Is the Trinity true?
The Trinity is the main Christian belief which is the belief in Father, Son and Holy Spirit one God. In this section, I will try to discuss it, and see if it is really from God or not.Jesus (Peace be upon him), as he never told that he is God, and as he told that the Father is the only God, as I mentioned before, Jesus didn’t say anything concerning the Trinity, there are some verses Christians use to prove the Trinity, I will try to discuss it in this section:
The first one is:
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Actually using the plural is not a proof that God is more than one person, for this is commonly used language for glorifying, and this was used concerning others in the Bible:
Ezr 4:17 Then sent the king an answer unto Rehum the chancellor, and to Shimshai the scribe, and to the rest of their companions that dwell in Samaria, and in the rest of the country beyond the River: Peace, and so forth. Ezr 4:18 The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me.
2Ch 10:9 And he said unto them, What counsel give ye, that we may return answer to this people, who have spoken to me, saying, Make the yoke that thy father did put upon us lighter?
Besides, the verse after it refutes the Trinity:
Gen 1:27 And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
This proves that the former verse was used for glorifying, otherwise this will mean that the other two persons went away, and only one person remained which is not the case for the Trinity.
The second verse used to prove the Trinity is:
Mat 3:16 And Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him;
I actually don’t understand where is the point in that verse that proves the Trinity, it doesn’t say that the 3 persons are one, all what it says is that they were present with each other for a moment, neither it says that the Son or the Holy Spirit are God.
Also this verse is used as a proof:
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:
Actually there are some comments on this verse:
- The verse doesn’t say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one, all what it said is to baptize people in the name of the 3 of them, saying name not names doesn’t mean that the 3 are one. When a leader tells his soldiers: “fight your enemies in the name of the country the people and the king” doesn’t mean that the 3 are one, this is the same case for 1 Peter 1:1-2.
Otherwise, if we used the same way, we can have another Trinity from the Bible:
1Ti 5:21 I
charge thee in the sight of God, and Christ Jesus, and the elect angels,
that thou observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing by
partiality.
It is the first time for me to hear that the elect angels became the third person in the Trinity.
- The apostles didn’t respond to what Jesus ordered them in this verse, since the baptismal formula was never told that way by the apostles, but they were always baptizing people in the name of Jesus, and they were baptizing the Jews only not the gentiles, only Paul and Baranabas (who were not present when Jesus said the above) baptized the gentiles.
-
There is a problem in the canonicity of the verse itself as Eusebius quoted it, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”(Church history 3.5.2), Basil said that he knew nothing about it:”Of the rest I say nothing; but of the very confession of our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what is the written source? If it be granted that, as we are baptized, so also under the obligation to believe, we make our confession in like terms as our baptism, in accordance with the tradition of our baptism and in conformity with the principles of true religion, let our opponents grant us too the right to be as consistent in our ascription of glory as in our confession of faith.”
A main fourth evidence is 1 John 5:7 which is commonly known as the Johannine comma:
1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Actually, this verse was omitted from most
translations, and most Christians agree on it being added to the Bible,
look for example at what Albert Barnes says in his commentary:
“The reasons which seem to me to prove that the passage included in
brackets is spurious, and should not be regarded as a part of the
inspired writings, are briefly the following:
I. It is missing in all the earlier Greek manuscripts, for it is found in no Greek manuscript written before the 16th century. Indeed, it is found in only two Greek manuscripts of any age – one the Codex Montfortianus, or Britannicus, written in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and the other the Codex Ravianus, which is a mere transcript of the text, taken partly from the third edition of Stephen’s New Testament, and partly from the Complutensian Polyglott. But it is incredible that a genuine passage of the New Testament should be missing in all the early Greek manuscripts.
II. It is missing in the earliest versions, and, indeed, in a large part of the versions of the New Testament which have been made in all former times. It is wanting in both the Syriac versions – one of which was made probably in the first century; in the Coptic, Armenian, Slavonic, Ethiopic, and Arabic.
III. It is never quoted by the Greek fathers in their controversies on the doctrine of the Trinity – a passage which would be so much in point, and which could not have failed to be quoted if it were genuine; and it is not referred to by the Latin fathers until the time of Vigilius, at the end of the 5th century. If the passage were believed to be genuine – nay, if it were known at all to be in existence, and to have any probability in its favor – it is incredible that in all the controversies which occurred in regard to the divine nature, and in all the efforts to define the doctrine of the Trinity, this passage should never have been referred to. But it never was; for it must be plain to anyone who examines the subject with an unbiassed mind, that the passages which are relied on to prove that it was quoted by Athanasius, Cyprian, Augustin, etc., (Wetstein, II., p. 725) are not taken from this place, and are not such as they would have made if they had been acquainted with this passage, and had designed to quote it. IV. The argument against the passage from the external proof is confirmed by internal evidence, which makes it morally certain that it cannot be genuine.”
I. It is missing in all the earlier Greek manuscripts, for it is found in no Greek manuscript written before the 16th century. Indeed, it is found in only two Greek manuscripts of any age – one the Codex Montfortianus, or Britannicus, written in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and the other the Codex Ravianus, which is a mere transcript of the text, taken partly from the third edition of Stephen’s New Testament, and partly from the Complutensian Polyglott. But it is incredible that a genuine passage of the New Testament should be missing in all the early Greek manuscripts.
II. It is missing in the earliest versions, and, indeed, in a large part of the versions of the New Testament which have been made in all former times. It is wanting in both the Syriac versions – one of which was made probably in the first century; in the Coptic, Armenian, Slavonic, Ethiopic, and Arabic.
III. It is never quoted by the Greek fathers in their controversies on the doctrine of the Trinity – a passage which would be so much in point, and which could not have failed to be quoted if it were genuine; and it is not referred to by the Latin fathers until the time of Vigilius, at the end of the 5th century. If the passage were believed to be genuine – nay, if it were known at all to be in existence, and to have any probability in its favor – it is incredible that in all the controversies which occurred in regard to the divine nature, and in all the efforts to define the doctrine of the Trinity, this passage should never have been referred to. But it never was; for it must be plain to anyone who examines the subject with an unbiassed mind, that the passages which are relied on to prove that it was quoted by Athanasius, Cyprian, Augustin, etc., (Wetstein, II., p. 725) are not taken from this place, and are not such as they would have made if they had been acquainted with this passage, and had designed to quote it. IV. The argument against the passage from the external proof is confirmed by internal evidence, which makes it morally certain that it cannot be genuine.”
Actually his note concerning this is very extensive,
and I preferred to quote a part of it, so as not to have a very long
article.
What we can conclude is that there was no solid ground
for the belief in Trinity, all the verses used are not that serious,
and doesn’t give the real description for the Trinitarian belief, but
they can have many meanings, which doesn’t match with a belief that is
supposed to be the basic belief, and other scripts were inserted to the
Bible to try to get an evidence for that belief, which proves that this
was a major problem that faced Christians for centuries.
The main evidence used by Christians to prove the authenticity of the Bible is the extensive number of Bible manuscripts of both the Old and New Testaments, but actually this is not an enough evidence, as the number is not the only factor that tells if it is true or not, what is more important is the time these manuscripts were written, for example in case of the Old Testament, the two major manuscripts are Masoretic text and the Septuagint. The Masoretic text refers back to the ninth century, while the oldest manuscript for Septuagint refers back to the fourth century. As for the New Testament, the oldest manuscripts are the Syriac Peshitta referring to about 200AD, while contains the New Testament except 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation, also the Greek Vaticanus and Sinaiticus which are considered to be the main manuscripts used, and refer to the fourth century.
These are the oldest manuscripts for both the Old and New Testaments, as we see for the Old Testament, the oldest manuscript refers to the fourth century, and for the New Testament, the oldest manuscript refers to the beginning of the third century, and doesn’t contain some epistles, which puts a question mark concerning them, were they added to the Bible? This makes a gap between the time of the Prophets including Jesus (Peace be upon him), and the time of writing these manuscripts, and makes the claim that the Bible was fully preserved not very accurate, because it could have happened that the writers of these manuscripts were anonymous.
Some might say that there were earlier fragments that prove that the books of the Bible were present at that time as the fragments of John Rayland for example which refers to about 125 AD, and has some words in the Gospel of John, but actually this is not a proof even for the existance of Gospel John at that time, all that it can prove is that these words were present at that time, but it could have been taken from another source, and it may have been that the writer of Gospel John copied it from that source,…etc., many possibilities exist, but this is not an evidence in itself.
This is also the same case for the Dead Sea Scrolls, all what was found in Qumran were mostly fragments, the only book which was found to be nearly complete is Isaiah, but all other Old Testament books were fragments that doesn’t prove that the Bible was present the same as it is now, especially that a lot of Apocrypha were found in Qumran, which puts another question mark concerning the books which used to be canonical at that time, and on what base were the books of the Bible taken as canonical and others were not? especially that a lot of these apocrypha were present with the canonical books in the same manuscript as 1-4 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasseh which are present in the Vaticanus with other canonical books.
These are the oldest manuscripts for both the Old and New Testaments, as we see for the Old Testament, the oldest manuscript refers to the fourth century, and for the New Testament, the oldest manuscript refers to the beginning of the third century, and doesn’t contain some epistles, which puts a question mark concerning them, were they added to the Bible? This makes a gap between the time of the Prophets including Jesus (Peace be upon him), and the time of writing these manuscripts, and makes the claim that the Bible was fully preserved not very accurate, because it could have happened that the writers of these manuscripts were anonymous.
Some might say that there were earlier fragments that prove that the books of the Bible were present at that time as the fragments of John Rayland for example which refers to about 125 AD, and has some words in the Gospel of John, but actually this is not a proof even for the existance of Gospel John at that time, all that it can prove is that these words were present at that time, but it could have been taken from another source, and it may have been that the writer of Gospel John copied it from that source,…etc., many possibilities exist, but this is not an evidence in itself.
This is also the same case for the Dead Sea Scrolls, all what was found in Qumran were mostly fragments, the only book which was found to be nearly complete is Isaiah, but all other Old Testament books were fragments that doesn’t prove that the Bible was present the same as it is now, especially that a lot of Apocrypha were found in Qumran, which puts another question mark concerning the books which used to be canonical at that time, and on what base were the books of the Bible taken as canonical and others were not? especially that a lot of these apocrypha were present with the canonical books in the same manuscript as 1-4 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasseh which are present in the Vaticanus with other canonical books.
Do Bible manuscripts prove its authenticity?
The main evidence used by Christians to prove the authenticity of the Bible is the extensive number of Bible manuscripts of both the Old and New Testaments, but actually this is not an enough evidence, as the number is not the only factor that tells if it is true or not, what is more important is the time these manuscripts were written, for example in case of the Old Testament, the two major manuscripts are Masoretic text and the Septuagint. The Masoretic text refers back to the ninth century, while the oldest manuscript for Septuagint refers back to the fourth century. As for the New Testament, the oldest manuscripts are the Syriac Peshitta referring to about 200AD, while contains the New Testament except 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation, also the Greek Vaticanus and Sinaiticus which are considered to be the main manuscripts used, and refer to the fourth century.
These are the oldest manuscripts for both the Old and New Testaments, as we see for the Old Testament, the oldest manuscript refers to the fourth century, and for the New Testament, the oldest manuscript refers to the beginning of the third century, and doesn’t contain some epistles, which puts a question mark concerning them, were they added to the Bible? This makes a gap between the time of the Prophets including Jesus (Peace be upon him), and the time of writing these manuscripts, and makes the claim that the Bible was fully preserved not very accurate, because it could have happened that the writers of these manuscripts were anonymous.
Some might say that there were earlier fragments that prove that the books of the Bible were present at that time as the fragments of John Rayland for example which refers to about 125 AD, and has some words in the Gospel of John, but actually this is not a proof even for the existance of Gospel John at that time, all that it can prove is that these words were present at that time, but it could have been taken from another source, and it may have been that the writer of Gospel John copied it from that source,…etc., many possibilities exist, but this is not an evidence in itself.
This is also the same case for the Dead Sea Scrolls, all what was found in Qumran were mostly fragments, the only book which was found to be nearly complete is Isaiah, but all other Old Testament books were fragments that doesn’t prove that the Bible was present the same as it is now, especially that a lot of Apocrypha were found in Qumran, which puts another question mark concerning the books which used to be canonical at that time, and on what base were the books of the Bible taken as canonical and others were not? especially that a lot of these apocrypha were present with the canonical books in the same manuscript as 1-4 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasseh which are present in the Vaticanus with other canonical books.
Do Bible manuscripts prove its authenticity?
The main evidence used by Christians to prove the authenticity of the Bible is the extensive number of Bible manuscripts of both the Old and New Testaments, but actually this is not an enough evidence, as the number is not the only factor that tells if it is true or not, what is more important is the time these manuscripts were written, for example in case of the Old Testament, the two major manuscripts are Masoretic text and the Septuagint. The Masoretic text refers back to the ninth century, while the oldest manuscript for Septuagint refers back to the fourth century. As for the New Testament, the oldest manuscripts are the Syriac Peshitta referring to about 200AD, while contains the New Testament except 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation, also the Greek Vaticanus and Sinaiticus which are considered to be the main manuscripts used, and refer to the fourth century.
These are the oldest manuscripts for both the Old and New Testaments, as we see for the Old Testament, the oldest manuscript refers to the fourth century, and for the New Testament, the oldest manuscript refers to the beginning of the third century, and doesn’t contain some epistles, which puts a question mark concerning them, were they added to the Bible? This makes a gap between the time of the Prophets including Jesus (Peace be upon him), and the time of writing these manuscripts, and makes the claim that the Bible was fully preserved not very accurate, because it could have happened that the writers of these manuscripts were anonymous.
Some might say that there were earlier fragments that prove that the books of the Bible were present at that time as the fragments of John Rayland for example which refers to about 125 AD, and has some words in the Gospel of John, but actually this is not a proof even for the existance of Gospel John at that time, all that it can prove is that these words were present at that time, but it could have been taken from another source, and it may have been that the writer of Gospel John copied it from that source,…etc., many possibilities exist, but this is not an evidence in itself.
This is also the same case for the Dead Sea Scrolls, all what was found in Qumran were mostly fragments, the only book which was found to be nearly complete is Isaiah, but all other Old Testament books were fragments that doesn’t prove that the Bible was present the same as it is now, especially that a lot of Apocrypha were found in Qumran, which puts another question mark concerning the books which used to be canonical at that time, and on what base were the books of the Bible taken as canonical and others were not? especially that a lot of these apocrypha were present with the canonical books in the same manuscript as 1-4 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasseh which are present in the Vaticanus with other canonical books.
Do Church Father quotes prove Bible authenticity?
these last times of distress. His adversaries wrongly inferred from the use of the first person for the Holy Spirit in his oracles, that he made himself directly the Paraclete,
This link talks about Tertullian and his relationship with Montanus:
In Africa there was a lot of interest in the new
prophecy, and Tertullian came to believe that it was genuine,
accordingly mentioning it and defending it strongly in his later works.
Unfortunately his work in defence of it, De ecstasi, in 7 books
is lost. Tertullian fiercely attacks those who condemned the new
prophecy, and in attacking the church authorities as more interested in
their own political power in the church than in listening to the Spirit,
he foreshadows the protestant reaction to papal claims.
5. Origen: (c.253 AD)
Although being a main source for Christians as an early church father, Origen actually adopted many heretical opinions, Philip Schaff tells concerning him:”For
— and in this too he is like Schleiermacher — he can by no means be
called orthodox, either in the Catholic or in the Protestant sense. His
leaning to idealism, his predilection for Plato, and his noble effort to
reconcile Christianity with reason, and to commend it even to educated
heathens and Gnostics, led him into many grand and fascinating errors.”.
All
this proves that the Christian belief wasn’t settled at that time,
which gives the conclusion that the real Gospels were not that genuine,
and that a lot of theological problems happened at that critical time
even among early church fathers whom are supposed to be a main evidence
for the Bible through their quotes, how could they be an evidence to
the Gospels and epistles and Christian belief when they are actually
adopting opinions that are obviously against what the Gospels tell and
what Christians believed? Aren’t these church fathers orthodoxy
Christians who were filled with the Holy Spirit and were actually quoted
by Christians as the conquerors of heresy? How could they be conquerors
of heresy when they adopted heresies?
Jewish corruption of the Old Testament
This section shall highlight some of the corruptions made by
the Jews in the Old Testament and how early Christians accused the Jews
of corruption.
The first example is Justin Martyr(an early church father who died at about 150 AD) says in his dialogue with Trypho, a Jew:
Chap. LXXII. — Passages Have Been Removed by the Jews from Esdras and Jeremiah.
And I said, “I shall do as you please. From the statements, then, which Esdras made in reference to the law of the passover, they have taken away the following: ‘And Esdras said to the people, This passover is our Saviour and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken it in, that we shall humble Him on a standard, and….. thereafter hope in Him, then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the God of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and will not listen to His declaration, you shall be a laughing-stock to the nations.’…… And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: ‘The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.’
So Justin Martyr here is explicitly accusing the Jews of corrupting the Old Testament by hiding some verses talking about salvation. But is it that easy that verses are removed from the Bible? Let’s see what John Chrysostom (church father who lived in the fourth century) says in his Homilies on Gospel Matthew when he came to the verse quoting the Old Testament” which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.”:
And what manner of prophet said this? Be not curious, nor overbusy. For many of the prophetic writings have been lost; and this one may see from the history of the Chronicles. For being negligent, and continually falling into ungodliness, some they suffered to perish, others they themselves burnt up and cut to pieces. The latter fact Jeremiah relates; the former, he who composed the fourth book of Kings, saying, that after a long time the book of Deuteronomy was hardly found, buried somewhere and lost. But if, when there was no barbarian there, they so betrayed their books, much 56 more when the barbarians had overrun them. For as to the fact, that the prophet had foretold it, the apostles themselves in many places call Him a Nazarene. ”
So simply John Chrysostom is not just accusing the Jews of being negligent who are not caring for their books, but also of destroying their own books. If these are accusations made by Christians, who are supposed to share the Jews their belief in the Old Testament, how could Muslims trust the Jews and consider that they were really honest and followed God’s commandment to keep Hi s books, not to add or remove or replace?
Not only that, we can see another interesting account by Adam Clarke, a Christian commentator where he shows another intentional corruption made by the Jews against the Samaritans. He said in his commentary on Deu 27:4 -
“Set up these stones – in Mount Ebal – So the present Hebrew text , but the Samaritan has Mount Gerizim. Dr. Kennicott has largely defended the reading of the Samaritan in his second dissertation on the present state of the Hebrew text , and Dr. Parry has defended the Hebrew against the Samaritan. Many still think Dr. Kennicott’s arguments unanswerable, and have no doubt that the Jews have here corrupted the text through their enmity to the Samaritans. “
So here again Adam Clarke didn’t just accuse the Jews for corrupting the manuscripts due to their hostility with Christians only, but also they did the same with Samaritans, and with Muslims when they changed the name of Abraham’s offered son to Isaac.
These may be just some examples of what I have seen from Christian writings, and for sure if we dug more through various books, we may find more issues showing other issues. Actually if we went through early and medieval Muslim writings, we may find many quotes from Jewish and Christian writings talking about Prophet Muhammad in a very explicit way which are not present in the Bible. But if the Jews are actually proven to behave the way described above, then I tend to believe Muslim scholars, especially that this is against both Christian and Jewish beliefs.
The first example is Justin Martyr(an early church father who died at about 150 AD) says in his dialogue with Trypho, a Jew:
Chap. LXXII. — Passages Have Been Removed by the Jews from Esdras and Jeremiah.
And I said, “I shall do as you please. From the statements, then, which Esdras made in reference to the law of the passover, they have taken away the following: ‘And Esdras said to the people, This passover is our Saviour and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken it in, that we shall humble Him on a standard, and….. thereafter hope in Him, then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the God of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and will not listen to His declaration, you shall be a laughing-stock to the nations.’…… And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: ‘The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.’
So Justin Martyr here is explicitly accusing the Jews of corrupting the Old Testament by hiding some verses talking about salvation. But is it that easy that verses are removed from the Bible? Let’s see what John Chrysostom (church father who lived in the fourth century) says in his Homilies on Gospel Matthew when he came to the verse quoting the Old Testament” which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.”:
And what manner of prophet said this? Be not curious, nor overbusy. For many of the prophetic writings have been lost; and this one may see from the history of the Chronicles. For being negligent, and continually falling into ungodliness, some they suffered to perish, others they themselves burnt up and cut to pieces. The latter fact Jeremiah relates; the former, he who composed the fourth book of Kings, saying, that after a long time the book of Deuteronomy was hardly found, buried somewhere and lost. But if, when there was no barbarian there, they so betrayed their books, much 56 more when the barbarians had overrun them. For as to the fact, that the prophet had foretold it, the apostles themselves in many places call Him a Nazarene. ”
So simply John Chrysostom is not just accusing the Jews of being negligent who are not caring for their books, but also of destroying their own books. If these are accusations made by Christians, who are supposed to share the Jews their belief in the Old Testament, how could Muslims trust the Jews and consider that they were really honest and followed God’s commandment to keep Hi s books, not to add or remove or replace?
Not only that, we can see another interesting account by Adam Clarke, a Christian commentator where he shows another intentional corruption made by the Jews against the Samaritans. He said in his commentary on Deu 27:4 -
“Set up these stones – in Mount Ebal – So the present Hebrew text , but the Samaritan has Mount Gerizim. Dr. Kennicott has largely defended the reading of the Samaritan in his second dissertation on the present state of the Hebrew text , and Dr. Parry has defended the Hebrew against the Samaritan. Many still think Dr. Kennicott’s arguments unanswerable, and have no doubt that the Jews have here corrupted the text through their enmity to the Samaritans. “
So here again Adam Clarke didn’t just accuse the Jews for corrupting the manuscripts due to their hostility with Christians only, but also they did the same with Samaritans, and with Muslims when they changed the name of Abraham’s offered son to Isaac.
These may be just some examples of what I have seen from Christian writings, and for sure if we dug more through various books, we may find more issues showing other issues. Actually if we went through early and medieval Muslim writings, we may find many quotes from Jewish and Christian writings talking about Prophet Muhammad in a very explicit way which are not present in the Bible. But if the Jews are actually proven to behave the way described above, then I tend to believe Muslim scholars, especially that this is against both Christian and Jewish beliefs.
Were the Bible writers really inspired by God?
Christians usually argue that the Bible was written by writers
who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. If this is true, then we shouldn’t
find any fault within the Bible. Is this really the case? This article
gives some citations by Adam Clarke, the Christian commentator where he
shows that Ezra fell in some faults when he wrote the Chronicles This
can be highlighted in his commentary.
Adam Clarke tells in his commentary on 1Chronicles 7:6:
“The sons of Benjamin; Bela, and Becher and Jediael – In Gen_46:21, ten sons
of Benjamin are reckoned; ….. In Num_26:38, etc ., five sons only of Benjamin are
mentioned, Bela, Ashbel, Ahiram, Shupham, and Hupham: and Ard and Naaman are
there said to be the sons of Bela; ….. The rabbins say that Ezra, who wrote this book, did not know whether some of these were sons or grandsons; and they intimate also that the tables from which he copied were often defective, and here we must leave all such matters.”
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?bk=12&ch=7
We can see here that Adam Clarke admits that there were some defective tables from which he copied. The question now is: If the Bible writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit, why were they misled by copying from a defective copy?
Then Adam Clarke continues in 1Chronicles 8:29 saying:
“And at Gibeon – This passage to the end of the 38th verse is found with a little variety in the names, 1Ch_9:35- 44.
The rabbins say that Ezra, having found two books that had these passages with a variety in the names, as they agreed in general, he thought best to insert them both, not being able to discern which was the best. “
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?bk=12&ch=8
How can we say that Ezra or any Bible writer were really inspired? If the
one who rewrote the Torah was a prophet who took the revelation from God, he
wouldn’t have fell in that problem, and he would have been able to distinguish the defective copies.
Adam Clarke tells in his commentary on 1Chronicles 7:6:
“The sons of Benjamin; Bela, and Becher and Jediael – In Gen_46:21, ten sons
of Benjamin are reckoned; ….. In Num_26:38, etc ., five sons only of Benjamin are
mentioned, Bela, Ashbel, Ahiram, Shupham, and Hupham: and Ard and Naaman are
there said to be the sons of Bela; ….. The rabbins say that Ezra, who wrote this book, did not know whether some of these were sons or grandsons; and they intimate also that the tables from which he copied were often defective, and here we must leave all such matters.”
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?bk=12&ch=7
We can see here that Adam Clarke admits that there were some defective tables from which he copied. The question now is: If the Bible writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit, why were they misled by copying from a defective copy?
Then Adam Clarke continues in 1Chronicles 8:29 saying:
“And at Gibeon – This passage to the end of the 38th verse is found with a little variety in the names, 1Ch_9:35- 44.
The rabbins say that Ezra, having found two books that had these passages with a variety in the names, as they agreed in general, he thought best to insert them both, not being able to discern which was the best. “
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?bk=12&ch=8
How can we say that Ezra or any Bible writer were really inspired? If the
one who rewrote the Torah was a prophet who took the revelation from God, he
wouldn’t have fell in that problem, and he would have been able to distinguish the defective copies.
Bible difficulties
In this section, I will try to illustrate some of the Bible
difficulties I met. I have seen many accounts of contradictions in the
Bible, actually some of them were answered in commentaries, but not all.
In this section, I will show some of these contradictions I have seen
and I found no convincing answer to them by Christian scholars.
Bible Corruption of Abraham’s Offered Son to Isaac
When did Abraham leave Haran?
How old was Perez when he married?
Genealogy of Jesus
The story of crucifixion
How did Judas Die?
Bible Corruption of Abraham’s Offered Son to Isaac
When did Abraham leave Haran?
How old was Perez when he married?
Genealogy of Jesus
The story of crucifixion
How did Judas Die?
Bible Corruption of Abraham’s Offered Son to Isaac
Who was the offered son of Abraham? Is it Ishmael or Isaac?
This has been a point of controversy between Muslims from one side, and
from Jews and Christians from the other side. This article is not just
showing a Bible difficulty that yielded in an inconsistency, but it can
also give a hint on how the Jews intentionally changed the name of the
offered son from Ishmael to Isaac. The question to the Bible is: how old
was Ishmael when he went to Agar?
The Bible tells that Ishmael was about 16 years old when he went with Agar:
Gen 17:24 And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. Gen 17:25 And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old,
when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
Then when Abraham begat Isaac , he was 100 yrs old (Genesis 21:5), then Isaac
grew and weaned(Genesis 21:9), this will take about 2 yrs, this means that Ishmael was about 16 yrs old when he went with Agar as Genesis 21 tells, my question is that how could Agar go all that way carrying a 16 yr old lad, as you can see from the rest of the chapter:
Gen 21:14And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread and a bottle of
water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and gave her the child,
and sent her away. And she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-
sheba. Gen 21:15 And the water in the bottle was spent , and she cast the child
under one of the shrubs. Gen 21:16 And she went , and sat her down over against
him a good way off, as it were a bowshot . For she said, Let me not look upon the
death of the child. And she sat over against him, and lifted up her voice, and wept .
Gen 21:17 And God heard the voice of the lad. And the angel of God called to Hagar
out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? Fear not . For God hath
heard the voice of the lad where he is. Gen 21:18 Arise, lift up the lad, and hold
him in thy hand. For I will make him a great nation. Gen 21:19 And God opened her
eyes, and she saw a well of water. And she went , and filled the bottle with water,
and gave the lad drink. Gen 21:20 And God was with the lad, and he grew. And he
dwelt in the wilderness, and became, as he grew up, an archer.
The chapter goes as if Ishmael was a baby whom his mother lifts then puts, and he is silent , which doesn’t match with a 16 yr old lad, it may be said that in Genesis 21:14, it says ” putting it on her shoulder, and gave her the child”, so it doesn’t mean that she really lifted him up, the case is that the Septuagaint tells it very clearly:
21:14 And Abraam rose up in the morning and took loaves and a skin of water, and
gave [them] to Agar, and he put the child on her shoulder, and sent her away,
and she having departed wandered in the wilderness near the well of the oath.
http://ecclesia.org/truth/septuagint -hyperlinked.html
I think that the reason for this is what is said in the next chapter:
Gen 22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did prove Abraham, and
said unto him, Abraham. And he said, Here am I. Gen 22:2 And he said, Take now
thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest , even Isaac , and get thee into the land
of Moriah. And offer him there for a burnt -offering upon one of the mountains which
I will tell thee of.
We as Muslims believe that Ishmael was the one offered, and we believe that the
Jews altered the word Ishmael to Isaac , and the above difficulty is the evidence,
since the scripture tells “after these things”, which are supposed to be happened
when Ishmael was a baby, and since it is supposed that Ishmael was the firstborn
son of Abraham, then it will mean that the only son here means him not Isaac, who haven’t been born yet if Ishamael was a baby , so for the Jews to get rid of this problem, they rearranged the chapters, and put the event of Isaac birth before that chapter, but it yielded that difficulty.
Actually the Jews were accused of corruption in other issues, and this article is talking about Christian early church fathers accusing the Jews of Bible intentional corruption. This can be added to the accusations list.
The Bible tells that Ishmael was about 16 years old when he went with Agar:
Gen 17:24 And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. Gen 17:25 And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old,
when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
Then when Abraham begat Isaac , he was 100 yrs old (Genesis 21:5), then Isaac
grew and weaned(Genesis 21:9), this will take about 2 yrs, this means that Ishmael was about 16 yrs old when he went with Agar as Genesis 21 tells, my question is that how could Agar go all that way carrying a 16 yr old lad, as you can see from the rest of the chapter:
Gen 21:14And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread and a bottle of
water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and gave her the child,
and sent her away. And she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-
sheba. Gen 21:15 And the water in the bottle was spent , and she cast the child
under one of the shrubs. Gen 21:16 And she went , and sat her down over against
him a good way off, as it were a bowshot . For she said, Let me not look upon the
death of the child. And she sat over against him, and lifted up her voice, and wept .
Gen 21:17 And God heard the voice of the lad. And the angel of God called to Hagar
out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? Fear not . For God hath
heard the voice of the lad where he is. Gen 21:18 Arise, lift up the lad, and hold
him in thy hand. For I will make him a great nation. Gen 21:19 And God opened her
eyes, and she saw a well of water. And she went , and filled the bottle with water,
and gave the lad drink. Gen 21:20 And God was with the lad, and he grew. And he
dwelt in the wilderness, and became, as he grew up, an archer.
The chapter goes as if Ishmael was a baby whom his mother lifts then puts, and he is silent , which doesn’t match with a 16 yr old lad, it may be said that in Genesis 21:14, it says ” putting it on her shoulder, and gave her the child”, so it doesn’t mean that she really lifted him up, the case is that the Septuagaint tells it very clearly:
21:14 And Abraam rose up in the morning and took loaves and a skin of water, and
gave [them] to Agar, and he put the child on her shoulder, and sent her away,
and she having departed wandered in the wilderness near the well of the oath.
http://ecclesia.org/truth/septuagint -hyperlinked.html
I think that the reason for this is what is said in the next chapter:
Gen 22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did prove Abraham, and
said unto him, Abraham. And he said, Here am I. Gen 22:2 And he said, Take now
thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest , even Isaac , and get thee into the land
of Moriah. And offer him there for a burnt -offering upon one of the mountains which
I will tell thee of.
We as Muslims believe that Ishmael was the one offered, and we believe that the
Jews altered the word Ishmael to Isaac , and the above difficulty is the evidence,
since the scripture tells “after these things”, which are supposed to be happened
when Ishmael was a baby, and since it is supposed that Ishmael was the firstborn
son of Abraham, then it will mean that the only son here means him not Isaac, who haven’t been born yet if Ishamael was a baby , so for the Jews to get rid of this problem, they rearranged the chapters, and put the event of Isaac birth before that chapter, but it yielded that difficulty.
Actually the Jews were accused of corruption in other issues, and this article is talking about Christian early church fathers accusing the Jews of Bible intentional corruption. This can be added to the accusations list.
When did Abraham leave Haran?
When did Abraham leave Haran? Was it before or after his
father’s death? This is a Bible difficulty showing an inconsistency
between Old Testament and New Testament.
In the Old Testament it says that Terah lived 70 years then he begat Abraham:
Gen 11:26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
And then it tells that Abraham left Haran when he was 75:
Gen 12:4 So Abram went, as Jehovah had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.
And that Terah was 205 years when he died:
Gen 11:32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.
This means that Terah was 70+75=145 years when Abraham left Haran, i.e., he was still alive when Abraham left Haran.
But actually the writer of Acts had another opinion:
Act 7:4 Then he went out from the land of the Chaldeans and lived in Haran. And after his father died, God removed him from there into this land in which you are now living. (ESV)
So the writer of Acts says what Genesis didn’t say, Christian commentators tried to solve this problem, Adam Clarke for example writes:
“And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran – Haran was certainly the eldest son of Terah, and he appears to have been born when Terah was about seventy years of age, and his birth was followed in successive periods with those of Nahor his second, and Abram his youngest son. Many have been greatly puzzled with the account here, supposing because Abram is mentioned first, that therefore he was the eldest son of Terah: but he is only put first by way of dignity. An in stance of this we have already seen, Gen_5:32, where Noah is represented as having Shem, Ham, and Japheth in this order of succession; whereas it is evident from other scriptures that Shem was the youngest son, who for dignity is named first, as Abram is here; and Japheth the eldest, named last, as Haran is here. Terah died two hundred and five years old, Gen_11:32; then Abram departed from Haran when seventy-five years old, Gen_12:4; therefore Abram was born, not when his father Terah was seventy, but when he was one hundred and thirty.
When any case of dignity or pre-eminence is to be marked, then even the youngest son is set before all the rest, though contrary to the usage of the Scriptures in other cases. Hence we find Shem, the youngest son of Noah, always mentioned first; Moses is mentioned before his elder brother Aaron; and Abram before his two elder brethren Haran and Nahor. These observations are sufficient to remove all difficulty from this place.”
This would have been a good solution to this difficulty, if this wasn’t mentioned:
Gen 17:17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is a hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?
This clearly means that when Abraham was told by God to have a child when he was 100 is a miracle, how come that Terah begat Abraham at 130?
Besides, a very important fragment was discovered within Dead Sea Scrolls that doesn’t match with this claim, it is fragment 4Q252, which says:
He gave the land to Abraham His beloved.~Terah was~one hundred~and forty years old when he left 9Ur of the Chaldees and went to Haran and Ab[ram was s]eventy. And he dwet five years in Haran. Then [Terah died] six[ty years after Abram] went out [to] the land of Ganaan. “
http://www.moellerhaus.com/Dead%20Sea%20Scrs/dsscomsGen.htm
So as we see, saying that Terah begat Abraham at 130 doesn’t match with the Bible, and DSS doesn’t agree with it. This means that there is still a difficulty concerning what the writer of the Acts wrote.
In the Old Testament it says that Terah lived 70 years then he begat Abraham:
Gen 11:26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
And then it tells that Abraham left Haran when he was 75:
Gen 12:4 So Abram went, as Jehovah had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.
And that Terah was 205 years when he died:
Gen 11:32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.
This means that Terah was 70+75=145 years when Abraham left Haran, i.e., he was still alive when Abraham left Haran.
But actually the writer of Acts had another opinion:
Act 7:4 Then he went out from the land of the Chaldeans and lived in Haran. And after his father died, God removed him from there into this land in which you are now living. (ESV)
So the writer of Acts says what Genesis didn’t say, Christian commentators tried to solve this problem, Adam Clarke for example writes:
“And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran – Haran was certainly the eldest son of Terah, and he appears to have been born when Terah was about seventy years of age, and his birth was followed in successive periods with those of Nahor his second, and Abram his youngest son. Many have been greatly puzzled with the account here, supposing because Abram is mentioned first, that therefore he was the eldest son of Terah: but he is only put first by way of dignity. An in stance of this we have already seen, Gen_5:32, where Noah is represented as having Shem, Ham, and Japheth in this order of succession; whereas it is evident from other scriptures that Shem was the youngest son, who for dignity is named first, as Abram is here; and Japheth the eldest, named last, as Haran is here. Terah died two hundred and five years old, Gen_11:32; then Abram departed from Haran when seventy-five years old, Gen_12:4; therefore Abram was born, not when his father Terah was seventy, but when he was one hundred and thirty.
When any case of dignity or pre-eminence is to be marked, then even the youngest son is set before all the rest, though contrary to the usage of the Scriptures in other cases. Hence we find Shem, the youngest son of Noah, always mentioned first; Moses is mentioned before his elder brother Aaron; and Abram before his two elder brethren Haran and Nahor. These observations are sufficient to remove all difficulty from this place.”
This would have been a good solution to this difficulty, if this wasn’t mentioned:
Gen 17:17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is a hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?
This clearly means that when Abraham was told by God to have a child when he was 100 is a miracle, how come that Terah begat Abraham at 130?
Besides, a very important fragment was discovered within Dead Sea Scrolls that doesn’t match with this claim, it is fragment 4Q252, which says:
He gave the land to Abraham His beloved.~Terah was~one hundred~and forty years old when he left 9Ur of the Chaldees and went to Haran and Ab[ram was s]eventy. And he dwet five years in Haran. Then [Terah died] six[ty years after Abram] went out [to] the land of Ganaan. “
http://www.moellerhaus.com/Dead%20Sea%20Scrs/dsscomsGen.htm
So as we see, saying that Terah begat Abraham at 130 doesn’t match with the Bible, and DSS doesn’t agree with it. This means that there is still a difficulty concerning what the writer of the Acts wrote.
How old was Perez when he married?
What was the age of Perez when he married? In Genesis 37:2, it
says that Joseph was 17 when he dreamt and his brothers envied him:
Gen 37:2 These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brethren; and he was a lad with the sons of Bilhah, and with the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives: and Joseph brought the evil report of them unto their father.
Then it says that when he stood before the Pharaoh he was 30:
Gen 41:46 And Joseph was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh king of Egypt.
Then the 7 years of plenty ended:
Gen 41:53 And the seven years of plenty, that was in the land of Egypt, came to an end.
Then 2 years from the famine passed when he invited his brothers to Egypt:
Gen 45:6 For these two years hath the famine been in the land: and there are yet five years, in which there shall be neither plowing nor harvest.
From the above, we can conclude that the time between when Joseph’s brothers envied him, and when he invited them to Egypt will be= 2+7+30-17=22 years
Let’s see what happened in Jacob’s family within that time:
Judah married and begat Er and Onan (Genesis 38:3-4), this happens at least in 2 years for marrying and conceiving twice, then Er married Tamar, then he died, which nearly happens within 12 years till Er marries and let’s assume that he died immediately after he married, so we can have now about 13 years, then Onan married her and then died, and let’s assume that all this didn’t take one day, then in verse 11 Tamar waited for Shelah to grow up, so that she marries him, but he grew up and didn’t marry her as in verse 14, so let’s assume that all this took two years, so we now have 15 years, then Judah sinned with her, and she begat Perez, this would take about one year. So we can now conclude that Perez was about 6 years old when he went to Joseph in Egypt. The Bible tells that when Perez went to Joseph, he had 2 sons:
Gen 46:12 And the sons of Judah: Er, and Onan, and Shelah, and Perez, and Zerah; but Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan. And the sons of Perez were Hezron and Hamul.
How come that a boy at 6 years old not only that he marries, but he also has 2 sons?
This was how Robertson shows the difficulty and how he tried to solve it. Actually this may have been right, but there are still other difficulties that must be put into consideration, the first thing is that if the genealogy in Matthew is the genealogy of Joseph, which means that it is not that of the Christ, which means that he won’t be the Messiah since the Messiah should be from Solomon’s genealogy. It may be said that Joseph was considered his father even if he wasn’t the biological father, so Jesus still has the right to be the Messiah according to this genealogy, but actually I didn’t find an evidence in the Bible where it treats a biological father as a father by adoption, but even I found what tells that heir should be from the biological father not from a father by adoption:
The fourth one omitted here was Jehoiakim (see 1 Chronicles 3:15), and it seems that the reason for this is this verse:
Jer 36:30 Therefore thus saith Jehovah concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah: He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David; and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost
According to that verse in Jeremiah, no one from Jehoiakim’s descendants shall sit on David’s, which means that the Messiah can’t be from his descendants. It may be said that this was the genealogy of Joseph not Jesus, so he could have been omitted, of course first this is not an appropriate justification, since if this was the case, then this genealogy has nothing to do with Jesus, we either take all the genealogy for Jesus and consider that since he was the son adopted by Jesus, then all the genealogy refers to him, or that we say that this genealogy has nothing to do with Jesus, but we shouldn’t take it selectively, besides, it seems that the writer of Gospel Matthew didn’t understand it that way, otherwise he wouldn’t have omitted his name.
Gen 37:2 These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brethren; and he was a lad with the sons of Bilhah, and with the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives: and Joseph brought the evil report of them unto their father.
Then it says that when he stood before the Pharaoh he was 30:
Gen 41:46 And Joseph was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh king of Egypt.
Then the 7 years of plenty ended:
Gen 41:53 And the seven years of plenty, that was in the land of Egypt, came to an end.
Then 2 years from the famine passed when he invited his brothers to Egypt:
Gen 45:6 For these two years hath the famine been in the land: and there are yet five years, in which there shall be neither plowing nor harvest.
From the above, we can conclude that the time between when Joseph’s brothers envied him, and when he invited them to Egypt will be= 2+7+30-17=22 years
Let’s see what happened in Jacob’s family within that time:
Judah married and begat Er and Onan (Genesis 38:3-4), this happens at least in 2 years for marrying and conceiving twice, then Er married Tamar, then he died, which nearly happens within 12 years till Er marries and let’s assume that he died immediately after he married, so we can have now about 13 years, then Onan married her and then died, and let’s assume that all this didn’t take one day, then in verse 11 Tamar waited for Shelah to grow up, so that she marries him, but he grew up and didn’t marry her as in verse 14, so let’s assume that all this took two years, so we now have 15 years, then Judah sinned with her, and she begat Perez, this would take about one year. So we can now conclude that Perez was about 6 years old when he went to Joseph in Egypt. The Bible tells that when Perez went to Joseph, he had 2 sons:
Gen 46:12 And the sons of Judah: Er, and Onan, and Shelah, and Perez, and Zerah; but Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan. And the sons of Perez were Hezron and Hamul.
How come that a boy at 6 years old not only that he marries, but he also has 2 sons?
Genealogy of Jesus
This was one of the major
difficulties that faced the Bible scholars for a long time, that the
genealogy of Jesus in Matthew is totally different than that in Luke,
For example in Robertson’s Word Picture:
“Being Son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli (ōn huios hōs enomizeto Iōsēph tou Helei).
For the discussion of the genealogy of Jesus, see notes on Matthew
1:1-17. The two genealogies differ very widely and many theories have
been proposed about them. At once one notices that Luke begins with
Jesus and goes back to Adam, the Son of God, while Matthew begins with
Abraham and comes to “Joseph the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus
who is called Christ” (Mat_1:16). Matthew employs the word “begot” each
time, while Luke has the article tou repeating huiou (Son) except before
Joseph. They agree in the mention of Joseph, but Matthew says that
“Jacob begat Joseph” while Luke calls “Joseph the son of Heli.” There
are other differences, but this one makes one pause. Joseph, of course,
did not have two fathers. If we understand Luke to be giving the real
genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the matter is simple enough. The two
genealogies differ from Joseph to David except in the cases of Zorobabel
and Salathiel. Luke evidently means to suggest something unusual in his
genealogy by the use of the phrase “as was supposed” (hōs enomizeto).
His own narrative in Luk_1:26-38 has shown that Joseph was not the
actual father of Jesus. Plummer objects that, if Luke is giving the
genealogy of Jesus through Mary, huios must be used in two senses here
(son as was supposed of Joseph, and grandson through Mary of Heli). But
that is not an unheard of thing. In neither list does Matthew or Luke
give a complete genealogy. Just as Matthew uses “begat” for descent, so
does Luke employ “son” in the same way for descendant. It was natural
for Matthew, writing for Jews, to give the legal genealogy through
Joseph, though he took pains to show in Mat_1:16, Mat_1:18-25 that
Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. It was equally natural for
Luke, a Greek himself and writing for the whole world, to give the
actual genealogy of Jesus through Mary. It is in harmony with Pauline
universality (Plummer) that Luke carries the genealogy back to Adam and
does not stop with Abraham.”This was how Robertson shows the difficulty and how he tried to solve it. Actually this may have been right, but there are still other difficulties that must be put into consideration, the first thing is that if the genealogy in Matthew is the genealogy of Joseph, which means that it is not that of the Christ, which means that he won’t be the Messiah since the Messiah should be from Solomon’s genealogy. It may be said that Joseph was considered his father even if he wasn’t the biological father, so Jesus still has the right to be the Messiah according to this genealogy, but actually I didn’t find an evidence in the Bible where it treats a biological father as a father by adoption, but even I found what tells that heir should be from the biological father not from a father by adoption:
Gen 15:3
And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one
born in my house is mine heir. Gen 15:4 And, behold, the word of Jehovah
came unto him, saying, This man shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
Also there are some other difficulties in the genealogy of Matthew,
the first difficulty is that when we refer back to the genealogy in I
Chronicles 3, we find that 3 names were dropped in Matthew who are
Ahaziah, Joash and Azariah, and each of them is supposed to be a king
who ruled, these are 3 continuous generations which were omitted. It may
be said that they used to omit some names in the genealogy, which is
really right, but not in this case, because it is supposed that the
writer of Matthew is writing 42 generations during 3 periods each period
should contain 14 generations, which is not actually the case here
since the second period will contain 18 generations not 14 that way. It
may be said that they were omitted because of their sins, so they can’t
be considered from the generation of the Messiah, but actually this is
not an excuse, because the genealogy already other sinners, for example
it contains Judah, who sinned with Tamar and begat Perez(Genesis 38), it
contains Solomon, whom the Bible claims that he worshiped the idols and
died that way (and we Muslims reject this blasphemy against God’s
prophets), and Jehoram who also worshiped the idols as in Easton’s Bible
Dictionary, what I see is that when Muslims object on omitting names
from the genealogy Christians answer and say that this was due to their
sins, and when we say how can the highest genealogy from where the
Messiah is supposed to get from contains 4 cases of adultery (Tamar,
Rahab, Ruth and Batheshba), they will say that God so loved the sinners
that he put 4 adulterers in his genealogy!The fourth one omitted here was Jehoiakim (see 1 Chronicles 3:15), and it seems that the reason for this is this verse:
Jer 36:30 Therefore thus saith Jehovah concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah: He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David; and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost
According to that verse in Jeremiah, no one from Jehoiakim’s descendants shall sit on David’s, which means that the Messiah can’t be from his descendants. It may be said that this was the genealogy of Joseph not Jesus, so he could have been omitted, of course first this is not an appropriate justification, since if this was the case, then this genealogy has nothing to do with Jesus, we either take all the genealogy for Jesus and consider that since he was the son adopted by Jesus, then all the genealogy refers to him, or that we say that this genealogy has nothing to do with Jesus, but we shouldn’t take it selectively, besides, it seems that the writer of Gospel Matthew didn’t understand it that way, otherwise he wouldn’t have omitted his name.
The Story of Crucifixion
Here we shall discuss some of the contradictions in the
crucifixion story between the Gospels. When there is a trial in a court,
to accept what the witnesses say, there must be no variation between
what they are saying, but if there was a wide variation between what the
witnesses say, we reject both narrations since there is no proof to
overwhelm a witness over another, these variations between the writers
of the Gospels prove that they didn’t witness what happened, these were
stories present at their time, and everyone wrote what he heard, and
these variations are a proof that the story of crucifixion in the Bible
can’t be accepted.
Mat 26:47 And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priest and elders of the people. Mat 26:48 Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he: take him. Mat 26:49 And straightway he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, Rabbi; and kissed him. Mat 26:50 And Jesus said unto him, Friend, do that for which thou art come. Then they came and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. Mat 26:51 And behold, one of them that were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his ear.
While Gospel John says:
Joh 18:3 Judas then, having received the band of soldiers, and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. Joh 18:4 Jesus therefore, knowing all the things that were coming upon him, went forth, and saith unto them, Whom seek ye? Joh 18:5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, who betrayed him, was standing with them. Joh 18:6 When therefore he said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground. Joh 18:7 Again therefore he asked them, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Joh 18:8 Jesus answered, I told you that I am he; if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way: Joh 18:9 that the word might be fulfilled which he spake, Of those whom thou hast given me I lost not one. Joh 18:10 Simon Peter therefore having a sword drew it, and struck the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. Now the servant’s name was Malchus. Joh 18:11 Jesus therefore said unto Peter, Put up the sword into the sheath: the cup which the Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? Joh 18:12 So the band and the chief captain, and the officers of the Jews, seized Jesus and bound him,
We can see that there is a large difference between the two stories, in Matthew, it says that once Judas came, he went and kissed Jesus, while in John, it says that Jesus asked them”whom you seek?”, and they answered him: “Jesus”, and when he said ” I am he”, all this happened and Judas was only standing with them, and it couldn’t have happened that kissing him was in between because the script in Matthew is very clear that Judas went straightway to kiss Jesus. And it’s clear in Matthew that the sign to know Jesus was the kiss, while in John, Jesus identified himself, and only what Judas did is that he guided them, and where is the event that they fell when they heard Jesus saying “I am he”? Where did Matthew tell that? Another difference between the two stories is that in Matthew, Peter cut the high priest’s servant’s ear after they seized Jesus, while in John, Peter did that before they seize him.
Mar 14:66 And as Peter was beneath in the court, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest; Mar 14:67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and saith, Thou also wast with the Nazarene, even Jesus. Mar 14:68 But he denied, saying, I neither know, nor understand what thou sayest: and he went out into the porch; and the cock crew. Mar 14:69 And the maid saw him, and began again to say to them that stood by, This is one of them. Mar 14:70 But he again denied it. And after a little while again they that stood by said to Peter, of a truth thou art one of them; for thou art a Galilaean. Mar 14:71 But he began to curse, and to swear, I know not this man of whom ye speak. Mar 14:72 And straightway the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word, how that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.
We can here see some differences between the 2 Gospels, in Matthew, it tells that Jesus told Peter that he will deny him 3 times after the cock crows, while in Mark, it tells that Jesus told Peter that the cock will crow twice before Peter denies him thrice, and there is no place that Jesus tells both statements since the situation happened quickly (See Matthew 26:31-35, Mark 14:27-31), and in Luke, the statement was much clearer that the cock will not crow before Peter denies him thrice(Luke 22:34 and Matthew 26:34), unlike Mark which tells that the cock crew before he denies him thrice (Mark 14:68). Also in Matthew it says that a maid and then another maid asked him, while in Mark, it says that the same maid asked him twice.
Joh 19:14 Now it was the Preparation of the passover: it was about the sixth hour. And he saith unto the Jews, Behold, your King!
So according to Mark, he was crucified at the third hour, while according to John, he was still at the Pilate at the sixth hour, the Christian commentators answer this by telling that what is told in Mark is in Jewish time at 9 am, while in case of John, this was by Roman time at six am, and so crucifixion was also at 9 am, but there are some problems with that conclusion, the first problem is that it is supposed that the writer of John according to Christians is the disciple John, who is Jewish, so it is not logical that he uses the Roman timing, especially that he was talking about the preparation of the Passover, and what is the need that the Holy Spirit reveals to Mark in Hebrew timing and to John in Roman timing? Besides, it is really a difficult possibility, otherwise how could it be that denying of Peter, the trial, then crucifixion happened only in 3 hours?
Betrayal by Judas and Seizing Jesus:
Gospel Matthew says:Mat 26:47 And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priest and elders of the people. Mat 26:48 Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he: take him. Mat 26:49 And straightway he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, Rabbi; and kissed him. Mat 26:50 And Jesus said unto him, Friend, do that for which thou art come. Then they came and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. Mat 26:51 And behold, one of them that were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his ear.
While Gospel John says:
Joh 18:3 Judas then, having received the band of soldiers, and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. Joh 18:4 Jesus therefore, knowing all the things that were coming upon him, went forth, and saith unto them, Whom seek ye? Joh 18:5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, who betrayed him, was standing with them. Joh 18:6 When therefore he said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground. Joh 18:7 Again therefore he asked them, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Joh 18:8 Jesus answered, I told you that I am he; if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way: Joh 18:9 that the word might be fulfilled which he spake, Of those whom thou hast given me I lost not one. Joh 18:10 Simon Peter therefore having a sword drew it, and struck the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. Now the servant’s name was Malchus. Joh 18:11 Jesus therefore said unto Peter, Put up the sword into the sheath: the cup which the Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? Joh 18:12 So the band and the chief captain, and the officers of the Jews, seized Jesus and bound him,
We can see that there is a large difference between the two stories, in Matthew, it says that once Judas came, he went and kissed Jesus, while in John, it says that Jesus asked them”whom you seek?”, and they answered him: “Jesus”, and when he said ” I am he”, all this happened and Judas was only standing with them, and it couldn’t have happened that kissing him was in between because the script in Matthew is very clear that Judas went straightway to kiss Jesus. And it’s clear in Matthew that the sign to know Jesus was the kiss, while in John, Jesus identified himself, and only what Judas did is that he guided them, and where is the event that they fell when they heard Jesus saying “I am he”? Where did Matthew tell that? Another difference between the two stories is that in Matthew, Peter cut the high priest’s servant’s ear after they seized Jesus, while in John, Peter did that before they seize him.
Peter Denying him
Mat 26:69 Now Peter was sitting without in the court: and a maid came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilaean. Mat 26:70 But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. Mat 26:71 And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and saith unto them that were there, This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth. Mat 26:72 And again he denied with an oath, I know not the man. Mat 26:73 And after a little while they that stood by came and said to Peter, Of a truth thou also art one of them; for thy speech maketh thee known. Mat 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, I know not the man. And straightway the cock crew. Mat 26:75 And Peter remembered the word which Jesus had said, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.Mar 14:66 And as Peter was beneath in the court, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest; Mar 14:67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and saith, Thou also wast with the Nazarene, even Jesus. Mar 14:68 But he denied, saying, I neither know, nor understand what thou sayest: and he went out into the porch; and the cock crew. Mar 14:69 And the maid saw him, and began again to say to them that stood by, This is one of them. Mar 14:70 But he again denied it. And after a little while again they that stood by said to Peter, of a truth thou art one of them; for thou art a Galilaean. Mar 14:71 But he began to curse, and to swear, I know not this man of whom ye speak. Mar 14:72 And straightway the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word, how that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.
We can here see some differences between the 2 Gospels, in Matthew, it tells that Jesus told Peter that he will deny him 3 times after the cock crows, while in Mark, it tells that Jesus told Peter that the cock will crow twice before Peter denies him thrice, and there is no place that Jesus tells both statements since the situation happened quickly (See Matthew 26:31-35, Mark 14:27-31), and in Luke, the statement was much clearer that the cock will not crow before Peter denies him thrice(Luke 22:34 and Matthew 26:34), unlike Mark which tells that the cock crew before he denies him thrice (Mark 14:68). Also in Matthew it says that a maid and then another maid asked him, while in Mark, it says that the same maid asked him twice.
The hour of crucifixion:
Mar 15:25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.Joh 19:14 Now it was the Preparation of the passover: it was about the sixth hour. And he saith unto the Jews, Behold, your King!
So according to Mark, he was crucified at the third hour, while according to John, he was still at the Pilate at the sixth hour, the Christian commentators answer this by telling that what is told in Mark is in Jewish time at 9 am, while in case of John, this was by Roman time at six am, and so crucifixion was also at 9 am, but there are some problems with that conclusion, the first problem is that it is supposed that the writer of John according to Christians is the disciple John, who is Jewish, so it is not logical that he uses the Roman timing, especially that he was talking about the preparation of the Passover, and what is the need that the Holy Spirit reveals to Mark in Hebrew timing and to John in Roman timing? Besides, it is really a difficult possibility, otherwise how could it be that denying of Peter, the trial, then crucifixion happened only in 3 hours?
How did Judas die?
How did Judas die? Actually the Bible tells us 2 stories. In Matthew, it says that he hanged himself:
Mat 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary, and departed; and he went away and hanged himself.
While in Acts, it says that he fell on the ground his bowels gushed out:
Act 1:18 (Now this man obtained a field with the reward of his iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out
So which one was the real story? It might be said that he first hanged himself, and when he fell on the ground his bowels gushed out. Actually this is so weird, and I don’t know how could this happen. Anyway this is not the only problem since it seems that every writer is trying to fulfill a prophecy in the Old Testament, and builds his story on the verse he chose, so we find that in case of Matthew, the chief priest took the money and bought the field, so that what happens in Jeremiah (Zechariah) is fulfilled:
Mat 27:6 And the chief priests took the pieces of silver, and said, It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is the price of blood. Mat 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in.
And in case of Acts, Judas is the one who bought the field and he died in it, so that what is written in Psalms be fulfilled:
Act 1:18 (Now this man obtained a field with the reward of his iniquity;
So if Judas obtained the field by the reward he took, from whom did the chief priest buy the field?
Actually if we examined the writings of early church fathers, we find that Papias actually mentioned a new story of how Judas died:
Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out. ”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vii.ii.iii.html
So Papias says that Judas’ bowels were gushed out, not because he fell on the ground after hanging himself, but because his body was swollen and he was crushed by a chariot. This may match with the account of Acts, but for sure it doesn’t match with Matthew’s. It’s worth saying that Papias is considered a main evidence by Christians to prove that Matthew the disciple of Jesus is the one who wrote the Gospel of Matthew, when we find that actually he didn’t match with his account.
Mat 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary, and departed; and he went away and hanged himself.
While in Acts, it says that he fell on the ground his bowels gushed out:
Act 1:18 (Now this man obtained a field with the reward of his iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out
So which one was the real story? It might be said that he first hanged himself, and when he fell on the ground his bowels gushed out. Actually this is so weird, and I don’t know how could this happen. Anyway this is not the only problem since it seems that every writer is trying to fulfill a prophecy in the Old Testament, and builds his story on the verse he chose, so we find that in case of Matthew, the chief priest took the money and bought the field, so that what happens in Jeremiah (Zechariah) is fulfilled:
Mat 27:6 And the chief priests took the pieces of silver, and said, It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is the price of blood. Mat 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in.
And in case of Acts, Judas is the one who bought the field and he died in it, so that what is written in Psalms be fulfilled:
Act 1:18 (Now this man obtained a field with the reward of his iniquity;
So if Judas obtained the field by the reward he took, from whom did the chief priest buy the field?
Actually if we examined the writings of early church fathers, we find that Papias actually mentioned a new story of how Judas died:
Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out. ”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vii.ii.iii.html
So Papias says that Judas’ bowels were gushed out, not because he fell on the ground after hanging himself, but because his body was swollen and he was crushed by a chariot. This may match with the account of Acts, but for sure it doesn’t match with Matthew’s. It’s worth saying that Papias is considered a main evidence by Christians to prove that Matthew the disciple of Jesus is the one who wrote the Gospel of Matthew, when we find that actually he didn’t match with his account.
Anonymous Bible writers
When examining the identity of the Bible writers,
you can see from the commentaries that many Bible books are written by
anonymous people. This is what is admitted by the Bible scholars
themselves, I will give some examples of these books, you can get back
to the NIV commentary and to the Catholic encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/bible/, and I would really like to ask a question, how could be there all that dispute in the book whom you claim to be fully divine?
Genesis:
“Historically, Jews and Christians alike have held that Moses was the
author/compiler of the first five books of the OT. These books, known
also as the Pentateuch (meaning “five-volumed book”), were referred to
in Jewish tradition as the five fifths of the law (of Moses). The Bible
itself suggests Mosaic authorship of Genesis, since Ac 15:1 refers to
circumcision as “the custom taught by Moses,” an allusion of Ge 17. However, a certain amount of later editorial updating does appear to be indicated (see, e.g., notes on 14:14; 36:31; 47:11). (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 2)”
Joshua:
“It seems safe to conclude that the book, at least in its early form,
dates from the beginning of the monarchy. Some think that Samuel may
have had a hand in shaping or compiling the materials of the book, but in fact we are unsure who the final author or editor was. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 286)”
Judges”Although, according to tradition, Samuel wrote the book, authorship is actually uncertain.” (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 322).
I,II Samuel: This
redactor, according to Hummelauer, is the prophet Nathan; the work,
however, can hardly be placed so early. Others attribute it to Isaias,
Jeremias, Ezechias, or Esdras. None of these opinions rests on any solid ground, and we can only say that the author is unknown. (Catholic Encyclopedia)
I,II Kings: According to the Babylonian Talmud
(Baba bathra, fol. 15, 1), the Prophet Jeremias is the author. Not a
few among both older and more recent exegetes consider this probable. It is indeed remarkable that Jeremias’s activity is not alluded to–his name not even being mentioned–although
he stood in close relation to the events of the last few years, while
everything other prophets ( e.g. Elias, Eliseus, Isaias) did for kings
and people is carefully noted. In case Jeremias was the author,
we have to accept the explanation that he did not consider it suitable
to relate here what he had set forth at length in his prophecy.
(Catholic Encyclopedia)
I,II Chronicles:
“According to ancient Jewish tradition, Ezra wrote Chronicles, Ezra and
Nehemiah (see Introduction to Ezra: Literary Form and Authorship), but this cannot be established with certainty. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 569)”
Psalms:
(1) Jewish tradition is uncertain as to the authors of the Psalms. Baba
Bathra (14 f) mentions ten; Pesachim (10) attributes all the Psalms to
David. (2) Christian tradition is alike uncertain (Catholic
Encyclopedia)
Isaiah: The canonical Book of Isaias is made up of two distinct collections of discourses,
the one (chapters 1-35) called sometimes the “First Isaias”; the other
(chapters 40-66) styled by many modern critics the “Deutero- (or Second)
Isaias”; between these two comes a stretch of historical narrative;
some authors, as Michaelis and Hengstenberg, holding with St. Jerome
that the prophecies are placed in chronological order; others, like
Vitringa and Jahn, in a logical order; others finally, like Gesenius,
Delitzsch, Keil, think the actual order is partly logical and partly
chronological. No less disagreement prevails on the question of the collector. Those
who believe that Isaias is the author of all the prophecies contained
in the book generally fix upon the Prophet himself. But for the critics
who question the genuineness of some of the parts, the compilation is by
a late and unknown collector. (Catholic Encyclopedia)
Ruth:
The Book of Ruth is anonymous, for the name which it bears as its title
has never been regarded otherwise than that of the chief actor in the
events recorded. (Catholic Encyclopedia)
I Machabees:
No data can be found either in the book itself or in later writers
which would give us a clue as to the person of the author. (Catholic
Encyclopedia)
II Machabees:
II Mach. is, as has been said, an epitome of a larger work by a certain
Jason of Cyrene. Nothing further is known of this Jason except that,
judging from his exact geographical knowledge, he must have lived for
some time in Palestine. The author of the epitome is unknown. (Catholic Encyclopedia)
Job: “Although most of the book consists of the words of Job and his counselors, Job himself was not the author.” (Catholic Encyclopedia)
“The unknown author probably had access to oral and/or written sources….”(From the NIV Bible commentary, page 722).
Song of Songs: “Verse 1 appears to ascribe authorship to Solomon. Solomon is referred to seven times, and several verses speak of the ‘king’, but whether he was the author remains an open question. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 997)”
Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth):
Most modern commentators are of the opinion that Qoheleth’s style
points not to Solomon, but to a later writer. (Catholic Encyclopedia)
Habakkuk:
Owing chiefly to the lack of reliable external evidence, there has been
in the past, and there is even now, a great diversity of opinions
concerning the date to which the prophecy of Habakkuk should be
ascribed. (Catholic Encyclopedia)
Malachi:
A large number of modern authors likewise refuse to see in Malachi the
proper name of the author. ….According to them, it is from this passage
that the name Malachi was borrowed by a more recent author, who added
the inscription to the book (Catholic Encyclopedia)
Matthew:The
passing years do not make it any plainer who actually wrote our Greek
Matthew. Papias records, as quoted by Eusebius, that Matthew wrote the Logia of Jesus in Hebrew (Aramaic). Is our present Matthew a translation of the Aramaic Logia
along with Mark and other sources as most modern scholars think? If so,
was the writer the Apostle Matthew or some other disciple?There is at present no way to reach a clear decision in the light of the known facts. There is no real reason why the Apostle Matthew could not have written both the Aramaic Logia
and our Greek Matthew, unless one is unwilling to believe that he would
make use of Mark’s work on a par with his own. But Mark’s book rests
primarily on the preaching of Simon Peter. Scholfield has recently
(1927) published An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew’s Gospel. We
know quite too little of the origin of the Synoptic Gospels to say
dogmatically that the Apostle Matthew was not in any real sense the
author.(Robertson’s Word Picture, Introduction to Matthew)
Mark:
“Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was
the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written
by John Mark. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1488)”
Hebrews:
“The writer of this letter does not identify himself, but he was
obviously well known to the original recipients. (From the NIV Bible
Commentary, page 1856)”
1 John:
“….Unlike most NT letters, 1 John does not tell us who its author is.
The earliest identification of him comes from the church fathers…(From
the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1904)”
Revelation (Apocalypse): Perhaps
no single book in the New Testament presents so many and so formidable
problems as the Apocalypse of John. These difficulties concern the
authorship, the date, the apocalyptic method, the relation to the other
Johannine books, the purpose, the historical environment, the reception
of the book in the New Testament canon, the use and misuse of the book
through the ages, etc. In the eastern churches the recognition of the
Apocalypse of John was slower than in the west, since it was not in the
Peshitta Syriac Version. Caius of Rome attributed the book to Cerinthus
the Gnostic, but he was ably answered by Hippolytus, who attributed it
to the Apostle John. The Council of Laodicea (about a.d. 360) omitted
it, but the third Council of Carthage (a.d. 397) accepted it. The
dispute about millenarianism led Dionysius of Alexandria (middle of the
third century, a.d.) to deny the authorship to the Apostle John, though
he accepted it as canonical. Eusebius suggested a second John as the
author. But finally the book was accepted in the east as Hebrews was in
the west after a period of doubt.(Robertson’s Word Picture, Introduction
to Revelation)
Robertson says concerning 2 Peter, Revelation, Hebrews:
Probably no book in the
New Testament presents more unsettled problems than does the Epistle to
the Hebrews. On that score it ranks with the Fourth Gospel, the
Apocalypse of John, and Second Peter. But, in spite of these unsolved
matters, the book takes high rank for its intellectual grasp, spiritual
power, and its masterful portrayal of Christ as High Priest. It is much
briefer than the Fourth Gospel, but in a sense it carries on further the
exalted picture of the Risen Christ as the King-Priest who reigns and
pleads for us now.(Robertson’s Word Picture, Introduction to Hebrews)
Textual Variants
This section shall cover some of the variations between Bible manuscripts either in both Old and New Testaments.
http://www.gotothebible.com/Barnes/Genesis/5.html
Albert Barnes of course prefers the Hebrew, but actually I see that the Hebrew is the most far one from the truth, since this means that the age of humanity will be 2078 years+ age between Abraham and Jesus (about 2400 years maximum)+2007 years= 6485 years, the age of humanity, which is scientifically untrue where many sources tell that life existed on Earth before that time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8th_millennium_BC
And this is widely known, Christians say that these differences are considered to be trivial and has no effect on Christian faith, actually this may be the case with most of these variations, but there are still present very critical variations that were intentional due to theological purposes, let’s see some here, you can see this site as a source for textual variants:
Matthew 24:36:
TEXT: “no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.” EVIDENCE: S*,b B D Theta f13 28 1195 1230* most lat syr(pal) some cop TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV RANK: C
NOTES: “no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but the Father only.” EVIDENCE: Sa K L W Delta Pi f1 33 565 700 892 1010 1241 Byz Lect two lat vg syr(s,p,h) most cop TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASVn RSVn NIVn TEVn
COMMENTS: It is possible that the words were added here by copyists to make the text read like the parallel passage in Mark 13:32. On the other hand, it is possible that they were omitted to avoid the theological problem of the Son of God not knowing something. The same thing happened with a few manuscripts in Mark 13:32 (including manuscripts X and 983). They are included here since they are found in early manuscripts of several kinds of ancient text.
Matthew 19:17
(ASV) And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good: but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments.
(MKJV) And He said to him, Why do you call Me good? There is none good but one, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.
John Gill says on this verse:
“Some copies read, “why dost thou ask me concerning good”. And so the Vulgate Latin, and the Ethiopic versions, and Munster’s Hebrew Gospel read; but the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions, read as we do, and this the answer of Christ requires. “
This textual variant seems to happen because some copyists found that Jesus is denying his deity that way, so they changed it to the other reading.
1 Timothy 3:16
TEXT: “He was made apparent in the flesh” EVIDENCE: S* A* C* G 33 syr(pal) syr(p,h)? cop? TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV RANK: B
NOTES: “God was made apparent in the flesh” EVIDENCE: Se A2 C2 Dc K L P Psi 81 104 614 630 1241 1739 1881 2495 Byz Lect TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASVn RSVn NASVn NIVn
NOTES: “Which was made apparent in the flesh” EVIDENCE: D* lat vg syr(p,h)? cop? TRANSLATIONS: ASVn RSVn
COMMENTS: The word “who” was changed to “which” by some copyists to refer to “mystery.” In an older manuscript that does not have accents and breathing marks, all that is required to change the Greek word for “who” (OS) to the abbreviation for “God” (OS) is to add two marks. This happened to several manuscripts, apparently to give a definite subject to the following verbs.
It seems also that this verse was interpolated to be a theological evidence for the deity of the Christ.
We can also see the story of the adulterer in Gospel John 7:53-8:11, and the end of Gospel Mark 16:9-20, which both have much importance, as the first is used as an evidence for the Christians so that they are not restricted by the law, and the other which talks about the resurrection of Jesus and his sitting on the right of the Father, and many scholars admit that these two stories are not present in the early manuscripts. not only that, but Augustine of Hippo mentioned an interesting reason for omitting the story of the adulterer:
“Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord’s act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if he who had said, Sin no more, had granted permission to sin.”[14]
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf
So is it easy that people omit stories from manuscripts to that extent that led to a dispute among Christians?
Old Testament manuscripts:
Old Testament manuscripts vary widely between each other, from the main points of variation is the genealogies, Albert Barnes made a table comparing between the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11, comparing between the Hebrew, the Septuagint, the Samaritan and the writings of Josephus, the four sources are widely varied, Hebrew refers the time between Adam and Abraham as 2078 years, the Septuagint as 3564, the Samaritan as 2379 and Josephus as 2678 years. This is a wide variety between manuscripts, and proves that a lot of interpolation happened.http://www.gotothebible.com/Barnes/Genesis/5.html
Albert Barnes of course prefers the Hebrew, but actually I see that the Hebrew is the most far one from the truth, since this means that the age of humanity will be 2078 years+ age between Abraham and Jesus (about 2400 years maximum)+2007 years= 6485 years, the age of humanity, which is scientifically untrue where many sources tell that life existed on Earth before that time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8th_millennium_BC
In the New Testament manuscripts:
Textual variants are widely present in NT manuscripts, for example, Herman Hoskier says:
The Differences Between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the Four Gospels:
Matthew 656+ Mark 567+ Luke 791+ John 1022+ Total 3036+
in the Gospels alone.” Hoskier. Codex B., Vol. 2, P.1And this is widely known, Christians say that these differences are considered to be trivial and has no effect on Christian faith, actually this may be the case with most of these variations, but there are still present very critical variations that were intentional due to theological purposes, let’s see some here, you can see this site as a source for textual variants:
Matthew 24:36:
TEXT: “no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.” EVIDENCE: S*,b B D Theta f13 28 1195 1230* most lat syr(pal) some cop TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV RANK: C
NOTES: “no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but the Father only.” EVIDENCE: Sa K L W Delta Pi f1 33 565 700 892 1010 1241 Byz Lect two lat vg syr(s,p,h) most cop TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASVn RSVn NIVn TEVn
COMMENTS: It is possible that the words were added here by copyists to make the text read like the parallel passage in Mark 13:32. On the other hand, it is possible that they were omitted to avoid the theological problem of the Son of God not knowing something. The same thing happened with a few manuscripts in Mark 13:32 (including manuscripts X and 983). They are included here since they are found in early manuscripts of several kinds of ancient text.
Matthew 19:17
(ASV) And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good: but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments.
(MKJV) And He said to him, Why do you call Me good? There is none good but one, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.
John Gill says on this verse:
“Some copies read, “why dost thou ask me concerning good”. And so the Vulgate Latin, and the Ethiopic versions, and Munster’s Hebrew Gospel read; but the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions, read as we do, and this the answer of Christ requires. “
This textual variant seems to happen because some copyists found that Jesus is denying his deity that way, so they changed it to the other reading.
1 Timothy 3:16
TEXT: “He was made apparent in the flesh” EVIDENCE: S* A* C* G 33 syr(pal) syr(p,h)? cop? TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV RANK: B
NOTES: “God was made apparent in the flesh” EVIDENCE: Se A2 C2 Dc K L P Psi 81 104 614 630 1241 1739 1881 2495 Byz Lect TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASVn RSVn NASVn NIVn
NOTES: “Which was made apparent in the flesh” EVIDENCE: D* lat vg syr(p,h)? cop? TRANSLATIONS: ASVn RSVn
COMMENTS: The word “who” was changed to “which” by some copyists to refer to “mystery.” In an older manuscript that does not have accents and breathing marks, all that is required to change the Greek word for “who” (OS) to the abbreviation for “God” (
It seems also that this verse was interpolated to be a theological evidence for the deity of the Christ.
We can also see the story of the adulterer in Gospel John 7:53-8:11, and the end of Gospel Mark 16:9-20, which both have much importance, as the first is used as an evidence for the Christians so that they are not restricted by the law, and the other which talks about the resurrection of Jesus and his sitting on the right of the Father, and many scholars admit that these two stories are not present in the early manuscripts. not only that, but Augustine of Hippo mentioned an interesting reason for omitting the story of the adulterer:
“Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord’s act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if he who had said, Sin no more, had granted permission to sin.”[14]
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf
So is it easy that people omit stories from manuscripts to that extent that led to a dispute among Christians?
No comments:
Post a Comment