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.
 

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

As for the Gospel of John, the scholars, Bretschneider and Lefevre d’Etapes have refused to accept it as genuine. The last chapter was certainly rejected by the scholar Grotius as being neither genuine 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.



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 Numbers1[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.

[1] 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.

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.

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.



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.

1[1] We did not find this sentence in the present. edition of Britannica, however, we have found the admission that every word of these books is no( inspired on page 23 vol. 12 under the entry ”Inspiration”

2[2] All the references in thc Encyclopaedia Britannica have been taken from the old 18th century edition. The present edition docs not have been them at the places referred to. We have therefore translated them from Urdu in our own words. This however, does not make difference as this admission can be found in many place in the Britannica. (Raazi)

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, 3 [3] 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 4[4] 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 5[5] 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.

3[3] This difference of the texts has been discussed by us, under the errors Nos: 98-100.


4[4] And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, didst eat with them. (Acts 11:2,3)


5[5] 3.I Corinthians 7:10,12.15,40. And also 2 Cor. 11:17
 


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. 1 [1]

1[1] Luke 1:1-4.

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.2 [2]

and further:

The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments. 3 [3]

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.” 4[4]

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. 5 [5]

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 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.

2[2] I Tim. 5: 23.


3[3] 2 Tim 4:13.


4[4] 2 Tim. 4:20.


5[5]1 Cor. 7:10. Acts 16:6,7.



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. 1[1]

Now we can see why the founder of the Protestant faith, Luther, and his pupil reproached Moses; they must have been guided by the above statement.

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES AND THE BOOK OF REVELATION

Luther said regarding the epistle of James:

This is the word not suitable to be included in the books, as the disciple James said in chapter five of his epistle, ”Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 2[2]

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

If this is what James has said, I answer him that no 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.

1[1]John 10:8.

2[2]James 5:14.



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. 1[1]

1[1]James 5:14.

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.



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 1[1] has elucidated, because they had firm belief that the coming of the Lord would be for establishing Justice.

1[1]This refers to John, 21:23. ’Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that the disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him , He shall not die.”

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. 2[2]

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, 3[3] 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” 4[4] 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 5[5]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.6[6]

4.It appears on page 70 that verses 9-20 of chapter 16 of Mark are a later invention. 7[7]

5.On page 89 he says that verses 43 and 44 of chapter 22 of Luke are a later addition. 8[8]

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.9[9]

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, 10[10]

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.

2[2] Mark 1:1l.

3[3]. A pagan scholar of the second century AD.

4[4]. Matt. 5:10.

5[5] The event of his hanging himself after the arrest of jesus and selling his land for thirty pieces of silver.


6[6] This refers to a description of raising the dead saints from the graves after the death of Jesus.


7[7] These verses contain the description of the resurrection of Jesus which contains a number of errors.


8[8] "This refers to the visit of Jesus to the Mount of Olives a night before his crucifixion. It reads, ”And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” (Luke 22;43 and 44) Home, however has confirmed the correctness of this verse and has opposed the opinion which advocates excluding it from the books. We have discussed this verse in detail later in the book.


9[9] 1.These verses contain greatly exaggerated number of people and animals healed by Jesus.


10[10] Vol. 4. Page. 295.



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.



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: 2[2]

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. 3[3]

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). 4[4]

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 Book (Qura’an) in truth confirming what came before it of the Book, and assuring its safety. 5[5]

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 Kitab-ur- Radd’al Jahmiyyah is as follows:

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

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

1[1] This opinion of the Muslim community should not be misunderstood as the product of prejudice and slander. He was considered a traitor even by the family of Jesus and his disciples. We reproduce below the opinion of a modern French scholar. Maurice Bucaille. He says on page 52 of his book The Bible, The 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)

2[2] Qur’an 2:89.


3[3] Qur’an 5:16


4[4] The complete verse is this: ”He said, I am in deed the servant of God, he hath given me the Book (the Evangel) and made me a Prophet.” (Wali Raazi)


5[5] Qur’an 5:51