Is there any saheeh text about the number of Prophets and Messengers?.

Is there any saheeh hadeeth that gives the number of Prophets and Messengers?.
Praise be to Allah.
Firstly:
Allah, may He be exalted,sent Messengers to everynation and He stated
that they came one afteranother, as He says (interpretation of the
meaning):
"Then We sent Our Messengers in succession, every time there came to a
nation their Messenger, they denied him, so We madethem follow one
another(to destruction), and We made them as Ahadeeth (the true
stories for mankind to learn a lesson from them). So away with a
people whobelieve not"
[al-Mu'minoon 23:44]
"Verily! We have sent you with the truth, a bearer of glad tidings,
and a warner. And there never was a nation but awarner had passed
among them"
[Faatir 35:24].
Allah has named some ofthose Messengers and told us the stories of
some of them, but not ofmany others. Allah, may He be exalted, says
(interpretation of the meaning):
"Verily, We have inspiredyou (O Muhammad SAW) as We inspired Nooh
(Noah) and the Prophets after him; We (also) inspired Ibrahim
(Abraham), Ismail (Ishmael), Ishaque (Isaac), Yaqoob (Jacob), and
Al-Asbat (the twelve sons of Yaqoob (Jacob)), Iesa (Jesus), Ayub
(Job), Yoonus (Jonah), Haroon (Aaron), and Sulaiman (Solomon), and to
Dawood (David) We gave the Zaboor (Psalms).
And Messengers We havementioned to you before, and Messengers We have
not mentioned to you, - and to Moosa (Moses) Allah spoke directly"
[an-Nisa' 4:163-164].
Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
These are the names of the Prophets whose names are mentioned in the
Qur'an: Adam, Idrees,Nooh, Hood, Saalih, Ibraaheem, Loot, Ismaa'eel,
Ishaaq, Ya'qoob, Yoosuf, Ayyoob,Shu'ayb, Moosa, Haroon, Yoonus,
Dawood, Sulaymaan, Ilyaas, al-Yasa', Zakariya, Yahya,and 'Eesa
(blessings and peace be upon them), as well as Dhu'l-Kifl according to
many commentators, and theirleader is Muhammad (blessings and peace of
Allah be upon him).
The words "and Messengers We have not mentioned to you" mean: other
people whoare not mentioned in the Qur'an.
Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 2/469
Secondly:
The scholars differed as to the number of Prophets and Messengers,
according to what reached them and their opinions on the authenticity
of the hadeeths that mentioned their numbers. Those who classed the
hadeeths as saheeh or hasan gave their opinion based on those reports;
those whoclassed the hadeeths as da'eef said that the number could not
be known except through Revelation, so they refrained from stating a
number.
The hadeeths that mentioned a number areas follows:
1.
It was narrated that Abu Dharr said: I said: O Messenger of Allah, how
many Prophets were there? He said: "One hundred and twenty four
thousand." I said: O Messenger of Allah, how many of them were
Messengers? He said: "Three hundred and thirteen, a good number." I
said: O Messenger of Allah, who was the first of them? Hesaid: "Adam."
…
Narrated by Ibn Hibbaan, 361
This hadeeth is da'eef jiddan (very weak). Its isnaad includes
Ibraaheem ibn Hishaam al-Ghassaani, of whom adh-Dhahabi said: he is
matrook (rejected). Indeed, Abu Haatim said:(He is) a liar. Hence Ibn
al-Jawzi ruled that the hadeeth was fabricated and false.
Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
This hadeeth was narrated at length by al-Haafiz Abu Haatim ibn
Hibbaan al-Basti in his book al-Anwaa' wa't-Taqaaseem, and he said
that it was saheeh. But Abu'l-Faraj ibn al-Jazwi disagreed with him
and included this hadeeth in his book al-Mawdoo'aat (the fabricated
hadeeths) and accused Ibraaheem ibn Hishaam of fabricating the
hadeeth. There is no doubt that more than one of the imams of al-jarh
wa't-ta'deel (evaluation of hadeeth narrators) criticised him because
ofthis hadeeth.
Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 2/470
Shu'ayb al-Arna'oot said:Its isnaad is da'eef jiddan (very weak) –
andhe quoted the commentsof the scholars about Ibraaheem ibn Hishaam.
Tahqeeq Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan, 2/79
2.
A hadeeth mentioning this number - one hundred and twenty four
thousand – was alsonarrated via another isnaad:
It was narrated that Abu Umaamah said: I said: O Prophet of Allah, how
many Prophets were there? He said: "One hundred and twenty four
thousand, of whom three hundred and fifteen were a good number."
Narrated by Ibn Hibbaanin his Tafseer, 963
Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Mu'aan ibn Rifaa'ah as-Silaami is da'eef; 'Ali ibn Yazeed is da'eef;
andal-Qaasim Abu 'Abd ar-Rahmaan is also da'eef.
Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 2/470
3.
The hadeeth of Abu Dharr (may Allah be pleased with him) was also
narrated via another isnaad, without any mention of the number of
Prophets; rather it mentions the number of Messengers:
He said: I said: O Messenger of Allah, how many Messengers were there?
He said: "Three hundred and umpteen, agood number."
Narrated by Ahmad, 35/431
According to another report (35/438): "three hundred and fifteen, a
good number."
Shu'ayb al-Arna'oot said:
Its isnaad is da'eef jiddan (very weak), because 'Ubayd ibn
al-Khashkhaash is majhool (unknown) and Abu 'Umar ad-Dimashqi is
da'eef. Ad-Daaraqutni said: al-Mas'oodi from Abu 'Umar ad-Dimashqi is
matrook (rejected).
Al-Mas'oodi is 'Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn 'Abdullah ibn 'Utbah.
Tahqeeq Musnad Ahmad,35/432
4.
It was narrated that Anassaid: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and
peace of Allah be upon him) said: "Allah sent eight thousand Prophets,
four thousand to the Children of Israel and four thousand to the rest
of mankind."
Narrated by Abu Ya'la in his Musnad, 7/160
This hadeeth is da'eef jiddan (very weak).
Al-Haythami (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
It was narrated by Abu Ya'la and its isnaad includes Moosa ibn
'Ubaydah ar-Rabdhi, who is da'eef jiddan.
Majma' az-Zawaa'id, 8/210
Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
This is also a da'eef isnaad. It includes ar-Rabdhi who is da'eef, and
his shaykh ar-Raqqaashi is also weaker than him.
Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 2/470
5.
It was narrated that Abu'l-Waddaak said: AbuSa'eed said to me: Do
theKhaarijis believe in the Dajjaal? I said: No. He said: The
Messenger of Allah (sa) said: "I am the Seal of a thousand Prophets or
more; no Prophet was sent but he warned his nation aboutthe Dajjaal…"
Narrated by Ahmad, 18/275
This hadeeth is da'eef because Mujaalid ibn Sa'eed is da'eef.
Al-Haythami (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
It was narrated by Ahmad, and its isnaad includes Mujaalid ibn Sa'eed.
An-Nasaa'i classed him as thiqah (trustworthy) in one report but he
said concerning another: He is not qawiy (strong). A number of
scholars classed him as da'eef.
Majma' az-Zawaa'id, 7/346
It was also classed as da'eef by al-Arna'oot in Tahqeeq al-Musnad, 18/276
6.
This hadeeth was narrated from Jaabir ibn'Abdullah (may Allah be
pleased with him):
It was narrated by al-Bazzaar in his Musnad,3380, Kashf al-Astaar.
Its isnaad includes Mujaalid ibn Sa'eed; it has been stated above that
he is da'eef.
Al-Haythami (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
It was narrated by al-Bazzaar and its isnaadincludes Mujaalid ibn
Sa'eed, who was classed as da'eef by the majority.
Majma' az-Zawaa'id, 7/347
From the hadeeths quoted above – and there are others that we have not
quoted to save space, all of which are da'eef – it is clear that the
reports differ concerning the number of Prophets and Messengers. Every
group spoke on the basis of thereports that were saheeh in their
opinion. The most well-known of the reports mentioned above is the
hadeeth of Abu Dharr (may Allah be pleased with him), which says that
the number of Prophets was one hundred and twentyfour thousand, among
whom the number of Messengers was three hundred and fifteen. Some of
the scholars even said that the number of Prophets was the same as the
number of Companions of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be
upon him) and the number of Messengers was the same as the number of
those who were present at Badr.
But by examining the isnaads of these reports, it does not seem to us
that these hadeeths are saheeh, either individually or when their
isnaads are put together.
Thirdly:
There follow the opinions of some of the leading scholars who said
that these hadeeths and the numbers mentioned in them are not saheeh
(sound):
1.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
From what is mentioned by Ahmad, Muhammad ibn Nasr and others, it is
clear that they did not know the number of Books and Messengers, and
the hadeeth of Abu Dharr that speaks of thatwas not proven in their
view.
Majmoo' al-Fataawa, 7/409
From this report from the two imams Ahmad and Muhammad ibn
Nasral-Marwazi it is clear thatthey regarded the hadeeths which speak
ofthe number of Prophets as da'eef. What appears to be the case is
that Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) supported them in
that. And he indicated that the hadeeth of Abu Dharr was da'eef. As he
said: It was narrated in the hadeeth of Abu Dharr that their number
was three hundred and thirteen, but that hadeeth was not quotedas
evidence; rather whatis quoted as evidence is the verses that speak of
their large number.
2.
Ibn 'Atiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his commentary on
the verse in an-Nisa':
The words of Allah, may He be exalted, "and Messengers We have not
mentioned to you" [an-Nisa' 4:164], imply a large number of Prophets,
without mentioning a specific number. Allah, may He be exalted, says
(interpretation of the meaning):
"And there never was a nation but a warner hadpassed among them"
[Faatir 35:24]
"and many generations in between"
[al-Furqaan 25:38].
What has been narrated about the number of Prophets is not correct;
Allah knows best about their number, may the blessings of Allah be
upon them. End quote.
3.
The scholars of the Standing Committee were asked:
What is the number of Prophets and Messengers (blessings and peace of
Allah be upon them)?
They replied:
No one knows their number except Allah, because He says
(interpretation of the meaning):
"And, indeed We have sent Messengers before you (O Muhammad SAW);of
some of them We have related to you theirstory and of some We have not
related to you their story"
[Ghaafir 40:78].
Those who are known are those who are mentioned in the Qur'an or in
the saheeh Sunnah.
Shaykh 'Abd al-Azeez ibnBaaz, Shaykh 'Abd ar-Razzaaq 'Afeefi, Shaykh
'Abdullah ibn Ghadyaan, Shaykh 'Abdullah ibn Qa'ood
Fataawa al-Lajnah ad-Daa'imah, 3/256
4.
Shaykh 'Abd al-'Azeez ibn Baaz (may Allah havemercy on him) said:
In the hadeeth of Abu Dharr that is narrated byAbu Haatim ibn Hibbaan
and others, it says that he asked the Prophet (sa) about the
Messengers and about the Prophets, and the Prophet (blessings and
peace of Allah be upon him) said: "The Prophets were one hundred and
twenty-four thousand and the Messengers were three hundred
andthirteen." According to the report of Abu Umaamah: three hundred
and fifteen. Butthese are both da'eef hadeeths according to the
scholars. They have corroborating reports, but those are also da'eef,
as we have mentioned above. According to some of them it says that the
Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said that there
were a thousand Prophets or more, and insome it says that the number
of Prophets was three thousand. All the hadeeths that speak of this
matter are da'eef; infact Ibn al-Jawzi regarded the hadeeth ofAbu
Dharr as being fabricated. The point is that there is no reliable
report about the number of Prophets and Messengers; no one knows their
number except Allah, may He be glorified and exalted. But they were a
good number. Allah has told usthe stories of some of them and He has
not toldus the stories of others in His wisdom, may He be glorified
and exalted.
Majmoo' Fataawa ash-Shaykh Ibn Baaz, 2/66, 67
5.
Shaykh 'Abdullah ibn Jibreen (may Allah preserve him) was asked:
What is the number of Prophets and Messengers? Is not believing in
some of them (because we are unaware of them) regarded as kufr? What
is the number of divinelyrevealed Books?
He replied:
In a number of hadeethsit is stated that the number of the Prophets
was one hundred and twenty-four thousand, and that the number of
Messengers among themwas three hundred and thirteen; it was also
narrated that the number of Prophets was eight thousand. All of these
hadeeths were quoted in Ibn Katheer's Tafseer al-Qur'an al-'Azeem, at
the end of Soorat an-Nisa', in his commentary on the verse in which
Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): "and
Messengers We have not mentioned to you" [an-Nisa' 4:164]. But the
hadeeths about this matter are all da'eef, despite the fact that there
are so many. So it is better to refrain from discussing this matter.
What is required of the Muslim is to believe specifically in those
Prophets whose names were mentioned by Allahand His Messenger, and to
believe in the rest in general terms. Allah condemned the Jews for
differentiating between them, as He said (interpretation of the
meaning): "…saying, We believe in some but reject others…"
[an-Nisa'4:150]. We believe in every Prophet and every Messenger whom
Allah sent at some time or another, but each one's message was for the
people of his own time and his Book was for his nation and his people.
With regard to the number of Books, it says in the lengthy hadeeth
narrated from Abu Dharrthat the number of books was one hundred books
and four books, aswas mentioned by Ibn Katheer in his commentary on
the verse quoted above. But Allah knows best how sound this is. Allah
has mentioned the Torah, the Gospel, the Psalms (Zaboor), and the
Scriptures of Ibraaheem and Moosa, so we believe in that and we
believe that Allah has many Books of which wehave no knowledge; it is
sufficient for us to believe in them in general terms.
Fataawa Islamiyyah, 1/41
And Allah knows best.

Removing the Obstacle

A qualified medical worker from India emigrated to Canada to live a
better life. This Muslim brother had a beard. He applied to many
different places for a job and was called for interviews. Though he
was highly qualified for the jobs, the interviewers hesitated to hire
him because of his beard. One by one, he was rejected from all the
companies. One interviewer actually mentioned to him indirectly that
his beard was an obstacle to getting the job. Truly, it was a big test
for him from Allah. Hopeless and exhausted, the brother decided to
remove the obstacle, which was to shave off his beard. Thenhe returned
to that company and requested for another interview. When the
interviewer saw him without a beard this time, he refused to give him
the job again. The brother became confused and asked to know the
reason. The interviewer said "If you are not faithful to your God, how
will you be faithful to us?"
This true incident was narrated to us by a friend who personally knows
this brother, however, his identity will remain private. In reality,
obeying the commandments of Allah does not bring failure. Inthe
beginning, we may face various problems, but the end results will be
very sweet. Prophet of Allah (SAW) also faced many problems in the
beginning, but in the end, he saw how hundreds and thousandsof people
turned towards Allah for his steadfastness. Ibn 'Umar,may God be
pleased with him, said: "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him
and give him peace, ordered us totrim closely the mustache and leave
the beard as it is (that is grow the beard)." (Reported in Sahih
al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.)

He Cannot Catch Up

Ubaidullah bin Umar Qawariri said," I never missed the evening
congregational prayer (prayer with Jamath). But once a guest came tomy
house and I remained in his company until late. I went out, looking
for any mosque in Basra at which I could catch the evening prayer, but
to no avail. The people had all prayed and gone home. I returned to my
house,saying to myself,'It is reported in tradition that
congregational prayer istwenty-seven times more excellent than
individual prayer.' So I prayed the evening prayer twenty-seven times
over and slept. I saw in a dream that I was with a group of people who
were racingon horses, and I was alsoracing with them on my horse but
my horse was falling behind. I kicked my horse to catch up with them
but I could not. One of the riders turned to me and said,"Do not urge
your horse, for you will not be able to catch up with us." I said,"Why
not?" He replied,"We prayed evening in congregationand you prayed it
alone!" Therefore, I learned a lesson and wasdeeply grieved."

What The Experts/Scholars Say About the Bible

WHAT THE EXPERTS/SCHOLARS SAY:
Peake's Commentary of the Bible
(A Christian scholarly work)
1. Under the heading: " The Textual Criticism of the New Testament " (p.663)
Article authored by K. W. Clark , A.B., B.D., PH.D., Professor of
Biblical Literature, Duke University, Durham, NorthCarolina. He
writes:
"It is well known that theprimitive Christian gospelwas initially
transmitted by word of mouth and that this oral tradition resulted in
variant reporting of the original word and deed. It is equally true
that when the Christian record was later committed to writing it
continued to be subject to verbal variation (involuntary and
intentional) at the hands of scribes and editors. The earliest
written Gospel, by Mark in Rome, was promptly copied for wider
circulation and was soon known as far as Ephesus and Antioch. The
correspondence of Paul was collected and copied and early circulated
between Italy and Syria. Each hand-produced copy, however, contained
its own deviations in the form of error or of editorial revision by
the theologian-scribe. From the very beginning manuscript copies of
New Testament books showed an increasing amount of variation in the
text, and within a single century the original compositions were
greatly altered."
He admits a few paragraphs later:
"For many centuries of Christian history believersseemed unmindful of
textual alterations and therefore felt no need and made no serious
effort to recover a text truer than the one they possessed. In the
absence of ancient manuscript witnesses, the numerous Byzantine copies
of later date were generally accepted as thetraditional text. This
late form of the text was familiar to all and remained firmly
established in use until the 18th century. The first serious doubt
arose in the 17th century whenChristian scholarship in the West was
confronted with a 5th century witness of a different textual
character. This was an Alexandrian MS, which was carried to London in
1627 (and still remains there in the British Library, designated as
Codex Alexandrinus). This was followed by the discoveryof other
manuscript witnesses of even earlier date, which clearly pointed to
the fact that the prevailing Greek text was substantially different
from the original. The desire to reconstruct the lost original, along
with the reappearance of ancient copies long lost from view, caused
the development of the modern scientific discipline known as textual
criticism. Its achievement to date has been to provide Christians
with a Greek text of the NT Scriptures more trustworthy than any in
use since the 6th century. However, it is not to be thought that the
"original" text has now been fully recovered, for
significantdiscoveries and important refinements ofthe text and method
continue to cast more light upon the problem."
On the many manuscript copies from which scholars try to put together
a faithful reading, the learned author writes:
"…this circumstance has created the most intricate textual problem in
seeking to recover the lost original text of the Greek NT."
Admitting the interpolation of scribes, Dr. Clark reveals:
"…it may be recognized that the scribe (present or previous) exhibits
a theological interest which might cause him to change the text of his
exemplar (cf. John 1:18, referring to Jesus as 'onlyGod' or as 'only
Son')."
Further on the subject of the inaccuracies of the NTtext, Professor
Clark writes:
"To recover the NT writings in original form is the ultimate goal and
will always be the main objective of textual criticism, as it unites
withother disciplines to penetrate to Christian origins. But textual
criticism has other tasks that belong to lower criticism, concerned
with tracing the course of transmission……….This sort of inquiry
performs at least three services: it contributes to historical
theology, it illumines church history, and it enables the textual
critic to retrace the process of change which the text has undergone
and thus to exscind accumulated error."
2. Under the heading: " The Early Versions of the New Testament " (p. 671)
Authored by Bruce Metzger , M.A., PH.D., D.D., Professor of New
Testament Language and Literature, Princeton Theological Seminary, New
Jersey.
Writing on the corruptions of the Latin Vulgate by Jerome:
"It was inevitable that in the course of transmission by recopying,
scribal carelessness corrupted Jerome's original work."
3. Under the heading: " The Literature and Canon of the New Testament " (p.676)
Authored by Rev. Joseph Sanders , M.A., Dean, Domestic Bursar and
Fellow of Peterhouse College, University Lecturer in Divinity,
Cambridge.
The Reverend admits the windows in which the corruptions of the
teachings occurred (as had Prof. Clark) as being during the time from
the oral traditions to the written stage:
"So, however it is explained, we must recognize a certain reluctance
on the part of Christians to begin a written literature…What happened
in the oral period, was of immense importance, and has left clear
traces in the writtenliterature".
The Reverend continues:
"In principle, there was no absolute necessity for any written
material, at least, while the apostles were still alive, and written
records may only have begun when the original 'eye-witnesses and
ministers of the word' were no longer available. It is highly
unlikely that any of the four Gospels antedates the deaths of the
chief apostles. The church mayhave been driven to putting its
tradition into writing when it was in danger of being lost, as the
Rabbi's were. Nero's persecution and the Jewish War would provide the
impetus".
Continuing on the progressive authorship of writings by the church,he says:
"But of all the needs of the early church which the NT was written to
satisfy, that for the control, guidance and edification of the newly
founded congregations was the first to lead to the composition of
worksstill extant."
On the false authorship of certain letters of Paul and in the Bible in general:
"The authenticity of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus is also questioned,
even more generally than that of Ephesians. As they stand they seem
to reflecta stage of development in church organizations impossible in
Paul's own lifetime. They thus raise the whole problem of
pseudonymity in Holy Scripture."
Referring to the Canonization process, theReverend elucidates:
"…the Church of the 2nd century had no other means of distinguishing
genuine from pseudonymous apostolic works, orthodoxy tendedto become
synonymous with apostolicity."
Acknowledging the 'combat writings' nature of the Gospels. The Reverend says:
"It is quite possible that the fourfold Gospel was aCatholic
counterblast to Marcion's single Gospel."
4. Under the heading: " Pagan Religion at the Coming of Christianity " (p. 712)
Authored by Robert Wilson , M.A., B.D., PH.D., Lecturer in New
Testament Language and Literature, St. Andrew's University.
Writing about the 'Mystery Cults' of the Greeks, Dr. Wilson says:
"In its origins Christianity must have appeared to the men of the age
as just another of these oriental cults. Like them, it came out of
the East; like them, it promised salvation. Like them also,it centred
upon a Saviourwho died and rose again,and like them it gave special
place to certain rites: baptism and a sacred meal. It is therefore
only natural that questions should be raised as to the possible
influence of these cults on the thought of the early Church…"
Further on a related topic, the learned scholarwrites:
"At a later stage indeed much was taken over and'baptized' into the
service of the Christian faith: in Mithraism, 25 December had a
special place as the birthday of the god; the image-type representing
the Madonna and Child has been traced back to statue of Isis and the
infant Horus. It must be admitted that the Church in later ages
absorbed into its beliefs and practice those elements which it could
take over without doing violence to its own essential faith…."
5. Under the heading: " The Life and Teaching of Jesus " (p. 733)
Authored by Rev. John Bowman , Professor of New Testament
Interpretation, San Francisco Theological Seminary, San Anselmo,
California.
Concerning the early years of Jesus' life and how each NT author is
expounding their own personal interpretation, the Professor states:
"It seems quite clear that at no time in its history has the Christian
Church thought of its founder's life as beginning with the manger in
Bethlehem. Each of the four evangelists gives expression to this fact
in his own way. The Fourth Evangelist, whose background appears to
have been that of Hellenistic Judaism, employs the current "logos"
doctrine to indicate the eternal character of him who became flesh as
Jesus of Nazareth (Mt. 1:18; Lk. 1:34f).
In addition to the accounts in the Gospels other NT writers in one way
and another give expression to the Church's conviction on this point.
In the Revelation to John, not only does the eternal Christ say for
himself, 'I am the first and the last, and the living one' (1:17),but
he is also acclaimed 'Word of God' (19:13) and'Lord of Lords and King
ofKings' (17:14). For the author of Hebrews, he is the eternal Son of
God through whom the latter created the universe (1:1-14). For Paul,
he was'in the form of God' before he became a man (Phil. 2:5-11)."
On how the 'Coming One',prophesied by John the Baptist was not the
Messiah of Salvation, the Reverend writes:
"John never applied the term 'Messiah' to the Coming One whom he
announced. This Coming One was to act as judge of men, sorting out
the chaff from the wheat on the threshing-floor of judgement in his
time, and the figure who most nearly fits this description is that,
not of the Messiah as popularly conceived, but rather the'Son of Man'
of 1 Enoch 37-71, who comes for judgement rather than for the
salvation of the people of God."
Showing how Jesus responded to the Lordship of God (as opposed to the
common claim of his own Divinity – my emphasis) through the call of
John the Baptist, the Professor substantiates the notion that Jesus
came to do works of the Lord:
"Jesus heard of this new prophetic movement inaugurated by John the
Baptist and so, coming down from his native hills to the Jordan
valley, Jesus purposed to ally himself with it. By way of
explanation, Matthew says that this was to 'fulfill all
righteousness', that is to identify himself wholly with mankind in the
endeavour to fulfill all of God's righteous demand upon man…..Like all
prophetic messages, accordingly, John's represented a call to decision
to submit oneself to the Lordship ofGod. Jesus could no moreresist
the claims of such acall than could any of his contemporaries. In
obedience, therefore, to the prophetic voice represented by John he
came to seek baptism at the latter's hand."
Further in his article, the learned Professor comments of the doublets
concerning the disciples and the mission of the seventy. He writes:
"Luke alone among the evangelists suggests that our Lord also sent out
seventy-two others as well (10:1-22). We inclineto the belief that
this is a doublet of the sending out of the twelve disciples, as the
Greek characters for twelve andseventy two exhibit little difference
and may easilybe confused by a slip of the pen."
6. Under the heading: " Matthew " (p. 769)
Authored by: Krister Stendahl , PH.D., THEOL.D., Associate Professor
of New Testament Studies, Harvard University.
In the opening commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, the Professor writes:
"…the image of the Gospel writers as 'authors' – with or without
specific channelsof inspiration - has fadedaway under the impact of
comparative synoptic studies and under the impact of Form Criticism…"
He continues that Matthew was not a "mereredactor" but had his own way
of putting the pieces together. In this regard, Professor Stendahl
admits:
"In carrying out his work by such an interpretative use of earlier
material, written as well as oral, Matthew does not work in a vacuum,
but within the life of a church for those whose needs he is catering;
his Gospel morethan the others is a product of a community and for a
community."
Dr. Stendahl admits the unsolved problem of the authorship of this
Gospel in these words:
"It remains an unsolved problem how and why the Gospel came to
circulate under the name of Matthew, who only in this Gospel is
identified with a tax-collector calledby Jesus (see 9:9, 10:3). But
it is highly unlikely that the man responsible for this Gospel had
lived on the despised outskirts of Jewish religious life, nor does the
Gospel itself (the title was certainly added later) intimate that
Matthew was its author."
7. Under the heading: " Mark " (p.799)
Authored by Robert McL. Wilson , M.A., PH.D., Lecturer in New
Testament Language and Literature, St. Andrews University.
Speaking on the position of Mark in relation to the other gospels, Dr.
Wilson writes:
"…Mk is now commonly recognized not only as the earliest canonical
Gospel but also as one of the sources used by Mt. And Lk."
The learned Doctor notes that the earliest reference to Mark is made
by Papias (c. AD 140) however, he has thisto say in its regard:
"There are several problems connected withthis tradition, and it is
probably not to be taken entirely at face value. In particular the
associationof Mk with Peter should not be understood to mean that the
Gospel records the testimony of an eye-witness throughout."
Concerning the type of mindset that authored this Gospel, the Doctor writes:
"Moreover, as Branscombnotes, a Roman origin would go far to explain
the ready acceptance andrapid dissemination of the Gospel. It would
also explain the inclusion and preservation of Mk. among the Gospels
finallyadmitted to the Canon."
Concerning the language source behind this Gospel, Dr. Wilson says:
"There are grounds for suspecting Aramaic sources behind the Gospel,
though whether written or oral it is impossible to say."
Finally, Dr. Wilson observes:
"It is now generally agreed that 9-20 are not an original part of Mk.
They are not found in theoldest manuscripts, and indeed were
apparently not in the copies used by Mt. And Lk."
8. Under the heading: " Luke " (p. 82)
Authored by: Rev. Geoffrey W. H. Lampe , M.C., D.D., Ely Professor
of Divinity, Cambridge University.
Commenting on the authorship of this Gospel by Luke, Professor Lampenotes:
"…this gospel and Acts have been attributed to Luke, the companion of
Paul (Col. 4:11; 2 Tim 4:10). He is said by the above-mentioned
prologue to have been a native of Antioch in Syria,a tradition found
also, possibly independently, in Eusebias (HE III, iv, 6), and, by
many early writers (following Col. 4:11) a doctor. How far these
traditions are inferred from the 'we passages' of Acts including the
short 'we passage' in Acts 11:27 in the 'Western' text, the setting of
which is in Antioch, taken in conjunction with the Pauline references
mentioned above, and how far they rest on genuinely independent
records or reminiscences is quite uncertain."
Writing on the source usage of the Gospel of Luke, the Professor writes:
"On the whole it seems probable that Lk. handlesMk freely, modifying
and supplementing as it suits his purpose."
9. Under the heading: " John " (p. 844)
Authored by: Rev. C. Kingsley Barrett , M.A., B.D., F.B.A., Professor
of Theology, Durham University.
Simply put:
"The origin of this Gospelis veiled in obscurity. Towards the end of
the 2nd century a tradition became strongly established that it had
been written by John the son of Zebedee (who wasunderstood to be
referred to in the Gospel itself as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved')
not far from AD 100 (John was believed to have survived till the
principate of Trajan). This tradition cannot however be traced early
in the 2nd century. It finds confirmation in some features of the
Gospel itself, but is contradicted by others, and the position is
complicated by both the similarities and the differences bewteen John
and the Synoptic Gospels."
An oft-cited personage recounting the authenticity of this Gospel by
the disciple John is Polycarp. However, the evidence shows otherwise.
The Professor notes the history of the tradition by quoting the work
of Irenaeus. However, he says:
"The earlier evidence is however much less satisfactory. Polycarp
himself in his extant epistle makes no claim to personal contact with
theapostle, and does not refer to the Gospel (though he does quote 1
John). Iraneus's statement about Papias, which is similar to that
about Polycarp, is almost certainly incorrect. Ignatius of Antioch,
writing c. AD 112 to the Church at Ephesus, makesno allusion to John,
though emphasizes Paul'scontacts with Ephesus. Infact there is no
early evidence to connect Johnwith Ephesus or with the writing of a
Gospel."
Speaking on the relationship of this Gospel with that of the
Synoptics, the Professor writes:
"On account of these parallels it is today very generally agreed that
John was familiar with the synoptic tradition – that is, the
traditional material out of which theSynoptic Gospels were composed.
Whether he knew any of the Gospels themselves is disputed. Astrong
case can be made for his having known Mk,a fairly strong case for
hisknowledge of Luke. On any view of this question,however, one is
bound toask whether an apostle, equipped with such unrivalled
first-hand knowledge as John the son of Zebedee must have possessed,
would have a) found it necessary to consult and use other authorities,
and b) come into conflict with the good and the early tradition of Mk
on such an issue as the date of the crucifixion. No simple answer to
the question of authorship is possible."