Izhar – Ul – Haq Part 3

 
The Second Passage of Celements Letter
It appears in chapter thirteen of this letter:
We follow what is written, because the Holy Spirit has said that a wise man is never proud of his wisdom.

And we should keep in mind the words of Christ who said at the time of preaching patience and practice:
”Be ye merciful, that ye be shown mercy, forgive that ye he forgiven; ye will be acted upon, the same as you will act upon others, as you will give so shall you be given, you will be judged as you will judge upon others; as you will pity, so shall you be pitied upon and with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to You again.”

The Christians claim that this passage was taken by Clement from Luke 6:36-38 and Matt.7: 1,2,12. The passage from the Luke is this:
Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful. Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you mete.

The passage from Matthew 7:1,2 reads:
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

And in verse 12:
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
211

The Third Passage of Clements Letter
Chapter forty-six of his letter contains this passage:
Remember the words of Lord Christ who said, Woe unto the man who has committed a sin.

It would have been better for him if he had not been born, that he should harm those chosen by me. And whosoever shall offend my little ones, it will be better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

The Christians have claimed that the above passage was copied from Matthew 26:24 and 18:6 and Mark 9:42 and Luke 17:2: reproduce these verses below:
The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

Matthew 18:6 contains the following lines:
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Mark 9:42 reads:
"And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea."

The text of Luke 17:2 is this:
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

Having reproduced the passages from Clement and the above texts of the gospels, Lardner said in his Commentaries printed 1827 vol. 2 page 37 that:
The above two passages of Clement are his longest passages and this is why Paley confined himself to them to support the claim of authenticity for the gospels. This claim does not, however, stand to reason because Clement would at least have made a reference to the gospels had he copied any passage from them and he would also have copied the rest of the related text or, if that was not possible, the text reproduced by him should have been totally consistent and similar to the text of the gospel.
212
However none of these conditions are met. Such being the case, there is no possibility of its have been copied from the gospel.

1t is surprising to see Luke being referred to as the teacher of Clement, imparting to him the knowledge which he must already have had, being the companion of the disciples just as Luke was.

In volume 2 of his commentaries, Lardner remarked about the above two passages:
When we study the writings of those who enjoyed the company of the apostles or of the other followers of our Lord who, like the evangelists, were fully conversant with the teachings of Christ, we find ourselves very much in doubt without the evidence of a clear reference. We are faced with the difficulty of ascertaining whether Clement copied written statements of Christ or whether he is simply reminding the Corinthians of the sayings which he and the Corinthians had heard from the Apost1es and their followers. Leclerc preferred the former opinion ,while the Bishop of Paris preferred the latter.

If we accept that the three Gospels had been compiled prior to that time, in that case Clement could possibly have copied from them, though the word and expression may not exactly be identical. But that he actually has copied is not easy to confirm, because this man was fully acquainted with these matters even prior to the compilation of the Gospels. It is also possible that Clement would have described events already known to him without referring to the Gospels even after their compilation out of his old habit.

In both the cases, the faith in the truth of the Gospels is reaffirmed, obviously so in first case, and in the second case because his words correspond to the text of the Gospels, proving that the. Gospels were so widely known that the Corinthians and Clement both had the knowledge of them.

Through this we achieve the belief that the evangelists faithfully conveyed the words consisting of the true teachings of Christ. These words deserve the most careful preservation, though there we have a difficulty.
213
I think that the most scholars will agree with the opinion of leclerc, however, as Paul advises us in Acts 20:35 with the words: And to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.’

It is, I am sure, generally acknowledged that Paul did not copy the above statement from any letter but just quoted the words of the Christ which were in his knowledge and in the know1edge of others.

This does not mean that it may be accepted as a general rule but this method can possibly be applied in letters. We know that Polycarp also used this method in his writings. We are quite sure that he also copied from the written gospels.

It is clear from the above statement that the Christians are not certain that Clement really copied from the canonical gospels, and any claim to this effect is only based on conjecture.

We do not agree with the conclusion of Lardner that in both case the truth of the present gospels is proved because there can be no certainty in the presence of doubt. As the evangelists incompletely recorded the words of Christ in this particular instance, they might have done the same in other places too, and they might have not recorded the exact words used.

Moreover, if we overlook this point for a moment, it only proves that these particular sentences are the words of Christ, it does not in any way help us to believe that all the contents of the gospels are the genuine words of Christ. The knowledge of a certain statement cannot be an argument for the acceptance of other statements. If that were the case, all the rejected gospels would have to be accepted as genuine simply because some sentences of Clement bear some similarity with them.

We are also confident in our refutation of the claim that Polycarp also used the method of copying from the gospels in spite of his own knowledge, gained by being, like Clement, also a companion of the disciples of Jesus. Both of them are of equal status. His copying from the gospels cannot prove their genuineness. It is, on the other hand, possible that like Paul he might have ascribed some statements to Christ.35
214

 
The Letters of Ignation
Let us now find out the truth regarding the letters written by lgnatius, the Bishop of Antioch. Lardner said in vol. 2 of his commentary; Eusebius and Jerome both mentioned certain of his letters.

Apart from these some other letters are also attributed to him, which are generally considered by most of the scholars to be false and concocted. My opinion is no different. There are two copies of his seven letters, the large and small. Except for Mr. Weston and a few of his followers, all the scholars have decided that additions have been made in the larger one, the smaller version, however, can possibly be ascribed to him.

I have carefully made a comparative study of both the texts and my study revealed that the smaller version was turned into a larger one by the inclusion of many additions and insertions. It is not the case that the larger was turned into the smaller through the exclusion of some of the contents. The ancient writings, also, are more in accordance with the smaller version.

The question whether Ignatius really did write these letters remains to be settled. There is great dispute and disagreement on this point. The great scholars have made free use of their pens in expressing their opinions. The study of the writing of both the camps has made the question all the more complicated.

However, in my opinion, this much is settled and decided; that these are the sames letter which were present in the time of Origen and were read by Eusebius. Some of the sentences are not appropriate to the time of Ignatius. It is therefore better if we accept that these sentences are later additions instead of rejecting all the letters on the ground of these sentences, especially keeping in view the crisis of shortage of copies which we are facing.
215
It is also possible that some of the followers of Arius36 might have made additions to the smaller version just as they did to the larger Additions may also have been made by others.

Paley writes in his footnotes:
"In the past, the translation of three letters of lgnatius were present in the Syrian language and were printed by William Cureton. It is almost certain that the smaller letters, which were revised by Ussher, contained many additions.”

The above writings of the Christian scholars bring out the following facts:
1. All the 1etters except these seven letters are definitely fabricated and forged according to the Christian scholars and are therefore unacceptable.

2. The larger version of the letters is similarly not genuine in the opinion of all the scholars except Mr. Weston and a few of his followers.

3. As far as the smaller collection is concerned, there is great dispute and difference of opinion among great scholars with regards to its authenticity.

Both the groups of scholars have their own arguments against or in favour of its authenticity. The group of scholars who have favored it also admit its having been subjected to later modifications their by Arius or by others, with the result that this collection also appears to be equally of doubtful authenticity.

It seems most probable that this collection of letters was also put together in the third century AD similarly to the other letters. This should not present too much of a surprise, in view of the general practice of the theologians of early centuries who frequently prepared false writings and attributed to other writers to suit their whims.

Historical records bear witness to the fact that there were not less than seventy-five gospels which were falsely attributed to Christ, to Mary and to the disciples of Christ. It does, therefor, not seem particularly far-fetched to assert that these seven letters, too, were prepared and attributed to Ignatius, similar to other such letters and similar to the gospel of Tatian 39[1] which was falsely attributed to him.
216
Adam Clarke said in the introduction of his commentary:
The book which was genuinely ascribed to Tatian has disappeared and the one which is now attributed to him is doubtful in the eyes of most of the scholars, and they are right in their suspicion.

Let us ignore all the above points for a moment and take it that the 1etters in question really were originally written by lgnatius. Even these does not help much because, after the additions and modifications inserted by later people, they have lost their originality and are no longer acceptable.

According to the scholars some sentences of these letters were certainly added later on and so there is nothing to remove suspicion from other sentences which are supposed by them to be original. They, likewise, might have been added to or modified in subsequent times.

Eusebius said in chapter 23 of the fourth volume of his history:
Dionysius, the Bishop of Corinth, admitted that he had written several letters on the request of some of his friends, but those deputies of Satan filled them with profanities and altered some parts and added others. This made me all the more, aggrieved. Therefore, there is no wonder if someone made intentional additions in the holy books of our Lord, because they had no qualms in respect of the books of other authorities.
----------------------------------------------------
39[1] This is also called Diatessaron of Tatian. According to G.T. Menley this was put together by combining the present four gospels, but it is not known if it was in the Greek or in the Syrian language.
39[2] Chrysostom, being a great orator, was called the Golden Mouth. He was born in 347 AD and was later made bishop of Constantinop1e.
39[3]This was a Christian sect who were the followers of Basilius who was the bishop of Caesarea from 329 - 379 AD
217

Adam Clarke has said in his introduction to his commentary:
The great works of Origen have been lost and several of his Commentaries which are available contain an abundance of unfactual and imaginary comments which in itself is a powerful argument in favour of the fact that they have been interpolated.”

Michael Musaka, a Protestant scholar, has said in his Arabic work, Ajwibatu’l-Engeleer Ala Abateel-At-Taqleedeen, section one, chapter 10:
As far as their habit of distorting the statements of the ancients, we should first produce our arguments so that our position may not be similar to these of our opponents, that is to say, so that our claims may not be considered as baseless as theirs. We proceed to say that the book Afshin which is attributed to John Chrysostom, the Golden Mouth,40[2] and which is recited in the churches during the services of consecration, presents different texts.

That is, the text recited by one group is different from the text recited by others. For, in the copy of the Orthodox, the Father God is besought to make descend his Holy Spirit on the bread and wine and turn them into flesh and blood, while in the text of the Catholics it is said that he should send the Holy Ghost on the bread and wine so that they may be transformed.

But in the time of Maximus, it was changed by the people and they started to say that both the transformable things have39 fled away for the reason that the Orthodox had claimed against it. But the Catholics of Syria say it with these words, ’Send thy Holy Spirit upon this bread that is the secret of the body of Christ.’ There is no word denoting transformation present in this text. It is possible that this statement might have been of Chrysostom (the Golden Mouth) as the preaching of transformation was not introduced in his time.

And Major Bobi Tompter, who had converted to Catholicism said in his speech to the Orthodox in 1722: ”I have compared these books with the Orthodox version possessed by the Basilians, 41[3]and we did not find a single word in these books denoting transformation. This story of transformation of the bread and wine was invented by Nicephorus, the patriarch of Constantinople, and is ridiculous.
218
Now, when they could have made a play of such a pious text as Afshin and altered its contents to suit their unholy intentions and when they did not hesitate to attribute their distortions to such a pious man, how can they be trusted and how can they be free from the suspicion of changing and distorting the texts of their ancestors.

We have had our own experience in recent years that Deacon Ghariel of Egypt, who was a Catholic, took great pains and spent a lot of money in correcting the translation of the commentary of Chrysostom from the original Greek copy. The Orthodox scholars, who were expert in the Greek and Arabic languages, compared it in Damascus and testified to its accuracy, and then a certified version was prepared.

But Maximus did not allow its publication in Tyre.41 This copy was given to Bishop Alexis of Spain who made a thorough examination of the book. Both of them were totally ignorant of the original Greek version. In order to make it correspond with the teachings of the Pope they made many changes through additions and omissions using their own discretion. Having so spoilt the whole book they attested to it with their stamps and then it was allowed to be published.

It was not until the publication of its first volume, when it was compared with the original manuscript which was in safe custody with the Orthodox, that their unholy act of manipulation was uncovered, with the result that they became the subject of common reproach. Ghariel was so appalled at this incident that he never recovered and died of shock.

Musaka further said:
We produce the unanimous witness of their elders from one of the Arabic books generally available there. This is a report which was unanimously passed in a meeting, along with all its various parts, by the priests of the Maronites, their patriarchs and scholars, with the permission of Monsignor Samani. This report bears the seal of the Church of Rome. It was printed in Tyre with the permission of the chiefs of the Catholics.

Discussing the ritual of the offerings this report said that the old liturgies were still present in the churches, free from errors and faults, but they have been attributed to some saints and the pious men who were not the authors of these books, nor could they possibly have written them. Some of them were included by the copiers only to suit their unholy needs. It is more than enough for you to admit that your churches are full of fabricated and forged writings.
219
He further said:
We are fully aware that our enlightened generation would not dare to make alterations in the holy books, as they are fully wise to the fact that they are watched by the eyes of the protectors of the gospels. However we are not sure of the circumstances which prevailed from the fifth century to the seventh century AD, known as the dark ages, when the Popes and the priests enjoyed a barbarous kingdom of their own.

Some of them did not even know how to write and read and the helpless Christians of the East were living a very distressed life, always anxious to save their souls. What happened in that period is best known to them alone. Whenever we come to know the history of that terrible age, and think of the conditions ruling over the Christian church, which had become a symbol of corruption, our grief and sorrow knows no limits. Keeping in view the facts reproduced above, we leave the judgment to our readers to see the truth of our claim themselves.
220

 
The Canons of Nicaea
The number of the canons passed by the council of Nicaea42 was twenty. Subsequently many additions were made to them. The Catholics derive their arguments for the Popes authority from Canons No. 37 and 44.

It is written on Page 68 and 69 of ’Les Treize Epitres’ of the second letter printed in 1849 AD:
The aforementioned council prescribed only twenty canons according to the witness of the history of Theodorus and the writings  of Gelasius.

The Fourth Ecumenical 42[1] council also affirmed that there were only twenty Canons prescribed by the Council of Nice.

Similarly many other false books were written which were attributed to several Popes like Calixtus, Sircius, Nectarius, Alexander and Marcellus.

The above book contains this statement on page 80:
Pope Leo and the majority of the Roman scholars have admitted that the books of these Popes are false and fictitious.
===========================================
To the Authenticity of the Gospels
The second false claim made by the Christian scholars in order to support the authenticity of the gospels is their contention that the gospel of Mark was written with the help of Peter. This is another clever contrivance to misguide the general populace. Let us first have the wittiness of Irenaeus.

He said:
Mark, the follower and the translator of Peter, wrote the teachings of Peter after the death of Paul and Peter.

Lardner said in his commentary; In my opinion Mark did not write his gospel before 63 or 64 AD.

This period is also in accordance with the description of the ancient writer Irenacus, who said that Mark wrote his gospel after the death of Peter and Paul.

Basnage agreed with Irenaeus and said that Mark wrote his gospel in 66 AD after the death of Peter and Paul, The witnesses of Basnage and Irenaeus are sufficient to prove that this gospel was written after the death of Peter and Paul, and that Peter certainly did not see the gospel of Mark,43[1] and the statement, often cited to prove that Peter saw it, is weak and unacceptable.
----------------------------------------------
42[1]An ecumenical council. in Christian terminology, is a council inviting scholar from all parts of the world. Here the athor is referring to the council which was held Chaledon in 451 AD. This Council declared the Monophysites to be heretics. (Al Munajjid).
221
It is why Se author of Murshid ut-Talibeen, in spite of all his religious preoccupations said on page 170 of his book printed in 1840:
He has falsely answered that the gospel of Mark was written under the guidance of Peter. This claim of its being written in the life of Peter has therefore no grounds and hence, is rejected.

 
The Gospel of Luke Was Not Seen by Paul
Similarly the gospel of Luke was not seen by Paul.
This is true for two reasons:
1. Firstly because the findings of the modem Protestant scholars are that Luke wrote his gospel in 63 AD in Achaias. It is established that Paul was released from prison in 63 AD. After that nothing is known about him up to his death but it is most probable that he went to Spain in the West and not towards the Churches of the East, and Achaias is one of the Eastern cities. Most possibly Luke had sent his gospel to Theophilus who was indeed the real cause of writing it.
------------------------------------------------
43[1]G. T. Menley said that in the Markine Preface of the gospel of Mark, which was written in 170, we are informed that Mark wrote his gospel in ltaly after the: death of Peter, and this seems to be correct. (Our Holy Books)
222
The author of Murshid-u-Talibeen wrote on page 161 of volume two, printed in 1840, discussing the history of Luke:
As Luke 44[1] did not write anything related to Paul after his release from prison, we know nothing about his travels from his release to his death.

Gardner said in his Commentaries printed 1728 vol. 5, p. 350:
Now we want to write about the life of the disciple, from his release to his death, but we are not helped by Luke in this regard. However we do find some traces in other books of the modem time.

The ancient writers do not help. We find great dispute over the question of where Paul went after his release. In the light of the above, the contention of some of modem scholars that he went to the Churches of the East after his release is not proved.

He said in his epistle to the Romans 15:23,24:
But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you; Whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you; for I trust to see you in my journey… It is quite explicit from the above statement of their apostle that he had an intention to go to Spain, and at the same time we know that he never went to Spain before his imprisonment. It is therefore, quite logical that he might have gone to Spain after his release, because we do not see any reason for him to have abandoned his intention to travel to Spain.

It appears in the Book of Acts 20:25:
And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.

This statement also indicates that he had no intention to visit the Churches of the East Clement, the Bishop of Rome, said in his letter:
Paul, in order to unveil the truth to the world, went to the end of the West and then reached the sacred p1ace (i.e. died).”
---------------------------------------------
44[1]That is, in the Book of Acts, which is considered to be written by Luke.
223
This too obviously implies that he went towards the West and not to the East before his death.

Lardner first reproduced the statement of Irenaeus as follows:
Luke, the servant of Paul, wrote in a book the tidings that Paul had preached in his sermon.

He further said:
The context of the description indicates that this (Luke's writing the gospel) happened after Mark had written his gospel, that is, after the death of Peter and Paul.

On the grounds of this statement it is physically impossible for Paul to have seen the gospel of Luke. Besides, even if we assume that Paul saw this gospel, it does not prove and thing because we do not consider him to have been inspired by God and a statement made by an uninspired person could not achieve the status of inspiration simply by the fact of Paul having seen it.
 224

 
Human Distortion of The Bible
Alterations, Additions and Omissions
= Alterations in the Text of the Bible
= Alterations # 1 to 14
= First Conclusion to Sixth Conclusion
= Alterations # 15 to 32
= Additions to the Text of the Bible
= Distortion in Luther’s Translation
= Omissions in the Text of the Bible

There are two kinds of biblical distortions:
explicit distortions which are directly related to clear changes in the text, which arise through alteration, omission or addition to the original text; and implicit distortions which are brought about by deliberate misinterpretation without any actual textual change. There is no dispute over the existence of such distortions in the Bible since all Christians, both Protestants and Catholics, admit their existence.

According to them the verses of the Old Testament contain-ing references to Christ and the injunctions which were, to the Jews, of perpetual value were distorted by the Jews through misinterpretation.

Protestant theologians claim that the Catholics have distorted many texts of both the Old and the New Testament. The Catholics similarly accuse the Protestants of having distorted the text of the Bible. We therefore do not need to include demonstrations of implicit distortions as they have already been provided by the Christians themselves.

As far as textual distortion is concerned, this kind of distortion is denied by the Protestants and they offer false arguments and misguiding statements in their writings in order to create doubts among the Muslims. It is therefore necessary to demonstrate that all the three kinds of textual distortion, that is, alterations in the text: the deletion of phrases and verses from the text; and later additions to the original texts are abundantly present in both the. Old and the New Testaments.

Alterations in the Text of the Bible
It should be noted in the beginning that there are three acknowledged versions of the Old Testament:
1. The Hebrew version which is acknowledged equally by the Jews and the Protestants.

2.The Greek version which was recognized as authentic by the Christians up until the seventh century. Until that time the Hebrew version was considered by the Christians to be inauthentic and distorted, the Greek version is still held to be authentic by the Greek and Eastern Churches. The above two versions include all the books of the Old Testament.
225
3.The Samaritan version which is recognized by the Samaritans. This is in fact the Hebrew version with the difference that it consists of only seven books that is, the five books of the Pentateuch which are ascribed to Moses, the Book of Joshua and the Book of Judges. This is because the Samaritans do not believe in, or acknowledge, any of the other books of the Old Testament.

Another difference is that it includes many additional phrases and sentences that are not present in the Hebrew version. Many Protestant scholars and theologians like Kennicott, Hales and Houbigant recognize it as authentic and do not accept the Hebrew version which they believe to have been distorted by the Jews. In fact the majority of Protestant scholars prefer it to the Hebrew version, as you will see from the following pages.

Alteration No. 1:
The Period from Adam to the Flood
The period from Adam to the flood of Noah, as described by the Hebrew version, is one thousand six hundred and fifty-six years, while according to the Greek version, it is two thousand three hundred and sixty-two years[1] and the Samaritan version gives it as one thousand three hundred and seven years. A table is given in the commentary of Henry and Scott where the age of every descendant has been given at the time when he gave birth to his son except Noah, whose age is given a s at the time of the flood.

This table is as follows:
 
Total   1650       1307        2262 45[2]
226

The above table shows extremely serious differences between the statements of all three versions. All three versions agree that the age of the Prophet Noah at the time of the flood was six hundred and the total age of Adam was nine hundred and thirty. However according to the Samaritan version the Prophet Noah was two hundred and thirteen years of age when Adam died which is obviously wrong and goes against the unanimous agreement of the historians and is also erroneous according to the Hebrew and Greek versions.

For according to the former, Noah was born one hundred and twenty-six years after the death of Adam and, according to the latter, he was born seven hundred and thirty-two years after the death of Adam. In view of this serious discrepancy, the renowned historian of the Jews, Josephus, who is also recognized by the Christians, did not accept the statement of any of the three versions and decided that the correct period was two thousand two hundred and fifty-six years.

Alteration No. 2:
The period from the Flood to Abraham
The period from the Flood of Noah to the birth of the Prophet Abraham is given as two hundred and ninety-two years in the Hebrew version, one thousand and seventy-two years in the Greek, and nine hundred and forty-two years in the Samaritan version. There is another table covering this period in the Henry and Scott commentary where against every descendant of Noah, the year of the birth of their sons is given except in the case of Shem, against whose name the year of birth is given for his child who was born after the Flood.

This table is as follows:

This discrepancy among the three versions is so serious that it can not be explained. Since the Hebrew version informs us that Abraham was born two hundred and ninety-two years after the Flood and that Noah lived for three hundred and fifty years after the Flood as is understood from Genesis: And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years.[4]

This means that Abraham was fifty-eight years old at the death of Noah which is wrong according to the Greek and Samaritan versions and according to the unanimous decision of the historians. The Greek version places the birth of Abraham seven hundred and twenty-two years after the death of Noah while the Samaritan makes it five hundred and ninety-two years after his death. Secondly, in the Greek version an additional generation is given that is not to be found in the other two versions. The Evangelist Luke trusted the Greek version and therefore included in the genealogy of Christ the name of Canaan.

This great discrepancy in the statements of the above three versions has caused great difference of opinion among Christians. The historians rejected all three versions and decided that actual period in this case was three hundred and fifty two years. Josephus, the renowned Jewish historian, also rejected the above three versions and said that the correct figure was nine hundred and ninety-three years, as is evident from the Henry and Scott commentary.

The great theologian of the fourth century, Augustan, and other ancient writers favoured the statement of the Greek version. Horsley, the commentator, expressed the same opinion in his comments on Genesis, while Hales thinks that the Samaritan version was correct. The scholar Home also seems to support the Samaritan version.

Henry and Scott’s commentary includes this statement:
Augustine held the opinion that the Jews had distorted the description in the Hebrew version with regard to the elders who lived either prior to the Flood or after it up to the time of Moses, so that the Greek version would be discredited, and because of the enmity which they had against Christianity. It seems that the ancient Christians also favoured this opinion. They thought that this alteration was made by them in 130.

Horne says in the first volume of his commentary:
The scholar Hales presented strong argument in favourof the Samaritan version. It is not possible to give a summary of his argumentshere. The curious reader may see his book from page 80 onward.
228
Kennicott said:
If we keep in mind the general behaviour of the Samaritans towards the Torah, and also the reticence of Christ at the time of his discourse with the Samaritan woman, and many other points, we are led to to believe that the Jews made deliberate alterations in the Torah, and that the claim of the scholars of the Old and the New Testament, that the Samaritans made deliberate changes, is baseless.

Christ’s discourse with a Samaritan woman referred to in the above passage is found in the Gospel of John where we find:
The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that Thou arta prophet. Our father worshipped in this mountain; and ye say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship[5]

The Samaritan woman, convinced that Christ was a Prophet, asked about the most disputed matter between the Jews and the Samaritans in respect of which each of them accused the other of making alterations to the original text. Had the Samaritans distorted it, Christ, being a Prophet, must have disclosed the truth. Instead, he kept silent on the matter, implying that the Samaritans were right and showing that there must be human manipulations in the text of the Holy Scriptures.

Alteration No. 3:
Mount Gerizim or Mount Ebal
We find the following statement in Deuteronomy:
It shall be when ye be gone over Jordan that ye shallset up these stones, which I command you this day, in mount Ebal, and thou shallplaster them with plaster[6]

On the other hand the Samaritan version contains: the stones which I command set them up inGerizim.

Ebal and Gerizim are two mountains adjacent to eachother as is known from verses 12 and 13 of the same chapter and from 11:29 ofthe same book. According to the Hebrew version it is clear that the ProphetMoses had commanded them to build a temple on Mount Ebal, while from theSamaritan version we know that he commanded this temple to be built on Gerizim.
229
This was a matter of great dispute between the Jews and the Samaritans, and eachof them accused the other of altering the original text of the Pentateuch. The same dispute is found among Protestant scholars on this point.

Adam Clarke, the famous Protestant scholar, says on page 817 of the first volume of his commentary:
The scholar Kennicott maintained that the Samaritan version was correct, while the scholars Parry and Verschuur claimed that the Hebrew version was authentic, but it is generally know that Kennicott's arguments are irrefutable, and people positively believe that the Jews, out of their enmity against the Samaritans, changed the text. It is unanimouslyac knowledged that Mount Gerizim is full of vegetation, springs and gardens while Mount Ebal is barren without any water and vegetation in it. In this case Mount Gerizim fits the description of ’the place of blessing' [7] and Ebal as the place of curse.

The above makes us understand that Kennicott and other scholar have favoured the Samaritan version and that Kennicott for warde dirrefutable arguments.

Alteration No. 4:
Seven Years or Three Years
We find the phrase ’seven years’ in ll Sam. 24:13,while I Chronicles 21:12 has ’three year`. This has been already discussed arlier. Obviously one of the two statements must be wrong.

Adam Clarke commenting on the statement of Samuel said:
Chronicles contains ’three years’ and not ’sevenyears’. The Greek version similarly has ’three years’ and this is undoubtedlythe correct statement. The Greek version similarly has ’three years’ and this is undoubtedly the correct statement.
230
Alteration No. 5: Sister or Wife
I Chronicles of the Hebrew version contains:And whose sister’s name was Micah[8] It should be ’wife’ and not ’sister’.

Adam Clarke said:
The Hebrew version contains the word ’sister’ while the Syrian, Latin and Greek versions have the word ’wife’. The translators have followed these versions.

Protestant scholars have rejected the Hebrew version and followed the above translations indicating that they too consider the Hebrew version to be erroneous.

Alteration No. 6
II Chronicles 22:2 of the Hebrew version informs us:
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.

This statement is undoubtedly wrong because his father Jehoram was forty years [9] old when he died, and Ahaziah was enthronedim mediately after the death of his father. If the above statement be true, hemust have been two years older than his father.

 II Kings reads as follows:
Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. [10]

Adam Clarke making comments on the statement of Chronicles said in the second volume of his commentaries:
The Syrian and the Arabic translations contain twenty-two years, and some Greek translations have twenty years. Most probably the Hebrew version was the same, but the people used to write the numbers in the form of letters. It is most likely that the writer has substituted the letter’mim’ (m=40) for the letter ’kaf” (k=20).

He further said:
The statement of II Kings is correct. There is no way of comparing the one with the other. Obviously any statement allowing a son to be older than his father cannot be true. Home and Henry and Scott have alsoadmitted it to the mistake of the writers.

Alteration No. 7
II Chronicles 28:19 of the Hebrew version contains:
The lord brought Judah low because of Ahaz king of Israel.The word Israel in this statement is certainly wrong because Ahaz was the king of Judah and not of Israel. The Greek and the Latin versions have the word ’Judah’. The Hebrew version therefore has been changed.

Alteration No. 8
Psalm 40 contains this:
Mine ears hast thou opened.
Paul quotes this in his letter to the Hebrews in these words But a body hast thou prepared me. [11]

One of these two statements must be wrong and manipulated.

The Christian scholars are surprised at it.

Henry and Scott’s compilers said:
This is a mistake of the scribes. Only one of the two statement is true.

They have admitted the presence of alteration in this place but they are not definite which of the two statements has been changed. Adam Clarke ascribes the change to the Psalms.
231
D’Oyly and Richard Mantobservein their comments:
It is surprising that in the Greek translation and in the Epistle to the Hebrews10:5 this sentence appears as: ’but a body hast thou prepared me.’

The two commentators agree that it is the statement of the Evangel that has been altered, that is, the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews.

Alteration No. 9
Verse 28 of Psalm 105 in the Hebrew version includes the statement;
“They rebelled not against his words.”

The Greek version on the contrary bears these words:
“They rebelled against these words.” It can be seen that the former version negates the latter. One of the two statements, the refore, must be wrong. Christian scholars are greatly embarrassed here.

The commentary of Henry and Scott concludes:
This difference has induced much discussion and it is obvious that the addition or omission of a certain word has been the cause of all this.

The presence of manipulation in the text has been admitted, though they are not able to decide which version is wrong.
232
Alteration No. 10:
The Number of the Israelites
II Samuel contains this statement:
And there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.[12]

This statement is contradicted by I Kings:
And all they of Israel were a thousand thousands and a hundred thousand men that drew sword.

Certainly one of the two statements has been altered. Adam Clarke making his comments on the first statement observed:
The validity of both the statements is not possible. Most probably the first statement is correct. The historical books of the Old Testament contain more distortions than the other books. Any effort to find conformity among them is just useless. It is better to admit, in the begining, what cannot be refuted later. The authors of the Old Testament were men of inspiration but the copiers were not.

This is a plain admission of the fact that alterations are abundant in the books of the Old Testament and that one should objective lyadmit their presence because these changes and contradictions are unexplainable.

Alteration No. 11: Horsley's Admission
The famous commentator, Horsley, under his comments on Judges 12:4 observed on page 291 of the first volume of his commentary:
There is no doubt that this verse has been distorted.

The verse referred to is:
Then Jephtah gathered together all the man of Gilead and fought with Ephraim: and the men of Gilead smote Ephraim, because they said, Ye Gileadites are fugitives of Ephraim among the Ephraimites and among the Manassites.
233
Alteration No. 12: Four or Forty
II Samuel l 5:7 contains:
And it came to pass after forty years that Absalom said unto the King”, Here the word ’forty’ is undoubtedly wrong: the correct number is four.

Adam Clarke said in volume two of his book:
There is no doubt that this text has been altered.

Alteration No. 13: Kennicot's Admission
Adam Clarke observed in volume 2 of his commentary under the comments on II Sam 23: 8:
According to Kennicott three alternations have been made in this verse.

This is a plain admission that a single verse contains three distortions.

Alteration No. 14
I Chronicles 7:6 informs us as follows:
The sons of Benjamin; Bela, and Becher, and Jediael, three.

While in chapter 8 it says:
Now Benjamin begat Bela, his first born, Ashbel the second and Aharah the third Noahah the fourth and Repha the fifth.

These two different statements are again contradicted by Genesis 46:21:
And the sons of Benjamin were Belah, and Becher, and Ashbel, Gera and Naaman, Ehi and Rosh, Muppim and Huppim and Ard.

It is quite easy to see that there are two kinds of differences in the above three statements. The first passage informs us that Benjamin had three sons, the second claims he had five while the third counts them as ten. Since the first and the second statements are from the same book, it shows a contradiction in the statements of a single author, the Prophet Ezra. Obviously only one of the two statements can be accepted as correct making the other two statements false and erroneous. The Judaeo-Christian scholars are extremely embarrassed and, seeing no way out, they put the blame on the Prophet Ezra.

Adam Clarke said with regard to the first statement;
It is because the author (Ezra) could not separate the sons from the grandsons. In fact any effort to reconcile such contradictions is of no use. Jewish scholars think that the author Ezra did not know that some of them were sons and the others grandsons.
234
They also maintain that the genealogical tables from which Ezra had copied were defective. We can do nothing but leave such matters alone.

This is an obvious example of how the Christian as well as the Jewish scholars find themselves helpless and have to admit the errors in Ezra’s writings.

The above admission of Adam Clarke helps us to conclude many points of great significance. But before going into those points we muster mind ourselves that it is the unanimous claim of both Jewish and Christians scholars that the Book of Chronicles was written by Ezra with the help of the Prophet Haggai and Zechariah, This implies that these two books have the unanimous witness of the three Prophets.

On the other hand we have His to rical evidence that all the books of the Old Testament were in a very bad condition before the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar and after his invasion there was no trace of them left but their names. Had Ezra not recompiled them, they would have ceased to exist then and there. The above fact is admitted in the book which is ascribed to the Prophet Ezra.[13] Although the Protestants do not believe it to be inspired, they nevertheless acknowledge it as a document of historical value.

In it we find:
The Torah was burnt. No one knew anything of it. It is said that Ezra rewrote it guided by the Holy Spirit.

Clement of Alexandria said;
All the divine books were destroyed. Then Ezra was inspired to rewrite them.

Tertullian observed:
It is general1y believed that Ezra recomposed these books after the invasion of the Babylonians.

The ophylactus said:
The Holy Books completely disappeared. Ezra gave new birth to them through inspiration.

The Catholic, John Mill observed on page 115 of his book printed at Derby :1843:
All the scholars unanimously agree that the original Torah (Pentateuch) and other original books of the Old Testament were destroyed by the forces of Nebuchadnezzar.
235
When the books were recompi1ed through Ezra, these too were later on destroyed during the invasion of Antiochus.

Keeping the above information in mind will help us understand the significance of the following six conclusions based on the observations of the commentator. Adam Clarke.
---------------------------------------------
46[1]This number is given as 2362 in all the versions, but according to this table it comes to 2363. The mistake may be either in the book that the author has used or somewhere in the table
47[2]It should be 2362 according to the above table, but our author has given 2262 in all versiane. We have, usnilated it as it is without correction.
48[3] Terah was the name of Abraham’s father, and other was. His appellation. Some historians think that Azar was Abraham’s uncle and the Qur’an has used the word father for uncle.
49[4]Gen. 9: 28.
50[5]John 4:19,20.
51[6]Deut. 27:4.
52[7] ”That thou shall put the blessing upon mount Gerizim, and the curse upon mount Ebal.” (Deut. 11:29). Obviously a p1ace of worship should be built on a place of blessing, not on a place of curse.
53[8] Chron. 19:30.
54[9] l. ’Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned h Jerusalem.” Chr. 21:20.
55[10]II Kings 8:26.
56[11] Heb. 10:5.
57[12]II Samuel 24: 9.
58[13]Perhaps the author is referring to the book of Esdras because it is the book containing these events. It may be noted that this book is not included in the Protestant Bible. However. it is part of the Catholic Bible. In the Knox version of the Catholic Bible there are ten chapters in the first book of Esdras and thirteen in the second book. I was unable to find this passage in the books of Esdras. The statement has been translated from Urdu. (Raazi).
236

First Conclusion:
The present Torah (the Pentateuch) cannot be the original Torah that was first revealed to Moses and then, after having been destroyed, rewritten by Ezra through inspiration. Had it been the original Torah, Ezra could have not opposed it in his writings,59[1] and must have copied according to it, without trusting its defective genealogical tables as he did and without distinguishing right from wrong.

The contention that Ezra copied it from the defective versions available to him at the time, and was unable to remove errors contained in them, exactly as he was unable to do in the case of the defective genealogical tables, makes it lose its divine character and, therefore, its trustworthiness.

Second Conclusion:
If Ezra could have made mistakes in spite of being assisted by two other Prophets, he could have made mistakes in other books also. This kind of situation leaves one in doubt about the divine origin of these books, especially when it happens to contrast with definitely established arguments and simple human logic.

For example we must reject the truth of the disgraceful event described in chapter 19 of Genesis where the Prophet Lot is imputed to have committed fornication with his two daughters, resulting in their pregnancy, and then two sons being born to them who later become the forefathers of the Moabites and Ammonites. (May God forbid).

Similarly we must reject the event described in I Samuel chapter 21 where the Prophet David is accused of fornication with the wife of Uriah, making her pregnant, and of killing her husband under some pretext and taking her to his house.
----------------------------------------------
59[1]That is the Book of Chronicles would have not contradicted the book of Genesis which is the part of the Torah.
237
There is another unacceptable event described in I Kings chapter 11where the Prophet Solomon is reported to have converted to paganism, misguided by his wives, and to have built temples for idols thus becoming low in the eyes of God. There are many other obscene and shameful events described in the Bible which make the hair of the faithful stand on end. All these events have been rejected by irrefutable arguments.

Third Conclusion:
Protestant theologians claim that, although the Prophets are not generally immune from committing sins and making mistakes, in preaching and writing they are innocent of and immune to all kinds of errors and omissions. We may be allowed to remind them that this claim remains unsupported by their holy books.

Otherwise they should explain why the writing of the Prophet Ezra is not free from errors especially when he had the assistance of two other Prophets.

Fourth Conclusion:
This allows us to conclude that according to the Christians there are times when a Prophet does not receive inspiration when he needs it. The Prophet Ezra did not receive inspiration while he most needed it at the time of writing these books.

Fifth Conclusion:
Our claim that everything written in these books is not inspired by God has been proved because a false statement cannot be an inspiration from God. The presence of such statements in the Bible has been demonstrated above.

Sixth Conclusion:
If the Prophet Ezra is not free from error, how can the Evangelists Mark and Luke be supposed to be immune to error, especially when they were not even disciples of Christ’? According to the People of the Book, Ezra was a Prophet who received inspiration and he was assisted by two other Prophets.

Mark and Luke were not men of inspiration. Though the other two Evangelists, Matthew and John, are considered by the Protestants to be Apostles, they too are not different from Mark and Luke since the writings of all four evangelists are full of errors and contradictions.
238
Alteration No. 15
Under his comments on l Chronicles 8:9 Adam Clarke observed in the second volume of his book:
In this chapter from this verse to verse 32, and in chapter 9 from verse 35 to 44we find names which are different from each other.60[1] Jewish scholar believe that Ezra had found two books which contained these verses with names different from each other. Ezra could not distinguish the correct names from the wrong ones; he therefore copied bothof them. We have nothing to add in respect of this to what we said under the previous number.

Alteration No. 16
In II Chronicles 13:3 we find the number of Abijah's army mentioned as four hundred thousand and the number of Jeroboam's army as eight hundred thousand, and in verse 17 the number of people slain from Jeroboam's army is given as five hundred thousand. Since this number of the troops of the above kings was incredibly exaggerated, they have been reduced to forty thousand, eighty thousand and fifty thousand respectively in the most Latin translations. It is surprising that the commentators have willingly accepted this. Home said in the first volume of his commentary: Most probably the number descried in these (the Latin) versions is correct.

Similarly Adam Clarke in the second volume of his book said:
It seems that the smaller number (the reduced number in the Latin translations) is quite correct. And we are thus provided with great opportunity to protest against the presence of distortion in the numbers described by these historical books.
----------------------------------------------------
60[1]We have discussed these names in an earlier volume.
This is again an unambiguous example of alterations made in the texts of the Bible.
239

Alteration No. 17: The Age of Jehoiachin
We find this statement in II Chronicles:
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign. 61[2]

The word ’eight’ in this verse is incorrect and is contrary to the statement of: II Kings which says:
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign. 62[3]

In his comments on the latter verse Adam Clarke said:
The word ’eight’ used in 2 Chronicles 36:8 is certainly wrong, because he reigned for only three months and was then made captive in Babylon where he had his wives in the prison. It seems obvious that a child of eight years could not have had wives with him. A child of this age cannot be accused of committing an act which is evil in the eyes of God.

Alteration No. 18
According to some versions Psalm 20 verse 17, and according to the Hebrew version, Psalm 22 verse 16, includes this sentence:
My both hands are like a lion.

In the Catholic and the Protestant translations the sentence reads:
They pierced my hands and my feet All the scholars admit the presence of an alteration at this place.
-------------------------------------------------
61[2]1I Chron. 36:6.
62[3] II Kings 24:8.
240
Alteration No. 19
Under his comments on Isaiah 64:2, 63[4] Adam Clarke said in volume 4 of his book:
At this place the Hebrew text has undergone a great altercation, the correct sentence should be: the fire causeth the wax to melt.

Alteration No. 20: Difference between Isaiah and Paul
Verse 4 of the same chapter contains:
For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, besides thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him.

But Paul records this verse differently in his first letter to Corinthians, saying:
Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

The difference between the two texts is obvious and one of the two statements must be wrong.

The commentary of Henry and Scott contains this statement:
The best opinion is that the Hebrew text has been distorted.

Adam Clarke reproduced many opinions on this text of Isaiah and examined the text thoroughly, at the end of which he observed:
What can I do under these difficult circumstances except present one of two alternatives to my readers: admit that the Jews changed the texts of the Hebrew and Latin translations, as a strong probability exists of alterations in the quotations of the Old Testament reproduced in the New Testament; or admit that Paul did not quote this sentence from this book. He might have quoted it from one of several forged books. For instance from the Book of the Ascension of Isaiah or from the revelations of Ebiah where this sentence can be found, because some people think that the apostle (Paul) copied from forged books.
--------------------------------------------
63[4]”And when the melting fire burneth the fire causeth the waters to boi1, to make they name known to thine adversaries, that nations may tremble at they presence.” (Isaiah 64:2)
241
Perhaps people generally would not easily accept the first possibility, but I must warn the readers that Jerome considers the second possibility to be the worst kind of heresy or heterodoxy.

Alterations No 21-26
Differences between the Old and New Testaments
We find Horne observing in the second volume of his commentary:
It seems that the Hebrew text has been changed in the verses detailed below:
1. Malachi 3:1
2. Psalms 16:8-11
3. Micah 5:2
4. Amos 9:ll-l2
5. Psalms 4:6-8
6. Psalms 110:4

1. The first verses in Mal. 3:I seems to have been altered because Matthew reports it in his Gospel in chapter 11:10 in a: from which is obviously different from Malachi's in the Hebrew and other translations.

The text of Matthew is this:
Behold, I send my messengers before ye...

The words 'before ye' are not to be found in Malachi. 64[5] Besides this Matthew also reported these words, ”Shall prepare the way Before ye” While Malachi's statement is, ”Shall prepare the way before me.”

Horne admitted in a footnote:
This difference cannot be explained easily except that the old versions had been changed.

2. The second verse (Mic. 5:2) is also quoted by Matthew in 2.6 in a way which show Clear differences [6] from the above.

3. The third passage (Psalms 16:8-11) is reported by Luke in Acts 2:25-28, and the texts are quite different from each other.

4. The fourth passage is also quoted by Luke in Acts. 15 16 17 and is different from Amos 9:11-12.
-----------------------------------------------------
64[5] Malachi’s text is this: ”Behold ,? I will send my messengers end he shall prepare. the way before me.”
242

5. Psalms 4;6-8 is quoted by Paul in his letter to the Hebrews in verses 5 to 7. The two versions are quite different. 65[7]

Alterations No. 27-29: Contradictory Margin Notes Exodus 21:8, in the Hebrew version, contains a negative statement while the statement included in its margin is affirmative.

This verse contains injunctions with regard to keeping maid servants. Similarly we find in Leviticus 11:21 laws regarding birds and creeping things on the earth[8]. The statement in the Hebrew text is negative while in the marginal notes it is found to be affirmative.

Leviticus 25:30 gives injunctions with regard to selling houses. The verse again contains a negative injunction while the marginal note affirms it 66[9]

Protestant scholars have preferred the affirmative texts in the marginal notes in their translations in all the above three places. That is, they have omitted the primary text and have included a marginal passage in its place, thus distorting these verses. After the alteration in these three verses, the injunctions contained in them have lost their certainty.

Now it cannot be ascertained which of the two injunctions is correct. the negative one of the text or the affirmative of the margin. This demonstration also refutes the claim of the Christians that the distortions found in the Bible do not affect rituals and liturgical instructions.
--------------------------------------------------
65[7]1. We could not find any difference at this place but since Horne is considered a great scholar by the Christians his statement might have been based on some reason, it has therefore been included .
66[9]“And if it not be redeemed within the space of a full year, then the house that is in the walled city shall be established for ever to him that bought it throughout his generations, It shall not go out in the jubile.” Leviticus 25:30.
243

Alteration No. 30
Acts 20:28 says:
To feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Griesbach observed that the word ‘God’ used here is wrong; the correct word is the pronoun ‘his’,[10] the third person singular.

Alteration No. 3l;
Angel or Eagle Revelation 8:13 contains this statement: And I beheld an angel flying. Griesbach has suggested that the word ‘angel’ here is wrong, the correct word should be ‘eagle’.[11]

Griesbach and Scholtz observed that the word ’God’ here is again wrong; the correct word should be ’Christ’[1]

In this section we have aimed at demonstrating the presence of human manipulation in the form of alterations of phrases and words in the Bible. The above thirty-two examples should be enough to prove it. We confine ourselves to this much only to avoid unnecessary prolongation of the subject; otherwise there is no dearth of them in the Bible.

Alteration No. 32
Ephesians 5:21 contains:
Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
----------------------------------------------------
67[6]In Micah the city of Judah is described ?as a small city while in Matthew this is negated.
68[8] “Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that Goth upon all four, which have EEGs above their feet to Yap withal upon the earth.”
69[10]In the present Urdu version it has been changed to the pronoun ’his’ but in the King James version printed in 1962 the word ’God’ still exists while in the new English translation, printed in 1961, it has been changed to ’his’.
70[11]The King James version contains ’angel’ but the new translations have the word ’eagle’.
244
Additions to the Text of the Bible
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.
245
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. the 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.
246

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. 71[1]
--------------------------------------------------
71[1] Gen. 36:31.
247
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,[2] The first king of this kingdom was Saul, 72[3] who reigned 356 years after the death of the Prophet Moses.

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. 73[4]

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."
-----------------------------------------------
72[3] This Saul is the same king who is named in the Qur’an as 'Talut'.
73[4] Deut. 3:14.
248
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.
249
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 74[5] contains his admission and concern over the perversion of the Israelites while the Book of Nehemiah[6] informs us that Ezra had read the Torah to the people.

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. 75[7]

We historically know that this mount was called ’The Mount of the Lord’, only after the construction of the temple, 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 sentences a later addition, and said:
This mount was not known by this name prior to the construction of the Temple.

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 O, 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.
----------------------------------------------
74[5]. Ezra chapter 9.
75[7] . Gen. 22:14.
250
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. 76[8]

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 the children of 1srael did eat ’manna’ forty years until they came to a Landin habited; they did eat manna until they came to the borders of the land Of Canaan.[9]

This verse also cannot be the word of God, because God did not discontinue ’manna’ in the lifetime of Moses, and they did not arrive at Canaan in that period, Adam Clarke said on page 399 of the first volume of his commentary: From this verse people have reckoned that the Book of Exodus was written after the discontinuance of Manna from the Israelites, but it is possible that these words might have been added by Ezra.
--------------------------------------------
76[8] Numbers 21:3.
251
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. 77[10]

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 the town Hebron in three places. [11]This name was given to it by the Israelites after the victory of Palestine. Formerly it was called Kirjath Arba,[12] which is known from Joshua 14:15. Therefore the author of these verses must have been someone living in the period after this victory and the change of its name To Hebron.

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. 78[13]
-----------------------------------------------
77[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.
252
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.

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.
----------------------------------------------------
78[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)
253
 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. 79[14]

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 O 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 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.
-------------------------------------------------
79[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.
254
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[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.

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. 80[16]

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.
----------------------------------------------
80[16] Deut. 23:2.
255
Addition No. 17
The compilers of Henry andScott’s commentary said under their comments on Joshua chapter 4:9:
This sentence[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[18] Moreover this book has eight other instances[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.

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? [20]

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.
256
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.[21] The commentator Horsley had to admit that the Hebrew version must have been changed here.

Addition No. 20
We find the following sentence in Joshua chapter 19 verse 34:
And to Judah upon Jordan toward the sun rising.

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.
257
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, [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.

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. [23]

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.
258
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 a hove verses are not the part of the original version.

In a long discussion he adduced that this verse [24] was a later addition. 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.
259
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 God fearing 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. [25]

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. [26]

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.
260

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.[27]

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.
261
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 [28] as was admitted by Ward, Buchanan and others. 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.
262
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.[29]

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.[30]
263
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 [31]

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.
264
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.
265
-------------------------------------------------------
81[2] This kingdom was formed centuries after the death of Moses and the speaker must belong to this period
82[6] Nehemiah chapter 8.
83[9] Ex. 16:35.
84[11]Gen. 13:18, 35:27 and 37:14.
85[12] ”And the name of Hebron before was Kirjath-arba.”
86[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,
87[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
88[18]All these sentences bear the phrase ’unto this day’ denoting that they were no t written by Joshua.
89[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.
90[20] Josh.10:13.
91[21] ”For I will not give thee of the land of the children of Ammon.” Deut. 2:19
92[22]Judges 17:7.
93[23] 1. I Sam. 6:19.
94[24] l.l Samuel 17: 18.
266
95[25] Mark 6:17.
96[26]Luke 3: 19-20
97[27] . Luke 7: 31
98[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
99[29]M ark 2: 25,26.
100[30] The current Urdu and English versions omit this sentence. The King James Version.
however, still contains it.
101[31]. 1.I John 5:7-8.

Distortion in Luther’s Translation
The founder of the Protestant faith and great theologian, Martin Luther, first translated the holy books in to the German language. He did not include this passage in his translation. His translation was printed several times in his lifetime without this passage.

In his old age, in 1546 when this translation was being reprinted, Luther, fully aware of the general practice of the Christians, felt it necessary to include in his will regarding this edition that no one should make any changes it. The were not able by their nature to act upon his will and they included this passage in his translation less than thirty year after his death.

The first people to add this passage were the people of Frankfurt when they printed this translation in 1574.Subsequently, either from the fear of God or for other reasons, they again excluded this verse from it. The trinitarians felt this exclusion very badly, and once again it was added to it by the people of Wittenberg in 1596 and by the people of Hamburg in 1599. Again the people of Wittenberg, for some un knownreason, excluded it from the second edition. From then onward, the Protestants accepted its inclusion in the text. In this way the Protestants unanimouslyacted against the will of their spiritual father. The famous unitarianscientist, Isaac Newton, wrote a treatise of nearly fifty pages where he proved that this and I Timothy 2:16. Are both forged and distorted.
267
The latter versesays:
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached untothe Gentiles believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Since the above verse also was helpful in establishing the concept of trinity, it was added to the text by the enthusiasts.

Addition No. 31
The Book of Revelation contains the words:
I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day,[1] and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and what thou seest, write in a book.

Griesbach and Sholtz are in agreement on the point that the word, ’the first and the last’ are not genuine and were added later. Some translators have omitted them, and in the Arabic translationsprinted in 1671, and 1821, the words Alpha and Omega were also[2] omitted.

Addition No.32
Acts 8:37 says:
And Philip[3] said, if thou belie vest with all thine heart, thou may est. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. This verse is also a later addition made by some enthusiast to support the trinity. Griesbach and Sholtzare both agreed on this point.[4]

Addition No. 33
The Book of Acts contains the following:
And he said, who art thou Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom Thoupersecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he tremblingand astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said untohim, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou mustdo. [5]

Griesbach and Sholtz agreed thatthe sentence ”it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” is a later addition.
268
Addition No. 34
The Book of Acts chapter 10verse 6 contains:
He lodgeth with one Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the seaside. Heshall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.

Griesbach and Sho1tz are positive that the words 'he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do' are later addition[6] and not genuine.

Addition No. 35
I Corinthians chapter 10 verse28 says:
But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that showed it and forconscience’ sake: for the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.

The last sentence, ’for the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof,’ is not genuine and is anaddition. [7]

Horne, after proving this verse to be an addition, said on page 337vol. 2:
Griesbach, after being sure of its being an addition, excluded it fromthe text. The truth is that this sentence has no support and is certainly anaddition. Most probably it was taken from verse 26.

Adam Clarke said about this sentence:
Griesbach excluded it from the text, and in fact it has no authority.

Addition No. 36
The Gospel of Matthew contains:
A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things. [8]

The word ’heart’ in this verseis an addition.[9] Horne, after proving this, said on page 330 of vol. 2 of hisbook that this word had been taken from Luke 6:45.
269
Addition No. 37:Addition to the Lord’s Prayer
We find in Matthew chapter 6verse 13:
And lead us not into Temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the Kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever.

The words ‘For thine is…’ etc.[10] up to the end of this verse are anaddition. The followers of the Roman Catholic sect are certain of this fact. It does not exist in the Latin version nor in any of the translations of this sect. The Catholics are very displeased at its addition, and strongly reproach those responsible for it.

Ward, the Catholic, said in his Book of Errors (printed in1841) on page 18:
Erasmus greatly condemned this sentence. Bullinger also said that this sentence had been added later and the name of the includer is not yet known. Laurentius Valla and Lamina's claim that this passage was omitted from the word of God has no support of argument. He should have reproached the people who played with the word of God so daringly.

Other scholars have also rejected it. Adam Clarke, who has doubt aboutits being a later addition, still admits that Griesbach and Wettste in rejected this verse. According to the scholars of both the Catholics and the Protestants, this sentence has been added to the payer of Christ. This shows that even such a famous prayer could not escape from their practice of distortion.

Addition No. 38
The Gospel of John chapter 7verse 53 and the first eleven verses of chapter 8 are later addition. Though Horne does not support this[11] opinion, he still said on page 310 of vol. 4 of his commentary: The following scholars do not acknowledge the genuineness of this verse: Erasmus,[12] Calvin, Beza, Leclerc, Grotius, Wettstein, Semler, Sholtz, Maurus, Haenlien, Paulinus, Schmidt and many other authors mentioned by Wolf and Koecher.

He further said:
Chrysostom and The ophylactus wrote commentaries on this gospel but they did not include these verses in their comments. Though Tertullian and Cyprian wrote essays on adultery and chastity, they did not seek any support from the severses. Had these verses existed in the versions they had, they must have cited these verses in support.

Ward said:
Some ancient theologians raised objections with regard’ to the beginning verses of chapter 8 of the Gospel of John. Norton similarly decided that these verses were certainly a lateraddition.
270
Addition No. 39
Matthew 6:18 contains:
And thy father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. The word “openly” in this verse is an addition.

Adam Clarke under his comments on this verse proved it and said:
Since this word had no authority, Griesbach, Grotius, Bengel, and Millex cluded it from the text.

Addition No. 40
Mark 2:17 contains the words “to repentance”[13] which is also a later addition. This was shown by Adam Clarke with sufficient proofs and he observed: Griesbach omitted this and Grotius, Mill and Bengel followed him.

Addition No. 41
Similarly Matthew 9:13 also contains the phrase ”to repentance” which is a later addition.

Adam Clarke after establishing this said:
Mill and Bengel suggested its exclusion, while Griesbach has already excluded it from the text.

Addition No. 42
We find in Matthew:
Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup, that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, we are able.

And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cupand be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with.[14]
271
In this verse the statement that ”to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with,” is a later addition, and similarly the statement, ”ye shall be baptized with the baptism that I ambaptized with,” is not genuine.

Adam Clarke, after establishing that both the verses are an addition, said:
According to the rules set by the scholars for distinguishing the wrong from the correct text, these two statements do not seem to be a part of the original text.

Addition No. 43
The Gospel of Luke contains:
But he turned and rebuked them and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them. And they went to another village. [15]

The verse beginning with, ”Forthe Son of man....”, is not genuine and was added later by an unknown writer.

Adam Clarke observed with regard to this verse:
Griesbach excluded this verse from the text. Most likely this passage in old versions was only this much: “But he turned and rebuked them and said, Yeknow not what manner of spirit ye are of. And they went to another village.”
--------------------------------------------------------
102[1]The Lord’s day, that is, Sunday.
103[2] 2. The present Urdu and English versions do not contain these phrases. We have copied the above verse from the old King James Version.
104[3] The disciple of Christ referred to said this to an Ethiopian on the way to Gaza
105[4]In the Urdu version this verse has a sign of doubt while the new English version has omitted it and the King James version’s list of alternative readings and renderings the suggestion includes the suggestion verse’
272
106[5]Acts 9: 5-6.
107[6] This sentence does not exist in the new English versions.
108[7]Similar to the previous example this has been excluded form the text in new translations.
109[8]Matt. 12:35
110[9] It has been omitted in the present Urdu translation.
111[10].The King James version contains this sentence while the new English translation omits it
112[11]These verses describe a woman accused of adultery being brought to the presence of Christ and people demanding that she be stoned to death. Christ decided that the one without sin among them should throw the first stone at her. The people, convicted by their own consciences, left the place one by one. Christ allowed the woman to go and advised her not to sin again. The new English translation omits this passage from this place but at the end it has been included with a translator’s note that that verses have no
definite place in the old scriptures. Some other translations do not have this passage at all, while some others place it in Luke after 21:38. Some other translations have even placed it after John 7:36 or 7:53 or 21:24 (New English Bible page184).
113[12] Erssmus(1466-1536), the famous sixteenth century scholar, one of the great leaders of the Renaissance.
114[13] The new Urdu and English translations do not contain this phrase while the old Arabic and English translations still include it. The list of alternative readings suggests the exclusion of this phrase and also of 6:4 and 6:6 of this Gospel
115[14] Man. 20:2’2-23.
116[15] Luke 9:55 56.
273

Ommisions in the the Text of the Bible
Omission No. 1: The Length of the Israelites’ Stay in Egypt
The Book of Genesis contains this statement:
And he said unto Abram. Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years.[1]

The statement “and shall afflict them four hundred years,” and another similar statement contained in verse 14 of the same chapter, which is, “When they shall serve and afterwards shall they come out with great substance,” both clearly denote that the land referred to here is the land of Egypt, because those who afflicted the Israelites and made them their servants and then were punished by God were none but the Egyptians. It was from Egypt that they came out with great wealth. This description does not fit any other place.

However, Exodus 2:40 contradicts the above statement:
Now that sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years.

The period of sojourn is different in the two verses. Either the word “thirty”
has been omitted from the first verse or added to the latter. Besides, the period described by both verses is certainly not correct for the following reasons.

Firstly, the Prophet Moses was the grandson of Levi on his mother’s side, and great grandson on his father’s side. On his mother's side he is the son of Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, while on his father's side he is the son of Amran, son of Kohath, son of Levi. This implies that Amran married his aunt, the sister of his father as is indeed understood from Exodus 6, and Numbers 26. Kohath, the grandfather of Moses was born before the Israelites came into Egypt, a fact which can be ascertained from Genesis 26:11. The period of the Israelites’ stay in Egypt cannot therefore exceed 215 years.

Secondly, almost all the Christian commentators and historians are unanimous on the point that the period of the Israelites’ stay in Egypt is 215 years. The Arabic book Murshid at-Talibeen, written by a Protestant scholar and printed in 1840, contains the chronology of the events from the beginning of the creation to the birth of Jesus. Each event is preceded and followed by a year.
274
The preceding year denotes the number of years from the creation of the world while the following year signifies the number of year.’ from that event to the birth of Jesus. 

On page 346 of this book, describing the stay of the Prophet Joseph and his father and brother; in Egypt, it says: 2298: Joseph’s and his father’s stay: 1760. 2513: Crossing of the Red Sea by the Israelites and the Drowning of Pharaoh: 1491.

Now a deduction of either of the smaller numbers from the greater ones gives us 215, thus:
2513 - 2298 = 215
1706 - 1491 = 215

Thirdly Paul’s letter to the Galatians says:
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one. And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul that it should make the promise of none effect. [2]

This statement is in clear contradiction of the statement found in Exodus, where the total period from the promise to the revelation of the Torah is described as four hundred and thirty years, while this promise to Abraham was made much earlier than the coming of the Israelites to Egypt, and the Torah was revealed to Moses long after their exodus from Egypt. This implies that the total period of their stay in Egypt was much less than 430 years.[3]

Since this statement was erroneous it was corrected in the Greek and Samaritan versions with these words:
And the sojourning of the children of Israel and their forefathers who dwelt in Egypt and Canaan was four hundred and thirty years.

That is, the word “forefather:” and “Canaan” were added to the above text in both the versions.

Adam Clarke under his comments on this verse said on page ’369 of volume one:
There is unanimous agreement on the fact that the meanings of this verse are obscure and doubtful.

We may be allowed to contend that the contents of this verse are not obscure and doubtful but they are certainly wrong, as we intend to show very soon.
275
The author further quoted from the Samaritan version and said:
The reading of the text of Alexandrinus is similar to that of the Samaritan version. Many learned scholars have decided that the Samaritan version is the most reliable, as far as the five books of the Pentateuch are concerned. And it is an established fact that the text of Alexandrinus is older and the most authentic of all the Greek translations and Paul’s statement is not doubted by any one.

Now this matter has been decided by the witness of the above three versions.

Besides, there are historical evidences to favour this opinion. Isaac was born 25 years after Abraham’s coming to Canaan and Isaac was 60 years old when Jacob was born to him, and Jacob 130 years of age when he came to Egypt. All this adds up to 215 years, which is the total period of stay of the Israelites in Egypt, in this way the total number of years becomes 430 years.

Henry and Scott’s compilers also acknowledge that the total period of the stay in Egypt is 215 years. Quoting from the Samaritan version they said:
There is no doubt that this text is correct and explains the difficulties raised by the text.

The above shows that Christian scholars can find no explanation for the above text of Exodus and have to admit its being erroneous. Paul’s description as quoted above is also not free from error, because he counted the period from the time of the promise, which is one year prior to the birth of Isaac, as is known from Genesis 17:21 referred to above: But my covenant will I establish with Isaac which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

The Torah was given to them three months after the exodus from Egypt as is described in chapter 19 of Exodus. Now according to calculations of Adam Clarke this total period comes to 407 years and not 430 years. The same calculations are found in the books of history by Protestant writers which is contrary to what Paul claimed, that is 430 years.

The book ‘Murshid at-Talibeen’ says on page 345:
2107: God’s covenant with Abraham, change of his name to Abraham, Institution of circumcision. Lot’s escape. Death of Hadum, Amra, Adaira and Zebaim on account of their misdeeds ....1897.
276
Further on page 347 it records:
2514: Ordination of ‘the Laws’ on Mount Sinai..1490. Now the smaller number deduced from the larger gives 407. 2514-2107 = 407. 1897- 1490 = 407.[4]

Omission No. 2
The Book of Genesis states:
And Cain talked with Abel, his brother, and it came to pass when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel, his brother, and slew him.[5]

The Samaritan. Greek, and other ancient translations describe it in these words:
And Cain said unto Abel his brother, Rise let us go into the field, and it came to pass that they were in the field etc.

The phrase, “let us go in the field” is omitted in the Hebrew version. Home said on page 193 of vol. 2, of his commentary:
This is present in the Samaritan, Greek, and Syrian versions, as well as in the Latin edition printed in Vulgate and Walton. Kennicott decided that it should be included in the Hebrew version. No doubt this is a good description.

Further on page 338 of the same volume he said:
Sometimes the text of Greek version is more correct but it is not found in the current Hebrew translations. For example the Hebrew translations, printed or handwritten manuscripts, are defective with regard to this verse. And the translator of the English authorised version could not understand this verse.

He therefore translated, ’and Cain talked to his brother Abel.’ This defect has been made up in the Greek version. This version became similar to the Samaritan, Latin, Syrian and Akola translations, and also to the two commentaries in the two Chaldean languages, and according to the sentence copied by Philo.

Adam Clarke said the same as was said by Home. This passage was included in the Arabic translation of 1831 and 1848.
277
Omission No. 3
The book of Genesis 7:17 of the Hebrew version contains: And the flood was forty days upon the earth. The same sentence appears; in many Latin and Greek translations: And the flood was forty days and nights upon the earth.

Horne said in his first volume:
The word “nights” ought to be added in the Hebrew version.

Omission No. 4
Genesis 35:22 in the Hebrew version reads as follows:
And it came to pass when Israel dwelt in that land that Rueben went and lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine and Israel heard it.

The compilers of Henry and Scott said:
The Jews admit that something from this verse has been certainly omitted. The Latin version has supplemented the words with, ”he was evil in his sight,” to compensate for the omission.

This is clear example of omission in the text as admitted by the Jews which is hardly surprising in view of their normal practice of changing their holy texts.

Omission No. 5
Horsley commenting on Genesis 44:5 said on page 82 of volume one of his commentary:
At the beginning of this verse in the Greek translation the following sentence has been added, ”Why hast thou robbed me of my measure.” According to him the above sentence was omitted in the Hebrew version.
278
Omission No. 6
The Book of Genesis chapter 50 verse 25 contains: And ye shall carry up my bones from hence. The Samaritan, Latin and Greek translations and other old versions have it in these words: And ye shall carry up my bones with ye.

The words “with ye” have been omitted from the Hebrew version. Horne said:
Mr. Boothroyd has inserted these omitted words in his new translation of the Bible and he has done right.
--------------------------------------------------
117[1] Gen. 15:13
118[2] Gal. 3:16,17.
119[3] The total period of stay described by Exodus 12:40 is 430 years.
120[4] The left side numbers denotes Adam’s appearance on Earth while the rights number denotes the year before Christ.
121[5] Gen. 4:8.
279

Omission No. 7
Exodus 2:22 contains:
And she bare him a son, and he called his name Gershom,[1] for he said, I have been stranger in a strange land.

The text of the Greek, Latin and other old translations is followed by the following additional statement:
And a second time also she bare him a son and he called his name Eleazar, for he said the lord of my father helped me and saved me from the sword of Pharaoh.

Adam Clarke, quoting the above passage from the translations said on page 310 of volume one:
Houbigant has included this passage in his Latin translation and claimed that the proper place of this passage was here, while none of the Hebrew versions, printed or manuscript, contains this. It is present in all the authentic translations.

Omission No. 8
The book of Exodus 6:20 says:
And she bare him Aaronand Moses and Mary, their sister. The words ‘their sister’have been omitted in the Hebrew version.

Adam Clarke after reproducing the textof the Greek and Samaritan version said:
Some great scholars thinkthat these words were present in the Hebrew version.

Omission No. 9
Numbers chapter 10 verse 6 has:
When ye blow an alarm the second time the camps that lie on the south side shall take their journey.

And at the end of this verse in the Greek version it says:
When ye blow a third time then the camps that lie on the West Side shall take their journey. And when ye blow a fourth time then the camps that lie on the north side shall take their journey.

Adam Clarke said on page 663 of volume 1 of his commentary:
The west and the north camps are not mentioned, but it seems that they used to make their journey at the blowing of an alarm. It proves that the Hebrew text at this place is defective. The Greek translations added the following sentence, “And when ye blow a third time the camps on the west side shall take their journey, and when ye blow a fourth time that are on the north side shall take journey.”
280
Omission No. 10
Job 42:17 says:
So Job died, being old and full of days.

The Hebrew version ends at this sentence, while the Greek version contains the following additional sentence:
He shall resume life a second time with those whom the Lord shall recover.

It has also been supplemented with short description of Job's genealogy and other circumstances. Calmet and Harder claim that this supplement is part of the revealed text. This opinion is favoured by Philo and Polyhistor. It was also acknowledged by the people of Origen's time. The odotion also included this supplement in his Greek translation. This proves that the Hebrew version has been distorted by the omission of the above supplement. Protestant scholars are, however, unanimous on the point that the above supplement is a later addition and not genuine.

The compilers of Henry and Scott’s commentary said:
Apparently it is a forged description, though it was written some time before Christ.

We may be allowed to ask, if the above passage belongs to the period before Christ, how did the ancient Christians believe it to be the word of God right from the time of the Apostles up to the year 1500, because they acknowledged these translations as genuine, and claimed that the Hebrew version was distorted.

Omission No. 11
Psalm 14 of the Latin, Arabic, Ethiopic and Greek translations contains the following:
Their threat is an open sepulchre, with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness, their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and misery are in their ways and the way of peace have they not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.
281
The above description cannot be found in the Hebrew version. It is, however, found in Paul’s letter to the Romans. Now either the Jews discarded it from the Hebrew version or the Christians added it in their translations to support Paul’s description. 1n any case it is a distortion either in the form of an omission or in the form of an addition.

Adam Clarke said under his comments on the above verse:
After this verse in the Vatican version of the Ethiopic translation and in the Arabic translation verses have appeared which are present in Paul’s Letter to the Romans 3:13-18.

Omission No. 12
Isaiah 40:5 in the Hebrew version says:
And the glory of the Lord shall berevealed, and all flesh shall see it together for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.

While the Greek translations contain these words:
And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall soon see to the salvation of our God for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. Adam Clarke quoting the above passage of the Greek translations said on page 785 of vol. 4 of his book: I think that this passageis genuine.

He further said:
This omission in the Hebrew version is very old and even older than the Latin, Chaldean and Syrian translations. This passage is present in all the versions of the Greek translations. Luke also acknowledged it in chapter 3 verse 6.[2] I possess a very old translation where this verse is missing.

Horne said in chapter 8 of vol. 2 of his book:
Luke 3:6 is written according to the Latin translation. No the (Loth) included it in his translation of the book of Isaiah because he thought it was original,
282
The compilers of Henry and Scott suggested that:
It is essential to add the words “thesalvation of our God” after the words “shall see”. Chapter 53 verse 10 of the Greek translation should he seen.

According to the above commentators the Hebrew text has been distorted by omitting the above verse and Adam Clarke thinks that this distortion is very old.
---------------------------------------------------------------
122[1]1. Gershom in the Hebrew language signifies a stranger.
123[2] Luke quotes a passage from Isaiah where it is said ”and all flesh shall see it.”

Omission No. 13
Adam Clarke said commenting on chapter 64 verse 5 of the Book of Isaiah:
I believe that the copier is responsible for the omission in this verse. This distortion is very old. Since the translators of the past were not able to comprehend the meaning of the verse was has been the case with the irsuccessors.

Omission No. l4
Horne said in his commentary on page 477:
The Gospel of Luke has omitted a complete verse of chapter 11 from between verses 33 and 34. It is therefore necessary to add part of Matthew 24:36or Mark 13:32 so that Luke may become similar to the other two Gospels.

Again he said in a marginal note:
All the scholars and commentators ignored this defect in Luke’s text, until it was observed by Hales. The above shows clearly that a complete verse has been omitted by Luke which must be added to it. The verse according to Matthew is this: ”But of that day and hour knoweth no man; no, not the angels of heaven; but my father only.”
283
Omission No. 15
Acts 16:7 says:
But the Spirit suffered them not.

Griesbach and Sholtz said that the correct text is:
But the spirit of Jesus suffered them not. According to them the word Jesus was omitted.

Later, this word was added to the text in the Arabic versions of 1671 and 1821.Now the text in these versions reads:
But the spirit of Jesus suffered them[1] not.

Omission No. 16
The Gospel of Matthew is not Matthew’s. The present Gospel of Matthew which is ascribed to him, and happens to be the first Gospel, and is considered to be the earliest, was certainly not written by Matthew. The original Gospel written by him was destroyed long long ago. All the ancient Christians and a number of later scholars are unanimous on the point that the original Gospel of Matthew which was in the Hebrew language was destroyed because it had been distorted by some of the Christian sects.

The Christians do not possess any authority to prove its authenticity and indeed the name of its author is not yet known. Jerome, the most renowned and celebrated scholar among the ancient writers, admitted it. They have only conjectures with regard to its translator which obviously cannot be accepted as an argument. A book cannot he ascribed to a person simply on the basis of unsupported calculations.

Now the claim made by Protestant scholars that Matthew, him-self, translated it is not valid unless they present Some acceptable argument to prove it. Now we will produce some witnesses to prove our claim.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica vol.19 says:
Every book of the New Testament was written in Greek except the Gospel Of Matthew and the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is certain, on the ground of Strong arguments, that these two books were written in the Hebrew language.

Lardner stated in vol. 2 on page 119:
Papias observed that Matthew had written his Gospel in Hebrew. Later On everyone translated it according to their own ability. The above implies that there are many writers who have translated this Gospel.

Now unless the writer of the present Gospel is definitely known and it is proved through irrefutable arguments that the writer was a man of inspiration, this book should not be, and cannot be, included among the revealed books. We do not even know the name of its translator let alone whether he was a man of inspiration.
284

Further Lardner said on page 170 of the same volume:
Irenaeus wrote that matthew wrote his Gospel for the Jews in their language at the time when Paul and Peter were preaching in Rome.

Further he said on page 574 of the same volume:
There are statements of Origen, first written by Eusebius, that Matthew gave the Gospel to the Jews in the Hebrew language; secondly that Matthew wrote his Gospel first for the Hebrews; thirdly that Matthew wrote the Gospel for the Hebrews who were waiting the birth of a man who was promised to the progeny of Abraham and David.

Again he said on page 95 of volume 4 that Eusebius had written that Matthew, after his sermons to the Hebrews who were deciding to go to other communities, wrote his Gospel in their language and gave it to them. And on page 174 of the same volume he says that Cyril said that Matthew wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew language.

And on page 187 of the same volume he said:
Epiphanius writes that Matthew wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew language.

He is unique in using this language in writing the New Testament.

Further on page 439 he wrote:
Jerome wrote that Matthew wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew language for believing Jews in a Jewish land. He did not combine the truth of the Gospel with the law.

Again on page 441 he said:
Jeromenoted in his list of historians that Matthew wrote his Gospel for believing Jews in the Hebrew script in the land of Jews. It is not yet proved that it was translated into Greek, neither is the name of its translator known. Besides, it must be noted that the copy of his Hebrew Gospel which was collected by Pamphilus with great labour is still present in the library of Syria. I obtaineda copy of this Gospel with the help of the assistants in the district of ”Barya”. They also had this version with them.

Further he writes on page 501 of the same volume:
Augustine said that out of the four Evangelists, only Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew language while the others wrote theirs in Greek.
285
And on page 538 of the same volume he said:
Chrysostom writes that it is said that Matthew wrote his Evangel on the request of believing Jews in the Hebrew language.

And on page 1371 of volume 5 he writes:
isidore said that only Matthew out of the four evangelists wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew language while others wrote theirs in Greek.

Horne said in volume 4 of his commentary that:
Bellarmine, Grotius, Causabon, Walton,Tomline, Cue, Hammond, Mill, Harwood, Owen, Calmet, Michaelis, Irenaeus, Origen,Cyril, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Jerome and other ancient and modem writers have followed the view of Papias that this Gospel was written in the Hebrew language.

And by 'other' he refers to Gregory Nazianzen, Abed, The ophylactus,
Euthymius, Eusebius, Athanasius, Augustine and many others who have been named by Watson and Lardner in their books.

D’Oyly and Richard Mant's commentary contains The following:
There was great controversy in the past over the question of the language in which this Gospel was originally written, but many of the ancient writers determined that Matthew had written his Gospel in the Hebrew language and this is therefore now an established point of view.

The compilers of Henry and Scott's commentary said:
The disappearance of the Hebrew version was due to the fact that the Ebionites, who disbelieved the divinity of Christ, made changes in this version. Then after the fall of Jerusalem it disappeared.

Some writers think:
The Nazarenes or the Jewish proselytesaltered the Hebrew Gospels, andthe Ebionites discarded many sentences from it. Eusebius quoted Irenaeus saying that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrewlanguage.

Reussobserved in his Histoire de l’ Evangile:
Anyone who says that Matthew wrote his Gospelin Greek is wrong because Eusebius in his history and many other theologians of Christianity explicitly mentioned that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew language, and not in Greek.

Norton has written a voluminous book in which he proved that the Pentateuch is not a genuine book and not the one written by Moses. He acknowledged the Evangel after admitting the presence of many distortions in the Gospels.
286
This is why he is not very popular among the Christians. Since he is a Christian and has quoted many of the ancient writers, it is quite in order to quote at least one passage from him.

He writes on page 45 of his book printed in1837 in Boston in a marginal note:
People believe that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew language, because all the ancient writers referring to this subject are all unanimous on this point. I leave aside the writers who are not considered authentic, and Iassert that Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome admitted the fact that this Gospel was written in Hebrew. There is none among the ancients who say anything contrary to this.

This is a great witness, indeed, because they, too, were as much prejudiced religiously as the people of modern times. Had there been any room for any doubt in what the ancients said, their opponents led by their prejudices, would have said that the Greek Gospel was the original Gospel and not a translation.

We should not reject this ancient and unanimous witness, especially when it does not deprive us of anything. It is therefore necessary that we maintain the belief that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew language. Up to this day I could not find any objection calling for research on this subject.

On the contrary I have found
valuable witnesses among the ancients to the effect that the Hebrew version of this Gospel, be it genuine or distorted, was with the Christians who were of Jewish race.

The above statements unambiguously prove that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the He brew language and in Hebrew script. The ancient writers are unanimous on this point. Their opinion in this matter is final as was acknowledged by D’Oyly and Richard Mant. They also admitted that the Hebrew version was in existence up to the time of Jerome. It is also clear from the above that the name of its translator is not yet known. Horne, in spite of admitting the above opinion, said that it is most probable that Matthew wrote it in two languages, in Hebrew and in Greek. This is unacceptable because he has not produced any authority for his assumption.

The opinion of the ancients is also strengthened by the fact that Matthew was one of the Apostles who was an eye-witness of Christ’s life and a direct listener to him. Now had he been the author of the present Gospel there must have been an indication somewhere in the Gospel that he is relating his won observations. He would have used the first person somewhere in the Gospel for himself as was the practice of the ancients. The Apostles used the first person for themselves which is evident from the letters that are included in the New Testament, indicating that they are written by them.

Have you not seen the writings of Luke. He wrote his Gospel and the Book of Acts up to chapter 19, through what he heard from others. He uses the first person when referring to himself. For instance when he accompanies Paul on his journeys and writes those circumstances in chapter 20 he refers to himself in the first person. If anyone refutes this by referring to the Pentateuch and the Gospel of John, we would simply say that these two books are of doubtful authenticity [2] as we have shown in the first part of this book.

The obvious cannot be denied unless there is a strong argument against it. We also understand from the statement of the compilers of Henry and Scott that this Gospel, in the early period of Christianity, was not considered to be authentic. In that period the Christians were in the habit of changing the texts of their sacred books, (as we have seen earlier).
287
Now when the original text could not be saved from distortions, how can one believe that a translation whose author is not even known can have remained unchanged?  Faustus, the celebrated scholar of the Manichaeans, said: The Gospel which is ascribed to Matthew is not his writing.

Professor Germain said:
The whole of this Gospel is false. This Gospel was with the Marcionites but the first two chapters were missing from it. They think that these two chapters were added to it later. The Ebionites are of the same opinion. The Unitarian scholarsand Father William have rejected both these chapters.

Omission No. 17
Matthew 2:23 contains:
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.

The words, ”which was spoken by the Prophets” in the above is one of the Famous errors of this Gospel, because it is not found in any of the known books of the Prophets. We would say what the Catholic scholars have said in this matter, that this was present in the books of the Prophets but the Jews, out of their enmity to the Christians, removed all those passages. This is another example of omission; that a certain sect should destroy holy books simply for personal reason.

Manfred, a Catholic scholar, wrote a book called The Questions of the Question printed in London in 1843, in which he said:
The books which contained this description (quoted by Matthew) have been destroyed, because in any of the present books of the Prophets we do not find the statement that Jesus would be called ‘Nazarene.’

Chrysostom said in volume 9 of his book:
Many books of the Prophets have disappeared not because the Jews carelessly lost them, but rather because out of their dishonesty and perversion they burnt these books to ashes. This statement is very near to the truth.
288
We must keep in mind what Justin said in his polemic against Trypho:
The Jews excluded many books from the old Testament so that the New Testament would appear not to conform with the Old Testament. This shows that many books have been destroyed.

The above leads us to conclude firstly, that the Jews have destroyed many books of the Prophets and secondly, that it was easy to distort holy texts in the past. We have seen that by their burning these books they completely obliterated their existence. In view of their dishonest attitude towards their holy books it is just possible that they might have changed the texts of their books which they thought could be helpful to the Muslims.

Omission No. 18
Matthew 10:11 contains:
And Josiah begat Jeconiah and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon.

This shows that Jeconiah and his brothers are the sons of Josiah and that they were born at the time of their exile to Babylon. All the information given here is erroneous.

Firstly because Jeconiah is the son of Jehoiakim, son of Josiah, that is, he is the grandson of Josiah and not his son. Secondly Jeconiah had no brothers. His father, however had three brothers. Thirdly because Jeconiah was not born at the time of exile to Babylon, he was eighteen years old at the time of exile.

Adam Clarke said:
Calmethas suggested that the eleventh verse should be read thus: ‘Josiah Begat Jehoiakim and his brethren and Jehoiakim begat Jechoniah about the time they were carried to Babylon.’

The above implies that Calmet has suggested the addition of the name Of Jehoiakim in the verse, in other words this name has been omitted from this verse. Even then the third objection remains unanswered.

We have produced almost a hundred examples of distortions in the form of Alterations additions and omissions in the above three sections. There are many more examples of such distortions in the Bible which we have not produced here to avoid making the present work unnecessarily long. This much is more than enough to prove the presence of distortion in the Bible in all the three forms: alteration, addition, and omission.
289
[1] The current English and Urdu translations also contain this word, while the old English version does not have it.

[2] That is if they claim that Moses has not used 6cfirst person for himself

in the Pentateuch, we would say that on the basis of sound arguments we do not acknowledge that the present Torah was written by Moses.

 
Refutation of Misleading Protestant
Statements Regarding the Authenticity of the Bible
First Contention
Observations of Non-Christian Scholars
Observations of Heretical Christian Scholars
Observations of Christians Theologians
Second Contention
The Fourth Answer
Third Contention
Fourth Contention
Historicity of the Bible
The Fifth Contention
290
At the beginning of this section we should point out that misleading statements are often made by the Protestant scholars to misguide the general reader with regard to the authenticity of the Christian text. We intend to provide our readers with answers to five out of many such attempts to mislead.

First Contention
Protestant scholars sometimes try to convince people that the claim of distortion in the Bible is made only by the Muslims and that no such claim is made by anyone else. The fact is that the ancient and later writers of both the Jews and the Christians have claimed the presence of distortions in the Bible more frequently than the Muslims. Before producing witnesses to prove our claim we must mention particularly two terms which are frequently used in their books about the history of the holy books. The two words are ‘errata’, and ‘various readings’ (variations in reading).

Horne said on page 325 of vol. 2:
The best difference between ‘errata’, an error of a copier, and ‘various readings’, a variation in the text, is that described by Michaelis who said, ‘When there is difference between two or more descriptions only one of them can be true; the rest will be either deliberate distortion or an error of the copier. It is really difficult to separate right from wrong. If there remains any doubt, it is called variation of the text, and when we are certain that the copier has written it wrong we call it ’errata.’

In short there is no great difference between the two terms. A variation in the text is nothing but distortion according to generally accepted terminology. Now any admission to the presence of such variations would obviously be an admission to the presence of distortion. According to the findings of Mill the number or such variations in the text of the Biblc is thirty thousand, and according to Gricsbach it is one hundred and lifty thousand and according to Sholtz the number of such variations is in numerablc and unknown.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica under the entry, “Scripture”, in vol. 19 includes the statement of Wettstein that the number of such variations in the Bible is one million. With the above in mind, we now proceed to reproduce the opinions of many varied authentic sources regarding this matter.

Observations of Non-Christian Scholars
Celsus was a great pagan scholar of the second century who wrote a book refuting Christianity.

A famous German scholar Eichhorn reproduced the following statement of Celsus:
The Christians have changed their Gospels three or four times to the extent that the contents of the Gospels have become distorted.
291
This is clear evidence coming from a non-Christian scholar, confirming the deliberate distortions made in the Gospels. There are people in European countries who do not believe in prophet-hood and divine revelation. If we were to try and collect their statements with regard to the distortions it would require a separate volume. We confine ourselves to the presentation of only two. Anyone curious to know more should refer to their books which are easily available all over the world.

One of their scholars, Parker said:
The Protestants claim that the Old and the New Testaments have been preserved and protected from the slightest damage through an eternal and everlasting miracle, but this claim is not strong enough to stand against the great army of variations present in the Bible. The number of these is not less than thirty thousand.

He seems to have based his remark on Mill’s findings. He avoided other statements which describe this number as being up to one million.

The author of Ecce Homo printed in London in 1813 said in the supplement to his book:
This is the list of the books which are ascribed to Jesus by the ancient
Christians. Some of them are attributed to the Disciples and other follower”:

The Books of Jesus
The books that are ascribed to Jesus are seven in number.
1. The letter that was written to Achars, King of Odessia.
2. .Epistle of Peter and Paul.
3. The book of Parables and Sermons.
4. The Psalms, a collection of his cryptic teachings to the disciples and
followers.
5. The book of Jugglery and Magic.
6. The book of Jesus and Mary.
7. The Epistle that fell from heaven in the 6th century AD.
292
The Books of Mary
The books that are ascribed to Mary are eight in number.
1. Her letter to lgnatius.
2. Her letter to Siciliane.
3. The Book of Mary.
4. The biography of Mary and her Sayings.
5. The book of Christ’s miracles.
6. The book of questions put to her by the elders and the young.
7. The book of Solomon’s ring.

The Books of Peter
The books ascribed to Peter are eleven in number.
1. The Gospel of Peter.
2. The Acts of Peter.
3. The Revelation of Peter I.
4. The Revelation of Peter 11.
5. His Epistle to Clement.
6. The discourse of Peter and Epian.
7. The Teaching of Peter.
8. The Sermon of Peter.
9. The Mode of Peter’s Prayer.
10. The book of Peter’s travels.
11. The book of Peter’s inferences.
293
The Books of John
The books ascribed to John are nine.
1. 1.The Acts of John.
2. 2.The Gospel of John.
3. The book of John's travels.
4. The sayings of John.
5. His Epistle to Andrew.
6. The book of Mary's death.
7. The story of Christ and his descent from the cross.
8. The Apocryphon of John.
9. The Book of John's prayers.

The Books of Andrew
The books ascribed to Andrew are two.
1. The Gospel of Andrew.
2. The Acts of Andrew.

The Books of Matthew
The books ascribed to Matthew are two.
1. The Gospel of Childhood.
2. The Mode of Matthew’s Prayers.
294
The Books of Philip
There are two books ascribed to Philip.
1. The Gospel of Philip.
2. The Acts of Philip.
There is also the Gospel of Bartholomew, ascribed to the Disciple Bartholomew.

The Books of Thomas
The books that are ascribed to Thomas are five.
1. The Gospel of Thomas.
2. The Acts of Thomas.
3. The Gospel of Christ’s childhood.
4. The book of Thomas's travels.
5. The book of Thomas’s revelation.

The Books of James
The books ascribed to James are three.
1. The Gospel of James.
2. The book of James.
3. The book of of James's travels.
295
The Books of Matthias
There are three books ascribed to Matthias who is said to have been admitted among the disciples.
1. The Gospel of Matthias.
2. The traditions of Matthias.
3. The acts of Matthias

The Books of Mark
The books that are a scribed to Mark are three.
1. The Gospel of Egyptians.
2. The Prayers of Mark.
3. The Book of Pishan Barhas.

The Books of Barnabas
Barnabas was a disciple of the Apostles, a descendant of Levi. His name
was Joseph, and was called Barnabas because he sold his farm gave the money to the Apostles for preaching. The word signifies ‘son of guidance’.

There are two books ascribed to Barnabas.
1. The Gospel of Barnabas.
2. The Epistle of Barnabas.
The Gospel of The odotion is ascribed to The odotion
296

The Books of Paul
The number of books ascribed to Paul, apart from those included in the New Testament, is fifteen.
1. The Acts of Paul.
2. The Acts of Thecla.
3. The Epistle to the Laodiceans.
4. The Third Epistle to the Thessalonians.
5. The Third Epistle to the Corinthians.
6. The Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul and his reply to them.
7. His Epistle to the lonians and their reply to him.
8. The Apocalypse of Paul.
9. The Second Revelation of Paul.
10. The Vision of Paul.
11. The Ascent of Paul.
12. The Gospel of Paul.
13. The Sermon of Paul.
14. The book of Spells of Serpents.
15. The book of Acts of Peter and Paul.

The author of Ecce Homo also said:
When the falsity of the Gospels, the Revelations, and the Epistles is so evident, how can it be ascertained that the genuine books are those which are acknowledged by the Protestants, especially with the fact in mind that even these books also had many alterations and additions before the invention of printing machines. The difficulties are really serious.

Observations of Heretical Christian Scholars
The Christian sect of the Ebionites belongs to the time of Paul and flourished in the first century. The Ebionites strongly opposed Paul and considered him an apostate. Although they acknowledged the Gospel of Matthew they claimed that the present Gospel, attributed to Matthew by the followers of Paul, is quite different from the original Gospel. They also claimed that the first two chapters of the Gospel did not belong to it. According to them these two chapters and many other verses of this Gospel were later additions.
297
The famous historian Bell said with regard to these people:
This sect acknowledged only the Pentateuch of the Old Testament and despised the names of David, Solomon, Jeremiah and Hezekiel. They accepted only the Gospel of Matthew from the New Testament but they changed even this Gospel in many places and excluded its first two chapters.

Similarly the Marcionites were one of the ancient sects of Christianity.
They rejected all the books of the Old Testament and denied their being divinely revealed. Likewise they disacknowledged all the books of the New Testament except the Gospel of Luke and the ten epistles of Paul. This gospel, too, was considered by them to he different from the one we know today.

The historian Bell said:
This sect used to reject all the books of the Old Testament and only accepted the Gospel of Luke from the New Testament and even of this Gospel they used to reject the first two chapters. They also accepted the ten epistles of Paul but rejected many parts that they did not like in these letters.

Lardner showed in volume 8 of his commentary with regard to alterations made by this sect that they rejected many parts of the Gospel of Luke. The parts of Luke’s Gospel which were distorted or omitted by this sect are the first two chapters, the event of the Christ’s baptism by John, the genealogy of Jesus in chapter 3, the tempting of Jesus by Satan, his entry into the temple, his reading the book of isaiah in chapter 4, verses 30, 31, 32, 49, 50 and 51 of chapter 11, the words “but the sign of Jonas, the prophet,” verses 6, 8 and 20 of chapter 12, verses 1-6 of chapter 13, verses 11-32 of chapter 15, verses 31. 32 and 33 of chapter 18, verses 28-46 of chapter 19, verses 9-18 of chapter 20, verses 8, 21 and 23 of chapter 21, verses 16, 35, 36, 37, 50, 51 of chapter 22, verse 43 of chapter 23, and verses 26 and 28 from chapter 24. The above details were given by Epiphanius.

Dr. Mill added that they also omitted verses 38 and 39 of chapter 4. In volume 3 of his commentary Lardner quotes, through Augustine, the words of Faustus, a great scholar of the Manichaeans in the fourth century: Faustus says: I totally refute the things that your forefathers have deceitfully added in the New Testament, marring its beauty, because it is an established fact that the New Testament was neither written by Christ nor by his Disciples.

The author is an unknown person, who has attributed his work to the Disciples fearing that people would not accept him as an eye-witness of these accounts. Thus he defamed the Disciples by writing books that are full of errors and contradictions.

It can be said without fear of denial that the above scholar, even though he belongs to a heretical sect, is absolutely correct in his above three claims. We have already reproduced Norton’s opinion regarding the falsity of the Pentateuch and his claim that the present Gospel of Matthew is not in fact the original book written by him, but only a translation which has itself been altered and distorted.
298
The above is enough to have an idea of the views of non-Christian scholars and those of Christians who are considered heretics by the majority of other Christians.

Observations of Christian Theologians
We reproduce below the opinions and statements of celebrated and widely trusted scholars and theologians of the Christian world.

Observation No. 1: Adam Clarke
Adam Clarke said on page 369 of vol. 5 of his commentary:
It is customary that the number of the writers on the lives of great men has always been large. The same is true of Jesus and the Apostles; that is to say the number of narrators of their lives is also great but many of the statements they make are erroneous. They used to write fictional events as if they were facts. They also made mistakes, deliberate or accidental, in other descriptions, especially the historians of the land where Luke wrote his Gospel. For this reason the Holy Spirit imparted appropriate knowledge to Luke so that the faithful might know the true accounts.

This gives us to understand that prior to Luke’s Gospel there were many false gospels present replete with errors and mistakes. The above statement is a plain admission of the dishonesty of their authors. His words that they made deliberate or accidental mistakes is enough evidence of this fact.

Observation No. 2: The Apostle Paul
In his Epistle to the Galatians Paul said:
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel; which is not another but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 124[1]
------------------------------------------
124[1] Gal.1:5,6.
299
The above statement of Paul brings out three important facts, firstly that there was a gospel called the Gospel of Christ in the time of apostles; secondly that there was another gospel that was different and contrary to the Gospel of Christ; and thirdly that there were some people who wanted to distort and change the Gospel of Christ, even in the time of Paul, not to speak of subsequent periods when there was nothing left of this Gospel but its name.

Adam Clarke under his comments on the above verse said in vol. 6 of his commentary:
It is established that many minor gospels had become common in the early centuries of Christianity. The abundance of such false and incorrect accounts led Luke to write his Gospel. We read about more than seventy such gospels. Some parts of these gospels are still in existence and available. Many such gospels were collected and published in three volumes by Fabricius. Some describe the obligatory nature of the laws of Moses, the validity of circumcision and imperativeness of the Gospel.

The above implies that many spurious gospels were present before the compilation of the Gospel of Luke and Paul’s letter to Galatians. It also proves that Paul referred to a properly compiled Gospel and not to the meanings that he had conceived in his mind, as sometimes is contended by the Protestants.

Observation No. 3: The Gospel of Christ
The fact that a gospel called the Gospel of Christ existed in the time of the Apostles is certainly true and was also testified to by Eichhorn and many other German scholars. Similarly scholars like Leclerc, Grabe, Michael, Lessing, Niemeyer and Marsh also agree with this opinion.

Observation No. 4: Another Statement of Paul
In his Second Epistle to the Corinthians Paul said:
But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. For such are false apostles deceitful workers, trans-forming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 125[2] The above statement of Paul is a clear admission of the fact that there were many false apostles present in his time.
----------------------------------------------
125[2]II Cor. 11:12.13.
125[3].I John 4: 1.
300
Adam Clarke under his comments of this verse said:
They falsely claimed to be the Apostles of Christ while in fact they were not apostles. They used to deliver sermons and take pains in worship but they aimed at nothing but their personal interests.

We read the following in the First Epistle of John:
Beloved, believes not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God, because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 126[3] John too joined Paul in admitting the presence of false prophets in their time.

Adam Clarke made the following comments on this verse:
In the past every teacher used to claim that he received inspiration from the Holy Ghost, because every true prophet received inspiration. The word ’spirit’ at this place signifies the man claiming that he was under the effect of the spirit. Put them therefore to test. Such preachers should be examined with arguments. His phrase ‘many false prophets’ refers to those who were not inspired by the Holy Ghost especially from among the Jews. The above is enough to show that there were many false claimants to prophethood at that time.

Observation No. 5: The Pentateuch
In addition to the five known books of the Pentateuch there are six more books that are similarly attributed to Moses.

These are:
1. The Book of Revelation.
2. The Small Book of Genesis.
3. The Book of Ascension.
4. The Book of Mysteries.
5. The Book of Testaments
6. The Book of Confession.
------------------------------------------------------
125[4] Plato, the famous Greek philosopher and the teacher of Aristotle. His book Democracy and Politics are famous (430 ? 347 BC).
301

The second of the above books existed in the fourth century in Hebrew and Jerome and Cedrenus quoted from it in their books Origen said:
Paul copied from this book in his letter to the Galatians 5:6. Its translation existed up to the sixteenth century. The Council of Trent declared it false in that century and it continued to be considered so from that time on.

It is surprising that they can acknowledge a certain book as authentic revelation and then, after using it for centuries, suddenly stop liking it and declare it to be false. The holy books are treated by them just like political decisions, being changed at their whim. The third of the above books was similarly acknowledged by the ancients.

Lardner said on page 521 of the second volume of his commentary: Origen claims that Judah copied verse 9 of his letter from this book.

This book is also considered as false like all other books in the list, but it is strange that passages borrowed from these books and inserted into the present book still continue to be considered as revealed.

Horne said:
It is thought that these false books were forged quite near the beginning of Christianity. This scholar has blamed the people of the first century for this forgery.

Observation No. 6: Mosheim’s Admission
The historian Mosheim said on page 65 in vol. 1 of his History printed in 1832 under his description of the scholars of the second century:
Among the followers of Plato127[4] and Pythagoras 128[5] it was considered not only admissible but also creditable to tell a lie and deceive others in the cause of truth.
--------------------------------------------
128[5]. Pythagoras, a Greek philosopher known as the father of mathematics.
128[6] Sultan Bayazid of Turkey, son of the famous caliph Mohammad, the conqueror (reigned from 1482 to 1512 AD)-
302
As is understood from the ancient books, the first to indulge in this practice were the Jews of Egypt, in the time before Christ. This unholy act was later on borrowed by the Christians, a fact which is clear from the many books that were falsely attributed to great personalities.

We can understand from this why a great number of false books were written and falsely attributed to others in the name of, and in the cause of, truth and religion.

Observation No. 7: Watson and Eusebius
Eusebius said in chapter 18 of the fourth volume of his History:
Justin the Martyr related many of the prophecies of Christ and claimed that the Jews excluded them from the Holy Scriptures.

Watson also said on page 32 vol. 2 of his book:
I have no trace of doubt about the passages that Justin quoted in his polemic against a Jew, that, in the time of Justin and Irenaeus, they were part of the Hebrew and Greek versions of the Bible, while today they no longer exist. Especially the text that Justin claimed was part of the Book of Jeremiah. Sylbergius in his annotation of Justin, and Dr. Grabe in his annotation of Irenaeus, pointed out that this prophecy was before Peter when he wrote the text of chapter 4 verse 6 of his epistle.

Horne said on page 62 of the fourth volume of his commentary:
Justin proved that Ezra said to the people, ”The Passover is the feast of our Lord, the Saviour. If you keep the Lord superior to the Passover and keep your faith in him, the earth will flourish forever. If you do not hear and do not keep faith in him you will be ridiculed by other nations.”

The above statements are enough to prove that Justin blamed the Jews for excluding many of the prophecies about Jesus from the Holly Books, and that this claim is also supported by other scholars. These prophecies were part of the holy books at the time of Irenaeus and Justin while they are no longer there today. According to Watson the distortion of the holy books is proved because of the additions in the Hebrew and Greek versions.
---------------------------------------------
128[7] A comparison of Deuteronomy 33:2, in the Urdu version printed in 1958 with any other translation prior to it will sufficiently prove this claim.
303
Observation No. 8: Lardner
Lardner observed on page 124 of the fifth volume of his commentary:
At the time when Anastasius reigned in Constantinople he ruled that the Holy Gospels were not correct since their authors were not known so they were corrected a second time.

The above implies that up to the time of the above emperor the authenticity of the Gospels was doubted, otherwise he would not have ordered them to be corrected on the ground that their authors were not known. He believed them to be inspired books and therefore tried to remove the contradictions found in them. This also disproves the claim of the Protestants that no ruler or king of any time ever intruded in to the affairs of the Church.

Observation No. 9
It has been pointed out earlier in this book that Augustine and other ancient Christians used to blame the Jews for distorting the Pentateuch in order to invalidate the Greek translation, because of their enmity towards the Christians. Hales and Kennicott also supported this view. Hales proved the authenticity of the Samaritan version with irrefutable arguments. Kennicott said that the Jews made deliberate alterations to the Pentateuch and opposed the view that the Samaritans changed it.

Observation No. 10
Kennicott proved the authenticity of the Samaritan translation and many scholars have said that his arguments are infallible and correct. They believe that the Jews changed it out of their enmity towards the Samaritans.

Observation No. 11
We have already pointed out earlier that Adam Clarke openly admitted that the historical books of the Old Testament had been changed in many places and that it would be useless to try to find any explanation for the changes.
304
Observation No.12
We have shown earlier in this book that Adam CIarke adopted the view that the Jews changed the Hebrew and the Greek texts at chapter 64 verse 2 of the Book of Isaiah and that such distortions are also found at some other places.

Observation No. 13
As we have pointed out earlier Horne admitted that twelve verses in the books of the Old Testament were changed by the Jews.

Observation No. 14
We have shown earlier that the Catholic Church is unanimously agreed on the authenticity of the seven apocryphal books we listed. My also acknowledge the Latin translation as being inspired and genuine.

Protestant theologians, on the other hand, claim that those books have been distorted and should be rejected. They also claim that the Latin translation underwent innumerable alterations and additions and from the fifth to the fifteenth century and that the copiers of this translation took great liberties with it. They in inserted many sentences from one book of the Old Testament into another and included the marginal notes in the main text of the book.

Observation No. 15
As has been already stated, Adam Clarke, following the example of Kennicott, adopted the opinion that in the time of Josephus the Jews intended to “enhance the beauty of the books by including spurious prayers, new episodes and songs”. For example from the Book of Esther, the episode relating to wine, women and truth was added to the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, now known as the First Book or Ezra. The song of the three children was added to the Book of Daniel and there are many more examples.

These alterations, additions and other changes in the sacred books, made in the name of refinement, are enough to show that such changes were not objectionable to the Jews. They made as many changes as they liked as is clear in the light of the statement we quoted in observation No. 6 above which allowed them religiously to make changes in the sacred books for the cause of the truth.
305
Observation No. 16
We have already cited the statement of Adam Clarke with regard to the live books of the Pentateuch where he admitted that the majority of Christian scholars think that the Samaritan Version of the Pentateuch is the most correct of all the versions.

Observation No. 17
It has been already shown that the supplement which is found at the end of the book of Job of the Latin translation is false and spurious according to the Protestants, while, in fact, it was written before Christ, was a part of this translation in the time of the Apostles and was held to be genuine by the ancients.

Observation No. 18
We have already quoted the statement of Chrysostom witnessing that the Jews had lost or destroyed many books out of their dishonesty and carelessness and that some of them were destroyed and burnt by them. This view is upheld and acknow-ledged by the Catholics.

Observation No. 19
Horne said in the second volume of his commentary with regard to the Greek translation:
This translation is very old. It was considered authentic and was very popular among the ancient Christians. It was recited in the churches of both groups. The Christian elders, both Latins and Greeks, all copied from this version. Every subsequent translation acknowledged by the Christian Churches, save the Syrian version, has been prepared from this version. For example, the Arabic, the Armenian, the Ethiopian, and the old Italian and Latin translations, which were in vogue before Jerome. And this is the only translation which is taught up to this day in Greek and Eastern Churches.

Further he said:
According to our opinion, this was translated in 285 or 286 BC.
306

He also added:
It is an obvious argument, proving the great popularity of this translation, that the authors of the New Testament quoted many sentences from this it. The Christian elders of the past, with the exception of Jerome, had no knowledge of the Hebrew language. In copying the texts, they followed only the people who wrote the books with inspiration. Although they enjoyed the status of great renovators of Christianity they did not know Hebrew which is the basic source of all the sacred books. They put their trust in this translation and acquired deep knowledge of it. The Greek Church held it as a sacred book and had great esteem for it.

Again he said:
This translation continued to be recited in the Greek and Latin churches and was referred to for authenticity. It was also greatly trusted by the Jews and they recited it in their synagogues. Later, when the Christians started to derive their arguments against the Jews from this translation, the Jews commenced their criticism against it and said that it was not in accordance with the Hebrew version and that many verses from this translation had been removed at the beginning of the second century. They adopted Aquila's translation in its place.

As this translation remained in vogue among the Jews up to the end of the first century and was equally used by the Christians, there were many copies of it.

This translation too, was corrupted by the copiers and scribes by the inclusion of marginal notes and explanatory remarks in the main text. Ward, the great scholar of the Catholics, remarked in his book printed in 1841 (page 18): ”The heretics of the East have distorted it.”

The above statement of a great Protestant scholar is enough to confirm that the Jews deliberately changed the Pentateuch and that they distorted it out of their enmity towards the Christian faith, as is admitted by him in his statement.

This leaves no room for denial. The same is admitted by Catholic scholars. This implies that both the Protestants and the Catholics have admitted the presence of deliberate distortion’s in the Pentateuch. Now, in the light of the above admission, we may be allowed to ask what there is to assure us that the Jews might have not changed the Hebrew version which was with them especially when it was not known to the Christian world.

When the above translation, which continued to be in vogue up to the fourth century and was recited in all the Eastern and Western churches, was so daringly changed without fear of censure from other people or punishment from God what was there to stop them from changing the Hebrew version when they had nothing to fear?

It makes no difference if this distortion was made by the Jews out of their animosity to the Christian faith, which is the view of Adam Clarke and Horne, in spite of all his partiality, and which is also acknowledged by Augustine, or due to their enmity towards the Samaritans as was decided by Kennicott, or because of their antagonism towards each other.
307
Deliberate manipulation also occurred at the hands of believing Christians simply out of opposition to other Christians who, in their opinion, were not correct. They did it only to spread the “truth”. They had religious permission to modify the sacred texts for religious reasons.

The Witness of a Jewish Scholar Converted to Islam
A Jewish scholar embraced Islam in the period of Sultan Bayazid of Turkey.129[6] He was given the Islamic name Abode’s-Salam. He wrote a booklet named Risalatu’l-Hidayah (The Book of Guidance) repudiating the Jews.

In the third section of this book he said:
The most celebrated of all the commentaries on the Pentateuch (Torah) is the one known as the Talmud, which was written in the period of Ptolemy who reigned sometime after the period of Nebuchadnezzar. This commentary contains the following story. It happened that once Ptolemy asked some Jewish scholars to bring the Pentateuch into his presence. The scholars were frightened, because the king disbelieved in some of its injunctions. Seventy scholars gathered together, and what they did was change those things that he did not believe in. Now when they admit to having done this, how can one trust a single verse of such a book?

In the presence of the statement of the Catholic scholar who said that the heretics of the East changed the translation which was in vogue in the churches of the East and the West and was followed by the Catholic churches up to as late as 1500, as is pointed out by Horne, the Catholics cannot save themselves from the accusation of the Protestants that they, the Catholics, have changed the Latin translation which was in vogue in their Church. Do the Catholics have any way to refute this claim?

Observation No. 20
The Rees Encyclopaedia, under the entry of ‘Bible’ in vol. 4, contains this statement:
Presenting the arguments in favour of those versions of the Old Testament that were written from 1000 to 1400, he said that all the versions written in the seventh and the eighth centuries had been destroyed by the order of the Jewish Council because they were contrary to their own versions. In view of this event Watson also said that the versions which were compiled six hundred years ago are not available and the versions written seven hundred or eight hundred years ago, do not exist al all.
308
This admission coming from Dr. Kennicott, the most trusted author in respect of the books of the Old Testament, should be noted. We are quite sure of the fact that the extirpation of the early versions under the orders of the Jewish Council must have happened two years after the appearance of the Holy Prophet Muhammad.

This implies that even at the time of the appearance of the Holy Prophet their sacred books were in a condition, and the environment such, to allow distortions and alterations to be made in them. In fact it was always possible prior to the invention of the printing press. Even after the appearance of printing machines, they made alterations in the text of their books, for we have shown earlier in this chapter that Luther’s translation was changed by his followers. 130[7]

Observation No. 21
Horsley said in his commentary (vol. 3, page 282) in his introduction to the book of Joshua:
It is quite definite and beyond all doubt that the sacred text has been distorted. It is evident from the incompatibilities found in various versions. Only one out of many contradicting statements can be true. It is almost certain that sometimes the worst kind of descriptions have been included in the printed text. I could not find any argument to support the claim that the distortions found in the single book of Joshua exceed the distortions found in all the books of the Old Testament.

He also said on page 275 of the same volume:
It is absolutely true that the copies of the Hebrew version possessed by the people after the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar, or even a little before it, were more defective than the ones that appeared after the correction of Ezra.
309
Observation No. 22
Watson said on page 283 of volume 3 of his book:
Origen complained about these differences and tried to attribute them to various causes like the negligence of the copiers, and the carelessness and illintention of the scribes.

Observation No. 23
Adam Clarke, in the introduction to the first volume of his commentary, said:
There were innumerable versions of the Latin translation before Jerome some of which contained serious distortions and had passages alarmingly contradictory with each other, as Jerome had been proclaiming.

Observation No. 24
Ward admitted on pages 17 and 18 of his book printed in 1841:
Dr. Humphrey has pointed out on page l78 of his book that the whims of the Jews have so much distorted the books of the Old Testament that it is easily noticed by readers. He added that the predictions concerning Christ were totally eliminated by the Jews.

Observation No. 25
Philip Guadagnolo, a priest, wrote a book named Khaylat in refutation of the book written by Ahmad Sharif son of Zain’ul-‘Abidin Isfahani printed in 1649.

He observed in part 6:
Great distortion is found in the Chaldean version, particularly in the book of Solomon Rabbi Aquila, known as Onqelos, who copied the whole of the Pentateuch. Similarly the Rabbi son of Uziel copied the Book of Joshua, the Book of Judges, the Books of Kings, the Book of Isaiah and those of other Prophets. And Rabbi Joseph, the blind, copied, the Psalms and the Books of Job, Ruth, Esther and Solomon. All these copiers distorted the text of these books. We Christians preserved them, so that the blame for distortion must be laid at the door of the Jews, though we do not believe those false descriptions.
310
Observation No. 26
Horne said on page 68 of volume 1 of his book:
We must acknowledge that there are verses Present in the Pentateuch which are later additions.

Further on page 445 of volume 2 he observed:
There is a lesser number of distorted places in the Hebrew version. This number is nine as we have already pointed out.

Observation No. 27
A petition was submitted to King James I complaining that the psalms included in the book of prayer were incompatible with those found in the Hebrew version. They are different from the Hebrew version in having additions, omissions and alterations in not less than two hundred places.

Observation No. 28
Carlyle remarked:
The English translators have distorted the sense, obscured the truth, misguided the ignorant and confused the simple text of the books. They prefer darkness to light and falsehood to the truth.

Observation No. 29
Broughton, one of the members of the Church council, suggested that there should be a new translation. According to him, the current translation was full of errors. He declared before the Church that the famous English translator had distorted the text in as many as eight thousand four hundred and eighty places, that he was responsible for making people convert to other faiths, and that he deserved eternal Punishment in the fires of Hell.

Observations nos. 27, 28 and 29 have been borrowed from Ward’s book which contains many more such statements.
311