The Sanhedrin – The Majority Of Scholars That Rejected Christ
According to the majority of scholars….The majority of scholars say…..Most scholars have concluded….
Ever heard these lines before when dealing with Islamic apologists? I certainly have. To Islamic apologists, this argument carries a lot of weight. However, they’ll only pull out the “majority of scholars” when it backs up their position. Since I have written on this inconsistency in the past, I won’t repeat it here. I want to touch on how to confront these arguments head on.
Why isn’t this argument good? The Answer to that is simple: The majority of scholars have believed different things at different times. For example, the majority of scholars today don’t believe in Biblical Inerrancy. If you look back to 1600, the majority of scholars believed in inerrancy. Perhaps if we wait 200 years maybe the pendulum will swing back and the majority of scholars will embrace inerrancy once more.
Also, what is a “majority”? It could be 51% of scholars or 99% of scholars. Both numbers fall within the definition of a majority but are very different in content. Also, if the majority of scholars believe something based on a bad argument, it shouldn’t carry much weight to any thinking person.
Whenever I’m confronted with this argument, I simply try to probe deep and uncover the presuppositions. If its held by the majority, it must be able to substantiate itself.
Here are some examples of this type of argument:
1) The majority of scholars say that Jesus never said the “I am” statements from the Gospel of John.
2) The majority of scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark was written around 70 AD and the other Gospels were written even later.
3) Most scholars believe that the first 18 verses of the Gospel of John are a later addition to the Gospel.
4) Most scholars believe that Paul never wrote the pastoral epistles.
There is absolutely no proof for any of these statements. They are popular conclusions but they are based on speculation. The majority of the Islamic apologists who throw out these arguments don’t know the speculations behind them, though some of the smarter ones will.
Even amongst the more knowledgeable ones, if you keep asking them questions, they will eventually have to admit that it’s a scholarly speculation based on anti-supernaturalist presuppositions. A presupposition that a muslim cannot accept though he’s more than happy to accept the conclusions.
Now what will happen to you? You will be called a fundamentalist who does not appreciate scholarship. This bothers a lot of people but it doesn’t bother me in the slightest. Jesus would have been labeled a fundamentalist if modernist scholars lived in his day. I’d rather stand with God and be judged by the liberal scholars than stand with liberal scholars and be judged by God.
Don’t be afraid of being a called a fundamentalist. Remember the words of sacred Scripture in 1 Kings 19:18 which reads:
And I will leave me seven thousand men in Israel, whose knees have not been bowed before Baal, and every mouth that hath not worshipped him kissing the hands.
I can just imagine one of the remnant of 7,000 talking to one of the millions of Baal worshippers in ancient Israel and hearing the Baal worshipper say:
You know that the majority of scholars believe that Yahweh is a false God and that Baal is the true God. Are you going to believe the few who say Yahweh is the true God or follow the majority of scholars who believe in Baal? Maybe our ignorant ancestors who didn’t look at our scripture how current scholars do might have thought Yahweh was the true God but modern scholars have concluded that its Baal. If you go against this scholarly majority you’re just a fundamentalist! You’re not a fundamentalist, are you?
‘The majority of scholars say that Jesus never said the “I am” statements from the Gospel of John.’
Perhaps you might like to find out the detailed historical reasons why nearly all NT scholars (most of whom are Christian btw) think it very unlikely Jesus said these words.
I have read Raymond Brown’s two volume work on John and so I know his reasons. I don’t know the opinions of the other liberal scholars but I assume their reasons are similar.
In a certain way I have to thank Islamic apologists like you, Shabir Ally and others since you guys have forced me to read Brown. Many years ago the only book by Brown I had read was his “An Introduction to the New Testament”. Any Catholic who has ever gotten his feet wet in regards to liberal Biblical scholarship has read this work. In fact, of all the books I’ve read of Brown’s I’d still say its his best book.
So yes, thank you muslim apologists. I should point out that I don’t necessarily want to read these things but for apologetics you don’t have much of a choice. I’d rather read the Summa for an hour a day but thats life. I’m glad I’ve read his works(or a few of them) though. Still have to read Death of the Messiah.
I would also like to point out that when you say: “nearly all NT scholars” you should add the word “modern” as well. The Church has been studying the Bible since its founding. If you were to take a poll of Biblical scholars from Pentecost to 2016 you’d find it to be an extreme minority of scholars who take your position.
“If you were to take a poll of Biblical scholars from Pentecost to 2016 you’d find it to be an extreme minority of scholars who take your position.”
Sorry, but what a strange thing to say … If the all the scholars had the knowledge and the sources and resources we have today, they would come to the same conclusion as the ones you label “liberal”. I’d say they are the ones who are not forced to deny reality by their belief system.
What sources are you referring to? There are a few new discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls but modern scholars don’t use them to refute Jesus saying the “I am” statements or Pauline authorship of the pastorals. The modern liberals essentially use the same “sources” as Christians always have but they have a different worldview. A worldview that is inconsistent with traditional Christianity, Islam, or any other theism.
“A worldview that is inconsistent with traditional Christianity, Islam, or any other theism.”
On the contrary. Unbiased scholarship confirms the Qur’anic criticism of some Christians and their dealing with their scriptures.
I would say that no scholarship on the planet is unbiased and that’s certainly true when dealing with religious texts. If you want to embrace scholarship with an anti supernatural worldview, be my guest. As a Christian, I only accept scholarship with a supernatural worldview because I am a supernaturalist and Christianity is a supernatural religion. That doesn’t mean that I don’t read them, I just don’t take them seriously. I also only trust supernaturalists when dealing with the Quran and Islam for the same reasons. I would never quote Muhammad Sven Kalisch or Reza Aslan to a muslim to try and prove a point because I’m simply a supernaturalist, plain and simple. Since I’m a supernaturalist I don’t want to quote scholarship with anti supernaturalist presuppositions whether they be Christian or Islamic. Why would I?
The beauty about being a Christian apologist as opposed to an Islamic apologist is that I can accept the Quran as it is and I don’t need to use anti supernatural liberal scholarship and inconsistent standards to try and alter the meaning of the Quran to make it consistent with Christianity because the Quran is just as irrelevant to Christianity as the Book of Mormon. However, a muslim must do that with the Torah and the Gospel in order to shoehorn Muhammad and Islam into them when its clear that they’re not Islamic documents. The unfortunate thing for the muslims is that the Quran specifically mentions Jesus, the Injeel, and the Torah. It forced this on you guys so you have no choice and I don’t have to deal with this one bit.
I recommend that you embrace the Christian faith to relieve yourself of this extremely heavy burden.
The Church doors are wide open.
God Bless.
“I only accept scholarship with a supernatural worldview”
goes with “truth without compromise” how?
Re your last comment – I did not expect a sermon as an answer.
If your “supernatural worldview” prevents you from telling right from wrong, what’s the point?
But as you did not address the point I think you agree that the majority of modern scholarship confirms the Qur’anic criticism of some Christians and their dealing with their scriptures.
I’ll respond to both comments here. Regarding only accepting a supernatural worldview and how it goes with Truth Without Compromise.
Both of us agree that the supernatural exist. If its the truth, why deny it?
“If your “supernatural worldview” prevents you from telling right from wrong, what’s the point?”
You can use whatever argument that you want against me but if its speculative or from authority(majority of scholars) and if its from an anti supernaturalist presupposition, don’t be surprised if me or any Christian doesn’t buy into it.
Let’s put it this way. I do a lot of pro-life work. In my dialogue with pro-choicers my goal isn’t to “win” in debate but to win them to my side. In doing so you have to use proper tactics. The same in apologetics. You want me to join Islam, don’t you? Do you think I’d be impressed by you quoting the “majority of scholars” who are rank modernists? Do you think a Traditional Latin Mass going Catholic is going to be converted to Islam by quotes from Raymond Brown? Not in your life. That’s why I would never quote Reza Aslan if I was trying to convert a Salafi. It simply wouldn’t work.
Last of all, you said: “But as you did not address the point I think you agree that the majority of modern scholarship confirms the Qur’anic criticism of some Christians and their dealing with their scriptures.”
The Quran is vindicated with modern scholarship and the Bible is condemned? So modern scholarship believes that Jesus’ disciples were muslims and called themselves that as Surah 3:52 clearly testifies? Modern scholarship believes Jesus never died on a cross? Modern scholarship believes that Jesus prophesied Muhammad by name as Surah 61:6 says?
Sorry, I don’t think thats the case.
Also, most modern scholars deny the virgin birth of Christ. An event treasured by both Christians and muslims. Modern scholarship cuts both ways.
So no, modern scholarship doesn’t vindicate Islam or Quranic criticism of the Christian scriptures.