The Witness of Christ and his Apostles

Another subterfuge frequently employed by the Christians in their attempt to uphold their claim of unsullied Divine Revelation for the Bible is their claim that Christ testified to the truth of the books of the Old Testament and, if they had truly been distorted by the Jews, Christ would have blamed them for it.

The First Answer

As an answer to this misconception we may be allowed first to point out that the authenticity of the Old and the New Testament has never been proved through a constant chain of reliable reporters, a fact which we discussed earlier in this book in sufficient detail.

Therefore all these books, in our opinion, are dubious and uncertain and thus any quotation from these books is not acceptable unless it can be proved through undeniable sources that a particular statement really was made by Christ because it is always possible that the verse in question may be a later addition added by the ‘faithful’ at the end of the second century or in the third century in order to refute the Ebionites, Marcionites or the Manichaeans.

Or these additions might have been included later on because they supported some commonly held belief. These sects had rejected all, or at least most, of the books of the Old Testament as we showed when mentioning the Marcionites earlier. Bell stated in his history with regard to the belief of the Marcionites:

This sect believed in the existence of two gods, one, the creator of good, and the other, the creator of evil. They believed that the books of the Old Testament were given by the God of evil. They all disbelieve the New Testament.

Lardner said in this regard on page 486 of vol. 8 of his commentary:

This sect claims that the God of the Jews is not the father of Jesus, and that Jesus was sent to abolish the law of Moses, since it was against the Evangel.

He also said in vol. 3 of his commentary with regard to the Manichaeans:

The historians are in complete agreement that the Manichaeans never believed in the books of the Old Testament. It is written in the Acts of Archelaus that it was their belief that Satan deceived the Prophets of the Jews. It was Satan that spoke with them in the name of God. They derived their argument for this belief from John. 10:8 where Christ says, “All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers.”

The Second Answer:

Even if we put aside the question of its being an addition, the claim does not prove the truth of all the books, because the statement docs not specify the number and names of the books of the Old Testament. In this case there is no way to ascertain that the books which were in vogue among the Jews were thirty-nine in number, as is acknowledged by the Protestants of our time or forty-six as is acknowledged by thc Catholics and in any case these books include the Book of Daniel which was not acknowledged as authentic by the Jews contemporary with Christ. They do not even accept Daniel as a Prophet, except Josephus, the historian, who said in his book:

We do not have thousands of books containing contradictory material, we have only twenty-two which talk of past events and are considered by us as inspiration. The first five of these are the books of Moses which describe the events from the beginning of the creation to the death of Moses and there are thirteen other books that were written by other Prophets, describing the period after the death of Moses to the time of Ardashir. The remaining four books consist of prayers and eulogies.

The above witness does not in any way prove the truth of the current books. According to Josephus the total number of books is seventeen excluding the five books of thc Pentateuch, while according to the Protestants there are thirty-four books and the Catholics believe that there are forty-one books other than the Pentateuch. No one knows which of the books were included in the seventeen books, because this historian ascribed two more books to Ezekiel other than his famous book. It seems quite logical to believe that these two books, which are now extinct, were included in the seventeen books in his time.

Apart from this, it has been already shown that Chrysostom and other Catholic scholars admitted that the Jews had destroyed many sacred books, some being tom up and other burnt, out of their perversion, The books of the Old Testament that we are going to enumerate are the part of the Old Testament which cannot be denied by any of the Catholic and the Protestant scholar in view of the arguments that follow. It is therefore possible that some of these books might have been included in the seventeen books referred to by Josephus.

The Missing Books of the Old Testament.

The following books, which we find mentioned in the books of the present Old Testament, have disappeared from it:

(1) The Book of the Wars of the Lord:

This book is mentioned in Numbers 21:14 and has been discussed by us earlier in this book. Henry and Scott’s commentary has this statement:

Presumably this book was written by Moses for the guidance of Joshua and described the demarcation of the land of Moab.1[1]

[1]. This land was to the East of the Dead Sea.

(2) The Book of Jasher:

This book is mentioned in Joshua 10:13. We have discussed it earlier. It is also mentioned in II Samuel, 1:18.

(3-5) There were three books of the Prophet Solomon, the first contained one thousand and five Psalms, the second described the history of the creation, and the third consisted of three thousand Proverbs. We find this last book mentioned in I Kings,2[2] Some of these Proverbs are still in existence.

2[2] “And he spoke three thousand Proverbs.” I Kings 4:32

Adam Clarke under his comments on I Kings 4:32 said:

The Proverbs currently attributed to Solomon, are nine hundred or nine hundred and twenty-three, and if we accept the claim of some scholars that the first nine chapters of the book are not from Solomon the number is reduced to only about six hundred and fifty. Psalm 127 in which the name of Solomon appears is not from Solomon, it being rightly claimed by some scholars that it was written by the Prophet David for the guidance of his son, Solomon.

He further said with regard to the history of creation:

Scholars are very much aggrieved at the disappea-rance of the history of the world’s creation.

(1) The Book of the Manner of the Kingdom:

This was written by Samuel as mentioned in I Samuel 10:25:

Then Samuel told the People the manner of the Kingdom, and wrote it in a book and laid it up before the Lord.

(7) The History of Samuel the Seer.

(8) The History of the Prophet Nathan.

(9) The Book of Gad the Seer.

All the above three books are mentioned in I Chroni-cles.3[3] Adam Clarke remarked on page 1522 of Vol. 2 of his book that these books were extinct.

(10) The Book of Shemaiah, the Prophet

(11) The Book of Iddo, the Seer:

Both the above books are mentioned in ll Chronicles 12:15.4[4]

(12) The prophecy of Ahijah.

(13) The Visions of Iddo the Seer.

These two books are mentioned in II Chronicles 9:29.5[5] The book of Nathan and Iddo are also mentioned in this verse. Adam Clarke said on page 1539 of vol. 2 of his book:

All these books have become non-existent.

(14) The Book of Jehu the son of Hanani

This is mentioned in II Chronicles 20:34.6[6] Adam Clarke said on page 561 of vol. 2 of his book:

This book has been completely lost, though it existed in the time of compilation of the Second Book of Kings.

3[3] “They are written in the book of Samuel the Seer, and in the book of Nathan Prophet, and in the book of Gad the Seer.” I Chronicles 29:29.

4[4] “Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer.”


5[5] “The acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the Prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the Seer.” (II Chr. 9:29)


6[6] “Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Jehu the son of Hanani, who is mentioned in the book of the Kings of Israel.” This also implies that the book of Jehu was included in the book of Kings.

(15) The Book of Isaiah the Prophet

This book consisted of complete accounts of Uzziah. It is mentioned in ll Chronicles 26:22.1[7]

(16) The Book of Visions of Isaiah:

This contained complete accounts of Hezekiah and is mentioned in II Chronicles 32:32.2[8]

(17) The Lamentation of Jeremiah:

This consisted of Jeremiah’s lamentation for Josiah that is described in II Chronicles 35:25.3[9]

(18) The Book of Chronicles:

This is mentioned in Nehemiah 12: 23.4[10] Adam Clarke said on page 1676 of volume 2 of his book:

This book is not included in the present books. This is another book which does not exist today.

(19) The Book of Covenant of Moses:

We find it mentioned in Exodus 24:7. 5[11]

(20) The Book of the Acts of Solomon:

The mention of this book appears in I Kings, 11:14.

1[7] ”The rest of the acts of Uzziah, first and last, did Isaiah the Prophet, the son of Amoz, write.”

2[8] “The rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and his goodness, behold, they are written to the vision of Isaiah the Prophet.”


3[9] “And Jeremiah lamented for Josiah .... behold they are written in the Lamentations.”


4[10] “The son of Levi, the chief of the fathers were written in the book of Chronicles.”


5[11] “And he took the book of covenant and read in the audience.”

We already know that Josephus ascribed two more books to Ezekiel in addition to his famous book. Josephus is a trusted name among the Christians. This takes the total number of the missing books to twenty-two. The Protestants have no way of refuting the existence of these books. Thomas Inglis said in his book in Urdu entitled, Mira’atus Sidk (The Mirror of the Truth) printed in 1856.

There is unanimous agreement on the fact that the number of the books that have been lost or have disappe-ared from the sacred books is not less than twenty. 6[12]

6[12] We may be allowed to add here that a number of prophecies recorded by the evangelists have been mentioned in Islamic literature and are not found in the present books. It is fair to assume that they might have been in some of the missing books listed above. It is not certain that the five books of Moses described by Josephus were the same books as the present Pentateuch. There are indications that they were not in fact the same.

The Third Answer

As a third answer to the false Christian claim regarding the witness of Christ and his Apostles for the truth of the sacred books, we may point out that; even if we acknowledge the presence of the current books during the lifetime of Christ and that Christ did indeed witness to the truth of these books, this only confirms the existence of these books at that time, without confirming the truth of their attribution to their authors and without verifying the truth of each and every passage contained by them.

Even if Christ and his Apostles did report something from these books it would not necessarily signify their absolute truth. However, in the case of Jesus, it would clearly have shown that a particular injunction of those books was from God, given that his statement could be proved to be really his through an unbroken chain of reporters. This is not a contention posited only by the Muslims, for the Protestants also have adopted this opinion. Paley, the great scholar of the Protestants observed in chapter 3 of his book printed in London in 1850:

There is no doubt that our Saviour confirmed that the Pentateuch was the Book of God. It is improbable that its origin and existence could be without God. Especially because the Jews, who were expert in religious matters and beginners in other matters like war and peace, did firmly adhere to monotheism. Their conccpt of God and His attributes is remarkable compared to other peoples who were committed to innumerable Gods. It is also certain that our Saviour acknowledged the prophethood of the most of the copiers of the Old Testament. It is the duty of all us Christians to observe these limits.

The claim that each and every verse of the Old Testament is true and inspired, and that there is no need for investigation of their authors, invites unnecessary difficulties and trouble. These books were commonly read by the Jews of the time of our Saviour. They were believed in and acted upon by them, and the Apostles used to turn to them for guidance. This attitude of the Jews allows us to reach only one conclusion that the truth and divinity of a prophetic statement is confirmed only when Christ specifically witnessed to its being from God. Otherwise it only proves that these books were commonly acknowledged in that period.

In this case our sacred books would be the best witness for the Jewish Scriptures. It is, however, necessary to understand the nature of this witness. Its nature is different from what I have sometimes described. Every incident has a particular common cause and nature which provides strength for its proof, even if it apparently looks to be different but, in fact, comes out to be the same when all aspects are closely viewed. For example James said in his epistle.7[13]

7[13] James 5:11.

Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord.

We know that the truth of the book of Job has been a matter of great controversy among Christian scholars. This witness of James confirms only

the fact that this book was present and acknowledged by the Jews. Similarly Paul said in his second epistle to Timothy: 2[14]

2[14]II Tim. 3:8.

Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so these also resist the truth.

These two names are not found in the Old Testament and we do not know if Paul reported them from one of the apocryphal books or knew of them through tradition. Had this event been written Paul would have reported it from the text and would have not made himself the pivot of the truth of this event, to the extent that the truth of his letter became dependent on the question of whether Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses or not.

The object of my contention is not to show that there is no testimony superior to that of Jannes and Jambres or Job regarding the history of the Jews. I see this matter from another perspective. What I mean is, that a particular verse of the Old Testament being recorded by the evangelists does not prove it to be so true as to distrust the arguments coming from external sources.

It is not correct to take it as a principle that every word of Jewish history is true. This would makes all their books unreliable. I must stress this point because Walter and his disciples used to take shelter in the Jewish writings and then raised objections against Christianity. Some of their objections are based on the fact that they misinterpreted the meanings of the texts, while some of their objections are simply founded on exaggeration. But the main cause of their objections is the misconception that any witness of Christ and the ancient teachers confirming the prophethood of Moses and other Prophets is a witness to the truth of each and every verse of the Old Testament, and that it is obligatory for the Christians to support everything written in the Old Testament.

The Book of Job

The above statement clearly confirms our previous claims. Paley’s remark that there is great controversy among the Christian scholars with regard to the authenticity of the book of Job, is, in fact, a reference to a great dispute among the scholars in this regard. Jewish scholars such as Semler, Michaelis, Leclerc and Stock said Job was a pseudonym and that such a man never really existed and that his book is nothing but a collection of false and unreal stories. On the other hand Calmet and Vantil claimed that Job was a real person who lived at that time.

Those who recognise him as a real person place him in various historical periods. There are seven different opinions:

(1) Some scholars claim that he was a contemporary of the Prophet Moses.

(2) Some others put him in the period of Judges 1[15] after the death of Joshua.

(3) Some People argue that he lived in the time of Ahasuerus or Ardashir, the Kings of Persia.

(4) Another opinion puts him in the period prior to the visit of Abraham to Canaan.

(5) Some hold him to have lived at the time of Jacob.

(6) Others claim him to have been a contemporary of Solomon.

(7) Some scholars said that he lived in the time of King Nebuchadnezzar.

Horne said that all these opinions showed weakness.

[15] The period of Judges.

Similarly there are differing opinions concerning Job’s place of birth, “Ghota”.2[16] There are three opinions, with regard to the geographical location of this place. Burckhardt, Spanheim, Calmet and others believe that it was a place in the Arabian peninsula. Michaelis and Ilgen 3[17] place it near Damascus. Lowth, Magee, Hales and Chodac said “Ghota” was the second name of Adom.

2[16] The word appears in the early Arabic Version as ‘Ghota’, while in the New Arabic version it is ‘Aus’ while in the Urdu Version it is ‘Uz’ (which is in accordance with the King James Version.)


3[17] Ilgen, a famous scholar of the eighteenth century.

The same differences exist with regard to the author. There are varied opinions about him. He was a Jew; he was Job; he was Solomon; he was Isaiah; or he was an unknown person who was a contemporary of King Mansar. According to some ancient writers the book was written by Moses in the Hebrew language. Origen claims that it was translated from Syrian to Greek. Similar disagreement is found about the last portion of the book. We discussed this earlier.

All this is sufficient proof that their claim for the authenticity of their books is not based on reports from authentic sources. They can nowhere show a sequence of reporters going back to the author of even a single verse of their books. Most of their claims are founded simply on surmises and false deductions. Theodore, the fifth century priest, condemned this book. Ward, on the other hand, reported the following remark of Luther, the founding leader of the Protestant faith who said:

This book is merely a fable.

In view of the above statements this book cannot be considered as inspired.

The Book of Esther

We have shown that the book of Esther remained rejected and disapproved of until the year 354. Even the name of its author is not definitely known. Melito and Athanasius also disapproved of it, while Amphilochius expressed suspicions about its authenticity.

The Song of Solomon

The condition of the Song of Solomon is no different to that of the Book of Job. Theodore, the priest, equally condemned and rejected this book while Simon and Leclerc have denied its authenticity. Wettstein and other later writers said that it was a vile song and should therefore be discarded from the sacred books. Semler said that there is a definite indication that this book is a fiction. Ward quoted Castellio suggesting that its exclusion from the sacred books is necessary.

If the witness of Christ and his Apostles implied proof of the authenticity of each and every part of the Old Testament, the above serious differences would not have existed among ancient and modern writers. In view of the above, Pale's statement produced above is the most factual and final.

Besides, we have already pointed out that Judaeo-Christian scholars are agreed on the fact that Ezra made mistakes in the First Book of Chronicles, and this book, too, is one of those for which Christ, in their opinion, gave witness. So even if they reject the findings of Paley what can they say about these mistakes of Ezra?