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.