The author's entry "Inspiration"[1] in the Encyclopaedia Britannica[2] has this statement on page 274 vol. 11

           It has always been a matter of controversy whether everything which is written in the sacred books is inspired or not. Similarly all accounts of the events described in them arc not inspired by God according to Jerome, Grotius, Papias and many other scholars.

 Further in vol. 19 on page 20 it says:

           Those who claim that everything of the Gospels is inspired by God cannot prove their claim easily.

 It also says:

           If ever we are asked which part of the Old Testament is held by us as inspiration of God, we would answer that the doctrines and the predictions for future events which are the foundation of Christian faith cannot be other than inspiration. As for other descriptions, the memory of the apostles is enough for them.

 

THE REES ENCYCLOPEDIA

           In volume nineteen of the Rees Encyclopedia, the author says that

The authenticity and divinity of the Holy books has been debated because there are many contradictions and inconsistencies found in the statements of the authors of these books. For example, when the texts of Matthew 10:19,20 and Mark, 11:13 are compared with Acts 23:1-6, [3] the contradictory nature of these books becomes all the more serious.

It is also said that the disciples of Jesus themselves did not know one another to be receiving inspiration from God, as is evident from their debates in the council of Jerusalem and from Paul’s blaming of peter. Moreover it is clear that the ancient Christians did not consider them innocent and free form faults, since they sometimes made them subject to their criticism. This is obvious from Acts 11:12,3 [4] and also Acts 21:20-24.

          It has also been mentioned that Paul, who considered himself not less than the disciples of Jesus (see 2 Corinthians 11:5 and 12:11), nevertheless mentioned himself in such a manner as to show that he did not feel himself constantly to be a man of inspiration [5] the author also said:

We are not given a feeling by the disciples of Jesus as speaking on behalf of God every time they spoke.

He has said that:

Michaelis thoroughly examined the arguments of both the groups, which was necessary for a matter of such importance, and decided that the presence of inspiration in the Holy Book is certainly of great use, but even if we dispense with the presence of inspiration in the Gospels and the Acts, which are books of an historical nature, we lose nothing and they still remain as useful to us as before. It does not damage anything if we accept that the historical descriptions of the evangelists in the gospels, are similar to the descriptions of the historians, since, as was observed by Christ, “And ye also shall bear wit- ness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.” John 15:27.

          It is therefore unnecessary to prove the truth of these books to a non-Christian, on the basis of his acceptance of the truth of some of the evangelic descriptions. On the contrary you should put forward arguments in favour of such miracles as the death and resurrection of Christ as related in the writings of the evangelists, always bearing in mind that they are historians. For anyone who wishes to examine the foundation and origin of his faith, it is necessary to consider the statements of the evangelist about those particular matters as similar to the statements of other historians. Because it would be physically impossible to prove the truth of the events described by them, it is necessary that we accept their descriptions in the manner we accept the descriptions of other historians. This line of approach would save Christianity from all dangers. We do not find it mentioned anywhere that the general events experienced by the apostles, and perceived by Luke through his investigations, were inspired.

          If however we are allowed to admit that some evangelists made mistakes and that they were later corrected by John, this would he greatly advantageous and facilitate conformity in the Bible. Mr. Cuddle also favored the opinion of Michaelis in section 2 of his book. As far as the books written by the pupils of the apostles are concerned, like the Gospels of Mark and Luke and the Book of Acts. Michaelis has not given his decision as to whether they were inspired or not.

[1] We did not find this sentence in  the present. edition of  Britannica, however, we have found the admission that every word of these books is no( inspired on page 23 vol. 12 under the entry ”Inspiration”

[2] All the references in thc  Encyclopaedia Britannica have been taken from the old 18th century edition. The present edition docs not have been them  at the places referred  to. We have therefore translated them from Urdu in our own words. This however, does not make difference as this admission can be found in many place in the Britannica. (Raazi)

[3] This difference of the texts has been discussed by us, under the errors Nos: 98-100.

[4] And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, didst eat with them. (Acts 11:2,3)

[5] 3.I Corinthians 7:10,12.15,40. And also 2 Cor. 11:17