Syed Mir Mahmood Ahmad Nasir

The article responds to Reverend Wherry’s claim that the Quran is a fabrication by presenting evidence of its divine origin: its unmatched eloquence challenge unmet for 1400 years, fulfilled prophecies and scientific knowledge unknown in 7th-century Arabia. In contrast, the New Testament was not written by Jesus^as or his actual apostles, contains 300,000 textual variants, was canonised only in the 4th century, has contradictory gospel accounts and includes false prophecies, thus failing the very tests the Quran passes. [Translator]

In the preface to the first volume of his four-volume commentary on the Quran, titled A Comprehensive Commentary on The Quran, Reverend Elwood Morris Wherry (1843-1927) introduces his exegetical notes by raising the following objections against the Holy Quran:

“As to the matter of the notes, the reader will perceive occasional repetition. This is due in part to the repetitions of the text, and partly in order to call special attention to certain doctrines of the Qurán, e.g., its testimony to the genuineness and credibility of the Christian Scriptures current in the days of Muhammad; the evidence it affords to its own character as a fabrication; its testimony to the imposture of the Arabian prophet, in his professing to attest the Former Scriptures, while denying almost every cardinal doctrine of the same – in his putting into the mouth of God garbled statements as to Scripture history, prophecy, and doctrine, to suit the purposes of his prophetic pretensions”.¹

In the above statement, Reverend Wherry has levelled the following major objections against the Holy Quran:

1. The Holy Quran provides evidence of its own fabrication.
2. The Holy Quran testifies to the imposture of the Arabian Prophet, the proof of which is that while claiming to affirm the former scriptures, it denies almost all their cardinal doctrines.
3. The Holy Quran presents the prophecies, history, and doctrines of the former scriptures in a distorted manner.

Does the Holy Quran Testify to Being a Fabrication?

First, let us address the Reverend’s primary assertion: that the Holy Quran testifies to being a fabrication.

“…the evidence it affords to its own character as a fabrication…”

Although Reverend Wherry does not specify the evidence that the Holy Quran supposedly provides for its own fabrication (God forbid), we will first present some Quranic proofs of it not being a fabrication. Following this, we will present evidence that casts doubt upon the very scriptures that the Reverend considers sacred.

The Holy Quran offers a fundamental proof of its truth, its divine origin, and its immunity from being a fabrication, stating:

وَإِن كُنتُمۡ فِي رَيۡبٍ مِّمَّا نَزَّلۡنَا عَلَىٰ عَبۡدِنَا فَأۡتُواْ بِسُورَةٍ مِّن مِّثۡلِهِۦ وَٱدۡعُواْ شُهَدَآءَكُم مِّن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ إِن كُنتُمۡ صٰدِقِينَ

“If you are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call upon your helpers beside Allah to help you out, if you are truthful.” (Surah al-Baqarah, Ch.2: V.24)

It presented a challenge: if this book is a fabrication and a human composition, then we challenge all such people to gather together, exert their utmost effort, and push their endeavours to the limit, yet they will never be able to produce a book like the Quran. Centuries have passed since this Quranic challenge was issued, yet no one has been able to stand against it.

The Promised Messiah^as states:

“Rather, valid experience spanning over a lengthy period of time also confirms and substantiates it. For 1,300 years the Holy Quran has been presenting its excellences by beating the drum of هل من معارض [‘Is there a challenger?’] and proclaiming loudly to the whole world that it is incomparable and unparalleled in its external form and internal qualities, and that no man, small or great, has the ability to compete with it or counter it, yet no one has even dared to take up its challenge. Indeed, no one has been able to compete with even one surah, for example Surah al-Fatihah, in its external and internal qualities.”²

In his commentary on verse 38 of Surah Yunus:

وَمَا كَانَ هٰذَا ٱلۡقُرۡءَانُ أَن يُفۡتَرَىٰ مِن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ وَلٰكِن تَصۡدِيقَ ٱلَّذِي بَيۡنَ يَدَيۡهِ وَتَفۡصِيلَ ٱلۡكِتٰبِ لَا رَيۡبَ فِيهِ مِن رَّبِّ ٱلۡعٰلَمِينَ

“It would not be possible for this Quran to be devised by any except Allah. It fulfils the revelation which was sent down before it and is an exposition of all that a revealed Book should comprise. There is no doubt about it; it is from the Lord of the worlds.”

Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud^ra states:

“In this verse, five powerful proofs of the Holy Quran being from Allah have been presented. The first proof given is that this book contains subject matter that a human being cannot discover on his own; only God Almighty can reveal it. For it is stated that this Quran could not have been created without the help of God Almighty. This clearly indicates that it contains knowledge that only Allah the Exalted knows. And from the Holy Quran, we learn that among the matters known only to Allah are matters of the unseen, that is, prophecies of the future. Accordingly, it is stated in this Surah: فَقُلۡ إِنَّمَا ٱلۡغَيۡبُ لِلَّهِ ‘Tell them: Allah alone has knowledge of the unseen.’ Therefore, what doubt can there be about a book being from God that contains matters which none but God Almighty can reveal?”³

As an example of matters of the unseen in the Holy Quran, we present the prophecy in Surah al-Rum. The Promised Messiah^as says regarding this prophecy:

“A mighty prophecy concerning the empires of Rome and Persia is found in the Holy Quran. This prophecy was made at a time when the Magian empire had defeated the Roman empire in a battle and had seized some of its territory. The idolaters of Mecca considered the victory of the Persians a good omen for themselves, thinking that since the Persian empire shared their practice of creature-worship, they too would be able to eliminate the Prophet whose law resembled that of the People of the Book. Then, Allah the Exalted revealed this prophecy in the Holy Quran that, ultimately, the Roman empire would be victorious. And since the prophecy is about the victory of Rome, the Surah is named Surah ar-Rum. And because the Arab idolaters had taken the victory of the Magian empire as a sign for their own victory, Allah the Exalted also stated in this prophecy that on the day Rome is victorious again, the Muslims will also be victorious over the idolaters. And so, it came to pass. The relevant verse of the Holy Quran is:

الٓمٓ غُلِبَتِ ٱلرُّومُ فِيٓ أَدۡنَى ٱلۡأَرۡضِ وَهُم مِّنۢ بَعۡدِ غَلَبِهِمۡ سَيَغۡلِبُونَ فِي بِضۡعِ سِنِينَ ۗ لِلَّهِ ٱلۡأَمۡرُ مِن قَبۡلُ وَمِنۢ بَعۡدُ ۚ وَيَوۡمَئِذٍ يَفۡرَحُ ٱلۡمُؤۡمِنُونَ

[“Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been defeated, In the land nearby, and they, after their defeat, will be victorious. In a few years – Allah’s is the command before and after that – and on that day the believers will rejoice.” (Surah ar-Rum, Ch.30: V.2-5)

The Promised Messiah^as provides the following translation and commentary:]

‘I am Allah, the All-Knowing. The Roman empire has been defeated in a nearby land, and they, after a period of three to nine years, will again prevail over the Magian empire. That day will also be a day of joy for the believers.’ And so, it happened. After three years and within nine, the Roman empire once again triumphed over the Persian empire, and on that very day, the Muslims also gained victory over the idolaters, for that was the day of the Battle of Badr, in which the people of Islam were victorious.”⁴

A powerful example of the Holy Quran describing matters of the unseen is Surah al-Rahman, in which two great groups are addressed. One is called jinn, meaning prominent people, and the other is called ins, meaning the common folk. The verse mentions the efforts of both these groups to venture beyond the frontiers of the heavens and the earth. It states:

يٰمَعۡشَرَ ٱلۡجِنِّ وَٱلۡإِنسِ إِنِ ٱسۡتَطَعۡتُمۡ أَن تَنفُذُواْ مِنۡ أَقۡطَارِ ٱلسَّمٰوٰتِ وَٱلۡأَرۡضِ فَٱنفُذُواْ ۚ لَا تَنفُذُونَ إِلَّا بِسُلۡطٰنٍ

“O company of Jinn and men! if you have power to go beyond the confines of the heavens and the earth, then do go. But you cannot go save with authority.” (Surah ar-Rahman, Ch.55: V.34)

It should be remembered that the concept of making a serious attempt to pass beyond the frontiers of the heavens and the earth was perhaps difficult to imagine even in science fiction 100 years ago. So, 1400 years ago, in the deserts of Arabia where there were no academies, universities, or libraries, what else could the mention of two groups making a serious effort to pass beyond the frontiers of the heavens and the earth be, if not knowledge of the unseen? And can a book that reports this magnificent unseen news be declared a fabrication?

The prophecies in the Holy Quran and the predictions made about the future are not related to trivial, everyday matters but concern magnificent and extraordinary victories and successes. These prophecies were made during the Meccan period and the early Medinan period, in circumstances where the human mind could perhaps not even conceive of such conquests and achievements. The Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat, the Promised Messiah^as, states:

“Just think how, to his last breath, the Holy Prophet steadfastly and unwaveringly held on to his claim of Prophethood in the face of countless perils and so many enemies, detractors and threateners. The persecution and hardship he endured for years seemed to preclude all possibility of success, and were increasing day by day. His patient response to them clearly rules out any plans for material gain. On the contrary, the very moment he made his claim to Prophethood, he lost even the little support he already had. With a single announcement, he made innumerable enemies and brought upon himself countless tribulations. He was forced into exile, pursued by bloodthirsty enemies, his home and property were destroyed, and repeated attempts were made to poison him. Those who were once his well-wishers turned against him, and friends became foes. The severe hardship he endured for so long and with such fortitude could not have been tolerated by a deceiving imposter.”⁵

And it did not end there:

“[H]e did not hesitate to proclaim Tauhid [Oneness of God] even at the cost of antagonizing all the people and tribes – indeed the whole world of idolaters. His own kith and kin were the first to oppose him when he forbade them from worshipping idols. The Jewish community became his bitterest enemy and continuously plotted to assassinate him when he tried to wean them away from diverse forms of creature-worship, blind following of the saints, various forms of malpractices, and from blaspheming against the Messiah [Jesus]. The Christians were similarly antagonized when he declared that, contrary to their beliefs, Jesus was neither God nor the son of God, nor did he atone for their sins through Crucifixion. Fire-worshippers and star-worshippers were also enraged when he forbade them from worshipping their deities and exhorted them instead to turn to the One God for their salvation.

“Now, honestly, are these the means by which one could hope to achieve success in this world? If he had worldly ambitions, was it prudent to attack the beliefs of all religions and provoke them in such a way that they were all heart-broken and turned against him? They were so disturbed as to become thirsty for his blood, while he did not have any significant following to defend him against their onslaught. Would it not have been more in keeping with the ways of the world, to criticise some and praise others, so that where he had enemies he might also have some friends? For instance, if he had conceded to the Arabs that Lat and ‘Uzza were true gods, they would have obeyed him and followed him without question. For, they were a people who placed great importance on family and tribal affiliations and national honour. They were in agreement with everything [the Holy Prophet^sa taught]. The only thing he needed was to permit idol-worship to win their heartfelt obedience. What worldly expediency could have led the Holy Prophet to alienate one and all for the sake of holding firmly to Tauhid – a creed that was deeply unpopular at the time and the profession of which spelled many a trouble and even the risk of death? And what earthly motive could he have for continuing to insist on the doctrine that had taken away everything from him and the very expression of which could cause new converts to Islam to suffer confinement and torture? How could anyone hope to attain material success by telling people what was against their temperament, customs and beliefs, thereby making them his mortal enemies – and not keeping ties with anyone?”⁶

This was the situation in which the Holy Quran gave glad tidings of magnificent successes, dominance, and victory, and prophesied a triumphant return to Mecca (cf. لَرَآدُّكَ إِلَىٰ مَعَادٖ “[He] will most surely bring thee back to the place of resort.” Surah al-Qasas, Ch. 28: V. 86).

The Promised Messiah^as further states:

“Consider the prophecies of the Holy Quran and you will find that they are not at all like the predictions of the helpless people such as astrologers; rather, they surge with manifest and overwhelming signs of majesty and glory. All its prophecies are characterized by the same pattern – that it declares of its own honour and the disgrace of its enemies, its own glory and the humiliation of its enemies, its own success and the failure of its enemies, its own victory and the defeat of its enemies, and its own perpetual prosperity and the ruin of its enemies. […] Wise people who are just and God-fearing should read them with full attention and consider them in their entirety, and decide for themselves in all honesty if anyone except God the Omnipotent can make such prophecies about matters relating to the unseen.”⁷

“[In the Holy Quran,] God Almighty has promised outstanding victory by the perfect glory of His divinity to a humble, weak, poor, powerless, unlettered, unlearned, unaware, and untrained man over the whole world – all opponents, all enemies, all renegades, all the rich and all powerful figures, all kings, all sages, all philosophers and all people belonging to every religion. Can any honest person or seeker after truth entertain any doubt regarding all these promises that were fulfilled in their time, and continue to be fulfilled, that they are the work of a human being. Think about it: a poor, lonely, and humble person announced the spread of his faith and the establishment of his religion at a time when he had nothing with him except a few devotees without any means; and all the Muslims could fit in one small room and their names could be counted on one’s fingers, and a handful of villagers could have done away with them. The enemies they faced were the kings and rulers of the world; and the nations they had to deal with were made up of tens of millions who were unanimous in their determination to destroy and annihilate them. But now look around the entire globe at how God has spread the same few weak people in the world, and how He bestowed on them power, wealth, and kingdom, and how they were bestowed the crowns and thrones that had been occupied by others for thousands of years. There was a time when the numbers of this community did not exceed an average household and now they are counted in millions. God Almighty had said that He would Himself safeguard His Word. Now, see for yourself. Is it not true that the very teaching that the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, conveyed from God Almighty through His Word is still safeguarded in His Word and ever since the beginning there have always been hundreds of thousands of people who have committed the Holy Quran to memory. God had said that no one would be able to match His Book in wisdom, enlightenment, eloquence, lucidity, and comprehensive understanding of the divine verities, and in setting forth religious arguments. You can see that no one could ever face this challenge. And if there is anyone who disagrees, let him come forward now and produce its match”.⁸

The second proof that the Holy Quran presents in Surah Yunus, verse 38, for its divine origin and for it not being a human fabrication is that:

“Just as its own prophecies prove the idea of it being from other than Allah to be false, similarly, the prophecies of earlier prophets also prove this idea to be false. This is because the words of the earlier prophets also confirm it, and they contain many prophecies concerning it. If you do not accept it, you will have to declare all the prophets as false, because their prophecies concerning it would have to be accepted as false.”⁹

“The third proof [of the Holy Quran being from God and not a fabrication] is that it provides a detailed explanation of the previous books. This too is a powerful proof of the Quran’s truthfulness. Without the aid of the Holy Quran’s subject matter, no previous book can be understood. The Torah, the Gospel, the Vedas, the Zend-Avesta – all these books contain discussions on monotheism, the manifestation of divine attributes, revelation, prophethood, the afterlife, moral matters, spiritual matters, and so on. However, none of these books explains these matters clearly. Instead, they must be understood with the help of the Holy Quran. Monotheism is the most important issue. Take this, for example. It is mentioned in all these books, but only in brief. The books written by the followers of these scriptures on the subject of monotheism before the Holy Quran, or the articles they wrote, provide very deficient information on the topic. But after the Holy Quran, the very colour of their followers’ writings changed. This clearly shows that the spread of Quranic concepts revealed the true reality to these people, and with its help, they explained the beliefs of their own religions. The issue of prophethood is of great importance, yet the Torah, the Gospel, and other books are so silent on this subject that their followers to this day cannot tell what is meant by a ‘prophet’ in their books. But the Holy Quran has clarified this subject beautifully. The same is true for other important issues. Thus, this verse states that the details of the previous books’ contents are found in this Book. If you deny this Book, you will have to admit that God Almighty was unable to state in His books what this person has stated in a small book. Therefore, either he must be accepted as truthful, or the previous books must also be considered false. The fourth proof given is that there is no room for doubt in it. That is, this Book presents its own arguments; it is not in need of anyone’s help. Its subjects are presented in such a way that whoever reflects upon them fully will find the arguments alongside them. Doubt does not arise because of this Book, for it provides the proofs itself. Rather, if doubt arises, it is due to a person’s own negligence and laziness. And this too is proof that this Book is from God Almighty, because it is not within human power to fully prove matters of the unseen, as many of them cannot be proven by rational argument alone. They also require the proof of observation. And it is beyond human power to create the means of observation for matters of the unseen. […] The fifth proof given is that this Word is from the Lord of the worlds (Rabb-ul-‘Alamin). That is, through its teachings, the divine attribute of being the Lord of all the worlds is manifested. It is not specific to any nation or any era, as previous books were. Rather, it is for all nations and all times. The needs and corruptions of every age have been considered in it. And this too is beyond human power, to keep in mind all nations and all times. A human being is influenced by their immediate surroundings and considers the needs that are before them. Only from God Almighty can such a teaching come that is equally beneficial for every age and every nation, upon which the changes of time can have no effect, and in which all the demands and all the sentiments of human nature have been considered. This quality is found in the Holy Quran. It equally considers all human temperaments. It neither teaches that you should only show mercy, nor that you should never forgive. Rather, it teaches that you should show mercy when mercy is due and punish when punishment is due. Similarly, all its teachings are such that all temperaments and all ages have been considered, and the ignorant and the learned have been kept in mind. And this is a powerful proof of it being the Word of God. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators.”¹⁰

It has been mentioned above that the Holy Quran contains numerous accounts of the unseen, which serve as proof of its divine origin. As examples, some prophecies that were fulfilled in the future and are recorded in the Holy Quran have been provided. However, the Quran’s mention of the unseen is not limited to prophecies alone. It also contains certain truths that were unknown to the world at the time of its revelation but have now been fully unveiled.

For instance, at the time of the Quran’s revelation, the world was completely unaware that the body of the Pharaoh who drowned in opposition to Prophet Moses^as was still preserved. The Holy Quran, in Surah Yunus, states that Pharaoh was told his body would be preserved as a sign for those to come after him:

فَٱلۡيَوۡمَ نُنَجِّيكَ بِبَدَنِكَ لِتَكُونَ لِمَنۡ خَلۡفَكَ ءَايَةٗ

“So this day We will save thee in thy body alone that thou mayest be a Sign to those who come after thee.” (Surah Yunus, Ch.10: V.93)

At the time of the Quran’s revelation, this truth was hidden from the world’s view, veiled in the unseen. But the Holy Quran mentioned it, and now this reality has become a clear truth. This body is preserved in the Cairo Museum.

The Holy Quran also drew attention to the truth that the birth of Jesus of Nazareth^as from the womb of Mary occurred in the latter part of summer when dates were ripe. In Surah Maryam, it is stated that at the time of childbirth, Mary was told:

وَهُزِّيٓ إِلَيۡكِ بِجِذۡعِ ٱلنَّخۡلَةِ تُسَٰقِطۡ عَلَيۡكِ رُطَبٗا جَنِيّٗا

“And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree; it will cause fresh ripe dates to fall upon thee.” (Surah Maryam, Ch.19: V.26)

At the time this verse was revealed, the entire Christian world believed the birthday of Jesus^as to be in the winter, generally celebrating it on 25 December. However, today, after research, Christian scholars admit that this day is not the birthday of Jesus^as but a Roman festival that Christendom conveniently adopted as his birthday. For example, A Commentary on the Bible states:

“The season would not be December; Our Christmas Day is a comparatively late tradition, found first in the West.”¹¹

Another example of the Quran’s knowledge of the unseen is the scientific fact that everything in the universe has been created in pairs:

وَمِن كُلِّ شَيۡءٍ خَلَقۡنَا زَوۡجَيۡنِ لَعَلَّكُمۡ تَذَكَّرُونَ

“And of everything have We created pairs, that you may reflect.” (Surah adh-Dhariyat, Ch.51: V.50)

This fact, which has been established as a truth by recent scientific research – who could have known it 1400 years ago in the desert society of Arabia?

Having presented a few arguments for the divine origin of the Holy Quran in refutation of Reverend Wherry’s objection that the Holy Quran provides evidence of its own fabrication, God forbid, we now examine whether the scriptures he considers sacred can truly be the revealed word of God.

First, let us consider the New Testament.

Two Christian views on the divine nature of the New Testament

Regarding the New Testament being the Word of God and an inspired book, there are two main views or beliefs among Christians. Leaving aside the first few centuries, for about a thousand to fifteen hundred years, the firm belief among Christians was that every word, every dot, and every tittle of the New Testament was inspired, the Word of God. This belief was not exclusive to the Roman Catholic Church; when the Protestants separated from it, they emphasised this doctrine even more, as they had abandoned the other foundation of the Church, namely the authority of the Pope. In any case, for about a thousand years, the official doctrine of the Christian world was that every word, letter, dot, and tittle of the New Testament was inspired. If any error was perceived in a past copy of the New Testament, it was said that this error was also a result of divine inspiration for some wise purpose.

This doctrine is so erroneous and unreasonable that in the present age, a large portion of the Christian world has bid it farewell. A cursory study of the New Testament is sufficient to refute this belief. A brief reading not only reveals that it nowhere claims to be the Word of God, but its human authors explicitly declare it to be their own words and never attribute it to God. For instance, at the beginning of the Gospel of Luke, its author writes:

“Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.”¹²

Clearly, the Gospel of Luke is a human work. Its author was not an eyewitness from the beginning nor a minister of the word himself, but one who wrote after inquiry and investigation from them. Many other people were also engaged in this work, and the author of Luke did not write this book through any inspiration.

In his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul says:

“That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.”¹³

In this passage, Paul even denies that his statement holds the same status as a statement of Jesus^as, let alone it being the Word of God. The New English Bible translates “the Lord” here not as Christ, but as:

“I am not speaking here as a Christian, but like a fool, if it comes to bragging.”¹⁴

Here, Paul even denies his own Christianity. Then, in the same chapter, Paul further states:

“I speak as concerning reproach, as though we had been weak. Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly,) I am bold also. Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I. Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.”¹⁵

Can any sane person call these words the Word of God?

On another occasion, Paul writes:

“Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.”¹⁶

So, can the opinion of Paul or anyone else be considered inspired scripture?

Sometimes, a reference from the Revelation of John the Divine is presented regarding the New Testament being inspired scripture:

“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”¹⁷

An attempt is made to deduce from this reference that the entire New Testament is inspired and the Word of God. Even if we were to assume that this passage declares this book to be the Word of God, at most it could be said that only the Revelation of John the Divine is declared an inspired book. The Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Luke, the Gospel of Mark, and the letters of Paul and others have no connection to this reference, nor is any claim made about them. Nor did the writer of this passage likely have any knowledge of those books.

The reality, however, is that this reference does not even mention the entirety of Revelation itself being inspired. Since the book of Revelation contains several visions that serve as prophecies for future events and for the advent of the Holy Prophet^sa, its author added a cautionary note at the end, stating that no alteration to the words of the prophecy of this book is permissible, and anyone who does so will be liable to punishment. But there is no statement here that the entire book of Revelation, from beginning to end, is inspired and the Word of God. Those who draw this inference would not have done so if they had read the passage preceding it. In verses 8 and 9 of the same chapter, it is written:

“And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.”¹⁸

Could this passage from Revelation be the Word of God? Is it not self-evidently the word of a human author? Then how can one correctly infer from chapter 22, verses 18-19, that the entire book is inspired?

After holding the belief for about a thousand to fifteen hundred years that every word and line of the New Testament is inspired, the vast majority of the Christian world has now abandoned this doctrine. The scientific and intellectual changes that occurred in the world around the time of the advent of the Breaker of the Cross, the Promised Messiah^as, and the wave of research and investigation that followed, made it impossible for Christians to maintain the belief that the New Testament is verbally and literally an inspired book. Consequently, to prop up their crumbling wall, Christians sought the help of the theory of “Inspiration” instead of verbal revelation.

The summary of this theory is that although the New Testament is not inspired word-for-word, it consists of the writings of authors who were human, possessed human weaknesses and limitations, and committed human errors in their writings. At the same time, as a result of inspiration, their human faculties were protected from error in their assigned task under divine influence. Their writings essentially contain the same teachings that God Almighty revealed, and with His support, they narrated historical events. The beliefs that are necessary to hold for salvation and the deeds that are essential to adopt are correctly recorded in this book.

Through this doctrine, Christians have succeeded in freeing themselves from many of the objections that arose from the first theory, but they have also exposed themselves to many new ones. The first question that arises is: what authority made this change, and who is authorised to make such a fundamental change in beliefs? Was the first belief the teaching of Jesus^as? Is this new belief the teaching of Jesus^as? Does the teaching of Jesus^as permit this change in a fundamental belief? Does the Bible itself teach this doctrine, or did it teach the former one? It may be permissible to change opinions on matters unrelated to salvation or the fundamental beliefs and doctrines of a religion, but can fundamental beliefs be changed without the permission of an authorised source?

To this question, Roman Catholics say that the Holy See (the Pope) has this authority. The question is, where did the Holy See get this authority? The answer given is that the Bible gives it this authority. The question then is, how is the inspiration and authenticity of the Bible proven? The answer is that the Vatican says the Bible is authentic and inspired scripture. It is like asking, “Where is Zaid’s house?” and being told, “In front of Bakr’s house,” and then asking, “Where is Bakr’s house?” and being told, “In front of Zaid’s house.”

In this modified belief, the claim is that although the authors of these writings were human, possessed human weaknesses, and these human weaknesses and errors found their way into their writings, yet, as far as the teaching regarding the beliefs and deeds necessary for salvation is concerned, that part of these writings is free from error. The question is: who will decide which part of the New Testament is free from error and which part is erroneous? If we declare one sentence of the New Testament to be human speech, what definitive proof will we have that another sentence carries divine support? And who will have the authority to decide on passages that some consider human speech and others divinely supported words? In short, this theory greatly weakens the inspired status and historical testimony of the New Testament in comparison to the Holy Quran.

Was the New Testament considered a sacred scripture from the beginning?

The fact that in the early days of Christianity, known as the Apostolic Age because of the apostles of Jesus^as, there was no concept of a new book or a new collection of books being a sacred scripture (i.e., a Canon) after the Old Testament, severely damages the inspired status and authenticity of the New Testament. Jesus^as left no written work, nor did the first apostles likely write anything. In this early period, Paul wrote some letters, but he was not writing them with the idea of composing a sacred book or a Canon. These letters were written to meet contemporary needs, and some of them were not even preserved.

Undoubtedly, the Christians of that era considered the sayings of Jesus^as to be binding, and they read and acted upon the collections of these sayings that were compiled in the early days. However, these collections did not attain the status of a Canon either; they were later integrated into the Gospels, which were written in the style of biographies of Jesus^as.

Why did the Christians of that era not feel the need for a sacred book? The reason is not difficult to understand. Firstly, the Christians of that time already had a sacred book, which was later given the title of the “Old Testament.” Jesus himself refers to it as the sacred scripture and states that it is not possible for the sacred scripture to be broken. The Christians of that era read this book, acted upon it, and deduced proofs for the truth of Jesus^as from it.

Another reason why the early Christians did not feel the need for a new Canon seems to be that they held the belief that Jesus^as would return in their own lifetimes, and they considered their days to be the last days. This idea is found with great clarity in Thessalonians. Paul writes:

“For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.”¹⁹

In this passage, Paul claims that Jesus^as will return in their own lifetimes, and he does not make this claim on his own authority but bases it on a message from Jesus^as. And there are indications of this in the words of Jesus^as that the prophecy of his second coming would be fulfilled before that generation passed away. Jesus^as says:

“Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”²⁰

In Matthew, chapter 16, it is written:

“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”²¹

In Mark, it is written:

“Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.”²²

In any case, Paul clearly stated that Jesus^as would return in their lifetimes and then remain with them forever. Therefore, it is not surprising if the early Christians did not feel the need for any new Canon besides the Old Testament.

Another reason for not feeling the need for a new Canon in this early period could be that the Christians of that era also held the belief, based on the glad tidings of Jesus^as, that the Holy Spirit was present to teach them and to help them speak when confronting opponents. The saying of Jesus^as is recorded in the Gospel of Mark:

“But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.”²³

However, when the second coming of Jesus^as did not occur as expected and many new issues began to arise, the concept of a new Canon started to emerge among Christians. In this early period, some Christian writings were certainly produced. Paul and some others wrote letters. Writings containing revelations and prophecies also came into being, and the Church issued some directives. But in no way was there any idea of a new Canon among the people of that era.

Gradually, these letters began to take the form of collections, and many gospels about the life and teachings of Jesus^as were written, four of which were later accepted as Canon. These gospels also probably took the form of a collection before the middle of the second century, perhaps gaining more fame than other gospels because they were associated with famous Christian churches and communities like Rome and Antioch.

Among the motives and reasons that arose for declaring these books and letters as sacred scripture and Canon was the fact that during congregational worship, when people gathered, reading from the Old Testament was a Jewish custom, and the early Christians were Jewish by ethnicity and religion. When they gathered for congregational worship on the Sabbath, a portion of the Old Testament was read to them as per custom. At the same time, taking advantage of this opportunity, letters and instructions from their elders were also read out, which gradually strengthened the concept of these writings and letters being sacred, and then being sacred scripture. It came to be understood that Christians had some sacred scriptures in addition to the Old Testament.

An interesting point regarding the New Testament being declared Canon is that in the second century AD, the reaction against certain movements that the Church declared heretical also strengthened the idea of canonising the New Testament. In fact, the canonisation of the New Testament was the innovation of a person whom the Church considered irreligious. Marcion (circa 140 AD), whom the Church deemed a heretic, denied the authenticity of the Old Testament and proposed the idea that the majestic teachings of the Old Testament and the graceful teachings of Jesus^as could not have the same source. He edited the Gospel of Luke and presented it along with 10 of Paul’s letters as a Canon. Although the Church did not want to abandon the Old Testament, it also did not like the idea that a heretic was showing more respect for the writings about Jesus^as. This reaction also reinforced the concept of a New Testament Canon.

In any case, by the end of the second century, a collection of writings from the Apostolic Age appears to have an authoritative status. The most important document of this period in this regard is the text known as the Muratorian Fragment, because an Italian named Muratori published it in 1740. It is in Latin and was issued by the Church of Rome. The writer of this text mentions a collection consisting of the four Gospels, Acts, 13 letters of Paul, two letters of John, the letter of Jude, and the Revelation of Peter. Regarding the last book, it is also mentioned that some reject it.

At the beginning of the third century, there is general agreement on accepting the four Gospels, Acts, and 13 letters of Paul as sacred scripture. There is also considerable broad confirmation for the letter of Jude, the first letter of John, and the first letter of Peter. At that time, the Revelation of John was generally considered an apostolic writing in the West but not in the East. The letter to the Hebrews and the letter of James were considered apostolic compositions and part of the Canon in the East but not in the West. The Church of Alexandria accepted some additional scriptures as well.

The final form of the New Testament Canon was decided at the end of the fourth century. Even at the beginning of this century, there was no final decision. The Christian historian Eusebius describes this situation and divides the books into three categories:

1. Those that are generally accepted.
2. Those about which there is disagreement but are accepted by the majority.
3. Those that are rejected.

The first category includes the four Gospels, Acts, the letters of Paul, the first letter of Peter, the first letter of John, and the Revelation of John. The second includes the letter of James, the letter of Jude, the second letter of Peter, and the second and third letters of John. The third includes the Acts of Paul, the Revelation of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, etc., and according to some, the Revelation of John the Divine is also included in this.

The final decision on which books are included in the New Testament Canon was made at the end of the fourth century, and the key role was played by Athanasius, the Archbishop of Alexandria. There was no certainty in Egypt about what the New Testament was. Athanasius took it upon himself to resolve this situation, and his wide and deep influence in both the East and the West succeeded in getting the current Canon, which he supported, accepted.

The summary of the canonisation of the New Testament outlined above is that the authors of the New Testament did not consider their writings to be sacred scripture or Canon, nor were these books written for that purpose. Gradually, after much debate and scrutiny over four centuries, these writings were declared sacred scripture. As stated in Black’s Bible Dictionary:

“The N.T. represents a larger body of Christian Literature written before the 4th century, when after a long controversy, the present cannon was adopted.”²⁴

The Breaker of the Cross, the Promised Messiah^as, states:

“When the Christians label a book as ‘historical’ or ‘revealed’, they do so without any substantial proof, and none of their books are free from the stains of doubt and suspicion. It is quite probable that the books they call forged or fabricated are not fabricated at all, and the ones they consider to be authentic may, in fact, be fabricated.”²⁵

It is generally understood that the New Testament was written in Greek. In this language, not a single definite and accepted version of the New Testament is found. An uninformed person might be deceived into thinking that the New Testament, like the Holy Quran, is a book with a definite, accepted text. The reality is quite different, and this fact severely damages the inspired status of the New Testament.

The reality is that the New Testament presented to us today has been compiled by consulting handwritten manuscripts from before the invention of the printing press. These manuscripts were written in different eras and regions, on different types of paper, and in different styles of handwriting. These manuscripts, numbering in the hundreds, have thousands upon thousands of mutual differences. By considering these different manuscripts, an attempt is made to determine what the original authors wrote, and for this purpose, an entire discipline has come into existence, known as Textual Criticism. Here, a brief introduction to these manuscripts and a glimpse of their mutual differences is presented.

The manuscripts from which the New Testament is compiled today have been divided into a few groups for convenience.

The first group consists of manuscripts written between the fourth and tenth centuries AD, in large Greek letters (uncials). Manuscripts before the fourth century AD, none of which exist in complete form, were called scrolls because they were kept rolled up. But after the fourth century, manuscripts took the form of books and came to be called a codex (plural: codices). This group of manuscripts is currently considered the most important for compiling the New Testament.

Some important codices in this group are:

• Codex א (Aleph) or Codex Sinaiticus: This codex was found by the German scholar Constantin von Tischendorf at Saint Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai. He presented it as a gift to the Tsar of Russia, and after the Russian Revolution, it was purchased by Britain and preserved in the British Museum.
• Codex B or Codex Vaticanus: This manuscript was in the Pope’s library at the Vatican. When Napoleon Bonaparte conquered Italy, he brought it with him among the items to display his glory, and thus the scholarly world was able to benefit from it.
• Codex A or Codex Alexandrinus: This manuscript was gifted to the King of England in 1627 by Cyril Lucar, the Patriarch of the Greek Church in Turkey, and is now in the British Museum, London.
• Codex D or Codex Bezae: This is likely from the fifth century and was gifted by a scholar, Theodore Beza, to Cambridge University, where it is now in the university library.

The second group of manuscripts from which help is taken in compiling the New Testament consists of manuscripts written from the ninth century AD until the invention of the printing press. They are written in small Greek letters in a cursive hand. Being more numerous and similar to each other, they have been divided into families. Among these, family 1 and family 13 are considered more important for the compilation and editing of the New Testament.

The third group of manuscripts does not consist of complete manuscripts but of small fragments of manuscripts written before the fourth century on paper made from a plant called Papyrus that grew on the banks of the Nile. This paper can be preserved to some extent in a dry climate but perishes in a humid one. In the last 70-80 years, fragments of such manuscripts have been discovered, especially in the dry climate of Egypt, and they are taken into consideration when compiling the New Testament.

The fourth group of manuscripts considered when compiling editions of the New Testament consists of ancient translations of the New Testament made into Latin, Aramaic, and the two Egyptian languages, Bohairic and Sahidic. Similarly, translations of secondary importance in Armenian, Gothic, Ethiopic, and Slavonic are also used. There is disagreement among biblical scholars as to whether a translation of the New Testament existed in Arabic before Islam.

The fifth group of manuscripts from which help is taken to determine the text of the New Testament consists of quotations from the New Testament that old Christian writers included in their works over the centuries.

From the brief outline above, it is clear that there is no definite, accepted version of the New Testament. Rather, the New Testament that the Christian world compiles and presents today is derived from many manuscripts according to the preferences of the compilers. These manuscripts have numerous mutual differences, the number of which reaches about three hundred thousand. A formal discipline has emerged for compiling the New Testament from these manuscripts, known as Textual Criticism. A renowned biblical scholar writes on this subject:

“It may be thought in the case of the Bible there is no need for textual investigations, That God would not allow textual errors to creep into it during the years it has been handed down. But that is simply not true. God did not choose to exercise such a miraculous Providence over the books of the Bible.”²⁶

A papal decree also exists regarding the differences found in these New Testament manuscripts and the legitimacy of correcting the text of the New Testament through the art of Textual Criticism. In 1943, Pope Pius XII, in his address titled Divino Afflante Spiritu, said on this matter:

“In the present day indeed this art, which is called textual criticism and which is used with great and praiseworthy results in the editions of profane writings, is also quite rightly employed in the case of the Sacred Books, because of that very reverence which is due to the Divine Oracles. For its very purpose is to insure that the sacred text be restored, as perfectly as possible, be purified from the corruptions due to the carelessness of the copyists and be freed, as far as may be done, from glosses and omissions, from the interchange and repetition of words and from all other kinds of mistakes, which are wont to make their way gradually into writings handed down through many centuries.”²⁷

It should also be kept in mind that these manuscripts not only have mutual differences, scribal errors, and slips, but also intentional alterations and additions. A famous example of this is the last verses of the final chapter of the Gospel of Mark, i.e., chapter 16, verses 9 to 20. The foundation of modern Christianity is laid on the ascension of Jesus^as to heaven. However, since this is not mentioned in ancient texts, the New Testament was altered and additions were made to insert this baseless belief. The final verses of Mark, which mention the ascension of Jesus^as, were added. In this regard, the famous American Bible commentary, The Interpreter’s Bible, which very cleverly tries to defend formal Christian doctrines, states:

“One of the oldest attempts to supplement and finish Mark is the so-called ‘longer ending’ (vss. 9-20). This is not found in the best MSS (B א S k sy^s, etc.) and dates probably from the second century; it was compiled out of the data of other Gospels, and even of Acts, and may have been an originally independent list of resurrection appearances. The author was probably, as Burkitt and Conybeare held, the second-century presbyter Aristion or Ariston. It is attributed to him in an Armenian MS written in 989.”²⁸

In this reference, after acknowledging the fact that the final verses 9 to 20 of Mark were not in the original book, an attempt is made to cover this up by saying that its content was taken from other Gospels or written by the second-century bishop Ariston. Even if both these points are accepted, the question remains: is this an addition to and alteration of the original Mark or not? And if it is, then what remains of the inspired status of this book, and should Reverend Wherry have made the objection of fabrication against the New Testament instead of the Holy Quran?

Incidentally, it should also be kept in mind that the final verses of Mark are not proven to be interpolations solely based on the evidence of manuscripts; Mark’s own internal evidence also points to this. The eighth verse of this final chapter is translated as:

“neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.”²⁹

This translation is not entirely accurate. The final words of the eighth verse in the original Greek are:

ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ (ephobounto gar)

The translation of this is “they were afraid, for…” not “for they were afraid.” It is clear that the original Mark gave a reason for their fear, which later people did not like, so they deleted it and added their own text.

The above reference also claims that although the final verses of Mark are not part of the original Mark, it says:

“[I]t was compiled out of the data of other Gospels”.

This claim casts doubt on the integrity of The Interpreter’s Bible, as its authors know full well that two of the Gospels attributed to the apostles do not mention the ascension of Jesus^as to heaven at all. The Gospel of Luke appears to mention it, but the evidence of authentic manuscripts proves that the original Luke contained no mention of an ascension to heaven. The Interpreter’s Bible itself provides two parallel texts of the Bible on each page before its commentary: one from the King James Version and the other from the Revised Standard Version. In the King James Version, the final words of the Gospel of Luke are:

“He was parted from them, and carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem”³⁰

The translation of this in Urdu Bibles is:

”تو ایسا ہوا کہ اُن سے جدا ہو گیا اور آسمان پر اُٹھایا گیا اور وہ اُس کو سجدہ کر کے بڑی خوشی سے یروشلم کو لوٹ گئے۔“

[“Then it happened that he was separated from them and was taken up to heaven. And they worshipped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.”]

But in the Revised Standard Version, it is translated as:

“He parted from them, and was carried up into heaven. And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy”³¹

A footnote below states:

“Other ancient authorities omit and was carried up into heaven”

The New English Bible translates it as:

“He parted from them. And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy.”³²

Thus, the original Luke mentioned neither the ascension of Jesus^as to heaven nor the apostles worshipping him. This is a later addition. Therefore, the statement by the author of the article in The Interpreter’s Bible that the interpolated addition in the final verses of Mark, which mentions the ascension of Jesus^as, is based on other Gospels is blatantly false.

Leaving aside the aforementioned manuscripts, if we look at the printed editions of the New Testament in the world today, we find contradictions and differences. Both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke provide genealogies of Jesus^as through Joseph, although he had no direct biological relationship with him. But apart from that, there are differences in the names and the number of names in both genealogies. In Matthew’s genealogy, there are 40 names from Abraham to Joseph, and in Luke’s genealogy, there are 54. Is it possible to imagine such a discrepancy in two books from the same God?

Both Matthew and Luke’s genealogies declare Jesus^as to be a descendant of David^as. This idea was generally accepted among the Jews that the coming Messiah would be from the lineage of David. This is likely why the Gospel writers provided genealogies through Joseph to prove his Davidic descent. However, it was a matter of debate among the Jews as to which son of David^as the coming Messiah would be descended from. Some said he would be from the lineage of David’s son Solomon^as, while others insisted that he would be from the lineage of David’s son Nathan. See how the Gospel writers solved this problem in their respective circles. Matthew declared Jesus^as to be from the lineage of Solomon^as, and Luke declared him to be from the lineage of Nathan.

Reverend Wherry accuses the Holy Quran of fabrication, God forbid, but what is his opinion about the books of his own New Testament? Look at another example of this kind of discrepancy. The Gospels of Matthew and Mark clearly state that Jesus^as began his public ministry after John the Baptist was imprisoned (see Matthew 4:12-17, Mark 1:14). But chapter 3 of the Gospel of John clearly shows that Jesus^as had started his public ministry and the process of taking allegiance long before John was imprisoned. Now, despite this clear contradiction, will Reverend Wherry declare all three Gospels to be the Word of God?

Reverend Wherry accuses the Holy Quran of being a fabrication, but he cannot present a single prophecy from the Holy Quran that has proven false, because it is the Word of God, the Knower of the Unseen. However, some prophecies can be presented from the New Testament that have proven to be definitively false. For example, in 1 Thessalonians, Paul says:

“For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.”³³

If Paul had made this prophecy on his own, its falsehood would still be an objection against the New Testament, because according to Christian belief, the four Gospels and the letters of Paul and others are equally the Word of God. But here, according to verse 15, Paul bases this prophecy on the word of Jesus^as. And in the Gospels, there are also passages from Jesus^as that contain this prophecy. In Matthew, chapter 24, this saying of Jesus^as is recorded, which mentions the second coming of Jesus^as before the end of that same generation (the people of Jesus’s time). Jesus^as says:

“Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”³⁴

In Matthew, chapter 16, Jesus^as says:

“For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”³⁵

In Mark, chapter 8, the saying of Jesus^as is recorded:

“Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.”³⁶

From the above references, it is clear that the authors of the New Testament considered the prophecy of Jesus^as to be definitive that his second coming would occur before the end of the first era. But this did not happen, and now, after two thousand years, the prophecy has not been fulfilled. Does Reverend Wherry still insist that the Holy Quran is a fabrication, God forbid, and the New Testament is a sacred scripture and the Word of God?

The authenticity of the New Testament is severely damaged by the fact that none of its writings were written by Jesus^as or any of his apostles. It is well-known that two of the four Gospels are not the work of an apostle, namely Mark and Luke. However, it is sometimes thought that the Gospels of Matthew and John are the work of the apostle Matthew and the apostle John. But this has now been proven false by the research of Christian authors themselves. And it should be remembered that nowhere in these two books is there even a hint of a claim that they are the work of the two apostles. As mentioned, Christian authors now generally admit that these two Gospels are also not the work of the apostle Matthew and the apostle John. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1975 edition, states:

“Although there is a Matthew named among the various lists of Jesus’ disciples, more telling is the fact that the name of Levi, the tax collector who in Mark became a follower of Jesus, in Matthew is changed to Matthew. It would appear from this that Matthew was claiming apostolic authority for his Gospel through this device but that the writer of Matthew is probably anonymous.”³⁷

And regarding the Gospel of John, it writes:

“Irenaeus calls John the beloved disciple who wrote the Gospel in Ephesus. Papias mentions John the son of Zebedee, the disciple, as well as another John, the presbyter, who might have been at Ephesus. From internal evidence the Gospel was written by a beloved disciple whose name is unknown. Because both external and internal evidence are doubtful, a working hypothesis is that John and the Johannine letters were written and edited somewhere in the East (perhaps Ephesus) as the product of a ‘school,’ or Johannine circle, at the end of the 1st century.”³⁸

At the beginning of the second letter of Peter, it is clearly written:

“Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus”.³⁹

Despite this, Christian authors and scholars generally write that this letter is not by the apostle Peter. In the past, some early Christian elders also denied that this letter was by Peter, and now the vast majority likely deny Peter’s authorship. The Interpreter’s Bible, which generally argues in favour of traditional Christian belief, writes on this matter:

“When Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 185) quoted words ‘said by Peter,’ he invariably had in mind passages from I Peter. His introductory formula, ‘Peter says in his epistle,’ implies that he recognized only one epistle as by Peter. He may have known only one epistle under Peter’s name. Conceivably, however, he knew II Peter but rejected its authenticity. Contemporary leaders in the West, such as the author of the Muratorian canon, Tertullian, and Cyprian were similarly silent regarding II Peter.

“Clement of Alexandria was an Eastern contemporary of these Western leaders. Eusebius says that in his Outlines Clement gave ‘concise explanations of all the canonical scriptures,’ including ‘disputed’ writings such as ‘Jude and the remaining Catholic epistles, and the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Apocalypse known as Peter’s.’ His statement clearly implies an acquaintance with II Peter. Clement’s extant writings, however, contain no quotations from II Peter and reflect no acquaintance with it.

“The earliest explicit reference to II Peter is made by Origen (A.D. 217-51). He says that Peter ‘left only one epistle of acknowledged genuineness.’ Without trying to account for or refute current skepticism about the authenticity of a second epistle under Peter’s name, he says simply, ‘This is doubtful.’ Eusebius (ca. A.D. 325) included II Peter in his New Testament with the other Catholic epistles. He recognized, however, that its canonization was the outcome of its being ‘read in public in most churches’ rather than the result of any certainty of its authorship by Peter. Only I Peter, he says, is recognized ‘as genuine and acknowledged by the elders of olden time.’ II Peter is used ‘along with the other scriptures,’ despite the tradition that ‘it was not canonical.’ The judgment prevailing in the church caused Eusebius to describe II Peter, along with James, Jude, and the two shorter Johannine epistles, as ‘disputed, nevertheless familiar to the majority.’

“Athanasius and Augustine both recognized II Peter as canonical. Neither says anything about its authenticity. Essentially the same position is taken by the third council of Carthage (A.D. 397). Jerome at about this time expressed the judgment that Peter ‘wrote two epistles which are called Catholic.’ Because of differences in style, however, he says that II Peter ‘is considered by many not to have been by him.’ The epistle names Peter as its author. Its message is said to be from ‘Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus’ (1:1). This ascription is further emphasized by the author’s allusion to Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s martyrdom (1:14; cf. John 21:18-19), his claim to have been with Jesus ‘on the holy mountain’ on the occasion of the Transfiguration (1:17-18; cf. Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35), and his implicit reference to I Peter as also written by him (3:1).

“This zeal of the epistle for its own authenticity creates more doubt than confidence and other data fail to support its claim. Differences in style from I Peter create insuperable difficulties for the view that the two epistles have a common author. Although both are probably pseudonymous, a stronger case can be made for the authenticity of I Peter. The possibility of Petrine authorship is definitely eliminated by data which locate the second epistle in the second century: (a) the incorporation of Jude as its second chapter; (b) the author’s implicit classification of himself with a generation to whom ‘the fathers’ were known by tradition (3:2, 4); (c) the recognition of Paul’s letters as scripture (3:16); (d) the allusion to heretical misuse of Paul’s letters (3:16).

“Because he felt he wrote in Peter’s spirit, this unknown Christian leader of the second century felt justified in attributing what he wrote to Peter. That this was legitimate by current literary standards is shown by the titles of other second-century writings such as the Gospel of Peter, the Acts of Peter, the Teaching of Peter, and the Preaching of Peter. Peter symbolized original and authoritative Christianity. By his authority, therefore, our author condemned heresy.”⁴⁰

In this reference, the author is not only forced to admit that the second letter attributed to the apostle Peter is not by him but was written by an unknown person in the second century and attributed to Peter, but he also concedes in passing that the first letter of Peter is also, in fact, not by the apostle Peter. Therefore, neither the four Gospels nor the other writings of the New Testament are by Jesus^as or his apostles. Rather, they are later writings, some of which were attributed to the apostles.

The miracles of Jesus^as in the books of the New Testament, especially the four Gospels, are described with the intention of proving his divinity. As we have mentioned, the New Testament is neither revealed scripture nor does it claim to be. Its authors do not claim to be prophets or recipients of revelation, nor did they, with a claim to prophethood, show any miracles in support of their prophethood to prove that they were prophets and their word was the Word of God. Prophethood aside, if the four Gospels are examined carefully, they do not even prove to be solid and authentic historical writings.

The Breaker of the Cross, the Promised Messiah^as, states:

“I had also raised this objection against the Gospels that the miracles recorded in them, from which the divinity of Jesus^as is forcibly inferred, are not proven at all. Because the prophethood of the Gospel writers, which was the basis of proof, could not be established, nor did they claim prophethood, nor did they show any miracle. As for the fact that they wrote about the miracles as chroniclers, the conditions of a chronicler are also not met in them. Because it is necessary for a chronicler not to be a liar, secondly, that his memory is not flawed, thirdly, that he is a deep thinker and not a superficial person, fourthly, that he is a researcher and not one who is content with superficial things, and fifthly, that what he writes is eyewitness testimony, not merely presenting hearsay. But none of these conditions were present in the Gospel writers. It is a proven fact that they intentionally lied in their Gospels. For instance, they misinterpreted the meaning of ‘Nazareth’ and forcibly applied the prophecy of ‘Immanuel’ to the Messiah. And it is written in the Gospel that if all the works of Jesus were written, the world itself could not contain the books. As for their memory, they made mistakes in some references to the previous books. And by writing many baseless things, they proved that they were not accustomed to using their intellect, thought, and research. In fact, in some places in these Gospels, there are extremely shameful lies. For example, in Matthew chapter 5, there is this saying of Jesus: ‘Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.’ [Matthew 5:43] But this phrase is not found in the previous books. Similarly, their writing that all the dead came out of the graves of Jerusalem and entered the city is such a foolish thing. And at the time of writing about any miracle, no Gospel writer claimed that it was an eyewitness account. Thus, it is proven that the conditions of a chronicler were not present in them, and their account is not at all worthy of any credibility. And despite this lack of credibility, the matter to which they call is a most despicable idea and a shameful belief. Is it acceptable to reason that a helpless creature, who possesses all the requisites of humanity within himself, should be called God? Can reason accept that a creature should flog its Creator, and the servants of God should spit in the face of their Almighty God, and seize Him, and crucify Him, and He, being God, should be helpless to counter them? Can anyone understand how a person, being called God, should pray all night, and then his prayer is not accepted? Can any heart be at ease with the idea that God, like a helpless child, should remain in the womb for nine months, consume menstrual blood, and finally be born screaming from a woman’s private parts? Can any intelligent person accept that after an innumerable and beginningless time, God should become embodied, one piece of Him taking the form of a man and another that of a dove, and these bodies should be a permanent chain around their necks?”⁴¹

(Contd.)

Endnotes

1.  Rev. E. M. Wherry, M.A., A Comprehensive Commentary on The Quran: Comprising Sale’s Translation and Preliminary Discourse, Vol. 1, (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1882), Preface, p. vii.

2.  Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^as, Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya, Part 3, Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 1, pp. 402-403, footnote 11.

3.  Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad^ra, Tafsir-e-Kabir, Vol. 3, p. 76, Commentary on Surah Yunus, verse 38.

4.  Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^as, Chashma-e-Ma‘rifat, Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 23, p. 320.

5.  Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^as, Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya, Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 1, pp. 108-109.

6.  Ibid., pp. 109-110.

7.  Ibid., pp. 241-242, footnote 11.

8.  Ibid., pp. 266-270, footnote 11.

9.  Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad^ra, Tafsir-e-Kabir, Vol. 3, p. 76, Commentary on Surah Yunus, verse 38.

10.  Ibid., p. 78.

11.  Arthur S. Peake, ed., A Commentary on the Bible, (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1957), p. 727.

12.  Luke 1:1-4.

13.  2 Corinthians 11:17.

14.  2 Corinthians 11:17, The New English Bible, (Oxford University Press, 1961).

15.  2 Corinthians 11:21-23.

16.  1 Corinthians 7:25-26.

17.  Revelation 22:18-19.

18.  Revelation 22:8-9.

19.  1 Thessalonians 4:15-18.

20.  Matthew 24:29-35.

21.  Matthew 16:28.

22.  Mark 8:38, 9:1.

23.  Mark 13:11.

24.  Madeleine S. Miller and J. Lane Miller, Black’s Bible Dictionary, (London: 1954), p. 489, under “New Testament”.

25.  Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^as, Chashma-e-Masihi, Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 20, p. 350.

26.  Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm., The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible, (Westminster, Maryland: The Newman Press, 1957), pp. 37-38.

27.  Ibid., pp. 38-39.

28.  The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 7, (Nashville, New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1951), under Mark 16:8, p. 915.

29.  Mark 16:8.

30.  Luke 24:51-52, King James Version.

31.  Luke 24:51-52, Revised Standard Version.

32.  Luke 24:51-52, The New English Bible, (Oxford University Press, 1961).

33.  1 Thessalonians 4:14-18.

34.  Matthew 24:29-35.

35.  Matthew 16:27-28.

36.  Mark 8:38, 9:1.

37.  The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia, Vol. 2, 1975 ed., (Chicago, London), p. 953, under “The Gospel According to Matthew”.

38.  Ibid., p. 955.

39.  2 Peter 1:1.

40.  The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 12, (Nashville, New York: Abingdon Press, 1951), pp. 163–164, under heading “II Peter”.

41.  Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^as, Kitab-ul-Bariyyah, Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 13, pp. 85-87.

(Originally published in Urdu in Muwazna-e-Madhahib, Vol. 1, no. 1, December 2011, pp. 26-52. Translated by Iftekhar Ahmed, Ahmadiyya Archive & Research Centre)