Izharul- Haq (Truth Revealed)
 
By Rahmatullah Kairanvi [1864]
 
About the Books and its Author
 
Part 1 : The Books of the Bible.
 
Part 2 : Contradictions and Errors in the Biblical Text.
 
Part 3 : Distortion and Abrogation in the Bible. The Trinity Refuted.
 
Part 4 : Authenticity of The Holy Traditions. Authenticity of Hadith and The Holy Quran
 
This book, internationally recognized as one of the most authoritative and objective studies of the Bible, was originally written in Arabic under the title Izharul- Haq (Truth Revealed) by the distinguished 19th century Indian scholar, Rahmatullah Kairanvi, and appeared in 1864. The book was subsequently translated into Urdu, and then from Urdu into English by Mohammad Wali Raazi.
 
 
Rahmatullah Kairanvi wrote the book in response to the Christian offensive against Islam during the British rule in India, and specifically to counter the subversive attack made by the Rev. C. C. P. Fonder. Rev. Fonder had written a book in Urdu entitled Meezanul Haq, the open intention of which was to create doubts into the minds of the Muslims about the authenticity of the Qur’an and Islam.
 
 
Kairanvi’s intention in his book was first of all to show that the Bible cannot in any way be considered as a directly revealed book. He does this very effectively by means of his voluminous and authoritative knowledge of the Jewish and Christian scriptures. He demonstrates beyond doubt that the Books of the Old and New Testaments have been altered, almost beyond recognition, from their original forms. The work is even more notable in the light of subsequent Jewish and Christian scholarship and the various discoveries that have since been made in this field which all bear out the truth of Kairanvi’s thesis.
 
Izharul- Haq Part 1 : The Books of the Bible.
 
The Books of The Bible These are nothing but names Which ye have devised -ye and your Fathers - for which God has sent down no authority whatsoever .(Qur`an:53:23)
 
The books of the Bible are divided by the Christians 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 Testament together are called 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 parts is held to be doubtful and controversial.
 
The Divisions Of The Old Testament
The Divisions Of The New Testament
Review Of The Books By the Councils
The Books Rejected By The Protestants
The Absence Of Certainty In The Bible
The Present Pentateuch Is Not The Book Of Moses
Errors In The Calculation Of The Israelites's Number
Status Of The Books In The Old Testament
The New Testament And The Status Of The Four Gospels
The Epistles And The Revelation
 
The Divisions Of The Old Testament
 
This collection comprises of 38 books:
 
 
1 GENESIS
 
The Book of Genesis describes the creation of the earth 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
 
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
 
The Book of Number includes events of the census of the Israelites , their history before their departure to the Canaan and the injunctions of the Prophet Moses revealed to him by the bank of the river Jordan. It contains 36 chapters.
 
5 DEUTERONOMY
 
The book of Deuteronomy is a collection of those events and injuctionswhich 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 pentateuh or Torah. This is a Heberw word meaning ”the law” .The word is also occasionally used to mean the Old Testament in general.
 
6 THE BOOK OF JOSHUA
 
The book of Joshua is ascribed to the Prophet Joshua son of Nuh 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.
 
7 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.
 
8 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.
 
9 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 31 chapters.
 
10 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.
 
11 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS
 
The first Book of kings begins with the old age of David and includes the events 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 descriptions is also included. It has 22 chapters.
 
12 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.
 
13 CHRONICLES I
 
Chronicles 1 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.
 
14 CHRONILCES II
 
Chronicles 11 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.
 
15 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 return of the Israelites from Babylon to their homeland. It contains 10 chapters.
 
16 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.
 
17 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 Qur`an. 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.
 
18 THE BOOK OF PSALMS
 
The Book of Psalms is the corrupt form of the book of which the Holy Qur`an says, “We have given the Zaboor to Dawood.” The book is a collection of 150 Psalms, or songs of praise, to God.
 
19 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 thousands proverbs”. (4:23). It contains 31chapters.
 
20 THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES
 
The book of Ecclesiastes is also called the “Book of the Preacher”. It said 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 advices.
 
21 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.
 
22 THE BOOK OF ISAIAH
 
The Book of Isaiah is ascribed to the Prophet Isaiah, son of Amoz, who was adviser to Hezekia, 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 Christinas 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.
 
23 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 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 Nebuchadenzzar. The Prophet Jeremiah migrated to Egypt. According to some scholars the Holly Qur`an refers to this incident in Surah 2:259. It has 56 chapters.
 
24 THE BOOK OF LAMENTIONS
 
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.
 
25 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.
 
26 THE BOOK OF DNIEL
 
The Prophet Daniel was among the wise people who were exiled form 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.
 
27 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.
 
28 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
 
29 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)
 
30 THE BOOK OF OBADIAH
 
This small scripture consists of only 21verses and includes a dream of Obadiah the Prophet. There are some predictions regarding the defeat of Adom, the enemy of Judah.
 
31 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.
 
32 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)
 
33 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 down fall of the city of Ninveh.
 
34 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 of of his dreams which admonishes the Israelites on their evil deeds and predicts the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchdnezzar. It has 3 chapters.
 
35 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.
 
36 THE BOOK OF HAGGAI
 
The script of 2 chapters is attributed to 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.
 
37 THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH
 
Zechariah was also a prophet. It should be noted here that this Zechariah is not the one who was been mentioned in the Holy Qur`an . 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 fourteen chapters.
 
38 THE BOOK OF MALACHI
 
The Book of Malachi is ascribed to the Prophent 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 Christian. 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.
 
The Divisions Of The New Testament
 
There are nine books in this part. The authenticity of these books has been a point of 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 called 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 married Esther. A man, a minister of the king, had some differences with Mardochaeus, the father of the 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 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 DANAEL
 
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 Sara. This book is has great literary merit.
 
5 THE BOOK OF JUDITH
 
This book is ascribed to a very brave Jewish 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 saying 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 MACCBEES
 
This book describe the history of a short period of time and contains some unbelievable or corrupt reports.
 
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 Christian.
 
1 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW
 
Matthew 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 Qur’anic 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 22AD. 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 beginnig . 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 consist mostly of teaching and injunctions regarding unity among the Christian. At that time they were involved in various disputes. Chapter 7 includes some injunctions concerning matrimonial relations.
 
In chapter 8 the evils 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 donation for Christianity.
 
8 SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL OF 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 journeys.
 
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 10 : 19). In this letter he gives some moral instuctions 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 were 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 provence 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, containig 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 THE 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.
 
16. 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 had 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 FIST 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 form 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 faith.
 
Review Of The Books By the Councils
 
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.
 
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.
 
In 397 another great conference was held called the Council of Carthage. Augustine, the great Christian scholar, was among the one hundred and twenty six learned participants.
 
The members of this council confirmed the decisions of the two previous 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
After these councils nearly all the books which had been doubtful among Christians were included in the list of acknowledged books.
 
The Books Rejected By The Protestants
 
The status of these books remained unchanged until the Protestant Reformation. 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 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 Nos. 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.
 
It is a prerequisite of believing in a certain book as divinelyrevealed 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.
 
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. 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 E zra is claimed to be from the Prophet Ezra and a book concerning Isaiah’s ascension and revelation are ascribed to him. 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 more than 70 books, other than the present ones, of the new Testament, which are ascribed to Jesus, Mary, the apostles and their disciples.
 
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.
 
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 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.
 
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.
 
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 of 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 revealed to Moses and that they were written by him or through him. We possess sound arguments to support our claim.
 
THE FIRST ARGUMENT:
 
 
The existence of the Torah, Pentateuch, is not historically known before King Josiah, 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 Nebuchdnezzar 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 According to the Christians the Pentateuch was rewritten by the Prophet Ezra.
 
This book along with its copies were again destroyed and burnt by Antiochus at the time of his invasion of Jerusalem.
 
THE SECOND ARGUMENT:
 
 
It is an accepted notion of all Jewish and Christian scholars that the First and Second books of Chronicles were rewritten by Ezra with 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 we read that Benjamin had three sons and in chapter 8 we find that he had five sons while the Pentateuch claims that he had ten sons 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 Prophet Ezra could not distinguish and separate the sons from the grandsons, because the genealogical tables from which he had quoted were defective and incomplete.
 
It is true that 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
THE THIRD ARGUMENT:
 
 
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.
 
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”.
 
This verse implies that no-one will be punished for the sin of others. And this is the Truth. The Holy Qur`an has confirmed it. It says:
 
 
“No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another.”
 
 
THE FOURTH ARGUMENT:
 
 
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.
 
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.
 
THE FIFTH ARGUMENT:
 
 
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 of later than him.
 
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 book. 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.
 
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 Chritstian 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 in 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.
 
THE SEVENTH ARGUMENT:
 
 
Norton, a learned Christian scholar has said, (we reproduce here an abridgement translated from Urdu).
 
“There appears no appreciable difference between the node of expression of the Pentateuch and the idiom of the other books of the Old Testment 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. 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.
 
THE EIGHTH ARGUMENT:
 
 
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.”
 
This verse appears in Persian translation published in 1835 in these words:
 
“And write all the words of the Pentateuch (Torah) on the stones very clearly.” In the Persian translation of 1845, it appears like this:
 
“Write the words of this Torah (Pentateuch) on the stones in bright letters.”
 
And the book of Joshua says:
 
“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:
 
“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).
 
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.
 
Now if we presume that it is the present Pentateuch that is referred to in the above verses this would be impossible.
 
THE NINTH ARGUMENT:
 
 
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 confirm 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 “The people of the past ages used to scribble on plates of copper, wood and wax, with needles of iron and brass of 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 mace from cloth. The pen was invented in the seventh century AD.”
 
If this historian is acceptable to Christians, the claim made by Norton is sufficiently confirmed.
 
THE TENTH ARGUMENT:
 
 
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:
 
“These be the sons of Leah which she bore unto Jacob in Padanaram with his daughter Dinah: all the souls of his cons and daughters were thirty and three”
 
The figure 33 is wrong. The correct number is 34. The famous commentator Horsely also admitted this mistake. He said :
 
“If you count the names, including Diana, the total comes to 34 and Dianah must be included as is evident form the number of the sons of Zilpha, because Sarah was one of the sixteen.
 
Similarly the Book of Deuteronomy 23 : 2 contains this statement:
 
“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.”
 
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 form 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.
 
Errors In The Calculation Of The Israelites's Number
 
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 number among them.”
 
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.
 
THE FIRST REASON.
 
The total number of men and women of the Israelites was seventy at the 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 can not be more.
 
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, 89 years before their liberation from Egypt.
 
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.
 
THE SECOND REASON:
 
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.
 
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 sigh of resistance and rebellion from them. Even animals fight and resist to save their offspring.
 
THE THIRD REASON:
 
The Book of Exodus chapter 12taken with them the cattle herds and flocks, and the same book also informs us that they crossed the river in a single night; and that they used to travel every day and that Moses used to give them verbal orders to march.
 
THE FOURTH REASON:
 
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 of 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.
 
THE FIFTH REASON:
 
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”.
 
It is geographecally true that Palestine extended nearly 200 miles in length and ninety 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.
 
Ibn Khaldun, also refuted this number in his “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.
 
In view of the above arguments, it is obvious that 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.
 
It is, therefore, not binding upon us to believe in these books until irrefutable arguments to support their claim.
 
Status Of The Books In The Old Testament
 
We have already seen that the Pentateuch, which enjoys the status of being a fundamental book of the Christian faith, cannot 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.
 
First of all, the name of the author of this book is not known with certainty, and the period of its composition is also unknown.
 
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 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.
 
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 indicating that 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 Jjuresalem 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 seventy 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.
 
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 King 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 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.
 
THE STATUS OF THE BOOK OF JUDGES
 
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.
 
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)
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.
 
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.
 
THE BOOK OF THE RUTH
 
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.
 
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.
 
THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH
 
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 Ezre. According to popular opinion it cannot be accepted as a revealed book.
 
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 Darius, the King of Persia being mentioned in verse 22 of the same chapter, when in fact he lived one hundred years after the death of Nehemiah. The Christian commentators have to declare this anomaly as a later addition. The Arabic translator of the Bible has omitted it altogether.
 
THE BOOK OF JOB
 
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 preiod.
 
Maimonides, a celebrated scholar and Rabbi of the Jews, Michael, Leclerc, Semler, Hock, Isnak and 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.
 
The book has been attributed to various names on the basis of conjecture. However if we assume that the book was written by Elihu or by a certain unknown person who was a contemporary of Manasse, it is not acceptable as a prophetic and revealed text.
 
THE PSALMS OF DAVID
 
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:
 
“Undoubtedly the former statement is altogether wrong.
 
According to the opinion of the latter group, more than thirty psalms are from unknown authors. Ten psalms from 90 to 99 are supposed to be from Moses and a seventy-one paslms are claimed to be from David . Psalm 88 is atteibuted to Heman and 89 to Ethan, while Psalms 72 and 177 are said to be from Solomon, 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 are supposed to have been written by three sons of kore.
 
Some writers even think that the author of these psalms to the various writers concerned, while yet others of the psalms were written by another unknown persom. Calmat says that only forty-five psalms were written by Daved, while the rest are by other people.
 
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 togther. According to them David, himself is not the author of any of the Psalms; he is just the collector of them.
 
Horne said that the judgement of modem Christian and Jewish scholars is that this book was written by the following authors: the Prophets Moses, David and Solomon; and Asaph, Aeman, Ethan, Jeduthun and the three sons of kore.
 
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 believed that they were collected by some friends of Hzekiah 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.
 
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.
 
THE BOOK OF PROVERBS
 
The condition of this book, too, is not much different from the books we have discussed so for. 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.
 
Apart from this the first verses of chapters 30 and 31 also refute this assumption.
 
Even if we accept that some part of this book could have been written by Solomon which is possibly true for 29 chapter, these were not collected or compiled in is his period because there is no doubt that several of them were collected by Hezekiah as is evident from 25:1:
 
``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.
 
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 nor are they sure of their being prophets.
 
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. Some of them think that Lemuel is the second name of Solomon, but Henry and Scott state:
 
``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.``
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:
 
``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. ``
Verse 30 in the Persian version of the Bible printed 1838 says:
 
``The words Agur, 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 word of Acur, son of Jafa, were such that the man spoke unto Ithiel, even Ithiel and Ucal. ``
The majority of writers have admitted that the book was compiled by many people including Hezekiah, Isaiah and perhaps Ezra.
 
THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES
 
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 German scholars calculate it to have been written after the release of the Israelites from Babylon.
 
THE BOOK OF THE SONG OF SOLOMON
 
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 and 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 his book and the Book of Job, while Simon and Leclerc did not acknowledge it as a genuine book. Whiston said 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 decided that it should be excluded from the books of the Old Testament.
 
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
 
The Greek Translation, the Latin translation and all the translations of the Roman Catholics include the Song of Three Children and chapter 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.
 
THE BOOK OF ESTHER
 
The name of the writer of this book as well as the time of its compilation is unknown.
 
Christian scholars believe that it was written by scholars living in the period between Ezra and Simon. A Jewish Scholar Phlion claims that it was written by Jehoiachin, the son of Joshua,who had come to Jerusalem after the release from Babylon. St Augustine believed it to be a book of Ezra. Some other writers attribute it to Murdoch and Esther.
 
Other details of this book will later be discussed in chapter 2 of this book.
 
THE BOOK OF JEREMIAH
 
We are certain that chapter 52 of this book cannot be claimed to have been written by Jeremiah. Similarly the eleventh verse of chapter 10 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.``
 
In the latter case the reason is that verse 11of chapter 10 is in the Chaldean language, while the rest of the 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:
 
“It appears that Ezra or some other person inserted it to elucidate the predictions occurring in the previous chapter.”
 
 
Horne says on the page 194 of vol. 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.”
 
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.”
 
The Reverend Venema said:
 
“This verse is a later addition.”
 
THE BOOK OF ISAIAH
 
A public debate was held between Karkanar, a religious leader of the Roman Catholics, and Warren about this book. This discussion was published in 1852 in Agra (India).
 
Karkaran writes in third letter That Stalin, a learned German writer, had said that chapter 40 and all the chapters up to chapter 66 of the book of Isaiah were not writer by Isaiah.
 
This implies that twenty-seven chapters of this book are not the writings of Isaiah.
 
The New Testament And The Status Of The Four Gospels
 
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 cojectures that possibly this of 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.
 
The Christian author of Meezn-ul-Haq could not produce any authority regarding the author of this book. He only conjectured and said that Matthew might possibly have writtten it in the Greek language. In view of this fact this translation is not acceptable and is liable to be rejected.
 
The Penny Encyclopedia says regarding the Gospel of Matthew:
 
“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”
 
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 o them had doubt about some verses of chapter 23 of the Gospel of Luke; and some other scholars were doubtful about the fist two chapters of this Gospel. These two chapters have not been included by the Marchionites in their book.”
 
Norton writes in his book printed in 1837 in Boston:
 
“This Gospel contains a passage running from verse none 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.”
 
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.
 
THE INAUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
 
There is no authority for the claim that the Gospel of John in the book of the Apostle John to whom it has been attributed. On the contrary, there are several arguments that strongly refute this claim.
 
THE FIRST ARGUMENT:
 
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 Muslim writers. It does not appear from this Gospel that John was making his own statements.
 
It is not possible to refute the obvious evidence which the text itself offers unless strong arguments are presented to negate it.
 
THE SECOND ARGUMENT:
 
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.
 
THE THIRD ARGUMENT:
 
In the second century AD when the authorities refused to accept this Gospel as the book of John, Irenaeus , a disciple of Polycarp the disciple of John, was living. 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. And it is even more unbelievable 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:
 
“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.”
 
It is also unimaginable that the 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 encient Christian.
 
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 of or distortion changed the contents of the text.
 
Festus, the chief of the Manichaeans and a scholar publicly announced in 4th century AD:
 
“It has been established that the book 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.”
 
THE FOURTH ARGUMENT:
 
The Catholic Herald, printed in 1844,includess the statement in vol.3on page 205 that Stapelin said in his book that the Gospel of John was undoubtedly written by student of scholar in Alexandria. See how blatantly he claims it to be a book of a student.
 
THE FIFTH ARGUMENT:
 
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.”
 
THE SIXTH ARGUMENT:
 
Grotius, a famous scholar, admitted: “Three used to be twenty chapters in this Gospel.
 
The twenty-first chapter was added after the death of John, by the church of Ephesus.”
 
THE SEVENTH ARGUMENT:
 
The Allogin, a sect of the Christians in the second century AD, disowned this Gospel and all the writing of John.
 
THE EIGHT ARGUMENT
 
The fist 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 writer would have not made such statements. Therefore the opinion of Bertshiender and Stapelin is undoubtedly true.
 
THE NINTH ARGUMENT:
 
Horne in chapter two of vol.4 of his commentary says:
 
“The information that has been covered to us by the historians of the church regarding the period of the four Gospels is defective and indefinite. It dose 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 ling period of time has passed, and it has become very difficult to find out the truth.”
 
Further in the same volume he says:
 
The first Gospel was written either in 73 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 possible 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.”
 
The Epistles And The Revelation
 
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.
 
The Arabian churches have rejected the second Epistle of Peter Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Revelation. Similarly the churches of Syria have rejected them from the beginning of their history.
 
Horne says in the second volume of his commentary (1822) on pages 206 and 207:
 
``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 this 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 Epistles to the Hebrews, the Epistle of Jacob, the second and the third Epistles of John, and the Revelation.”
 
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:
 
“The Epistle of Jacob, the second Epistle of Peter and the second and third Epistles of John are not the writing of the Apostles. The Epistles of the Hebrews remained rejected for along period, similarly the Syrian church did not acknowledge the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third Epistles of John, the Epistle to Jude and Revelation.”
 
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.”
 
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 the third Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jude and the Revelation from his list. All other Syrian have the same opinion about these books”.
 
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 scholar 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.
 
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 completely 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 with 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.”
 
On the contrary the idiom of the text and 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.
 
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, which writer of this book has mentioned his own name. In the revelation of Jesus in chapter 1 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 id by his Angel unto his servant John.” He also writes in chapter 4: “John to the seven churches which are in Asia.” In chapter 9 he says: “I, 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 this things and heard them.”
 
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 to gether with his name defining his intention.
 
Fore example, he could have written John, the sun 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.
 
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, how ever, read. The Epistle to the Hebrews has been excluded by some people.”
 
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 He epistle of Peter, and the Epistles of John I and II 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.”
 
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 (150-220) and some people think that it was written by Luke.”
 
The Irish missionary Lyon (178) and Hippolitus (220) and Nouclus, the missionary of Rome (251), refused to accept the genuineness of the Epistle to 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.
 
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.”
 
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 15 th Oskolf of Jerusalem living in the period of Emperor Hadrian.”?
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 any thing to the Churches, and if he wrote to any Church it was not more than a few lines.”
 
According to Origen, all the Epistles which are attributed to Paul, where not written by him.They are hypothetically attributed to him. Perhaps a few lines of Paul might also present in these Epistles. Keeping all this 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.”
 
The truth of this statement has been proved beyond doubt. We have already shown earlier in this book that this six Epistles and the book of Revelation were believed in and remained rejected up 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 acknowledge by the Council of Carthage.
 
The decision of the two counccil about these cannot be considered as an argument for obvious reasons. Firstly all the councils had acknowledge 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 cofirmed the decision of the above three councils.
 
Now, if the decisions of these councils were founded on authenticated arguments, which they most certainly were not, then the Protestant would have accepted them, but on the other hand, if their decision s were arbitrary, as was in fact the case, it was necessary for the Protestant s 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 the councils. This decision again arbitrary and with out justification.
 
Their only proffered reasons, does the original versions of these books has been lost, cannot be accepted because Jerome confirmed the fact that he found the original versions of Jude and Tobata in the Chaldean language and the origional 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.
 
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, where acknowledged by them without any authentication.
 
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 suit their needs. A few examples of this will be sufficient to establish our claim.
 
The Greek translation was consistently acknowledged as the authoritative text from the time of the Apostles to the 15th century. The Hebrew versions were believed to have been distorted and the Greek translation was considered the accurate version. Subsequently the position of theses books was altogheter changed. The destroyed version was acknowledged as accurate and accurate one as distorted.
 
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.
 
The Epistle of Aristias remained on the least of the Holly Scriptures but in the seventeenth century some objections were raised against it and suddenly it turned into a false document of the eyes of all the Protestant scholars.
 
The Latin version is believed genuine by all the Catholics, while it is considered distorted and unbelievable by the Protestants.
 
The small book of Genesis remained genuine and believable up until the 15th century while the same book was declared false and rejected in the 16th century.
 
The Third Book of Ezra is still acknowledge by the Greek church but has been rejected by both the Catholics and Protestants. Similarly the Song of Solomon was considered genuine a part of he Holly Scriptures and can still be found in the Codex Alexandrine, yet it is now rejected.
 
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.
 
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 of The New Testament.
 
Izharul- Haq Part 2 Contradictions and Errors in the Biblical Text
 
Introduction
Contradictions 1 - 32
Contradictions 33 - 45
Contradictions 46 - 75
Contradictions 76 - 96
Contradictions 97 - 119
Errors 1 - 35
Errors 36 - 55
Errors 56 - 83
Errors 84 - 110
 
Introduction
 
By Syed Hassan Mohamrnad Kutbi
 
Former Minister of Hajj Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
 
The Truth Revealed is a book which describes Islam as the inspired truth, guiding mankind to faith, peace and security. Islam is the religion of Abraham from whom all the followers of the three heavenly religions claim to belong.
 
The conflict between Islam and the Christian missionaries in the Indian subcontinent turned into a fierce fight in which Islam was defended by a faithful man who depended on Allah alone. He was equally true and faithful in his understanding of the other heavenly religions in their true form, as revealed to the Prophets Moses and Jesus Christ, which in essence accord with the teachings and spirit of Islam.
 
The conflict was of greater importance than the wars with early Arab infidels (the Quraysh and other tribes) and the Crusades, and so was the victory. One side in it was supported by the strength, resources and media of a strong Christian government. The stake was enormous as any set-back would be fatal to them in this most important and strategic area. All the powers of the Christian religion joined to defend their teachings from being blamed for alterations in their scriptures which, if proved, might mean Christians abandoning their religion.
 
The Christians go on pilgrimage not only to seek forgiveness, but also to gain spiritual blessings to fight against all the other religions, Islam being the foremost.
 
In this particular conflict they had a clear plan to destroy Islam and the Muslims in India before spreading their fight to the rest of the Islamic world, as, having already achieved victory in India, it would then be easier elsewhere.
 
Islam had already made its strength felt in India by Rajab 70 AH, and India and its people became a great Islamic power, as India had a great civilization and great wealth. It also became a major aim for the ambitious colonial powers to conquer India and the sub-continent. Since the power in India was with Islam they, therefore, mischievously started spreading Christianity. The activities of the Christians started by appointing a bishop for the Christians and changing the Great Mosque of Delhi into a church. Books denouncing the Islamic faith were published to confuse the common Muslims. The old prejudice of Christianity against Muslims even led them to commit murders.
 
This conduct startled Muslim scholars into defending their faith, without any regard to the sacrifice involved. The Muslims decided to publish books and to increase the religious awareness of the common Muslims so as to counteract the unfair attack on Islam. This program was effective in protecting the image of Islam. A number of books were written, numerous debates were conducted, and a lot of meaningful speeches were delivered in the mosques transmitting Islam as the true religion.
 
All this brought into the limelight a great man to lead the Muslims engaged in defending Islam. This learned scholar, Shaykh Rahmatullah Kairanvi not only defended Islam, but also exposed Christianity and its teachings by obtaining guidance only from the Qur'an. Being a true Muslim scholar, he had all the courage necessary to sacrifice his life for the sake of Allah, cherishing the saying:
 
If I am killed for being a Muslim, I do not care on which side my body lies.
 
It is for the sake of Allah.
 
The great and faithful Shaykh Rahmatullah challenged the head of the Christian Mission of India at that time, the Rev. C-C-P Fonder to an open debate to prove to the Christians that Muslims had been silent merely because they did not feel that an answer had been necessary. However, since the anti-Islamic forces had been making false claims and increasing their efforts against Islam, the time had come for a Muslim scholar to expose the true facts in an open debate.
 
The Rev. Fonder said, "Let it be here in Agra where the Muslim scholars have been reading the Bible, and reading my books, and other books written by Western scholars in order to prove that the Bible was false as it contains alterations and that my books are also false.”
 
The debate took place in January, 1854, in Akbarabad in the city of Agra. Shaykh Rahmatullah proved that the Bible used at that time and still in use now was not the one given to Jesus (peace be upon him). The Rev. Fonder admitted that there were alterations in the Bible in seven or eight places.
 
Shaykh Qamar al-Islam, the Imam of the Grand Mosque, asked a journalist Khadim Ali Khan to publish the missionary's admission that there were seven or eight alterations in the Bible, upon which the Rev. Fonder shouted, "Yes, I do admit to this, but this small alteration does not affect the Holy Book of the Heavens!”
 
Hearing this Shaykh Rahmatullah commented, "If any alteration is proved to have been perpetrated in a particular text, it is considered null and void and invalidated. Since you admit that the Bible has been altered in seven or eight places, how can you claim that it is true and how can you believe in it?”
 
The first debate ended on this note.
 
On the 11th of April 1854, there was a second debate, attended by diplomats and important dignitaries from all walks of life. It also ended in humiliation for the Chief Missionary, who disappeared after a couple of sessions and did not attend the rest of the debate.
 
Before starting the debate, the Chief Missionary had asserted in front of all those present, "This debate is held at the request of Shaykh Rahmatullah. I have accepted it without any personal benefit to me. I am going to show you the clear proofs that prove the Christian religion to be a true one. You should be aware that the subjects of this debate are: revelation, alterations, the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, and the mission of Muhammad.”
 
Shaykh Rahmatullah asserted that he would convert to Christianity if he failed to answer the questions of the missionary who also made the commitment to accept Islam if he was defeated.
 
The result was the admission that the Bible had been altered. The victory, proving Islam to be the true religion caused the brutal aggression on the part of the British government against the Muslims in India in 1857, in which thousands of renowned Muslim scholars were killed. Shaykh Rahmatullah was at the top of the list, but Allah saved him. He escaped to Makka al-Mukarrama, and there he established the Madrasa Saulatia.
 
Sultan Abdul-Aziz Khan invited Shaykh Rahmatullah to Constantinople, where he held a great celebration for him, and requested him to write a book on the debate. He wrote the book, The Great Debate, which later became known as The Truth Revealed (Izharu'l-Haqq).
 
Then times changed and scholars in the West themselves started rejecting their altered religion. Some scholars accepted the fact of the Holy Qur'an and became Muslims while others did not accept the truth of the Holy Qur'an and have yet to join the faithful.
 
A dire need was felt to translate the book of The Great Debate into English so that its message would be read and comprehended. Allah has now made this possible and the book has been translated into English. I pray to Allah to accept it as a sincere work and reward all those who were associated with it.
 
May Allah make it a cause for the fight guidance of those who read it in the search for truth and a straight path.
 
Madina al-Munawwara 21 Jumada'th-Thani 1409 AH 28 January 1989
 
Contradictions and Errors in the Biblical Text
 
CONTRADICTIONS 1 - 32
 
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 doctrines mentioned therein.
 
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.
 
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 discussed later.
 
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 commentary: “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.”
 
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 thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred and three score and ten thousand men that drew sword.
 
The discrepancy in these statements amounts to a great contradiction in the number of people. There is a difference of three hundred thousand in the number of the Israelites while the difference in the number of the People of Judah is thirty thousand.
 
Contradiction No. 6
 
We read in 2 Samuel 24:13:
 
“So Gad 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 statement speaks of seven years of famine while the latter statement mentions only three years of famine referring to the same occasion. The commentators of the Bible have admitted that the former statement is erroneous.
 
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.
 
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 statement is erroneous as will be shown later in this book. This has been admitted by Bible commentators.
 
Contradiction No. 9
 
There is an obvious contradiction between the statements of 2 Samuel 23:8 which state:
 
“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 11:11 which state:
 
“And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had; Hashobeam, and Hachmonite, the chief of the captains; he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain 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.
 
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 Philistine. One of the two statements must be wrong.
 
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.
 
Contradiction No. 12
 
It is understood from the Book of Numbers 31:7 that the Israelites killed all the men of Midian during the lifetime of Moses, and only their young girls were allowed to live in servitude.
 
”And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.”
 
This statement contradicts the description given in Judges 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?
”And the hand of Midian prevailed against Israel.” [Judges 6: 2]
”And Israel was greatly impoverished because of the Midianites.” [Judges 6:6]
 
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 contradicted by another statement of the same chapter of the same book which says:
 
“He that feared the word of the Lord among the servants of Pharaoh made his servants and his cattle flee into the houses”
 
“And he that regarded not the word of the Lord left his servants and his cattle in the field.”
 
The discrepancy in the above statements needs no comment.
 
Contradiction No. 14
 
Genesis 8:4,5 contains this statement:
 
“And the Ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth 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
 
Contradictions No. 15 - 26
 
A comparison between 2 Samuel 8 and 1 Chronicles 18, discloses a great number of discrepancies and contradictions in the original version in the Hebrew language, although the translators have tried to rectify some of them.
 
We reproduce some of them in parallel columns below, using the commentary of Adam Clarke on Samuel. As can be seen there are numerous contradictions in these two chapters.
 
Verse No.
 The Words of 2 Samuel (8)
 Verse No.
 
 The Words of I Chronicles (18)
 
1
 ”David smote the Philistines and subdued them and took the tax out of the hand of Philistines.”
 
 1
 “David smote the Philistines and subdued them and took Gath and her towns out of the hands of Philistines.”
 
 
3
 “Hadadezer”
 3
  “Hadarezer”
 
4
  “A thousand chariots and seven hundred horsemen”
 
 4
 “A thousand chariots and seven thousand horsemen”
 
8
 “And from Betah and from Berothai, cities of Hadadezer King David took exceeding much brass”
 
 8
 “From Tibbath, and from Chun, Cities of Hadarezer brought David very much brass”
 
 
10
 “Joram, his son unto King David”
 
 10
 “Hadoram, his son to the King David”
 
17
 “… and Ahimelech, the son of Abiathar were the priests, and Seraiah was the scribe”
 
 17
 “… and Abimelech, the son of Abiathar were the priests, and Shavsha was scribe”
 
 
 
 
Contradictions No. 27 - 32
 
Some other similar contradictions are found in the text of 2 Samuel 10 and 1 Chronicles 19. These contradictions are also mentioned by the commentators of the Bible. We reproduce below the contradicting words and phrases in two adjacent columns:
 
Verse No.
 
 The Words of 2 Samuel (10)
 Verse No.
 
 The Words of I Chronicles (19)
 
16
 “… Sobach, the captain of the host of Hadarezer…”
 16
 “… Shophach, the Captain of the host of Hadarezer…”
 
17
 “came to Helam.”
 17
 “came upon them.”
 
18
 “… slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen.”
 18
 “… slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in chariots, and forty thousand footmen.”
 
 
 
CONTRADICTIONS FROM 33 - 45 IN THE BIBLICAL TEXT:
 
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 controversies 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.
 
Contradiction No. 34
 
Comparison of 1 Kings 7:24 and 2 Chronicles 4:2-3 also discloses 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 different 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 commentator 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.
 
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. 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 .
 
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.
 
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 accordingly 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Contradiction No. 41
 
The text of 1 Kings 7:26 giving the description of the ”molten sea” made by Solomon says, ”It contained two thousand 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 vessel,” And the Persian translation, 1838, contains, ”three thousand idols”. The inconsistencies and discrepancies of these various texts speak for themselves.
 
Contradiction No. 42
 
When chapter 2 of the Book of Ezra is compared with chapter 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. We reproduce below the errors concerning the numbers of the liberated Israelites:
 
Verse No.
 
 The Text of EZRA, Ch. 2 Verse No.
 Verse No.
 
 The Text of NEHEMIAH, Ch. 7
 
6
 “The children Pahath - Moab… two thousand eight hundre and twelve”
 
 11
 
“The children of Phahath Moab … two thousand eight hundred and eighteen”
 
 
8
 “The children of Zattu, nine hundred forty and five”
 
 13
 “The children of Zattu, eight hundred forty and five”
 
 
12
 The children of Azgad, a thousand two hundred twenty and two”
 
 17
 “The children of Azgad, two thousand three hundred twenty and two”
 
 
15
 “The children of Adin, four hundred fifty and four”
 
 20
 “The children of Adin, six hundred fifty and five”
 
 
19
 “The children of Hashum, two hundred twenty and three”
 
 22
 “The children of Hashum, three hundred twenty and eight”
 
 
28
 “The children of Beth-el and Ai, two hundred twenty and three”
 
 32
 The men of Beth-el and Ai, an hundrred 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 thirtyone 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 history:
 
“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 contradictions.
 
In fact, participation of human element in these books has been present from their very origin. The copyists are unjustifiably blamed for making errors. Even today a comparative reading of these two chapters will reveal more than twenty errors and contradictions.
 
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.” [2 Chr.
 
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...” [2 Chr.
 
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.
 
“And unto Absalom, there were born three sons, and one daughter, whose name was Tamar.”
 
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.
 
” As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out: but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day.”
 
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 and Errors in the Biblical Text :CONTRADICTIONS 46 - 75
 
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:
 
Contradiction No. 46
 
Matthew describes Joseph as son of Jacob, while Luke says Joseph son of Heli.
 
“Jacob begat Joseph” [Matt. 1:16];
“… the son of Joseph, who was son of Hel” [Luke 3:23]
 
Contradiction No. 47
 
According to Matthew, Jesus was a descendant of Solomon, the son of David [Matt. 1:6], while Luke puts him into the line of Nathan, the son of David [Luke 3:31].
 
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. [Matthew, therefore, has mentioned the names of all the famous king while in Luke there are totally different names of unknown personalities.]
 
Contradiction No. 49
 
From Matthew we learn that Salathiel was the son of Jeconias [Matt 1:12], while Luke informs us that he was the son of Neri [Luke 3:27].
 
Contradiction No. 50
 
We read in Matthew that “Zorobabel begat Abiud,” while Luke says, “which was the son of Rhesa [Matt. 1:13; Luke 3:27] 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.
 
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 contradiction 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 unjustifiable 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 carpenter [Joseph, the carpenter, was the husband of Mary according to the Ghospels], 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 technology 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, therefore, might have been described as the son of Heli. This explanation 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 presence 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 recognized 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 certainly belongs to the early times of Christianity. The book certainly 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 descendant 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 children 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 ttie 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 commandment of Torah (Pentateuch) that any daughter of the children 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 written. 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 present 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 knowingly 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 sonin- 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 contradict Matthew so blatantly that it has resulted in a serious embarrassment to the ancient and modern advocates of Christianity.
 
Contradictions No. 52 - 53
 
A comparative reading of Matthew 2 and Luke presents a great contradiction to the reader and tends to indicate that neither of the two Gospels are divinely inspired.
 
It is understood from the description in Matthew that the parents of the Messiah lived in Bethlehem even after his birth. It is also made clear by another description in Matthew that the period of their stay in Bethlehem was two years.
 
Due to the domination of the Magians they afterwards migrated to Egypt and lived there during the lifetime of Herod [the Governor of Judah], and after his death, they returned 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 [Luke 2:22], 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 [Luke 2:41].
 
According to him there is no question of the Magians’ coming 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 Jesus until the Magians reported it to him [Matt. 2:13].
 
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.
 
Contradiction No. 54
 
It is learnt from the Gospel of Mark that Christ asked the congregation to go away after his sermon of parables, 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. 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.
 
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.”
 
Contradiction No. 56
 
The sequence of events after the Sermon on the Mount as given by Matthew is different from the one given by Luke. 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 [Matt 8:3,13,16]. The Gospel of Luke first describes the event of Peter’s mother-in-law, then in chapter 5 describes the healing of the leper and in chapter 7 the healing of the servant of a Roman officer [Luke 4:38; 5:13; 7:10]. One of the two statements certainly has to be erroneous.
 
Contradiction No. 57
 
According to the Gospel of John [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 contradicted 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 thing.”
 
“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 contradict 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 revelation from God:
 
“Thus saith the Lord of Jehoiakim King of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David.” [Jer. 36:30]
According to the word of Gabriel as quoted by Luke it is necessary 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 hand Elias himself denied being Elias.
 
Thirdly, the Christians do not consider the miracles of the prophets as an argument for faith in God or in the prophets. Matthew quotes the words of Jesus in 24:24 that:
 
“For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; in so much that, if it were possible they shall deceive the very elect.”
 
Paul in his second letter to the Thessalonians 2:9 says regarding the Antichrist:
 
“Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.”
 
Fourthly, according to the law of the Pentateuch, anyone inviting people to the worship of something other than God should be killed in spite of any kind of wonders and miracles they might perform. And someone who claims divinity for himself is even more evil since not only does he claim godhood but also invites people to worship other than God.
 
According to the genealogy described by Matthew, Jesus was a descendant of Jehoiakim and is, therefore, according to the first proposition quoted above, not able to sit on the throne of David. Besides, Elias did not come before Jesus as is proved by the words of John himself that he was not Elias. Given this admission, anything contrary to it cannot be acceptable. And it is logically impossible to believe that John, being a prophet and a man of revelation, would not have been aware of his being Elias. Therefore, the second proposition, too, disallows Jesus from being the Messiah. And whereas, according to the belief of the Christians, Jesus claimed divinity for himself, this admission would make him liable to be killed according to the law of Moses, as we discussed in our fourth proposition.
 
As far as the miracles and wonders performed by Jesus are concerned they cannot, according to the belief of the Christians, be an argument for his being a believer let alone a prophet.
 
All praise be to Allah who has saved us from these doubts and difficulties by means of His chosen prophet Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, who informed us of the truth and taught us to believe that Jesus, the son of Mary, peace be on them both, was a true prophet and the promised Messiah and was absolutely free from the blame of making any claim to divinity. The Christians are responsible for attributing this claim to him.
 
Contradictions No. 58-63
 
Matthew chapter 11, Mark chapter 1, and Luke chapter 7, contain this statement:
 
“Behold! I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” [This text has been quoted from Mark 1:2]
 
According to the Christian commentators, the three Evangelists have quoted this line from the book of Malachi:
 
“Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me.”
 
The text quoted by the Evangelists is different in two ways from the text of Malachi. Firstly the words, “before thy face” do not exist in the text of Malachi, and have been added by all the three authors. Secondly, the text of Malachi uses the first person in the second sentence while the text of the three Gospels uses the second person. Horne quotes Dr. Rudolf in vol. 2 of his book saying: “It is not possible to explain this difference easily, except that the earlier versions have been changed.”
 
Contradictions No. 64-67
 
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 translations.
 
3. The Epistle to the Hebrews 10:5-7 contradicts Psalm No. 39 (Arabic) and Psalm No. 40:6-8 according to other translations. 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.
 
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 incompatibility in the above texts and say that the text of Isaiah has been distorted.
 
Contradiction No. 69
 
The Gospel of Matthew describes in chapter 9 that Jesus, after departing from Jericho, saw two blind men on the way and healed them of their blindness [Matt.
 
9:27-31]. Contradicting this, Mark writes in chapter 10 of his gospel:
 
“..blind Bartimxus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the highway side begging.”
 
So in Mark the healing of only one man by Jesus is mentioned.
 
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 5 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.
 
Contradiction No. 71
 
It appears from chapter 21 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.” [Matt. 21:7]
 
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.
 
Contradiction No. 72
 
Mark says in his first chapter: “And John ...did eat locusts and wild honey.” [Mark 1:6]
 
While Matthew states that: “John came neither eating nor drinking.” [Matt. 11:18- 19]
 
Contradiction Nos. 73-75
 
A comparison between the texts of Mark chapter one, Matthew chapter four and John chapter one, reveals inconsistencies 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.”
 
[Matt. 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 1:42-51]
 
CONTRADICTIONS AND ERRORS IN THE BIBLICAL TEXT:
CONTRADICTIONS 76 - 96
 
 
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 says :
 
“He fell at his feet... saying, my little daughter lieth at the point of death” [Mark 5:22,23]
 
Further he says that Jesus went with the ruler, but on the way people came from the synagogue and said, “Thy daughter is dead.”
 
Some early scholars have admitted that incompatibility existed between the two texts. Some of them favoured the text of Matthew 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. [Luke 8:49]
 
The death of the ruler’s daughter has consistently been a point of confusion among scholars of the Bible. There is disagreement 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 statement of Jesus [Luke 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.
 
Contradiction No. 77
 
It is understood from Matthew and Luke that when Christ sent his disciples to preach, he forbade them to keep staves with them [Matt 10:10], while on the contrary the text of Mark says that Jesus allowed them to keep their staves [Mark 6:8].
 
Contradiction No. 78
 
It is said in chapter 3 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?”
 
[Matt. 3:13]
 
Further in the chapter it says:
 
“And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water ... and he saw the Spirit of God, descending like a dove... “
 
And the Gospel of John 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.” [John 1:32,33]
 
The Gospel of Matthew contains this statement in chapter 11:
 
“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.”
 
[Matt. 11:2]
 
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.” [John 5:31]
 
And the same Gospel has reported Christ as contradicting this:
 
“Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true.” [John 8:14]
 
Contradiction No. 80
 
It appears from Matthew chapter 15 that the woman who came to Jesus crying for her daughter was from Canaan [Matt. 15:22]. This information is contradicted by the Gospel of Mark chapter 7 where he reports that she was a Greek and a Syrophoenician by tribe [Mark 7:26].
 
Contradiction No. 81
 
We read in the Gospel of Mark [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 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.” [Matt. 15:30]
 
This exaggeration is similar to the one made by John, 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.” [John 21:25]
 
What one should think of such statements? They are supposed to be men of inspiration beyond any criticism.
 
Contradiction No. 82
 
We read in the Gospel of Matthew 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.” [Matt. 26:21-25]
 
The same event is described by John 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 lying 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.” [John 13:21-26]
 
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 differences in chapter 18:
 
Judas then, having received a band of men and officers 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 their way.... Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him.” [John 18:2-12]
 
Contradiction No. 84
 
All the four Gospels give a description of Peter denying Jesus after his arrest. But each description is different from the other in eight respects.
 
1. According to the reports of Matthew [Matt. 26:6-75] and Mark [Mark 14:66-72] there were two maids who claimed that Peter was one of the disciples 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, he was “in the midst of the hall,” [Luke 22:55] 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 as: “I know not what thou sayest.” [Matt 26:70] While according to John he only said, “I am not.” [John 18:25] Mark, on the other hand, has reported it in these words: “I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest.” [Mark 15:68] And Luke has put it this way: “Woman, I know him not.”
 
[Luke 22:57 7. Peter’s second answer is also reported differently by all the Evangelists. According to Matthew ..... Peter denied him with an oath and said, “I do not know the man,” [Matt. 26:72] and according to John his answer was, ”I am not,” [John 18:25] while Mark has just said, “And he denied it again,” [Mark 14:70] and according to Luke his answer was, “Man, I am not.”
 
[Luke 22:58]
 
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 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.” [Luke 23:26]
 
This statement is contradicted by the Gospel of John, where it says that Jesus, bearing his cross himself, went forth to the place of crucifixion. [John 19:17]
 
Contradiction No. 86
 
The first three Gospels agree that Christ was on the cross at the sixth hour on the day of crucifixion [Matt. 27:45, Mark 15:23 and Luke 23:44], but contrary to this the Gospel of John reports him to be in the court of Pilate exactly at the sixth hour on the same day. [John 19:14]
 
Contradiction No. 87
 
The Gospel of Mark says regarding the thieves who were crucified with Jesus:
 
“And they that were crucified with him reviled him” [Mark 15:32]
 
while Luke reports that one of them reproached Jesus and the other said, “Lord remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. Then Jesus replied to him, Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” [Luke 23:43]
 
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. It is a common practice of Christian scholars to change the texts of their Holy scriptures whenever they think they should.
 
Contradiction No. 88
 
It is understood from chapters 20 and 21 of Matthew that Jesus arrived in Jerusalem after departing from Jericho [Matt. 20:29; 21:1], while from John we learn that Jesus, departing from Ephraim, arrived in Bethany, where he stayed for the night. [John 11:54; 12:1]
 
Contradiction No. 89
 
The Resurrection of Jesus:
 
We learn from Matthew [Matt. 27:56] 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. [Matt. 28:5,6]
 
The Gospel of Mark 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.” [Mark 16:1-6]
 
Luke’s description of this is:
 
“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.” [Luke 24:2-4]
 
Contradiction No. 90
 
It is expressly mentioned in Matthew 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. [Matt. 28:8-10]
 
But Luke 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.” [Luke 24:9-11]
 
On the other hand we learn from the Gospel of John that Jesus met Mary Magdalene near the grave. [John 20:13-15]
 
Contradiction No. 91
 
The Gospel of Luke says in chapter 11:
 
“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.”
 
[Luke 11:51]
 
But we read this in the Book of Ezekiel:
 
“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.” [Ez. 18:20]
 
However in other places in the Old Testament there are several passages which imply that the children of a man will be accountable for the sins of their father up to three or four generations.
 
Contradiction No. 92
 
Paul’s first letter to Timothy 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.” [1Tim. 2:3,4 This statement is incompatible with, and contradicts, Paul’s statement in his second letter to Thessalonians:
 
“And for this cause, God shall send them strong delusion, that should believe a lie, that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” [2 Thess. 2:11,12]
 
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 9:22 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 this statement:
 
“And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.” [Acts 9:7]
 
This statement is contradicted by the following 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.” [Acts 22:9]
 
The contradiction between ”hearing a voice” and ”heard not the voice of him” speaks for itself.
 
2. Again in Chapter 9 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.” [Acts 9:7]
 
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.” [Acts 22:10]
 
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.” [Acts 26:16-18]
 
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.
 
CONTRADICTIONS AND ERRORS IN THE BIBLICAL TEXT: CONTRADICTIONS 97 - 119
 
Contradiction No. 97
 
We find in Paul’s first letter to Corinthians:
 
“Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.” [Cor. 10:8]
 
This statement is contradicted by the book of Numbers:
 
“And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.”
 
[Numb. 25:1,9]
 
One of these two texts must be wrong.
 
Contradiction No. 98
 
We read this statement in the book of Acts:
 
“Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls.” [Acts 7:14]
 
The above text expressly denotes that Joseph and his children who were with Joseph in Egypt are naturally excluded from this number. In fact, it refers to Jacob and his family, but in Genesis 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.” [Gen.
 
46:27]
 
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 sixtysix 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, Judas “departed, and went and hanged himself.” [Matt. 27:5] While Acts says:
 
“Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong; he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.” [Acts 1:18]
 
Secondly, we know from the first text, that chief priests of the temple bought a field with the money left by Judas 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 Matthew [Matt. 27:4] 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 present 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 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.” [1 John 2:1,2]
 
Contrary to this we read in the book of Proverbs:
 
“The wicked shall be ransom for the righteous, and the transgressor for the upright.” [Prov. 21:18]
 
The contradiction here needs no comment.
 
Contradiction No. 101
 
It is understood from the text of Paul’s letter to the Hebrews that one of the commandments of Moses is weak and unprofitable and therefore defective [Heb.
 
7:18], 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 it is, ”This is Jesus, the king of the Jews.” [Matt. 27:37]
 
In the Gospel of Mark it appears as only, “The king of the Jews.” [Mark 15:26]
 
Luke says that written in letters of Greek, Latin and Hebrew was, ”This is the king of the Jews.” [Luke 23:38]
 
And the Gospel of John puts it in these words, “Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews.” [John 19:19]
 
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 that Herod believed in the righteousness of John the Baptist, and was pleased with him [Mark 6:20]. He arrested and killed him only for the sake of Herodias (his brother’s wife).
 
Luke, 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. [Luke 3:19]
 
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 sonof 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 disagreement among them regarding his name.
 
According to Matthew his name is Matthew [Matt. 9:9], while Mark says he was Levi, the son of Alpheus [Narj. 2:14], and Luke writes Levi without his father’s name. [Luke 5:27]
 
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.” [Matt. 16:17-19]
 
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.” [Matt.
 
16:23]
 
Protestant scholars have reproduced many statements of the ancient scholars about Peter’s accusation. John, in his commentary 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.” [Luke 9:54-56] 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?” [Luke 12:49]
 
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.” [Matt. 20:21]
 
Mark on the other hand reports that the request was made by Zebedee’s sons themselves. [Mark 10:35]
 
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” [Matt. 21:40,41]
 
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.” [Luke 20:15,16]
 
The texts are obviously contradictory. The second text contradicts 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. There are several contradictions between the different accounts.
 
1. Mark reports that this event took place two days before the feast of Passover [Mark 14:1], while John reports it to have happened six days prior to the festival [John 12:1]. Matthew is silent regarding the time of this incident.
 
2. Mark and Matthew agree that Jesus was in the house of Simon 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 [Matt. 26:7; Mark 14:3], while John contradicts this and says that she anointed the feet of Jesus. [John 12:3]
 
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 disciples 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, 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 erroneous, 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 [Luke 22:19], while Mark reports it to have been sacrificed is given for many [Mark 14:24], and from Matthew we understand that neither 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.
 
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.” [Matt. 7:14]
 
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.” [Matt. 11:29,30]
 
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 temple, 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.” [Matt. 8:8]
 
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. [Matt. 8:13]
 
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.”
 
[Luke 7:6,7]
 
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 Transfiguration of Jesus [Matt. 17:5]. 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 devils. 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 [Mark 15:25]. 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. [John 9:14]
 
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.
 
CONTRADICTIONS AND ERRORS IN THE BIBLICAL TEXT: Errors 1-35
 
THE 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 [Ex. 12:40]. 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 hundred 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.” [1 Sam. 6:19] 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 Chr. 3:4]
 
This is an exaggerated and erroneous account of the height. According to 1 Kings the height of the porch was thirty cubits [1 Kings 6:2]. Adam Clarke in volume 2 of his commentary expressly admitted 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 to the children of Benjamin, states:
 
“And the border was drawn thence and compassed the corner of the sea southward.”
 
[Josh. 18:14 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.” [Josh 19:36]
 
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
 
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.” [2 Chr. 13:3]
 
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 hundred thousand chosen men.” [2 Chr. 13:17]
 
The numbers mentioned in the two texts are wrong. The commentators of the Bible have admitted the error. The Latin translators 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.” [2 Chr.
 
28:19]
 
The word Israel in this statement is certainly wrong, because Ahaz 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. 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 10:16-19 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).
 
Errors No. 17
 
Another name “Achan” is given wrongly in the Book of Joshua [Josh. 7:18]. The correct name is Achar, with an ‘r’ at the end.
 
Error No. 18
 
We find in 1 Chronicles 3:5 under the description of the sons of David, “Bathshua, the daughter of Ammiel”. The correct name is, “Bath-sheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah”. [2 Sam. 11:3]
 
Error No. 19
 
The Second Book of Kings gives the name “Azariah” which is certainly wrong [2 Kings 14:21]. It should be “Uzziah”, as can be ascertained from several other sources.[e.g. 2 Chr. 26:1; 2 Kings 15:13,30,32 and 34]
 
Error No. 20
 
The name “Jehoahaz”, which appears in 2 Chronicles, is not correct [2 Chr.
 
21:17]. 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 Chronicles gives an account of how Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, bound Jehoiakim in chains and deported him to Babylon [2 Chr. 36:6]. 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, 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.
 
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.” [Gen. 2:17]
 
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:
 
“My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.” [Gen. 6:3]
 
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 present-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 revolutions.
 
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.”
 
Further 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 perpetual desolations.” [Jer. 25:1,11,12]
 
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;)” [Jer. 29:1,2]
 
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 place.”
 
[Jer. 29:10]
 
In the Persian translation of 1848 we find these words:
 
“After seventy years be accomplished in Babylon, I will 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 captive of the Jews seven hundred forty and five persons: all the persons were four thousand and six hundred.” [Jer. 52:28-30]
 
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 edition.
 
THE YEAR OF THE CREATION
 THE EVENT
 THE YEAR BEFORE CHRIST BC
 
3405
 Jerenish’s wtiting to the Captives of Babylon
 599
 
3468
 The death of Darius , the uncle of Koreish the ascension of Cyrus to the theone of Babylon, Madi and Pharus .His orders to release the Jews amd semd them back to Jerusalem
 356
 
 
 
Secondly, the cumulative number of those exiled during the three exiles is mentioned as four thousand and six hundred people, while according to 2 Kings the number of captives, including 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 [2 Kings 24:14].
 
Thirdly, from the text quoted above, we understand that the third capacaty took place in the twenty-third year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign whereas this is contradicted in 2 Kings which says that Nebuzar-adan took them captive in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. [2 Kings 25:8]
 
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.” [Ezek. 26:1]
 
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 field, 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.” [Ezek. 26:7-12]
 
History proved this prediction false because Nebuchadnezzar 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 wherewith he served against it...” [Ezek. 29:17-20]
 
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.” [Dan. 8:13]
 
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, 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 vision.
 
Thomas Newton who wrote a commentary on the predictions and prophesies of the Bible first quoted several other commentators 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 ascertain and define the time of the commencement of the event to which this vision refers.
 
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 1843 A.D 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 writer 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 Daniel states [Dan. 12:11,12]:
 
“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 thousand three hundred and five 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 transtgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and toseal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.” [Dan. 9:24]
 
This prophecy is also wrong as the Messiah did not appear in this period None of the explanations forwarded by the Christan scholars in this regard deserve any serious consideration, partly for the resasons 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 Ezra [Ezra 1:1], and the birth of the Prophet Jesus is nearly six hundred years according to Josephus and five hundred and thirty-six years in Snell Chaucy’s estimation.
 
Secondly, if we accept this as a correct explanation, it would mean that all true dreams have come to 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 inapplicable to Jesus.” This confession by Watson is enough to confirm our contention that this prediction, according to the original 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 mentioned as the anointed in Psalm 131. And also 1 Samuel contains 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.” [1 Sam.
 
24:10]
 
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,” Isaiah” [Isaiah 45:1]
 
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.” [2 Sam. 7:10]
 
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 the Emperor of Rome, persecuted them so barbarously that one million 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.
 
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 stablish 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 established for ever before thee; thy throne shall be established for ever.” [2 Sam. 7:12-16]
 
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.” [1 Chr. 22:9-10]
 
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 [Heb. 1:5]:
 
“I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.”
 
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.” [Matt. 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. According to the Christians – and they are far from the truthSolomon was a man of that nature and gave up the prophethood and became an apostate in his last days, indulging in idol worship, building temples for the idols, and committing himself to heathenism. 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 prediction was made about him. This is clear from 2 Chronicles.
 
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 prediction, 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.
 
CONTRADICTIONS AND ERRORS IN THE BIBLICAL TEXT: ERRORS 36 - 55
 
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 thyself 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 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.” [1 Kings 17:2-6]
 
In the above text the word ’raven’ is a translation of the original word ’arem’. All the translators except Jerome have translated 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 surprised 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 arguments to prove the absurdity of their opinion. He said on page 639 of the first volume of his commentary:
 
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 certainly 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.” [1 Kings 6:1]
 
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.” [Matt. 1:17]
 
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 modern 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, describing the genealogy of the Christ, the Gospel of Matthew states:
 
“Josias begat Jeconias and his brethren, in the captivity of Babylon.”
 
[Matt. 1:11]
 
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. [See 2 Chr.
 
35:23; 36:1,2,59; and 2 Kings 23:30,31,36 and 24:8]
 
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 [2 Kings 24:8], 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 Adam 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 suggestion of manipulating the text of the holy scriptures is something to be noted by the reader. Even after this change, our objection discussed in no. 3 above remains unaffected.
 
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 [Jer. 36:30], 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 was easier to lay blame on Matthew than to preclude Jesus from being the descendant of David and from his being the Messiah.
 
Error No. 43
 
The genealogical description in Matthew records seven generations between Judah and Salmon, and five generations from Salmon to David [Matt. 1:6-11].
 
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 generations was longer than the second group. Matthew’s description puts seven generations in three hundred years, and five generations 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:
 
“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 generations which have been left out by Matthew perhaps to make them fourteen. These three were kings of repute. They are mentioned 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 mistakes.
 
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.” [Matt. 1:12]
 
This is also incorrect because Zorobabel was the son of Pedaiah and the nephew of Salathiel as is expressly mentioned in I Chronicles 3.
 
Error No. 48
 
The same passage of genealogy in Matthew states:
 
“Zorobabel begat Abiud.” [Matt. 1:13]
 
This, too, is wrong since Zerubbabel had only five sons, as is confirmed by 1 Chronicles. None of the five sons is of this name. [1 Chr. 3:25]
 
There are in all eleven errors in the genealogy recorded by Matthew. If the differences of Luke and Matthew, discussed earlier are also included they total seventeen mistakes. This short passage of Matthew is, therefore, erroneous in no less than seventeen 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 contrarily 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.
 
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’.” [Matt. 1:22,23]
 
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’.” [Isaiah 7:14]
 
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 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 father [Joseph the carpenter] give this name to him:
 
“The angel told his father to call him with the name of Jesus.” [Matt. 1:21]
 
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.” [Luke 1:31]
 
Apart from this Jesus himself never claimed that his name was Emmanuel.
 
3. The passage where this word occurs, precludes its application 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 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. [Isaiah 7:1-17]
 
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 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.” [Matt. 2:15]
 
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, printed 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 mentioned in these words:
 
“As they called them, so they went from them, they sacrificed unto Baalim.” [Hosea 11:2]
 
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.”
 
[Matt. 2:16]
 
This statement is wrong both logically and historically. Historically because none of the non-Christian historians mentioned 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 statement 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.” [Matt. 2:17,18]
 
This is again a clearly distorted rendering of the text of Jeremiah. Any reader can himself look up the passage in. Jeremiah [Matt. 2:23], 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 people 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.” [Matt.
 
31:15]
 
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.” [John 7:52]
 
The Christian scholars have put forward weak explanations regarding this, which do not deserve any serious consideration.
 
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 wilderness of Judaea.” [Matt. 3:1]
 
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 settled 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 [Luke 3:1] that John, the Baptist delivered 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.
 
CONTRADICTIONS AND ERRORS IN THE BIBLICAL TEXT: ERRORS 56 - 83
 
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.” [Matt. 14:3]
 
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, neither for them which were with him.” [Matt. 12:3,4]
 
The phrase “neither for them which were with him” is clearly 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.” [Matt. 27:9]
 
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.” Matt. 27:51-53]
 
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 translator might have translated it from that text.
 
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.”
 
[Matt. 27:63-64]
 
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 people 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. [Acts 2:1-40]
 
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 Matthew, 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 avoided 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 Acts.
 
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 unaffected. 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 evangelist 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.”
 
[Matt. 12:39-40]
 
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.” [Matt. 16:4]
 
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.” [Matt. 27:63]
 
All these statements are incorrect for the fact is that according 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 morning 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 understanding 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.” [Matt.
 
16:27,28]
 
This statement has definitely been wrongly attributed to Jesus, because all those ’standing here’, died nearly two thousand 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.” [Matt. 10:23]
 
Again this is obviously wrong as the disciples have, long, long ago, done their duty of going over the cities of Israel, but the S on of Man never came with his kingdom.
 
Errors No. 65 - 68
 
The book of Revelations contains this statement:
 
“Behold, I come quickly:” [Rev. 3:11]
 
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 is at hand.”
 
Further in verse 20 it says again:
 
“Surely, I come quickly.”
 
On the basis of these statements of Christ, the earlier followers 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 coming of the Lord draweth near.” [James 5:8]
 
It also appears in I Peter:
 
“But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober and watch unto prayer.” [1 Peter 4:7]
 
And the First Epistle of Peter contains these words:
 
“Little children, it is the last time.” [1 Peters 4:7]
 
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.” [1 Thess. 4:15-17]
 
And Paul said in his letter to Philippians:
 
“The Lord is at hand.” [Phil. 4:5]
 
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.” [1 Cor. 10:11]
 
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.” [1 Cor. 15:51,52]
 
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 powers 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.” [Matt. 24:29-31]
 
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 contain:
 
“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, ”...immediately after the trouble of those days,” according to the statement of Jesus. Similarly it is also necessary that the generation contemporary 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 historically proved false statement.
 
Errors No. 79 - 81:
 
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.” [Matt. 24:2]
 
The Protestant scholars have therefore said that any construction 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 disbelievers 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 commentary 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 corruption 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 historians 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. 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.” [Matt. 19:28]
 
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 prophetic witness of eternal success has been proved wrong by the gospels themselves. We have already seen that one of the disciples 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.” [John 1:51]
 
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, while we know that nothing like this ever happened in history after this. These prophetic words have never come true.
 
CONTRADICTIONS AND ERRORS IN THE BIBLICAL TEXT: ERRORS 84-110
 
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.” [John 3:13]
 
This is also incorrect, as is evident from the fifth chapter of Genesis [Gen. 5:24] and 2 Kings Chapter 2. [2 Kings 2:11]
 
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.” [Mark 1:23]
 
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.” [Mark 16:17-18]
 
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.” [John 14:12]
 
The prophetic promise made in the above texts is a general statement that does not particularise any man or people, particularly 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 argument to support the claim that the above predictions were particularly 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 history. 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 prediction.
 
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.
 
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 translated 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 spiritual 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 persons, 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 prediction 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.” [Luke 3:27]
 
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...” [Luke 3:35,36]
 
This statement is also not correct as Sala was the son of Arphaxad, and not his grandson, which is clear from the book of Genesis [Gen. 11:12] and from I Chronicles. [1Chr. 1:24]
 
The Hebrew version has always preference over any translation according to the Protestants. No translation can be preferred to the original Hebrew version simply because it corresponds 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).”
 
[Luke 2:1]
 
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 Herod 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 states:
 
“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.” [Luke 3:1]
 
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.” [Luke 3:19]
 
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...” [Mark 6:17]
 
This statement too, is erroneous, as we have already discussed. 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 deleted 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?” [Mark 2:25,26]
 
Earlier in the book we showed that this statement is also incorrect, since David at that time was alone, therefore the phrase “they that were with him” is a misstatement.
 
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 sentence:
 
“And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.” [1 Cor. 15:5]
 
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.” [Mark 16:14]
 
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.” [Matt. 10:19,20]
 
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.” [Luke 12:11,12]
 
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 officers 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 following 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.” [Acts 23:1-5]
 
Had the statement of Matthew and Luke been true, their spiritual leader Paul, who is considered equal in status with the disciples and who himself claims to be equal to Peter, the greatest of all disciples, could have not said anything erroneous before the council. 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...” [Luke4:25]
 
and in the Epistle of James:
 
“...and it rained not on earth by the space of three years and six months.”
 
[James 5:17]
 
This also seems incorrect as it is understood from I Kings that there was rain in the third year. [1 Kings 18:1]
 
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.” [Luke1:32,33]
 
This is incorrect for the following two reasons:
 
1. Because Jesus, according to the genealogy given by Matthew, is a descendant of Jehoiakim, and none of his descendants can sit on the throne of David according to the statement of the Prophet Jeremiah. [Jer. 36:30]
 
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 [John 6:15], 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 children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.” [Mark 10:29,30]
 
And Luke reports these words in the same context:
 
“...who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come, life everlasting.” [Luke 18:30]
 
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 relevant, 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.” [Mark 5:12,13]
 
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.” [Matt. 26:64]
 
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.” [Luke 6:40]
 
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.” [Luke 14:26]
 
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 thy father and mother, and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” [Matt. 15:4]
 
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 perish 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.” [John 11:49-52]
 
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 Jews 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 insulting 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.” [Matt. 26:57]
 
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 sitting 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 witnesses? 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?” [Matt 26:63-68]
 
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.” [John 18:13,14]
 
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 proposed, ”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 committed by Adam thousands of years prior to the birth of the Christ, which is a whimsical and, of course, illogical interpretation 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 different 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 tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry.” [Heb. 9:19-21]
 
The above statement is incorrect for the following three reasons:
 
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.” [Ex. 24:3-8]
 
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 appearance 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 consultation 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.”
 
Izharul- Haq Part 3: The Trinity Refuted
 
The Biblical Texts : Are they revealed
The Opinion Of The Muslim Scholars
Human Distortion of the Bible.
Refutation of Misleading Protestant Statements Regarding the Authenticity of the Bible
 
Biblical Texts: Are they revealed?
 
The Arguments
Distortions
The Admission of Christian Scholars
The Opinion of Encyclopaedia Britannica
Watson’s Admission
Beausobre and Lenfant’s opinion
The Views of Christian Scholars on Pentateuch
The Epistle of James and the Book of Revelation
The Admission of Clement
Admissions of Protestant Scholars
Admissions of German Scholars
Views on the Subject of the Chronicles
The Muslim Attitude towards the Gospels
 
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.
 
Distortions
 
A large number of clear contradictions are to be found in the books of the Bible. The Christian scholars and commentators have always been at a loss to find any way of explaining them. For some of the textual differences they have had to admit that one of the texts is correct and the other false, due either to deliberate distortion on the part of later theologians or to mistakes of the copiers. For some contradictory texts they have put forward absurd explanations that would never be accepted by a sensible reader. These have already been discussed.
 
The Biblical books are full of errors and we have pointed out more than one hundred of them already. It is self-evident that a revealed text must be free from errors and contradictions.
 
There are also many cases of distortion and human manipulation in the texts of these books. The alterations and changes which have been deliberately or unknowingly made have even been admitted by Christian theologians. Texts which have been definitely changed or distorted cannot be accepted as revealed or inspired even by the Christians. We intend to present a hundred examples of such distortions in the Bible later in this book.
 
As we mentioned previously, certain books or part of books are accepted by the Catholics as being the revelations of their Prophets while the Protestants have proved that these books were not divinely inspired. These books are: the Book of Baruch, the Book of Tobit, the Book of Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Maccabees I and II, chapters eleven to sixteen of the Book of Esther, and ten verses from chapter ten of the same book, and the song of the three children from chapter three of the Book of Daniel.
 
These books are considered by the Catholics to be an integral part of the Old Testament, whereas the Protestants have rejected them and do not include them in the Old Testament. We, therefore, leave them out of our discussion. Any readers particularly curious about these books should refer to the books of the Protestant scholars. The Jews do not accept these books as genuine either.
 
Similarly, the third Book of Ezra is considered part of the Old Testament according to the Greek church, while both the Catholics and the Protestants have proved conclusively that this book is not genuine. The revealed status of the Book of Judges is also in question for those who claim it to be written by Phineas or Hezekiah, and the same applies to the Book of Ruth, according to those who perceive it as being written by Hezekiah. Nor, according to the majority of writers, is the Book of Nehemiah divinely inspired, especially the first twenty-six verses of chapter twelve.
 
The Book of Job was also not considered revelation by Maimomides, Michel, Semler, Stock, Theodore and Luther, the founder of the Protestant faith. The same opinion is held by those who attribute this book to Elihu or to someone unknown. Chapters thirty and thirty-one of the Book of Proverbs are 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. Twentyseven chapters of the Book of Isaiah are also not revelation according to the learned scholar Lefevre d’Etapes of Germany. The Gospel of Matthew, according to the majority of ancient scholars and almost all later scholars who consider it to have been originally written in the Hebrew language and that the present Gospel is merely a translation of the original which has been lost, is not, and cannot be, divinely inspired.
 
As for the Gospel of John, the scholars, Bretschneider and Lefevre d’Etapes have refused to accept it as genuine. The last chapter was certainly rejected by the scholar Grotius as being neither genuine 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 Admission of Christian Scholars
 
Home says on page 13l of Vol. I of his commentaries printed in 1822:
 
If we accept that some books of the Prophets have been lost and have disappeared, we shall have to believe that those books were never written with the help of inspiration. St. Augustine proved this fact with very strong arguments saying that he had found many things mentioned in the books of the kings of Judea and Israel, but could not find any description of the things in these books. For their explanations, they have referred to the books of other Prophets, and in some instances they have also mentioned the names of the Prophets. These books have not been included in the canon acknowledged by the church, which has not assigned any reason for their exclusion, except to say that the Prophets, to whom significant religious instructions are revealed, have two kinds of writings.
 
Writings without inspiration, which are simi1ar to the writings of honest historians, and writings guided by inspiration. The first kind of writings are attributed to the Prophets themselves, 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 disappearance of the Book of Wars of the Lord, mentioned in the Book of Numbers[1] (21:14), he said:
 
The book: which has disappeared was, according to the great scholar Dr. Lightfoot's findings, the one that was written for the guidance of Joshua under the command of the Lord after the defeat of the Amalekites. It seems that the book in question contained some accounts of the victory of this war as well as strategic instructions for the future war. This was not an inspired book nor was it a part of the Canonical books.
 
Then in the supplement of his first volume he said:
 
When it is said that the Holy books were revealed by God, it docs not necessarily signify that every word and the whole text was revealed. The difference of idiom and expression of the authors show that they were allowed to write according to their own temperament and understanding. The knowledge of inspiration was used by them similar to the use of the current sciences. It cannot be imagined that every word they said or every doctrine they passed was revealed to them by God.
 
Further he said that it was confirmed that the writers of the books of the Old Testament were ”sometimes inspired”. The compilers of Henry and Scott’s Commentary, in the last volume of their book, quote. From the Alexander Canon, that is, from the principles of faith laid down by Alexander:
 
It is not necessary that everything said by a Prophet should be an inspiration or a part of the Canon. Because Solomon wrote some books through inspiration it does not mean that everything he wrote was inspired by God. It should be known that the Prophets and the disciples of Jesus were sometimes inspired for important instructions.
 
There is a d«criptiim given in the Book of Numbers with the reference to the Book of Wars of the Lords. Only some sentences from tha book have been given, rhe rest of the book has been lost.
 
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"[2] in the Encyclopaedia Britannica[3] has this statement on page 274 vol. 11 It has always been a matter of controversy whether everything which is written in the sacred books is inspired or not. Similarly all accounts of the events described in them arc not inspired by God according to Jerome, Grotius, Papias and many other scholars.
 
Further in vol. 19 on page 20 it says:
 
 
Those who claim that everything of the Gospels is inspired by God cannot prove their claim easily.
 
It also says:
 
If ever we are asked which part of the Old Testament is held by us as inspiration of God, we would answer that the doctrines and the predictions for future events which are the foundation of Christian faith cannot be other than inspiration. As for other descriptions, the memory of the apostles is enough for them.
 
THE REES ENCYCLOPEDIA
 
In volume nineteen of the Rees Encyclopedia, the author says that The authenticity and divinity of the Holy books has been debated because there are many contradictions and inconsistencies found in the statements of the authors of these books. For example, when the texts of Matthew 10:19,20 and Mark, 11:13 are compared with Acts 23:1-6,[4] the contradictory nature of these books becomes all the more serious.
 
It is also said that the disciples of Jesus themselves did not know one another to be receiving inspiration from God, as is evident from their debates in the council of Jerusalem and from Paul’s blaming of peter. Moreover it is clear that the ancient Christians did not consider them innocent and free form faults, since they sometimes made them subject to their criticism. This is obvious from Acts 11:12,3[5] and also Acts 21:20-24.
 
It has also been mentioned that Paul, who considered himself not less than the disciples of Jesus (see 2 Corinthians 11:5 and 12:11), nevertheless mentioned himself in such a manner as to show that he did not feel himself constantly to be a man of inspiration[6] the author also said:
 
We are not given a feeling by the disciples of Jesus as speaking on behalf of God every time they spoke.
 
He has said that:
 
Michaelis thoroughly examined the arguments of both the groups, which was necessary for a matter of such importance, and decided that the presence of inspiration in the Holy Book is certainly of great use, but even if we dispense with the presence of inspiration in the Gospels and the Acts, which are books of an historical nature, we lose nothing and they still remain as useful to us as before. It does not damage anything if we accept that the historical descriptions of the evangelists in the gospels, are similar to the descriptions of the historians, since, as was observed by Christ, “And ye also shall bear 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 arguments in favour of such miracles as the death and resurrection of Christ as related in the writings of the evangelists, always bearing in mind that they are historians. For anyone who wishes to examine the foundation and origin of his faith, it is necessary to consider the statements of the evangelist about those particular matters as similar to the statements of other historians. Because it would be physically impossible to prove the truth of the events described by them, it is necessary that we accept their descriptions in the manner we accept the descriptions of other historians. This line of approach would save Christianity from all dangers. We do not find it mentioned anywhere that the general events experienced by the apostles, and perceived by Luke through his investigations, were inspired.
 
If however we are allowed to admit that some evangelists made mistakes and that they were later corrected by John, this would he greatly advantageous and facilitate conformity in the Bible. Mr.
 
Cuddle also 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:
 
For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.[7]
 
Waston says about this:
 
The ancient writers of Christian theology have also given a similar opinion. Irenaeus said that Luke conveyed to us the things which he learnt from the apostles. Jerome said that Luke does not depend only on Paul, who was never in the physical company of Christ. Luke also acquired the knowledge of the Evangel from other apostles as well.
 
He further elucidates:
 
The apostles, when they used to speak or write anything concerning the faith, were protected with the treasure of inspiration that they had. Being, however, human beings, and men of reason and inspiration, they were just like other people when describing common events.
 
This made it possible for Paul to write in his first epistle to Timothy, without inspiration:
 
Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.[8]
 
and further:
 
The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.[9]
 
And that he could write to Philemon, “But withal prepare me also a lodging.” (v.22) And as he wrote to Timothy, "Erastus abode at Corinth; but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick.”[10]
 
However there are other occasions when it is clear that Paul speaks by inspiration, as in his first letter to the Corinthians:
 
And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let the wife depart from her husband.[11]
 
But in verse twelve of the same epistle he says:
 
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord.
 
Then in verse twenty-five he says:
 
Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord:
 
yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
 
The book of Acts contains this statement:
 
Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia. After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not.
 
From the above we are given to understand that the apostles’
work was based on two things: reason and inspiration. They used the first to speak of general events, while through the other they gave religious instructions related to the Christian faith. This is why the apostles, like other human beings, committed mistakes in their domestic affairs and in their intentions. This is quite evident from Acts 23:3; Rom. 15:24,28; I Cor. 16:5,6,8 and 2-Cor. 11:15-18.
 
The nineteenth volume of the Rees Encyclopedia contains this description under the entry ”Dr. Benson”:
 
Whatever he has written in connection with inspiration seems to be clear and logical and, indeed, unique in its application.
 
Beausobre and Lenfant’s opinion
 
Beausobre and Lenfant said the following about this matter:
 
The Holy Ghost, with whose help and teaching the evangelists and the apostles wrote, did not prescribe any particular language for them, but conveyed the meanings to their hearts through intuition and protected them from being involved in errors. They were allowed to preach or write the word of inspiration in their own language using their own expressions. As we find differences of expression and idiom in the writings of the ancient writers, which are mainly dependent on the temperaments and capabilities of the writers concerned, so an expert of the original language will easily recognise the differences of idiom and expression in the gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John and the epistles of Paul.
 
If, however, the Holy Ghost had truly inspired the words to them, this would have not happened. The style and expression of all the gospels would have been identical. Besides, there have been many events the description of which does not require inspiration. For example, they write of many events which they saw with their own eyes or heard from reliable observers. Luke says that when he intended to write his gospel he wrote the descriptions according to eye witnesses of the events described. Having this knowledge in his mind, he thought that it was a treasure which should be conveyed to future generations.
 
An author who received his account through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost usually expressed this fact by saying something to the effect that everything he had written was according to inspiration he had received from the Holy Ghost. Though the faith of Paul is of an unusual kind, it is still strange that Luke does not seem to have any witnesses except Paul and his companions.
 
We have produced above the testimony of two of the great scholars of Christianity, who are very much esteemed and celebrated in the Christian world. Home and Watson have also the same opinion of them.
 
The Views of Christian Scholars on Pentateuch
 
Horne said on page seven hundred and ninety-eight of volume two of his great work:
 
Eichhorn, one of the German scholars, denied that Moses received inspiration.
 
And on page eight hundred and eighteen:
 
Scholz, Noth, Rosenmuller and Dr. Geddes are of the opinion that Moses did not receive inspiration, and that all the five books of the Pentateuch were simply a collection of verbal traditions current in that period. This concept is making its way rapidly among the German scholars.
 
He also said:
 
Eusebius and several latter theologians have pronounced that the book of Genesis was written by Moses, in Midian, when he was pasturing the goats of his father in law.
 
We may be allowed to remark that, in this case, this book cannot be an inspiration because, according to Eusebius, this was before Moses was entrusted with prophethood. Therefore the book of Genesis also must be a collection of current local verbal traditions. If the writings of the Prophets, written by them as Prophets, were not books of inspiration, a fact admitted by Home and other scholars, how then could a book written by Moses long before his prophethood be a revealed book?
The Catholic, Ward, has on page thirty-eight of the 1841 edition:
 
Luther said in vol. 3 of his book on pages 40 and 41 that:
 
"Neither do we hear Moses, nor do we turn to him, for he was only for the Jews; we have nothing to do with him.”
 
In another book he said: ’We believe neither in Moses nor in the Torah, because he was an enemy of Jesus, and said that he was the master of executioners, and said that the Christians have nothing to do with the ten commandments.’
Again he said that he would discard the Ten Commandments from the books so that heresy was abolished forever, because these are the root of all heretical ideas.
 
One of his pupils, Aslibius, has said that no one knew the ten commandments in the churches. The Christian sect called the Antinomians was initiated by a person who believed that the Pentateuch did not have any such qualities as to be considered the word of God. It was their belief that any one committing sins like adultery and other evil deeds deserved salvation and would be in eternal happiness if only he had faith in Christianity. Those who turned to the ten commandments were influenced by Satan, and they were the ones who crucified Jesus.
 
These remarks of the founder of the Protestant faith and his pupil are certainly of great importance. They mean that all Protestants must be disbelievers in Moses and the Pentateuch, since, according to them, Moses was the enemy of Jesus, the master of the executioners, and the Pentateuch was not the word of God. Having nothing to do with the ten commandments, they must turn to paganism and multitheism. They should also disregard their parents, trouble their neighbours, commit theft, murder and perjury because, otherwise, they would bc acting according to the ten commandments which ”are the root of all heretical ideas”.
 
Some Christians belonging to this sect have said to us that they did not believe in Moses as a Prophet but only as a man of wisdom and a great legislator, while some others said to us that Moses, God forbid, was a thief and a robber. We asked them to fear God, they answered that they were right in saying this as it had been said by Jesus himself:
 
All that ever came before me are thieves and robber: but the sheep did not hear them.[12]
 
Now we can see why the founder of the Protestant faith, Luther, and his pupil reproached Moses; they must have been guided by the above statement.
 
THE EPISTLE OF JAMES AND THE BOOK OF REVELATION
Luther said regarding the epistle of James:
 
This is the word not suitable to be included in the books, as the disciple James said in chapter five of his epistle, ”Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.[13]
 
Luther, raising objection on the above statement, said in volume Two of his book:
 
If this is what James has said, I answer him that no disciple has the right to define and issue religious injunctions on his own account, because it was only Jesus who possessed that status.
 
It is clear from the above that the epistle of James is not, according to Luther, inspired, and that injunctions given by the disciples are not supported by inspiration, otherwise the above statement would be absurd and meaningless.
 
Ward stated in his book printed in 1841:
 
Pomran, an eminent scholar of the Protestants and a pupil of Luther, says that James has written false and absurd events at the end of his letter. He has copied from other books events which cannot be associated with the Holy Ghost. Such a book therefore must not be considered as inspired.
 
Vitus Theodore, a Protestant preacher in Nuremberg, said that they had intentionally given up the Book of Revelation and the Epistle of James. He said that the Epistle of James is not to be censured
 
where he has stressed the necessity of good deeds along with faith, but that this latter contains contradictions. The Magdeburg Centuries said that the Epistle of James, at one place, is unique among all the accounts of the disciples because he says that salvation does not depend on faith alone but that it also requires good deeds. He also says that the Torah was the Law of Freedom.
 
It is clear from the above that these elders, like Luther, do not believe in the Epistle of James being inspired by the Holy Ghost.
 
The 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.[14]
 
Luther, raising objection on the above statement, said in volume Two of his book:
 
If this is what James has said, I answer him that no disciple has the right to define and issue religious injunctions on his own account, because it was only Jesus who possessed that status.
 
It is clear from the above that the epistle of James is not, according to Luther, inspired, and that injunctions given by the disciples are not supported by inspiration, otherwise the above statement would be absurd and meaningless.
 
Ward stated in his book printed in 1841:
 
Pomran, an eminent scholar of the Protestants and a pupil of Luther, says that James has written false and absurd events at the end of his letter. He has copied from other books events which cannot be associated with the Holy Ghost. Such a book therefore must not be considered as inspired.
 
Vitus Theodore, a Protestant preacher in Nuremberg, said that they had intentionally given up the Book of Revelation and the Epistle of James. He said that the Epistle of James is not to be censured where he has stressed the necessity of good deeds along with faith, but that this latter contains contradictions. The Magdeburg Centuries said that the Epistle of James, at one place, is unique among all the accounts of the disciples because he says that salvation does not depend on faith alone but that it also requires good deeds. He also says that the Torah was the Law of Freedom.
 
It is clear from the above that these elders, like Luther, do not believe in the Epistle of James being inspired by the Holy Ghost.
 
The Admission of Clement
 
Clement said:
 
Matthew and Mark are different from each other in their writings, but when they agree on a certain point they are preferred to Luke’s account.
 
We may be allowed to say that the above statement allows us to deduce two important points. Firstly that Mathew and Mark themselves differ in many places in their accounts of the same event and whenever they agree in their statement their accounts are preferable to Luke. None of them ever agree word for word about any event. Secondly that all three gospels are proved to have been written without inspiration because the preference of the first two gospels over the third would be out of the question had they been inspired.
 
Paley, an eminent Protestant scholar, wrote a book concerning the truth of the four gospels. It was printed in 1850. He writes on page 323 of his book to this effect:
 
The second thing that has been falsely attributed to the ancient Christians is that they firmly believed in the coming of the Day of Judgment in their own time. I will present an example before any objection to this is raised. 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 thc Last Day would come about in their own time should keep this explanation in mind, and it will save them from the blame of deceiving people. Now there comes another question that if, for a moment, we accept the possibility of errors and omissions on the part of the disciples, how then can they be trusted about anything they say? As a reply to this question it would be enough for the supporters of Christianity to say to the disbelievers that what we seek from the disciples is their witness not their personal opinion. The object, in fact, is to achieve the result which, as a consequence of this, is safe.
 
But in answering this, we must keep two points in mind; to eliminate all the dangers. First, the object intended by the mission of all the disciples should be defined. They helped prove the point which was either strange or mixed with truth. They are not required to say anything about what is obviously not related to the faith, but they would be required to say something to remove ambiguity about something in the text of the divine books which has accidentally got mixed up with the truth. Another example of this is the belief in the possession by devils. In the case of those who hold that this false opinion had become common in their time and also influenced the evangelists and the early Christians, it must be accepted that this opinion does not in anyway damage the truth of the Christian faith, because this is not the matter Jesus was sent for. But something which, having become a public opinion in that country, somehow got mixed with the statement of Jesus.
 
It is certainly not a part of their message to rectify their false belief in the spirits, nor has it anything to do with their witness Secondly their message should be separated and distinguished from what they present to support and elucidate that which is inspired. For instance, something in what they say might be inspired, but in addition to that they present personal explanations to strengthen their message. For example, the principle that anyone other than a Jew accepting the Christian faith would not be bound to follow the law of Moses, in spite of its truth having been proved through miracles Paul, for example, when speaking of this principle, has mentioned many things in support of it. Therefore the principle in itself is acknowledged by us, but it is not necessary for us to support all their explanatory remarks in order to prove the truth of the Christian faith. This method may be applied to other principles of a simi1ar nature. I am absolutely sure of the truth that any instruction agreed upon by the pious men of God will always be followed as a religious obligation. It is, however, not necessary for us to explain or to accept all those details, unless they have, of course, specified those premise.
 
The above passage allows us to advance the following four points:
 
1. We have already proved through sufficient arguments and sports, under the heading of Errors no. 64-78, that all the disciples Jesus and other Christians of that time had firm belief in the coming of the Day of Judgment in their own time and that John would not until the Day of Judgment.
 
We have reproduced their unambiguous and definite statements to this effect. Barnes, making his comments on chapter twenty-one of the Gospel of John, said the words which we reproduce below from the Urdu translation:
 
The misconception that John would not die was created by the words of Jesus which can be easily misunderstood. The idea became even stronger with the fact that John survived until after the death of the other disciples.
 
The compilers of Henry and Scott remark:
 
Most probably the purpose of Jesus by this statement was to annoy the Jews, but thc disciples misunderstood it to signify that John would live up to the Last Day or that he would be raised to heaven alive.
 
Further they say:
 
Here we must keep in mind that a report of a certain man may come without proper confirmation. It would, therefore be a folly to base our faith on such reports. This statement, in spite of being a report of the disciples and having become common and established among people, turned out to be untrue. How then could reports which were not even written down and recorded demand our belief. These are our own comments and not a statement made by Jesus.
 
Further they say in their marginal notes:
 
The disciples misunderstood the words of Jesus, as the evangelist[15] 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 regarding the Day of Judgment and John not dying until the day of Judgment, their statement with regard to the occurrence would naturally be taken literally which proves them to have been wrong and to find new explanations for them is of no avail. That would involve an effort to give the words a meaning which was not intended by their speakers. Having been proved to have been other than the truth they obviously cannot be taken as inspirations.
 
2. It is clear from the above description of Paley that the scholars have admitted the fact that the matters which are not directly related to the faith, or have been somehow mixed with the principles of faith, do not damage the Christian faith in any way if they are proved erroneous.
 
3. They have also admitted that the presence of errors and mistakes in the arguments of the disciples is not damaging to the Christian faith.
 
4. They have accepted that the existence of evil spirits and their influence on human beings is not a reality and that belief in them was a product of human imagination and superstition; and that they had found their way in through the statements of the evangelists, and even through Jesus, because they had become a part of common tradition of that period.
 
Keeping these four conclusions in mind, we must be allowed to claim that more than fifty percent of the gospels are thus precluded from having been the result of inspiration. According to this opinion, only the descriptions directly related to faith or those defining the rituals can be considered as inspired.
 
However this opinion does not carry any weight because it happens to be against the opinion of Luther, the founder of the Protestant church, who explicitly declared that none of the apostles had any right to issue or define any religious principle on his own account, because only Jesus had the right to issue religious doctrines. The unavoidable conclusion is that the remaining part of the gospels, consisting of the descriptions from the disciples directly related to faith, is likewise deprived of its Divine character.
 
Admissions of Protestant Scholars
 
Ward reproduced a number of statements from the great scholars of the Protestant faith. We reproduce below nine of them from his book prenticed in 1841.
 
(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 arc incorrect.
 
(2) Mr. Fulk accused Peter of making false statements and declared him to be ignorant of the Evangel.
 
(3) Dr. Goad, during a polemic with Father Campion, said that Peter was wrong in his belief about the descent of the Holy Spirit on Jesus.
 
(4) Brentius, called a learned leader and master by Jewel, said that Peter the chief disciple and Barnabas made erroneous statements after the descent of the Holy Spirit.
 
(5) John Calvin remarked that Peter spread heresy in thc church and put the independence of Christianity in danger and the Christian grace was led a stray by him.
 
(6) The Magdeburg Centuries accuses the disciples, and especially Paul, of making false statements.
 
(7) Whittaker said that the people and dignitaries of the church, and even the disciples of Jesus, made great mistakes in preaching the Christian faith to the gentiles, and that Peter made mistakes in rituals, and that these mistakes were committed by them after the descent of the Holy Spirit.
 
(8) Zanchius gave an account of some followers of Calvin in his book. He reported that some of them said that if Paul ever came to Geneva to preach against Calvin, they would listen to Calvin and leave Paul alone.
 
(9) Lewathrus, a staunch follower of Luther, giving a description of some great scholars has quoted their statements to the effect that it was possible for them to doubt a statement of Paul, but there was no room for any doubt about the statements made by Luther. Similarly it was not possible for them to allow of any doubt in (he book of the church of Augsburg concerning the principles of faith.
 
The above statements are from the great scholars of the Protestant faith. They have declared that none of the books of the New Testament were inspired and genuine. They have also admitted that the disciples were erratic in what they wrote.
 
The learned scholar Norton wrote a book on the truth of the Bible, which was printed in Boston in 1837, He said in his preface to the book:
 
Eichhorn observed in his book that, in the first days of the Christianity, there was a short book consisting of various accounts of Jesus’ life. It is quite possible to say that this was the original Evangel. Most probably this was written for those followers who could not listen to the sayings of Jesus and could not see him with their own eyes. This Evangel was a model. The accounts of Jesus written there were not in chronological order.
 
It must be noted that this script was different from the present gospels in many respects. The present gospels are by no means the model represented by the one discussed above. The present gospels were written under very difficult circumstances and contain some accounts of Jesus which were not present in the original script. There is evidence to suggest that this original script was the main source of all the gospels which appeared in the first two centuries after the death of Jesus. It also served as the basis for the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke which later on became more popular than the others. Though these three gospels also contained additions and omissions, they were later on supplemented with the missing events by other people to make them complete. The other gospels, which contained various accounts of Jesus occurring after his prophethood, such as the Gospel of Marcion and the Gospel of Tatian were abandoned. They also added many other accounts, accounts of Jesus’ birth and also accounts of his youth and reaching maturity and other things. This fact is evident from the gospel called the Memoirs from which Justin quoted in his book. The same is understood from the gospel of Corinth.
 
The portions of these gospels which are still available, if compared with each other, clearly show that the addition of these accounts has been quite gradua1, for example, the heavenly voice which was heard originally spoke in these words:
 
Thou art my son, 1 have begotten thee this day.
 
As has been quoted by Justinian in two places. Clement also reproduced this sentence from a Gospel of unknown identity in these words:
 
Thou art my beloved son, I have begotten thee this day.
 
The present gospels, however, have this sentence in these words:
 
Thou art my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.[16]
 
The Ebonite Gospel combined the two statements together thus:
 
Thou art my beloved son, I am pleased unto thee, thou art begotten this day This was stated by Epiphanius.
 
Christian history, through gradual additions and innumerable manipulations, has totally lost its original form and is now a mixture of unidentifiable ingredients. Any one curious enough can easily satisfy his curiosity by reading an account of Jesus’ baptism that has been collected together from several gospels.
 
This gradual mixture of contra-factual events with original scripture has so terribly deformed the authenticity of the gospels that they no longer retain their original divine character. The more they were translated from one language to another, the more they lost their original shape and form.
 
Releasing this situation, the Church came to their aid towards the end of the second century or at the beginning of the third century AD and tried to save the true and the original Evangel and to convey, as far as possible, the truth to the future generations. They, therefore selected the four present gospels out of many gospels that were current in that period, because these four scripts seemed more comprehensible than any of the others.
 
There is no sign of the existence of the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke before the end of the second century or the beginning of the third century AD, The first man to speak of these gospels in history was Irenaeus in 200 AD who also advanced some arguments concerning the number of the gospels.
 
Then in 216 AD Clement of Alexandria made a painstaking efforts to prove that these four gospels were inspired and, therefore, should be acknowledged as the source of Christian faith. The result of this is that, towards the end of the second century and the beginning of third, the Church made serious efforts to get these four gospels acknowledged, in spite of the fact that they did not deserve acknowledgement since they are clearly not genuine in all respects.
 
The Church also tried hard to convince people to discard all other existing gospels.
 
Had the Church devoted this serious effort to purifying the original script found by the early preachers, it would have been a great contribution towards the future generations. But perhaps it was not possible for the Church to do so since none of the existing gospels was free from additions and alterations, and there was no way of distinguishing the right from the wrong. Eichhorn further said in the footnotes to his book:
 
Many early theologians had doubts about several parts of these gospels, but they were not able to put forward any corrections to them.
 
He also said:
 
In our times, printing facilities have made it impossible for people to distort and manipulate the text of a certain book. Before the invention of printing the conditions differed from those of today. It was possible for the owner of a certain version to insert distortions and additions into the book, which then became the source for all subsequent copies, leaving no means for them to ascertain which parts of the book were from the author and which had been added or changed. Subsequently these corrupted copies became common among the people.
 
You will find that many saints and theologians complained that the copiers and the owners of the copies of these hooks distorted the texts shortly after they were written. The script of Dionysius was distorted even before it was circulated. You also find that there were complaints of impurities being inserted into the books by the followers of Satan who were said to have excluded certain things and included certain others on their own account. In the view of these witnesses it is clear that the Holy Scriptures did not remain safe and intact. This in spite of the fact that it was quite difficult for the people of that period to distort the texts as the authors of that period used to issue heavy curses and make sworn oaths in order to discourage people from daring to make changes in them.
 
The same also happened with the history of Jesus, otherwise Celsius would have not felt it necessary to point out the changes and distortures that had been made by the Christians in their texts. That is how some sentences regarding certain accounts of Jesus, which were scattered in several gospels, came to be combined together in a single gospel. For examp1e, the Ebionite Gospel gives a complete account of the baptism of Jesus which has been compiled from things found scattered in all of the first three gospels and in the memoirs from which, according to Epiphanius,[17] Justin quoted.
 
In another place Eichhorn said:
 
Manipulations in the sacred texts, in the form of additions and omissions and the replacement of a word by its synonym, by those who lacked the necessary scholastic aptitude, is historically traceable right from the time of the appearance of the gospels. This is not surprising since, from the beginning of the history of the Christianity, it has been a common habit of writers to make changes according to their own whims, particularly in the sermons of Jesus and the accounts of events in his life which were preserved by them. This procedure, initiated in the first era of Christian history, continued to be followed by the people of later centuries. 1n the second century AD, this habitual distortion in the texts had become so commonly known to the people that even the opponents of the Christian faith were aware of it. Celsus, as noted above, raised objections against the Christians that, they had changed their texts more than three or four times, and these changes were not of a superficial nature but done in such a manner that the subjects and meanings of the gospels were altogether changed. Clement also pointed out that at the end of the second century AD there were some people who used to tamper with the texts of the gospels. He has specified that the sentence, “For theirs is the kingdom of heaven”[18] was changed in some versions to, ”they shall be perfect.” Some others even made it read: ”They shall attain a place where they shall see no trouble.”
 
Norton, having quoted the above statement by Eichhorn said:
 
No one thinks that Eichhorn is alone in this opinion, because no other book is as popular in Germany as the book of Eichhorn, and it is considered to be in accordance with the opinions of most of the modem writers with regard to the gospels, and the same applies to matters which cast doubt upon the truth of the gospels.
 
Since Norton is known as an advocate of the gospels, having quoted the above statements of Eichhorn, he refutes them all in favour of the gospels, but, as will be evident to any reader of his hook, his arguments are not convincing. In spite of all this, he had to admit openly that the following seven portions of the New Testament are definitely not from those who are considered to be their authors, and had been added later.
 
1. He says on page 53 of his book that the first two chapters of Matthew were not written by him.
 
2. On page 63 he says that the event of Judas Iscariot[19] 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.[20]
 
4. It appears on page 70 that verses 9-20 of chapter 16 of Mark are a later invention.[21]
 
5. On page 89 he says that verses 43 and 44 of chapter 22 of Luke are a later addition.[22]
 
 
 
6. On page 84 he points out that verses 3, and 4 of chapter 5 of the Gospel of John, are a later addition, That is from, "Waiting for the moving of the water...” to, ”...was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.”
 
7. On page 88 he specifies that verses 24 and 25 of chapter 21 of the Gospel of John are certainly later additions.[23]
 
Further on page 610 he says:
 
The miraculous events described by Luke have been mixed with traditional untruths and poetic exaggeration by the scribes. But it is very difficult in this age to separate the truth from falsifications. Any statement containing traditional untruths and poetic exaggeration is obviously very far from being an inspiration.
 
We may be allowed to draw the following four conclusions from the above statement of Eichhorn which has also been favoured by other German scholars.
 
1. The original Evangel has become extinct from the world.
 
2. The present gospels are a mixture of true and false descriptions.
 
3. The text of these gospels has been distorted and changed by the people of different times.
 
Celsus tried hard to inform the world that the Christians had changed their texts three or four times or more, to the extent that they had actually changed the subject matter of these texts.
 
 
 
 
4. The present gospels did not show any signs of existence before the end of the second century and the beginning of the third century AD.
 
Scholars such as Leclerc, Koppe, Michael, Lessing, Niemeyer and Manson agree with regard to our first conclusion, because they have all said that perhaps Matthew, Mark and Luke might have had the same copy in the Hebrew language of a document containing and account of the life of Christ. Matthew borrowed most of the contents of that script while Mark and Luke did not use as much of it as he did. Home also stated this in his commentary printed in 1822 AD,[24] but he does not seem to agree with their option, which, However, does not make any difference as far as our point of view is concerned.
 
Views on the Subject of the Chronicles
 
Almost all the Judaeo-Christian scholars are agreed on the point that both Books of Chronicles were written by the Prophet Ezra with the help of two other Prophets, Haggai and Zechariah. The above three Prophets are jointly supposed to be the author of this book. However, strangely enough, we know for a fact that the First Book of Chronicles contains many errors as has been admitted by the scholars of both the Christians and the Jews. They have said that through the folly of the author the name of the grandson was written instead the name of the son.
 
They have also said that Ezra, who wrote these books, did not even know which of them were sons and grandsons. The script from which Ezra copied was defective and incomplete and he could not distinguish the false from the true, as will be shown in the next chapter. This evidence is more than sufficient to reach the conclusion that these books were not written through inspiration. Their dependence on defective and incomplete documents is further proof.
 
However the two books of the Chronicles are held to be as sacred as the other books of the Bible both by the Christians and the Jews.
 
This also confirms our suspicion that, according to the Christian faith, it is not necessary for the Prophets, as we have seen before, to be free from committing sins. Similarly, they are not necessarily free from errors in their writings, with the result that these books cannot be considered to be written through inspiration.
 
Whatever we have so far discussed in this chapter is enough to show that the Christians are not in a position to make a definite claim that any single book of the Old or the New Testaments was written through inspiration.
 
The Muslim Attitude towards the Gospels
 
From all that has preceded it is quite clear that we can claim without the fear of being wrong that the original Pentateuch and the original Evangel have disappeared and become extinct from the world. The books we have today which go by these names are no more than historical accounts containing both true and false accounts of past ages. We strictly deny that the original Torah (Pentateuch) and the original Evangel existed at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace is on him) and that they were not changed until later. As far as the Epistles of Paul are concerned, even if we grant that they were really written by him, they are still not acceptable to us because it is our well-founded opinion that Paul was a traitor and a liar who introduced a completely new concept of Christianity, absolutely different from what Jesus himself preached.[25]
 
As far as the disciples of Jesus who were living after the Ascension of Jesus are concerned, they are held to be respectable and honest by the Muslims. They are not, however, considered to be Prophets (and therefore able to have received inspiration from God).
 
They were ordinary human beings and not free from human errors.
 
Their teachings and their statements have lost validity through the absence of authenticated historical verification: for instance, the absence of any sign of the existence of the present gospels until the end of the second century AD, the disappearance of the original Hebrew copy of Matthew’s gospel and the unavailability even of the same of the translator of the remaining translation, and the presence of accumulated errors and manipulations in the present text, As far as Mark and Luke are concerned, they were not disciples of Jesus, and there is no indication that they ever received inspiration from God However we do solemnly believe that the Torah (Pentateuch)
was the book revealed to the Prophet Moses: The Holy Qura`an says:[26]
 
We gave Moses the Book (Torah)
 
And we also find in the Holy Qura’an in reference to Jesus son of Mary:
 
We gave him the Evangel.[27]
 
And the nineteenth chapter of the Holy Qura’an, called ’Maryam’ after Mary the mother of Jesus, quotes Jesus as saying:
 
He hath given me the book (the Evangel).[28]
 
We reproduce below the opinion of a modern French scholar. Maurice Bucaille. He says on page 52 of his book The Bible, The Qur’an and Science:” Paul is the most controversial figure in Christianity, he was considered to be a traitor to Jesse’s thought by the family of Jesus and by the apostles who had: stayed in Jerusalem in the circle around James. Paul created Christianity at the expense of those whom Jesus had gathered around him to spread his teachings. He had not known Jesus during his lifetime and he proved the legitimacy of his mission; by declaring that Jesus, raised from the dead, had appeared to him on the road to Damascus.” (Wali Raazi)
 
The present gospels, chronicles and epistles are certainly not the Evangel referred to by the Holy Qura`an and so they are not, as such, acceptable to the Muslims. The Islamic teaching regarding the Pentateuch, the other books of the Old Testament, and the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament is that any biblical statements which are confirmed by the Qura’anic Revelation will be accepted and respected by the Muslims and any statements rejected by the Qura’an will be rejected by the Muslims. Any statements about which the Holy Qura’an is silent, the Muslims too should remain silent about without rejecting or accepting them.
 
Allah the Almighty addressed His Prophet Muhammad (Peace be on Him) in the Holy Qura’an in these words:
 
To thee we sent the[29] Book (Qura’an) in truth confirming what came before it of the Book, and assuring its safety.
 
The famous commentary on the Holy Qura’an, Ma’alim-u- Tanzeel, contains the following comments on this verse:
 
According to Ibn al-Jurayj, the last phrase of this verse, 'assuring its safety’, signifies that any statement produced by the People of the Book (the followers of Christianity and Judaism) will be accepted, subject to its confirmation by The Holy Qura’an, otherwise that particular statement will be considered as false and unacceptable. Saeed ibn Musayyab and Zihaq said the word ”Muhaimin” in this verse signifies ”the one who judges”, while 'Khalil' gave its meaning as ”protector and guard”. These different shades of meanings, however, do not change the general implication that any book or statement confirmed by The Holy Qura`an should be considered as the word of God; the rest are obviously excluded as not being the word of God.
 
What follows are the remarks on this matter from the commentary Tafseer-e-Mazhari:
 
If The Holy Qura’an bears witness to it, you are bound to confirm it and if it rejects or says it is false, it must be rejected by us.
 
If The Holy Qura’an has been silent, you too have to be silent because, in that case, the possibility of truth and falsehood will be equal.
 
Imam al-Bukhari cited a tradition of the Holy Prophet, reported by Ibn ’Abbas, in his Kitabu’sh-Shahadat along with its chain of authorities then the same hadith has been cited by him in Kitabu’l- I’tisam supported by a different chain of reporters, and the same hadith was again quoted by him in his book Kitabur Radd ’ala Jahmiyyah, reported by a different group of narrators.
 
Why do you go to the People of the Book, the Jews and the Christians, to seek injunctions about the Shari’a while your Book, The Holy Qur’an, revealed to Muhammad, the prophet of Allah, is the latest and freshest revelation of God. You recite it in its original form.
 
Allah Almighty has told you that the the Jews, have changed the Pentateuch, the Book of Allah, having written it with their own hands.
 
They started saying that it was from Allah, only to get a small amount of money in return. Does not your knowledge prevent you from asking them questions.
 
The other version of this hadith as cited by al-Bukhari in Kitabur- Radd’al Jahmiyyah is as follows:
 
O Muslims ! Why do you ask the People of the Book questions regarding anything when your own Book is the Word which God has revealed to your Prophet, Muhammad (Peace be on Him). It is new and fresh, pure and original, free from foreign touch. Allah has declared in His Book that the People of the Book have changed and distorted their Books. They have written them with their own hands and claimed that they come from God, (they did so) only for a small amount of money. Does the knowledge which has come to you not prevent you from seeking guidance from them? No, by God.’ we have not seen them asking you about what has been sent to you. Why then do you ask them knowing that their books have been distorted.
 
Kitabu’l-I’tisam contains the following statement of the companion Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with Him) regarding Ka’b al-Ahbar (an expert on the Bible and a scholar of 1slam):
 
Although he was one of the most truthful of those scholars of hadith who sometimes report traditions from the People of the Book, we have nevertheless found falsehood in them (in the reports of the Bible).
 
This implies that the falsehood found in those reports was due to the fact that those books had been distorted, not Ka’b al-Ahbar’s misstatement, because he is considered one of the righteous scholars of the Bible by the Companions of the Prophet. The phrase, “We have found falsehood in them,” clearly denotes that the Companions of the Prophet had the belief that all the Judaeo- Christian books had been distorted.
 
Every Muslim scholar who has examined the Torah and the Evangel has certainly refused to recognise the authenticity of these books. The author of the book Takhjeel Man Harrafaal Injeel said in chapter two of his book regarding the present gospels:
 
These gospels are not the true and genuine Gospel which was sent through the Prophet (Jesus) and revealed by God.
 
Later in the same chapter he said:
 
And the true Evange1 is only the one which was spoken by the tongue of Christ.
 
Again in chapter nine he stated:
 
Paul through his clever deception deprived all the Christians of their original faith, because he found their understanding so weak that he deluded them quite easily into believing anything he wished. By this means he totally abolished the original Pentateuch.
 
One of the Indian Scholars has written his 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 The Muslim Scholars
 
The Opinion of Imam Ar-Razi
The Opinion of Imam Al-Qurtubi
The Opinion of Al-Maqrizi
Two Claims to the Authenticity of the Gospels
Answer the First Claim
The Source of Clement's Letter
The Second Passage of Clement's Letter
The Third Passage of Clement's Letter
The Letters of Ignatius
The Cannons of Nicaea
Answer to the Second Claim to the Authenticity of the Gospels
The Gospel of Luke was Not Seen by Paul
 
The Opinion of Imam Ar-Razi
 
Imam ar-Razi[30] said in his book ’Matlib ul-Aliya’ in the chapter on Nubuwah (the prophethood) in the fourth section:
 
The effect of the original teaching of Jesus was very limited because he never preached the faith which the Christians ascribe to him. The idea of Father and son and the concept of trinity are the worst kind of atheism and association and are certainly the product of ignorance. Such heretical teachings cannot be ascribed to so great a Prophet as Jesus who was innocent of all such crimes. We are therefore certain that Jesus could have not preached this impure faith. He originally preached monotheism and not tritheism as the Christians claim. But this teaching of Jesus did not spread due to many historical factors. His message therefore remained very limited.
 
The Opinion of Imam Al-Qurtubi
 
Imam al-Qurtubi said in his book Kitabul A’lam Bima Fi Deeni’n-, Nasara Minal Fisadi Wal Awham:
 
The present gospels, which are called evangels, are not the same Evangel which the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be on Him)
alluded to in the words:
 
 
’And Allah revealed the Torah and the Evangel for the guidance of the earlier people.’
Then al-Qurtubi put forward the argument that the disciples of Jesus were not Prophets, hence not protected from impurity, and the miraculous events ascribed to them have not been proved by an unbroken chain of reporters. There are only statements made by isolated reporters, We also do not find any indication that the copies of these gospels are free from serious manipulations. They are wrong. If, for a moment, we accept that these reports are true, they are still not an argument for proving the truth of all the wonders attributed to the disciples, nor do they help in proving the claim of prophethood for them, because they never made any claim to prophethood; on the contrary, they solemnly confirmed that the Prophet Jesus was a preacher. Al-Qurtubi also said:
 
It is evident from the above discussion that the present gospels have not been authenticated by means of an unbroken chain of transmission, nor is there any indication that the copiers were protected from wrong action and therefore the possibility of error and fault from them cannot be overlooked. The presence of the above two factors deprives the gospels of their divine character, authenticity and hence their reliability. The proven presence of human manipulation within the text of these gospels is enough to prove their unacceptability. We quote, however, some examples from these books to show the carelessness of their copiers and blunders made by them.
 
After producing several examples he said:
 
These examples are sufficient to prove that the present gospels and the Pentateuch cannot: be trusted and that neither of them 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 distortions in their texts. The condition of other books of the Christian theologians can well be imagined in the light of the distorted texts of the Judaeo- Christian scriptures, books of such prime importance to them.
 
This book of al-Qurtubi can be seen in the Topkapi Library in Istanbul.
 
The Opinion of Al-Maqrizi
 
Al-Maqrizi was a great scholar of Islam in the eighth century AH. He said in the first volume of his history:
 
The Jews think that the book which they have is true and original, free from all corruption. The Christians, on the other hand, claim that the Septuagint[31] 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.[32]
 
The same difference of opinion is found among the Christians regarding the Evangel. For the Christians have four versions of the Evangel which have been combined together in a single book, The first version is of Matthew, the second of Mark, the third of Luke and the fourth of John.
 
Each of them wrote his gospel according to his own preaching in his own area with the help of his memory. There are innumerable contradictions, incompatibilities and inconsistencies between their various accounts regarding the attributes of Jesus, his message, the time of his Crucifixion and his genealogy. The contradictions are irresolvable.
 
Alongside this the Marcionites and the Ebionites have their separate version of the Evangels, each being different from the present canonical gospels. The Manichaeans also claim to have an Evangel of their own totally different from the current accepted gospels. They claim that this is the only genuine Evangel precinct in the world and the rest are inauthentic. They have another evangel called the Evangel of AD 70 (Septuagint) which is ascribed to Ptolamaeus. The Christians in general do not recognize this gospel as genuine.
 
In the presence of the above multifarious differences to be found within the corpus of the Judaeo-Christian revelation, it is almost impossible for them to sort out the truth.”
 
The author of Kashf az-Zunun said with regard to this matter that the Evangel was a book which was revealed to Jesus, the son of Mary, and, discussing the lack of authenticity and genuineness of the present gospels, he said:
 
The Evangel which was in reality revealed to Jesus was a single book which was absolutely free from contradictions and inconsistencies. It is the Christians who have put the false blame on Allah and His Prophet (Jesus) by ascribing the present gospel to them.
 
The author of Hidayatu’I-Hayara Fi Ajwibaru’l-Yahood wa’n- Nasara said quite explicitly:
 
The present Torah (Pentateuch) owned by the Jews is much distorted and defective, a fact known to every biblical reader. The Biblical scholars, themselves, are certain and sure of the fact that the original Torah which was revealed to Moses was genuine and totally free from the present distortions and corruptions. There was no corruption present in the Evangel which was originally revealed to Christ and which could not have included the event of the crucifixion of Christ, or other events like his resurrection three days after his death. These are, in fact additions inserted by their elders and have nothing whatever to do with divine Truth.4 He further said:
 
Several Islamic scholars have laboriously pointed out hundreds of specific examples and passages showing contradictions, incompatibilities and differences in the so-called Canonical Gospels.
 
It is only to avoid an unnecessary elongated discussion that we refrain from presenting more examples.
 
The first two parts of this book should be more than enough to prove the truth of this claim.
 
Two Claims to the Aunthenticity of the Gospels
 
Sometimes Protestant scholar try to misguide people with regard to the historicity of the Synoptic gospels. They put forward their claim that authentic proofs of the originality of the present gospels existed during the first and the second centuries AD, by reason of the fact that Clement and Ignatius testified to their presence.
 
The second claim advanced by them is that Mark wrote his gospel with the help of Peter while Luke wrote his gospel with the help of Paul. Since both Peter and Paul were men of inspiration, the above two gospels are also divinely inspired books.
 
It would seem to be our duty to examine the validity of these two misguiding claims, each one separately, in the light of available historical data and general human logic.
 
The main point of dispute regarding the originality of the present gospels is the lack of an uninterrupted continuity in transmission of the reporting authorities of any of the gospels. There is no evidence that any of the gospels have come down to us direct from Jesus through his disciples to the subsequent recipients so as to form a continuous chain of reliable reporters. To say it more simply, there should be a reliable record of a recognised disciple of Jesus bearing witness that whatever he has written was told to him by Jesus in the presence of one or more people of such and such names. Then the next reporter should bear witness to having received, heard or been told the same statement by that particular disciple of Jesus in the presence of such and such people. Then one or more of those present should have conveyed the same text to others by the same procedure so that the texts would have been conveyed to us with an uninterrupted chain of reporters traceable directly back to Jesus himself (as is the case with Qura’anic revelation).
 
Now we say, and without any fear of being wrong, that the Christians do not possess any such succession of authorities from the authors of the gospels to the end of the second century or the beginning of the third century AD. We, ourselves, have dug into their books to find any trace of such proofs, and also sought guidance from renowned Christian scholars but could not get anywhere. The priest, French,[33]  during our public polemic with him, tried to explain this away by saying that we do not have any such authorities due to the historical calamities which befell the Christians during the first three centuries. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the priest Clement and Ignatius had no such authority with them in their time.
 
We do not necessarily refute the conjectures and suppositions by which they ascribe these writings to their authors. What we are trying to say is that these suppositions and conjectures cannot be accepted as an argument for the genuineness of the word of God.
 
Neither do we deny the fact that the present gospels gained popularity towards the end of the second century or at the beginning of the third century, with all their faults, errors, and contradictions.
 
We must be allowed to bring to light some facts regarding Clement and Ignatius to eliminate any misapprehensions.
 
The Source of Clement's Letter
 
Clement, the Patriarch of Rome, is said to have written a letter to the church of Corinth. There is a disagreement between the scholars regarding the exact year that this letter was written.
 
Canterbury puts it between 64 and 70 AD. Leclerc claimed it to have been written in 69 AD, while Duchesne and Tillemont have said that Clement did not become Pope until 91 or 93 A.D. How Clement could have written letters to the church in 64 or 70 AD when he was not yet Pope is not explained. However, setting aside all the differences, the letter in question could have not been written later than 96 AD. Some sentences of this letter, however, happen to be identical to some of the sentences in one of the four gospels. This allowed the Christians to claim that Clement had copied those sentences from the gospel.
 
This claim is liable to be rejected for the following reasons:
 
Firstly, it is not sufficient to copy only some sentences from a gospel. If this were the case the claim of those people would be true who are considered heretics[34] 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,[35] who lived in the sixth century BC. For example he said under his moral no. 24: ”Behave towards other as you want to be behaved towards by others. You need only this moral because this is the root of all other morals. Do not wish for the death of your enemy because to do so would be absurd since his life is controlled by God.” Moral no. 53 goes: ”It is quite possible for us to overlook our enemy without revenging him. Our natural thoughts are not always had.”
 
Similar good advice can be found in the books of Indian and Greek philosophers.
 
Secondly, if Clement really had copied it from the gospel, all its contents would have been identical to the gospel, but such is not the case. On the contrary, he differed from the gospel in many places, showing that he had not copied what he wrote from the gospels. Even if it were proved that he had copied from a gospel, it might have been from any of the many gospels which were current in his time, as Eichhorn admitted in respect of the sentence spoken by a heavenly voice at the time of the descension of the Holy Spirit.
 
Thirdly, Clement was one of the followers of the disciples and his knowledge about Christ was no way less than that of Mark and Luke, which allows us to believe, and logically so, that he might have written the letter from reports received by himself directly. If there were an indication anywhere in his writing that he had copied it from any of the gospels, our claim would certainly have been out of place.
 
We quote below three passages from his letter.
 
He who loves Jesus should follow his commandment.
 
Jones claimed that Clement copied this sentence from John 14:15 which reads:
 
If ye love me, keep my commandments.
 
The apparent similarity between these two statements led Mr. Jones to suppose that Clement had copied it from John. However, he has chosen to 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 won findings, thc Gospel of John was written in 98 AD. It is nothing but a desperate effort to provide some authenticity to the present gospels.
 
Horne said on page 307, Vol. 4 of his commentaries printed 1824.
 
According to Chrysostom and Epiphanius, the early scholars and according to Dr. Mill, Fabricius, Leclerc and Bishop Tomline, John wrote his gospel in 97 AD, while Mr. Jones situates this gospel in 98 AD.
 
However, a true lover always follows what his love commands, otherwise he would not be a 1over in the true sense of the word.
 
Lardner justly said in his Commentaries printed 1827 on Page 40 of Vol., 2:
 
I understand that the copying of this letter from the gospel is doubtful, because Clement was fully aware of the fact that any claim to the love of Christ necessitated practical obedience to his commandments, because Clement had been in the company of the disciples of Jesus.
 
The Second Passage of Clement's Letter
 
It appears in chapter thirteen of this letter:
 
We follow what is written, because the Holy Spirit has said that a wise man is never proud of his wisdom. And we should keep in mind the words of Christ who said at the time of preaching patience and practice:
 
”Be ye merciful, that ye be shown mercy, forgive that ye he forgiven; ye will be acted upon, the same as you will act upon others, as you will give so shall you be given, you will be judged as you will judge upon others; as you will pity, so shall you be pitied upon and with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to You again.”
 
The Christians claim that this passage was taken by Clement from Luke 6:36-38 and Matt.7: 1,2,12. The passage from the Luke is this:
 
Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful. Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you mete.
 
The passage from Matthew 7:1,2 reads:
 
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
 
And in verse 12:
 
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
 
The Third Passage of Clement's Letter
 
Chapter forty-six of his letter contains this passage:
 
Remember the words of Lord Christ who said, Woe unto the man who has committed a sin. It would have been better for him if he had not been born, that he should harm those chosen by me. And whosoever shall offend my little ones, it will be better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
 
The Christians have claimed that the above passage was copied from Matthew 26:24 and 18:6 and Mark 9:42 and Luke 17:2: reproduce these verses below:
 
The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.
 
Matthew 18:6 contains the following lines:
 
But 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 Commentaries printed 1827 vol. 2 page 37 that:
 
The above two passages of Clement are his longest passages and this is why Paley confined himself to them to support the claim of authenticity for the gospels. This claim does not, however, stand to reason because Clement would at least have made a reference to the gospels had he copied any passage from them and he would also have copied the rest of the related text or, if that was not possible, the text reproduced by him should have been totally consistent and similar to the text of the gospel. However none of these conditions are met. Such being the case, there is no possibility of its have been copied from the gospel.
 
1t is surprising to see Luke being referred to as the teacher of Clement, imparting to him the knowledge which he must already have had, being the companion of the disciples just as Luke was.
 
In volume 2 of his commentaries, Lardner remarked about the above two passages:
 
When we study the writings of those who enjoyed the company of the apostles or of the other followers of our Lord who, like the evangelists, were fully conversant with the teachings of Christ, we find ourselves very much in doubt without the evidence of a clear reference. We are faced with the difficulty of ascertaining whether Clement copied written statements of Christ or whether he is simply reminding the Corinthians of the sayings which he and the Corinthians had heard from the Apost1es and their followers. Leclerc preferred the former opinion ,while the Bishop of Paris preferred the latter.
 
If we accept that the three Gospels had been compiled prior to that time, in that case Clement could possibly have copied from them, though the word and expression may not exactly be identical. But that he actually has copied is not easy to confirm, because this man was fully acquainted with these matters even prior to the compilation of the Gospels. It is also possible that Clement would have described events already known to him without referring to the Gospels even after their compilation out of his old habit. In both the cases, the faith in the truth of the Gospels is reaffirmed, obviously so in first case, and in the second case because his words correspond to the text of the Gospels, proving that the. Gospels were so widely known that the Corinthians and Clement both had the knowledge of them.
 
Through this we achieve the belief that the evangelists faithfully conveyed the words consisting of the true teachings of Christ. These words deserve the most careful preservation, though there we have a difficulty. I think that the most scholars will agree with the opinion of leclerc, however, as Paul advises us in Acts 20:35 with the words:
 
’And to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.’
It is, I am sure, generally acknowledged that Paul did not copy the above statement from any letter but just quoted the words of the Christ which were in his knowledge and in the know1edge of others.
 
This does not mean that it may be accepted as a general rule but this method can possibly be applied in letters. We know that Polycarp also used this method in his writings. We are quite sure that he also copied from the written gospels.
 
It is clear from the above statement that the Christians are not certain that Clement really copied from the canonical gospels, and any claim to this effect is only based on conjecture.
 
We do not agree with the conclusion of Lardner that in both case the truth of the present gospels is proved because there can be no certainty in the presence of doubt. As the evangelists incompletely recorded the words of Christ in this particular instance, they might have done the same in other places too, and they might have not recorded the exact words used.
 
Moreover, if we overlook this point for a moment, it only proves that these particular sentences are the words of Christ, it does not in any way help us to believe that all the contents of the gospels are the genuine words of Christ. The knowledge of a certain statement cannot be an argument for the acceptance of other statements. If that were the case, all the rejected gospels would have to be accepted as genuine simply because some sentences of Clement bear some similarity with them.
 
We are also confident in our refutation of the claim that Polycarp also used the method of copying from the gospels in spite of his own knowledge, gained by being, like Clement, also a companion of the disciples of Jesus. Both of them are of equal status. His copying from the gospels cannot prove their genuineness. It is, on the other hand, possible that like Paul he might have ascribed some statements to Christ.35
 
The Letters of Ignatius
 
Let us now find out the truth regarding the letters written by lgnatius, the Bishop of Antioch. Lardner said in vol. 2 of his commentary;
Eusebius and Jerome both mentioned certain of his letters.
 
Apart from these some other letters are also attributed to him, which are generally considered by most of the scholars to be false and concocted. My opinion is no different. There are two copies of his seven letters, the large and small. Except for Mr. Weston and a few of his followers, all the scholars have decided that additions have been made in the larger one, the smaller version, however, can possibly be ascribed to him.
 
I have carefully made a comparative study of both the texts and my study revealed that the smaller version was turned into a larger one by the inclusion of many additions and insertions. It is not the case that the larger was turned into the smaller through the exclusion of some of the contents. The ancient writings, also, are more in accordance with the smaller version.
 
The question whether Ignatius really did write these letters remains to be settled. There is great dispute and disagreement on this point. The great scholars have made free use of their pens in expressing their opinions. The study of the writing of both the camps has made the question all the more complicated. However, in my opinion, this much is settled and decided; that these are the sames letter which were present in the time of Origen and were read by Eusebius. Some of the sentences are not appropriate to the time of Ignatius. It is therefore better if we accept that these sentences are later additions instead of rejecting all the letters on the ground of these sentences, especially keeping in view the crisis of shortage of copies which we are facing.
 
It is also possible that some of the followers of Arius36 might have made additions to the smaller version just as they did to the larger Additions may also have been made by others.
 
Paley writes in his footnotes:
 
"In the past, the translation of three letters of lgnatius were present in the Syrian language and were printed by William Cureton.
 
It is almost certain that the smaller letters, which were revised by Ussher, contained many additions.”
 
The above writings of the Christian scholars bring out the following facts:
 
1. All the 1etters except these seven letters are definitely fabricated and forged according to the Christian scholars and are therefore unacceptable.
 
2. The larger version of the letters is similarly not genuine in the opinion of all the scholars except Mr. Weston and a few of his followers.
 
3. As far as the smaller collection is concerned, there is great dispute and difference of opinion among great scholars with regards to its authenticity. Both the groups of scholars have their own arguments against or in favour of its authenticity. The group of scholars who have favored it also admit its having been subjected to later modifications their by Arius or by others, with the result that this collection also appears to be equally of doubtful authenticity.
 
It seems most probable that this collection of letters was also put together in the third century AD similarly to the other letters. This should not present too much of a surprise, in view of the general practice of the theologians of early centuries who frequently prepared false writings and attributed to other writers to suit their whims.
 
Historical records bear witness to the fact that there were not less than seventy-five gospels which were falsely attributed to Christ, to Mary and to the disciples of Christ. It does, therefor, not seem particularly far-fetched to assert that these seven letters, too, were prepared and attributed to Ignatius, similar to other such letters and similar to the gospel of Tatian[36] which was falsely attributed to him. Adam Clarke said in the introduction of his commentary:
 
The book which was genuinely ascribed to Tatian has disappeared and the one which is now attributed to him is doubtful in the eyes of most of the scholars, and they are right in their suspicion.
 
Let us ignore all the above points for a moment and take it that the 1etters in question really were originally written by lgnatius. Even these does not help much because, after the additions and modifications inserted by later people, they have lost their originality and are no longer acceptable.
 
According to the scholars some sentences of these letters were certainly added later on and so there is nothing to remove suspicion from other sentences which are supposed by them to be original.
 
They, likewise, might have been added to or modified in subsequent times.
 
Eusebius said in chapter 23 of the fourth volume of his history:
 
Dionysius, the Bishop of Corinth, admitted that he had written several letters on the request of some of his friends, but those deputies of Satan filled them with profanities and altered some parts and added others. This made me all the more, aggrieved. Therefore, there is no wonder if someone made intentional additions in the holy books of our Lord, because they had no qualms in respect of the books of other authorities.
 
 
 
Adam Clarke has said in his introduction to his commentary:
 
The great works of Origen have been lost and several of his Commentaries which are available contain an abundance of unfactual and imaginary comments which in itself is a powerful argument in favour of the fact that they have been interpolated.”
 
Michael Musaka, a Protestant scholar, has said in his Arabic work, Ajwibatu’l-Engeleer Ala Abateel-At-Taqleedeen, section one, chapter 10:
 
As far as their habit of distorting the statements of the ancients, we should first produce our arguments so that our position may not be similar to these of our opponents, that is to say, so that our claims may not be considered as baseless as theirs. We proceed to say that the book Afshin which is attributed to John Chrysostom, the Golden Mouth,[37] 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 have39 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 possessed by the Basilians,[38] and we did not find a single word in these books denoting transformation. This story of transformation of the bread and wine was invented by Nicephorus, the patriarch of Constantinople, and is ridiculous. Now, when they could have made a play of such a pious text as Afshin and altered its contents to suit their unholy intentions and when they did not hesitate to attribute their distortions to such a pious man, how can they be trusted and how can they be free from the suspicion of changing and distorting the texts of their ancestors.
 
We have had our own experience in recent years that Deacon Ghariel of Egypt, who was a Catholic, took great pains and spent a lot of money in correcting the translation of the commentary of Chrysostom from the original Greek copy. The Orthodox scholars, who were expert in the Greek and Arabic languages, compared it in Damascus and testified to its accuracy, and then a certified version was prepared. But Maximus did not allow its publication in Tyre.41 This copy was given to Bishop Alexis of Spain who made a thorough examination of the book. Both of them were totally ignorant of the original Greek version. In order to make it correspond with the teachings of the Pope they made many changes through additions and omissions using their own discretion. Having so spoilt the whole book they attested to it with their stamps and then it was allowed to be published. It was not until the publication of its first volume, when it was compared with the original manuscript which was in safe custody with the Orthodox, that their unholy act of manipulation was uncovered, with the result that they became the subject of common reproach. Ghariel was so appalled at this incident that he never recovered and died of shock.
 
Musaka further said:
 
We produce the unanimous witness of their elders from one of the Arabic books generally available there. This is a report which was unanimously passed in a meeting, along with all its various parts, by the priests of the Maronites, their patriarchs and scholars, with the permission of Monsignor Samani. This report bears the seal of the Church of Rome. It was printed in Tyre with the permission of the chiefs of the Catholics. Discussing the ritual of the offerings this report said that the old liturgies were still present in the churches, free from errors and faults, but they have been attributed to some saints and the pious men who were not the authors of these books, nor could they possibly have written them. Some of them were included by the copiers only to suit their unholy needs. It is more than enough for you to admit that your churches are full of fabricated and forged writings.
 
He further said:
 
We are fully aware that our enlightened generation would not dare to make alterations in the holy books, as they are fully wise to the fact that they are watched by the eyes of the protectors of the gospels. However we are not sure of the circumstances which prevailed from the fifth century to the seventh century AD, known as the dark ages, when the Popes and the priests enjoyed a barbarous kingdom of their own. Some of them did not even know how to write and read and the helpless Christians of the East were living a very distressed life, always anxious to save their souls. What happened in that period is best known to them alone. Whenever we come to know the history of that terrible age, and think of the conditions ruling over the Christian church, which had become a symbol of corruption, our grief and sorrow knows no limits.
 
Keeping in view the facts reproduced above, we leave the judgment to our readers to see the truth of our claim themselves.
 
The Cannons of Nicaea
 
The number of the canons passed by the council of Nicaea 42 was twenty. Subsequently many additions were made to them. The Catholics derive their arguments for the Popes authority from Canons No. 37 and 44. It is written on Page 68 and 69 of ’Les Treize Epitres’ of the second letter printed in 1849 AD:
 
The aforementioned council prescribed only twenty canons according to the witness of the history of Theodorus and the writings of Gelasius. The Fourth Ecumenical[39] 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.
 
Answer to the Second Claim to the Authenticity of the Gospels
 
The second false claim made by the Christian scholars in order to support the authenticity of the gospels is their contention that the gospel of Mark was written with the help of Peter. This is another clever contrivance to misguide the general populace. Let us first have the wittiness of Irenaeus. He said:
 
Mark, the follower and the translator of Peter, wrote the teachings of Peter after the death of Paul and Peter.
 
Lardner said in his commentary;
In my opinion Mark did not write his gospel before 63 or 64 AD.
 
This period is also in accordance with the description of the ancient writer Irenacus, who said that Mark wrote his gospel after the death of Peter and Paul. Basnage agreed with Irenaeus and said that Mark wrote his gospel in 66 AD after the death of Peter and Paul, The witnesses of Basnage and Irenaeus are sufficient to prove that this gospel was written after the death of Peter and Paul, and that Peter certainly did not see the gospel of Mark,[40] and the statement, often cited to prove that Peter saw it, is weak and unacceptable. It is why Se author of Murshid ut-Talibeen, in spite of all his religious preoccupations said on page 170 of his book printed in 1840:
 
He has falsely answered that the gospel of Mark was written under the guidance of Peter.
 
This claim of its being written in the life of Peter has therefore no grounds and hence, is rejected.
 
The Gospel of Luke was Not Seen by Paul
 
Similarly the gospel of Luke was not seen by Paul. This is true for two reasons:
 
1. Firstly because the findings of the modem Protestant scholars are that Luke wrote his gospel in 63 AD in Achaias. It is established that Paul was released from prison in 63 AD. After that nothing is known about him up to his death but it is most probable that he went to Spain in the West and not towards the Churches of the East, and Achaias is one of the Eastern cities. Most possibly Luke had sent his gospel to Theophilus who was indeed the real cause of writing it. The author of Murshid-u-Talibeen wrote on page 161 of volume two, printed in 1840, discussing the history of Luke:
 
As Luke[41] did not write anything related to Paul after his release from prison, we know nothing about his travels from his release to his death.
 
Gardner said in his Commentaries printed 1728 vol. 5, p. 350:
 
Now we want to write about the life of the disciple, from his release to his death, but we are not helped by Luke in this regard.
 
However we do find some traces in other books of the modem time.
 
The ancient writers do not help. We find great dispute over the question of where Paul went after his release.
 
In the light of the above, the contention of some of modem scholars that he went to the Churches of the East after his release is not proved. He said in his epistle to the Romans 15:23,24:
 
But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you; Whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you; for I trust to see you in my journey…
It is quite explicit from the above statement of their apostle that he had an intention to go to Spain, and at the same time we know that he never went to Spain before his imprisonment. It is therefore, quite logical that he might have gone to Spain after his release, because we do not see any reason for him to have abandoned his intention to travel to Spain. It appears in the Book of Acts 20:25:
 
And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.
 
This statement also indicates that he had no intention to visit the Churches of the East. Clement, the Bishop of Rome, said in his letter:
 
Paul, in order to unveil the truth to the world, went to the end of the West and then reached the sacred p1ace (i.e. died).”
 
This too obviously implies that he went towards the West and not to the East before his death.
 
Lardner first reproduced the statement of Irenaeus as follows:
 
Luke, the servant of Paul, wrote in a book the tidings that Paul had preached in his sermon.
 
He further said:
 
The context of the description indicates that this (Luke's writing the gospel) happened after Mark had written his gospel, that is, after the death of Peter and Paul.
 
On the grounds of this statement it is physically impossible for Paul to have seen the gospel of Luke. Besides, even if we assume that Paul saw this gospel, it does not prove and thing because we do not consider him to have been inspired by God and a statement made by an uninspired person could not achieve the status of inspiration simply by the fact of Paul having seen it.
 
Human Distortion of the Bible: Alterations, Additions and Omissions
 
• Alterations in the Text of the Bible
• Alterations # 1 to 14
• First Conclusion to Sixth Conclusion
• Alterations # 15 to 32
• Additions to the Text of the Bible
• Distortion in Luther’s Translation
• Omissions in the Text of the Bible
 
There are two kinds of biblical distortions: explicit distortions which are directly related to clear changes in the text, which arise through alteration, omission or addition to the original text; and implicit distortions which are brought about by deliberate misinterpretation without any actual textual change. There is no dispute over the existence of such distortions in the Bible since all Christians, both Protestants and Catholics, admit their existence.
 
According to them the verses of the Old Testament contain-ing references to Christ and the injunctions which were, to the Jews, of perpetual value were distorted by the Jews through misinterpretation.
 
Protestant theologians claim that the Catholics have distorted many texts of both the Old and the New Testament. The Catholics similarly accuse the Protestants of having distorted 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 misguiding 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 acknowledged 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 version was considered by the Christians to be inauthentic and distorted, the Greek version is still held to be authentic by the Greek and Eastern 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.
 
Alteration No. 1:
 
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 years[1] and the Samaritan version gives it as one thousand three hundred and seven years. A table is given in the commentary 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 a s at the time of the flood.
 
This table is as follows:
 
NAME
 HEBREW VERSION
 SAMARITAN VERSION
 GREEK 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[42]
 
 
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 erroneous 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 Adam and, according to the latter, he was born seven hundred and thirty-two years after the death of Adam. In view of this serious discrepancy, the renowned historian of the Jews, Josephus, who is also recognized by the Christians, did not accept the statement of any of the three versions and decided that the correct period was two thousand 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 another 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 born after the Flood.
 
This table is as follows:
 
NAME
 HEBREW VERSION
 SAMARITAN VERSION
 GREEK VERSION
 
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
 
Terah[43]
 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 born 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.[44]
 
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 hundred and ninety-two years after his death. Secondly, in the Greek version 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 versions 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 theologian of the fourth century, Augustan, and other ancient writers favoured the statement of the Greek version. Horsley, the commentator, 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.
 
Horne says in the first volume of his commentary:
 
The scholar Hales presented strong argument 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.
 
Kennicott 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[45]
 
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 alterations 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[46]
 
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 version was correct, while the scholars Parry and Verschuur claimed that the Hebrew version was authentic, but it is generally know 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'[47] and Ebal as the place of curse.
 
The above makes us understand that Kennicott and other scholar have favoured the Samaritan version and that Kennicott forwarded irrefutable 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 year`. 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.
 
Alteration No. 5: Sister or Wife
 
I Chronicles of the Hebrew version contains:
 
And whose sister’s name was Micah[48]
 
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[49] old when he died, and Ahaziah was enthroned immediately 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 follows:
 
Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.[50]
 
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 people 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 ’kaf” (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 mistake 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 versions 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.[51]
 
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 statement 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 Hebrews10:5 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 statement; “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 concludes:
 
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.[52]
 
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 useless. 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 unexplainable.
 
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 Gileadand fought with Ephraim:
 
and the men of Gilead smote Ephraim, because they said, Ye Gileadites are fugitives of Ephraim among the Ephraimites and among theManassites.
 
Alteration No. 12: Four or Forty

II Samuel l 5:7 contains:
 
And it came to pass after forty years that Absalom said unto the King”, Here the word ’forty’ is undoubtedly wrong: the correct number is four. Adam Clarke said 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 alternations have been made in this verse.
 
This is a plain admission that a single verse contains three distortions.
 
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 second 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, andAshbel, 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 and, seeing no way out, they put the blame on the Prophet Ezra.
 
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 contradictions 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 nothing 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 Prophet 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.[53] 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.
 
Clement of Alexandria said;
All the divine books were destroyed. Then Ezra was inspired to rewrite them.
 
Tertullian observed:
 
It is general1y 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 recompi1ed 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 observations of the commentator. Adam Clarke.
 
First Conclusion to Sixth Conclusion
 
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 original Torah, Ezra could have not opposed it in his writings,[54] and must have copied according to it, without trusting its defective genealogical tables as he did and without distinguishing right from wrong.
 
The contention that Ezra copied it from the defective versions available to him at the time, and was unable to remove errors contained in them, exactly as he was unable to do in the case of the defective genealogical tables, makes it lose its divine character and, therefore, 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 established 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 fornication with his two daughters, resulting in their pregnancy, and then two sons being born 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 11where the Prophet Solomon is reported to have converted to paganism, 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 shameful events described in the Bible which make the hair of the faithful stand on end. All these events have been rejected by irrefutable 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 Ezra 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 inspiration 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 inspiration. Though the other two Evangelists, Matthew and John, are considered 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.
 
Alterations # 15 to 32
 
Alteration No. 15
 
Under his comments on l 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 44we find names which are different from each other.[55] 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 mentioned 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 descried 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 provided 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
 
We find this statement in II Chronicles:
 
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign.[56]
 
The word ’eight’ in this verse is incorrect and is contrary to the statement of II Kings which says:
 
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign.[57]
 
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 wives 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,[58] Adam Clarke said in volume 4 of his book:
 
At this place the Hebrew text has undergone a great altercation, 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 Corinthians, 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 statements must be wrong. The commentary of Henry and Scott contains 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 alternatives 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 the revelations 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 warn 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 commentary:
 
It seems that the Hebrew text has been changed in the verses detailed below:
 
Malachi 3:1 2. Psalms 16:8-11 3. Micah 5:2 4. Amos 9:11-12 5. Psalms 4:6-8 6. Psalms 110:4 1.
 
The first verses in Mal. 3:I seems to have been altered because Matthew reports it in his Gospel in chapter 11:10 in a: from 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.[59] Besides this Matthew also reported these words, ”Shall prepare the way Before ye” While Malachi's statement is, ”Shall prepare the way before me.” Horne admitted in a footnote:
 
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 show Clear differences[60] 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 9:11-12.
 
 
5. Psalms 4;6-8 is quoted by Paul in his letter to the Hebrews in verses 5 to 7. The two versions are quite different.[61]
 
Alterations No. 27-29: Contradictory Margin Notes Exodus 21:8, in the Hebrew version, contains a negative statement while the statement included in its margin is affirmative.
 
This verse contains injunctions with regard to keeping maid servants.
 
Similarly we find in Leviticus 11:21 laws regarding birds and creeping things on the earth[62]. The statement in the Hebrew text is negative 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.[63]
 
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.
 
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’[64], the third person singular.
 
Alteration No. 3l; 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 ‘eagle’.[65]
 
 
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’[1]
 
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 acknowledged 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 decision through an official declaration.
 
In 397 another grand council was convened in Carthage. One hundred and twenty-seven great scholars of the time participated in this council. The learned and the most celebrated theologian of the 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 hundred 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 rejected. They also rejected the decision of their elders with regard to a particular 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, especially the Second Book of Maccabess.
 
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 authentic 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. Thc Catholics still insist on their being divine. This implies that any consensus of the Christian scholars 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 Protestants 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 a s was the Latin translation. 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 translation, 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 translation, would have also tried to change the original version to cover their crime.
 
Strangely the Protestants did not reject the part of the book of other along with all other books, because in this book the name of God 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 returned from Babylon 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 hook. 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 hook 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.[66]
 
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,[67] The first king of this kingdom was Saul,[68] 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-havoth-jair unto this day.[69]
 
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 period much later than that of Jair, because such phrases can be used only to denote the remote past.
 
The renowned scholar Home made the following 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 second verse, because the author, be he Moses or someone else, could not say ’unto this day’, it is therefore most predominantly presumed that the original text was: ”Jair, the son of Manassch took all the country of Argob unto the coast of
Geshuri and Maachathi and called them after his own name and after a few centuries these words were added in the margin 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 overlook 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 the compilation of which was started by Colmet and completed by Zahit and Taylor, contains the following:
 
There are certain verses in the Pentateuch which are clearly not the word of Moses. For instance, Number, 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 Torah (Pentateuch) contains passages that are not the word of Moses. The scholars are not definite about the author 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 Ezra[70] contains his admission and concern over the perversion of the Israelites while the Book of Nehemiah[71] informs 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.[72]
 
We historically know that this mount was called ’The Mount of the Lord’, only after the construction of the temple, built by Solomon four hundred and fifty years after the death of Moses. Adam Clarke decided in his introduction to the Book of Ezra, that this sentence is a later addition, and said:
 
This mount was not known by this name prior to the construction of the Temple.
 
Additions No. 6 & 7: Further Additions to Deuteronomy
 
It says in Deuteronomy chapter 2 verse 12:
 
The Horims also dwelt in Seri before-time; but the children 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.[73]
 
Adam CIarke 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 death.
 
Addition No. 9
 
We find in the Book of Exodus:
 
And the children of 1srael 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.[74]
 
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 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 fact is that all the five books ascribed to Moses (the Torah) are not his writings as we have proved in the first part of this book with irrefutable arguments.
 
Addition 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. What he did in the Red Sea, so shall he do in the brooks of Arnon.[75]
 
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 introduction to Genesis, Adam Clarke decided that this verse, was a later addition, 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 places.[76] This name was given to it by the Israelites after the victory of Palestine. Formerly it was called Kirjath Arba,[77] 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 ascertained from Judges chapter 18.[78] 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 helplessly 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 contain passages which have been added to them later by unknown people. 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 I 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 certain that this chapter was originally the first chapter of the book of Joshua.[79]
 
The marginal note which existed at this place written by some Jewish scholar said:
 
Most of the commentators say that the book of Deuteronomy ends on the prayer of Moses for the twelve tribes, that is, on the sentence. ’Happy art thou 0 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 verse, 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 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 version is wrong. Four verses, that is from 6 to 9, are extremely irrelevant[80] 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.[81]
 
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 sentence[82] and other similar sentences which are present 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[83] Moreover this book has eight other instances[84] 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?[85]
 
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 maintained 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 born 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.[86] 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 comments 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 translations.
 
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 happening after his death.
 
Addition No. 23: Levite or Son of Judah
 
The Book of Judges,[87] 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 people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men.[88]
 
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 generals 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 exaggerated number makes us believe that the text must have been distorted here, either by adding some words or by omitting others.
 
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 that:
 
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[89] was a later addition. 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 Holy books, added fictious 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 original text arbitrarily as they liked. These additions subsequently became part of all the translations through the ignorance or carelessness of the copiers. This shows that the Protestants falsely claim that the Jews did not make any changes in the books, that they were Godfearing 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.[90]
 
The Gospel of Luke contains:
 
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.[91]
 
The name Philip is certainly wrong in all the above three versions. The historical records do not agree that the name of Herodias’ husband was Philip.
 
On the contrary, Josephus claimed that his name was also Herod. Since Philip is definitely wrong, Horne admitted on page 632 of the first volume of his commentary:
 
Most probably the word 'Philip' was wrongly written by the copier in the text. It should therefore be excluded from the text. Griesbach 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 argument 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.[92]
 
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 modem English translations while the King James version still contains them. It is surprising 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 written in Matthew:
 
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah, the prophet, saying. 'and they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued.'
The word ’Jeremiah’ in this verse is one of the well-known mistakes of Matthew, because this statement can be traced neither to Jeremiah nor any other book of the Old Testament. However, a passage 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 difficult 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 Mathew. 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 Matthew mistakenly wrote Jeremiah in place of Zechariah.
 
Home observed on pages 385 and 386 of the second volume of his commentary printed in 1822:
 
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 said:
 
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 omitting 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 mistake[93] as was admitted by Ward, Buchanan and others. Other possibilities are weak and unsupported by arguments. Home 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 correct. We have presented this witness on the presumption that it was the mistake of the copier.
 
Let 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.[94]
 
The word Abiathar in this passage is wrong as has been admitted by the above-mentioned author. Similarly the following two sentences are wrong: ”and that they were with him,” and ”to them which were 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 12:3-4 has:
 
Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungered, 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, 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 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 distortion in all seven places is proved, though it happens to be against the apparent evidence that it was 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 Horne presented argument to prove that it was added later to the text on pages 330 and 331 of his first volume and then remarked:
 
Griesbach finding out the falsity of this sentence has understandably excluded it from the text.[95]
 
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.[96]
 
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 al1 his prejudice decided that these words should be excluded from the text. The compilers of Henry and Scott also followed the opinion of Horne and Adam Clarke.
 
St. Augustine. the great theologian and scholar of the fourth century 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 trinitarian 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 admitted 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 early times.
 
3. It was never referred to by the ancient theologians nor by any historians of the church.
 
4.The fathers of the Protestant church either have excluded it or called it doubtful.
 
Those who consider this verse genuine also have a number of arguments:
 
1. This verse is found in the ancient Latin translation and in most of the versions of it.
 
2. This passage is present in the books of Greek doctrine, the prayer-book of the Greek church and the old prayer-book of the English church. It was cited by some early Latin theologians.
 
The arguments presented in the second group makes us understand the following two points. Firstly, before the availability of printing facilities it was possible for the copiers and opponents to manipulate the text to suit their whims.
 
This is evident from the examples of distortions inserted in the text cited above by the first group. The passage in question was removed from the Greek versions and from all other translations except the Latin translation. Secondly, even the faithful Christians used to make deliberate alterations in the holy texts for theological reasons. When the faithful and the fathers of the faith do not hesitate to change the text, blaming the copiers and the people of other sects cannot be justified. The records show that they did not miss any opportunity of altering the text before the invention of the printing press. In fact, they are still making alterations.
 
Distortion in Luther’s Translation
 
The founder of the Protestant faith and great theologian, Martin Luther, first translated the holy books into the German language. He did not include this passage in his translation. His translation was printed several times in his lifetime without this passage.
 
In his old age, in 1546 when this translation was being reprinted, Luther, fully aware of the general practice of the Christians, felt it necessary to include in his will regarding this edition that no one should make any changes it. They were not able by their nature to act upon his will and they included this passage in his translation less than thirty year after his death.
 
The first people to add this passage were the people of Frankfurt when they printed this translation in 1574.Subsequently, either from the fear of God or for other reasons, they again excluded this verse from it. The trinitarians felt this exclusion very badly, and once again it was added to it by the people of Wittenberg in 1596 and by the people of Hamburg in 1599. Again the people of Wittenberg, for some unknown reason, excluded it from the second edition. From then onward, the Protestants accepted its inclusion in the text. In this way the Protestants unanimously acted against the will of their spiritual father. The famous Unitarian scientist, Isaac Newton, wrote a treatise of nearly fifty pages where he proved that this and I Timothy 2:16. are both forged and distorted. The latter verse says:
 
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles believed on in the world, received up into glory.
 
Since the above verse also was helpful in establishing the concept of trinity, it was added to the text by the enthusiasts.
 
Addition No. 31
 
The Book of Revelation contains the words:
 
I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day,[97] and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and what thou seest, write in a book.
 
Griesbach and Sholtz are in agreement on the point that the word, ’the first and the last’ are not genuine and were added later. Some translators have omitted them, and in the Arabic translations printed in 1671, and 1821, the words Alpha and Omega were also[98] omitted.
 
Addition No.32
 
Acts 8:37 says:
 
And Philip[99] said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
 
This verse is also a later addition made by some enthusiast to support the trinity.
 
Griesbach and Sholtzare both agreed on this point.[100]
 
Addition No. 33
 
The Book of Acts contains thefollowing:
 
And he said, who art thou Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.[101]
 
Griesbach and Sholtz agreed that the sentence ”it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” is a later addition.
 
Addition No. 34
 
The Book of Acts chapter 10verse 6 contains:
 
He lodgeth with one Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the seaside. He shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.
 
Griesbach and Sho1tz are positive that the words 'he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do' are later addition[102] and not genuine.
 
Addition No. 35
 
I Corinthians chapter 10 verse 28 says:
 
But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that showed it and for conscience’ sake: for the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.
 
The last sentence, ’for the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof,’ is not genuine and is an addition.[103] Horne, after proving this verse to be an addition, said on page 337vol. 2:
 
Griesbach, after being sure of its being an addition, excluded it from the text. The truth is that this sentence has no support and is certainly an addition. Most probably it was taken from verse 26.
 
Adam Clarke said about this sentence:
 
Griesbach excluded it from the text, and in fact it has no authority.
 
Addition No. 36
 
The Gospel of Matthew contains:
 
A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things.[104]
 
The word ’heart’ in this verse is an addition.[105] Horne, after proving this, said on page 330 of vol. 2 of his book that this word had been taken from Luke 6:45.
 
Addition No. 37: Addition to the Lord’s Prayer
 
We find in Matthew chapter 6verse 13:
 
And lead us not into Temptation, but deliver us from evil:
 
For thine is the Kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.
 
The words ‘For thine is…’ etc.[106] up to the end of this verse are an addition. The followers of the Roman Catholic sect are certain of this fact. It does not exist in the Latin version nor in any of the translations of this sect. The Catholics are very displeased at its addition, and strongly reproach those responsible for it. Ward, the Catholic, said in his Book of Errors (printed in1841) on page 18:
 
Erasmus greatly condemned this sentence. Bullinger also said that this sentence had been added later and the name of the includer is not yet known. Laurentius Valla and Lamina's claim that this passage was omitted from the word of God has no support of argument. He should have reproached the people who played with the word of God so daringly.
 
Other scholars have also rejected it. Adam Clarke, who has doubt about its being a later addition, still admits that Griesbach and Wettstein rejected this verse. According to the scholars of both the Catholics and the Protestants, this sentence has been added to the payer of Christ. This shows that even such a famous prayer could not escape from their practice of distortion.
 
Addition No. 38
 
The Gospel of John chapter 7verse 53 and the first eleven verses of chapter 8 are later addition. Though Horne does not support this[107] opinion, he still said on page 310 of vol. 4 of his commentary:
 
The following scholars do not acknowledge the genuineness of this verse: Erasmus,[108] Calvin, Beza, Leclerc, Grotius, Wettstein, Semler, Sholtz, Maurus,Haenlien, Paulinus, Schmidt and many other authors mentioned by Wolf and Koecher.
 
He further said:
 
Chrysostom and Theophylactus wrote commentaries on this gospel but they did not include these verses in their comments. Though Tertullian and Cyprian wrote essays on adultery and chastity, they did not seek any support from these verses. Had these verses existed in the versions they had, they must have cited these verses in support.
 
Ward said:
 
Some ancient theologians raised objections with regard’ to the beginning verses of chapter 8 of the Gospel of John.
 
Norton similarly decided that these verses were certainly a later addition.
 
Addition No. 39
 
Matthew 6:18 contains:
 
And thy father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
 
The word “openly” in this verse is an addition. Adam Clarke under his comments on this verse proved it and said:
 
Since this word had no authority, Griesbach, Grotius, Bengel, and Mill excluded it from the text.
 
Addition No. 40
 
Mark 2:17 contains the words “to repentance”[109] which is also a later addition.
 
This was shown by Adam Clarke with sufficient proofs and he observed:
 
Griesbach omitted this and Grotius, Mill and Bengel followed him.
 
Addition No. 41
 
Similarly Matthew 9:13 alsocontains the phrase “to repentance” which is a later addition. Adam Clarke after establishing this said:
 
Mill and Bengel suggested its exclusion, while Griesbach has already excluded it from the text.
 
Addition No. 42
 
We find in Matthew:
 
Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup, that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, we are able.
 
And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with.[110]
 
In this verse the statement that “to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with,” is a later addition, and similarly the statement, ”ye shall be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with,” is not genuine.
 
Adam Clarke, after establishing that both the verses are an addition, said:
 
According to the rules set by the scholars for distinguishing the wrong from the correct text, these two statements do not seem to be a part of the original text.
 
Addition No. 43
 
The Gospel of Luke contains:
 
But he turned and rebuked them and said, 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. And they went to another village.[111]
 
The verse beginning with, ”Forthe Son of man....”, is not genuine and was added later by an unknown writer. Adam Clarke observed with regard to this verse:
 
Griesbach excluded this verse from the text. Most likely this passage in old versions was only this much: “But he turned and rebuked them and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. And they went to another village.”
 
Ommisions in the the Text of the Bible
 
Omission No. 1: The Length of the Israelites’ Stay in Egypt
 
The Book of Genesis contains this statement:
 
And he said unto Abram. Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years.[112]
 
The statement “and shall afflict them four hundred years,” and another similar statement contained in verse 14 of the same chapter, which is, “When they shall serve and afterwards shall they come out with great substance,” both clearly denote that the land referred to here is the land of Egypt, because those who afflicted the Israelites and made them their servants and then were punished by God were none but the Egyptians. It was from Egypt that they came out with great wealth. This description does not fit any other place. However, Exodus 2:40 contradicts the above statement:
 
Now that sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years.
 
The period of sojourn is different in the two verses. Either the word “thirty”
 
has been omitted from the first verse or added to the latter. Besides, the period described by both verses is certainly not correct for the following reasons.
 
Firstly, the Prophet Moses was the grandson of Levi on his mother’s side, and great grandson on his father’s side. On his mother's side he is the son of Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, while on his father's side he is the son of Amran, son of Kohath, son of Levi. This implies that Amran married his aunt, the sister of his father as is indeed understood from Exodus 6, and Numbers 26. Kohath, the grandfather of Moses was born before the Israelites came into Egypt, a fact which can be ascertained from Genesis 26:11. The period of the Israelites’ stay in Egypt cannot therefore exceed 215 years.
 
Secondly, almost all the Christian commentators and historians are unanimous on the point that the period of the Israelites’ stay in Egypt is 215 years. The Arabic book Murshid at-Talibeen, written by a Protestant scholar and printed in 1840, contains the chronology of the events from the beginning of the creation to the birth of Jesus. Each event is preceded and followed by a year.
 
The preceding year denotes the number of years from the creation of the world while the following year signifies the number of year.’ from that event to the birth of Jesus. On page 346 of this book, describing the stay of the Prophet Joseph and his father and brother; in Egypt, it says:
 
2298: Joseph’s and his father’s stay: 1760.
 
2513: Crossing of the Red Sea by the Israelites and the Drowning of Pharaoh: 1491.
 
Now a deduction of either of the smaller numbers from the greater ones gives us 215, thus:
 
2513 - 2298 = 215 1706 - 1491 = 215 Thirdly Paul’s letter to the Galatians says:
 
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one. And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul that it should make the promise of none effect.[113]
 
This statement is in clear contradiction of the statement found in Exodus, where the total period from the promise to the revelation of the Torah is described as four hundred and thirty years, while this promise to Abraham was made much earlier than the coming of the Israelites to Egypt, and the Torah was revealed to Moses long after their exodus from Egypt. This implies that the total period of their stay in Egypt was much less than 430 years.[114] Since this statement was erroneous it was corrected in the Greek and Samaritan versions with these words:
 
And the sojourning of the children of Israel and their forefathers who dwelt in Egypt and Canaan was four hundred and thirty years.
 
That is, the word “forefather:” and “Canaan” were added to the above text in both the versions. Adam Clarke under his comments on this verse said on page ’369 of volume one:
 
There is unanimous agreement on the fact that the meanings of this verse are obscure and doubtful.
 
We may be allowed to contend that the contents of this verse are not obscure and doubtful but they are certainly wrong, as we intend to show very soon. The author further quoted from the Samaritan version and said:
 
The reading of the text of Alexandrinus is similar to that of the Samaritan version. Many learned scholars have decided that the Samaritan version is the most reliable, as far as the five books of the Pentateuch are concerned. And it is an established fact that the text of Alexandrinus is older and the most authentic of all the Greek translations and Paul’s statement is not doubted by any one.
 
Now this matter has been decided by the witness of the above three versions.
 
Besides, there are historical evidences to favour this opinion. Isaac was born 25 years after Abraham’s coming to Canaan and Isaac was 60 years old when Jacob was born to him, and Jacob 130 years of age when he came to Egypt. All this adds up to 215 years, which is the total period of stay of the Israelites in Egypt, in this way the total number of years becomes 430 years.
 
Henry and Scott’s compilers also acknowledge that the total period of the stay in Egypt is 215 years. Quoting from the Samaritan version they said:
 
There is no doubt that this text is correct and explains the difficulties raised by the text.
 
The above shows that Christian scholars can find no explanation for the above text of Exodus and have to admit its being erroneous. Paul’s description as quoted above is also not free from error, because he counted the period from the time of the promise, which is one year prior to the birth of Isaac, as is known from Genesis 17:21 referred to above:
 
But my covenant will I establish with Isaac which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.
 
The Torah was given to them three months after the exodus from Egypt as is described in chapter 19 of Exodus. Now according to calculations of Adam Clarke this total period comes to 407 years and not 430 years. The same calculations are found in the books of history by Protestant writers which is contrary to what Paul claimed, that is 430 years.
 
The book ‘Murshid at-Talibeen’ says on page 345:
 
2107: God’s covenant with Abraham, change of his name to Abraham, Institution of circumcision. Lot’s escape.
 
Death of Hadum, Amra, Adaira and Zebaim on account of their misdeeds....1897.
 
Further on page 347 it records:
 
2514: Ordination of ‘the Laws’ on Mount Sinai..1490.
 
Now the smaller number deduced from the larger gives 407.
 
2514-2107 = 407. 1897- 1490 = 407.[115]
 
Omission No. 2
 
The Book of Genesis states:
 
And Cain talked with Abel, his brother, and it came to pass when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel, his brother, and slew him.[116]
 
The Samaritan. Greek, and other ancient translations describe it in these words:
 
And Cain said unto Abel his brother, Rise let us go into the field, and it came to pass that they were in the field etc.
 
The phrase, “let us go in the field” is omitted in the Hebrew version. Home said on page 193 of vol. 2, of his commentary:
 
This is present in the Samaritan, Greek, and Syrian versions, as well as in the Latin edition printed in Vulgate and Walton. Kennicott decided that it should be included in the Hebrew version. No doubt this is a good description.
 
Further on page 338 of the same volume he said:
 
Sometimes the text of Greek version is more correct but it is not found in the current Hebrew translations. For example the Hebrew translations, printed or handwritten manuscripts, are defective with regard to this verse. And the translator of the English authorised version could not understand this verse. He therefore translated, ’and Cain talked to his brother Abel.’ This defect has been made up in the Greek version. This version became similar to the Samaritan, Latin, Syrian and Akola translations, and also to the two commentaries in the two Chaldean languages, and according to the sentence copied by Philo.
 
Adam Clarke said the same as was said by Home. This passage was included in the Arabic translation of 1831 and 1848.
 
Omission No. 3
 
The book of Genesis 7:17 of the Hebrew version contains:
 
And the flood was forty days upon the earth.
 
The same sentence appears; in many Latin and Greek translations:
 
And the flood was forty days and nights upon the earth. Horne said in his first volume:
 
The word “nights” ought to be added in the Hebrew version.
 
Omission No. 4
 
Genesis 35:22 in the Hebrew version reads as follows:
 
And it came to pass when Israel dwelt in that land that Rueben went and lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine and Israel heard it.
 
The compilers of Henry and Scott said:
 
The Jews admit that something from this verse has been certainly omitted.
 
The Latin version has supplemented the words with, ”he was evil in his sight,” to compensate for the omission.
 
This is clear example of omission in the text as admitted by the Jews which is hardly surprising in view of their normal practice of changing their holy texts.
 
Omission No. 5
 
Horsley commenting on Genesis 44:5 said on page 82 of volume one of his commentary:
 
At the beginning of this verse in the Greek translation the following sentence has been added, ”Why hast thou robbed me of my measure.”
 
According to him the above sentence was omitted in the Hebrew version.
 
Omission No. 6
 
The Book of Genesis chapter 50 verse 25 contains:
 
And ye shall carry up my bones from hence.
 
The Samaritan, Latin and Greek translations and other old versions have it in these words:
 
And ye shall carry up my bones with ye.
 
The words “with ye” have been omitted from the Hebrew version. Horne said:
 
Mr. Boothroyd has inserted these omitted words in his new translation of the Bible and he has done right.
 
Omission No. 7
 
Exodus 2:22 contains:
 
And she bare him a son, and he called his name Gershom,[117] for he said, I have been stranger in a strange land.
 
The text of the Greek, Latin and other old translations is followed by the following additional statement:
 
And a second time also she bare him a son and he called his name Eleazar, for he said the lord of my father helped me and saved me from the sword of Pharaoh.
 
Adam Clarke, quoting the above passage from the translations said on page 310 of volume one:
 
Houbigant has included this passage in his Latin translation and claimed that the proper place of this passage was here, while none of the Hebrew versions, printed or manuscript, contains this. It is present in all the authentic translations.
 
Omission No. 8
 
The book of Exodus 6:20 says:
 
And she bare him Aaron and Moses and Mary, their sister.
 
The words ‘their sister’have been omitted in the Hebrew version. Adam Clarke after reproducing the text of the Greek and Samaritan version said:
 
Some great scholars think that these words were present in the Hebrew version.
 
Omission No. 9
 
Numbers chapter 10 verse 6 has:
 
When ye blow an alarm the second time the camps that lie on the south side shall take their journey.
 
And at the end of this verse in the Greek version it says:
 
When ye blow a third time then the camps that lie on the West Side shall take their journey. And when ye blow a fourth time then the camps that lie on the north side shall take their journey.
 
Adam Clarke said on page 663 of volume 1 of his commentary:
 
The west and the north camps are not mentioned, but it seems that they used to make their journey at the blowing of an alarm. It proves that the Hebrew text at this place is defective. The Greek translations added the following sentence, “And when ye blow a third time the camps on the west side shall take their journey, and when ye blow a fourth time that are on the north side shall take journey.”
 
Omission No. 10
 
Job 42:17 says:
 
So Job died, being old and full of days.
 
The Hebrew version ends at this sentence, while the Greek version contains the following additional sentence:
 
He shall resume life a second time with those whom the Lord shall recover.
 
It has also been supplemented with short description of Job's genealogy and other circumstances. Calmet and Harder claim that this supplement is part of the revealed text. This opinion is favoured by Philo and Polyhistor. It was also acknowledged by the people of Origen's time. Theodotion also included this supplement in his Greek translation. This proves that the Hebrew version has been distorted by the omission of the above supplement. Protestant scholars are, however, unanimous on the point that the above supplement is a later addition and not genuine. The compilers of Henry and Scott’s commentary said:
 
Apparently it is a forged description, though it was written some time before Christ.
 
We may be allowed to ask, if the above passage belongs to the period before Christ, how did the ancient Christians believe it to be the word of God right from the time of the Apostles up to the year 1500, because they acknowledged these translations as genuine, and claimed that the Hebrew version was distorted.
 
Omission No. 11
 
Psalm 14 of the Latin, Arabic, Ethiopic and Greek translations contains the following:
 
Their threat is an open sepulchre, with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness, their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and misery are in their ways and the way of peace have they not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.
 
The above description cannot be found in the Hebrew version. It is, however, found in Paul’s letter to the Romans. Now either the Jews discarded it from the Hebrew version or the Christians added it in their translations to support Paul’s description. 1n any case it is a distortion either in the form of an omission or in the form of an addition.
 
Adam Clarke said under his comments on the above verse:
 
After this verse in the Vatican version of the Ethiopic translation and in the Arabic translation verses have appeared which are present in Paul’s Letter to the Romans 3:13-18.
 
Omission No. 12
 
Isaiah 40:5 in the Hebrew version says:
 
And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.
 
While the Greek translations contain these words:
 
And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall soon seeto the salvation of our God for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.
 
Adam Clarke quoting the above passage of the Greek translations said on page 785 of vol. 4 of his book:
 
I think that this passage is genuine.
 
He further said:
 
This omission in the Hebrew version is very old and even older than the Latin, Chaldean and Syrian translations. This passage is present in all the versions of the Greek translations. Luke also acknowledged it in chapter 3 verse 6.[118] I possess a very old translation where this verse is missing.
 
Horne said in chapter 8 of vol. 2 of his book:
 
Luke 3:6 is written according to the Latin translation. Noth (Loth) included it in his translation of the book of Isaiah because he thought it was original, The compilers of Henry and Scott suggested that:
 
It is essential to add the words “the salvation of our God” after the words “shall see”. Chapter 53 verse 10 of the Greek translation should he seen.
 
According to the above commentators the Hebrew text has been distorted by omitting the above verse and Adam Clarket hinks that this distortion is very old.
 
Omission No. 13
 
Adam Clarke said commenting on chapter 64 verse 5 of the Book of Isaiah:
 
I believe that the copier is responsible for the omission in this verse. This distortion is very old. Since the translators of the past were not able to comprehend the meaning of the verse was has been the case with their successors.
 
Omission No. l4
 
Horne said in his commentary on page 477:
 
The Gospel of Luke has omitted a complete verse of chapter 11 from between verses 33 and 34. It is therefore necessary to add part of Matthew 24:36or Mark 13:32 so that Luke may become similar to the other two Gospels.
 
Again he said in a marginal note:
 
All the scholars and commentators ignored this defect in Luke’s text, until it was observed by Hales. The above shows clearly that a complete verse has been omitted by Luke which must be added to it. The verse according to Matthew is this: “But of that day and hour knoweth no man; no, not the angels of heaven; but my father only. “
 
Omission No. 15
 
Acts 16:7 says:
 
But the Spirit suffered them not.
 
Griesbach and Sholtz said that the correct text is:
 
But the spirit of Jesus suffered them not.
 
According to them the word Jesus was omitted. Later, this word was added to the text in the Arabic versions of 1671 and 1821.Now the text in these versions reads:
 
But the spirit of Jesus suffered them[119] not.
 
Omission No. 16
 
The Gospel of Matthew is not Matthew’s. The present Gospel of Matthew which is ascribed to him, and happens to be the first Gospel, and is considered to be the earliest, was certainly not written by Matthew. The original Gospel written by him was destroyed long long ago. All the ancient Christians and a number of later scholars are unanimous on the point that the original Gospel of Matthew which was in the Hebrew language was destroyed because it had been distorted by some of the Christian sects.
 
The Christians do not possess any authority to prove its authenticity and indeed the name of its author is not yet known. Jerome, the most renowned and celebrated scholar among the ancient writers, admitted it. They have only conjectures with regard to its translator which obviously cannot be accepted as an argument. A book cannot he ascribed to a person simply on the basis of unsupported calculations. Now the claim made by Protestant scholars that Matthew, him-self, translated it is not valid unless they present some acceptable argument to prove it. Now we will produce some witnesses to prove our claim. The Encyclopaedia Britannica vol.19 says:
 
Every book of the New Testament was written in Greek except the Gospel of Matthew and the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is certain, on the ground of strong arguments, that these two books were written in the Hebrew language.
 
Lardner stated in vol. 2 on page 119:
 
Papias observed that Matthew had written his Gospel in Hebrew. Later on everyone translated it according to their own ability.
 
The above implies that there are many writers who have translated this Gospel.
 
Now unless the writer of the present Gospel is definitely known and it is proved through irrefutable arguments that the writer was a man of inspiration, this book should not be, and cannot be, included among the revealed books. We do not even know the name of its translator let alone whether he was a man of inspiration. Further Lardner said on page 170 of the same volume:
 
Irenaeus wrote that Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Jews in their language at the time when Paul and Peter were preaching in Rome.
 
Further he said on page 574 of the same volume:
 
There are statements of Origen, first written by Eusebius, that Matthew gave the Gospel to the Jews in the Hebrew language; secondly that Matthew wrote his Gospel first for the Hebrews; thirdly that Matthew wrote the Gospel for the Hebrews who were waiting the birth of a man who was promised to the progeny of Abraham and David.
 
Again he said on page 95 of volume 4 that Eusebius had written that Matthew, after his sermons to the Hebrews who were deciding to go to other communities, wrote his Gospel in their language and gave it to them. And on page 174 of the same volume he says that Cyril said that Matthew wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew language.
 
And on page 187 of the same volume he said:
 
Epiphanius writes that Matthew wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew language.
 
He is unique in using this language in writing the New Testament.
 
Further on page 439 he wrote:
 
Jerome wrote that Matthew wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew language for believing Jews in a Jewish land. He did not combine the truth of the Gospel with the law.
 
Again on page 441 he said:
 
Jerome noted in his list of historians that Matthew wrote his Gospel for believing Jews in the Hebrew script in the land of Jews. It is not yet proved that it was translated into Greek, neither is the name of its translator known. Besides, it must be noted that the copy of his Hebrew Gospel which was collected by Pamphilus with great labour is still present in the library of Syria. I obtained a copy of this Gospel with the help of the assistants in the district of “Barya”. They also had this version with them.
 
Further he writes on page 501 of the same volume:
 
Augustine said that out of the four Evangelists, only Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew language while the others wrote theirs in Greek.
 
And on page 538 of the same volume he said:
 
Chrysostom writes that it is said that Matthew wrote his Evangel on the request of believing Jews in the Hebrew language.
 
And on page 1371 of volume 5 he writes:
 
Isidore said that only Matthew out of the four evangelists wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew language while others wrote theirs in Greek.
 
Horne said in volume 4 of his commentary that:
 
Bellarmine, Grotius, Causabon, Walton,Tomline, Cue, Hammond, Mill, Harwood, Owen, Calmet, Michaelis, Irenaeus, Origen,Cyril, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Jerome and other ancient and modem writers have followed the view of Papias that this Gospel was written in the Hebrew language.
 
And by 'other' he refers to Gregory Nazianzen, Abed, Theophylactus, Euthymius,Eusebius, Athanasius, Augustine and many others who have been named by Watsonand Lardner in their books. D’Oyly and Richard Mant's commentary contains the following:
 
There was great controversy in the past over the question of the language in which this Gospel was originally written, but many of the ancient writers determined that Matthew had written his Gospel in the Hebrew language and this is therefore now an established point of view.
 
The compilers of Henry and Scott's commentary said:
 
The disappearance of the Hebrew version was due to the fact that the Ebionites, who disbelieved the divinity of Christ, made changes in this version. Then after the fall of Jerusalem it disappeared.
 
Some writers think:
 
The Nazarenes or the Jewish proselytes altered the Hebrew Gospels, and the Ebionites discarded many sentences from it. Eusebius quoted Irenaeus saying that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew language.
 
Reus observed in his Histoire de l’ Evangile:
 
Anyone who says that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Greek is wrong because Eusebius in his history and many other theologians of Christianity explicitly mentioned that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew language, and not in Greek.
 
Norton has written a voluminous book in which he proved that the Pentateuch is not a genuine book and not the one written by Moses. He acknowledged the Evangel after admitting the presence of many distortions in the Gospels. This is why he is not very popular among the Christians. Since he is a Christian and has quoted many of the ancient writers, it is quite in order to quote at least one passage from him. He writes on page 45 of his book printed in1837 in Boston in a marginal note:
 
People believe that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew language, because all the ancient writers referring to this subject are all unanimous on this point. I leave aside the writers who are not considered authentic, and I assert that Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome admitted the fact that this Gospel was written in Hebrew. There is none among the ancients who say anything contrary to this. This is a great witness, indeed, because they, too, were as much prejudiced religiously as the people of modern times. Had there been any room for any doubt in what the ancients said, their opponents led by their prejudices, would have said that the Greek Gospel was the original Gospel and not a translation. We should not reject this ancient and unanimous witness, especially when it does not deprive us of anything. It is therefore necessary that we maintain the belief that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew language. Up to this day I could not find any objection calling for research on this subject. On the contrary I have found valuable witnesses among the ancients to the effect that the Hebrew version of this Gospel, be it genuine or distorted, was with the Christians who were of Jewish race.
 
The above statements unambiguously prove that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew language and in Hebrew script. The ancient writers are unanimous on this point. Their opinion in this matter is final as was acknowledged by D’Oyly and Richard Mant. They also admitted that the Hebrew version was in existence up to the time of Jerome. It is also clear from the above that the name of its translator is not yet known. Horne, in spite of admitting the above opinion, said that it is most probable that Matthew wrote it in two languages, in Hebrew and in Greek. This is unacceptable because he has not produced any authority for his assumption.
 
The opinion of the ancients is also strengthened by the fact that Matthew was one of the Apostles who was an eye-witness of Christ’s life and a direct listener to him. Now had he been the author of the present Gospel there must have been an indication somewhere in the Gospel that he is relating his won observations. He would have used the first person somewhere in the Gospel for himself as was the practice of the ancients. The Apostles used the first person for themselves which is evident from the letters that are included in the New Testament, indicating that they are written by them.
 
Have you not seen the writings of Luke. He wrote his Gospel and the Book of Acts up to chapter 19, through what he heard from others. He uses the first person when referring to himself. For instance when he accompanies Paul on his journeys and writes those circumstances in chapter 20 he refers to himself in the first person. If anyone refutes this by referring to the Pentateuch and the Gospel of John, we would simply say that these two books are of doubtful authenticity[120] as we have shown in the first part of this book. The obvious cannot be denied unless there is a strong argument against it. We also understand from the statement of the compilers of Henry and Scott that this Gospel, in the early period of Christianity, was not considered to be authentic. In that period the Christians were in the habit of changing the texts of their sacred books, (as we have seen earlier). Now when the original text could not be saved from distortions, how can one believe that a translation whose author is not even known can have remained unchanged? Faustus, the celebrated scholar of the Manichaeans, said:
 
The Gospel which is ascribed to Matthew is not his writing.
 
Professor Germain said:
 
The whole of this Gospel is false.
 
This Gospel was with the Marcionites but the first two chapters were missing from it. They think that these two chapters were added to it later. The Ebionites are of the same opinion. The Unitarian scholars and Father William have rejected both these chapters.
 
Omission No. 17
 
Matthew 2:23 contains:
 
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.
 
The words, “which was spoken by the Prophets” in the above is one of the famous errors of this Gospel, because it is not found in any of the known books of the Prophets. We would say what the Catholic scholars have said in this matter, that this was present in the books of the Prophets but the Jews, out of their enmity to the Christians, removed all those passages. This is another example of omission; that a certain sect should destroy holy books simply for personal reason. Manfred, a Catholic scholar, wrote a book called The Questions of the Question printed in London in 1843, in which he said:
 
The books which contained this description (quoted by Matthew) have been destroyed, because in any of the present books of the Prophets we do not find the statement that Jesus would be called ‘Nazarene.’
 
Chrysostom said in volume 9 of his book:
 
Many books of the Prophets have disappeared not because the Jews carelessly lost them, but rather because out of their dishonesty and perversion they burnt these books to ashes.
 
This statement is very near to the truth. We must keep in mind what Justin said in his polemic against Trypho:
 
The Jews excluded many books from the old Testament so that the New Testament would appear not to conform with the Old Testament. This shows that ma