Corruption of the Torah & the Gospels

The question of corruption

The question of corruption of biblical texts is a major bone of contention among the three communities, Jews, Christians and Muslims. A great deal has been written about it throughout the centuries; even before Islam, the texts have been attacked because of inconsistencies, errors and contradictions in them. There has always been heated discussion about this topic. The People of the books always ask how God's message can be corrupt? Can God's word fail? When did the corruption take place? Who is responsible for it? We shall address this question in this chapter, but first there is something that I should like to point out. Different arguments on the subject of corruption have helped the development of the sciences of textual criticism, the study of comparative religion, interfaith studies, oriental studies and so on. This in itself has given rise to specialist departments in the universities, where scholars defend their own position and try to shake their opponents' position. As I have mentioned earlier, modern biblical criticism gives support to the Muslim claim of corruption. Jews and Christians need to reconsider their position in the light of the Muslim arguments. Why, for example, if the Torah was corrupt, did Jesus not mention its shortcomings? As a prophet he could not use a false text and quote from it. There is an ingenious objection; one could say that the prophet cannot deal with everything. Jesus came for a special purpose and with a special message.

John the Baptist, for example, came to warn people and to command them to repent, in preparation for the coming of the Kingdom of God. That was his sole function. Lot came only to attack the homosexuality practiced by his people, and nothing else. Jesus himself made it clear that the Paraclete, another being like himself, would come after him and tell them what he himself could not. This means that Jesus did not say everything. This supports our viewpoint that each prophet comes with a.specific message and keeps within its limits.

So we cannot take as evidence Jesus' silence about corruption of Jewish books that these books are sound.
Readers will see that almost all modern biblical critics give credence to the Muslims' claim that the Bible has been corrupted. We are speaking from a position of belief, not as enemies wishing to destroy and reject.
Muslims believe in Jesus, and believe equally in his heavenly book and Divine message which brought great benefit to mankind.

Ibn Hazm introduces his argument concerning textual corruption by saying that both Jews and Christians have distorted the Torah and the gospels by Tabdil and Tahrif, changing and twisting the words.⁽¹⁾ He produces many examples to prove his point as will be seen later. In a more general attack on the relationship between the Jewish Bible, the Septuagint (or LXX, the first Greek version of the Old Testament made at Alexandria in the third century B.C.) and the Samaritan Pentateuch, which he finds to contradict one another, he points out that the Christian and Jewish Torah are different. On the basis of the different ages of the Patriarchs he concludes that the chronology of the Septuagint adds 1,300 years to the age of the world.⁽²⁾ Thus it can be deduced either that Ezra copied the Hebrew correctly and the Septuagint is wrong; or that Ezra miscopied the Hebrew. "Whichever alternative is accepted, both parties believe in what is untrue."⁽³⁾ Ibn Hazm's criticisms that indicate the differences between the texts are

supported by other scholars"⁽⁴⁾

* He also refers to variations between the Septuagint and the Torah and the Pentateuch of the Samaritans ⁽⁵⁾

In the context of transmission Ibn Hazm begins by discrediting Christian Isncul ox ascription, and casting doubt on the authority of the Christian narrators. He applies Islamic methodology to the Christian tradition.

The gospels were not transmitted by Tawatur, unbroken succession. They had come down to Christians through three agents only: Paul, Mark and Luke, and these three had taken their material from only five sources; Peter, Matthew, John, James and Jude.⁽⁶⁾ Paul says that he was with Peter only for fifteen days⁽⁷⁾ when they first met, and their next meeting only occupied a brief time. The third time they met they were crucified. The five figures from whom the three agents draw their material were subjected to persecution and execution to such an extent that they were effectively scattered after Jesus' arrest; and Christians remained scattered until the time of Constantine (d. 337 A.C.), when they began to show themselves openly and to lead a more stable life. It could be argued that since Ibn Hazm recognizes the trials undergone by the Apostles he has no grounds for finding them personally culpable of corrupting the Injil. Their guilt, however, lies in their failure to recognize or admit the fact of corruption, claiming that everything they wrote was inspired by God.

Ibn Hazm's view of the position of Christians after Jesus' death is clearly determined by his general attitude to the authenticity and authority of The Acts of the Apostles. This calls for some comment. Acts relate the status and pattern of early Christian worship, and provide evidence that Christians were gathering in groups and practicing their faith in the public eye at an early date (Acts 2:5-42).
It is clear that they were free to go to the synagogue and evangelize

(Acts 6:7) and that they attracted converts from among the rabbis.
Persecutions which scattered them throughout Judea and Samara (8: Iff) were succeeded by a period of stability (9:31) and controversial issues relating to Christian practices were discussed and resolved (15:6-21).
In the light of the information relating to the early Christians in Acts, which suggest that they had the opportunity to practice their faith publicly and in private, collectively and individually - it is striking that Ibn Hazm presents

a very different picture of Christian activity at this date. Was he ignorant of the evidence in Acts, or did he intentionally ignore it to suit his purpose in discounting Isnad?

The first possibility cannot be maintained since the author of Al~Faisal was clearly familiar with the text. .⁽⁸⁾
He provided a good description of it, its possible authorship, size, etc.⁽⁹⁾ He himself quoted from it,⁽¹⁰⁾ and compared the miracles related in it with those of other religious sects, considering them to be false.⁽¹¹⁾
As for the second possibility, Ibn Hazm's discounting of the evidence in Acts is less a matter of deliberate, expedient omission than the consequence of Acts failing to fulfill the requirements of an authoritative text. In common with other Muslims, he would have found the information given in Acts unacceptable because it had not been transmitted by the masses to the masses, and was not traceable to eye witnesses. The rejection of information carried in Acts is then, a consequence of its being based on the work of a single author.⁽¹²⁾

Given the circumstances of the early Christians as described by the author of Al-Faisal Jesus' followers were in no position to keep and protect the Injil given to them intact by Jesus. According to Ibn Hazm God protected those parts of the Injil that he wished to stand as a testimony against corruption, and as proof of the truthfulness of Islam.

This falls within Ibn Hazm's general outlook which states that the existence of negation or falsehood necessitates the existence of truth.⁽¹³⁾The differences among the people "of the religions" do not prove that there is no truth at all in their utterances, or that their true utterances cannot be distinguished from those which are false. He says that Jews and Christians necessarily have both truth and falsehood in their scriptures. .⁽¹⁴⁾ This leads directly to the question of how it is possible to mine out the truth in the Christian dogma and scriptures.
Ibn Hazm argues that this task must be undertaken on the basis of reasoning and Revelation;⁽¹⁵⁾

for instance he rejects the Christian belief in Christ's divinity on the basis that it is irrational, and furthermore this leads him to reject those texts on which Christians claim to base such a belief. The argument of a reasonable foundation is supported by the argument based on Revelation in that the Qur'an, as God's Revelation, sanctions the objection to Christ's divinity. Ibn Hazm does not reproach Jews or Christians for the contradictions and mistakes per se in their scriptures but for their ascription of them to God. His objections are directed towards the failure of Jews and Christians to investigate properly the process of transmission or to admit the possibility that mistakes had crept into their texts. Muslims deny that God could be responsible for lies, or the acceptance of transmitters as infallible people. It is necessary to make a minute and systematic examination of those responsible for transmission.

Ibn Hazm makes a plea for Christians to sift the material in their possession rather than simply accepting it as it is, and expresses the wish that they might countenance the possibility that transmitters might have committed errors. This having been done it would be possible to correct or reject mistakes on the Muslim scheme. Once again this leads the discussion to the question of how Jesus' true speech can best be distinguished from words that have falsely

been put into his mouth.
Ibn Hazm did not attempt to identify the genuine Gospel in toto - an undertaking which could not be expected from a literalist conscious that neither the Qur'an nor tradition had set a precedent for such a task. Nevertheless, his work does indicate some passages which he clearly regards as part of the real Injil as compared with others which he considers to be irrefutably corrupted. The criterion on which his distinctions are made is the Quran itself - he accepts what is consistent with the Qur'an and rejects what is incompatible with it,

this latter understood as passages specifically denied in the Qur'an or implicitly contradictory.

Ibn Hazm's categorization of passages relating to the identity of the true Injil can be set forward in three groups.

Firstly,

he fully accepts certain passages, for example, Luke 4:24, describing this as part of what God protected and kept as a testimony against Christians.⁽¹⁶⁾ Likewise he accepts those verses which argue for Jesus' humanity and prophethood and the references to the Paraclete which he understands to constitute a prophecy about Muhammad. In this context it is noteworthy that Ibn Hazm's reference to the Paraclete does not correspond to any of the four references in John (14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:17). The text of Al-Faisal states that the prophecies concerning Muhammad in the Torah "are accompanied by those in the Injil concerning Jesus' prayer to God; "send down the Paraclete to teach the people that the son of man is human",⁽¹⁷⁾ followed by the comment: "This is perfectly clear for whosoever is ready to understand; when Jesus knew that his followers would exaggerate his status, insisting that he was God, or the son of God, he prayed that He might send down (the Paraclete) who would clarify the fact that he was neither a deity nor the son of the deity, but a man born of woman"..⁽¹⁸⁾
Ibn Hazm goes on to ask whether any prophet succeeding Jesus clarified t his point, other than Muhammad.

The above passage concerning Jesus' prayer to God in Al-Faisal represents an unusual error from such an exact critic, and the recent discovery and publication of Ibn Hazm's Al-Usul Wa Al-FunC suggests that it is an editorial error. This book gives the complete picture of the identification between the Paraclete and the prophet made by Ibn Hazm. The other passages in John concerning the same issue are discussed but the quotations differ from those in the current version, and correspond closely to Ibn Rabban's version.⁽¹⁹⁾
Ibn Hazm comments on the passages that

"despite the differences between them they are close (in meaning). They differ because the Apostles who took them from Jesus were many". The explanation of the passages in Al-Usul is worth quoting at length: "Who is this, the spirit of truth, who does not speak on his own but through what is revealed to him? and who is this who came after Jesus and gave his witness to what Jesus brought (from heaven) ... and who declared the truth, and foretold the unseen things such as the coming of the anti-Christ or the one-eyed liar and those matters concerning the Day of Judgment, the coming, the Hell-fire and Paradise which are not mentioned in the Torah, the Gospel and the Psalter - except our Prophet Muhammad."⁽²⁰⁾

It is very interesting that our author refers to Matthew 11:14 "And if you are willing to accept it, this is Elijah, who is to come", and follows this with the comment; "This name (Elijah) can be understood in a number of ways. Firstly, it is possible that he (Jesus) said 'Ahmad' is to come, but they changed the name, substituting Elijah instead. Secondly, Jesus may have said 'iluhim' or 'il' was to come, meaning 'God is to come'. The coming of God is the sending of Revelation, and no sacred book has come after Jesus except the Qur'an. Thirdly, it is possible that Jesus intended something - not necessarily a person - and called that something Elijah."⁽²¹⁾

The above quotation reveals Ibn Hazm's firm belief in the prophecy of Muhammad appearing in the Gospel, although he does not specifically refer here to the Qur'an, 61:6. In this passage the Qur'an employs the word "Ahmad" rather than "Muhammad" to name the Prophet.

Leaving aside the problem of the quotation, it is important that Ibn Hazm should have been interested in identifying the Paraclete with a Prophet who followed Jesus, and who must have been Muhammad on the basis of the (mistaken) quotation in Al-FaisaL Unlike some earlier and later Muslims,
Ibn Hazm does not develop this argument further -there is a broad range of arguments surrounding the identity of the Paraclete in both Muslim and non-Muslim scholarship.

Secondly,
Ibn Hazm recognizes that some verses in the Gospel accounts may be true - he does not commit himself to saying that they are remnants of the true Injil, but he does not exclude the possibility that they could be. An example of this can be found in his comment on Matthew 16:19-24. He begins with an outright denial that Jesus offered the keys of heaven to Peter: "By God I swear that Jesus never said such a thing",.⁽²²⁾such an authorization being, in his view, destructive to the omnipotence of God, but he recognizes the possibility that Jesus' rebuke to Peter which follows in the text may be correct: "It is not impossible that he uttered the last statement."⁽²³⁾

Thirdly,
as indicated above, the author of Al-Faisal absolutely denies certain verses which purport to be the utterances of Jesus; introducing his comments with a series of phrases such as: "By God, Jesus never said so", "This could not have come from God, nor a prophet, nor an infallible source, nor an honest scholar, from among the people", "By God, nobody but a liar could have said this, it could not have come from God."⁽²⁴⁾

These three categories represent the general outline within which Ibn Hazm suggests to his reader the actual utterances of Jesus.

PAGE 1 OF 5

|1| |2| |3| |4| |5|

Endnotes

1-Ibn Hazm, Al-Faisal, vol. 1, p. 156 and vol. 2, pp. 23 ff

2-Ibid., vol. 2. pp. 23 ff; see also al-Biruni, aFAthar al-Baqiya, pp. 15 ff, and Ibn al-Ibri, Tarikh Mukhtasr Ad-Duwal, ed, by Antun Salihani al-Yasui (Beirut, The Catholic Press, 1958), pp. 9 ff.

3-Ibn Hazm, Al-Faisal, vol. 2, p. 25; see also Sweetman, op. cit., part 2, vol. 1, p. 234.

4-A. R. Buckland, The Universal Bible Dictionary, (London, Lutterworth Press, 1953), pp. 102 f and 434 ff; Robert H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament, (London, Adam and Charles Black, 1953), pp. 107 f and Randle short, Modern Discovery and The Bible, (London, The Inter-Varsity fellowship of Evangelica Unions, 1972), pp. 68 ff and Ibn Khalil al-Handi, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 188 f.

5-Ibn Hazm, Al-Faisal, vol. 2, p. 25.

6-Ibid., p. 20 and 83; and (R. A.), pp. 51 and 74.

7-See e.g. Galatians I, 18:19.

8-Ibn Hazm, Al-Faisal, vol. 2, p. 42.

9-Ibid., p. 20.

10- Ibid.,p. 21.

11-Ibid., p. 22; see also ^vAbd as-Salam Harun, Nawadir Al-Makhtutat, (Cairo, Lajnat at-Ta'lif Wa,an-Nashr Press, 1954), pp. 270 f.

12-Ibn Hazm, Al-Faisai, vol. 2, p. 84; see also Ibn Khalil al-Hindi, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 188 and Sa^vd ibn Mansur ibn Kammuna, Examination of the Three Faiths, trans, from the Arabic with an introduction and notice by Moshe perlmann (Berkeley, Los Angles/London, University of California Press, 1971), p. 93; A. H. Mcneile, An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, Second Edition revised by C. S. C. Williams (Oxford, at the Clarendon Press, 1953), pp. 110 f; and C.R.T. and T. Clark, 1907), pp. 54 f.

13-Ibn Hazm, Al-Faisal, vol. 2 pp. 21 f.

14-Ibid.,vol.2,p. 11.

15-Ibid., vol. 2, p. 19.

16-Ibid., p. 64.

17- Ibid vol. l,p. 89.

18-Ibid.

19-Ibn Rabban at-Tabari, Ad-Din Wa Ad-Dawlah, pp. 184 f.

20-Ibn Hazm, Ai-Usul Wa Al-Furu , vol.1, pp. 191 f; see also Timothy, pp. 33 ff. and ^vAbd al-^vAziz Ibn ash-Shikh Hamid ibn Nasir al-Muammir, Minhat Qarib Ai-Mujib Fi Ar-Radd ^sAla ^y(Jbbad As-Salib, (Saudi Arabia, Dar Thaqif, 1980), pp. 82 ff.

21-Ibn Hazm, Al-Usui Wa Al-Furu , p. 192.

22-Ibid., p. 46.

23-Ibid.

24-Ibid., pp. 25, 31, 40, 44, 58, 61 and 62.

Truth revealed