Chapter V

AUTHENTICITY OF THE BIBLE

 

 

·       Character of the Gospel

·       Christian Leaders Can Change the Bible

·       Testimony of Christian Scholars  

Christianity is a matter of history. It follows that its truth depends on the accuracy with which the inspired words of its founder have been recorded and no the textural purity of its Scripture. If the message which was revealed by God to the founder of a religion 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 the truth. In this section we shall see how far the inspired words and revelations of Jesus and other prophets of the Bible have been faithfully recorded and preserved in the Gospels.

The first criterion then by which we can measure the usefulness of a book is freedom from external interference. A revealed Book is superior to a man-made book because we can assume that the former will not lead us into error. God is the prime source of guidance. In a Book revealed by Him therefore, we may expect to find only light and truth, no darkness or error. If our conception of God does not imply such a trust in what He reveals then that conception has no value. If communication from God also can err, then what ground have we for holding Divine teachings superior to human teaching? Belief in a Book entails belief that, that Book is free from error. It is possible, however, that a book originally revealed by God may come to suffered addition and subtractions at human hands then that book can no longer serve as a guide.

Every age gives rise to new sciences in the light of which even a book which professes to teach anything is exposed to new criticism. The value of a book is either more securely established or it becomes more doubtful than ever by scientific test.

No Christian can deny that there is much controversy as to the authenticity of the Bible and no Christian authority has produced the original Gospels. There is no evidence that the New Testament was written in the presence of Jesus. There was sufficient evidence that the original Gospels from their memory and there is no evidence to show that the Gospels from were committed to memory that reproduction should be relied upon.

The humble writer believes that the Gospels as it is today, is the sole work of Saint Paul and not Jesus, this leads to the question: “Is Modern Christianity the Christianity of Jesus or is it Paulism?

Saint Paul openly admitted that the Gospels which he was preaching was his own making and not that of Jesus, when he says:

“I have planted the apples, but God gave the increase”.    [I Corinthians 3:6]

Moreover, the doctrine of resurrection on which many Christian scholars’ belief hangs, is the sole work of Saint Paul as there is nothing in the teachings of Jesus himself on this issue. St. Paul admitted that he invented this mystery when he said:

“Remember that he Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised form the dead according to my Gospel”.     [II Timothy 2:8]

Character of the Gospel

For our knowledge of the teaching and mission of Jesus Christ we depend on the Gospels. There are four Gospels included in the Bible-the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The first three are called “The Synoptic Gospels”, because they proceed on the basis of the same document and have much in common. The Gospel of John is very different from these. The divinity and pre-existence of Jesus are affirmed in this Gospel alone. In the opening lines the writer of this Gospel makes the claim that the Logos, which was God who created the Worlds had become incarnate in Jesus. The Gospels of John was written in Greek at or near Ephesus between the year 110 and 115 of the Christian era by some unknown writer. No independent scholar now regards it as the work of John, the son of Zebedee. The modern Biblical scholars have questioned, not only the views of the author, but also the genuineness of the words put by him in the mouth of Jesus. This is what C. J. Cadoux, who was Mackennal Professor of Church History at Oxford, writes in his book Life of Jesus:

“The speeches in the Fourth Gospel (even apart from the early messianic 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.”    [p. 16]

Canonical Gospels do not faithfully present the inspired message or Gospels 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 some time after the passing away of Jesus, have all been irretrievably lost;

       3.         that in the Gospels, which were written between 70 and 115 C. E. on the basis of some of these lost documents, the material contained in them was handled rather freely; the Gospel-writers  feeling no hesitation in changing it for what they considered to be the greater Glory of Christ or to bring it in line with the view of their respective sects;

       4.         that none of the Evangelists had known Jesus or heard him speaking (it has been proved by modern critics that the Gospels according to Matthew and John are not the works of the Apostles whose names they bear);

       5.         that they were composed to propagate the points of view of the different factions and that they were chosen from many others which represented different factions;

       6.         that the Gospels were written in Greek, whereas the language spoken by Jesus was Aramaic;

       7.         that for at least a century after they were written they had no canonical authority and could be 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 Sinaitcus, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus-belong to the fourth and fifth centuries-that is, more than three centuries after the Gospels were first written;

       9.         that there are considerable differences among the various extant manuscripts; and

     10.        that the Gospels taken as a whole are full of contradictions and inconsistencies.

These facts disclosed by distinguished Christian scholars, go to show that the Gospels of Jesus, by which we mean the message which Jesus claimed to have received from God, has not reached us in its original from. 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 the four canonical Gospels cannot be relied upon to give us true knowledge of what Jesus had said and taught. C. J. Cadoux sums up the position in these words in The Life of Jesus,  [pages 16, 17]:

“In the four Gospels, therefore, the main documents to which we must refer to 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-fetching is the element of uncertainty that is tempting to ‘down tools’ at once, and to declare the task hopeless.”

“The historical inconsistencies and improbabilities in parts of the Gospels from some of the arguments advanced in favor 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 moderns, 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 Jesus’ mission out of the more historical residue.”

Many other eminent Christian Scholars have commented on the authenticity of the Bible. The Rev. E. Griffith Jones, B.A., D.D., Principal of the United College, Bradford says in his article, “The Bible-Its Meaning and Aim” contributed to the commentary on the Bible edited by Arthur S. Peake, M. A., D. D.:

“Secondly, the Bible as we have it is a much edited body of Literature, and the various editors have treated their earlier sources with considerable freedom: nor have they always been very skilful in their treatment.”

The Bible differs from one version to anther, we refer to the Revised Standard Version published in America under the auspices of some of the greatest scholars of the Bible. It is indeed a worthless attempt to purge the Bible of all dross that had crept into it. It has thrown out the word, ‘Virgin’ proof of the prophecy which has always formed a part of the ‘conclusive’ proof of the divinity of Jesus, it has now substituted the word, ‘young’.

Mr. C. J. Cadoux who I have already referred to, also repudiates the Christian belief of the virgin birth. He says in his The life of Jesus:

“Towards the end of the second century A. D. it came to be widely believed by Christians that at that time of his birth, his mother was still a virgin, who bore him by the miraculous intervention of God. The view, however, though dear to many modern Christians for its doctrinal value, is unlikely to be true in point of fact.”

Let us now see how the present Gospels are estimated as to their origin, chronology, differences, authorship, language, contents etc. I start with the Structure of the Synoptic Gospels. The following chart can throw some light as to how it is thought that they were originated.

For any future reference let us also have the probable chronological order of the books of the New Testament:

Approximate Date (AD)	Event/Book
30	The Crucifixion
50	First Epistles of Paul
62	Last Epistles of Paul
65-70	Mark’s Gospel
70?	Epistle to the Hebrews
80	Luke’s Gospel
85-90	Mathew’s Gospel
90	Acts
90-100	John’s Gospel and First Epistle
95-100	Revelation
100?	1 and 2 Timothy and Titus

 James I and II Peter, II and III, John and Jude are all so uncertain that we cannot place them in the preceding table, even approximately^.

It is clear form the preceding chronological order of the books of the New Testament that the first record ever made was in 50 A. D., i.e. 20 years after the crucifixion. Now how can it be possible to remember the events correctly after so many years particularly when the ministry of Jesus was very short, i. e. one to three years. The authors of The Living World of the New Testament said:

“The length of Jesus’ ministry has always been the subject of debate. The major problem is raised by the chronology of the Gospel of John, which refers to two, and probably three, successive Passover festivals in Jerusalem during Jesus’ ministry… Mark, followed by Matthew and Luke, on the other hand, includes only one journey to Jerusalem, one Passover, and leaves the impression of a short ministry of about a year.”

The author of The Early Church and the New Testament after giving a comparative statement showing the characteristics of the three Gospels (Synoptic Gospels) and the differences between them writes [pages 160-163]:

“In the Passion Narrative, Matthew gives details which are peculiar to himself, and these are as follows:

(a)     Christ’s word to Judas in Gethsemane.

(b)     Juda’s suicide.

(c)     Pilate’s wife’s dream.

(d)     Pilate washing his hands.

(e)     The cry of the multitude “His blood be upon us   and upon our children”.

(f)       The opening of the graves and the resurrection of the saints.

(g)     The sealing of the tomb.

These details, with the exception of the first, are all far more characteristic of hearsay than of the evidence of an eye witness. Christ’s word to Judas probably does come from a reliable source and may well represent a genuine tradition not known to Mark or Like. The remainder more probably illustrate the first beginning of Christian legend. These additions thus point to a comparatively late date for the Gospel and so also do the last verses of the last chapter which contain the command to ‘make disciples of all nations’ and to baptize ‘in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’. These contain reference to the practices of the Church rather than a literal report of the words of Jesus. Baptism in the primitive Church, as we can see from Paul’s letters, was into the Name of Jesus only.”

Now let us see what reasons are given for corruption in the New Testament and how it occurred. L.D. Twilley in his book The Origin and Transmission of the New Testament wrote in pages 44-45:

“The scribe may alter a text to agree with his theology. This is a very rare form of corruption, but was definitely employed by Marcion, a heretic. Thus form the very early times there was a very great variety of different readings of the text in existence. Early in the fourth century a certain scholar named Lucian carefully compared different readings of the New Testament with which he was acquainted and produced a revised form of the text…..This is also referred to as Byzantine Text.”

Another writer in his book The Bible and Its Common Reader says:

“We must guard also against the assumption that the New Testament as we have it today is in precisely the form in which it was originally written…Possibly some small roll of papyrus of uncertain or unknown authorship, seemingly too valuable to lose, may have been inserted into the work of some author recognized and known. In other words, probably no single book in the New Testament of today is precisely as it was when it left the hands of its original writer. Nor must we fail to remember that the definite and final from of the New Testament was not concluded and put into circulation as a book until more than three centuries after its first portions were written by St. Paul.”

Another writer in his book The Rise of Christianity says:

“We cannot too often remind ourselves that the Gospels were circulated in manuscript; editorial insertions and additions were easy; those which commended themselves gave credit to manuscript which served as the originals of future copies: and it must never be forgotten that, though earlier fragments have been found, none of our existing manuscripts of the New Testament goes back beyond the fourth century of our era.”

The author of The Early Church and the New Testament” while discussing Johannine literature on pages 198-200 and comparing some of the books of the New Testament says:

“John’s version of the Resurrection Appearances is certainly distinctive, since even the opening verses are different from Mark’s (remember that nothing in Mark beyond 16:8 can be treated as part of the original Gospel). Since we must discount the end of Mark, and with it Matthew, there remain a few verses in Mark, Luke’s Gospel, the Acts and Paul’s letters with which a comparison may be made….”

This means that the last verses of Mark’s and Matthew’s Gospels are additions since they are now discarded. Now here is something about the original language of the Gospel according to Matthew:

“Matthew’ says Ireneus, ‘wrote his Gospel in a Hebrew  language in the midst of the Jews.’ Papias says the same: ‘Matthew set down in order the words of the Lord in a Hebrew dialect’. It is generally agreed today that the earliest version of St. Matthew’s Gospel was written in Aramaic and in less connected from. This earliest Gospel, this ‘setting down in order the words of the Lord’ as old bishop put in, was circulated zealously among the Christian community and each one, as Papias adds: ‘translated it into the best of his ability.’ The time came when the church wished to codify these translations and thus we have the official Greek version made very probably by the author himself. This version would be enlarged and completed, since by this time two other Gospels Mark and Luke, had appeared.”

As regards the author of the Gospels, in the same book Early Church and the New Testament, it is written while mentioning the chronology of the various books :

“The Gospel according to St. John is later than either Mark or Luke, but it was probably written not very long after Matthew. (The author is unknown to us, just like Matthew.)”

The authors (H. Clark Kee and F. W. Young) of the book The Living World of the New Testament, on pages 67-68, also write about the doubtfulness of the fourth Gospel and some other books:

“Among the late writings of the New Testament are several others (the epistles of Peter and James) that were also written under the names of the earliest leaders of the Church; yet their style and content make it clear that they were written at the later day. The three letters of John have traditionally been ascribed to the disciple John, but there is considerable doubt as to whether the John associated with these writings was the apostle John, a disciple of the apostle, or simply a leader to the Church of Asia Minor by the name John. Even the Gospel of John does not identify its author although it gives a prominent place to ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’, who may or may not have been the John the apostle’........ The claims of Jesus to Messiahship which usually only implied or indirectly stated in the first three Gospel, are boldly proclaimed in the fourth gospel. It is clear, then, that the Gospel that bears the name of John is more concerned with the significance of Jesus for Christian Faith than with what Jesus did or said.”

As regards Mark, E. W. Barnes writes:

“Who was Mark? We do not know: he can hardly have been the cousin of Barnabas. ..... Stories told by Peter were used, possibly after they had filtered through the recollection of several persons, one after another... ...... We are thus left with the conclusion that the author of Mark was a Christian: and inasmuch as Aramaic appears to have been his mother tongue, a Jew.”

Now let us see what the Christian writers say about various vital contents of the Christian faith. In The spiritual Crisis of the Scientific Age by G. D. Yarnold, 1959 we read in pp. 79-80:

“Bultmann now sees the whole problems as contained within the use by the New Testament authors of a completely mythical cosmology. Not only the accounts of supernormal events, such as the Virgin Birth, the Miracles, the Resurrection, and the Ascension, but the entire Biblical outlook, conditioned (so it is claimed) by Jewish Apocalyptic and gnostic ideas of redemption, represent a mythological view of the universe which has passed away and which must be replaced by a new world-view before the Gospel becomes meaningful to the scientific age. We are no longer to ask, is this historically true? Or, can this statement be accepted at its face value? Instead, we are to recognize that the New Testament writers, being children of their own age, employed modes of expression and theological concepts which have ceased to be valid, and whose acceptance by the modern world can only result in a kind of schizophrenia.”

In the end let us see how far the discovery of Dead Sea Scrolls have affected Christianity. The book The Scrolls and the New Testament, 1957 edited by Kristel Stendahl is worth mentioning here. On pages 1 and 2 we read:

”Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that it is the very problem to which this volume addresses itself-the Scrolls and the New Testament which has been the catalyst responsible for the wide interest in the Qumran discoveries. It is as a potential threat to Christianity, its claims and its doctrines that the Scrolls have caught the imagination of layman and clergy……But the success of his book (Edmond Wilsons’ book The Scrolls from the Dead Sea) was due not only to his skill to tell the story but also to his intimations that these Scrolls had drastic ramifications for Christianity-that the rise of Christianity should, at last, be generally understood as an episode of human history rather than propagated as dogma and divine revelation.”

Christian Leaders Can Change the Bible

The Bible can be changed at any time by the Christian leaders. For example, in the early days, it was altered by copyists and today there is a revised version. All these have led to many contradictions resulting in inconsistent stories of the founder of the religion and the humble writer doubts whether this can create confidence in the hearts of its believers. We are told in Peake’s Commentary on the Bible:

“In certain cases, we have two versions of similar sayings in one and the same Gospel without being literally identical. In some very important passages, it is impossible to harmonise the version. This is particularly true of the stories of the Virgin Birth and of Resurrection. As regards the Birth stories in Matthew, we find ourselves in doubt in many like points, and there is reason to believe that a reverent imagination has been at work on traditional material.”

In view of the above facts, it is no longer possible to insist on the Gospel narratives and it is very difficult for one to accept the Gospels as the words of God.

For instance, the Revised Version throws out the main text of the last twelve verses of St. Mark which deal with the ascension of Jesus. The instances of the verses which have now been removed can be multiplied to any number. One wonders how the words of God can be removed or amended at the whim of the Church Leaders.

The New Testament on which the Modern Christian doctrines rest has undergone violent changes and every edition almost differs from the other. Some of the changes that are now taking place are so fundamental that they strike at the very root of Christianity. For example, the only two references of the ascension of Jesus that were found in the Gospels of Mark and Luke have now been removed. Before the removal of these passages the relevant verses read as follows:

“So then after the Lord had spoken to them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.”    [Mark 16:19]

“And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up to heaven.”    [Luke 24:51]

So far as the relevant verse in the Gospels of Mark is concerned, it has been removed along with a number of other verses which immediately preceded and succeeded it. But verse 51 of Luke’s Chapter 24 now reads as follows:

“While he blessed them he parted from them.”

The words, “carried up to heaven” have been removed.

Testimony of Christian Scholars

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) 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.       [Vol. IV, Part 2, Chapter 2]

       2.         In the same volume we have that the first Gospel seems to have been recorded in the year 37 or 38 or 41 or 43 or 48 or 61-62 or 64 A.D; the second at any time from 56 to 65 AD, probably between 60 and 63; the third about 53 or 63 or 64 ; and the fourth in 68 or 69 or 70 or 97 or 98 AD 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 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. [Vol. IV, Chapter 3]

       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 other with their names.

       5.         In the Encyclopaedia Biblica (Vol. IV, p. 4940) the following is recorded:

“The New Testament was written by Christians for Christians; it was moreover written in Greek for Greek-speaking communities and the style of writing (with the exception, possible, of the Apocalypse) was that of current literary composition. There has been no real break in the continuity of the Greek-speaking Church and we find accordingly 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 no 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:

“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 later 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 AD) which was undertaken at the request of Pope Damascus and ultimately became the Vulgate of the Western Church.”

                       [Encyclopaedia Biblical, p. 4993, Vol. IV]

What is absolutely certain is that in the middle of the fourth century, the Latin copy of the Bible 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 confusions 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:

“More 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 judgment 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 more 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.”     (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 12th Edition, p. 646, Vol. III)

       8.         Again we have:

“It appears from what we have already seen, that a considerable portion of the New Testament is made up of writings not directly Apostolic.”

                                    (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 12th Edition, p. 643, Vol. III)

       9.         The following is also worth noting:

“Yet, as a matter of fact, every book in the Now Testament with the exception of the four great Epistles of St. Paul is at present more or leas the subject of controversy, and interpolations are asserted even in these.”

(Encyclopaedia Britannica, 12th Edition, p. 643, Vol. III)

     10.        The New Testament is not free even today from interpolations and alterations. As examples we have the following:

                       i.          “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 impotent 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 to 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, out 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 fact 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 the text will be considered as having been tampered with.

                      ii.          In John we have:

“For there are three (that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one and there 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 Christians 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.

                     iii.         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 brought 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 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.”   [Matthew 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 Matthew quoted above it appears that this great end cannot be achieved except by prayer and fasting. Prayer and fasting, therefore, are important instruments for the assimilation of the grace of God. Because the disciples of Jesus did not make use of these instruments, they were 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. Accordingly, in the Revised Version of the Gospel according to Matthew, 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 from any bad motive, the word ‘Prayer’ should not have been retained in Mark. But 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 showed 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 Matthew 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’.