The Mohammedan System of Theology/Chapter 5
CHAPTER V.
THE SCRIPTURES VINDICATED FROM THE CHARGE OF CORRUPTION: SEVERAL MOHAMMEDAN INACCURACIES SPECIFIED.
Controversy, when conducted with candour and suitable information, has a tendency to heal prejudice and elicit truth: innumerable obstacles, moral and physical, impede the progress of the human mind,—to remove and rectify which, requires the most persevering industry and research: hence the labours of the learned are invaluable; by unlocking the stores of antiquity, and contributing the improvements of modern days, they are enabled, on satisfactory principles, to discuss matters of science and history, and arrive at conclusions which tend to confirm and establish particular facts. The questions for present discussion are, whether certain writings[1] (by which we mean the canonical Scriptures,) existed from high antiquity?—and whether they have come down to us, in the main, pure and uncorrupted?
The first question will be easily disposed of: few, if any, will be found hardy enough, in opposition to the mass of evidence which can be produced, to controvert the existence of such writings; but, as the admission of an adversary may be deemed conclusive, and Mohammed concedes the point; our attention is particularly required to the second question, whether they have been transmitted to us, in the main, pure and uncorrupted? Mohammed and his followers reply in the negative, we have powerful reasons for embracing the contrary opinion.
First, then, it may be premised, there was a violent motive for Mohammed's endeavouring to impeach the integrity of the sacred text, because in proportion to the benefit which his cause might have derived from testimony there borne in his favour, so much the greater must have been his anxiety to counteract the injurious impressions likely to result from total silence respecting his claims. Mohammed found it necessary to allow the prophetical characters of Moses and Jesus: policy dictated the measure as essential to the success of his enterprise; but it would not do to hazard his cause on their testimony, and an alternative remained, to which (dreadful as if was) he was compelled to resort. The feuds and endless disputes of Jews and Christians furnished him with a plausible pretext for imputing corruption to the sacred writings, and the Koran would readily vouch his veracity[2]. Such a mode of procedure might suffice at a dark and troublesome period, when access to proper sources of information was difficult, and his power intimidating, but conceding its temporary efficacy, never could succeed, when information should prevail, and a spirit of investigation be excited. These artifices, doubtless, facilitated his views, and strengthened the system 1n its incipient state, but those motives, either of interest or fear, which led men to embrace a cause without examining its evidence, have long since ceased to operate: the merits remain precisely the same, and are to be candidly and fairly appreciated.
To suppose a confederacy among Jews and Christians, for the purposes of erasing from their Scriptures testimony favourable to Mohammed, involves absurdity and impossibility. Scattered as they were throughout all the world, and armed with mutual jealousy and hatred, it cannot for a moment be imagined that they would unite for such an object, or alter their respective copies in these particular places. Such hardy assertion, devoid of all probability, and uttered on his own responsibility, attests the badness of his cause, and is an act of the most ruthless aggression, poisoning the very sources of knowledge, attaching undue suspicion, and barring up every avenue to improvement. In fine, it was, as far as in him lay, perpetuating the dominion of endless and irremediable ignorance in the world. Mohammed does not commit himself by citing the Scriptures expressly by name, but shelters himself under vague and loose generalities. The amount of specific charge which can be collected from the Koran and its commentators, brought against the Old Testament, and intimating corruption in the law of Moses, is a pretended omission respecting the punishment due to adultery.
Beidawi informs us[3], that Mohammed once proposed in a synagogue, that the Pentateuch should decide the question between him and the Jews, which they declined; but Jallalo'ddin records an instance, where two persons of the Jewish religion having committed adultery, and their punishment being referred to Mohammed, he gave sentence that they should be stoned, according to the law of Moses: the Jews refused, alledging that there was no such command; but, on Mohammed's appealing to the book, the said law was found, and the sentence executed accordingly.
This law is mentioned in the New Testament, though the authenticity of the passage has been questioned: it is not discoverable in the Hebrew or Samaritan Pentateuch, or in the Septuagint; only a general direction is given that such offenders should be put to death. But if this single passage be meant to invalidate the Pentateuch, the stress laid upon it is far more than can be fairly supported. We allow that the sentence[4] is for death generally, without particularizing the mode, yet in the recapitulation of the penal laws[5], from the particular connection in which the passage occurs, it may be fairly inferred that stoning to death was the original punishment for such offence.
In the New Testament the Musulmans accuse the Christians of corruption in those passages which relate to the Comforter[6]; for the Koran broadly affirms[7], "Jesus the son of Mary, said, O children of Israel, verily I am the Apostle of God sent unto you, confirming the law which was delivered before me, and bringing good tidings of an Apostle who shall come after me, and whose name shall be Ahmed." The Mohammedan Doctors teach, that by the Paraclete, their Prophet is intended, and no other; though the context plainly proves the absurdity of such an opinion, and the irreconcileable difference between Mohammed and the promised Comforter. As to the name of their Prophet occurring in the Gospel of Barnabas, as sometimes alledged, the answer is, that it was of no weight and authority among the Christians, the work of Sectaries, and the particular name an interpolation[8]. Waving general assertions, to which no importance can be attached, the specific amount of testimony, in support of such a serious accusation, may be resolved into the above, which Mohammed and his followers would deem sufficient for invalidating the credibility of the Scriptures.
The integrity of the sacred text has been so satisfactorily[9] shewn by Collators, that it would be superfluous to enlarge on that head; but without entering into discussion, it has been proved by evidence fairly decisive in such matters, that the canonical books as recognised by the primitive Christians, and transmitted to our days, are supported by clearer proofs of their genuineness and authenticity, and have come down to us less injured than any documents of antiquity. The Apocryphal and spurious writings to which allusion has been made, and which Mohammed seems principally to have employed, never received universal assent, but were rejected from the canon; some were of posterior date to the period assigned them; others were forgeries and party inventions, containing internal marks of fallacy, circulated for a particular purpose, and left as creatures of chance or expediency to the destiny that awaits such productions: they are almost involved in oblivion and forgetfulness, and merely appealed to in the writings of the learned, as proofs of various, pernicious, ephemeral errors, making the only amends in their power for former mischiefs by bearing reluctant testimony in favour of genuine Christianity. The credit of the Canon of Scripture received among Christians cannot be shaken by bare assertion, being a question of literary research, it must be dealt with accordingly. The biblical student will be furnished with an easy refutation of the charge of corruption, and obtain full satisfaction on the subject, by reference to the labours of those who have instituted a critical examination of manuscripts, and favoured the world with the gratifying results of their undertaking. On this point, it has been well observed, "Many various readings of a trivial kind have been discovered, but scarcely any of real consequence. These differences are indeed of so little moment, that it 1s sometimes absurdly objected to the laborious work of Dr. Kennicott, which contains the collations of nearly seven hundred Hebrew manuscripts, that it does not enable us to correct a single important passage in the Old Testament; whereas, that very circumstance implies, that we have in fact derived from that excellent undertaking the greatest advantage which could have been wished for by any real friend of revealed religion; viz. the certain knowledge of the agreement of the copies of the ancient Scriptures, now extant in their original language, with each other, and with our Bibles[10]."
The Vatican and Alexandrian manuscripts, and also that of Beza, in the public library of the University at Cambridge, are assigned by the learned to an era prior to Mohammedanism, and contain nothing favourable to the pretensions of the Arabian prophet. Where nothing could be found substantiating his assumption, he is reduced to the necessity of imputing wilful corruption to the Scriptures, and bearing record of himself. And to a certain extent his plan succeeded. The divinity of his mission and the inspiration of the Koran being acknowledged, whatever might be the motives, he was strongly intrenched, and could safely assert what hardly any would dare to disprove. Superior power gave a sanction to his fabrications, or at least placed him beyond apprehension of consequences. Mohammed avails himself of this privilege to an unbounded extent and licence, changing facts in the Old and New Testament, with a total disregard to any thing like veracity. Largely as he has borrowed from the Scriptures, yet hardly any thing is introduced without a great admixture of puerility: the matter is debased, and grossest errors prevail as to persons, facts, and dates, and numerous inconsistencies, The references to the Old Testament include particulars of Adam, Cain, Enoch, Heber, Noah, Abraham, Lot, the destruction of Sodom, Isaac, Ishmael, Joseph, Moses, Pharaoh, Jethro, the red heifer[11], Joshua, David, Saul, and Goliath, Solomon, Elias, Jonah and the Ninevites; in all which the narrative is difigured and facts frequently altered. For instance, what is so pathetically related of Abraham's offering up his son Isaac, which has been viewed as typical of the death of Christ on Calvary, is transferred over to Ishmael, their favourite prophet, from whom they boast their descent[12]. Haman is represented as the prime minister of Pharaoh; Gideon in his conduct at the river is mistaken for Saul[13]. Moses and Elias are described as cotemporary[14]. The Virgin Mary is called sister of Aaron, and John and Zacharias are confounded together[15], &c.
Such blunders may well throw discredit on the Koran, notwithstanding all the ingenuity that has been displayed by his followers at solving objections and reconciling discrepancies! But in the New Testament, this licentiousness is coupled with blasphemy. All essential facts respecting Christ are suppressed, and trifling, ridiculous stories from apocryphal writings supply the place. Nay more than this, Christ is brought forward as disclaiming all title to divinity, and asserting his mere humanity. The angel Gabriel also seconds the illusion which he so pathetically pointed out to Daniel, yea and acts diametrically opposite to what was revealed by his intervention to Zachariah, Elizabeth, and Mary, respecting the Saviour: indeed he upholds tenets quite subversive of the primitive faith, and subjects himself to the anathema of the Apostle, "If we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than that ye have received, let him be anathema maran-atha."
- ↑ Various opinions have been held respecting the method of ascertaining the Canonical authority of the different books of Scripture. 1st. The Papists maintain that they derive their authority from the power of their Church, which would render the Word of God dependent on the Pope or Council. 2dly. Others that they appear truce from their own internal evidence and powerful influence on the heart, which doctrine is not quite satisfactory, for excellent as the books are, yet had some Apocryphal pieces been inserted in the Canon, it is not likely that every Christian would have distinguished between them and the books we receive, when we consider how various and divided the sentiments of Christians are who agree in the same Canon. St. Paul, though he knew his own writings from God, yet cautions the Thessalonians to distinguish his real ones from what were supposititious. 3rdly. Some add the testimony of the Spirit, which may be an argument to a man's self, but could not well be employed to convince another, for instance, an Heathen er Unbeliever. The main and principal method of determining the point, is by searching into the most ancient and authentic records of Christianity, and finding out the testimony or tradition of those who lived nearest the time in which the books were written.—See Jones' new and fall Method, &c.
- ↑ Mohammed boldly charges both Jews and Christians with altering the text, and expunging the passages favourable to his pretensions.
- ↑ See Koran, chap. 5, notes.
- ↑ Levit. xx. 10.
- ↑ Deut. xxii. 22, &c.
- ↑ John xvi. 7. &c.
- ↑ See chap. 61.
- ↑ See Jones.
- ↑
See Jones's New and Full Method, &c. On this subject Bishop Tomline's Elements of Christian Theology may be advantageously consulted, comprising valuable matter of every description, relating to the writings of the Old and New Testament, in a moderate compass. The following, according
to his Lordship, are the places and times of writing the books of the New Testament.
Professor Lee takes a very able and satisfactory view of the question in three sections. 1. Examination of the question whether any corruption of the Scriptures took place during the Babylonian captivity. 2. Whether any corruption of the Scriptures took place soon after the birth of our Lord. The nature of the arguments drawn from a consideration of the different versions stated. And after making due allowance for certain varieties of reading, the conclusion drawn, that no corruption has taken place. 3. The opinions of Dr. Kennicott and others, on the general corruption of the Hebrew Scriptures examined. The testimony of Capellus as to the versions. The principal varieties discoverable in the manuscripts do not affect the general declarations of the Scriptures on points relating to religion.—Persian Controversies.
A.D. St. Matthew Judea 38 St. Mark Rome 65 St. Luke Greece 63 St. John Asia Minor 97 Acts Greece 64 Romans Corinth 58 1 Corinthians Ephesus 56 2 Corinthians Macedonia 57 Galatians Corinth or Macedonia 52 Ephesians Rome 61 Philippians Rome 62 Colossians Rome 62 1 and 2 Thessalonians Corinth 52 1 Timothy Macedonia 64 2 Timothy Rome 65 Titus Greece or Macedonia 64 Philemon Rome 62 Hebrews Rome 63 St. James Jerusalem 61 1 St. Peter Rome 64 2 St. Peter Rome 65 1 St. John Judea 69 2 St. John Ephesus 69 3 St. John Ephesus 69 St. Jude Unknown 70 Revelation Patmos 95 or 96 - ↑ Elements of Christian Theology.
- ↑ Numb. xix.
- ↑ Koran, ch. 37.
- ↑ Compare Judges vii. 5, with Koran, ch. 11.
- ↑ Koran, chap. 18.
- ↑ Ibid, chap. 17, note.