Alteration
No. 1:
The Period from Adam to the Flood
The period from Adam to
the flood of Noah, as described by the Hebrew version, is one thousand six
hundred and fifty-six years, while according to the Greek version, it is two
thousand three hundred and sixty-two years[1]
and the Samaritan version gives it as one thousand three hundred and seven
years. A table is given in the commentary of Henry and Scott where the age of
every descendant has been given at the time when he gave birth to his son except
Noah, whose age is given a s at the time of the flood.
This table is as follows:
|
NAME
|
HEBREW
VERSION
|
SAMARITAN
VERSION
|
GREEK
VERSION
|
|
The
Prophet
Adam
|
130
|
130
|
230
|
|
Seth
|
105
|
105
|
205
|
|
Cainan
|
70
|
70
|
170
|
|
Mabalabel
|
65
|
65
|
165
|
|
Jared
|
162
|
62
|
162
|
|
Enoch
|
65
|
65
|
165
|
|
Methuselah
|
187
|
67
|
187
|
|
Lamech
|
182
|
53
|
188
|
|
Noah
|
600
|
600
|
600
|
|
Total
|
1650
|
1307
|
2262
|
The
above table shows extremely serious differences between the statements of all
three versions. All three versions agree that the age of the Prophet Noah at the
time of the flood was six hundred and the total age of Adam was nine hundred and
thirty. However according to the Samaritan version the Prophet Noah was two
hundred and thirteen years of age when Adam died which is obviously wrong and
goes against the unanimous agreement of the historians and is also erroneous
according to the Hebrew and Greek versions. For according to the former, Noah
was born one hundred and twenty-six years after the death of Adam and, according
to the latter, he was born seven hundred and thirty-two years after the death of
Adam. In view of this serious discrepancy,
the renowned historian of the Jews,
Josephus, who is also
recognized by the Christians, did not accept the statement of any of the three
versions and decided that the correct period was two thousand two hundred and
fifty-six years.
Alteration
No. 2:
The period from the Flood to Abraham
The period from the
Flood of Noah to the birth of the Prophet Abraham is given as two hundred and
ninety-two years in the Hebrew version, one thousand and seventy-two years in
the Greek, and nine hundred and forty-two years in the Samaritan version. There
is another table covering this period in the Henry and Scott commentary where
against every descendant of Noah, the year of the birth of their sons is given
except in the case of Shem, against whose name the year of birth is given
for his child who was born after the Flood.
This
table is as follows:
|
NAME
|
HEBREW
|
SAMARITAN
|
GREEK
|
|
Shem
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
|
Arphaxad
|
35
|
135
|
135
|
|
Cainan
|
ÜÜÜ
|
ÜÜ
|
130
|
|
Salah
|
30
|
130
|
130
|
|
Eber
|
34
|
134
|
134
|
|
Peleg
|
30
|
130
|
130
|
|
Rew
|
32
|
132
|
132
|
|
Sherug
|
30
|
130
|
130
|
|
Nohor
|
29
|
79
|
79
|
|
Terah[3]
|
70
|
70
|
70
|
|
Total
|
290
|
942
|
1072
|
This discrepancy
among the three versions is so serious that it can not be explained. Since the
Hebrew version informs us that Abraham was born two hundred and ninety-two years
after the Flood and that Noah lived for three hundred and fifty years after the
Flood as is understood from Genesis:
And Noah lived after the
flood three hundred and fifty years. [4]
This means that Abraham was fifty-eight
years old at the death of Noah which is wrong according to the Greek and
Samaritan versions and according to the unanimous decision of the historians.
The Greek version places the birth of Abraham seven hundred and twenty-two years
after the death of Noah while the Samaritan makes it five hundred and ninety-two
years after his death. Secondly, in the Greek version an additional generation
is given that is not to be found in the other two versions. The Evangelist Luke
trusted the Greek version and therefore included in the genealogy of Christ the
name of Canaan.
This great discrepancy
in the statements of the above three versions has caused great difference of
opinion among Christians. The historians rejected all three versions and decided
that actual period in this case was three hundred and fifty-two years. Josephus,
the renowned Jewish historian, also rejected the above three versions and said
that the correct figure was nine hundred and ninety-three years, as is evident
from the Henry and Scott commentary. The great theologian of the fourth century,
Augustan, and other ancient writers favoured the statement of the Greek version.
Horsley, the commentator, expressed the same opinion in his comments on Genesis,
while Hales thinks that the Samaritan version was correct. The scholar Home also
seems to support the Samaritan version. Henry and Scott’s commentary includes this statement:
Augustine held the opinion that the Jews
had distorted the description in the Hebrew version with regard to the elders
who lived either prior to the Flood or after it up to the time of Moses, so that
the Greek version would be discredited, and because of the enmity which they had
against Christianity. It seems that the ancient Christians also favoured this
opinion. They thought that this alteration was made by them in 130.
Horne says in the first volume of his
commentary:
The scholar Hales
presented strong argument in favour of the Samaritan version. It is not possible
to give a summary of his arguments here. The curious reader may see his book
from page 80 onward.
Kennicott said:
If we keep in mind the general behaviour
of the Samaritans towards the Torah, and also the reticence of Christ at the
time of his discourse with the Samaritan woman, and many other points, we are
led to to believe that the Jews made deliberate alterations in the Torah, and
that the claim of the scholars of the Old and the New Testament, that the
Samaritans made deliberate changes, is baseless.
Christ’s
discourse
with a Samaritan woman referred to in the above passage is found in the Gospel
of John where we find:
The woman saith unto
him, Sir, I perceive that Thou art a prophet. Our father worshipped in this
mountain; and ye say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship[5]
The Samaritan woman,
convinced that Christ was a Prophet, asked about the most disputed matter
between the Jews and the Samaritans in respect of which each of them accused the
other of making alterations to the original text. Had the Samaritans distorted
it, Christ, being a Prophet, must have disclosed the truth. Instead, he
kept silent on the matter, implying that the Samaritans were right and showing
that there must be human manipulations in the text of the Holy Scriptures.
Alteration No. 3:
Mount Gerizim or Mount Ebal
We find the following
statement in Deuteronomy:
It shall be when ye be
gone over Jordan that ye shall set up these stones, which I command you this
day, in mount Ebal, and thou shall plaster them with plaster[6]
On the other hand the
Samaritan version contains:
…the stones which I command set them up in Gerizim.
Ebal and Gerizim are two mountains adjacent to each other as is known
from verses 12 and 13 of the same chapter and from 11:29 of the same book.
According to the Hebrew version it is clear that the Prophet Moses had commanded
them to build a temple on Mount Ebal, while from the Samaritan version we know
that he commanded this temple to be built on Gerizim. This was a matter of great
dispute between the Jews and the Samaritans, and each of them accused the other
of altering the original text of the Pentateuch. The same dispute is found among
Protestant scholars on this point. Adam Clarke, the famous Protestant scholar,
says on page 817 of the first volume of his commentary:
The scholar Kennicott
maintained that the Samaritan version was correct, while the scholars Parry and
Verschuur claimed that the Hebrew version was authentic, but it is generally
know that Kennicott's arguments are irrefutable, and people positively believe
that the Jews, out of their enmity against the Samaritans, changed the text. It
is unanimously acknowledged that Mount Gerizim is full of vegetation, springs
and gardens while Mount Ebal is barren without any water and vegetation in it.
In this case Mount Gerizim fits the description of ’the place of
blessing' [7]
and Ebal as the place of curse.
The above makes us
understand that Kennicott and other scholar have favoured the Samaritan version
and that Kennicott forwarded irrefutable arguments.
Alteration
No. 4:
Seven Years or Three Years
We find the phrase
’seven years’
in ll Sam. 24:13, while I Chronicles 21:12 has ’three
year`. This has been already discussed earlier.
Obviously one of the two statements must be wrong. Adam Clarke commenting
on the statement of Samuel said:
Chronicles contains
’three years’
and not ’seven years’.
The Greek version similarly has ’three years’
and this is undoubtedly the correct statement.
Alteration
No. 5: Sister or Wife
I Chronicles of the
Hebrew version contains:
And whose sister’s name was Micah[8]
It should be
’wife’
and not ’sister’.
Adam Clarke said:
The Hebrew version
contains the word ’sister’
while the Syrian, Latin and Greek versions have the word ’wife’. The
translators have followed these versions.
Protestant scholars have
rejected the Hebrew version and followed the above translations indicating that
they too consider the Hebrew version to be erroneous.
Alteration No. 6
II Chronicles 22:2 of the Hebrew version informs us:
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.
This statement is undoubtedly wrong because his father Jehoram was forty
years [9] old when he died, and
Ahaziah was enthroned immediately after the death of his father. If the above
statement be true, he must have been two years older than his father. II Kings
reads as follows:
Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he
reigned one year in Jerusalem. [10]
Adam Clarke making
comments on the statement of Chronicles said in the second volume of his
commentaries:
The Syrian and the Arabic translations contain twenty- two years, and
some Greek translations have twenty years. Most probably the Hebrew version was
the same, but the people used to write the numbers in the form of letters. It is
most likely that the writer has substituted the letter ’mim’ (m=40) for the letter
’kaf”
(k=20).
He further said:
The statement of II Kings is correct. There is no way of comparing the
one with the other. Obviously any statement allowing a son to be older than his
father cannot be true. Home and Henry and Scott have also admitted it to the
mistake of the writers.
Alteration
No. 7
II Chronicles
28:19 of the Hebrew version contains:
The lord brought Judah low because of Ahaz king of Israel.
The word Israel in this statement is certainly wrong because Ahaz was the
king of Judah and not of Israel. The Greek and the Latin versions have the word ’Judah’.
The Hebrew version therefore has been changed.
Alteration No. 8
Psalm 40 contains this:
Mine ears hast thou opened.
Paul
quotes this in his letter to the Hebrews in these words
But a body hast thou
prepared me. [11]
One of these two statements must be wrong and manipulated.
The Christian scholars are surprised at it. Henry and Scott’s compilers said:
This
is a mistake of the scribes. Only one of the two statement is true.
They
have admitted the presence of alteration in this place but they are not definite
which of the two statements has been changed. Adam Clarke ascribes the change to
the Psalms. D’Oyly and Richard Mant observe in their comments:
It
is surprising that in the Greek translation and in the Epistle to the Hebrews
10:5 this sentence appears as: ’but a body hast thou prepared me.’
The
two commentators agree that it is the statement of the Evangel that has been
altered, that is, the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews.
Alteration No. 9
Verse 28 of Psalm 105 in
the Hebrew version includes the statement; “They
rebelled not against his words.” The Greek version on the contrary bears these words:
“They rebelled against these words.”
It can be seen that the former version negates the latter. One of the two
statements, therefore, must be wrong. Christian scholars are greatly
embarrassed here. The commentary of Henry and Scott concludes:
This difference has induced much discussion and it is obvious that the
addition or omission of a certain word has been the cause of all this.
The presence of manipulation in the text has been admitted, though they
are not able to decide which version is wrong.
Alteration
No. 10:
The Number of the Israelites
II Samuel contains this
statement:
And there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the
sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.[12]
This statement is
contradicted by I Kings:
And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and a hundred thousand
men that drew sword.
Certainly one of the two statements has been altered. Adam Clarke making
his comments on the first statement observed:
The validity of both the statements is not possible. Most probably the
first statement is correct. The historical books of the Old Testament contain
more distortions than the other books. Any effort to find conformity among them
is just useless. It is better to admit, in the beginning, what cannot be refuted
later. The authors of the Old Testament were men of inspiration but the copiers
were not.
This is a plain admission of the fact that alterations are abundant in
the books of the Old Testament and that one should objectively admit their
presence because these changes and contradictions are unexplainable.
Alteration
No. 11: Horsley's Admission
The famous commentator,
Horsley, under his comments on Judges 12:4 observed on page 291 of the first
volume of his commentary:
There is no doubt that
this verse has been distorted.
The verse referred to
is:
Then Jephtah gathered together all the man of Gilead and fought with
Ephraim: and the men of Gilead smote Ephraim, because they said, Ye Gileadites
are fugitives of Ephraim among the Ephraimites and among the Manassites.
Alteration No. 12:
Four or Forty
II Samuel l 5:7 contains:
And it came to pass after forty years that Absalom said unto the King”,
Here the word
’forty’
is undoubtedly wrong: the correct number is four. Adam Clarke said in volume two
of his book:
There is no doubt that
this text has been altered.
Alteration
No. 13: Kennicott's Admission
Adam Clarke
observed in volume 2 of his commentary under the comments on II Sam 23: 8:
According to
Kennicott three alternations have been made in this verse.
This is a plain
admission that a single verse contains three distortions.
Alteration
No. 14
I Chronicles
7:6 informs us as follows:
The sons of
Benjamin; Bela, and Becher, and Jediael, three.
While in
chapter 8 it says:
Now Benjamin
begat Bela, his first born, Ashbel the second and Aharah the third Noahah the
fourth and Repha the fifth.
These two
different statements are again contradicted by Genesis 46:21:
And the sons of Benjamin were Belah, and Becher, and Ashbel, Gera and
Naaman, Ehi and Rosh, Muppim and Huppim and Ard.
It is quite
easy to see that there are two kinds of differences in the above three
statements. The first passage informs us that Benjamin had three sons, the
second claims he had five while the third counts them as ten. Since the first
and the second statements are from the same book, it shows a contradiction in
the statements of a single author, the Prophet Ezra. Obviously only one of the
two statements can be accepted as correct making the other two statements false
and erroneous. The Judaeo-Christian scholars are extremely embarrassed and,
seeing no way out, they put the blame on the Prophet Ezra. Adam
Clarke said with regard to the first statement;
It is because the author (Ezra) could not separate the sons from the
grandsons. In fact any effort to reconcile such contradictions is of no use.
Jewish scholars think that the author Ezra did not know that some of them were
sons and the others grandsons. They also maintain that the genealogical tables
from which Ezra had copied were defective. We can do nothing but leave such
matters alone.
This is an obvious example of how the Christian as well as the Jewish
scholars find themselves helpless and have to admit the errors in Ezra’s writings.
The above admission of Adam Clarke helps us to conclude many points of
great significance. But before going into those points we must remind ourselves
that it is the unanimous claim of both Jewish and Christian scholars that the
Book of Chronicles was written by Ezra with the help of the Prophet Haggai and
Zechariah, This implies that these two books have the unanimous witness of the
three Prophets. On the other hand we have historical evidence that all the books
of the Old Testament were in a very bad condition before the invasion of
Nebuchadnezzar and after his invasion there was no trace of them left but their
names. Had Ezra not recompiled them, they would have ceased to exist then and
there. The above fact is admitted in the book which is ascribed to the Prophet
Ezra.[13]
Although the Protestants do not believe it to be inspired, they nevertheless
acknowledge it as a document of historical value. In it we find:
The Torah was burnt. No one knew anything of it. It is said that Ezra
rewrote it guided by the Holy Spirit.
Clement of Alexandria said;
All the divine books were destroyed. Then Ezra was inspired to rewrite
them.
Tertullian
observed:
It is general1y believed that Ezra recomposed these books after the
invasion of the Babylonians.
Theophylactus
said:
The Holy Books completely disappeared. Ezra gave new birth to them
through inspiration.
The Catholic, John Mill observed on page 115 of his book printed at Derby
in 1843:
All the scholars unanimously agree that the original Torah (Pentateuch)
and other original books of the Old Testament were destroyed by the forces of
Nebuchadnezzar. When the books were recompi1ed through Ezra, these too were
later on destroyed during the invasion of Antiochus.
Keeping the above information in mind will help us understand the
significance of the following six conclusions based on the observations of the
commentator. Adam Clarke.
This
number is given as 2362 in all the versions, but according to this
table it comes to 2363. The
mistake may be either in the book that the author has used or
somewhere in the table
Terah was the name of Abraham’s father, and other was. his appellation.
Some historians think that Azar was Abraham’s uncle and the Qur’an has
used the word father for uncle.
”That thou shall put the blessing upon mount Gerizim, and the curse upon
mount Ebal.” (Deut. 11:29). Obviously a p1ace of worship should be built
on a place of blessing, not on a place of curse.
l. ’Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned
h Jerusalem.”
Chr.
21:20.
II
Kings 8:26.
II
Samuel 24: 9.
Perhaps
the author is referring to the
book of Esdras because it is the book containing these events. It may be
noted that this book is not included in the Protestant Bible. However. it is
part of the Catholic Bible. In the Knox version of the Catholic Bible there
are ten chapters in the first book of Esdras and thirteen in the
second book. I was unable to find this passage in the books of Esdras. Thc
statement has been translated from Urdu. (Raazi).