St. Paul The Apostle
For most Muslims, the Apostle Paul is the big baddy in the New Testament. Why is this? Islamic sources reference Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the earthly disciples of Christ and says they’re all Muslims. However, the apostle Paul is never mentioned. I suppose this means Muslims can take a stand with or against Paul. However, as we’ll see it’s always against.
It’s no surprise to anyone who reads the NT, that it contradicts the Quran and traditional Islamic beliefs. Since the Quran paints those that I mentioned in a positive light, someone needs to be the fall guy. That’s the apostle Paul. I don’t know where this comes from, but early in Islamic history, this was not the case. In the earliest biography about Muhammad we read:
Those whom Jesus son of Mary sent, both disciples and those who came after them, in the land were: Peter the disciple and Paul with him, (Paul belonged to the followers and was not a disciple) to Rome; Andrew and Matthew to the land of the cannibals; Thomas to the land of Babel which is in the land of the east; Philip to Carthage which is Africa; John to Ephesus the city of the young men of the cave; James to Jerusalem which is Aelia the city of the sanctuary; Bartholomew to Arabia which is the land of the Hijaz; Simon to the land of the Berbers; Judah who was not one of the disciples was put in the place of Judas.
The Earliest Biography of Muhammad
Doesn’t sound like the modern narrative to me. Why is this? Eventually Muslims would study the NT and learn what’s in it. They needed someone to blame and St. Paul seemed to be their only option.
I’m writing this post to encourage Muslims to take a closer look at St. Paul. I actually think if they gave him a fair chance, they’d actually like him. This is not anathema to their faith since as shown, Ibn Ishaq seemed to approve of St. Paul. I’ve seen other quotes online of early Muslim biographers and commentators saying good things about St. Paul but I don’t have those books and therefore cannot check the references. Ibn Ishaq will have to suffice for now.
Let’s look at some of the beliefs of St. Paul.
We know that Muslims cherish monotheism. That’s exactly what St. Paul taught in his epistle to the Galatians which says:
A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.
– Galatians 3: 20
We also know that Muslims like to reject fleshly desires and strive to live a moral life. Look what St. Paul says about that:
The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
– Galatians 5: 19 – 21
Also, while St. Paul doesn’t condemn alcohol, the harshest words in the NT against drunkenness come from his letters.
Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit,
– Ephesians 5:18
Now, the Muslim may object and say that St. Paul says stuff that is against Islam. This is very true but so does Jesus Christ and the apostles and Muslims don’t reject them. They just accuse those texts of being corrupted. Why not say that St. Paul’s letters are corrupted and that St. Paul was a good Muslim? If Jesus Christ is a Muslim, St. Paul is one as well.
Saint Paul is the “perfect” scapegoat that Muslims can blame for the start of Christianity. It’s just that someone MUST have hijacked the original teachings of the Messiah. And as usual, they don’t realize the conundrum that arises from their claims- the’re basically saying that the “Islamic Jesus” and his disciples were just a bunch of losers and it’s their incompetence that is the true reason for 1st century “Islam” to vanish into nothingness without a trace- not a single measly peace of evidence of its existence. They don’t seem to realize that what is freely asserted is freely dismissed.
We can also turn the tables on them- as David Wood has suggested, what if Muhammad was actually a devout Christian with orthodox teachings that were perverted some time later by the evil Uthman? I mean, why not? Maybe the evidence of that was destroyed, after all Uthman was a caliph, he had the authority and resources to do so. And how about the divine assistance to Christ’s followers to become victorious (Sura 3:55, 61:14)? It seems that Allah sabotaged his own revelation. Yep, that makes perfect sense…if you are a Muslim.
Apostle Paul had sensed that something like Islam will happen after him (keep in mind that according to Islamic tradition Muhammad allegedly received his revelations from Angel Gabriel)- “Now, even if ourselves or an angel from heaven should preach to you any “Good News” that is not what
we preached to you, let such a one be accursed!” (Galatians 1:8)
Hi Orangehunter,
I’m going to be doing a post(or series of them) in the future comparing our supposedly corrupted texts and Islamic texts which Islamic sources admit are corrupted, edited, redacted.
Curious, which video did David Wood say this in? I don’t watch all of his videos, though I watch quite a few of them.
It wasn’t a video:
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2008/08/uthman-corrupter-of-muhammads-message.html?m=1
By the way, do you plan any posts related to textual criticism, important textual variants, Bible versions, etc.? I’m curious about your position on these matters.
Thank you for the link. Is there anything that you’d like me to write about in this area? If Christians are struggling with a certain argument in the textual variation area, I’m willing to address it. If you need help with anything, feel free to ask. I write this blog to help Christians deal with Islam and other heresies. That being said, I’m going to be addressing the Psalm 22 k’ari vs k’aru variant and meaning on March 30 which is Good Friday in the Catholic calendar.
I find that with the exception of Ijaz Ahmed, no apologists focus on this area anymore. It was more popular in 2005(and the years after that) when Misquoting Jesus came out but I think Muslims realize that going down this road is something they can’t win on. It doesn’t give them the “corruption” of the Biblical text that they want.
In terms of Bible translation, I have always favored the Douay Rheims but I’m not as hardcore as some of my fellow Traditional Catholics are in the exclusive use of this version. I use the RSVCE and NABRE as well. Avoid the commentaries on the NABRE. When I read it in French, I use this really liberal Protestant translation. I grew up going to school in French so reading it in French is something that I do often. When I read the Bible in the Russian language I use the Synodal Version approved by the Orthodox Church of Russia. I am trying to get other translations in Russian but they’re really hard to get a hold of. I read a few of them on Biblegateway.com.
In 2015, in the early days of this blog, I did some posts on certain verses such as Luke 1:28 and Romans 5:1.
Do you think maybe Muslim polemicists don’t focus on the textual lineage of the Bible anymore, also because it draws attention to their own textual lineage of the Quran?
Which between the Uthmanic burning, major variants & editing in early manuscripts like the Sanaa, plagiarizing of Syriac Christian hymns and etc… Is extremely problematic and embarrassing stuff!
Allan,
As a tu quo que (for calling the Injeel “mythical”), maybe you should provide a manuscript for the Epistle to the Laodiceans.
==
I don’t think the Bible itself is that corrupted. The only theologically significant interpolations [that I can recall] are 1 Corinthians 14 34-35, the adulteress pericope (the verses before John 8:11), the Johannine comma, and possibly (but I am against it) Father forgive them (Luke 23:34).
It is possible that Matthew 28:19 (great commission mentioning the Holy Spirit) is an interpolation.
Perhaps a more interesting question would concern the material that was excluding due to promoting heresy.
I don’t think the deutero-Pauline epistles have a significant amount of novel theologically significant content. It would not affect Christianity that much if it was knocked out. I just find it to be an interesting historical question that has little potential of being weaponized against Christian apologists. It can, however, cast doubt on the authority of scripture.
I listened to some Bart Ehrman talks on Youtube (linked by Yahya Snow) and it made me personally disappointed since he was so good there. I cannot possibly compete with him. My Da’wah style should not be to become an ersatz Bart Ehrman, but I should at least have some minimum competence in scripture to deal with some basic Christian arguments that purportedly establish the Resurrection and the Empty Tomb.
I don’t think the text of the Bible itself could be attacked that significantly, but rather the inferences from the text, especially the doctrine of the Trinity. Paul’s soteriology, for the most part, is quite clear. It is impossible to argue that he didn’t believe in justification (primarily) through faith and grace and original sin.
I actually feel a little disappointed at liberal scholarship on the interpretations of Pauline literature, since it casts some doubts on my favored interpretation of Paul advocating monergism. I strongly favored the Calvin and Lutheran interpretations of his work. As a Muslim, I really wanted to use the monergism to emphasize God’s sovereignty. My interpretation is that “good works” refers to a general class of good deeds, as opposed to following the Mosaic law. Traditionally, Reformation theologians say that we cannot do anything to “add” to our salvation. My primary argument against the Mosaic law interpretation was Romans 2, where Paul says that the Gentiles have the law written in the hearts. This most likely does not mean the Mosaic law because God did not reveal it to them, but rather something more rudimentary that promotes sexual chastity, temperance, and refraining from grievous violence such as murder.
(As an aside, I think it is possible to reconcile James 2 with Pauline corpus. If you take Romans 4 and James 2 in isolation, I think it is difficult. The simple answer is that sanctification is incidental to justification. Justification is a supernatural act, and sanctification is the fruit of the spirit that does not contribute to justification.
I would use this question as a means to assess a Christian’s familiarity with the scriptural basis for justification. I think Adnan Rashid’s use of Luther’s perplexity on James 2 did not present a challenge)
I think relying on Romans 2 is exegetically problematic because it is merely one instance. Of course, Paul was largely dealing with people who believe they had to augment their faith with Jewish customs (in Galatians and Philippians), so he would naturally focus on it.
Naturally, I loathe to use the deutero-Pauline letters to support that position.
Hello Latias,
Hope all is well with you. I don’t think you understood what I meant about the injeel. I said: “yet the mythical injeel hasn’t even been close to being preserved. There is not trace of it. There is also no knowledge of it until the 7th century.”
I specifically said that there is no trace of knowledge of its existence until the 7th century. The epistle of the Laodiceans in Colossians 4 is specifically mentioned. We know that it existed in the first century. We just don’t have the letter. We have no evidence that the Muslim injeel existed in the first century, irregardless of the fact that we don’t have it. So its not tu quo que.
“I don’t think the Bible itself is that corrupted. The only theologically significant interpolations [that I can recall] are 1 Corinthians 14 34-35, the adulteress pericope (the verses before John 8:11), the Johannine comma, and possibly (but I am against it) Father forgive them (Luke 23:34).
It is possible that Matthew 28:19 (great commission mentioning the Holy Spirit) is an interpolation.”
You don’t think its that corrupted? Interesting. Matthew 28:19 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 don’t have manuscript evidence for being interpolations. These are just guesses by scholars. The verses you brought up from John and Luke actually have manuscript evidence that they may be variants. John 8 is certainly an addition. That verse actually has an interesting textual history.
“but I should at least have some minimum competence in scripture to deal with some basic Christian arguments that purportedly establish the Resurrection and the Empty Tomb.”
I know a guy who’s atheist and reads a lot of atheist literature. He didn’t get a lot out of Ehrman since he doesn’t know the NT that well. If you don’t know the NT, then you can’t get a lot out of his work. I don’t know what your knowledge of the NT is though.
“I actually feel a little disappointed at liberal scholarship on the interpretations of Pauline literature, since it casts some doubts on my favored interpretation of Paul advocating monergism. I strongly favored the Calvin and Lutheran interpretations of his work.”
I find this odd because I know that you were once a Catholic, not Calvinist or Lutheran.
“(As an aside, I think it is possible to reconcile James 2 with Pauline corpus. If you take Romans 4 and James 2 in isolation, I think it is difficult.”
Catholics have never had a problem with this. It only became a problem when sola fide was thrown into the equation in the 16th century. It’s important to point out that both Romans 4 and James 2 both reference Genesis 15:6. Something to think about.
“I think relying on Romans 2 is exegetically problematic because it is merely one instance. Of course, Paul was largely dealing with people who believe they had to augment their faith with Jewish customs (in Galatians and Philippians), so he would naturally focus on it.”
Not quite sure what you’re getting at here.
“Naturally, I loathe to use the deutero-Pauline letters to support that position.”
Are you referring to my use of Ephesians 5?
as salaamu alaykum.
Speaking out of personal pride, I think I am on the 90-95th percentile now on knowledge of the New Testament when compared to devout Catholics (i.e. Catholics who attend Mass). I actually do impress Catholic friends with my degree of mastery of the New Testament. I could get that knowledge in a few months because I have a fairly formidable memory.
When I said that “most Catholics do not read the Bible”, I meant that somewhat as a joke and also an indictment. The joke is that a Catholic actually said that as a joke. The indictment is that I wish I could discuss the NT with Catholics to test my own style of polemics. The Muslims that I know aren’t really don’t have any interest in the New Testament. I am often in the back of the prayer room (at college) where I do salat sometimes reading my NASB Bible and sometimes a lighter Gideon New Testament when I do not want to carry the former in my bag. It appears to be quite odd when a Muslim is reading other Scripture. The Muslims understand why I am reading it when I explain myself. I haven’t seen anyone reading the Qu’ran there.
There are some people who put an Arabic-English pamphlet containing the Gospel of John and the Epistle to the Romans in an attempt to evangelize the Muslims. I saw some guy putting those pamphlets there, but I was performing salat when he left, so I could not challenge him to discuss their content.
Of course, I could use scripture constructively too. I believe that you have to be able to do that. One cannot simply read the NT simply to find contradictory or disgusting parts to use as polemic material. You really won’t learn that much if you do that.
As for Romans 2
It is because of this passage that I do not think that the Apostle Paul restricts his focus to the Mosaic law when he says the “law”. People have the law written in their hearts (sort of similar to the natural tendency to see God in nature that referenced in Romans 1:20). Because the law is written in the hearts of the Gentiles, I interpret that to mean it does not mean the intricacies of the law such as maintaining the regime of sacrifices and circumcision, but general good deeds and conduct. Due to that passage, “law” meant something broad, thus and when Paul said that the power of the law is abolished, it means that one is not saved by performing good deeds.
The New Perspective on Paul (wiki) interprets Paul’s concern with the law to be restricted to the Mosaic law. Again, I have a strong interest in upholding the standard Lutheran or Reformed interpretation of Paul.
As for Matthew 28:19. Yes, there is no manuscript not containing it, but one source against the “Holy Spirit” that is cited by some Muslim and Unitarian websites is that Eusebius of Caesara’s quotation says “baptizing in my name” suggesting that the “Holy Spirit” not part of the original text. I haven’t investigated the evidence behind that passage in depth.
Also Baptism in the Book of Acts does not mention the trinitarian formula of Matthew 28:19.
This article covers some of the reasons for the interpolation of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.
Interestingly, the real Paul is a Muslim for a advocating submission to God:
The paper is admittedly inconclusive, since it uses largely a shotgun approach. I posted the excerpt not because it was a decisive argument for interpolation, but because it is a tongue in cheek reference to the notion that Paul is a Muslim.
https://www.umass.edu/wsp/publications/alpha/v1/a1-04-interpolation.pdf
As for the original texts, Bart Ehrman sez that first incomplete extant manuscript for 2 Corinthians is dated around 200 CE while the first complete manuscript is 350 CE. The interpolation could occur for 1 Corinthians before the period of the first extant manuscript and everyone just quoted from that. (One would still have to explain why there exists no manuscript where it is omitted).
Hi Latias,
“When I said that “most Catholics do not read the Bible”, I meant that somewhat as a joke and also an indictment. ”
It’s 100% true. The Evangelicals have us beat on this one lol.
“The New Perspective on Paul (wiki) interprets Paul’s concern with the law to be restricted to the Mosaic law. Again, I have a strong interest in upholding the standard Lutheran or Reformed interpretation of Paul.”
You should watch the unbelievable podcast between James White and NT Wright.
“Of course, I could use scripture constructively too. I believe that you have to be able to do that. One cannot simply read the NT simply to find contradictory or disgusting parts to use as polemic material. You really won’t learn that much if you do that.”
I’m impressed that you think this way. Most Muslims that I know that read the NT do so for the sole purpose of finding Islam under it, not to find its real meaning. It’s refreshing to know that you aren’t doing that.
“Also Baptism in the Book of Acts does not mention the trinitarian formula of Matthew 28:19.”
I actually have a whole post on this.
http://allanruhl.com/there-is-no-contradiction-on-baptismal-instruction-in-the-new-testament/#more-375
Thanks again for commenting. I quite enjoy reading your comments.
God bless!
One more thing. Here’s a blog post that I wrote about Scripture study. Look at the comments below and I think you’ll be surprised.
http://allanruhl.com/scripture-study-no-liberals-allowed/#more-88
I am pleased to inform you that there is a video by David Wood with the title “I Believe in Muhammad (David Wood)”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhT7SaIE_DQ
He tackles the subject you are discussing in his own imitable, amusing and cutting style. This lad has quite an intellect and has developed a way of communicating with clarity and simplicity.
I will check out the video!
David Wood is always very witty.
Well, you could share your thoughts on the ongoing debate between “reasoned eclecticists” and supporters of the Majority text of the New Testament among Christians. It seems that most Protestants use predominantly translations based on the Critical text of the NT. There was an interesting debate between Tony Costa and John Tors on this issue. My preference of English Bible is the Orthodox New Testament (edited by Laurent Cleenewerck) and the Old Testament in the NKJV.
As for Ijaz Ahmad, he raised some very interesting objections against the Bible here :
https://callingchristians.com/2014/11/04/why-muslims-reject-the-bible-as-scripture/#comments
There are some interesting comments below the article as well. How would respond to this kind of attack on the Bible?
Hi,
The Orthodox NT? Is that part of the Orthodox Study Bible published by Thomas Nelson? I’ve been meaning to pick that up. I have so much to read lol.
I read through Ijaz Ahmad’s article. Huge double standards. Like I said, it’s not an area they’ll win in. I could do the same thing with the Quran. Which recension? What canon? What codex? etc.
I also think it’s quite funny that all of these “false texts” exist according to him(his lists), yet the mythical injeel hasn’t even been close to being preserved. There is not trace of it. There is also no knowledge of it until the 7th century.
http://allanruhl.com/a-serious-question-about-the-taurat-and-the-injeel/#more-749
Here’s an article where I tackle the subject. You’ve read it because you’ve commented on it. Overall, I don’t think Ijaz Ahmad has any good arguments in this area.
1. Nope, if I recall correctly, the Orthodox Study Bible uses the text of NKJV (the most “Orthodox” Protestant translation). What I mean is a translation of the NT, based on the Ecclesiastical (Patriarchal) Greek Text. Here’s a link:
https://www.amazon.com/EOB-Orthodox-Testament-Patriarchal-extensive/dp/148191765X
2. Sure, one could do the same with the Quran and the Hadith collections, but then Ahmad will just say: “You’re committing the tu quoque fallacy, try better next time”. I would start with pointing out that Ahmad’s (mis)interpretation of Psalm 119:89 is not necessary the one that is the most correct, in fact in the Bible the term “Word/word of God ” has flexible meaning, it doesn’t always mean “the Scriptures that contain God’s revelation”. I would also insist that all codices and versions of the Bible agree that Christ is Son of God and that He died for our sins. If Ahmad replies in the manner he did in the comments of his article- “If all the above is what is needed for you, then why don’t you rip all the other pages out of your Bible then!?”, I will counter with “Because I’m too busy ripping pages out of your Quran”. I would continue claiming that God probably inspired different readings of the text, pointing out that NT authors had no problem using the Septuagint (or the Hebrew text behind it) and other versions of the Old Testament beside the Septuagint, therefore Christians should not be troubled by the fact that more than one reading can be valid and inspired. This has always been the position of the Eastern Orthodox Church, both the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint are regarded as inspired by almost all Church fathers. If Ahmad objects, THEN I would give example with the Quran, which is believed to exist in seven different harfs (“styles”), and all the readings contained in them are considered equally valid. I would remind him of the disputes among Muslim scholars over authenticity of some of the readings. I would also ask him which Hadith collections are more truthful- the ones compiled by the Sunni Muslims, or the ones compiled by the Shias. I would ask him should I care about variant readings in the scandalous Sana’a manuscript of the Quran. And I’ll express how ridiculous are his lists- I mean, Marcion, Tatian, the Samaritan version of the Torah? I’m just speechless. In the end I would remind the poor dawamonger that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
3. Yep, I’ve read your article. It’s quite on point. Ijaz tackled the same issue, but his article on the “existence” of Injil was just the typical red herring, as you already know.
Hi,
I’m curious, do the early church fathers actually say that the Septuagint was inspired? From my reading, it seems like they think it’s the best translation ever made and it’s as close to perfect as possible. Similar to how Catholics view the Vulgate – not inspired, but as close to perfection as possible and therefore fully authoritative.
Also, do you know of any other Muslim apologists who focus on textual criticism as much Ijaz? As far as I know he’s the only one.
I remember back in the day, I was reading a Greek Orthodox website run by a Priest. It was on Bible study, and he said that the KJV is the only translation that the Orthodox should trust since it uses Byzantine as opposed to Alexandrian manuscripts. Interesting on the Greek Patriarchal NT. I didn’t know about it. I guess that’s what happens when you live in the West, only Catholicism and Protestantism in our bookstores…mostly Protestantism here in Canada. I’ll have to pick it up next amazon order.
1. Well, the Bible itself allows linguistic diversity (Isaiah 28:11, Philippians 2:11, 1 Corinthians 14:5). A more elaborate exposition of the Orthodox view (and indirect refutation of Ijaz Ahmad’s shoddiness) here:
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/onbehalfofall/is-the-septuagint-a-divinely-inspired-translation/
2. No, it seems he is the only one (that matters). What’s interesting is that he invests tremendous amount of time in reading scholarly literature on NT textual criticism. Sadly, Quranic textual criticism is still underdeveloped, but here’s something useful:
https://www.amazon.com/Textual-Criticism-Quran-Manuscripts-Keith/dp/0739177532
3. There are only three modern English translations, based on the Majority (Byzantine) text- KJV, NKJV and MEV. The rest are based more or less on the Critical text. NKJV is considered to be closest in both Testaments to the Eastern Orthodox Bible. The Patriarchal text and the Byzantine text type are very close, though not identical.
Yeah, I’m surprised that he reads as much as he can on something that really isn’t getting him any ground. It’s impressive in an odd way. To be honest, if I was a Muslim apologist, I don’t know where I’d focus. I’m still waiting for an Islamic critique of the Christian faith from these modern apologists.
Thanks for the clarification on the Orthodox view of Scripture. It’s actually quite hard to find info on that. Ancient Faith is pretty good though. I actually did a review on one of their podcasts not too long ago.
http://allanruhl.com/podcast-review-pop-culture-coffee-hour/#more-933
Regarding the Septuagint, I’ve begun to lean more towards it as correctly containing the contents of the Hebrew OT than the Masoretic Text.
The NT authors cite OT passages from the Septuagint, which is evident when there are textual differences compared to what the Masoretic Text says those passages should read.
I note that the Septuagint began its translations centuries before Christ’s coming, whereas the Masoretic dates from ~900 years after… And the editors of the latter would have incentive to select readings that do not support the Messianic fulfillment by Jesus.
https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/masoretic-text-vs-original-hebrew/
This is why I disagree with James White’s constant insistence that “You cannot cite ultra-liberal skeptics against the Bible BECAUSE those same skeptics would reject your Islamic beliefs too”.
Who is the say that the same scholar might not take a long look, objective look at the Quran and reach different conclusions? Surely the Muslim polemicist would assume even liberals would recognize the unimpeachableness of the Quran, if only they would try!
I made the realization when I was trying to ponder out, “How do I respond to the guy who mocks the historical-archaeological-geographic corroboration of the Bible, when he says Harry Potter similarly has London in England?” Reddit responded that actually the guy has a good point, and I had to agree.
Because a better comparison than Harry Potter ( a work of fiction) or The Da Vinci Code (foreword claims to be based on facts) is the Quran – a book that claims to be truth from the divine. Both the Quran and the Bible claim to present truths, yet hold exclusionary statements.
The only way to prove which is correct is to test them by equal standards. And it is on this point that the Quran (as well as the Tarikh and Hadith) clearly fail.
Hence, it is not ‘hypocritical’ or ‘lacking consistency’ if I cite the research of Patricia Crone, Robert Spencer, Dan Gibson or others. The historicity of (e.g.) the Crucifixion is far more sound that that of (e.g.) Mecca as an important ancient city!
Allan,
I posted this in an e-mail to a Catholic friend.
as salaamu alaykum,
I have read most of the authentic Pauline epistles. When I brought up the issue of [Paul’s] misogyny [in a discussion among Catholics], I had no intention to say negative about the Apostle.
It seems interesting that many Catholics do not really read scripture. I, too, have read Paul as a Muslim (alhamdulillah!). I have grown to respect the man, and when I learned that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is likely an interpolation by a scribe and not written by the Paul, a stone had fell from my heart.
It contradicts 1 Corinthians 11 where Paul implicitly permits women to prophesize and pray in churches as long as they wear a veil over their heads. This changed the way that I had looked the Apostle Paul. Paul even said that prophesy has greater value than tongues in Chapter 14. I have previously grown to be sympathetic to Paul, since, in his epistles of the Philippians, he had expressed his travails in spreading his message and how his belief in Christ’s suffering gave him resolve.
I also do not think Paul wrote the horribly misogenistic verses in 1 Timothy 2 (or any of the pastoral epistles).
Here is an article from John Dominic Crossan concerning what epistles were really authored by Paul:
I suppose I meant to unbold after “as a Muslim”
Hello again,
Quite a bit here. I’ll respond to a bit of it.
“It seems interesting that many Catholics do not really read scripture.”
If you’ve been around the Catholic faith as long as I have(my whole life), it’s not very interesting. Here’s a post I wrote on how I grew up and eventually got into scripture.
http://allanruhl.com/a-brief-bio/
In regards to the Pauline vs pseudo-Pauline authorship debates, I personally find the arguments to be bad. If you use the arguments on the 7 undisputed ones against each other, Paul didn’t write several of those. Paul writes to different audiences with different goals for different purposes. If you want a good discussion of this, James White did a review of Forged when it came out. I think the podcast was March 31, 2011. Crazy that I remember that lol. He made some really good points. I had known those points for a long time though. When I read Jesus interrupted back in 2010 I predicted that Ehrman’s next book what be on that topic and I was correct. Either way, that’s where I got the first taste of those arguments and I didn’t find them that good.
As for the Stalin quote, when exactly did he say that?
God bless Latias,
as salaamu alaykum,
Allan.
I remember people quoting that Stalin quote. It is apt because there are so many things that people accuse Stalin of having committed that there is no evidence of him having committing them. (For example) The Wikiquote pages said that Molotov recollected Stalin saying that.
I actually showed a philosophy professor (who knew I was a Muslim because I told him [since he cannot know by looking at my dress since I don’t wear hijab] and still expresses mild contempt towards all monotheistic religion by saying it is irrational) a copy of Forgery and Counterforgery. He told me that the book is the type of stuff that I should be reading, and that I should read all of it. He said he was a former Methodist, and he had knowledge of Greek to read the New Testament (he learned because he wanted to read primary source Greek philosophy and that knowledge enabled him to study the NT). He largely agrees with the liberal paradigm, but does not study it anymore, since he is so busy with philosophy.
My opinion on Paul really did change positively when heard that critical scholars thought 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 was an interpolation. (My thoughts to myself where “so this was the same man who had written 1 Corinthians 13?” and had gave me a degree of cognitive dissonance in my perception of Paul.) I did not bring that as polemic material, since it had personally affected him, since I have grown to respect Paul. When I read Philippians chapters 3 and 4, for instance, I see an earnest man who has given up and suffered much to proclaim his sincere beliefs that are rooted in love of God and neighbor.
My initial approach to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 was not to initially bring it up, since most people generally do not want to confront such material. Instead, it is a ballistic missile submarine loitering below the Sea of Okhotsk that can fire its complement of SLBMs in a second strike when some apologists Islam of being patriarchal or misogynistic.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Trident_II_missile_image.jpg
Yeah, it’s a Trident. Not really the best illustration for the metaphor.
Obviously even the real Paul is not the perfect liberal, since he does condemn homosexuality and supports a passive position towards oppressive government.
Now, I feel that I could bring up to discuss the notion of different “Pauls”, since the treatment of women is an interesting contemporary topic. Perhaps, it is a more interesting topic than the usual Islamic polemics against the Trinity or substitutionary atonement. I would think that some people, especially liberally inclined Protestants, would be open to the notion that the real Paul did not write the 1 Corinthians passage and 1 Timothy 2:9-15. You have said that the corruption of scripture does not give the level of corruption that Muslim apologists want, and the issue with the Pauline epistles does not seem to alter Christianity significantly. The content of the disputed Pauline epistles do not contain significantly novel content on soteriology and theology, so even if it was disregarded, it would not constitute “massive corruption” that it compromises the coherence and basic message of Christianity. Furthermore, most Christians are really not that interested in the Epistles.
It also would not offend the opinion of many people. For example, I know a Catholic who said that she is uncomfortable with a woman leading the Rosary, and said that if she was able to express her opinions on Pope Francis, she would have to go to the confessional. (I jokingly said they we should overthrow our female MSA president in a coup, and that president also said at the suggestion that a woman should lead the prayer “we’re not that progressive”.) This conclusion from critical scholarship can be alluring to certain liberal minded people (and I am among them since I have said it made me view Paul more positively). Of course, the conclusions of liberal scholarship would undermine the authority of the Church, since they not only admitted spurious material into inspired canon, but have based its teachings on some of its more abhorrent material. It may provide a chink in the armor of someone’s faith in the Church, but the chink has to be further exploited. More orthodox Catholics would be wary of that conclusion.
Still, it is an argument to precipitate a discussion on the nature of the Pauline epistles; the issue with women merely provides an opening, since it is not primarily a polemic against the Apostle Paul’s stances.
The argument is not that sympathetic to Islam, since it could be an opportunity to attack it on how it treats women. I really do not have a thought out response to that. All I could do is to laugh it off and say that “we are not Catholic; you do not need to follow a hierarchy”, but that response would sound too liberal for me since it permit too many things. I accept the Islamic rationale that forbids behavior such as dating, icons, dressing immodestly (e.g. short-shorts), and same-sex marriage; I just use the liberalism to allow myself to eat non-zabihah poultry (not slaughtered by a Muslim saying bismillah), to listen to music, occasionally hug and shake the hands of some male acquaintances. I will be dishonest if I present Islam as an ultra-liberal religion; Islam may not be liberal, but it should be possible to “preserve alive the small sparks of the love of liberty” as the venerable Hume said.
Hi Latias,
Regarding what you said about Stalin, I would say that about every dictator that the average American or Westerner views in a negative way. We can’t trust the garbage we’re fed growing up. I’m a huge fan of revisionist history, but that’s for another time.
Latias, you puzzle me. On my crusades post, you said: “Even though I am a fairly liberal Muslim…”. It’s odd for a liberal to be big into apologetics. If you’re studying the NT in order to dialogue with Catholics and reading Ehrmans academic works thats not liberal behaviour at all. Liberals hate apologetics since it interferes with the almighty interfaith dialogue and the view that any religion is good enough to get you to heaven. Are you just doing this to learn? It seems confusing.
So basically a liberal study of Paul makes you respect him more. Interesting. I’ve actually heard Ehrman say similar things.
“Of course, the conclusions of liberal scholarship would undermine the authority of the Church, since they not only admitted spurious material into inspired canon, but have based its teachings on some of its more abhorrent material.”
This is 100% true. It would interfere with the council of Trent which states that St. Paul wrote all of the epistles with his name on them in the NT.
“The argument is not that sympathetic to Islam, since it could be an opportunity to attack it on how it treats women.”
Interesting. Do you have issues with the way women are treated in Islam? I personally have my own thoughts on this but I’ll never publish them on this website since I make my apologetics 100% about theology and not cultural issues. I even have a post on this a ways back.
I’m curious Latias, how long have you been a Muslim?
as salaamu alaykum,
Allan.
I have been a Muslim for less than a year. I made a promise to “come out” to most non-Muslim acquaintances on October 25, 2017 to honor, ironically, some man who a penchant for drinking. That was on a Wednesday, and so was fateful encounter between Taffy 3 and 2nd Fleet that happened 73 years before.
I think I consider myself a “liberal” because I rolled my eyes when some student from Oman said he doesn’t listen to instrumental music and he refused to shake the hand of woman; a would rather live under Erich and Margot Honecker than under the Saudi monarchy (or any other existing Muslim state); and the instead of executing apostates, I would rather build a wall and prevent them from leaving and then shoot them if they tried to leave. Still, it is much more benign than what the IDF does, and they have a wall, too.
Of course, I was joking with the last point.
I don’t know how I could respond to this in order.
I.
I remember asking a fellow sister something along the lines why a woman’s testimony in a shariah court is half a man’s. I asked simply because she said that she took a course about women in religion, and I deemed it appropriate to ask the question. She really didn’t answer my question, but she answered a different question that I did not ask about polygamy. She said that polygamy was acceptable because so many men were killed in war, and marriage was a way of providing a provision for them.
She also said that hijab was mandatory (fard), but even if one did not wear it, they could be a good Muslimah in other ways, such as always saying salat and treating your parents well. She was wearing the hijab, while I mostly wear it for salat.
The question that I asked was like a merely batting practice pitch.
The MSA president gave me a good answer to the questions of why men cannot be imams. She said something along the lines that women are forbidden during our periods, and women cannot do all the duties required of an imam because of that.
(Well, since she is a woman, a more conservative person may want her to experience the fate of the democratically elected Viktor Yanukovych who was overthrown in a coup on February 2014 when he fled Ukraine in fear of his life.)
II.
I suppose my reason for engaging in apologetics is to being esteem to Islam. I was really disappointed in my fellow Muslim’s knowledge of Christianity, but I was impressed with Brother Ijaz Ahmad. (He was among the few Muslim apologists who addressed Christianity that I first encountered). I came across Brother Paul “Bilal” Williams later on. (Insha’allah that Paul and Ijaz would reconcile. since Paul only has his Twitter account now.)
The MSA body really does not have much competence in dawah. They want to present pamphlets when the college lets them set up there Dawah table. Not surprisingly, not many people are interested. There was some Saudi national who gives a rudimentary presentation of Islam in dawah, for instance, that it believes in one god (tawhid); all the prophets (e.g. Adam, Yusef [Joseph], Ishaq, Ishmael, Yunus [Jonah], Musa [Moses], and Jesus); all the prophets essentially proclaimed the same message that Muhammad (SWAS) proclaimed: that God is one and one is obligated to worship. Naturally, this basic presentation would not be enough to elicit curiosity.
There was an instance where that after the MSA board meeting, the Catholic Newman Club was holding a Bible study. When Newman Club was entering the room, that man and the Newman Club president interacted with each other, and the Saudi gave him his presentation in Islam. The Saudi also said something that 1.4 billion Muslims cannot be wrong, as if the number of adherence was critical to its verdicality. After the Bible study, I asked the President what did he think of it. He said that he wasn’t impressed. (I also heard him, in another later instance, defend al-Wahhab as essentially as a great Islamic reformer who preserved the religion from bidah [innovation] and uphold the tawhid. I was silently disgusted.)
“To being esteem to Islam” does not mean to try to persuade others to be Muslim, but rather the primary objective is to intellectually engage others to show that Muslims can do that. I remember seeing for the first time, Ijaz, debating against Tony Costa about Nestorianism, and Ijaz was quite dominant. In a Catholic group (not the Newman Club), someone ask how natures Jesus had [after I converted but before I told many people]. The answer, of course, which I said, was that he had two natures united in one hypostatic union. I was the only other person there who knew the answer. Ijaz made a deep impression on me that time, since he was addressing a topic that few Muslims and Christians know about. Ahmad was throwing his slider, and Costa was chasing it.
I want to take the hill for my team every five days. I want the ball. It really doesn’t serve my purposes well if I go up to random Christians, even if he is highly religious, and demonstrate some perceived inconsistency in their doctrines and that they are unable to defend it. I am confident that I am likely to “win”, but it will demonstrate nothing, and such a person will most likely not become slightly more predisposed to convert to Islam. I have to have a discussion with someone who is fairly knowledgeable and confident in order for it bring esteem to Islam. I see it more as friendly but adversarial game. (Although I am capable of addressing claims about the supposed “repressive” nature of Sharia and Islam and “terrorism”, I want to refrain from those topics because they can be provocative and inflammatory. It would detract from that atmosphere.) Unlike an interfaith dialogue, you have to present a cogent argument regarding some interesting theological, philosophical, or historical claim relevant to your position. You have to either contest a point of your opponent or defend your position. You have to be knowledgeable and germane. I welcome the challenge if it is in something that I deem myself to be reasonably competent in.
I actually feel intellectual confident to defend some basic aspects (its aqeeda to be more precise) of Islam using philosophy, and because of this confidence, I view my deen (religion) as something more than a personal, subjective faith that is much more than expressing a personal preference and emotional experience. I actually do believe in the notion of fitrah (Islam’s understanding of innate human nature) that humans are naturally Muslim (in the sense that they have an innate understanding of the tawhid). In other words, people have an intuitive inclination to be Muslim, and one implication of that is that Islamic theology would be more intellectual palatable and easier to grasp than the doctrines of Christianity.
(My understanding of) Islam is surprising compatible with early modern Western philosophy. I could reconcile much of Islam with many of the philosophical ideas of David Hume and his predecessors. (For instance, the Ash’ari doctrine of occasionalism, which is actually something that I subscribe to, can be see as an odd couple between Humean causal skepticism and classical Islamic thought on the sovereign and power of Allah, SWT.) Moreover, while a few Catholic friends emphasis that humans have libertarian free will because they believe that such free will is necessary so that our lives have meaning and to make our actions have moral significance, I essentially denied that, even before I converted to Islam, but surprisingly, some contemporary compatibilist accounts of moral responsibility are very similar to classical Islamic explanations to reconcile the determinism of human actions with personal responsibility. In contrast, Thomism really didn’t fit for me.
Ironically, there was something that Hume had written in his Natural History of Religion that gave me the intellectual confidence to say that shahada since before I felt a high degree of consolation when doing salat but I wondered if I had a good intellectual basis for believing in theological statements about Allah (SWT). Of course, Hume was mostly hostile to religion, including Islam, in that essay, and it was partly due to reading that essay that affirmed my faith in Islam (iman); it wasn’t that Hume gave a bad argument. This happened after two and half months after I said that I would consider converting to Islam.
There are plenty of Christians offering defenses of the existence of God. That is really not interesting, unless one could provide some unique perspective. My unique contribution, I think, is to view some of Islam’s doctrine from a Humean lens. Such an approach would make me a natural adversary to Catholics, and not because I am an Islamic apologist/polemicist.
As a Muslim, I really do loathe the “free will defense” for the problem of the evil. [As an aside, Jesus, SWAS, is certainly an impotent savior who did not really save anyone, but instead made everyone “saveable” because His atonement only gave people “prevenient grace”. That isn’t an irreverent Islamic polemic against Christianity, but a homage to Calvinism’s doctrine of irresistible grace.]
I suppose there is another way of saying it more tersely. I am really not that “naturally” interested in apologetics. But I have personal interest in some topics in the philosophy of religion, and the philosophy of religion would intersect with some Islamic doctrines. So I would naturally have the predilection to assess some of the claims made by Islam to see how conforms with my prior philosophical commitments, and to integrate those claims into philosophical framework. Still, most Muslims are not really that interested in ethics or metaethics of certain religious claims, such as why there is an absolute prohibition on the consumption of alcohol, but in what some religious authority figure says is halal or haram. (An imam who visited campus every Wednesday told me this personally.) Not many Muslim are really that interested in the liberal arts; most are STEM majors.
I became interested in Christian theology when a sister asked me what my favorite Gospel was. I said John (without thinking about it that much). She said the Gospel of Barnabas. She said that it affirmed the oneness of God and that Jesus was merely a prophet. I looked it up, and it wasn’t a real Gnostic gospel; it was pseudepigrapha. She was throwing an 87 mph fastball right down the middle. That thing is going to get hit hard if she would engage in a reasonably competent Christian apologist.
She also said something to the effect that “what I know about Christianity is from an Islamic perspective”. Her response made it clear to me that she really didn’t know anything about Christianity. I asked if she read any Christian scripture, and she did not.
That happened about the same time when I became impressed with some Internet Muslims, especially Brother Ijaz.
Hi Latias,
You say a lot here but I’ll only respond to a bit of it. You say:
“Islam is surprising compatible with early modern Western philosophy. I could reconcile much of Islam with many of the philosophical ideas of David Hume and his predecessors.”
I’m curious, why does a religion have to be consistent with modern Western philosophy? Every major world religion, including Islam has existed before modern Western philosophy and will continue to exist after it.
I think the reason that you say this and even think about it is because much of the apologetics that you do with Islam is defending it from Western criticism. Sadly, most of these criticisms probably come from Catholics and I’m guessing since their Catholicism is often secondary to their allegiance to Western values.
I must ask, was your choice to leave Catholicism for Islam fully or primarily based on philosophy? Specifically Hume’s philosophy?
Allan,
as salaamu alaykum
A religion does not have to be that compatible with modern Western philosophy. I reference Hume a lot since I am a huge fangirl, but I think his name may actually occlude my philosophical interests because “Humean” may suggest something too specific.
As for myself, I think there are the two philosophical doctrines that I vehemently adhere to.
1. Nominalism
2. Moral sentimentalism
Contemporary Catholic philosophers vehemently oppose these frameworks that I immensely cherish. (I think if you ask someone like Daniel Haqiqatjou, he would most likely not like moral sentimentalism as metaethics. He would want a more stronger version of divine command theory; I do not subscribe to hard divine command theory as metaethics.) I was a nominalist and moral sentimentalist during the period when I considered myself a “Catholic by inertia”, thus my attraction to them predated my acceptance of Islam by many years. I felt it was imperative to list those philosophical positions so they would not be broadly “Western” and some specific idea would be considered.
I also like Confucianism, and as you know, I find it quite pleasing to read how Confucianism influenced the attitudes and actions of a certain man.
No, my disillusionment with Catholicism was influenced by something else (I may reveal that later), not philosophy, but the lack of philosophical harmony made it seem that my Catholicism really had no intellectual foundation since I had my intellectual allegiance to some “non-Catholic” philosophical positions. Of course, if one looks on the Internet, one will find some Catholics saying that “nominalism” is a strain of modernism.
I mentioned nominalism here.
https://bloggingtheology.net/2018/02/14/6-common-misconceptions-about-salafi-muslims-in-the-west/
—
I really don’t defend Islam that much from Western criticism. There are non-Muslims who can do a good job of that such as Graham E. Fuller. I did not accept any of the Western criticism of Islam before I was a Muslim, since my realist understanding of geopolitics makes me skeptical of the notion that it is religion alone that drives geopolitical conflict. I am also cognizant enough about human nature that I know most Muslims don’t go around thinking that they want to kill Westerns or institute Sharia.
Hello again Latias,
I don’t really know much about those two schools of thought. Your knowledge of philosophy is far beyond mine. I’ve recently become addicted to counter-enlightenment philosophy; I don’t know how familiar you are with that. My most recent post is on it.
So, in your opinion, does Islam really represent those two schools of thought well, nominalism and moral sentimentalism?
Latias I would like to ask, would corroboration or refutation by history, archaeology, texts or science in any way affect your conclusions?
Latias, I would like to challenge some of the things you said in response to Allan:
1. You are too quick to assume that the “epistle to Laodiceans ” is a letter, written by St.Paul. He doesn’t say it is, he just mentions “the epistle from Laodicea”. How do you know that it’s letter penned by him? It could be epistle, written by some elder/deacon in the Laodicean church. Second, even if the Apostle meant a letter, authored by him, this letter could be the Epistle to the Ephesians (Pauline epistles were circulating among different churches, and Laodicea and Ephesus are in the same region). It’s also possible that the letter contained only temporary instructions (i.e. it wasn’t meant for all churches and for all times).
2. It’s true that passages like John 7:53 and Mark 16:9-20 are regarded by many scholars as interpolations (the former, sadly, by Allan, too), but arguments to the contrary have been hammered out:
http://www.curtisvillechristianchurch.org/MarkOne.htm
http://www.curtisvillechristianchurch.org/MarkTwo.htm
http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2017/01/john-753-811-why-it-was-moved-part-1.html
https://www.amazon.com/Fresh-Analysis-John-External-Evidence-ebook/dp/B01HBC8EGQ
https://www.amazon.com/Original-Ending-Mark-Case-Authenticity-ebook/dp/B00OU6OB78/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
3. It’s true that some scholars and (especially) Muslim apologists like to question the veracity of Matthew 28:19, but the objections were thoroughly debunked:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_mt28_19.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/badawi_mt28_20.htm
https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2016/09/07/matthew-2819/
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/matt2819.php
4. As for Bart Ehrman’s attack on traditional authorship of NT books, you should keep in mind that many of his arguments are based on naturalistic approach and therefore cannot be used efficiently by Muslims to discredit the Christian faith. It’s also important to know that some authors found serious flaws in Ehrman’s arguments:
https://www.risenjesus.com/review-of-bart-ehrmans-book-forged-writing-in-the-name-of-god
http://tektonticker.blogspot.bg/2011/03/book-snap-bart-ehrmans-forged.html
http://tektonticker.blogspot.bg/2012/12/book-snap-bart-ehrmans-forgery-and.html
Happy and blessed Easter to our Catholic brothers and sisters. Christ is risen, He is our blessed Lord. Amen.
Hi Orangehunter,
I’m aware of the arguments you gave regarding the Epistle from Laodicea and could have unpacked more. I was just thinking that I didn’t need to go there because Latias challenged me on tu quo que and I didn’t need to bring that up to show that it wasn’t tu quo que.
God Bless
In fact she was the one comitting the tu quoque fallacy, I was surprised you didn’t call her on that. Not to mention that comparing the Injil to “the epistle from Laodicea” is like comparing apples to oranges. Christian faith does not hang on the existence of the aforementioned letter, but if the Injil never really existed (spoiler- it didn’t), then Islam crumbles to dust. Could you please tell me what other arguments could be adduced that the epistle is not an inspired scripture that got lost?
I also wanted to make clear in my response to Latias that the “doubtful” passages in the Bible are not to be rejected so easily, they’re firmly supported by the manuscript evidence and Church tradition, after all. You left the impression that you consider the Pericope Adulterae to be an interpolation. I hope you check the links I provided and change your mind on this matter.
Finally, two more things on the Injil:
– Bart Ehrman responds to a comment by user “jamal12” (Muslims will be very disappointed) – https://ehrmanblog.org/do-we-know-the-original-words-of-the-nt/#post-comments
-the inevitable Ijaz Ahmad posted a video of another dawamonger, who came up with some very interesting ideas of defending the existence of Injil. You can watch the whole debate in the link in the description of the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUQ3JjjGskY
Christ Is risen, He Is our blessed Lord and Savior.
Hi Orangehunter,
I honestly think that Muslims are slowly moving away from Ehrman. They’ll keep a few of his arguments but I think they’re starting to realize that they made a mistake. Jamal12 is simply one example.
Wael Ibrahim…wow! So I guess anywhere Jesus is speaking “the word” and its not recorded, it must be referring to the Injeel. Forget the Torah, Prophets, and the Psalms, he’s preaching the Injeel.
I immediately thought of Matthew 4.
Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.”
Must be the Injeel! Wait…it says it is written…and that the words are identical to Deuteronomy 8:3 so it can’t be talking about the injeel which was supposedly received in the time of Jesus….sigh…
In the Luke verse he quoted, it doesn’t even say that Jesus was speaking if you read it carefully. Mark 2 doesn’t refer to the word of God, only the word. But it’s clearly the injeel….what else could it be?
I’ve thought about this, I’m going to do a response or two…or three to Wael Ibrahim. This is too good. I’m going to shred his butchering of the text. We’re going to have some fun at Wael Ibrahim’s expense. Stay tuned.
as salaamu alaykum,
I called my own argument a “tu quo que”.
Really? Why should anyone expect an agnostic critical scholar to confirm stuff about Islam? I certainly would not expect some irreligious person to confirm that Jesus was never really crucified due to a miracle from God, or that Muhammad, SWAS, rode on a baraq to Jerusalem.
Hi Latias,
I hope that you are well. You said:
“Really? Why should anyone expect an agnostic critical scholar to confirm stuff about Islam?”
This is true. Bart Ehrman’s method is the historical critical method which has its limitations. Both Islam and Christianity are supernatural religions which include miracles.
Ehrman and those like him have no problem admitting the crucifixion happened since it’s not a supernatural event. Ehrman won’t believe in the resurrection since it involves a miracle but he will concede that the followers of Jesus came to believe in the resurrection.
The same is true of Islamic miracles, although the Quran doesn’t specifically say that God saved Jesus, it implies it. “So it was made to appear to them” We can reasonably assume that this is Allah doing the miracle.
The historical critical method though does play an important role. While those who use the historical critical method will say that the Quran is not of divine origin, they will have no problems saying that the early ummah had a document called the Quran that they believed was of divine origin.
Whether there was or was not a document that Jesus possessed called the Injeel, it should be able to be picked up by the historical critical method. These scholars would simply say that its not of divine origin.
This is interesting stuff. I might actually do a post on this. Thanks for sharing Latias!
God Bless,
I apologize for the misunderstanding, I thought you put the blame on Allan for the tu quoque. No, I don’t expect Ehrman’s position to be any different, I cited him simply to show that using his work for dawa is like trying to wield a gripless sword.