Is there historical evidence that Jesus was crucified to death on a cross?

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,

As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you)

Is there historical evidence that Jesus was crucified to death on a cross?

Rebuttal of Robert Turkel's “The Testimony of Tacitus” found here:

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html

Let me say first and foremost that I do not have much regard for the 'work' that is done at tektonics.org I have seen the interactions between Turkel and others in the past and they were anything but cordial. Any way I would highly recommend you read his article above because he addressed skeptics and even Christians who disregard Tacitus as historical evidence that 'Jesus was crucified to death on a cross'.

That aside let's look at the passage in question:

“But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.” From Annals15.44

Turkel says,

“The passage is in perfect Tacitean style; it appears in every known copy of the Annals (although there are very few copies of it, and none dates earlier than the 11th century), and the anti-Christian tone is so strong that it is extremely unlikely that a Christian could have written it.”

My response:

Here you have a document 1100 years after the event is alleged to have happened. And it is to be taken at face value? Imagine a Muslim who brings a body of hadith (collections and sayings of the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) put into writing) and no document of hadith predates 11 centuries after Muhammed (pbuh) would you be skeptical? I would be very skeptical! Yet when we ask Christians about extra Biblical data confirming the so called 'historical' event of Jesus 'being put to death on the cross' we can see that there is a dearth of extra-biblical material.

So I am to trust a document 1100 years after the event! Very historical indeed my friends!

It amazes me the inconsistent standards that Christians apply when they deal with us as Muslims. Actually I could stop my article right here and be done dismissing the passage attributed to 'Tacitus' on this account alone.

Next Turkel says that it is unlikely that this is Christian forgery. Why? because here we wish to use the principal of embarrassment but since we are coming up with likely scenarios, how about this one. What about introducing a principle of lessor embarrassment to save one from a greater embarrassment?

Turkel continues...

“Indeed, the Tacitus polemic against Christianity is so strong that it was one of two things Tacitus was condemned for in the sixteenth century - the other being that he wrote in bad Latin - [Dor.Tac, 149] , and it is even said that Spinoza liked Tacitus because of his anti-Jewish and anti-Christian bias. [Momig.CFou, 126]”

My comment: This does not help matters at all. Of what relevance is sixteenth century critique of Tacitus a man who lived circa 50 C.E ? This is one of the reasons that Turkel and others really escape me with statements like this.

Why didn't any early church fathers quote from Tacitus?

Turkel says, “No church father, however, would have willingly quoted such a negative reference to Jesus and the Christians; moreover, indications are that Tacitus wrote for a very limited audience of his peers. The Annals may not have gotten into the Church's hands at an early date.”

My comments: Maybe so but than again one does wonder why no church father would have made use of such a widely known quote in polemic against those who asserted that Jesus was a myth. Example: Justin, in his Dialogue with Trypho, represents the Jew Trypho as saying, "ye follow an empty rumour and make a Christ for yourselves." "If he was born and lived somewhere he is entirely unknown." So this question is not readily answered.

Turkel continues...

“So: The idea that this passage is an interpolation is no more credible than the idea held in the 19th century that Tacitus' entire works are fifteenth-century forgeries.”

My response: There is a logical flaw in the above assertion. A person may embellish in some respects and yet be right in others no need to cast aspersions upon everything.

Was Tacitus accurate?

Turkel says, “The answer here is: Absolutely! The Tacitus literature is full of praise for the accuracy, care, critical capability, and trustworthiness of the work of Tacitus, and it is singularly unfortunate that many writers in this subject area have failed to appreciate this!”

My response: I myself am fond of the words accuracy, care, critical capability, and trustworthiness, but I did note one word missing: infallibility.

Did Tacitus accept everything without question? Did he do research?

Turkel says, “However, this does not mean that Tacitus accepted Pliny's information on Jesus, or on any topic, uncritically. Annals 15.53 indicates that Tacitus did collect some information from Pliny - and that he disputed it, and even considered it wholly absurd. Simply because Pliny was Tacitus' friend and confidant does not mean that he believed everything that Pliny told him.”

My response: So if Pliny had information that Tacitus finds “wholly absurd” or incredible is Tacitus free from the same kind of critique?

Turkel continues...

"The sum total of the picture is clear. For the main narrative, Tacitus assumes the responsibility of the historian to get at the truth and present it. His guarantee was his own reputation. To make this narrative colorful and dramatic, he felt justified in introducing facts and motives which he might refute on logical grounds or leave uncontested but forwhich he did not personally vouch. There is no indication that he followed blindly the account of any predecessor." [ibid., 203-4] Mendell also notes that Tacitus was concerned for maintaining his integrity as a historian.”

Where did Tacitus allegedly get his information from?

Turkel says, “Where did Tacitus get his information of Jesus? There is really no way to tell.Ancient historians generally felt no obligation to reveal their sources. (Dudley [Dud.Tac, 28] writes in this regard: "...an ancient historian was under no obligation to give his sources in detail, nor even to mention them at all," and Grant [Gran.Tac, 20] adds that "systematic, careful references are a modern invention.")

Turkel continues...

“Tacitus could have gotten his information from the work of historians whom he trusted, and whose work is now lost to us. His information may have come from common knowledge. Suggestions have also been made that Tacitus got his information from Josephus, but this is rejected by Tacitean scholars: Mendell, for example, says that Tacitus "clearly knew nothing" about Josephus [Mende.Tac, 217 - see also Hada.FJos, 223] ).”

My comments: I don't know about you people but my eternal salvation and truth does not rely upon 'could have' 'may have' and 'suggestions'. And so far the evidence doesn't look so good. A document dated 1100 years after the event allegedly written by 'Tacitus' from anonymous sources!

Than as you read the link above Turkel gives a few paragraphs of how Tacitus could have access to imperial archives. I say this deserves an 'A' for effort, but lets stick with the original statement above ,'There is really no way to tell'. Even though Turkel has quite an imagination and is filled with 'could have' 'would have' and 'should have been' scenarios again my eternal salvation does not rest upon fanciful embellishments.

Turkel continues...

“Should this issue of bias be cause for concern? Not really, for two reasons. First, in spite of his bias, Tacitus is still sufficiently trustworthy. Second, there is no indication that Tacitus' bias had any effect on the Jesus reference. Indeed, if it would have had any influence, it would be the opposite of the sort required in order to devalue the reference! Let's look at some further relevant data:”

My comment: I am amazed how easily brushed aside is the issue of Tacitus and his alleged bias. Amazing! And besides the fact we don't know where he got his sources from. Possibly a bias source!

Turkel continues...

“In other words, even when Tacitus was expressing bias, his inner scruples were such that he still would not report an inaccuracy.”

My comments: Wow so much embellishment of Tacitus and his grand moral character. Again an amazing assumption. Of course this wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that Turkel's internal salvation rest on all of these things being true would it? How would we be 100% sure that a person didn't report an inaccuracy if we don't have his/her sources? Especially if they are not given us first account and first hand information.

Turkel continues...

“Our conclusions, then, are as follows: Tacitus' bias in general, and his bias against Eastern religions like Christianity particularly, is of the opposite sort that would be required to devalue the reference to Jesus. Again, when reporting on the history and beliefs of the Jews, Tacitus' bias led him to say things that were disparaging, which means that out of contempt for Christianity, he would have reported any rumor or indication that Jesus was a fiction, or had not really been sentenced to death. As it is, we have not even that much.”

“Tacitus' bias did not allow him to descend into wholesale fabrication. Even if it had, however, his biases would have led him, not to acknowledge Jesus' existence, but to deny it, or at the very least denigrate Jesus' importance. But this is not what we find in the Jesus passage in Annals.”

My comments: Since we are throwing out speculation of what Tacitus did and did not do, here is another speculation because of his bias he reported what ever he heard without further scrutiny. He did not report that there was confusion as to what happened to Jesus. He did not report that no one knew what actually happened. And if we are going to use the 'principle of embarrassment' argument than Christians should follow it through logically. That Tacitus relied upon information that was hostile to Christianity namely that Jesus died thus proving him to be a false messiah according to the Jews and a rebel according to the Romans.

I mean after all doesn't the Bible itself say, “We preach Christ crucified unto the Jews a stumbling block and unto the Greeks foolishness” 1 Corinthians 1:23.

Doesn't sound like to me reporting from an anonymous source that Jesus died on a cross as Tacitus is alleged to have done wasn't doing Jesus any favors; according to the above passage.

Of course all of this if we assume that the 'Orthodox Christianity' today is the correct version of the events.

Does the sympathetic Atheist really agree?

Turkel than gives us a quote from an Atheist that he feels gives help to his cause. The quote from an Atheist actually back fires. To what extent allegedly did Tacitus employ hismalicious wit concerning the unnamed source of Jesus alleged death on the cross?

Turkel continues...

“This is a far better point than we may realize: Being that Tacitus' readers were - like he had been - members of the Senate and holders of political office [Dor.Tac, 64] , we must suppose that this "error" escaped not only Tacitus' attention, but theirs as well. We may as well suggest that a United States Senate historian's error of the same rank would pass without comment.”

My comments: Of course this is assuming that they were readers of the same 1100 year old document that we have today. Isn't that correct? That's why Turkel says we must 'suppose'. Why must we suppose because the historical 'reality of Jesus being crucified to death on the cross' is at stake that's why!

Tacitus and his historical reliability

“There were exceptions to Tacitus' reliability. The Tacitean scholar Mellor, notes that Tacitusoccasionally reported stories which were false historically but were true in a literary sense or a moral sense; he also occasionally reported a rumor or report that he knew was false. As Mellor says:

"When reporting Augustus's trip to be reconciled with his exiled grandson Agrippa, he alludes to a rumor that the emperor was killed by his wife Livia to prevent Agrippa's reinstatement... All the components of such a tale foreshadow the murder of Claudius by his wife Agrippina to allow her son Nero to succeed before the emperor reverted to his own son Brittanicus. Tacitus is content to use the rumors to besmirch by association Livia and Tiberius who, whatever their failings, never displayed the deranged malice of an Agrippina and a Nero. It is good literature but it can be irresponsible history."

“Is there any reason to think that the reference to Jesus is one of these "exceptions"? Could it be that Tacitus' desire to make Nero look bad caused him to report false information?”

“I have already noted that Tacitus' scruples and concern for accuracy were such that he always indicated when he reported rumors as such, and the Livia/Agrippa story is no exception. The story in question, from the first book of the Annals, is clearly reported by Tacitus as a rumor. He was consistent in discerning rumor from fact--as I noted from a Tacitean scholar, he did this with the sort of scruples rare in an ancient historian.”

My comments: But isn't it interested that when Tacitus implies that he is mentioning a rumor he doesn't do so in connection to his bias against Jews? So if he doesn't mention rumors in connection with Jews and Turkel admits his bias towards them than why would he mention rumors in connection with Christians? Think about it!

Conclusion: The so called evidence from the 'writings of Tacitus' is dubious at best. Here we are confronted with a document no less than 1100 years after the alleged event that allegedly comes from anonymous sources. This is historical evidence?

May secular atheist and agnostic scholars of Christianity and the New Testament acknowledge that we cannot prove the resurrection. One of the reasons I feel that these secular, atheist and agnostic scholars 'as a whole' do not reject the alleged crucifixion of Jesus outright is because it basically would capitulate the whole of Christianity to the claims of the Holy Qur'an chapter 4: 157.

'And they said in boast we killed Jesus the son of Mary the Messenger of God, but they killed him not, nor did they crucify him to death, but it was made to appear to them so, those who disagree therein are full of doubts they have no certain knowledge but only follow a conjecture for of a surety they killed him not.”

For more on this subject please see The Greatest Cover Up In Christian History here: http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-thrilling-than-davinci-code.html

Did Jesus Really Exist? Jesus Outside the New Testament part 4

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,

As salamu 'alikum wr wb, (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you).

Did Jesus Really Exist? Jesus Outside of the New Testament. Part 4.

Tacitus: The Executed Christ.

Now I have already dealt with the testimony of Tacitus before in the past. So Allah-willing after publishing this particular entry I will also re-public the article I did before. Just so it flows with the theme that I am following on now.

“Cornelius Tacitus is generally considered the greatest Roman historian, yet we do not know his parentage, the city or year of his birth and death (perhaps ca.56 and 120), or even his praenomen (perhaps Publius or Gaius). We do know that he held a series of important administrative posts, including proconsul of Asia in 112-113, where he was the neighboring administrator to his friend Pliny the Younger.”

“The Annals is Tacitus’ last (and unfinished) work. Dating from around 116, it treats events during the years 14-68 C.E. (from the death of Augustus through Nero) in either sixteen or eighteen books. The Annals also survives only in parts, with only Books 1-4 and 12-15 intact.”

(pg 39 Jesus Outside of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" by Robert E. Van Voorst)

[2] “But neither human effort nor the emperor’s generosity nor the placating of the gods ended the scandalous belief that the fire had been ordered. Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts [flagitia], whom the crowd called “Chrestians”. [3] The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate [Auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicato adfectus erat].”

“The textual integrity of this section has on occasion been doubted. The text has some significant problems, as attested by the standard critical editions. These and other difficulties in interpreting the text have also led to a few claims that all of it, or key portions of it, has been interpolated by latter hands.”

(pg 41-42 Jesus Outside of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" by Robert E. Van Voorst)

“Sulpicius Severus’s Chronicle 2.29 attests too much of it in the early fifth century, so most suggested interpolations would have to have come in the second through fourth centuries.”

“Finally, no Christian forgers would have made such disparaging remarks about Christianity as we have in Annals 15.44, and they probably would not have been so merely descriptive in adding the material about Christ in 15.44.3”

‘However, the original hand of the oldest surviving manuscript, the Second Medicean (eleventh century (, which is almost certainly the source of all other surviving manuscripts, reads Chrestianoi, “Chrestians.” A marginal gloss “corrects” it to Christianoi.”

(pg 43 Jesus Outside of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" by Robert E. Van Voorst)

“The secondary literature discussing Tacitus is extensive. The largest problem in scholarship on Chapter 44 is the connection between the fire and Neronian persecution of Christians. Is Tacitus correct in strongly linking them, or were they unconnected events, as all the other surviving ancient historians who write about the fire contend?”

(pg 44 Jesus Outside of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" by Robert E. Van Voorst)

For “had been executed,” the Latin reads somewhat periphrastically suppplicio adfectus erat, Supplicio means “punishment”, especially capital punishment, and adficere when construed with punishment often denotes “inflict.” So when combined, they mean “inflict the death penalty upon,” to execute. Tacitus expresses the idea of dying in a variety of ways, and this expression suits his style. But he does not say explicitly that Jesus was crucified.”

(pg 47 Jesus Outside of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" by Robert E. Van Voorst)

“Tacitus’s description of Pilate as a procurator is in all likelihood an anachronism.”

“This was born out by the dramatic discovery in Caesarea Maritima in 1961 of the so-called Pilate Stone, the first inscriptional evidence of Pilate, dating from about 31. It reads, with brackets containing reconstruction of the lost Latin lettering, “The Tiberieum of [the Caesareans], [Pon]tius Pilate, [Pref]ect of Judea, de[dicates].”

“Most scholars agree that Tacitus, like other contemporary authors, has made use of the procurator title that was more common in his own time, rather than the earlier and historically correct “prefect.”

(pg 48 Jesus Outside of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" by Robert E. Van Voorst)

86. Pace Paul Winter, who argues that Tacitus had no direct dealings with Christians and writes from hearsay (“Tacitus and Pliny” The Early Christians,” JHistStud 1 [1967-68] 31-40; idem, “Tacitus and Pliny on Christianity,” Klio 52 [1970] 497-502),

(pg 50 Jesus Outside of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" by Robert E. Van Voorst)

Justin Martyr, writing his First Apology to the emperor around 150, states that a record of the trial and punishment of Jesus called the “Acts of Pilate” was sent to Rome that even contained evidence of Jesus’ miracles (1 Apology 35, 48(, Although Tertullian repeats this claim 9 Against Marcion 4.7, 19; Apology 5, 21), it appears on the whole unlikely. No corroboration can be found for it, and we have no indication that Roman governors wrote reports about individual non citizens whom they put to death.”

(pg 51 Jesus Outside of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" by Robert E. Van Voorst)

“As R.T. France concludes, while the evidence from Tacitus corroborates the New Testament accounts of the death of Jesus, “by itself it cannot prove that events happened as Tacitus had been informed,” or even the existence of Jesus.”

(pg 52 Jesus Outside of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" by Robert E. Van Voorst)

Conclusion: The reports attributed to Tacitus are questionable.  I will also publish another entry I have done some years ago immediately after this entry.

Did Jesus Really Exist? Jesus Outside the New Testament part 3

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,

As salamu 'alikum wr wb,  (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you).

Seutonius: The Instigator Chrestus.

"The Roman writer Gaius Seutonius Tranquillus (ca. 70-ca. 140) practiced law in Rome and was a friend of Pliny the Younger (Pliny, Letters 1.18) He served for a short time around 120 as a secretary to Emperor Hadrian until he was dismissed, perhaps over allegations of incivility towards Hadrian's wife (Spartianus, Life of Hadrian 11.3)
Other than this, we know little for certain about the main events of his life."

(pg 29 Jesus Outside of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" by Robert E. Van Voorst)

"Seutonius was a prolific writer of several different types of literature, but only his 'Lives of the Caesars (De vita Caesarum) has survived basically intact. Published around 120, this book covers the lives and careers of the first twelve emperors, from Julius Caesar to Domitian."

(pg 29 Jesus Outside of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" by Robert E. Van Voorst)

"After reporting how Claudius dealt with Greece and Macedonia, and with the Lycians, Rhodians, and Trojans, Seutonius writes tersely in 25.4,

"He [Claudius] expelled the Jews from Rome, since they were always making disturbances because of the instigator Chrestus (Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit).

(pg 30 Jesus Outside of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" by Robert E. Van Voorst)

"Some historians have recently argued that Chrestus is indeed an otherwise unknown agitator in Rome, and not to be identified with Christ."

(pg 32 Jesus Outside of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" by Robert E. Van Voorst)

"The source of Suetonius's information is, as usual, not named."

"More likely is the supposition that Seutonius is using a Roman source, perhaps from the imperial archives."

"Suetonius may have copied a mistake from his source, and the source may have been written near to the event when the name "Christ" was not widely known in Rome. Repeating a mistake in his sources is characteristic of Suetonius, who often treats them uncritically and uses them carelessly."

"Seutonius followed whatever source attracted him, without caring much whether it was reliable or not"
 (M.C. Howatson, ed., The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature, [2nd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989] 542).

"From his initial misunderstanding came the idea that this Chrestus was actually present in Rome as an instigator in the 40s. Although Seutonius did view Christ as an historical person capable of fomenting unrest, his glaring mistakes should caution us against placing too much weight on his evidence for Jesus or his significance for early Christianity."

(pg 38-39Jesus Outside of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" by Robert E. Van Voorst)

Conclusion: So much for the testimony of Seutonius as well!

Did Jesus Really Exist? Jesus Outside the New Testament part 2

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,

As salamu 'alikum wr wb,  (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you).

Pliny the Younger: The Christ of Christian Worship

"Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus (ca. 61-ca. 113) was the nephew and adopted son of the writer Pliny the Elder."

"Pliny's writings have secured his lasting fame. He published nine books of letters between 100 and 109; so successful were they in his time and in later literature that Pliny is credited with inventing the genre of the literary letter."

(pg 23 Jesus Outside of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" by Robert E. Van Voorst)


"Letter 96 of Book 10, the most discussed of all Pliny's letters, deals with Christians and mentions Christ. Since the letters of this book seem to be chronologically ordered, Letter 96 may well come from 112 C.E"

(pg 24 Jesus Outside of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" by Robert E. Van Voorst)

"What exactly does Pliny say about Christ? He mentions this name three times in Letter 96, twice when he talks about suspected Christians "reviling Christ" as part of their recantation and exoneration (96.5,6), and once when he relates to Trajan that Christians customarily "sing a hymn to Christ as if to a god" (96.7)

"Pliny does not deal explicitly with the "historical Jesus." If he has learned anything in his investigations and interrogations bout Jesus, he does not relate it to the emperor."

"The only statement Pliny could be implicitly making about the historical Jesus is found in the words 'carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem, "and sung antiphonally a hymn to Christ as if to a god."

"This leads us finally to the issue of Pliny's sources. Background knowledge of Christianity and Christ may have come from Tacitus, Pliny's friend. (Letter 1.7, addressed to Tacitus, talks of their long friendship; they often exchanged their writings for comment.)

"All the specific information about Christianity and the little about Christ related in Letter 96 evidently come from Pliny's own experience in Bithynia. He has obtained this information from former Christians, who corroborated it with information obtained under torture from two women deacons. As such, it is not a witness to Jesus independent of Christianity."

(pg 28-29 Jesus Outside of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" by Robert E. Van Voorst)

Conclusion:  There is nothing about Jesus dying on a cross. Nothing about his life nothing about his teachings. Nothing that is a witness or source 'independent of Christianity.'

To me this is not evidence of an 'historical' Jesus.

Did Jesus Really Exist? Jesus Outside the New Testament part 1

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,

As salamu 'alikum wr wb,  (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you).

Did Jesus Really Exist? Jesus Outside of the New Testament. Part 1.

I will be dealing with the evidenced laid out by the book "Jesus Outside of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" by Robert E. Van Voorst.  Robert E. Van Voorst mentions in the book that he had considerable help by Craig Evans.

So this is not a Muslim who has read one side of the story. On the contrary. This is probably one of the most sober and methodologically speaking well laid out book that approaches the subject matter.


However, after reading the book twice over now. Once as a quick read with reflection. Second was to take it slowly and seriously; all the while taking down notes.

After reading the book I am one-hundred percent convinced that without my presuppositional belief that the Qur'an is the words of God I would have absolutely no reason to believe that Jesus even existed.

I lay that out for all and sundry here: http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2012/02/why-i-believe-jesus-never.html

So let me get straight down to it.

In the book Robert E Van Voorst says:

"Some readers may be surprised or shocked that many books and essays-by my count, over one hundred-in the past two hundred years have fervently denied the very existence of Jesus."

This book to me was far from being objective. It seems to take a very cautious approach but in the end the author wants Jesus to die more than anything.  Perhaps it is important for his salvation (shrugs shoulders...)

On pg 20 of the book there is a section with the title:
Thallos: The Eclipse at Jesus' Death.

Even the title for the section throws all objectivity aside.  'The Eclipse at Jesus Death'.  Well, there you go! We are already talking about Jesus Death as a foregone conclusion without even examining the evidence for Jesus to begin with! Amazing!

"The earliest possible reference to Jesus comes from the middle of the first century. Around 55 C.E., a historian named Thallos wrote in Greek a three-volume chronicle of the eastern Mediterranean area from the fall of Troy to about 50 C.E. Most of his book, like the vast majority of ancient literature, perished, but not before it was quoted by Sextus Julius Africanus (ca. 160-ca. 240), a Christian writer, in his History of the World (ca.220). This book likewise was lost, but one of its citations of Thallos was taken up by the Byzantine historian Georgius Syncellus in his Chronicle (ca.800). According to Syncellus, when Julius Africanus writes about the darkness at the death of Jesus, he added,

"In the third (book of his histories, Thallos calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, which seems to me to be wrong."

(pg 20 Jesus Outside of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" by Robert E. Van Voorst)

Did you see the word Jesus any where in the quote above? Yeah, I didn't either.  Any way lets allow Van Voorst to work his magic.

He says,  "Thallos could have mentioned the eclipse with no reference to Jesus. But it is more likely that Julius, who had access to the context of this quotation in Thallos and who (to judge from other fragments) was generally a careful user of his sources, was correct in reading it as hostile reference to Jesus' death.

"If Thallos had been writing simply as a chronograph-er who mentions an eclipse which occurred in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, Julius Africanus would not have said that he was mistaken, but he would have used his evidence to confirm the Christian tradition."

(pg 21 Jesus Outside of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" by Robert E. Van Voorst)


So it is not possible that Thallos was simply writing as a chronographer?  Is it also not possible that this Thallos is correct and the Christian tradition on the matter is wrong?

If we are talking about an eclipse of the sun a certain Christian apologist by the name of  Mike Licona certainly springs to mind.

However, Van Voorst has presupposed the tradition.

"Who is Thallos? Perhaps he is the Thallos to whom the Jewish historian Josephus refers a Samaritan resident of Rome who made a large loan to Agrippa (Ant. 18.6.4 S167) and who may have been Augustus's secretary. But this rest upon two successive conjectures, one textual and one historical."

(pg 21 Jesus Outside of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" by Robert E. Van Voorst)

"However, other fragments of Thallos's history preserved in several sources indicate that he wrote about events at least until the time of the death of Jesus."

Is it not interesting to see the phrase "at least until the time of the death of Jesus" once again presumed without all the evidence being laid out?

Van Voorst book is loaded with such phrases take for example.

"Since Thallos seems to be refuting a Christian argument, he likely knew about this darkness at the death of Jesus from Christians."

"We cannot tell if Thallos gained his knowledge from oral or written accounts."

"Darkness at the death of Jesus was just as likely an element of oral Christian proclamation. As Craig Evans remarks, this reference does not prove that there really was darkness---however it is to be explained---during the time of Jesus' crucifixion. Rather, it is evidence for the early tradition of darkness at Jesus' death."

(pg 21-22 Jesus Outside of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" by Robert E. Van Voorst)

"What can be gained from Thallos? Some fog of uncertainty still surrounds Thallos'; statement: its extreme brevity, its third-hand citation, and the identity and date of the author."

"While this fog prevents us from claiming certainty, a tradition about Jesus' death is probably present."

"Thallos accepts a darkness at the death of Jesus."    "Thallos may have been knowledgeable about other elements of the Christian tradition of Jesus' death-it is unlikely that he knew only this small element of the story of Jesus'; death apart from any wider context...."

"His argument makes him (if our dating is correct) the first ancient writer known to us to express literary opposition to Christianity. Moreover, Thallos is also the only non-Christian to write about a Jesus tradition before that tradition was written in the canonical Gospels."

(pg 22 Jesus Outside of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" by Robert E. Van Voorst)

Conclusion:  The Christian may read the so called 'testimony' or 'evidence' of Thallos as strong proof for the existence of Jesus outside of the New Testament.

Van Voorst goes so far as to say that, "Thallos accepts a darkness at the death of Jesus."  Or a fanciful proclamation: "His argument makes him (if our dating is correct) the first ancient writer known to us to express literary opposition to Christianity."

For me I saw literary fiction appear before my very eyes. We do not know even know if there is a guy named Thallos, and it rest upon conjecture. His writings are lost, and were quoted by other writings now lost. The citation does not come with the context.

We take a citation without context from a writing lost; based upon another writing now lost: "In the third (book of his histories, Thallos calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, which seems to me to be wrong."

This is than worked into:
"Thallos accepts a darkness at the death of Jesus."    "Thallos may have been knowledgeable about other elements of the Christian tradition of Jesus' death-it is unlikely that he knew only this small element of the story of Jesus'; death apart from any wider context...."

What can I say. Christian apologetic ingenuity knows no limits; and it also knows no shame.

The Conclusion of Discussion with David Wood.

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,

As salamu ‘alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy and Blessings be upon you).

The Conclusion of Discussion with David Wood.

White, Wood, Shamoun… ‘We Got the Muslims Now’

That’s right!  James White, David Wood and Sam Shamon have us surrounded, what ever are we doing to do?

As Christian-Muslim polemic advances in technique and new arguments are brought forth I have found one particular polemic quite crafty.

Instead of Muslims questioning the veracity of the New Testament manuscripts and various problems in the Bible, the Christians have come up with a very clever machination.

You see, The Qur’an you have confirms the Bible I have in my hands!  Voila!  So no need to convince anyone that the New Testament is exactly as it is today as it was when supposedly penned down by its authors etc.

So The Muslim is supposed to just drop their faith in the Qur’an, and belief that Muhammed is the Messenger of Allah and become one of many thousands of different Christian denominations.

This maybe a very effective technique in places where food is scarce and faith is scarce, but any well studied Muslim knows the ruse that the Christians are up too.

In fact these are not new arguments or presentations. I firmly believe that Christian apologetic has run out of gas; however they are simply dressing up old arguments or presenting old arguments to new audiences.

The Zwemer institute for Muslim studies continues to wield influence upon Christians engaged In Muslim apologetic and polemic.

So let me take one last look at the presentation of David Wood borrowed from Sam Shamoun used by James White and taken from Samuel Zwemer.

Revelation: Oral or Textual?

David Wood says:

“You erroneously assume that just because the Qur’an was supposedly sent down orally, it wasn’t intended to be written down. Well, the Quran exposes this error:”

I told David Wood from the beginning, that I believe that the Qur’an, the Torah and the Gospel were all wahy. That means revelation that was sent down orally, and than latter was to become text.   This David Wood either conveniently forgot, or conveniently left out.

The case of Waraqa

David Wood says:

"He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to Waraqa, "Listen to the story of your nephew, O my cousin!” Waraqa asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen?" Allah's Apostle described whatever he had seen. Waraqa said, "This is the same one who keeps the secrets (angel Gabriel) whom Allah had sent to Moses. I wish I were young and could live up to the time when your people would turn you out." Allah's Apostle asked, "Will they drive me out?" Waraqa replied in the affirmative and said, "Anyone (man) who came with something similar to what you have brought was treated with hostility; and if I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly." But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while."

“This is easily refuted. Since the Muslim sources say that Waraqa died immediately after Muhammad’s so-called “revelations” began, he never got the chance to hear what Muhammad would have to say about Christ. Had he lived and heard of all Muhammad’s denials and blasphemies, Waraqa would have turned against Muhammad, much like the rest of the Jews and Christians did. After all, didn’t Waraqa entertain the possibility that the spirit who appeared as Gabriel was possibly a demon sent to deceive Muhammad?”

So basically David is saying that if Waraqa would have lived and found out that Muhammed (saw) was not teaching that Jesus was the Son of God etc, he would have rejected Muhammad.

Maybe and maybe not, however David and all those who like to use this story is still missing the point.  Let us say that we agree with David’s position. Let us say that Waraqa lived on to hear the message of Muhammed (saw). Let us say that he than rejected Muhammed (saw) as a Messenger.

The point that David and his cohorts are missing is that Waraqa’s Christianity did not preclude the ideal of a person being a Prophet after Jesus!  That is something to think about for those who give thought.

Are we to say that Waraqa was Greek Orthodox? Was Waraqa a Reformed Baptist?  Was Waraqa a Roman Catholic?  The point is that what ever Christianity Waraqa professed to believe in it did not preclude the possibility of accepting a prophet after Jesus!

Of course Christian apologists like David Wood like to conveniently leave that as an aside.

Written or described?

David Wood and I had a back and forth over the proper translation of Holy Qur’an 7:157.  It is not that I completely disagreed with David Wood and his choice of translators. I was simply trying to get him to look at the various usage of the word ‘maktaboon’.  That the name Muhammed (saw) did not have to be written it could be described.

David Wood says:

“Again, the Qur'an claims to be clear. But we find, over and over, that the Qur'an is totally unclear. You believe that "written" should be translated as "described." Thus, you must believe that numerous translators are in error. What is the source of their error? The source of their error is the ambiguity of the Qur'an, which claims to be clear!”

So if the Qur’an is in error because of its ambiguity than I guess I have a premise to reject the New Testament text simply because there are different translations? I was simply trying to get David Wood to see beyond his reliance upon Sam Shamoun and his usage of the word for manipulation.

I also offered David Wood an example from the New Testament he claims to believe in. David Wood simply ignored it altogether.

Luke 24:44-45

 44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

 45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.

I would like to offer that there is simply a misunderstanding between David Wood and I on this point. If David Wood is trying to say that maktaboon can mean written in the form of a text, I have no issue with that. However, I want him to be aware of the fuller usage of the word.  I simply making the point that Jews and Christians of that time did not have to frantically flip through the ‘Torah’ and the ‘Injeel’ (what ever they may have been) to look for the word Muhammed.   Muhammed (saw) can simply be mentioned or described.

So if this is the contention I submit to David’s point here.

The very kooky use of Ibn Ishaq

Apparently David Wood and Sam Shamoun want to use Ibn Ishaq as a proof that the Qur’an confirms the New Testament (22 or 27 books is not known). Or that that at least some early Muslim scholars were perfectly fine with endorsing the entirety of the New Testament text (22 or 27 books is not known).

For example David Wood quoted:

“You may not know, but Ibn Ishaq sure did:”

"Among the things which have reached me about what Jesus the Son of Mary stated in the Gospel which he received from God for the followers of the Gospel, in applying a term to describe the apostle of God, is the following. It is extracted FROM WHAT JOHN THE APOSTLE SET DOWN FOR THEM WHEN HE WROTE THE GOSPEL FOR THEM FROM THE TESTAMENT OF JESUS SON OF MARY: 'He that hateth me hateth the Lord. And if I had not done in their presence works which none other before me did, they had not sin: but from now they are puffed up with pride and think that they will overcome me

"The Munahhemana (God bless and preserve him!) In Syriac is Muhammad; in Greek he is the paraclete." (The Life of Muhammad, A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Karachi Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth Impression 1995), pp. 103-104)

Again I do not see what the issue is.  Ibn Ishaq mentions about that ‘which has reached me’ but he does not say how. Is it oral or written? Is he talking about an oral transmission given to him, or is he reading from a text in front of him. 

Think about this. If he is reading from the text, and this text is what David Wood claims than what about all the passages where Jesus is called the ‘Son of God’?  Is Ibn Ishaq endorsing this? Ibn Ishaq died a Muslim.

Is David Wood willing to testify to a tradition that reached Ibn Ishaq that mentions about the coming of Munahhemmana?  Also what is the Protestant stance on the Diatessaron? It does not contain (John 7:53-8:11) does it contain Mark 16:9-20?

Why has God allowed Christians to be deceived into thinking that Revelation, Jude, James, 1^st and 2^nd Peter was not canon? Why has God allowed Christians to be deceived into thinking that Mark 16:9-20 was canon when it was not?

I find it incredulous on behalf of Christians to ask ‘Where is the Gospel’ when they themselves do not have the Gospel of Jesus.

 

What is meant by the Torah and the Gospel?

David Wood seems to know what is meant he says:

“Why does the Qur'an seem to presuppose that we know what is meant by "Torah" and "Gospel"? 

Answer: The Qur’an addresses an audience that would understand what is meant by ‘Torah’ and ‘Gospel’

“More importantly, WHAT DID THE JEWS AND CHRISTIANS OF MUHAMMAD’S TIME HAVE WITH THEM WHICH THE QUR’AN CALLS THE TORAH AND GOSPEL? The answer is obvious: the Old and New Testament writings, specifically the Pentateuch and the canonical Gospels.”

Notice what David Wood does here. He says, “The answer is obvious: the Old and New Testament writings, specifically the Pentateuch and the canonical Gospels.” The reason David Wood puts emphasis upon the Pentateuch and the canonical Gospels is that he knows there is no ‘textual, historical, manuscript and archaeological evidence’ to support the Old and New Testament writings in the 7^th century Arabia. It is simply a fantasy.

“I can tell you what it says. The Gospel which the Qur’an is commanding Christians of Muhammad’s time to judge by is none other than what we find in the New Testament. This is based on the fact that the textual, historical, manuscript and archaeological evidence shows that the canonical Gospels are the only books which the Church possessed and affirmed as the Gospel, especially during the seventh century.”

I would sure love to see that evidence wouldn’t you?

David Wood asserts:

 

"(7) You're still left with the fact that the Qur'an commands me to judge by the Gospel. Okay, where it this Gospel?”

Actually David, this is what the Qur’an commands:

 Qur’an 5:68

—Say: “O People of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless you stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord.”

The other thing to point out is that the Qur’an is not talking to Christians in the 21 century. Obviously the Qur’an is talking to Christians in the time of the Prophet Muhammed (saw).  So the real question becomes.  What Christians does the Qur’an have in mind?  Where these Christians products of the Reformation? Where these Christians Roman Catholic?  Where these Christians Greek Orthodox?

They were obviously Christians who had no problem with entertaining the possibility that there were Prophets after Jesus as in the case of Waraqa.

The next question would be the one you ask. ‘Where is this Gospel’?  That is a most excellent question.  1^st Let us ascertain whom or what did the Qur’an deem to be Christian.  In other words who was the immediate audience of the Qur’an?   2^nd What did those Christian or Christians regard as canon and/or the Gospel?

What is the Gospel of Jesus?

Are all of the teachings and deeds of Jesus contained with in the Gospels?

David Wood seems to think that anything that is not in his New Testament canon about Jesus is simply fallacious.

Keep in mind this is only one of many Christian positions on the matter.

Fore example David says:

“Now if you want to get silly and claim that the Qur’an may have been referring to some other Gospel such as the gospel of Thomas, the Gnostic Gospels or even the one read by the Ebionites, you are only going to be further damaging Muhammad’s reliability. If these are the writings which the Qur'an is confirming, then Muhammad is a false prophet for contradicting the Christology taught in these so-called gospels. (And why didn't the Qur'an clarify which "Gospel" was confirmed, since most Christians would assume that it's referring to the New Testament Gospels?) In other words, Muhammad loses either way.” 

You seem to think that I've got a problem because I say that Muhammad drew from heretical and apocryphal sources, and I also say that Muhammad could only be referring to the canonical Gospels when he said "Gospel." Perhaps I should make my view as clear as possible:

(a) Many of Muhammad's teachings were obviously drawn from heretical, historically untenable, late works. This shows that he was a false prophet.

(b) Muhammad referred to a book, in the possession of Christians, which was revealed by God. If he was referring to the New Testament Gospels, then he was a false prophet, since these books contradict the Qur'an. If he was referring to other books, then he was a false prophet, because these books are late, heretical, and contradict the Qur'an. If he was referring to some book that we no longer possess, then he was a false prophet, since (i) the Qur'an commands us to follow this book that we do not possess, (ii) the Qur'an says that this book cannot be corrupted (even though it's totally disappeared), and (iii) the Qur'an is completely unclear as to what this book is (when the Qur'an claims to be clear). Hence, there are many possibilities, but all of them point to a single conclusion: Muhammad was a false prophet.

  

You ask some questions about the contents of the Gospel. If you're asking just for your personal knowledge, I might answer you. But it seems you're asking because you think it's relevant to the present discussion. I want to be clear (much more clear than the Qur'an): For purposes of our present discussion, it doesn't matter whether the "Gospel" was one book, or four books, or twenty-two books, or twenty-seven books, or fifty million books. It doesn't matter what verses are in the Gospel of Mark. If the Gospel was what we have today, then Muhammad was a false prophet. If the Gospel was something different from what we have today, then Muhammad was a false prophet. Either way, Muhammad was a false prophet. What sense does it make to ask irrelevant questions about the contents of the Gospel; when any answer to these questions would make Muhammad was a false prophet?

Well, I'm officially bored. I hope you'll make the only reasonable move, given the evidence before us. The only reasonable move, given the evidence, is to reject Islam. Of course, we haven't discussed the evidence for Christianity, but that's a different issue.

David has quite a mouthful on this particular point of the discussion. I have also noticed a tendency among David Wood and Sam Shamoun. That is that as soon as they realize their particular position is starting to fall apart they will try and subtly shift the topic of discussion. 

For example David Wood would love to shift the topic of the discussion to ‘Is the Qura’n clear or unclear’.  That seems to be a consistent theme of his throughout this discussion. So it is really challenging to get any where with Christians involved in polemic and apologetic. As soon as you stand point by point with them they immediately want the topic to shift!

Any way David Wood made some interesting and bold assertions.

You see David Wood, James White and Sam Shamoun are in a real pickle. On the one hand they want you to believe that the when the Qur’an is talking about Christians and the Injeel they want you to understand the following:  Christians = Reformed Baptist.  Injeel= New Testament canon inclusive of 27 books.

Yet, in the same breath they claim that Muhammed (saw) drew from heretical sources.

So David Wood says that Muhammed (saw) drew from ‘obviously heretical sources’  So I guess that makes David Wood, James White and Sam Shamoun heretical for not ascribing to the Roman Catholic Church, or the Greek Orthodox Church.

Let us say for the sake of argument that we agree with their tenuous position. This would be heretical by which standards?

For example David Wood and Sam Shamoun like to make a big whooping hue and a cry over the Diatessaron supposedly quoted by Ibn Ishaq above. Yet, they don’t ever pause to think of those implications.

The Diatessaron which is supposedly written by Tatian (though this is disputed) was not authorized. It was not an undertaking by the Church of Chalcedon, the Greek Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church.

Which should give make one ponder. Even until today in South India Syriac Churches survive that only accept a New Testament canon with 22 books. That is quite far away from Palestine. It is also out of reach of more powerful and established Christian churches.

So would it not be possible that Arabia, a country with 1.96 million square kilometers had Christians who had views deemed heretical by more established churches? Would it also not be possible that these Christians had oral traditions that they claim go back to Jesus, and/or some writings that differed with more established Christians (Chalcedon, Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic)

Unless the Trinity of David Wood, James White, and Sam Shamoun are willing to establish with certainty which Christians the Qur’an was addressing than they are not interested in serious dialog and discussion.

David Wood, James White and Sam Shamoun should establish and provide evidence of the exact documents that were available to the Christians in the Arabian Peninsula during the 7^th century. So far there has been much bluster but no muster.

So let me now answer the question:

Are all of Jesus sayings, and teachings and actions recorded in the New Testament?

I think any fair minded Christian would say of course not! Jesus is reported to have lived for 33 years. 3 years of his life is recorded in the New Testament. Obviously this left allot of very sincere and pious Christians wondering. What the heck was God doing for 30 years?

Keep in mind that the Gospel of John says,

“Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”

John 21:25.

Now Christians will say that this statement is hyperbole. I would agree with that; however to say that it is not based upon some element or measure of truth is also quite a stretch.

Taking into consideration the agrapha.

“After all, Jesus taught by his “living voice”, the early church preserved and used his teaching largely with the living voice, and some second-century church leaders like Papias still preferred it.

Acts 20:35 refers to a saying of Jesus through Paul, “It is more blessed to give than to received.” Paul himself on rare occasion makes explicit reference to sayings of Jesus: 1 Corinthians 7:10, 9:14, 11:24-25 (Eucharistic words), and possibly 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17. Also, some agrapha occur in variant readings of the New Testament manuscripts. For example, in Codex Bezae (fifth century) a variant reading of Luke 6:5 says:

“The same day, seeing a certain man working on the Sabbath, he [Jesus] said to him, “Man, if you indeed know what you are doing, happy are you; but if not, you are accursed and a transgressor of the law.”

The best –known example of a narrative agraphon is the story of the woman caught in adultery preserved in some manuscripts of John 7:53-8:11, a tradition that is not found in the best manuscripts of John.

‘Several passages from the early Church Fathers (e.g, Papias, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandraia, and others) claim to contain sayings of Jesus that may have come from authentic oral tradition.  Papias (60-130), bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, wrote a five-book Exegesis of the Sayings of the Lord which aimed to bring together all the oral traditions, the “living and abiding voice” of Jesus, not reflected in Christian writings. This book is now lost, but it was quoted by Irenaeus in the second century and Eusebius in the fourth.”

The above quotations are from ‘Jesus outside the New Testament: an Introduction to the Ancient Evidence by Robert E.Van Voorst’ pgs 180-181

Lastly David Wood makes a fatal error when he says:

 “For purposes of our present discussion, it doesn’t matter whether the “Gospel” was one book, or four books, or twenty-two books, or twenty-seven books, or fifty million books. It doesn’t matter what verses are in the Gospel of Mark”

I really wonder if David Wood would be willing to extend that statement, ‘It doesn’t matter what verses are in the Gospel of John, or Luke or Matthew’. 

If that is the case than you really wonder what David Wood’s whole point really is.  I wonder if James White and/or Sam Shamoun would be willing to go out on a limb with David Wood on that one.

As I said I believe that Christian apologetic/polemic in regards to Islam is coming apart at the seams.

The presentation of David Wood, Sam Shamoun and James White are weak indeed.

When investigated with further scrutiny they are strong on rhetoric but short on evidences.

Conclusion: 

The Qur’an talks about the Suhuf of Abraham, the Torah of Moses, the Zabur of David and the Injeel of Jesus. 

The Qur’an does not tell us the contents of those revelations. That is not the objective of the Qur’an.

The purpose of the God is not to reveal the Suhuf, the Torah, The Zabur or the Injeel all over again.

The position of Muslims is not indifferent the Suhuf, the Torah, the Zabur or the Injeel.

However, the position of the Muslims is not to say that the Suhuf, the Torah, the Zabur or the Injeel is exactly what the various Christian and Jewish sects have in their possession today.

The position of the Muslims is also not to say that the Suhuf, the Torah, the Zabur or the Injeel is absolutely corrupted.

Though one of the early scholars of Islam is reported to have said:

Narrated 'Ubaidullah bin ‘Abdullah:
‘Abdullah bin 'Abbas said, "O the group of Muslims! How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about anything while your Book which Allah has revealed to your Prophet contains the most recent news from Allah and is pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the people of the Scriptures have changed some of Allah’s Books and distorted it and wrote something with their own hands and said, ‘This is from Allah,’ so as to have a minor gain for it. Won’t the knowledge that has come to you stop you from asking them? No, by Allah, we have never seen a man from them asking you about that (the Book Al-Qur'an) which has been revealed to you."

(Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 614; see also Volume 9, Book 92, Number 461)

Qur’an 5:68

—Say: “O People of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless you stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord.”

This is what the Qur’an commands the People of the Book. That they not only judge by the Gospel, and the Law (which they know best what its contents are) and ‘and all the revelation’.  

‘None of Our revelation (Ayats) do We abrogate or cause it to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Are you not aware that God has power over all things?

(Holy Qur’an 2:106)

If the revelations of Allah (The Qur’an) is subject to the statement above it stands to reason that the same can be true of previous ayats (revelation).

“They are not all the same; among the People of the Book is a community standing, reciting the revelation (Ayats) of Allah during periods of the night and prostrating.

(Holy Qur’an 3:113)

Lastly the Christians themselves only have a presupposition, a belief in ‘original autographs’. They have people like Daniel Wallace frantically trying to collect funds to find more New Testament manuscripts. So they can know with 100% confidence and not simply faith what the Injeel of Jesus was.

For example ponder on what a Christian reviewer had to say concerning the debate between Bart Ehrman and James White:

“The evangelical textual critics say that textual variants don't matter. They repeat regularly that they don't matter. Ehrman points out the obvious. If they don't matter, then why is it that Wallace is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars running around cataloguing and photographing manuscripts? Good question. Ehrman asks in essence, "What does he tell his sponsors, those funding him? I'm doing all of this because it doesn't matter. Of course he doesn't tell them that, because they do matter! Why check for all the variants and look very carefully at all of them if they don't matter?" I agreed. The textual critics don't think that the text matter is settled. James White speculates that we've reached about as far as we can go in NT textual criticism, that is, unless we have another Dead Sea Scroll like find. So on the one hand, the evangelical textual critic says the variants don't matter and then on the other hand he is saying that they really, really do matter. Ehrman succeeded in the debate at showing, if one believes that a particular variant might be a part of the originals, that it really can change the meaning of the text.”

The above quote is taken from Kent Brandenburg at the following link:

http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2009/02/first-impressions-of-ehrman-white.html

Or take for example the very serious implications of the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1

This particular translation is accepted by Christians as a whole would bring them allot closer to Islam.

http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/12/coptic-christians-concealing-testimony.html

There is also another web site of Christians claiming that Matthew 28:19 is spurious.

You can see that here.

http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/matt2819-willis.htm

The Codex Sinaiticus contains the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Heremes which is not found in today’s New Testament. There are Christian groups that survive until this present day that does not accept Revelation, Jude, James 1^st and 2^nd Peter as canon.

Christians themselves have always disputed up until this present day what should be Biblical canon.

Than you have people like David Wood who says, “It doesn’t matter what verses are in the Gospel of Mark” Fine I agree with him! Throw out all the passages about Jesus being sent for trail and execution. Throw out all the passages that call Jesus ‘the son of God’. For that matter while it doesn’t matter what is in Mark, it shouldn’t matter what is in the Gospel of John either.

David Wood maybe willing to say this, but I think Christians who fear and love God who are in search of the truth do believe it matters what the contents of the Gospel are.

May Allah open the heart and mind of the Christians! May Allah guide them to what he loves! Ameen!