point I wish to raise in this friendly interaction James in one of his videos which he posted on YouTube titled Adnan Rashid and The New Testament and in this video James Asserted that I made obnoxious claims about the gospel of Thomas and other issues, which have we have already covered.
So gospel of Thomas, what was my obnoxious claim about the gospel? I stated that gospel of Thomas originates from an earlier tradition. Than the synoptic tradition, this is the claim I made which is based upon the scholarly opinion.
Which I will come to address in a minute so gospel of Thomas doesn't talk about as it stands today doesn't talk about the crucifixion. Crucifixion is not to be found anyway, and majority of the scholars Believe that gospel of Thomas actually originates from a tradition which was parallel to Q tradition.
You see being the.
Source that mark and that's wrong. That's not mark Matthew Matthew Matthew. Okay, so it was a parallel tradition which It came from an earlier tradition than the synoptic tradition doesn't talk about the crucifixion.
So what the scholars have in front of them is the four gospels and then some of the later text written by the Roman Tacitus. Then we have Josephus which is Which was interpolated by later Christian hands.
This gospel Thomas you believe comes from some earlier source. It doesn't mention the crucifixion. However, the Quran still mentions the crucifixion. It just says he doesn't because the Christians have through these centuries.
Christians have come to believe in crucifixion as a source of redemption. Okay Christians see the crucifixion of the Christ as As as an act done by God himself to come come on earth and Kill himself for for the sins of mankind to pay for the sins of mankind.
So it's a central issue for the Christians.
This is why the Quran addresses the issue. Okay James. Does this gospel of Thomas and where it might have come from have any bearing on this as far as you're concerned?
Um, no, none whatsoever. The gospel of Thomas is a sayings collection that amazingly enough we only know it from two Greek papyri that disagree from one another from the no earlier than around 200 and Then a Coptic version that is much expanded from about 150 to 200 years later.
It's interesting that we don't trust the New Testament because of text variation. The gospel Thomas has the worst possible textual history you could possibly have so if we're gonna be consistent We wouldn't even be discussing it because we don't can't know what the New Testament said that we certainly can't have a clue what the gospel Thomas said but it is a collection that grows it is very deeply influenced by Valentinian Gnosticism.
The idea that has anything to do with the first century is pure speculation based upon form criticism. You will not find any shred of information Historically to substantiate this it's all based upon.
Well, I think that Syrian Christianity was made of a people who didn't marry and things like that and so I find parallels here and and you will find literally dozens of Theories being promoted in scholarly literature today about the origination of the gospel Thomas fact the matter is you can't trace it back that far.
There's no evidence of it. And as to what it has to do with the crucifixion. Well, absolutely nothing whatsoever because once again when we ask the simple question of the centrality of the crucifixion to anything that we can Trace to the first century it is all through there and that based upon Justin I just want to point out a Text that you know, the Quran claims to be Mubinun clear perspicuous easy to understand and yet Surah 4157 is one of the least Mubinun texts you could possibly ever encounter.
We have the majority of Muslims in the world believing that surah 4157 Teaches that someone was substituted for Jesus someone else was crucified in Jesus place and yet in the United States You can look up Assad's publication his commentary on the on the Quran and he points out There's no reason to believe this whatsoever and that in fact Surah 158 when it says Jesus was lifted up most Muslims believe that means that Jesus was taken up to to Allah and yet Rafa who that is used there is never used of physically lifting someone up.
It's exalting someone so there's all sorts of.
Clarity should be rally on this program with his own version. Which is that he has a very swooned and was laden and then he actually he actually.
Understands or forms to seven to say that that crucified and killed are two separate things. That he was crucified. But that he was not killed and that he was was raised up after being late.
From your point of you know, I will let you respond to this. Is there a theological reason that you would put as to why? This verse Made this point that Jesus wasn't crucified. What would have been the theological reason for.
I think it's the same theological reason that we see.
Muslims today you can you can walk down a street in in sub-saharan Africa and Talk to a Muslim who has never had almost any education at all and their first objection to your presentation The gospel would be Allah would never allow one of his apostles one of his sent ones one of his resolve to die in that way.
I think that remains that there is a misunderstanding that People do not understand that Jesus said no one takes my life from me. I give it of my own accord I give it freely. The crucifixion was a horrible thing.
The crucifixion the very term was not used by many people in proper society back then because to speak of it was was Spoken of in hushed terms because it was such a vile way to die. No Roman citizen could be crucified that was beneath them.
And so to say that the Messiah The sent one would die in this way. Well as Paul said to Jews a stumbling block to Gentiles foolishness.
But to we who are being saved Christ the power of God the wisdom of God will allow you to respond and I'm afraid we're Just getting towards the end of this section. So rather than interrupts you in mid-flow again I'll give you a little more time in the next section Adnan to respond to that and Fascinating discussion thus far and we've gone into areas of the transmission the different traditions that obviously the Bible and the Quran come out of.
I'm sure you've been as fascinated as I have to kind of hear that the different perspectives Represented here in the studio. James White is director of alpha and Omega ministries. And do check out them at a omin org and I'll put a link up with the podcast as well.
Adnan Rashid from the hitting Institute. I haven't got an address for that Adnan but perhaps by the end of the show we can. You can write that down for me and we'll let the listener know and if you want to respond in any way to anything You're hearing love to hear from you as usual.
You can email unbelievable at premier .org UK you can also phone and leave me a voicemail message for me to play out on a coming program. That's oh eight four five six. Fifty two fifty two fifty two and select option eight.
Don't forget and there's a vast archive now of unbelievable programs and I'm going to link to a couple of them that have Particular reference to our topic today with this current podcast. So do check that out at premier .org UK forward slash.
Unbelievable, thank you for listening this afternoon. We're going to be concluding this debate in a couple of minutes time here on premiere. Welcome back to this the final part of our show. Don't forget lots of other things to come here on premier Christian radio.
If you've never listened if you're only a podcast listener I do urge you to check out the fuller website of premier radio and see the other programs we have on offer Premier .org UK if you are enjoying today's program, I'm sure you'll want to be here next week at the same time.
Because James White is returning to have an interaction with Sir Antony buzzard and Antony is actually someone who denies that the earliest Christians believed in the Trinity in the way that Christians today would say they do.
We'll be having that discussion on the Trinity. This is a particular area that James has spent a lot of time looking into so should be a fascinating discussion on Whether the Bible supports the Trinity whether the earliest Christians believed in the Trinity in Jesus being Jesus the Son God the Father the Holy Spirit and those all being part of the Godhead.
So do join us again at the same time for that on the show next week.
You're listening to unbelievable on premier Christian radio.
But today's topic is the Quran and the Bible which is more trustworthy. We've been asking been a fascinating interaction. We've been going at it just in the last section gentlemen on the question of surah 157 the Crucifixion did Jesus die on the cross?
Different interpretations is what James was saying on this. No no consensus among Muslims about what exactly that verse means and obviously very different to what we believe are the the sources we have in Christendom the Bible and James dismissed very quickly the Gospel of Thomas there at nan.
Anything you were wanting to respond to as far as that goes.
Yes, I'll come back to Gospel of Thomas in a minute first. I would like to say something about James's claim that the crucifixion is the point which somehow proves the The errancy of the Quran. The Quran is in error.
As far as the crucifixion is concerned no. That's not true. In order for you to prove Quran wrong you must prove the Bible to be infallible. You must prove the Bible itself is giving the accurate story about Jesus Christ.
Even if we look at the Gospel of John we see it presenting a high Christology. Gospel of John sums are somehow Excuse my language sexes up the life of Jesus Christ, and it turns him into Into a demigod from a prophet from a Messiah right.
So you feel it's like a progression. It's more theologized. That's right. I mean This is what the scholars have to say. Paul and Anderson one of the scholars on the Gospel of John he states that the Gospel of John it was edited is has been touched by many hands and It's a progressive text.
It doesn't come from one mind or one hand now. The issue of crucifixion in the Quran. Quran is very explicit in stating that the the Jewish claim that we killed him now. How does Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and how does Prophet Muhammad know that the Jews make this claim?
They don't make this claim in the Bible. They make this claim in the Talmud now. I don't believe that Prophet Muhammad had a Hebrew Scroll of Talmud in front of him or a Hebrew Codex of Talmud in front of me.
And he was copying from that and then he was coming back to the Christian theology to correct everything. Prophet Muhammad was an illiterate shepherd in Mecca. He could not been a theologian let alone someone who would be commenting on Delicate issues such as crucifixion and Trinity and so on and so forth so Prophet Muhammad Couldn't have made this up.
So Quran tells us that the Jewish claim which is made in the Talmud is false that we killed the Messiah and Quran states from our catalogue. Well, I can should be Allah whom he was he was not killed.
He was not so with. Would that then leave. The only option is that it was simply divinely revealed to Muhammad that this is the case. That's regardless of any texts that might have been out there regardless of any history.
There is no there is no evidence whatsoever.
For the claim James made that they may be a worse about crucifixion which went missing. This is an obnoxious claim and not even a child can make this. This claim. Now coming back to the issue of sub Sahara sub Saharan Nomad who would be asked about the crucifixion he would simply say that a prophet of God or a Messiah a man of God couldn't Have been killed like this.
Quran clearly clearly states that many prophets who came before were killed. A Prophet being killed is not a big deal if he was crucified it wouldn't have been a major issue.
It's interesting because when I've done this before other other Islamic scholars have taken a different line to you and have and have more or less agreed with what James said which is no this this Would have been a terrible you know this.
God would never do that to Jesus because of the the status Jesus has in Islam. It's seen as it couldn't be that way, but you would disagree.
I disagree because the Quran clearly states that Jesus did not die. He wasn't crucified. That's why I have a problem with the assertion that he was crucified, but if he was crucified. Should the Quran have said that he was crucified or he was killed.
Because I can establish the Quran to be the Word of God through other means.
Well, let's get a quick response or James and then come back to gospel Thomas. Then we'll have to wrap up.
Yeah Yusuf Ali in his commentary on the Quran this specific point says the Orthodox Christian churches make it a cardinal point of their doctrine That his life was taken on the cross that he died and was buried on the third day.
He rose in the body with his wounds intact and walked about and conversed and ate with his disciples and was afterwards taken up bodily. Notice how he puts this this is necessary for the theological doctrine of blood sacrifice and vicarious atonement for sins.
Which is rejected by Islam that almost sounds like he thinks this is something it was created Because of a pre-existing belief in this concept of vicarious atonement so on and so forth rather than flowing forth from this the fact the matter is that What I've said about surah 4 1 2 7 it's not that they're Lost verses or something.
My point is when you base things upon a single verse when we know that other verses had been missed. That raises questions about that method of transmission of the text Which is controlled because you have to believe that that committee that did it got it, right?
And here we have a situation think about the standards that are being used here. Adnan is taking the words of a single person who had no direct Connection with the issues surrounding Jesus life and death that lived 600 years later and Using those to overthrow the eyewitnesses of the actual events and I've often asked my Muslim friends Would you take the words of someone who lived in the 12 or 13 hundreds that comes along?
Doesn't speak Arabic comes from another place far removed from from Mecca or Medina. And he says I'm a prophet and guess what the hijra never took place. Are you simply gonna accept what he says because he claims to be a prophet and Overthrows a very central part of your faith on that basis when when the Quran puts words in Jesus mouth that there's no historical evidence he ever said and yet that is accepted on the basis of one person and yet the entire manuscript tradition in the New Testament that goes back to the very Origination of the faith is overthrown.
I see that as a clear example of the anachronism Of the Islamic approach to these things and it's a use of double standards and that's a real problem.
You did want to move on to the Gospel of Thomas. So what what did you want to sort of clarify on?
The issue of the Gospels being infallible themselves I mean if Christ was really crucified this assertion is based upon the Gospels which were written After the writings of Paul. Paul died in 60 CE. That's what the scholarly opinion suggests.
And then the first gospel was written the Gospel of Mark in the year 60 to 70 between these 10 years so Gospels were written after the writings of Paul and Paul is the first person who asserts the the the significance of this crucifixion.
He died for our sins. He must have resurrected if his crucifixion didn't exist if his resurrection didn't happen. What we preach is vain, right? So in my opinion my personal humble opinion, I'm a student I'm not a scholar like dr James White is.
In my personal opinion my studies lead me to believe that these four Gospels are Theologically driven. They were written for theological purpose to substantiate a theological case. Why was the Gospel of Thomas rejected as a canonical document?
Why the question is? James James's contention would be that because it is Gnostic, but what do the scholars have to say first of all about his dating? Which James Contested in his video according to I mean, this is what the the scholar who was writing this Document his name is April D.
I'm sorry. Sorry. Sorry dimaconic. I'm not too familiar with some of the names. Do apologize for that according to this school of thought the Gospel of Thomas was a Gnostic gospel. The school of thought she's talking about is Helmut Koester.
James Robinson Robinson and then their students Marvin Mayer is one of them. Marvin Mayer is one of the leading scholars in this field. When it comes to the Gnostic scriptures and then according to them Gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic document not in the sense of a fully mature Gnostic system.
But in some proto Gnostic sense however it was not dependent on the New Testament or composed late because the genre of the Gospel of Thomas was earlier and more Primitive than the New Testament Gospels.
The scholars such as Robinson Koester and their followers such as mayor Marvin Mayer are stating clearly that the Gospel of Thomas was Written earlier than the synoptic tradition and the date the allocate to this gospel is approximately.
Approximately 50 CE 50 see. We'll get a quick response from James and then we're gonna have to go to final thoughts.
We're out of time my point the point I'm trying to make very quickly Gospel of Thomas if the tradition it originates from as the gospel stands today because it's definitely not the original form the scholars Argue that the original Gospel of Thomas Doesn't exist today.
We don't have a copy of that. What we have today is a proto Gnostic Gospel and some other scholars actually dispute that a claim. As well James like to he likes to put it as a black and white issue. It's not black and white.
Gospel of Thomas is not Gnostic by default. There are scholars. We have disputed this claim such as this lady herself. Yeah, that's right. She has she actually Asserts that Gospel of Thomas is not Gnostic at all.
So the scholars need to come out. Okay. Right the final thought. I'm sorry. I apologize. It's very important. This is this what I'm leading to. Okay, why was the Gospel of Thomas rejected? Why? Because of its non-conformity with the the legal thought of the church at the time.
For example Bruce Metzger in his book the canon of the New Testament. On the page 251 he states a basic prerequisite for canonicity was conformity to what was called the rule of faith. That is the congruent Congruity of a given document with the basic Christian tradition recognized as normative by the church.
So you're saying there was a kind of there was a closed system. And you couldn't get in if you were if it was sort of outside that room. In other words.
The Gospel of Thomas presents a different God a completely different worldview than the rest of the Bible. Therefore no one ever took it seriously as being an actual part of the canon it presents a God that the Muslims would never believe and I'm it's it shocks me really when Muslims promote this material because Gnosticism is so far removed from Islam and presents such a God that would be reprehensible.
I did not. Let me let me let me just let me let the word speak for themselves. Jesus said if those who lead you say to you see the kingdom is in the sky. Then the birds the sky will precede you. If they say to you it is in the sea.
Then the fish will precede you. Rather the kingdom is inside you and it is outside of you when you come to know yourselves. Then you will become known and you will realize it is you who are the sons of the Living Father.
But if you will not know yourselves no is the word gnosis. That's where we get Gnosticism. You dwell in poverty. It is you who are that poverty that's from the Gospel of Thomas. It is very clearly tinged very deeply with Gnosticism.
There is no documentary evidence. Deconic is pushing a feminist agenda. And you will find anything in feminist theology and any ancient work is subject to be used in this way. Again, I think we have massive double standards here.
We have Deconic being used on a foundation that Adnan Rashid would never allow anyone to do anything regards Muhammad Muhammad's wives the Quran the Hadith anything anywhere near this. There's a gross double standard that's being used here.
And I just simply want to.
We're gonna have to draw it to a close I'm afraid very quickly.
I just simply would would point people to reading the rest of these citations read the rest of Deconic's article. You'll see those things. I have it here on my screen. Look at what Metzger actually said about the trustworthiness and realize one thing Bart Ehrman in our debate.
I asked him if you create your own Greek New Testament, how much would it differ? From the current Nessie Island text and he agreed it would differ less from the current Nessie Island text. Then the King James differs from the New American Standard Bible.
So anyone who thinks that this is just this wholesale revision just simply hasn't delved Deeply enough into what even Bart Ehrman is saying radical a scholar as he is. Well, it's been a fascinating show and.
Well, I don't think we probably need to.
In a sense know where you guys finish up on the end of this is but it's been fascinating for me to have this interaction obviously. The material you're drawing on had none is obviously contested a great deal by by James there in terms of this gospel of Thomas but I'll certainly be happy to post up any links you gents might have to relevant information on that and Thank you for both for joining me on the show today.
It's been a fascinating discussion. And if you want to get in touch I'm going to be giving you the details of how to do that as we look at some of your feedback in the last few. So my thanks again to my guest.
James White director of alpha and Omega ministries and Adnan Rashid of the hitting Institute have joined me on today's program and You can find details for them both with the web with the webcast with the the podcast I should say at premier .org.
UK forward slash. Unbelievable.