Know Islam

Know Islam, Know Paradise

IZHARUL HAQ READING CONTINUED

September 30, 2018 Book Reading Events 0

Click here for previous session

 

 

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
95
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 96
The name Philip is certainly wrong in all the above three versions. The
historical records do not agree that the name of Herodias’ husband was Philip.
On the contrary, Josephus claimed that his name was also Herod. Since Philip is
definitely wrong, Horne admitted on page 632 of the first volume of his
commentary:
Most probably the word ‘Philip’ was wrongly written by the copier in the
text. It should therefore be excluded from the text. Griesbach has
accordingly omitted it.
On the contrary, we think that this is one of the mistakes of the evangelists;
the copiers are not responsible for it, as there is no argument to support this
presumption. It is incredible to believe that the copiers should make exactly the
same mistake in all the three Gospels regarding the same event. This single
example of addition in fact, makes three examples as it appears in the three
Gospels referred to above.

 

Addition No. 27: Words added to Luke

The Gospel of Luke contains the following words:

And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this
generation and to what are they like 97
In this verse the words, ”And the Lord said,” were added later. The
commentator Adam Clarke said about them:
These words were never part of Luke’s text. The scholars have rejected
them. Bengel and Griesbach excluded these words from the text.
These words have been omitted from the modem English translations while
the King James version still contains them. It is surprising that they are still
included in the Protestant translations. Words which have been proved to be a
later addition have no reason to remain in a text which is supposed to contain
the word of God.

Addition No. 28

We find written in Matthew:
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah, the prophet,
saying. ‘and they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was
valued.’
The word ’Jeremiah’ in this verse is one of the well-known mistakes of
Matthew, because this statement can be traced neither to Jeremiah nor any other
book of the Old Testament. However, a passage vaguely similar to it is found in
the Book of Zechariah 11: 13 but there is an obvious difference between the two
which makes it difficult to presume that Matthew was quoting it from there.
Besides, the text of the Book of Zechariah has no connection with the event
described by Mathew. Christian scholars have diverse opinions on this matter.
On page 26 of his Book of Errors printed in 1841, Ward said:
Mr. Jewel writes in his book that Mark mistakenly wrote Abiathar in
place of Ahimelech, similarly Matthew mistakenly wrote Jeremiah in place
of Zechariah.
Home observed on pages 385 and 386 of the second volume of his
commentary printed in 1822:
This quote is doubtful, because the Book of Jeremiah does not contain it
though it is found in the Book of Zechariah 11: 13 even if the words of
Matthew are different from it. Some scholars think that it is an error of Matthew’s version and the copier wrote Jeremiah instead of Zechariah; or it
may be a later addition.
After having quoted opinions supporting his claim of addition, he said:
Most likely Matthew’s text was originally without names as follows:
’Then was fulfilled that which was spoken.’ This is supported by the fact that
Matthew has the habit of omitting the names of the Prophets when he speaks
of them.
And on page 625 of the first volume he said:
The evangelist did not write the name of the Prophet in the original, some
copier included it later.
The above two passages bear witness that he believed that the word
’Jeremiah’ was added later. The commentary of D’Oyly and Richard Mant
contains the following comments with regard to this verse:
The words quoted here are not present in the Book of Jeremiah. They are
found in Zechariah 11:13. This may be because some copier in the past
might have written Jeremiah instead of Zechariah. Subsequently this mistake
has found its way into the text, as Pears has confirmed.
Jawad ibn as-Sabat wrote in the introduction of Al-Buraheen As-sabatiah:
I asked many missionaries about this verse. Thomas replied that it was a
mistake of the copier while Buchanan and others answered that Matthew
quoted it simply from his memory without referring to the books. Another
priest said it could be that Jeremiah was a second name of Zechariah.
This leads us to believe that Matthew made the mistake 98 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. 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 99
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 100
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
101
According to the investigations of Christian scholars the original text was
only this:
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water,
and the blood, and these three agree in one. There are three that bear record
in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost.
Griesbach and Sholtz are agreed on its being a later addition. Horne, in spite
of al1 his prejudice decided that these words should be excluded from the text.
The compilers of Henry and Scott also followed the opinion of Horne and Adam
Clarke.
St. Augustine. the great theologian and scholar of the fourth century wrote
ten booklets on this epistle but did not include this sentence in any of them in
spite of being a great preacher of the trinity and famous for having had many
debates with the followers of Arius. Had this been a part of the text, he would
have used it to support the trinitarian thesis and have quoted it. We personally
think that the note which he added in the margin of this verse, to connect it remotely with the trinity, was found useful by the trinitarians and was later
included by them in the text.
In the debate that I had with the author of Meezan-ul-Haqq he admitted that
this sentence was a later addition. Presuming that I would be quoting some more
examples of such distortions, he admitted in the very beginning of the
discussion that they acknowledged the presence of distortion in the text at seven
or eight places. Horne devoted more than twenty pages to examining this verse
and at the end gave a summary of his discussion, which we omit to save the
readers from an unnecessarily lengthy exposition. Henry and Scott’s compilers
gave a summary of the conclusion of Horne which we reproduce below:
Horne has presented the arguments of both the groups; we give a
summary of his recapitulation. Those who claim that this passage is false put
forward the following arguments.
1. This passage is not found in any of the Latin versions written before the
sixteenth century.
2. This text is missing from the other translations carefully examined and
printed in early times.
3. It was never referred to by the ancient theologians or 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.

 

Distortion in Luther’s Translation

The founder of the Protestant faith and great theologian, Martin Luther, first
translated the holy books into 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. They 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 unknown reason, excluded it from the second edition.
From then onward, the Protestants accepted its inclusion in the text. In this way
the Protestants unanimously acted against the will of their spiritual father. The
famous Unitarian scientist, Isaac Newton, wrote a treatise of nearly fifty pages
where he proved that this and I Timothy 2:16 are both forged and distorted. The
latter verse says:
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was
manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto
the 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.

 

……continue reading…..

2,168 total views, 0 views today

Comments

comments



Leave a Reply

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