Testimonies of Christian Scholars
by
Brother A. D. AJIJOLA (Bar at Law)
[ Back ]
After citing the internal
evidence of the confused character of the New Testament, we cite the testimony
of Christian scholars
1. In
the Commentary on the Bible by
Horn 1882 ( Vol .IV .Part 2, Chapter 2 ) we read that the facts relating to the composition of the
Gospels, which have reached us from the ancient historians of the Church,
are so uncertain and so slender that no definite conclusion can be drawn
from them. Even the best authorities seem to accept as Gospel truth the
speculation current in their time and, out of sheer reference, those who
come after accept their authority. The narratives, partly false and partly
true, pass from one writer to another and after a time begin to be treated
as though they were above criticism.
2. In
the same volume we have that the first Gospels seems to have been recorded
in the year 37 or 38 or 41 or 43 or 48 or 61-62 AD. ; the second at any time
from 56 to 65 A.D., probably between 60-63 ; the third about 53
or 63 or 64; and fourth in 68 or 69 or 70 or 97 or 98 A.D. The
evidence with regard to the Epistle to the Hebrew, the second Epistle of
Peter and the second and third Epistles of John, the Epistle of James and
the Epistle of Jude, the revelation of St. John is so confused that we had
better not speak of it. These have been attributed to the disciples without
any sound reasons.
3
Eusebius
in his History of the Church
(Vol. IV, Chapter 3) writes that the first Epistle of Peter is genuine. His second Epistle has
never been part of the Holy Book, but has been current in reading.
4. In
the same book (Chapter 25) we read that the Epistle of James and the Epistle
of Jude and the second Epistle of Peter and the second and third Epistle of
John have all been held in great doubt. It is not known whether these were
composed by the writers of the Gospels or by others with their names.
5. In
the Encyclopedia
Biblica (Vol. IV,
p 4980) the following “The New Testament was written by Christian for
speaking communities and the style of writing (with the exception, possibly,
of the Apocalypse) was that of current literary composition. There has been
no real break 8in the continuity of the Greek-speaking Church and we find
according that few real blunders of writing are met with in leading types of
the extant texts. This states of things has not prevented variations; they
are not for the most part accidental. An overwhelming majority of the
‘various readings’ of the MSS of the New Testament were from the very
first intentional alterations. The New Testament in very early times had not
canonical authority, and alterations and additions were actually made where
they seemed improvements”
That
is to say, the New Testament was written by Christians for Christians. Moreover
it was written for Greek-speaking people, and the style was in keeping with
current taste. There has been o break in the continuity of the Greek-speaking
Church. There are, therefore, no serious errors, of transcription in the current
versions, though we cannot say there are not contradictions. The contradictions,
however, are not accidental but deliberate. It seems that from the very
beginning some authors entered these alterations into the text of the New
Testament.
The
truth seems to be that the New Testament in the beginning was not regarded
seriously as a revealed Book. Improvements were, therefore, made unhesitatingly
wherever these seemed possible.
6
Again we read:
(Encyclopaedia Biblica, p 4993, Vol. VI)
What is certain is that by the middle of the fourth
century, Latin Biblical MSS exhibited a most confusing variety of text, caused
at least in part by revision from inter Greek MSS as well as by modifications of
the Latin phraseology. This confusion lasted until all the ‘Old Latin’ texts
were supplanted by the revised version of Jerome (383-400 A.D.) which was
undertaken at the request of Pope Damascus and ultimately became the Vulgate of
the Western Church.
What
is absolutely certain is that in the middle of the fourth century, the Latin
copy of the Bib le was in a most confused state. The confusion was the result of
a comparison with the Greek copy and of a change in Latin terminology. These
confusion remained until Jerome’s revised version, prepared under orders of
the Pope between 383 and 400 A.D., took the place of the Old Latin version among
Christians.
7.
Similarly we have:
Moreover
important than these external matters are the variations which in course of time
crept into the text itself. Many of these variations are mere slips of the eye,
ear, memory or judgement on the part of the copyist, who had no intention to do
otherwise than follow what lay before him. But transcribers, and especially
early transcribers, by no means aimed at that minute accuracy which is expected
of a modern critical editor. Corrections were made in the interest of grammar or
of style. Slight changes were adopted in order to remove difficulties, additions
came in, especially from parallel narratives in the Gospels’ citations from
the Old Testament made more exact or move complete. That all this was done in
perfect good faith and simply because no strict conception of the duty of a
copyist existed, is especially clear from the almost entire absence of
deliberate falsification of the text in the interests of doctrinal controversy.
It may suffice to mention, in addition to what has been already said that
glosses, or notes originally written on the margin, very often ended by being
taken into the text and that the custom of reading the Scriptures in public
worship naturally brought in liturgical additions, such as the doxology of the
Lord’s Prayer; while the commencement of an ecclesiastical lesson torn from
proper context has often to be supplemented by a few explanatory words, which
soon came to be regarded as part of the original.
8.
Again we have:
(Encyclopaedia Britannica,
12th Edition, p 643, Vol III )
It
appears from what we already seen that a considerable portion of the New
Testament is made of writings not directly Apostolic
9. The following is also worth noting:
(Encyclopaedia
Britannica, 12th Edition, p 643, Vol III )Yet
, as a matter of fact, every book in the New Testament with exception of the
four great Epistles of St. Paul is at present more or less the subject of
controversy, and interpolations are asserted even in these.
10.
The New Testament is not free even today from interpolations and alterations. As
examples we have the following:
(1)
Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in
the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches. In these lay a great multitude
of important folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the
water. For an Angel went down at a
certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after
the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he
had. And a certain man as there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.
When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case,
said He unto him “Wilt thou be made whole”? (John 5:2-6)
For
hundreds of years, we had this account reproduced in the Gospels. Nobody ever
thought that it was unreliable/ But when there began controversies between the
Muslims and the Christians in the nineteenth century, verse 4 and part of verse
3 were deleted from the above passage in the Revised Version published in 1881,
our of fear of Muslim criticism, and it was noted on the margin that many
ancient authorities insert, wholly or in part, the words deleted from the text.
The question is when this portion was found in many ancient authorities, why was
the change made? Moreover, the very fact that a certain verse if found in
certain copies and is missing in others is proof of the fat that the original
text has been tampered with. There can be only two alternatives. Either we will
have to admit that the verse was not found in the original text and had only
been added by some scribes. On the other hand, it might have been there in which
case we will have to infer that certain scribes intentionally expunged the verse
from the text. In both cases that text will be considered as having been
tampered with.
(2)
In John we have:
“For
there are three (that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Son and the Holy
Ghost: and one and three are three) that bear witness (in earth), the spirit,
and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one” (John 5:7-8)
The
above passage formed part of the New Testament for centuries, but when the
Christian entered into conflict with the Muslims and the latter began to hurl
attacks at such passages, the former altered the text of their sacred Scriptures
and the words within brackets were expunged from the Revised Version published
in 1881. Now the significant point to note is that : If the words so expunged
did not form part of the original
text and were introduced into the text by somebody, it means that in 1881,
Christian scholars admitted that alterations had been made in the text for
expediency’s sake; it therefore follows that the process of tampering with the
Christian Scriptures still continues
(3)
It is again reported:
"And when they were come
to the multitude, there came to him a certain man kneeling down to him, and
saying, Lord, have mercy on my son : for he is lunatic, and sore vexed: for
oft-times he falleth into fire, and oft into the water. And I bought him to thy
disciples, and they could not cure him. Then Jesus answered and said, O
faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall
I suffer you? Bring this hither to me. And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he
departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour. Then came the
disciples to Jesus to apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? And Jesus
said unto them, because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, if ye have
faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence
to yonder place: and it shall remove: and nothing shall be impossible unto you,
Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting “ (Mathew 17: 14-21)
Christian exponents seem
to be convinced that after faith in Jesus, nothing further is required in the
way of good works to attain the pleasure and love of God. But from the passage
of Mathew quoted above it appears that this great end cannot be achieved except
by prayer and fasting. Prayer and fasting, therefore, are important instrument
for the assimilation of the grace of God. Because the disciple of Jesus did not
make use of these instruments, they are unable, according to the Gospel
narrative, to cast out a bad spirit, in spite of the fact that they had declared
faith in Jesus. Muslim critics used this passage for a vital criticism. They
said that mere faith in Jesus was not enough. Good works were also necessary and
Jesus himself had stressed the importance of prayer and fasting, and had made
use of them as instruments of spiritual advancement. If prayer and fasting were
also necessary, then faith in Jesus could not be enough, and could not release
man from the obligation to do good. This criticism was so vital that Christian
exponents found themselves unable to give any reply. The only way of escape they
found was in deleting the verse from the Gospel. According, in the Revised
Version of the Gospel according to Mathew, we do not find this verse at all. The
whole verse has been deleted and it has been proved that the Gospel text is
still subject to human interference.
It is said that in Mark
9:29 the word ‘Prayer’ is still retained: and that if the change had been
made form any bad motive this plea does not hold true. Muslim criticism was not
based on the word ‘Prayer’, for prayer is still offered by Christians. The
objection was based on the word ‘Fasting’. The verse that has been deleted
shoed that Jesus was in the habit of fasting and that he looked upon fasting as
necessary for spiritual advancement
; so the law could not be regarded as a curse. In order to avoid this criticism,
the whole verse was deleted from Mathew and the word ‘Fasting’ was deleted
from Mark. It is also possible that one party of the revisers thought it
necessary to omit the whole verse, while another party thought it sufficient to
omit only the word ‘fasting’.
Source : "The Myth of the Cross
"
(ICRA)
[ Home ] [ Christianity ] [ Bible ] [ Christian Salvation Scheme ] [ Converts ] [ Prophesies ] [ True followers of Jesus ] [ Jesus-the Son of Man ] [ Jesus- the Son of God ] [ Women ] [ Bible and the Modern Sceince ] [ Holy Sins ] [ Comparative Studies ] [ links ] [ About us ] [ Contact us ] [ Site Map ]