THE BIBLICAL TEXT

3 THE BIBLICAL TEXT ARE THEY REVEALED?

THE ARGUMENTS

We intend to show in this chapter that the Judaeo-Christian claim that the Bible, - both Old and New Testaments, was revealed to and written down by men inspired by God, is false and ungrounded. There are numerous arguments to prove this but we will confine ourselves in the following pages to seventeen

of them which, in our opinion, are more than sufficient to prove our claim.

3 DISTORTIONS

A large number of clear contradictions are to be found in the books of the Bible. The Christian scholars and commentators have always been at a loss to find any way of explaining them. For some of the textual differences they have had to admit that one of the texts is correct and the other false, due either to deliberate distortion on the part of later theologians or to mistakes of the copiers. For some contradictory texts they have put forward absurd explanations that would never be accepted by a sensible reader. These have already been

discussed. The Biblical books are full of errors and we have pointed out more than one hundred of them already. It is self-evident that a revealed text must be free from

errors and contradictions. There are also many cases of distortion and human manipulation in the texts of these books. The alterations and changes which have been deliberately or unknowingly made have even been admitted by Christian theologians. Texts which have been definitely changed or distorted cannot be accepted as revealed or inspired even by the Christians. We intend to present a hundred examples of

such distortions in the Bible later in this book. As we mentioned previously, certain books or part of books are accepted by the Catholics as being the revelations of their Prophets while the Protestants have proved that these books were not divinely inspired. These books are: the Book of Baruch, the Book of Tobit, the Book of Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Maccabees I and II, chapters eleven to sixteen of the Book of Esther, and ten verses from chapter ten of the same book, and the song

of the three children from chapter three of the Book of Daniel. These books are considered by the Catholics to be an integral part of the Old Testament, whereas the Protestants have rejected them and do not include them in the Old Testament. We, therefore, leave them out of our discussion. Any readers particularly curious about these books should refer to the books of the

Protestant scholars. The Jews do not accept these books as genuine either. Similarly, the third Book of Ezra is considered part of the Old Testament according to the Greek Church, while both the Catholics and the Protestants have proved conclusively that this book is not genuine. The revealed status of the Book of Judges is also in question for those who claim it to be written by Phineas or Hezekiah, and the same applies to the Book of Ruth, according to those who perceive it as being written by Hezekiah. Nor, according to the majority of writers, is the Book of Nehemiah divinely inspired, especially the

first twenty-six verses of chapter twelve. The Book of Job was also not considered revelation by Maimomides, Michel, Semler, Stock, Theodore and Luther, the founder of the Protestant faith. The same opinion is held by those who attribute this book to Elihu or to someone unknown. Chapters thirty and thirty-one of the Book of Proverbs are 3 not divinely inspired. According to the Talmud, Ecclesiastes is not an inspired

book. The same applies to the Song of Solomon according to Theodore, Simon, Leclerc, Whiston, Sewler, and Castellio. Twenty-seven chapters of the Book of Isaiah are also not revelation according to the learned scholar Lefevre d’Etapes of Germany. The Gospel of Matthew, according to the majority of ancient scholars and almost all later scholars who consider it to have been originally written in the Hebrew language and that the present Gospel is merely a translation of the original which has been lost, is not, and cannot be, divinely

inspired. As for the Gospel of John, the scholars, Bretschneider and Lefevre d’Etapes have refused to accept it as genuine. The last chapter was certainly rejected by

the scholar Grotius as being neither genuine nor inspired. Similarly all the Epistles of John are not accepted as prophetic by Bretschneider and the Alogi School. The Second Epistle of Peter, the Epistle of Jude, the Epistle of James, the First and Second Epistles of John and the Book

of Revelations are not considered as genuine by most of the scholars.

THE ADMISSIONS OF CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS

Home says on page 131 of Vol. I of his commentaries printed in 1822:

If we accept that some books of the Prophets have been lost and have disappeared, we shall have to believe that those books were never written with the help of inspiration. St. Augustine proved this fact with very strong arguments saying that he had found many things mentioned in the books of the kings of Judea and Israel, but could not find any description of the things in these books. For their explanations, they have referred to the books of other Prophets, and in some instances they have also mentioned the names of the Prophets. These books have not been included in the canon acknowledged by the church, which has not assigned any reason for their exclusion, except to say that the Prophets, to whom significant religious instructions are revealed, have two kinds of writings. Writings without inspiration, which are similar to the writings of honest historians, and writings guided by inspiration. The first kinds of writings are attributed to the Prophets themselves, while the others are ascribed directly to God. The first kinds of writings are meant to add to our knowledge while the others are

the source of the law and religious instructions.

3 Further on page 133 of Vol. I, discussing the cause of the disappearance of the Book of Wars of the Lord, mentioned in the Book of Numbers 1 (21:14), he

said:

The book which has disappeared was, according to the great scholar Dr. Lightfoot’s findings, the one that was written for the guidance of Joshua under the command of the Lord after the defeat of the Amalekites. It seems that the book in question contained some accounts of the victory of this war as well as strategic instructions for the future war. This was not an inspired

book nor was it a part of the Canonical books.

Then in the supplement of his first volume he said:

When it is said that the Holy books were revealed by God, it does not necessarily signify that every word and the whole text was revealed. The difference of idiom and expression of the authors show that they were allowed to write according to their own temperament and understanding. The knowledge of inspiration was used by them similar to the use of the current sciences. It cannot be imagined that every word they said or every doctrine

they passed was revealed to them by God.

Further he said that it was confirmed that the writers of the books of the Old

Testament were ”sometimes inspired”. The compilers of Henry and Scott’s Commentary, in the last volume of their book, quote. From the Alexander Canon, that is, from the principles of faith laid

down by Alexander:

It is not necessary that everything said by a Prophet should be an inspiration or a part of the Canon. Because Solomon wrote some books through inspiration it does not mean that everything he wrote was inspired by God. It should be known that the Prophets and the disciples of Jesus were

sometimes inspired for important instructions.

Alexander’s Canon is held as a book worthy of great respect and trust in the eyes of the Protestants. Warn, a great scholar of the Protestants, has used arguments from this book in his discursive examination of the authenticity of

the Bible.

1 There is a description given in the Book of Numbers with the reference to the Book of Wars of the Lords. Only some sentences from the book have been given, the rest of the book ha*s* been lost 3 THE OPINION OF ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA

The author’s entry “Inspiration” 2 in the Encyclopaedia Britannica3 has this

statement on page 274 vol. 11

It has always been a matter of controversy whether everything which is written in the sacred books is inspired or not. Similarly all accounts of the events described in them are not inspired by God according to Jerome,

Grotius, Papias and many other scholars.

Further in vol. 19 on page 20 it says:

Those who claim that everything of the Gospels is inspired by God

cannot prove their claim easily.

It also says:

If ever we are asked which part of the Old Testament is held by us as inspiration of God, we would answer that the doctrines and the predictions for future events which are the foundation of Christian faith cannot be other than inspiration. As for other descriptions, the memory of the apostles is

enough for them.

THE REES ENCYCLOPEDIA

In volume nineteen of the Rees Encyclopedia, the author says that the authenticity and divinity of the Holy books has been debated because there are many contradictions and inconsistencies found in the statements of the authors of these books. For example, when the texts of Matthew 10:19,20 and Mark 11:13 are compared with Acts 23:1-6, 4 the contradictory nature of these books

becomes all the more serious. It is also said that the disciples of Jesus themselves did not know one another to be receiving inspiration from God, as is evident from their debates in the council of Jerusalem and from Paul’s blaming of Peter. Moreover it is clear that the ancient Christians did not consider them innocent and free form faults, since

2 We did not find this sentence in the present. edition of Britannica, however, we have found the admission that every word of these books is not inspired on page 23 vol. 12 under the entry ”Inspiration” 3 All the references in the Encyclopaedia Britannica have been taken from the old 18th century edition. The present edition docs not have been them at the places referred to. We have therefore translated them from Urdu in our own words. This however, does not make difference as this admission can be found in many places in the Britannica. (Raazi) 4 This difference of the texts has been discussed by us, under the errors Nos: 98-100.

3 they sometimes made them subject to their criticism. This is obvious from Acts

11:2,3 5 and also Acts 21:20-24. It has also been mentioned that Paul, who considered himself not less than the disciples of Jesus (see 2 Corinthians 11:5 and 12:11), nevertheless mentioned himself in such a manner as to show that he did not feel himself

constantly to be a man of inspiration 6 the author also said:

We are not given a feeling by the disciples of Jesus as speaking on behalf

of God every time they spoke.

He has said that:

Michaelis thoroughly examined the arguments of both the groups, which was necessary for a matter of such importance, and decided that the presence of inspiration in the Holy Book is certainly of great use, but even if we dispense with the presence of inspiration in the Gospels and the Acts, which are books of an historical nature, we lose nothing and they still remain as useful to us as before. It does not damage anything if we accept that the historical descriptions of the evangelists in the gospels, are similar to the descriptions of the historians, since, as was observed by Christ, “And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.” John

15:27. It is therefore unnecessary to prove the truth of these books to a non- Christian, on the basis of his acceptance of the truth of some of the evangelic descriptions. On the contrary you should put forward arguments in favour of such miracles as the death and resurrection of Christ as related in the writings of the evangelists, always bearing in mind that they are historians. For anyone who wishes to examine the foundation and origin of his faith, it is necessary to consider the statements of the evangelist about those particular matters as similar to the statements of other historians. Because it would be physically impossible to prove the truth of the events described by them, it is necessary that we accept their descriptions in the manner we accept the descriptions of other historians. This line of approach would save Christianity from all dangers. We do not find it mentioned anywhere that the general events experienced by the apostles, and perceived by Luke through

his investigations, were inspired.

If however we are allowed to admit that some evangelists made mistakes and that they were later corrected by John, this would he greatly advantageous and facilitate conformity in the Bible. Mr. Cuddle also

5 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, didst eat with them. (Acts 11:2,3) 6 I Corinthians 7:10,12.15,40. And also 2 Cor. 11:17 3 favoured the opinion of Michaelis in section 2 of his book. As far as the books written by the pupils of the apostles are concerned, like the Gospels of Mark and Luke and the Book of Acts. Michaelis has not given his decision

as to whether they were inspired or not.

WATSON’S ADMISSION

Watson, in volume four of his book on Revelations, which was based on the commentary of Dr. Benson, remarks that the fact that Luke’s writing is not

inspired is evident from the dedication of his Gospel to Theophilus:

For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those

things, wherein thou hast been instructed 7

Watson says about this:

The ancient writers of Christian theology have also given a similar opinion. Irenaeus said that Luke conveyed to us the things which he learnt from the apostles. Jerome said that Luke does not depend only on Paul, who was never in the physical company of Christ. Luke also acquired the

knowledge of the Evangel from other apostles as well.

He further elucidates:

The apostles, when they used to speak or write anything concerning the faith, were protected with the treasure of inspiration that they had. Being, however, human beings, and men of reason and inspiration, they were just

like other people when describing common events.

This made it possible for Paul to write in his first epistle to Timothy, without

inspiration:

Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and

thine often infirmities 8.

7 Luke 1:1-4 8¹ 3 and further:

The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with

thee, and the books, but especially the parchments 9

And that he could write to Philemon, “But withal prepare me also a lodging.” (v.22) And as he wrote to Timothy, “Erastus abode at Corinth; but

Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick 10” However there are other occasions when it is clear that Paul speaks by

inspiration, as in his first letter to the Corinthians:

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let the wife

depart from her husband. 11

But in verse twelve of the same epistle he says:

But to the rest speak I, not the Lord.

Then in verse twenty-five he says:

Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give

my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

The book of Acts contains this statement:

Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia. After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered

them not.

From the above we are given to understand that the apostles’ work was based on two things: reason and inspiration. They used the first to speak of general events, while through the other they gave religious instructions related to the Christian faith. This is why the apostles, like other human beings, committed mistakes in their domestic affairs and in their intentions. This is quite

evident from Acts 23:3; Rom. 15:24,28; I Cor. 16:5,6,8 and 2-Cor. 11:15-18. The nineteenth volume of the Rees Encyclopedia contains this description

under the entry ”Dr. Benson”:

9²

³ 3 Whatever he has written in connection with inspiration seems to be clear

and logical and, indeed, unique in its application.

BEAUSOBRE AND LENFANT’S OPINION

Beausobre and Lenfant said the following about this matter:

The Holy Ghost, with whose help and teaching the evangelists and the apostles wrote, did not prescribe any particular language for them, but conveyed the meanings to their hearts through intuition and protected them from being involved in errors. They were allowed to preach or write the word of inspiration in their own language using their own expressions. As we find differences of expression and idiom in the writings of the ancient writers, which are mainly dependent on the temperaments and capabilities of the writers concerned, so an expert of the original language will easily recognise the differences of idiom and expression in the gospels of Matthew,

Luke, and John and the epistles of Paul.

If, however, the Holy Ghost had truly inspired the words to them, this would have not happened. The style and expression of all the gospels would have been identical. Besides, there have been many events the description of which does not require inspiration. For example, they write of many events which they saw with their own eyes or heard from reliable observers. Luke says that when he intended to write his gospel he wrote the descriptions according to eye witnesses of the events described. Having this knowledge in his mind, he thought that it was a treasure which should be conveyed to future generations. An author who received his account through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost usually expressed this fact by saying something to the effect that everything he had written was according to inspiration he had received from the Holy Ghost. Though the faith of Paul is of an unusual kind, it is still strange that

Luke does not seem to have any witnesses except Paul and his companions. We have produced above the testimony of two of the great scholars of Christianity, who are very much esteemed and celebrated in the Christian world.

Home and Watson have also the same opinion of them.

THE VIEW OF CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS ON PENTATEUCH

Horne said on page seven hundred and ninety-eight of volume two of his

great work:

3 Eichhorn, one of the German scholars, denied that Moses received

inspiration.

And on page eight hundred and eighteen:

Scholz, Noth, Rosenmuller and Dr. Geddes are of the opinion that Moses did not receive inspiration, and that all the five books of the Pentateuch were simply a collection of verbal traditions current in that period. This concept is

making its way rapidly among the German scholars.

He also said:

Eusebius and several latter theologians have pronounced that the book of Genesis was written by Moses, in Midian, when he was pasturing the goats

of his father in law.

We may be allowed to remark that, in this case, this book cannot be an inspiration because, according to Eusebius, this was before Moses was entrusted with prophethood. Therefore the book of Genesis also must be a collection of current local verbal traditions. If the writings of the Prophets, written by them as Prophets, were not books of inspiration, a fact admitted by Home and other scholars, how then could a book written by Moses long before his prophethood

be a revealed book? The Catholic, Ward, has on page thirty-eight of the 1841 edition:

Luther said in vol. 3 of his book on pages 40 and 41 that: “Neither do we hear Moses, nor do we turn to him, for he was only for the Jews; we have

nothing to do with him.” In another book he said: ’We believe neither in Moses nor in the Torah, because he was an enemy of Jesus, and said that he was the master of executioners, and said that the Christians have nothing to do with the ten

commandments.’ Again he said that he would discard the Ten Commandments from the books so that heresy was abolished forever, because these are the root of all

heretical ideas. One of his pupils, Aslibius, has said that no one knew the Ten Commandments in the churches. The Christian sect called the Antinomians was initiated by a person who believed that the Pentateuch did not have any such qualities as to be considered the word of God. It was their belief that any one committing sins like adultery and other evil deeds deserved salvation and would be in eternal happiness if only he had faith in Christianity. Those who turned to the Ten Commandments were influenced

by Satan, and they were the ones who crucified Jesus.

3 These remarks of the founder of the Protestant faith and his pupil are certainly of great importance. They mean that all Protestants must be disbelievers in Moses and the Pentateuch, since, according to them, Moses was the enemy of Jesus, the master of the executioners, and the Pentateuch was not the word of God. Having nothing to do with the Ten Commandments, they must turn to paganism and multitheism. They should also disregard their parents, trouble their neighbours, commit theft, murder and perjury because, otherwise, they would be acting according to the ten commandments which ” are the root

of all heretical ideas”. Some Christians belonging to this sect have said to us that they did not believe in Moses as a Prophet but only as a man of wisdom and a great legislator, while some others said to us that Moses, God forbid, was a thief and a robber. We asked them to fear God, they answered that they were right in

saying this as it had been said by Jesus himself:

All that ever came before me are thieves and robber: but the sheep did not

hear them.12

Now we can see why the founder of the Protestant faith, Luther, and his

pupil reproached Moses; they must have been guided by the above statement.

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES AND THE BOOK OF

REVELATION

Luther said regarding the epistle of James:

This is the word not suitable to be included in the books, as the disciple James said in chapter five of his epistle, ” Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him

with oil in the name of the Lord 13.

Luther, raising objection on the above statement, said in volume Two of his

book:

If this is what James has said, I answer him that no disciple has the right to define and issue religious injunctions on his own account, because it was

only Jesus who possessed that status.

12 John 10:8. 13 James 5:14 3 It is clear from the above that the epistle of James is not, according to Luther, inspired, and that injunctions given by the disciples are not supported by

inspiration, otherwise the above statement would be absurd and meaningless.

Ward stated in his book printed in 1841:

Pomran, an eminent scholar of the Protestants and a pupil of Luther, says that James has written false and absurd events at the end of his letter. He has copied from other books events which cannot be associated with the Holy

Ghost. Such a book therefore must not be considered as inspired.

Vitus Theodore, a Protestant preacher in Nuremberg, said that they had intentionally given up the Book of Revelation and the Epistle of James. He said that the Epistle of James is not to be censured where he has stressed the necessity of good deeds along with faith, but that this latter contains contradictions. The Magdeburg Centuries said that the Epistle of James, at one place, is unique among all the accounts of the disciples because he says that salvation does not depend on faith alone but that it also requires good deeds. He

also says that the Torah was the Law of Freedom. It is clear from the above that these elders, like Luther, do not believe in the

Epistle of James being inspired by the Holy Ghost.

THE ADMISSION OF CLEMENT

Clement said:

Matthew and Mark are different from each other in their writings, but

when they agree on a certain point they are preferred to Luke’s account.

We may be allowed to say that the above statement allows us to deduce two important points. Firstly that Mathew and Mark themselves differ in many places in their accounts of the same event and whenever they agree in their statement their accounts are preferable to Luke. None of them ever agree word for word about any event. Secondly that all three gospels are proved to have been written without inspiration because the preference of the first two gospels

over the third would be out of the question had they been inspired. Paley, an eminent Protestant scholar, wrote a book concerning the truth of the four gospels. It was printed in 1850. He writes on page 323 of his book to

this effect:

The second thing that has been falsely attributed to the ancient Christians is that they firmly believed in the coming of the Day of Judgment in their own time. I will present an example before any objection to this is raised.

3 Jesus said to Peter, ”If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” This statement has been taken to mean that John would not die until the Day of Judgment, and this false concept spread among the common people. Now if this report was conveyed to us after it had become a public opinion and the cause which initiated the mistake is not known, and someone comes forward to present it as an argument against the Christian faith this would be

absolutely unfair, in view of the facts that we posses. Those who say that the gospels lead us to believe that the early Christians truly expected that the Last Day would come about in their own time should keep this explanation in mind, and it will save them from the blame of deceiving people. Now there comes another question that if, for a moment, we accept the possibility of errors and omissions on the part of the disciples, how then can they be trusted about anything they say? As a reply to this question it would be enough for the supporters of Christianity to say to the disbelievers that what we seek from the disciples is their witness not their personal opinion. The object, in fact, is to achieve the result which, as a

consequence of this, is safe. But in answering this, we must keep two points in mind; to eliminate all the dangers. First, the object intended by the mission of all the disciples should be defined. They helped prove the point which was either strange or mixed with truth. They are not required to say anything about what is obviously not related to the faith, but they would be required to say something to remove ambiguity about something in the text of the divine books which has accidentally got mixed up with the truth. Another example of this is the belief in the possession by devils. In the case of those who hold that this false opinion had become common in their time and also influenced the evangelists and the early Christians, it must be accepted that this opinion does not in anyway damage the truth of the Christian faith, because this is not the matter Jesus was sent for. But something which, having become a public opinion in that country, somehow got mixed with the statement of

Jesus. It is certainly not a part of their message to rectify their false belief in the spirits, nor has it anything to do with their witness Secondly their message should be separated and distinguished from what they present to support and elucidate that which is inspired. For instance, something in what they say might be inspired, but in addition to that they present personal explanations to strengthen their message. For example, the principle that anyone other than a Jew accepting the Christian faith would not be bound to follow the

Law of Moses, in spite of its truth having been proved through miracles Paul, for example, when speaking of this principle, has mentioned many things in support of it. Therefore the principle in itself is acknowledged by us, but it is not necessary for us to support all their explanatory remarks in order to prove the truth of the Christian faith. This method may be applied to 3 other principles of a similar nature. I am absolutely sure of the truth that any instruction agreed upon by the pious men of God will always be followed as a religious obligation. It is, however, not necessary for us to explain or to accept all those details, unless they have, of course, specified those premise.

The above passage allows us to advance the following four points:

1. We have already proved through sufficient arguments and sports, under the heading of Errors no. 64-78, that all the disciples Jesus and other Christians of that time had firm belief in the coming of the Day of Judgment in their own

time and that John would not until the Day of Judgment. We have reproduced their unambiguous and definite statements to this effect. Barnes, making his comments on chapter twenty-one of the Gospel of

John, said the words which we reproduce below from the Urdu translation:

The misconception that John would not die was created by the words of Jesus which can be easily misunderstood. The idea became even stronger

with the fact that John survived until after the death of the other disciples.

The compilers of Henry and Scott remark:

Most probably the purpose of Jesus by this statement was to annoy the Jews, but the disciples misunderstood it to signify that John would live up to

the Last Day or that he would be raised to heaven alive.

Further they say:

Here we must keep in mind that a report of a certain man may come without proper confirmation. It would, therefore be a folly to base our faith on such reports. This statement, in spite of being a report of the disciples and having become common and established among people, turned out to be untrue. How then could reports which were not even written down and recorded demand our belief. These are our own comments and not a

statement made by Jesus.

Further they say in their marginal notes:

The disciples misunderstood the words of Jesus, as the evangelist 14 has elucidated, because they had firm belief that the coming of the Lord would

be for establishing Justice.

3 In view of the above statements, there remains no doubt that the disciples misunderstood it. Now, when they had such beliefs regarding the Day of Judgment and John not dying until the Day of Judgment, their statement with regard to the occurrence would naturally be taken literally which proves them to have been wrong and to find new explanations for them is of no avail. That would involve an effort to give the words a meaning which was not intended by their speakers. Having been proved to have been other than the truth they

obviously cannot be taken as inspirations.

2. It is clear from the above description of Paley that the scholars have admitted the fact that the matters which are not directly related to the faith, or have been somehow mixed with the principles of faith, do not damage the

Christian faith in any way if they are proved erroneous.

3. They have also admitted that the presence of errors and mistakes in the

arguments of the disciples is not damaging to the Christian faith.

4. They have accepted that the existence of evil spirits and their influence on human beings is not a reality and that belief in them was a product of human imagination and superstition; and that they had found their way in through the statements of the evangelists, and even through Jesus, because they had become

a part of common tradition of that period.

Keeping these four conclusions in mind, we must be allowed to claim that more than fifty percent of the gospels are thus precluded from having been the result of inspiration. According to this opinion, only the descriptions directly

related to faith or those defining the rituals can be considered as inspired. However this opinion does not carry any weight because it happens to be against the opinion of Luther, the founder of the Protestant church, who explicitly declared that none of the apostles had any right to issue or define any religious principle on his own account, because only Jesus had the right to issue religious doctrines. The unavoidable conclusion is that the remaining part of the gospels, consisting of the descriptions from the disciples directly related to faith,

is likewise deprived of its Divine character.

ADMISSIONS OF PROTESTANT SCHOLARS

Ward reproduced a number of statements from the great scholars of the Protestant faith. We reproduce below nine of them from his book prenticed in

1841.

3 (1) Zwingli, a Protestant bibliographer, said that all the events described in Paul’s letters cannot be considered sacred, as some events described in

these epistles are incorrect.

(2) Mr. Fulk accused Peter of making false statements and declared him to be

ignorant of the Evangel.

(3) Dr. Goad, during a polemic with Father Campion, said that Peter was

wrong in his belief about the descent of the Holy Spirit on Jesus.

(4) Brentius, called a learned leader and master by Jewel, said that Peter the chief disciple and Barnabas made erroneous statements after the descent

of the Holy Spirit.

(5) John Calvin remarked that Peter spread heresy in the church and put the independence of Christianity in danger and the Christian grace was led a

stray by him.

(6) The Magdeburg Centuries accuses the disciples, and especially Paul, of

making false statements.

(7) Whittaker said that the people and dignitaries of the church, and even the disciples of Jesus, made great mistakes in preaching the Christian faith to the gentiles, and that Peter made mistakes in rituals, and that these

mistakes were committed by them after the descent of the Holy Spirit.

(8) Zanchius gave an account of some followers of Calvin in his book. He reported that some of them said that if Paul ever came to Geneva to preach against Calvin, they would listen to Calvin and leave Paul alone.

(9) Lewathrus, a staunch follower of Luther, giving a description of some great scholars has quoted their statements to the effect that it was possible for them to doubt a statement of Paul, but there was no room for any doubt about the statements made by Luther. Similarly it was not possible for them to allow of any doubt in the book of the church of Augsburg

concerning the principles of faith.

The above statements are from the great scholars of the Protestant faith. They have declared that none of the books of the New Testament were inspired and genuine. They have also admitted that the disciples were erratic in what

they wrote.

3 ADMISSIONS OF GERMAN SCHOLARS

The learned scholar Norton wrote a book on the truth of the Bible, which

was printed in Boston in 1837, He said in his preface to the book:

Eichhorn observed in his book that, in the first days of the Christianity, there was a short book consisting of various accounts of Jesus’ life. It is quite possible to say that this was the original Evangel. Most probably this was written for those followers who could not listen to the sayings of Jesus and could not see him with their own eyes. This Evangel was a model. The

accounts of Jesus written there were not in chronological order.

It must be noted that this script was different from the present gospels in many respects. The present gospels are by no means the model represented by the one discussed above. The present gospels were written under very difficult circumstances and contain some accounts of Jesus which were not present in the original script. There is evidence to suggest that this original script was the main source of all the gospels which appeared in the first two centuries after the death of Jesus. It also served as the basis for the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke which later on became more popular than the others. Though these three gospels also contained additions and omissions, they were later on supplemented with the missing events by other people to make them complete. The other gospels, which contained various accounts of Jesus occurring after his prophethood, such as the Gospel of Marcion and the Gospel of Tatian were abandoned. They also added many other accounts, accounts of Jesus’ birth and also accounts of his youth and reaching maturity and other things. This fact is evident from the gospel called the Memoirs from which Justin quoted in his book. The same is

understood from the gospel of Corinth. The portions of these gospels which are still available, if compared with each other, clearly show that the addition of these accounts has been quite gradual, for example, the heavenly voice which was heard originally spoke in these

words:

Thou art my son, I have begotten thee this day.

As has been quoted by Justinian in two places, Clement also reproduced this

sentence from a Gospel of unknown identity in these words:

Thou art my beloved son, I have begotten thee this day.

The present gospels, however, have this sentence in these words:

3 Thou art my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased. 15

The Ebonite Gospel combined the two statements together thus:

Thou art my beloved son, I am pleased unto thee, thou art begotten this

day

This was stated by Epiphanius. Christian history, through gradual additions and innumerable manipulations, has totally lost its original form and is now a mixture of unidentifiable ingredients. Any one curious enough can easily satisfy his curiosity by reading an account of Jesus’ baptism that has been collected together from several

gospels. This gradual mixture of contra-factual events with original scripture has so terribly deformed the authenticity of the gospels that they no longer retain their original divine character. The more they were translated from one language to

another, the more they lost their original shape and form. Releasing this situation, the Church came to their aid towards the end of the second century or at the beginning of the third century AD and tried to save the true and the original Evangel and to convey, as far as possible, the truth to the future generations. They therefore selected the four present gospels out of many gospels that were current in that period, because these four scripts seemed more

comprehensible than any of the others. There is no sign of the existence of the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke before the end of the second century or the beginning of the third century AD, The first man to speak of these gospels in history was Irenaeus in 200 AD who

also advanced some arguments concerning the number of the gospels. Then in 216 AD Clement of Alexandria made a painstaking effort to prove that these four gospels were inspired and, therefore, should be acknowledged as the source of Christian faith. The result of this is that, towards the end of the second century and the beginning of third, the Church made serious efforts to get these four gospels acknowledged, in spite of the fact that they did not deserve acknowledgement since they are clearly not genuine in all respects. The Church also tried hard to convince people to discard all other existing gospels. Had the Church devoted this serious effort to purifying the original script found by the early preachers, it would have been a great contribution towards the future generations. But perhaps it was not possible for the Church to do so since none of the existing gospels was free from additions and alterations, and there was no way of distinguishing the right from the wrong. Eichhorn further

said in the footnotes to his book:

15 Mark 1:11 3 Many early theologians had doubts about several parts of these gospels,

but they were not able to put forward any corrections to them.

He also said:

In our times, printing facilities have made it impossible for people to distort and manipulate the text of a certain book. Before the invention of printing the conditions differed from those of today. It was possible for the owner of a certain version to insert distortions and additions into the book, which then became the source for all subsequent copies, leaving no means for them to ascertain which parts of the book were from the author and which had been added or changed. Subsequently these corrupted copies

became common among the people.

You will find that many saints and theologians complained that the copiers and the owners of the copies of these hooks distorted the texts shortly after they were written. The script of Dionysius was distorted even before it was circulated. You also find that there were complaints of impurities being inserted into the books by the followers of Satan who were said to have excluded certain things and included certain others on their own account. In the view of these witnesses it is clear that the Holy Scriptures did not remain safe and intact. This in spite of the fact that it was quite difficult for the people of that period to distort the texts as the authors of that period used to issue heavy curses and make sworn oaths in order to discourage people from daring to make changes in

them. The same also happened with the history of Jesus, otherwise Celsius would have not felt it necessary to point out the changes and distortures that had been made by the Christians in their texts. That is how some sentences regarding certain accounts of Jesus, which were scattered in several gospels, came to be combined together in a single gospel. For example, the Ebionite Gospel gives a complete account of the baptism of Jesus which has been compiled from things found scattered in all of the first three gospels and in the memoirs from which,

according to Epiphanius,16 Justin quoted.

In another place Eichhorn said:

Manipulations in the sacred texts, in the form of additions and omissions and the replacement of a word by its synonym, by those who lacked the necessary scholastic aptitude, is historically traceable right from the time of the appearance of the gospels. This is not surprising since, from the beginning of the history of the Christianity, it has been a common habit of writers to make changes according to their own whims, particularly in the sermons of Jesus and the accounts of events in his life which were preserved

16 A pagan scholar of the second century AD 3 by them. This procedure, initiated in the first era of Christian history, continued to be followed by the people of later centuries. 1n the second century AD, this habitual distortion in the texts had become so commonly known to the people that even the opponents of the Christian faith were aware of it. Celsus, as noted above, raised objections against the Christians that, they had changed their texts more than three or four times, and these changes were not of a superficial nature but done in such a manner that the subjects and meanings of the gospels were altogether changed. Clement also pointed out that at the end of the second century AD there were some people who used to tamper with the texts of the gospels. He has specified that the sentence, ”For theirs is the kingdom of heaven” 17 was changed in some versions to, ”they shall be perfect.” Some others even made it read: ”They

shall attain a place where they shall see no trouble.”

Norton, having quoted the above statement by Eichhorn said:

No one thinks that Eichhorn is alone in this opinion, because no other book is as popular in Germany as the book of Eichhorn, and it is considered to be in accordance with the opinions of most of the modem writers with regard to the gospels, and the same applies to matters which cast doubt upon

the truth of the gospels.

Since Norton is known as an advocate of the gospels, having quoted the above statements of Eichhorn, he refutes them all in favour of the gospels, but, as will be evident to any reader of his hook, his arguments are not convincing. In spite of all this, he had to admit openly that the following seven portions of the New Testament are definitely not from those who are considered to be their

authors, and had been added later.

1. He says on page 53 of his book that the first two chapters of Matthew

were not written by him.

2. On page 63 he says that the event of Judas Iscariot 18 contained in Matt.

27:3-10 is certainly a false statement and was added later on.

3. Similarly he declared that verses 52 and 53 of chapter 27 of Matthew are

a later addition 19

17 Matt. 5:10 18 The event of his hanging himself after the arrest of Jesus and selling his land for thirty pieces of silver. 19 This refers to a description of raising the dead saints from the graves after the death of Jesus.

3 4. It appears on page 70 that verses 9-20 of chapter 16 of Mark are a later

invention 20

5. On page 89 he says that verses 43 and 44 of chapter 22 of Luke are a later

addition 21

6. On page 84 he points out that verses 3, and 4 of chapter 5 of the Gospel of John, are a later addition, That is from, “Waiting for the moving of the

water…” to, ”…was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.”

7. On page 88 he specifies that verses 24 and 25 of chapter 21 of the Gospel

of John are certainly later additions 22

Further on page 610 he says:

The miraculous events described by Luke have been mixed with traditional untruths and poetic exaggeration by the scribes. But it is very difficult in this age to separate the truth from falsifications. Any statement containing traditional untruths and poetic exaggeration is obviously very far

from being an inspiration.

We may be allowed to draw the following four conclusions from the above statement of Eichhorn which has also been favoured by other German scholars.

1. The original Evangel has become extinct from the world.

2. The present gospels are a mixture of true and false descriptions.

3. The text of these gospels has been distorted and changed by the people of different times. Celsus tried hard to inform the world that the Christians had changed their texts three or four times or more, to the extent that they

had actually changed the subject matter of these texts.

4. The present gospels did not show any signs of existence before the end of

the second century and the beginning of the third century AD.

20 These verses contain the description of the resurrection of Jesus which contains a number of errors. 21 This refers to the visit of Jesus to the Mount of Olives a night before his crucifixion. It reads, ”And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” (Luke 22;43 and 44) Home, however has confirmed the correctness of this verse and has opposed the opinion which advocates excluding it from the books. We have discussed this verse in detail later in the book. 22 These verses contain greatly exaggerated number of people and animals healed by Jesus.

3 Scholars such as Leclerc, Koppe, Michael, Lessing, Niemeyer and Manson agree with regard to our first conclusion, because they have all said that perhaps Matthew, Mark and Luke might have had the same copy in the Hebrew language of a document containing and account of the life of Christ. Matthew borrowed most of the contents of that script while Mark and Luke did not use as much of it as he did. Home also stated this in his commentary printed in 1822 AD 23 but he does not seem to agree with their option, which, however, does

not make any difference as far as our point of view is concerned.

VIEWS ON THE SUBJECT OF THE CHRONICLES

Almost all the Judaeo-Christian scholars are agreed on the point that both Books of Chronicles were written by the Prophet Ezra with the help of two other Prophets, Haggai and Zechariah. The above three Prophets are jointly supposed to be the author of this book. However, strangely enough, we know for a fact that the First Book of Chronicles contains many errors as has been admitted by the scholars of both the Christians and the Jews. They have said that through the folly of the author the name of the grandson was written instead

the name of the son. They have also said that Ezra, who wrote these books, did not even know which of them were sons and grandsons. The script from which Ezra copied was defective and incomplete and he could not distinguish the false from the true, as will be shown in the next chapter. This evidence is more than sufficient to reach the conclusion that these books were not written through inspiration. Their dependence on defective and incomplete documents is further proof. However the two books of the Chronicles are held to be as sacred as the other books of

the Bible both by the Christians and the Jews. This also confirms our suspicion that, according to the Christian faith, it is not necessary for the Prophets, as we have seen before, to be free from committing sins. Similarly, they are not necessarily free from errors in their writings, with the result that these books cannot be considered to be written

through inspiration. Whatever we have so far discussed in this chapter is enough to show that the Christians are not in a position to make a definite claim that any single book of

the Old or the New Testaments was written through inspiration.

23 Vol. 4. Page. 295 3 THE MUSLIM ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE GOSPELS

From all that has preceded it is quite clear that we can claim without the fear of being wrong that the original Pentateuch and the original Evangel have disappeared and become extinct from the world. The books we have today which go by these names are no more than historical accounts containing both true and false accounts of past ages. We strictly deny that the original Torah (Pentateuch) and the original Evangel existed at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace is on him) and that they were not changed until later. As far as the Epistles of Paul are concerned, even if we grant that they were really written by him, they are still not acceptable to us because it is our well-founded opinion that Paul was a traitor and a liar who introduced a completely new concept of Christianity, absolutely different from what Jesus himself preached

24 As far as the disciples of Jesus who were living after the Ascension of Jesus are concerned, they are held to be respectable and honest by the Muslims. They are not, however, considered to be Prophets (and therefore able to have received inspiration from God). They were ordinary human beings and not free from human errors. Their teachings and their statements have lost validity through the absence of authenticated historical verification: for instance, the absence of any sign of the existence of the present gospels until the end of the second century AD, the disappearance of the original Hebrew copy of Matthew’s gospel and the unavailability even of the same of the translator of the remaining translation, and the presence of accumulated errors and manipulations in the present text, As far as Mark and Luke are concerned, they were not disciples of Jesus, and there

is no indication that they ever received inspiration from God However we do solemnly believe that the Torah (Pentateuch) was the book

revealed to the Prophet Moses: The Holy Qur`an says 25

We gave Moses the Book (Torah)

And we also find in the Holy Qur’an in reference to Jesus son of Mary:

We gave him the Evangel 26

24 This opinion of the Muslim community should not be misunderstood as the product of prejudice and slander. He was considered a traitor even by the family of Jesus and his disciples. We reproduce below the opinion of a modern French scholar. Maurice Bucaille. He says on page 52 of his book The Bible, The Qur’an and Science:” Paul is the most controversial figure in Christianity, he was considered to be a traitor to Jesse’s thought by the family of Jesus and by the apostles who had: stayed in Jerusalem in the circle around James. Paul created Christianity at the expense of those whom Jesus had gathered around him to spread his teachings. He had not known Jesus during his lifetime and he proved the legitimacy of his mission; by declaring that Jesus, raised from the dead, had appeared to him on the road to Damascus.” (Wali Raazi) 25 Qur’an 2:89 3 And the nineteenth chapter of the Holy Qur’an, called ’Maryam’ after Mary the

mother of Jesus, quotes Jesus as saying:

He hath given me the book (the Evangel 27)

The present gospels, chronicles and epistles are certainly not the Evangel referred to by the Holy Qur`an and so they are not, as such, acceptable to the Muslims. The Islamic teaching regarding the Pentateuch, the other books of the Old Testament, and the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament is that any biblical statements which are confirmed by the Qur’anic Revelation will be accepted and respected by the Muslims and any statements rejected by the Qur’an will be rejected by the Muslims. Any statements about which the Holy Qur’an is silent, the Muslims too should remain silent about without rejecting or

accepting them. Allah the Almighty addressed His Prophet Muhammad (Peace be on Him) in

the Holy Qur’an in these words:

To thee we sent the Book (Qur’an) in truth confirming what came before

it of the Book, and assuring its safety.28

The famous commentary on the Holy Qur’an, Ma’alim-u-Tanzeel, contains

the following comments on this verse:

According to Ibn al-Jurayj, the last phrase of this verse, ‘assuring its safety’, signifies that any statement produced by the People of the Book (the followers of Christianity and Judaism) will be accepted, subject to its confirmation by The Holy Qur’an, otherwise that particular statement will be considered as false and unacceptable. Saeed ibn Musayyab and Zihaq said the word ”Muhaimin*”* in this verse signifies ”the one who judges”, while ‘Khalil’ gave its meaning as ”protector and guard”. These different shades of meanings, however, do not change the general implication that any book or statement confirmed by The Holy Qur`an should be considered as the word

of God; the rest are obviously excluded as not being the word of God.

What follows are the remarks on this matter from the commentary Tafseer-e-

Mazhari:

26 Qur’an 5:16 27 The complete verse is this: ”He said, I am in deed the servant of God, he hath given me the Book (the Evangel) and made me a Prophet.” (Wali Raazi) 28 Qur’an 5:51 3 If The Holy Qur’an bears witness to it, you are bound to confirm it and if it rejects or says it is false, it must be rejected by us. If The Holy Qur’an has been silent, you too have to be silent because, in that case, the possibility of

truth and falsehood will be equal.

Imam al-Bukhari cited a tradition of the Holy Prophet, reported by Ibn ’Abbas, in his Kitabu’sh-Shahadat along with its chain of authorities then the same hadith has been cited by him in Kitabu’l-I’tisam supported by a different chain of reporters, and the same hadith was again quoted by him in his book

Kitabur Radd ’ala Jahmiyyah, reported by a different group of narrators.

Why do you go to the People of the Book, the Jews and the Christians, to seek injunctions about the Shari’a while your Book, The Holy Qur’an, revealed to Muhammad, the prophet of Allah, is the latest and freshest revelation of God. You recite it in its original form. Allah Almighty has told you that the the Jews, have changed the Pentateuch, the Book of Allah, having written it with their own hands. They started saying that it was from Allah, only to get a small amount of money in return. Does not your

knowledge prevent you from asking them questions.

The other version of this hadith as cited by al-Bukhari in Kitab-ur- Radd’al

Jahmiyyah is as follows:

O Muslims! Why do you ask the People of the Book questions regarding anything when your own Book is the Word which God has revealed to your Prophet, Muhammad (Peace be on Him). It is new and fresh, pure and original, free from foreign touch. Allah has declared in His Book that the People of the Book have changed and distorted their Books. They have written them with their own hands and claimed that they come from God, (they did so) only for a small amount of money. Does the knowledge which has come to you not prevent you from seeking guidance from them? No, by God.’ we have not seen them asking you about what has been sent to you.

Why then do you ask them knowing that their books have been distorted.

Kitabu’l-I’tisam contains the following statement of the companion Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with Him) regarding Ka’b al-Ahbar (an

expert on the Bible and a scholar of Islam):

Although he was one of the most truthful of those scholars of hadith who sometimes report traditions from the People of the Book, we have

nevertheless found falsehood in them (in the reports of the Bible).

3 This implies that the falsehood found in those reports was due to the fact that those books had been distorted, not Ka’b al-Ahbar’s misstatement, because he is considered one of the righteous scholars of the Bible by the Companions of the Prophet. The phrase, “We have found falsehood in them,” clearly denotes that the Companions of the Prophet had the belief that all the Judaeo-Christian

books had been distorted. Every Muslim scholar who has examined the Torah and the Evangel has certainly refused to recognise the authenticity of these books. The author of the book Takhjeel Man Harrafaal Injeel said in chapter two of his book regarding

the present gospels:

These gospels are not the true and genuine Gospel which was sent

through the Prophet (Jesus) and revealed by God.

Later in the same chapter he said:

And the true Evangel is only the one which was spoken by the tongue of

Christ.

Again in chapter nine he stated:

Paul through his clever deception deprived all the Christians of their original faith, because he found their understanding so weak that he deluded them quite easily into believing anything he wished. By this means he totally

abolished the original Pentateuch.

One of the Indian Scholars has written his judgment about the thesis of the author of Meezan ul Haq and the speech made by me in the public debate held in Delhi. ’This judgment has been added as a supplement to a Persian book called Risalatu’l-Munazarah printed in 1270 AH in Delhi. He said that a certain Protestant scholar, either because of a misunderstanding or perhaps through misinformation, publicly claimed that the Muslims did not refute the present Torah and Evangel. This scholar himself went to the scholars of Delhi to find out whether this was true. He was told by the ‘Ulama’ (Muslim scholars) that the collection of books called the New Testament was not acceptable as it was not the same Evangel which had been revealed to the Prophet Jesus. He got this judgment of the ’Ulama’ in writing and then made it part of his book. All the Indian scholars of Islam have verified this judgment for the guidance of the

people.

3 THE OPINION OF MUSLIM SCHOLARS

THE OPINION OF IMAM AR-RAZI

Imam ar-Razi 29 said in his book ’Matlib ul-Aliya’ in the chapter on

Nubuwah (the prophethood) in the fourth section:

The effect of the original teaching of Jesus was very limited because he never preached the faith which the Christians ascribe to him. The idea of Father and son and the concept of trinity are the worst kind of atheism and association and are certainly the product of ignorance. Such heretical teachings cannot be ascribed to so great a Prophet as Jesus who was innocent of all such crimes. We are therefore certain that Jesus could have not preached this impure faith. He originally preached monotheism and not tritheism as the Christians claim. But this teaching of Jesus did not spread due to many historical factors. His message therefore remained very limited.

THE OPINION OF IMAM AL-QURTUBI

Imam al-Qurtubi said in his book Kitabul A’lam Bima Fi Deeni’n-, Nasara

Minal Fisadi Wal Awham:

The present gospels, which are called evangels, are not the same Evangel

which the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be on Him) alluded to in the words: And Allah revealed the Torah and the Evangel for the guidance of the

earlier people.’

Then al-Qurtubi put forward the argument that the disciples of Jesus were not Prophets, hence not protected from impurity, and the miraculous events ascribed to them have not been proved by an unbroken chain of reporters. There are only statements made by isolated reporters, we also do not find any indication that the copies of these gospels are free from serious manipulations. They are wrong. If, for a moment, we accept that these reports are true, they are still not an argument for proving the truth of all the wonders attributed to the disciples, nor do they help in proving the claim of prophethood for them, because they never made any claim to prophethood; on the contrary, they

solemnly confirmed that the Prophet Jesus was a preacher.

Al-Qurtubi also said:

29 Imam ar-Razi, a great authority on almost all the Islamic Sciences and author of many valuable books on Qur’an, hadith history and other sciences.

3 It is evident from the above discussion that the present gospels have not been authenticated by means of an unbroken chain of transmission, nor is there any indication that the copiers were protected from wrong action and therefore the possibility of error and fault from them cannot be overlooked. The presence of the above two factors deprives the gospels of their divine character, authenticity and hence their reliability. The proven presence of human manipulation within the text of these gospels is enough to prove their unacceptability. We quote, however, some examples from these books to

show the carelessness of their copiers and blunders made by them.

After producing several examples he said:

These examples are sufficient to prove that the present gospels and the Pentateuch cannot: be trusted and that neither of them is capable of providing divine guidance to man, because no historical chain of transmission can be adduced in favour of either in support of their

authenticity. We have already cited several examples to show that these books have been subject to great changes and distortions in their texts. The condition of other books of the Christian theologians can well be imagined in the light of the distorted texts of the Judaeo-Christian scriptures, books of such prime

importance to them.

This book of al-Qurtubi can be seen in the Topkapi Library in Istanbul.

THE OPINION OF IMAM AL-MAQRIZI

Al-Maqrizi was a great scholar of Islam in the eighth century AH. He said in

the first volume of his history:

The Jews think that the book which they have is true and original, free from all corruption. The Christians, on the other hand, claim that the Septuagint 30 version of the Bible which is with them is free from any possible distortion and change, while the Jews deny this and contradict their statement. The Samaritans consider their Pentateuch to be the only genuine version as compared to all others. There is nothing with them to eliminate

the doubts about this difference of opinion among them 31

30 The Septuagint is the oldest version of the Old Testament. The Septuagint is so-called because in the third century BC severity’ (more correctly seventy-two) translators were sent to Alexandria where they prepared this translation with their combined effort. Later on, the same translation was acknowledged by Greeks as their Bible. 31 Britannica page 868 vol. 14. Marcion 3 The same difference of opinion is found among the Christians regarding the Evangel. For the Christians have four versions of the Evangel which have been combined together in a single book, The first version is of

Matthew, the second of Mark, the third of Luke and the fourth of John. Each of them wrote his gospel according to his own preaching in his own area with the help of his memory. There are innumerable contradictions, incompatibilities and inconsistencies between their various accounts regarding the attributes of Jesus, his message, the time of his Crucifixion and

his genealogy. The contradictions are irresolvable. Alongside this the Marcionites and the Ebionites have their separate version of the Evangels, each being different from the present canonical gospels. The Manichaeans also claim to have an Evangel of their own totally different from the current accepted gospels. They claim that this is the only genuine Evangel precinct in the world and the rest are inauthentic. They have another evangel called the Evangel of AD 70 (Septuagint) which is ascribed to Ptolamaeus. The Christians in general do not recognize this gospel as

genuine. In the presence of the above multifarious differences to be found within the corpus of the Judaeo-Christian revelation, it is almost impossible for

them to sort out the truth.”

The author of Kashf az-Zunun said with regard to this matter that the Evangel was a book which was revealed to Jesus, the son of Mary, and, discussing the lack of authenticity and genuineness of the present gospels, he

said:

The Evangel which was in reality revealed to Jesus was a single book which was absolutely free from contradictions and inconsistencies.It is the Christians who have put the false blame on Allah and His Prophet (Jesus) by

ascribing the present gospel to them.

The author of Hidayatu’I-Hayara Fi Ajwibaru’l-Yahood wa’n- Nasara said

quite explicitly:

The present Torah (Pentateuch) owned by the Jews is much distorted and defective, a fact known to every biblical reader. The Biblical scholars, themselves, are certain and sure of the fact that the original Torah which was revealed to Moses was genuine and totally free from the present distortions and corruptions. There was no corruption present in the Evangel which was originally revealed to Christ and which could not have included the event of the crucifixion of Christ, or other events like his resurrection three days after his death. These are, in fact additions inserted by their elders and have

nothing whatever to do with divine Truth.[^4]

3 He further said:

Several Islamic scholars have laboriously pointed out hundreds of specific examples and passages showing contradictions, incompatibilities and differences in the so-called Canonical Gospels. It is only to avoid an unnecessary elongated discussion that we refrain from presenting more

examples.

The first two parts of this book should be more than enough to prove the

truth of this claim.

TWO CLAIMS TO THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPELS

Sometimes Protestant scholars try to misguide people with regard to the historicity of the Synoptic gospels. They put forward their claim that authentic proofs of the originality of the present gospels existed during the first and the second centuries AD, by reason of the fact that Clement and Ignatius testified to

their presence. The second claim advanced by them is that Mark wrote his gospel with the help of Peter while Luke wrote his gospel with the help of Paul. Since both Peter and Paul were men of inspiration, the above two gospels are also divinely

inspired books. It would seem to be our duty to examine the validity of these two misguiding claims, each one separately, in the light of available historical data and general

human logic.

ANSWER TO FIRST CLAIM

The main point of dispute regarding the originality of the present gospels is the lack of an uninterrupted continuity in transmission of the reporting authorities of any of the gospels. There is no evidence that any of the gospels have come down to us direct from Jesus through his disciples to the subsequent recipients so as to form a continuous chain of reliable reporters. To say it more simply, there should be a reliable record of a recognised disciple of Jesus bearing witness that whatever he has written was told to him by Jesus in the presence of one or more people of such and such names. Then the next reporter should bear witness to having received, heard or been told the same statement by that particular disciple of Jesus in the presence of such and such people. Then one or more of those present should have conveyed the same text to others by the same procedure so that the texts would have been conveyed to us with an 3 uninterrupted chain of reporters traceable directly back to Jesus himself (as is

the case with Qur’anic revelation). Now we say, and without any fear of being wrong, that the Christians do not possess any such succession of authorities from the authors of the gospels to the end of the second century or the beginning of the third century AD. We, ourselves, have dug into their books to find any trace of such proofs, and also sought guidance from renowned Christian scholars but could not get anywhere. The priest, French 32 during our public polemic with him, tried to explain this away by saying that we do not have any such authorities due to the historical calamities which befell the Christians during the first three centuries. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the priest Clement and Ignatius had no such

authority with them in their time. We do not necessarily refute the conjectures and suppositions by which they ascribe these writings to their authors. What we are trying to say is that these suppositions and conjectures cannot be accepted as an argument for the genuineness of the word of God. Neither do we deny the fact that the present gospels gained popularity towards the end of the second century or at the

beginning of the third century, with all their faults, errors, and contradictions. We must be allowed to bring to light some facts regarding Clement and

Ignatius to eliminate any misapprehensions.

THE SOURCE OF CLEMENT’S LETTER

Clement, the Patriarch of Rome, is said to have written a letter to the church of Corinth. There is a disagreement between the scholars regarding the exact year that this letter was written. Canterbury puts it between 64 and 70 AD. Leclerc claimed it to have been written in 69 AD, while Duchesne and Tillemont have said that Clement did not become Pope until 91 or 93 A.D. How Clement could have written letters to the church in 64 or 70 AD when he was not yet Pope is not explained. However, setting aside all the differences, the letter in question could have not been written later than 96 AD. Some sentences of this letter, however, happen to be identical to some of the sentences in one of the four gospels. This allowed the Christians to claim that Clement had copied those sentences from the gospel. This claim is liable to be rejected for the

following reasons: Firstly, it is not sufficient to copy only some sentences from a gospel. If this were the case the claim of those people would be true who are considered heretics 33 by the Protestants because they have claimed that all the moral teachings contained in the gospels have been borrowed from the pagans and

32 Our author had a famous public polemic with a priest named Fonder in India. French was appointed as an assistant to Fonder. The assistant of the author was Dr. Vazir Khan. (Taqi) 33 The Rationalists who strongly favour liberalism 3 other philosophers (because some of their ideas were identical to some of the

ideas of the gospels). The author of Aksihumo said:

The moral teachings of the Evangel, of which the Christians are very proud, have been copied word for word from the Book of Ethics of Confucius 34 who lived in the sixth century BC. For example he said under his moral no. 24: ”Behave towards other as you want to be behaved towards by others. You need only this moral because this is the root of all other morals. Do not wish for the death of your enemy because to do so would be absurd since his life is controlled by God.” Moral no. 53 goes: ”It is quite possible for us to overlook our enemy without revenging him. Our natural

thoughts are not always had.”

Similar good advice can be found in the books of Indian and Greek

philosophers. Secondly, if Clement really had copied it from the gospel, all its contents would have been identical to the gospel, but such is not the case. On the contrary, he differed from the gospel in many places, showing that he had not copied what he wrote from the gospels. Even if it were proved that he had copied from a gospel, it might have been from any of the many gospels which were current in his time, as Eichhorn admitted in respect of the sentence spoken

by a heavenly voice at the time of the descension of the Holy Spirit. Thirdly, Clement was one of the followers of the disciples and his knowledge about Christ was no way less than that of Mark and Luke, which allows us to believe, and logically so, that he might have written the letter from reports received by himself directly. If there were an indication anywhere in his writing that he had copied it from any of the gospels, our claim would certainly

have been out of place. We quote below three passages from his letter.

He who loves Jesus should follow his commandment.

Jones claimed that Clement copied this sentence from John 14:15 which

reads:

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

The apparent similarity between these two statements led Mr. Jones to suppose that Clement had copied it from John. However, he has chosen to

34 Confucius, the great moral philosopher of China born in 551 BC, who had strong influence on the religion and general character of the Chinese. The past Chinese ideology was thus called Confucianism.

3 overlook the clear textual difference between these two statements. The falsity of this claim has already been proved by our showing that the letter could not have been written after 96 AD, while, according to their own findings, the Gospel of John was written in 98 AD. It is nothing but a desperate effort to

provide some authenticity to the present gospels. Horne said on page 307, Vol. 4 of his commentaries printed 1824.

According to Chrysostom and Epiphanius, the early scholars and according to Dr. Mill, Fabricius, Leclerc and Bishop Tomline, John wrote

his gospel in 97 AD, while Mr. Jones situates this gospel in 98 AD.

However, a true lover always follows what his love commands; otherwise he would not be a lover in the true sense of the word. Lardner justly said in his

Commentaries printed 1827 on Page 40 of Vol., 2:

I understand that the copying of this letter from the gospel is doubtful, because Clement was fully aware of the fact that any claim to the love of Christ necessitated practical obedience to his commandments, because

Clement had been in the company of the disciples of Jesus.

THE SECOND PASSAGE OF CLEMENT’S LETTER

It appears in chapter thirteen of this letter:

We follow what is written, because the Holy Spirit has said that a wise man is never proud of his wisdom. And we should keep in mind the words of

Christ who said at the time of preaching patience and practice:

”Be ye merciful, that ye be shown mercy, forgive that ye he forgiven; ye will be acted upon, the same as you will act upon others, as you will give so shall you be given, you will be judged as you will judge upon others; as you will pity, so shall you be pitied upon and with the same

measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to You again.”

The Christians claim that this passage was taken by Clement from Luke

6:36-38 and Matt.7: 1,2,12. The passage from the Luke is this:

Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful. Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over, shall men give 3 into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be

measured to you mete.

The passage from Matthew 7:1,2 reads:

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you

again.

And in verse 12:

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do

ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

THE THIRD PASSAGE OF CLEMENT’S LETTER

Chapter forty-six of his letter contains this passage:

Remember the words of Lord Christ who said, Woe unto the man who has committed a sin. It would have been better for him if he had not been born, that he should harm those chosen by me. And whosoever shall offend my little ones, it will be better for him that a millstone were hanged about his

neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

The Christians have claimed that the above passage was copied from Matthew 26:24 and 18:6 and Mark 9:42 and Luke 17:2: reproduce these verses

below:

The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It had been good for that man if he had

not been born.

Matthew 18:6 contains the following lines:

But who so shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he

were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Mark 9:42 reads:

3 “And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were

cast into the sea.”

The text of Luke 17:2 is this:

It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he

cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

Having reproduced the passages from Clement and the above texts of the

gospels, Lardner said in his Commentaries printed 1827 vol. 2 page 37 that:

The above two passages of Clement are his longest passages and this is why Paley confined himself to them to support the claim of authenticity for the gospels. This claim does not, however, stand to reason because Clement would at least have made a reference to the gospels had he copied any passage from them and he would also have copied the rest of the related text or, if that was not possible, the text reproduced by him should have been totally consistent and similar to the text of the gospel. However none of these conditions are met. Such being the case, there is no possibility of its have

been copied from the gospel. It is surprising to see Luke being referred to as the teacher of Clement, imparting to him the knowledge which he must already have had, being the

companion of the disciples just as Luke was.

In volume 2 of his commentaries, Lardner remarked about the above two

passages:

When we study the writings of those who enjoyed the company of the apostles or of the other followers of our Lord who, like the evangelists, were fully conversant with the teachings of Christ, we find ourselves very much in doubt without the evidence of a clear reference. We are faced with the difficulty of ascertaining whether Clement copied written statements of Christ or whether he is simply reminding the Corinthians of the sayings which he and the Corinthians had heard from the Apostles and their followers. Leclerc preferred the former opinion while the Bishop of Paris

preferred the latter. If we accept that the three Gospels had been compiled prior to that time, in that case Clement could possibly have copied from them, though the word and expression may not exactly be identical. But that he actually has copied is not easy to confirm, because this man was fully acquainted with these matters even prior to the compilation of the Gospels. It is also possible that Clement would have described events already known to him without 3 referring to the Gospels even after their compilation out of his old habit. In both the cases, the faith in the truth of the Gospels is reaffirmed, obviously so in first case, and in the second case because his words correspond to the text of the Gospels, proving that the. Gospels were so widely known that the

Corinthians and Clement both had the knowledge of them. Through this we achieve the belief that the evangelists faithfully conveyed the words consisting of the true teachings of Christ. These words deserve the most careful preservation, though there we have a difficulty. I think that the most scholars will agree with the opinion of Leclerc, however,

as Paul advises us in Acts 20:35 with the words:

’And to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more

blessed to give than to receive.’

It is, I am sure, generally acknowledged that Paul did not copy the above statement from any letter but just quoted the words of the Christ which were in his knowledge and in the knowledge of others. This does not mean that it may be accepted as a general rule but this method can possibly be applied in letters. We know that Polycarp also used this method in his writings. We are quite sure

that he also copied from the written gospels. It is clear from the above statement that the Christians are not certain that Clement really copied from the canonical gospels, and any claim to this effect is

only based on conjecture. We do not agree with the conclusion of Lardner that in both cases the truth of the present gospels is proved because there can be no certainty in the presence of doubt. As the evangelists incompletely recorded the words of Christ in this particular instance, they might have done the same in other places too,

and they might have not recorded the exact words used. Moreover, if we overlook this point for a moment, it only proves that these particular sentences are the words of Christ, it does not in any way help us to believe that all the contents of the gospels are the genuine words of Christ. The knowledge of a certain statement cannot be an argument for the acceptance of other statements. If that were the case, all the rejected gospels would have to be accepted as genuine simply because some sentences of Clement bear some

similarity with them. We are also confident in our refutation of the claim that Polycarp also used the method of copying from the gospels in spite of his own knowledge, gained by being, like Clement, also a companion of the disciples of Jesus. Both of them are of equal status. His copying from the gospels cannot prove their genuineness. It is, on the other hand, possible that like Paul he might have

ascribed some statements to Christ 35

35 That is, he might have ascribed some statements to Christ as Paul did with the statement of Acts 20:35 which are not present in the gospels.

3 THE LETTERS OF IGNATIUS

Let us now find out the truth regarding the letters written by lgnatius, the

Bishop of Antioch. Lardner said in vol. 2 of his commentary;

Eusebius and Jerome both mentioned certain of his letters. Apart from these some other letters are also attributed to him, which are generally considered by most of the scholars to be false and concocted. My opinion is no different. There are two copies of his seven letters, the large and small. Except for Mr. Weston and a few of his followers, all the scholars have decided that additions have been made in the larger one, the smaller version,

however, can possibly be ascribed to him.

I have carefully made a comparative study of both the texts and my study revealed that the smaller version was turned into a larger one by the inclusion of many additions and insertions. It is not the case that the larger was turned into the smaller through the exclusion of some of the contents. The ancient writings, also, are more in accordance with the smaller version.

The question whether Ignatius really did write these letters remains to be settled. There is great dispute and disagreement on this point. The great scholars have made free use of their pens in expressing their opinions. The study of the writing of both the camps has made the question all the more complicated. However, in my opinion, this much is settled and decided; that these are the same letter which were present in the time of Origen and were read by Eusebius. Some of the sentences are not appropriate to the time of Ignatius. It is therefore better if we accept that these sentences are later additions instead of rejecting all the letters on the ground of these sentences, especially keeping in view the crisis of shortage of copies which we are

facing.

It is also possible that some of the followers of Arius 36 might have made additions to the smaller version just as they did to the larger Additions may also

have been made by others.

Paley writes in his footnotes:

“In the past, the translation of three letters of lgnatius were present in the Syrian language and were printed by William Cureton. It is almost certain

36 Arius was a great philosopher and theologian who had monotheistic views as against trinitianism. He had many followers. His views were rejected by the Council of Nicaea.

3 that the smaller letters, which were revised by Ussher, contained many

additions.”

The above writings of the Christian scholars bring out the following facts:

1. All the letters except these seven letters are definitely fabricated and forged according to the Christian scholars and are therefore unacceptable.

2. The larger version of the letters is similarly not genuine in the opinion of

all the scholars except Mr. Weston and a few of his followers.

3. As far as the smaller collection is concerned, there is great dispute and difference of opinion among great scholars with regards to its authenticity. Both the groups of scholars have their own arguments against or in favour of its authenticity. The group of scholars who have favored it also admit its having been subjected to later modifications their by Arius or by others, with the result that this collection also appears to

be equally of doubtful authenticity.

It seems most probable that this collection of letters was also put together in the third century AD similarly to the other letters. This should not present too much of a surprise, in view of the general practice of the theologians of early centuries who frequently prepared false writings and attributed to other writers to suit their whims. Historical records bear witness to the fact that there were not less than seventy-five gospels which were falsely attributed to Christ, to Mary and to the Disciples of Christ. It does, therefore, not seem particularly far- fetched to assert that these seven letters, too, were prepared and attributed to Ignatius, similar to other such letters and similar to the gospel of Tatian 37 which was falsely attributed to him. Adam Clarke said in the introduction of his

commentary:

The book which was genuinely ascribed to Tatian has disappeared and the one which is now attributed to him is doubtful in the eyes of most of the

scholars, and they are right in their suspicion.

Let us ignore all the above points for a moment and take it that the 1etters in question really were originally written by lgnatius. Even these does not help much because, after the additions and modifications inserted by later people,

they have lost their originality and are no longer acceptable.

37 This is also called Diatessaron of Tatian. According to G.T. Menley this was put together by combining the present four gospels, but it is not known if it was in the Greek or in the Syrian language.

3 According to the scholars some sentences of these letters were certainly added later on and so there is nothing to remove suspicion from other sentences which are supposed by them to be original. They, likewise, might have been

added to or modified in subsequent times. Eusebius said in chapter 23 of the fourth volume of his history:

Dionysius, the Bishop of Corinth, admitted that he had written several letters on the request of some of his friends, but those deputies of Satan filled them with profanities and altered some parts and added others. This made me all the more, aggrieved. Therefore, there is no wonder if someone made intentional additions in the holy books of our Lord, because they had no

qualms in respect of the books of other authorities.

Adam Clarke has said in his introduction to his commentary:

The great works of Origen have been lost and several of his Commentaries which are available contain an abundance of unfactual and imaginary comments which in itself is a powerful argument in favour of the

fact that they have been interpolated.”

Michael Musaka, a Protestant scholar, has said in his Arabic work,

Ajwibatu’l-Engeleer Ala Abateel-At-Taqleedeen, section one, chapter 10:

As far as their habit of distorting the statements of the ancients, we should first produce our arguments so that our position may not be similar to these of our opponents, that is to say, so that our claims may not be considered as baseless as theirs. We proceed to say that the book Afshin which is attributed to John Chrysostom, the Golden Mouth 38 and which is recited in the churches during the services of consecration, presents different texts. That is, the text recited by one group is different from the text recited by others. For, in the copy of the Orthodox, the Father God is besought to make descend his Holy Spirit on the bread and wine and turn them into flesh and blood, while in the text of the Catholics it is said that he should send the Holy Ghost on the bread and wine so that they may be transformed. But in the time of Maximus, it was changed by the people and they started to say that both the transformable things have fled away for the reason that the Orthodox had claimed against it. But the Catholics of Syria say it with these words, ’Send thy Holy Spirit upon this bread that is the secret of the body of Christ.’ There is no word denoting transformation present in this text. It is possible that this statement might have been of Chrysostom (the Golden Mouth) as the preaching of transformation was not introduced in his time. And Major Bobi

38 Chrysostom, being a great orator, was called the Golden Mouth. He was born in 347 AD and was later made bishop of Constantinople.

3 Tompter, who had converted to Catholicism said in his speech to the Orthodox in 1722: ”I have compared these books with the Orthodox version possessed by the Basilians, 39 and we did not find a single word in these books denoting transformation. This story of transformation of the bread and wine was invented by Nicephorus, the patriarch of Constantinople, and is ridiculous. Now, when they could have made a play of such a pious text as Afshin and altered its contents to suit their unholy intentions and when they did not hesitate to attribute their distortions to such a pious man, how can they be trusted and how can they be free from the suspicion of changing and

distorting the texts of their ancestors.

We have had our own experience in recent years that Deacon Ghariel of Egypt, who was a Catholic, took great pains and spent a lot of money in correcting the translation of the commentary of Chrysostom from the original Greek copy. The Orthodox scholars, who were expert in the Greek and Arabic languages, compared it in Damascus and testified to its accuracy, and then a certified version was prepared. But Maximus did not allow its

publication in Tyre 40 This copy was given to Bishop Alexis of Spain who made a thorough examination of the book. Both of them were totally ignorant of the original Greek version. In order to make it correspond with the teachings of the Pope they made many changes through additions and omissions using their own discretion. Having so spoilt the whole book they attested to it with their stamps and then it was allowed to be published. It was not until the publication of its first volume, when it was compared with the original manuscript which was in safe custody with the Orthodox, that their unholy act of manipulation was uncovered, with the result that they became the subject of common reproach. Ghariel was so appalled at this incident that he

never recovered and died of shock.

Musaka further said:

We produce the unanimous witness of their elders from one of the Arabic books generally available there. This is a report which was unanimously passed in a meeting, along with all its various parts, by the priests of the Maronites, their patriarchs and scholars, with the permission of Monsignor Samani. This report bears the seal of the Church of Rome. It was printed in Tyre with the permission of the chiefs of the Catholics. Discussing the ritual of the offerings this report said that the old liturgies were still present in the churches, free from errors and faults, but they have been attributed to some

39 This was a Christian sect who were the followers of Basilius who was the bishop of Caesarea from 329 - 379 AD 40 A city of Lebanon. There was a temple of the Christians near it.

3 saints and the pious men who were not the authors of these books, nor could they possibly have written them. Some of them were included by the copiers only to suit their unholy needs. It is more than enough for you to admit that

your churches are full of fabricated and forged writings.

He further said:

We are fully aware that our enlightened generation would not dare to make alterations in the holy books, as they are fully wise to the fact that they are watched by the eyes of the protectors of the gospels. However we are not sure of the circumstances which prevailed from the fifth century to the seventh century AD, known as the dark ages, when the Popes and the priests enjoyed a barbarous kingdom of their own. Some of them did not even know how to write and read and the helpless Christians of the East were living a very distressed life, always anxious to save their souls. What happened in that period is best known to them alone. Whenever we come to know the history of that terrible age, and think of the conditions ruling over the Christian church, which had become a symbol of corruption, our grief and

sorrow knows no limits.

Keeping in view the facts reproduced above, we leave the judgment to our

readers to see the truth of our claim themselves.

THE CANONS OF NICAEA

The number of the canons passed by the council of Nicaea 41 was twenty. Subsequently many additions were made to them. The Catholics derive their arguments for the Popes authority from Canons No. 37 and 44. It is written on Page 68 and 69 of ’Les Treize Epitres’ of the second letter printed in 1849 AD:

The aforementioned council prescribed only twenty canons according to the witness of the history of Theodorus and the writings of Gelasius. The Fourth Ecumenical 42 council also affirmed that there were only twenty

Canons prescribed by the Council of Nice.

41 This council was held in the city of Nice. In 325 AD, a Christian philosopher and theologian Arius started preaching that Christ was not equal to God in his essence. He had monotheistic beliefs. The Emperor Constantine convened a meeting of the great scholars of the Christian world. This council unanimously disacknowledged and rejected the ideas preached by Arius. This meeting is of great significance in Christian history. 42 An ecumenical council. in Christian terminology, is a council inviting scholar from all parts of the world. Here the athor is referring to the council which was held Chaledon in 451 AD. This Council declared the Monophysites to be heretics. (Al Munajjid).

3 Similarly many other false books were written which were attributed to several Popes like Calixtus, Sircius, Nectarius, Alexander and Marcellus. The

above book contains this statement on page 80:

Pope Leo and the majority of the Roman scholars have admitted that the

books of these Popes are false and fictitious.

ANSWER TO THE SECOND CLAIM OF THE

AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPEL

The second false claim made by the Christian scholars in order to support the authenticity of the gospels is their contention that the gospel of Mark was written with the help of Peter. This is another clever contrivance to misguide the

general populace. Let us first have the wittiness of Irenaeus. He said:

Mark, the follower and the translator of Peter, wrote the teachings of

Peter after the death of Paul and Peter.

Lardner said in his commentary;

In my opinion Mark did not write his gospel before 63 or 64 AD. This period is also in accordance with the description of the ancient writer Irenacus, who said that Mark wrote his gospel after the death of Peter and Paul. Basnage agreed with Irenaeus and said that Mark wrote his gospel in

66 AD after the death of Peter and Paul,

The witnesses of Basnage and Irenaeus are sufficient to prove that this gospel was written after the death of Peter and Paul, and that Peter certainly did not see the gospel of Mark 43 and the statement, often cited to prove that Peter saw it, is weak and unacceptable. It is why Se author of Murshid ut-Talibeen, in spite of all his religious preoccupations said on page 170 of his book printed in

1840:

He has falsely answered that the gospel of Mark was written under the

guidance of Peter.

This claim of its being written in the life of Peter has therefore no grounds

and hence, is rejected.

43 G.T. Menley said that in the Markine Preface of the gospel of Mark, which was written in 170, we are informed that Mark wrote his gospel in ltaly after the: death of Peter, and this seems to be correct. (Our Holy Books) 3 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE WAS NOT SEEN BY PAUL

Similarly the gospel of Luke was not seen by Paul. This is true for two

reasons:

1. Firstly because the findings of the modem Protestant scholars are that Luke wrote his gospel in 63 AD in Achaias. It is established that Paul was released from prison in 63 AD. After that nothing is known about him up to his death but it is most probable that he went to Spain in the West and not towards the Churches of the East, and Achaias is one of the Eastern cities. Most possibly Luke had sent his gospel to Theophilus who was indeed the real cause of

writing it. The author of Murshid-u-Talibeen wrote on page 161 of volume two, printed

in 1840, discussing the history of Luke:

As Luke 44 did not write anything related to Paul after his release from

prison, we know nothing about his travels from his release to his death.

Gardner said in his Commentaries printed 1728 vol. 5, p. 350:

Now we want to write about the life of the disciple, from his release to his death, but we are not helped by Luke in this regard. However we do find some traces in other books of the modem time. The ancient writers do not help. We find great dispute over the question of where Paul went after his

release.

In the light of the above, the contention of some of modem scholars that he went to the Churches of the East after his release is not proved. He said in his

epistle to the Romans 15:23,24:

But now having no more places in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you; Whensoever I take my journey into

Spain, I will come to you; for I trust to see you in my journey…

It is quite explicit from the above statement of their apostle that he had an intention to go to Spain, and at the same time we know that he never went to Spain before his imprisonment. It is therefore, quite logical that he might have gone to Spain after his release, because we do not see any reason for him to have abandoned his intention to travel to Spain. It appears in the Book of Acts

20:25:

44 That is, in the Book of Acts, which is considered to be written by Luke.

3 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching

the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.

This statement also indicates that he had no intention to visit the Churches of

the East. Clement, the Bishop of Rome, said in his letter:

Paul, in order to unveil the truth to the world, went to the end of the West

and then reached the sacred p1ace (i.e. died).”

This too obviously implies that he went towards the West and not to the East

before his death. Lardner first reproduced the statement of Irenaeus as follows:

Luke, the servant of Paul, wrote in a book the tidings that Paul had

preached in his sermon.

He further said:

The context of the description indicates that this (Luke’s writing the gospel) happened after Mark had written his gospel, that is, after the death of

Peter and Paul.

On the grounds of this statement it is physically impossible for Paul to have seen the gospel of Luke. Besides, even if we assume that Paul saw this gospel, it does not prove anything because we do not consider him to have been inspired by God and a statement made by an uninspired person could not achieve the

status of inspiration simply by the fact of Paul having seen it.

HUMAN DISTORTION OF THE BIBLE: ALTERATIONS,

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS

There are two kinds of biblical distortions: explicit distortions which are directly related to clear changes in the text, which arise through alteration, omission or addition to the original text; and implicit distortions which are brought about by deliberate misinterpretation without any actual textual change. There is no dispute over the existence of such distortions in the Bible since all

Christians, both Protestants and Catholics, admit their existence. According to them the verses of the Old Testament containing references to Christ and the injunctions which were, to the Jews, of perpetual value were distorted by the Jews through misinterpretation. Protestant theologians claim that the Catholics have distorted many texts of both the Old and the New Testament. The Catholics similarly accuse the Protestants of having distorted