A Muslim Perspective

Many scholars and students of the Bible have observed how similar the gospels are to each other in the episodes they narrate and in the sayings of Jesus they report.  These scholars and students have also noticed how the very same passages are also starkly different from each other in various details.

Over the last three hundred years, the world of Biblical scholarship has exercised its collective mind in solving the riddle of why the gospels are so similar and yet so different. The result of this laborious scholarly enquiry has resulted in the discovery that Matthew and Luke were dependent upon Mark and an additional sayings source, termed “Q”, as the basis for their own gospels.             

The two-source hypothesis is generally accepted as the fundamental solution to the synoptic problem.  It remains the majority position within contemporary New Testament scholarship.           

The late protestant evangelical scholar F. F. Bruce writes:

“The conclusion usually and I think rightly drawn from their comparative study is that the Gospel of Mark or something very similar like it, served as a source for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke…”. (The Real Jesus, pg. 25)           

Mark’s gospel has been dated between 65-70 C.E. There is a general consensus on this dating, agreed upon by conservatives as well as sceptics, and found in most introductions to the New Testament.         

F. F. Bruce corroborating this dating writes:

“Mark probably wrote his gospel in the first instance, for the Christians of Rome, in the aftermath of the persecution which overtook them without warning under Nero, as a sequel to the great fire in July, AD 64”. (The Real Jesus, pg. 26)

Dr. N.T. Wright, a leading Anglican theologian, acknowledges:

When studying these gospels, it is quite apparent that Mark is more primitive in style, theology and diction. More importantly, in Mark’s gospel the human Jesus stands out more visibly than the later gospels. Scholars argue that the depiction of Jesus in Mark represents a far more historical and real Jesus.

In Mark’s gospel, there are a plethora of passages, which describe Jesus as a mere human being. Such passages would later become stumbling blocks in the way of weak believers, traditions which “ran against the grain”, and were therefore omitted from the later gospels.

When one scrutinizes the same narratives of Jesus reported in Mark and Matthew, one quickly realizes that the latter has altered Mark’s gospel due to an increasing feeling of reverence for the person of Christ. Passages which show the inability, weakness and humanness of Jesus, were omitted by Matthew and replaced with a much better Christology.

Dr. James D.G. Dunn supports this view:

“The development of Jesus' divinity over time is well-documented. The later the Gospel, the higher the Christology. Mark’s presentation of Jesus is more human, making it probable that Matthew and Luke were modifying an earlier source to elevate Jesus' status.” (Christology in the Making, p. 84).

Of course, not all the changes were Christological in nature. Factual inaccuracies, grammatical mistakes and other minor errors were also omitted by Matthew and Luke. Matthew’s redaction of Mark often appears at first to involve incidental details, but a closer study reveals that it is part of a consistent and thoroughgoing redevelopment of Mark. 

Through the passing of time, there was a clear change in Christology from the earlier gospel to the later ones. The development was from lesser to greater. There was an enhancing of feelings of reverence and an increase in the position and status of Jesus.

Bruce Metzger, the premier New Testament textual critic, writes:          

“Matthew and Luke suppress or weaken references in Mark to such human emotions of Jesus as grief and anger and amazement as well as Jesus’ unrequited love; they also omit Mark’s statement that Jesus’ friends thought he was beside himself”.   

He explains further, that:

“The later gospels omit what might imply that Jesus was unable to accomplish what he willed…and also omit questions asked by Jesus which might be taken to imply his ignorance.” (The New Testament: its background, growth and content, pg. 81-83) 

Metzger continues further by enumerating instances where Matthew and Luke soften Mark’s statements, which might minimize the majesty of Jesus and replaced it with illustrations of a more alluring and authoritative Jesus. 

In the story of the fig tree as found in Mark, the disciples did not notice the withering of the tree until the next morning. For Matthew, this seemed less dramatic and unimpressive, and hence in his narrative the tree withered at once, leaving the disciples in shock and amazement.

Matthew and Luke were adamant in changing the words of Jesus. They wanted to make Jesus say what they wanted people to believe, “reflecting a later stage of theological understanding than that in Mark.” (Metzger, pg. 83)

It seems quite clear that, during both the pre and post gospel stages of the gospel traditions transmission, the available material was moulded, filtered and changed, in direct correlation to the christological convictions of those who handled the traditions.

It is important to stress that this is not a case of the evangelists’ differing in emphasis; rather there are numerous occasions when the later gospel writers go out of their way to modify and alter the earlier version.

Therefore, if we wish to come close to the historical Jesus in the gospels, it is a good starting point to compare the stories in the various gospels, to discern where the story has altered.

In the beginning, each gospel was circulated independently in the community it had been written. Mark was probably composed in Rome, Matthew in Antioch, Luke in Caesarea and John in Ephesus. None of the gospel writers were eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus and very little if anything is known about them.

Now that the gospels are gathered together in the Bible, they can all be studied together. Yet most readers today often forget or ignore what is in Mark and concentrate only on the improved version in Matthew, Luke and more specifically John.

When we turn our attention to John, the last gospel to be written, it is not surprising to note that Jesus is magnified and transformed into someone very different to the person found in Mark. John’s Jesus, is a powerful being, occupying a position somewhere between God and Man. He is the logos, the Word of God, through whom God created everything. He is no longer just a Prophet and Messenger of God, but rather God’s only begotten Son!

Although none of the gospels teach that Jesus is God, some of the statements found in the fourth gospel place Jesus so high above humanity, that many readers deem this as enough proof of the later Christian claim to Jesus’ divinity.

For example, it is ONLY in the gospel of John, that we find the following statements:

♣  “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him, might not perish, but might have eternal life”. (John 3:16)

♣  “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, He was in the beginning with God.” (John 1:1)

♣  “I and my Father are One”. (John 10:30)

♣  “He that has seen me has seen the Father”. (John 14: 8-9)

♣  “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”. (John 14:6)

♣  “…Before Abraham came to be, I AM”. (John 8: 58)

Another striking fact is that, whilst in the earlier gospels Jesus is seen preaching about the Kingdom of God, in John, Jesus is occupied preaching about himself.

In Mark, the word “kingdom” appears on the lips of Jesus 18 times, whilst in John it is drastically reduced to five. Moreover, in Mark Jesus uses “I” in self-reference, nine times, whilst in John a whopping 118 times!

When we read the earlier gospels, the impression is that the “Kingdom of God” was Jesus’ main preaching and teaching. Whilst in John’s gospel, Jesus is rarely heard preaching the “Kingdom of God”. His gospel is substituted with profound and staggering claims by Jesus about himself.

♣  “I am the bread of life”. (John 6:35)

♣  “I am the light of the world”. (John 8:12)

♣  “I am the door of the sheep”. (John 10:7)

♣  “I am the good shepherd”. (John 10:11)

♣  “I am the resurrection and the life”. (John 11:25)

♣  “I am the way, the truth and the life”. (John 14:6)

♣  “I am the true vine”. (John 15:1)

It is of no surprise that, evangelists and Christian apologists, when asked for textual proof for the divinity of Jesus, quickly rush to John’s gospel, since none of the above powerful self-testimonies are to be found in any of the other gospels. Surely, if these words were part and parcel of the original words of Jesus, every gospel writer would have mentioned them. It is implausible to believe that the writers neglected all these crucial and fundamental teachings and busied themselves with lesser details in Jesus’ life.

Moreover, why was it that the term “father” or “the father” referring to God is only used four times in Mark, but a mammoth 173 times in John? The most obvious deduction to be drawn from these statistics is that over the period spanned by Mark and John, there was an evolution and development of the traditions. In Mark’s gospel Jesus spoke of God as “God”, whilst after 30 years when John wrote his gospel, Jesus in the very same episodes calls “God” his “Father”.

In the earliest of the four gospels Jesus appears very human and very much a Muslim prophet. In the last gospel, however, he appears much more divine, and much more a Christian icon.

It is for this reason that Mark’s gospel was rather neglected by the early church. It was less frequently copied by scribes, preachers rarely referred to it and it was read only occasionally in church congregations and services.

Conclusion

For centuries, biblical scholars have grappled with the discrepancies and contradictions found within the Gospel accounts. A thorough examination of these texts reveals a crucial and undeniable reality: as time progressed, Jesus was increasingly exalted, culminating in the Gospel of John, where he is proclaimed to be somewhat divine—a belief entirely absent from the earliest records. This theological development distances Jesus from his true historical identity, which can only be fully recovered through the final and preserved revelation of God: the Qur’an.

The progressive deification of Jesus found in the Gospels contradicts his true historical identity. Islam, however, offers a preserved and unaltered understanding of Jesus. The Qur’an categorically rejects the notion that Jesus was divine and restores him to his rightful position as a prophet of God.

The Qur’an affirms the true status of Jesus:

"O People of the Book! Do not go to extremes regarding your faith; say nothing about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger of Allah and the fulfilment of His Word through Mary and a spirit ˹created by a command˺ from Him. So, believe in Allah and His messengers and do not say, “Trinity.” Stop!—for your own good. Allah is only One God. Glory be to Him! He is far above having a son! To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And Allah is sufficient as a Trustee of Affairs. (Qur’an 4:171)