As for the Gospel of John; as is known, till
the emergence of the fourth Gospel which is attributed to John, the religion of
Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was based on the principle of unity, no different from the
canonical laws of Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ in its fundamentals. For it is the
Gospel of John that first mentioned the word ‘trinity’ and which misled the
believers of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ by inserting the doctrine of trinity
(believing three Gods) into their belief. For this reason, it is extremely
important to search into the facts about the Gospel of John. Various quotations
from the books of early Christian men of religion about the Gospel of John have
been given above.
This book does not belong to John the son of
Zebedee. It was written by an anonymous author after the second century.
Contemporary European orientalist historians have proved this fact by various
evidences.
First evidence: It is written as follows at
the beginning of the Gospel of John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John: 1-1) These words are of the
subtle matters of the knowledge of Word and do not exist in any of the other
Gospels. If these words had been heard from Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, they would
exist in the other Gospels, too. Hence, the author is not John the apostle but
another person, who must have studied the Platonic philosophy of three
hypostases in Roman and Alexandrian schools. As a matter of fact, this will be
explicated below.
Second evidence: The writings about the
adulteress, from the first verse to the eleventh in the eighth chapter of the
Gospel of John, are repudiated by all Christian churches, who say that those
writings are not Biblical. This means to say that the author compiled a number
of Gospels he came across, adding many other things he happened to find here
and there; or someone after him added these verses. According to the first
case, the author wrote a compilation without distinguishing between the true and
the untrue. So the compilation he wrote consists of unacceptable things.
According to the second case, it must be admitted that this Gospel was
interpolated. In either case, it is of doubtful origin
Third evidence: Some examples, occurances and
miracles narrated in the other Gospels do not exist in this Gospel, which in
its turn contains a number of things non-existent in the others. Episodes such
as Luazer’s coming back to life, the water’s changing into wine, his (Jesus) confiding
his beloved disciple and his mother to each other, exist only in the Gospel of
John and not in the others. Later on we shall give detailed information in this
respect.
Fourth evidence: Of the early Christians,
neither Papias nor Justinien mentioned seeing this Gospel. Justinien,
especially, who admitted that the author of the Gospel of John was not John
himself, did not say anything about this Gospel.
Fifth evidence: The way of expression in the
narration of the events compiled in the other three Gospels is quite contrary
to the style of discourse used in the Gospel of John. For example, in the other
three Gospels Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, like a tutor who wants to train the people,
disapproves the hypocritical behavior of the Pharesees. He commands to purify
the heart, to approach Allâhu ta’âlâ, to love people, to form beautiful habits,
and prohibits inclinations contrary to the sharî’a of Műsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’
(Mosaic laws). His teachings and advice to the people are quite clear, natural,
and comprehensible to anyone. Although these three Gospels contradict one
another in some of their narratives, they are apparently based on common
sources in those that agree with one another. The Gospel of John, on the other
hand, is quite dissimilar and uses an altogether different style both in its
discourse and concerning the moral and habitual conduct of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’.
In this Gospel, hadrat Îsâ is represented as a person who has knowledge of
Greek philosophy and whose elegant and eloquent language expresses his personal
nobility rather than such values as the fear of Allahu ta’âlâ and beautiful
morality. And the way of expression chosen is not the Messianic style common to
the public but the lexical and syntactical dialect peculiar to Alexandrian
schools. His statements, though thoroughly clear and plain in the other three
Gospels, are ambiguous in this Gospel. It is full of well-organized iterations
mostly with important double meanings and arranged in a singular way. The style
used in John arouses one’s feelings of denial and hatred instead of alluring
one’s heart. If this Gospel had appeared all of a sudden, recently, after
having remained concealed somewhere, no one would believe it was written by one
of the Apostles. Because it has been known for centuries,
Christians cannot realize these oddities.
Sixth evidence: More mistakes are noticed in
this Gospel. For instance, the fifty-first verse of the first chapter of the
Gospel of John reads as follows: “And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say
unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending
and descending upon the Son of man.” (John: 1-51) In actual fact, these words
of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ took place after his baptism in the water of Erden and
the descension of the Holy Spirit; after that no one saw the opening of the
heaven or the descension of angels unto Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’.
The thirteenth verse of the third chapter of
this Gospel states, “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came
down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” (John: 3-13) This
verse is wrong in several respects:
First; the part interpreted with the phrase
‘even’[1] was added afterwards. Thus the verse was changed. For the
beginning part of the verse purported that “No one other than who descended
from heaven has ascended to heaven”; but the author of the Gospel or one of its
editors inserted an explanatory phrase in order to point out that mankind, i.e.
Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, is meant by this verse. Careful observation will show at
once that this phrase is an addition. For when we separate the initial part of
the verse from this explanatory phrase, its correct meaning, “No one other than
the angels who descended from heaven has ascended to heaven,” will become
clear. On the other hand, if it is insinuated that “It is mankind who descended
from heaven,” the fact that hadrat Îsâ did not descend from heaven but was
conceived by hadrat Maryam (Mary) through the Holy Spirit [the Archangel
Jabrâîl ‘alaihis-salâm’] will have been disavowed. Moreover, it will be
necessary to reject that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was on earth and not in heaven as
he said, “...Son of man which is in heaven...”. Furthermore, it is impossible
for Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ to have uttered both expressions, i.e. “he that came
down from heaven” and “which is in heaven”, at the same moment.
Second; the initial part of the verse is
wrong, too. For it is stated in the twenty-fourth verse of the fifth chapter of
Genesis and in the eleventh and twelfth verses of the second chapter of Kings
II that Ahnűh (E’noch) and Ilyâ (E-li’sha) ‘alaihimus-salâm’ also ascended to
heaven. There can be no doubt as to the fact that this verse has been
interpolated.
---------------------------------
[1] In
Biblical English, ‘even’ means ‘that is’.