Chapter 1: THE GOSPELS AND THE QUR’AN

Both Christianity and Islam claim to be revealed religions. Jesus Christ (pbut) declared that the message he was delivering was not his but God’s:

“I have not spoken of myself: but the Father which sent me, He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.”

(John 12:49)

He described himself as

“A man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God”

(John 8:40)

In the same way it is claimed in the Qur’an that the Revelation which came to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was from the Lord of the worlds:

(And lo it (i.e., the Qur’an) is a Revelation of the Lord of the worlds, which the True Spirit hath brought down upon thy heart (O Muhammad), that thou mayest be one of the warners)

(Qur’an 26: 192-194)

From this it follows that the truth of either religions depends on the accuracy with which the inspired words of its Founder have been recorded and on the textual purity of its Scripture. If

the message which was revealed by God to a prophet has not reached us exactly as it was delivered, but has been misreported and altered, then to that extent that religion may be regarded as having deviated from truth. In this chapter we shall see how far the inspired words and Revelations of Jesus and Muhammad (pbut) have been faithfully recorded in the Gospels and the Qur’an respectively, and how far these Scriptures have remained free from alteration or interpolation of any kind.

Composition & Character of the Gospels

There are four Gospels involved in the Bible – the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. In these Gospels, we come across many sayings claimed to be by Jesus. They were composed between forty and eighty years after the departure of Jesus relying on some earlier documents which are now lost. Biblical scholars have identified some of these earlier documents as (1) ‘Q’ (German Quelle = ‘Source’), a lost document in Aramaic, which reached the writers of the Gospels in a Greek translation, (2) (‘Urmarcus’ = Primitive Mark) an earlier draft of Mark’s Gospel written on the basis of Peter’s discourses about Jesus, and (3) ‘L’, a collection of reports about Jesus used only by Luke. A comparison of the Gospels will show that their authors used these lost documents in a somewhat free manner; they did not even hesitate to change some sayings contained in them to suit their own purpose.

The first Gospel to be written was that of Mark. It was written at Rome at least forty years after the so-called crucifixion of Jesus. The Gospel as we have it today is an expanded version of Urrnarcus, about which Papias, an early Christian writer, has the following to say:

“The elder John used to say, Mark having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord not accompanied him, but subsequently as I said, attached himself to Peter who used to frame his teaching to meet the wants of his hearers, and not as making a connected narrative of the Lord’s discourses.”[1]

It is not possible to say whether Urmarcus was expanded and revised to give us the Gospel of Mark as we have it by Mark himself or by some other person. Dr C. J. Cadoux who was Mackennal Professor of Church History at Oxford, thus sums up the conclusions of eminent Biblical scholars regarding the nature and composition of this Gospel:

“it was written after Peter’s martyrdom (65 A. C.), and at a time when Mark, who had not himself been a disciple of Jesus apparently had none of the personal disciples of Jesus within reach by whose knowledge he could check his narrative. These circumstances of its composition account for the existence in it, side by side, of numerous signs of accuracy and a certain number of signs of ignorance and inaccuracy.”[2]

The Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek at Antioch about 90 C. E. The author made use of at least two lost documents; ‘Q’ and ‘Urmarcus’. No independent scholar regards this Gospel as the work of Matthew the apostle of Jesus. Lf Matthew composed anything it must have been only ‘Q’.

Regarding the liberties taken by the unknown author of this Gospel with the original material, C.J. Cadoux writes:

“But a close examination of the treatment he gives to his borrowings from Mark shows that he allowed himself great freedom in editing and embroidering his material in the interest of what he regarded as the rightful honouring of the great Master. The same tendencies are often visible elsewhere when he is producing ‘Q’ or providing matter peculiar to himself. Anything, therefore, strictly peculiar to ‘Matthew’ can be accepted as historical only with great caution.”[3]

The third Gospel, the Gospel of Luke, was written somewhere in Greece about the year 80 A.C. for the benefit of “the most excellent” Theophilus, probably a high official in the Roman Empire. It was an apologetic addressed to non-Jews. The writer, who was the friend and travel-companion of St. Paul, made use of at least three lost documents, two of these were indentical with those used by the writer of Matthews Gospel and the third was peculiar to himself. Luke, who wished to bring his Gospel in line with the Pauline point of view, took even greater liberties with his source than the writer of Matthews Gospel had done.

The Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke are called “the Synoptic Gospels”, because they proceed on the basis of the same lost documents and have much in common. But the Gospel

of John is very different. The divinity and pre-existence of Jesus are affirmed in this Gospel alone, though never as a claim put forward by Jesus himself. In the opening lines of this Gospel,

the writer claims that the Divine Logos, the Word or Reason of God, Who created the world, had become incarnate in Jesus. The Gospel of John was written at or near Ephesus betwee11 the years 110 and ll5 of the Christian era by some unknown writer who was anti-semitically inclined: This is evident in his representation of Jews as the enemies of Jesus Christ (pbuh). No independent scholar regards it as the work of John the Son of Zebedee, who, according to R. H. Charles, Alfred Loisy, Robert Eisler, and other scholars, was beheaded by Agrippa I in the year 44 A.C., long before the Fourth Gospel was written. The modern Biblical scholars doubt the genuineness not only of the writer’s own views expressed in this Gospel, but also of the words put by him in the mouth of Jesus Christ. C. J. Cadoux writes:

“The speeches in the Fourth Gospel (even apart from the early messainic claim) are so different from those in the Synoptics, and so like the comments of the Fourth Evangelist himself, that both cannot be equally reliable as records of what Jesus said: Literary veracity in ancient times did not forbid, as it does now, the assignment of fictitious speeches to historical characters: the best ancient historians made a practice of composing and assigning such speeches in this way.”[4]

[1] Roberts and Donaldson (editors), The Anre·Nicene Father, Vol.I, pp. 154, 155.

[2] C.J. Cadoux: The Lyk ryffcsus, Penguin Books, p.l3.

[3] C.J. Cadoux; The Life of Jesus, Penguin Books, pp. 14,15.

[4] C.J. Cadoux : The Life of Jesus, p. 16.

The Unreliability of the Gospels

The Gospels were composed after the early Christians had become divided into different factions. They were in fact composed to propagate the special teachings of the various schools. Thus, their authors showed no hesitation in tampering with the earlier documents and other traditional materials regarding the life and teaching of Jesus to bring them in line with the views of their schools. Rev. T. G. Tucker states:

“Thus Gospels were produced which clearly reflected the conception of the practical needs of the community for which they were written. In them the traditional material was used, but these was no hesitation in altering it or making additions to it, or in leaving out what did not suit the writer’s purpose”.[1]

The four Gospels included in the Bible were not the only Gospels written in the early centuries of Christianity. There were many others, including the one called “The Gospels according to the Hebrews”, an Aramaic work which was used by the Nazarenes (as the early disciples of Jesus were called), who denied the divinity of Jesus and regarded him only as a great prophet. Towards the end of the second century the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were included in the Canon and the rest were declared to be heretical or apocryphal by the Church. Before they were canonized and accepted as scriptures, the Gospels did not have that sanctity which they have now and no one felt any compunction in altering them if anything contained in them did not suit his purpose or the purpose of his sect. Even after they were included in the Canon and declared to be the Word of God, changes continued to be made in them, as is clear from the different early extant manuscripts. Referring to this, Professor Dummelow from Cambridge writes in his famous Commentary on the Holy Bible:

“A copyist would sometimes put in not what was in the text, but what he thought ought to be in it. He would trust a fickle memory, or he would make the text accord with views of the school to which he belonged. In addition to the versions and quotations from the Christian Fathers, nearly four thousand Greek MSS of the Testament, were known to exist. As a result the variety of reading is considerable.”[2]

In considering how far the four Canonical Gospels faithfully present the inspired message or Gospel of Jesus we must bear the following facts in mind: (1) that no written copy was made

of the inspired sayings of Jesus in his life time; (2) that the earliest records of the sayings of Jesus, which were made shortly after his departure, when the glorification of Jesus had already begun, have all been irretrievably lost; (3) that in the Gospels, which were written between 70 and 115 C. E. on the basis of some lost documents, the material contained in them was handled rather freely; the Gospel-writers felt no hesitation in changing it for what they considered to be the greater glory of Christ or to bring it in line with the views of their sects; (4) that none of the Evangelists had known Jesus or heard him speaking; (5) that the Gospels were written in Greek, whereas the language spoken by Jesus was Aramaic;(6) that they were composed to

propagate the points of view of the different factions and chosen from many others which represented different view-points, (7) that for at least a century after they were written they had no canonical authority and were actually changed by the copyists of the different sects to serve their own purpose; (8) that the earliest extant manuscripts of the Gospels – Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Alexandrinus – belong to the fourth and fifth centuries, and no one knows to what extent the Gospels had been changed during the centuries of which no manuscript is available; (9) that there are considerable differences at many places among the various extant manuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries; and (10) that the Gospels, taken as a whole, are full of contradictions.

These facts disclosed by distinguished Western scholars go to show that the Gospel of Jesus, by which we mean the Message which Jesus had received from God, has not reached us in its original form. The four Gospels included in the Bible cannot be considered identical with the inspired Gospel of Jesus. The manner of their composition and the circumstances through which they have passed are such that they cannot be relied upon to give us the exact knowledge of what Jesus had said and ~ taught. C. J. Cadoux sums up the position in these words in his book Life of Jesus.

“In the four Gospels, therefore, the main documents to which we must go if we are to fill-out at all that bare sketch which we can put together from other sources, we find material of widely differing quality as regards credibility. So far-reaching is the element of uncertainty that it is tempting to ‘down tools’ at once, and to declare the task hopeless. The historical inconsistencies and improbabilities in parts of the Gospels form some of arguments advanced in favour of the Christ-myth theory. These are, however, entirely outweighed – as we have shown – by other considerations. Still, the discrepancies and uncertainties that remain are serious and

consequently many modems, who have no doubt whatever of Jesus’ real existence, regard as hopeless any attempt to dissolve out the historically-true from the legendary or mythical matter which the Gospels contain, and to reconstruct the story of ]esus’ mission out of the more historical residue.”[3]

[1] T.G. Tuncker: The History cj the Christians in the Light of Modern Knowledge, p.320.

[2] J.R. Dummelow: Commentary on the Holy Bible·, p.l6.

[3] C. J. Cadoux: op. cit., pp. 16,17.

The Authenticity of the Qur’an

On the other hand, there is no such doubt about the Glorious Qur’an. It contains nothing but the Revelations received by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The Revelations came to him in fragments, from time to time. As soon as he received any, he used to communicate it to his Companions and ask them not only to commit it to memory, but also to write it down. Muhammad (pbuh) used to indicate in a precise manner the place to which the Revelation belonged. Thus the complete Qur’an was committed to writing and also preserved in the

hearts of hundreds of Muslims in the life time of the Prophet.

After the demise of the Prophet, Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, charged Zaid ibn Thabit with the task of preparing an authentic copy of the entire Text in the form of a book. The Companions of the Prophet wrote the Revelations that had come to the Prophet on parchments or pieces of leather. Zaid ibn Thabit collected all these and, after comparing them with what the followers of the Prophet had learnt by heart, compiled a copy, called Mushaf (bound leaves), about the genuineness or correctness of which there was absolutely no doubt.

At the order of ‘Uthman, the third Caliph, seven copies of the Mushaf edition of the Glorious Qur’an, again confined by the memory of those who had learnt it by heart (hafiz), were prepared and sent to the different centers of the vast Islamic world. One of these seven copies is still in existence in Tashkent. The Czarist government of Russia had published it with a facsimile reproduction; and we see that there is a complete identity between this copy and the text otherwise in use all over the world. The same is true of the other extant MSS of the Qur’an, complete or fragmentary, dating from the first century of the Muslim era.

From the time of the Prophet to our own time the practice of learning the whole of the Qur’an by heart has continued unbroken, and the number of hafiz can now be counted by hundreds of thousands all over the world. The result is that no scholar, Eastern or Western, Muslim or non-Muslim, has ever cast any doubt on the purity of the text of the Glorious Qur’an. Even such an unfriendly critic as Sir William Muir writes about the Qur’an:

“There is probably in the world no other book which has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text.”[1]

[1] Sir William Muir, The Life of Mohamet, Introduction, p.l8.