Protestant priests argue as follows in one of
the pamphlets they have published: “Muslims, unaware of the history of Gospels,
assert that the Gospels kept by Christians are not genuine and that Christians
defiled and changed the Bible in order to conceal the verses testifying the prophethood of Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’. They will be
answered as follows: scholars such as Imâm-i-Bukhârî, Shah Weliyy-ullah
Dehlewî, Fakkhr-ud-dîn-i-Râdhî, Sayyid Ahmad, an Indian scholar, and others
declare that the Gospels used today are the same as those that were used before
the time of hadrat Muhammad ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, and so they are
not changed. Several very old copies of the Bible existing in some well-known
European libraries bear witness to the truth of our claim. Therefore, if Muslims
have any proofs to corroborate their assertions that the Bible was
interpolated, be it in the Gospels they have or in the versions that were
translated to various languages before ’Asr-i-sa’âdat (the time of our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ and his four
rightly-guided Khalîfas), we challenge that Muslims disclose all such proofs.”
It is a pleasure for us Muslims to take up
this challenge of theirs and put forward all the proofs they want, one by one.
As is known, the Holy Bible, the basis of
Christian creed, is of two divisions: Old Testament, and New Testament. The division
called Old Testament consists of chapters said to have been taken from the heavenly
book Taurah and episodes ascribed to some Israelite Prophets. The New Testament consists of the
four Gospels and some epistles and pamphlets claimed to have been sent forth by
some apostle, e.g. Paul. It is admitted by Christians also that the books of
Old Testament were defiled. Those who would like to get detailed information in
this respect may have recourse to the book Izhâr-ul-haqq, by Rahmatullah
Efendi ‘rahmatullâh-i-aleyh’. We shall not give detailed information
concerning the Old Testament here. [Jews augmented the
persecutions and torments they had been practising over the Nazarenes. In
addition to these persecutions and murders, they calumniated Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ and his blessed mother, hadrat Maryam (Miriam, Mary), so much
so that they went so far as to call that exalted Prophet an illegitimate child and his blessed mother a fornicator. In
order to prove that the Holy Book of Taurah, which was revealed by Allâhu
ta’âlâ, did not contain such abominable, detestable slanders, the Nazarenes
translated the Taurah to Latin. In the final part of our book, detailed
information will be given about the inner nature of the Jewish religion and the
slanders and enmities that Jewry has done to Muslims and Christians, i.e. in
the chapter headlined Judaism, the Taurah, the Talmud.]
Strauss, a Protestant historian, [Strauss,
(David Friedrich), is a German historian. He died in 1291 [A.D. 1874]. He
published such works as The Life of Christ, Instruction on Christianity, The
New Life of Jesus Christ] states as follows: “During the early years of
expansion of Christianity the Christians made a Greek translation of the Old
Testament, which had already been interpolated a number of times by Jewry. The
Jews protested, with the pretext that the translation did not agree with the
Israelite books that they had then. In order to find such answers as would
rebut the Jews, the Christians made some new additions to the Greek version of
the Old Testament. For example, several names which were supposed to be the
names of Îsâ’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ ancestors were inserted into the Zebűr (Psalter,
Book of Psalms in the Old Testament, the heavenly Book revealed to Dâwűd
‘alaihis-salâm’). The section on Îsâ’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ entering Hell was placed
in the book of Jeremiah. The Jews, upon seeing these interpolations, clamoured,
“These things do not exist in our book.” The Christians answered, “You cheaters
have no fear of Allah! You dare to change the holy books,” and attacked the
Jews. Later, these quarrels between the Christians and the Jews intensified.
The Christian priests began to doubt and falter. Thus the Christians were
fractured into a number of groups. The disagreements caused many wars among
them. Three hundred and twenty-five years after Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ three
hundred and nineteen priests came together at the Nicene council with the
command of Constantine the Great, the Byzantine Greek Emperor. They started a
collective deliberation and consultation on the copies of the Holy Bible, each of which contained
a number of uncertainties and inconsistencies. In this council,
those who believed in the divinity of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ were in the
ascendant. Adding some translations from the Israelite books, they reshaped the Holy Bible. They decided that all copies, other than the one they had just
sanctioned, were doubtful. This decision was stated in the introduction which
Jerome wrote for this new version. [Jerome, Saint, is called Irűnimus by the
Arabs. He stayed in Istanbul for three years. He went to Rome in 382. He became
the Pope’s secretary. He translated the Holy Bible to Latin. His day is
celebrated on September 30th. His translation became the church’s official
Bible]. In 364 another council, called Lodisia, was convened. This council,
after sanctioning the books of the Old Testament, also sanctioned the
authenticity and dependability of the Book of Esther, which had been repudiated
in the Nicene council, and the six epistles that were attributed to the
Apostles. These six epistles are the epistle of Jacob, the two epistles of
Peter, the second and the third epistles of John, the epistle of Judah, and the
epistle written to the Hebrews by Paul. They publicized the authenticity of
these books and epistles. John’s Book of Revelations (the Apocalypse) was not
sanctioned in either of the councils convened in 325 and 364; so it remained
doubtful. Later, in
Protestants themselves admitted the fact that
the councils, that is, the clerical assemblies, who had been looked on as
inspired with the Holy Spirit and whose decisions had been considered the basis
of Christianity by all Christians for twelve hundred years, had been agreeing
in error and aberration. Nevertheless, they accepted many of the quite
unreasonable and inadmissible decisions of those councils. Thus they took an
unprecedented course that was based on contradictory principles. What a
surprising event it would be for millions of discreet Christians to look on a
religion whose essense is covered with doubts and uncertainties as a means of
happiness and salvation, alluring the hearts towards itself; one would bite
one’s finger with astonishment.
Christians obtain the principles of belief
both from the Old Testament and from the New Testament. These books are not
free from doubts and hesitations. Neither of them has been proven to have
survived to our time through a sound document. In other words, they have not
been transmitted through a series of true people from Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ to
our time. As is known, a book’s authenticity and heavenliness, that is, its
admittance as a book revealed by Allâhu ta’âlâ depends on an authoritative declaration
such as, “This book has been written (revealed) through Prophet so and so and is free from being changed or
defiled and has reached us by being transmitted through sound documents and
true people.” Unless this is firmly documented to people with common sense,
doubts and hesitations concerning the book in question will not go away. For, a
book that is attributed to a person considered to be endowed with divine
revelations will not prove by itself the fact that it has been arranged by that
person himself. Nor will a few Christian groups’ claims, based on sheer bigotry
and zeal, suffice to prove the book’s validity. Christian priests do not have
any documents to prove the soundness of their Holy Bible, except that they
attribute it to one of the past Prophets or Apostles. These claims of theirs are not a proof persuasive
enough to lay down the principles of belief [îmân] or to remove doubts as to
their authenticity. No one who is wise enough would feel safe and peaceful if
his religion, which would guide him to comfort and peace in this world and save
him from torment and take him to eternal felicity in the next world, were based
on precarious essentials. As a matter of fact, Christians deny and reject most
of the books in the Old Testament and more than seventy of the New Testament
books
which tell about hadrat Îsâ and hadrat Maryam (Mary) or events in
their time and which partly exist still today, and they call them ‘fictitious
lies’.” There is detailed knowledge in this respect in the book Idh-âh-ul-haqq.
Christian priests, the early ones and the
modern ones alike, unanimously state that Matthew’s Gospel was in Hebrew.
Later, during their factious fractioning into sects, Christians lost that
original version. The existing version of Matthew’s Gospel today is a
translation of the original Hebrew version, the translator being anonymous.
Even Jerome, an outstanding Christian priest, concedes that its translator has
remained anonymous so far.
Thomas Ward, a Catholic, says in an article of
his, “Some early Christian scholars had suspicion about the authenticity of the
last chapter of Mark’s Gospel, some about a few verses of the twenty-second
chapter of Luke’s Gospel, and some others about the first two chapters of
Luke’s Gospel. The version of the Bible possessed by the Marcion group of
Christians does not contain these two chapters.” Norton[1] states about Mark’s Gospel as follows in the seventieth page of
his book, which was published in Boston in 1253 [A.D. 1837): “This Gospel
contains paragraphs that need scrutiny, e.g. the part from the ninth verse to
the end of the sixteenth chapter.” Norton says that though the text does not
have any signs to arouse doubt, the so-called verses were inserted in its
interpretation, and gives a series of evidences to prove it, and then states:
“When we study the habits of the scribes, who copied from the books, we see
that they tried to insert their own ideas into the texts rather than trying to
understand and write the paragraphs. When this fact is known, it will be
understood why the paragraphs in the Bible are doubtful.”
The Gospel
attributed to John does not have a sound
---------------------------------
[1] NORTON, Andrews, American Biblical scholar and educator. He was born in 1201 [A.D. 1786]. He died on September 18, 1853. He graduated from Harward in 1804, and after studying theology was a tutor in Bowdoin College in 1809. He returned to Harvard, in 1811, as a mathematical tutor there; and became, in 1813, librarian of the university and lecturer on Biblical criticism and interpretation. From 1819 to 1830 he was Dexter professor of Sacred literature. He was among the most eminent exponents of unitarianism [which rejected trinity and upheld the belief in the Unity of Allah], equally strong in his protests against Calvinism and the naturalistic theology represented by Theodore Parker. He published A Statement of Reasons for not Believing the Doctrins of Trinitarians (1833).” [Encyclopedia Americana, Volume: 20, p. 464].
document of transmission, either. Like Mark’s Gospel, it contains
ambiguous and contradictory paragraphs that need scrutiny. For example:
First, this Gospel does not contain any
evidence to prove that John wrote what he had seen. A judgement will remain
valid unless it is proven to the contrary.
Second, it is stated in the twenty-fourth
verse of the twenty-first chapter of John, “This is the disciple [John] which
testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his
testimony is true.” (John: 21-24) As is seen, this statement about John belongs
to the scribe that wrote John’s Gospel. In this verse John is mentioned with the
third person (absent) pronoun ‘his’, and the scribe who wrote (fabricated) the
book mentions himself with the pronoun ‘we’, which signifies the author. This
comes to mean that the author of John’s Gospel is someone other than John. The
author claims to have knowledge of the trueness of John’s testimony. In
conclusion, the man that wrote this Gospel obtained possession of some of
John’s epistles and wrote this book after rendering some excisions and
additions.
Third, in the second century of the Christian
era, when controversies and objections as to the authenticity of John’s Gospel
appeared, Iranaeus, a pupil of Polycarpe who was a disciple of John, was still
alive. Why did he not answer the objectors by proving the authenticity of the
Gospel he had transmitted by documents? If his transmission (the Gospel of John
taught by him) had been true, he would have cried out and said, “My
transmission is true.” The predication that “the matter of authenticity should
not have been discussed between Polycarpe and his pupil Iranaeus” would be far
from factual. Would it have been logically possible for Iranaeus not to have
learned anything about the authenticity of the Gospel they were reading by at
least asking, “Is this Gospel John’s?”, while asking and learning about many
useless matters from his master? His having forgotten would be an even weaker
probability. For Iranaeus is well-known for full cognizance of his master’s way
and habits and his strong memory to keep well what he learned. Eusebius (of
Caesaria), in the two hundred and nineteenth page of the twentieth chapter of
the fifth book of his history, which was published in 1263 [A.D. 1847], quotes
Iranaeus’ statements about the languages in which John’s Gospel was
transmitted, as follows: “As a bestowment of Allâhu ta’âlâ, I heard and
memorized these words. I did not write them down. This has been my habit since
long ago. Thus I have
been saying and reciting what I learned.” As is seen, the Gospel
was denied even in the second century and such denials could not be answered by
proving its authenticity. Celsus, a Christian scholar, cried out in the second
Christian century that “Christians changed their Bible in a manner as to defile
its meaning three to five times or even more.” Faustus, an outstanding Manichaen
scholar, said in the fourth Christian century, “Changes were made in Biblical
books. It is true. The Old Testament was not compiled by Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ or
by the Apostles. It was represented in the name of evangelists or their
colleagues with a view to gaining popularity. Books containing many errors and
paradoxes were published and thus Christians were hurt.”
Fourth, Herald, a Catholic, citing from an
editor named Estadlen in the two hundred and fiftieth page of the seventh
volume of his book published in 1844, states that he does not doubt the fact
that John’s Gospel was written by one of the pupils of the Alexandrian school.
Fifth, Bretschneider says that John’s Gospel,
or John’s epistles, does not belong to John as a whole, and that it may have been
written by an anonymous scribe in the second century, [Bretschneider
(1776-1848) was a German Protestant theologist who wrote a book to criticize
the Bible].
Sixth, Cirdinius said that “John’s Gospel had
twenty chapters. Later the twenty-first chapter was added by the church of
Ephesus.”
Seventh, this Gospel of John, together with
all its contents, was rejected by the group of Alogience in the second
Christian century.
Eighth, eleven verses at the beginning of the
eighth chapter of John’s Gospel have been rejected by all Christian men of
knowledge.
Ninth, during the compilation of the four
Gospels, many erroneous transmissions without any documents were inserted into
them. These transmissions do not even have any documents to testify the
authenticity of the existing four Gospels. Thomas Hartwell states in the second
chapter of the fourth volume of his interpretation published in 1237 [A.D.
1822], “The information reaching us concerning the times of edition of the
Gospels is insufficient and inconclusive. It gives us no help as to the
dependability of the Gospels. The early Christian men of religion continued to
write wrong transmissions that they accepted and
took for granted. Their successors, because of the respect they
felt for them, unanimously accepted their writings without even considering
whether they were true or not. Thus, all these careless and superficial
transmissions passed from one scribe to another, from one version to another,
and reached our time. And now, after so many centuries, it is very difficult to
purify the Gospels of wrong tranmissions.” He says in the same volume, “The
first Gospel, i.e. Matthew’s Gospel, was edited in the thirty-seventh,
thirty-eighth, forty-first, forty-seventh, sixty-first, sixty-second,
sixty-third, sixty-fourth or sixty-fifth years of the Christian era, and the
second Gospel, i.e. the Gospel of Mark, was edited in the fifty-sixth year of
the Christian era or in some year before the sixty-fifth year. According to a
more dependable view, it was edited in the sixieth or sixty-third year. The
third Gospel, the Gospel of Luke, was edited in the fifty-third, sixty-third or
sixty-fourth years of the Christian era, and the Gospel of John in the
sixty-eighth, sixty-ninth, seventieth or ninety-eighth years.” There is no
document or proof to testify that the epistle to the Hebrews and the second
epistle of Peter and the second and third epistles of John and the epistle of
Jacob and the epistle of Judah and the Revelation of John were transmitted by
the Apostles. Their soundness was doubtful until the year 365. Some of their
parts were rejected as erroneous by Christian religious scholars preceding that
time. In fact, the versions translated into the Syrian language do not contain
those parts. All the Arab churches rejected the soundness [authenticity] of the
second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John, the epistle of
Judah and the Revelation of John. Horn, a Biblical scholar, says in the two
hundred and sixth and two hundred and seventh pages of the second book of his
interpretation, “Peter’s epistle, Judah’s epistle, the second and the third
epistles and the Revelation of John, the nine verses from the second verse to
the eleventh verse of the eighth chapter of the Gospel of John and the seventh
verse of the fifth chapter of the first book of John never existed in the
Syriac copies of the Bible.” This means to say that the translator, who wrote
the Syriac version, knew that the sections we have just mentioned could not be
documents for an authentic religious principle, and did not translate these
parts which he noticed during translation. Ward, a Catholic, in the
thirty-seventh page of his book published in 1841, quotes Rogers, a Protestant,
as saying, “Because the Hebrew epistle contradicted the creed taught in the
epistle of Jacob, in the second and third epistles of John and in his
Revelation, the ecclesiastical authorities excised these epistles
from the Holy Bible.” Dactrice states that, till the time of Josneys not every
book was accepted as authentic, and insists that the epistle of Jacob, the
epistle of Judah, the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of
John did not contain information compiled and written by the Apostles. He adds
that, “The Hebrew epistle was rejected until a certain time, and the second and
third epistles of Peter, the Revelation of John and the epistle of Judah were
not accepted as authentic by the Syrian and Arabian churches; yet we take them
for granted, that is, we accept them as authentic.”
Dr. Nathaniel Lardner, a Christian Biblical
scholar, states in the hundred and seventy-fifth page of the fourth book of his
interpretation, “The book of Revelations of John was not accepted as authentic
by Serl and his contemporary Orshilim, that is, by the church of Jerusalem. The
index of the book ‘Canon’, written by Serl, does not even contain the name of
this book.” He gives more detailed information in the three hundred and
twenty-third page, and writes, “The Revelation of John does not exist in the
Syrian translations of the early Gospels. They do not contain any marginal
notes written on them by such editors as Webar Hiberios or Jacob. Also,
Waybidiscou did not include the second epistle of Peter, the second and third
epistles of John, the Revelation of John or the epistle of Judas in his index
of books. The Syrians are of the same opinion.”
Herald, a Catholic, says in the two hundred
and sixth page of the seventh volume of his book: “As Raus states in the
hundred and sixtieth page of his book, most of the notables of the Protestant
church do not accept the authenticity of John’s Revelations.” Prof. Rabwald
states, “John’s Gospel and John’s epistles and Revelations cannot have been
written by the same person,” and proves this by strong documentation. Vivisbius,
quoting from Webunisicheen in the twenty-fifth chapter of the seventh volume of
his ‘History’, says that the early priests tried to excise the Revelations of
John from the Holy Bible, and adds: “This book of Revelations is thoroughly
nonsensical. It is quite wrong to attribute it to John, who was one of the
Apostles. It is ignorance and being unaware of the facts. The person who wrote
it was neither an apostle nor a follower of the Messiah, nor was he a pious
person. Perhaps this book of Revelations was written by a Roman named Sern
Tehsin (Cerinhac) and was attributed to John.” Further on he says, “But I do
not have the capacity to
excise this book, i.e. John’s Revelations, from the Holy Bible.
For thousands of our Christian brothers revere this John. I confirm that the
person who wrote this book had inspirations. But I do not admit that he was the
Apostle John, who was the brother of James, an apostle, and the son of Zebedee
and the author of the Gospel of John. It is inferrable from his words and manners
that he was not an apostle. Nor is the person who wrote the book of Revelations
the same John mentioned in the Book of Acts, which tells about the The Acts of
The Apostles. For he never went to the country of Isaiah. The person who wrote
that Gospel was another John, who was an inhabitant of Isaiah. Again, as is
inferred from the paragraphs and expressions in the Gospel of John, in the
epistles and in the Revelations, John, who is the editor of John’s Gospel and
the epistles, is not the same John who compiled the Book of Revelations. For
the paragraphs in the Gospel and in the epistles are well arranged and have a
smooth language in Greek. They do not contain erroneous expressions. The case
is not so with the discourse in the Book of Revelations; it is written in a
queer, unusual style unwonted in Greek. John the Apostle does not mention his
name overtly in his Gospel and epistles; he writes of himself as ‘the speaker’
or in the third person singular. He directly gets into the matter under
question without giving lengthy information of himself. As for the author of
Revelations; he uses quite a different style. For example, the first verse of
the first chapter of John’s Revelations reads as follows: ‘The Revelation of
Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which
must shortly come to pass and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his
servant John:’ (Rev: 1-1) The ninth verse reads as follows: ‘I, John, who also
am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience
of Jesus Christ, ...’ (Rev: 1-9) The eighth verse of the twenty-second chapter
reads as follows: ‘And I John saw these things, and heard them. ...’ (Rev:
22-8) As is seen, these verses, unlike the style followed by the Apostles, mention
the speaker’s name clearly. If it is suggested that unlike his past habit, he
(John) might have mentioned his name clearly here in order to make his people
know about him, the following answer is appropriate: If his purpose had been
so, he should have written the nickname and title belonging to him. For
example, he should have used such expressions as, ‘I am John, the brother of
James and the son of Zebedee and the beloved disciple of the Messiah.’ Avoiding
mentioning his own qualification and differentiating himself from
other people, he used such expressions as ‘your brother’, ‘who saw
these things,’ etc. Our purpose here is not to make fun of reasonable people,
but to clarify the distinction between the styles of expression and writing of
the two people.” Here we end our quotation from Vivisbius.
Again, it is written in the third chapter of
the third book of the history of Eusebius, “The first epistle of Peter is
authentic. But his second epistle cannot be from the Holy Bible. Paul’s
fourteen epistles are real. But some people excised his epistles to the
Hebrew’s from the Holy Bible.” Eusebius states in the twenty-fifth chapter of
his same book that there is disagreement on the epistle of Jacob, the epistle
of Judas, the second epistle of Peter, and the second and third epistles of
John, and that their real authors are unknown. Eusebius says in the
twenty-fifth chapter of the sixth book of this same history, “Airgin’s account
of the epistle to the Hebrews is as follows: This epistle, which is very popular
among the Christians, was written by some Gulnaht in Shab-i-Rűm. Some people
said that it was translated by Luke.” Irenaeus (140-220), an early theologian,
Polinius, one of the dignitaries in 220, and Pontius, in 251, rejected the
epistle to the Hebrews entirely. Tortilin Bersper of Carthage, one of the
dignitaries of A.D. 200, says: “The Hebrew epistle belongs to Barnabas.” Kis
Bertsper Rűm, one of the notables of 212, says: “The epistles of Paul are
virtually thirteen; the fourteenth, the Hebrew epistle, is not one of them.”
Saey Pern Bashb of Carthage, in 248, did not even mention the name of this
epistle. The Syrian church has not accepted, so far, the authenticity of the
second epistle of Peter and the second and third epistles of John. Aiscalcen, a
notable Christian, says: “The person who wrote the second epistle of Peter
wasted his time by doing so.” It is written as follows in the Biblical History
published in 1266 [A.D. 1850]: “A writer named Critius says that the epistle of
Judas belongs to John, who was the fifteenth usquf (priest) of Jerusalem during
the reign of Aydernick.” [Usquf: a ranking clergy responsible for reading the
Bible.] Airgin, an early writer who interpreted the Gospel of John, says in the
fifth book of this interpretation of his: “Paul did not write epistles to every
church; and the epistles he wrote to some churches consisted of a few lines.”
As is inferred from this statement of Airgin’s, none of the epistles said to be
Paul’s belongs to him; all of them belong to some other writer, but are
attributed to him. The second chapter of the epistle that Paul wrote to
Galatians contains the following statements, from the
eleventh verse to the sixteenth verse: “But when Peter was come to
Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” “For before
that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were
come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the
circumcision.” “And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that
Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.” “But when I saw that
they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto
Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of
Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as
do the Jews?” “We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,”
“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith
of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesust Christ, that we might be
justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law; for by the
works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” (Galatians: 2-11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16)
Because the initial part of these statements
contradicts the final part, one of the parts, (that is, either the beginning
part or the final part), must have been added afterwards. For, although Paul
writes in the beginning of his epistle [eleventh verse] how he scolded Peter in
Antioch, the guilt he blamed him for was his eating with other people, i.e.
pagans, which was against Jewish customs. [Supposing it were not an insolence
for him to direct the insults we have mentioned above towards such a person as
Peter, who had been inspired by the Holy Spirit and served the Messiah.] In
fact, his scolding him was based on the following reasoning: “A Jew as you are,
you slight the commandments of your religion like pagans. How can you have the
face to call them to (follow) the Jewish canon?” But after this (reasoning) Paul
changes his course and begins to explain the futility of the canonical
commandments. In the third chapter, after long discourse on the needlessness of
worships, he says that he has entirely adapted himself to the canonical laws of
Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. As a matter of fact, the seventeenth to the twenty-sixth
verses of the twenty-first chapter of the Book of Acts read as follows: “And
when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.” “And the day
following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.”
“And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had
wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.” “And when they heard it, they
grorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest,
brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and
they are all zealous of the law;” “And they are informed of these, that thou
teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying
that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the
customs.” “What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for
they will hear that thou art come.” “Do therefore this that we say to thee: We
have four men which have a vow on them;” “Them take, and purify thyself with
them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may
know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are
nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.” “As
touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they
observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered
to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.” “Then Paul
took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the
temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that
an offering should be offered for every one of them.” (The Acts: 21-17, 18, 19,
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)
As seen, Paul, who kept saying that “The body
will not be clean by (following) the canon. Though accursed for us, the Messiah
has saved us from the commandments of the canon,” follows the old people’s
advice, adapts himself to the canon by cleaning himself and enters the temple.
Three verses from Paul’s epistle tell us a few
subtle facts about the mysteries of Christianity:
First: It was rumoured among the Jews
believing the Messiah that Paul was saying, “Circumcision is unnecessary.” This
comes to mean that the Jews, who had believed Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ on condition
that they would not desist from the canon of Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, did not
approve the changing of the canonical laws of Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm.’
Second: At that time it was not considered
important whether the canonical laws would continue to exist. The person, who
was one of the apostles of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, said, “The people must be
gathered together whatever the cost;” hence it is inferred that his real
purpose was to bring the people together in their own religion by using all sorts
of methods. This suggestion, which an apostle of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ had the
courage to make to Paul only in order to bring the people together, betrays the
basis on which Christianity was founded.
Third: Papias, who was the bishop of Hirapulius
towards the middle of the second Christian century, referred to two short
treatises pertaining to the words and acts of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. One of them
is a treatise by Mark, who was the interpreter of the Apostle Peter, the other
is Matthew’s treatise, a compilation of Hebrew commandments and rules. Papias
stated that the treatise belonging to Mark was very short, inadequate, not
written in chronological order, consisting of some stories and traditions. This
signifies that, in the middle of the second century, Matthew and Mark had a
treatise each; Papias saw them and wrote about them, describing them and
pointing out the differences between them.
As for the Gospels of Matthew and Mark
existing today; they are quite alike, both being detailed in such a manner as
if they were copied from each other. It is apparent that these are not the
versions seen by Papias and that those versions were later enlarged by
additions.
On the other hand, Papias never mentioned the
Gospels of Luke and John. Papias, who was in Hirapulius and, naturally, met
John’s disciples and learned some facts from them, did not even say a single
word about the Gospel of John. This fact shows that the Gospel of John was
written some time afterwards.