Transcription
I've spoken before how some time ago I was a committed Christian and then some years after that I embraced Islam. Alhamdulillah. And I want to share with you uh in this video three examples of the kind of challenges I faced as a Christian who took his faith very seriously, who took the Bible really seriously.
And looking into some of the issues in the gospels, looking into them more academically, I discovered some seriously uh challenging issues which I knew nothing about until that point. And I want to share with you three examples of these issues which are still really important. I think for us all to understand today if we care about the truth about the gospels about the historical Jesus who he really was because as Muslims and Christians we all claim to follow Jesus and it's important we understand who he really was and what we can believe about him historically.
And I'm going to be reading some passages uh from this amazing book, Christology in the Making, a New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation by a man called Jimmy Dunn, a professor of New Testament studies at Durham University, one of the world's leading New Testament scholars. He himself is a committed Christian. He believes in the Trinity. But like many of these very uh scholarly Christians, I've discovered, they're also very honest. They're usually men of integrity who have borrowed deep into history and are fiercely looking at the evidence, the evidence of the gospels, of texts, of other sources, and they've discovered things which are very, very challenging if you're a conservative Christian like I was.
I was a bornagain conservative bible-believing Christian. Pretty fundamentalist actually. I believe the Bible was the word of God, all of it, without any errors. I believe Jesus was God. Uh that he died for our sins and that he was God incarnate. I believed in the Trinity and so on. But in reading this stuff uh which I chose to do because I was very curious to know what Christian scholars were saying. In reading it, I discovered uh some fundamental challenges to Christian faith which even these Christian scholars fearlessly fearlessly presented to their readers and that's the amazing thing about this kind of work.
Now this book Christology in the Making as it's usually called um is very academic. It's probably post-graduate. Uh it's not written in very um easygoing prose but doesn't matter is an academic text. But I want to share with you three issues that that Jimmy Dunn highlights which uh even though he is a Christian really do pose a fundamental challenge to fundamental Christian doctrines. And it's based on very good evidence, compelling arguments and indisputable textual facts. And he outlines them. And I share this not to attack Christianity so much as just to uh inshallah to you know build a bridge from the academia from the ivory tower to the more uh you know the more wider public so that we can all appreciate and uh learn from the expertise of these scholars because it makes a difference.
As Muslims we claim Jesus was just a prophet, a man, was not God at all. Uh that he didn't become a human being having been God. We don't believe in the incarnation and so on. What does an historical analysis tell us about that claim? Uh because it there is there are answers even from Christians, Christian scholars that is. So I'm going to read a few passages from this text. Uh it is difficult going but I'll I'll try and make it clear. I'll try and introduce some comments or commentary on what he's saying just to elucidate some of the more naughty um you know expressions he has.
And I just want to mention that I'm reading from page 29 and up to page 29. He's been looking at the earlier gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke and looking at what they say about Jesus. And he's been trying to answer the question, was Jesus conscious of being the divine son of God? This is the question. Was Jesus conscious of being the divine son of God? So, he's looked at the synoptic gospels as they're called, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And he's to be honest, he's not really found any clear answer to that. So now he's going to go to the fourth gospel. This is the last to be written, the go the so-called gospel of John, written towards the end of the first century, possibly the early second century. And to see if that gospel can give us any clearer answers to the question, was Jesus conscious of being the divine son of God? And it's in the answer to that question that we find three very troubling facts presented to us with great scholarly depth that I want to share with you. And we can do with them as we will these facts. But we need to know the truth if we care about the truth.
So uh by the way he calls the fourth gospel alternatively he calls it the fourth gospel the John's gospel. He sometimes talks about the fourth evangelist meaning the author of the fourth gospel. But he means basically uh the last one to be written the gospel of John as we normally call it. So is this then the point he says at which the fourth evangelist comes to our aid? Can the testimony of the fourth gospel to be called in to give that clearer answer? Did Jesus think he was the divine son of God? Certainly John's answer seems clear enough. A regular feature of Jesus's discourses in in the fourth gospel. The discourses, by the way, are these long often rambling talks that Jesus uh gives in the fourth gospel. They go on for chapter after chapter. You don't get them anywhere else. Uh precisely he says uh in this in these long discourses we find Jesus talking of God as his father and of himself as God's son. He calls God father more than 100 times and himself son 23 times. For the first time we find one of the key words of the later creeds that later creeds used of Jesus monogenes menogenes menogynes in the Greek translated usually usually as only begotten not only in the prologue it's there in the opening verses of John but also in one of Jesus's discourses linked to with the father-son theme this whole father-son um theme is very very dominant in the fourth gospel. It's not really dominant in the earliest gospel say of Mark. But linked with the father-son theme is the regularly expressed conviction of his own preexistence. So Jesus existed prior to his coming into being born of of Mary of course existed with the father in heaven. And there's a whole bunch of quotes here from the gospel which I won't repeat of his descent from heaven. Another bunch of quotes of his coming into the world, coming from God and so on. The climax is probably reached in the most powerful of the I am sayings. These are the amazing I am sayings. I am the light of the world. Before Abraham was. I am the resurrection and the light. I am the good shepherd etc. Only found in the fourth gospel. And the one he refers to the most powerful is where Jesus's claims to preexistence where Jesus says before Abraham was I am. This is 8:58. John 8:58. Clearly Jesus was with God or even was God. So a clear enough picture emerges. He says, but can we assume that John's intention was to give these various expressions as utterances of the historical Jesus? Can we assume that John's concern was to paint a portrait of Jesus as he actually was to record like a faithful stenographer or someone with a YouTube channel what he actually said?
The reassertion of the fourth gospel as a historical source and the renewed realization that its tradition has firm historical roots at least at several places give some encouragement on this score because you'll often hear Christian apologists say well in recent years the Gospel of John has been seen by scholars as much more historically reliable than it than it used to be here the two for say in the early 20th century or the 19th century. And in some places this is true in so with say archaeology or c cultural references in the the gospel of John. But and this is the but unfortunately Jimmy Dunn continues however it is precisely at the point which concerns us meaning did Jesus think he was divine son of God that the case is weakest. Precisely here that the indications are strongest that John is presenting us with a developed rather than original tradition. So in other words, the words given to Jesus on his lips in the fourth gospel are not really historical. They are they are the product of a much later developed tradition.
Then Jimmy Jimmy Jimmy Dunn says consider the following points and he mentions three points which is the whole point of the video uh which we we will now explore and they're a little bit some of them are a bit technical but let's let's go through them and he mentions first of all Dodd a guy called Dodd he was a British New Testament scholar's careful comparison of the Gospel of John and the synoptic gospels has indeed brought to our attention several sayings and sequences of sayings which most probably stem from synoptic or synoptic-like tradition. So in other words, there were some themes or words in say Mark or Matthew and Luke uh which we will see examples in a second which were then developed taken over by John and hugely reworked and expanded and elaborated and embellished. I think basically that's what he's trying to say. But Dodd has also highlighted still more clearly how distinctive are the Johannine discourses, John's discourses which make use of those sayings constructed to a characteristic pattern which has no parallel in the synoptic gospels. No one no one can dispute that the vast differences between the discourse style in John's gospel and Jesus teaching in Matthew, Mark and Luke. So there still is a huge difference between John on the one hand and Matthew, Mark and Luke on the other.
The point is this and D really goes to the detail now. The point is this and this is where it's so compelling I think that I don't see how anyone can disagree with what he's saying because it's so so obviously factually correct what Jimmy Dunn is saying and everyone agrees virtually everyone agrees in the world in academia with what he's saying. The point is this that the style is so consistent in John. So the way Jesus speaks, the language he uses, the themes that he articulates in John is so consistent. It never changes. Doesn't matter from page to page to page. Whether in Galilee or in Judea or whether Jesus speaking to crowds or to individuals to peasants or to Pharisees to disciples or to hostile Jews and so consistently different from Matthew, Mark and Luke that it can hardly be other than a Johannine literary product. In other words, this style has to be an invented product of the last gospel John developing and shaping the tradition according to a pattern largely imposed upon it. So John takes themes which were around much earlier and then works develops embellishes them massively to create these huge discourses we see in John and they impose John imposes this this theme on the earlier material. The best explanation still remains, says Jimmy Dunn, that that John's discourses are meditations or sermons on individual sayings or episodes from Jesus's life, but elaborated in the language and theology of subsequent Christian reflection. So in other words, they're highly embellished sayings. He seems to be saying Jesus didn't go around saying, "I am the light of the world." Psalm. No, no. No earlier tradition has Jesus speaking like this. But he takes themes, the little little pin pricks, little suggestions, hints in the earlier gospels and massively develops them like like a like a sermon, like a like a preacher would, embellishing them, exaggerating them, advancing them massively. And this is the standard understanding as I I keep on saying.
And then he says, and he gives a very specific example. And when I I I've I've never come across anyone uh on YouTube or anywhere else to be honest outside of academic literature who's ever made this point. It doesn't seem to that there's no popular awareness of what he's about to say. And this is really really significant and for Muslims this is really really interesting what he's about to say in particular. He writes this is clearly true of the whole father-son tradition in John's gospel. If you read John, it's always about the son and the father and the father and the son. The relationship between the two of them on and on every almost every paragraph is to do with that. You won't find that earlier on or hardly at all. Jeremiah has noticed Jeremiah was a famous German biblical scholar has noticed the following statistics for the use of father just the word father in Greek for God in the words of Jesus. So how many times did Jesus call God father in the Greek the New Testament in Mark the earliest it's just three times in Q this is the source used by Matthew and Luke in addition to Mark we find four instances of God calling sorry Jesus calling God father in John it's 100 times 100 times on Matthew by the way is 31 times and then John 100 times. So Mark three times, Matthew 31, John 100 and Luke is four. And he draws the inevitable conclusion. There was a growing tendency to introduce the title father for God into the sayings of Jesus. Let me repeat that. There was a tendency, a growing tendency to introduce the title father for God into the sayings of Jesus. So in the earliest evidence we have Jesus hardly ever refers to God as father, just one or two couple of times but by the time we get to John's gospel on the lips of Jesus we have him referring to God 100 times. So there's a huge massive embellishment additional placing of this term on the lips of Jesus as we go through time. Very interesting. Even more striking, he says, are the statistics for the phrase the father. So before it was just father, now the father. How many times does Jesus refer to God as the father? In Mark, it's a huge once. Only once does he ever refer to God as the father. In Luke, twice. Matthew 1. John 73. 73. On this evidence, it is scarcely possible to dispute that here we see straightforward evidence of a burgeoning tradition of a manner of speaking about Jesus and his relationship with God which became very popular in the last decades of the first century.
Okay. So what do we what do we include from this and this is just the first part. We'll come on to the second and third in a minute. So where Jesus is portrayed in a trinitarian way, you know, the father and the son, this is much later language. If we go back to the earliest evidence, Jesus hardly ever speaks of God as his father at all. Just one or two instances. And even those instances were put down say in the 60s or 70s AD and they may have been added in the tradition for all we know before that time. So in in Islam, of course, there's a slight change of subject. Uh we're told not to we don't address God as father. It's not one of the names that has been given to us by which we address God. And sometimes people wonder why that is the case. And and I think because the the the meaning of the word father if by which we mean someone who protects, provides for uh someone who is our someone who look to for security, our sustainer and and our so on. This language is found in the Quran but the word itself father is not. So it's not like the understanding of God is not there in that way but the word isn't and I think it's because the way the Christianity has taken over this language in a trinitarian way the currency of the term has become a bit corrupted and so it's not usable anymore. It has trinitarian overtones. So the word is no longer used. That's speculation but that's kind of what I think.
But coming uh to the next second big challenge uh that I I had to my faith when I first came across this as a Christian. Much the same has to be said about the sayings Jimmy Dunn writes which assert Jesus's preexistence. So the idea that Jesus was a divine being who became incarnate uh as Jesus of Nazareth 2,000 years ago. The point again is the complete lack of real parallel in the earlier tradition. No other gospel nor Mark nor Matthew or Luke speaks of Jesus coming down from heaven and the like. The clearer the implication of pre-existence in any saying, the more distinctive its Johannine character. So in other words, pre-existence really is a fourth gospel idea. The were became flesh and dwelt among us to quote from the prologue. It's not there in Mark or Matthew or Luke.
And then he says again, it is possible to see a synoptic type root for the weighty I am sayings. Remember I said about the I am sayings in the fourth gospel. I am the light of the world. I am the resurrection of the life. Before Abraham was I am. They're only found in John. He he Jimmy Dunn is referring to a synoptic type root the origin of these I am statements uh these amazingly weighty statements in the synoptics and he says again it is possible to see a synoptic type root for the weighty I am sayings Mark 6:50 and then Mark 13:6 and Mark 60462 but again the indications are clear and strong that the weightier sayings in John are a development from the earlier tradition at best tendential to the earlier tradition for Mark's I am sayings are simply affirmative utterances, it's me, I am he, yes as Matthew clearly indicates in Matthew 24:5 and 26:64 but John has probably seen a potential link with the I am of Isaiah 43:10 and exploited it accordingly. It is it is surely scarcely credible that a saying like John 8:58 or the other I am sayings the bread of life, the light of the world etc. were part of the earliest Jesus tradition and yet nothing approaching them appears anywhere in the synoptic gospels. Why should they be so completely neglected if part of the authentic sayings of Jesus? And why should only Jesus, only John preserve them? Why? If Jesus went around talking like this, I am the light of the world, etc. Why does no one ever record him saying this in Matthew, in Luke, in Mark and Q, uh, Gospel of Thomas, whatever other early sources you care, but only towards the end of the first century, Jesus apparently goes around speaking like this.
The most obvious explanation Jimmy Dunn says once again is that in a relatively insignificant element of the earlier tradition, John has found the inspiration to fashion an invaluable formula for expressing Christianity's claims about Christ. Now, Jimmy Dunn writes as a Christian. So, he believes that the John statements about Jesus are true, even though they're not historical. There's a bit of a paradox. Don't ask me to explain it. But he he thinks that John has taken these uh very kind of insignificant statements where Jesus says, "Yeah, it's me. Yes, I'm he." And fashioned out of them a very very high Christology uh giving us basically Christianity. So you have to ask what did the historical Jesus think? Did he agree with these things? He probably never thought of them like that.
So I think that's um very interesting indeed. I think we'll leave it there. Um, I just wanted to emphasize that these uh discoveries when I came across them, the idea that Jesus' pre-existence is not taught in the early gospels at all. It's not there in Matthew, Mark, and Luke and Q is only found in John. The idea that uh Jesus calling God father in the way that we understand that he consistently did in Christianity is actually not there in the earliest gospels or hardly there at all but only uh uh in a burgeoning development. In other words, a massively developed tradition where these terms the father or father are put on the lips of Jesus repeatedly to give this almost trinitarian relationship between father and son. And then the idea uh that Jesus himself uh didn't really go around talking like John's Jesus does at all. And I I've yet to found find hardly any scholar anywhere certainly outside of fundamentalist Bible seminaries in the American South where you will find some who believe in the absolute inherency of the Bible and these are very hardline conservative people. But in mainstream scholarship uh they all all accept that John's Jesus is to use much more popular language is a fict a fictitious construct. Is not historical and that the historical Jesus did not believe that he was the divine son of God. The historical Jesus did not believe that he was incarnate in any way and the historical Jesus did not go around saying I am the light of the world or before Abraham was I am etc. And the historical Jesus did not repeatedly call on God his as his father either. Let me repeat that. The historical Jesus did not go around repeatedly calling God his father either. Um, because there is no evidence that he did and that's the evidence the so-called evidence is found in much much later uh uh texts which everyone acknowledges are not historical. In other words, the historical Jesus didn't speak like that.
So these are quite devastating findings I found and people are still Christians and believe this. You know, I don't know how they do it, but Jimmy Dunn uh still uh retains his faith having written this book. Uh even though he knew that the historical Jesus did not believe that he was there was no evidence the historical Jesus believed that he was the divine son of God. But he believed that anyway. But that's an issue for Jimmy Dunn. Uh and it's not an issue for us so much. You simply care about the texts, the evidence, and history. Until next time.