The Fifth Contention

Sometimes the Christians make statements to the effect that the copies of thc sacred books written in the period prior to the emergence of Islam are still in existence and that the present books are in accordance with them. This statement, in fact, consists of two separate claims, first that those versions were written before the emergence of Islam and second that the present books are identical copies of them. We intend to show that both claims are false and incorrect.

Let us first remind ourselves of the clear statement of Dr. Kennicott and others that the Jews themselves destroyed all the copies of the sacred books written in the seventh and eighth centuries, and that no copy of the Hebrew version written in these two centuries could be obtained. There were no copies to be found in any period preceding the tenth century. The oldest copy that Dr Kennicott was able to get was the Codex Laudianus which he claimed was written in the tenth century while de Rossi situated it in the eleventh century. Van der Hooght published a copy of the Hebrew version with a claim that it was the most correct of all the Hebrew versions. One can guess the profusion of errors that this copy contained.

The Ancient Versions of the Bible

Let us now examine the position of the Latin version. There are three versions that are considered among the Christians to be the oldest: the Codex Alexandrinus, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Ephraemi. The first is in London. It was this copy that was used for the first revision or correction of the present books. The second is in Italy and was used for the second revision. The third one is in Paris and bears the title “The Old Testament”. It does not, however, contain the books of the Old Testament.

We can easily ascertain the position of all three versions through the witnesses provided by history.

The Codex Alexandrinus

In volume 2 of his book, Horne said describing the Codex Alexandrinus:

This copy consists of four volumes. The first three volumes contain the canonic as well as the apocryphal books of the Old Testament. The fourth volume consists of the New Testament and the First Epistle of Clement to Corinthians and the unacknowledged Book of Psalms which is attributed to Solomon,

Further he specified:

Before the Book of Psalms it has an epistle of Athanasius. This precedes the prayers that are recited in everyday rituals offered every hour. Then there are fourteen psalms related to the faith. The eleventh of these psalms is an eulogy to Mary. Some of these psalms are false, while others are derived from the Gospels. The arguments of Eusebius are written on the hook of Psalms while his legislative notes are inscribed on the Gospels. Some scholars have been exaggerated in its praise while others disapproved of it in equally exaggerated fashion. Wettstein is considered to be it s chief opponent.

The question of its antiquity has also been debated. Grabe and Sholtz estimated that it was written towards the end of the fourth centrury while Michaelis claimed that it was the oldest copy available and no other copy could be older than it because it contained the Epistle of Athanasius. Woide, on the other hand, situates it in the tenth century. He also surmised that this was one of the copies that were collected in 615 in Alexandria for the Syrian translation. Dr Semler thinks that it was written in the seventh century. Montfaucon said that none of these copies, including the Codex Alexandrinus, can be said with certainty to have been wrilten prior to the sixth century. Michaelis claimed that it was written after Arabic had become the language of Egypt. This places it one or two hundred years after the Muslim conquest of Alexandria. The basis of his claim is that the copier interchanged M and B with each other according to the Arabic rules of recitation. Woide concluded that since it is subdivided into chapters and various sections and bears the canonical notes of Eusebius it cannot be older than the fourth century. Spohn raised the following objections against the arguments forwarded by Woide:

(1) The epistles of Paul (included in this copy) have not been divided into two chapters and sections when this division was made in 396.

(2) It contains the epistles of Clement when the reading of these lelters was prohibited by the councils of Laodicea and Carthage. Sholtz deduced from this that it was writen prior to 364.

The Codex Vaticanus

Horne said describing the Codex Vaticanus:

The introduction to the Greek translation printed in 1590 includes the claim that this codex was written sometime prior to 388. Montfaucon and Bianchini placed it in the fifth or sixth century. Dupin put it in the seventh century while Hug places it at the beginning of the fourth century and Marsh situates it towards the end of the fifth century. He has concluded that no other two copies are so completely different from each other as the Codex Alexandrinus and this codex.

He also said:

Dr. Kennicott also deduced that neither this codex nor the Codex Alexandrinus has been copied from the version of Origen nor from the copies of it prepared in the period immediately after it. Both were copied from a version that does not bear any sign of the Origen version.

The Codex Ephraemi

Home, describing the Codex Ephraemi, observed in the same volume:

Wettstein considers it to be one of the copies that were collected in Alexandria for the revision of the Syrian translation but there is nothing to support this opinion. He inferred this opinion from the marginal note that appeared against verse 7 of chapter 8 of the Epistle to Hebrews, saying that this version was prepared before 544 but Michaelis refuted this argument, only saying that it was an ancient version. Marsh has suggested that it was written in the seventh century.

The above is more than enough to convince us that no definite proof exists to specify the year of the compilation of these revision. The scholars have only made calculations and conjectures about the date of their origin on the basis of some indefinite indications which they have found in their books. These vague calculations obviously cannot authenticate any of the sacred books. Most of the arguments cited above are of the kind that do not stand up to reason.

 Semler's statement with regard to the Muslim domination over Egypt is unacceptable, as the language of a country could not possibly take over in such a short time. Alexandria was conquered by the Muslims in the seventh century, in the twentieth year of Hijra. Michaelis, however, forwarded strong arguments placing its writing in the tenth century. Woide's opinion that it was written in the tenth century seems quite logical because it was in this century that the practice of distorting the sacred texts became commonplace. Another indication of this is the fact that this copy contains three books that are not genuine, indicating that it must belong to a period in which it was difficult to distinguish between true and false which definitely applied to the tenth century.

This proves the falsity of the claim that these books were written before the emergence of Islam. The other claim is also disproved by the fact that the Codex Alexandrinus contains books that are not genuine and that it has been condemned by some scholars, Wettstein being foremost among them, and that no other two copies are so completely different from each other as are the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Alexandrinus.

Now if, for a moment, we grant that the above three versions were written prior to the appearance of Islam, it does not make any difference to our contention, because we have never said that the sacred books were not distorted in the period preceding Islam and that all the distortions were only made after it.

What we contend is that these books existed prior the period of Islam but they did not possess an unbroken chain of authority to prove their authenticity. They were certainly distorted even before the time of Islam. The presence of a number of books in the pre-Islamic period does not, therefore, help prove their authenticity. The presence of the above three versions in that period, if ever proved, would only add to the number of the books distorted by earlier generations.