Navigation

Home IslamLife Store Articles Downloads FAQ
Discussion Forum
Web Links
News
Contact Us
Photo Gallery
Kids' Corner
Search
Web Statistics

Latest Articles

Does the Bible Teach... Is Muhammad a Prophe... The Scholars' Praise... The likeness of Jesu... Are weak Ahadeeth re...

Validity of the Bible (4)

Validity of the Bible as an Authentic Source (4) Acts By Various Contributors to (www.islamlife.com) Acts: Authorship: Acts (like the gospel of Luke) is an anonymous document since it does not identify an author for itself. It is, however, quite possible that the Christian traditions are correct in attributing it to a follower of Paul, Luke, who was, nonetheless, not an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus (P).
According to Raymond Brown: In summary, it is not impossible that a minor figure who had traveled with Paul for small parts of his ministry wrote Acts decades after the apostle was dead, if one makes the allowance that there were details about Paul's early life he did not know, that he simplified and reordered information ... and that as a true theologian he rethought some of Paul's emphases that were no longer apropos. We have no way of being certain that he was Luke, as affirmed by 2-nd century tradition; but there is no serious reason to propose a different candidate ... There is nothing to contradict Luke's having been with Paul in the places and times indicated by the "we" passages, and he fits the profile of a minor figure. This proposal of authorship has more to recommend it than other theories, but "not impossible" is all that should be claimed. (Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction To The New Testament, 1997, Doubleday, pp. 326-327)
Similarly, Lee Martin McDonald and Stanley Porter accept traditional Lucan authorship but not wholeheartedly. They write (p. 295): "We are inclined to accept Lucan authorship, but not without some reservation” (Lee Martin McDonald, Stanley E. Porter, Early Christianity And Its Sacred Literature, 2000, Hendrickson Publishers).
For a more critical assessment, see Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, who dismiss the traditional authorship claims about the gospels in their The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, 1998, SCM Press Ltd. See also W. G. Kummel, Introduction To The New Testament, 1975, Revised Edition, SCM Press Ltd. Helmut Koester also discusses gospel authorships in his Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, 1990, Trinity Press International. Also Vincent P. Branick, Understanding the New Testament and its Message: An Introduction, 1998, Paulist Press.
Bart Ehrman, summing up the stance of critical scholars, writes: Proto-orthodox Christians of the second century, some decades after most of the New Testament books had been written, claimed that their favorite Gospels had been penned by two of Jesus' disciples - Matthew, the tax collector, and John, the beloved disciple - and by two friends of the apostles - Mark, the secretary of Peter, and Luke, the travelling companion of Paul. Scholars today, however, find it difficult to accept this tradition for several reasons. ... none of these Gospels makes any such claim about itself. All four authors chose to keep their identities anonymous (Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 2000, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, p. 52).
Luke-Acts
The date of Luke-Acts: most scholars place it in the 80-100 AD period. For instance, Paula Fredriksen places Luke between c. 90-100 (Paula Fredriksen, From Jesus To Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Christ, Second Edition, 2000, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, pp. 3-4, 19).
E. P. Sanders dates the final form of the gospels between the years 70 and 90 (E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure Of Jesus, 1993, Penguin Books, p. 60).
Theissen and Merz place Luke anywhere between 70 C.E to 140/150 C.E - more in the first half of this period (p. 32) (Gerd Theissen, Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide , 1998, SCM Press Ltd).
The late Catholic scholar and priest, Raymond Brown, placed Luke in the year 85 - give or take five to ten years (p. 274) (Raymond E. Brown, S.S, An Introduction To The New Testament (The Anchor Bible Reference Library), 1997, Doubleday).
Similar dates are also proposed in the following sources: Gerd Ludemann, Jesus After Two Thousand Years: What he really said and did, 2001, Prometheus Books; Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, Second Edition, 2002, Oxford University Press; James L. Mays (General Editor), The HarperCollins Bible Commentary, 2000, HarperSanFrancisco; Donald Senior, Jesus: A Gospel Portrait, New and Revised Edition, 1992, Paulist Press; W. G. Kummel, Introduction To The New Testament, 17th Revised edition, 1975, SCM Press Ltd; Vincent P. Branick, Understanding the New Testament and its Message: An Introduction, 1998, Paulist Press; John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: The Roots of the Problem and the Person, Vol. 1, 1991, 1st Edition, The Anchor Bible reference library, Doubleday; Geza Vermes, The Authentic Gospel Of Jesus, 2004, Penguin Books.
These dates are accepted by the vast majority of New Testament scholars. Reliability of Luke-Acts The author is often historically accurate but also makes errors and mistakes. Some of his well-known mistakes: Luke mentions a census under Quirnius during the birth of Jesus (P) which is almost universally recognized as a major historical blunder on Luke' part.
Further, “In addition to the difficulties raised by a detailed comparison of the two birth narratives found in the New Testament, serious historical problems are raised by the familiar stories found in Luke alone” (Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 2000, Oxford University Press, p. 109).
In Acts, Luke has Gamaliel referring to a revolt by Theudas which in fact took place years later after his speech. Again, there is widespread agreement among Christian scholars that Luke is in error on this occasion.There is also general agreement among New Testament scholars that the speeches found in Acts are either the creations or adaptations of Luke."Inspired" Luke lifted 50% of his gospel from Mark - a secondary source authored by a none-eyewitness. Why would Luke do this if we are to suppose that he was accurately researching the issues and shifting through reliable first hand sources? It is known from Luke's opening words that he did not have a high regard for the previous narratives.
Evangelical scholar Donald Guthrie wr ites: Luke's preface is illuminating in regard to his own approach to his task. He claims to have made a comprehensive and accurate survey over a considerable period, which throws a good deal of light on his seriousness of purpose. Moreover, Luke admits that others had previously attempted the same task, but his words imply that he found them unsatisfactory. (Donald Guthrie, B.D., M. Th., New Testament Introduction. The Gospels and Acts, 1966, Inter-Varsity Press, p. 87)
W.G. Kummel, in his classical introduction to the New Testament, writes: With his historical work Luke joins their ranks [ranks of his predecessors who composed gospel narratives], though he was not himself a witness from the beginning, because he feels the works of his predecessors to be in some way inadequate. (W. G. Kummel, Introduction To The New Testament, 17th Revised edition, 1975, SCM Press Ltd, p. 129]
Jalal Abualrub added here: this does not only respond effectively to the Christian fallacy that the Gospels were ‘inspired’ since the Gospels have tremendous and horrific contradictions between each other and between then and facts of history, science and sound religion, but also responds to the fact that the anonymous authors of the Gospels did not respect each other’s work. They never claimed that they were receiving inspiration from the same source as a team, even though Christians claim that they were inspired by the same source and thus defend their work as if they were a team. The Gospel authors did not even mention their full names or where they got their stories from. Yet, Christians build their entire religion on such shakiest of grounds.
Raymond Brown writes: Neither evangelist [Matthew and Luke] liked Marks's redundancies, awkward Greek expressions, uncomplimentary presentation of the disciples and Mary, and embarrassing statements about Jesus. When using Mark, both expanded the Markan accounts in the light of post-resurrectional faith. (Raymond E. Brown, S.S, An Introduction To The New Testament, 1997, The Anchor Bible Reference Library, Doubleday, p. 115)
Yet Luke, the so-called "reliable" historian, copies no less than 50% of his book from Mark, an unsatisfactory source! Raymond Brown mentions some of the ways how Luke has used Mark:
· Luke improves on Mark's Greek, bettering the grammar, syntax, and vocabulary, e.g., in 4:1, 31, 38 and passim by omitting Mark's overused "immediately"; in 20:22 by changing a Latinism like kensos (census) from Mark 12:14; in 20:23 by substituting the more exact "craftiness, treachery" for the "hypocrisy" of Mark 12:15.
· Luke states at the beginning his intention to write carefully and in an orderly manner (1:3); accordingly he rearranges Marcan sequence to accomplish that goal, e.g., Jesus' rejection at Nazareth is put at the opening of the Galilean ministry rather than after some time had elapsed (Luke 4:16-30 vs. Mark 6:1-6) in order to explain why his Galilean ministry was centered at Capernaum; the healing of Simon's mother-in-law is placed before the call of Simon and companions (4:38-5:11 vs. Mark 1:16-31) in order to make more logical Simon's willingness to follow Jesus; Peter's denials of Jesus are put before the Sanhedrin trial in preference to Mark's complicated interweaving of the two. At times Luke's orderliness is reflected in avoiding Marcan doublets (Luke does not report the second multiplication of loaves) whereas Matt likes to double features and persons. Yet Luke has a double sending out of the apostles/disciples (9:1-2; 10:1).
· Because of changes made in material received from Mark, Luke occasionally creates inconsistencies, e.g., although in Luke 5:30 the partners in the conversation are "the Pharisees and their scribes," 5:33 speaks of "the disciples of the Pharisees," as if the Pharisees were not present; although in 18:32-33 Luke takes over from Mark the prediction that Jesus will be mocked, scourged, and spit on by the Gentiles, Luke (unlike Mark 15:16-20) never fulfills that prediction; Luke has changed the Marcan order of the denials of Peter and the Jewish mockery of Jesus but forgotten to insert the proper name of Jesus in the new sequence, so that at first blush Luke 22:63, in having "him" mocked and beaten, seems to refer to Peter, not Jesus.
· Luke, even more than Matt, eliminates or changes passages in Mark unfavorable to those whose subsequent career makes them worthy of respect, e.g., Luke omits Mark 3:21,33,34 and (in 4:24) changes Mark 6:4 in order to avoid references detrimental to Jesus' family; Luke omits Mark 8:22-26 which dramatizes the slowness of the disciples to see, and Mark 8:33 where Jesus calls Peter "Satan"; in the passion Luke omits the predicted failure of the disciples, Jesus' finding them asleep three times, and their flight as reported in Mark 14:27,40-41,51-52.
· Reflecting Christological sensibilities, Luke is more reverential about Jesus and avoids passages that might make him seem emotional, harsh, or weak, e.g., Luke eliminates: Mark 1:41,43 where Jesus is moved with pity or is stern; Mark 4:39 where Jesus speaks directly to the sea; Mark 10:14a where Jesus is indignant; Mark 11:15b where Jesus overturns the tables of the money changers; Mark 11:20-25 where Jesus curses a fig tree; Mark 13:32 where Jesus says that the Son does not know the day or the hour; Mark 14:33-34 where Jesus is troubled and his soul is sorrowful unto death; Mark 15:34 where Jesus speaks of God forsaking him.
· Luke stresses detachment from possessions, not only in his special material … but also in changes he makes in Mark, e.g., followers of the Lucan Jesus leave everything (5:11,28), and the Twelve are forbidden to take even a staff (9:3).
· Luke eliminates Mark's transcribed Aramaic names and words (even some that Matt includes) presumably because they were not meaningful to the intended audience, e.g., omission of Boanerges, Gethsemane, Golgotha, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani.
· Luke may make Marcan information more precise, presumably for better story-flow, greater effect, or clarity, e.g., Luke 6:6 specifies that the next scene (Mark 3:1: "again") took place "on another Sabbath"; Luke 6:6 specifies "the right hand" and 22:50 "the right ear"; Luke 21:20 clarifies or substitutes for Mark's "abomination of desolation:'
(Raymond E. Brown, S.S, An Introduction To The New Testament, 1997, The Anchor Bible Reference Library, Doubleday, pp. 263-265).
It should be noted here that Luke used Mark and made a number of changes to its contents. New Testament scholars compare Luke and Mark to see how Luke is using his source (Mark) and adapting it. Mark is obviously not the only source employed by Luke, but since he has altered the Markan stories in a variety of ways, it is only logical and reasonable to conclude that Luke must have done the same with the other sources at his disposal - he must have altered them as well to suit his agenda and presuppositions. Therefore, the fact that Luke accurately mentions certain ordinary details, such as naming cities correctly etc., does not follow that his story in its entirety can be trusted blindly.
Thus the statement that "honest skeptics are now forced to agree that the Bible is historically accurate and reliable" is nothing more than nonsense. Critical scholars certainly do not regard Luke, or any book of the Bible, in its entirety to be "historically accurate and reliable" just because certain ordinary details are recorded accurately within them. Raymond Brown said that Luke would have been a fitting candidate for membership in the brotherhood of Hellenistic historians, but he would never be made the president of the society.
Marshall talks about the "essential" reliability of Acts regarding historical matters and not its complete reliability. Sherwin-White, for instance, believes that “Luke makes mistakes, but the main thrust of his book is to demonstrate that for the most part Luke portrays the first-century Roman scene accurately” (I. Howard Marshall, Acts (The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 1980, Inter-Varsity Press, WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, pp. 36-37).
Note this does not mean that we can accept all of Luke' stories blindly. So while many modern scholars do not outright dismiss Acts and consider it to be more accurate than was previously thought, it is nonetheless recognized that its author is not without mistakes and does color sources at his disposal for theological and apologetic reasons, which means that not everything within his books is historically accurate.
Marshall also believes that most of the speeches in Acts are based on traditional material, but he adds that they were never meant to be verbatim reports and that Luke has provided us with nothing more than brief summaries. Hence he leaves room for at least some Lucan creativity (I. Howard Marshall, Acts (The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 1980, Inter-Varsity Press, WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, p. 41).
Moreover, Marshall acknowledges that Luke could not have known what Festus and Agrippa said to each other in their private apartments (25:13-22; 26:30-32) nor could the Christians have learnt what exactly was said by the members of the Sanhedrin in closed sessions (4:15-17; 5:34-40). Nonetheless, he speculates that perhaps Luke could have expressed the things that the public behavior of rulers indicated that they had probably said in private (so some invention of speech by Luke did take place!) and that it is possible that some sympathizer from the Sanhedrin may have given Christians the gist of the conversation (I. Howard Marshall, Acts (The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 1980, Inter-Varsity Press, WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, p.42).
Jalal Abualrub wrote: I ask the Creator of all things to guide Christians to the true faith that they may finally come to know who Jesus really is, a human prophet from Allah, human, not divine in any way or form. All thanks and praises are due to Allah, and may Allah’s peace and blessings be on all of His Prophets, starting with Adam and including Nu`h (Noah), Ibrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses), and `Esa (Jesus), and ending with the Final and Last Prophet and Messenger from Allah, Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

Comments

tariq on May 28 2008 07:01:35 a very lenghty series. what i do is just challenge christians to read mathew 18:11 from the niv bible simple
islam life on May 28 2008 11:52:40 as-salamu alaikum warahmatullah what you referred to is not sufficient as proof...briging detailed scientific arguments and expamles from their writings and their scholars is the way to respond to their claim, especially mentioning them book by book...matthew 18:11 is not enough, what about the other books, what about those who say that the original contains this or that, because we are disputing the orignals, not only a verse that may or may not mean a host of things...it is matthew itself we are disputing whether its original manuscript has 18:11 or not...i have at least two more series to add about this topic and i encourage those who researched this topic to send us more because when those who are open minded among christians realize how substantial the dispute is among them about the authenticity of their books the chance gets better that some of them may realize the fact that the bible is not the word of god but the corrupted word of man..
as-salamu alaikum warahmatullah

Post Comment

Please Login to Post a Comment.

Ratings

Rating is available to Members only. Please login or register to vote.

No Ratings have been Posted.

Login

Username Password Not a member yet? Click here to register. Forgotten your password?
Request a new one here.

Newsletter

Members only