3/3/2017 IsTheBibleInOurHandsTheSameAsDuringTheTimeOfMuhammad?

IsTheBibleInOurHandsTheSameAsDuringTheTimeOfMuhammad(P) ?

MSMSaifullah&HeshamAzmy

IslamicAwareness,AllRightsReserved.

FirstComposed:18thOctober1998

LastUpdated:28thDecember2005

Assalamu`alaykumwarahamatullahiwabarakatuhu:

1.Introduction

IstheBibleinourhandsthesameasduringthetimeofProphetMuhammad(P) ?AChristianmissionarytrying
toevangelizeMuslimswouldanswerintheaffirmative.Whenpressedforanevidencetobackuphisclaims
abouttheintegrityofhisbookfromtheadventofIslamuntiltoday,themissionaryquicklyturnstotheQur'an
andthehadith,tothesurpriseofMuslims.

NowifweapplythestandardsusedforauthenticatingtheintegrityoftheQur'anandthehadith,suchasthe
isnad(i.e.,thechainofnarration),totheBible,theChristianmissionarywouldbehardpressedtopresenta
decentisnadofhisBiblegoingbacktoMuhammad(P) leavealoneJesus(P) .Isnadisapartofthereligionof
Islam.`Abdullahb.alMubarak(d.181AH),oneoftheteachersofImamalBukhari,said:

The isnad is part of the religion: had it not been for the isnad, whoever wished to would have said whatever
he liked. [1]

Whenconfrontedwithsuchuncomfortablefacts,thequickestwayoutforthemissionaryistowiggleoutof
theargumentbynamecalling.Onesuchincidenthappenedinthenewsgroupsoc.religion.islam,wherethe
ChristianmissionaryJochenKatzsaid:

That is a bogus argument from an Islamic point of view. The scriptures are demonstrably the same today as in
Muhammad's time. Muhammad/Qur'an approved of them as genuine.

Asfarasthemissionary'spositionstands,thereisneitherany"demonstration"noranyshowof"genuineness"
ofhisscripturessincethetimeofMuhammad(P) .Thisisnotsurprising.Wecan'texpectsomeonetoshow
somethingofwhichhedoesnothaveanyinformationabout.Furthermore,doesitnotoccurtothismissionary
thatheshouldusetheBible'stextualhistoryto"demonstrate"theclaimsof"genuineness"ofhisscriptures,
beforeusingsomebodyelse'sscripturefortextualintegrity?

Inthisarticle,wewillbrieflydiscusstheissueoftheBiblethatwehaveinourhandstoday,beingthesameas
duringthetimeoftheProphet(P) ,fromthepointofviewofthetextualhistoryoftheBibleandIslamichistory.

http://www.islamicawareness.org/Quran/MuhBible.html 1/17
3/3/2017 IsTheBibleInOurHandsTheSameAsDuringTheTimeOfMuhammad?

2.OnCanons&TheirContent

Accordingtothemissionary:

The scriptures are demonstrably the same today as in Muhammad's time.

Perhaps,themissionarymeanthisscriptures,i.e.,theProtestantBible.TheProtestantBiblehadarather
colourfulhistory.ThisBiblecameintobeingduringtheReformation,nearly900yearsaftertheadventof
Islam.OnewondershowtheQur'anorthehadithliteraturecanendorseaBiblethatcamesome900years
afterthem.Soundssilly...wellitis!Nevertheless,letusexaminetherelevantevidence.

EvenduringtheReformation,theCanonoftheBible,bothOldandNewTestaments,wascalledintoquestion.
Generally,theProtestantsdisputedtheCatholicclaimtointerpretscripture,eitherbyPapaldecreeorbythe
actionofChurchcouncils.NoonehaddefinedthelimitsoftheBibleuntilthe(Catholic)CouncilofTrent,
1546.Fromthistime,theRomanCatholicChurchdeclaredthattheOldandNewTestaments,plusthe
"apocrypha",werescripture.Generally,Protestantshaveacceptedthe66booksoftheOldandNew
Testaments,buthaverejectedthe"apocrypha".So,even900yearsaftertheadventofIslam,theChristians
werebickeringaboutwhichbooksshouldgointothecanonandevenmoresotheProtestants.

ItgetsworsewhenweexaminetheragingdisputesaboutthecontentsoftheProtestantBible.Thecontentsof
thisBiblewereinseveredisputeforover150yearsaftertheadventoftheReformation.Thiswillbeevident
bygoingthroughthepositionheldbysomeoftheprominentProtestantreformersconcerningthebooksinthe
Christiancanon.TheBiblepublishedbyMartinLuther,aProtestantreformer,hadtheprintingof"apocrypha"
towardstheendoftheOldTestament.[2] HealsodisputedtheauthenticityofHebrews,James,Judeand
Revelation.TheyareprintedtowardstheendoftheNewTestament.InPrefacestoeachofthesebooks,Luther
explainshisdoubtsastotheirapostolicaswellascanonicalauthority.Similarly,JohannesOecolampadius,a
GermanProtestantreformer,andanassociateofHuldreichZwingliintheReformationinSwitzerlandsays
that,"WedonotdespiseJudith,Tobit,Baruch,thelasttwobooksofEsdras,thethreebooksofMaccabees,the
lasttwochaptersofDaniel,butwedonotallowthemDivineauthorityequallywiththoseothers(i.e.ofthe
HebrewCanon)."Healsoaddsthat"IntheNewTestament...wedonotcomparetheApocalypse,theEpistles
ofJames,andJude,and2Peterand2,3Johnwiththerest."[3] Zwingli,attheBernedisputationof1528,
deniedthatRevelationwasabookoftheNewTestament.[4] AndreasBodensteinofKarlstadt(14801541),an
earlyfriendofLuther,dividedtheNewTestamentintothreeranksofdifferingdignity.Onthelowestlevelare
thesevendisputedbooksofJames,2Peter,2and3John,Jude,Hebrews,andRevelation.[5] Thefourbooks,
viz.,Hebrews,James,JudeandRevelationwerelabeled'Apocrypha'inaBiblefromHamburgin1596.In
Sweden,beginningin1618,theGustavusAdolphusBiblelabelledthefourdubiousbooksas'ApocryphalNew
Testament.'Thisarrangementlastedformorethanacentury.[6] Thesedisputeswerenotjustconfinedtothe
NewTestament.SomeoftheearlyProtestantBiblesalsoshowthepresenceofthosebooksthatare
condemnedas"apocrypha"bymoderndayProtestants.

WhatabouttheGreekmanuscripts?TherearenoGreekmanuscriptsbefore800900CEwhichhavethe27
booksthatbecamethe"canonical"NewTestament.DarylD.Schmidtstates:

Our search can thus be framed in this way: When did Athanasiuss listfirst become a table of contents for a
complete Greek codex? When did a Greek codex first exhibit the sequence now considered canonical? These
[7]
questions cannot be answered with any certainty, but they can provide a focus for our enquiry.

Oftheoldestcandidate,Codex(1424),datedbyAlandtoc.9/10thcentury,Schmidtconcludes:

http://www.islamicawareness.org/Quran/MuhBible.html 2/17
3/3/2017 IsTheBibleInOurHandsTheSameAsDuringTheTimeOfMuhammad?
[8]
It may be a "complete New Testament," but a rather unique one certainly not an Athanasian codex.

Ofthenextoldestcandidate,Codex(175),datedbyAlandtoc.10/11thcentury,Schmidtsays:

The manuscript is defective, lacking the opening folios, and contains marginal corrections. The oddities here
[9]
again rule out an Athanasian codex.

Schmidtgoesontostatetheinabilityforseveralmore11/12thcenturymanuscriptstoclaimthetitleofan
Athanasiancodex,untilthatiswearriveatmanuscript(Greg.922).OfthismanuscriptSchmidtstates,

A Manuscript dated 1116 at Mt. Athos (Greg. 922) is a purer example of a complete New Testament codex. It
could prove to be the oldest noncomposite complete New Testament with an Athanasian arrangement, although
[10]
no detailed description is available to confirm this.

AsthiscodexfindsitswayintoAlands'listofByzantinetypeminuscules,itisinstructivetoaskwhatthe
descriptor"Byzantine"means.Textualcriticsclassifythewitnesses(i.e.,manuscripts)tothetextoftheNew
Testamentaccordingtotheformoftexttheyrepresent.ThroughouttheChristianhistory,thesetexttypes
evolvedastheywerecopiedandquotedintheirrespectivegeographicalareas.TheByzantinetexttype,almost
universallyconsideredtobetheworsttexttypeinrelationtopreservingthe"earliestattainabletext"ofthe
NewTestament,ischaracterisedbysmoothing,conflation,harmonisationandoutrightfabrication.[11] Withthis
inmind,thelabel"Byzantine",asappliedtootherminusculesonAlands'list,usuallymeansthesearenot
importantenoughtobecollatedindividuallyforvariantreadings.Consequentlycodex922,whichmaybethe
oldest"Athanasiancodex",isrelegatedtothesidelinesduetoitspoortextualqualityandfailstoevenmakeit
intoAlands'listofmostimportantminuscules!Toputsimply,Alandscallsthisminuscule(andmanyothers
Byzantinetypeminuscules)irrelevantfortextualcriticism.[12] Furthermore,Metzgersays,endorsingthe
scholarsagreeingwithWestcottandHort'stheoryontheSyrian(orByzantine)text,thatnoanteNiceneFather
quotesadistinctivelyByzantinetypereading.[13] So,thefirst"Athanasiancodex",whichisbasedonthe
'inspired'listofbooksasstatedbyAthanasius,datednearly1116yearsafterthebirthofJesus(P) ,contains
distinctivereadingsthathavenotbeenquotedbyanyChristianpriorto325CEincludingperhapsAthanasius
himself![14]

Intheconcludingpartofhispaper,withregardtohisprovisionalfindings,SchmidtquotesJames'sSanders
observationsonthecontentsofthePsalterinvariousHebrewmanuscripts.Schmidtuseshisquoteinreference
totheconclusionhewasdrawingabouttheNewTestamentmanuscripts:

It was becoming clear that there were probably as many canons as there were communities.... Focusing on the
question of fluidity in the matter of inclusion/exclusion of different books in different communities in antiquity
brought attention to the question of literature considered authoritative that is, functionally canonical, by one
Jewish or Christian community but not by another. [15]

OfthegreatUncials,thecelebratedCodexSinaiticus(c.350CE)comesclosest,butitalsocontainsthe
EpistleofBarnabasandtheShepherdofHermaswhichareabsentinmodernBibles.AsfarasCodex
Vaticanus(c.350CE)isconcerned,thePastoralEpistlesandRevelationarenowheretobeseen(Onewonders
whatelsecouldhavebeenmissingfromthisincompletemanuscript!).Ifweweretoincludethebooksofthe
OldTestamentpresentintheseGreekmanuscripts,thecasegetsirredeemablefordemonstratingtheChristian
"scriptures"beingthesametodayasinMuhammad's(P) time.Shallwealsopointoutthewellknownfactthat
notwomanuscriptsoftheNewTestamentanywhereinexistencearealike?[16] Thisbeingthecase,EldonJ.
Eppwhilediscussingtheissueoftextualvariantsandcanonicityraisesanimportantpointwhichmanuscript
iscanonical?

http://www.islamicawareness.org/Quran/MuhBible.html 3/17
3/3/2017 IsTheBibleInOurHandsTheSameAsDuringTheTimeOfMuhammad?

Finally, to raise the question to its highest level and broadest range, what can "canonical" mean when each of
our 5,300 Greek New Testament manuscripts and perhaps 9,000 versional manuscripts, as well as every one
now lost, was considered authoritative and therefore canonical in worship and instruction in one or more of
the thousands upon thousands of individual churches when no two manuscripts are exactly alike? A corollary
heightens the force of the question: If no two manuscripts are alike, then no two collections of Gospels or
Epistles are alike, and no two canons no two "New Testaments" are alike therefore, are all canonical, or
some, or only one? And if some or one, which? [17]

Thissuggests,asEpphaspointedout,thatthecanonformationwasoperatingattwoquitedifferentlevels
oneatthelevelofscribesmodifyingthetexttoexpresstheirtheologyorotherunderstandingandtheotherat
thelevelofChurchleadersofmajorlocalitiesseekingconsensusonwhatbooksweretoacceptedinthecanon.
[18]
Suchabicameralstateofaffairsposeseriousproblemsforthenatureofcanonitself.

WealreadyknowthattheBibles(bothOldTestamentandNewTestamentincluded)differdependinguponthe
Church.HenceifweweretofollowtheChurchtradition,wewillenduphavingtheBiblesoftheProtestant
Church,RomanCatholicChurch,AnglicanChurch,GreekOrthodoxChurch,CopticChurch,EthiopicChurch,
ArmenianChurchandSyriacChurch.Theyallcontainadifferentnumberofbooks.Againthescripturesare
demonstrablynotthesametodayasinMuhammad's(P) time.

Givensuchimpossiblescenarios,itisnotsosurprisingtoseeafellowmissionarysettingupadichotomy
betweenthecontentofthescriptureandthecanonofthescripture,asifthatwouldsorttheproblem.Hesays:

It seems that Saifullah confuses two issues when addressing the claims of Jochen Katz that the Holy Bible of
Muhammads day is the same as our present day Bible. Saifullah confuses the contentof Scripture with the
canon of Scripture. The point is not the canon per se, but whether the content of our present day Bible is the
same as in the days of Muhammad.

Acanonhasacontentorlistofbookswhichmakeupa"Bible".Ifabookisaddedordeleted,thenthe
contentsvaryasissoobviousandcommonsense.Ifthecanonofa"Bible"lacksinspiration,thenitdiffersin
contentfromthecanonofa"Bible"whichcontainsinspiration.Thus,thecanonandthecontentareclosely
related.

SincethemissionaryisverymuchinterestedinthecontentofthepresentdayBible,letustaketheexampleof
moderndayProtestantBibles.IthasbeenshownthatthecontentsofthemoderndaytranslationsoftheBible
followedbytheProtestantssuchasNIV,RSV,NASV,etc.arebasedontextualsourcesthatarecritical
editions,i.e.,BibliaHebraicaandNovumTestamentumGraece(andalsoTheGreekNewTestamentbased
onthelatter).Theseeditionsareeclecticandthereadingsincludedinthesearebasedoneditorialjudgment.
ThereisnoevidencetoshowthattheHebrewOldTestamentandtheGreekNewTestamenttextsusedin
thetranslationofthesemoderndaysBiblesareeither"original"or"inspired"byGod.Wewouldalsolike
topointoutthatthecriticaltextsoftheHebrewOldTestamentandtheGreekNewTestamentareunique.No
textsliketheseeverexistedinthehistoryofChristianityuntiltheadventofmoderntextualcriticism.
Therefore,evenifthemissionariesfoolishlypreferthecontentoverthecanon,theystillhavetolivewiththe
factthatineitherofthesetwocases,the"scriptures"aredemonstrablynotthesametodayasin
Muhammad's(P) time.

Thisthenbringsusbacktotheissueofisnad.Thepurposeofisnadisthedisclosureofthesourceof
information.Inthefinalstage,thesourcemustleadtothepersonwhohaddirectcontactwiththehighest
authoritytowhomthestatementbelonged.ThedifferencebetweentheassessmentofIslamicliteratureand
Biblicalliteratureislikethedifferencebetweennightandday.InIslamicliterature,thedisclosureofsourcesis
akintothelawofwitnesses.Thewitnessesareexaminedaccordingtotheirmoraluprightnessandchronology.
http://www.islamicawareness.org/Quran/MuhBible.html 4/17
3/3/2017 IsTheBibleInOurHandsTheSameAsDuringTheTimeOfMuhammad?

IfoneappliesthismethodologytoBiblicalliterature,notasinglesentencecouldbeproventobeauthenticdue
totheabsenceofdisclosurewithregardtothesourceofinformation.Forexample,assumingacertain
charactercalled"John"wrotetheBookofRevelation,howdoweknowwhohewas?[19] Whatwerehis
religiousbeliefs?Whatabouthispersonalcharacter?Washeanhonestman?Didhehaveastrongmemory?
ThelackofinformationaboutthepeoplewhotransmittedtheNewTestamentwasaddressedbyEhrman.He
says:

The wideranging diversity of early Christianity, with its variegated social structures, practices, and beliefs,
was matched only by the diversity of the individuals who comprised it. Among them were the unnamed
transmitters of their texts, scribes who themselves, no doubt, constituted no monolith. We unfortunately do
not know who these persons were and are scarcely informed about their level of education, class, rank, or
social status, either within the Christian community or without. They are nameless, faceless, transcribers of
texts, texts that became, and in their minds probably already were, the sacred Christian Scriptures. Our
knowledge of who these persons were and what they stood for, what they hoped and feared and cherished,
can be discerned only from what they chose to reproduce and from the distinctive features of their final
products. To understand the scribes, we can only study their transcriptions.

.... Textual critics have long imposed a set of unnecessary restrictions on the parameters of their discourse,
blinders that prevent fruitful dialogue with scholars in other fields and, as a consequence, skew the results of
their labors. To engage in a study of the text requires a much greater awareness of the sociohistorical context
of scribes than is normally envisaged. It is simply not enough to think in terms of manuscripts as conveyors of
data manuscripts were produced by scribes and scribes were human beings who had anxieties, fears,
concerns, desires, hatreds, and ideas in other words, scribes worked in a context, and prior to the invention
of moveable type, these contexts had a significant effect on how the texts were produced. [20]

Ehrmanassertshowimportantitshouldbeforthetextualcriticstofocusonthesociohistoricalcontextofthe
scribesastheyweretheconveyerofdata.Strangelyenough,isthisnotwhatMuslimsscholarsrecognisedand
putintopractice(fromwhichdevelopedthecriticalscienceofjudgingahadithorareadingoftheQur'an)
welloverathousandyearsago?[21] Givenalackofinformationof,forexample,whothis"John"waswho
allegedlywrotetheBookofRevelation,aswiththemajorityoftheauthorsoftheNewTestament,itwillbe
hardpressedforthemissionariestoprovetheintegrityoftheirscripturesusingtheisnadbasedmethodology,
notwithstandingtheiremptygasconadesofthenonexisting"Christianisnad",letalonetheir"soundness"and
"reliability"!

AnotherseriousblowtothetextualintegrityoftheBiblecomesaswenoticealmostacompleteabsenceof
controlmethodsforitstransmission.[22] ThetextualcriticsoftheNewTestamenthaveobservedthat

It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS tradition is wholly uniform. [23]

ItisnowonderthatthetextualsourcesofmoderndayProtestantBiblesarebasedon"eclectic"editionswhich
areaproductofeditorialjudgmentsneither"original"nor"inspired"byGod.

3.WilliamCampbellHasGoodReasonsToCry(OrASobStoryThatWillBreakYour
Heart!)

OneofthechampionsoftheclaimamongtheChristianmissionariesforthetextualintegrityoftheBible
throughoutthecenturiesisWilliamCampbell.HeposesaquestiontoMuslims:

... Muslims claim that the Bible has been changed. Is there any evidence for this in the Qur'an? In the Hadith?
In history?

http://www.islamicawareness.org/Quran/MuhBible.html 5/17
3/3/2017 IsTheBibleInOurHandsTheSameAsDuringTheTimeOfMuhammad?

InordertosupporthisviewpointofthetextualintegrityoftheBiblefromtheannalsofhistory,Campbell
narrateshisvisittotheBritishMuseuminLondon,wherethecelebratedCodexSinaiticusiskept.

In 1983 while passing through London, I went to the British Museum to see the Codex Siniaticus, one of the
oldest complete copies of the New Testament dating from about 350 AD. I wanted to take the picture which
can be seen on page 155. After asking the guard for directions, I went over to the glass covered case which
he indicated, thinking only about how to take a picture through glass without getting a reflection.

I took one look at that Bible and it was as though all the hundreds of times I had heard "YOU CHANGED YOUR
BIBLE" went through my head in one instant. I burst into tears. Even now as I write these words tears come
to my eyes. I wanted to touch it. It would be like touching my brothers who wrote it 1600 years ago. We
would be one together even though they had died long ago. It was tangible, touchable proof that the Gospel is
as it always has been.

ItisnotsurprisingthattheChristianmissionariesalwaysrunforCodexSinaiticustoprovethetextualintegrity
oftheBible.Infact,itisoneofthemostdamagingexamplestoshowthetextualintegrityoftheBible.
TheOldTestamentofthiscodexcontainsTobit,Judith,WisdomofSolomon,WisdomofJesusb.Sirach,I
MaccabeesandIVMaccabeesthatareabsentintheProtestantBibles.AsfarastheNewTestamentis
concerned,CodexSinaiticusalsocontainstheEpistleofBarnabasandtheShepherdofHermasapartfromthe
usuallistingofbookspresentintheProtestantBibles.Inotherwords,boththeOldandtheNewTestament
containedinCodexSinaiticusaredifferentfromthemoderndayProtestantBibles.Giventhesefacts,
CampbellwouldbehardpressedtoshowthathisBiblehasnotbeenchanged.

CampbellalsoclaimedthatCodexSinaiticusisa"tangible,touchableproofthattheGospelisasitalwayshas
been".Unfortunatelyforhim,hisclaimsrestonobservingonlyasinglefolioofthecodex.Theproofofthe
lackoftextualintegrityoftheGospelsthemselvesgetmoretangibleandtouchableifonereadsJames
Bentley'sSecretsOfMountSinai:TheStoryOfCodexSinaiticus.Thisbookgivesabriefintroductionto
CodexSinaiticusanditssignificance.SomeoftherelevantexcerptsdealingwiththeGospelsintheNew
Testamentareasfollows:

In fact we now believe that only three scribes copied down the original text of the codex. These scribes had
taken sheepskin, much scraped and rubbed down and ruled on it with a pointer to keep the lines of their
writing straight. Then they had written out the Bible in many if not all the books by dictation, for two of the
three scribes made phonetic spelling mistakes. The third scribe, who spelled almost perfectly, wrote most of
the New Testament, and some scholars have conjectured that this was copied from a written original, not
taken down by dictation. But as this same scribe also wrote with no spelling mistakes most of the history
and poetic books of the Old Testament, the theory is unproven.

A second scribe, who spelled fairly well, wrote the prophetic books of the Old Testament as well as the
Shepherd of Hermas in the Codex Sinaiticus. And a third scribe, who spelled atrociously, wrote out Tobit,
Judith, the first half of IV Maccabees, the first twothirds of the Psalms, and six pages of the New Testament
(including the first five verses of the Book of Revelation). From time to time the readers, not the scribes, made
errors. At I Maccabees, chapter 5, verse 20, for instance, the text should read that Judas Maccabaeus took
8000 men to the land of Gilead. The reader, not sure of the number, called out 'either six or three thousand'.
The scribe wrote down, 'either six or three thousand'.

Codex Sinaiticus lacks much of the Old Testament, and originally must have contained about 790 leaves 242
of the leaves found by Tischendorf contain parts of the Old Testament. A further 147 contain the New
Testament, as well as the Letter of Barnabas and part of the Shepherd of Hermas. And herein lies the initial
great importance of the codex. Codex Sinaiticus is the only known complete copy of the Greek New Testament
in uncial (that is, rounded capital) script.....

Not surprisingly, others before Tischendorf had devoted themselves to purifying the Biblical text by means of
Codex Sinaiticus. And after the codex was written, later correctors laid hands on it and for several centuries

http://www.islamicawareness.org/Quran/MuhBible.html 6/17
3/3/2017 IsTheBibleInOurHandsTheSameAsDuringTheTimeOfMuhammad?

made alterations and notes on that text too. As he studied the codex, the eagleeyed Tischendorf counted
14,800 such corrections made by nine separate correctors.

These correctors had devised conventional signs to indicate what they believed was the true text. For instance,
a row of dots alongside part of the text indicated that the corrector believed that section ought to be deleted,
because it was not in the original text of the Bible.....

Now the fabulous textual wealth of Codex Sinaiticus was made available to the Christian world in Tischendorf's
great edition, which he supplemented shortly before his death by a major twovolume edition of the text of the
New Testament. Even today this edition remains an indispensable work of reference for scholars of the Greek
text, for Tischendorf presented an amazingly extensive mass of information setting out evidence for and
against various readings of the existing manuscripts.

His insights were brilliant so brilliant that not everyone was bold enough to accept them. One suggestion
made by Tischendorf on the evidence of Codex Sinaiticus, rejected by many of his contemporaries and
vindicated by later scientific techniques, shows his genius at its most remarkable.

On the evidence of his eyesight alone, Tischendorf decided that the last verse of St John's Gospel (John 21,
verse 25) was a later addition to the original text of Codex Sinaiticus. The verse reads, 'There were many
other things that Jesus did and if all were written down, the world itself, I suppose, would not hold all the
books that would have to be written'. Tischendorf claimed that this verse was written with a greater delicacy
than the rest. He insisted that the shape of the letters was slightly different. He added that the ink used was
a little lighter in colour for this verse than for the rest. (The scribes refilled their pens on average every one
andahalf lines as they wrote the Codex Sinaiticus but Tischendorf said he had never seen precisely that
colour of ink elsewhere in the whole manuscript.)

At the time most scholars disagreed with his judgment about this verse. But long after his death, twentieth
century science proved Tischendorf to have been absolutely right. When the Codex Sinaiticus was examined
under ultraviolet light, it was discovered that the Gospel of John did in fact originally end at chapter 21,
verse 24. After this verse, the scribe added a small tailpiece, and the words, 'The Gospel according to John'.
Later on, another scribe erased the tailpiece and these words, writing over them our present verse 25.....

In Britain the Authorized Version of 1611 still captivated many, even those who suspected its inaccuracies.
Right or wrong, it had become a sacred text.

Throw no shadow on the sacred page,

Whose faults, if faults, are sanctified by age,

wrote John Ruskin. The Authorized Version had enshrined sacred Scripture in a language of unique beauty and
force. But scholars and serious churchmen were now well aware that it was inaccurate. Even so, when the
authorities in the Church of England agreed to a revision, they decreed that the new translation must
'introduce as few alterations as possible... consistently with faithfulness'. Nonetheless, this project gave an
urgency to the study of the Greek New Testament, and in particular to the work of two great Cambridge
scholars, Brooke Foss Westcott (who later became Bishop of Durham) and Fenton John Anthony Hort.....

Not everyone agreed with these two Cambridge professors of divinity but those who disagreed were chiefly
slightly bizarre. (More than slightlybizarre was Dean J. W. Burgon of Chichester, who described Sinaiticus
and Vaticanus as being among 'the most scandalously corruptcopies extant'.) As Caspar Ren Gregory justly
observed of Codex Sinaiticus, 'Many scholars have felt it necessary to decry the text of this manuscript. That
is wrong. Tischendorf may well have rated his great find a trifle too high. He would have been more than
human if under the circumstances he had not done it, seeing that he for three years ate, drank, and slept this
manuscript. Had he lived, he would surely here and there have modified his predilection for its readings. But
it is, nevertheless a very exceptional manuscript'.

As witness to the authentic words of Holy Scripture Westcott and Hort marginally preferred Codex Vaticanus
over Sinaiticus. But here, too, Caspar Ren Gregory had some astute words of comment. 'It used to be the
fashion to say that the Sinaitic manuscript was very badly written, was full of clerical errors, and therefore
less trustworthy. And the Vatican manuscript was supposed to be very correctly written. When, however, the
Vatican copy came to be better known, it was found that in this respect there was not much choice between
the two.'

http://www.islamicawareness.org/Quran/MuhBible.html 7/17
3/3/2017 IsTheBibleInOurHandsTheSameAsDuringTheTimeOfMuhammad?

What really outraged men like Dean Burgon was principally that, however learnedly Codex Sinaiticus was
edited, it revealed a text of the Bible that again and again differed from what they had revered and loved as
Holy Writ. Take, for example, the Lord's Prayer. Generations of Englishmen had been accustomed to the
version, in Luke chapter 11, verses 2 to 4:

Our Father which art in heaven,

Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth
Give us day by day our daily bread.
And forgive us our sins for we also forgive everyone that is indebted to us.
And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil.

They learned to accept this as an alternative to the more familiar version in Matthew chapter 6, verses 9 to
13.

Now they were presented with an even more truncated version. The Lord's Prayer of Codex Sinaiticus reads
simply:

Father, Hallowed be thy name,

Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done, as in heaven, so upon earth.
Give us day by day our daily bread
And forgive us our sins, as we ourselves also forgive everyone that is indebted to us.
And bring us not into temptation

Codex Vaticanus even omitted the words, 'Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth'. For generations, it
would seem, men and women had repeated spurious words, fondly believing that they came from the lips of
Jesus himself. Moreover, even the more familiar version in Matthew was suspect. The Matthean ending to the
Lord's prayer, 'For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen', likewise was absent
from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

Some wellloved stories also disappeared in the text so carefully and long preserved on Mount Sinai. The
eighth chapter of St John's Gospel, in the received text, contains the story of a woman who had been caught
committing adultery. The scribes and the Pharisees wish to stone her to death, following, as they say, the law
of Moses. Jesus says, 'He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her'. One by one the
woman's accusers slip away, until she and Jesus are alone together. Then he asks her, 'Where are your
accusers? Has noone condemned you?' She answers, 'Noone, my Lord'. Jesus responds, 'Neither do I
condemn you. Go, and sin no more.'

We now know that some ancient manuscripts transfer this story elsewhere in the New Testament, to the
Gospel of Luke. In some manuscripts the scribes have indicated that they doubt its authenticity. It nowhere
appears in either Vaticanus or Sinaiticus.

The evidence of the manuscript from Mount Sinai was proving more and more difficult to digest. In the
received text, Luke chapter 24, verse 51, tells how Jesus left his disciples after his resurrection. He blessed
them, was parted from them, 'and was carried up into heaven'. Sinaiticus omits the final clause. As the textual
critic C.S.C. Williams observed, if this omission is correct, 'there is no reference at all to the Ascension in the
original text of the Gospels'.

Persistently and disturbingly, the codex from Mount Sinai omits cherished sentences of Holy Scripture. In
Matthew chapter 17, the disciples of Jesus fail to cast out a devil from an epileptic. Verse 21 in the received
text gives Jesus's explanation that such a healing requires much prayer and fasting. Codex Sinaiticus omits
the explanation. Again, the received text of Mark's gospel begins with the words, 'The beginning of the Gospel
of Jesus Christ, the Son of God'. Codex Sinaiticus omits 'the Son of God'. In Luke's Gospel, the received text of
chapter eleven contains the following words, attributed to Jesus. 'You know not what manner of spirit you are
of. For the son of man is come not to destroy men's lives, but to save them'. Neither sentence occurs in Codex
Sinaiticus.

http://www.islamicawareness.org/Quran/MuhBible.html 8/17
3/3/2017 IsTheBibleInOurHandsTheSameAsDuringTheTimeOfMuhammad?

As if this were not enough to shock those schooled on older versions of the gospels, Codex Sinaiticus even
minimizes some of the punishments in store for the wicked, according to the traditional texts. St Mark's
Gospel, chapter 9, for instance, describes hell as a place 'where the worm dies not, and the fire is not
quenched' (a description taken from the last verse of the Old Testament prophet, Isaiah). Codex Sinaiticus
omits the words.

Scholars like Tischendorf, Westcott, and Hort were not, however, daunted by what they found. All three, and
many like them, had sufficient faith that what they were doing ultimately would uncover divine truth. Even so,
they made assumptions about the transmission of the text of Holy Scripture which Codex Sinaiticus ought to
have led them to abandon.....

Westcott and Hort were equally adamant that all alterations must have happened by accident, not by design.
In their introduction to their edition of The New Testament in the Original Greek, they wrote, 'It will not be out
of place to add here a distinct expression of our belief that even among the numerous unquestionably spurious
readings of the New Testament there are no signs of deliberate falsifications of the text for dogmatic
purposes'.

Codex Sinaiticus could have proved them wrong, not so much because its own text has been corrupted in this
way, as because it contains many texts which later scribes were theologically motivated to delete or change.

For example, in the first chapter of Mark's Gospel we are told of a leper who says to Jesus, 'If you will, you
can make me clean'. Codex Sinaiticus continues, Jesus, 'angry, stretched out his hand and touched him, and
said, "I will be clean"'. Later manuscripts, perceiving that to attribute anger to Jesus at this point made him
appear, perhaps, too human, alter the word 'angry' to 'moved with compassion'.

In Matthew's Gospel Codex Sinaiticus contains another suggestion about Jesus which conflicted with the
theological views of later Christians and was therefore suppressed. Speaking (in Matthew chapter 24) of the
day of judgment, Jesus, according to Codex Sinaiticus, observes that 'of that day and hour knoweth noone,
not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.'

Other ancient manuscripts also contain the words 'neither the Son'. But the suggestion here that Jesus might
not be on the same level of knowledge as God was unacceptable to later generations of Christians, and the
phrase was suppressed.

At this point even Hort was momentarily tempted to suspect a theologically motivated suppression, admitting
that the omission of these words 'neither the Son' can indeed be explained 'by the doctrinal difficulty which
they seem to contain'.

Even more strikingly, because Codex Sinaiticus was worked over by correctors long after it was first written,
one can actually see this process of alteration for doctrinal reasons at work. Two examples make this
abundantly clear. In both cases later correctors have objected to the text as preserved by the great codex. The
first example concerns Jesus praying on the Mount of Olives.

According to the text of Codex Sinaiticus, St Luke's Gospel records that 'there appeared unto him an angel
from heaven, strengthening him. And being in agony, he prayed more earnestly and his sweat became as it
were great drops of blood falling down upon the ground'. This text, with its suggestion that Jesus needed the
support of an angel, and that before his arrest and trial he was in agony, is not to be found in the Vatican
codex. Codex Sinaiticus clearly shows that the debate about them affected later scribes. One of them has
placed dots beside the text, indicating that it ought to be deleted. A yet later scribe has carefully tried to
erase these dots.

Equally revealing is the way the correctors of Codex Sinaiticus dealt with words attributed to Jesus on the
Cross by St Luke's Gospel. Jesus's prayer, 'Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do', is deleted
by a corrector. J. Rendel Harris believed that the text was deliberately cut out by those Christians who
believed God could never have forgiven the Jews for the death of Jesus. Had not the destruction of Jerusalem
shown this? Here, on the other hand, Hort still maintained that the text had disappeared for entirely innocent
and accidental reasons. 'Wilful excision on account of the love and forgiveness shown to the Lord's own
murderers', he wrote, 'is absolutely incredible.'.....

It must not be supposed from these examples that Codex Sinaiticus invariably supports an 'unorthodox' view of
Jesus. On the contrary, in the genealogy of Jesus given by St Matthew, for instance, Codex Sinaiticus is

http://www.islamicawareness.org/Quran/MuhBible.html 9/17
3/3/2017 IsTheBibleInOurHandsTheSameAsDuringTheTimeOfMuhammad?

(unlike some other manuscripts) one that carefully supports the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus, ending
the list of his ancestors with the words, 'Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus,
who is called Christ'.

Often, too, the additions to the text which are found in later documents but notin Sinaiticus are merely
harmless, and indeed sometimes positively useful additions. Two such examples may be cited from St John's
Gospel. In chapter 4 a woman of Samaria is asked by Jesus for a drink. She answers 'How do you, a Jew, ask
a drink from me, a woman of Samaria?' Later scribes add an explanation to the original authentic text: 'for the
Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans'.

Similarly in chapter 5 of John's Gospel, Jesus comes across a great many sick persons lying by a pool. A later
scribe has added an explanation not found in Codex Sinaiticus: '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 whatever disease he had'.

One of the most delightful, and innocuous later changes to the text as preserved by Codex Sinaiticus, concerns
the parable of the prodigal son, which is recorded in Luke's Gospel in chapter 15. In this parable, Jesus tells
of a young man who persuades his father to give him his inheritance early, and then goes away and wastes it
all. Starving, looking after pigs for a living, the young man repents. He decides to return home and say to his
father, 'I have sinned against heaven and in your sight. I am no more worthy to be called your son. Make me
like one of your hired servants'. And, in Codex Sinaiticus, he does precisely this. He finds, however, that his
father has long looked out for him and welcomes him, as if he were returned from the dead, as a beloved son.

Now the delightful change in later manuscripts is that the son, himself so unexpectedly welcomed by his
father, prudently omits to offer himself as a hired servant! Yet in the end all the textual changes discovered as
a result of the heroic labours of Tischendorf and his fellow scholars remained disturbing. And in one point
twentiethcentury theologians have found the witness of Codex Sinaiticus extremely disturbing indeed. The
issue concerns the central doctrine of the Christian faith itself the resurrection of Jesus Christ......

But here arose an extraordinary paradox. The Codex Sinaiticus, the manuscript which in Tischendorf's view
approached most nearly to the text of the Gospels as they were originally written, revealed an extraordinary
omission. According to Sinaiticus, the Gospel according to Mark, unlike the other three Gospels, contains no
account of the appearance of Jesus to his disciples after his resurrection.

According to Mark, chapter 16, three women Mary of Magdala, Mary the mother of James the disciple, and
Salome bring oils to anoint the dead body of Jesus as it lies in his tomb. A huge stone had been placed over
the entrance to this tomb, and the three women wonder who will roll it away for them. They are astonished to
find it already rolled away. Entering the tomb, they see a youth wearing a white robe sitting on the righthand
side. They are dumbfounded, but the youth says 'Fear nothing'. He tells them that Jesus of Nazareth, who was
crucified, is not there, because he has risen.

Then the youth gives the three women a message for Jesus' disciples: 'He will go before you into Galilee and
you will see him there, as he told you.' But, oddly enough, the women do not hand over this message.
According to St Mark's Gospel, as contained in Codex Sinaiticus, 'they went out and ran away from the tomb,
beside themselves with terror. They said nothing to anybody, for they were afraid'.

There, according to Codex Sinaiticus, the Gospel of Mark comes to an end. It does not so end, of course, in
the Authorized Version of the English Bible, nor in the received text of any of the orthodox Christian churches.
Their versions all continued with a further twelve verses:

Now when he was risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene,
from whom he had cast out seven devils. She went and told them that had been with him, as
they mourned and wept. And they, when they heard he was alive, and had been seen by her,
disbelieved. And after these things he was manifested in another form to two of them, as they
walked, on their way into the country. And they went away and told it unto the rest. but they did
not believe them either. And afterwards he was manifested unto the eleven themselves, as they
sat at meat: and he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did
not believe those who had seen him after he was risen. And he said to them, 'Go into all the
world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believes and is baptized will be
saved but he that disbelieves shall be condemned. And these signs shall follow those who

http://www.islamicawareness.org/Quran/MuhBible.html 10/17
3/3/2017 IsTheBibleInOurHandsTheSameAsDuringTheTimeOfMuhammad?

believe. in my name they will cast out devils they shall speak with new tongues they shall pick
up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing it shall in no way hurt them they shall lay
hands on the sick, and they shall recover.' So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them,
was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went forth and
preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that
followed. Amen.

Now if the text of Codex Sinaiticus truly represents what came from the hand of the person who wrote this
Gospel, these twelve verses, Mark 16, verses 9 to 20, are as spurious as the text of the three heavenly
witnesses exposed by Richard Porson. Far from defending the traditional gospel story, Tischendorf's great
discovery had exposed a yet more alarming addition to the original text.

The scribe who brought Mark's Gospel to an end in Codex Sinaiticus had no doubt that it finished at chapter
16, verse 8. He underlined the text with a fine artistic squiggle, and wrote, 'The Gospel according to Mark'.
Immediately following begins the Gospel of Luke. [24]

WilliamCampbellburstintotearswhenhesawadisplayedfolioofCodexSinaiticusattheBritishMuseum,
London,presumablybecausehisbeliefthattheBiblewasnotchangedgotstrengthened.Nowthatweknow
thatthecontentsofCodexSinaiticusaredifferentfrommoderndayProtestantBibles,wehaveprovided
Campbellwithgoodreasonstocry.HiscornerstoneforthehistoricalproofoftextualintegrityoftheBiblelies
shatteredbeforehisowneyeswhentangibleandtouchableevidencesarepresented.Unfortunatelyforhim,
emotionalismandsobstoriesarenotsubstantiveproofsforthetextualintegrityoftheBible.

4.So,WhatDidTheBibleLookLikeInArabiaDuringTheAdventOfIslam?

ThisisadifficultquestiontoanswermainlybecausetheinformationaboutChristianityandthebooksitused
asscripturesinArabiaduringtheadventofIslamarequitesketchy.WehavethenonIslamicandIslamic
sourcesthatprovidesomeinformationabouttheBible,butnothingconclusive.Buttheybotharesufficientto
showthattheChristian"scriptures"arenotdemonstrablythesametodayasinMuhammad's(P) time.

ThenonIslamicsourcessuggestthepresenceoftheSyriacChurch(anditsvarioussectarianoffshootssuch
asJacobite,Nestorian,MonophysiteChurches,etc.)incertainareasofArabiaandthattheChurchserviceused
tobeinSyriac.[25] IndeedithasbeenconfirmedthattheearliestBiblicalmanuscriptsinArabiccameinto
existenceonlyaftertheadventofIslamandduringtheperiodofChristianMuslimpolemics.[26] Theywere
translatedfromSyriacintoArabic.TheSyriacChurchesusedtheDiatessaron,thefourinoneGospel,
introducedbyTatian,andwasreadintheSyriacChurchesforquitesometimebeforeitwasreplacedbythe
Peshitta.ThePeshittahasadifferentnumberofbooksintheNewTestament.ThisrepresentsfortheNew
TestamentanaccommodationofthecanonoftheSyrianswiththatoftheGreeks.ThirdCorinthianswas
rejected,and,inadditiontothefourteenPaulineEpistles(includingHebrews,followingPhilemon),three
longerCatholicEpistles(James,1Peter,and1John)wereincluded.ThefourshorterCatholicEpistles(2
Peter,2and3John,andJude)andtheApocalypseareabsentfromthePeshittaSyriacversion,andthusthe
SyriaccanonoftheNewTestamentcontainedbuttwentytwowritings.TheOldTestamentconsistsofthe
usualbooksoftheHebrewBibleaswellasbookssuchasBaruch,EpistleofJeremiah,Psalmsadditions,
PrayerofManasseh,Tobit,Judith,WisdomofSolomon,WisdomofJesusb.Sirach,IIVMaccabees,Psalmsof
SolomonandApocalypseofBaruch.Giventhesefacts,itwouldbehardtodemonstratethattheChristian
"scriptures"aredemonstrablythesametodayasinMuhammad's(P) time.

AsfortheIslamicsources,someinterestingsnapshotsofthecontentsoftheChristianBiblearealsoseenin
IbnHisham'sAlSirahAlNabawiyyah.HementionssomeofthebeliefsoftheChristianswhotalkedtothe
Prophet(P) :

http://www.islamicawareness.org/Quran/MuhBible.html 11/17
3/3/2017 IsTheBibleInOurHandsTheSameAsDuringTheTimeOfMuhammad?

[Those who talked to Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, were Abu Haritha Ibn `Alqama, Al`Aqib `Abdul
Masih and AlAyham alSa`id.] They were Christians according to the faith of the king with differences
between them they say: He is Allah, and say: He is Son of Allah, and say: He is the third of three [i.e., part
of Trinity] and these are the claims of Christianity. [They use as evidence for their claim that He is Allah the
argument that] he used to raise the dead, cure the sick, create from clay birdlike structure then breathe into
it to make it a [living] bird. All this was by the leave of Allah, the Praiseworthy the Exalted {to appoint him as
a sign for men} (Maryam:21).

They also argue for saying that he is Son of Allah by saying he had no known father and spoke in infancy
which is something never done by any human being. They use as evidence for their claim that He is the third
of three [i.e., part of Trinity] the argument that Allah says: We did, We commanded, We created and We
judged [i.e., by using the plural for Himself], and whereas if He was one, He would say: I did, I judged, I
commanded and I created but it is He, Jesus and Maryam. The Qur'an was revealed addressing all these
arguments. [27]

TherearetwothingsaboutChristianityduringthetimeoftheProphet(P) thatstandout.Firstly,thebeliefthat
Jesus(P) spokeininfancyandthatheusedtocreatefromclaybirdlikestructuresandbreatheintothemto
makethemlivingbirds.Secondly,thetrinitariandoctrinethatGodiscomposedoftheFather,JesusandMary.
Sincethedoctrinalissuedoesnotconcernourdiscussion,wewillfocusonthefirstpointthatdealswiththe
natureofthescriptureitself.

ThemiraclesofJesus(P) speakingininfancyandgivinglifetobirdsmadeoutofclayareusuallydismissedby
themissionariesas"apocryphal"butthesewereperfectlyacceptabletoChristiansinArabiaduringtheadvent
ofIslam.TheOnlineCatholicEncyclopediaatteststhepopularityofinfancynarrativesamongtheSyrian
Nestorians.ItisinterestingtonotethattheArabicversionofinfancynarrativesweretranslatedfromaSyriac
original.[28]

ThisindirectlyconfirmsIbnHisham'snarrativeinAlSirahAlNabawiyyahwithregardtothebeliefof
ChristiansduringtheadventofIslamthatJesus(P) spokeinhisinfancyandbreathedintoclaybirdlike
structuresandturnedthemintolivingbirds.However,thisonlyprovidesusasnapshotofthekindof
"scripture"theChristianswereusingduringtheadventofIslamandcaninnowayprovideacompletepicture
ofwhattheirentire"scripture"lookedlike.[29]

Moreover,thedisagreementofJewsandChristiansamongthemselvesabouttheirownscriptureswaswell
knownduringtheadventofIslamandthatalsogaveanimpetusfor`UthmantocollecttheQur'an.

http://www.islamicawareness.org/Quran/MuhBible.html 12/17
3/3/2017 IsTheBibleInOurHandsTheSameAsDuringTheTimeOfMuhammad?

Hudhaifa bin alYaman came to `Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were
Waging war to conquer Armenia and Azerbaijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq)
differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to `Uthman, "O Chief of the Believers! Save this nation
before they differ about the Book (Qur'an) as Jews and the Christians did before."

ThedisagreementamongtheChristiansconcerningtheirscripturescanbeshownbystudyingthevarious
canonsoftheirBiblethroughoutthecenturiesbeforeandaftertheadventofIslam.Thedisagreementamong
themconcerningtheirscripturespersisteventoday.Withallthefactsinfrontofus,wecanconclusivelysay
thattheChristianscripturesaredemonstrablynotthesametodayasinMuhammad's(P) time.

5.Conclusions

ItwasclaimedbytheChristianmissionariesthattheirscripturesaredemonstrablythesametodayasin
Muhammad's(P) timeandthattheProphet(P) approvedthemasgenuine.However,therewasneitherany
"demonstration"noranyshowof"genuineness"fromthemissionaries.Thisisnotsurprising.TheProtestant
BiblecameintobeingduringtheReformation,nearly900yearsaftertheadventofIslam.Oneisleftto
wonderhowtheQur'anorthehadithliteraturecouldhaveendorsedaBiblethatcamesome900yearsafter
them.Furthermore,thecontentsofthisBiblewereinseveredisputeforover150yearsaftertheadventof
Reformationasevidentfromtheragingdisputesbetweenthereformers(thatmakesitoveramillenniumafter
theadventofIslam!).Indeed,ChristianityisunabletoproduceasingleGreekNewTestamentCodex
accordingtothelimitandorderasstatedbyAthanasius("thefountainofsalvation")untiltheMt.Athos
(Greg.922)manuscriptdated1116CE.Yet,incredibly,themissionarieswouldwantustobelievethatthe
"eclectic"GreekNewTestamentswehavetoday,whicharetextuallydifferentfromthemanuscriptstated
above,arethesameinboth'canon'and'content'asatthetimeofProphetMuhammad(P) .Unlessoneiscapable
oftimetravel,thisincredibleclaim,whichhasitsbasisinfantasyratherthanfact,doesnotcontainashredof
evidence.

Moreover,theProtestantCanonisoneofmanycanonsofthedifferentChristianChurchesandcontainsa
differentnumberofbookswhencomparedwithothercanons.Itwasalsoshownthatthetextualcontentof
moderndayBiblesusedbytheProtestantsis"eclectic"andbasedoneditorialjudgment.Textslikethisnever
existedinthehistoryofChristianityuntiltheadventofmoderntextualcriticism.

Furthermore,itwasalsopointedoutaccordingtoIslamicsources,theChristiansduringtheadventofIslam
believedinthemiraclesofJesus(P) speakingininfancyandgivinglifetobirdsmadeoutofclay.These
miraclesarenowdemotedtothestatusof"apocryphal"literature.Itisveryappropriatetosaythatone
Christian's"scripture"isanotherone's"apocrypha".

ThustheclaimthatthescripturesaredemonstrablythesametodayasinMuhammad's(P) timerestson
unprovengroundswhenexaminedfromthepointofviewofChristianhistory.TheclaimthattheQur'anand
thehadithendorsea"scripture"basedon"eclectic"sourcesthatareaproductofeditorialjudgmentisrather
farfetched.

AndAllahknowsbest!

References&Notes

[1]S.Hasan,AnIntroductionToTheScienceOfHadith,1995,DarussalamPublishers:Riyadh(Saudi
Arabia),p.11.
http://www.islamicawareness.org/Quran/MuhBible.html 13/17
3/3/2017 IsTheBibleInOurHandsTheSameAsDuringTheTimeOfMuhammad?

[2]Dr.MartinLuther,Biblia,1538,WolffK:Strassburg.

[3]B.F.Westcott,TheBibleInTheChurch:APopularAccountOfTheCollectionAndReceptionOfThe
HolyScripturesInTheChristianChurches,1879,Macmillan&Co.:London,p.270.

[4]B.M.Metzger,TheCanonOfTheNewTestament:ItsOrigin,Significance&Development,1997,
ClarendonPress:Oxford,p.273.

[5]ibid.,pp.241242.

[6]ibid.,pp.244245.

[7]D.D.Schmidt,"TheGreekNewTestamentAsACodex",inL.M.McDonaldandJ.A.Sanders(eds.),
TheCanonDebate,2002,HendricksonPublishers,p.476.

[8]ibid.

[9]ibid.

[10]ibid.,p.477.

[11]ThebestwordtodescribetheByzantinetexttypeis"corrupt".SeeB.M.Metzger,ATextual
CommentaryOnTheNewTestament:ACompanionVolumeToTheUnitedBibleSocieties'GreekNew
Testament,1971,UnitedBibleSocieties,London&NewYork,pp.xviixxiB.F.Westcott&F.J.A.Hort,
IntroductionToTheNewTestamentInTheOriginalGreek,1882(1988reprint),HendricksonPublishers
Inc.,pp.115119.

[12]K.Aland&B.Aland(Trans.E.F.Rhodes),TheTextOfTheNewTestament:AnIntroductionToThe
CriticalEditionsAndToTheTheoryAndPracticeOfModernTextualCriticism,1995(2ndRevised
Edition),WilliamB.EerdmansPublishingCompany:GrandRapids(Michigan),p.142.AfterlistingByzantine
typeminusculesbycentury,includingcodex922,Alandssay:

All of these minuscules exhibit a purely or predominantly Byzantine text. And this is not a peculiarity of the
minuscules, but a characteristic they share with a considerable number of uncials. They are all irrelevant for
textual criticism, at least for establishing the original form of the text and its development in the early
centuries.

AlsoseeD.D.Schmidt,"TheGreekNewTestamentAsACodex",inL.M.McDonaldandJ.A.Sanders
(eds.),TheCanonDebate,op.cit.,p.471.

[13]B.M.Metzger,TheTextOfTheNewTestament:ItsTransmission,Corruption,AndRestoration,1992
(ThirdEnlargedEdition),OxfordUniversityPress:Oxford&NewYork,p.135.Hesays:

By the way of retrospect and evalution it may be said that scholars today generally agree that one of the chief
contributions made by Westcott and Hort was their clear demonstration that the Syrian (or Byzantine) text is
later than the other types of text. Three main types of evidence supports this judgement: (1) the Syrian text
contains combined or conflate readings which are clearly composed of elements current in earlier forms of
text (2) no anteNicene Father quotes a distinctively Syrian reading and (3) when the Syrian readings are
compared with the rival readings their claim to be regarded as original is found gradually to diminish, and at
last to disappear.

http://www.islamicawareness.org/Quran/MuhBible.html 14/17
3/3/2017 IsTheBibleInOurHandsTheSameAsDuringTheTimeOfMuhammad?

[14]FordiscussionontheissueofearlyChristiansusingtheAlexandriantexttypepleaseseeL.Vaganay&
CBAmphoux(Trans.J.Heimerdinger),AnIntroductionToNewTestamentTextualCriticism,1986,
CambridgeUniversityPress:Cambridge(UK),pp.108109B.M.Metzger,TheTextOfTheNewTestament:
ItsTransmission,Corruption,AndRestoration,op.cit.,pp.278279K.Aland&B.Aland(Trans.E.F.
Rhodes),TheTextOfTheNewTestament:AnIntroductionToTheCriticalEditionsAndToTheTheory
AndPracticeOfModernTextualCriticism,op.cit.,pp.6566.

[15]D.D.Schmidt,"TheGreekNewTestamentAsACodex",inL.M.McDonaldandJ.A.Sanders(eds.),
TheCanonDebate,op.cit.,p.479.

[16]G.A.Buttrick(Ed.),TheInterpreter'sDictionaryOfTheBible,1962(1996Print),Volume4,Abingdon
Press:Nashville,pp.594595(Under"Text,NT")G.D.Fee,"TheTextualCriticismOfTheNew
Testament"inR.K.Harrison,B.K.Waltke,D.GuthrieandG.D.Fee(ed.),BiblicalCriticism:Historical,
LiteraryAndTextual,1978,ZondervanPublishingHouse:GrandRapids(MI),p.128.

[17]E.J.Epp,"IssuesInTheInterrelationOfNewTestamentTextualCriticismAndCanon",inL.M.
McDonaldandJ.A.Sanders(eds.),TheCanonDebate,op.cit.,p.514(italicsoriginal).

[18]ibid.

[19]IrenaeusandmostlaterwritersassumedthattheauthorwastheJohnwhowrotetheGospelandletters,
andthathewasthesonofZebedee.Butsome,likeDionysiusofAlexandria(thirdcentury),anticipatedthe
majorityofmodernscholarsbyquestioningthisidentificationbecauseofdifferencesofthought,styleand
language.See"Revelation,TheBookOf"inB.M.Metzger&M.D.Coogan(ed.),TheOxfordCompanion
ToTheBible,1993,OxfordUniversityPress:Oxford&NewYork,p.653.

[20]B.D.Ehrman,TheOrthodoxCorruptionOfScripture:TheEffectOfEarlyChristological
ControversiesOnTheTextOfTheNewTestament,1993,OxfordUniversityPress:London&NewYork,p.
274andp.277.

[21]B.Lewis,IslamInHistory,1993,OpenCourtPublishing,p.104105.AbouttheIslamic"traditional
science",hesays:

From an early date Muslim scholars recognized the danger of false testimony and hence false doctrine, and
developed an elaborate science for criticizing tradition. "Traditional science", as it was called, differed in many
respects from modern historical source criticism, and modern scholarship has always disagreed with
evaluations of traditional scientists about the authenticity and accuracy of ancient narratives. But their careful
scrutiny of the chains of transmission and their meticulous collection and preservation of variants in the
transmitted narratives give to medieval Arabic historiography a professionalism and sophistication without
precedent in antiquity and without parallel in the contemporary medieval West. By comparison, the
historiography of Latin Christendom seems poor and meagre, and even the more advanced and complex
historiography of Greek Christendom still falls short of the historical literature of Islam in volume, variety and
analytical depth.

SimilarlyWattsays:

... it would have been easy to invent sayings of Muhammad. Because the cultural background of the Arabs had
been oral the evidence that came to be expected was the chain of names of those who had passed on the
anecdote containing the saying... The study of Traditions rapidly became a distinct branch of the studies of
the general religious movement. It was soon realized that false Traditions were in circulation with sayings that
Muhammad could not possibly have uttered. The chains of transmitters were therefore carefully scrutinised to
make sure that the persons named could in fact have met one another, that they could be trusted to repeat
http://www.islamicawareness.org/Quran/MuhBible.html 15/17
3/3/2017 IsTheBibleInOurHandsTheSameAsDuringTheTimeOfMuhammad?

the story accurately, and that they did not hold any heretical views. This implied extensive biographical
studies and many biographical dictionaries have been preserved giving the basic information about a man's
teachers and pupils, the views of later scholars (on his reliability as a transmitter) and the date of his death.
This biographybased critique of Traditions helped considerably to form a more or less common mind among
many men throughout the caliphate about what was to be accepted and what rejected.

SeeW.M.Watt,WhatIsIslam?,1968,Longman,Green&Co.Ltd.,pp.124125.

[22]Thatis,howtheinformationwastransmittedfromonepersontoanother.Thetransmissionofknowledge
inIslamwasthroughijaza.Itmeans,inshort,thefactthatanauthorizedguarantorofatextorofawhole
book(hisownworkoraworkreceivedthroughachainoftransmittersgoingbacktothefirsttransmitterorto
theauthor)givesapersontheauthorizationtotransmititinhisturnsothatthepersonauthorizedcanavail
himselfofthistransmission.Theijazasoftenhavingindicationsofdatesandplacesanddetailsofthenames
ofthepersonswhoformedlinksinthetransmissionwhichprecede,frameorfollownotonlythetextsof
hadith,offiqhoroftafsir,butalsotheological,mystical,historicalandphilologicalworks,andevenliterary
collections,ofbothproseandpoetry.

Inotherwords,theijazasystemwasawayofcontrollingwhocouldmakecopiesofsomeone'sworkandwhat
usestheycouldputitto.Ifthecopierdidn'tdisplaytheproperpermissionfromtheoriginalauthor,bywayof
thechainofauthoritiesontheijaza,peoplewouldregardthecopierasaforgerorthief.Asmentionedearlier,
thissystemwasextensivelyusedinthetransmissionofIslamicliterature.Foritsuseinthetransmissionof
majorhadithcollections,pleasesee,J.Robson,"TheTransmissionOfMuslim'sSahih",JournalOfThe
RoyalAsiaticSociety,1949,pp.4960J.Robson,"TheTransmissionOfAbuDawud'sSunan",BulletinOf
TheSchoolOfOrientalAndAfricanStudies,1952,Volume14,pp.579588J.Robson,"TheTransmission
OfTirmidhi'sJami`",BulletinOfTheSchoolOfOrientalAndAfricanStudies,1954,Volume16,pp.258
270J.Robson,"TheTransmissionOfNasa'i'sSunan",JournalOfSemiticStudies,1956,VolumeI,pp.38
59J.Robson,"TheTransmissionOfIbnMajah'sSunan",JournalOfSemiticStudies,1958,VolumeIII,pp.
129141.

[23]G.A.Buttrick(Ed.),TheInterpreter'sDictionaryOfTheBible,opcit.,p.594.

[24]J.Bentley,SecretsOfMountSinai:TheStoryOfCodexSinaiticus,1985,OrbisPublishingLimited:
London(UnitedKingdom),pp.117139.

[25]S.H.Griffith,"TheGospelInArabic:AnEnquiryIntoItsAppearanceInTheFirstAbbasidCentury",
OriensChristianus,1985,Volume69,pp.126167.

[26]ibid.,p.132.

[27]AbuMuhammad`AbdalMalikIbnHishamalMa`afiri,AlSirahAlNabawiyyah,1998,VolumeII,Dar
alHadith:Cairo(Egypt),pp.181182.Alsoavailableontheweb.

AccordingtothetranslationofGuillaume:

The names of the fourteen principal men among the sixty riders were: `AbdulMasih the `Aqib, alAyham the
Sayyid Abu Haritha b. `Alqama brother of B. Bakr b. Wa`il Aus alHarith Zayd Qays Yazid Nubayh
Khuwaylid `Amr Khalid `Abdullah Johannes of these the first three named above spoke to the Apostle.
They were Christians according to the Byzantine rite, though they differed among themselves in some points,
saying He is God and He is the son of God and He is the third person of the Trinity, which is the doctrine of
Christianity.They argue that he is God because he used to raise the dead, and heal the sick, and declare the
unseen and make clay birds and then breathe into them so that they flew away and all this was by the

http://www.islamicawareness.org/Quran/MuhBible.html 16/17
3/3/2017 IsTheBibleInOurHandsTheSameAsDuringTheTimeOfMuhammad?

command of God Almighty, 'We will make him a sign to men.' They argue that he is the son of God in that
they say he had no known father and he spoke in the cradle and this is something that no child of Adam has
ever done. They argue that he is the third of the three in that God says: We have done, We have commanded,
We have created and We have decreed, and they say, If He were one he would have said I have done, I have
created, and soon, but He is He and Jesus and Mary. Concerning all these assertions the Qur'an came down.

SeeA.Guillaume,TheLifeOfMuhammad:ATranslationOfIshaq'sSiratRasulAllah,1998(13th
impression),OxfordUniversityPress:Karachi(Pakistan),pp.271272.

Theisnadofthisreportismursal.

[28]ThisisaccordingtotheOnlineCatholicEncyclopediaunder"Apocrypha"forArabicinfancynarratives.
Ontheotherhand,TisdallsaysconcerningtheArabicversionofGospeloftheInfancy:

The style of the Arabic of this apocryphal Gospel, (Gospel Of The Infancy) however, is so bad that it is hardly
possible to believe that it dates from Muhammad's time. As, however, Arabic has never been supposed to be
the language in which the work was composed, this is a matter of little or no consequence. From a study of
the book there seems little room for doubt that it has been translated into Arabic from the Coptic, in which
language it may have been composed.

SeeRev.W.St.ClairTisdall,TheOriginalSourcesOfTheQur'an,1905,SocietyForThePromotionOf
ChristianKnowledge,London,p.42.

[29]AlfredGuillaumementionsanothercitationfromtheNewTestamentpresentinIbnIshaq'sSiratRasul
AllahdealingwiththeprophecyofcomingofMunahhemanainSyraicortheParacleteinGreek.SeeA.
Guillaume,"TheVersionOfTheGospelsUsedInMedianCirca700A.D.",AlAndalus,1950,Volume15,
pp.289296.Hisconclusionsconcerningthe"versions"ofGospelsused,however,areinconclusive.

BackToExaminingTheQur'an

http://www.islamicawareness.org/Quran/MuhBible.html 17/17