Here is a final post dealing with the Quran.  Well, a post from years ago that dealt with the Quran and two other unrelated issues, in one of those rare moments some years ago where I decided to try a rapid-fire approach to questions I get.  They’re all great questions!  Here’s the repost:

******************************

Here is the weekly Readers’ Mailbag, three questions this time – one about my  alleged “support of Islam against Christianity,” one about why we think the NT Gospels were originally written in Greek, and one about what I mean when I talk about the views held by the majority of “critical” scholars (as opposed to what other kind of scholar?).

COMMENT:  [After this person pointed out that whoever said I was about ready to convert to Islam was obviously makin’ it up, or influenced by someone else who was makin’ it up, this Muslim reader commented as follows:]  Anyways, that won’t stop us from using your awesome arguments against Christianity. You confirmed like 99% of Islamic belief about Jesus without even resorting to the Quran. That is pretty impressive and no wonder Muslims flock to your blog and FB.

RESPONSE:  I’m completely happy for my work to be used by Muslims.  Or by Mormons.  Or by Jews.  Or by Buddhists.  Or by Methodists, Episcopalians, Baptists, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Russian Orthodox, or anyone else.   But I have to say that I do not see my scholarship as advancing the agenda of any of these groups.  I’m simply engaged in historical scholarship.  I do not think that the Qur’an has any particular insights about the historical Jesus that are to be taken as independent reports by historical scholars.  Neither does any other historical scholar that I know (or anyone who works seriously on the historical Jesus).

And I doubt very much that my views coincide with 99% of Islamic belief about Jesus.  For one thing, I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus was physically crucified and died on the cross.  That is rock-bottom certain in my books.  And it stands completely odds with standard Islamic beliefs.

 

Finally, I do not, I decidedly do not, see my work as involving ANY “arguments against Christianity.”  Not at all.  My work is indeed contrary to fundamentalist and conservative evangelical Christianity.  But that’s not the same thing.  You can be opposed to the members of your local Rotary Club without being anti-American.  And you can be opposed to fundamentalist Christianity without being opposed to Christianity.

 

In my view, not a single piece of my biblical scholarship contradicts Christian thinking as properly conceived.  I’m not a Christian myself, but I don’t think my scholarship attacks or disproves Christianity.   The clearest evidence of that is the fact that I have numerous scholar friends who are passionately Christian, who agree with almost everything I think in terms of my historical scholarship.  Or as one might say, Hey, some of my best friends are Christian!

 

QUESTION:  My fellow students have requested that I ask you this question. “How do you know that the Gospels were originally written in Greek?” They understand that the early manuscripts are all in Greek but have posed the possibility that these could be translations from another language such as Aramaic.

RESPONSE:  Ah, good question.  There are three points I should make (to give the brief version).  First, if someone thinks that documents preserved entirely in one language were originally written in a different language, they need to have some good linguistic reasons for thinking so.  Usually when people suggest that the Gospels were in Aramaic it’s not for any particular good reasons having to do with the Gospels themselves or the language they use (linguistic arguments), but rather with their general sense that if Jesus spoke Aramaic, then the surviving accounts of his life would have been written in Aramaic.  That, of course, doesn’t follow.  Remember: Jesus’ own followers were lower class peasants from rural Galilee, who were uneducated and unable to write.  So the Gospels almost certainly didn’t come from them.   But why couldn’t they have been written in Aramaic?  Ah, … well —

Second, linguists have long adduced solid evidence that the Gospels are not “translation” documents but are original compositions in Greek.   For one thing, there are phrases that occur in them that do not make sense if you try to translate them back into Aramaic or are not how things would be said if said originally in Aramaic; that probably means they were not originally written in Aramaic.

Third, and most convincing for me, is this.  Matthew, Mark, and Luke all have verbatim agreements with one another in lots and lots of places.  That is, they are often word-for-word the same.  That could not happen if they were all translations from Aramaic, but only if they were copying one another (or other sources) in Greek itself.  Here’s proof.  Take three different translations of any book – say, The Brothers Karamazov or Madame Bovary – and compare them to see how many times they have entire sentences exactly the same.  Never, or almost never.  Why is that?  Translators put things in their own words.  You can’t get verbatim agreements among independent translations even if they are translations of the same (foreign-language) words.  (So if Matthew, Mark, and Luke were originally in Aramaic, using the same words, and they were then translated, they wouldn’t have the same words in Greek)

And so for these reasons, it’s pretty clear that the Gospels were originally written in the language they have come down to us in.

 

QUESTION: You often use phrases like “most critical scholars” in both your books, your blog posts, and your lectures. I wonder if we can do some textual criticism on this…What exactly does “critical” mean? Is this a normative qualifier (“people who scrutinize critically rather than just assume inerrancy”), or does it mean something technical, like “scholars who publish in the professional journals of textual criticism”?

RESPONSE:  Ah, right, I suppose the term might seem ambiguous.  Yes, “critical scholar” (when used of an expert on the Bible or early Christianity) is a standard phrase used to describe scholars of a historical bent who do not allow their religious views have any role at all in determining the conclusions they reach when discussing historical phenomena.   Those who always draw historical conclusions that perfectly coincide with their religious beliefs are simply assuming their conclusions rather than going where the evidence leads them.  That is “uncritical,” because it is simply accepting/affirming what is already believed.

I know that a lot of conservative evangelical or Roman Catholic (e.g.) scholars do not like to be called “uncritical.”  But unless they begin to find evidence contrary to their theologically assumed conclusions convincing sometimes, then it is impossible to determine if they are taking the evidence seriously or are, instead simply arguing for a view that coincides with what they have always been taught to think.