A Response to James Whites

Some Brief Thoughts Regarding Liberal Scholarship,

Redaction Criticism, and Islam (Part 1)
Shabir Ally
April 5, 2012
I was delighted to see that Dr. James White took the time to respond to my written My
Reflections on the Ally-White Debate which can be read here:
http://thedebateinitiative.com/2012/03/25/shabir-ally-my-reflections-on-the-ally-white-debate/.
As I read through James Brief Thoughts Regarding Liberal Scholarship, Redaction Criticism,
and Islam (Part 1), several questions arise which I hope he will answer. His Brief Thoughts
can be read here: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=5034.
Due to the nature of the issues, we may continue to disagree. This is natural. We are two different
individuals each with a distinctive set of experiences. In our past debates, James had criticized
me a lot on the basis of his perception that my position depends on the findings of liberal
Christian scholars. That is a useful criticism. We all need to be aware of the presuppositions that
lay behind views lest we unwittingly contradict ourselves by accepting views with
presuppositions contrary to our basic beliefs. However, in response to his criticisms, I have
always explained that my perception of the matter was contrary to that of James, and that I really
was coherent in my approach. My ideas were quite reasonable on their own. Moreover, I
supported my ideas with citations from conservative Christian scholars. Nonetheless, I continued
to take James criticism seriously. But it is now clear to me that I have effectively answered
James criticism. Hence James repetition of the same criticism is quite puzzling. In this paper I
attempt to make sense of James criticism, and I point out what I see as flaws in his reasoning.

Contents
1.

The Incoherence of James Approach...................................................................................2

2.

How James Ignores My Points.............................................................................................4

3.

The Conservative Scholars Whom I Cited...........................................................................6

4.

James Misunderstanding of Redaction Criticism................................................................7

5.

James View on the Authorship of the Gospels....................................................................9

6.

What Convinces Scholars of a Literary Relationship Among the Gospels........................10

7.

Did I Respond Effectively to James Points?......................................................................11

8.

James Refusal to Admit his Error Regarding my Second Example..................................14

9. How We Know that Matthew Used Mark...........................................................................17

10. James Misunderstanding of the World of Biblical Scholarship.........................................22
1

11. The Coherence of My Approach to the Muslim and Christian Scriptures.........................26

1. The Incoherence of James Approach

I find James to be inconsistent, for he deals with the Quran in a critical manner, but he argues
that it is illegitimate for me to deal with the Bible in a critical manner. For example, in the recent
Toronto debate, during his opening presentation, James attempted to show that the Quran
contradicts itself. Now, let me ask him. Is he relying on the view of conservative Muslim
scholars in arguing that the Quran is self-contradictory? Obviously not! No conservative Muslim
scholar will say that the Quran is self-contradictory. In fact, James did not cite an authority for
his claim, as far as I can recall. Therefore, James proceeds as if it is legitimate for him to criticize
the Quran in a way contrary to the views of conservative Muslims. Yet he calls foul if cite the
ideas of conservative Christian scholars insofar as those ideas are contrary to what James
accepts. Is this not a major inconsistency on his part?
James does not see the logical flaws in his arguments. For example, he argues that since I am a
not a naturalist I have no right to hold the same ideas as do liberal Christian scholars whose ideas
are based on naturalism. James manner of putting the matter is fallacious for three reasons. First,
as I will show below, the ideas I am advancing are not contrary to my Muslim views of God and
his action in the world. The fact that I believe in God does not entail that I believe every claim
that people have made on behalf of God. As we will see in the case of the Gospels, the claim that
they are all from God is difficult to maintain in light of the evidence available to all persons
whether Muslim or non-Muslim. Second, as I will show below, the Muslim believer is not
required by his Muslim faith to believe that the existing Gospels in their totality are the Words of
God. Third, James is calling on me to accept that the Quran is self-contradictory. As I explained
to him during our London debate in 2008, however, if I accept his call then I will have to
abandon my Muslim faith altogether. In that case I will not have my supernaturalistic
presuppositions to rely on. Obviously, I cannot abandon my faith and also keep my faith
presuppositions. Now James is requiring me to do two mutually contradictory things. First, he
wants me to believe that the Quran is self-contradictory, and that entails abandoning my faith.
Second, he wants me to keep my supernaturalist presuppositions, and that entails keeping my
faith. James cannot have his cake and also eat it. He has to decide what he wants. Does he want
me to keep my faith or lose it?
Moreover, the principle which James espouses is a non-starter as far as debates go. If each side in
this debate refuses to look carefully and critically at the evidence advanced by the other side,
then whats the point of the encounter? I prefer to build understanding. I feel that I understand
Islam more than I understand Christianity; and that James understands Christianity more than he
understands Islam. By listening to each other, we both come away better informed than we were
before we started. This way I learn more about Christians and what they believe; and James
learns more about Muslims and what Muslims believe.

On the other hand, if I mirror James principle by not listening to any but conservative Muslim
scholars, what will I do? I will say that Muslim scholars believe that Jesus is not God, and that
the Bible has been changed, and that is the end of the matter. Instead of mirroring James
principle, I realize that I have to deal with the evidence for the claims at hand. I cannot just
appeal to Muslim tradition, or Muslim scholars. I would hope that James will come to a similar
understanding, and that our dialogue will progress. We need to listen to the evidence, regardless
of where and from whom it comes. Then we need to critique such evidence using acceptable
critical tools and methods.
Despite James demonstrable inconsistency, James has invested a lot of time trying to show that I
am the one who is inconsistent. I will explain again why I feel that my approach is reasonable
and justified. I expect that, as a non-Muslim, James will have ideas which are foreign to mine,
and that he will appeal to scholars who share his views. It is in the nature of such engagements
that I should listen attentively to James ideas, to the evidence he offers in support of those ideas,
and any sound logic he employs in reasoning with those ideas. It will then be my task to evaluate
the evidence presented by James. I will then accept good evidence and sound arguments
regardless of the fact that this was being presented to me by a non-Muslim.
This I believe to be demanded of me not only by the rules of reasonable discourse but also by the
dictates of the Islamic tradition. According to a Muslim tradition, wisdom is the lost property of
the believer. Following that tradition, I must accept a reasonable saying regardless of where and
with whom it is found.
As for the rules of reasonable discourse, if I were to reject James ideas simply because they
come from a non-Muslim source then I would commit a logical fallacy. If I argue that an idea is
incorrect because it comes from the wrong source then I commit the genetic fallacy. The fact is
that good ideas can sometimes come from unexpected sources. If I reject James ideas simply
because he or his scholars are the wrong persons to be voicing the right ideas, then I commit the
ad hominem (against the man) fallacy. This is a fallacy committed when a disputant ignores the
evidence but argues that the idea must be wrong because his opponent is the wrong person to
advance such evidence. To avoid these and other such logical fallacies, I must think straight
about the reason, evidence and proof presented in support of James ideas. And, in order to think
straight about the ideas, I have to disregard the question of whether or not I or James or my
scholars or his scholars like the ideas. Such are the principles to which I commit myself. And I
expect James to commit himself to similar principles.
On the other hand, when I cite evidence in support of my views, James either ignores the
evidence or demeans the evidence as coming from liberal scholars. Instead of showing that the
views are incorrect, or that the evidence in favour of such views is weak, James argues that the
people who hold those views are not worth listening to. By arguing in that manner, James
commits the logical fallacies which I have described above. Moreover, James ignores my
evidence by simply arguing that I am inconsistent. Here again he commits the ad hominem
fallacy. He is arguing, in effect, that since he thinks that I am inconsistent, he does not have to
deal with my evidence. If he wants to avoid committing such fallacies, he will have to show that
my evidence does not hold up. Even if I am inconsistent, that does not prove that all of my
evidence is false. If I point to a feature of the Bible, and James thinks that I ignore a similar
3

feature of the Quran, that still does not stop the feature from being a feature of the Bible. His
argument takes the form of saying, in effect, Shabir, your book has that problem too. This type
of argument is the fallacy known as tu quoque (you too). However, as mama always said, Two
wrongs do not make a right. James has to answer the point rather than simply pointing to me.

2. How James Ignores My Points

James writes:
Assuming a particular schema for dating the gospels, Shabir assumes that Matthew and
Luke both possessed the text of Mark, and were editing the text to suit their own
purposes. I would ask him how that would work, for, of course, if they possessed Mark,
so did others, and, if they changed Mark's wording, wouldn't that cause obvious problems
when they sought to make their resultant literary works available to the very same
community?
There are three problems with what James said there. First, I did not assume a schema for dating
the Gospels. I did not assume that Matthew and Luke possessed the text of Mark. To begin with,
I cited conservative Christian scholars who hold to the dates I mentioned for the composition of
the Gospels. To be fair, James should have written that Shabir cited conservative Christian
scholars who held to relatively late dates for the composition of the Gospels. Then James should
proceed to give good reasons for not agreeing with those Christian scholars. However, he speaks
as if I provided no supporting expert testimony, and as if my argument is based only on my
assumption. It is easier for him to claim that I am wrong about this than it is to claim that the
conservative Christian scholars are wrong about this. By thus recasting my argument in a form
that is easier for him to refute than was my original argument, James has committed what is
called the straw man fallacy in argumentation. The fallacy is so named because it is typically
easier to knock down a straw man than it is to deal with the real man.
Second, I did not assume that Matthew and Luke used Mark. I cited the conservative Christian
scholars F.F. Bruce and Richard Bauckham as holding to the same view. I did not assume that
Matthew and Luke were editing the texts of Mark to suit their own purposes. I proved that this
was being done in the case of Matthew by providing eight examples complete with chapter and
verse numbers locating the comparable episodes in both Matthew and Mark.
Third, James writing is now in some tension with what he said during the debate. During the
cross-examination section of the debate, I asked James about his view that Marks Gospel ends at
16:8. According to James, and to many other scholars, Mark 16:9-20 was appended to Marks
Gospel by someone other than the writer of the remainder of that Gospel. Whoever appended
that longer ending to Marks Gospel obviously thought that he was improving upon Marks
Gospel. Based on this observation, I suggested to James that it is more likely that Mark was
written first, and that Matthew and Luke likewise improved on it by each supplying a desirable
ending in their versions of the Gospel. Moreover, if Matthew was written first, what then would
be the need for Mark to be written? In his reply, James said that we should not assume that if
Matthew was written first everyone would know of it. He reminds us that when the Gospels were
written people had neither telephones nor PDAs nor access to the internet. At that time a person
4

may not have travelled as much as seven miles from his or her birthplace. Mark may have lived
in a place where people had never heard of any such thing as a written Gospel of Matthew. That
is what James said during the debate. His point was clear. Now he writes:
I would ask [Shabir] how that would work, for, of course, if [Matthew and Luke]
possessed Mark, so did others, and, if they changed Mark's wording, wouldn't that cause
obvious problems when they sought to make their resultant literary works available to the
very same community?
Now James assumes that either everyone in a community possessed the earlier Gospel or nobody
did. But the fact is that some persons may have possessed copies of the earlier Gospel before it
went into more complete circulation. True, some people may not have travelled far from their
birthplaces. But some people did. There were missionaries, for example. A missionary could
have possessed a copy of the earlier Gospel and used that as a source in composing a Gospel of
his own for a community that did not yet hear of the earlier Gospel. Hence it is quite possible
that Matthew and Luke had access to Marks Gospel even if their communities at large did not
have access to it.
Moreover, James has heard me over and over explaining the development of Christology among
the Gospels. My very point has always been that the Gospels were written and circulated initially
in different communities such that those who were reading one Gospel did not necessarily know
the other. My view is supported by Christian tradition which associated Mark with Rome, Luke
with Caesarea, Matthew with Antioch, and John with Ephesus. Since I have already said this
many times, and James has heard it many times, why does he still write that he would ask me:
Wouldn't that cause obvious problems when [Matthew and Luke] sought to make their resultant
literary works available to the very same community? As I have always explained, the writers
were not seeking to make their resultant works available to the same community. They were
writing for different communities. The masses in one community did not necessarily know what
the masses in another community were reading. The writers knew. But the common people
would not generally find out until the Gospels were collected together and compared. And, by
this time, the four Gospels were already too well entrenched in Christian communities to be
contested.
Below, under the caption How we know that Mark used Matthew I will return to the question
of how Christians who knew one of the Gospels, either Matthew or Mark, would have reacted
when they came to read the other of the two. There I will show that if Matthew had already been
popularized in a region Mark stood no chance there of gaining ground. The problem which
James asked about would only have occurred if Mark attempted to introduce his Gospel in a
region in which people were already reading Matthew. For, in that case, people would have
objected to Marks Gospel. To them, it would have seemed that Marks Gospel belittles Jesus. On
the other hand, if Mark was already being read in a region, people would have welcomed
Matthews Gospel as a vast improvement over Mark.
My main argument that Matthew used Mark may find some support in James statements if the
implications of his statements are pursued. James said during the debate that he would have no
problem believing that Luke used written sources, since Luke admitted this fact. I now ask: What
5

if Mark was one of Lukes written sources? I will return to this point momentarily. James also
said during the debate that he would suggest the following dates for the composition of the
Gospels:
Mark: late 50s at the latest.
Luke and Matthew: in the 60s.
As for Johns Gospel, James said that some people have made strong arguments for it being
written before the year 70 A.D. I should point out that my case does not depend entirely on the
late date of the Gospels. Even James proposed earlier dates will do for the purpose of supporting
the view that Matthew and Luke used Mark. All that is necessary for the main thrust of the
position I have advanced is the recognition that Matthew and Luke used Mark. And that entails
that Matthew and Luke were written after Mark. Given the dates which James has suggested for
the composition of the Gospels, it follows that Matthew and Luke were written after Mark.
In that case, I would ask James his own question, but now with reference to Luke: What if Luke
used Mark? Wouldnt that cause obvious problems when Luke sought to make his resultant
literary work available to the very same community? James may reply that Luke did not change
the story. If so, then I can supply evidence of Lukes modification of the material as well.
However, in my view, readers would have welcomed Matthew and Luke as improvements over
Mark. I will show why this is the case below.
Furthermore, I will now show that, on the basis of James ordering of the Gospels, even Matthew
could have used Mark. James accepts that Luke used written sources because Luke said so. Now,
it stands to reason that a writer may have used sources but did not say so. Matthew could have
used Mark without saying that this is what he did. In fact, some conservative Christian scholars
think, contrary to my view, that Mark used both Matthew and Luke. But Mark nowhere states
this fact. It follows from that conservative Christian view that a Gospel writer used two other
Gospels without acknowledgement. In a similar way, Matthew could have used Mark without
acknowledgement.
In the final analysis, however, I fail to understand why James is contesting this point by asking
me about the obvious problems that will arise when Matthew made his version of the Gospel
available to the same community that was already using Mark. I am puzzled here because in the
same Brief Thoughts James also wrote that Matthew and Mark were both seeking to
communicate the same concept, though to two different audiences. Hence James suggests to me
in one breath that problems would arise from the two Gospels being read in the same community.
Then James asserts in another breath that the two Gospels were communicating to two different
audiences.

3. The Conservative Scholars Whom I Cited

In his Brief Thoughts (Parts 1 and 2) James did not once refer to my citation of F.F. Bruce.
Instead, James proceeded to characterize my position on the Gospels as being that of liberal
Christian scholars. Is F.F. Bruce a liberal scholar? Did not James himself acknowledge during the
debate that Bruce is a conservative scholar? What of Richard Bauckham? At first James was
6

hesitant to acknowledge him as a conservative scholar. But during the cross-examination James
explained that Bauckham is a conservative scholar although James differs with him in some
aspects. Well, then, James should at least acknowledge that the ideas which I supported are not
entirely based on liberal scholarship. Rather, James mentions Bauckham to support his own view
that the eyewitnesses to the events of the gospel continued in the church for many decades,
forming a very important core element of the continuation of the gospel message. Bauckhams
view, as stated, does not controvert my citation of specific cases of modification of some Gospel
narratives. Such modifications could have occurred both in the oral traditions and in the written
texts. Lets read what else Bauckham has to say about this:
So, when it comes to the discourses of Jesus in John, I have been more cautious. Whereas
the Synoptics usually preserve the sayings of Jesus as his disciples learned and
remembered them, varying and expanding them for interpretative purposes only to a quite
limited degree, John seems to avail himself of the permission generally allowed ancient
historians to put into his own words the sort of thing Jesus would have said. So the
discourses of Jesus in John are peppered with traditional sayings on which John has
expanded with his own reflective interpretation. The more interpretative nature of Johns
Gospel makes it appropriate, on occasion, to treat this Gospels handling of a topic
separately from that of the Synoptics.1
Hence, according to Bauckham, all the Gospels, the Synoptics (i.e. Matthew, Mark, and Luke)
and John, have varied and expanded the sayings of Jesus for interpretative purposes. The
synoptic Gospels did this to quite a limited degree. But John did this to a greater degree.
According to Bauckham, John put into his own words the sort of thing Jesus would have said.
What I have done is to concentrate on Matthews handling of Marks account. Matthew has
mostly stayed close to Marks wording, but enacted skilful changes in the record. Thus he has
made slight verbal alterations, but with significant theological implications. Though he has
modified the wording of the statements to quite a limited degree, Matthew has vastly improved
the image of Jesus in his Gospel.

4. James Misunderstanding of Redaction Criticism

James disparaged redaction criticism a lot in his Brief Thoughts. Seeing that James did not
define redaction criticism in his paper, I will offer here a simple definition as it relates to the
composition of the Gospels. Redaction criticism of the Gospels is the careful study of the
Gospels to discover the trends that characterize each authors selection, modification, and
composition of the material that comprise his Gospel.2 In other words, redaction critics recognize
1 Richard Bauckham, Jesus: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University, 2011) p. 17.
2 For a more detailed explanation, see Norman Perrin, What is Redaction Criticism? (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1969 rpt. 1976) p. 1; James Dunn, The History of the Traditions of the New Testament, in Eerdmans
Commentary on the Bible, ed. James D. G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003) p.
968.

that each Gospel writer has an agenda, and a careful examination of the Gospels will reveal some
of the writers agendas.
Christian scholars widely recognize that there is a need for this sort of study. Since James thinks
that redaction criticism is characteristic of liberal scholarship, I cite here in this regard Tom
Wright who is widely regarded as a conservative scholar. Without naming the exercise as
redaction criticism, Wright wrote of its usefulness as follows:
To read the Gospels we must continually be alert both for the question what is this
telling us about Jesus? and for the question what is the evangelist trying to say, through
this story about Jesus, to his own contemporaries? This means working out why the
evangelist has selected and arranged his material in the way he has, and seeing whether
that forms something of a pattern which tells us about his own agenda, the points he
wanted to emphasize.3
Hence, according to Wright, the evangelists (the Gospel writers) had their own agendas, and by
studying the comparative use of materials in the Gospels we can discover some of the writers
agendas. That is precisely what redaction criticism is. I have shown that, compared with Mark, a
pattern of handling the tradition is discovered in Matthew: Matthew has improved the image of
Jesus in eight different ways.
James oversimplifies the history of Christian scholarship on the question. To him, redaction
criticism comes from liberal scholars. However, a review of the literature shows a very complex
history in which Christian scholars had to wrestle with real problems over the centuries. For
example, Christians in the middle ages had held that at least two Gospels were written by Jesus
disciples: the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of John. At the same time, Christians held that
Marks Gospel was written by a disciple of Peter, and that the Gospel of Luke was written by
Pauls physician.
But what do we really know about the authorship of the Gospels? During the debate James cited
Tom Wright who said that we do not know when the Gospels were written. What else did Tom
Wright say? In his book The Original Jesus: The Life and Vision of a Revolutionary, Tom Wright
wrote:
What do we know about how the Gospels got written? Frustratingly little. We dont have
Matthews diaries of how he went about collecting and arranging his material. We dont
know where Mark was written. We dont know whether Luke really was, as is often
thought, the companion of Paul. We dont know whether the Beloved Disciple to whom
the Fourth Gospel is ascribed (John 21:24), was really John (in which case, which
John?) or someone else. None of the books name their authors . . . .4
3 Tom Wright, The Original Jesus: The Life and Vision of a Revolutionary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996) p.
106.
4 Tom Wright, The Original Jesus: The Life and Vision of a Revolutionary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996) p.
126. Parentheses original.

Hence it is clear that, according to Tom Wright, we do not know which Luke wrote Lukes
Gospel, and we do not know who wrote Johns Gospel. We do not even know if his first name
was really John. When Christian scholars began to propose these revisions to the traditional view
regarding the Gospels they were met with ridicule by those who preferred to stick to traditions.
But, little by little, the weak foundations on which the traditions rested became more and more
apparent. Eventually, the newly proposed views became widely accepted, to the extent that many
conservative Christian scholars now accept the revised view.
Since we do not have Matthews diaries to know how he collected his material, what prevents us
from thinking that he got his materials from Marks Gospel? If Matthew was a disciple of Jesus,
we would expect that he should not rely on Mark. We would expect the disciple of Jesus to
compose a Gospel from his memory of Jesus. James writes that Matthew was drawing from the
same oral tradition from which Mark drew. But we will see below that there is sufficient
evidence to show that there is a literary relationship among the synoptic Gospels. By positing the
idea that the similarity among these Gospels is due entirely to their reliance on a common stock
of oral tradition, some conservative scholars are trying to avoid the negative implications that
stem from the fact that Matthew copied Mark with modification. We will see evidence below that
Matthew was not only drawing on oral traditions. Rather, he was also copying Mark. The
evidence for this is so overwhelming that even some of the most conservative scholars have had
to adjust under the weight of the evidence. It is precisely because of such evidence that redaction
criticism became a widely accepted method of enquiry.

5. James View on the Authorship of the Gospels

We have seen above that during the debate James suggested some early dates for the composition
of the Gospels. Similarly, in his Brief Thoughts James suggests that Matthew, Mark, and Luke
were written between 35 A.D. and 65 A.D. But he is not certain of this range of dates for, he
writes, Lets admit something: We do not know when any of the gospels were written. They
have no date stamps on them. James believes that if we examine the internal material of these
three Gospels without naturalistic biases we would have to conclude that they were written after
the crucifixion and prior to the opening of the hostilities leading to the destruction of Jerusalem
by Titus in AD 70.
My next question arises from James mention of naturalistic biases. Is he saying that F.F. Bruce
and Richard Bauckham arrived at later dates for the Gospels due to their naturalistic biases? It is
clear from a survey of the literature that only some of the most conservative scholars will agree
to James early dates for the Gospels. Nonetheless, as I have mentioned above, the dating of the
Gospels is not crucial for my argument. What matters is that Matthew and Luke were written
after Mark.
James acknowledged, during the cross-examination, that the early church believed that Matthew
was written first. But then James added: I do not know which was written first. Mark may have
been written first. James then proceeded to give dates for the composition of the Gospels which

show that Mark was indeed written first. As I have shown above, James suggested that Mark was
written in the 50s; Luke and Matthew in the 60s; and John possibly before the year 70 A.D. What
is most significant here is that James not only accepts the possibility that Mark was written first,
but he also furnishes dates to show that Matthew and Luke were written a decade after Mark.
The decade that followed the writing of Mark and before the writing of Matthew and Luke would
have been sufficient for Mark to become well accepted in the community for which it was first
intended. Matthew and Luke could not take away Marks Gospel from the community that first
read it. Matthew and Luke could only rewrite Marks Gospel with improvements for readers in
other communities. The manner in which Matthew changed the information as contained in Mark
is problematic for the belief in the inspiration of the Gospels. For, why would the same Holy
Spirit inspire Mark to write one thing, and then inspire Matthew to change it in the theologically
significant ways we have demonstrated above? Due to that and other such implications, it is
understandable why James and other conservative scholars would resist the suggestion that Mark
wrote first. But the evidence for Markan priority is now weighs so heavily that James finds
himself accepting it even if only as a possibility.
Those who think that Matthew used Mark usually think that Matthew also used Q which was
probably a written source, and that Matthew also used M, another putative source which may or
may not have been written. Hence this is a comprehensive view that takes into consideration all
the evidence. According to this view, Matthew used both written and oral sources. By way of
contrast, James view is a limited one that excludes a priori the evidence that Matthew used
Mark. Now my question to James is this: You suggest that Mark was written in the 50s and
Matthew was written in the 60s; and Wright wrote that we do not have Matthews diaries to
know how he collected his materials. How can you be so sure that Matthew did not use Mark in
addition to oral tradition?

6. What Convinces Scholars of a Literary Relationship Among

the Gospels
James argues that there is a reprehensible anti-supernatural bias that is at the foundation of the
view that the Gospels are copied one from another. He is incorrect. The view that there is a
literary relationship among the Gospels is necessitated by several observations regarding the
actual content of the Gospels. Such observations can be made by anyone regardless of their
commitment to either liberalism or conservatism. It would be beyond the scope of this brief
article to give a full account of the phenomenon here. But a brief treatment will suffice.
I will explain one of these observations here. There are identical or near-identical parenthetical
statements in parallel episodes in the Gospels that show that either one Gospel was copied from
the other or both were copied from another written source. Robert Stein in his The
Synoptic Problem: An Introduction mentions several examples of such
parenthetical statements.5 I will just mention the first of Steins examples.
That example involves Mark 13:14-16 in which Jesus says as follows:
5 Robert Stein, The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1988) pp. 37-43.

10

"But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not
to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee
to the mountains; let him who is on the housetop not go down, nor
enter his house, to take anything away; and let him who is in the field
not turn back to take his mantle. (Mark 13:14-16 RSV parentheses
original)
The comparable saying is found in Matthew 24:15-18 and Luke 21:20-22.
Now consider the statement in parentheses as it occurs above in Mark 13:14:
Let the reader understand. It is clear that that statement breaks the flow of
Jesus speech. It is as if Jesus in mid-sentence stopped to tell his listeners,
Let the reader understand. Even if Jesus did break his address to mention
such a remark, which is not unusual for a speaker, it is more likely that he
would have said, Let the hearers understand. It is thus more likely that
someone inserted the statement Let the readers understand after the
above saying of Jesus was already put into writing.
Moreover, in the comparable saying of Jesus in Matthews Gospel the same
parenthetical remark is there at the same juncture. Hence either it is the
case that Matthew and Mark both copied this from another written source, or
it is the case that one of them copied it from the other. If it is said that the
Gospel writers were just faithfully recording the sayings of Jesus exactly as
he spoke them, and that they are identical because they are both accurate,
then this does not explain why the parallel sayings do contain differences.
And it does not explain why Luke omitted the parenthetical remark.
Furthermore, Jesus spoke Aramaic. But the Gospels are written in Greek.
Hence the saying was translated from Aramaic into Greek. Are we to think
that the saying of Jesus was independently translated by both Matthew and
Mark in the identical manner with the parenthetical statement in the same
spot? If someone should say that this proves that the Gospel writers were
translating Jesus speech accurately, we should ask what would explain the
numerous instances when Jesus speech was obviously not translated
uniformly across the Gospels. Rather, the following sequence of events is far
more likely. First, an Aramaic statement, thought to be Jesus speech, was
translated into Greek. Second, the Greek translation of that speech was put
into writing. Third, someone before Mark, or Mark himself, added to the
written speech the parenthetical comment, Let the reader understand.
Third, Matthew copied the statement from Mark together with the
parenthetical comment. This scenario makes best sense of the evidence. On
the other hand, it makes no sense to say that Matthew and Mark are similar
here due to their common reliance on oral tradition.
Again, this example was not invented by me. This is what Robert Stein
offered. Hence nothing will be gained in a reply that begins by saying that
11

Shabir is misunderstanding the Bible. Replies to this should address Robert

Stein and his knowledge of the Bible. By the way, is Stein a conservative or a
liberal Christian scholar? Moreover, the above is only one example of the
presence of parallel parenthetical comments in the Gospels. Anyone
attempting to prove that this phenomenon does not exist will have to
propose a competing theory that makes good sense of the examples offered
by Stein.
I have thus demonstrated that the parenthetical comments betray a literary
relationship among the Gospels. But the parenthetical comments do not by
themselves show whether Matthew copied Mark or Mark copied Matthew. To
decide the direction of copying, there are other factors which I will address
under the appropriate heading below.

7. Did I Respond Effectively to James Points?

James writes that I did not respond to his presentation to any depth at all. This statement of his
prompted me to watch the YouTube video of his opening presentation to see what I may have
missed the first time. I will summarize here what I believe to be his main arguments. I number
the paragraphs below in order to link James arguments to my responses which I will present
below after I first give his case a fair and uninterrupted hearing:
1. In his presentation James showed that, in the generation immediately after that of the
disciples, Ignatius asserted the divinity of Christ. On that basis, James argued that Jesus
must have claimed deity. Moreover, Paul in his writings asserted the divinity of Christ. To
James, Pauls assertion, coming so soon after Christs ascension, proves that Jesus must
have claimed divinity.
2. James then cited passages from Mark, Matthew, and Luke showing that on various
occasions Jesus made claims that place him at a higher level than that of the Muslim
conception of a Messenger of God. In Mark, for example, Jesus forgave the sins of the
paralytic. And who can forgive sins but God? Jesus affirmed that he is the Son of the
Blessed. In Matthew, Jesus asserted his intimate knowledge of God, this being something
that the Quran does not accept. James argued on the basis of Matthew 7:21 that it is
necessary for people to call Jesus Lord in order to enter the Kingdom of God. In Luke
Jesus is shown to have fulfilled everything written of him in the Old Testament.
Moreover, in Matthew 28 Jesus says that he is given all authority, and that he will always
remain with his disciples. To James, the above sort of evidence proves that Jesus claimed
deity. And such evidence, James reminds us, comes from the Synoptic Gospels, for he
had not cited Johns Gospel thus far.
3. Then James argued that the Quran contradicts itself. For, on the one hand, the Quran tells
Christians to judge by what Allah has revealed in the Gospel (Quran 5:47); and, on the
other hand, the Quran denies the deity of Christ. To James, this contradiction in the Quran
resulted from Muhammads ignorance of the Gospels. According to James, Muhammad
12

vainly imagined that contents of the Gospels are in accord with his own teachings in the
Quran. Thus James asserted that Muslims are now in a quandary. To escape from this
problem, Muslims would assert that the Gospels were already corrupted before
Muhammads time. But that solution, according to James, will not work, since the Quran
(5:47) clearly commands the Christians to judge by the Gospel. This means that the
Christians at the time must have possessed the true Gospel. Moreover, the Quran asserts
that in the Gospels are guidance and light (Quran 5:46).
4. Then James criticized my approach to the Bible in general and to the Gospels in
particular. He argued that I love the liberals who use redaction criticism to cut apart the
Bible. But if those same scholars were let loose to apply their methods to the Quran they
would equally cut apart the Quran. Obviously, Muslims would not follow such liberal
scholars. James urges us to recognize that such scholars are not the friends of Muslims.
James argues that I am therefore inconsistent in applying such scholarship to the Bible
but not to the Quran. Muslims should, however, apply just balance as the Quran itself
(55:9) directs us. This entails that just as we would not apply such destructive methods to
the Quran we should not apply them to the Bible.
5. James ended his speech by quoting the incident from Johns Gospel where Thomas refers
to Jesus as My Lord and my God. James concludes by saying that in terms of both
history and theology the answer to the question of our debate is positive: Jesus claimed
deity.
Those are the main points which James raised during his opening presentation. The responses I
offered to these points during the course of the debate are as follows:
1. The fact that Paul asserted the divinity of Jesus does not prove that Jesus claimed it for
himself. In the Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament it is clear that the original
disciples of Jesus continued to preach that Jesus was a servant of God and that Jesus was
the Messiahand that is precisely what Muslims believe. Acts of the Apostles also shows
that it was Paul who began to preach that Jesus is the Son of God. Moreover, in Acts of
the Apostles it was Stephen who first prayed to Jesus. But Stephen was not one of Jesus
disciples.
2. The fact that Mark, Matthew and Luke show that Jesus claimed to be of a higher status
than the Muslim conception of a Messenger of God cannot be taken as proof that Jesus
himself made that claim. This is evident from the manner in which Matthew and Luke
composed their Gospels. One of their sources is Marks Gospel. And we can see that in
rewriting the stories about Jesus Matthew and Luke, as compared with Mark, improved
the image of Jesus. I provided eight examples to show that Matthew in particular (i)
made people call Jesus Lord, (ii) made Jesus describe himself as Lord,
(iii) made people call Jesus Son of God, (iv) made Jesus call God my
Father, (v) made people pray to Jesus, (vi) reduced Jesus emphasis on
One God, (vii) reduced the distinction between Jesus and his God, and
(viii) covered the human limitations of Jesus. These eight examples
were detailed in my earlier reflections on the debate (cited above).
13

Moreover, I showed that whereas Marks Gospel ends at chapter 16,

verse 8, scribes who found that ending problematic appended other
endings. I argued that since a written tradition is fixed, and yet
Christian scribes took the liberty of changing Marks ending, Christians
must have made many more modifications to the oral tradition before
the Gospels were composed.
3. The Quran does not, in fact, approve of the Gospels in their totality as they are. The
Quran says that when Christians claim that Jesus is the Son of God they are following the
claim of earlier disbelievers (9:30). And it is not that the Quran is unaware of what the
Gospels contain. Rather, the Quran shows deep knowledge of the Gospels. Moreover, the
verse to which James referred (Quran 5:47) does not mean that the Gospels in their
entirety are the Word of God. That verse means that the People of the Gospel are to judge
not by everything the Gospels say, but by what God has revealed therein. Quran 5:46 says
that in the Gospel are guidance and light. However, the fact that something contains an
ingredient does not mean that all of that something is that ingredient. Hence the fact that
the Gospels contain guidance and light does not mean that everything in the Gospels is
guidance and light.
4. I have shown that it is not just liberal scholars, but even conservative ones who hold that
Matthew and Luke copied Mark. The nature of the modifications they made to the
Markan episodes are clear for everyone to see. One does not need to be a liberal scholar
to see these changes. The conclusion that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source in
composing their Gospels was accepted by F.F. Bruce whom James himself recommended
to me as a conservative scholar. The same conclusion is also accepted by Richard
Bauckham whom, after some hesitation, James accepted as a conservative scholar. Hence
James is incorrect in saying that my criticism of the Gospel is based on liberal
scholarship. I read all kinds of scholarship on both the Bible and the Quran. But then,
based on the available evidence, I make up my own mind about what is true.
5. I have shown that Johns Gospel enhances the image of Jesus much more than did
Matthew. For example, according to Mark, Jesus prayed to be saved from crucifixion.
But, according to Johns Gospel Jesus said that he will not utter such a prayer. This is
because right from the start of Johns Gospel Jesus is declared to be the Lamb of God
who takes away the sins of the world. In Johns Gospel Jesus came into the world
precisely for the purpose of dying on the cross. This is why he will not pray to be saved
from it. Whereas in Marks Gospel it was necessary for Judas to identify Jesus so that he
could be arrested, in Johns Gospel this was entirely unnecessary. Rather, in Johns
Gospel, Jesus gives himself up. No one dares to arrest him against his will. At the mere
sound of Jesus voice the soldiers who were about to arrest Jesus fell to the ground.
Those five points were my responses to James during the debate. From the above, it is clear that I
have dealt effectively with all of the main points which James made. Yet James wrote that I did
not respond to his presentation to any depth at all. It will be helpful if James could specify
where he thinks my answers fell short of effectively dealing with his points.

14

8. James Error Regarding My Second Example

During the debate, I had shown eight examples where Matthew modified the story as compared
with Mark. In my previous writing, I mentioned that three of those examples were challenged
during the debate, and I explained again how I answered the three challenges. One of these
challenges pertained to my second example. I feel that I have successfully countered that
challenge. However, in his Brief Thoughts, James still holds on to his challenge to that very
example. Since James and I cannot seem to agree on this point despite many attempts at
explaining it to each other, I can only hope that readers will decide the issue and advise us
appropriately. I will presently evaluate James response after restating the claim to which he is
responding, as follows.
In both the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, Jesus speaks of the sudden occurrence of the Hour. In
Marks Gospel the sudden nature of the apocalypse is compared with the situation wherein the
master of a house goes away for awhile and, leaving his servants in charge, he specifically
instructs the doorkeeper to be on the lookout (Mark 13:34). Jesus continues:
Watch thereforefor you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the
evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or in the morninglest he come suddenly and
find you asleep. And what I say to you I say to all: Watch. (Mark 13:35-37 RSV).
In that parable, Jesus uses the term master of the house to refer to a human beinga
homeowner who leaves his servants in charge. By means of this parable, Jesus is calling on his
disciples to be on guard for they do not know when the master of the house will return. This
parable is generally interpreted as a reference to Jesus return. On that interpretation, Jesus gets
the same title, master of the housea title which referred to a human homeowner in the cited
words of Jesus.
However, Matthews comparable verse reads:
Watch therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. (Matthew 24:42)
Thus I had argued that Matthews Gospel substitutes your Lord in place of Marks less
theological term master of the house.
Responding to my above claim, in his Brief Thoughts James has taken the trouble to cite for us
the Greek texts of the relevant New Testament passages. James did not state what he expected
the Greek texts will prove. However, as we will now see, the Greek texts actually vindicate my
claim. The texts are as follows (I have emboldened the phrases which are most crucial to our
discussion):
,
. . . .
(Mark 13:35)
,
.
15

(Matthew 24:42)
The significant portions, which I have highlighted above, show the following:
In Mark, Jesus refers to himself as (h
o kyrios ts oikias).
In Matthew, Jesus refers to himself as (ho kyrios hymn).
It is also clear from the RSV, shown above, and from the New American Standard Bible, the very
Bible which James recommended that I use, that the statements should be translated as follows:
In Mark, Jesus refers to himself as the master of the house(ho kyrios ts oikias).
In Matthew, Jesus refers to himself as your Lord (ho kyrios hymn).
In my previous paper, I argued that although the word kyrios (lord) appears in both Gospels,
Mark used it to mean master of the house but Matthew used it to mean your Lord. The Greek
texts which James cites actually prove that this difference exists between the texts. But, instead
of acknowledging that fact, James delights in pointing out that prior to the year 2006 when I
argued that Mark and Matthew were different at this point I did not know that the term kyrios
(lord) occurred in both Gospels. I am actually glad to be reminded of my ignorance for, as the
Apostle Paul said, Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up (1Corinthians 8:1).
But my ignorance of Greek is not the issue here. The fact of the matter is that the two texts are
significantly different both in English and in Greek. In Mark, Jesus told a parable in which the
title the master of the house(ho kyrios ts oikias) refers not only to Jesus but also to the
householder to whom Jesus compares himself. In Matthew, however, Jesus does not compare
himself to anyone. He just refers to himself as your Lord (ho kyrios hymn).
James is aware of what the issue is. He wrote:
But still, in our debate in Toronto, [Shabir] argued that in fact this is still an example
supportive of his thesis, no matter what his understanding had been before, for "lord of
the house" is still different from "Lord." He likewise cited a scholar who, writing on the
"synoptic problem," likewise mentions this "change."
My difficulty is that James did not even acknowledge the simple fact that the terms in Matthew
and Luke are different. I have admitted that both Gospels contain the term kyrios (lord). I
understand that James does not believe that Matthew used Mark. But what prevents James from
agreeing that whereas Mark compares Jesus to a human homeowner, Matthew makes Jesus our
Lord? Here is what James wrote:
Instead, we can see that both [Matthew and Mark] are giving us perfectly proper
renditions of the same incident and the same words, one in fuller form than the other,
both seeking to communicate the same concept, though to two different audiences.

16

Now, lets be fair. Did Matthew and Mark really use the same words? And did they really
communicate the same concept? Is the following string of words: the master of the house(ho
kyrios ts oikias) the same as the following string of words: your Lord (ho kyrios
hymn)? And, is the concept of the master of the house (which in the Marcan passage can refer
to an ordinary homeowner) the same as the concept of your Lord (as the term appears in the
Matthean passage)? According to James, Matthew was merely abbreviating the discussion.
Again, lets be fair. Is your Lord as it occurs in Matthew an abbreviation of the master of the
house as it occurs in Mark? So, the question I come away with after reading James Brief
Thoughts is this: Why does James make our conversation so difficult by refusing to admit the
simple fact of the case?
We can differ about the implications of this fact. We can argue about whether Matthew used
Mark, and whether he was trying to change the story to improve the image of Jesus. But I expect
James to admit the simple fact that master of the house is significantly different from your
Lord. If we can agree that the two texts are significantly different, then we can ask why they are
different. But if we cannot even agree that the two texts are significantly different then how
could our dialogue bear fruit?
In any case, even if James does not admit that the two texts are different, they are still different.
And, as I cited Robert Stein to show, the reason for that difference is that Matthew made the
change from master of the house to your Lord.
In short, as I see it, my eight examples are valid, and, as shown above, it is difficult to understand
James attempt to hold on to his objection to my second example. It may be that James finds it
necessary to defend a statement he made during the Biola debate in 2006. During the crossexamination of the Biola debate, James suggested to me that the texts of Matthew and Mark both
contain the word kyrios. Trusting James assertion, I immediately relinquished that as an example
of Matthews modification of the comparable Markan episode. However, I found out later that
James assertion was not the complete truth. The truth is that the two texts are substantially
differentdespite the fact that they both contain the word kyrios, as I have shown above. I then
wrote a paper reclaiming that example as being genuine. That paper can be read here:
http://answeringmissionaries.wordpress.com/2006/05/25/a-reassertion-thatmatthew-2442-improves-the-image-of-jesus-over-that-of-mark-1335/.
In the light of the above detailed treatment of the two passages in question, I am now convinced
that James misled me about these passages during the Biola debate, though of course he did not
do that deliberately. James erroneously claimed during that debate that since the word kyrios is
used in both passages one passage does not represent an improvement over the other. At the time,
James failed to see that the word was used differently in the two Gospels. That was his error
then. I do not wish to dwell on past errors. I just do not see why James holds on tenaciously to
his past error. I think he should simply let go.

9. How We Know that Matthew Used Mark

James wrote:
17

You can theorize all you want, but it is just as easy to theorize that Mark was written after
Matthew and he is filling out Matthew's all too brief description! Theories work that way.
I will now show that theories do not work that way, and that the most viable theory is that
Matthew used Mark. James understanding of how theories work is incorrect. The way theories
work is as follows. Some initial observations give rise to a question. A scholar proposes a
hypothesis to answer that question. The hypothesis is tested by other scholars attempting to
disprove it or to dislodge it by proposing rival hypotheses. Some hypotheses fail. Eventually, a
hypothesis is seen to have withstood many falsification tests, and is supported by other
corroborating evidence. Such a hypothesis rises to the level of a theory. Further attempts are
made to dislodge or disprove the theory. Some theories fail. Others succeed. Some theories
become widely accepted by the scholars in the relevant field. Some competing theories are
nonetheless accepted by a fringe element of scholarship. That is how theories work in general.
The specific theory that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source is widely accepted by scholars
in the field. A few scholars nonetheless hold on to competing theories on the Gospels literary
relationship. I am not saying that the majority is always correct. I intend in this paragraph merely
to show that theories do not work in the way James claimed.
There are many reasons for believing that Matthew and Luke used Mark. One reason is that,
compared with Mark, Matthew and Luke show many improvements. Such improvements include
the more accurate citation of historical facts, and, from a Christian point of view, the more
accurate reflection of theology. In a previous debate with James, I mentioned several such
features as were explained by Bruce Metzger in his book The New Testament: Its Background,
Growth, and Content.6 Again, the difficulty we are having is that James ignores these points and
proceeds as if they were never mentioned.
It is easy to see why Matthew and Luke would want to improve the narratives. It is not easy to
see why Mark would want to ruin them. For example, in terms of history, Metzger points to
Jesus speech in Mark 2:26. There Jesus stated that Abiathar was the high priest at the time when
David entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread. According to Metzger, the
mention of Abiathar in Marks statement is contrary to another account in the Biblethe account
in 1 Samuel 21:1-7. Matthew and Luke omitted the mention of Abiathar in their accounts of
Jesus speech about Davids deed (see Matthew 12:3 and Luke 6:3). Now, if Matthew and Luke
were copying the episode from Mark, it is easy to see why they would want to omit the mention
of the problematic name Abiathar. They were simply correcting the narrative so as to have it
agree with 1 Samuel 21:1-7 in the Old Testament. But, if Mark was summarizing Matthew and
Luke, it is not easy to see why Mark would go out of his way to mention Abiathar and thus to
introduce a historical error into Jesus speech. These and other such improvements in Matthew
and Luke show that they copied the episodes from Mark, not the other way around. Hence James
is wrong to suggest that the theory that Mark used Matthew is just as viable as the theory that
Matthew used Mark. Matthews modification of Mark makes sense. But Marks modification of
Matthew makes no sense.
6 Bruce Metzger in his book The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content (Nashville: Abingdon,
1965) pp. 81-83.

18

As I promised above, I now return to the question of how Christians would have reacted if they
were already familiar with one of the two Gospels, either Matthew or Mark, and then they
happened to read the other of the two. Due to the improvements that we have seen in Matthews
Gospel, and other important features of Matthews Gospel, Matthews Gospel eventually gained
popularity over Marks Gospel. It is easy to see which of the two Gospels Christians would
prefernot the one that shows Jesus committing a historical error. Now, if Matthew was written
first, and Mark attempted to introduce another version of the story in which Jesus commits a
historical error, how would Mark convince Christians to take his Gospel as Gospel truth? On the
other hand, those who already knew Marks Gospel would welcome Matthews Gospel as being
a more accurate version from their point of view. To them, this is how the story of Jesus should
be told. This explains how Mark gained popularity such that it was eventually included in the
canon. It was written earlier. Hence it gained popularity before Matthews Gospel arrived on the
scene. If Marks Gospel was written after Matthews Gospel had become popular, Marks Gospel
would have soon been discarded and forgotten. James rationale for the value of Marks Gospel
is that it is more concise and vivid. But what would Christians have preferred to reada short
Gospel that showed Jesus committing errors, or a longer Gospel that shows Jesus conforming to
the Christian view of Jesus?
Think again about the story of Jesus cursing the fig tree. During the debate I focused on the
mistake of not knowing that it was not the season for figs. I excused the error from a Muslim
point of view as a simple mistake that a human could make. But there is another problem with
the story as it appears in Mark. Jesus appears to have cursed the tree out of his own anger and
frustration due to no fault of the tree. If it was a bad tree, not bearing fruit when it should, we can
understand James sermonizing about it as James did based on Matthews account. But when we
focus on Marks plain statement that the tree had no fruit because it was not the season for figs,
we realize that there was no problem with the tree. The problem was that Jesus was hungry.
Seeing in the distance that the tree had leaves, he went up to the tree hoping that he would find
fruit on it. But when he found no fruit he cursed the tree. This is not a simple human mistake. It
is a moral problem. Of course a Muslim should not accept that Jesus made such a moral mistake
without sufficient historical evidence. Nothing in our traditions prepares us to think that Jesus
made such a mistake. He is always represented in the Quran and in the authentic hadiths in the
most respectable manner possible given the obvious difference that in Islamic theology God has
no co-sharer in his divinity. But, again, I ask, which Gospel would Christians have preferred to
readMarks shorter Gospel which shows Jesus committing a moral error, or Matthews longer
Gospel which turns that mistake into the basis of a good Christian sermon? The answer is clear.
As for theological improvements in the stories, Metzger has also given several examples. In my
own presentation, I have given eight examples, and we have seen above that they hold up despite
the challenges presented to three of these examples during the debate. Now let us consider my
eight examples in the light of our present question: Is it more reasonable to suggest that Mark
was copying Matthew in these instances, or is it more reasonable to suggest that Matthew was
copying Mark?
1. In Mark 9:5, Peter called Jesus Rabbi. But, in the same episode in
Matthew 17:4, Peter called Jesus Lord. It is easy to see why
19

Matthew would change Rabbi to Lord. It is not so easy to see why

Mark would change Lord to Rabbi.
2. In Mark 13:35, Jesus referred to himself as the master of the
house. But, in the same episode in Matthew 24:42, Jesus referred
to himself as your Lord. It is easy to see why Matthew would
change master of the house to your Lord. The reverse is not easy
to envisage.
3. In Mark 8:29, Peter called Jesus the Messiah. But, in the same
episode in Matthew 16:16, Peter called Jesus the Messiah, Son of
the Living God. It is easy to see that Matthew inserted Son of the
Living God. It is not easy to see why Mark would omit that
designation for Jesus. Moreover, this example goes clearly against
James suggestion that Matthew was abbreviating Mark. Here it is
clear that Matthew expanded the address to include a significant
title for Jesus.
4. In Mark 3:31, Jesus referred to God as God. But, in the same
episode in Matthew 12:46, Jesus referred to God as my Father. It is
easy to see why Matthew would change God to my Father in
Jesus speech. It is not easy to see why Mark would change Jesus
speech the other way around.
5. In Mark 4:38, the disciples, concerned about the storm at sea,
awaken Jesus as he lay asleep in the stern. They say, Teacher, do
you not care that we are perishing? But, in the same episode in
Matthew 8:25, the disciples say to Jesus, Lord, save us! We are
perishing. Thus in Mark the disciples rebuked Jesus. But in Matthew
the disciples prayed to Jesus. Several scholars acknowledge that
Matthew has improved this story from the point of view of later
Christians. For example, in the Pelican New Testament
Commentaries: The Gospel of St. Matthew, J. C. Fenton, writes:
Matthew has changed the form of address from Teacher (Mark
4:38) to Lord; and the words do you not care of we perish? to we
are perishing, perhaps to remove the rebuke of Jesus by the
disciples.7 Similarly, Robert H. Gundry in his Matthew: A
Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art writes that
7 J. C. Fenton, The Pelican New Testament Commentaries: The Gospel of St. Matthew
(London: Penguin, 1963 rpt. 1987) p. 130.

20

Matthew has substituted his favourite Lord for Teacher in that

episode.8 Moreover, Gundry points out that whereas in Mark the
disciples suggest that Jesus does not care that they are perishing,
Matthew substituted the address save [us]!; then Matthew
transformed the disciples question do you not care that we are
perishing into their declaration we are perishing.
6. In Mark 12:29, Jesus, being asked what was the greatest
commandment, replied as is known from Deuteronomy 6:4, Hear O
Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; and you shall love the Lord
your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your
mind, and with all your strength. But, in the same episode in
Matthew 22:37-38, Jesus replied, You shall love the Lord your God
with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your mind. I
used this example to show that Matthew has omitted the words,
Hear O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. While it is
possible that Mark went to the trouble of inserting the text of
Deuteronomy 6:4 into Jesus speech, it seems more likely that
Matthews Gospel omitted Deuteronomy 6:4 from Jesus speech.
Matthews modification thus reflects the tendency among Christians
at the time to deemphasize the Old Testaments insistence on
Yahweh as the only God.
7. In Mark 10:11-18, as Jesus was setting out on his journey, a man ran
up and knelt before him, and asked him, Good Teacher, what must I
do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said to him, Why do you call
me good? No one is good but God alone. But, in the same episode,
in Matthew 19:17-18, the man came up to Jesus, saying, Teacher,
what good deed must I do, to have eternal life? And Jesus said to
him, Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is
good. As James Dunn has pointed out, it is easy to see the change
going from Mark to Matthew; and it is difficult to see the change
going from Matthew to Mark.9 Matthew modified both the mans
question and Jesus answer. In Matthew, the man does not call Jesus
8 Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) p. 155.
9 James Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus: The Impact of Scholarship on Our Understanding of How Christianity
Began (London: SCM Press, 1985) pp. 20-21.

21

good, and therefore Jesus does not rebuke the man for calling him
good as Jesus did in Marks Gospel. But now, in Matthews Gospel,
Jesus reply to the mans question is difficult to appreciate. Why
would Jesus say to the man, Why do you ask me about what is
good? Was Jesus not a teacher of goodness? He would be expected
to welcome anyone asking him, as the man asked, Teacher, what
good deed must I do . Moreover, why would Jesus at this point
add, There is only one who is good? The man had not asked Jesus
how many are there who are good. According to Dunn, the reason
for the incoherence in Matthews Gospel at this point is that
Matthew, while modifying the account is nevertheless trying to stay
as close as he can to the Marcan account. Hence, by making
patchwork changes, Matthew has produced an incoherent account.
8. In Mark 11:12-14, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree
in leaf, he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on
it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not
the season for figs. Jesus said to the tree, May no one ever eat fruit
from you again. And the tree withered by next morning. But, in the
same episode in Matthew 21:18, Jesus was hungry. And seeing a fig
tree by the side of the road, he went to it and found nothing but
leaves. Then Jesus said to the tree, May no fruit ever come from
you again. And the tree withered at once. There are three major
differences between the two episodes. First, Mark said that Jesus
went to the tree to see whether perhaps he would find anything on
it. Matthew did not mention the reason for Jesus going to the tree.
Hence the fact that Jesus was disappointed is not as clear in
Matthew as it is in Mark. Matthew did not mention that it was not
the season for figs. Mark mentions that Jesus found nothing but
leaves for it was not the season for figs. Hence from Marks
Gospel the impression is clear that there was no problem with the
tree. The problem was that it was not the season for figs. The
episode in Mark thus highlights Jesus limited knowledge. It is easy
to see that Matthew modified the narrative to avoid this implication
about Jesus limited knowledge. It is difficult to see why Mark would
take Matthews account and so change it as to make it appear that
Jesus made such a mistake and then cursed the fig tree apparently
due of his own frustration. The third major difference is as follows. In
Marks account the tree was discovered withered as the disciples
passed by it the following morning. But Matthew specifically says
22

that the tree withered to its roots as soon as Jesus cursed it. Again,
it is easy to see that Matthew has magnified the power of Jesus, and
there is no reason for thinking that Mark would want to minimize
Jesus power.
From the above eight examples, therefore, the direction of development is clear. Matthew is not
simply summarizing the episodes. He is modifying them to suit his theological purposes.
In response to James suggestion that Matthew and Mark were both drawing on oral tradition, I
have shown that there is a literary relationship among the Gospels. And, in response to James
suggestion that it is just as viable to theorize that Mark may have used Matthew, I have given
two responses. First, theories do not really work in such a simplistic fashion as James suggests.
There has been a long history of scholars attempting to disprove or dislodge the theory that
Matthew used Mark. But in the final analysis this theory has become widely accepted. Many
conservative scholars now openly embrace that view. My second response was to revisit my
eight examples to look at them in light of James suggestion that the theory that Mark used
Matthew is just as viable as the theory that Matthew used Mark. I have thus shown that the two
theories are not equally viable. In fact, the theory that Mark used Matthew leaves too much
unexplained, whereas the theory that Matthew used Mark is quite comprehensive.

10. James Misunderstanding of the World of Biblical

Scholarship
Redaction criticism in general has a long history spanning hundreds of years of scholarship. The
application of redaction criticism in studying the Gospels in particular also has a history
spanning a century of scholarship. James oversimplifies this history by attributing the enterprise
to liberal scholarship. James writes:
I can tell you, without hesitation, that the vast majority of those who embrace form and
redaction criticism in all of its flavors and kinds do so out of tradition, not out of having
examined the case set forth in defense of these methods.
Here James lumps form criticism and redaction criticism in all its flavors and kinds. By
lumping together related but separable issues, James thus muddies the clear thinking we need to
employ here. I will thus focus on redaction criticism of a specific kind, the study of how
Matthew reworked the Markan episodes to emphasize a higher Christology. Even if it is true that
most people who embrace the use of redaction criticism do so out of tradition, that does not
prove that the tradition is invalid. By the same token, many people who reject the use of
redaction criticism do so out of tradition. But that by itself does not show that their tradition is
wrong. And here it is those who reject redaction criticism who are at fault. For, the field is built
on the sort of firm evidence I intimated above.
James blames redaction criticism on academia and its supposed anti-supernaturalism. But we
should ask James what prevents conservative scholars from writing treatises that show the
invalidity of redaction criticism. On the contrary, what happens in practice is that conservative
23

scholars who have taken the time to examine the arguments gradually begin to accept redaction
criticism. This results in a gradual shrinking of the world of conservative scholarship. It is not
that conservative scholarship is being deprived of the opportunity for self-expression. There are
seminaries which are geared towards producing conservative scholarship. And there are
publishers interested in publishing conservative materials. The real problem is that conservative
scholarship cannot fully engage with redaction criticism and remain completely conservative.
Hence James reaction to redaction criticism is to view it with prejudicial disdain.
James describes some scholars as schizophrenics, for they preach the word of God on Sunday
and apply critical methods in studying the same scripture on Monday. James informs us that over
the last decade more and more such scholars have been solving their schizophrenia by giving up
their religious presuppositions and adopting critical presuppositions entirely. James mentioned
some of the major issues which those whom he dubs schizophrenics had to struggle with. They
think that Paul contradicted himself. They cannot be sure that Moses existed. And they think that
Christians have little more than a theoretical basis for knowing what Jesus actually said.
The trend which James described is noteworthy. People have been leaving not only Christianity
but also Islam and other faiths. But the departure of scholars from their conservative Christian
foundations is, according to James, a major phenomenon in Christianity. We can understand the
argument that if ordinary people leave their faiths this is due to their lack of understanding of
their faiths. But what are we to say of scholars? They are leaving conservative Christianity after
understanding it!
But James does not see clearly where the problem lies. He thinks that the problem is entirely
with the individuals, whereas part of the problem is that the faith propositions they have
struggled to hold on to are difficult to maintain in the face of the available evidence. What is
needed is for theologians to work out a viable synthesis of traditional faith and modern
discoveries. This has to be done both for Islam and Christianity. Of course neither I nor James
would want people to turn away from religion to atheism, to agnosticism, or to other forms of
irreligiousness. It is my observation, however, that such a synthesis has proved difficult for
Christian theologians. On the other hand, I believe that a true synthesis of faith and reason is
viable when it comes to Islam. It is, however, beyond the scope of the present paper to elucidate
that latter claim.
James thinks that liberal scholars posit late dates for the Gospels because they cannot accept that
true prophesies can be uttered. Such scholars say that the prophecies which the Gospels contain,
and which were apparently fulfilled, were written after the fact. In James view, since the
Gospels prophesy the destruction of Jerusalem, and Jerusalem was actually destroyed in 70 A.D.,
such scholars imagine that the Gospels were written after 70 A.D. Again, James is giving only a
part of the story. As a Muslim, I believe in the occurrence of true prophecy. But that does not
mean that I should accept every claim that a certain prophecy was fulfilled. In the case of the
Gospels, it is well known that prophecies were written after the fact. The case in point is the
detailed prophecy in the first three Gospels that Jesus will be arrested, and crucified, and that he
will rise from the dead. This is contradicted by the Gospel of John and, indeed, by the tenor of
the stories even in the synoptic Gospels. For, these stories show that the disciples had no idea
that Jesus would rise from the dead until they discovered his tomb empty, and he appeared to
24

them alive again. The prophecy that Jesus will be crucified and that he will rise from the dead,
therefore, is widely regarded as having been put into the mouth of Jesus by early Christians after
they had already arrived at the belief that Jesus had resurrected from the dead. Knowing this, can
we really be blamed for thinking that some of the other Gospel prophecies were also written after
the fact?
And what are we to make of the two false prophesies which, as I mentioned in the debate,
historians generally credit to Jesus on the basis of the Gospel testimonies? As I pointed out,
scholars apply the criterion of embarrassment to evaluate these testimonies. The scholars say that
Christians would not have credited those prophecies to Jesus if he had not said them. But a
Muslim would say that the historians have made an incorrect judgment in this regard. To be sure,
Christians would not have willfully credited to Jesus such prophecies as they knew to be false.
But if Christians thought that a certain prophecy was true they could have mistakenly thought
that such a true prophecy must have been uttered by Jesus. Nonetheless, since the Gospels do
credit such false prophesies to Jesus, we can be excused for studying them as if they are human
documents. To Muslims, these are human documents that contain some elements of the divine
revelation that was once given to Jesus. If we are to accept all the sayings of Jesus in the
Gospels, we would also have to accept the false prophesies as being his. Then we would have to
conclude that Jesus was a false prophet. But, of course, a Muslim will not accept that Jesus was
anything less than a true prophet of God. To be sure, the fact that two prophecies now turn out to
be false does not constitute sufficient proof that all of the prophecies are false. Yet the two false
prophecies, and the discovery that prophecies have been put into the mouth of Jesus after the
fact, prove how human are the Gospels. Knowing this, the scholars rightly treat the remaining
prophecies with some reservation.
Attempting to prove the shallowness of liberal scholarship, and the anti-supernaturalism that
undergirds such scholarship, James recounts his experience with his professors at Fuller
Theological Seminary. James manner of argumentation here amounts to the fallacy of hasty
generalization. This occurs when someone makes sweeping conclusions based on an
unrepresentative sample. For example, you arrive in a country and the first person you meet has
blond hair. You conclude from this that everyone in the country has blond hair. Such
stereotyping, in logical terms, is called the fallacy of hasty generalization. In order to understand
a field of scholarship one has to survey the scholarly literature in the field. You cannot consider
your experience with a few professors at one seminary as being representative of every professor
at every academic institution in the world.
Nonetheless, James has presented an unflattering report about his professors. Apparently some of
them could not explain to James why Matthews Gospel was not written by a disciple of Jesus,
though the reader of even the present humble paper should have no difficulty offering some good
reasons for that view. Moreover, those professors apparently did not know enough about
redaction criticism to give James anything but the impression that the field rests on antisupernatural presuppositions.
Finally, I should say something about the false dilemma which James presents between
supernaturalism and anti-supernaturalism. James wants Muslims and Christians to choose
between being either supernaturalists or anti-supernaturalists. But there are other nuanced
25

choices. For example, one could be a supernaturalist in the face of strong evidence of
supernatural activity and yet be skeptical about claims of the supernatural which are not
supported by strong evidence. Moreover, one can proceed on the basis of methodological
naturalism and accept that something supernatural is at work when natural reasons are
insufficient. Or, one can accept that God is continually working in the world through what most
people would regard as natural causes.
Muslims and Christians are like most other rational people. If I return to where I thought I parked
my car only to find that it is not there, I do not immediately conclude that something supernatural
suddenly occurred. I begin to think of the obvious natural reasons why my car is not there. The
following questions will probably occur to me. Am I mistaken about where I parked my car? Did
I park in a prohibited spot in which case the car has been towed? Is my car stolennot by some
extraterrestrials, but by some fellow earthlings? After exhausting all natural possibilities, I may
conclude that something inexplicable has happened. I may describe the whole thing as being
quite weird. Even then, I may have the feeling that I have not exhausted all the natural
possibilities. I may think that perhaps I have overlooked something. However, as a believer in
God, I will be open at this point to an understanding that God had something to do with the
disappearance of my car.
I intimated above that a supernaturalist may fully embrace natural causes and still think of God
as working through natural causes. For example, when I fail to find my car where I thought I
parked it, I may think from the start that God is testing my reaction to adverse circumstance. Will
I remain patient with God? Or, God may be teaching me a lesson that I should not rely on
material possessions which are here today and gone tomorrow. Rather, I should rely on Him who
is everlasting. Yet my belief in God would not stop me from reporting that the car was stolen.
Even when it is known that the car was stolen, I can still think that God is teaching me a lesson.
In that case, I would think that Gods purposes in the world are carried out through the actions of
his creatures, even actions, such as theft, which God does not sanction.
Hence the simple dichotomy which James presents is misleading. Supernaturalism and antisupernaturalism are not the only two choices. By offering that stark choice between only two
alternatives, James attempts to dissuade Muslims and Christians from investigating the natural
reasons for the discrepancies among the Gospels. If we start thinking about what Matthew did to
the story, James associates us with anti-supernaturalists. To avoid such guilt-by-association, we
are expected to jump to the other extreme and consider ourselves supernaturalists. For James,
that entails that we close our eyes to what Matthew has done. Our response is that there are
middle alternatives between those two choices. The dilemma which James posed is based on a
false dichotomy.
In the case of a scripture that is known to be from God, we would be hesitant to investigate its
origins from a naturalistic point of view. But over the last four hundred years, the Gospels have
been shown to contain so many errors and contradictions that it was inevitable that they would be
viewed as human documents with a divine element even by conservative Christians. Even the
dichotomy which James has made between liberal and conservative is not as sharp as James
would have us believe. There is a spectrum of scholarship. If a scholar was once considered
conservative, he would soon be considered less than conservative if he begins to apply redaction
26

criticism to the Gospels. The difficulty for James is that the boundaries of conservatism have
shifted outward to accommodate those scholars who would otherwise have fallen out of the fold
of conservatism. James is not comfortable with such movable boundaries.
In short, the validity of redaction criticism does not depend on a liberal worldview or an antisupernaturalist worldview. Yet James spent a great deal of energy arguing that it does. He has
confused correlation with causationthus committing a common logical fallacy. It is true that
liberals are more likely to use redaction criticism, and that conservatives are more likely to resist
redaction criticism. And it is also true that liberals are often anti-supernaturalists in their outlook
whereas conservatives are undeniably supernaturalists. But this does not mean that the liberal
worldview is the cause of redaction criticism in the first place. It may be that redaction criticism
itself creates liberal scholars. Of course, the developments could spiral in the following way.
First, scholars apply redaction criticism because, as Tom Wright explained, each Gospel writer
has a unique agenda that is worth discovering. Second, having applied redaction criticism,
scholars see the way in which the Gospel writers reshaped the stories. Third, the scholars become
less than conservative as a result of these discoveries. Fourth, the scholars apply the method
again, going deeper the second time around. Fifth, they see more results which push them farther
away from the conservative core, and so on. Eventually, the liberal camp swells, the conservative
camp dwindles, and James remains one of the few who would publicly denounce redaction
criticism. Yet James does so not by harnessing evidence against redaction criticism, but by
poisoning the well of such knowledge so that his conservative followers would not dare to drink
from it.

11. The Coherence of My Approach to the Muslim and

Christian Scriptures
In the last paragraph of part 1 of his Brief Thoughts, James attempts to show that I am
inconsistent in my approach. He argues that whereas I apply critical methods in dealing with the
Bible, I do not apply similar methods in dealing with the Quran. James expands on this claim in
part 2 of his Brief Thoughts. Hence I will expand on my answer in this regard when I respond
to his part 2. For now, however, it should suffice for me to say that consistency requires treating
similar things in a similar manner. Consistency does not require that we treat all things in the
same way. Hence we should treat all humans the same way, for they share an essential similarity.
But we should not treat all books in the same way. Is James asking us regard the Bible in the
same way as we regard all other books in the world? If the Quran and the Bible share some
essential similarity, they should be treated the same way as far as that similarity is involved. But
where they are different their essential difference cannot be ignored.
I will now be more specific as I address James specific charge which reads as follows:
When [Shabir] defaults to Brown or others like him, who themselves operate solely in the
realm of redaction and simply dismiss as out dated and irrelevant the need to harmonize
(not on a surface level, but on a much deeper level that is consistent with meaningful
historical inquiry), he is doing the very thing he cannot allow to be done when it comes to
the Qur'an.
27

It is interesting that James would not miss the opportunity to highlight my mention of Raymond
Brown. Yet it is important to place the mention of this scholar within the context of our recent
debate. In my main presentation I made no mention of Brown. He only came up during the crossexamination when James asked me about my position regarding the Paraclete sayings in Johns
Gospel. It was then that I explained that my approach to Johns Gospel largely follows from
Browns analysis. But, in his Brief Thoughts James found space to capitalize on the mention of
this scholar whom James feels comfortable in criticizing. My main presentation, however,
depended on Markan priority. And, as I asserted, this was the view of both F.F. Bruce and
Richard Bauckham. James should give these two scholars the attention they held in the debate.
Brown was not a chief player. In fact, James mention of Brown makes me feel that the mere fact
that Brown was ever mentioned in the debate presents a barrier to James thinking.
As he does in much of his paper, James makes many unsubstantiated claims and accusations. I
wish he would make fewer claims and give more evidence. Here he makes a sweeping claim
about Raymond Brown and others like him. In Browns defense, I will note that he is one of
the most studious New Testament scholars of our recent times. Though a Catholic, his
scholarship is widely acknowledged by both Catholics and Protestants. Bruce Metzger, a
conservative Protestant scholar praised Browns Introduction to the New Testament with these
words: If a person would own only one book on the New Testament, this is the one to have.10
We cannot know precisely what James means by others like him. But I can say with certitude
that, contrary to James claim, Brown does not simply dismiss as out dated and irrelevant the
need to harmonize. Brown investigates historical questions in great detail. He does try to
harmonize the Gospels at a deep level that is consistent with meaningful historical inquiry. If
James thinks that this is not so, he should point to a few instances in Browns works to
substantiate his accusation.
What I find is that Brown carefully examines the data. Where the data is discrepant, he admits
that this is so. For example, he undertook a detailed examination of the Gospel stories which
show that Jesus appeared to his disciples on Easter Sunday and thereafter. Brown then admitted
that the various attempts which Christian scholars have made to harmonize the reports do
violence to the text. He then offers a harmonization of his own which, admittedly, could not
incorporate all the details of the Gospels. In the end, James will not be satisfied with Browns
harmonization, since Brown admits that the Gospels are not completely reconcilable. But James
cannot honestly say that Brown lacks depth in his analysis of the various attempts to harmonize
the data. In the end, it has to be admitted that the Gospels contradict each other with regards to
the said post-resurrection appearance stories. They do not agree as to when, where, and to whom
Jesus appeared.
Hence Brown does not begin with the assumption that the Gospels contradict each other. That is
the conclusion he arrives at after a detailed investigation of the Gospels. Likewise, I do not begin
with the assumption that the Gospels contradict each other. That is not my beginning assumption
but my present conclusion.

10 Raymond Brown, Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday:1997) rear dust jacket.

28

If the Quran contains such contradictions as do the Gospels, then I agree that I would be
inconsistent if I criticize only the Gospels but not the Quran. But that is not the case. Hence
James is incorrect when he characterizes my approach in the following manner:
[Shabir] would not wish us to begin with the assumption of error and inconsistency on
the part of the Qur'an, yet his entire argument against the gospels does just that.
Contrary to James assertion, I do not wish for Christians to begin with the assumption of error
and inconsistency on the part of either the Quran or the Bible. The most responsible approach to
books, whether religious or non-religious books, would be for us to assume that the author
explains in one part of his work what he means in another part. We thus attempt to harmonize. If
some apparent discrepancies appear, we may assume that there is something about the author and
his writing that we do not quite understand. But if the errors and discrepancies are many, then
such a charitable assumption becomes considerably strained. In the case of the Bible the errors
have been found to be so numerous that we can no longer assume that the errors we see are only
in our imaginations. If the Quran can be shown to be likewise riddled with errors, then I would
readily grant that the Quran should be approached in the same manner as the Bible.
James attempts in part 2 of his Brief Thoughts to show that the Quran does contain some
discrepancies. I will analyze his claim in my reply to part 2. For now, I will state in brief that
James has not shown a real contradiction in the Quran. The Qurans style is generally not to
relate stories in detail. Rather, the Quran would allude to a story by mentioning some parts of it
while driving home the lessons of the story. If the same story is alluded to again in the Quran,
other details of the same story may be mentioned, and again lessons drawn. Often the detailed
story to which the Quran alludes, are found in the Bible. Such is the case with the stories of the
Biblical prophets which are alluded to in the Quran. When we keep in mind the complete
Biblical story, we can see that the Quran in various places refers to various parts of that story.
Whether or not the story is in the Bible, one must attempt in a reasonable way, as we do with
other books, to see if the various parts of the story can fit into a reasonably reconciled whole. If
such an attempt fails, then we should regard the Quran as a human document as we do the
Gospels.
We will see, however, that James has not proved the presence of any discrepancy in the Quran
whereas in the present paper we have seen numerous and substantial discrepancies in Gospels.
Hence the two documents are sufficiently different to merit two different approaches to them.
Moreover, from the very inception we should see how the Quran is similar to and yet different
from the Gospels with regards to the question of redaction criticism. Redaction criticism involves
the discovery of an authors proclivities in the manner in which he handles his sources. In the
case of Matthew, we have discovered his source to be Marks Gospel. And we can see in detail
how Matthew has modified the reports to support his own view of Christ. The problem this poses
for Christianity is that both Mark and Matthew are considered divinely inspired documents.
Hence the question arises: Why would the same Holy Spirit inspire Mark to write the account
showing, for example, that Jesus did not know the season for figs, and then inspire Matthew to
rewrite the account to avoid that implication? In the case of the Quran, when historians posit
sources for it they are not positing sources which Muslims consider to be, in their present state,
29

divine revelations. Hence the manner in which the Quran apparently modifies the stories in those
sources from the perspective of the historians does not pose a problem for believers.
Moreover, in the case of the Quran, Muslims believe that the scripture was all revealed to one
individual. Even from a naturalistic point of view, the Quran has only one author. And it is
reasonable, as I have shown, to presume that an author does not contradict himself. In the case of
the Gospels, however, we are not dealing with one book but four books. We are not dealing with
one author, but four authors. It is reasonable to assume that an author means in one part of his
work what he has written in another part of the same work. It is less reasonable to assume that
one author meant in one book what another author wrote in another book. Even so, if we are
dealing with various reports of the same event as given by various authors, we should still
attempt to harmonize them. We must consider the possibility that the various authors are offering
complementary details of the same event. Yet we should not lose sight of the fact that it is more
reasonable to reconcile the statements of a single author, than it is to reconcile the statements of
various authors. To put that another way, the likelihood that a single author is consistent with
himself, is greater than the likelihood that four authors are consistent with each other. Hence, it is
more reasonable to assume that the Quran is consistent with itself than it is to assume that the
Gospels are consistent with each other. That initial assumption, however, has to be tested by the
facts.
But what do the facts prove? In the case of the Gospels, as I have shown above, it is clear that
there are too many substantial discrepancies for us to ignore them. In my reply to part 2 of
James Brief Thoughts, I will analyze his claims that there are discrepancies in the Quran.
There I will show in detail that the initial assumption that the Quran is consistent with itself is
not disproven by the parallel passages presented by James.
In short, I thus have a coherent position. I treat like things alike; and different things differently. I
approach books with the assumption that I will learn of an authors thoughts from various parts
of his or her book; and that the various parts are harmonious. If I find what appear to be
discrepancies and errors, I will at first suppose that there is something that I do not quite
understand. But if I find that there are too many such discrepancies and errors; and that my
attempts to harmonize them fail, then I will seriously doubt that the author has it all together. I
apply the same measures to both scriptures: the Bible and the Quran.

30