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. 1[1]

1[1] Gen. 36:31.

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,1[2]

1[2] This kingdom was formed centuries after the death of Moses and the speaker must belong to this period

The first king of this kingdom was Saul, 2[2 ]who reigned 356 years after the death of the Prophet Moses.

2[2] This Saul is the same king who is named in the Qur’an as 'Talut'.

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.3[3]

3[3] Deut. 3:14.

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 1[5] contains his admission and concern over the perversion of the Israelites while the Book of Nehemiah 3[6] informs us that Ezra had read the Torah to the people.

1[5]. Ezra chapter 9.


3[6] Nehemiah chapter 8.

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.1[7]

We historically know that thismount was called ’The Mount of the Lord’, only after the construction of thetemple, 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 sentenceis a later addition, and said:

This mount was not known by this name prior to the construction of the Temple.

1[7] . Gen. 22:14.

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.1[8]

1[8] Numbers 21:3.

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 thechildren of 1srael did eat ’manna’ forty years until they came to a landinhabited; they did eat manna until they came to the borders of the land ofCanaan. 4[9]

4[9] Ex. 16:35.

This verse also cannot be the word of God, because God did not discontinue ’manna’ in thelifetime of Moses, and they did not arrive at Canaan in that period, Adam Clarkesaid on page 399 of the first volume of his commentary:

From thisverse people have reckoned that the Book of Exodus was written after thediscontinuance of Manna from the Israelites, but it is possible that these wordsmight 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.1[10]

1[10] This is the translation of the Arabic version. The King James Version contains the incomplete sentence, "What be did in the Red Sea, and in the brooks of Arnon". The sentence is not predicated.

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 thetown Hebron in three places. 5[11]This name was given to it by the Israelitesafter the victory of Palestine. Formerly it was called Kirjath Arba, 6[12] whichis known from Joshua 14:15. Therefore the author of these verses must have beensomeone living in the period after this victory and the change of its name toHebron.

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. 2[13] 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.

5[11] Gen. 13:18, 35:27 and 37:14.


6[12] ”And the name of Hebron before was Kirjath-arba.”

2[13] ”And they called the name of the city, Dan. after the name of Dan, their father, who was born unto Israel; how be it the name of the city was Laish.” (Judges 18:29)

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.3[14]

3[14].The King James version 1862 contains thirty-four chapters in Deuteronomy. the last chapter describing the death of Moses and Joshua’s succession to his place. This chapter contains these words, ”And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses.” Obviously Moses could have not described his own death and events pertaining to the period after his death.

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 7[15] 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.

7[15] The text here contains description of Moses’ arriva1 on the mount while suddenly these verses irrelevantly start describing a journey of the Israelites and the death of Aaron,

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.5[16]

5[16] Deut. 23:2.

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 andScott’s commentary said under their comments on Joshua chapter 4:9:

This sentence 8[17] and other similar sentences which are present in mostof 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 9[18] Moreover this book has eight other instances10[19] 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.

8[17]”And Joshua set up twelve stones in the midst of Jordan in the place where the feet of the priests which bare the ark of the covenant stood and they are there unto this day.” Josh. 4;9


9[18]All these sentences bear the phrase ’unto this day’ denoting that they were not written by Joshua.


10[19]G. T. Menley has pointed out that these words appear fourteen times in the book of Joshua Perhaps on this ground ’Kail’ has suggested that this book was written by some unknown man after the death of Joshua. Menley agreed with this.

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? 11[20]

11[20] Josh.10:13.

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 2.12[21] The commentator Horsley had to admit that the Hebrew version must have been changed here.

12[21] ”For I will not give thee of the land of the children of Ammon.” Deut. 2:19

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, 13[22]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.

13[22]Judges 17:7.

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. 14[23]

14[23] 1. I Sam. 6:19.

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 ahove verses are not the part of the original version.

In a long discussion he adduced that this verse 15[24] was a later addition.

15[24] l.l Samuel 17: 18.

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.16[25]

16[25] Mark 6:17.

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.17[26]

17[26]Luke 3: 19-20

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.18[27]

18[27] . Luke 7: 31

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 19[28] as was admitted by Ward, Buchanan and others.

19[28]R.A Knox. a recent scholar has allowed no ambiguity to admit that Matthew’s version has been changed. Commentary on the New Testament

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.20[29]

20[29]M ark 2: 25,26.

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. 22[30]

21[30] The current Urdu and English versions omit this sentence. The King James Version. however, still contains it.

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 22[31]

22[31]. 1.I John 5:7-8.

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.