"Guidance for Christians and Muslims" "The Great Debate or Revealing the Truth" 345 Proofs (196 ARGUMENTS and 149 Additions to the Bible) Covering 38 books which are believed to be genuine and authentic by almost all the Christians Between Rev. C.C.P. Fonder, Head of Global Christian Mission And the Winner M.R. Kairanvi, The Scholar of Agra, India 1854 The second English translation from Urdu by Blessed Mujawir Written in Persian then translated into Arabic and Urdu by Prof. Abdusabour Shaheen, Dar al Uloom, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt. See also TheArticlesOfTheBishopOfUramiah.doc "Muhammad in the Old & New Testaments" Prof. Rev. David Benjamin Keldani, B.D. 1904 Published by the Court of Doha, Qatar At the download link in www.JesusMuhammad.com Referenced in this Dialog the Old and New Testaments verses are quoted from King James by American Bible Society. The Koran (Quran) verses are quoted from the contemporary Koran by A. Darwish of Allah.com 1 Bible outlines: THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE "They are but names given by you and your fathers. Allah has not sent down an authority for them. They follow conjectures and their soul's Desire, although the guidance of their Lord has come to them." [Koran 53:23] The books of the Bible are divided by the Christians and the Jews into two main parts: The Old Testament and the New Testament. The books of the Old Testament are claimed to have been received through the Prophets who were prior to the Prophet Jesus, the Messiah. The books of the New Testament are believed to have been written through inspiration after Jesus. All the books of the Old and the New Testaments together are called the Bible. Bible is a Greek word which means 'book'. Both the Testaments are further subdivided into two parts. The first part of the Old Testament is believed to be authentic by almost all the ancient Christians, while the authenticity of the other part is held to be doubtful and controversial. 2 THE FIRST DIVISION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT This collection comprises of 38 books: 1 GENESIS The Book of Genesis describes the creation of the earth and the skies and gives an historical account of the Prophets Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Joseph. The book ends with the death of the Prophet Joseph. This is also called the book of Creation. 2 EXODUS Exodus is mainly a description of the life of the Prophet Moses. It includes the teachings of Moses, his altercations with Pharaoh, Pharaoh's drowning in the sea and the oral communication of God with Moses. It ends with the Israelites' camping in the desert of Sinai. It is called Exodus because it describes the event of the Israelites' exodus from Egypt. 3 Leviticus Is a collection of the injunctions and laws given to the Israelites during their wanderings in the desert of Sinai. It has 27 chapters. 4 NUMBERS 5 The Book of Numbers includes events of the census of the Israelites, their history before their departure to Canaan and the injunctions of the Prophet Moses revealed to him by the bank of the river Jordan. It contains 36 chapters. 6 DEUTERONOMY The Book of Deuteronomy is a collection of those events and injunctions which took place from after the period of the Book of Numbers to the death of Moses. It contains 34 chapters. The collection of these five books together is called the Pentateuch or Torah. This is a Hebrew word meaning "the law The word is also occasionally used to mean the Old Testament m general. 7 THE BOOK OF JOSHUA The Book of Joshua is ascribed to the Prophet Joshua son of Nun who was the reliable servant and minister of Moses. He was made the Prophet of Israelites after the death of Moses. He made war on the Amalekites and was victorious over them. This book describes his life up to the time of his death. It contains 24 chapters. 8 THE BOOK OF JUDGES The Book of Judges covers the period after the death of Joshua. This period is called the period of the Judges, because, due to their transgression and wickedness God set cruel, foreign kings over them to punish them until they returned to God and repented their sins. Then some leaders were raised up among them and came to their rescue. These Israelite leaders were known as the Judges. It has 21 chapters. 9 THE BOOK OF RUTH The Book of Ruth describes events in the life of a woman of Moab called Ruth. She was the mother of Obed the grandfather of the Prophet David. She migrated to Bethlehem and married Boaz. They bore a child Obed. His son was Jesse who was the father of the Prophet David. It has only 4 chapters. 10 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL The First Book of Samuel concerns the Prophet Samuel who was the last of the Judges of Israelites. Samuel was made king of the Israelites in his period. It also includes the killing of Goliath by David and other incidents up until the death of Samuel. It has 11 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL The Second Book of Samuel describes the events after the death of Saul. It includes the kingship of David and his war against the sons of Saul. It has 24 chapters. 12 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS The First Book of Kings begins with the old age of David an includes the event of his death, the reign of the Prophet Solomon, his death and the lives of his sons up until the death of Ahab. The Prophet Elijah's description is also included. It has 22 chapters. 13 THE SECOND BOOK OF KINGS The Second Book of Kings includes the events from the death of Ahab to the reign of Zedikiah. The Prophets Elijah and Josiah are also mentioned. It has 25 chapters. 14 CHRONICLES I Chronicles I comprises genealogies from Adam to Solomon. It also includes short historical accounts leading up until the time of David and gives details of David's reign over the Israelites. It contains 36 chapters. 15 CHRONICLES II Chronicles II describes Solomon's rule in detail and also gives a short account of various Kings after Solomon up until the reign of Zedikiah. The invasion of Nebuchadnezzar is also covered at the end. 16 THE FIRST BOOK OF EZRA Ezra I describes the reconstruction of Jerusalem by Cyrus the King of Persia after the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar. It also mentions the exile of Ezra and the return of the Israelites from Babylon to their homeland. It contains 10 chapters. 17 THE SECOND BOOK OF EZRA Ezra II is also called the Book of Nehemiah. Nehemiah was a cupbearer of Artaxerxes the King of Persia. When he learnt about the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, he sought the king's permission and came to Jerusalem. He reconstructed it with the help of Ezra. This book describes all these events and the names of those who helped in rebuilding Jerusalem. These events took place in 445 BC. It contains 13 chapters. 18 THE BOOK OF JOB The Book of Job is said to be by the Prophet Job whose patience and forbearance are also acknowledged and praised by the Holy Koran. He was born in Uz, a city to the east of the Dead Sea. The book mainly consists of conversations between Job and his three friends Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shubite, Zopher the Na'amathite who insist that the calamities of Job are the result of his sins while Job refutes this. This book is held to be of great literary merit. It contains 42 chapters. 19 THE BOOK OF PSALMS The Book of Psalms is the corrupt form of the book of which the Holy Koran says, "We have given the Zaboor to Dawood." The book is a collection of 150 Psalms, or songs of praise, to God. 20 THE BOOK OF PROVERBS The Book of Proverbs is a collection of the exhortations and proverbs of the Prophet Solomon. The Christians claim that this book was compiled by Solomon himself. Kings I says: "And he spoke three thousand proverbs." (4: 32). It contains 31 chapters. 21 THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES The Book of Ecclesiastes is also called the "Book of the Preacher". It is said that the name of one of the sons of David was "the Preacher". It begins with these words: "The words of the Preacher, the son of David." (1: 1). The book is a collection of exhortations and advises. 22 THE BOOK OF THE SONG OF SOLOMON The Book of the Song of Solomon is said to be a collection of songs which were composed by Solomon of which the Book of Kings says: "He spoke three thousand Proverbs and his songs were a thousand and five." It has eight chapters. 23 THE BOOK OF ISAIAH The Book of Isaiah is ascribed to the Prophet Isaiah, son of Amoz, who was adviser to Hezekiah, the king of Judah, in the 8th century BC. When Sennacherib, the king of Assyria, invaded Jerusalem, Isaiah was of great help to Hezekiah, the king of Judah. This book is a collection of his visions and predictions of future events. These predictions according to the Christians were made by Isaiah in the reigns of the kings Azariah, Jotham and Hezekiah. It has 66 chapters. This book contains many passages of great literary merit. 24 THE BOOK OF JEREMIAH Jeremiah was an apostle and pupil of the Prophet Isaiah. God made him a prophet in the days of Joshua or Zedikiah. He was sent to the Israelites to prevent them from their perversion. He preached to the Israelites but they did not listen to him. God revealed to him that the Israelites would soon be subjected to a punishment from God in the form of an invasion by Nebuchadnezzar. Jeremiah warned them of this and advised them to surrender but they mocked him. In the end Jerusalem was totally destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. The Prophet Jeremiah migrated to Egypt. According to some scholars the Holy Koran refers to this incident in Surah 2: 259. It has 56 chapters. 25 THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS The Book of Lamentations is a collection of songs of mourning which are said to have been compiled by the Prophet Jeremiah after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. It has only 5 chapters. 26 THE BOOK OF EZEKIEL The Book of Ezekiel is claimed to be by the Prophet Ezekiel, the son of Buzi. He was a descendant of Levi, the son of Jacob. He fought bravely against Nebuchadnezzar. This book is said to be a collection of his revelations which consists of predictions, exhortations and warnings to the people about God's Judgement on them and about the coming fall and destruction of Jerusalem. 27 THE BOOK OF DANIEL The Prophet Daniel was among the wise people who were exiled from Judah and were taken into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar. The interpretation of some dreams of the king were made clear by him through revelations, and the king made him the governor of Babylon. It also includes the dreams of the Prophet Daniel regarding the future of the Israelites. These dreams also contain a prophecy about the advent of Jesus, the Messiah. It has twelve chapters. 28 THE BOOK OF HOSEA Hosea was one of the prophets of the Israelites. He is said to have lived in the period of Jotham, Azariah and Hezekiah, the kings of Judah. This book is said to have been revealed to him during the period of their reigns. The book mostly consists of his admonitions to the Israelites against their perversion. His revelations are mostly in the form of proverbs or in symbolic language. It consists of 14 chapters. 29 THE BOOK OF JOEL The Torah (Pentateuch) claims that Joel was a prophet of God. This book which has only three chapters consists of his revelations and includes injunctions about fasting and warnings against the evil deeds of the Israelites. 30 THE BOOK OF AMOS Amos is also said to be a prophet. In the beginning he was a shepherd in the city of Tekoa. He was made prophet by God in c. 783 BC. The nine chapters of this book are said to have been revealed to him in the reign of King Azariah. This book comprises his admonitions to the Israelites on account of their evil deeds. The book also predicts the invasion of Jerusalem by the king of Assyria as a punishment from God, which is mentioned in Genesis (29: 15) 31 THE BOOK OF OBADIAH This small scripture consists of only 21 verses and includes a dream of Obadiah the Prophet. There are some predictions regarding the defeat of Adom, the enemy of Judah. 32 THE BOOK OF JONAH This book is said to have been revealed to the Prophet Jonah. He was sent to the people of Nineveh. The story given by Torah is a little different from the one known by the Muslims. 33 THE BOOK OF MICAH This book is said to be from the Prophet Micah, the Morashite, who was a prophet in the period of the king Hezekiah c. 900 BC. He warned the Israelites of God's wrath on account of their perversion. The king, Hezekiah, acknowledged his prophethood and abstained from evil deeds. (Kgs. 32: 26) 34 THE BOOK OF NAHUM Nahum is also regarded as a Prophet by the Torah. Very little is known about his life. This book of 3 chapters describes a dream of Nahum which includes predictions of the downfall of the City of Nineveh. 35 THE BOOK OF HABAKKUK Habakkuk is also claimed to be a Prophet by the Torah. We are not definite about his period. The Torah seems to put him in the period before Nebuchadnezzar's invasion of Jerusalem. This book mentions one of his dreams which admonishes the Israelites on their evil deeds and predicts the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. It has 3 chapters. 36 THE BOOK OF ZEPHANIAH Zephaniah is also supposed to be a Prophet who was ordained by God to prophethood in the period of Josiah, the son of Amon, king of Judah. This script of 3 chapters warns the people of Israel against the invasion of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. 37 THE BOOK OF HAGGAI This script of 2 chapters is attributed to the Prophet Haggai who lived in the time of Darius, the king of Persia, in 500 BC after the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar. He urged the Israelites to rebuild Jerusalem and warned those who obstructed them. 38 THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH Zechariah was also a Prophet. It should be noted here that this Zechariah is not the one who has been mentioned in the Holy Quran. He is said to be a companion of the Prophet Haggai at the time of the rebuilding of Jerusalem. This book consists mostly of dreams which include prophecies regarding the future of the Israelites and the coming of the Prophet Jesus It has 39 THE BOOK OF MALACHI The Book of Malachi is ascribed to the Prophet Malachi. He is the last Prophet of the Old Testament. The book has 4 chapters and describes the thanklessness of the Israelites. The Prophet Malachi lived about 420 years before the Prophet Jesus, the Messiah These thirty eight books are believed to be genuine and authentic by almost all the Christians. The Samaritans, however, a sect of the Jews, believed in only seven of them, i.e. the five books of Moses and the book of Joshua son of Nun and the Book of Judges. Their name refers to the city of Samaria in Palestine. They differ from the Jews in two points, the acknowledged number of the Books and what constitutes a place of worship. 3 THE SECOND DIVISION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT There are nine books in this part. The authenticity of these books has been a point of great controversy among Christians. The Protestant faith, for instance, does not acknowledge the divine origin of these books, and they have discarded them from their Bible. They do not form part of the King James version of the Bible. The collection of these nine books and five other books together are called the Apocrypha. 1 THE BOOK OF ESTHER Esther was a Jewish woman who was among the captives from Jerusalem in Babylon. Ahasuerus, the king of Persia, was unhappy with his first wife and he married Esther. Aman, a minister of the king, had some differences with Mardochaeus, the father of Queen Esther. He plotted to destroy the Jews. Esther convinced the king to combat this plot and saved the Jews. This book describes this event in 10 chapters. 2 THE BOOK OF BARUCH Baruch was a disciple and scribe of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 32: 13 - 36, 36: 4 - 32, 43: 3 - 16, 45: 1 - 3) The Protestant Bible does not include this book. 3 PART OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL 4 THE BOOK OF TOBIAS Tobias was a Jew who had been taken to Assyria in the period of exile. The book describes a dangerous journey made by him and his son. It also includes the event of his marriage with a strange woman Sarah. This book is has great literary merit. 5 THE BOOK OF JUDITH This book is ascribed to a very brave Jewish woman named Judith. She saved and delivered her people from the oppression of the king of Assyria. It also includes the story of her love. 6 WISDOM OF SOLOMON This book is ascribed to the Prophet Solomon. It contains wise sayings of the Prophet and is similar in many ways to the Book of Proverbs. 7 ECCLESIASTICUS This is a collection of preachings and exhortations. It is attributed to Masiah, a preacher in c. 200 BC. This book is also of great literary merit. 8 THE FIRST BOOK OF MACCABEES This book describes the rebellion of the tribe of the Maccabees. 9 THE SECOND BOOK OF MACCABEES This book describes the history of a short period of time and contains some unbelievable or corrupt reports. 4 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT THE FIRST DIVISION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT There are twenty books in the first part of the New Testament. These twenty books are believed to be genuine and authentic by the Christians. 1 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW This is not the Matthew who was one of the Twelve Disciples of the Prophet Jesus. This book is considered to be the oldest of the Gospels. The book begins with the genealogy of the Prophet Jesus and describes his life and teachings up until his ascension to the heavens. 2 THE GOSPEL OF MARK Mark was a pupil of Peter, the Disciple of the Prophet Jesus. This gospel begins with the prophecies made by previous Prophets regarding the coming of the Prophet Jesus. It describes the life of Jesus up until his ascension to heaven. It consists of 16 chapters. 3 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE Luke was a physician and was a companion of Paul and travelled with him on his journeys (Col. 4: 14 Acts 16) He died in 70 AD. His gospel begins with the birth of the Prophet John "the Baptist" (whose Koranic name is Yahya) and covers the life of Jesus up until his ascension to heaven. It has 24 chapters. 4 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN This book also begins with the birth of John the Baptist and describes the events from the birth of the Prophet John to the ascension of the Prophet Jesus. It consists of 21 chapters. It should be noted here that John the son of Zebedee, the disciple of Jesus is certainly not the author of this book. Some of the Christians claim that the author of this book may be John the Elder but this claim too is not supported by any historical evidence. These four books are also called the four Evangels. Sometimes the word Evangel is also used for all the books of the new Testament. The word is of Greek origin and means good tidings and teaching. 5 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES It is said that this script was written by Luke to Theopheus. It includes the acts and achievements of the disciples of the Prophet Jesus after his ascension. It particularly describes the journeys of Paul until his arrival in Rome in 22 AD. It has 28 chapters. 6 EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS This is a letter written by Paul to some of his Roman followers. Paul was a Jew and an enemy of the followers of Jesus in the beginning. Some time after the ascension of Jesus to heaven he suddenly appeared and claimed to have received instructions from Jesus. 7 FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS This is Paul's first letter to the Corinthians and it consists mostly of teachings and injunctions regarding unity among the Christians. At that time they were involved in various disputes. Chapter 7 includes some injunctions concerning matrimonial relations. In chapter 8 the evils of paganism and the Christians' attitude towards a pagan society are discussed. The last few chapters include a discussion on atonement and the Hereafter Chapter 16 describes the blessings of alms-giving and donations for Christianity. 8 SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS This letter was also written to the Corinthians by Paul and contains 16 chapters. These chapters include religious instructions, guidance, and suggestions regarding the discipline of the Church. From chapter 10 to the end Paul speaks of his ministerial ourneys. 9 EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS Galatia was a province of Rome in the north of Asia Minor. This letter was written to the churches of Galatia in early 57 AD. Paul had heard that the people of Galatia were being influenced by another religion. In this letter he tries to prevent them from conversion. 10 EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE EPHESIANS Ephesus was an important trading city of Asia Minor. There was a great house of worship there to the goddess Diana. Paul turned it into a great centre of Christianity in three years of great effort. (Acts 1(): 19) In this letter he gives some moral instructions to the people. 11 EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS This letter of Paul is addressed to the people of Philippi, a city of Macedonia. This is the first city in Europe where Paul preached Christianity. He was arrested there. This letter includes his moral teachings and exhortations for unity among the Christians. 12 EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS This letter of Paul is addressed to the People of Colossae, a city of Asia Minor. Paul is encouraging them to remain Christians and calls upon them to abstain from evil deeds. 13 FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE THESSALONIANS This letter of Paul was written to the people of Thessalonica, a city of the province of Macedonia which is a part of Greece today. He discusses, in this letter, the principles which bring about God's pleasure. It also speaks of other subjects. It has 5 chapters. 14 SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE THESSALONIANS This letter, containing only 3 chapters, offers Paul's encouragement to the Thessalonians on their good deeds and some instructions regarding their general behaviour. 15 FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TIMOTHY Timothy was a pupil and disciple of Paul. (Acts 14: 17, 16: 1-3) Paul had great trust and admiration for him (Cor. 16: 10 and Phil. 2: 19). The letter contains descriptions regarding rituals and ethics. 16 SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TIMOTHY This second letter to Timothy speaks of certain people who had converted to other religions and also includes instructions to Timothy about preaching and also some predictions for the last ages. It has 4 chapters. 17 EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TITUS Titus was also a companion of Paul on some of his journeys (Cal. 2 : 1). Paul had great love for him (Cor. 2 : 13). Paul left him in Crete so that he could preach there. This letter has 3 chapters and gives preaching instructions and details of the prerequisites of bishops. 18 EPISTLE OF PAUL TO PHILEMON Philemon was also a companion of Paul and had travelled with him. The letter was written by Paul when he sent Onesimus to Philemon (Phil. 1: 10) 19 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER Peter was one of the closest apostles of Jesus. The study of the New Testament shows that Paul had some differences with him in later years. The letter was addressed to the Christians who were scattered throughout the northern part of Asia Minor i.e. the people of Poutus, Galatia, Cappadocia and Bithynia. The main purpose of the letter was to encourage the readers who were facing persecution and suffering for their faith. 20 FIRST LETTER OF JOHN SECOND DIVISION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT In this division of the new Testament there are seven books. The genuineness and divinity of these books is doubted and debated by the Christians. Some lines from the first letter of John are also not believed to be authentic. 21 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE HEBREWS The Jews are also called the Hebrews. The word has an association with 'Aber' a title given to the Prophet Jacob Hebrews is also used for Christians. The letter was addressed to a group of Christians who were on the way to abandoning the Christian faith. The writer encourages them in their faith. 22 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER This letter from Peter is addressed to the early Christians. Its main concern is to combat the work of false teachers and false prophets. It also speaks of the final return of the Messiah. 23 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN The second letter of John was written by John to the "dear Lady and her children". According to the Christians the "Lady" probably stands for the local church. 24 THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN This letter was addressed to Gaius, one of the pupils of John and a church leader. The writer praises the reader for his help to other Christians, and warns against a man called Diotrephes. 25 THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JAMES This James is not the apostle James, the son of Zebedee and brother of John. The writer is James, the son of Joseph the carpenter. He is frequently mentioned in the Book of Acts. The letter is a collection of practical instructions and emphasizes the importance of actions guided by faith. 26 THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE Jude is a brother of the James who was one of the 12 apostles. He is mentioned in John 14: 22. The letter was written to warn against false teachers who claimed to be believers. Jude is not the Judas who is said to have betrayed Jesus. 27 THE REVELATION The Revelation of John is a collection of visions and revelations written in symbolic language. Its main concern is to give its readers hope and encouragement in their suffering for their faith. 5 REVIEW OF THE BOOKS BY THE COUNCILS 1 It is important to note that in 325 a great conference of Christian theologians and religious scholars was convened in the city of Nicaea under the order of the Emperor Constantine to examine and define the status of these books. After thorough investigation it was decided that the Epistle of Jude was genuine and believable. The rest of these books were declared doubtful. This was explicitly mentioned by Jerome in his introduction to his book. 2 [St. Jerome was a Christian scholar who translated the Bible into Latin, he was born in 340 A.C.] 3 Another council was held in 364 in Liodicia for the same purpose. This conference of Christian scholars and theologians not only confirmed the decision of the council of Nicaea regarding the authenticity of the Epistle of Jude but also declared that the following six books must also be added to the list of genuine and believable books: The Book of Esther, The Epistle of James, The Second Epistle of Peter, The Second and Third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews. This conference pronounced their decision to the public. The book of Revelations, however, remained out of the list of the acknowledged books in both the councils. 4 In 397 another great conference was held called the Council of Carthage. Augustine, the great Christian scholar, W;tS among the one hundred and twenty six learned participants. The members of this council confirmed the decisions of the two prevlous Councils and also added the following books to the list of the divine books: The Book of the Songs of Solomon, The Book of Tobit, The Book of Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, The First and Second Books of Maccabees. 5 At the same time the members of this council decided that the book of Baruch was a part of the book of Jeremiah because Baruch was the deputy of Jeremiah. Therefore they did not include the name of this book separately in the list. 6 Three more conferences were held after this in Trullo, Florence and Trent. The members of these meetings confirmed the decision of the Council of Carthage. The last two councils, however, wrote the name of the book of Baruch separately. 7 After these councils nearly all the books which had been doubtful among Christians were included in the list of acknowledged books. 6 THE BOOKS REJECTED BY THE PROTESTANTS The status of these books remained unchanged until the Protestant Refom1ation. The Protestants repudiated the decisions of the councils and declared that the following books were essentially to be rejected: The Book of Baruch, The Book of Tobit, The Letter of Jude, The Song of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, The First and Second Books of Maccabees. They excluded these books from the list of acknowledged books. Moreover, the Protestants also rejected the decision of their forbears regarding some chapters of the book of Esther. This book consists of 16 chapters. They decided that the first nine chapters and three verses from chapter 10 were essentially to be rejected They based their decision on the following six reasons: 1 These works were considered to be false even in the original Hebrew and Chaldaean languages which were no longer available. 2 The Jews did not acknowledge them as revealed books. 3 All the Christians have not acknowledged them as believable. 4 Jerome said that these books were not reliable and were insufficient to prove and support the doctrines of the faith. 5 Klaus has openly said that these books were recited but not in every place. 6 Eusebius specifically said in chapter 22 of his fourth book that these books have been tampered with, and changed. In particular the Second Book of Maccabees. Reasons: Numbers 1, 2, and 6 are particularly to be noted by the readers as self-sufficient evidence of the dishonesty and perjury of the earlier Christians. Books which had been lost in the original and which only existed in translation were erroneously acknowledged by thousands of theologians as divine revelation This state of affairs leads a non-Christian reader to distrust the unanimous decisions of Christian scholars of both the Catholic and the Protestant persuasions. The followers of Catholic faith still believe in these books in blind pursuance of their forebears. 7 THE ABSENCE OF CERTAINTY IN THE BIBLE 1 It is a prerequisite of believing in a certain book as divinely revealed that it is proved through infallible arguments that the book in question was revealed through a prophet and that it has been conveyed to us precisely in the same order without any change through an uninterrupted chain of narrators. It is not at all sufficient to attribute a book to a certain prophet on the basis of suppositions and conjectures. Unsupported assertions made by one or a few sects of people should not be, and cannot be, accepted in this connection. 2 We have already seen how Catholic and Protestant scholars differ on the question of the authenticity of certain of these books. There are yet more books of the Bible which have been rejected by Christians. 3 They include the Book of Revelation, the Book of Genesis, the Book of Ascension, the Book of Mysteries, the Book of Testament and the Book of Confession which are all ascribed to the Prophet Moses. Similarly a fourth Book of Ezra is claimed to be from the Prophet Ezra and a book concerning Isaiah's ascension and revelation are ascribed to him. 4 In addition to the known book of Jeremiah, there is another book attributed to him. There are numerous sayings which are claimed to be from the Prophet Habakkuk. There are many songs which are said to be from the Prophet Solomon. There are more than 70 books, other than the present ones, of the new Testament, which are ascribed to Jesus, Mary, the apostles and their disciples. 5 The Christians of this age have claimed that these books are false and are forgeries. The Greek Church, Catholic church and the Protestant Church are unanimous on this point. Similarly the Greek Church claims that the third book of Ezra is a part of the Old Testament and believes it to have been written by the Prophet Ezra, while the Protestant and Catholic Churches have declared it false and fabricated. We have already seen the controversy of the Catholics and Protestants regarding the books of Baruch, Tobit, Jude, the Song of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus and both the books of Maccabees. A part of the book of Esther is believable to the Catholics but essentially rejected by the Protestants. 6 In this kind of situation it seems absurd and beyond the bounds of reason to accept and acknowledge a book simply for the reason that it has been ascribed to a prophet by a group of scholars without concrete support. Many times we have demanded renowned Christian scholars to produce the names of the whole chain of narrators right from the author of the book to prove their claim but they were unable to do so. At a public debate held in India, one of the famous missionaries confessed to the truth that the absence of authoritative support for those books was due to the distress and calamities of the Christians in the first three hundred and thirteen years of their history. We ourselves examined and probed into their books and took great pains to find any such authorities but our findings did not lead beyond conjecture and presumption. Our impartial search in the sources of their books showed that most of their assertions are based on nothing but presumptions. 7 It has already been said that presumption and conjecture are of no avail in this matter. It would be quite justified on our part if we refused to believe in these books until we had been given some arguments and authorities to prove their genuineness and authenticity. However, for the sake of truth, we still go forward to discuss and examine the authority of these books in this chapter. It is quite unnecessary to discuss the authority of each and every book of the Bible and we intend to examine only some of them. 8 THE PRESENT PENTATEUCH IS NOT THE BOOK OF MOSES. The Pentateuch (Torah) included in the Old Testament is claimed to be the collection of the revelations to the Prophet Moses. We firmly claim that the books of Pentateuch do not possess any authority or support to prove that they were in fact evesled to Mose and that they were wrltten by him or through him. We possess sound arguments to support our claim. 9 THE FIRST ARGUMENT: 1 The existence of the Torah, Pentateuch, is not historically known before King Josiah [of Judah], the son of Amon. The script of the Pentateuch which was found by a priest called Hilkiah 18 years after Josiah's ascension to throne is not believable solely on the grounds that it was found by a priest. Apart from this obvious fact, this book had again disappeared before the invasion of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar [king of Babylon]. 2 Not only the Pentateuch, but also all the books of the Old Testament were destroyed in this historical calamity. History does not evince any evidence of the existence of these books after this invasion. 3 According to the Christians the Pentateuch was rewritten by the Prophet Ezra. 4 This book along with all its copies were again destroyed and burnt by Antiochus [I Maccabees 1:59] at the time of his invasion of Jerusalem. 10 THE SECOND ARGUMENT: 1 It is an accepted notion of all Jewish and Christian scholars that the First and Second books of Chronicles were written by Ezra with the help of the Prophets Haggai and Zechariah, but we note that the seventh and eighth chapters of this book consist of descriptions of the descendants of Benjamin which are mutually contradictory. These descriptions also contradict statements in the Pentateuch, firstly in the names, and secondly in counting the number of the descendants. In chapter 7:6 we read that Benjamin had three sons and in chapter 8:1-3 we find that he had five sons while the Pentateuch claims that he had ten sons [Genesis 46:21]. 2 Both the Christian and the Jewish scholars are unanimous on the point that the statement made by the First Book of Chronicles is erroneous, and they have justified this error by saying that the 3 Prophet Ezra could not distinguish and separate the sons from the grandsons, because the genealogical 1ables from which he had quoted were defective and incomplete 4 It is true that the three prophets who wrote the Pentateuch) were necessarily sincere followers of the Pentateuch. Now if we assume that the Pentateuch of Moses was the same one written by these Prophets, it seems quite illogical that they should deviate and or make mistakes in the divine book, neither was it possible that Ezra would have wrongly trusted an incomplete and defective table of genealogy in a matter of such importance. 5 Had the Pentateuch written by Ezra been the same famous Pentateuch, they would have not deviated from it. These evidences lead us to believe that the present Pentateuch was neither the one revealed to Moses and written down by him nor the one written by Ezra by inspiration. In fact, it is a collection of stories and traditions which were current among the Jews, and written down by their scholars without a critical view to their authorities. 6 Their claim that three prophets committed mistakes in copying the names and number of the sons of Benjamin leads us to another obvious conclusion that, according to the Christians, the prophets are not protected from wrong action and can be involved in committing major sins, similarly they can make mistakes in writing or preaching the holy books. 11 THE THIRD ARGUMENT: 1 Any reader of the Bible making a comparison between chapters 45 and 46 of the book of Ezekiel, and chapters 28 and 29 of the Book of Numbers, will find that they contradict each other in religious doctrine. It is obvious that the Prophet Ezekiel was the follower of the doctrines of the Pentateuch. If we presume that Ezekiel had the present Pentateuch how could he have acted upon those doctrines without deviating from it. 2 Similarly we find in various books of the Pentateuch the statement that the sons will be accountable for the sins committed by their fathers up until three generations. Contrary to this, the Book of Ezekiel (18: 20) says, "Son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." 3 This verse implies that no-one will be punished for the sin of others. And this is the Truth. The Holy Koran has confirmed it. It says: "No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another." 12 THE FOURTH ARGUMENT: 1 The study of the books of Psalms, Nehemiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel testifies to the fact that the style of writing in that age was similar to the present style of Muslim authors; that is to say, readers can easily distinguish between the personal observations of the author and his quotations from other writers. 2 The Pentateuch in particular, is very different in style, and we do not find even a single place to indicate that the author of this book was Moses. On the contrary it leads us to believe that the author of the books of the Pentateuch is someone else who was making a collection of current stories and customs of the Jews. However, in order to separate the statements which he thought were the statements of God and Moses, he prefixed them with the phrases, "God says" or " Moses said". The third person has been used for Moses in every place. Had it been the book of Moses, he would have used the first person for himself. At least there would have been one place where we could find Moses speaking in the first person. It would certainly have made the book more respectable and trustworthy to its followers. It must be agreed that a statement made in the first person by the author carries more weight and value than his statement made by someone else in the third person. Statements in the first person cannot be refuted without powerful arguments, while statements in the third person require to be proved true by the one who wishes to attribute those statements to the author. 13 THE FIFTH ARGUMENT: 1 The present Pentateuch includes within its chapters some statements which are historically impossible to attribute to Moses. Some verses explicitly denote that the author of this book cannot have existed prior to the Prophet David but must either be a contemporary of David or later than him. 2 The Christian scholars have tried to justify the opinion that these sentences were added later on by certain prophets. But this is merely a false assumption which is not supported by any argument. Moreover, no prophet of the Bible has ever mentioned that he has added a sentence to a certain chapter of a certain bok Now unless these chapters and sentences are not proved through infallible arguments to have been added by a prophet they remain the writings of someone other than the Prophet Moses. 14 THE SIXTH ARGUMENT: The author of Khulasa Saiful-Muslimeen has quoted from volume 10 of Penny Encyclopaedia (which we reproduce here from Urdu) that Dr Alexander Gides, an acknowledged Christi;m writer, has said in his introduction to the New Bible: "I have come to know three things beyond doubt through some convincing arguments: 1 The present Pentateuch is not the book of Moses. 2 This book was written either in Cana'an or Jerusalem. That is to say, it was not written during the period when the Israelites were living in the wilderness of the desert. 3 Most probably this book was written in the period of the Prophet Solomon, that is, around one thousand years before Christ, the period of the poet Homer. In short, its composition can be proved to be about five hundred years after the death of Moses. 15 THE SEVENTH ARGUMENT: 1 "There appears no appreciable difference between the mode of expression of the Pentateuch and the idiom of the other books of the Old Testament which were written after the release of the IsraeliteS from the captivity of Babylon, while they are separated by not less than nine hundred years from each other. Human experience testifies to the fact that languages are influenced and change rapidly with the passing of time. 2 For example, if we compare current English language with the language of four hundred years ago we notice a considerable difference in style, expression and idiom between the two languages. By the absence of this difference in the language of these books Luselen, a learned scholar, who had great command over Hebrew language assumed that all these books were written in one and the same period. 16 THE EIGHTH ARGUMENT: 1 We read in the book of Deuteronomy (27: 5) " And there shalt thou build an altar unto the Lord, thy God, an altar of stones. Thou shalt not lift up any iron tool upon them. And thou shall write upon the stones all the work of this law very plainly, 2 This verse appears in Persian translation published in 1835 ln these words: 3 "And write all the words of the Pentateuch (Torah) on the stones very clearly." 4 In the Persian translation of 1845, it appears like this: 5 "Write the words of this Torah (Pentateuch) on the stones in bright letters." And the Book of Joshua says: 6 "Then Joshua built an altar unto the Lord God of Israel in Mount Ebal, as Moses, the servant of the Lord commanded the children of Israel." (8: 30,31) And verse 32 of the same chapter contains: 7 "And he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel." (Josh. 8: 32). 8 All these extracts sufficiently show that the laws of Moses or the Pentateuch was just as much as could be written on the stones of an altar. 9 Now if we presume that it is the present Pentateuch that is referred to in the above verses this would be impossible. 17 THE NINTH ARGUMENT: 1 Norton, a missionary, said, "Writing was not in vogue in the time of Moses," indicating that if writing was not in use in the period of Moses, he could not be the author of the Pentateuch. If the authentic books of history confirrn his statement this can be a powerful ARGUMENT in this connection. This statement is also supported by the book "English History" printed by Charles Dallin Press, London in 1850. It says: 2 "The people of the past ages used to scribble on plates of copper, wood and wax, with needles of iron and brass or pointed bones. After this the Egyptians made use of the leaves of the papyrus reed. It was not until the 8th century that paper was made from cloth. The pen was invented in the seventh century AD." 3 If this historian is acceptable to Christians, the claim made by Norton is sufficiently confirmed. 18 THE TENTH ARGUMENT: 1 The present Pentateuch contains a large number of errors while the words of the Prophet Moses must have been free of this defect. Genesis 46: 15 says: 2 "These be the sons of Leah which she bore unto Jacob in Padanaram with his daughter Dinah: all the souls of his sons and daughters were thirty and three." 3 The figure 33 is wrong. The correct number is 34. The famous commentator Horsely, also admitted this mistake. He said: 4 "If you count the names, including Dinah, the total comes to 34 and Dinah must be included as is evident from the number of the sons of Zilpha, because Sarah was one of the sixteen. Similarly the Book of Deuteronomy 23: 2 contains this statement: 5 "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord." 6 This statement is also not correct. On the basis of this statement the Prophet David and all his ancestors up to Perez would be excluded from the congregation of the Lord because Perez was an illegitimate son of Judah. This is quite evident from the description in chapter 38 of the Book of Genesis. And the Prophet David happens to be in his tenth generation according to the genealogical descriptions of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Needless to say that the Prophet David was the leader of the congregation of the Lord; and according to the Psalms of David he was the first born of God. 19 ERRORS IN THE CACULATION OF THE ISRAELITES' NUMBER. 1 We read in the book of Numbers ( 1: 45 - 47 ) this statement: "So were all those that were numbered of the Children of Israel by the house of their fathers, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war in Israel; even all they that were numbered were six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty. But the Levites after the tribe of their fathers were not numbered among them." 2 These verses imply that the number of fighting people of the Israelites was more than six hundred thousand. This number excludes the men, women and children of the Levi Tribe and all the women of the other tribes of the Israelites and all those men who were under twenty years of age. If we include the number of all the people of Israelites excluded from this enumeration, their total should not be less than twenty-five hundred thousand. This statement is wrong for five reasons. 20 THE FIRST REASON. 1 The total number of men and women of the Israelites was seventy a. he time of their arrival in Egypt. This is evident from Genesis 46: 27, Exodus 1: 5 and Deuteronomy 10: 22. The greatest possible period of their stay in Egypt is 215 years. It cannot be more. 2 It has been mentioned in the first chapter of the Book of Exodus that the sons of the people of Israel were killed and their daughters left to live, 80 years before their liberation from Egypt. 3 Now keeping in mind their total number at their arrival in Egypt, the duration of their stay in Egypt, and the killing of their sons by the King, if we assume that after every twenty five years they doubled in number and their sons were not killed at all, even then their number would not reach twenty-five thousand in the period of their stay in Egypt let alone twenty-five hundred thousand! If we keep in view the killing of their sons, this number becomes a physical impossibility. 21 THE SECOND REASON: 1 It must be far from the truth that their number increased from seventy to twenty-five hundred thousand in such a short period, while they were subjected to the worst kind of persecution and hardships by the king of Egypt. In comparison, the Egyptians who enjoyed all the comforts of life did not increase at that rate. 2 The Israelites lived a collective life in Egypt. If they are believed to have been more than twenty-five hundred thousand it would be a unique example in human history that a population of this size is oppressed and persecuted and their sons killed before their eyes without a sign of resistance and rebellion from them. Even animals fight and resist to save their offspring. 22 THE THIRD REASON: 1 The Book of Exodus chapter 12:39 describes how the Israelites had taken with them the cattle herds and flocks, and the same book 5:19, also informs us that they crossed the river in a single night; and that they used to travel every day 13:21, and that Moses used to give them verbal orders to march 14:1. 23 THE FOURTH REASON: 1 If the number were correct it would necessitate that they had a place for their camp large enough to accommodate twenty-five hundred thousand of people along with their herds or cattle. The fact is that the area surrounding Mount Sinai, and the area of the twelve springs in Elim are not sufficiently large to have accommodated the Israelites and their cattle. 24 THE FIFTH REASON: 1 We find the following statement in Deuteronomy 7:22. "And the Lord, thy God will put out those nations before thee by little and little: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee." 2 It is geographically true that Palestine extended nearly 200 miles in length and ninety miles in breadth. Now, if the number of the Israelites was really twenty-five hundred thousand, and they had captured Palestine after killing all its residents all at once, how was it possible for the beasts to have overcome the number of the Israelites, because had they been much less in number than stated, even then, they would have been enough to populate such a small area. 3 Ibn Khaldun, also refuted this number in his "Introduction; Muqaddimma" saying that, according to the researches made by the scholars, the gap between Israel and Moses is only three generations. It is unbelievable that in a period of only three generations they could increase to that number. 4 In view of the above ARGUMENTs, it is obvious tht "the People of the Book" (The Christians and the Jews) do not possess any ARGUMENTs to prove their claim that the books of the Pentateuch were written or conveyed by the Prophet Moses. 5 It is, therefore, not binding upon us to believe in these books until and unless they produce irrefutable ARGUMENTs to support thetr clalm. 25 THE STATUS oF THE BOOK OF JOSHUA 1 We have already seen that the Pentateuch, which enjoys the status of being a fundanlent;ll book of the Christian faith, callnot be proved to be authentic and believable. Let us now proceed to find out the truth about the Book of Joshua, the next book in importance. 2 First of all, the nallle of the author of this book is not known with certainty, and the period of its composition is also unknown. 3 The Christian scholars profess five different opinions: 1 Gerrard, Diodat Huet, Albert Patrick, Tomlin and Dr Gray believe that it was written by the Prophet Joshua himself. 2 Dr Lightfoot claims that Phineas [grandson of Prophet Aaron] is the author of this book. 3 Calvin says that it was written by Eleazer. 4 Moldehaur and Van Til believe it to have been written by Samuel. 5 Henry claimed that it was written by the Prophet Jeremiah. 4 Readers should note the contradictory opinions of these Christian scholars, especially keeping in mind the fact that Joshua and Jeremiah are separated by a period of 850 years. The presence of this great difference in opinion is, in itself, a strong evidence that the book is not believed to be authentic by them. Their opinions are generally based on their calculations supported by some vague notions indicatingthat a certain person might be the author of a certain book. If we make a comparison between Joshua 15: 63 and Samuel 5: 6-8, it is quite clear that this book was written before the seventh year of the ascension of the Prophet David to the throne. Joshua 15: 63 says, "As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Israel could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day." The above statement may be compared with the statement made by the Second Book of Samuel which confirms that the Jebusites were living in Jerusalem up until the seventh year of the ascension of David to throne (5:6-8), the author of Joshua's statement said that the Jebusites dwelt in Jerusalem "unto this day" meaning the seventh year of David's ascension to throne. This clearly implies that the author belonged to that period. 5 Similarly the same book includes this statement, "And they drove not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer, but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day.'' We find another statement in I Kings 9:16 that the Pharaoh had driven out the Canaanites from Gezer in the time of Solomon. This leads to the conclusion that the book was written before the time of Solomon. G.T. Menley has therefore admitted that a comparison of Josh. 15: 63 with 2 Samuel 5:7-9 and of Josh. 16:10, with I Kings 9: 16 leads to the conclusion that this book was written before Rehobo'aam. See 2-Samuel 1:18 6 In view of this evidence, it is logical to conclude that the author of the book of Joshua must have lived after the Prophet David. 26 THE STATUS OF THE BOOK OF JUDGES 1 The book of Judges is the third most respected book of the Old Testament. Again we are faced by a great difference of opinion regarding the author of the book and the possible period of its compilation. 2 Some Christian writers claim it to be the book of Phineas, while some other believe it to have been written by Hezekiah. In neither of these cases can it be said to be a revealed book because neither Phineas nor Hezekiah are Prophets. Hezekiah was the King of Judah. (2 Kings 18 and Chr. 32) 3 Some other writers have asserted that this book was written by Ezra. It may be noted that difference of time between Ezra and Phineas is not less than nine hundred years. 4 This difference of opinion could not arise if the Christians possessed any real evidence concerning it. According to the Jews all these claims and assertions are wrong. They, on the basis of conjecture, attribute it to Samuel. So there are six different opinions about it. 27 THE BOOK OF RUTH 1 This book, too, is the subject of great differences of opinion. Some Christians think that it was written by Hezekiah, in which case it is not a revealed book. Some others hold the opinion that the author of this book is Ezra. All other Christians and the Jews attribute it to Samuel. 2 It is stated in the introduction to the Bible printed in Strasbourg in 1819 that the book of Ruth is a collection of family stories and the Book of Job is only a tale. 28 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH 1 The same kind of difference is present regarding the author and the period of this book. The most popular opinion is that it was written by Nehemiah. Athanasius, Epiphanius and Chrysostome believe it to have been written by Ezra. Aecording to popular opinion it cannot be accepted as a revealed book. 2 The first 26 verses of chapter 12 are different from the rest of the book of Nehemiah since in the first eleven chapters Nehemiah is referred to in the first person, while in this chapter the third person is used for no apparent reason. Furthermore, we find Drius, the King of Persia being mentioned in verse 22 of the same chpter, when in fact he lived one hundred years after the death of Nehemiah. The Christian commeIltators have to declare this anomaly as a later addition. The Arabic translator of the Bible has omitted it altogetl1er. 29 THE BOOK OF JOB 1 The history of the book of Job is even more obscure and uncertain than the other books. There are about twenty-four contradictory opinions regarding its name and period. Maimonides, a celebrated scholar and Rabbi of the Jews, Michael Leclerc, Semler, Hock, Isnak alld other Christians insist that Job is a fictitious name and the book of Job is no more than a fiction. Theodore has also condemned it. Luther, the leader of the Protestant faith, holds it as purely a fictitious story. 2 The book has been attributed to various names on the basis of conjecture. However if we assume that the book was written by Elihu [son of Bar'achel the Buzite] or by a certain unknown person who was a contemporary of Manasse, it is not acceptable as a prophetic and revealed text. 30 THE PSALMS oF DAVID 1 The history of this book, too, is similar to the history of the book of Job. We do not find any documentary evidence to show a particular man to be its writer. The period of collection of all the Psalms is also not known. Whether the names of the Psalms are Prophetic or not is also unknown. The ancient Christians have different opinions about it. The writers, Origen, Chrysostome and Augustine believe it to have been written by the Prophet David himself. On the other hand, writers like Hilary, Athanasius, Jerome and Eusebius have strictly refuted this. Horne says: 2 "Undoubtedly the fomler statement is altogether wrong". According to the opinion of the latter group, more than thirty psalms are from unknown authors. Ten psalms from 9() to 99 are supposed to be from Moses and seventy-one psalms are claimed to be from David. Psalm 88 is attributed to Heman and to Ethan [both were physicians], while Psalms 72 and 177 are said to be from Solomon. 3 And three psalms are believed to be from Jeduthun and one hundred and twenty psalms from Asaph, but some Christians refute that Psalms 74 and 79 are written by him. Eleven psalms [42 to 49 and 84,85 and 87] are supposed to have been written by three sons of Kore. 4 Some writers even think that the author of these psalms was a totally different person who attributed these psalms to the various writers concerned, while yet others of the psalms were written by another unknown person. Calmat says that only forty-five psalms were written by David, while the rest are by other people. 5 The ancient Jewish scholars enumerate the following names as the writers of the Psalms: the Prophets Adam, Abraham, Moses; and Asaph, Heman, Jeduthun and the three sons of Kore. David only having collected them together. According to them David, himself, is not the author of any of the Psalms; he is just the receiver of them: 6 Horne said that the judgement of modern Christian and Jewish scholars is that this book was written by the following authors: the Prophets Moses, David and Solomon; and Asaph, Heman, Ethan, Jeduthun and the three sons of Kore. 7 The same contradiction and confusion is found regarding the period of its compilation. Some scholars hold them to have been written and compiled in the time of David; some believe that they were collected by some friends of Hezekiah in his period; while some others think that they were compiled in different periods. Similar differences are also expressed about the names of the Psalms. Some claim that they are revealed, while others think that someone who was not a prophet had called them with these names. 8 Psalm 72, verse 20 says, "The Prayers of David, the son of Jesse are ended." This verse has been omitted in the Arabic translations apparently with the purpose of supporting the opinion of the first group that the whole Book of Psalms was written by the Prophet David. On the other hand it is also possible that this verse might have been added later to support the second group's opinion that the Prophet David was not the author of this book. In both cases the distortion of the text is proved either by omission of this verse or by addition of it. 31 THE BOOK OF PROVERBS 1 The condition of this book, too, is not much different from the books we have discussed so far. A few writers have claimed that the author of this whole book is the Prophet Solomon himself. This claim is false because of variations in linguistic idioms and style, and repetition of several verses found in this book 2 Apart from this the first verses of chapters 30 and 31 also refute this assumption. 3 Even if we accept that some part of this book could have been written by Solomon which is possibly true for 29 chapters, these were not collected or compiled in his period because there is no doubt that several of them were collected by Hezekiah as is evident from 25:1: 4 "These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah, King of Judah, copied out. " This was done 270 years after the death of Solomon. 5 Some writers are of the opinion that the first nine chapters of the book were not written by Solomon. Chapters 30 and 31 are attributed to Agur and Lemuel, as cited, but strangely the commentators could neither find out who these two authors were nor are they sure of their being prophets. 6 On the basis of their usual presumptions they hold that they were prophets. However, this kind of conjecture is not acceptable to an impartial reader. 7 Some of them think that Lemuel is the second name of Solomon, but Henry and Scott state: 8 "Holden has rejected the assumption that Lemuel was another name of Solomon, and he has proved that Lemuel was a separate person. Perhaps he has got sufficient proof that the book of Lemuel and the book of Agur are revealed books. Otherwise they could have not been included in the canonical books." 9 Adam Clarke says in his commentary: "This claim is not supported by any evidence that Lemuel was Solomon. This chapter was written a long period after his death. The idioms of the Chaldean language that are found in the beginning of this book also refute this claim. And he comments on chapter 31: 10 "Certainly this chapter could not have been written by Solomon." Verse 25 of this chapter says: "there are also proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah copied out." 11 Verse 30 in the Persian version of the Bible printed 1838 says: "The words Aglr, the son of Jakeh, even the Prophecy: the man spoken unto Ithiel and Ucal." And the Bible printed in the Persian language in 1845 contains this: "The words of Acur, son of Jafa, were such that the man spoke unto Ithiel, evn Ithiel and Ucal." 12 The majority of writers have admitted that the book was compiled by many people including Hezekiah, Isaiah and perhaps Ezra. 32 THE BOOK oF ECCLESIASTES 1 This book, too, has a history of serious differences. Some writers have claimed that its author was Solomon. Rabbi Kammchi, a famous Jewish scholar, said that it was written by Isaiah. The scholars of the Talmud attribute it to Hezekiah while Grotius says that this book was written by Zorobabel for his son, Ebihud. John, a Christian scholar, and some Gerrnan scholars calculate it to have been written after the release of the Israelites from Babylon. 33 THE BOOK OF THE SONG OF SOLOMON 1 The history of this book is even more obscure and uncertain. Some of the writers attribute it to the Prophet Solomon or some person belonging to his time. Dr Kennicot and some writers coming after him had the opinion that the claim of its being written by Solomon was historically wrong and that it was written a long time after his death. Theodore, a missionary who lived in the fifth century AD, strictly condemned this book and the Book of Job, while Simon and Leclerc did not acknowledge it as a genuine book. Whiston said that it was a foul song and should be excluded from the holy books of the Old Testament. Some others have made the same judgement about it. Semler holds it as a forged and fabricated book. The Catholic, Ward, has pointed out that Castilio declared it to be a vile song and decided that it should be excluded from the books of the Old Testament. 34 THE BOOK OF DANIEL 1 The Greek Translation of Theodotion, the Latin translation and all the translations of the Roman Catholics include the Song of Three Children and chapters 13 and 14 of this book. The Roman Catholic faith acknowledges this song and the two chapters, but the Protestants disapprove of it and do not consider it genuine. 2 THE BOOK OF ESTHER 3 The name of the writer of this book as well as the time of its compilation is unknown. Some Christian scholars believe that it was written by scholars living in the period between Ezra and Simon. A Jewish Scholar Philon [a contemporary of Paul] aims that it was written by Jehoiachin, the son of Joshua [was the son of Jehoakin] , who had come to Jerusalem after the release from Babylon. St Augustine believed it to be a book of Ezra. 4 Some other writers attribute it to Murdoch and Esther. Other details of this book will later be discussed in chapter 2 of this book. 35 THE BOOK OF JEREMIAH 1 We are certain that chapter 52 of this book cannot be claimed to have been written by Jeremiah. Similarly the eleventh verse of chapter 1() cannot be attributed to Jeremiah. In the former case, because verse 64 of chapter 51 of the Persian Version 1838 contains: "Thus far are the words of Jeremiah". While the Persian Translation of 1839 AD says: "The words of Jeremiah ended here." 2 In the latter case the reason is that verse 11 of chapter 10 is in the Chaldean language, while the rest of the book is in Hebrew. It is impossible to trace who inserted them in the text. The commentators have made several conjectures regarding the persons making this insertion. The compilers of Henry and Scott remarked about this chapter: 3 "It appears that Ezra or some other person inserted it to elucidate the predictions occurring in the previous chapter." Horne says on page 194 of Vol. 4: 4 "This chapter was added after the death of Jeremiah and the release from the captivity of Babylon, some of which we find mentioned in this chapter too." 5 Further in this volume he says: "Certainly the words of this Prophet are in the Hebrew language but chapter 10:11 is in the Chaldean language." I The Reverend Venema said: "This verse is a later addition." 36 THE BOOK OF ISAIAH 1 A public debate was held between Karkaran, a religious leader of the Roman Catholics, and Warren about this book. This discussion was published in 1852 in Agra (India). Karkaran writes in his third letter that Stapelin, a learned Gerrnan writer, had said that chapter 40 and all the chapters up to chapter 66 of the book of Isaiah were not written by Isaiah. This implies that twenty-seven chapters of this book are not the writings of Isaiah. 37 THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE STATUS OF THE FOUR GOSPELS THE GOSPELS OF MATTHEW, LUKE AND MARK. 1 All the ancient Christian writers and a great number of modern writers are unanimous on the point that the Gospel of Matthew was originally in the Hebrew language and has been completely obscured due to distortions and alterations made by the Christians. The present Gospel is merely a translation and is not supported by any ARGUMENT or authority. Even the name of its translator is not definitely known. There are only conjectures that possibly this or that person might have translated it. This kind of ARGUMENT cannot be acceptable to a non-Christian reader. The book cannot be attributed to its author only on the basis of uncertain calculations. 2 The Christian author of Meezan-ul-Haq could not produce any authority regarding the author of this book. He only conjectured and said that Matthew might possibly have written it in the Greek language. In view of this fact this translation is not acceptable and is liable to be rejected. 3 The Penny Encyclopedia says regarding the Gospel of Matthew: 4 "This Gospel was written in the Hebrew language and in the language which was in vogue between Syria and Chaldea in 41 AD Only the Greek translation is available. And the present Hebrew version is only a translation of the same Greek version." 5 Thomas Ward, a Catholic writer, says in his book: "Jerome explicitly stated in his letter that some ancient scholars were suspicious about the last chapter of the Gospel of Mark; and some of them had doubt about some verses of chapter 23 of the Gospel of Luke; and some other scholars were doubtful about the first two chapters of this Gospel. These two chapters have not been included by the Marchionites [who do not acknowledge th old testament and believe in two gods, one of good and one of evil] in their book." 6 Norton writes in his book printed in 1837 in Boston: " This Gospel contains a passage running from verse nine to the end of the last chapter which calls for research. It is surprising that Griesbach has not put any sign of doubt about its text, since he has presented numerous ARGUMENTs to prove that this part was an addition by some later people." 7 Later in his book, giving some more ARGUMENTs, he said: "This proves that the passage in question is doubtful, especially if we keep in mind the habit of writers in that they usually prefer to add to the text rather than to omit from it." Griesbach is one of the most reliable scholars of the Protestant faith. 38 THE INAUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1 There is no authority for the claim that the Gospel of John is the book of the Apostle John to whom it has been attributed. On the contrary, there are several ARGUMENTs that strongly refute this claim. 39 THE FIRST ARGUMENT: 1 Before and after the period of the Prophet Jesus, the style of writing and the method of compiling books was similar to the style of the present writers. Although this Gospel is John's it appears that the writer of it is not John himself. 2 It is not possible to refute the obvious evidence which the text itself offers unless strong ARGUMENTs are presented to negate it. 40 THE SECOND ARGUMENT: 1 This Gospel contains this statement in 21:24: "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things: and we know that his testimony is true," describing the Apostle John. This denotes that the writer of this text is not John himself. It leads us to guess that the writer has found some script written by John and has described the contents in his own language making some omissions and additions to the contents. 41 THE THIRD ARGUMENT: 1 In the second century AD when the authorities refused to accept this Gospel as the book of John [the disciple], Irenaeus - a disciple of Polycarp, the disciple of John - was living. 2 He did not make any statement to negate those who refused to accept the book and did not testify that he had heard Polycarp saying that this Gospel was the book of John, the Apostle. Had it been the book of John, Polycarp must have known it. It cannot be the truth that he heard Polycarp saying many secret and profound things which he related but did not hear a single word about a matter of such importance. 3 And it is even more unbelievble that he had heard it and forgot, since we know about him that he had great trust in verbal statements and used to memorize them. This is evident from the following statement of Eusebius regarding the opinion of Irenaeus about verbal statements: 4 I listened to these words with great care by the grace of God, and wrote them not only on paper, but also on my heart. For a long time, I have made it my habit to keep reading them." 5 It is also unimaginable that he remembered it and did not state it for the fear of his enemies. This ARGUMENT also rescues us from the blame of refusing the genuineness of this Gospel from religious prejudice. We have seen that it was refused in the second century AD and could not be defended by the ancient Christians. Celsus, who was a pagan scholar of the second century AD, fearlessly declared that the Christians had distorted their Gospels three or four times or more. This change or distortion changed the contents of the text. 6 Festus, the chief of the Manichaeans and a scholar publicly announced in 4th century AD: 7 "It has been established that the books of the New Testament are neither the books of the Christ, nor are they the books of his apostles but unknown people have written them and attributed them to the apostles and their friends." 42 THE FOURTH ARGUMENT: 1 The Catholic Herald, printed in 1844, includes the statement in vol. 3 on page 205 that Stapelin said in his book that the Gospel of John was undoubtedly written by a student of a school in Alexandria. See how blatantly he claims it to be a book of a student. 43 THE FIFTH ARGUMENT: 1 Bertshiender, a great scholar, said: "The whole of this Gospel and all the Epistles of John were definitely not written by him but by some other person in the second century A.D." 44 THE SIXTH ARGUMENT: 1 Grotius, a famous scholar, admitted: "There used to be twenty chapters in this Gospel. The twenty-first chapter was added after the death of John, by the church of Ephesus." 45 THE SEVENTH ARGUMENT: 1 The Allogin, a sect of the Christians in the second century AD, disowned this Gospel and all the writings of John. 46 THE EIGHT ARGUMENT: 1 The first eleven verses of chapter 8 are not accepted by any of the Christian writers and it will soon be shown that these verses do not exist in the Syriac version. If there were any authentic proof to support it most of the Christian writers would have not made such statements. Therefore the opinion of Bertshiender and Stapelin is undoubtedly true. 47 THE NINTH ARGUMENT: 1 Horne, in chapter two of vol. 4 of his commentary says: "The information that has been conveyed to us by the historians of the church regarding the period of the four Gospels is defective and indefinite. It does not help us reach any meaningful conclusion. The ancient theologians have confirmed absurd statements and written them down. Subsequent people accepted them just out of respect to them. These false statements thus were communicated from one writer to another. A long period of time has passed, and it has become very difficult to find out the truth." 2 Further in the same volume he says: "The first Gospel was written either in 37 A.D. or 38 A.D. or in 43 A.D. or in 48 A.D. or in 61,62,63 and 64 A.D. The second Gospel was written in 56 A.D. or at any time after it up until 65 A.D. and most possibly in 60 or 63 A.D. The third Gospel was written in 53 or 63 or 64 A.D. The fourth Gospel was written in 68,69,70 or in 89 or 98 A.D." 3 following statement of Eusebius regarding the opinion of Irenaeus about verbal statements: 4 I listened to these words with great care by the grace of God, and wrote them not only on paper, but also on my heart. For a long time, I have made it my habit to keep reading them." 5 It is also unimaginable that he remembered it and did not state it for the fear of his enemies. This ARGUMENT also rescues us from the blame of refusing the genuineness of this Gospel from religious prejudice. We have seen that it was refused in the second century AD and could not be defended by the ancient Christians. 6 Celsus, who was a pagan scholar of the second century AD, fearlessly declared that the Christians had distorted their Gospels three or four times or more. This change or distortion changed the contents of the text. 7 Festus, the chief of the Manichaeans44 and a scholar publicly announced in 4th century AD: 8 "It has been established that the books of the New Testament are neither the books of the Christ, nor are they the books of his apostles but unknown people have written them and attributed them to the apostles and their friends." 48 THE FOURTH ARGUMENT: 1 The Catholic Herald, printed in 1844, includes the statement in vol. 3 on page 205 that Stapelin said in his book that the Gospel ofJohn was undoubtedly written by a student of a school in Alexandria. See how blatantly he claims it to be a book of a student. 49 THE FIFTH ARGUMENT: 1 Bertshiender, a great scholar, said: "The whole of this Gospel and all the Epistles of John were definitely not written by him but by some other person in the second century A.D." 50 THE SIXTH ARGUMENT: 1 Grotius, a famous scholar, admitted: "There used to be twenty chapters in this Gospel. The twenty-first chapter was added after the death of John, by the church of Ephesus." 51 THE SEVENTH ARGUMENT: 1 The Allogin, a sect of the Christians in the second century AD, disowned this Gospel and all the writings of John. 52 THE EIGHT ARGUMENT: 1 The first eleven verses of chapter 8 are not accepted by any of the Christian writers and it will soon be shown that these verses do not exist in the Syriac version. 2 If there were any authentic proof to support it most of the Christian writers would have not made such statements. Therefore the opinion of Bertshiender and Stapelin is undoubtedly true. 53 THE NINTH ARGUMENT: 1 Horne, in chapter two of vol. 4 of his commentary says: "The information that has been conveyed to us by the historians of the church regarding the period of the four Gospels is defective and indefinite. It does not help us reach any meaningful conclusion. The ancient theologians have confirmed absurd statements and written them down. Subsequent people accepted them just out of respect to them. These false statements thus were communicated from one writer to another. A long period of time has passed, and it has become very difficult to find out the truth." 2 Further in the same volume he says: "The first Gospel was written either in 37 A.D. or 38 A.D. or in 43 A.D. or in 48 A.D. or in 61,62,63 and 64 A.D. The second Gospel was written in 56 A.D. or at any time after it up until 65 A.D. and most possibly in 60 or 63 A.D. The third Gospel was written in 53 or 63 or 64 A.D. The fourth Gospel was written in 68,69,70 or in 89 or 98 A.D." 54 THE EPISTLES AND THE REVELATION 1 The Epistle to the Hebrews, the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and the Third Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jacob, the Epistle of Jude and several verses of the First Epistle of John are wrongly attributed to the apostles. These books were generally supposed to be doubtful up until 363 AD and continue to be considered false and unacceptable to the majority of Christian writers up until this day. The verses of the first Epistle of John have been omitted in Syrian versions. 2 The Arabian churches have rejected the second Epistle of Peter, both the Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Revelation. Similarly the churches of Syria have rejected them from the beginning of their history. 3 Horne says in the second volume of his commentary (1822) on pages 206 and 207:) 4 "The following Epistles and verses have not been included in the Syrian version and the same was the case with Arabian churches: the second Epistle of Peter, the Epistle of Jude, both the epistles of John, the Revelation, the verses from 2-11 of chapter 8 in the gospel of John, and chapter 5 verse 7 of the first Epistle of John. The translator of the Syrian version omitted these verses because he did not believe them to be genuine. Ward confirms this in his book (1841) on page 37: " Rogers, a great scholar of the Protestant faith has mentioned the name of a number of Protestant scholars who declared the following books as false and excluded them from the holy scriptures: the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of Jacob, the second and the third Epistles of John, and the Revelation." 5 Dr Bliss, a learned scholar of the Protestant faith stated: "All the books up until the period of Eusebius are found acceptable," and he insists on the point that: 6 "The Epistle of Jacob, the second Epistle of Peter and the second and third Epistles of John are not the writings of the Apostles. The Epistle to the Hebrews remained rejected for a long period, similarly the Syrian church did not acknowledge the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third Epistles of John, thc Epistle to Jude and the Revelation." 7 Lardner said in vol. 4 of his commentary on page 175: "Cyrillus and the Church of Jerusalem did not acknowledge the book of Revelation in their period. Apart from this, the name of this book does not even occur in the list of Canonical books which he wrote." 8 On page 323 of the same volume he further said: "Revelation was not the part of the Syrian version. Barhebroeus and Jacob did not include this book for comments in their commentary. Abedjessu omitted the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jude and the Revelation from his list. All other Syrians have the same opinion about these books." 9 The Catholic Herald (1844) contains the following statement on page 206 of vol. 7: "Rose has written on page 161 of his book that many Protestant scholars consider the book of Revelation non- believable. Professor Ewald has produced powerful ARGUMENTs to prove that the Gospel of John and the Epistles of John and the Revelations of John cannot be the writings of the same person. 10 Eusebius makes the following statement in chapter 25 of vol. 7 of his history: "Dionysius says that some ancient writers excluded the book of Revelation from the Holy Scriptures and have completelv refuted it. He said that this book is meaningless and a great example of ignorance. Any association of this book with John or with a righteous man or with any Christian is wrong. In fact, this book was attributed to John by a heretic Cerinthus. I wish I had the powers of excluding it from the Holy Scriptures. As far as my own opinion is concerned, I believe it to be from someone who was inspired. But what I cannot easily believe is that the writer was any of the apostles, or that he was the son of Zebedee or brother of Jacob." 11 On the contrary the idiom of the text and its style strongly indicate that the writer cannot have been the Apostle John who is mentioned in the Book of Acts because his presence in Asia Minor is not known. This John is totally a different man who is an Asian. There are two graves in the city of Ephesus, both bearing the inscription of John. The contents and the style of this book indicate that John, the Evangelist, is not the writer of this book. Since the text of the Gospel and the Epistles is as refined as the style of the Greeks. Contrary to this the book of Revelation contains a text very different in style from the Greeks, full of uncommon expressions. 12 Besides this the Evangelists have a common practice in that they do not disclose their names in the Gospels nor in the Epistles, but describe themselves in the first person or in the third person, while the writer of this book has mentioned his own name. In the revelation of Jesus in chapter I he says: "The revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto him to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his Angel unto his servant John." 13 He also writes in chapter 4: "John to the seven churches which are in Asia." In chapter 9 he says: "1, John, who am your brother, and companion in tribulation and in this kingdom, and patience of Jesus Christ." Again in 22:8 he says: " I John saw these things and heard them." 14 He mentions his name in all the above verses contrary to the general practice of the Evangelists. The explanation that the writer has disclosed his name against his normal practice in order to introduce himself cannot be acceptable because if this had been his object he would have used specific words together with his name defining his intention. For example, he could have written John, the son of Zebedee or brother of James. He only uses some general words like " your brother ", companion in patience etc. which do not serve the purpose of his introduction 15 Eusebius also says in chapter 3 of vol. 3 of his book: "The first Epistle of Peter is genuine, but his second Epistle should never be included in the Holy Scripture. Fourteen Epistles of Paul are, however, read. The Epistle to the Hebrews has been excluded by some people." 16 He further elaborates in chapter 25 of the same book: "It has been a point of debate whether the Epistles to James, and Jude, the second Epistle of Peter, and the Epistles of John I and 11 were written by the Evangelists or some other writers of the same names. It should be understood that the Acts of Paul, the Revelation of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas and the book entitled, 'The Institution of the Disciples" are rejected books and this can be proved. The Revelation should also be included in this list." 17 Eusebius also quotes a statement of Origen concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews in chapter 25 of vol. 6 of his book: "It is a popular notion among the people that this Epistle (Hebrews) was written by Clement of Rome (150-22()) and some people think that it was written by Luke." 18 The Irish missionary Lyon (178) and Hippolitus (220) and Nouclus, the missionary of Rome (251), refused to accept the genuineness of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Turtullien, the bishop of Carthage (d. 200) says that this Epistle belongs to Barnabas. Caius, the Presbyter of Rome (d. 251) counted thirteen Epistles of Paul and did not count this Epistle. Cyprien, the bishop of Carthage (248), does not make any mention of this Epistle. The Monophysite churches still refuse to acknowledge the second Epistle of Peter and the second and third Epistles of John. 19 Scaliger disowns the Epistle to the Hebrews by saying that whoever was the author of this Epistle had wasted his time. Eusebius, in chapter 23 of vol. 2 of his book says: "Generally this Epistle is supposed to be false and several ancient writers have mentioned this. Our opinion about the Epistle of Jude is not different but many churches still act according to it." 20 The History of the Bible (1850) contains this statement: "Grotius says that this Epistle, that is, the Epistle of Jude was written by Jude Oskolf (Archbishop) the 15th Oskolf of Jerusalem living in the period of the Emperor Hadrian.' 21 Eusebius has stated in his history vol. 6, chapter 25: " Origen said in vol. 5 of his commentary on the Gospel of John that Paul did not write anything to the churches, and if he wrote to any church it was not more than a few lines." 22 According to Origen, all the Epistles which are attributed to Paul, were not written by him. They are hypothetically attributed to him. Perhaps a few lines of Paul might also be present in these Epistles. 23 Keeping all these statements in mind, we are led to believe the truth of the following statement made by Festus: "The author of the New Testament is neither Jesus Christ nor his apostles, but a certain man of unknown identity has written them and attributed them to the Evangelists." 24 The truth of this statement has been proved beyond doubt. We have already shown earlier in this book that these six Epistles and the Book of Revelation were not believed in and remained rejected up until 363; and they were not acknowledged even by the council of Nicaea in 325. Then in 364 the members of the council of Liodesia acknowledged the six Epistles. The Book of Revelation remained excluded even in this meeting but later on in 397 was acknowledged by the Council of Carthage. 25 The decision of the two councils about these books cannot be considered as an ARGUMENT for obvious reasons. Firstly all the councils had acknowledged the Book of Jude. The Council of Liodesia then accepted the ten verses of chapter 10 from the Book of Esther, and the six chapters subsequent to chapter 10. The Song of Solomon, Tobit, Baruch, Ecclesiastes and Maccabees were acknowledged by the council of Carthage, while all the subsequent councils confirmed the decision of the above three councils. 26 Now, if the decisions of these councils were founded on authenticated ARGUMENTs, which they most certainly were not, then the Protestants would have accepted them, but on the other hand, if their decisions were arbitrary, as was in fact the case, it was necessary for the Protestants to reject all of these books. We are very much surprised to note that they accepted the Councils' decision regarding the six Epistles as well as the Book of Revelation but rejected it concerning the other books, especially the book of Judith which had been unanimously acknowledged by all the councils. This decision is again arbitrary and without justification. 27 Their only proffered reason, that the original versions of these books had been lost, cannot be accepted because Jerome confirmed the fact that he found the original versions of Jude and Tobit in the Chaldean language and the original book of Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew, and these books have been translated from the original versions. On this basis, the Protestants should at least accept these books and they should in fact reject the Gospel of Matthew since the original of that book was lost. 28 The statement of Horne, already quoted previously, proves the fact that the ancient Christians were not very particular about looking into the authenticity of their traditions. They used to accept and write all kinds of mythical and fabulous stories and traditions which were followed and acted upon by the people of subsequent times. In view of this, the most acceptable conclusion is that the scholars of these councils must have heard some of these traditions, which, after having been rejected for centuries, were acknowledged by them without any authentication) 29 Because the holy scriptures are treated by the Christians in the same way as ordinary books of law and civil administration, they continually changed and altered the texts to suit their needs. A few examples of this will be sufficient to establish our claim. 30 The Greek translation was consistently acknowledged as the authoritative text from the time of the Apostles to the 1 5th century. The Hebrew versions were believed to have been distorted and the Greek translation was considered the accurate version. Subsequently the position of these books was altogether changed. The distorted version was acknowledged as accurate and the accurate one as distorted. 31 The Book of Daniel in the Greek version was genuine in the eyes of the early scholars, but after Origen declared that it was incorrect, they rejected it and replaced it with the version of Theodotion. 32 The Epistle of Aristias remained on the list of the Holy Scriptures but in the seventeenth century some objections were raised against it and suddenly it turned into a false document in the eyes of a]l the Protestant scholars. 33 The Latin version is believed genuine by all the Catholics while it is considered distorted and unbelievable by the Protestants. 34 The small book of Genesis remained genuine and believable up until the 15th century while the same book was declared false and rejected in thel6th century. 35 The third Book of Ezra is still acknowledged by the Greek church but has been rejected by both the Catholics and the Protestants. Similarly the Song of Solomon was considered genuine and a part of the Holy Scriptures and can still be found in the Codex Elexandrine, yet it is now rejected. 36 The gradual realization of the distortions present in a number of their holy books is bound to lead the Christians, sooner or later, to admit to the truth of the fact that the great part of the Judeo-Christian scriptures have undergone great changes and distortions. 37 We have shown that the Christians do not possess any authentic records or acceptable ARGUMENTs for the authenticity of the books of either the Old Testament or the New T estament. 55 CONTRADICTIONS AND ERRORS IN THE BIBLICAL TEXT "Had it the Holy Koran) been from other than God, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy." (Koran 4:82) The texts of all the Judaeo-Christian scriptures contain sur- prisingly numerous contradictions and errors that are easily spotted by a serious reader of the Bible. This section is devoted to pointing out some of these contradictionsl in numerical order. The errors found in these texts will be discussed separately in the following section. 1 Contradiction No. 1 Any serious reader making a comparison between chapters 45 and 46 of the book of Ezekiel, and chapters 28 and 29 of the book of Numbers will notice great contradiction in the doctrines2 mentioned therein. 2 Contradiction No. 2 A comparison between chapter 13 of the Book of Joshua and chapter 2 of Deuteronomy concerning the inheritance of the children of Gad discloses a plain contradiction. One of the two statements has to be wrong. 3 Contradiction No. 3 I Chronicles chapters 7 and 8 concerning the descendants of Benjamin makes a statement which contradicts chapter 46 of Genesis. The Judaeo-Christian scholars have had to admit that the statement made by Chronicles is erroneous. This will be dis- cussed later. 4 Contradiction No. 4 There is great discrepancy in the description of genealogical names in I Chronicles 8:29-35 and 9:35-44. This contradiction was noticed by Adam Clarke who says in volume 2 of his com- mentary: The Jewish scholars claim that Ezra had found two books which contained these sentences with the contradicting names and since he could not prefer one to the other, he included both of them. 5 Contradiction No. 5 In 2 Samuel 24:9, it says: And Joab gave up the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men. On the other hand, we find in I Chronicles 21:5: And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thou- sand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred and threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword. The discrepancy in these statements amounts to a great con- tradiction in the number of people. There is a difference of three hundred thousand in the number of the Israelites while the dif- ferenCe in the number of the People of Judah is thirty thousand. 6 Contradiction No. 6 We read in 2 Samuel 24:13: So Gadl came to David, and told him, and said unto him Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? However we read in 1 Chr. 21:12: Either three years famine or.... The contradiction is quite obvious, since the former state- ment speaks of seven years of famine while the latter statement mentions only three years of famine referring to the same occa- sion. The commentators of the Bible have admitted that the for- mer statement is erroneous. 7 Contradiction No. 7 In 2 Kings 8:26 we find this statement: Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. In contrast with the above statement we read in 2 Chr. 22:2: Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign... This contradiction speaks for itself. The latter statement is obviously wrong and the commentators on the Bible have admitted this to be the case. It has to be wrong because the age of Ahaziah's father, Jehoram, at the time of his death was 40 years and Ahaziah began reigning just after the death of his father as is known from the previous chapter. In this case if we did not negate the latter statement it would mean that the son was two years older than his father. 8 Contradiction No. 8 In 2 Kings 24:8 it is stated that: Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign... This statement is contradicted by 2 Chr. 36:9 which says: Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign... The contradiction is more than obvious. The second state- ment is erroneous as will be shown later in this book. This has been admitted by Bible commentators. 9 Contradiction No. 9 There is an obvious contradiction between the statements of 2 Samuel 23:8l ["These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachomonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time."] and 1 Chronicle 11:112 ["And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had, Jashobeam, an Hachmonite, the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slam by him at one time."] Both are talking of the mighty men of David. Adam Clarke, making comments on the former statements of 2 Samuel, has quoted Dr Kennicot as saying that the verse in question contains three great distortions. This requires no further comment. 10 Contradiction No. 10 It is stated in 2 Samuel 5 and 6 that David brought the Ark to Jerusalem after defeating the Philistines, while chapters 13 and 14 of 1 Chronicles, describing the same event, make David bring the Ark before the defeat of Philistines. One of the two statements must be wrong. 11 Contradiction No. 11 In Genesis 6:19,20 and 7:8,9 we read: And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the Ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee. But as we proceed a little further to the next chapter of this book we suddenly come to this statement. Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female, and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and the female. When we proceed to the next verse it says: "Of fowls also of the air by sevens..." The contradiction speaks for itself. 12 Contradiction No. 12 It is understood from the Book of Numbers 31:7 ["And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord cornmanded Moses- and they slew all the males." 31:7] that the Israelites killed all the men of Midian during the lifetime of Moses,l and only their young girls were allowed to live in se tude. This statement contradicts the description given in Judges 6 ["And the hand of Midian prevailed against Israel." Judges 6: 2 "And Israel was greatly impoverished because of the Midianites." Judges 6:6] from which it is understood that in the time of Judges the Midianites were so strong and powerful that they dominated the Israelites while historically the time difference between the two periods is not more than one hundred years. Having been totally wiped out, how could the Midianites have been sufficiently strong and powerful to keep the Israelites under their domination for seven years within the short period of only one hundred years?2 13 Contradiction No. 13 Exodus 9:6 states: And the Lord did that thing on the morrow, and all the cattle of Egypt died: but of the cattle of the children of Israel died not one. This implies that all the cattle of Egypt had died but it is con- tradicted by another statement of the same chapter of the same book which says: He that feared the word of the Lord among the ser- vants of Pharaoh made his servants and his cattle flee into the houses: And he that regarded not the word of the Lord left his serants and his cattle in the field.[Exodus 9:20,21] The discrepancy in the above statements needs no comment. 14 Contradiction No. 14 Genesis 8:4,5 contains this statement: And the Ark rested in the seventh month, on the sev- enteenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen. This statement contains a serious contradiction of facts, since the Ark could have not rested on the mountain in the seventh month as described in the first verse if the tops of the mountains could not be seen until the first day of the tenth month as described by the next verse. 15 Contradictions No. 15 - 26 A comparison between 2 Samuel 8 and l Chronicles 18, dis- closes a great number of discrepancies and contradictions in the original version in the Hebrew language, although the transla- tors have tried to rectify some of them. You can reproduce some of them in parallel columns using the commentary of Adam Clarke on Samuel. As can be seen there are numerous contradictions in these two chapters. 16 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles 17 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles 18 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles 19 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles 20 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles 21 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles 22 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles 23 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles 24 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles 25 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles 26 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles 27 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles 28 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles 29 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles 30 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles 31 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles 32 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles 33 Contradiction NO. 33 1 Kings 4:26 contains this statement: And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. This statement is clearly contradicted by 2 Chronicles 9:25, which says: And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; Urdu and Persian translations have the same number but the Arabic translator has changed four thousand to forty thousand. Adam Clarke, the commentator, having pointed out the contro- versies of various translations and commentaries, has said, that in view of the various discrepancies, it would be better to admit that the numbers (in the Book of Kings) have been changed and distorted. 34 Contradiction No. 34 Comparison of 1 Kings 7:24 and 2 Chronicles 4:2-3 also dis- closes a contradiction in the statement of facts. In both texts a natatorium (molten sea) made by Solomon is mentioned. The text of the Book of Kings is this: And under the brim of it round about there were knops compassing it, ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about: the knops were cast in two rows, when it was cast. The text of Chronicles contains this description: Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass... And under it was the similitude of oxen, which did compass it round about: ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about. Two rows of oxen were cast, when it was cast. This is what it says in the Urdu and English versions while the Arabic translation of 1865 describes neither knops nor oxen but totally different things, a kind of cucumber. Knop! Ox! or Cucumber! Can you find any relation between these totally dif- ferent things? Adam Clarke, making comments on the text of Chronicles, points out that the opinion of great scholars was to accept the text of the Book of Kings, and it was possible that the word 'bakrem' might have been used in place of 'bakem'. 'Bakrem' signifies a knop and 'bakem' an ox. To be short, the commenta- tor has admitted the presence of human manipulation in the text of Chronicles. The compilers of Henry and Scott are forced to say that this difference in the text was due to a change in the alphabets. 35 Contradiction No. 35 2 Kings 16:2 says: Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign, and reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem... We find another statement in the same book in 18:2 regarding his son Hezekiah: Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. This later statement means that Hezekiah must have been born when his father Ahaz was only eleven years old which is physically impossible.l Obviously one of the two texts is wrong. The commentators have admitted that the former statement is wrong. Commenting on chapter 16 the compilers of Henry and Scott say that apparently thirty has been written instead of twenty and have advised people to refer to 18:2 of the same book. 36 Contradiction No. 36 2 Chronicles 28:1 says: Ahaz was twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem: Chapter 29 of the same book starts with these words: Hezekiah (the son of Ahaz) began to reign when he was five and twenty years old... Here too (as in No. 35) one of the two texts has to be wrong and apparently it is the first text that is erroneous. 37 Contradiction No. 37 A comparison between 2 Samuel 12:31 and 1 Chronicles 20:3, presents another obvious contradiction between the two texts. Horne has also noted this difference and has suggested that the text of the 1 Chronicles should be changed to accord with the text of the Book of Samuel. He says, "The text of Samuel is correct, therefore the text of Chronicles may accord- ingly be altered." What is to be noted from this example is the despotic and arbitrary attitude of the Christian theologians towards their holy scriptures. The more surprising fact in this regard is that this suggestion was followed by the Arabic translator in 1844 in the opposite direction to this suggestion. That is to say, he altered the text of the Samuel to accord with the text of Chronicles and not the other way round as was suggested by Horne. The readers of this book should not be shocked by this. They will soon be coming to frequent distortions of this nature - a usual practice of the Christians. 38 Contradiction No. 38 We read in 1 Kings 15:33: In the third year of Asa king of Judah began Baasha the son of Abijah to reign all over Israel in Tirzah, twenty and four years. Contrary to this 2 Chronicles 16:1 says: In the sixth and thirtieth year of the reign of Asa Baasha, King of Israel came up against Judah... The contradiction between the texts is more than clear. One of the two texts must be wrong because according to the first text Baasha died' in the twenty-sixth year of Asa's reign so that in the thirty-sixth year of Asa's reign he has been dead for ten years. Obviously Baasha cannot invade Judah ten years after his death. The compilers of Henry and Scott, commenting on the text of Chronicles have said, "Asher, a great Christian scholar, has said, "This twenty-sixth year is not the year of Asa's reign, but this is the year of the division of the kingdom which was in the period of Jeroboam." The Christian scholars, however, have admitted that the text of Chronicles is erroneous - either the number thirty-six has been replaced by twenty-six or the phrase 'the division of the kingdom' is to be put in place of Asa. 39 Contradiction No. 39 The text of 2 Chronicles 15:19 is this: And there was no war unto the five and thirtieth year of Asa. This text is again contradicting the text of 1 Kings 15:33 as has been shown in the previous ARGUMENT under Contradiction No. 38. 40 Contradiction No. 40 The number of Solomon's officers looking after the work is described as three thousand and three hundred in 1 Kings 5:16 whereas in 2 Chronicles 2:2 this number is mentioned as three thousand and six hundred The Greek translators have altered this number making it six hundred. 41 Contradiction NO. 41 The text of 1 Kings 7:26 giving the description of the "molten sea" made by Solomon says, "It contained two thou- sand baths", while the text of 2 Chronicles 4:5 claims, "It received and held three thousand baths". The Persian translation, 1838, speaks of the capacity of two thousand "idols". The Persian translation, 1845, contains, "Two thousand vessels," And the Persian translation, 1838, contains, "three thousand idols". The inconsistencies and discrepancies of these various texts speak for themselves. 42 Contradiction NO. 42 When chapter 2 of the Book of Ezra is compared with chap- ter 7 of Nehemiah, several discrepancies and contradictions in the texts can be seen. Apart from textual differences, there are errors in number of the Israelites. In the two chapters there are twenty numerical contradictions and many others where names are concerned. You can notice the errors concerning the numbers of the liberated Israelites. The following is the contradictory wording from both: 6 The children Pahath- 11 The children of Pahath Moab... two thousand eight Moab...two thousand eight hundred and twelve. hundred and eighteen. 8 The children of Zattu, nine 13 The chilren of Zattu, hundred forty and five. eight hundred forty and five. 12 The children of Azgad, a 17 The children of Azad thousand two hundred twenty two thousand three hundred and two. twenty and two. 15 The children of Adin, four 20 The children of Adin, six hundred fifty and four. hundred fifty and five. 19 The chlldren of Hashum, 22 The children of Hashum two hundred twenty and three. three hundred twenty and 28 The children of Beth-el eight. and Ai, two hundred twenty 32 The men of Beth-el and Ai, and three. an hundred twenty and three. Both texts agree on the total number of the Israelites who came to Jerusalem after the release from captivity in Babylon. These chapters claim that they were forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty. But if we add them ourselves, we do not obtain this number neither from Ezra or from Nehemiah. The total according to Ezra comes to twenty nine thousand eight hundred and eighteen, while in Nehemiah it adds up to thirty- one thousand and eighty-nine. Nor is this total number correct according to the historians. Joseph (Eusephius) says in the first chapter of vol. 2 of his his- tory: The Israelites that came from Babylon count to forty-two thousand, four hundred and sixty-two. The compiler of Henry and Scott's commentary have said under the comments on the text of Ezra: A great difference has been caused between this chapter and chapter 7 of Nehemiah by the copyists. At the time of their rendering into English, the corrections were made through the available copies. Wherever the copies could not be found, the Greek translation was preferred over the Hebrew. It may be noted how the texts of the Holy Scripture are so easily distorted in the name of correction, and how texts that remained acknowledged for centuries vanish altogether from the books. Meanwhile the books still remain full of errors and con- tradictions. In fact, participation of human element in these books has been present from their very origin. The copyists are unjustifi- ably blamed for making errors. Even today a comparative read- ing of these two chapters will reveal more than twenty errors and contradictions. 43 Contradiction No. 43 We find this statement in 2 Chronicles concerning the name of the mother of King Abijah: His mother's name also was Michaiah, the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah. (13:2) Contrary to this we find another statement in the same book to the effect that: He took Maachah the daughter of Absalom; which bare him Abijah... (11:20) Again this latter statement is contradicted by the book of 2 Samuel 14:27 which says that Absalom had only one daughter named Tamar. 44 Contradiction No. 44 It is understood from the Book of Joshua chapter 10 that the Israelites took over Jerusalem after killing the king, while 15:63 of the same book denies the capture of Jerusalem by the Israelites.2 45 Contradiction No. 45 2 Samuel 24:1 says: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. This statement is plainly contradicted by I Chronicles 21:1 where it says that this thought was provoked by Satan. Since, according to the Christians, God is not the Creator of evil, this turns into a very serious contradiction. CONTRADICTIONS IN THE GENEALOGY OF JESUS NO. 46-51 A comparative reading of the genealogy of Jesus according to the Gospel of Matthew and the genealogy according to Luke reveals a number of contradictions: 46 Contradiction No. 46 Matthew describes Joseph as son of Jacob 1:16, while Luke says Joseph son of Heli 3:23 47 Contradiction No. 47 According to Matthew 1:6, Jesus was a descendant of Solomon, the son of David, while Luke 3:31 puts him into the line of Nathan, the son of David. 48 Contradiction No. 48 Matthew claims that the ancestors of Jesus right from David to the exile of the Israelites were all kings of great repute, while Luke says that except David and Nathan none of them was king. They were not even known as prominent personalities of their time. 49 Contradiction No. 49 From Matthew 1:12 we learn that Salathiel was the son of Jeconias while Luke 3:27 informs us that he was the son of Neri. 50 Contradiction No. 50 We read in Matthew 1:13 that "Zorobabel begat Abiud," while Luke 3:27 says, "which was the son of Rhesa which was the son of Zorobabel." It will be more surprising or rather very interesting for the reader to know that I Chronicles mentions all the names of the sons of Zorobabel, and neither Rhesa nor Abiud appear. It appears that both names are false. 51 Contradiction No. 51 According to Matthew there are twenty-six generations from David to Jesus, while according to Luke there are forty. As the period of time between David and Jesus is one thousand years, the gap from one generation to another according to Matthew is forty years and according to Luke twenty-five years. This con- tradiction is so clear that it requires no comment. It has been a cause of great embarrassment to the Christian theologians and scholars from the very inception of these two Gospels. A group of great scholars like Eichhorn, Kaiser, Heins, De Wett, Winner Fritsche and others have plainly admitted that these two Gospels do really contain contradictions of an unjusti- fiable nature. Just as the two Gospels contain discrepancies in other places, so here too they are different from each other. Had they been free from discrepancies throughout, some justification for the difference in genealogical description might have been found. Adam Clarke, however, making comments on chapter 3 of Luke, has reluctantly quoted some justifications together with his remarks of astonishment about them. He has, for instance, quoted Harmer on page 408 of vol. 5 making this unpalatable excuse: The genealogical tables were well kept by the Jews. It is known to everyone that Matthew and Luke have erred in such a way as to embarrass all the ancient and modern scholars. But as several objections were raised in the past against the author, for several doubtful points of the books, and, these objections, later on, turned out to be in his favour, similarly this objection too, will come to his aid. And time will certainly do it. However, this contradiction is so serious that it has caused great embarrassment to both ancient and modern scholars. Their claim that the genealogical tables were kept safe by the Jews is false as it has been historically proved that they were destroyed in the course of the calamities and unfortunate accidents that have dogged the history of the Jews. For this obvious reason errors are found in the text of Ezra as well as these Gospels. Now if this was the condition of the scriptures in Ezra's time, one can imagine the condition of these texts in the time of the disciples. If the genealogies of the notable personalities and the priests could not be preserved, how much reliance can be put on the genealogy of poor Joseph who was only a carpenter. It is a possible assumption that the evangelists might have adopted two different genealogical tables concerning Joseph, the car- penter, without proper regard to their accuracy. Harmer's hope that time would change this objection in favour of the authors seems very far from being realized since nineteen centuries have passed without the Evangelists being exonerated in this matter. Had it been possible to do so, it would have been done a long time ago, seeing that in the last three centuries Europe has made such extraordinary advances in all branches of science and tech- nology and has accumulated a treasure-house of resources to help in the search for the truth. As a result of scientific research in the field of religion, they first made some reforms in their faith and then rejected outright many of the established tenets and creeds of their religion. Similarly the Pope, who was considered infallible and the highest authority of the Christians all over the world, was declared an impostor and unworthy of trust. Further, in the name of reforms, the Christians became subdivided into several sects and continued to make so-called reforms until they finally had to declare that Christianity as a whole was not more than a collection of whimsical ideas and fabulous stories. Given this situation the future does not allow us to hope for any positive results The only explanation for this contradiction presented by some scholars is to say that perhaps Matthew has described the genealogy of Joseph whereas Luke might have written the genealogy of Mary. In this case Joseph would become the son- in-law of Heli who was himself without a son. Joseph, there- fore, might have been described as the son of Heli. This expla- nation is unacceptable and is rejected for several reasons. Firstly because in this case Jesus would not be a descendant of Solomon but a descendant of Nathan, as he would be included in the genealogy on his mother's side, not that of Joseph, the carpenter. If this were so, Jesus could not possibly have been the Messiah, since the Messiah who had been predicted by the prophets had to be a descendant of Solomon. This is why a great leader of the Protestant faith rejected this explanation saying to the effect that, "Whoever excludes the Christ from the genealogical line of Solomon, precludes the Christ from being the Christ." Secondly this explanation is not acceptable until it is proved through authentic historical reports that Mary was indeed the daughter of Heli and Nathan's line was through her. Mere assumptions are of no avail in this regard especially in the pres- ence of the adversary remarks of Calvin and Adam Clarke. On the contrary, it is expressly mentioned in the Gospel of John that the parents of Mary were Jehoachim and Joanna. And though this Gospel is not recognised by the modern Christians as a revealed book written by John, the disciple of Jesus, it is, undoubtedly a document of great historical value. Its author cer- tainly belongs to the early times of Christianity. The book cer- tainly has more historical value than the most reliable books of history. It cannot, therefore, be denied by unauthenticated reports. St. Augustine said that he found a statement in a certain book that Mary was a Levite. This goes against her being a descen- dant of Nathan. Besides, we find the following statement in the Book of Numbers: And every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy every man the inheritance of his fathers. Neither shall the inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe; but every one of the tribes of the chil- dren of Israel shall keep himself to his own inheritance. (Numbers 36:8,9) And in the Gospel of Luke we read: There was a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron. It is known from the Gospels that Mary was closely related to the wife of Zacharias (Elisabeth) which implies that Mary was also a descendant of Aaron. We have just read the com- mandment of Torah (Pentateuch) that any daughter of the chil- dren of Israel should be married to her own tribe, therefore Joseph also should be a descendant of Aaron. Jesus, in this case, would be a descendant of David. To avoid this confusion two different genealogies were writ- ten. Since these Gospels were not known until the end of the second century, the writer of one genealogy remained unknown to the other genealogist. This is the apparent reason for the pre- sent contradiction in the two Gospels. Thirdly, had Mary been the daughter of Heli, it must have been in the knowledge of ancient writers, who would not know- ingly have presented such unbelievable explanations which, later on, were rejected and laughed at by modern writers Fourthly, the Gospel of Matthew says: Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called the Christ. While Luke says: The son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli. Both the statements clearly show that the authors are writing the genealogy of Joseph. Fifthly, if we presume that Mary was the daughter of Heli, Luke's statement will not be true unless it is proved that it was customary among the Jews that they, in the absence of a real son, used to include the name of their son-in-law in their genealogy. This has not so far been proved by any authentic ARGUMENT. As far as the unauthentic claims of the scholars of the protestant faith are concerned, they remain unacceptable to us on account of their lack of proof and valid ARGUMENTs. We do not deny the possibility of a certain person being associated with another person who is related to him through his father or wife or even being his teacher or his priest and he may be associated with the name of another person. That is to say we may, for example, refer to him as the king's nephew or the king's son-in-law in order to recognise him through a known personality. This kind of association is a totally different thing from someone being included in the genealogical line of another person. It is possible that it might have been a custom among the Jews to say that someone was the son of his father-in-law, but it remains to be historically proved that such a custom existed. Another point to be noted here is that the Gospel of Matthew cannot have been known or acknowledged in the time of Luke. Otherwise it would have not been possible for Luke to contra- dict Matthew so blatantly that it has resulted in a serious embar- rassment to the ancient and modem advocates of Christianity. 52 Contradictions No. 52 - 53 53 A comparative reading of Matthew 2 and Luke presents a great contradiction to the reader and tends to indicate that nei- ther of the two Gospels are divinely inspired. It is understood from the description in Matthew that the par- ents of the Messiah lived in Bethlehem even after his birth. It is also made clear by another description in Matthew that the peri- od of their stay in Bethlehem was two years. Due to the domina- tion of the Magians they afterwards migrated to Egypt and lived there during the lifetime of Herod,l and after his death, they retumed to live in Nazareth. Luke, on the other hand, gives us a different description. He says that Jesus' parents went to Jerusalem after Mary's confinement,2 and that after offering the sacrifice they went to Nazareth and lived there. However they used to go to Jerusalem every year at the feast of Passover. According to him there is no question of the Magians' com- ing to Bethlehem. Similarly, the parents of Jesus could have not gone to Egypt and stayed there as it is clear from what is said that Joseph never left Judah in his life neither for Egypt nor for any other place. We learn from the Gospel of Matthew that Herod and the people of Judah were not aware of the birth of Jesus4 until the Magians reported it to him. On the other hand Luke says that after Mary's confinement when Jesus' parents had gone to Jerusalem to offer the sacrifice they met Simeon, who was a righteous man and to whom it had been revealed by the Holy Ghost that he would not die until he had seen the Messiah. He lifted Jesus high in his arms and told the people of his great qualities. Similarly Anna, a prophetess, also told the people about the coming of the Messiah and thanked God. Now if we accept that Herod and his people were enemies of Jesus, Simeon would have not informed the people about Jesus in the temple where his enemies were all around, nor would the prophetess, Anna, have disclosed the identity of the Christ to the people of Jerusalem. The scholar Norton, who is a great advocate of the Gospels, has admitted the presence of real contradiction in the two texts, and decided that the text of Matthew was erroneous and that of Luke was correct. 54 Contradiction No. 54 It is learnt from the Gospel of Mark that Christ asked the congregation to go away after his sermon of parables,l and the sea at that time was stormy. But from the Gospel of Matthew we learn that these events took place after the Sermon on the Mount.2 This is why Matthew described the parables in chapter 13 of his Gospel. This sermon, therefore, is proved to have been a long time after these events, as the two sermons are separated by a long period. One of the two statements, therefore, has to be essentially wrong. The two authors, who claim to be men of inspiration or are considered by the people to be so, should not make erroneous statements. 55 Contradiction No. 55 The Gospel of Mark describes the debate of Jesus with the Jews as taking place three days after his arrival in Jerusalem. Matthew writes that it took place on the second day. One of the two statement obviously has to be wrong. Horne says in his commentary (vol. 4 p. 275 1822 edition) regarding this contradiction and the one discussed before it that: "There is no way of explaining these discrepancies." 56 Contradiction No. 56 The sequence of events after the Sermon on the Mount as given by Matthew 8:3,13,16 is different from the one given by Luke 4:38 5:13, 7:10 For instance, the events according to Matthew happened in this order; curing a leper, Jesus' arrival at Capernaum, healing the servant of a Roman officer, and healing of Peter's mother-in- law. The Gospel of Luke first describes the event of Peter's mother-in-law, then in chapter describes the healing of the leper and in chapter the healing of the servant of a Roman officer. One of the two statements certainly has to be erro- neous. 57 Contradiction No. 57 According to the Gospel of John 1:19-21 some of the priests and Levites were sent by the Jews to John to inquire if he was Elias. He replied, "I am not Elias." This statement is expressly contra- dicted by Jesus according to Matthew 11:14 where Jesus is quoted as saying "And if ye will receive it, this is Elias which was for to come." And also we find this statement in Matthew 17:10-13: And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John, the Baptist. Both these texts denote that John the Baptist is the promised Elias, with the result that the statements of John and Jesus con- tradict each other. A careful reading of the books of Christianity makes it almost impossible to believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah. To premise our ARGUMENT, the following four points should first be noted: Firstly, according to the book of Jeremiah when Jehoiakim, son of Josiah, burnt the scripture which was written by Baruch from Jeremiah's recitation, Jeremiah received the following rev- elation from God: Thus saith the Lord of Jehoiakim King of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David [Jeremiah 36:30] According to the word of Gabriel as quoted by Luke it is neces- sary for the Messiah to sit on the throne of David: And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father, David [Luke 1:32] Secondly, the coming of the Christ was conditional on the coming of Elias prior to him. One of the major ARGUMENTs of the Jews to support their disbelief in Christ was that Elias had not come, whereas his coming prior to the Messiah was positively necessary according to their books. Jesus himself confirmed that Elias must come first, but at the same time he said that Elias had already come but the people did not recognize him. On the other Unable to recognize this page. except that the earlier versions have been changed. 64 Contradictions No. 64-67 65 66 67 The following texts contradict each other: (1) Matthew 2:6 and Micah 5:2. The Matthew text says: And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least among the Princes of Judah: for out of thee shall come a governor, that shall rule my people Israel. In the text of Micah, Bethlehem is mentioned as little. (2) Acts 2:25-28 and four verses of Psalm 15, according to the Arabic version and Psalm 16:8-11 according to other trans- lations. (3) The Epistle to the Hebrews 10:5-7 contradicts Psalm No. 39 (Arabic) and Psalm No. 40:6-8 according to other transla- tions. The text of Hebrews has: Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo: I come to do thy will, O God! Whereas in the Psalms it says: Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears thou has opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart. (4) Acts 15:16,17 are inconsistent with Amos 9:11,12. In Acts 15 it says: After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof; and I will set it up, that the residue of men might seek after the Lord. Amos has: In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins and I will build it as in the days of old. That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name. The Christian commentators have admitted the presence of contradictions in these texts and have acknowledged that the Hebrew version has been manipulated. 68 Contradiction No. 68 Paul's first letter to Corinthians 2:9 says: But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. The researches of the Christian theologians have concluded that this statement derives from Isaiah 64:4 which is this: For, since of the beginning of the world, men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither has the eye seen, O God, besides thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him. The difference between the two texts is quite obvious. The commentators of the Bible admit the presence of incompatibili- ty in the above texts and say that the text of Isaiah has been dis- torted. 69 Contradiction No. 69 The Gospel of Matthew 9:27-31 describes in chapter 9 that Jesus after departing from Jericho, saw two blind men on the way and healed them of their blindness. Contradicting this, Mark writes in chapter 10 of his gospel: ..blind Bartimaus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the highway side begging. So in Mark the healing of only one man by Jesus is mentioned. 70 Contradiction No. 70 Matthew describes this event in chapter 8:28: ...into the country of Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs. Then Jesus is described as healing them. This statement is inconsistent with the texts of Mark chapter S and Luke chapter 8, which is this: There met him out of the city a certain man which had devils ...[Luke 8:27] Then he was healed by Jesus. Two men in the first quotation become one in the second. 71 Contradiction No. 71 It appears from chapter 21:7 of Matthew that Jesus sent two of his disciples to bring an ass and a colt from a village and the disciples: ...brought the ass and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon. While the rest of the Evangelists said that Jesus asked his disciples to bring only the colt or an ass and that when it came he rode on it. 72 Contradiction No. 72 Mark 1:6 says in his first chapter "And John ...did eat locusts and wild honey. While Matthew 11:18,19 states that: "John came neither eating nor drinking." 73 Contradiction Nos. 73-75 74 75 A comparison between the texts of Mark chapter one, Matthew chapter four and John chapter one, reveals inconsisten- cies regarding the circumstances-in which the disciples embraced the new faith. The Gospels of Matthew and Mark write: And Jesus walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew, his brother, casting a net into the sea... and he saith unto them Follow me ... And they followed him ... He saw other two brethren James, the son of Zebedee and John his Brother, mending their nets ... he called them . and they followed him [Matthew 4:18-22] But the text of John is different from the above text in three ways. Firstly John does not mention the name of James Secondly it describes that Jesus saw them with the exception of John on the banks of the Jordan (not Galilee). Thirdly John does not speak of their nets. The contents of John's text inform us that Jesus met John and Andrew on the banks of the Jordan then Peter was sent by Andrew. And on the next day came Philip and Nathanael. James is not mentioned [John 5:22,23] 76 Contradiction No. 76 A comparison of chapter 9 of Matthew with chapter 5 of Mark reveals contradictions in the reports of the two evangelists concerning the ruler's daughter. Matthew reports: There came a certain ruler .... saying my daughter is even now dead. While Mark 5:22,23 says: He fell at his feet... saying, my little daughter lieth at the point of death. Further he says that Jesus went with the ruler, but on the way people came from the synagogue and said, "Thy daughter is Some early scholars have admitted that incompatibility exist- ed between the two texts. Some of them favoured the text of atthew while some others preferred the text of Mark. Luke's text is similar to the text of Mark except that he writes that the report of the daughter's death was given only by one man [8:49] The death of the ruler's daughter has consistently been a point of confusion among scholars of the Bible. There is dis- agreement on the question of whether the daughter had died or was just looking as if she was dead. The learned scholar Nander is not convinced that she was dead. He said that, in fact, she was not dead but only looked as if she was. The scholars Balish, Sliemasher and Sassoon are also of the opinion that she was not dead but only unconscious. This is also supported by the state- ment of Jesus [Like 8:52] Weep not, she is not dead, but sleepeth. According to these opinions this event does not serve the purpose of proving the miracle of the resurrection of the dead. 77 Contradiction No. 77 It is understood from Matthew 10:10 and Luke that when Christ sent his disciples to preach, he forbade them to keep staves with them, while on the contrary the text of Mark 6:8 says that Jesus allowed them to keep their staves. 78 Contradiction No. 78 ** It is said in chapter 3:13 of Matthew that: Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? Further in the chapter it says: And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straight- way out of the water ... and he saw the Spirit of God, descending like a dove... And the Gospel of John 1:32,23 describes this event in these words: And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shall see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. The Gospel of Matthew 11:2 contains this statement in chapter Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples and said unto him. Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another. The first statement gives us to understand that John knew Jesus before the descending of the Spirit on him. Contrary to this the second statement quotes the words of John, "I knew him not", implying that John did not know Jesus before the descent of the Spirit on him. While the third takes a middle position. Contradiction No. 79 The Gospel of John has reported Christ as saying: If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. (5:31) And the same Gospel has reported Christ as contradict- ing this: Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true. (8:14) Contradiction No. 80 It appears from Matthew chapter 15:22 that the woman who came to Jesus crying for her daughterl was from Canaan. This information is contradicted by the Gospel of Mark chapter 7:26 where he reports that she was a Greek and a Syrophoenician by tribe. Contradiction No. 81 We read in the Gospel of Mark 7:32 : And they bring unto him one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech. It is clearly understood from this that the man who was deaf and dumb, was a single person, but the description in the Gospel of Matthew 15:30 plainly contradicts this, saying: And great multitudes came unto him, having with them those that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed and many others, and cast them down at Jesus' feet, and he healed them. This exaggeration is similar to the one made by John 21:25, the author of the fourth Gospel who says at the end of the book: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. What one should think of such statements? They are sup- posed to be men of inspiration beyond any criticism. Contradiction No. 82 We read in the Gospel of Matthew 26:21-25 that Jesus, addressing his disciples, said: ...I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I? And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me, ... then Judas answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said. The same event is described by John 13:21-26 in a way that is greatly different from the above: Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me, Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake. Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter, therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake. He then Iying 13 on Jesus's breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it? Jesus answered, He it is to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. Contradiction No. 83 The Gospel of Matthew, describing the event of the arrest of Jesus says in chapter 26:48-50: Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast. And forthwith he came to Jesus and said, Hail, Master; and kissed him... Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. The Gospel of John gives the same story with great differ- ences in chapter 18:3-12 Judas then, having received a band of men and offi- cers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am He, they went backward and fell to the ground. Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go heir way.... Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him. Contradiction No. 84 All the four Gospels give a description of Peter denying Jesusl after his arrest. But each description is different from the other in eight respects. 1. According to the reports of Matthew 26:6-75 and Mark 14:66-72 there were two maids who claimed that Peter was one of the dis- ciples of Jesus, and some other men who "stood by". While Luke's description claims that there was one maid and two other men. 2. According to Matthew, when the first maid spoke to Peter he was sitting on the outside of the palace, while according to Luke 22:55, he was "in the midst of the hall," and according to Mark, he was "beneath in the palace", and according to John he denied him when he was inside the palace. 3. The wording of the maid's question to Peter is different in all the four Gospels. 4. According to the reports of Matthew, Luke and John, the cock crew only once after Peter had denied Jesus three times, while according to Luke, the cock crew three times; once just after the first denial of Peter, and twice, after the second denial. 5. According to Matthew and Luke, Jesus had foretold Peter that he would deny Jesus thrice before the cock crew that night, while Mark has reported it differently, saying that Jesus said to Peter that he would deny him three times before the cock crew twice that night. 6. Peter's answer to the maid who first challenged Peter is reported by Matthew 26:70 as: "I know not what thou sayest." While according to John 18:25 he only said, "I am not." Mark 15:68 on the other hand, has reported it in these words: "I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest." And Luke 22:57 has put it this way: "Woman, I know him not." 7. Peter's second answer is also reported differently by all the Evangelists. According to Matthew 26:72 ..Peter denied him with an oath and said, "I do not know the man," and according to John 18:25 his answer was, "I am not,"6 while Mark 14:70 has just said, "And he denied it again," and according to Luke 22:58 his answer was, "Man, I am not." 8. The people who "stood by " at the time of Peter's denial were, according to Mark, outside the palace, while Luke reports them as being, "in the midst of the hall". Contradiction No. 85 Describing the event of crucifixion of Jesus Luke 23:26 says: And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus. This statement is contradicted by the Gospel of John 19:17, where it says that Jesus, bearing his cross himself, went forth to the place of crucifixion. Contradiction No. 86 The first three [Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:23, Luke 23:44] Gospels agree that Christ was on the cross at the sixth hour on the day of crucifixion, but contrary to this the Gospel of John 19:14 reports him to be in the court of Pilate exactly at the sixth hour on the same day. Contradiction No. 87 The Gospel of Mark 15:32 says regarding the thieves who were crucified with Jesus: And they that were crucified with him reviled him, while Luke 23:43 reports that one of them reproached Jesus and the other said, Lord remember me when thou comest into thy king- dom. Then Jesus replied to him, Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise. The Urdu translators of the editions 1839, 1840, 1844 and 1846 changed the texts of Matthew and Mark to avoid this difference to the effect that there was only one person who was crucified with Jesus.6 It is a common practice of Christian schol- ars to change the texts of their Holy scriptures whenever they think they should. Contradiction No. 88 It is understood from chapters 20:29 and 21:1 of Matthew that Jesus arrived in Jerusalem after departing from Jericho, while from John 11:54; 12:1 we learn that Jesus, departing from Ephraim, arrived in Bethany, where he stayed for the night. Contradiction No. 89 The Resurrection of Jesus: We learn from Matthew 27:56; 28:5,6 that when Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of James, arrived near the grave, an angel of God descended from the heaven, and the stone rolled back from the grave and he sat upon it, and said to the women not to fear and go home quickly. The Gospel of Mark 16:1-6 describes this incident as follows: Mary Magdalene, and Mary, the mother of James and Salome.... Came unto the sepulchre,.... and when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away.... And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment. Luke's description of this is 24:2-4 : And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre, and they entered in and found not the body of the Lord Jesus......behold, two men stood by them in shining garments. Contradiction No. 90 It is expressly mentioned in Matthew 28:8-10 that after the angels informed the women of Jesus' resurrection, they returned from there, and on the way they met Jesus. Jesus hailed them and asked them to tell the people to go to Galilee where they would see him. But Luke 24:9-11 differs from this statement when he says: And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest. It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary, the mother of James and other women that were with them which told these things unto the apostles. And their word seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not. On the other hand we learn from the Gospel of John 20:13-15 that Jesus met Mary Magdalene near the grave. Contradiction No. 91 The Gospel of Luke says in chapter 11:51 : From the blood of Abel, unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: Verily I say unto you, it shall be required of this generation.S But we read this in the Book of Ezekiel 18:20 : The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. However in other places in the Old Testament there are sev- eral passages which imply that the children of a man will be accountable for the sins of their father up to three or four gener- ations. Contradiction No. 92 Paul's first letter to Timothy 2:3,4 contains this statement: For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God, our Saviour, who will have all the men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the Truth. This statement is incompatible with, and contradicts, Paul's statement in his second letter to Thessalonians 2:11,12 : And for this cause, God shall send them strong delu- sion, that should believe a lie, that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. It may be noted how Paul's two statements contradict each other. The first text gives us to understand that God's aim is to redeem all the men and take them to knowledge of the truth, while the latter statement would have us believe that God sends strong delusions to them so that they believe in falsehood like a truth; and God will punish them for that. The Protestants raise the same objection against other religions. According to them God first deludes them to make them stray from the right path, and then punishes them for unrighteousness. Contradictions No. 93-6 Acts 9:1-5,22 and 26 give a description of Paul's conversion to Christianity. The texts of all three chapters are different in many respects. We intend to give only three discrepancies in this book. 1. We read in Acts 9:7 this statement: And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. This statement is contradicted by the following Acts 22:9 statement: And they that were with me saw indeed the light and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me. The contradiction between "hearing a voice" and "heard not the voice of him" speaks for itself. 2. Again in Chapter 9:7 we find Paul quoting these words of Jesus: ..and the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city; and it shall be told thee, what thou must do.t Chapter 22 also contains this: Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. But in Chapter 26 we are told a different story: But rise, and stand upon thy feet; for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou has seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee. Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee to open their eyes and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the Power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. It may be noted that according to the first two texts, Jesus did not assign any duty to Paul at this occasion, but he was promised that he would be told after he arrived in Damascus, while the later statement shows that Jesus explained his duties at the time of his appearance. 3. It is understood from the first text that the people who were with Paul stood there silently, while the third text shows them as having fallen onto the ground, and the second text does not mention it at all. Contradiction No. 97 We find in Paul's first letter to Corinthians 10:8 : Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed,l and fell in one day three and twenty thou- sand. This statement is contradicted by the book of Numbers 25:1,9 : And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand. One of these two texts must be wrong. Contradiction No. 98 We read this statement in the book of Acts 7:14 : Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls. The above text expressly denotes that Joseph and his chil- dren who were with Joseph in Egypt are naturally excluded from this number. In fact, it refers to Jacob and his family, but in Genesis 46:27 we read: And the sons of Joseph which were born of him in Egypt were two souls. All the souls of the house of Jacob which came into Egypt were threescore and ten. and according to the commentaries of D'Oyly and Richardment the number of the house of Jacob comes to seventy only when Joseph and his two sons are included in it. They enumerate as folloWS: the children of Leah thirty two souls, of Zilpah sixteen, of Rachel eleven, and of Bilhah seven. They were in all sixty- six souls. They become seventy when Jacob, Joseph and his two sons are included. This means that the above text of the book of Acts is certainly erroneous. Contradiction No. 99 The death of Judas Iscariot is described both by Matthew and Acts. The two texts disclose serious contradictions in two respects. Firstly according to Matthew 27:4,5,6,7 Judas "departed, and went and hanged himself." While Acts 1:18 says: Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong; he burst asun- der in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. Secondly, we know from the first text, that chief priests of the temple bought a field with the money left by Judas3 while the second text clearly says that Judas himself bought a field with that money. Peter in the latter text also adds: And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem. There are several reasons to believe that the statement made by Matthew is erroneous as compared to Luke, which may be true. We discuss five of these reasons here: 1. It is clear from the text of Matthewl that Judas was remorseful about his sin of betrayal, before hanging himself, but this cannot be true as Jesus, at that hour, was in the court of Pilate and not yet sentenced to death. 2. The text shows that Judas had returned the money to the high priests and elders of the Temple. This is also wrong on the same ground that the high priests and elders were all with Pilate at that time and were not pre- sent at the temple. 3. The context of Matthew's text clearly indicates that the passage referred to, which lies between the second and ninth verses, does not correspond to the rest of the text. 4. Judas died on the morning of the night in which Jesus was arrested. It seems unlikely that, in such a short time, he should repent and kill himself because he knew, even before the arrest of Jesus, that Jesus would be killed by the Jews. 5. The ninth verse of this text contains a serious error which will be discussed in the section discussing the errors of the Bible. Contradiction No. 100 The First Letter to John 2:1,2 says: Jesus Christ, the righteous: and he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. Contrary to this we read in the book of Proverbs 21:18 : The wicked shall be ransom for the righteous, and the transgressor for the upright. The contradiction here needs no comment. Contradiction No. 101 It is understood from the text of Paul's letter to the Hebrews 7:18 that one of the commandments of Moses is weak and unprof- itable and therefore defective, while Psalm No. 18 says in verse 7, "The law of the Lord is perfect." Contradiction No. 102 The Gospel of Mark describes the women coming to the grave of Jesus "very early in the morning", while the Gospel of John tells us that only Mary Magdalene came to the grave "when it was yet dark." Contradiction No. 103 The inscription superscribed on the cross by the Pilate is given differently in all four Gospels. In Matthew 27:37 it is, "This is Jesus, the king of the Jews." In the Gospel of Mark 15:26 it appears as only, "The king of the Jews." Luke 23:38 says that written in letters of Greek, Latin and Hebrew was, "This is the king of the Jews.'' And the Gospel of John 19:19 puts it in these words, "Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews." It is strange that the evangelists could not record such a short sentence consistently. How then can their records be trusted for detailed and long reports. Contradiction No. 104 We learn from the Gospel of Mark 6:20 that Herod believed in the righteousness of John the Baptist, and was pleased with him. He arrested and killed him only for the sake of Herodias (his brother's wife). Luke 3:19, on the other hand, reports that Herod did not persecute John only for the sake of Herodias but also for the reproaches of John regarding his own perversion. Contradiction No. 105 The three evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke are unanimous about the description of the names of eleven of the disciples of Jesus, but all the three disagree regarding the name of the twelfth disciple. The names of eleven disciples unanimously mentioned are: Peter, Andrew, James son of Zebedee, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James son of Alpheus, Simon the Canaanite and Judas Iscariot. According to Matthew, the name of the twelfth disciple was Lebbeus whose surname was Thaddeus. Mark says it was Thaddaeus. Luke claims it was Judas, the brother of James. Contradiction No. 106 The first three Evangelists make mention of the man who was sitting at the receipt of custom, and who followed Jesus when he called him. There is, however, considerable disagree- ment among them regarding his name. According to Matthew his name is Matthew, l while Mark says he was Levi, the son of Alpheus, 2 and Luke writes Levi without his father's name.3 Contradiction No. 107 We read in Matthew that Jesus considered Peter as the best of his disciples, as Jesus said to him. Blessed art thou Simon: .... and I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.4 Further in the same chapter, Jesus is reported to have said, to Peter: Get thee behind me Satan: thou art an offense unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.5 Protestant scholars have reproduced many statements of the ancient scholars about Peter's accusation. John, in his commen- tary on Matthew, said that Peter was arrogant and a man of "feeble intellect". St Augustine said that he was not steadfast and sure, at one time he would believe and at another he would doubt. Is it not strange and ridiculous that a man of such qualities is promised "the keys of the kingdom of heaven"? Contradiction No. 108 The Gospel of Luke describes two disciples of Jesus asking him, "Wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?" Jesus rebuked the two disciples saying, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.''l Further on in the same Gospel we find another statement of Jesus, which absolutely contradicts this. It says, "I am come to send fire on earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?2 Contradiction No. 109 Matthew has reported that the mother of Zebedee's sons had requested Jesus to: Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left in thy kingdom.3 Mark on the other hand reports that the request was made by Zebedee's sons themselves.4 Contradiction No. 110 The Gospel of Matthew includes a parable of a man who planted a vineyard. At the end of the parable we find: " When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.'' Luke, however, has at the end of the parable: What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.2 The texts are obviously contradictory. The second text con- tradicts the first, by adding, "When they heard it, they said, God forbid!" Contradiction No. 111 The event of a woman of Bethany, who poured perfumed ointment on the head of Jesus, is described in three gospels.3 There are several contradictions between the different accounts. 1. Mark4 reports that this event took place two days before the feast of Passover,l while John reports it to have hap_ pened SlX days prior to the festival.2 Matthew is silent regarding the time of this incident. 2 Mark and Matthew agree that Jesus was in the house of Slmon the leper when the woman came, while John reports him to be in the house of Lazarus, the brother of Mary. 3. Matthew and Mark agree that the ointment was poured on the head of Jesus,3 while John contradicts this and says that she anointed the feet of Jesus.4 4. Mark says that the people who rebuked the woman were from among the people who were present there at that time, while Matthew has said that they were the disciples of Jesus, and John's version is that the objection was raised by Judas. 5 The three Gospels have quoted Jesus' speech to his dis- clples on this occasion differently. The serious contradictions presented by these texts cannot be eliminated by claiming that this event of Jesus' anointment might have taken place a number of times, and each gospel might have reported a different story. The event is clearly the same in each case and the contradictions in the different accounts is clear indication of the usual manipulation in the text. Contradiction No. 112 A comparison of the texts of Matthew 22, Luke 26 and Mark 14 regarding the description of The Last Supper,l reveals two serious contradictions 1. There are two cups mentioned in Luke's description, one before the meal and the other after it, while Matthew and Mark speak of only one cup. Apparently Luke's description is erro- neous, because this description involves serious objection against the faith of the Catholics who believe that the wine and the bread actually turn into the flesh and the body of Christ. 2 According to Luke, the body of Christ was sacrificed only for the disciples,2 while Mark reports it to have been sacrificed is given for many,3 and from Matthew we understand that nei- ther the body, nor the blood of Jesus is shed, but the blood of the New Testament is the thing which is shed for others. How the blood of the New Testament is shed is a riddle. We are greatly surprised to note that the Gospel of John describes ordinary events like Jesus riding on an ass or applying perfume to his clothes, but does not make any mention of as important an event as the Last Supper which holds such a vital place in Christian ritual. 1. The Last Supper or Eucharist is a sacramental rite of the Christians. According to e Gospels, the origin of this sacrament was an event which took place on the night preceding Jesus' arrest when he was eating a meal with his disciples. He took bread and recited blessings and thanks over it and gave it to the disciples to share among themselves. Then he said, ''rhis is my body which is given for you, this do in remem- brance of me." Afler the supper he took a cup with wine in it and said, ''rhis cup is new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." The Christians have made it a rite that they take a cup of wine and offer their thanks, and break the bread and offer their thanks on it. The Catholics believe that the bread and wine actually tum into the body and flesh of Jesus. The ceremony was named Eucharist, which signifies "thankful- ness", by Paul. 2. "This is my body which is given for you." 22:19 3. "This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many." 14:24 Contradiction No. 113 We read this verse in Matthew: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. But further in the same Gospel we read of Jesus' saying: Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, ... for my yoke is easy and my burden is light.2 Contradiction No. 114 We read in chapter 4 of Matthew that the Devil first took Jesus to the Holy City, and set him on the pinnacle of the tem- ple, then took him up to the peak of a mountain. Jesus then went to Galilee. Then leaving Nazareth came to Capernaum and dwelt there. Luke says in chapter 4 of his Gospel that the Devil first took Jesus onto the mountain then to Jerusalem and then he was stood on the Pinnacle of the Temple, then Jesus returned to Galilee and started teaching there, then he went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. Contradiction No. 115 Matthew reports that a Roman officer himself came to Jesus and requested him to heal his servant and said: Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof, but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.3 Jesus, commending the faith of the officer, said: As thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.l Luke reports this event differently. According to him the centurion himself did not come to Jesus, but sent some elders of the Jews. Then Jesus went with them. When he came near the house: ...the centurion sent friends to him saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that you shouldest enter under my roof. Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed.2 Then Jesus praised the officer, and the people who were sent by the officer returned to his house, the servant had been healed. Contradiction No. 116 Matthew reports in chapter 8 that a scribe came to Jesus and asked his permission to follow him wherever he went. Then a disciple said to him that first he should go and bury his father and then follow Jesus. Matthew describes many events after this, and in chapter 17 reports the event of the Transfiguration3 of Jesus. Luke, on the other hand, reports the request of the scribe in chapter 9 after the Transfiguration. One of the two texts must be wrong. Contradiction No. 117 Matthew talks in chapter 9 of a dumb man possessed by devil who is healed by Jesus. Then in chapter 10 he describes the mission of the disciples and Jesus commanding to them to heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead and cast out dev- ils. Then in other chapters he describes many other events and then in chapter 17 the event of the Transfiguration. Luke, on the other hand, first describes the mission of the disciples, then the Transfiguration of Jesus in the same chapter and then after the description of many other events in chapters 9, 10 and 11 he has the report of the dumb man healed by Jesus. Contradiction No. 118 Mark states that the Jews crucified Christ at the third hour of the day.l This statement is contradicted by the Gospel of John which reports that Jesus was in the court of Pilate until sixth hour of the day.2 Contradiction No. 119 It is understood from the descriptions of Matthew and Mark that the soldiers who mocked Jesus and put the scarlet rope on him were Pilate's soldiers not Herod's, while Luke's statement is just the opposite. HE ERRORS This section contains the errors mistakes and contradictions of the Biblical Text that are in addition to the ones discussed previously. Error No. 1 It is stated in the Book of Exodus that the period that the Israelites stayed in Egypt was 430 years, which is wrong. The period was 215 years.l This error is admitted by the historians and the biblical commentators. Error No. 2 It appears in the Book of Numbers that the total number of the Israelites, who were 20 years of age or over, was six hun- dred thousand, while all the males and females of the Levites and the women and children of all the other tribes are not included in this number. This statement is highly exaggerated and erroneous. Error No. 3 The statement of Deuteronomy 23:2, "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord..." is wrong, as has already been discussed in Part One. Error No. 4. In Genesis 46:15 the phrase "thirty and three" is certainly wrong, thirty-four is the correct number. The details of this error have been given in part one under the tenth ARGUMENT on page twenty-seven. Error No. 5 I Samuel contains this statement "...fifty thousand, three score and ten men." ' The number fifty thousand in this verse is wrong as will be discussed later. Errors No. 6 and 7 2 Samuel 15:7 contains the words "forty years" and in the next verse of the same chapter the name "Geshur" is mentioned Both are wrong. The correct words are "four years" and "Adom" respectively. Error No. 8 It is stated in 2 Chronicles: And the porch that was on the front of the house, the length of it was according to the breadth of the house, twenty cubits, and height was a hundred and twenty.2 This is an exaggerated and erroneous account of the height. According to 1 Kings the height of the porch was thirty cubits 3 Adam Clarke in volume 2 of his commentary expressly admit- ted the error in this statement and said that the height was twenty cubits. Error No. 9 The Book of Joshua, describing the borders of the land given I ' to the children of Benjamin, states: And the border was drawn thence and compassed the corner of the sea southward.l The word "sea" in this statement is wrong as there was no sea near their land. The commentators D'Oyby and Richardment acknowledged this fact and said, that the Hebrew word which was translated as "sea" actually signified "west". Error No. 10 In Chapter 19 of the Book of Joshua, under the description of the borders of Naphtali, we read: And reacheth to Asher on the west side and to Judah upon Jordan toward the sun rising.2 This statement is also wrong as the land of Judah extended towards the South. Adam Clarke also pointed out this error in his commentary. Errors No. 11-13 The commentator Horseley remarked that verses 7 and 8 of Chapter 3 of the Book of Joshua are wrong. Error No. 12 The Book of Judges contains this statement: And there was a young man out of Bethlehem-Judah, of the family of Judah, who was a Levite. In this statement the phrase, "who was a Levite", cannot be true because anyone belonging to the family of Judah cannot be Levite. The commentator Horseley also acknowledged this error, and Houbigant even excluded this passage from his text. Error No. 13 We read this statement in 2 Chronicles: And Abijah set the battle in array with an army of valiant men of war even four hundred thousand chosen men: Jeroboam also set the battle in array against him, with eight hundred thousand chosen men, being mighty men of valour. 1 Further in the same chapter it gives this description: And Abijah and his people slew them with a great slaughter: and so there fell down slain of Israel five hun- dred thousand chosen men.2 The numbers mentioned in the two texts are wrong. The com- mentators of the Bible have admitted the error. The Latin trans- lators changed four hundred thousand to forty thousand, and eight hundred thousand to eighty thousand, and five hundred thousand to fifty thousand men. Error No. 14 It is stated in 2 Chronicles: For the Lord brought Judah low because of Ahaz, King of Israel. l The word Israel in this statement is certainly wrong, because haz was the King of Judah and not the the King of Israel. The Greek and the Latin translations, therefore, have replaced Israel with Judah which is an open distortion of the text of their Holy Scriptures Error No. 15 We find this statement in 2 Chronicles: ...and made Zedekiah, his brother, king over Judah and Jerusalem. The words "his brother" are incorrect in this statement. It should say his uncle or his father's brother.2 The Arabic and the Greek translators have replaced "his brother" with "his father's brother", another example of blatant manipulation of the text of the Holy scriptures. Ward says in his book words to this effect, "Since it was not correct, it has been changed to uncle in the Greek and other translations." Error No. 16 The name "Hadarezer" is wrongly spelled in 2 Samuel 1o:l6-l9 in three places and in 1 Chronicles 18:3-10 in seven places, whereas the correct spelling is Hadadezer (as given in all other references in the Old Testament). 1.2Chr.28:19. 2. We do find the words, "his father's brother" in 2 Kings 24:17, and this is correct because Jehoiachin was the son of Jehoiakim. He would have been known as Zedekiah, the son of Jehoiakim, while in fact he is called Zedekiah, the son of Josiah. See Jen 26 1 and 27:1. Errors No. 17-19 Another name "Achan" is given wrongly in the Book of Joshua.' The correct name is Achar, with an 'r' at the end.2 Error No. 18 We find in 1 Chronicles 3:5 under the description of the sons of David, "Bath-shua, the daughter of Ammiel". The correct name is, "Bath-sheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah".3 Error No. 19 The Second Book of Kings4 gives the name "Azariah" which is certainly wrong. It should be "Uzziah", as can be ascertained from several other sources.5 Error No. 20 The name "Jehoahaz", which appears in 2 Chronicles,6 is not correct. It should be "Ahaziah". Horne admits that the names we have pointed out in errors No 16 20 - are all wrong and then adds that there are some other places in the scriptures where names have been written erroneously. Error No. 21 2 Chroniclesl gives an account of how Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, bound Jehoiakim in chains and deported him to Babylon. This statement is certainly not true. The fact is that he killed him in Jerusalem and ordered his body to be thrown outside the city wall and left unburied. The historian Josephus says in Volume 10 of his book: The King of Babylon came with a great army and captured the city without resistance. He killed all the young men of the city. Jehoiakim was one of them. He threw his body outside the city wall. His son Jehoiachin was made the king. He imprisoned three thousand men. The Prophet Ezekiel was among the captives. Error No. 22 According to the Arabic versions of 1671 and 1831, the Book of Isaiah (7:8) contains this statement: ...and within three score and five years shall Aram be broken. While the Persian translation and English version says: ...and within three score and five years shall Ephraim be broken. Historically this prophecy was proved false, as in the sixth year of Hezekiah's reign,2 the King of Assyria invaded Ephraim, as is recorded in 2 Kings in Chapters 17 and 18. Thus Aram was destroyed in twenty-one years. l Vitringa, a celebrated Christian scholar, said: There has been a mistake in copying the text here. In fact, it was sixteen and five years, and the period referred to was sixteen years after the reign of Ahaz and five after that of Hezekiah. There is no justification for the opinion of this writer, but at least, he has admitted the error in this text. Error No. 23 The Book of Genesis says: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.2 This statement is clearly wrong since Adam, after eating from that tree, did not die that very day but lived for more than nine hundred years after it. Error No. 24 We find in the book of Genesis:3 My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. To say that the age of man is a hundred and twenty years is erroneous as we know that the men of earlier ages lived far longer - Noah's age, for instance, was nine hundred and fifty, Shem, his son, lived for six hundred years and Arphaxad for three hundred and thirty-eight years; while the life-span of pre- sent-day man is usually seventy or eighty years. Error No. 25 Genesis reports this address of God to Abraham: And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God. This statement is again historically wrong, since all the land of Canaan was never possessed by Abraham nor has it been under the everlasting rule of his descendants. On the contrary this land has seen innumerable political and geographical revo- lutions. Errors No. 26, 27, 28 The Book of Jeremiah says: The word that came to Jeremiah, concerning all the people of Judah in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah, king of Judah, that was the first year of Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon. urther in the same chapter it says: And this whole land shall be desolation, and an astonishment: and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the Lord, for their iniquity, and the land of Chaldeans, and will make it per- petual desolations.l And further in Chapter 29 of the same book, it states: Now these are the words of the letter that Jeremiah the Prophet sent from Jerusalem unto the residue of the elders which were carried away captives, and to the priests, and to the prophets, and to all the people whom Nebuchadnezzar had carried away captives from Jerusalem to Babylon; (After that Jeconiah, the king and the queen, and the eunuchs, the princes of Judah and Jerusalem, and the carpenters, and the smiths were deported from Jerusalem;)2 And further in the same chapter we read: For thus saith the Lord, that after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you and perform my good word to you in causing you to return to this In the Persian translation of 1848 we find these words: After seventy years be accomplished in Babylon, I Wlll turn towards you. Further in chapter 52 of the same book we find the following statement: This is the people whom Nebuchadrezzar carried away captive in the seventh year, three thousand Jews and three and twenty: In the eighteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar, he carried away captive from Jerusalem eight hundred and thirty and two persons: in the three and twentieth year of Nebuchadrezzar Nebuzar-adan the captain of the guard carried away cap- tive of the Jews seven hundred forty and five persons: all the persons were four thousand and six hundred.l After a careful reading of the several passages quoted above the following three points are established: 1. Nebuchadnezzar ascended the throne in the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim. That is historically correct. The Jewish historian Josephus said in Vol. 10 and Chapter 5 of his history that Nebuchadnezzar ascended the throne of Babylon in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. It is, therefore, necessary that the first year of Nebuchadnezzar must coincide with the fourth year of Jehoiakim. 2. Jeremiah sent his words (the book) to the Jews after the deportation of Jeconiah, the king, the elders of Judah and other artisans to Babylon. 3. The cumulative number of the captives in the three exiles was four thousand and six hundred, and that the third exile by Nebuchadnezzar took place in the twenty-third year of his reign. This reveals three obvious errors. Firstly, according to the historians, Jeconiah, the elder of Judah, and other artisans were exiled to Babylon in 599 B.C. The author of Meezan-ul-Haq printed in 1849 says on page 60, that this exile took place in 600 B.C. and Jeremiah sent the letter after their departure to Babylon. According to the Biblical text quoted above their stay in Babylon should be seventy years, which is certainly not true, because the Jews were released by the order of the king of Persia in 536 B.C. This means that their sojourn in Babylon was only sixty-three years and not seventy years. We have quoted these figures from the book Murshid-ut-Talibeen printed in Beirut in 1852 which is different s from the edition printed in 1840 in several places. We find the following table in the 1852 edltlon. THE YEAR THE VENT THE YEAR OF THE BEFORE CREATION CHRIST BC 3405 Jeremiah's writing to the 599 captives of Babylon 3468 The death of Darius, the uncle of h Koreish, the ascension of CYrus tc the throne of Babylon, Madi and Pharus. His orders to release the Jews and send them back to Jerusalem Secondly, the cumulative number of those exiled during the three exiles is mentioned as four thousand and six hundred peo- ple, while according to 2 Kings the number of captives, includ- ing the princes and the brave men of Jerusalem, at the time of the first exile, was three thousand, the craftsmen and the smiths not being included in this number. I Thirdly, from the text quoted above, we understand that the 1. "And he carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even three thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths." 2 Kings 24: 14 r , third captivity took place in the twenty-third year of Nebuchadnezzars reign whereas this is contradicted in 2 Kings which says that Nebuzar-adan took them captive in the nine- - teenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. Error No. 29 The Book of Ezekiel contains the following words: And it came to pass in the eleventh year, in the first day of the month, that the word of the Lord came unto me.2 And later in the same chapter we find: For thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen and companies, and much people. He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the f1eld, and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee; And he shall set the engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers. By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee, thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach. With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets; he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground. And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise, and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses, and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of thy water.' History proved this prediction false because Nebuchad- nezzar tried his best to capture the city of Tyrus, and kept the city in a state of siege for thirteen years, but had to go back without success. Since it is inconceivable that God's promise would not be fulfilled, it must be that the prediction itself is misreported. In Chapter 29, we find the following words attributed to Ezekiel: And it came to pass in the seven and twentieth year, in the first month, in the first day of the month, the word of the Lord came unto me saying, Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus; every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet he had no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus... ...thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon; and he shall take her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army. I have given him the land of Egypt for his labour where- with he served against it...2 The above text expressly states that since Nebuchadnezzar could not get the reward of his siege of Tyrus, God promises to give him the land of Egypt. Error No. 30 The Book of Daniel contains this statement: Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, how long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden underfoot? And he said unto me, unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.l The Judaeo-Christian scholars, from the very beginning, have wondered about the significance of this prediction. Almost all the Judaeo-Christian commentators of the Bible are of the opinion that it is Antiochus, the consul of Rome who invaded Jerusalem in 161 BC, who is referred to in this vision,2 and the days mean the usual days of our calendar. Josephus, the famous commentator, also agreed with this opinion. Historically, however, this opinion does not hold water, because the occupation of the sanctuary and host, lasted for three and a half years, whereas the period of two thousand and three hundred days referred to comes to six years, three months and nineteen days. For the same reason Issac Newton rejected the assumption that Antiochus had to do anything with this vlsion. Thomas Newton who wrote a commentary on the predic- tions and prophesies of the Bible first quoted several other com- mentators on this point, and then, like Isaac Newton, completely rejected the possibility of it being Antiochus who is referred to in this vision of Hezekiah. He asserted that the Roman emperors and the Popes are the import of the vision. Snell Chauncy also wrote a commentary on the predictions of the Bible which was published in 1838. He claimed that in his commentary he incorporated the essence of eighty five other commentaries. Commenting on this vision he said that from the earliest times it has been very difficult for the scholars to ascer- tain and define the time of the commencement of the event to which this vision refers.l The majority of the scholars have concluded that the time of its commencement is certainly one of four periods in which four royal commands were issued by the Kings of Persia: 1. Cyrus, who issued his ordinance in 636 B.C. 2. The king Darius, who issued his orders in 815 B.C. 3. Ardashir, who gave his commands about Ezra in 458 B.C. 4. The king Ardashir, who issued his ordinance to Nehemiah in the twentieth year of his reign in 444 B.C. He also added that the days mentioned in this vision are not days as usually understood, but days signifying years. Keeping this in mind Snell Chauncy said, the ending of the period of this vision would be as follows: 1. According to the first command of Cyrus it would end in 1764 A.D. 2. According to the second of Darius it would end in 1782 A.D. 3 .According to the third command of Ardashir it would be 1. As far as we understand Snell Chauncy interpreting the days of this vision as years has presumed that the vision foretold the realpearance of the Christ Jesus. The two thousand three hundred days are assumed to be years. This number of years should be counted from any of the occasions when Jerusalem has been taken out of the posses- sion of Judaeo-Christian followers. 4. According to the fourth ordinance it would end in 1856. All these dates passed without the prophecy being fulfilled and, in any case, this illogically metaphorical interpretation is not acceptable. Firstly it is a mis-statement to say that it would be difficult for scholars to ascertain the period of its commencement. The difficulty lies only in the fact that the period should start right from the time when this vision was shown to Daniel not from any period after it. Next an arbitrary change in meaning of days into years is not acceptable, because the word, "day" continues to mean the usual period of 24 hours unless otherwise indicated by the writ- er himself. The word is used in both the Old and the New Testaments in its usual meaning and never means "year". Even if we accept that the word might have been used to mean "year" it would have been in a figurative sense; but a figurative use of a word requires some strong indication of it. In the account of this vision the word "day" has been used for the purpose of defining a period of time and we do not find any indication that it should be taken in a figurative sense. Most scholars have, therefore, accepted it in its usual meaning otherwise scholars like Isaac Newton, Thomas Newton and Snell Chauncy would not have tried to put forward such confusing explanations. Error No. 31 The Book of Daniell states: And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thou- sand three hundred and five and thirty days. This prophecy is similar to the one previously discussed which never came true. Neither Christ nor the Messiah of the Jews appeared within this period. Error No. 32 The Book of Daniel contains this statement: Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniq- uity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.l This prophecy is also wrong as the Messiah did not appear in this period. None of the explanations forwarded by the Christian scholars in this regard deserve any serious consideration, partly for the reasons we have already discussed and partly on account of a number of facts we discuss below:- Firstly the period between the first year of the reign of Cyrus, the year of the release of the Jews as confirmed by Ezra2 and the birth of the Prophet Jesus is nearly six hundred years according to Josephus and five hundred and thirty-six years in Snell Chauncy's estimation. Secondly, if we accept this as a correct explanation, it would mean that all true dreams have come to an end for ever, which is obviously untrue. Watson, in the third part of his book, has reproduced Dr. Grib's letter who said, "The Jews have so much distorted the text of this prophecy that it has been rendered inap- plicable to Jesus." This confession by Watson is enough to con- firm our contention that this prediction, according to the origi- nal copy of the Book of Daniel, still preserved with the Jews, which is free from the objection of any kind of manipulation, that this prophecy is inapplicable to Jesus. Thirdly, the word "Christ", meaning anointed, has been used for all the kings of the Jews irrespective of their character or deeds. It appears in Psalm 18 verse 50. Similarly, David is men- tioned as the anointed in Psalm 131. And also 1 Samuel con- tains this statement of David regarding King Saul, who is said to have been one of the worst kings of the Jews: Behold this day thine eyes have seen how that the Lord hath delivered thee into mine hand in the cave: and some bade me to kill thee: but mine eye spared thee; and I said, I will not put forth mine hand against my lord, for he is the Lord's anointed.l The same application of this word is also found in 1 Samuel 24 and 2 Samuel 1. Besides, this word is not only limited to the kings of the Jews. We find it being used for other kings too. It is stated in Isaiah: Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden.2 Cyrus, the king of Persia, is mentioned as God's anointed or the Christ in this text. Cyrus is the one who liberated the Jews from their captivity and allowed the Temple to be rebuilt. Error No. 33 The following statement is given through the Prophet David in 2 Samuel: Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime. And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel.l The same prediction appeared in slightly different words in the Persian translation of 1835. According to this text God had promised them that they would live in peace there, without any affliction to them at the hands of wicked people. This promised place was Jerusalem, where they made their habitations and lived. History has proved that this promise was not fulfilled. They were severely afflicted at the hands of several rulers. Nebuchadnezzar invaded them three times and slaughtered them, captured them and deported them to Babylon. Titus,2 the Emperor of Rome, persecuted them so barbarously that one mil- lion of the Jews were killed, a hundred thousand people were hanged and ninety-nine thousand were imprisoned. Up to this day their descendants are living in degradation around the world. .l Error No. 34 In 2 Samuel we read the following promise of God to David: And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will stablish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stab- lish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with stripes of the children of men; But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be estab- lished for ever before thee; thy throne shall be estab- lished for ever.l ,1 Another statement of similar nature is given in I Chronicles: Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest: and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days. He shall build a house for my name: and he shall be my son,... and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.2 Although, God had promised everlasting kingdom in the family of David, this promise was not fulfilled, as the family of David was deprived of the kingdom, a long time ago. Error No. 35 Paul reported God's word regarding the prominence of Jesus over the angels in his letter to the Hebrews: I I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.2 Christian scholars have claimed that this is a reference to the verses in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles discussed in the previous paragraph. This claim is not acceptable for several reasons. 1. The text of Chronicles is unambiguous saying that the son's name will be Solomon. 2. Both the texts say that he would build a house in the name of God. This can only be applied to Solomon who built the house of God, as promised. Jesus, on the other hand was born one thousand and three years after the construction of this house and used to talk of its destruction. This will be discussed under Error No.79. 3. Both predictions foretold that he would be a king, where- as Jesus was not a king, on the contrary he was a poor man as he himself said: And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the son of man hath not where to lay his head.3 1. Heb. 1:5. 2. To prove the greatness of esus over the angels, Paul argued that God never said to any of the angels that any of them was His Son. He only said it to Jesus that, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son." 3. Mat:8:20. 4. It is clearly stated in the first prediction that: If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men. This implies that he will be a man of iniquitous nature. ccording to the Christians - and they are far from the truth - Solomon was a man of that nature and gave up the prophethood and became an apostate in his last days, indulging in idol wor- ship. building temples for the idols, and committing himself to heathenism.l Whereas Jesus was absolutely innocent, and could not commit a sin of any kind. 5. In the text of Chronicles it says clearly: Who shall be a man of rest, and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about. However, Jesus, according to the Christians, was never in peace right from his early days up to the time of the crucifixion. He lived in constant fear of the Jews and left one place for another until he was arrested by them and, they say, killed. Solomon, on the other hand, fulfilled the condition of living in rest from his enemies. 6. In the prediction of Chronicles the Israelites are promised: I will give peace and quieteness unto Israel in his days. Whereas it is historically known to everyone that the Jews were servile to and dominated by the Romans in the time of Jesus. 7. The Prophet Solomon, himself has claimed that the predic_ tion was made about him. This is clear from 2 Chronicles.l Although the Christians agree that these tidings were for Solomon. they say that it was in fact for Jesus too, as he was a descendant of Solomon. We contend that this is a false claim because the attributes of the predicted son must coincide with the description of the prophecy. We have already shown that Jesus does not fulfill the requirements of the prediction. Apart from this, Jesus cannot be the subject of this predic- tion, even according to the Christian scholars. In order to remove the contradiction between the genealogical descriptions of Jesus in Mathew and Luke, they have said that Matthew described the genealogy of Joseph of Nazareth, while Luke described the genealogy of Mary. However, Jesus was not the son of Joseph, but rather the son of Mary, and according to her genealogy Jesus is the descendant of Nathan, son of David, and not the son of Solomon. Error No. 36 It is said regarding the Prophet Elijah in I Kings: And the word of Lord came unto him, saying, Get thee hence, and turn thee eastward, and hide thy- self by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan. And it shall be, that thou shalt drink of the brook; and I have commanded the ravens to feed thee there. So he went and did according unto the word of the Lord: for he went and dwelt by the brook Cherith, that is 1. "But the Lord said to David my father, Forasmuch as it was un thine heart to build a house for my name, thou didst well in that it was in thine heart: Not withstanding thou shalt not build the house; but thy son which shall come forth out of thy loins. he shall build the house for my name. The Lord therefore hath performed his word that he hath spoken: for I am risen up in the room of David my father." 2 Chr. 6:8-10. before Jordan, And the ravens brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening, and he drank of the brook.l In the above text the word 'raven' is a translation of the orig- inal word 'arem'. All the translators except Jerome have trans- lated it as 'raven', only Jerome has translated it differently as "Arab". Since his opinion did not gain popularity, his followers distorted the texts in Latin translations and changed the word 'Arab' to raven. This has been much laughed at by non- Christian scholars. Horne, a famous scholar, was much sur- prised at it and was, in fact, inclined to agree with Jerome in that the word 'arem' most likely signifies 'Arab' and not raven. He greatly criticised the other translators and gave three argu- ments to prove the absurdity of their opinion. He said on page 639 of the first volume of his commentary:2 Some critics have censured the translators saying that it is far from being true that crows should provide sustenance to a Prophet. If they had seen the original word, they would not have reproached them, because the original word is 'Orim' which has the meaning of 'Arab'. This word is used for the same purpose in 2 Kings 21 and in Nehemiah 4. Besides, it is understood from 'Perechat Riba', an exegesis of the Book of Genesis, that this prophet was commanded to live and hide himself in a place in the vicinity of 'Butshan'. Jerome said that the 'Orim' were the residents of that town which was within the limits of Arabia. They provided food for this prophet. This is a valuable finding and evidence for Jerome. Although the Latin translations contain the word 'raven', the Book of Chronicles, the Book of Nehemiah and Jerome have translated it as 'Arab'. Similarly it is indicated by the Arabic translation that this word signified men, and not crows. The famous Jewish commentator Jarchi also translated this word as 'Arab'. It is cer- tainly not likely that God would have provided bread and flesh to his prophet through such impure birds. A prophet like Elijah, who was so strict a follower of the commandments of God would not be satisfied with flesh provided by crows unless he knew beforehand that the crows were not bringing carrion. Elijah was provided with such flesh and bread for a whole year. How could this kind of service be attributed to crows? It is much more likely the inhabitants of 'Orbo' or 'Arabs' rendered this service to him." It is up to the Protestants now to decide which of the two opinions is correct. Error No. 37 We find the following statement in I Kings: ...in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of Lord.l According to the historians, this statement is incorrect. Adam Clarke, for example, said, when commenting on this verse in Vol. 2 of his commentary: The historians have differred from this text in the following details: The Hebrew text gives 480, Latin 440, Glycas 330, Melchior Canus 590; Josephus 592, Slipicius Severus 585, Clement Alexander 570, Cedrenus 672 Codomanus 598, Vosius Capellus 580, Seranius 680, Nicholas Abraham 527, Mastlinus 592, Petavius and Watherus 520. Had the year, described by the Hebrew text been correct and revealed by God, the Latin translator and so many of the Judeao-Christian historians would have not contradicted it. Josephus and Clement Alexandrianus also differed from the Hebrew text, even though both of them are known as staunch believers in their religion. This, naturally, leads us to believe that the biblical text was to them no more worthy of respect than any other book of history. Otherwise they would have not even thought of disagreeing with it. Error No. 38 It is stated in Matthew: So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.l According to this statement the genealogy of Jesus from Abraham is subdivided into three groups, each consisting of fourteen generations. It is obviously not correct, because since the first group from Abraham to David, includes David in it, he must be excluded from the second group as he cannot be counted twice. The second group should start with Solomon and end with Jeconias, thus excluding him from the third group. The third group should start from Salathiel, which leaves only 13 generations in the last group. All of the ancient as well as mod- ern scholars have criticized this error, but the Christian scholars are unable to produce any convincing explanation for it. Errors No. 39-42: According to the Arabic translation printed in 1849, describ- ing the genealogy of the Christ, the Gospel of Matthew states: Josias begat Jeconias and his brethren, in the captivity of Babylon.l It can be understood from this text that Jeconias and his brothers were born in the period of exile in Babylon, which obviously implies that Josias was alive during that period. However this cannot be the case for the following four reasons: 1. Josias had died twelve years before the exile, because after his death his son Jehoahaz became king and ruled for three months. Then Jehoiachin, another son of Josias reigned for eleven years. And it was only when Jeconias, the son of Jehoiakim. had been ruling for three months in Jerusalem, that Nebuchadnezzar invaded Jerusalem and imprisoned him along with all other Israelites and deported them to Babylon.2 2. Jeconias is the grandson of Josias, and not his son, as is clear from the above statement. 3. At the time of exile, Jeconias was 18 years old,3 therefore his birth in this period is out of the question. 4. Jeconias had no brothers but his father had three brothers. In view of the above textual difficulties, the commentator Adarn Clarke reported in his commentaries that: Calmet suggested that this verse should be read as follows: "Josiah begat Jehoiakin, and his brethren, Jehoiakin begat Jeconiah about the time of carrying away to Babylon." This suggestionl of manipulating the text of the holy scrip- tures is something to be noted by the reader. Even after this change, our objection discussed in no. 3 above remains unaf- fected. In our opinion, some ingenious priests have deliberately deleted the word Jehoiakin from the text to avoid the objection that Jesus, being a descendant of Jehoiakin, would not be able to sit on the throne of David,2 and that in this case it would no longer be possible for him to be the Messiah. They did not appreciate the implications that were to occur as a result of this tiny change in the text. Perhaps they thought it 1. This suggestion has been partially carried out. The suggestion said that Jehoiachin should be inserted within the text and that instead of the phrase " in the captivity" it should be, "about the time of..." So the translators have manipulated the text, and in almost all the translations the text now reads: " Josias begat Jeconias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon." By adding the phrase "about the time" they have tried to avoid the objection that the author raised in no.3 above. In the English translation published by the Anglican Church in 1961, this difficul- ly has been solved a bit differently. In this translation the verse reads: "And Josias was the father of Jecohias and his brethren at the time of the deportation to Babylon. 2. "Therefore, thus saith the lord of Jehoiakin king of Judah, he shall have none to sit upon the throne of David." Jer. 36:30 3. According to Bible it is necessary for the Messiah to be a descendant of David. was easier to lay blame on Matthew than to preclude Jesus fron being the descendant of David and from his being the Messiah. Error No. 43 The genealogical description in Matthew records seven gen- erations between Judah and Salmon,l and five generations from Salmon to David. The period from Judah to Salmon is about three hundred years, and from Salmon to David four hundred years. Even bearing in mind the long lives of those people, this statement cannot be true, as the age of the first group of genera- tions was longer than the second group. Matthew's description puts seven generations in three hundred years, and five genera- tions in four hundred years. Error No. 44 The second of the three groups of fourteen generations described by Matthew in the genealogy of Jesus, has in fact eighteen generations and not the fourteen mentioned in the third chapter of I Chronicles. Newman expressed great concern about this and mocked it saying that so far it had only been necessary to believe in the parity of one and three, now it was necessary to believe in the parity of eighteen and fourteen, because the holy scriptures cannot be thought of as being incorrect. Errors No. 45 & 46 In the same passage of Matthew we read: 1. According to this the generations from David to Jeconias are as follows: David. Solomon, Roboam, Abia, Asa, Josaphat, Joram, Ozias, Joatham, Achaz, Ezekias. Manasses, Amon, Josias, Jehoiachin, and Jeconias, whereas Matthew records thirteen generations which is wrong. Matt. 1:6-11 Jehoram begat Uzziah. This statement is incorrect for two reasons: 1. It claims that Uzziah was the son of Jehoram which is not true, because Uzziah was the son of Ahaziah, son of Joash who was the son of Amaziah, son of Joram. These are the three gen- erations which have been left out by Matthew perhaps to make them fourteen. These three were kings of repute. They are men- tioned in Chapters 8, 12 and 14 of the Second Book of Kings, and in Chapters 22-25 of 2 Chronicles. There is no way of knowing why these generations have been left out by Matthew from the geneology. It seems simply to be one of his great mis- takes. 2. Is the correct name Uzziah or Ozias, as he is named by 2 Kings and I Chronicles? Error No. 47 Again in the same passage we find this statement: And Salathiel begat Zorobabel.l This is also incorrect because Zorobabel was the son of Pedaiah2 and the nephew of Salathiel as is expressly mentioned in I Chronicles 3. Error No. 48 The same passage of genealogy in Matthew states: 2 I Chr. 3:19 says: "And Ihe sons of Pedaiah were Zerubbabel arld Shimei." Zorobabel begat Abiud.l This, too, is wrong since Zerubbabel had only five sons, as is confirmed by I Chronicles. None of the five sons is of this name.2 There are in all eleven errors in the genealogy recorded by Matthew. If the differences of Luke and Matthew, discussed ear- lier are also included they total seventeen mistakes. This short passage of Matthew is, therefore, erroneous in no less than sev- enteen places. Error No. 49 Matthew describes the event of some wise men from the east who had seen the star which was the sign of the birth of Christ. They came to Jerusalem, and, guided by the star, they reached Bethlehem where the star halted above the head of the infant. Astronomically this statement is ridiculous and unacceptable. The movement of stars and some comets as seen from the earth is from the East to the West, and some of the comets move con- trarily from the West to the East. Bethlehem is situated to the south of Jerusalem. Besides the men coming from the east could not possibly see the movement of a star which is too slow to be seen by the naked eye. And in any case how could a moving star, if it did ever come to a stop in the sky, be said to have stopped at the head of a new born child.3 Error No. 50 In Chapter One of Matthew we read this statement: Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name ''Emmanuel''.l According to the Christian writers the Prophet referred to in this verse is the Prophet Isaiah, because in his book he had said: Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name "Emmanuel.2 This is again incorrect for the following reasons: 1. The original word that has been translated as 'virgin' by Matthew and the translator of the book of Isaiah is 'alamah' which is the feminine form of 'alam' which according to the Jewish scholars, signifies a 'young girl' married or unmarried. This word is also used, as they say, in the Book of Proverbs, Chapter 30, where it is used for a young married woman. The three famous Latin translations say 'young woman'. These translations are the earliest known translations and are said to have been made in 129,175, and 200. In view of these ancient translations and the opinion of the Jewish scholars, Matthew's statement is shown to be erroneous. Frier, in his book on the etymology of Hebrew words, a book cometS and stars as explained by the author was accepted up to the 18th century A.D. Modern scientific data, however, has produced more convincing explanations of the directions and paths of the stars. that is considered the most authentic work on the subject, said that the word 'alamah, had a dual meaning: 'virgin' and 'young woman'. His opinion, as compared to the commentaries of the Jews, is not acceptable, and even if we accept this opinion, the word cannot be taken to mean a virgin with any ARGUMENT against the established meaning adopted by the commentators and the ancient translators. The above facts are certainly enough to prove falsity of the statement of the author of Meezan-ul- Haq, who claimed that the word had no other meaning than 'virgin'. 2. Jesus was never called by the name Emmanuel, nor did his adopted fatherl give this name to him: The angel told his father to call him with the name of Jesus.2 It is also a fact that Gabriel came to his mother and said: Thou shall conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son and shalt call his name Jesus.3 Apart from this Jesus himself never claimed that his name was Emmanuel. 3. The passage where this word occurs, precludes its applica- tion to Jesus. It states that Rezin, the king of Syria, and Pekah, the king of Israel, went together to war against Ahaz, the king of Judah. He was very frightened and God sent a revelation to Isaiah as a consolation for Ahaz, saying that he should not be ,F frightened as his enemies would not be able to prevail against him. and that their kingdoms would be destroyed, and that the sign of their destruction was that a young woman would bring forth a son and before the child grew up their kingdoms would be destroyed.l In fact Jesus was born after 721 years of the destruction of the kingdoms which were destroyed only 21 years after the above Prophecy. Judaeo-Christian scholars disagree on this 1 point. Some of them have claimed that Isaiah used the word young woman' for his own wife who would conceive and give birth to a child. And the two kings, of whom the people were frightened, would be destroyed along with their kingdom before the child grew up. This was said by Dr. Benson and seems to have logic and bear truth. Error No. 51 There is another statement in Matthew regarding Joseph, the carpenter And was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, saying out of Egypt have I called my son.2 The Prophet referred to in this text is Hosea and Matthew makes reference to the first verse of Chapter 11 of his book, which is absolutely incorrect as that verse has nothing to do with Jesus. The verse, according to the Arabic translation, print- ed in 1811, reads like this: When Israel was a child, then I loved him and called his sons out of Egypt. This verse, is in fact, an expression of God's benevolence to the Israelites conferred upon them in the time of Moses. Matthew made two changes in the text. He changed the plural, 'sons', into the singular, 'son', and turned the third person 'his' into the first person making it 'my son'. Following the example of Matthew, the Arabic translator of 1844 changed the text to incorporate this alteration. Besides, this change cannot be overlooked because further in this chapter the people who were called from Egypt are men- tioned in these words: As they called them, so they went from them, they sacrificed unto Baalim.l This statement cannot be applied to Jesus. Error No. 52 It is also stated in Matthew: Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.2 This statement is wrong both logically and historically. Historically because none of the non-Christian historians men- tioned this event of the slaying of the infants by Herod. For example Josephus did not said anything regarding this . event Similarly the Jewish scholars, who are very hostile and antagonistic towards Herod, and have been very particular in describing any weak points of Herod which they could dig out from history, have not said anything in this regard. Had this incident been true they would have jumped at it and described it as negatively as possible. If any Christian historian were to describe it, he would certainly base his description on the state- ment in the Gospel of Matthew. And logically it is not acceptable because Bethlehem, at that time, was a small village situated near Jerusalem. Herod, being the governor could easily have found out the house where the wise men had stayed. It was absolutely unnecessary for him to commit such a heinous act as killing innocent children. Error No. 53 The Gospel of Matthew also contains this statement: Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the Prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted because they are not.2 This is again a clearly distorted rendering of the text of Jeremiah. Any reader can himself look up the passage in Jeremiah,' and see for himself that the above verse has nothing to do with Herod. It is clearly related to the famous historical calamity of Nebuchadnezzar's invasion of Jerusalem. The peo- ple of Rachel's tribe were among the Israelites who were exiled to Babylon. Her soul lamented over the misery of her people. God, therefore, promised that her children would be released to go back to their own land. Error No. 54 We find this statement in Matthew: And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets. He shall be called a Nazarene.2 This is also certainly incorrect, as this statement is not found in any of the books of the Prophets. The Jews deny the validity of this kind of prediction. According to them it is simply a false claim. On the contrary they had a firm belief that no prophet would ever come from Galilee, not to speak of Nazareth, as is expressly stated in the Gospel of John: They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: For out of Galilee ariseth no Prophet.3 The Christian scholars have put forward4 weak explanations Oregarding this, which do not deserve any serious consideration. f Readers will have noted that there are seventeen errors in the first two chapters of Matthew. Error No. 55 According to the Arabic translations printed in 1671, 1821, 1826, 1854 and 1880, there is a statement in Matthew which reads as follows: In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wildemess of Judaea.l And in the Persian translations printed in 1671, 1821, 1826, 1854 and 1880, we find the same statement: In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea. In this passage the phrase, 'in those days' refers to the days when Archelaus did reign in Judaea, because just before the verse in question, Matthew has described that after the death of Herod, Archelaus became the king of Judaea and Joseph, the carpenter, took the child (Jesus) and his wife to Galilee and set- tled in the city of Nazareth, and that at this time came John, the Baptist. This statement is certainly wrong because John, the Baptist delivered his sermon preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins eighteen years after the events discussed above, since it is clear from Luke that John, the Baptist deliv- ered this sermon when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judaea, and that it was the fifteenth year of Tiberius' reign. The Emperor Tiberius began his reign fourteen years after the birth of Jesus. (Britannica page 246 Vol. 2 under Tiberius) This implies that John, the Baptist came twenty-nine years after the birth of Jesus. In the seventh year after the birth of Jesus, Archelaus had left his throne of Judaea. (Britannica 246 vol. 2 under Archelaus) If we assume that the beginning of Archelaus reign and the arrival of Joseph in Nazareth were before the birth of Jesus, the coming of John the Baptist will be proved to have been twenty-eight years after the birth of Jesus. Error No. 56: The Name of Herodias' Husband We find in Matthew: For Herod had laid hold on John and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife.l This statement is also historically wrong, because the name of Herodias' husband was Herodius, as is stated by Josephus in Chapter 12 of Vol. 8 of his history. Error No. 57 It is stated in Matthew: But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, nei- ther for them which were with him.2 The phrase "neither for them which were with him" is clear- Iy wrong as will be discussed under Error No. 92. Error No. 58 Matthew contains this statement: Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value.l This statement is also wrong as will be shown later in the book. Error No. 59: The Earthquake on Jesus' Crucifixion Once more we find in Matthew: And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose. And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city and appeared unto many.2 This is a concocted story. Norton, the famous scholar, though he favoured the gospels, said, proving the falsity of this story with several ARGUMENTs, "This is a totally false story. It seems that such stories were prevalent among the Jews at the time of destruction of Jerusalem. Possibly someone might have written this story as a marginal note in the Gospel of Matthew, and later on it might have been included in the text, the transla- tor might have translated it from that text.l The falsehood of this story is evident for several reasons: 1. The Jews went to Pilate, the day after the Crucifixion of Christ, and said to Pilate: Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive. After three days I will rise again. Command therefore, that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day.2 Moreover, Matthew, in the same chapter expressly states that Pilate and his wife were not pleased at the crucifixion of Christ. The Jews would not dare go to Pilate in these circumstances, especially when there was an earthquake and the graves opened and the rocks rent. The fact that Pilate was not pleased at the crucifixion of Christ, would have put him into a rage against the Jews. They could have not gone to Pilate to say that Christ was a 'deceiver', God forbid. 2. In the presence of such miraculous signs a great number of people of that time would have embraced the new faith without hesitation, whereas, according to the Bible, three thousand peo- ple did accept the new faith, but only when the Holy Spirit descended on the disciples and they spoke several languages before the people. This event is explicitly mentioned in Acts.3 The events described by Matthew were obviously of a much more compelling nature than the disciples speaking in several languages. 3. Is it not surprising that none of the historians of that time and of the time succeeding it, and none of the evangelists except atthew, has written a single word about these events of so great an historical importance? It is of no avail to say that opponents have deliberately avoid- ed any reference to these events. But what do they have to say of the absence of any account of these events in the books of those Christian historians who are considered to be advocates of Christianity. In particular the absence of any description of these events in the Gospel of Luke is very surprising, as he is generally known for reporting the rarities of the life of Jesus, as is clear from the first chapters of his gospel and of the Book of A ts c . We cannot understand why all the evangelists, or at least most of them, have not referred to these events when they have given full account of events of no or lesser, significance. Mark and Luke, too, only speak of the splitting of the veil and not of anything else. 4. Since the veil in question was made of silk, we cannot understand how a soft curtain of silk could be torn like this, and if it was true, how the building of the temple could remain unaf- fected. This objection is forwarded equally to all evangelists. 5. The bodies of the saints coming out of the graves happens to be in clear contradiction to the statement of Paul, in which he said that Christ was the first to rise from the dead. The learned scholar Norton truthfully said that this evange- list seems to be in the habit of making his own guesses, and is not always able to sort out the truth from the available stock of events. Can such a man be trusted with the word of God? Errors No. 60,61,62: The Resurrection of Jesus The Gospel of Matthew reports Jesus' answering to some scribes: But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the Prophet Jonas: For Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.2 We find a similar statement in the same gospel: A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the Prophet Jonas.3 The same is understood from the statement of the Jews reported by Matthew: Sir, we remember that, that deceiver said while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.4 f All these statements are incorrect for the fact is that accord- ing to the gospels Jesus was crucified on Friday in the afternoon and died at about nine in the evening. Joseph asked Pilate for his body in the evening and arranged his funeral, as is clear from the Gospel of Mark. He was therefore buried in the night of Friday, and his body is said to have disappeared on the morn- ing of Sunday, as described by John. According to this detail, his body did not remain in the earth for more than one day and two nights. Therefore his statement of staying in the earth for three days and three nights is proved incorrect. Seeing the error in these statements, Paley and Channer admitted that the statement in question was not of Jesus but was the result of Matthew's own imagination. Both of them said words to the effect that Jesus would have meant to convince them only through his preachings without their asking a sign from him, like the people of Nineveh, who embraced the new faith without a sign from Jonah. According to these two scholars this statement was proof of a lack of understanding on the part of Matthew. It also proves that Matthew did not write his gospel by inspiration. His not under- standing the intention of Jesus in this case, shows that he could well have written similarly erroneous accounts in other places. It is, therefore, a natural conclusion that the gospel of Matthew cannot, in any way be called revelation but is rather a collection of accounts influenced by the local environment and the result of human imagination. Error No. 63: The Second Coming of Jesus It is stated in Matthew: For the son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the son of man coming in his kingdom.l This statement has definitely been wrongly attributed to Jesus, because all those 'standing here', died nearly two thou- sand years ago, and none of them saw the Son of Man coming into his kingdom. Error No. 64: Another Prediction of Jesus Matthew reports Jesus saying to his disciples: But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another, for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the son of man be come.2 Again this is obviously wrong as the disciples have, long, long ago, done their duty of going over the cities of Israel, but the Son of Man never came with his kingdom. Errors No. 65 - 68 The book of Revelations contains this statement: Behold, I come quickly:3 The same words are found in chapter 22 verse 7 of the same book. And verse 10 of the same chapter contains this statement: Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time lS at hand." Further in verse 20 it says again: Surely, I come quickly. On the basis of these statements of Christ, the earlier follow- ers of Christianity held the firm belief that the second coming of Christ would be in their own time. They believed that they were living in the last age and that the day of Judgement was very near at hand. The Christian scholars have confirmed that they held this belief. Errors No. 69 - 75 The Epistle of James contains this statement: Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the com- ing of the Lord draweth near. It also appears in I Peter: But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober and watch unto prayer.2 And the First Epistle of Peter contains these words: Little children, it is the last time.3 And the First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians states: For this we say unto you, by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. And Paul said in his letter to Philippians: The Lord is at hand.2 And in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul said: And they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the worlds are come.3 Paul also said later in the same letter: Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.4 The above seven statements are the ARGUMENTs for our claim that the early Christians held a firm belief in the second coming of Christ during their own lifetime, with the result that all the seven statements are proved false. Errors No. 76 - 78: The Signs of the End of the World Matthew describes in Chapter 24 that the disciples of Jesus asked the Messiah, when they were on the Mount of Olives, about the signs of the destruction of the Temple and the second coming of Jesus and about the end of the world. Jesus told them all the signs, first of the destruction of the House of the Lord, of his own coming to the earth again and of the day of Judgement. The description up to verse 28 talks of the destruction of the Temple; and verse 29 to the end of the chapter consists of the events related to the second coming of Christ and the Day of Judgement. Some verses of this chapter according to the Arabic translation' printed in 1820, read thus: Immediately after the tribulation of those days, shall the sun be darkened, and the moon will not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the pow- ers of the heavens shall be shaken. And then shall appear the sign of the son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heaven to the other.2 And in verses 34 and 35 it says: Verily I say unto you. This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away. The text of the Arabic translation printed in 1844 is exactly the same. However, the Persian translations of 1816, 1828, 1842 Immediately after the trouble of those days, the sun shall be darkened. Verse 34 of these translations is identical to the one quoted above. It is, therefore necessary that the day of Judgement should come at the time when the House of God has been destroyed and Jesus has reappeared on the earth, "...immediate- ly after the trouble of those days," according to the statement of Jesus. Similarly it is also necessary that the generation contem- porary with Christ should not have died until they saw these event with their eyes, as was the belief of the early Christians. However they did die centuries ago and heaven and earth still continue to exist. The evangelists, Mark and Luke also included similar descriptions in Chapters 13 and 21 respectively of their gospels. The three evangelists are equally responsible for this historical- ly proved-false statement. Errors No. 79 - 80: The Reconstruction of the Temple The Gospel of Matthew reports this statement of Christ: Verily I say unto you. There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.l The Protestant scholars have therefore said that any con- struction to be built on the foundations of the temple would be razed to the ground as had been foretold by Jesus. The Author of Tehqeeq-e-Deen-ul-Haq, (Inquisition into the True Faith) printed in 1846, said on page 394: King Julian, who lived three hundred years after Christ and had become an apostate, intended to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem, so that he could thus refute the prediction of Jesus. When he started the construction suddenly a fire jumped out from its foundations. All the workers were frightened and fled away from there. No- one after him ever dared to refute the saying of the truthful, who had said, "The heaven and the earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away." The priest Dr. Keith wrote a book in renunciation of the dis- believers in Christ which was translated into Persian by Rev. Mirak entitled "Kashf-ul-Asar-Fi-Qisas-e-Bani Israel" (An exposition of the Israelite Prophets) and printed in Edinburgh in 1846. We produce the translation of a passage from page 70: King Julian allowed the Jews to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple. He also promised that they would be allowed to live in the city of their ancestors, the Jews were no less grieved than the king was pleased. They started the work of the Temple. Since it was against the prophecy of Christ, the Jews, in spite of their best efforts and all the possible help from the king could not succeed in their mission. Some pagan historians have reported that the huge flames of fire burst out of this place and burnt the workers stopping the work altogether. Thomas Newton, in vol 3 (pages 63 and 64) of his commen- tary on the prophecies of the Holy Scripture printed in London in 1803 said, which we translate here from Urdu: Omar, the second great Caliph of Islam, spread cor- ruption all over the world. He reigned for ten and a half years. In this short period he made great conquests and conquered all the countries of Arabia, Syria, Iran and Egypt. The Caliph personally besieged Jerusalem and in 637 A.D. signed the treaty of peace with the Christians who were tired of the prolonged siege. The Christians surrendered and handed over the city to Omar. Omar offered generous terms to the Christians. He did not take any church into his possession, but he requested the high priest for a piece of land to build a mosque. The priest showed him the room of Jacob and Solomon's temple. The Christians had covered this place with dirt and filth out of their hatred for the Jews. Omar, himself, cleansed the place with his own hands. Following the example of Omar, the great officers of his army thought it their religious duty and cleansed the place with religious zeal and built a mosque there. This was the first mosque ever built in Jerusalem. Some his- torians have also added that in the same mosque Omar was murdered by a slave. Abdul Malik, son of Marvan, who was the twelfth Caliph extended this mosque in his reign. Though, the above description of this commentator is not true in several places, he has admitted that the first mosque built at the place of Solomon's Temple was that built by the Caliph Omar, and that it was extended by Abdul Malik and still exists in Jerusalem after over 1200 years.l How would it have been possible for Omar to succeed in building a mosque there if it had really been against the prophecy of Christ? Since this statement of Jesus is also reported by Mark and Luke, they are equally responsible for this false description. Error No. 82: A False Prediction Matthew reports this statement as having been said by Jesus to his disciples: And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, . More than 1400 years have now passed since this event. That ye which have followed me, in regeneration when the son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye shall also sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.l It is quite apparent from this that Jesus assured his twelve disciples, of eternal success and redemption promising them to sit upon twelve thrones on the Day of Judgement. This prophet- ic witness of eternal success has been proved wrong by the gospels themselves. We have already seen2 that one of the disci- ples of Jesus, namely Judas Iscariot, betrayed Jesus and became an apostate, how, then is it possible for him to sit on the twelfth throne on the Day of Judgement? Error No. 83 We find in the Gospel of John: And he (Jesus) saith unto him, Verily, verily I say unto you. Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the son of man.3 This is also historically false and incorrect, for, this was said by Jesus after his baptism and after the descent of the Holy Spirit upon him,4 while we know that nothing like this ever hap- pened in history after this. These prophetic words have never come true. who were tired of the prolonged siege. The Christians surrendered and handed over the city to Omar. Omar offered generous terms to the Christians. He did not take any church into his possession, but he requested the high priest for a piece of land to build a mosque. The priest showed him the room of Jacob and Solomon's temple. The Christians had covered this place with dirt and filth out of their hatred for the Jews. Omar, himself, cleansed the place with his own hands. Following the example of Omar, the great officers of his army thought it their religious duty and cleansed the place with religious zeal and built a mosque there. This was the first mosque ever built in Jerusalem. Some his- torians have also added that in the same mosque Omar was murdered by a slave. Abdul Malik, son of MaNan, who was the twelfth Caliph extended this mosque in his reign. Though, the above description of this commentator is not true in several places, he has admitted that the first mosque built at the place of Solomon's Temple was that built by the Caliph Omar, and that it was extended by Abdul Malik and still exists in Jerusalem after over 1200 years.l How would it have been possible for Omar to succeed in building a mosque there if it had really been against the prophecy of Christ? Since this statement of Jesus is also reported by Mark and Luke, they are equally responsible for this false description. Error No. 82: A False Prediction Matthew reports this statement as having been said by Jesus to his disciples: And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in regeneration when the son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye shall also sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.l It is quite apparent from this that Jesus assured his twelve disciples, of eternal success and redemption promising them to sit upon twelve thrones on the Day of Judgement. This prophet- ic witness of eternal success has been proved wrong by the gospels themselves. We have akeady seen2 that one of the disci- ples of Jesus, namely Judas Iscariot, betrayed Jesus and became an apostate, how, then is it possible for him to sit on the twelfth throne on the Day of Judgement? Error No. 83 We find in the Gospel of John: And he (Jesus) saith unto him, Verily, verily I say unto you. Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the son of man.3 This is also historically false and incorrect, for, this was said by Jesus after his baptism and after the descent of the Holy Spirit upon him,4 while we know that nothing like this ever hap- pened in history after this. These prophetic words have never come true. Error No. 84: The Ascension of Christ It is said in John: And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man which is in heaven.l This is also incorrect, as is evident from the fifth chapter of Genesis2 and 2 Kings Chapter 2.3 Error No. 85 We find this statement in the gospel of Mark: For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever saith.4 We find another similar statement in the same book: And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.5 And in the gospel of John we read the following statement: Verily, verily I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do, shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.l The prophetic promise made in the above texts is a general statement that does not particularise any man or people, particu- larly the phrase, "Whosoever shall say unto this mountain" which is totally unconditional and can be applied to any people of any time. Similarly the statement, "He that believeth on me," can include any believer in Christ of any time. There is no argu- ment to support the claim that the above predictions were par- ticularly made in respect of the early Christians. It is therefore, necessary for a mountain to move and be cast into the sea, if a believer says so to it, of course, with firm belief in Christ. Everyone knows that nothing like this has even happened in his- tory. We would like very much to know if any Christian, in or after the time of Jesus, did perform "works greater than Christ" as the evangelist has made Jesus say this in the above predic- tion. The Protestants have more than admitted that after the time of Jesus the occurrence of miracles and marvels has never been proved in history. We have seen many priests in India, who, in spite of making strenuous efforts for many years are not able to speak correctly in Urdu, let alone take up serpents, drink poison and heal the sick. THE FALLIBITY OF LUTHER AND CALVIN Perhaps we might be allowed at this juncture, for the interest of the readers, to reproduce two incidents directly related to Luther and Calvin, the founders of the Protestant faith. We quote this from the book entitled Mira'atus Sidq that was trans- lated into Urdu by a Catholic scholar and priest Thomas Inglus and printed in 1857. He relates the following incidents on pages 105-107: In 1543 Luther tried to cast out the devil from the son of Messina with a result similar to the Jews who once tried to cast out devil as is described by the Book of Acts in Chapter 19. Satan, in the same way attacked Luther and wounded him and his companions. Stiffels seeing that his spiritual leader, Luther was being choked and strangled by Satan, tried to run away but being in great terror was not able to open the latch of the door and had to break down the door with a hammer which was thrown to him from the outside by his servant through a ventilator. Another incident is related of Calvin, the great leader of the Protestants, by another historian. Calvin once hired a man called Bromius and told him to lie down in front of the people and pretend to be dead. He arranged with him that when he heard Calvin say the words, "Bromius, rise from the dead and be alive," he should rise from the bed as though he had been dead and had just risen, having been miraculously brought to life. The wife of Bromius was also told to cry and lament over the body of her husband. Bromius and his wife acted accordingly and people, hearing her cries and lamentation, gathered there for her consolation. Calvin came and said to the weeping woman, "Do not cry. I will raise him from the dead." He began to recite some prayers and then holding the hand of Bromius, said, "Rise in the name of God." but his design of deceiving people in the name of God was not a success as Bromius really had died. God had avenged Calvin for his deception and iniquity. Bromius' wife, seeing that her husband had died in reality started crying and blaming Calvin. Both these leaders were considered to be the greatest spiritu- al leaders of their time. If they can be blamed for such acts what remains to be said of the generality of the people. Pope Alexander VI, the head of the Roman church and the representative of the Lord on the earth, according to the Catholic faith, had prepared some poison for some other per- sons, but drinking it himself by mistake he died. One cannot avoid coming to the conclusion that the leaders of both the rival sects do not possess any of the qualities mentioned in the pre- diction under discussion. Error No. 86 The gospel of Luke states: Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri.l This genealogical description of the Christ contains three errors: 1. The sons of Zorobabel or Zerubbabel are described very clearly in 1 Chronicles Chapter 3 and none of them has this name. We have already discussed this earlier and besides this, it is against the description of Matthew. 2. Zerubbabel is the son of Pedaiah, not Salathiel. He is, however, his nephew. 3. Salathiel is the son of Jeconias, not of Neri. Matthew has also agrees with this. Error No. 87 In his account of the genealogy of Jesus, Luke states: ...which was the son of Sala, Which was the son Cainan which was the son of Arphaxad...l This statement is also not correct as Sala was the son of Arphaxad, and not his grandson, which is clear from the book of Genesis2 and from I Chronicles.3 The Hebrew version has always preference over any transla- tion according to the Protestants.4 No translation can be pre- ferred to the original Hebrew version simply because it corre- sponds with the description of Luke. On the contrary, such a translation would be considered unacceptable on the grounds that it has been modified. Error No. 88 We read the following statement in Luke: And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed, (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria).l This, too, is incorrect because the phrase "all the world" includes the total population of the Roman empire. No historian prior to, or contemporary with Luke ever mentioned this tax before the birth of Jesus in his history. Later historians, when describing it, only do so using Luke as their source which is unacceptable. Apart from this, it seems impossible that Cyrenius, who was governor of Syria fifteen years after the birth of Jesus, could have done the taxing which was accomplished fifteen years prior to the birth of Jesus. Equally unbelievable is the notion that Jesus was born during the time of his governorship, because in this case we are required to believe that Mary remained in the state of pregnancy for as long as fifteen years. It is so because Luke has admitted in the second chapter that the wife of Zacharias conceived in the reign of Herod2 and that Mary conceived Jesus six month later. Realizing this "difficulty" some Christian scholars have declared that verse 2 is a later addition and not written by Luke. Error No. 89 Luke t t - s a es. Now in the fifteenth year of the Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip, tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene.3 This is incorrect as the historians have denied of there being any ruler of Abilene named Lysaneas in the time of Herod and Pontius Pilate. Error No. 90 In the same chapter of Luke we find this statement: But Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him for Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done.l This is absolutely wrong, as we have shown under Error No. 56 and as will be discussed later in the book. The mistake was made by Luke and not by the copier, as has been said by some exegetes admitting the presence of the mistake in the text. Error No. 91 We find in Mark: For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife...2 This statement too, is erroneous, as we have already dis- cussed. All the three evangelists are equally responsible for this error. The translator of the Arabic versions printed 1821 and 1844 has manipulated the texts of Matthew and Luke and delet- ed the word Philip, while other translators have not followed his example. Errors No. 92-94: Did David Eat Shewbread? It appears in Mark: Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God, in the days of Abiathar, the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?l Earlier in the book we showed that this statement is also incorrect, since David at that time was alone,2 therefore the phrase "they that were with him" is a mis-statement. Besides, it is incorrect to say the high priest at that time was Abiathar, whereas, in fact, Ahimelech was the high priest. The falsity of this statement can also be understood from the beginning of 1 Samuel 21 and 22. There are three errors in two verses of Mark. The third error will also be discussed later. The Christian scholars have plainly admitted that Mark has made a mistake in this text. Errors No. 95 - 96 The Gospel of Luke also describes the same event with words signifying that David was accompanied at that time, when, as we have just shown, he was alone. Error No. 97 The First Epistle to Corinthians contains the following sen- tence: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.l This statement is quite obviously wrong, since one of the twelve, Judas Iscariot had died prior to this event, reducing the number of the disciples to eleven. Mark, therefore, says in Chapter 16: He appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat.2 Errors No. 98-100 Matthew says: But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.3 Luke also reports this in the following words: And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought, how or what thing shall ye answer, or what ye shall say: For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.4 A similar statement is also given in Mark in chapter 13. The implication of the texts contained in the three gospels is that Jesus promised his disciples that whatever they said to the offi- cers would be inspired to them by the Holy Ghost, which in turn signified that their words would not be their own words but the word of the Holy Ghost. This statement is shown to be incorrect in the light of the fol- lowing passage of the Book of Acts: And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: For sittest thou to judge me after the law and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethern, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shall not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.' Had the statement of Matthew and Luke been true, their spir- itual leader Paul, who is considered equal in status with the dis- ciples and who himself claims to be equal to Peter, the greatest of all disciples,2 could have not said anything erroneous before the council.l Paul's admission to his fault is enough to prove the text incorrect. We shall later on show that the Christian scholars have admitted the presence of error in this text. Since this text has appeared in the three gospels, this makes three errors in the text. Errors No. 101& 102 In Luke we find: ...in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months... and in the Epistle of James: ...and it rained not on earth by the space of three years and six months.2 This also seems incorrect as it is understood from I Kings that there was rain in the third year.3 Since this statement has appears in Luke as being said by Jesus, while in the Epistle of James, as the statement of James himself, this, in fact, makes it two mistakes. Error No. 103: Jesus and the Throne of David The Gospel of Luke says in chapter 1: And Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his Kingdom there shall be no end.4 This is incorrect for the following two reasons: 1. Because Jesus, according to the genealogy given by MaKhew, is a descendant of Jehoiakim, and none of his descen- dants can sit on the throne of David according to the statement of the Prophet Jeremiah.l 2. Secondly because historically we know that Jesus never sat on the throne of David even for a single minute; nor did he ever rule over the house of Jacob. On the contrary, the Jews became hostile to him to the extent that they arrested him and took him to Pilate, who reviled him and then handed him over to the Jews to crucify. Besides, it is clear from the Gospel of John that Jesus hated the idea of being a king,2 and, moreover, it is unbelievable that Jesus would hate something for which he was sent by God. Error No. 104 We find the following passage in Mark: Jesus answered, and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive hundred-fold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters and mothers, and chil- dren, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.3 And Luke reports these words in the same context: ...who shall not receive manifold more in this pre- sent time, and in the world to come, life everlasting. This cannot be true because, according to their law the Christians are not allowed to marry more than one woman. It would therefore, not be possible for a man leaving his wife for the sake of Jesus, to receive "hundred-fold or at least manifold wives in this present life." Besides the phrase, "lands with persecutions", is out of place here as Jesus is speaking of the reward that would be given to them by God, hence the phrase "with persecutions" is not rele- vant, and does not fit the context. Error No. 105: Jesus Healing the One Possessed by Devils The Gospel of Mark describes the event of a man possessed by evil spirits and being healed by Jesus, saying: And all the devils besought him saying, Send us into the swine that we may enter into them. And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine; and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea.l This is incorrect, for the reason that the Jews were not allowed to keep swine, being inadmissible for them under the law. Error No. 106 Matthew reports Jesus saying to the Jews: I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.2 It is wrong because the Jews have never seen Christ coming in the clouds of heaven before or after his death. Error No. 107 Luke has reported in chapter 6: The disciple is not above his master, but every man that is perfect shall be as his master.l This appears to be wrong as there are many personalities who have had greater perfection than their teacher. Error No. 108: Parents: Honour or Hate Them? The following statement of Jesus has been reported by Luke: If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.2 It is, all the more, incredible to think that such a remark could have been made by Jesus, when he had said, reproaching the Jews: For God commanded, saying, Honour "y father and mother, and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.3 We cannot see how Jesus could have said this. Error No.109 The Gospel of John says: And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year said unto them, Ye know nothing at all. Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation per- ish not. And this spake he not of himself, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.l This statement cannot be accepted as true for the following inconsistencies in the text. Firstly, because this statement implies that the high priest should necessarily be a prophet which is certainly not correct. Secondly, if the statement of the high priest is accepted as prophetic, it necessitates that the death of Jesus should be an atonement only for the Jews2 and not for the whole world, which is obviously against the established beliefs and claims of the Christians. And the phrase, "not only for this nation" becomes an absurd statement and against the prophethood of Jesus. Thirdly, according to the evangelist, this high priest who enjoys the status of a prophet happens to be the same man who was the high priest at the time of the 'crucifixion' of Jesus and the one who passed the religious decree against Jesus accusing him of being a liar, a disbeliever and being liable to be killed. And he was the one who was pleased at the smiting and insult- ing of Jesus. This is witnessed to by Matthew who says: And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.l And further in the same chapter we find the following details: But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the son of man sit- ting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes saying, He has spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of wit- nesses? Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death. Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee? The fourth gospel, John, is even more explicit, saying: And led him away to Annas first: for he was father in law of Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year. Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one should die for the people.l We may now be allowed to say that if this statement of the high priest was made by him as a prophet why did he gave his judgement to kill Jesus? He declared him blasphemous and was happy at the humiliation of Jesus in his court. Is it in any way credible that a prophet should command people to kill his God? We declare our utter disbelief in such prophet who remains a prophet even after committing such profane and sacrilegious acts. From this situation it logically deduced that Jesus was a prophet of God but having gone astray (may God forbid) he claimed of being God incarnate and put a false blame on God. In short, the innocence of Christ, in this case, becomes doubtful. In fact, the evangelist John is also innocent, as is Jesus Christ, of making such incredible statements. The responsibility for all such statements lies totally on the shoulders of the Trinitarians. If, for a moment, we suppose that Caiaphas's statement is true, even then the significance of his statement would be that when the disciples and the followers of Jesus confirmed that Jesus was, in fact, the Promised Messiah or Christ, since it was generally believed by the people that it was necessary for the Messiah to be a great king of the Jews, Caiaphas and his elders, were afraid that having come to know this fact, the Caesar of Rome would be angry and might make trouble for them, he pro- posed, "one should die for the people" This was the real and natural significance of that statement and not that the people of the world would be redeemed and saved from their 'original sin', as they call it, which was com- mitted by Adam thousands of years prior to the birth of the Christ, which is a whimsical and, of course, illogical interpreta- tion of the statement. The Jews also do not believe in this whimsical conception of the Trinitarians. Perhaps this evangelist, later on, realised the mistake and he replaced the phrase 'he prophesied' with the words 'he gave counsel', in Chapter 18, because to give counsel is very differ- ent from making a prophesy as a prophet. Though by making this change he has opened himself to the charge of contradicting his own statement. Error No. 110 Paul's letter to Hebrews contains this statement: For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the taberna- cle and all the vessels of the ministry.l The above statement is incorrect for the following three rea- sons: Firstly because the blood was not of calves and goats, but was only of oxen, at that occasion. Secondly because, the water, the scarlet wool and hyssop were not present; at that moment only the blood was sprinkled. Thirdly, because Moses himself did not sprinkle on the book and on the vessels as described by Paul, rather half the blood was sprinkled on the altar and half of it on the people. These three mistakes are clear from the following description given by the book of Exodus. It reads: And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgements: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do. And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of the Israel... ...which offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord. And Moses took half of the blood and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.l In view of the textual defects and inconsistencies present in the Bible, pointed out to the readers so far, the Roman Catholic Church prohibited the study and reading of these books for common people. They rightly said that the damage caused by the reading of them would be greater than the benefit to be expected from them. They were certainly right in having this opinion. In fact, the contradictions, errors and inconsistencies of the biblical texts were not known to the people until the appear- ance of the Protestant movement. They discovered and dug into these books and the secrets were disclosed, causing the strong reaction which is well known to the world today. The book entitled, Kitabu'th-Thalathu-Ashrah (The Thirteen Books) printed in Beirut in 1849, contains the following on pages 417, 418 of the Thirteenth Book. We give its faithful translation from Urdu: Let us now look at the law passed by the Council of Trent and duly stamped by the Pope. It said that the experience of the past showed that such words when read by common people would produce greater evil than good. It was therefore the responsibility of the priest or of the judge that, according to his description, or in con- sultation with the teacher of confession, he should allow the reading of the words in these books only to those who, in their opinion, might be benefited by them, and it was of great importance that the book must have been previously checked by a Catholic teacher, and it had to bear the signature of the teacher who allowed it to be read. Anyone who dared read it without permission, was not to be excused unless he was sent to the proper authorities. THE BIBLICAL TEXTS 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. r 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 cor- rect and the other false, due either to delibeMte distortion on the part of later theologians or to mistakes of the copiers. For some contMdic- tory 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 contMdictions. There are also many cases of distortion and human manipulation in the texts of these books. The alteMtions and changes which have been delibeMtely 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 distor- tions 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 integMl 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 writ- ers, 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 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 chap- ters 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 or 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 Horne says on page 131 of Vol. I of his commentaries printed in 1 822: 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 exclu- sion, except to say that the Prophets, to whom significant reli- gious 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 kind of writings are attributed to the Prophets them- selves, while the others are ascribed directly to God. The first kind of writings are meant to add to our knowledge while the others are the source of the law and religious instructions. Further on page 133 of Vol. I, discussing the cause of the disap- pearance of the Book of Wars of the Lord, mentioned in the Book of Numbersl (21:14), he said: The book which has disappeared was, according to the great scholar Dr. Lightfoot's findings, the one that was writ- ten for the guidance of Joshua, under the command of the Lord aRer the defeat of the Amalekites. It seems that the book in question contained some accounts of the victory of this war l.There is a description given in the Book of Numbers with reference to the Book of Wars of the Lords. Only some sentences from that book have been given, the rest of the book has been lost. as well as strategic instructions for the future wars. 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 expres- sion 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 vol- ume 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. THE OPINION OF ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA The author's entry ''Inspiration''l in the Encyclopaedia Britannica2 has this statement on page 274 vol. 11 It has always been a matter of controversy whether every- thing 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. Furlher 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 l.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" 2. All the references in the Ercyclopaedia Britannica have been taken from the old 18th century edition. The present edition does 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 place in the Britannica. (Raazi) 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 23:1-6,1 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 from faults, since they sometimes made them subject to their criticism. This is obvious from Acts 11:2,32 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.3 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 l.This difference of the texts has been discussed by us, under the errors Nos: 98- 100. 2. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them. (Acts 11:2,3) 3. I Corinthians 7:10,12,15,40. And also 2 Cor. 11:17. 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 wit- ness, 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 auments in favour of such miracles as the death and resurrection of Christ as related in the writ- ings 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 state- ments of the evangelist about those particular matters as simi- lar 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 be greatly advantageous and facilitate conformity in the Bible. Mr. Cuddle also favored 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: Forasmuch 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.l 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 knowl- edge 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 peo- ple 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 stom- ach's sake and thine often infirmities.2 and furLher: The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments. ' 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.' 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 not the wife depart from her husband.3 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 conceming 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": Whatever he has written in connection with inspiMtion seems to be clear and logical and, indeed, unique in its appli- cation. BEAUSOBRE AND LENFANT'S OPINION Beausobre and Lenfant said the following about this matter: The Holy Ghost, with whose help and teaching the evan- gelists 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 writ- ings 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 intend- ed to write his gospel he wrote the descriptions according to eye wit- nesses of the events described. Having this knowledge in his mind, he thought that it was a treasure which should be conveyed to future gen- erations. 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 schol- ars of Christianity, who are very much esteemed and celebrated in the Christian world. Horne and Watson have also the same opinion of them. THE VIEWS OF CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS ON THE PENTATEUCH Horne said on page seven hundred and ninety-eight of volume two of his great work: Eichhom, 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 al the five books of the Pentateuch were simply a collection of ver- bal 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 tum 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 con- sidered the word of God. It was their belief that any one com- mitting sins like adultery and other evil deeds deserved salva- tion and would be in etemal happiness if only he had faith in Christianity. Those who tumed to the ten commandments were influenced by Satan, and they were the ones who cruci- fied Jesus. 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 multi- theism. They should also disregard their parents, trouble their neigh- bours, 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 robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.l 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.2 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 disci- ple has the right to define and issue religious injunctions on his own account, because it was only Jesus who possessed that status. 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 Nuremburg, 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 letter 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 pre- ferred to Luke's account. We may be allowed to say that the above statement allows us to deduce two important points. Firstly that Matthew and Mark them- selves 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 with- out 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 conceming 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. 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 per- sonal 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 posses- sion by devils. In the case of those who hold that this false opinion had become common in their time and also influ- enced 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 state- ment 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 dis- tinguished 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 per- sonal 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 mira- cles. Paul, for example, when speaking of this principle, has mentioned many things in support of it. Therefore the princi- ple 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 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 premises. The above passage allows us to advance the following four points: 1. We have already proved through sufficient ARGUMENTs and sup- ports, under the heading of Errors no. 64-78, that all the disciples of 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 die 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 sur- vived 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 signi- fy 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. urther they say in their marginal notes: The disciples misunderstood the words of Jesus, as the evangelist' has elucidated, because they had firm belief that the coming of the Lord would be for establishing Justice. In view of the above statements, there remains no doubt that the disciples misunderstood it. Now, when they had such beliefs regard- ing the Day of Judgment and John not dying until the day of Judgment. their statement with regard to the occurrence would natu- rally 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 erro- neous. 3. They have also admitted that the presence of errors and mis- takes 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. 1. This refers to John, 21:23. 'hen went this saying abroad among the brethren that that disciple should not die: yel Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die." Keeping these four conclusions in mind, we must be allowed to claim that more than fifty perent 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 rit- uals can be considered as inspired. However this opinion does not carry any weight because it hap- pens 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 printed in 1841. (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 state- ments 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 astray 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 conceming 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. 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: Eichhom 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 repro- duced 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: Thou art my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.l The Ebionite 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 sat- isfy 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 scrip- ture 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 origi- nal shape and form. Realising 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 cur- rent in that period, because these four scripts seemed more compre- hensible 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 concern- ing the nu nber 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 the third, the Church made serious efforts to get these four gospels acknowledged, in spite of the fact that they did not deserve this 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 contri- bution 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. Eichhom further said in the footnotes to his book: Many early theologians had doubts about several parts of these gospels, but they were not able to put forward any cor- rections 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 ver- sion 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 flnd that many saints and theologians complained that the copiers and the owners of the copies of these books 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 dis- tort 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 Celsus would have not felt it necessary to point out the changes and distortions 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 scat- tered in all of the first three gospels and in the memoirs from which, according to Epiphanius,' Justin quoted. In another place Eichhom 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 his- 1. A pagan scholar of the second century AD. torically 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, par- ticularly in the sermons of Jesus and the accounts of events in his life which were preserved by them. This procedure, initi- ated in the first era of Christian history, continued to be fol- lowed by the people of later centuries. In the second century AD, this habitual distortion in the texts had become so com- monly 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 sec- ond century AD there were some people who used to tamper with the texts of the gospels. He has specified that the sen- tence, "For theirs is the kingdom of heaven,"' 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 Eichhom said: No one thinks that Eichhorn is alone in this opinion, because no other book is as popular in Germany as the book of Eichhom, and it is considered to be in accordance with the opinions of most of the modern 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 quot- ed the above statements of Eichhom, he refutes them all in favour of the gospels, but, as will be evident to any reader of his book, his argu- ments 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' 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.2 4. It appears on page 70 that verses 9-20 of chapter 16 of Mark are a later invention.3 5. On page 89 he says that verses 43 and 44 of chapter 22 of Luke are a later addition.4 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 whatsoev- er disease he had." l.The event of his hanging himself after the aTrest of Jesus and selling his land for thirty pieces of silver. 2. This refers to a description of raising the dead saints from the graves after the death of Jesus. 3.These verses contain the description of the resurrection of ksus which contains a number of errors. 4.This refers to the visit of Jesus to the Mount of Olives a rlight before his cruci- fixion. It reads, "And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengtherling 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, howev- er, has confirmed the correctness of this verse and has opposed the opinion which advocates excluding it from the books. We have discused this verse in detail later in the book. i 7. On page 88 he specifies thal verses 24 and 25 of chapter 21 of the Gospel of John are certainly later additions. 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 descrip- tions. 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. 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 an account of the life of Christ. Matthew borrowed most of the contents l.These verses contain greatly exaggerated number of people and animals healed by lesus. 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,I but he does not seem to agree with their opinion, which, however, does not make any difference as far as our point of view is concerned. EWSONTHESUBJECTOFTHECHRONICLES 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 chap- ter. This evidence is more than sufflcient 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. THE MUSLIM ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE GOSPELS From all that has preceded it is quite clear that we can claim with- out the fear of being wrong that the original Pentateuch and the origi- nal 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 be on him) and that they were not changed until later. As far as the Epistles of Paul are concemed, 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. I As far as the disciples of Jesus who were living after the Ascension of Jesus are concemed, 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 1. 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 Koran and Science: " Paul is the most controversial figure in Christianity. He was considered to be a traitor to Jesus's thought by the family of Jesus and by the aposdes 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." 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 unavailabity even of the name 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 concemed, 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 Koran says: We gave Moses the Book (Torah) And we also find in the Holy Koran in reference to Jesus son of Mary: We gave him the Evangel.2 And the nineteenth chapter of the Holy Koran, called 'Maryam' after Mary the mother of Jesus, quotes Jesus as saying: He hath given me the book (the Evangel).3 The present gospels, chronicles and epistles are certainly not the Evangel referred to by the Holy Koran 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 Koranic Revelation will be accepted and respccted by the Muslims and any statements rejected by the Koran will be rejected by the Muslims. Any statements about which the Holy Koran 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 Koran in these words: To thee we sent the Book (Koran) in truth confirming what came before it of the Book, and assuring its safety. ' The famous commentary on the Holy Koran, 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 Koran, otherwise that particular statement will be con- sidered as false and unacceptable. Sa'id 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 Koran 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: If the Holy Koran bears witness to it, you are bound to confirm it, and if it rejects or says it is false, it must be reject- ed by us. If the Holy Koran 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 authori- ties, then the same hadith has been cited by him in Kitabu'l-l'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 Koran, 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 retum. 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 'alal 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-l'tisam contains the following statement of the compan- ion 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 schol- ars 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). 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 mis- statement, 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 abol- ished the original Pentateuch. One of the Indian Scholars has written his judgement about the thesis of the author of Meezan ul Haq and the speech made by me in the public debate held in Delhi. This judgement 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 judgement of the 'ulama' in writing and then made it part of his book. All the Indian scholars of Islam have verified this judgement for the guidance of the people. ars 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). 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 mis- statement, 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 abol- ished the original Pentateuch. One of the Indian Scholars has written his judgement about the thesis of the author of Meezan ul Haq and the speech made by me in the public debate held in Delhi. This judgement 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 judgement of the 'ulama' in writing and then made it part of his book. All the Indian scholars of Islam have verified this judgement for the guidance of the people. THE OPINION OF MUSLIM SCHOLARS THE OPINION OF IMAM AR-RAZII Imam ar-Razi 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 lim- ited 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 lim- ited. THE OPINION OF IMAM AL-QURTUBI Imam al-Qurtubi said in his book Kitabul A'lam Bima Fi Deeni'n- Nasara Mina'l Fisadi Wa'l 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 1. Imam ar-Razi, a great authority on almost all the Islamic Sciences and author of many valuable books on Koran, hadith, history and other sciences. miraculous events ascribed to them have not been proved by an unbroken chain of reporters. There are only statements made by iso- lated 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 con- trary, they solemnly confirmed that the Prophet Jesus was a preacher. Al-Qurtubi also said: 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 possiblility of error and fault from them cannot be over- looked. 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 with- in the text of these gospels is enough to prove their unaccept- ability. 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 are 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 distor- tions 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 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 Septuagintl 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. 2 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 incon- sistencies 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 present in the world and the rest are inau- thentic. 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 pre- sent gospel to them. The author of Hidayatu'l-Hayara Fi Ajwibatu'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 distor- tions 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 fac additions inserted by their elders and have nothing whatever to do with divine Truth." He further said: Several Islamic scholars have laboriously pointed out hundreds of specific examples and passages showing contra- dictions, incompatibilities and differences in the so-called Canonical Gospels. It is only to avoid an unnecessary elon- gated discussion that we refrain from presenting more exam- ples. 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 his- torical data and general human logic. ANSWER TO THE 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 con- tinuous 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 con- veyed the same text to others by the same procedure so that the texts would have been conveyed to us with an unintcrrupted chain of reporters traceable directly back to Jesus himself (as is the case with Koranic 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 begin- ning 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,l 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. THESOURCEOFCLEMENT'SLETTER 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 sen- tences 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 hereticsl by the Protestants because they have claimed that all the moral teachings contained in the gospels have been borrowed from the pagans and 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,2 who lived in the sixth century BC. For example he said under his moral no. 24: "Behave towards others 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 bad." 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 1. The Rationalists who strongly favour liberalism. 2. 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 Chunese ideology was thus called Confucianism. 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 writ- ten 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 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 writ- ten in 98 AD. It is nothing but a desperate effort to provide some authenticity to the present gospels. Home 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 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 obedi- ence 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 be 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 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 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 bom, 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: We 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 whoso 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: 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 Comrnentaries printed 1827 vol. 2 page 37 that: The above two passages of Clement are his longest pas- sages and this is why Paley confined himself to them to sup- port 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 pas- sage 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 ascerlaining whether Clement copied written statements of Chlist or whether he is simply reminding the Corinthians of the sayings which he and the Corinthians had heard from the Apostlcs and thcir followers. Leclerc preferred the former opinion, while lhc 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 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 rearfirmed, obviously so in first case, and in the second case because his words cor- respond 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 schol- ars 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 statemenl 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 bul 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 cer- '' tain that Clement really copied from the canonical gospels, and any aim 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 cer- taintY 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 3 recorded the exact words used. 3 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, 3 possible that like Paul he might have ascribed some statements to Christ. I THE LETTERS OF IGNATIUS Let us now find out the truth regarding the letters written by Ignatius the Bishop of Antioch. Lardner said in vol. 2 of his com- mentary: 1. That is, he might have ascrioed some statements to Christ as Paul did with the . tatementS of Acts 20:35 which are not present in the gospels. Eusebius and Jerome both mentioned certain of his let- ters. 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 let- ters remains to be settled. There is great dispute and disagree- ment on this point. The great scholars have made free use of their pens in expressing their opinions. The study of the writ- ing 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 letters which were pre- sent 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 short- age of copies which we are facing. It is also possible that some of the followers of Arius' might have made additions to the smaller version just as they did to the larger. Additions may also have been made by others. 1. Arius was a great philosopher and theologian who had monotheistic views as against trinitarianism. He had many followers. His views were rejected by the Council of Nicaea. Paley writes in his footnotes: In the past, the translation of three letters of Ignatius were present in the Syrian language and were printed by William Cureton. It is almost certain that the smaller letters, which were revised by Ussher, contained many additions." The above writings of the Christian scholars bring out the follow- ing 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 concemed, there is great dis- pute 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 favoured it also admit its having been subjected to later modifications either by Arius or by oth- ers, with the result that Is 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 prac- tice 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 Tatianl which was falsely attributed to him. Adam Clarke said in the introduction of his commentary: The book which was genuinely ascribed to Tatian has dis- appeared and the one which is now attributed to him is doubt- ful 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 letters in question really were originally written by Ignatius. Even this does not help much because, after the additions and modifications inserted by later people, they have lost their originality and are no longer acceptable. According to the scholars some sentences of these letters were cer- tainly 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 argurnent in favour of the fact that they have been interpolated." Michael Musaka, a Protestant scholar, has said in his Arabic work, ibatu l-Engeleer Ala Abateel-At-Taqleedeen, section one, chapter 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 those 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,l 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 have2 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 Tompter, who had converted to Catholicism said in his speech to the Orthodox in 1722: "I have compared these books with the Orthodox version pos- 1. Chrysostom, being a great orator, was called the Golden Mouth. He was born in 347 AD and was later made bishop of Constantinople. 2. We have faithfully tried to remove the ambiguity which is to be found in the Araoic Text, but still we are at a loss to understand what the author has to convey. sessed by the Basilians,l and we did not find a single word in these books denoting transformation. This story of transfor- mation 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.2 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 pub- lished. 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 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 cir- cumstances 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 dis- tressed life, always anxious to save their souls. What hap- pened 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 judg- ment 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 Nicaeal 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 Ecumenical2 council also affirmed that there were only twenty Canons prescribed by the Council of Nice. 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. 1. 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 disacknowl- edged and rejected the ideas preached by Arius. This meeting is of great significance in Christian history. 2. An ecumenical council, in Christian terminology, is a council inviting scholarS from all parts of the world. Here the author is referring to the council which was held in Chalcedon in 451 AD. This Council declared the Monophysites to be heretics. (Al Munajjid). 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 witness 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 Irenaeus, 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,' and the statement, often cited to prove that Peter saw it, is weak and unacceptable. It is why the 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. THE CANONS OF NICAEA The number of the canons passed by the council of Nicaeal 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 Ecumenical2 council also affirrned that there were only twenty Canons prescribed by the Council of Nice. 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 witness 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 Irenaeus, 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,' and the statement, often cited to prove that Peter saw it, is weak and unacceptable. It is why the author of Murshid llt-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. 3 1. G. T. Menley said that in the Markine Preface of the gospel of Mark, which as wntten m 170, we are informed that Mark wrote his gospel in Italy after the ath of Peter, and this seems to be correct. (Our Holy Books) 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 Eastem 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 Lukel 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 schol- ars 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 place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you; Whensoever I take my joumey 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 trav- el to Spain. It appears in the Book of Acts 20:25: 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 place (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 Corlsider him to have been inspired by God and a statement made by an uninspired person could not achieve the status of inspiration sim- ply 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 misinterpre- tation 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. 'I According to them the verses of the Old Testament containing ref- erences to Christ and the injunctions which were, to the Jews, of per- petual 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 the text of the Bible. We therefore do not need to include demonstrations of implicit distortions as they have already been provided by the Christians themselves. As far as textual distortion is concerned, this kind of distortion is denied by the Protestants and they offer false ARGUMENTs and misguid- ing statements in their writings in order to create doubts among the Muslims. It is therefore necessary to demonstrate that all the three kinds of textual distortion, that is, alterations in the text; the deletion of phrases and verses from the text; and later additions to the original texts are abundantly present in both the Old and the New Testaments. ALTERATIONS IN THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE It should be noted in the beginning that there are three acknowl- edged versions of the Old Testament: 1. The Hebrew version which is acknowledged equally by the Jews and the Protestants. 2. The Greek version which was recognized as authentic by the , Christians up until the seventh century. Until that time the Hebrew vcrsion was considered by the Christians to be inauthentic and distort- iL ed. The Greek version is still held to be authentic by the Greek and astem Churches. The above two versions include all the books of the Old Testament. 3. The Samaritan version which is recognized by the Samaritans. This is in fact the Hebrew version with the difference that it consists of only seven books that is, the five books of the Pentateuch which are ascribed to Moses, the Book of Joshua and the Book of Judges. This is because the Samaritans do not believe in, or acknowledge, any of the other books of the Old Testament. Another difference is that it includes many additional phrases and sentences that are not present in the Hebrew version. Many Protestant scholars and theologians like Kennicott, Hales and Houbigant recognize it as authentic and do not accept the Hebrew version which they believe to have been distorted by the Jews. In fact the majority of Protestant scholars prefer it to the Hebrew version, as you will see from the following pages. Here are examples of some of the alterartions. Alteration No.l: The Period from Adam to the Flood The period from Adam to the flood of Noah, as described by the Hebrew version, is one thousand six hundred and fifty-six years, while according to the Greek version, it is two thousand three hundred and sixty-two yearsl and the Samaritan version gives it as one thou- sand three hundred and seven years. A table is given in the commen- tary of Henry and Scott where the age of every descendant has been given at the time when he gave birth to his son except Noah, whose age is given as at the time of the flood. This table is as follows: 1. This number is given as 2362 in all the versionS, but according to this table it comeS to 2363. The mistake may be either in the book that the author has usd or somewhere in the hble. NAME HEBREW SAMARITAN GREEK VERSION VERSION VERSION The Prophet Adam 130 130 230 Seth 105 105 205 Cainan 70 70 170 Mabalabel 65 65 165 Jared 162 62 162 Enoch 65 65 165 Methuselah 187 67 187 Lamech 182 53 188 Noah 600 600 600 Total 1650 1307 2262 1 The above table shows extremely serious differences between the statements of all three versions. All three versions agree that the age of the Prophet Noah at the time of the Flood was six hundred and the total age of Adam was nine hundred and thirty. However according to the Samaritan version the Prophet Noah was two hundred and thirteen years of age when Adam died which is obviously wrong and goes against the unanimous agreement of the historians and is also erro- neous according to the Hebrew and Greek versions. For according to the former, Noah was born one hundred and twenty-six years after the death of Adan and, according to the latter, he was bom seven hun- dred and thirty-two years after the death of Adam. In view of this seri- ous discrepancy, the renowned historian of the Jews, Josephus, who is dso recognized by the Christians, did not accept the statement of any of the three versions and decided that the correct period was two thou- sand two hundred and fifty-six years. Alteration No. 2: The period from the Flood to Abraham The period from the Flood of Noah to the birth of the Prophet Abraham is given as two hundred and ninety-two years in the Hebrew version. one thousand and seventy-two years in the Greek, and nine hundred and forty-two years in the Samaritan version. There is anoth- er table covering this period in the Henry and Scott commentary where against every descendant of Noah, the year of the birth of their sons is given except in the case of Shem, against whose name the year of birth is given for his child who was bom after the Flood. This table is as follows: NAME HEBREW SAMARITAN GREEK Shem 2 2 2 Arphaxad 35 135 135 Cainan 130 Salah 30 130 130 Eber 34 134 134 Peleg 30 130 130 Rew 32 132 132 Sherug 30 130 130 Nohor 29 79 79 Terahl 70 70 70 Total 290 942 1072 This discrepancy among the three versions is so serious that it can not be explained. Since the Hebrew version informs us that Abraham was bom two hundred and ninety-two years after the Flood and that Noah lived for three hundred and fifty years after the Flood as is understood from Genesis: And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years.l This means that Abraham was fifty-eight years old at the death of Noah which is wrong according to the Greek and Samaritan versions and according to the unanimous decision of the historians. The Greek version places the birth of Abraham seven hundred and twenty-two years after the death of Noah while the Samaritan makes it five hun- dred and ninety-two years after his death. Secondly, in the Greek ver- sion an additional generation is given that is not to be found in the other two versions. The Evangelist Luke trusted the Greek version and therefore included in the genealogy of Christ the name of Canaan. This great discrepancy in the statements of the above three ver- sions has caused great difference of opinion among Christians. The historians rejected all three versions and decided that actual period in this case was three hundred and fifty-two years. Josephus, the renowned Jewish historian, also rejected the above three versions and said that the correct figure was nine hundred and ninety-three years, as is evident from the Henry and Scott commentary. The great theolo- gian of the fourth century, Augustine, and other ancient writers favoured the statement of the Greek version. Horsley, the commenta- tor, expressed the same opinion in his comments on Genesis, while Hales thinks that the Samaritan version was correct. The scholar Home also seems to support the Samaritan version. Henry and Scott's commentary includes this statement: Augustine held the opinion that the Jews had distorted the description in the Hebrew version with regard to the elders who lived either prior to the Flood or after it up to the time of Moses, so that the Greek version would be discredited, and because of the enmity which they had against Christianity. It seems that the ancient Christians also favoured this opinion. They thought that this alteration was made by them in 130. Home says in the first volume of his commentary: The scholar Hales presented strong ARGUMENTs in favour of the Samaritan version. It is not possible to give a summary of his ARGUMENTs here. The curious reader may see his book from page 80 onward. Kermicott said: If we keep in mind the general behaviour of the Samaritans towards the Torah, and also the reticence of Christ at the time of his discourse with the Samaritan woman, and many other points, we are led to to believe that the Jews made deliberate alterations in the Torah, and that the claim of the scholars of the Old and the New Testament, that the Samaritans made deliberate changes, is baseless. Christ's discourse with a Samaritan woman referred to in the above passage is found in the Gospel of John where we find: The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that Thou art a prophet. Our father worshipped in this mountain; and ye say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.' The Samaritan woman, convinced that Christ was a Prophet, asked about the most disputed matter between the Jews and the Samaritans in respect of which each of them accused the other of making alter- ations to the original text. Had the Samaritans distorted it, Christ, being a Prophet, must have disclosed the truth. Instead, he kept silent on the matter, implying that the Samaritans were right and showing that there must be human manipulations in the text of the Holy Scriptures. Alteration No. 3: Mount Gerizim or Mount Ebal We find the following statement in Deuteronomy: It shall be when ye be gone over Jordan that ye shall set up these stones, which I command you this day, in mount Ebal, and thou shall plaster them with plaster..' On the other hand the Samaritan version contains: ...the stones which I command set them up in Gerizim. Ebal and Gerizim are two mountains adjacent to each other as is known from verses 12 and 13 of the same chapter and from 11:29 of the same book. According to the Hebrew version it is clear that the Prophet Moses had commanded them to build a temple on Mount Ebal, while from the Samaritan version we know that he commanded this temple to be built on Gerizim. This was a matter of great dispute between the Jews and the Samaritans, and each of them accused the other of altering the original text of the Pentateuch. The same dispute is found among Protestant scholars on this point. Adam Clarke, the famous Protestant scholar, says on page 817 of the first volume of his commentary: The scholar Kennicott maintained that the Samaritan ver- sion was correct, while the scholars Parry and Verschuur claimed that the Hebrew version was authentic, but it is gen- erally known that Kennicott's ARGUMENTs are irrefutable, and people positively believe that the Jews, out of their enmity against the Samaritans, changed the text. It is unanimously acknowledged that Mount Gerizim is full of vegetation. springs and gardens while Mount Ebal is barren without any water and vegetation in it. In this case Mount Gerizim fits the description of 'the place of blessing'l and Ebal as the place of curse. The above makes us understand that Kennicott and other scholars have favoured the Samaritan version and that Kennicott forwarded irlefutable ARGUMENTs. Alteration No. 4: Seven Years or Three Years We find the phrase 'seven years' in II Sam. 24:13, while I Chronicles 21:12 has 'three years'. This has been already discussed earlier. Obviously one of the two statements must be wrong. Adam Clarke commenting on the statement of Samuel said: Chronicles contains 'three years' and not 'seven years'. The Greek version similarly has 'three years' and this is undoubtedly the correct statement. E Alteration No. 5: Sister or Wife I Chronicles of the Hebrew version contains: And whose sister's name was Micah. 2 It should be 'wife' and not 'sister'. Adam Clarke said: The Hebrew version contains the word 'sister' while the Syrian, Latin and Greek versions have the word 'wife'. The translators have followed these versions. Protestant scholars have rejected the Hebrew version and followed the above translations indicating that they too consider the Hebrew version to be erroneous. Alteration No. 6 II Chronicles 22:2 of the Hebrew version informs us: Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. This statement is undoubtedly wrong because his father Jehoram was forty years' old when he died, and Ahaziah was enthroned imme- diately after the death of his father. If the above statement be true, he must have been two years older than his father. II Kings reads as fol- lows: Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.2 Adam Clarke making comments on the statement of Chronicles said in the second volume of his commentaries: The Syrian and the Arabic translations contain twenty- two years, and some Greek translations have twenty years. Most probably the Hebrew version was the same, but the peo- ple used to write the numbers in the form of letters. It is most likely that the writer has substituted the letter 'mim' (m=40) for the letter 'k4 (k=20). He further said: The statement of II Kings is correct. There is no way of comparing the one with the other. Obviously any statement allowing a son to be older than his father cannot be true. Home and Henry and Scott have also admitted it to the mis- take of the writers. Alteration No. 7 II Chronicles 28:19 of the Hebrew version contains: The lord brought Judah low because of Ahaz king of Israel. The word Israel in this statement is certainly wrong because Ahaz - was the king of Judah and not of Israel. The Greek and the Latin ver- sions have the word 'Judah'. The Hebrew version therefore has been changed. Alteration No. 8 Psalm 40 contains this: Mine ears hast thou opened. Paul quotes this in his letter to the Hebrews in these words: But a body hast thou prepared me.l One of these two statements must be wrong and manipulated. The Christian scholars are surprised at it. Henry and Scott's compilers said: This is a mistake of the scribes. Only one of the two state- ments is true. They have admitted the presence of alteration in this place but they are not definite which of the two statements has been changed. Adam Clarke ascribes the change to the Psalms. D'Oyly and Richard Mant observe in their comments: It is surprising that in the Greek translation and in the Epistle to the Hebrews 10:5 this sentence appears as: 'but a body hast thou prepared me.' Alteration No. 6 II Chronicles 22:2 of the Hebrew version informs us: Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. This statement is undoubtedly wrong because his father Jehoram was forty yearsl old when he died, and Ahaziah was enthroned imme- diately after the death of his father. If the above statement be true, he must have been two years older than his father. II Kings reads as fol- lows: Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.2 Adam Clarke making comments on the statement of Chronicles said in the second volume of his commentaries: The Syrian and the Arabic translations contain twenty- two years, and some Greek translations have twenty years. Most probably the Hebrew version was the same, but the peo- ple used to write the numbers in the form of letters. It is most likely that the writer has substituted the letter 'mim' (m=40) for the letter 'kF (k=20). He further said: The statement of II Kings is correct. There is no way of comparing the one with the other. Obviously any statement allowing a son to be older than his father cannot be true. Home and Henry and Scott have also admitted it to the mis- take of the writers. Iteration No. 7 II Chronicles 28:19 of the Hebrew version contains: The lord brought Judah low because of Ahaz king of Israel. The word Israel in this statement is certainly wrong because Ahaz was the king of Judah and not of Israel. The Greek and the Latin ver- sions have the word 'Judah'. The Hebrew version therefore has been , changed. Alteration No. 8 Psalm 40 contains this: Mine ears hast thou opened. Paul quotes this in his letter to the Hebrews in these words: But a body hast thou prepared me.l Z One of these two statements must be wrong and manipulated. The Christian scholars are surprised at it. Henry and Scott's compilers said: This is a mistake of the scribes. Only one of the two state- ments is true. They have admitted the presence of alteration in this place but they , are not definite which of the two statements has been changed. Adam Clarke ascribes the change to the Psalms. D'Oyly and Richard Mant observe in their comments: It is surprising that in the Greek translation and in the Epistle to the Hebrews 10:5 this sentence appears as: 'but a body hast thou prepared me.' The two commentators agree that it is the statement of the Evangel that has been altered, that is, the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews. Alteration No. 9 Verse 28 of Psalm 105 in the Hebrew version includes the state- ment: "They rebelled not against his words." The Greek version on the contrary bears these words: "They rebelled against these words." It can be seen that the former version negates the latter. One of the two statements, therefore, must be wrong. Christian scholars are greatly embarrassed here. The commentary of Henry and Scott con- cludes: This difference has induced much discussion and it is obvious that the addition or omission of a certain word has been the cause of all this. The presence of manipulation in the text has been admitted, though they are not able to decide which version is wrong. Alteration No. 10: The Number of the Israelites II Samuel contains this statement: And there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.l This statement is contradicted by I Kings: And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and a hundred thousand men that drew sword. Certainly one of the two statements has been altered. Adam Clarke making his comments on the first statement observed: The validity of both the statements is not possible. Most probably the first statement is correct. The historical books of the Old Testament contain more distortions than the other books. Any effort to find conformity among them is just use- less. It is better to admit, in the beginning, what cannot be refuted later. The authors of the Old Testament were men of inspiration but the copiers were not. This is a plain admission of the fact that alterations are abundant in the books of the Old Testament and that one should objectively admit their presence because these changes and contradictions are unex- plainable. Alteration No. 11: Horsley's Admission The famous commentator, Horsley, under his comments on Judges 12:4 observed on page 291 of the first volume of his commentary: There is no doubt that this verse has been distorted. The verse referred to is: Then Jephtah gathered together all the man of Gilead and fought with Ephraim: and the men of Gilead smote Ephraim, because they said, Ye Gileadites are fugitives of Ephraim among the Ephraimites and among the Manassites. Alteration No. 12: Four or Forty II Samuel 15:7 contains: And it came to pass after forty years that Absalom said unto the King... L Here the word forty' is undoubtedly wrong; the correct number is E four. Adam Clarke s. d in volume two of his book: There is no doubt that this text has been altered. Alteration No. 13: Kennicott's Admission Adam Clarke observed in volume 2 of his commentary under the comments on II Sam 23:8: According to Kennicott three alterations have been made in this verse. This is a plain admission that a single verse contains three distor- tions. Alteration No. 14 I Chronicles 7:6 informs us as follows: The sons of Benjamin; Bela, and Becher, and Jediael, three. While in chapter 8 it says: Now Benjamin begat Bela, his first born, Ashbel the sec- ond and Aharah the third Noahah the fourth and Repha the fifth. These two different statements are again contradicted by Genesis 46:21: And the sons of Benjamin were Belah, and Becher, and Ashbel, Gera and Naaman, Ehi and Rosh, Muppim and Huppim and Ard. It is quite easy to see that there are two kinds of differences in the above three statements. The first passage informs us that Benjamin had three sons, the second claims he had five while the third counts them as ten. Since the first and the second statements are from the same book, it shows a contradiction in the statements of a single author, the Prophet Ezra. Obviously only one of the two statements can be accepted as correct making the other two statements false and erroneous. The Judaeo-Christian scholars are extremely embarrassed Adam Clarke said with regard to the first statement: It is because the author (Ezra) could not separate the sons from the grandsons. In fact any effort to reconcile such con- tradictions is of no use. Jewish scholars think that the author Ezra did not know that some of them were sons and the others grandsons. They also maintain that the genealogical tables from which Ezra had copied were defective. We can do noth- ing but leave such matters alone. This is an obvious example of how the Christian as well as the Jewish scholars find themselves helpless and have to admit the errors in Ezra's writings. The above admission of Adam Clarke helps us to conclude many points of great significance. But before going into those points we must remind ourselves that it is the unanimous claim of both Jewish and Christian scholars that the Book of Chronicles was written by Ezra with the help of the Prophets Haggai and Zechariah. This implies that these two books have the unanimous witness of the three Prophets. On the other hand we have historical evidence that all the books of the Old Testament were in a very bad condition before the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar and after his invasion there was no trace of them left but their names. Had Ezra not recompiled them, they would have ceased to exist then and there. The above fact is admitted in the book which is ascribed to the Prophet Ezra.' Although the Protestants do not believe it to be inspired, they nevertheless acknowledge it as a document of historical value. In it we find: The Torah was burnt. No one knew anything of it. It is said that Ezra rewrote it guided by the Holy Spirit. 1. Perhaps the author is referring to the book of Esdras because it is the book con- taining these events. It may be noted that this book is not included in the Protestant Bible. However, it is part of the Catholic Bible. In the Kno version of the Catholic Bible there are ten chapters in the first book of Esdras and thirteen in the second bDok. I was unable to find this passage in the books of Esdras. The shtement has been translated from Urdu. (Raazi). Clement of Alexandria said: All the divine books were destroyed. Then Ezra was inspired to rewrite them. Tertullian observed: It is generally believed that Ezra recomposed these books after the invasion of the Babylonians. Theophylactus said: The Holy Books completely disappeared. Ezra gave new birth to them through inspiration. The Catholic, John Mill, observed on page 115 of his book printed at Derby in 1843: All the scholars unanimously agree that the original Torah (Pentateuch) and other original books of the Old Testament were destroyed by the forces of Nebuchadnezzar. When the books were recompiled through Ezra, these too were later on destroyed during the invasion of Antiochus. Keeping the above information in mind will help us understand the significance of the following six conclusions based on the observa- tions of the commentator, Adam Clarke. First Conclusion: The present Torah (the Pentateuch) cannot be the original Torah that was first revealed to Moses and then, after having been destroyed, rewritten by Ezra through inspiration. Had it been the orig- inal Torah, Ezra could have not opposed it in his writings,l and must have copied according to it, without trusting its defective genealogica tables as he did and without distinguishing right from wrong. The contention that Ezra copied it from the defective versions 1. That is the Book of Chronicles would have not contradicted the book of Cenesis which is the part of the Torah. available to him at the time, and was unable to remove errors con- tained in them, exactly as he was unable to do in the case of the defec- tive genealogical tables, makes it lose its divine character and, there- fore, its trustworthiness. Second Conclusion: If Ezra could have made mistakes in spite of being assisted by two other Prophets, he could have made mistakes in other books also. This kind of situation leaves one in doubt about the divine origin of these books. especially when it happens to contrast with definitely estab- lished ARGUMENTs and simple human logic. For example we must reject the truth of the disgraceful event described in chapter 19 of Genesis where the Prophet Lot is imputed to have committed fornica- tion with his two daughters, resulting in their pregnancy, and then two sons being bom to them who later become the forefathers of the Moabites and Ammonites. (May God forbid). Similarly we must reject the event described in I Samuel chapter 21 where the Prophet David is accused of fornication with the wife of Uriah, making her pregnant, and of killing her husband under some pretext and taking her to his house. There is another unacceptable event described in I Kings chapter 11 where the Prophet Solomon is reported to have converted to pagan- ism, misguided by his wives, and to have built temples for idols thus becoming low in the eyes of God. There are many other obscene and t shameful events described in the Bible which make the hair of the faithful stand on end. All these events have been rejected by irre- futable ARGUMENTs. Third Conclusion: Protestant theologians claim that, although the Prophets are not generally immune from committing sins and making mistakes, in preaching and writing they are innocent of and immune to all kinds of errors and omissions. We may be allowed to remind them that this claim remains unsupported by their holy books. Otherwise they should explain why the writing of the Prophet EZM is not free from errors especially when he had the assistance of two other Prophets. Fourth Conclusion: This allows us to conclude that according to the Christians there are times when a Prophet does not receive inspiration when he needs it. The Prophet Ezra did not receive inspiration while he most needed it at the time of writing these books. Fifth Conclusion: Our claim that everything written in these books is not inspired by God has been proved because a false statement cannot be an inspira- tion from God. The presence of such statements in the Bible has been demonstrated above. Sixth Conclusion: If the Prophet Ezra is not free from error, how can the Evangelists Mark and Luke be supposed to be immune to error, especially when they were not even disciples of Christ? According to the People of the Book, Ezra was a Prophet who received inspiration and he was assisted by two other Prophets. Mark and Luke were not men of inspi- ration. Though the other two Evangelists, Matthew and John, are con- sidered by the Protestants to be Apostles, they too are not different from Mark and Luke since the writings of all four evangelists are full of errors and contradictions. Alteration No. lS Under his comments on I Chronicles 8:9 Adam Clarke observed in the second volume of his book: In this chapter from this verse to verse 32, and in chapter 9 from verse 35 to 44 we find names which are different from each other.l Jewish scholars believe that Ezra had found two books which contained these verses with names different from each other. Ezra could not distinguish the correct names from the wrong ones; he therefore copied both of them. We have nothing to add in respect of this to what we said under the previous number. Alteration No. 16 In II Chronicles 13:3 we find the number of Abijah's army men- doned as four hundred thousand and the number of Jeroboam's army as eight hundred thousand, and in verse 17 the number of people slain from Jeroboam's army is given as five hundred thousand. Since this number of the troops of the above kings was incredibly exaggerated, they have been reduced to forty thousand, eighty thousand and fifty thousand respectively in the most Latin translations. It is surprising that the commentators have willingly accepted this. Home said in the first volume of his commentary: Most probably the number described in these (the Latin) versions is correct. Similarly Adam Clarke in the second volume of his book said: It seems that the smaller number (the reduced number in the Latin translations) is quite correct. And we are thus pro- vided with great opportunity to protest against the presence of distortion in the numbers described by these historical books. This is again an unambiguous example of alterations made in the texts of the Bible. Alteration No. 17: The Age of Jehoiachin 3 We find this statement in II Chronicles: Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign.l The word eight' in this verse is incorrect and is contrary to the Sment of II Kings which says: lehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign.l In his comments on the latter verse Adam Clarke said: The word 'eight' used in 2 Chronicles 36:8 is certainly wrong, because he reigned for only three months and was then made captive in Babylon where he had his wives in the prison. It seems obvious that a child of eight years could not have had wivcs with him. A child of this age cannot be accused of committing an act which is evil in the eyes of God. Alteration No. 18 According to some versions Psalm 20 verse 17, and according to the Hebrew version, Psalm 22 verse 16, includes this sentence: My both hands are like a lion. In the Catholic and the Protestant translations the sentence reads: They pierced my hands and my feet. All the scholars admit the presence of an alteration at this place. Alteration No. 19 Under his comments on Isaiah 64:2,2 Adam Clarke said in volume 4 of his book: At this place the Hebrew text has undergone a great alter- ation, the correct sentence should be: the fire causeth the wax to melt. Alteration No. 20: Difference between Isaiah and Paul Verse 4 of the same chapter contains: For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, besides thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him. But Paul records this verse differently in his first letter to Cor- inthians, saying: Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. The difference between the two texts is obvious and one of the two The commentarY of Henrv and Scott con- statements must be wrong. tains this statement: The best opinion is that the Hebrew text has been distorted. Adam Clarke reproduced many opinions on this text of Isaiah and examined the text thoroughly, at the end of which he observed: What can I do under these difficult circumstances except present one of two altematives to my readers: admit that the Jews changed the texts of the Hebrew and Latin translations, as a strong probability exists of alterations in the quotations of the Old Testament reproduced in the New Testament; or admit that Paul did not quote this sentence from this book. He might have quoted it from one of several forged books. For instance from the Book of the Ascension of Isaiah or from he revelatjons of Ebiah where this sentence can be found, because some people think that the apostle (Paul) copied from forged books. Perhaps people generally would not easily accept the first possibility, but I must wam the readers that Jerome considers the second possibility to be the worst kind of heresy or heterodoxy. Alterations No. 21-26: Differences between the Old and New Testaments We find Horne observing in the second volume of his commen_ tary: It seems that the Hebrew text has been changed in the verses detailed below: 1. Malachi 3:1 2. Micah 5:2 3. Psalms 16:8-11 4. Amos 9 12 5. Psalms 4:6-8 6. Psalms 110:4 1. The first verse in Mal. 3:1 seems to have been altered because Matthew reports it in his Gospel in chapter 11:10 in a form which is obviously different from Malachi's in the Hebrew and other translations. The text of Matthew is this: Behold, I send my messengers before ye... The words 'before ye' are not to be found in Malachi.l Besides this Matthew also reported these words, "Shall pre- pare the way before ye." While Malachi's statement is, "Shall prepare the the way before me." Horne admitted in a foot- note: This difference cannot be explained easily except that the old versions had been changed. 2. The second verse (Mic. 5:2) is also quoted by Matthew in 2:6 in a way which shows clear differences2 from the above. 3. The third passage (Psalms 16:8-11) is reported by Luke in Acts 2:25-28, and the texts are quite different from each other. 4. The fourth passage is also quoted by Luke in Acts 15:16-17 and is different from Amos 9 12. 5. Psalms 4:6-8 is quoted by Paul in his letter to the He- brews in verses 5 to 7. The two versions are quite different. Alterations No. 27-29: Contradictory Margin Notes J Exodus 21:8, in the Hebrew version, contains a negative statement , while the statement included in its margin is affrmative. This verse contains injunctions with regard to keeping maid ser- vants. Similarly we find in Leviticus 11:21 laws regarding birds and creeping things on the earth.2 The statement in the Hebrew text is neg- ative while in the marginal notes it is found to be affirmative. Leviticus 25:30 gives injunctions with regard to selling houses. The verse again contains a negative injunction while the marginal note affirms it.3 Protestant scholars have preferred the affirmative texts in the marginal notes in their translations in all the above three places. That is, they have omitted the primary text and have included a marginal passage in its place, thus distorting these verses. After the alteration in these three verses, the injunctions contained in them have lost their certainty. Now it cannot be ascertained which of the two injunctions is correct, the negative one of the text or the affirmative of the margin. This demonstration also refutes the claim of the Christians that the distortions found in the Bible do not affect rituals and liturgical instructions. 1. We could not find any difference at this place but since Horne is considered a great scholar by the Christians his statement might have been based on some reason, ithasthereforebeen included. 2. "Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet to leap withal upon the earth." 3. "And if it not be redeemed within the space of a full year, then the house that is t the walled city shall be established for ever to him that bought it throughout his generations. It shall not go out in the jubile." Leviticus 25:30. Alteration No. 30 Acts 20:28 says: To feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Griesbach observed that the word 'God' used here is wrong; the correct word is the pronoun 'his', I the third person singular. Alteration No. 31: Angel or Eagle Revelation 8:13 contains this statement: And I beheld an angel flying. Griesbach has suggested that the word 'angel' here is wrong, the correct word should be 'eagIe'.2 Alteration No. 32 Ephesians 5:21 contains: Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Griesbach and Scholtz observed that the word 'God' here is again wrong; the correct word should be 'Christ'.3 In this section we have aimed at demonstrating the presence of human manipulation in the form of alterations of phrases and words in the Bible. The above thirty-two examples should be enough to prove it. We confine ourselves to this much only to avoid unnecessary prolongation of the subject; otherwise there is no dearth of them in the Bible. ADDITIONS TO THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE Addition No- 1: Added Books It must be noted in the beginning of this section that the following eight books of the Old Testament remained inauthentic and were rejected up until 325. 1. The Book of Esther 2. The Book of Baruch 3. The Book of Judith 4. The Book of Tobit 5. The Book of Wisdom 6. The Book of Ecclesiasticus 7 & 8. The First and Second Book of Maccabees In 325 Constantine called a meeting of Christian scholars in the city of Nice (Nicaea) which is known as the Council of Nicaea to decide which of these books should be discarded from the acknowl- edged list of biblical books. After a detailed scrutiny, this council decided that only the Book of Judith was to be acknowledged as authentic and the rest of the books were declared doubtful. Another council with the same purpose was held at Laodicea in 364. This committee confirmed the decision of the Nicaean council and unanimously decided that the Book of Esther was also to be included in the acknowledged books. This council publicised its deci- sion through an official declaration. In 397 another grand council was convened in Carthage. One hun- dred and twenty-seven great scholars of the time participated in this council. The leamed and the most celebrated theologian of the 'i Christian world, St. Augustine, was among the participants. This Council not only confirmed the decisions of the previous councils but also unanimously decided to acknowledge all the remaining six books with the proviso that the Book of Baruch was not a separate book but merely part of the book of Jeremiah, because Baruch was the assistant of the Prophet Jeremiah. Its name, therefore, did not appear separately in the list. Three more subsequent meetings were held in Trullo, Florence and Trent. These councils reacknowledged the decision of the previous councils. In this way all the above eight books after being rejected received the status of Holy Books under the declaration of the above councils. This situation remained unchanged for more than eight hun- dred years. Later there was a great revolution over this situation and the Protestants came forward to change the decisions of their forebears and decided that the books of Baruch, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and the two books of Maccabees were all to be reject- ed. They also rejected the decision of their elders with regard to a par- ticular part of the book of Esther and accepted only one part of it, with the result that out of sixteen chapters of this book the first nine chapters and three verses of chapter 10 were acknowledged and the remaining six chapters and ten verses of chapter 10 were rejected. They forwarded many ARGUMENTs in support of their decision. For example the historian Eusebius decided in chapter 22 of the fourth volume of his book: These books have been distorted, especiauy the Second Book of Maccabees. Nor do the Jews recognise these books as being inspired. The Roman Catholics, who have always been greater in number than the Protestants, acknowledge these books up to this day as being authen- tic and divine. The books have been included in the Latin version that is considered by them to be the most authentic of all versions. Knowledge of the above facts, proves the presence of distortion and human manipulation in these books. Having been rejected for three hundred and twenty-five years these books suddenly turn out to be inspired books simply because some people sat together in several meetings and decided that they were. The Catholics still insist on their being divine. This implies that any consensus of the Christian schol- ars lacks value as an ARGUMENT against opponents. If such a consensus can authenticate previously rejected books, one may be allowed to preSume that the same kind of consensus might have been held in case of the four Gospels which themselves contain many distortions and human manipulations. The elders first unanimously agreed on the accuracy of the Hebrew version and then claimed that the Jews had changed it in 130 AD as we have shown under Alteration No. 2. The Greek and Eastern Churches still agree on its accuracy, but Protestant scholars have proved that their consensus was wrong, and have shown that, on the contrarY the Hebrew version is incorrect and altered. The same is the case with the Greek translation. The Catholics, similarly agreed on the accuracy of the Latin translation while, contrary to this, the Protes- tants have not only proved it to be distorted and changed but have also said that its distortion is so great that cannot be compared with other translations. Home observed on page 463 of the fourth volume of his commentary printed in 1822: This translation has undergone innumerable alterations and frequent additions from the 5th century to the 15th century. Further on page 467 he observed: It may be kept in mind that no other translation in the world has been so greatly distorted as was the Latin transla- tion. The copiers took great liberties in inserting the verses of one book of the New Testament into another and including marginal notes into the basic text. ., . In the presence of this attitude towards the most popular transla- bon, what assurance is there that they might have not changed the basic text of a translation which was not popular among them. It can be assumed that people who were bold enough to change a trans- lation, would have also tried to change the original version to cover theircrime. ; Strangely the Protestants did not reject the part of the book of Esther along with all other books, because in this book the name of od does not occur even once, let alone His attributes or injunctions. Also, the name of its author is not known. The exegetes of the Old Testament do not ascribe it to anyone with certainty. Some of them ascribe it to the ecclesiastics of the Church from the period of Ezra to the period of Simeon. The Jewish scholar Philo thinks that it was written by Jehoiachin, the son of Joshua who had retumed from Baby_ lon after his release from captivity. Augustine attributed it directly to Ezra, while some others relate it to Mordecai some others even think that Mordecai and Esther are the authors of this book. The Catholic Herald contains the following remarks on page 347 of vol. 2: The learned Melito did not include this book in the list of acknowledged books, as has been pointed out by Eusebius in the History of the Church (Vol. 4 Chapter 26). Gregory Nazianzen described all the acknowledged books in his Poem and this book is not included by him. Similarly Amphilochius expressed his doubts about this book in the poem which he addressed to Seleucus and Athanasius rejected and negated it in his letter No. 39. Addition No. 2 The Book of Genesis contains the following: And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.' These cannot be the words of the Prophet Moses, because they denote that speaker belonged to the period after the Israelites had formed their kingdom.2The first king of this kingdom was Saul,3 who reigned 356 years after the death of the Prophet Moses. Adam Clarke remarked in the first volume of his commentaries: I am almost certain that this verse and the subsequent verses up to verse 39 were not written by Moses. In fact, these verses belong to the first chapter of I Chronicles, and a strong possibility, which is very near to being a certainty, is that these verses were written in the margin of the original Pentateuch- The copier included them in the text on the aSsumption that they formed a part of the text. This commentator has admitted that the above nine verses were added to the text later. This proves that their holy books were capable of allowing foreign material to be inserted later, otherwise these later additions would have not become a part of all the translations. Addition No. 3 We find the following statement in Deuteronomy: Jair, the son of Manasseh took all the country of Argob unto the coasts of Geshuri and Maachathi, and called them after his own name, Bashan-havothjair unto this day.l It is also not possible for this to be the word of Moses, because the words 'unto this day' in the above verse situate the speaker in a peri- od much later than that of Jair, because such phrases can be used only to denote the remote past. The renowned scholar Horne made the fol- lowing comments on both the above verses in the first volume of his commentary It is not possible for these two verses to be the word of Moses, because the former sentence denotes that the speaker belongs to the period after the Kingdom of Israel had been founded while the latter verse shows that the author belonged to a period long after the stay of the Israelites in Palestine. Even if we accept these two verses as later additions, the truth of the book still remains unaffected. A careful examination of these verses will show that they are of great advantage, rather they carry more weight than the text itself, especially the sec- ond verse, because the author, be he Moses or someone else, could not say 'unto this day'; it is therefore most predomi- nantly presumed that the original text was: "Jair, the son of Manasseh took all the country of Argob unto the coasts of Geshuri and Maachathi and called them after his own name ,and after a few centuries these words were added in the mar- gin to let the people know that this land still continued to be known by the same name. This note then was added into the text in future translations. Anyone with doubt can ascertain from the Latin version the fact that some later additions which are found in the text of some translations are present in the margin of others. The above scholar has openly admitted that the above two verses, are not the word of Moses and that they are later additions. As for his assumption regarding what the above verse would have been, it is merely personal guesswork that is not supported by ARGUMENT. He has admitted that these words were inserted into the text 'a few centuries later' and then became the part of other translations. This is a clear admission that these books allowed the possibility of such insertions being made, and that is not a character of divine books. His claim that the truth remains unaffected even after this distortion, is nothing but sheer obstinacy and is rejected by common sense. The compilers of Henry and Scott's commentary observed with regard to the second verse: The last sentence is an addition that was inserted long after the period of Moses. It makes no difference if we over- look it. Addition No. 4: The Towns of Jair The Book of Numbers chapter 32 verse 40 says: And Jair the son of Manasseh went and took the small towns thereof, and called them Havoth-Jair. This verse is similar to the verse of Deuteronomy discussed aboVe- The Dictionary of the Bible printed in America, England and India che compilation of which was started by Colmet and completed by I Zabit and Taylor, contains the following: There are certain verses in the Pentateuch which are clearly not the word of Moses. For instance, Numbers 32:40 and Deuteronomy 2:14. Similarly some of its passages do not correspond to the idiom or expression of the time of Moses. We cannot be certain as to who included these verses. However there is strong probability that Ezra inserted them as can be understood from chapter 9:10 of his book and from chapter 8 of the Book of Nehemiah. The above requires no comment. It gives us to understand that the rah (Pentateuch) contains passages that are not the word of Moses. The scholars are not definite about the authors of these books but they conjecture that they might have been written by Ezra. This conjecture is not useful. The previous chapters do not indicate that Ezra inserted any part into the book. The Book of Ezral contains his admission and concern over the perversion of the Israelites while the Book of Nehemiah2 inforrns us that Ezra had read the Torah to the people. Addition No. 5: The Mount of the Lord We read in Genesis: It is said to this day, In the Mount of the Lord it shall be seen.3 We historically know that this mount was called 'The Mount of the ord', only after the construction of the temple, built by Solomon ur hundred and fifty years after the death of Moses. Adam Clarke eecided in his introduction to the Book of Ezra, that this sentence is a Fter addition, and said: This mount was not known by this name prior to the con- struction of the Temple. Additions No. 6 & 7: Further Additions to Deuteronomy It says in Deuteronomy chapter 2 verse 12: The Horims also dwelt in Seir before-time; but the chil- dren of Esau succeeded them, When they had destroyed them from before them and dwelt in their stead; as Israel did into the land of his possession which the Lord gave unto them. Adam Clarke decided in his introduction to the book of Ezra that this verse is also a later addition and the sentence "as Israel did unto the land of his possession" is said to denote it. Deuteronomy chapter 3 verse 11 has: For only Og, King of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? Nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man. Adam Clarke observed in his introduction to the book of Ezra: The whole statement, and especially the last sentence, indicates that this verse was written long after the death of this king and certainly was not written by Moses. Addition No. 8 The book of Numbers contains: And the Lord hearkened the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities and he called the name of the place Hormah. Adam Clarke again observed on page 697 of his first volume: I I know very well that this verse was inserted after the death of Joshua, because all the Canaanites were not destroyed in the time of Moses, they were killed after his death. Addition No. g We find in the Book of Exodus: And the children of Israel did eat 'manna' forty years r until they came to a land inhabited; they did eat manna until they came to the borders of the land of Canaan.' ! This verse also cannot be the word of God, because God did not l discontinue 'manna' in the lifetime of Moses, and they did not arrive L at Canaan in that period. Adam Clarke said on page 399 of the first E olume of his commentary: From this verse people have reckoned that the Book of Exodus was written after the discontinuance of Manna from the Israelites, but it is possible that these words might have been added by Ezra. We may be allowed to assert that people have reckoned rightly, and the unsupported conjecture of the author is not acceptable. The ct is that all the five books ascribed to Moses (the Torah) are not his ritings as we have proved in the first part of this book with irre- Jiltable ARGUMENTs. ddition No. 10: The Book of the Wars of the Lord Numbers chapter 21 verse 14 says: Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord hat he did in the Red Sea, so shall he do in the brooks of This mount was not known by this name prior to the con- struction of the Temple. Additions No. 6 & 7: Further Additions to Deuteronomy It says in Deuteronomy chapter 2 verse 12: The Horims also dwelt in Seir before-time; but the chil- dren of Esau succeeded them, When they had destroyed them from before them and dwelt in their stead; as Israel did 1nto the land of his possession which the Lord gave unto them. Adam Clarke decided in his introduction to the book of Ezra that this verse is also a later addition and the sentence "as Israel did unto the land of his possession" is said to denote it. Deuteronomy chapter 3 verse 11 has: For only Og, King of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron, is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? Nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man. Adam Clarke observed in his introduction to the book of Ezra: The whole statement, and especially the last sentence. indicates that this verse was written long after the death of this king and certainly was not written by Moses. Addition No. 8 The book of Numbers contains: And the Lord hearkened the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities and he called the name of the place Hormah. Adam Clarke again observed on page 697 of his first volume: I know very well that this verse was inserted after the death of Joshua, because all the Canaanites were not destroyed in the time of Moses, they were killed after his Addition No. 9 We find in the Book of Exodus: And the children of Israel did eat 'manna' forty years until they came to a land inhabited; they did eat manna until they came to the borders of the land of Canaan.l This verse also cannot be the word of God, because God did not discontinue 'manna' in the lifetime of Moses, and they did not arrive at Canaan in that period. Adam Clarke said on page 399 of the first volume of his commentary: From this verse people have reckoned that the Book of Exodus was written after the discontinuance of Manna from the Israelites, but it is possible that these words might have We may be allowed to assert that people have reckoned rightly and the unsupported conjecture of the author is not acceptable. The fact is that all the five books ascribed to Moses (the Torah) are not his wntings as we have proved in the first part of this book with irre- futable ARGUMENTs. Addition No. 10: The Book of the Wars of the Lord Numbers chapter 21 verse 14 says: j Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord, a he did in the Red Sea, so shall he do in the brooks of Amon.l It is not possible for this verse to be the word of Moses and, on the contrary, it denotes that the Book of Numbers was not written by Moses at all, because the author has referred to the Book of Wars of the Lord. No one knows anything about the author of this book, his name or his whereabouts up to this day, and this book is something like a fairy tale, heard of by many but seen by none. In the introduc- tion to Genesis, Adam Clarke decided that this verse was a later addi- tion, then he added: It is most probable that 'the book of the wars of Lord' first existed in a margin, then it came to be included in the text. This is again a plain admission of the fact that these holy books were capable of being distorted by people. Addition No. 11 Genesis contains the name of the town Hebron in three paces.2 This name was given to it by the Israelites after the victory of Palestine. Formerly it was called Kirjath Arba,3 which is known from Joshua 14:15. Therefore the author of these verses must have been someone living in the period after this victory and the change of its name to Hebron. Similarly the book of Genesis 14:14 contains the word Dan which is the name of a town which came into existence in the period of Judges. The Israelites, after the death of Joshua, conquered the city of Laish, and killed the citizens and burnt the whole city. In its place they rebuilt a new town which they called Dan. This can be ascer- tained from Judges chapter 18. This verse therefore cannot be the word of Moses. Home said in his commentary: It is possible that Moses might have written Raba and Laish and some copier later changed the names to Hebron and Dan. It is again to be noted how the great scholars find themselves help- lessly seeking support from unsound conjectures. Addition No. 12 The Book of Genesis says in chapter 13 verse 7: The Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelt then in the Land. Chapter 12 verse 6 of the same book contains these words: And the Canaanite was then in the land. Neither of these sentences can be the word of Moses, as has been admitted by the Christian commentators. The commentary of Henry and Scott has the following comment: It is clear that neither of these sentences can be the words of Moses. These and other similar sentences have been added later to make a link and might have been added by Ezra or any other man of inspiration into the holy books. This is an obvious admission of the fact that the holy books con- tain passages which have been added to them later by unknown peo- ple. His guess that Ezra might have added it invites no comment as no ARGUMENT has been presented to support this conjecture. Addition No. 13: The First Five Verses of Deuteronomy Under his comments on chapter 1 of Deuteronomy, Adam Clarke observed on page 749 of volume 1 of his book: The first five verses of this chapter form an introduction to the rest of the book and cannot be regarded as the word of Moses. Most probably they were added by Ezra or by Joshua. This admission shows that these five verses are a later addition. Again his guess with regard to their authors is unacceptable without ARGUMENT. Addition No. 14: Chapter 34 of Deuteronomy Adam Clarke said in the first volume of his Commentary: The words of Moses end with the previous chapter and this chapter is not his words. It is not possible for Moses to have written it... The person who brought the next book must have been received this chapter from the Holy Spirit. I am cerlain that this chapter was originally the first chapter of the book of Joshua.' The marginal note which existed at this place written by some Jewish scholar said: Most of the co nmentators say that the book of Deutero- nomy ends on the prayer of Moses for the twelve tribes, that is, on the sentence. 'Happy art thou O Israel who is like unto thee, O peoples saved by the Lord.' This chapter was written by seventy elders long after the death of Moses, and this chapter was the first chapter of the book of Joshua which was later put here. Both Jewish and Christian scholars have admitted that this chapter cannot be the word of Moses. As for their claim that it was written by seventy elders and that this chapter was the first chapter of the Book of Joshua, this is again just a guess not supported by any ARGUMENT. Henry and Scott said: The words of Moses ended with the previous chapter. This chapter is a later addition either by Ezra, Joshua or another subsequent prophet who is not definitely known. Perhaps the last verses were included after the release of the Israelites from the captivity of Babylon. Similar views were expressed by D'Oyly and Richard Mant in their commentary. They think this was included by Joshua at some later period. It must be noted here that the verses presented above as examples of later additions are based on the presumption that we have accepted the Judaeo-Christian claim that the five books of the Pentateuch are the books of Moses, otherwise these verses would only go to prove that these books have been falsely ascribed to Moses which is what the scholars of Islam believe and claim. We have already demonstrated that some scholars of the Judaeo-Christian world have agreed with our claim. As far as their conjectures as to the author of these verses, they are unacceptable until they support them with authoritative evidence which directly lead us to the Prophet who included these verses, and to do that has proved impossible for them. Addition No. 15: Irrelevant Verses in Deuteronomy Adam Clarke reproduced a long exposition of Kennicott in the 1 first volume of his book while commenting on chapter 10 of - Deuteronomy that is summarized in the words: The Samaritan version is correct while the Hebrew ver- sion is wrong. Four verses, that is from 6 to 9, are extremely E irrelevant in the context and their exclusion from the text produces a connected text. These four verses were written here by mistake by the copier. They, in fact, belong to the second chapter of Deuteronomy. Addition No. 16 The book of Deuteronomy contains the following: A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord, even to his tenth generation shall he not enter in the congregation of the Lord.l It is quite obvious that the above cannot be an injunction from God or written by Moses, because in that case neither David nor any of his ancestors up to Pharez would be able enter the congregation of the Lord, because Pharez was a bastard as we know from Genesis chapter 38 and David happens to be in his tenth generation as is known from the first chapter of Matthew. Horsley therefore decided that the words 'To his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the lord' are a latter addition. Addition No. 17 The compilers of Henry and Scott's commentary said under their comments on Joshua chapter 4:9: This sentence2 and other similar sentences which are pre- sent in most of the books of the Old Testament most probably are later additions. Similarly there are many places where the commentators have explicitly admitted the presence of additions in these books. For example, the book of Joshua contains such sentences at 5:9, 8:28-29, 10:27, 13:13-14, 14:15 and 16:10.3 Moreover this book has eight other instances' of phrases which are proved to have been added later to the original text. If we were to count all such instances in the Old Testament it would require a separate volume. Addition No. 18: The Book of Jasher The book of Joshua has: And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed until the people had arranged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher?2 This verse cannot, in any case, be the word of Joshua because this statement is quoted from the book referred to in the verse, and up to this day its author is not known. We are, however, informed by II Sam. 1:18 that he was either a contemporary of the Prophet David or after him. The compilers of Henry and Scott's commentary main- tained that the Book of Joshua was written before the seventh year of David's succession to throne and according to the books of Protestant scholars the Prophet David was bom three hundred and fifty-eight years after the death of Joshua. Addition No. 19 The book of Joshua, describing the inheritance of the children of Gad, says in chapter 13:25: The land of the children of Ammon, unto Aroer that is before Rabbah. This verse is wrong and distorted because Moses could not have given any of the land of the children of Ammon to the children of Gad, since he had been prohibited by God from doing so, as is evident from Deuteronomy chapter 2.1 The commentator Horsley had to admit that the Hebrew version must have been changed here. Addition No. 20 We find the following sentence in Joshua chapter 19 verse 34: And to Judah upon Jordan toward the sunrising. This is also wrong because the land of Judah was at a distance toward the south. Adam Clarke therefore said that the alteration made in the text is obvious. Addition No. 21 The compilers of Henry and Scott's commentary under their com- ments on the last chapter of the book of Joshua observed: The last five verses are certainly not the word of Joshua. Rather they have been added by Phineas or Samuel. It was customary among the early writers to make such insertions. This is again a plain admission of alteration in the original text. Their guess that Phineas or Samuel included them in the text is not acceptable as it is unsupported by ARGUMENT. As for their remarks that the ancient Christians habitually altered the text, we may be allowed to say that it was the practice of the Jews that deprived these books of their originality. Manipulation of the text was not considered a serious fault by them. Their common practice of playing with the text resulted in serious distortions which were then transferred to other transla- tions. Addition No. 22 The commentator Horsley says on page 283 of the first volume of his commentary: Verses 10 to 15 of chapter 11 of the Book of Judges are later additions. This might be because the event described in them is different from Joshua 15:13-19. Besides, this event belongs to the lifetime of Joshua while in the Book of Judges it is described as an event happen- ing after his death. Addition No. 23: Levite or Son of Judah The Book of Judges,' giving the description of a certain man of the family of Judah, uses this phrase, "Who was a Levite." This must be an error as the commentator Horsley said: This is wrong because, from the sons of Judah, no one can be a Levite. Houbigant excluded this verse from the text, being convinced that it was a later addition. Addition No. 24 We read in I Samuel the following statement: And he smote the men of Beth-she-mesh, because they had looked into the ark of the Lord, even he smote of the peo- ple fifty thousand and threescore and ten men.2 This statement is wrong as was observed by Adam Clarke in the second volume of his commentary. After an analytical examination he said: It seems most likely that an alteration was made to the Hebrew version. Either some words were omitted or unknowingly or otherwise, the words 'fifty thousand' were added, because such a small town could not possibly have had a population of fifty thousand or more. Besides which they would have been farmers, busy in their fields. Even more incredible is the claim that fifty thousand people could, at the same time, see into the small box which was kept on a stone in Joshua's field. He further added: The Latin version contains the words: seven hundred gen- erals and fifty thousand and seventy men; while the Syrian version says five thousand and seventy men. The historians give only seventy men. George Salmon and other rabbis give a different number. These differences, and the over exaggerat- ed number makes us believe that the text must have been dis- torted here, either by adding some words or by omitting oth- ers. Henry and Scott's commentary contains: The number of the men killed, in the Hebrew version, is written upside down. However, even if we overlook this, it is incredible that such a large number of people should commit this sin and be killed in such a small town. The truth of this event is doubtful. Josephus has written that the number of the killed men was only seventy. All these commentators are unambiguous in admitting that there is distortion at this place. Addition No. 25 Under his comments on I Samuel 17:18, Adam Clarke points out From this verse to verse 31 of this chapter, verse 41, all the verses from 54 to the end of the chapter, and the first five verses of chapter 18, and verses 9,10, 11, 17,18,19 are not present in the Latin version, while they are present in the Alexandrian copy of this Book. At the end of his commentary on this chapter Kennicott established that the above verses are not the part of the original version. In a long discussion he adduced that this verse' was a later addi- tion. We reproduce a part of his discussion: In reply to your question as to when this addition was made, I would say, that it was in the time of Josephus. The Jews, with the purpose of refining the hHoly books, added fictitious prayers, songs and fresh statements to the original text. There are innumerable additions in the book of Esther, the additions regarding wine, women and truth, in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, currently known as the First Book of Ezra, the songs of the three children added to the Book of Daniel, and many other additions in the book of Josephus are all obvious examples of this. It is possible that the above verses originally existed in the margin, and were later on included in the text. The commentator Horsley says on page 330 of the first volume of his commentary: Kennicott knows that twenty verses of chapter 17 of Samuel, are a later addition and should be excluded from the text, that is, verses 12 to 31. He hopes that in later versions they will not be included in the text. We do not understand how the authenticity of these books can be trusted when there are all these admissions of Kennicott and others of people enhancing the beauty of the text by adding material to the orig- inal text arbitrarily as they liked. These additions subsequently became part of all the translations through the ignorance or careless- ness of the copiers. This shows that the Protestants falsely claim that the Jews did not make any changes in the books, that they were God- fearing people and considered the Old Testament to be the Word of God. Addition No. 26 The Gospel of Matthew 14:3 contains the following statement: For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife. The Gospel of Mark talks about this event in these words: For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake his brother Philip's wife, for he had married her. The Gospel of Luke conLains: But Herod the Tetrarch, being reproved by him for Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done, added yet this above all, that he shut up John in prison.2 The name Philip is certainly wrong in all the above three versions. The historical records do not agree that the name of Herodias' hus- band was Philip. On the contrary, Josephus claimed that his name was also Herod. Since Philip is definitely wrong, Home admitted on page 632 of the first volume of his commentary: Most probably the word 'Philip' was wrongly wAtten by the copier in the text. It should therefore be excluded from the text. GAesbach has accordingly omitted it. On the contrary, we think that this is one of the mistakes of the evangelists; the copiers are not responsible for it, as there is no argu- ment to support this presumption. It is incredible to believe that the copiers should make exactly the same mistake in all the three Gospels regarding the same event. This single example of addition in fact. makes three examples as it appears in the three Gospels referred to above. Addition No. 27: Words added to Luke The Gospel of Luke contains the following words: And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation and to what are they like.' In this verse the words, "And the Lord said," were added later. The commentator Adam Clarke said about them: These words were never part of Luke's text. The scholars have rejected them. Bengel and Griesbach excluded these words from the text. These words have been omitted from the modern English transla- tions while the King James version still contains them. It is surpAsing that they are still included in the Protestant translations. Words which have been proved to be a later addition have no reason to remain in a text which is supposed to contain the word of God. Addition No. 28 We find wAtten in Matthew: Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah, the prophet, saying. 'and they took the thirty pieces of silver, the prAce of him that was valued.' The word 'Jeremiah' in this verse is one of the well-known mis- takes of Matthew, because this statement can be traced neither to Jeremiah nor any other book of the Old Testament. However, a pas- sage vaguely similar to it is found in the Book of Zechariah 11:13 but there is an obvious difference between the two which makes it diffi- cult to presume that Matthew was quoting it from there. Besides, the text of the Book of Zechariah has no connection with the event described by Matthew. Christian scholars have diverse opinions on this matter. On page 26 of his Book of Errors printed in 1841, Ward said: Mr. Jewel writes in his book that Mark mistakenly wrote Abiathar in place of Ahimelech, similarly Mathew mistaken- ly wrote Jeremiah in place of Zechariah. Horne observed on pages 385 and 386 of the second volume of his commentary printed in 1822: said: This quote is doubtful, because the Book of Jeremiah does not contain it though it is found in the Book of Zechariah 11:13 even if the words of Matthew are different from it. Some scholars think that it is an error of Matthew's version and the copier wrote Jeremiah instead of Zechariah; or it may be a later addition. After having quoted opinions supporting his claim of addition, he Most likely Matthew's text was originally without names as follows: 'Then was fulfilled that which was spoken.' This is supported by the fact that Matthew has the habit of omit- ting the names of the Prophets when he speaks of them. And on page 625 of the first volume he said: The evangelist did not write the name of the Prophet in the original, some copier included it later. The above two passages bear witness that he believed that the word 'Jeremiah' was added later. The commentary of D'Oyly and Richard Mant contains the following comments with regard to this verse: The words quoted here are not present in the Book of Jeremiah. They are found in Zechariah 11:13. This may be because some copier in the past, might have written Jeremiah instead of Zechariah. Subsequently this mistake has found its way into the text, as Pears has confirmed. Jawad ibn as-Sabat wrote in the introduction of Al-Buraheen As- sabatiah: I asked many missionaries about this verse. Thomas replied that it was a mistake of the copier while Buchanan and others answered that Matthew quoted it simply from his memory without referring to the books. Another priest said it could be that Jeremiah was a second name of Zechariah. This leads us to believe that Matthew made the mistakel as was admitted by Ward, Buchanan and others. Other possibilities are weak and unsupported by ARGUMENTs. Horne also admitted that Matthew's words do not correspond to the words of Zechariah and, without admitting the error of one book, the other cannot be accepted as cor- rect. We have presented this witness on the presumption that it was the mistake of the copier. Bet us now examine the errors found in the Gospel of Mark as admitted by the Catholic, Ward and Jewel. The text of this Gospel reads: And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did when he had need and was an hungered, he and that they were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar, the high Priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him.2 ; The word Abiathar in this passage is wrong as has been admitted Oby the above-mentioned author. Similarly the following two sentences are wrong: "and that they were with him," and "to them which were r L l R.A Knox, a recent scholar has allowed no ambiguity to arnit that Matthew's ersion has been changed. Commentary on the New Testament. with him." Because the Prophet David at that time was alone and not accompanied by other people. The readers of the Book of Samuel know this well. These two sentences are therefore wrong. Similarly sentences contained in Matthew and Luke must also be wrong. For example, Matthew 12:34 has: Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hun- gered, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not law- ful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests. And Luke 6:3,4 contains: And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungered, and they which were with him. How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread and gave also to them that were with him. Which is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone. In quoting the above statement of Jesus, the three evangelists made seven mistakes, if these mistakes are ascribed to the copiers, the dis- tortion in all seven places is proved, though it happens to be against the apparent evidence that it was the the copiers who were at fault. Addition No. 29 We find in Matthew chapter 27 verse 35: And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet, 'They parted my garments among them and upon my vesture did they cast lots.' The Christian scholars do not accept the sentence, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet..." as genuine and Griesbach even excluded it from the text. Similarly Home presented ARGUMENTs to prove that it was added later to the text on pages 330 and 331 of his first volume and then remarked: Griesbach flnding out the falsity of this sentence has understandably excluded it from the text.l Under his comments on the same verse, in the fifth book of his commentary Adam Clarke said: It is imperative to exclude this sentence from the text as it is not part of it. Later corrected versions have omitted it except for a few. Similarly it was omitted by many of the early theologians. It is certainly an addition which has been taken from the Gospel of John 19:24. Addition No. 30 The First Epistle of John contains the following: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.2 According to the investigations of Christian scholars the original text was only this: And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit and the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one. There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. Griesbach and Sholtz are agreed on its being a later addition. Horne, in spite of all his prejudice decided that these words should be excluded from the text. The compilers of Henry and Scott also fol- lowed the opinion of Horne and Adam Clarke. l.The current Urdu and English versions omit this sentence. The King James ver- sion, however, still contains it. St. Augustine, the great theologian and scholar of the fourth centu- ry wrote ten booklets on this epistle but did not include this sentence in any of them in spite of being a great preacher of the trinity and famous for having had many debates with the followers of Arius. Had this been a part of the text, he would have used it to support the trini- tarian thesis and have quoted it. We personally think that the note which he added in the margin of this verse, to connect it remotely with the trinity, was found useful by the trinitarians and was later included by them in the text. In the debate that I had with the author of Meezan-ul-Haqq he admitted that this sentence was a later addition. Presuming that I would be quoting some more examples of such distortions, he admit- ted in the very beginning of the discussion that they acknowledged the presence of distortion in the text at seven or eight places. Horne devoted more than twenty pages to examining this verse and at the end gave a summary of his discussion, which we omit to save the readers from an unnecessarily lengthy exposition. Henry and Scott's compilers gave a summary of the conclusion of Horne which we reproduce below: Horne has presented the ARGUMENTs of both the groups; we give a summary of his recapitulation. Those who claim that this passage is false put forward the following ARGUMENTs. 1. This passage is not found in any of the Latin versions written before the sixteenth century. 2. This text is missing from the other translations carefully examined and printed in e