Know Islam

Know Islam, Know Paradise


September 10, 2018 Book Reading Events 0

Click here for previous session


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 are from 6 to 9, are extremely irrelevant 85 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. 86
It is quite obvious that the above cannot be an injunction from God or
written by Moses, because in that case neither David nor any of his ancestors up
to Pharez would be able enter the congregation of the Lord, because Pharez was
a bastard as we know from Genesis chapter 38 and David happens to be in his
tenth generation as is known from the first chapter of Matthew. Horsley
therefore decided that the words ’To his tenth generation shall he not enter into
the congregation of the lord’ are a latter addition.

Addition No. 17

The compilers of Henry and Scott’s commentary said under their comments
on Joshua chapter 4:9:
This sentence 87 and other similar sentences which are present in most of
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 88. Moreover this book has eight other instances 89 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?
This verse cannot, in any case, be the word of Joshua because this statement
is quoted from the book referred to in the verse, and up to this day its author is
not known. We are, however, informed by II Sam. 1:18 that he was either a
contemporary of the Prophet David or after him. The compilers of Henry and
Scott’s commentary maintained that the Book of Joshua was written before the
seventh year of David’s succession to throne and according to the books of
Protestant scholars the Prophet David was born three hundred and fifty-eight
years after the death of Joshua.

Addition No. 19

The book of Joshua, describing the inheritance of the children of Gad, says
in chapter 13:25:
The land of the children of Ammon, unto Aroer that is before Rabbah.
This verse is wrong and distorted because Moses could not have given any
of the land of the children of Ammon to the children of Gad, since he had been
prohibited by God from doing so, as is evident from Deuteronomy chapter 2 91.
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

Addition No. 22

The commentator Horsley says on page 283 of the first volume of his
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 92 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 93
This statement is wrong as was observed by Adam Clarke in the second
volume of his commentary. After an analytical examination he said:
It seems most likely that an alteration was made to the Hebrew version.
Either some words were omitted or, unknowingly or otherwise, the words
’fifty thousand’ were added, because such a small town could not possibly
have had a population of fifty thousand or more. Besides which they would
have been farmers, busy in their fields. Even more incredible is the claim
that fifty thousand people could, at the same time, see into the small box
which was kept on a stone in Joshua’s field.
He further added:
The Latin version contains the words: seven hundred generals and fifty
thousand and seventy men; while the Syrian version says five thousand and
seventy men. The historians give only seventy men. George Salmon and
other rabbis give a different number. These differences, and the over
exaggerated number makes us believe that the text must have been distorted
here, either by adding some words or by omitting others.
Henry and Scott’s commentary contains:
The number of the men killed, in the Hebrew version, is written upside
down. However, even if we overlook this, it is incredible that such a large
number of people should commit this sin and be killed in such a small town.
The truth of this event is doubtful. Josephus has written that the number of
the killed men was only seventy.
All these commentators are unambiguous in admitting that there is distortion
at this place.

Addition No. 25

Under his comments on I Samuel 17:18, Adam Clarke points out that:
From this verse to verse 31 of this chapter, verse 41, all the verses from
54 to the end of the chapter, and the first five verses of chapter 18, and
verses 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19 are not present in the Latin version, while they
are present in the Alexandrian copy of this Book. At the end of his
commentary on this chapter Kennicott established that the above verses are
not the part of the original version.
In a long discussion he adduced that this verse 94 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
Kennicott knows that twenty verses of chapter 17 of Samuel, are a later
addition and should be excluded from the text, that is, verses 12 to 31. He
hopes that in later versions they will not be included in the text.
We do not understand how the authenticity of these books can be trusted
when there are all these admissions of Kennicott and others of people enhancing
the beauty of the text by adding material to the original text arbitrarily as they
liked. These additions subsequently became part of all the translations through
the ignorance or carelessness of the copiers. This shows that the Protestants
falsely claim that the Jews did not make any changes in the books, that they
were God-fearing people and considered the Old Testament to be the Word of


……continue reading…. 

3,617 total views, 0 views today



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *