|
|
|
Is The Bible Corrupted?
Before I go into any detail, I
would very briefly like to tell you that if someone gathers up the courage to
ask the same questions about the Bible, that the author has asked about the
"Muslim claim" of corruption in the text of the Bible, it would be
very difficult, if not impossible to get precise answers to these questions.
There is a tremendous difference in the scholars of the Bible, regarding who,
precisely, were the authors of most of the books and exactly when and where
these books were written. This is also the reason why, as the author says,
"No Muslim (or the textual scholars of the Bible) could ever answer these
questions. I wonder why??". Thus, believing in the complete
Bible, that we have at hand, to be of a Divine origin, needs a lot of faith.
Blind faith - for there exists no other ground for believing so. For example, let us just consider
the authorship of some of the most important books of the Christian faith. C. F.
Evans writes in "The Cambridge History of the Bible", Vol. I,
"The New Testament: The New Testament in the Making", 1970: With the
exception of the Pauline letters the New Testament writings were relatively slow
in appearing and a high proportion of them are anonymous. (p. 233) He writes further: ... such
external evidence on matters of origin, authorship, sources and date as has come
down from the second and succeeding centuries is very meager, and, when itself
subjected to critical examination, turns out to be of dubious value, if not
worthless. (C. F. Evans, The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. I, "The
New Testament: The New Testament in the Making", 1970, p. 235) About the Pauline letters, the
author writes: Further
elucidations of the Pauline letters as documents in the Church is faced by three
not unconnected problems, their formation into a corpus, their unity and
authenticity, and their chronology; and in each case the data are insufficient
for a solution. (C. F. Evans, The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. I,
"The New Testament: The New Testament in the Making", 1970, p. 239) The Encyclopedia Britannica says
about the Gospel of Mark: Though
the author of Mark is probably unknown, authority is traditionally derived from
a supposed connection with the Apostle Peter, who had transmitted the traditions
before his martyr death under Nero's persecution (c. 64-65). Papias, a 2nd
century bishop in Asia Minor, is quoted as saying that Mark had been Peter's
amanuensis (secretary) who wrote as he remembered (after Peter's death), though
not in the right order... (harmony of the Gospels). (Biblical Literature and Its
Critical Interpretation, THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS, The Gospel According to Mark:
Background and overview.) Regarding the Gospel of Matthew,
the encyclopedia says: 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. (Biblical Literature and
Its Critical Interpretation, The Gospel According to Matthew.) Regarding the Gospel of Luke, it
says: The
author has been identified with Luke, "the beloved physician," Paul's
companion on his journeys, presumably a Gentile (Col. 4:14 and 11; cf. II Tim.
4:11, Philem. 24). There is no Papias fragment concerning Luke, and only late 2nd
century traditions claim (somewhat ambiguously) that Paul was the
guarantor of Luke's Gospel traditions. The Muratorian Canon refers to Luke, the
physician, Paul's companion; Irenaeus depicts Luke as a follower of Paul's
gospel. Eusebius has Luke as an Antiochene physician who was with Paul in order
to give the Gospel apostolic authority. References are often made to Luke's
medical language, but there is no evidence of such language beyond that to which
any educated Greek might have been exposed. Of more import is the fact that in
the writings of Luke specifically Pauline ideas are significantly missing; while
Paul speaks of the death of Christ, Luke speaks rather of the suffering, and
there are other differing and discrepant ideas on Law and eschatology. In short,
the author of this gospel remains unknown. (Biblical Literature and Its Critical
Interpretation, The Gospel According to Luke.) Regarding the Gospel of John, it
writes: 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. (Biblical Literature and Its
Critical Interpretation, THE FOURTH GOSPEL: THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN,
Uniqueness of John.) Likewise, consider the following
statement that appears in "The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian
Church", regarding the Gospel of John: The
Apostolic origin of the book, however, is contested by a large body of modern
scholars whose position vary from a complete rejection of both its authenticity
and its historicity to the admission of Apostolic inspiration and a certain
historical value. The unity of the book has been disputed esp. by German
scholars, e.g. J. Wellhausen, R. Bultmann. Where its unity is admitted, its
attribution to John the Presbyter is favoured. (The Oxford Dictionary of the
Christian Church, John The Apostle, 1974, pg. 743) Again, in "Peakes Commentary
on the Bible", the introduction of the Gospel of John starts with the
following words: The
origin of this Gospel is veiled in obscurity (Peakes Commentary on the Bible, C.
K. Barrett, "John", Nelson 1967) Knox, (although not ascribing to
this view) in his "New Testament Commentary" writes about the
authorship of John's Gospel: The
picture which emerges (according to these critics) is that of a profound logical
treatise, composed late in the first or more probably early in the second
century, by some unknown author who had a thesis to propound, and did so under
the (now established) literary form of a "gospel". It was not,
evidently, a fisherman from Galilee who had the learning and the culture to
leave such a monument behind him. Possibly the author may have been that
"John the elder" who is referred to by Papias (Eusebius'
Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.4 and 14) as a valuable source of early tradition.
(Knox, New Testament Commentary, Introduction, 1955, pg. xiii) Knox, further states, regarding
the Gospel of John: In
21.24, and possibly in 19.35, another hand, not that of the author has made its
contribution (cf. Rom. 16.22). This raises the question whether we ought to
think of John as sitting and writing the gospel with his own hand. It is
improbable that one who was regarded as "a simple man, without
learning" by his own fellow countrymen (Acts 4.13) would have lived to
write Greek as idiomatic as that of the Fourth gospel. (Knox, New Testament
Commentary, Introduction, 1955, pg. xv). In a situation like this, anyone
who holds these books to be Divine cannot afford to have the strict criteria, as
is mentioned by the author of your quoted article. Yes, he has all the right in
the world to ask questions as to what exactly are the discrepancies or
corruption in the text of the Bible, and why does one believe them to be
discrepancies or corruption, but I am afraid that insisting on the answers of
the quoted questions and still believing the Bible to be Divine, can only be
done if one is prone to believing and rejecting things by applying absolutely
different criteria for the two. Now, let us see what
"Corruption in the Bible" really means. To fully understand what a Muslim
means when he says that the Bible is corrupted, we must first understand what,
in the mind of a Muslim, is uncorrupted revealed literature. Briefly stated, the
Muslims, for this purpose have basically two criteria. Firstly, the Muslim mind contrary
to (a majority of) the early Christians, at least such Christians as played a
major role in the canonization1
of the books of the New Testament, does not believe that God's revelation is
accessible to all men without distinction2.
On the contrary, it believes that God reveals His words to those He selects
from amongst men. Such men are of impeccable character and repute. They, bring
with them clear evidences of their Divine authority. These men are called
Prophets, or Messengers of God, by the Muslims. Whatever they say, and whatever
they do with reference to religious beliefs or actions, gets the status of True
Religious Teachings. No one other than the prophets or messengers of God holds
this position. The Apostles or Messengers of any prophet, are by their very
name, subordinate to the prophets (or messengers of God). They are only to
deliver the message of the prophet, as the prophet was to deliver the message of
God. Thus, God reveals his words to His prophets or messengers only. Whereas,
the apostles and messengers of these prophets do not speak or write with Divine
inspiration, they are only to deliver the message of the prophet, which in turn,
no doubt, was Divinely Inspired. Thus, due to this belief of the Muslims, they
believe that the origin of any Divine literature must lie with some Prophet (and
thus God)... not with the prophet's Disciples or Apostles. Secondly, such writings, actions
or sayings of the prophet must come down to us in unbroken and absolutely
dependable chains of transmission of such tradition. For instance, it should not
be so that a compilation of the sayings of a prophet, suddenly is made available
to the world, while in the past it is not known to exist. If such be the case,
the Muslim mind would not base its religious beliefs3
on such a narrative. This also means that such transmission, is kept clean of
any and all kinds of alteration. And is delivered to us, in exactly the same
words, as it was, when delivered to the companions of the prophet. Thus, when a Muslim says that the
text of the Bible is corrupted, all that is really implied is
For instance, Muslims believe
that the Torah (Torat) was revealed to Moses, and the Gospel (Injil) was
revealed to Jesus. But, it is pretty obvious from these books, as they appear in
the Bible today, that neither of the two books were written by these writers, or
even dictated by them. Torah, as well as the Gospels are more of historian's
accounts of the lives and teachings of Moses and Jesus respectively, than books
revealed to them. Thus, I really don't think that anyone who is aware of the
history of the compilation of the Bible really has any problems in accepting the
statement of the Muslims that the various books of the Bible, as we have them
today are more likely to be a lot different from what was revealed to and then
taught by the Prophets to which they are ascribed. The Bible, that is normally read
around the world today, is basically a translation of the (narration of the)
original text. The various books that constitute the Bible today were first
written in languages other than English or German or Urdu or Arabic. For
example, the Genesis is thought to be originally written in Hebrew. So is Exodus
and also the other books of the pentateuch. Let us first consider the Torah
(or the Pentateuch). The Torah is believed to be revealed by God to Moses (May
Peace & Blessings of Allah be upon him). Thus, it is taken to be revealed
somewhere around the 13th century BC. But the books that we have with
us today, that constitute Torah, do not date as farther back. Furthermore,
experts on the text of the Bible also believe that the Torah, as we have it now,
was not written or even dictated by Moses (Peace be upon him) himself. Geddes
MacGregor, in his book, "The Bible in the Making" writes: All you
have to do to see that the Old Testament as we know it did not come straight
from the pen of its several authors, is to look at the first three chapters of
Genesis. There you will find two quite distinct accounts of the creation of man.
The account in the first chapter is startling different from the account in the
second and third.... ...
There is no doubt that these two stories of the creation of man which have been
set down together in the opening chapters of Genesis belong to very different
periods. The second is by far the more primitive one, and between the writings
of the two narratives about as much time elapsed, as has elapsed between the day
of Christopher Columbus and our own. The disparity is obvious from the character
of the stories themselves: you can detect it in reading them alongside each
other in an English Bible. If you were reading them in Hebrew you would be
struck by the fact that throughout the first account, the word used for
"God" is from "Elohim", while in the second the name
assigned is that of "Yahweh". The use
of the term "Elohim" goes further back, however, than the date of the
passages in Genesis in which it is used. A study of various passages in the
Hebrew Bible shows that there must have been originally two documents, of which
the author of the more primitive one used the name Yahweh in referring to God,
while the author of the other used the name Elohim. Scholars call the first
document J, from "Jahveh" ("Yahweh"), and the second
document E, from "Elohim". (Chapter III, The Writing of the Old
Testament, Pg. 23-24, 1961) The author, has then described
briefly how the first six books of the Hebrew Bible have come down to us. A
summary of the writer's description follows4:
In other words, J and E are the
two most primitive narrations of the life and teachings of Moses (though not
written or dictated by him), both these narratives are not similar, and differ
with each other in many respects. J (written somewhere around 850 BC)6
and E (around 750 BC) were combined and added upon in (around) 650 BC and the
resultant document was called JE. In (around) 550 BC, further additions were
made from a document called D (dated around 621 BC) and thus, the document
now became JED. In (around) 400 BC, priestly ritual laws, (written around
500 - 450 BC) were added to JED - now growing to JEDP. JEDP, as it became in 400
BC, is the Pentateuch (The Torah) as we now know it. Thus, a book considered and
believed to be written by and revealed to Moses (around the 13th
century) is actually written in the fourth or the fifth century7.
This, then is the reality about
the Torah. There is no doubt, at least in my mind after reading the text of
these books that they do contain parts of revelations to Moses. But, the
situation, as it actually stands does not allow me to stand certain that all the
material contained therein is revelation - all revelation. Thus, Geddes
MacGregor writes: There
are, indeed, probably echoes in the Old Testament itself of dissatisfaction with
the revisions. Jeremiah, for instance, having questioned whether his compatriots
are justified in their confidence in possessing the Law of God revealed to
Moses, warns them: "Behold, the false pen of the scribes hath wrought
falsely (Jeremiah viii. 8)". The position of most of the other
books of the Old Testament is not very different. Now, let us turn towards the New
Testament. The New Testament does not
consist of any book that even claims to be written or dictated or even proposed
to be written by Jesus (may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) - the
prophet of God (as Muslims believe him to be), to whom, as the Muslims believe,
the real Injil was revealed. All the New Testament consists of, besides the book
called "Revelation", are four biographies of Jesus (may peace be upon
him) claimed to be written by his disciples, and some letters (claimed to be) of
his disciples. The case of "Revelation" is just a little bit
different, as it is presented completely as a narrative of a dialogue of Jesus
with one of his disciples. Recognizing this fact, C. F. Evans writes: The only
New Testament book, which appears to have been written self-consciously as if
for canonical status (but only until the imminent end) is Revelation, with its
solemn blessing on those who read and hear it and its threat of damnation on
anyone who adds to or subtracts from it, but this is because writing had become
a solemn and mysterious act in the apocalyptic tradition, and it is significant
that Revelation, though a mosaic of Old Testament phrases and allusions, nowhere
makes any explicit citation from it. (C. F. Evans, The Cambridge History of the
Bible, Vol. I, "The New Testament: The New Testament in the Making",
1970, p. 234) In the beginning, it seems, all
the writings now included in the New Testament, with many others that were in
circulation among Christians, were written only to preserve the life and
teachings of Jesus, as was understood or interpreted by their respective
writers. Most of these writings, it seems were never meant, initially, to become
the basis or canons of a new religion. So, whoever had anything related to the
life and teachings of Jesus, which he thought to be important, was written down,
so that no part of it was lost in oblivion. This, is quite understandable.
Disciples of all great people tend to do so. And no doubt, such writings are of
great importance for a student of history. But, placing them at the exalted
status of canons or basis of a new religious belief, does not seem to be quite
justified. Thus, it seems that initially, no one even thought about collecting
and publishing all the writings that were in circulation8
and at that time they were, probably, not even as much revered as they
later became. C. F. Evans writes: So long
as Christianity stood close to Judaism, or was predominantly Jewish, scripture
remained the Old Testament, and this situation can be seen persisting in such a
document as I Clement, with its frequent and almost exclusive appeal to the Old
Testament text. The elevation of Christian writings to the position of a new
canon, like those writings themselves, was primarily the work of Gentile
Christianity, whose literature also betrays a feeling that the very existence of
the Old Testament was now a problem to be solved and that there was need of some
new and specifically Christian authority. ... what eventually took place was
precisely what in the earliest days of the Church could hardly have been
conceived, namely, the creation of a further Bible along with that already in
existence, which was to turn it into the first of two, and in the end to
relegate it to the position of 'old' in a Bible now made up of two testaments.
The history of the development of the New Testament Canon is the history of the
process by which books written for the most part for other purposes and from
other motives came to be given this unique status; and the study of the New
Testament is in part an investigation of why there were any such writings to
canonize, and of how, and in what circumstances, they came to possess such
qualities as fitted them for their new role, and made it impossible for them to
continue simply as an expansion of, or supplement to, something else. (C. F.
Evans, The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. I, "The New Testament: The
New Testament in the Making", 1970, p. 234 - 235) He further writes: During
the apostolic age the Christian Bible consisted of the Old Testament alone. (C.
F. Evans, The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. I, "The New Testament:
The New Testament in the Making", 1970, p. 286) The Muslim mind is simply
confused by the fact that if the books that now constitute the New Testament
were truly believed to be of Divine origin at the time of their writing, then
how can such careless attitude towards such books be seen at that time. It seems
quite obvious that this status was given to these books only at a later stage.
Initially, they were neither considered as Divine, nor as canons of a new
religion, but simply narrations of the teachings of a prophet by such people who
were his companions or by those who had been companions of his companions.
Nothing more than that. Later on, when it was felt that these narrations were
all that existed about this prophet, and if such careless attitude continued
towards these narrations, then, in due course of time, nothing would remain
existent about the teachings of this prophet. Thus, for this purpose, these
writings had to be canonized and made the basis of a new religion, as nothing
else existed. Furthermore, to better the attitude towards them, it was claimed
that they were Divinely Inspired and not just writings like any other of their
age. Geddes MacGregor writes: Prominent
in the measures taken to safeguard the Church against the dangers that beset it
was the attempt to provide a body of Scripture that could be set side by side
with the Old Testament and have, for Christians, a comparable status. But this
movement to limit the Christians Scriptures to a fixed number of books was much
stronger among some Christian communities than among others. (Geddes MacGregor,
The Bible in the Making, Chapter IV, How The New Testament Took Shape, 1961, p
39 - 40) This process of selecting some of
the books that were in circulation at that time as more authoritative and making
a New Testament on their basis, initiated in the second century. By the end of
the second century Churches in the West, especially Rome, accepted some books to
be more authoritative and started calling them the New Testament. In this
categorization of the books in circulation, Revelation, the Epistle to the
Hebrews, II Peter, II and III John, and Jude were considered to be less
authoritative.9
While among the Eastern or Greek Fathers, there was considerable
disagreement even in the fourth century10.
Now, let us come to the
'corruption' part of the issue. A few methods have been devised
by textual scholars of the Bible to infer which of the text given in the old
manuscripts is most likely that of the originally written document. A number of
books have been written on the explanation of these methods. One such book is
Bruce M. Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission,
Corruption and Restoration". The author, in the preface of the book has
briefly mentioned why it is important to apply textual criticism on the Bible.
He states: The
necessity of applying textual criticism to the books of the New Testament arises
from two circumstances: (a) none of the original documents is extant, and (b)
the existing copies differ from one another. The textual critic seeks to
ascertain from the divergent copies which form of the text should be regarded as
most nearly conforming to the original. (Bruce M. Metzger's "The Text of
the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration", 1964) This statement, in other words
simply means that the oldest of the manuscripts of the New Testament that we
have, do not comply with each other. In such a state, a simple mind, is
obviously prone to believing that the text of the New Testament, from its oldest
of days was not safe from corruption. C. F. Evans after a detailed
analysis of the various reasons that can be ascribed to the variant readings of
the New Testament presents his conclusion in the following words: Thus a
study of the history of the text of the New Testament in the earliest and
formative period shows a number of different factors at work. In the first
place, the New Testament documents have been open to the normal hazards of
manuscript transmission. This is evident in some lines of descent.... It is
still a matter of debate whether any places have been so affected in all lines
of transmission: a plausible case for corruption might be made in John 3: 25, I
Cor. 6: 5, Col. 2: 18, and Jas. 1: 17, to mention only some striking
instances... Another debated factor is the influence of doctrine upon the text.
It is understandable that many scholars, conscious of the sensibilities of
fellow-churchmen, and often sharing those sensibilities themselves (whether from
a consciously conservative standpoint or not), should have denied that any
variant had arisen from alteration in the interest of some doctrinal issue.
However, we have seen that there are instances where we run in the face of the
evidence if we deny the presence of this factor in the development of the text.
Many variants which can be traced to the second century bear the mark of the
development of doctrine... Many variants of a different kind have sprung from
the closely related factor of interpretation... Lastly, we perceive that change
has come about as a result of the history of the Greek language, both conscious
changes from locutions deemed barbaric to others considered cultured, and
unconscious changes such as arose through the disappearance of the dative case
or the attenuation of the perfect. (C. F. Evans, The Cambridge History of the
Bible, Vol. I, "The New Testament: The New Testament in the Making",
1970, p. 375 - 376) Bruce M. Metzger has outlined the
causes of error in the transmission of the text of the New Testament, in a
separate chapter of his book, "The Text of The New Testament". He has
broadly divided such errors into two categories11:
(a) Unintentional Changes, and (b) Intentional Changes. In unintentional
changes, he mentions the following:
While in intentional changes,
the following are mentioned:
The author has given a number of
examples under each sub-category of these changes. This, then, is what confuses the
Muslim mind to the extent that is quite well known. The Muslims do not believe
that the books that now constitute the New Testament were written by Jesus
(peace be upon him), whereas, the basis of Christianity is ascribed to him. Even
if these books were ascribed to Jesus (peace be upon him), the Muslims have
never been provided with unbroken and dependable chains of transmission of these
books from one generation to the next, till it reaches Jesus (peace be upon
him). Lastly, even experts on the text of the Bible believe that it has not
remained safe from intentional and/or unintentional changes in the text.... I am afraid, in the situation as
it stands, the Muslims have no option but to believe that the books of the Bible
as we have them today do not truly reflect the true teachings of the prophets to
whom they are ascribed. 1-
Canonization, very simply stated, means the acceptance of some of the writings
that were in circulation, in the early period of Christianity, as authoritative,
while not giving this position to other such writings 2-
As has been stated by C. F. Evans in his article "The New Testament: The
New Testament in the Making", The Cambridge History of the Bible,
Cambridge, 1970, p. 286 3-
Note that such narratives would not become the "basis" of religious
doctrine for the muslims. This does not imply that such narratives would be out
rightly rejected. 4-
See Geddes MacGregor's "The Bible in the Making", Chapter III, 1961. 5-
The author writes: ...
indeed they were no doubt based on an oral tradition of a farewell address given
by that great leader of the early Hebrews. The writer of Deuteronomy
incorporated older materials in his work such as the "Blessing"
(Deuteronomy xxxiii); but the ideals and sentiments he expressed are those of
his own age, not that of Moses. 6-
It must be remembered that the time of Moses is around the 13th century, and the
most ancient narrative, and that too only a part of the Torah is not earlier
than c. 850 BC. 7-
See table in Geddes MacGregor's "The Bible in the Making", Chapter
III, 1961, p 26 8-
Also see Geddes MacGregor's "The Bible in the Making" 1961, Chapter
IV, How the New Testament took shape, p. 35 9-
see Geddes MacGregor, The Bible in the Making, Chapter IV, How The New Testament
Took Shape, 1961, p 40. 10-
see Geddes MacGregor, The Bible in the Making, Chapter IV, How The New Testament
Took Shape, 1961, p 41. 11-
(Bruce M. Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission,
Corruption and Restoration", 1964. p 186 - 206) |
|
|
