Muhammad and Christ. Maulana Muhammad Ali

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ commentator of the Bible, the Rev. J.R. Dummelow:

      To begin with, the writers of the Gospels report in Greek (although they may have had some Aramaic sources) the sayings of Jesus Christ who for the most part probably spoke Aramaic. Nor is it likely that these writers or their copyists had any idea that their record would go beyond the early Churches with which they themselves were familiar.

      The same applies to St. Paul. His letters, now so valued, were messages only intended for the Churches to which they were addressed. Those who first copied them would not regard them at all “sacred” in our sense of the word.

      Nor even in the later centuries do we find that scrupulous regard for the sacred text which marked the transmission of the Old Testament. A copyist would sometimes put in not what was in the text, but what he thought ought to be in it. He would trust a fickle memory, or he would even make the text accord with the views of the school to which he belonged. Besides this, an enormous number of copies are preserved. In addition to the versions and quotations from the early Christian Fathers, nearly four thousand Greek manuscripts of the New Testament are known to exist. As a result, the variety of readings is considerable.

      What reliance can be placed on documents which were transmitted so carelessly and with such additions and alterations by the scribes? Even their authorship and the date of writing is absolutely uncertain. The first of the canonical Gospels is advertised as the Gospel according to St. Matthew, who was an Apostle. But it is certain that that Gospel was never written by him. It was written by some unknown hand. The story of its authorship as given by the commentator, whom I have quoted above, is that probably St. Matthew had written in Hebrew a book of “logia” or “oracles,” which is not to be met with anywhere, except that Papias writing in A.D. 130 credits St. Matthew with the composition of such a book.

      Of a Greek translation of these “Logia” our author seems to have made such liberal use, that he acknowledged his obligations to the Apostle by calling his work “according to Matthew.”

      This explanation speaks for itself. St. Matthew may have written a certain book which is not met with anywhere except in the reference in Papias. The rest is all a conjecture. There is not the least evidence that the unknown author of the first Gospel had a copy of this book or of its translation in Greek, nor that he made any liberal use of it. The conjecture is based simply on the fact that he called it the Gospel according to St. Matthew, but he might have done it as well if he had only the oral traditions of St. Matthew.

      The next Gospel is that of St. Mark, who was a companion of St. Peter, and the following testimony as recorded by Papias about A.D. 130 is relied upon in ascribing the authorship of the Gospel to him:

      Mark having become (or having been) Peter’s interpreter wrote all that he remembered (or, all that Peter related) though he did not (record) in order that which was said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him; but subsequently, as I said, (attached himself) to Peter who used to frame his teaching to meet the (immediate) wants (of his hearers); and not as making a connected narrative of the Lord’s discourses.

      Even if we accept this evidence, the Gospel of St. Mark may be said to have been based on the oral tradition of Peter, but even this evidence does not make it certain that the Gospel in our hands was actually written by St. Mark and higher criticism favours the view that he was only the author of the nucleus of the present Gospel ascribed to him.

      St. Luke too was not a disciple of Jesus but a disciple of the Apostles and he is said to have followed St. Paul. And as regards the fourth Gospel, there is no doubt that it is a much later composition. As regards the dates of the various Gospels, the most favourable view as regards the first three Gospels is that they were written about the year A.D. 70, but higher criticism favours a much later date, and internal evidence is regarded to point to this conclusion. In a discussion as to the date of canonical Matthew we are told that “many are disposed to bring down the date of the entire Gospel as late as to A.D. 130.” An earlier date can only be admitted if a great many passages are treated as later interpolations. As regards the date of St. Luke the conclusion arrived at is that “the year A.D. 100 will be the superior, and somewhere about A.D. 110 the inferior, limit of the date of its composition” [Encyclopaedia Biblica].

      The considerations as to the authorship, the date and transmission of the Gospels, the very large variety of manuscripts and readings and the undeniable existence of interpolations in them reduce their credibility to the minimum; and hence a criticism of them in the Encyclopaedia Biblica leads the Rev. E.A. Abbot to raise a very important question:

      The forgoing sections may have sometimes seemed to raise a doubt whether any credible elements were to be found in the Gospels at all.

      The answer to this question is that in all the Gospels, the following five passages may be treated as surely credible:

      1. The passage that shows that Jesus refused to be called sinless: “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God”. [Mark 10:18]

      2. The passage that shows that he held that blasphemy against himself could be forgiven: “All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men”. [Mark 12:31]

      3. The passage that shows that his own mother and brethren had no faith in him and they sincerely thought that he was mad: And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him; for they said, He is beside himself’. [Mark3:21] From v. 31 it appears that these friends were his own mother and his brothers.

      4. The passage that shows that Jesus Christ had no knowledge of the unseen: “Of that day and of that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the son but the Father.”

      5. The passage that speaks of the cry of despair that he uttered on the cross: “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me”. [Matt.27:44]

      To these five are added four others dealing with his miracles which will be referred to in the discussion on his miracles later on, and these nine passages are said to be “the foundation-pillar for a truly scientific life of Jesus.”

      It would thus be seen that the basis of the Christian religion is laid on the most unreliable record, and the stories of the miracles wrought and the wonderful deeds done, on which is based the doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus Christ and of his superiority to all mortals, can therefore be only received with the greatest caution. It must, however, be borne in mind that mere superiority of Jesus Christ as a mortal to another mortal, says the Holy Founder of Islam, does not bring us a whit nearer the truth of the Christian religion unless it is shown that he possessed a Divine nature or that he did deeds which no mortal has ever done. If the Christian religion had followed the principles laid down by the earlier prophets, the assertion that Jesus Christ was a greater man than any other human being that ever lived, would have done some good to the cause of Christianity, but so long as the atonement of the sins of men by a Divine person remains the central doctrine of that religion, nothing less than a clear proof that his superiority to other mortals lay in being Divine and above a mortal can be of any use to its cause. It is in this light that a discussion of the relative merits of Christianity and Islam, or of the relative greatness of their founders, can really help a seeker after truth. But as Christian controversy finds itself unable to cope with this question, I will take the various points as they are raised by Christian controversialists. I take the Christian case as presented in the latest of their pamphlets, a small tract issued by the Christian Missionary Society at Ludhiana, under the title of Haqa’iq-i Qur’an, or the “Quranic Truths” which claims to have been based only on “the Quranic statements,” and which has been circulated and broadcast in India and, through the pages of Muslim World, in all Christian and Muslim countries.

      Конец СКАЧАТЬ