Tag: god

Justin Martyr’s “Subordinationism”

The Definitive Case against

Rev. Dr. Christiaan Kappes

Seventy-five years ago, Angelomorphic Christology or Angel-Christ theology was pretty much unknown. Its scholarly reemphasis and popular rediscovery has solved numerous alleged problems with interpretation of the Old and New Testaments from both a scholarly and popular point of view. This, like many other alleged issues with Angel-Christ, is at the heart of misunderstanding Justin Martyr today. Again: Angel of the Lord is Jewish-Hebrew and Jewish-Greek code for an aspect of God that comes to lower heavens and earth to visit and to convey a message. The Angel of the Lord is about a function so that the Hebrew angel (MLK) does not suppose that something is created or mortal or temporal but only that it functions as a messenger from God. This explanation among Christians was early and defined by Tertullian (Against Praxeas) as early as the late 100s AD. The main alleged problem stems from the Anglican divine Schaff and his mistranslation of Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 56:

[Justin:] I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, “another God”[1] and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things— above whom there is no other God — wishes to announce to them (Κἀγὼ πάλιν· Ἃ λέγω πειράσομαι ὑμᾶς πεῖσαι, νοήσαντας τὰς γραφὰς, ὅτι ἐστὶ καὶ λέγεται Θεὸς καὶ κύριος ἕτερος ὑπὸ τὸν ποιητὴν τῶν ὅλων, ὃς καὶ ἄγγελος καλεῖται, διὰ τὸ ἀγγέλλειν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις).

The Greek hypo/ὑπό (subject to) is typically alleged to embrace subordinationism. Justin’s context of his thought on God confronts three angels on this question, challenging any Jewish reading Genesis, chapter 18. Notice that the new CUA translation, based upon the critical edition (that is, the scientific edition) of the Greek of Dialogue with Trypho.[2] The updated translation is far superior as to the preposition “subject to.” The newest translation reads: “There exists and is mentioned in Scripture another God and Lord under the Creator of all things.” The advantage of this translation is that it is reconcilable with Justin’s Jewish argumentation in Greek with the worldview of a Greek-speaking Jew of the second century. What do I mean?

Notice: “Creator of all things.” Where, I ask, in the Greek-Jewish Bible (Septuagint) and Greek commentators (here: Philo of Alexandria)[3] is the creator of things? Is he in heaven above or on earth below? In heaven there is God and on earth is the Angel of the Lord, identified thus:[4]

[Judges 13:21 (Septuagint)]: And the angel appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife: then Manoah knew that this was an angel of the Lord22And Manoah said to his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God (Hebrew: When the angel of the Lord did not show himself again to Manoah and his wife, Manoah realized that it was the angel of the Lord. 22 “We are doomed to die!” he said to his wife. “We have seen God!”)[5]

This is just one of many examples where God’s presence on earth in most ancient books of the Old Testament is often designated by Angel of the Lord. The Angel of the Lord is below God, in the heavens or on the earth, and visits under or underneath the heavenly throne.[6] The Angel of the Lord is visible in some way as sensible to the patriarchs and other Israelites. Hence he appears (as Philo the Jew and Moses Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, relate to their imagination or mental phantasy).

Argument for the Grammatical: “Accusative of Position”

Hypo/ὑπό/Under is correctly used to translate the Biblical location: under the vault of heaven… God – when he is called Angel – is to be found under God’s throne (in heaven) or under heaven and this explains the accusative of place (in Justin’s dialogue about the Greek Jewish reception of the Greek Old Testament in the second century to Greek-speaking Jews). This explanation reflects very well the usage of hypo in the best Greek dictionaries (lexica):

Liddell-Scott dictionary above might easily interpret the Angel-Christ to be in some place underneath God in heaven and even literally “under the sun” or “under the earth.” Notice that a subordination interpretation is possible, but also, as I will argue a 1st-century and more likely interpretation meaning: “next to” or at “the right or left of,” which I will argue is the real meaning of Justin’s phrase.

 Just like Justin Martyr’s argument to Trypho the Jew around AD 150,Philo the Jew around AD 50 explains that Jews hold for the three divine realities that appeared to Abraham to have three names, where the first is named: “Being” who corresponds to Justin’s “Creator” but it is the divine or God called: “Lord” who is seen physically (that is by a brain phantasy or imagery-vision in the prophet’s mind). Philo’s homily On the Godhead (Armenian/Greek retroversion) reads:

After this it is said: Three men stood above him (Genesis 18:2). . . . This [Creator] appears to his own disciple and righteous pupil surrounded on either side[7] by his powers, the heads of armies and archangels,[8] who all worship the Chief Leader in the midst of them (Isaiah 6:1–3). The One in their midst is called Being; this name, “Being,” is not his own and proper name, for he himself is unnamable and beyond expression, as being incomprehensible. . . . Of his two body-guards on either side, one is God (theos), the other Lord (kyrios), the former being the symbol of the creative, the latter of the royal virtue. Concerning the three men, it seems to me that this oracle of God has been written in the Law: I will speak to you from above the mercy seat, from between the two Cherubim (Exodus 25:21). As these powers are winged, they fittingly throne on a winged chariot [Ezekiel 1] over the whole cosmos. . . . In the midst of whom he is found [the text] shows clearly by calling them “cherubim.” [one at the right the other at the left] One of these is ascribed to the creative power and is rightly called God; the other to the sovereign and royal virtue and is called Lord. . . . This vision woke up the prophet Isaiah and caused him to rise.[9]

The two seraphim (in Isaiah 6:1-3) and two cherubim (in the temple on the ark of the covenant) are below or under the God on his throne and God’s mercy seat, respectively. The Angel of the Lord by definition is something that “appears” or is seen in is a vision in the prophets’ imagination/phantasy. Therefore, the Angel of the Lord is visibly below/hypo/υπο the location of the creator or God on his throne. The images of two cherubim-angels below the Mercy Seat are below the place whereon the Creator sits, so that God sits over or above the two cherubim (For Origen of Alexandria, in the tradition of Philo, these are the Angel and the Spirit). So, we cannot be dealing with Greek philosophical claims of subordinationism but rather Jewish language referring to the position of God and his angels in the Bible.

Because Justin Martyr uses Philo of Alexandria according to the critical or scientific edition of the Greek text, let us compare Justin’s source: Philo the Jew (around 50 AD), That the Worse is Wont to Attack the Better:

XLIV. Why, that the wise man is called the God of the foolish man, but he is not God in reality, just as a base coin of the apparent value of four drachmas is not a four drachma piece. But when he is compared with the living God, then he will be found to be a man of God; but when he is compared with a foolish man, he is accounted a God to the imagination and in appearance, but he is not so in truth and essence. (ὅτι ὁ σοφὸς λέγεται μὲν θεὸς τοῦ ἄφρονος, πρὸς ἀλήθειαν δὲ οὐκ ἔστι θεός, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὸ ἀδόκιμον τετράδραχμόν ἐστι τετράδραχμον· ἀλλ’ ὅταν μὲν τῷ ὄντι παραβάλληται, ἄνθρωπος εὑρεθήσεται θεοῦ, ὅταν  δὲ ἄφρονι ἀνθρώπῳ, θεὸς πρὸς φαντασίαν καὶ δόκησιν, οὐ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν καὶ τὸ εἶναι, νοούμενος).

Just like the citation from Schaff and CUA above (I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things), we see that vocabulary and theme are similar here. Ancient people think that: a wiseman “ is and is said to be” God in comparison to a fool. But the suppose this due to “imagination and appearance.” This is the same kind of exposition of the Angel of the Lord. He is a wiseman that is thought to be God. However, says Philo, human beings are not really God even if they appear and are thought to be in our brains, since this does not correspond to their “essence/being” and “truth.” For his part, Justin repeats this phraseology but adjusts the Angel of the Lord to be God “in existence/being” and “is said to be God.” This ostensibly means that Jesus is – unlike Philo’s wisemen – merely a man but is God. This is exactly what both Philo and Justin would imply by someone below the heavens being and being called God by essence. When the Angel of the Lord by Justin is compared to God, he is found to be another divine or divine. This phraseology (rather unique in Greek) is under discussion by Justin and Trypho who both are using Philo the Jew’s works. An Angel of the Lord is both called and is God  by both Justin and argued to be such by Philo above in On the Godhead (above).So, within a 1st-2nd century context, Justin is arguing that “there is” and “there is called” “divine”  someone who in truth and this proven since he is the someone “below” the mercy seat (the angel of the Lord) and the divine being sent “below the heavens” where God is the highest physically imagined being and, for both Philo and Justin is the essentially or so-called ontologically highest being in the universe as well.

Since Justin Martyr (as per the critical edition in Greek) is thoroughly imbued with the Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Dialogue with Trypho, it is worthwhile mentioning that the Angel of the Lord Christ the High priest should in theory be paired with some aspect of himself that is lower than God in heaven ontologically (as people say) or as far as the dignity of some aspect of his being. Indeed, we find this in New Testament Christology:

there is some aspect of the Angel of the Lord that is lower (see Hebrew and Psalm: “you have made him a little lower than the angels”). Within 1st century Christology and Jewish exegesis this already makes sense that there is something even metaphysically lower (anything visible or that is lower than the high part of the heavenly throne/vault).

Hebrews 2:5-9LXX Psalm 8:4-5:
For He has not put the world to come, of which we speak, in subjection to angels. 6 But one testified in a certain place, saying: “What is man that You are mindful of him, Or the son of man that You take care of him? 7 You have made him a little lower than the angels (ηλαττωσας αυτον βραχυ τι παρ αγγελους) You have crowned him with glory and honor, And set him over the works of Your hands. 8 You have put all things in subjection under his feet.” For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the Son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little less than angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and

Above, we see that there is an invitation by the Angel of the Lord beneath the place where the angels dwell and that Jesus’s flesh or human nature is somehow “less than” or “lower than” the angels. Really, we can take Justin’s “under” to mean that Jesus is underneath the heavenly throne and underneath the higher places where the angels dwell, or we take it in the sense that Jesus in his flesh is inferior to some power or virtue of angels (since flesh is corruptible or mortal or what not). It doesn’t really matter. The distinction between the divine and the non-divine aspect of Jesus was part of primitive Christology. Against either of these possibilities is the context of Justin who is trying to argue not an advanced Christology but something quite primitive (theologically) to a Jewish dialogue partner and he argues by interpreting three visible angels of Genesis 18 to be divine. How does Justin really help Trypho by using the term “under” since Trypho is clearly not a subordinationist in comparison to Justin (especially for today’s scholars)? In response, Justin’s citation from Genesis notes that the three Angels are “above” so that Abraham had to look up to see them (like Psalm 8:4). The Psalm 8:4 (above) reflects the primitive notion in Genesis that Angels are “above” humans. Angels of the Lord are located above Abraham and he is “under” them. Justin’s argument is that there are three angels and that the one of interest (the Christ-Angel) is located in position to, or in relation to, the Creator-Angel. Elsewhere, in his First Apology Justin makes sure to identify these three men as: Father, Son, and Spirit, as someone first, second, and third in an order (taxis). See Justin Martyr, First Apology, 13.3:

Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the times of Tiberius Cesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third order, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed. (Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν σταυρωθέντα ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, τοῦ γενομένου ἐν Ἰουδαίᾳ ἐπὶ χρόνοις Τιβερίου Καίσαροςἐπιτρόπου, υἱὸν αὐτὸν τοῦ ὄντως θεοῦ μαθόντες καὶ ἐν δευτέρᾳ χώρᾳ ἔχοντες, πνεῦμά τε προφητικὸν ἐν τρίτῃ τάξει ὅτι μετὰ λόγου τιμῶμεν ἀποδείξομεν.)

Justin’s mention of three Angels and his belief that the Father, Son, and Spirit form an array or taxis, which is probably military in meaning due to his reference to the militant Angels of the Lord in Joshua, as elsewhere (like Philo). For example, in the Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 63, when identifying the Angel-Christ he not only equates the Angel of the Lord (Judges 13) with Christ as God but with the Angel-Warrior of Armies:

Listen, therefore, to the following from the book of Joshua, that what I say may become manifest to you; […] Joshua was near Jericho, he lifted up his eyes, and sees a man [compare Genesis 18: “three men”] standing over against him. And Joshua approached to Him, [..] And He said to him, I am Captain of the Lord’s armies: […] And Joshua fell on his face on the ground, and said to Him, Lord, what do You command Your servant? And the Lord’s Captain says to Joshua, Loose the shoes off your feet; for the place whereon you stand is holy ground [This is the Angel of the Lord on Sinai].

We now have sufficient context to understand the Jewish-Biblical references and Jewish mode of argumentation. The Angel-Christ is a military figure as well as an Angel who provides military strategy. In fact, Justin his Dialogue with Trypho (chapters 11 and 13) by noting: “He alone is God who led your fathers out from Egypt with a strong hand and a high arm” (viz., right hand) and ““And to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed (Isaiah 53:1ff)? We have announced Him as a child before Him.” In effect, the military arm of God, or Angel of the Lord, is nothing less than a warrior God on earth. In first-century Greek, when military men are arrayed in due order within a military unit, the word hypo takes on a military meaning, not a philosophical meaning or even a the typical “accusative of place” meaning: under. Instead, let’s take a look at first-century Greek used in a military context when three  or more soldiers are lined up in array: We turn to the “how to be a general” (or Captain for the Old Testament) manual of the first-century Greek writer: Onosander (contemporary to Philo and near contemporary with Justin) in his Strategicus:

First arming the soldiers, he should draw them up in military formation that they may become practiced in maintaining their formation; that they may become familiar with the faces and names of one another; that each soldier may learn by whom he stands*** (τίς ὑπὸ τίνα) and where and after how many. In this way, by one sharp command, the whole army will immediately form ranks (ἐν τάξει). Then he should instruct the army in open and close order; in turning to the left and right (ἐπὶ λαιὰ καὶ δεξιά); the interchange, taking distance, and closing up of files; the division into files; the arrangement and extension of files to form the phalanx; withdrawing of files for greater depth of the phalanx; battle formation facing in two directions, when the rear guard turns to fight an encircling enemy; and he should instruct them thoroughly in the calls for retreat.

***one person next to another or one at the left/right of another: See the Liddell-Scott translation above: “next to whom.”

In effect, what Justin Martyr, within the context of his time, dialogue partner, religious texts, and imagery of military usage is committed to is a general of an array of angels.[10] These three angel appear in an ordered way to Abraham and they stand above him one next to the other so that we can see how future readings in the Old Testament by the Psalms, Jesus and Apostles altogether put Jesus to the right of the Creator-Captain and the Spirit to the left of the Creator-Captain who appears according to Justin to Abraham. The meaning of “hypo/next to” hear seems in a military, Jewish, and organization context to signify that the angels for Justin form in Genesis 18 one line with a central figure and another man at the left and the other man at the right hand. Jesus as Justin’s “other God” or “other divine one” (theos) is at the right of the Creator and is his equal in the army as soldiers of equal rank arrayed together. As such, there is no sense in which I need to admit that Justin’s Angel-Christ is either “subordinate to” or “under” the Creator in some sort of moral or so-called ontological sense. If anything the context argues them all to be of equal military rank.

Finally, immediately after the time of Justin, we see below that the anonymous Ps-Clement identifies someone claiming equality with God in both “existing” and “being called” divine (Just like the phraseology of Philo and Justin). Anyone who shares the creator’s rule or has a common name with him (theos) is equal to him. Each Angel of the Lord for Justin shares the common name “theos,” as too for the Jew Philo. Justin designates Philo’s God: “Being,” as: “Creator.” For his part, Ps-Clement (3rd century just after Justin), in chapter XXXVII, writes:

Whom to Know is Life Eternal. But if you art thankful, O man, understanding that God is your benefactor in all things, you may even be immortal, […]  you are able to become incorruptible, if you acknowledge Him whom you did not know, if you love Him whom you forsook, if you pray to Him alone who is able to punish or to save your body and soul. Wherefore, before all things, consider that no one shares His rule, no one has a name in common with Him—that is, is called God. For He alone is both called and is God [Both Philo and Justin use this phrase in Greek]. Nor is it lawful to think that there is any other, or to call any other by that name. And if anyone should dare do so, eternal punishment of soul is his (οὐδεὶς αὐτῷ συνάρχει, οὐδεὶς τῆς αὐτοῦ κοινωνεῖ ὀνομασίας,τοῦτο ὃ δὴ λέγεται θεός. μόνος γὰρ αὐτὸς καὶ λέγεται καὶ ἔστιν, ἄλλον δὲ οὔτε νομίσαι οὔτε εἰπεῖν ἔξεστιν· εἰ δέ τις τολμήσειεν, ἀιδίως τὴν ψυχὴν κολασθῆναι ἔχει).

The Genesis-Angels for Justin share their rule with each other and thus they are all God or divine (theos) in common with him. According to this Jewish-Christian language – like Ps-Clement – this makes both the Creator and the “second God” of Justin potentially equal within the historical context of the first- and second-century interpretations of Angel of the Lord appearances.

CONCLUSION

The term “under” or “hypo” is not subordinationist within the register or Jewish-Greek usage of terms, since hypo references location (e.g., beth-el; the house of the Lord) of Philo’s Cherubim (cf. Isaiah 6:1-3) and God’ throne (a throne which the Son of Man can sit upon). In fact, hypo almost certainly is meant to convey: “next to” as in the Son of Man or Angel of the Lord (Seraph) at the right hand of the Creator. Thus, I offer a version of the Dialogue of Trypho retranslated:

Here [in Genesis where a row of three angels are mentioned] exists and is mentioned in Scripture another God [at the right of the middle angel] and Lord next to [at the right hand of] the Creator of all things.

Appendix: On the Usage of “Another God” and “Other God” by Justin Martyr

The critical edition of Justin’s works in Greek reveal that, with the exception of one minor citation from an historical book of the Deuterocanon,[11] Justin Martyr did not cite any of the Deuterocanonal books of the Bible to his dialogue partner Trypho. Furthermore, Justin used extensively Philo’s Questions and Answers on Genesis, as in the Appendix of the critical/scientific Greek edition:[12]

Trypho seems to represent a Jewish community that was, by and large, knowledgeable of Philo in both Alexandria and Rome. Since Trypho was originally from Palestine, and since Segal has demonstrated that the “two powers” debate or the Jewish arguments about whether there is “another God” existed in Hebrew discourse, then it is not surprising that Trypho and Justin are dialoguing – both from Palestine/Syria areas –  about this doctrine that must have been available to both of them. Their Greek-Jewish tradition of interpretation often (but not always) reechoes in later Rabbinic literature like the third-century Mishnah. As Segal first identified, “second God” is a Jewish (not Christian) tradition that predates Philo, since Rabbis who are almost certainly unacquainted with him subsequently battle this tradition in Hebrew (and less so in Aramaic). Let us set up the argument as follows:

  • The Old Testament books that were canonized after Rabbi Akiva (c. 150), in their Greek versions, do not condemn the Greek technical term: “another God” (heteros theos), but generally oppose the terminology of “other gods” (heteroi theoi).[13]
  • Opposition to Jewish theology favoring “other God” terminology can be clearly found first in late-deuterocanonical literature that translates Hebrew or Aramaic texts:[14]
    • LXX Judith 8:20-21 (KJV; 114-77 BC?): “But we know none other god (ἕτερον θεὸν), therefore we trust that he will not despise us, nor any of our nation.”
    • LXX Baruch 3:36 (KJV; translated 165-1 BC): This is our God (theos), and there shall not be another (heteros) be accounted of in comparison of him
    • LXX Daniel 3:96 (both Old Greek and Theodotian; translated after 120 BC + 2nd c. AD): Wherefore I publish a decree: Every people, tribe, or language, that shall speak reproachfully against the God of Sedrach, Misach, and Abdenago, shall be destroyed, and their houses shall be plundered: because there not another God (heteron theon) who shall be able to deliver thus.

This reaction in these texts could be read to date the “second God” vocabulary as early as 2nd century BC. Philo’s tradition is apparently in opposition to the traditions of these translators who are precluding the vocabulary. However, Philo does not cite the broader Deuterocanon as Scripture, possibly being closer to Origen’s testimony of Jewish canon in Alexandria. As such, he naturally is a representative of the “second God” or “heteros theos” Jewish tradition without preoccupation of the broader LXX tradition opposing the term.

Because Justin Martyr is dialoguing with someone who takes Philo’s works and tradition as authoritative, we notice that he uses a canon that does not reflect what we know of Alexandrian Judaism (without the broader selection of Judith-Baruch-Daniel)[15] and therefore he argues for the “other God” tradition since it is acceptable or authoritative for Philo and has not yet presumably been formally condemned as in the Mishnah and Rabbinic commentaries. This is key to a passage of Philo in On Questions and Answers in Genesis II:

(62) Why is it that he speaks as if of some other god (ἑτέρου θεοῦ), saying that he made man after the image of God, and not that he made him after his own image? (Genesis  9:6). Very appropriately and without any falsehood was this oracular sentence uttered by God, for no mortal thing could have been formed on the similitude of the supreme Father of the universe, but only after the pattern of the second deity, who is the Word of the supreme Being; since it is fitting that the rational soul of man should bear it the type of the divine Word[16]; since in his first Word God is superior to the most rational possible nature.[17] But he who is superior to the Word holds his rank in a better and most singular pre-eminence, and how could the creature possibly exhibit a likeness of him in himself? Nevertheless he also wished to intimate this fact, that God does rightly and correctly require vengeance, in order to the defense of virtuous and consistent men, because such bear in themselves a familiar acquaintance with his Word, of which the human mind is the similitude and form.

“It is clear that Philo uses and approves of the term ‘second God’ which the rabbis later would find repugnant, because it allows him to maintain the truth both of his philosophy and of his scripture.”[18]

What I propose as knew is that the translator Theodotion (See Daniel 3:96) proves definitively (viz., philologically) the existence of  Rabbinic opposition to the notion of “another God” (heteros theos) by the mid-2nd century AD. Furthermore, given a very late dating of the LXX Judith-Baruch-Daniel, we can suppose increasing opposition to this terminology in the last decades of the BC era.

So, is Justin Martyr a subordinationist by reference to “another God”? Thus far, the answer must be “clearly no.” Instead, both men born in the area of Syria-Palestine are familiar with the “other God” tradition that has not been condemned by Rabbis yet, though it has been implicitly chastised by translators of the Deuterocanon, including the contemporary Jewish translator Theodotion. Still, ought we not think that “other God” theology can be taken as dividing God into superior and inferior parts? That is, doesn’t this create for Jews of the time a higher and lower God of power and thus implicitly commit Jews to subordinationism? The answer must still be negative. Justin Marty clearly signals that he is dealing with Biblical motifs, not metaphysics. He contrasts explicitly Philonian “another God” (heteros theos) theology against “other God” (allos theos) theology in his opening remarks to Trypho in chapter 11:

[Justin:] There will be no other God (allos theos),[19] O Trypho, nor was there from eternity any other existing, but He who made and disposed all this universe. Nor do we think that there is one God for us, another for you, but that He alone is God who led your fathers out from Egypt with a strong hand and a high arm. Nor have we believed in any other (for there is no other), but in Him in whom you also have believed.[20]

Here, “other God” means that some other being or separately or independently existing or co-existing thing is anathema. This is due to a common Greek-speaking Jewish common reception of LXX Isaiah 43:10, so dear and important to 1st-century Jews and Christians: Some “Other God (allos theos) has not come before me and there shall not be one after me. I am God,” and LXX Isaiah 45:21: “I am God, and there is no other (allos).” Philo, who embraced the “another God” (heteros theos) also rejected the “other God” (allos theos). For example, Philo rejects “other God” in Allegorical Interpretation III, 26.82:

XXVI. (82) But Melchisedek shall bring forward wine […] For reason is a priest, having, as its inheritance the true God, and entertaining lofty and sublime and magnificent ideas about him, “for he is the priest of the most high God” (LXX Genesis 14:18). Not that there is any other god (allos theos) who is not the most high; for God being one, is in the heaven above, and in the earth beneath, and there is no other besides Him” (LXX Deuteronomy 4:39).

 Again, Philo taught in On the Birth of Abel and the Sacrifices Offered by Him and by His Brother Cain, 92: “neither is there any other god (allos theos) of equal honor with him.” Justin likewise emphasizes that nothing else divine exists even from eternity. This excludes any sort of dual principle, one higher and the other lower, since there is only one principle or one source of deity for both Jews and Christians. However, using Angel-Christ theology, Justin identifies the Jewish interpretation that God’s Angel or “strong hand and high arm” are the means on earth by which God manifested himself. This is explicitly made clear to be Jesus, who is the “another God” or “another divine reality” (heteros theos). Let us see again the same chapter in Justin:

Isaiah himself said, when he spoke thus: “The Lord shall make bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the nations and the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of God.” (Isaiah 52:10) […] “And to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed (Isaiah 53:1ff)? We have announced Him as a child before Him, as a root in a dry ground. He has no form or comeliness, and when we saw Him He had no form or beauty; but His form is dishonored, and fails more than the sons of men. He is a man in affliction, and acquainted with bearing sickness, because His face has been turned away; He was despised, and we esteemed Him not.”

For Justin and for Jewish exegesis, the right arm of God is the Angel of the Lord. This Angel of the Lord is not some “other God” (allos theos) but is “another divine” (heteros theos) or “another God” in Philonian terminology. As such, Justin commits himself to the absolute unity of God so that whatever God’s arm is, or his word is,, or his angel is, it cannot mean a co-eternal and different being but rather some eternal aspect of God that must be identified as there with the “Father” and “Creator” but which is means by which the Father and Creator comes down to the lower heavens and earth to reveal himself to created angels and the human race.

In the next century, in Palestine the extreme unitarian Heraclides and the loose Trinitarian Origen will both agree (around AD 244-249) that indeed Philo’s “heteros theos” is an orthodox expression to indicate the relationship between the Father and the Son:

Origen said: “Jesus Christ, ‘though he was in the form of God’ (Philippians 2:6), while still being distinct from God in whose form He was, was God before He came into the body: yes or no?” Heraclides said: “He was God before.” Origen said: “Was He God before He came into the body or not?” Heraclides said: “yes, He was.” Origen said: “Was He another God (heteros theos) from this God in whose form He was?” Heraclides said: “Obviously distinct from the other and, while being in the form of the other, distinct from the Creator of all.” Origen said: “Is it not true, then that there was a God, the Son of God and only begotten of God, ‘first born of all creation’ (Colossians 1:15), and that we do not hesitate to speak in one sense of two Gods, and in another sense of one God?”[21]

As Heraclides and Origen discuss the Philonian idea first taken philologically from Exodus 34:14, they seem to agree with Philo that the Word is both distinct from the Creator/Father but also God in every way. As such an extreme unitarian and a robust Trinitarian were able to agree on the orthodoxy of this phraseology:

Thus we do not fall into the opinion of those who, cut off from the Church, have fallen prey to the illusory notion of unity (monarchias), abrogating the Son as distinct from the Father and also, in effect, abrogating the Father; nor do we fall into the other impious doctrine which denies the divinity in Christ. What, then, is the meaning of such sacred texts as: “Before me no other God (allos theos) was formed (Isaiah 43:10)? … “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). (Dialogue with Heraclides,4.5-13)

In conclusion, “another God” is a technical term condemned by LXX books, but which Justin Martyr never cited to Trypho against the term because no general condemnation was authoritative in Greek for the Palestinian Jews like Trypho. So, Trypho must have been familiar with Philo’s “second God” or “other God” Jewish theology, as embraced by Philo, and was known too by Justin who is a reader of Philo, and is acceptable to Trypho. The reason that this vocabulary is not subsequently embraced by Christians and the church Fathers lies in the fact that it is suspect and even condemned by the received versions of Baruch, Judith, and Daniel. Justin’s usage betrays acceptance of its technical orthodoxy as understood by the Philonic school of interpretation.

The Theological Influences in the Reception of LXX Exodus 34:14:

For you shall not offer worship to another God (theôi heterôi), for the Lord, who is God, he is a jealous name and he is someone jealous.” 200 BC Alexandria

LXX Baruch: anti-heteros theos 165 BC Palestine(?)

LXX Isaiah: anti-allos theos‘Ca. 145 BC Alexandria

OG Daniel: anti-heteros theos 135-120 BC Judea

LXX Judith: anti-heteros theos 114-77 BC Israel

Philo: pro-heteros theos + anti-allos theos AD 50 Alexandria

Trypho-Justin Martyr: pro-heteros theos+ anti-allos theos AD 135 Palestine-Syria             

Thedotion Daniel: anti-heteros theos AD 190 Judea

Clement: anti-heteros theos+ anti-allos theos AD 180 Alexandria

Origen: Dialogue with Heracleides: Pro-heteros Theos+ anti-allos theos around AD 250 Palestine-Alexandria               


[1] See Segal, Two Powers in Heaven…, (Leiden, 1977), 177: “Philo can use the same argument and the same term “second God” (Greek: deuteros theos, Latin: secundus deus).” I provide the passage in question in the Appendix below.

[2] Justin Martyr, Dialogue avec Tryphon: Éditin critique, traduction, commentaire,ed. Philippe Bobichon, Paradosis: Études de littérature det de théologie anciennes 47.1-2 (Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg, 1993).

[3] Nonetheless, Alan Segal, Two Powers in Heaven…, (Leiden, 1977), 43, interprets the most ancient Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the Rabbi’s (typically dated to the centuries after Philo as supporting Philo’s claims that his interpretations reflect mainline Jewish ideas about God having both manifestations on earth as aspects of God, as well as personified attributes.

[4] See Segal, Two Powers in Heaven…, 76-79, for the Hebrew-Rabbi tradition that heaven and earth refer to two Gods; thus, even the Semitic traditions had schools taking the Scriptures in the sense of Justin Martyr.

[5] Slight emendation of Manoe to Manoah is my own.

[6] See Segal, Two Powers in Heaven…, 168:

Philo’s understanding of the word “place” [beth] is logos. Therefore, the mystic, here Moses, does not see God himself, but the logos, “the place where God stands,” who is manifested in the narration at Ex. 24:10 f. as a human figure astride the world.

[7] So the first militaristic “Seraph is next to the throne” that might be rendered in military terms: “o Seraphin hypo ton thronon.”

[8] See below that 1st-century military ordering of these two angels means that there is a line of equals standing in array with one angel at the right and left or next to each other of the central angel not below each other!

[9] I have simply taken this from Bogdan Bucur’s article “I saw the Lord…”, who cites: Folker Siegert, “The Philonian Fragment De Deo: First English Translation,” Studia Philonica 10 (1998): 1–33. The Greek terms are taken from Siegert’s Greek retroversion in his original publication, Wohltätig verzehrendes Feuer, quoted above. See also Francesca Calabi, God’s Acting, Man’s Acting: Tradition and Philosophy in Philo of Alexandria (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 73–110.

[10] For the Hebrew context that supports Justin’s and Trypho’s militaristic reading of the Angels of the Lord, see Segal, Two Powers in Heaven…,33-35. Here the Military Leader God (and Angel) who was seen at Sinai can be equated to the “Old Man” in white in Daniel 7:9 and his interplay with the “Son of Man.”

[11] 1-2 Ezrah is apparently accepted by Trypho in his Jewish community. See Philippe Bobichon, Index Scripturaire, in Dialogue avec Tryphon: Édition critique, traduction, commentaire,Paradosis: Études de littérature det de théologie anciennes 47.1-2 (Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg, 1993), 2:1040.

[12] Ibid., Index Auteurs…,in Dialogue,2:1101.

[13] An interesting exception almost seems to occur in LXX  Exodus 34:14, a central text for Jews: “For you shall not offer worship to another God (theôi heterôi), for the Lord, who is God, is a jealous name and he is jealous.” Both to onoma/the name and ho theos/God are together jealous. Does this mean that there is “one” and “the other” or God and his name who are jealous? Philo never cites nor alludes to this passage in his works. This strange redundancy would not be lost on Greek readers who would note that Angel of the Lord is also the Divine Name or the Name that dwells in the Temple. Here Philo and others would see that the terminology “other God” as applied not to idols (which must be burnt) but only to the Divine Name. the “Divine Name” or “Angel” is therefore the “other God.” For the equivalence of “Angel of the Lord” and “Divine Name,” see Charles Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology…, (Leiden, 1998), 70-78.

[14] For dating and information on each LXX book, I consulted J. Aitken (ed.), T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint (London: Bloomsbury, 2015).

[15] Canticle of Canticles is not quoted to Trypho, but the controversial Ezekiel is. Esther and Sirach are not cited – though a contested book until this time. This means that the Jewish tradition behind Origen-Eusebius and St. Athanasius’s Epistle 39 are probably unrelated to Justin and Trypho’s agreed upon Jewish list of books acceptable for debate.

[16] See Segal, Two Powers in Heaven…, 162: Philo’s terminology bears striking resemblance to the early rabbinic designation MQWM for God. His concept of logos is similar to the rabbinic doctrine of God’s Shekhinah, each of which is often used to explain the same difficult scriptures.

[17] Ibid.: When “place” refers to something divine revealed to man, as it did in the passage above, for Philo, it may mean God’s image, His logos. It is, in fact, impossible for man to see God and live (Ex. 33:20). However, Moses and the elders see the image of God or everything “that is behind me” (Ex. 33:23). These are equivalent to the logos which as a second God can also be given the title “Lord.” (kyrios = YHWH).

[18] Segal, The Two Powers in Heaven…, 165.

[19] Justin condemns “allos theos” also in Dialogue 50.1, 56.4-11.

[20] I have slightly modified “trust” into “belief.”

[21] Origen, Dialogue of Origen with Heraclides and His Fellow Bishops on the Father, the Son, and the Soul, ed. R. Daley, Ancient Christian Writers 54 (New York, 1992), 58.

15 Eerie Similarities Between Islam & Mormonism

By Cameron Bertuzzi of Capturing Christianity. Here’s the video for this post: 15 Reasons Why Islam and Mormonism are Fake.

Two men. Two alleged prophets. One from the deserts of Arabia, the other from the hills of New York. Both claimed to bring the final, ultimate truth. But what if I told you these two religions—Islam and Mormonism—share shocking, almost eerie similarities? And what if these parallels expose them both as man-made fabrications? Today, we’re going to uncover 15 parallels between Islam and Mormonism that disprove both religions. Stay tuned, because this is going to get crazier and crazier as the list continues.

If you’ve always wanted to learn more about Islam and Mormonism, you gotta watch this entire video front to back. We’ll cover everything from conveniently lost prophecies and demonic manipulations to special marriage privileges and polygamy. We’ll also be comparing the parallels in these false religions to what we see in Jesus, our Lord and true prophet.

Before we get started, though, I want to mention two quick things. First, this video isn’t an attack on individual Muslims or Mormons—many of them are good people who live extremely moral lives. Our focus is on the prophets and historical claims of these religions and how they ultimately backfire.

Second, if you’re enjoying this content, consider subscribing and supporting us on Patreon. Without your help, we can’t continue to expose the intellectual side of Christian belief and bring you the thought-provoking material you love. And right now, you might not know this, we’re actually running at a deficit—our monthly expenses exceed our monthly support. If you see value in our work, please pause this video and pledge your support through our Patreon page, linked in the description. Your support really does make a huge difference, no matter what amount you give.

With that said, let’s jump into Parallel #1: the absolutely discrediting claim of lost prophecies foretelling their coming.

Parallel 1: The Phantom Prophecy Problem

If you don’t pay attention to any other parallel in this video, you have to pay attention to this one. In fact, I’ve already produced an entire video on this parallel alone because it’s THAT problematic. I’m calling it the Phantom Prophecy Problem. Basically, the idea is that both Muhammad and Smith claimed that prophecies from earlier scriptures foretold their coming. But—and this is key—you can’t actually find these prophecies because, conveniently, they’ve been “lost” from the original sources. But don’t worry, because BOTH prophets claimed that God re-revealed the lost prophecies about them to them.

In the Quran, Muhammad doesn’t just say that Jesus prophesied his coming. Surah 7:157 explicitly claims that Muhammad is mentioned in both the Torah and the Gospel: “Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel.” Moreover, in Surah 61:6, Muhammad claims that Jesus himself said, “I am the messenger of Allah… bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad.” Ahmad is a variation of the name Muhammed. The problem here is that there is no reference in any recorded history, either from Christian or non-Christian sources, of Jesus ever predicting a new prophet named Ahmed or anything remotely like that, despite how monumental and important a prediction like that would have been. This would be like Kanye West claiming that Beethoven prophesied his coming as the world’s next greatest musician, but somehow no one ever thought to write it down. No records, no fan scribbles, not even a vague mention on a napkin—despite how massive that would have been!

Alright, let’s transition and talk about Joseph Smith. A lot of Mormons don’t even know this, but Joseph Smith did the same exact thing. He claimed he was foretold in Genesis 50:33, a verse that shows up nowhere in any ancient manuscript—not in the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, nor the Dead Sea Scrolls. In fact, this verse was completely absent from every known source until Smith conveniently added it to his Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of the Bible. The so-called prophecy also appears in the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi chapter 3), where it states that a seer named Joseph—just like Smith—would be raised up in the latter days. But, just as with Muhammed, there’s absolutely no historical evidence for the existence of verse 33 in Genesis 50–Chapter 50 has always ended at verse 26. No Jewish scholars, Christian writers, early church fathers, or pagan historians mention an extended version of Genesis 50. It doesn’t exist.

Now, let’s talk about why this is so problematic. Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith are essentially saying, “Look guys, I was prophesied in earlier sources, but you can’t check those earlier sources, because those prophecies have been lost. But don’t worry because God re-revealed that ancient prophecy about me, directly to me, again. Just trust me bros.

Alright, let’s talk about how these stories compare with Jesus. Christianity doesn’t rely on lost prophecies. Jesus’ coming was foretold openly and clearly all over the Hebrew Scriptures, with centuries of verifiable prophecy leading up to His birth, life, death, and resurrection. Just read Isaiah, who prophesied the birth of a servant who would be called “mighty God” and “Prince of Peace”; who was “despised and rejected,” “pierced for our transgressions”; and who was “raised and lifted up.” (Is. 9; 52-53) In Christianity, there are no claims of lost texts or concealed verses—everything is out in the open. The prophecies about Jesus are transparent and traceable. That’s what sets Christianity apart from these other religions. Jesus didn’t need to create a myth about lost prophecies—His entire life was an open fulfillment of the real prophecies found in earlier manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Transition: This is just the beginning of the eerie similarities between Muhammad and Joseph Smith. But trust me, it gets crazier. If you stick around, you’ll hear about demonic encounters, secretive revelations, and even prophets claiming divine permission for more than just spiritual matters. We’re talking about personal wealth, polygamy, and shocking marital practices—all justified by these so-called revelations. Each parallel we uncover is more disturbing than the last, so buckle up. By the end of this, you’ll see just how deep these similarities run—and why neither of these prophets can be trusted.

Parallel 2: Both Prophets Were Manipulated By Demons

Let’s talk about how both Muhammad and Joseph Smith had some pretty concerning run-ins with demonic forces that left a serious mark on their ministries.

Starting with Muhammad, according to Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, Muhammad was so convinced that he had been possessed by a jinn during his first revelation that he actually considered throwing himself off a mountain. That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement for a future prophet, is it? But it doesn’t stop there. There’s also the infamous Satanic Verses incident, where Muhammad somehow ended up reciting verses praising pagan gods. And when people started asking questions, Muhammad pulled the old “Satan made me do it” card, claiming that Satan had tricked him into speaking those words.

According to Shahab Ahmed, in his book Before Orthodoxy, “the early Muslim community believed almost universally that the Satanic verses incident was a true historical fact. As far as the overwhelming majority of the Muslim community in the first two hundred years was concerned, the Messenger of God did indeed, on at least one occasion, mistake words of Satanic suggestion as being of Divine inspiration. For the early Muslims, the Satanic verses incident was something entirely thinkable.” In other words, Muhammad literally confused Satan’s voice with God’s, and the early Muslims didn’t seem too bothered by that. Imagine your prophet mixing up God and Satan—no big deal, right?

Now, let’s move on to Joseph Smith, who also couldn’t seem to avoid dark forces in his life. Before his First Vision, Smith claimed he was overcome by a dark power, leaving him completely paralyzed and surrounded by thick darkness (this first-hand account can be found in the official Mormon Scriptures, namely in the Pearl of Great Price). And this wasn’t a one-off occurrence—Smith reported several encounters with demonic forces, conveniently happening right before his biggest revelations.

Now, let’s contrast that with Jesus Christ. When Satan came to tempt Jesus during His 40-day fast (Matthew 4:1-11), Jesus didn’t fall for any of his tricks. He didn’t mistake Satan’s voice for God’s or become paralyzed. In fact, He stood firm and sent Satan packing without breaking a sweat. Jesus wasn’t just good at resisting demonic influence; He dominated it. Jesus was well-known as an exorcist, regularly casting out demons with authority. Wherever He went, the demonically possessed trembled, and unclean spirits obeyed His commands. Whether He was healing the afflicted or casting out evil spirits, Jesus demonstrated total control over the spiritual realm. So while Muhammad and Smith were out there getting confused and paralyzed by dark forces, Jesus was showing unmatched power and authority over them. In short, Jesus is pretty based—there’s no comparison.

Transition: So, let’s recap: both prophets had ‘prophecies’ no one can find and, oh yeah, were manipulated by demons. Honestly, you couldn’t make this stuff up—except they actually did. But it wasn’t just spiritual issues that influenced them. They borrowed heavily from the world around them, mixing in pagan elements like it was a recipe for the next best-seller. Let’s check out how their ‘divine revelations’ look suspiciously human.

Parallel 3: Influence from Surrounding Pagan or Non-Religious Elements

Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith appear to have incorporated elements from their surrounding cultures into their religious systems. In Muhammad’s case, we’ve already covered the Satanic Verses and his praising three Arabian pagan gods. But there’s more! The Kaaba, originally a center for pagan worship, somehow became the holiest site in all of Islam. According to Surah 22:26-30, Muhammad reformed the rituals associated with the Kaaba, transforming it into an Islamic symbol while keeping practices like the pilgrimage intact. 

Similarly, Joseph Smith drew heavily from the literature and folklore of his time in crafting the Book of Mormon. Scholars have documented striking parallels between the Book of Mormon and contemporary works, suggesting that Smith was far more influenced by 19th-century American culture than by divine revelation.

One key example is Ethan Smith’s 1823 book, View of the Hebrews, which speculated that Native Americans were descended from the Lost Tribes of Israel. This idea strongly resembles the narrative of the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon, who are described as a people descended from ancient Israelites who migrated to the Americas.  Additionally, the names and terms used in the Book of Mormon show clear signs of influence from other contemporary sources. For example, the name “Nephi,” one of the main figures in the Book of Mormon, has no known roots in ancient Hebrew or any other ancient language. But it does appear in popular travel literature of the time. The Travels of Marco Polo, a well-known book in Joseph Smith’s day, includes a reference to “Nephi,” a name for a region in Arabia. Another example is the name “Mormon” itself, which might have been inspired by “Mormo,” a mythical figure mentioned in The Wonders of Nature, a book that was widely circulated in the early 19th century.

In contrast, Christianity maintained its consistency with the Hebrew Scriptures, and the idea of incorporating pagan elements would have been morally repugnant to the Jews of that time. The Hebrew Scriptures strongly opposed paganism, making it highly unlikely that Christianity borrowed from any pagan influences. Moreover, our earliest Christian writings come from Paul, a devout Jew at the time of his conversion, who would have been adamantly opposed to incorporating any pagan ideas into the faith. His writings make it clear that Christianity is a fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, not a synthesis with surrounding pagan cultures like we see in Islam and Mormonism.

While some atheists desperately claim that the Christian Scriptures contain pagan elements, these claims have been thoroughly rebutted, and I’ve linked videos in the description where these arguments are addressed in depth. The consistency of Christian teachings with the Hebrew Bible, along with the influence of devout Jews like Paul and Jesus’ disciples, makes it clear that Christianity didn’t borrow from surrounding pagan cultures to deliver its message.

Transition: Well, who knew prophets could have influencers too? But we’re not done yet. These guys didn’t just borrow ideas—they also conveniently retreated from society right before their biggest revelations. Let’s see what their solitude brought them.

Parallel 4: Private Revelations

Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith shared a rather curious habit: when the moral decay of their societies became too much for them, they both decided to retreat into complete isolation. And wouldn’t you know it—during these private moments of solitude, they both just so happened to receive brand-new divine revelations. Muhammad famously withdrew to the Cave of Hira, where he meditated on the idolatry in Mecca, and—right on cue—the angel Gabriel showed up with the first revelations of the Quran. According to Islamic Sira (biographies of Muhammad), this all happened in secret, far from prying eyes.

Joseph Smith, not one to be outdone, took his retreat to a grove of trees, where he claimed to have a face-to-face meeting with God the Father and Jesus Christ. And what did they tell him? Well, apparently, they informed him that all existing churches were wrong, and he was to restore the true faith. Again—this earth-shattering revelation also happened in private. So, in both cases, these prophets emerged from their private retreats as the exclusive bearers of God’s message.

Now, let’s contrast that with Jesus Christ. Did He retreat into a cave or a secluded grove to receive His revelations? Nope. Jesus did the exact opposite—His entire ministry was public, surrounded by thousands of witnesses. His teachings were delivered to crowds, His miracles performed in full view of anyone watching, and His resurrection was witnessed by hundreds, including by his enemies. The truth claims of Christianity aren’t based on secretive, private revelations in a cave or a forest. They’re rooted in verifiable public events, where people saw, heard, and experienced the works of Jesus in real time. Jesus didn’t need to hide away to make His message stick—He did everything out in the open, letting His actions speak for themselves.

So here’s the issue with Muhammad and Joseph Smith: they became prophets in private. They went in as ordinary men and came out proclaiming they were the chosen ones with no witnesses to back it up. Why all the secrecy? Well, it sure makes it easier to claim exclusive access to God’s revelation when no one else was around to verify it. Meanwhile, Christianity is based on public, historically grounded events, making it a whole different ballgame from the secretive dynamics of Islam and Mormonism. There’s no need to hide in a cave when truth is on full display.

Transition: So, let’s sum it up so far: lost prophecies, demons pulling the strings, a little mix of paganism, and surprise, surprise—‘revelations’ coming after a nice solitary retreat. Pretty suspicious lineup so far, right? But, trust me, this next part takes things up a notch. Let’s talk about how these prophets claimed supernatural abilities—like translating languages they didn’t even know. Yes, that also happened.

Parallel 5: Both Prophets Claimed Supernatural Translation Abilities

Here’s an interesting one: both Muhammad and Joseph Smith claimed to pull off miraculous translations without actually knowing the languages of the texts they were supposedly translating. Muhammad, famously illiterate, somehow managed to recite the Quran in flawless Arabic. According to Islamic tradition, this was made possible because the Quran was revealed to him directly by Allah through the angel Gabriel (Surah 96:1-5), despite the fact that Muhammad couldn’t read or write. To top it off, Surah 7:157 highlights his illiteracy as a miraculous sign of the Quran’s divine nature. Or maybe, just maybe, Muhammad’s followers later wrote stuff down and said it was from Allah?

Now, Joseph Smith didn’t let a minor detail like not knowing ancient languages stop him either. He claimed to have translated the Golden Plates, which were written in what he called “Reformed Egyptian”—a language no one’s ever heard of before or since. But here’s where it gets even more crazy: he used seer stones (also known as “Urim and Thummim”) to translate. His method? Simple. He’d put these stones inside a hat—yes, a hat—and peer into it to dictate the Book of Mormon. No need to actually study the plates or even know the original language. And just to make things even more convenient, once he was done, the Golden Plates were conveniently whisked away by an angel, making it impossible for anyone else to verify their existence—or even his ability to translate. It’s like the ultimate “trust me, bro” moment in religious history.

Now, let’s talk about how this compares to Christianity. The Christian Scriptures weren’t brought about by magic hats or mysterious stones. Instead, they were written by ordinary men, living in real-world contexts, in ordinary languages like Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. These weren’t secretive, mystical texts—they were documents penned by people like Moses, David, John, and Paul, who lived and worked in their communities. Their writings were passed down to be shared and studied, with no need for secret divine dictations or magical translation tools.

Christianity’s Scriptures are backed by thousands of manuscripts—from the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Codex Sinaiticus—which have been preserved and studied for centuries by scholars. No disappearing plates, no mystical rituals—just real documents, accessible to anyone willing to engage with them. The Bible’s origins aren’t shrouded in secrecy; they’re grounded in historical reality and ordinary human language, standing up to scrutiny for millennia.

Transition: Supernatural translations without even knowing the language? Sounds legit, right? I mean, who needs years of study when you’ve got magic stones or an angel doing the heavy lifting. But the fun doesn’t stop here. Let’s move on to the pièce de résistance: brand-new scriptures. Because why =fulfill existing prophecies when you can just rewrite everything?

Parallel 6: Introduction of New Scriptures

Here’s a parallel that really highlights the difference in approach between Muhammad, Joseph Smith, and Jesus Christ. Both Muhammad and Smith introduced entirely new scriptures that were meant to supplement or even replace the Bible as the final word of God. Muhammad claimed that the Quran was the ultimate revelation, the corrective text meant to supersede all previous scriptures. In Surah 5:48, the Quran states that it came to confirm previous revelations and to act as a criterion over them—essentially establishing itself as the definitive religious text for all time. Interestingly, the Quran even asserts that Jesus brought His own book, the Injeel, but there is no historical record of Jesus ever writing or producing any scripture during His ministry. As scholar Gabriel Said Reynolds points out, this presents a serious problem for Islamic claims about Jesus.

Similarly, Joseph Smith introduced the Book of Mormon, subtitled “Another Testament of Jesus Christ.” According to Smith, this book restored lost truths and was to be used alongside the Bible. But Smith didn’t stop there—he also produced the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, establishing entirely new scriptures to guide his followers. Both Muhammad and Smith believed the existing scriptures were incomplete or corrupted and that something new was needed to provide ultimate guidance for their followers.

By contrast, Jesus Christ didn’t introduce any new scriptures during His ministry. We have no historical evidence that he ever claimed to have received a corrective text directly from God. And here’s why that’s important: Jesus didn’t need to. His mission wasn’t to replace or rewrite the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament), but to fulfill them. Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection were understood by His followers as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies—not an addition or a correction of them. Jesus didn’t discard the Old Testament; He consistently referred to it, quoted it, and explained how His actions fulfilled it (for example, see Matthew 5:17). This shows a continuity with what came before, not a need to rewrite or introduce a new foundation.

Here’s the key point: a true prophet would do exactly what Jesus didlive out, fulfill, and continue the established scriptures, showing that God’s revelation was already unfolding according to His plan. This requires integrity, courage, and a genuine connection to the divine. A false prophet, on the other hand, would take the much easier route—like Muhammad and Joseph Smith—and claim that the old scriptures were corrupted or incomplete, using that as an excuse to introduce something entirely new. Why? Because it’s far simpler to rewrite history or claim to “correct” an ancient text than it is to prove your legitimacy through the fulfillment of long-standing prophecies.

Transition: So, now we’re adding new books to the Bible. If you can’t find your prophecy, why not just create an entire new set of scriptures? Makes absolute perfect sense… if you’re making it up. And don’t think it stopped there. Both prophets also left behind quite the mess when they died. Family schisms, anyone? Let’s dig into how their followers couldn’t even agree on who should take over.

Parallel 7: Familial Schisms Following Their Deaths

It’s almost funny how after their deaths, both Muhammad and Joseph Smith left their followers in what can only be described as a family feud. In Islam, when Muhammad passed away, his followers didn’t exactly agree on who should lead the growing movement. The Shia believed that leadership should stay within the family, insisting that Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, Ali, was the rightful successor. To them, it was practically a family business, and leadership was something that needed to be kept in the bloodline. On the other hand, the Sunni majority took a more democratic approach, saying, “Nah guys, let’s try and avoid blatant nepotism.” They appointed Abu Bakr, a close companion of Muhammad, as the first caliph. And just like that, Islam split into two major factions, all because of a good old-fashioned succession crisis.

Mormonism didn’t fare much better. After Joseph Smith was assassinated, the question of who would take the reins wasn’t exactly clear. Enter Brigham Young, who led the majority of Smith’s followers out to Utah to start what became The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). But not everyone was on board with Young’s leadership. Some believed that the rightful successor should be Joseph Smith’s son, Joseph Smith III, because, you know, nepotism. This group formed what’s now called the Community of Christ, claiming that the prophetic line should stay in the Smith bloodline.

In both cases, we see a remarkable pattern: followers divided into factions, with some arguing that family ties were the divine criteria for leadership. It’s almost as if these religions were running like dynasties, where bloodline mattered more than the message. These family squabbles led to long-lasting sectarian splits, showing just how fragile the foundations were when the prophets themselves weren’t around to keep the peace.

Now, let’s contrast that with Christianity. When Jesus Christ died, He didn’t leave the leadership in the hands of His cousins or relatives. There was no internal bickering about whether His cousin should take over. Instead, He entrusted His apostles, particularly Peter, with the mission to lead and spread His teachings (Matthew 16:18). The early Christian community stayed united under apostolic leadership, with the succession of authority based on spiritual calling rather than family connections. No “keep it in the family” nonsense in Christianity. While Islam and Mormonism were busy tearing themselves apart over familial succession, Christianity kept its eyes on the mission, not the genealogy.

Transition: Let’s talk about how both prophets managed to use their religious authority to pad their bank accounts. Yep, it’s time to follow the money.

Parallel 8: Acquisition of Tremendous Wealth Through Religious Means

Here’s something definitely worth noting: both Muhammad and Joseph Smith didn’t just build religious movements—they built their bank accounts. Muhammad, for example, didn’t shy away from using his leadership role to acquire substantial wealth. Thanks to his successful military campaigns, the spoils of war started piling up, and wouldn’t you know it, a special portion was set aside just for him. According to Surah 8:41, Allah commanded that Muhammed was to be given special access to one-fifth of all the spoils from war. While his followers fought in battle, Muhammad was getting paid.

Joseph Smith wasn’t exactly living on crumbs either. Sure, he introduced tithing—a common practice in Christian churches—but Smith went well beyond the norm. He wasn’t content with just ten percent from his followers. He managed to personally amass significant wealth by acquiring large amounts of land and properties. His religious empire in Nauvoo became a hub of economic activity, and let’s just say a lot of that wealth ended up in Joseph Smith’s pocket. This wasn’t just about running a church—it was about building an empire under the banner of spiritual leadership. It actually looks a lot like the contemporary Prosperity Gospel movement.

Now, let’s talk about Jesus Christ. Here’s a guy who didn’t bother with wealth at all. In fact, He lived in material poverty and actively opposed any mixing of religion and financial gain. When He saw the money changers exploiting faith for profit in the temple, He didn’t set aside a cut for Himself—He literally turned over their tables and drove them out (Matthew 21:12-13). Unlike Muhammad and Smith, who profited from their religious positions, Jesus made it clear that faith wasn’t for sale. He showed a life of humility and self-sacrifice, rejecting the idea of gaining material wealth from His spiritual authority. It’s pretty interesting how Jesus seemed more interested in purity of worship than amassing fortunes.

Transition: Alright, let’s recap: so far we’ve got suspicious prophecies, demonic mishaps, plagiarism from the local culture, family drama, and now—money, lots and lots of money. Let’s talk about how they also managed to humanize God himself—giving him body parts like they were designing a superhero. Yep, that also happened.

Parallel 9: Anthropomorphized Concepts of God

This next parallel might catch some people off guard, but both Islam and Mormonism seem to portray God with some pretty human-like features. In Islam, even though scholars will bend over backward to insist that God’s attributes are unlike anything we know, the Quran still describes God with terms like hands, eyes, shins, and feet. For example, Surah 38:75 mentions God’s hands when He creates Adam, and Surah 48:10 talks about God placing His hand over the hands of believers. The earliest Islamic scholars take these descriptions literally, claiming that God does indeed have these body parts—though, of course, they’re supposedly “uncreated” and “unlike” human equivalents. Sure. But let’s be honest: when you’re saying “hands” and “feet”, they’re still hands and feet—it’s hard to get away from that. So, we’re left with a God who, despite being praised for His transcendence, ends up sounding a lot like a creature with body parts.

Now, Mormonism takes this to a whole new level. According to Doctrine and Covenants, God the Father doesn’t just have metaphorical body parts—He has an actual, literal body of flesh and bones. Yep, in Mormon theology, God is fully embodied, interacting with the physical world like any one of us. And it doesn’t stop there. Joseph Smith taught that God was once a man who worked His way up to godhood, and humans can do the same. So, in Mormonism, God is literally human in form, with a tangible body. And I mean, who doesn’t want to think of God as a superhuman version of ourselves? But, at what cost? God is now just another part of the created universe, with flesh and bones, like everyone else. Suddenly, the infinite and transcendent Creator is reduced to a physical being climbing the ladder of divinity.

What’s striking is how both Islam and Mormonism make God much more relatable by turning Him into someone we could almost run into at the supermarket. Whether it’s “uncreated” body parts in Islam or an actual human body in Mormonism, both religions shift away from the idea of a spiritual, incorporeal God and give us a God that’s more like us. It’s almost as if these religions are fashioning God in our image, instead of the other way around. Convenient, right? When God has hands, feet, and a physical body, it sure makes Him easier to picture—but also makes Him a lot less… well, God-like.

Now, contrast this with Christianity. In orthodox Christian belief, God is spirit (John 4:24), and He’s utterly transcendent—He exists beyond corporeal limitations. The Christian God isn’t bound by space, time, or form. He’s not walking around with hands and feet. And while God did take on a human body in the person of Jesus Christ, that was a one-time, unique act of incarnation—done not to show God’s eternal nature but to redeem humanity. God became man contingently, not because He’s always had a body, but because it was part of His divine plan to save us. His divine essence remains entirely incorporeal, untouched by physical limitations. Unlike the versions of God in Islam and Mormonism, Christianity’s God isn’t a superhuman—He’s the eternal, infinite Creator, utterly beyond all creaturely comparisons.

Transition: Ok, so God has hands and feet now? Right? And apparently, he shops at the same store as us, too. No big deal, just the Creator of the Universe with a literal body, no different than us. But wait—there’s more! As if defining God in our image wasn’t enough, both prophets also managed to completely switch up who God cared about. Out with the old, in with the new—because apparently, God changed his mind on who his chosen people were.

Parallel 10: Discontinuity in the God of Islam and Mormonism

This next parallel might be one of the most damning of them all. In both Islam and Mormonism, we get a God who seems to switch allegiances like He’s picking a new favorite baseball team. In the Old Testament, God is clearly the God of the Hebrews—He forms a covenant with the Israelites, sticks with them through thick and thin, and sends prophets to guide them. In the New Testament, it’s the same God, sending the Hebrew Messiah to the Hebrews in, of course, the land of the Hebrews—Israel. Everything seems pretty consistent God is staying true to His covenant, continuing His story with the Hebrew people.

But then, in both Islam and Mormonism, God seems to go through a bit of a midlife crisis. In Islam, He suddenly decides to become the God of the Arabs. Muhammad shows up claiming that the final revelation has been given to him in Arabic, and the Quran—while acknowledging the earlier revelations to the Hebrews—somehow becomes the ultimate authority. It’s as if God got tired of the Hebrews and decided it was time to switch focus to a new market. And in Mormonism, it’s even more drastic: God supposedly shifts His attention to ancient America, where Joseph Smith claims to restore the true faith through revelations about the Nephites, a completely new people group that—surprise!—has no connection to the Hebrews. Apparently, God had had enough of Israel and decided to check out the New World.

Here’s the glaring problem: why would God, after thousands of years of intimate connection with the Hebrews, suddenly switch gears to an entirely new people group? It’s like someone plagiarized the Hebrew God’s storyline and slapped it onto a new location with a new cast. Islam and Mormonism look like they borrowed the general concept of the Hebrew God and decided to remix it for a fresh audience. It’s as if God just got up one day and said, “You know what? Let’s try something different. The Hebrews had a good run, but it’s time to take this show on the road.” But that’s not how God works.

In stark contrast, Christianity stays firmly planted in its Hebrew roots. Jesus was a Hebrew, and He didn’t claim to bring some new, random revelation for a completely unrelated people group. Instead, He claimed to be the fulfillment of the Hebrew messianic prophecies. Christianity doesn’t involve any sudden, suspicious break from the past—it’s the continuation of the same God and promises that guided the Hebrews from the beginning. But in Islam and Mormonism, we see a God who just abandons His people, making it all seem a little too convenient—and more than a little dubious.

Transition: So apparently God likes to switch sides? Yeah, that definitely checks out… uh no. But don’t worry, we’re not done yet. Let’s take a look at how salvation became less about grace and more about climbing a cosmic rewards ladder.

Parallel 11: Works-Based Salvation with Multiple Levels of Heaven

Here’s an interesting parallel: both Islam and Mormonism believe in works-based salvation and multiple levels of heaven. In Islam, your deeds are what determine where you’ll spend eternity. Surah 18:107 makes it clear that those who do good will get to chill in gardens of paradise. But don’t get too comfortable—there’s a catch: Islam teaches different levels of paradise, so the better you are, the higher your spot in the afterlife. Basically, it’s a tiered system, with the most righteous snagging the VIP seating.

Mormonism isn’t much different. In fact, Joseph Smith took it up a notch with his three-tiered version of heaven. According to Doctrine and Covenants 76, there’s the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial kingdoms. Think of it as heaven’s economy, business, and first class. The more righteous you are, the higher your seat upgrade in the afterlife. The celestial kingdom is for those who really hit the spiritual jackpot, while the lesser levels are reserved for those who didn’t quite make it to top-tier righteousness. So, in both Islam and Mormonism, your heavenly accommodations are tied directly to your moral achievements.

Now, contrast this with Christianity. In the Christian worldview, salvation isn’t something you earn—it’s a gift. Ephesians 2:8-9 makes it crystal clear: you’re saved by grace through faith, not because you’ve racked up enough good deeds to get into the good place. There’s no tiered heaven in Christianity—no celestial, terrestrial, or telestial system. There’s just one heaven, and it’s open to all who believe in Jesus Christ, regardless of how many gold stars they earned in this life. In short, it’s not about moral achievements, it’s about grace

Transition: VIP sections in the afterlife—what a concept! Heaven is apparently just a bigger version of your frequent flyer program. But what’s more shocking is the next topic: polygamy. Yep, you heard me right. Let’s dive into the wonderful world of divinely commanded polygamy.

Parallel 12: Divinely Commanded Polygamy

So here’s a pretty spicy one: both Islam and Mormonism got the green light for polygamy from none other than their respective prophets, who claimed divine endorsement for the practice. In Islam, the Quran explicitly allows men to marry up to four wives—as long as they can treat them all justly (Surah 4:3). Of course, Muhammad himself didn’t stick to that limit. Why would he? He conveniently received revelations that permitted him to exceed the four-wife cap in Surah 33:50. So, while the average guy had to deal with four wives max, Muhammad got special treatment straight from the top. Must be nice to have customized divine commands!

Not to be outdone, Joseph Smith brought polygamy into Mormonism, claiming it was a direct command from God. According to Doctrine and Covenants 132, not only was polygamy allowed—it was necessary for exaltation in the afterlife. That’s right, the celestial upgrade came with a catch: you had to marry multiple wives. Smith himself took full advantage of this heavenly mandate, marrying over 30 women and encouraging his followers to do the same. For a while, polygamy became a core part of Mormon life, with many early Mormon leaders building their own extended families, all under the banner of divine command.

Here’s what’s really notable: both Muhammad and Joseph Smith claimed that God Himself commanded polygamy as part of their religious frameworks. It wasn’t just an option—it became a mark of faithfulness to their respective religions. You weren’t just following the divine law by marrying multiple wives; you were practically earning spiritual bonus points! Sex, money, and power. These guys had it all! 

In contrast, Christianity took a much simpler route. Jesus Christ affirmed the Genesis ideal of one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4-6), and monogamy became the standard in Christian teaching. While polygamy was tolerated in the Old Testament—mostly as a reflection of human failings—it’s not part of the New Covenant. The Christian view emphasizes the sanctity of monogamous marriage, rooted in the example of Christ and the Church. No extra wives, no special revelations needed to change the rules—just the good old-fashioned one-man-one-woman model.

Transition: We’ve covered a lot already—dodgy prophecies, demonic manipulation, family feuds, financial gain, anthropomorphized gods, and now… polygamy. It just keeps getting better and better. But don’t worry, we’re not done with the marriage talk yet. Turns out both prophets made some extra special marital rules just for themselves. Let’s dig into their exclusive privileges.

Parallel 13: Special Marital Privileges

Let’s talk about how both Muhammad and Joseph Smith managed to snag themselves some special marital privileges, conveniently beyond what was permitted to their followers. In Islam, the Quran generally limits men to four wives (Surah 4:3). But for Muhammad? Oh no, the rules didn’t apply to him. Surah 33:50 gave Muhammad a special divine exemption, allowing him to exceed the standard 4-wife limit. While the average guy had to stick to the four-wife limit, Muhammad was blessed with a customized marriage plan straight from God.

Joseph Smith wasn’t about to miss out on the fun either. According to Doctrine and Covenants 132, polygamy wasn’t just divinely sanctioned—it was essential for exaltation in the afterlife. But Smith didn’t stop at your average polygamy. He took it further, marrying at least 30 women, including some who were already married to other men. This practice of polyandry—something not extended to his followers—was justified by Smith as part of God’s grand plan. Doctrine and Covenants 132 explicitly outlines polygamy and includes special provisions for Joseph Smith, granting him the authority to perform these marriages as part of his prophetic mission.

But that’s not all. William Clayton, Joseph Smith’s personal secretary, kept a journal documenting many of these revelations and marriages. His entries confirm that Smith married women who were already married to other men—something the average Mormon wasn’t allowed to do. Clayton’s journal shows how Smith’s marital practices were presented as divinely commanded, giving him greater marital freedoms than anyone else in the community. Essentially, Smith had a special pass from God to operate by his own set of relationship guidelines, while his followers were held to a different standard.

What’s really striking here is how both Muhammad and Joseph Smith granted themselves greater marital freedoms under the guise of divine approval. And let’s be honest: this is exactly what you’d expect from a false prophet—create self-serving exceptions while pretending it’s all part of a divine command. It’s actually the perfect setup for a false prophet: use religion to justify your personal desires while your followers get stuck with the more restrictive rules.

In stark contrast, Jesus Christ never sought additional privileges for Himself. He didn’t carve out special rules for His own benefit. Instead, Jesus lived by the same moral and ethical standards He taught to others. No extra wives—indeed, no wives at all. And no hidden exceptions—just the same moral responsibility He expected from His followers. Christianity emphasizes the equal moral responsibilities of all believers, standing in sharp contrast to the self-serving exemptions Muhammad and Joseph Smith gave themselves.

Transition: That’s right, while everyone else was stuck with the rules, these guys got their own ‘divine exemptions.’ What a sweet deal, well, if you’re into that kind of thing. But if you thought that was bad, it gets even worse. Let’s talk about how they got divine permission to marry close relatives next. Because, of course, the rules don’t apply when you’re the one making them.

Parallel 14: Divine Permission to Marry Close Relatives

Let’s dive into yet another example of divine exceptions being handed out like candy when it comes to marital privileges. Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith managed to get themselves special permissions to marry close relatives, further expanding their already flexible marriage rules. In Islam, Muhammad received a revelation that gave him the green light to marry Zaynab, who just so happened to be the ex-wife of his adopted son, Zayd. Now, considering that adoption was culturally seen as creating familial bonds, this marriage raised more than a few eyebrows. But don’t worry—Surah 33:37 conveniently swoops in to justify the union, explaining that adopted sons don’t create the same familial ties as biological sons. So, essentially, Muhammad’s marriage to his adopted son’s ex-wife was just another divine exception to the rules.

Not to be left out of the “special privileges” club, Joseph Smith also claimed divine permission for his own morally questionable marriages. Smith married several women who were his foster daughters and other relatives connected to him through familial ties, all under the banner of God’s plan for restoring the gospel. Just like Muhammad, Smith found a way to justify these family-related marriages by claiming they were part of a divine command, expanding his marital privileges far beyond what any of his followers could hope for

What’s truly revealing here is how both Muhammad and Joseph Smith used the concept of divine exceptions to justify marriages that would otherwise be seen as morally questionable—or at least make for some really awkward family reunions. This is exactly what you’d expect from a false prophet: bending the rules for personal gain while claiming God’s approval to do so. And while some Old Testament prophets did marry relatives, they never claimed divine permission to do so. Those marriages were simply part of the cultural context, not special “get-out-of-awkwardness-free” cards from God.

But the biggest contrast? Jesus Christ. Unlike these fake prophets, Jesus didn’t go around seeking divine exceptions. He didn’t have special privileges, no bending the rules to suit His personal desires—just a consistent life of righteousness, leaving no room for the kind of divine loopholes Muhammad and Joseph Smith loved to exploit.

Transition: So, here’s where we stand: we’ve laid out how both Muhammad and Joseph Smith crafted divine loopholes to justify marrying close relatives, granting themselves privileges that reek of self-interest rather than divine inspiration. In this video we’ve covered lost prophecies, demonic encounters, wealth grabs, and polygamy, and at every turn, these so-called prophets manipulated their authority to suit their own desires. But hold on—this next parallel takes things even further. It’s not just about bending rules; it’s about crossing serious moral lines that no genuine prophet would ever cross. Let’s get into how both Muhammad and Joseph Smith justified marrying very young girls under the banner of divine command. Brace yourselves.

Parallel 15: Both Prophets Took Very Young Wives

Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith took very young wives, and naturally, they both claimed that these actions were divinely sanctioned. In Islam, it’s well known that Muhammad married Aisha when she was, to put it mildly, extremely young. According to Sahih al-Bukhari, Aisha was just six years old when she was betrothed to Muhammad, and the marriage was consummated when she was nine. Because when you’re a prophet, God apparently signs off on everything—even marriages to pre-teens.

Joseph Smith didn’t stray far from this playbook either. He married Helen Mar Kimball, who was 14 years old at the time, and the daughter of one of his close associates, Heber C. Kimball. Helen later wrote that the marriage was presented as a divine command, part of Smith’s broader practice of polygamy, which often involved younger wives. Just like Muhammad, Smith justified these controversial marriages by claiming they were necessary for the restoration of the gospel. I mean, nothing says “restoring the gospel” like taking a 14-year old bride, right?

Once again, this fits perfectly into the pattern we’d expect from a false prophet: using supposed divine approval to engage in practices that just so happen to be personally gratifying.

Now, let’s contrast this with Jesus Christ. Not only did Jesus not marry young girls—or anyone, for that matter—He lived a life of selfless service and moral purity. Christianity holds Jesus up as the ultimate moral example, and He never sought to claim special privileges or exemptions, especially ones that would be ethically questionable by any standard. Instead of bending the rules to satisfy personal desires, Jesus consistently upheld the highest standards of integrity and morality.

Conclusion: The Undeniable Parallels Between Islam and Mormonism

These 15 parallels make it impossible to deny the pattern that emerges between Islam and Mormonism. Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith built entire religions on re-revealed prophecies, tremendous wealth, overwhelming power, and self-serving privileges that allowed them to shape their movements according to their own devious desires.

By contrast, Christianity stands in a class of its own. Jesus Christ didn’t seek special privileges, earthly power, or hidden revelations. He lived a public life of sacrifice and humility, with a ministry that was publicly witnessed and historically verifiable. There was no secret knowledge, no self-serving exceptions—just the clear, open truth of the Gospel. The difference between Christianity and these man-made religions couldn’t be more obvious.So, if you’re comparing the evidence, the choice is clear: Christianity is true.

FURTHER READING

WHO IS THE ELOHIM OF MORMONISM?, PT. 2

THE MORMON SATAN & PREMORTALITY

THE BIBLICAL GOD VERSUS THE MORMON GODS, PT. 2, PT. 2B

YHWH: THE ONLY TRUE ELOHIM

JOSEPH SMITH THE FALSE PROPHET DEBATE

NOTES FOR MORMON DEBATE

PLINY & CHRIST’S DEITY

In this post I will quote an ancient non-Christian witness, specifically from a pagan governor, which testifies to the fact of Christians gathering on a specific day of the week to worship Christ as God by singing hymns to him. The source that I am about cite also mentions some of the early Christian practices, which believers bound themselves to observe. All emphasis is mine.

THE TESTIMONY

Pliny and Trajan on the Christians

Pliny the Younger was governor of Pontus/Bithynia from 111-113 AD. We have a whole set of exchanges of his letters with the emperor Trajan on a variety of administrative political matters. These two letters are the most famous, in which P. encounters Christianity for the first time.

Pliny, Letters 10.96-97

Pliny to the Emperor Trajan

It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.

Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ–none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do–these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food–but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.

Trajan to Pliny

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it–that is, by worshiping our gods–even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.

COMMENTARY

According to this pagan governor, as he reports to the emperor, we discover that:

Gentiles who had converted to Christianity no longer sacrificed to gods or frequented pagan temples.

Those that did deny Christ by sacrificing to the emperor and pagan deities had already abandoned the faith.

True Christians could not be forced to recant their faith and curse Christ.

The early Church had female deacons, two of whom had been tortured by Pliny in order to get a confession out of them.

The “crimes” which these Christians committed were to bind themselves to never “commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so.” They were also guilty of assembling together to partake of food, an obvious reference to the Eucharist.

These Christians would also gather on a fixed day right before sunrise so as to sing hymns to Christ in recognition of his being “a God.”

It is this last point that is vitally crucial since it affirms that the early Church gathered for the express purpose of glorifying Christ as God. Here’s another rendition of Pliny’s words:

“… They affirmed the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they met on a stated day before it was light and addressed a form of prayer to Christ, as to a divinity (carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem seque)…” (The Letters of Pliny, the Consul. [Otridge & Son, London 1810], translated by W. Melmoth, Volume 2, p. 248)

The Latin can also be rendered as, “and follow one another to sing to Christ as if to a G/god.”

What is interesting is that early Christian writers knew of and referenced Pliny’s letter to the emperor.

For example, note what Tertullian states in this respect:

“… For the younger Pliny, when he was ruler of a province, having condemned some Christians to death, and driven some from their steadfastness, being still annoyed by their great numbers, at last sought the advice of Trajan, the reigning emperor, as to what he was to do with the rest, explaining to his master that, except an obstinate disinclination to offer sacrifices, he found in the religious services nothing but meetings at early morning for singing hymns to Christ and God, and sealing home their way of life by a united pledge to be faithful to their religion, forbidding murderadultery, dishonesty, and other crimes. Upon this Trajan wrote back that Christians were by no means to be sought after; but if they were brought before him, they should be punished…” (The Apology, Chapter 2) 

And here’s what 4th century church historian Eusebius writes, who actually references Tertullian:

Chapter 33. Trajan forbids the Christians to be sought after.

1. So great a persecution was at that time opened against us in many places that Plinius Secundus, one of the most noted of governors, being disturbed by the great number of martyrs, communicated with the emperor concerning the multitude of those that were put to death for their faith. At the same time, he informed him in his communication that he had not heard of their doing anything profane or contrary to the laws — except that they arose at dawn and sang hymns to Christ as a God; but that they renounced adultery and murder and like criminal offenses, and did all things in accordance with the laws.

2. In reply to this Trajan made the following decree: that the race of Christians should not be sought after, but when found should be punished. On account of this the persecution which had threatened to be a most terrible one was to a certain degree checked, but there were still left plenty of pretexts for those who wished to do us harm. Sometimes the people, sometimes the rulers in various places, would lay plots against us, so that, although no great persecutions took place, local persecutions were nevertheless going on in particular provinces, and many of the faithful endured martyrdom in various forms.

3. We have taken our account from the Latin Apology of Tertullian which we mentioned above. The translation runs as follows: And indeed we have found that search for us has been forbidden. For when Plinius Secundus, the governor of a province, had condemned certain Christians and deprived them of their dignity, he was confounded by the multitude, and was uncertain what further course to pursue. He therefore communicated with Trajan the emperor, informing him that, aside from their unwillingness to sacrifice, he had found no impiety in them.

4. And he reported this also, that the Christians arose early in the morning and sang hymns unto Christ as a God, and for the purpose of preserving their discipline forbade murderadulteryavaricerobbery, and the like. In reply to this Trajan wrote that the race of Christians should not be sought after, but when found should be punished. Such were the events which took place at that time. (Church History (CH), Book III)

Eusebius confirms the early, widespread worship of Christ as God by all the Christians throughout the then known world:

Chapter 28. Those who first advanced the Heresy of Artemon; their Manner of Life, and how they dared to corrupt the Sacred Scriptures…

5. For who does not know the works of Irenæus and of Melito and of others which teach that Christ is God and man? And how many psalms and hymns, written by the faithful brethren from the beginning, celebrate Christ the Word of God, speaking of him as Divine.

6. How then since the opinion held by the Church has been preached for so many years, can its preaching have been delayed as they affirm, until the times of Victor? And how is it that they are not ashamed to speak thus falsely of Victor, knowing well that he cut off from communion Theodotus, the cobbler, the leader and father of this God-denying apostasy, and the first to declare that Christ is mere man? For if Victor agreed with their opinions, as their slander affirms, how came he to cast out Theodotus, the inventor of this heresy? (CH, Book V)

To call this remarkable would be putting it mildly.

Pliny attests to the fact that Gentiles all over the Roman emperor had abandoned their worship of the pagan deities in order to now worship a crucified Jew as their God, a Man who wasn’t even a fellow countryman or Gentile!

What makes Pliny’s statements regarding the early Christian believers all the remarkable is that there is no mention of their worshiping God the Father, or some other God alongside of Jesus. Rather, these Christians were directing their praise and hymns to the crucified and risen Jesus!

Now this doesn’t mean that they weren’t praising either the Father or the Spirit. Rather, the implication is that the recognition of Christ as God was crucial and essential to the faith of true believers. In other words, there was no Christianity that did not necessitate the worship and glorification of the risen Jesus as God Incarnate!

It is evident as to why Pliny refers to Christians worshiping Jesus as a G/god, since this obviously a reflection from his pagan background. I.e., from Pliny’s point of view Jesus, and by extension the God worshiped by Jews, were/are just a couple of gods among the pantheon of divinities worshiped by various groups and ethnicities. It does not mean that Christians thought of Jesus another god besides the one true God YHWH.

The following Evangelical scholars bring out the import and significance of Pliny’s words:

The evidence for early Christian hymns to Christ extends beyond the pages of the New Testament—and not just from other early Christian writers, but from non-Christian observers as well. Around A.D. 111–115, Pliny described Christians as gathering “on a certain day before sunrise” in order to sing “hymns to Christ as to God” (Latin, carmenque christo quasi deo; Pliny, Epistles 10.96.7).8 Evidently Pliny is referring here to the church’s practice of meeting weekly early Sunday mornings, which from an early period they were doing to commemorate Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.9 Thus the very time of the church’s meetings, as well as the content of their songs, focused on Christ

Pliny’s statement is supported by a comment made by an unknown Christian writer around A.D. 200 and quoted in the fourth-century church history written by Eusebius: “How many psalms and how many songs, which from the beginning were written by pious brothers, sing about Christ as the Logos of God and confess his godhood.”11 The word translated “confess his godhood” (theologountes, literally, “saying God”) also could be translated “confessing that he is God” or, more idiomatically in English, “confessing his deity.” Notice that the statement refers to such songs as having been written “from the beginning,” meaning from the beginning of the church. (Robert M. Bowman & J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case For The Deity of Christ [Kregel Publications, 2007], Part 1: The Devotion Revolution: Jesus Shares the Honors Due to God, 4. Sing to the Lord, pp. 58-59)

Another NT scholar that commented on Pliny’s letter is the late Larry W. Hurtado:

90. Swete (Apocalypse, 84) rightly notes that Rev. 5 likely reflects “the devotional attitude of the Asiatic Church” of the time of the text, as attested also a few decades later in Pliny’s famous report that the Christians he arrested met to sing hymns to Christ as (a) God (Pliny, Epistles 10.96). Note also Eusebius, HE 5.28.5-6: “All the Psalms and hymns which were written by faithful Christians from the beginning sing of Christ as the Logos of God and treat him as God.” (Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity [William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge U.K. 2003], 10. Proto-Orthodox Devotion, p. 593)

And:

Moreover, Jewish and pagan critics of early Christianity agreed in seeing the worship of Jesus as one of the most objectionable features of the young faith.

The famous report to Trajan from the Roman magistrate Pliny offers valuable early confirmation (Pliny, Epistles 10.96-97). As Stanton pointed out, Pliny’s letter is “the first report on early Christian worship which we have from an ‘outsider.'”119 From his interrogation of apostate Christians and his torture of two unnamed Christian women “deaconesses” (ministrae), Pliny derived information on what Christians did in their weekly gatherings “on a fixed day” (probably Sunday).20 The first and most prominent action in Pliny’s summary of their regular meetings is that they chant a hymn “to Christ as to a god.”121

In itself, however, reverencing Jesus as divine would likely not have been such a problem. A sophisticated Roman such as Pliny was quite ready to accept religious diversity, and was well aware that a variety of gods and heroes were reverenced in various religious circles. Nor did recognizing another new deity present a difficulty. What caused Pliny’s concern about the Christians in Bithynia was that their reverence of Jesus as divine was accompanied by a refusal to reverence images of “the gods” and the emperor. This religious exclusivity created a major (indeed, sometimes a mortal) social and political problem for Christians, and it made their worship of Jesus pointedly offensive to pagan outsiders.122 As Finney observed, “Refusal to worship set a clear boundary between the new [Christian] religionists and their neighbors.”123 Robert Grant proposed that the Romans came to require Christians to offer sacrifice precisely because they had learned that this was a particularly effective way of distinguishing true believers from apostates or people falsely accused of being Christians. That is, the exclusivist devotional stance of Christians seems to have shaped Roman judicial practice toward them.124

But this exclusivity of devotion also signals the religious significance that worshiping Jesus had for Christians. They gave the sort of reverence to Jesus that they otherwise reserved for “God the Father” alone, regarding it apostasy to give such reverence to any of the other deities touted in their culture. Pliny wrote that he let anyone accused of being a Christian go free if they reverenced the images of the gods, made supplication to the emperor’s image, and “cursed Christ”; for Pliny was reliably informed that these were things that “those who are really Christians cannot be made to do.” Reverencing Jesus as uniquely divine, or cursing him — here lies the crucial matter in Pliny’s account of how to tell a true Christian from someone falsely accused of being one. As Lebreton noted, ” For this magistrate, as for his victims, the characteristic trait of the Christian religion is the rendering of homage to Christ ‘as to a god,’ and faithful loyalty to his service.” Justin (who later had his own opportunity to confirm his words in martyrdom) says, “though threatened with death, we do not deny his [Jesus’] name” (Dial. 30.2). (Ibid., pp. 606-697)

Furthermore, in all the reported views of critical outsiders in the first two centuries, whether pagans or Jews, Christian worship is characterized as essentially directed toward Jesus, as Lebreton showed in an incisive analysis that included Pliny, the account of Polycarp’s martyrdom, Lucian, and Celsus.128 In fact, in this early period, outsiders tend to portray Christian worship rather simply as directed to Jesus solely, though the actual pattern of Christian worship appears to have been more what we should call “binitarian,” God and Jesus the recipients.

As we have already taken note of Pliny, let us quickly consider these other witnesses, beginning with Lucian of Samosata. Around 170 Lucian complained that Christians reject “the Hellenistic gods [theous men tous hellenikous haparnesontai] in order to worship this crucified sophist and to live according to his laws” (Peregrinus 13). About the same time as Lucian, and probably with a better knowledge of Christian practice and writings, Celsus pilloried Christians for their “excessive worship” (hyperthreskeuousi) of the one they refer to as “the Son of God” (Origen, Contra Celsum 8.12). Though Christians reject the worship of the gods, claiming to revere only the one true God, Celsus says they act inconsistently with this in their unjustified exaltation of the man Jesus. As Lebreton observed, Celsus correctly saw what was central in Christianity: “the adoration of one unique God, rejecting as impiety all polytheism, and uniting in the same worship the Son of God with his Father.”129

In the account of the martyrdom of Polycarp in Smyrna (ca. 155-160), the Roman official conducting the hearing repeatedly demands that Polycarp reverence the emperor, and also urges him to “curse Christ” and thereby save himself from death (Mart. Pol. 8.2; 9.2-3; 10.1). This echoes the demand Pliny made of Bithynian Christians a few decades earlier. Polycarp’s unforgettable reply only confirms that the key issue was reverence of Jesus: “For eighty-six years I have been his servant, and he has done me no wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?” (9.3).130 After Polycarp’s fiery end, Jewish members of the hostile crowd petition the Roman official not to give the corpse to the Christians, for fear that “they will abandon the crucified one to offer worship to this one” (17.12). The early Christian editors of the account, however, portray this allegation as rank ignorance, and they insist that the worship Christians give Jesus is categorically different from the regard in which they hold martyrs “as disciples and imitators of the Lord” (17.2-3). Even though the account of Polycarp’s martyrdom comes from Christian hands and obviously had a propagandistic purpose, the insistent demand of the Roman official and the allegation of the Jews in the narrative are probably authentic indications that in the eyes of second century outsiders “the object of Christian worship is the crucified one.” (Ibid., pp. 608-609)

NT EVIDENCE

Pliny’s report merely confirms what we find in the first century documents of the New Testament. According to the NT writings, namely, the very first believers, consisting of both Jews and Gentiles, were united in their worship of Jesus as God Incarnate, as the unique divine Son of God who became Man for the redemption of the world and who, after his physical, bodily resurrection and ascension into heaven, now reigns as Lord over all.

Case in point:

“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Philippians 2:5-11 New International Version (NIV)

Scholars believe that the Apostle has incorporated an early hymn of the Church, one in which Jesus is identified as eternally existing in the very nature of God who voluntarily humbled himself to be born as a Man in order to assume the status of slave.

The hymn even ascribes to Christ the very universal worship and status, which the Hebrew Bible attributes to YHWH God alone!

“Declare and draw near with your case; Indeed, let them consult together. Who has made this heard from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.” Isaiah 45:21-23 Legacy Standard Bible (LSB)

“Let them praise the name of Yahweh, For His name alone is set on high; His splendor is above earth and heaven.” Psalm 148:13 LSB

“Who is like Yahweh our God, The One who sits on high,” Psalm 113:5 LSB

Other passages where we see early Christians worshiping and glorifying Christ as God Incarnate include:

“who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.” Romans 9:4-5 LSB

“To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, called as saints, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours: Grace to you and peace from God our Father AND the Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Corinthians 1:2-3 LSB

“If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed. Maranatha. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you.” 1 Corinthians 16:22-23 LSB

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom… In the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day, and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearingThe Lord will rescue me from every evil deed, and will save me unto His heavenly kingdom; to Him be the glory forever and ever. Amen. 2 Timothy 4:1, 8, 18 LSB

“And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, ‘And let all the angels of God worship Him.’” Hebrews 1:6 LSB

“but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.” 2 Peter 3:18 LSB

“and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood—and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the might forever and ever. Amen.” Revelation 1:5-6 LSB 

“He who bears witness to these things says, ‘Yes, I am coming quickly.’ Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.” Revelation 22:20-21 LSB

The final example is truly astonishing:

“And when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one having a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

And they sang a new song, saying, ‘Worthy are You to take the scroll and to open its seals, because You were slain and purchased for God with Your blood people from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. And You made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they will reign upon the earth.’”

“Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders; and the number of them was myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, ‘Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.’

“And EVERY CREATED THING which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and ALL THINGS IN THEM, I heard saying, ‘To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever.’

“And the four living creatures kept saying, ‘Amen.’ And the elders fell down and worshiped.” Revelation 5:8-14 LSB

Remarkably, John sees every created thing throughout the entire creation worshiping Jesus to the same extent and for the same duration that the Father is worshiped!

This affirms that Christ is not a creature, but rather the uncreated Creator and Sustainer who took on a human nature for our redemption (Cf. Matt. 1:18-23; John 1:1-5, 9-10, 14, 18; Colossians 1:13-18; 2:2-3, 9; Hebrews 1:1-3, 10-12).

FURTHER READING

CLEMENT OF ROME AND CHRIST’S DEITY

Ignatius of Antioch’s Proclamation of the Essential Deity of Christ

LET EVERY THING THAT HAS BREATH PRAISE JAH JESUS!

Does Jesus Receive Latreuo?

SHEPHERD OF HERMAS: REFUTING THE HERETICS

CHRIST WORSHIPED AS GOD ALMIGHTY

SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY & THE QURAN

In this post I am going to provide evidence that the Quran has been heavily influenced by, and even fashioned after the Christological debates which took place among Syriac speaking Christians. I will prove that the very language of the Quran has been shape by the theological vocabulary and expressions found within Syriac Christianity. As one Muslim scholar acknowledged:

It is unlikely that the canonical Christian scriptures or other Christian writings were translated into Arabic before the rise of Islam. Thus we should probably think in terms of an indirect knowledge of Christian sources based on hearsay or ad hoc translation rather than on literary borrowing. But what were these sources? In broad terms Syriac Christian literature seems a strong candidate for several reasons. First, Syriac accounts for a large proportion of the borrowed words in the Qur’an and for the Qur’anic spelling of many Biblical names. The peculiar spelling of ‘Īsā still remains something of an enigma but the most plausible explanation is that it is derived from Isho, the Syriac name for Jesus. (Neal Robinson, Christ in Islam and Christianity [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany, NY 1991, p. 17; bold emphasis mine)

SYRIAC BIBLE

As far as the Syriac versions of the Bible are concerned, we know that translations already existed long before the rise of Islam. As the late renowned biblical scholar and textual critic Dr. Bruce M. Metzger noted:

“The several Syriac versions that fall to be considered in the present chapter begin with the earliest translation of the Gospels. Whether this was Tatian’s Diatessaron, a harmony of the four Gospels prepared about A.D. 170, or the Old Syriac version of the separate Gospels, is a question that scholars have debated for many years without reaching any generally accepted solution. How much of the rest of the New Testament was included in the Old Syriac version is difficult to ascertain. In any case, toward the close of the fourth or at the beginning of the fifth century a version of twenty-two books of the New Testament was available in a translation which came to be called at a later date the Peshitta Syriac version…” (Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations [Oxford University Press Inc., 1977], p. 3; bold emphasis mine)

Metzger also commented on the Jacobite/Syriac Orthodox and Assyrian Church of the East split in 431 AD over Miaphysitism and Nestorian Christological stances, and how these groups both employed the Peshitta:

The word ‘Peshitta’2 is a passive participle of the verb… (‘stretched out’) signifying, among other meanings, what is simple or clear. The word appears to have been employed for the first time in designating a version of the Scriptures by the Jacobite Moses bar Kepha (d. 903),3 who applied it to the Syriac version of the Old Testament made from the Hebrew, in opposition to the version made by Paul of Tella from the Septuagint and supplied with complicated references drawn from Origen’s Hexapla. In the case of the New Testament the same version would merit such an epithet in contrast to the Harclean version, which was furnished with a textual apparatus. Others interpret the word as meaning widely diffused or current. According to this interpretation the name ‘Peshitta’ is parallel to the Latin Vulgata.4

The Peshitta version antedates the division of Syrian Christianity into two rival communities, and hence it was accepted by the Nestorians as well as by the Jacobites. In its official form it includes twenty-two books of the New Testament, the four minor Catholic Epistles (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude) and the Apocalypse being absent. It thus apparently reflects the canon according to the usage of the Church at Antioch in the fourth and fifth centuries. It does not include Luke xxii. 17-18 and the pericope de adultera (John vii. 53-viii. 11).

Syrian scribes devoted great care to the transcription of the Peshitta version. A remarkable accord exists among the manuscripts of every age, there being on the average scarcely more than one important variant per chapter.

At the beginning of the twentieth century Gregory1 was able to enumerate more than 300 Peshitta manuscripts of the New Testament. Actually, however, the number is much larger, for Gregory did not include all the manuscripts that are in the libraries in the East. And since Gregory’s time other manuscripts have come to light, particularly in little-known collections in the West.2 Among manuscripts that have been catalogued the following are noteworthy for one reason or another-usually by reason of age.3 (Ibid., pp. 48-49; bold emphasis mine)

Metzger mentions some of the most prominent and influential voices of these conflicting Christological understandings held by the Syriac speaking Christian communities before and during the rise of Islam:

One of the most influential leaders of the Monophysite branch of the Church at the beginning of the sixth century was Philoxenus (Mar Aksenaya’) of Mabbûg in eastern Syria, who, with his contemporary, Severus of Antioch, founded Jacobite Monophysitism. Despite acrimonious charges levelled against him by his theological opponents, his writings disclose him as an acute dialectician, a prolific author, a subtle theologian, and an uncompromising champion of the unity of the nature of Christ against what he regarded as the heresy of the two natures.I

The work of translating the New Testament was performed in 507-8, when the prestige of Philoxenus was at its height. Inasmuch as Philoxenus did not know Greek, he commissioned Polycarp, chorepiscopus in the diocese of Mabbûg, to revise the Peshitta version in accordance with Greek manuscripts. Polycarp sometimes replaced Syriac words with synonyms, sometimes used different prepositions, and generally gave preference to the independent possessive pronoun over against the suffixes. It appears that Polycarp sought to make a more theologically accurate rendering of the Greek than the current Peshitta rendering. In addition to the books included in the earlier translation, the Philoxenian included (seemingly for the first time in Syriac) 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and the Book of Revelation. Since the Philoxenian version was made and sponsored by Jacobite ecclesiastics, it was used only by the Monophysite branch of Syriac-speaking Christendom. (Ibid., pp. 65-66; bold emphasis mine)

And here’s what Metzger wrote in regards to Syriac versions of the Holy Bible produced during the time that Muhammad allegedly lived:

A later translation was produced by Thomas of Harkel around 616, which is known as the Harclean version:

“The chief characteristic of the Harclean version is its slavish adaptation to the Greek, to the extent that even clarity is sacrificed… As compared with the Peshitta, the Harclean not infrequently uses a Greek loan-word instead of a native Syriac one.2 This preference for transliteration shows itself even in the case of Semitic proper names, when, instead of allowing them to display their Semitic etymology, the reviser represents the Greek orthography… In short, the edition of the New Testament produced by Thomas appears to be a suitable counterpart to Paul of Tella’s Syro-Hexaplar-a painfully exact imitation of Greek idiom, even in the order of words, often in violation of Syriac idiom. As a result the modern scholar is hardly ever in doubt as to the Greek text intended by the translator.I” (Ibid., pp. 69-70)

With the foregoing in perspective, I am now going to show how Syriac Christianity and its various Christological formulations, theological expressions, etc., have found their way into the text of the Arabic Quran. This should not come as a surprise seeing that Syriac and Arabic are cognate languages, with the Arabic script developing and evolving from Nabataean Aramaic, of which Syriac is an offshoot.  

AHAD & SAMAD: SYRIAC TERMS?

The 112th surah proclaims that Allah is ahad and that he is also al-samad, the latter term being understood by specific Muslim expositors to be an affirmation of the Islamic deity be solid, not hollow:

Say, “He is Allah, Ahad (One). Allah, Al-Samad (The Absolute). Neither (He) begets nor (He) was born. And there was not for Him equivalent One.” S. 112:1-4 (Samy Mahdy https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/112/st87.htm)

God is Solid (al-samadu) (and does not need anyone’s help). S. 112:2 (Bijan Moeinian https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/112/st11.htm)  

“Allah is Samad.” (Absolute Self-Sufficient One beyond any need or defect, free from the concept of multiplicity, and far from conceptualization and limitation. The one into whom nothing can enter, and the One from whom no other form of existence can come out!) (Ahmed Hulusi https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/112/st63.htm)

Suffice it to say, these expressions can be found in the literature of the Christians before Muhammad’s time.

For instance. Jacob of Serugh (ca. 451–521) wrote a letter consoling the Najrani Christians for undergoing persecution for their beliefs. The Syriac terms employed echo those found in the aforementioned surah:

You have learned the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (ʾabā wa-brā w-ruḥā d-qudšā ilepton). And besides these three names, who are one and as one are three (w-ʿam hālēn tlātā šemhin d-itayhon ḥad w-ḥad tlātā), you accept no other name and number (šmā w-menyānā ḥrinā lā mqabbli-tton). (G. Olinder, Iacobi Sarugensis epistulae quotquot supersunt. (Syr. 57. = Syr. II, 45 [Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium]) [Peeters, Leuven 1937], p. 95 (1-4); bold emphasis mine)

And:

One is the Son, begotten of the Father before all the worlds (ḥad brā da-ylid men ʾabā meddem kull-hon ʿālmē).

One is who is the likeness of the Father in everything (ḥad da-dmā l-abu b-kull).

One is the only-begotten, who takes no other order and number like him (ḥad ʾiḥidāyā d-lā mqabbel ʿammeh sedra w-menyānā ḥrinā).

This one is the Son and the Lord and of the same nature as the Father (hu hānā brā wa-māryā wa-bar kyānā d-abu).

This one is from the Father and with the Father (hānā d-itaw men ʾabā w-ʿam ʾabā). (Olinder, p. 95 (14-19); bold emphasis mine)

In another letter, Jacob describes God fashioning a solid, hard body for Adam, using the Syriac phrase s’mad:

“He fashioned him and gave him form (ṣāreh), He made him into a solid and hard body (ṣmad ḥāṣeh).” (Jacques de Saroug: Quatre homélies métriques sur la création (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 508-509, Scriptores Syri 214-215), translated by Khalil Alwan [Peeters, Leuven 1989], Volume 2, p. 175)

What makes Jacob’s use of the term s’mad for Adam rather interesting is that Islamic tradition records a fable of Satan (called Iblis) looking at Adam’s lifeless body and arguing that this could not be Allah since the latter is solid, whereas the former is hollow who has holes which Satan could and did enter through!

According to Abu Kurayb–`Uthman b. Said-Bishr b. ‘Umarah–Abu Rawq–Dahhak–Ibn ‘Abbas: God commanded to lift up the soil from which Adam was to be made. He created Adam from sticky clay from stinking slime. He continued. It became stinking slime only after (having been compact) soil.593 He continued.

He created Adam from it with His own hand. He continued. It remained lying around as a body (jasad) for forty nights. Iblis used to come to it and kick it with his foot, whereupon it made sounds. He continued. This is (meant by) God’s word: “From salsal like potter’s clay.”594 He means: like something separated that is not compact. He continued. Then (Iblis) entered Adam’s mouth and left from his posterior, and he entered his posterior and left from his mouth. Then he said: You are not something for making sounds (salsalah). What, then, were you created for? If I am given authority over you, I shall ruin you, and if you are given authority over me, I shall disobey you.595

According to Masi b. Harun–Amr b. Hammad–Asbat–al-Suddi–Abu Malik and Abu Salih–Ibn ‘Abbas. Also (al-Suddi) Murrah al-Hamdini–Ibn Masud and some (other) companions of the Prophet: God said to the angels: “I am creating a human being from clay. When I have fashioned him and blown some of My spirit into him, fall down in prostration before him!”596 God created him with His own hands, lest Iblis become overbearing toward (Adam), so that (God) could say to (Iblis): You are overbearing toward something I have made with My own hand(s), which I Myself was not too haughty to make!? So God created Adam as a human being. He was a body of clay for forty years the extent of Friday(?)597 When the angels passed by him, they were frightened by what they saw. The angel most frightened was Iblis. He would pass by him, kick him, and thus make the body produce a sound as potter’s clay does. That is (meant) where God says: “From salsal like potter’s clay.”598 Then he would say: What were you created for? He entered his mouth and left from his posterior. Then he said to the angels: Don’t be afraid of that one, for your Lord is solid, whereas this one is hollow. When I am given authority over him, I shall ruin him.600 (History of Al-Tabari-General Introduction and From the Creation to the Flood, translated by Franz Rosenthal [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany, NY 1989], Volume 1, pp. 261-262; bold emphasis mine)

Elsewhere, Jacob wrote the following in respect to the Trinity:

God is one (ḥad alāhā), and he has a word (it leh melltā) and a spirit (it leh ruḥā). The Lord is one (māryā ḥad-u) and his word (w-mellteh) and his spirit (w-ruḥeh) are (one) with him (ʿammeh-ennon). Three persons (qnomē tlātā), one God (ḥad alāhā), limitless (d-lā mestayyak). The Trinity (tlitāyutā), one power (ḥdā mārutā), which is not commanded (d-lā metpaqdā). (F. Jacques de Graffin, Saroug: Homélies contre les Juifs. [Brepols, Turnhout, 1976], p. 50 (93-94); bold emphasis mine)

Ironically, the Quran echoes this Trinitarian belief within the same context of decrying the excesses of Christian devotion to Jesus:

People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and say not as to God but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word (wa-kalimatuhu) that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him (wa’ruhun minhu). So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not, ‘Three’ (thalathatun). Refrain; better is it for you. God is only One God (wahidun). Glory be to Him — That He should have a son! To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; God suffices for a guardian. S. 4:171 Arberry

In this next citation, Jacob blasts the so-called Nestorians for denying that Mary birthed God:

ܒܒܬܘܠܘܬܗ܀ ܘܛܢܬ ܟܠܬܐ ܒܪܬ ܐܝܡܡܐ ܕܡܟܝܪܐ ܠܗ: ܘܐܨܪܚܬ ܗܘܬ ܒܗ ܒܣܪܬܗ ܣܢܬܗ ܣܚܦܬܗ ܘܢܦܠ܀ ܒܓܠܝܐ ܢܐܡܪ: ܕܠܘ ܐܠܗܐ ܗܘ ܒܪ ܐܠ ܗܐ ܕܡܟܝܪܐ ܠܗ܀ ܐܡܪܚ ܒܙܒܢ ܗܘ ܕܐܫܬܢܝ ܕܢܐܡܪ ܗܟܢ: ܕܠܘ ܐܠܗܐ ܗܘ ܝܠܕܬ ܡܪܝܡ

ܘܡܢܘ ܡܡܪܚ ܕܩܕܡ ܟܠܬܐ

That one who had gone insane was so insolent at one point that he spoke as follows:

It was not God that Mary bore in her virginity.”

The bride, the daughter of the day, who was married to him, grew envious. She railed against him, scorned him, despised him, knocked him down, and he fell. (Paulus Bedjan, Homiliae selectae Mar-Jacobi Sarugensis [Harrassowitz, Paris 1907], “Holy on the Faith”, Volume 3, p. 603, 21, p. 604, 3 https://archive.org/details/BedjanJacobOfSarugVol3; bold emphasis mine)(1)  

64 Nestorios of Constantinople, Apology (Loofs, Nestoriana, 205): “Mary did not bear, O dear friend, the divinity, but she bore a human, [who was] an inseparable instrument of the divinity” (non peperit, optime, Maria deitatem, sed peperit hominem, divinitatis inseparabile instrumentum); Sermon 27 (ibid., 337; Ford Lewis Battles, trans., The Sermons of Nestorius [Pittsburgh, 1973], 114): “At once the pagan, receiving the reproach that God was born of Mary, moves forward against Christianity” (statim enim paganus cum reprehensione accipiens, quia de Maria deus natus est, infert adversus Christianum).

The Nestorians’ repudiation of God being born or begotten seems to be the very thing that the Quran is stating, but for a totally different reason–unless, of course, we assume a Syriac proto-Quran, which was later bastardized when it was rendered into Arabic. 

The Nestorians meant that God as God could never be born, since he is ever living and can never cease to be. Instead, God united or took to himself a human nature, which was produced in Mary’s womb by the Holy Spirit.

In that regard, it wasn’t God who was born but rather the Man Christ Jesus who was begotten of Mary, a human being who had been inseparably united to the divine Word or Logos from the very moment the human nature had been conceived.

The problem with such terminology is that it can easily lend itself to the charge that there are two subjects or Persons in this union. It is not hard to see why Nestorians were accused of positing a divine Person/Hypostasis known as the Logos and a human subject who came into being at conception in Mary’s womb, whom the Logos united to Himself.  

This leads me to my next point.

ADOPT OR UNITE: THAT IS THE QUESTION!

The Quran decries the notion that Allah has or would adopt or take on a son:

And they say: The Beneficent hath taken (ittakhadha) unto Himself a son (waladan). Assuredly ye utter a disastrous thing Whereby almost the heavens are torn, and the earth is split asunder and the mountains fall in ruins, That ye ascribe unto the Beneficent a son (waladan), When it is not meet for (the Majesty of) the Beneficent that He should choose a son (yattakhidha waladan). There is none in the heavens and the earth but cometh unto the Beneficent as a slave. S. 19:88-93 Pickthall

Had God wished to take (yattakhidha) to Himself a son (waladan), He could have chosen whom He pleased out of those whom He doth create: but Glory be to Him! (He is above such things.) He is God, the One, the Irresistible. S. 39:4 A. Yusuf Ali

And (we believe) that He – exalted be the glory of our Lord! – hath taken (ittakhadha) neither wife nor son (waladan), S. 72:3 Pickthall

The Arabic akhadha is used elsewhere with the connotation of adoption:

And he (the man) from Egypt who bought him, said to his wife: “Make his stay comfortable, may be he will profit us or we shall adopt him as a son (nattakhidhahu waladan).” Thus did We establish Yusuf (Joseph) in the land, that We might teach him the interpretation of events. And Allah has full power and control over His Affairs, but most of men know not. S. 12:21 Hilali-Khan

What makes this rather interesting is that akhadha without the diacritical marks (taskhil) can also be read as ahada (“to unite”).

“And they say: The All-Merciful has united (ittahada) a son… When it does not befit the All-Merciful that He should unite (yattahida)a son.” S. 19:88, 93

“Had God wished to unite(yattahida) a son…” S. 39:3

If this is was what the Quran intended to convey then this again supports the view of many scholars that the Islamic text was actually a collection of Christian hymns/sermons, which were originally in Syriac. At the very least, this would mean that the Quran came to criticize specific Christologies in order to affirm other particular Christological formulations.

For instance, the Quran may be condemning the view of “Nestorians” such as Babai the Great who taught that God the Word united to himself the manhood common to all human beings, in order to make that humanity one Son of God. Babai even employs the Syriac term which corresponds to the Arabic word ahada:

ii.6 Sixth Chapter: On why there was not a union of the Father, or of the Holy Spirit, or of the whole Trinity with the nature of our manhood, which was assumed by the parsopa of this worshipful dispensation, but by one of the qnome of the Trinity, that is, by God the Word, while the nature of the Godhead is one and co-essential with him.

[1] First, let us ask them: Why was there not a union of the Father, or of the Holy Spirit, or of the whole Trinity with the nature of our manhood, which was exalted and assumed for the parsopa of this worshipful dispensation, which was through our Lord Jesus Christ for the renewal and salvation of all, but by one of the qnome of the Holy Trinity, that is, by God the Word? That there was a union we have accepted and confess; and that God the Word was united (ethayyad) parsopicallyto our manhood and made it one Son with himself in one honor and authority we have believed and we hold without hesitation, without question. Again, concerning the manner1 [of this taking], it is not for us to investigate or search out, for we have learned from the blessed Paul that the riches of Christ are unsearchable,2 but that we should believe in the heart and confess with the mouth that we may be saved and justified.3 For we are children of believing Abraham through faith, concerning whom it was said, “Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him for righteousness.”4

[2] Without question this was committed to us by the Son of Thunder, who proclaimed this to the heavenly and to the earthly, and they accepted [it] without doubting: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”5 And after other things he said, “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.”6 How is the mind able to judge, or to investigate, or to grasp, or to interpret here, tell me? In the beginning God was with God— the Effulgence of the Father, the Image of his qnoma, Infinite from Infinite; but [also] Light from Light, God from God, Living from Living, Eternal from Eternal; the Father, utterly all of him, infinitely, and the infinite Son; and the Son, utterly all of him, in his divine nature, begotten of the Father eternally, and his Begetter not prior to him, and from the infinite Father and begotten of him and existing in him. The Father begets but is in his Son: “My Father is in me and I am in my Father.”7 How is his Begotten in him? How is the Father of his own Begotten in the Son? How is he with him, and eternal, and in the beginning? How is it the Son is not after his Cause qnomically, or the Father, who is the head, not qnomically before the Begotten who is from him?

[3] In the same way too what concerns the Holy Spirit moves quickly, incomprehensibly before all small minds: “He proceeds from the Father,”8 Infinite from Infinite, all of him in the Father, utterly all of him in the infinite Son, but they do not precede, as also they do not follow one another. And whenever the thinking of him who ventures to investigate is lifted up and hastens to understand the Father, at the same moment that he finds the Father, who was in the beginning in his eternal qnoma and in his Godhead in which there is no beginning, [he] likewise [finds] the Son, who was in the beginning with the Father eternally, like the example of radiance to a sphere, or a word to a soul, though not beginning and not ending, and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father eternally, but does not begin in his procession, as also he does not end, the same who searches the depths of the Godhead. There is no space which separates; there is no interval which follows or precedes, and no bodily form, for God is Spirit. How is the bodiless and infinite the Begetter, Begotten, and Proceeding, but the Begetter is not the Begotten or the Proceeding, and the Begotten is not the Begetter or the Proceeding, and the Proceeding is not the Begetter or the Begotten, and these properties are not exchanged with one another, but while they are united they are distinct, and while they are distinct they are united in infinitude, not preceding one another and not following one another? If, then, these things lead to an investigation [of] their manner [of existence], how indeed can we search out the things of this dispensation without faith? For lo, all his works are indeed by faith, because not even his works are searchable, since they9 are from nothing, in all these different varieties which surpass numbering, along with others which have been or are to come. Why was the world not created prior to six thousand years, and why has it continued all this time and then is to be renewed? All these things we should leave to their Maker, and we should believe and stand firm as we have been commanded, and keep the commandments, so that we might be exalted in tranquil thought, without comprehension, in assurance of the hope higher than all comprehensible things. (The Book of Union of Babai the Great English Translation with Edited Syriac Text (Texts and Studies in Eastern Christianity), edited by Mar Awa iii Royel, translated by Michael J. Birnie [Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands, 2024], iv.12 Twelfth Chapter: That the “anointing” is doubly spoken of concerning the manhood of our Lord, Volume 32, pp. 71, 73; bold emphasis mine)

1 ܐܬ熏ܝܢܟܝܐ

2 Cf. Rom. 11:33.

3 Rom. 10:10.

4 Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3.

5 Jn. 1:1.

6 Jn. 1:14.

7 Jn. 14:10.

8 Jn. 15:27.

9 I.e., his works. (Ibid., pp. 70, 72)

ALLAH IS NOT THE MESSIAH: A NESTORIAN CRITICISM?

At the same time, there are places in which the Quran seems to be upholding the Christological beliefs of the so-called Nestorians.

For instance, the Muslim scripture decries those who would argue that Allah is the Messiah the son of Mary:

They are unbelievers (kafara) who say, ‘God is the Messiah, Mary’s son (Allaha huwa almaseehu ibnu maryama).’ Say: ‘Who then shall overrule God in any way if He desires to destroy the Messiah, Mary’s son, and his mother, and all those who are on earth?’ For to God belongs the kingdom of the heavens and of the earth, and all that is between them, creating what He will. God is powerful over everything. S. 5:17 Arberry

They are unbelievers (kafara) who say, ‘God is the Messiah, Mary’s son (Allaha huwa al-maseehu ibnu maryama).’ For the Messiah said, ‘Children of Israel, serve God, my Lord and your Lord. Verily whoso associates with God anything, God shall prohibit him entrance to Paradise, and his refuge shall be the Fire; and wrongdoers shall have no helpers.’ S. 5:73 Arberry

Ironically, this formulation echoes the very same criticism levelled by the “Nestorians” against Cyril of Alexandria and Chalcedonian Christians:

[4] Therefore we have made the matter clear here because of heretics who, through two arch-heresies26, have spoken impiously, and have been far from the truth and from each other: The Paulinians and Photinians, the children of Jewish vipers, say impiously, “When the Holy Spirit descended upon him in baptism he acquired the anointing and Sonship like the other ‘anointed ones’ of old, and he did not possess an anointing from the union within the womb which made him Son and Lord with God the Word,” by which this one denies the Godhead of the Son. So in the same way they spoke impiously as well who ascribe suffering to God the Word, for they also breathed out destruction in two arch-vipers, belching forth their destructive impiety in open rejection and wicked blasphemy in order to deny the taking of the Head of our race who was exalted in the union. The impious Cyril and the accursed Ḥenana, the spewer of all heresies, impiously spoke in the same way, that “‘Anointed’ is said because he came to human circumstances,” and, | “The finite was from the Infinite,” {138} and “He subjected himself to a measurable state.” These [in the one group] are the fathers of those [in the other], and it is the same clear denial (kpurya)—“The Anointed One is God” and “God is the Anointed One (Alaha huyu Meshicha),” and, “These designations do not indicate anything distinctive,” and, “As there is no distinction between the Only-begotten and the First-born,” and, “The two of them designate the same thing.” Therefore these impious ones all clearly rise up against the Holy Scriptures, and bring to nought each other and perish. But the truth is preserved in holy Church, that the name “Christ” is indicative of the parsopa of the union: “From whom is Christ in the flesh, who is God over all.”27 But this name also indicates that by which28 he is the Head of the Church through Baptism, and the First-born from the dead, for through him also the Church obtains the name of “Christianity”29, which is [the state of] “anointedness”30. So too are “Only-begotten” and “First-born” together with the designations: the sense of the two designations allows for a distinction, as we have shown in the things which preceded through the strength of Christ, to whom, and to whose Father, and to the Holy Spirit belong glory, honor, worship, and exaltation for ever and ever. Amen. (Birnie, The Book of Union of Babai the Great, p. 207; bold emphasis mine)

26 ? for ܐܬ熏ܫܝܒ營ܫܪ 

27 Cf. Rom. 9:5.

28 That is, by the “anointing”…

29 ܐܬ熏ܢܝܛܣ犯ܟ

30 ܐܬ熏ܚܝܫܡ (Ibid., 206)

Babai condemns anyone who thinks that the statements “The Anointed One is God” and “God is the Anointed One” are reciprocal, and convey the same meaning. As a “Nestorian,” he would only affirm the first proposition, namely, that Christ is God, while rejecting the latter as unbiblical and contrary to a sound, proper Trinitarian theology.  

The Quran only condemns the latter part, not the former, as Muslim author Neal Robinson noted when commenting on an ancient Nestorian Christian reference dated to 550 AD:

“… The text which dates from around 550 CE. concludes a discussion of the Trinity with the words ‘The Messiah is God but God is not the Messiah’. The Qur’an echoes ONLY the latter half of the statement. C. Schedl, Muhammad and Jesus (Vienna: Herder, 1978), p. 531.” (Neal Robinson, Christ In Islam and Christianity [State University of New York Press, Albany 1991], p. 197; bold emphasis mine)

As even one noted scholar of Islam stated:

Islamic scholar George Parrinder concurs:

To say that God is Christ is a statement not found anywhere in the New Testament or in the Christian creeds. ‘God was in Christ’, said Paul, ‘reconciling the world to himself’. (2 Cor. 5, 19) But this reconciliation through Christ is quite different from saying that God is Christ. ‘You belong to Christ, and Christ to God’, said Paul again, putting the relationship into perspective. (1 Cor. 3:23)

“But in the early Church centuries there arose heresies, such as that of Patripassianism, which so identified Christ and God as to suggest that God the Father had suffered on the cross. About A.D. 200 Noetus had taught that Christ was God the Father, and therefore that the Father himself was born and suffered and died. These views were taken to Rome by Praxeas, of whom Tertullian said that ‘he drove out prophecy and brought in heresy, he put to flight the Comforter and crucified the Father’. The orthodox teaching of the Logos, the Word or ‘Son’ of God, was a defence against such heretical teaching, though it must be admitted that writers in later ages were not always careful enough in their use of these titles.” (Geoffrey Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur’ān [OneWorld Publishers, Oxford England, Reprinted 1996], 14. Trinity, pp. 133-134; bold emphasis mine)

It is also interesting that Babai employs the very Syriac cognate of the Arabic term kafara, namely kpurya, in describing any individual who would say that God is the Messiah.

WHAT ABOUT THOSE MUSLIMS?

As if the Syriac Christian influence upon the Quran couldn’t be any more obvious, the very expression that is used to describe a submitter to Allah, namely Muslim, can also be traced to Syriac origins!

In the Peshitta, the Syriac cognate mashlemana is employed with various shades of meaning:

“And the Pharisees and the Scribes who were from Jerusalem came unto Yeshua and they were saying: ‘Why do your disciples violate the tradition of the Elders (ayk mashlemanuta d-qashishe)? They do not wash their hands whenever they eat bread.’” Matthew 15:1-2 (https://biblehub.com/hpbt/matthew/15.htm)

“Yehuda the traitor (mashlemana – ‘the one who would surrender him’) answered and he said, “It is I, Rabbi?” Yeshua said to him, “You have said.”” Matthew 26:25 (https://biblehub.com/hpbt/matthew/26.htm)

Clearly, the theology and Christological language of Syriac Christianity have left an indelible mark on the Quran and Islamic beliefs.

FURTHER READING

Does the Quran Reject Christ’s Eternal Generation? Pt. 1, Pt. 2, Pt. 3

THE PAGAN GODS ALLAH AND AHAD

AHAD: A PRE-ISLAMIC PAGAN DEITY?

“ALLAH ONE OF”: REVISITING THE ISSUE OF AHAD

ENDNOTES

(1) This quote is cited by Philip Michael Forness in Preaching and Religious Debate: Jacob of Serugh and the Promotion of his Christology in the Roman Near East (Full Text), p. 231, which can be accessed here: https://www.academia.edu/24899036/Preaching_and_Religious_Debate_Jacob_of_Serugh_and_the_Promotion_of_his_Christology_in_the_Roman_Near_East_Full_Text_.