The Publisher’s Note

“The Bible, the Qur’an and Science” is a famous book throughout the world. It was written by the renowned French surgeon, scientist, and researcher Dr. Maurice Bucaille. When his book, written in French and titled “La Bible, le Coran et la Science,” was first published in Paris in May 1976, it immediately attracted the attention of the educated public. It was translated into many languages of the world, including English and Arabic.

The Holy Qur’an is the key to humanity’s salvation and well-being in this world and the Hereafter, and the only flawless heavenly scripture. Yet attempts have been made throughout the ages to deny this truth. These attempts have been made chiefly by Jewish and Christian scholars and by scientists.

In this book, he has beautifully presented the harmony between knowledge derived from modern scientific research and the biblical accounts. In this age of the supreme advancement of science, the book is being widely discussed and praised throughout the world because it is proving immensely beneficial to those who wish to discover the real truth. When the distinguished journalist and columnist Mr. Osman Gani translated this extraordinary book into Bengali, it was first published serially for several years in the monthly magazine Prithibi. Recently, at a prayer gathering organized on the occasion of the second death anniversary of the late Osman Gani, the distinguished attendees emphasized the publication of the book in volume form. They said that, once published, it could become a means of the deceased’s salvation in the Hereafter, and that even after his death he could become entitled to the reward of ongoing charity.

Considering this aspect, when the deceased’s worthy children and family gladly agreed to publish the book, Al-Qur’an Academy decided to undertake its publication.

Al-Qur’an Academy is a missionary organization established to disseminate and spread the teachings and message of the Qur’an widely among people. Its principal task is to conduct Qur’an-centered research and publish and disseminate the fruits of that research. Already, with our cooperation, the following have been published: “Dictionary of the Holy Quran,” written by Hafiz Munir Uddin Ahmed, Director of Al-Qur’an Academy London; “Thematic Dictionary of the Qur’an,” written by Asad bin Hafiz, Director of Al-Qur’an Academy Dhaka; and the remarkable Qur’anic story by Ata Sarkar, “Beautiful You, Most Holy.”

Al-Qur’an Academy Dhaka is moving forward with plans to undertake more extensive work on the Qur’an. Meanwhile, with the cooperation of Al-Qur’an Academy London and under our supervision, work has begun on translating the world-famous tafsir “Fi Zilalil Qur’an.”

I pray to everyone that Allah may fulfill all our good aims and make the author, translator, and publisher of this book worthy of salvation in the Hereafter. May Allah grant us all the ability to know and understand His Word and act accordingly.

Amin.

Introduction

Each of the three monotheistic religions has its own scripture. Whether Jew, Christian, or Muslim, that scripture is the foundation of one’s faith. For all of them, their respective scripture is the written form of heavenly revelation. That revelation came directly from Allah to Abraham and Moses. It came to Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon him) through an intermediary. Jesus said that he had spoken in the name of his father. And the revelation preached by Muhammad (peace be upon him) was received by him from Allah through the angel Gabriel.

Judged in the light of historical facts, the Old Testament, the Gospels, and the Qur’an belong to the same category—that is, written compilations of heavenly revelation. Muslims believe in this doctrine. But the inhabitants of the West, influenced chiefly by Jews and Christians, do not wish to grant the Qur’an the status of heavenly revelation.

If one considers the attitude that the people of one religion maintain toward the scriptures of the other two religions, one can perhaps find an explanation for that Western doctrine.

The heavenly scripture of the Jews is the Hebrew Bible. Its difference from the Christians’ Old Testament is that the Old Testament contains several chapters that were not in the Hebrew Bible. This difference, of course, does not create much difficulty in practice, since the Jews do not acknowledge that any scripture was revealed after their own Book.

Christians have accepted the Hebrew Bible as their own scripture, but they have added something to it. However, they did not accept all the works written and published for the purpose of propagating Jesus’ teachings. Christian priests rejected many books written about the life and teachings of Jesus. In the New Testament they retained only a very small number of writings. Among these, the four canonical Gospels are the most important. Christians acknowledge no heavenly revelation after Jesus and his disciples. Therefore, they do not acknowledge the Qur’an as a heavenly scripture either.

The Qur’an was revealed six hundred years after Jesus. This Book restates much information from the Hebrew Bible and the Gospels, because the Qur’an contains many quotations from the Torah and the Gospels. (By the Torah are meant the first five books of the Bible—that is, the Pentateuch of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.) The Qur’an itself commands Muslims to believe in all the heavenly Books that preceded it (Surah 4, verse 136). Moreover, the roles of prophets such as Noah, Abraham, and Moses are given particular emphasis in the heavenly revelation. Jesus is also accorded a special status, because both the Qur’an and the Gospels describe his birth as a supernatural event. His mother Mary is likewise accorded special status. An indication of this special status can be found in the fact that the eleventh surah of the Qur’an is named after her.

Westerners are generally uninformed about all this information concerning Islam. Considering the way they have been given religious instruction for generations and kept ignorant about Islam, this condition does not seem at all unusual. The use, even today, of terms such as “Mohammedan religion” and “Mohammedan nation” has played a major role in their ignorance. By using these terms and expressions, they have formed the false notion that this faith was established by a man named Muhammad and that Allah has no role in it (in the Christian religious sense). Many distinguished and learned Westerners are now interested in learning about Islam’s philosophical, social, and political doctrines, but they make no effort to learn about Islam’s own heavenly revelation. Yet that revelation is what they should investigate first.

Many people cannot even imagine the contempt with which Muslims are viewed in some Christian circles. I have a personal experience in this regard. Once I wanted to make a comparative analysis of accounts of the same subject in the Bible and the Qur’an. But my audience would not accept any Qur’anic account as a basis even for a temporary discussion. They believed that quoting anything from the Qur’an meant introducing the subject of Satan himself.

Nevertheless, signs of some change can currently be seen at the highest levels of the Christian world. On the basis of matters discussed at the Second Vatican Council, a book was published in French by the Vatican’s Office for Non-Christian Affairs. Its title was “Orientations pour un dialogue entre chrétiens et musulmans”—“Basis for Dialogue between Christians and Muslims.” Publisher: Ancora, Rome, third edition, 1970. This book contains indications of far-reaching changes in the official Christian doctrine.

The document discards the Christians’ old conception of Muslims, distorted by “gratuitous hostility and antipathy inherited from ancient times,” and “acknowledges past injustices toward Muslims,” stating that the Christian-educated Western mentality was responsible. Criticizing the misconceptions Christians had long held about Muslim fatalism, legalism, and fanaticism, the book places particular emphasis on belief in the oneness of Allah. It also recalls how, when Cardinal Koenig visited the famous mosque of Al-Azhar Muslim University during an official conference in March 1969 and emphatically proclaimed that oneness, the listeners were astonished. It further recalls that, at the end of the Ramadan fast in 1967, the Vatican Office called upon Christians to send greetings to Muslims “with sincere religious feeling.”

After these initial efforts to establish closer relations between the Roman Catholic Curia and Islam, several further steps were taken, and the relationship was deepened through exchanges and communication between the two sides. Although these events were extremely important, they received little publicity. Yet they occurred in the West, where there is no shortage of means of communication such as newspapers, radio, and television.

On April 24, 197—, Cardinal Pignedoli, president of the Vatican’s Office for Non-Christian Affairs, visited Saudi Arabia on an official trip and met King Faisal. Yet this important news received no significance in the newspaper pages. The French newspaper Le Monde reported it very briefly in only a few lines on April 25, 1974. But attention to what happened at that meeting shows how important the news was. At the meeting, the cardinal presented King Faisal with a message from His Holiness Pope Paul VI. In the message, His Holiness, “inspired by a deep belief in the unity of the Islamic and Christian worlds in the worship of one God, expressed profound respect for His Majesty King Faisal as the leader of the Islamic world.”

Six months later, in October 1974, a delegation of leading scholars from Saudi Arabia visited the Vatican on an official trip and met the Pope. A discussion meeting between Christians and Muslims was then held there on “Human Cultural Rights in Islam.” On October 26, 1974, the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano published a very extensive report of the meeting on its front page. On the same day, on that same page, the report of the closing day of the bishops’ synod held in Rome was published in much smaller form.

Later, the Ecumenical Council of the Churches of Geneva and His Grace Elchinger, Lord Bishop of Strasbourg, welcomed the Saudi scholars. In the presence of the Lord Bishop, he asked them to perform the noon prayer inside the cathedral itself. The news was indeed published, but probably as an unusual event, not because of its profound religious significance. Those whom I questioned on the matter said they were unaware of the event’s religious significance.

Pope Paul VI’s open-mindedness and attitude toward Islam will certainly remain a chapter in the relations between the two religions. He himself said that he had been “inspired by a deep belief in the unity of the Islamic and Christian worlds in the worship of one God.” It is necessary to reiterate this feeling of the head of the Catholic Church toward Muslims. Having been raised in an atmosphere of open hostility, many Christians are opposed in principle to any discussion of Islam. The Vatican document expressed regret for this. For this reason, they remain completely ignorant of what Islam really is and continue to hold the same entirely mistaken notion that Islam is not heavenly revelation.

Nevertheless, when judging any characteristic of the heavenly revelation of one monotheistic religion, it is necessary to compare it with corresponding characteristics of the other two religions. An overall consideration of a subject is certainly better than a one-sided consideration. Therefore, this book will comparatively discuss certain subjects described in the heavenly revelations of the three religions and present, for comparison, facts discovered by twentieth-century science. In this connection, it should be understood that, because of their close relationship, the three religions now have a particular need to unite. For all three religions are now equally under attack from materialism. The notion that religion has no harmony with science is widespread in Islamic countries as well as in countries influenced by Judaism and Christianity, particularly among scientific circles. A lengthy discussion is needed to examine this matter comprehensively.

In this book I wish to present only one aspect of the matter: I wish to examine the heavenly revelations of the three religions in the light of knowledge based on modern science.

Before undertaking this task, however, it is necessary to raise a fundamental question: how authentic and genuine is the present form of heavenly revelation? The answer to this question

requires a careful examination of the circumstances in which that revelation was recorded and the manner in which it was transmitted and reached us.

The examination of heavenly revelation in the West began only recently. For hundreds of years, people accepted the Old Testament and New Testament of the Bible as they had received them. They did nothing to the Bible afterward except support it, because they regarded even the slightest criticism as a sin. The priests had one advantage: they had read and become acquainted with the entire Bible. But most ordinary people merely went to church and heard readings from portions of it.

At the scholarly level, examination led to the discovery and dissemination of serious problems through criticism of the original text. Consequently, one is often disappointed when reading so-called criticism. For it appears that, when confronted with a genuine problem in interpreting the original, the critic has quoted a sentence or paragraph that clearly shows an attempt to conceal the real problem. In such circumstances, objective judgment and rational thought reveal that the improbabilities and contradictions remain as before. Yet efforts to claim that such sentences or paragraphs of the Bible are correct are endless.

This effort may become highly damaging to thoughtful and rational people’s belief in Allah. Experience shows, however, that although some people can identify these improbabilities and contradictions, most Christians do not apply their reason or sense of consistency to religious matters.

Some hadiths in Islam may be compared with the Gospels. The compilations of Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) sayings and accounts of his actions are called hadith. The Gospels are nothing other than hadith concerning Jesus. Some hadiths were written many years after the death of Muhammad (peace be upon him). Likewise, the Gospels were written many years after the death of Jesus. In both cases, human testimony concerning past events exists. There is, however, one difference regarding the Gospels. We shall see that the authors of the four canonical Gospels were not eyewitnesses to the events they described. The same is true of some hadiths mentioned in the final part of this book.

But the similarity ends here. The authenticity of some hadiths has been discussed before and is still being discussed. In the case of most of the Gospels, however, a final decision was made at the very beginning of church history. That decision declared only four Gospels to be canonical, that is, official. Although those four disagree among themselves on many matters, this did not obstruct the adoption of the decision. Afterward, orders were issued to conceal all the remaining Gospels. For this reason they are called “Apocrypha,” meaning not genuine.

Another fundamental difference between Christian and Islamic scripture is this: Christianity has no heavenly and written scripture. Islam’s Qur’an is both heavenly and written.

The Qur’an is the heavenly revelation sent down to Muhammad (peace be upon him) through the angel Gabriel. Immediately after being revealed, that revelation was written down; Muslims memorized it and recited it in prayer, particularly during the prayers of Ramadan. Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself divided and arranged the revelation into various surahs, and after his death it was compiled in the form of a Book during the reign of Caliph Uthman (within a period of 12 to 24 years). The Qur’an we see today is that compiled Book. [Actually, there is a slight factual error here. After the Battle of Yamama took place in 12 AH (633 CE), the Qur’an was compiled in book form on the order of Caliph Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him). During his reign, Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) had many copies of this compilation made and sent to various regions—the translator.]

By contrast, the Christian scriptures are compilations of indirect accounts by various people. They contain no account by anyone who personally witnessed the events of Jesus’ life. Yet many Christians believe that they do. The question of the authenticity of Christian and Islamic scripture has thus been settled.

The comparison of the accounts in heavenly scriptures with scientific facts has always provided people with food for thought.

It was once assumed that, in order to accept a heavenly scripture as true, it had to be consistent with scientific facts. Saint Augustine formally established this principle in his Letter 82. We shall quote from this letter later. With the progress of scientific discovery, however, it became clear that there were discrepancies between the Bible and science. It was then decided that such comparisons would no longer be made. As a result, a situation arose in which we are compelled to acknowledge today that the Bible and science contradict each other. We cannot, of course, accept a heavenly revelation whose accounts are erroneous and untrue. There is only one way to resolve this inconsistency: not to accept as true the passage containing a statement contrary to scientific facts. But this solution was not adopted. Instead, the Bible was loudly proclaimed to be true. Consequently, priestly experts adopted a position that is wholly unacceptable to scientists.

Remaining faithful to the principle stated by Saint Augustine concerning the Bible, Islam has always held that the Qur’an’s accounts are completely consistent with scientific facts. In recent times, the revelation of Islam has been examined in meticulous detail. Yet no change to that principle has proved necessary. We shall later see that the Qur’an contains accounts of many subjects related to science. The Bible contains them too, but not nearly as many. Those few subjects in the Bible contradict scientific facts. By contrast, the greater number of subjects in the Qur’an are consistent with scientific facts. In this respect, no comparison can be made between the two Books. None of the Qur’an’s statements can be rejected from a scientific perspective; this fundamental truth has emerged from our research. But in the final part of this book we shall see that this does not apply to hadith. As stated earlier, hadith are compilations of the sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and are entirely different from the revelation of the Qur’an. Some hadith accounts are not acceptable from a scientific perspective. To determine authenticity, the Qur’an itself lays down the principle of applying scientific facts and reason; those hadiths have been examined on the basis of that principle.

This matter of which accounts in heavenly scriptures are acceptable or unacceptable from a scientific perspective requires some further explanation. First, it must be stated emphatically that, by scientific facts, we mean here only those scientific facts that have been accurately and precisely proven and accepted. If this fundamental principle is kept in mind, it will be seen that ideas once needed to shed light on a subject or object, but no longer needed as a result of advances in scientific research, have been completely excluded from our present consideration. Here I shall use only those facts that are beyond all dispute and disagreement. Although scientific discoveries can yield only incomplete information, even that incomplete information will be accepted universally when there is no longer any fear of error.

As an example, scientists cannot give even an approximate date for the arrival of human beings in the world. They have, however, discovered remains of human activity that we can unquestionably accept as dating from ten thousand years before the birth of Jesus. Therefore, we cannot accept the biblical account on this subject as consistent with scientific facts. For the dates and genealogical history given in the Bible’s chapter called Genesis place the arrival of human beings in the world—that is, the creation of Adam—approximately thirty-seven hundred years before the birth of Jesus. Science may perhaps provide us in the future with information more exact and accurate than our present calculations. But we are certain of one thing: science will never tell us that human beings first came into the world 4,376 years ago. That is precisely what the 1975 Hebrew calendar states. It is therefore clear that the Bible’s information about the arrival of human beings in the world is completely wrong.

All genuinely religious matters have been excluded from this comparison with science. For example, science has no explanation of how or by what process Allah manifested Himself to Moses. The same may be said of the mystery of Jesus’ birth without a biological father. No heavenly scripture provides a material explanation of these matters. This book considers only those extraordinary natural events that are described in heavenly scriptures and for which greater or lesser explanations are also given. If this is kept in mind, one matter that immediately comes to our attention is that the Qur’an contains abundant information on a particular subject, while the other two Books contain very little information on that same subject.

I first examined the Qur’anic revelation with a completely impartial mind and without any preconceived notions, paying attention to the consistency between the Qur’an’s accounts and the facts of modern science. After translating the Qur’an, I learned that the Book mentioned various kinds of natural events and subjects. But at that time I had no detailed knowledge of them. Then, when I began reading and examining the Qur’an in the original Arabic, I started compiling a list of all those events and subjects. After the list had been completed, the evidence compelled me to acknowledge that there is no account in the Qur’an that can be contradicted from the perspective of modern science.

Maintaining the same impartial attitude, I conducted the same kind of examination of the Old Testament and the Gospels. In the case of the Old Testament, before I had even finished the first book, Genesis, I saw that it contained accounts completely contrary to facts proven by modern science.

Then, as soon as I began examining the Gospels, I encountered a serious problem. The very first page contains the genealogy of Jesus. But there is a clear discrepancy between Matthew’s account on this subject and Luke’s account. Another problem is that Luke’s account of the first appearance of human beings on earth is completely contrary to modern scientific knowledge.

However, I think that these discrepancies, improbabilities, and inconsistencies do not suggest any lack of faith in Allah. They merely indicate human irresponsibility in connection with these discrepancies. No one can now say what the original text contained. Likewise, it is no longer possible for anyone to say how it was edited on the basis of imagination or how revelation was unknowingly altered. Yet what is now very easy for us to notice is this: when we become aware of these discrepancies and contradictions in the Bible, experts either pretend that they have not noticed them, or try, through verbal sophistry, to offer an invented explanation. I shall present examples of this ingenious web of words used by experts when discussing the Gospels written by John and Matthew. They conceal improbabilities and contradictions behind the word “problem.” They generally succeed in hiding this “problem.” For this reason, many Christians are not at all aware of these serious defects in the Old Testament and the Gospels. In the first and second chapters of this book, readers will find specific examples of this situation.

The third chapter contains an example of the natural application of science to revelation. By applying modern secular knowledge, it has been possible to understand more clearly the meaning of several verses of the Qur’an. The meaning of these verses had not previously been incomprehensible, but it had been mysterious. There is, of course, nothing surprising in this. For, in Islam, religion and science have always been regarded as siblings. From the very beginning, Islam instructed people to pursue science, and as a result of following that instruction, science made tremendous progress during the Golden Age of Islamic civilization; the Western world also benefited greatly from this before the Renaissance. The light that modern scientific knowledge has cast on certain verses of the Qur’an has opened a broader horizon of understanding and reconciliation in the encounter between revelation and science. Previously, these verses had been unclear and difficult to understand because the knowledge necessary to interpret them was lacking.

The Old Testament: General Boundaries

Who is the author of the Old Testament? In answer to this question, most readers of the Old Testament would probably say what they have read in the preface to the Bible. They might say that although human beings wrote it under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost (Gabriel), Allah is its true author.

The author of the Bible’s preface sometimes stops after saying this much. Thus, there is no room for any further question. At other times, he also says that human compositions may perhaps have been added to the original text later. But, for that reason, the essential “truth” of any disputed passage has not been changed. Special emphasis is placed on the word “truth.” The church authorities assume this responsibility, since they alone, with the help of the Holy Ghost, can show believing Christians the true path. After the councils of Christian churches met in the fourth century, the church authorities published a list of the sacred books, and that list was approved by the Council of Florence (1441), the Council of Trent (1546), and the First Vatican Council (1870). Those approved books are now known as the canon. After extensive research and review, the Second Vatican Council recently published a highly important account of revelation. This work required three years (1962–1965) of concentrated effort and labor. Most readers were reassured when they saw this account at the beginning of modern editions of the Bible. They felt confirmed and satisfied by the description of the assurances concerning the truth of the Bible that had been given over the preceding centuries. It did not occur to them at all that any question might arise concerning this matter.

There are many writings by priests that are not usually published for the general public. Reading these writings shows that the issue of the authenticity of the various books of the Bible is actually much more complicated than it appears at first sight. The modern French translation of the Bible may be cited as an example. This translation was made under the supervision of the Biblical School of Jerusalem and published in several volumes by Cerf of Paris. Examination of this translation reveals a clear difference in its manner of presentation. It is evident that, in the Old Testament as in the New Testament, there are certain disputed questions that the commentators have for the most part not concealed.

More precise information can be found in a work by Professor Edmond Jacob. The title of this work is The Old Testament (French title: L’Ancien Testament; publisher: Presses Universitaires de France, Paris). This brief yet highly impartial work presents an excellent analytical perspective.

Edmond Jacob has said that many people are unaware that originally there was not just one Bible, but several Bibles, and that their texts differed. In the third century before Christ, there were at least three separate books in Hebrew. The first later came to be called the Masoretic text, the second was partially translated into Greek, and the third became known as the Samaritan text. In the first century before Christ, a clear tendency emerged to introduce a single book on the basis of, and in place of, the third one. But this tendency took practical form a century after Christ, when a single biblical text was definitively established.

If we had all three of those texts, comparison would have been easy, and we could have reached an idea of what the earliest or original text had been. Unfortunately, no such opportunity is available to us. The situation is therefore this: apart from the Dead Sea Scrolls found in the Qumran caves—writings from the pre-Christian period close to the time of Jesus—the Ten Commandments from the second century after Christ, written on leaves and containing a variant of the original text, and some fragmentary writings from the fifth century after Christ, found in the Cairo Geniza, the oldest Hebrew text of the Bible that has been found dates from the centuries after Christ.

The Septuagint was probably the first translation into Greek. The Jews produced this work in Alexandria in the third century before Christ. The New Testament was composed on the basis of this work. Until the seventh century after Christ, this work was regarded as authentic. The original Greek text generally current in the Christian world was compiled from the manuscripts known as Codex Vaticanus, preserved in Vatican City, and Codex Sinaiticus, preserved in the British Museum in London. These two manuscripts date from the fourth century after Christ.

In this connection, the Aramaic and Syriac (Peshitta) versions may also be mentioned. However, they are incomplete.

From all these different versions, the experts have been able to prepare a “middle-way” text. It may be called a compromise among the various versions. In addition, there are bilingual and trilingual Bibles using Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Syriac, Aramaic, and even Arabic. The famous Walton Bible (London, 1657) is such a work. For the sake of completeness, another matter should be mentioned. The same book is not followed in the Christian churches of different denominations, nor do they adopt the same approach to translation into the same language. This is because different Bibles have expressed different ideas, which have influenced different church groups. However, the work currently being prepared by various Catholic and Protestant experts under the title The Ecumenical Translation of the Old Testament may be regarded as a single, unified text. (Note by the English translator: It was published in December 1975. Publishers: Les Éditions du Cerf and Le Bazaar et les Magasins, Paris.)

Thus, it appears that human intervention has played a very large role in the case of the Old Testament. From the alterations and revisions that naturally occurred from one version to another and from one translation to another, it can easily be inferred that the original Old Testament was changed in several ways over the course of more than two thousand years.

The Sources of the Bible

Before being compiled in book form, the Bible circulated orally among people as folk tradition and was also found in the form of songs set to melodies. Like all other ancient ideas, this folk tradition depended entirely on memory.

Edmond Jacob wrote: “In the first stage, all peoples sang. As everywhere else, poetry preceded prose in Israel. Songs were sung there for a long time, and they were sung well. The people of Israel sang songs of joy and sorrow with deep feeling about the events of their history. In their eyes, every event had a significance. Thus, they expressed it in various forms through song. They sang for various reasons, and Edmond Jacob has mentioned many of them. The Bible also mentions many songs—songs of meals, harvest songs, work songs, well songs (Numbers 21 and 17), wedding songs, and songs of mourning. There are also many war songs, among which the Song of Deborah is especially notable (Judges 5:1–32). For this song celebrates the victory commanded and led by Yahweh himself (Numbers 10 and 35): ‘When the allied forces set out, Moses said, O Yahweh, arise! Let your enemies be scattered, and let those who hate you flee at the sight of you.’”

There are also exhortations and proverbs (the Book of Proverbs, the proverbs of the historical books, and maxims), blessings and curses, and the ordinances given by the prophets to the people after receiving revelation.

Jacob said that these words and stories were transmitted either from family to family or through religious institutions as accounts of the history of Allah’s chosen people. History then quickly became proverb, as in the case of Jotham’s fable (Judges 9:7–12). In this fable, ‘the trees set out to choose one of themselves as king and anoint him, and one after another they asked the olive tree, the fig tree, the vine, and the thornbush.’ In this account Jacob observed: ‘In their enthusiasm for telling a good story, the narrators did not trouble themselves about unfamiliar subjects or the improbabilities of the period.’ For this reason, he reached the conclusion: ‘From the accounts in the Old Testament concerning Moses and the leaders, it may perhaps be possible to obtain a rough chronology of historical events. With the help of charm and imagination in presenting the original account, the narrators may have made the origins of the creation of humanity and the world seem fairly credible even to many reflective thinkers.’

There is good reason to believe that writing began to be used for preserving and transmitting traditions when the Jews settled in Canaan toward the end of the thirteenth century before Christ. But there was no complete accuracy in writing down and preserving the law, for which the greatest permanence was then expected. This is evident from the fact that the Ten Commandments, considered to have been written by Allah’s own hand, appear in two different forms in two places in the Old Testament—Exodus (20:1–21) and Deuteronomy (5:1–30). The central message may be correct, but the differences in wording, presentation, and idiom are very clear. At that time, considerable interest was shown in keeping written records of correspondence, treaties, lists of the names of prominent people (judges and senior municipal officials), genealogies, and lists of spoils and offerings. Archives were established to preserve these documents. Books were later written on the basis of these documents, and some of them have reached us. Careful examination shows that several types of composition and style of presentation were used in each book. It seems that the works of different authors were included in the same book. Experts and researchers may perhaps shed light on this matter.

Although the Old Testament was initially based on fundamental traditions, its narrative is disjointed. One part has no connection with another. Therefore, the process by which this work was compiled may be compared with the early process of creating ancient literature in some other time and place.

As an example, the development of French literature during the Frankish dynasty may be considered. Wars, especially wars fought to defend Christianity, the heroism and bravery of great warriors, and accounts of other stirring events were still preserved in those oral traditions. Even centuries after the events, these traditions inspired poets, writers, and historians. Thus, beginning in the eleventh century, poetry and epic poems began to be composed on the basis of these stories, which combined fact and imagination. The most famous among them is the Song of Roland. When Emperor Charlemagne returned from his campaign in Spain, Roland (La Chanson de Roland) was the commander of his rearguard. This poetic tale describes his life, bravery, and self-sacrifice. The event of his sacrifice is not at all imaginary. It occurred on August 15, 778, during an attack by the mountain-dwelling Basque tribe. Therefore, one would not be willing to accept the poem’s account as pure history.

It appears that the Bible was compiled in exactly this way. Those who do not acknowledge the existence of Allah regard the entire Bible as a collection of legends and fictional stories. But we do not agree with them. It is quite possible to believe in the reality of creation, in the revelation of the Ten Commandments to Moses from Allah, and in instances of unseen intervention in human affairs, such as during the time of Solomon. But that does not mean that our belief must be absolute in every detail. We can certainly assume that what we receive through the Bible is only a summary of the original events, and that all the detailed accounts need to be subjected to rigorous criticism and examination. For when the original oral traditions acquired written form, there was a strong possibility that human imagination and embellishment became incorporated into them.

The Various Books of the Old Testament

The Old Testament is a collection of writings of varying lengths, forms, and types. Based on oral traditions, these were composed in various languages over more than nine hundred years. Subsequently, at different times, long intervals apart, many of the writings were revised and completed on the basis of particular events or special needs.

This extensive body of writings was probably composed at the beginning of the reign of the Israelite dynasty in the eleventh century before Christ. At that time, many members of the royal family were writers. They were learned and scholarly, and their role was not limited merely to writing. The first of the incomplete works mentioned in the previous chapter was probably composed during this period. There was also a special reason for putting these materials into written form. At that time, great importance was attached to preserving numerous songs, poetic tales, the counsel of Jacob and Moses, the Ten Commandments, and royal decrees that established religious practices. These can now be found in various books of the Old Testament. Some time later, probably in the tenth century before Christ, the Yahwist work of the Pentateuch was composed. Since this work calls Allah Yahweh, it was given that name. This work is the principal source of the first five books attributed to Moses. Later, a work called the Elohist, together with its Priestly version, was added to it. The work was called Elohist because it called Allah Elohim. Its version became known as Priestly after the preachers called the priests of the Jerusalem Temple. That early Yahwist work, obtained from the southern kingdom of Judah, describes history from the beginning of the world until the death of Jacob.

Prophets who were also writers appeared in the eighth century before Christ. Two such writer-prophets, Amos and Hosea, are known in Israel, and one, Micah, in Judah.

With the fall of Samaria in 721 before Christ, the kingdom of Israel disappeared, and the religious heritage passed into the hands of the kingdom of Judah. The work of preserving religious legends began at this time. It was then that the writings of the Yahwist and Elohist were combined and transformed into a single book called the Torah. Deuteronomy was also written at this time.

The prophet Jeremiah appeared during the reign of Josiah in the second half of the seventh century before Christ, but an account of his words and deeds was put into written form another century later.

The books of Zechariah, Nahum, and Habakkuk were written before the first exile to Babylon in 589 before Christ. After this period, Ezekiel continued to proclaim his prophecies. The second exile began with the fall of Jerusalem in 587 before Christ and continued until 538 before Christ.

Ezekiel was a famous prophet. But the form in which his book is found today was not the form in which it was arranged during his lifetime. The scribes who arranged it in this way after his death came to be regarded as his spiritual successors. These scribes prepared a third version of Genesis, known as the Priestly version. This version contains an account of the period from the beginning of the world to the death of Jacob, that is, one section of Genesis. Thus, a third work was incorporated into the original text of the Yahwist and Elohist writings of the Torah. Later, in several books written two to four centuries earlier, we shall see a distinctive feature of this third work. The Lamentations was also published during this same period.

In 538 before Christ, the exile ended by order of Cyrus. The Jews returned to Palestine, and the Temple in Jerusalem was rebuilt. As a result, the work of the prophets and preachers began again. During this period, the books of Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and Daniel, as well as the third book of Isaiah and the Greek book of Baruch, were composed.

In fact, the principal religious books were written in the period after the exile. Proverbs was written around 480 before Christ, Job in the fifth century, and Ecclesiastes or Koheleth, the Song of Songs, the first and second books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah in the third century. Similarly, Ecclesiasticus or Sirach was written in the second century before Christ, and the Book of Wisdom and the first and second books of Maccabees in the first century. But it is not easy to determine when the books of Ruth, Esther, and Jonah were written. The same must be said of the books of the Torah and Judith. Since the writings of the Old Testament were arranged in book form only one century before Christ, it must be assumed that the relevant works may have been altered and expanded even after the dates mentioned here. For before the century preceding Christ, most of these writings had not acquired any precise or definite form.

Thus, from the earliest times until the emergence of Christianity, the Jews regarded the Old Testament as their religious and literary monument. Its various books, chapters, and sections were composed, completed, and revised between the tenth and first centuries before Christ. This is not my personal opinion. I collected this information and the account of the historical survey from a universally recognized and reliable work. That work is the article entitled “The Bible” in the Encyclopaedia Universalis (Paris, 1974, vol. 3, pp. 246–253), written by Professor J. P. Samdrol of the Dominican Faculty of Salcoy. These facts have been established as true and accurate by the most highly qualified experts. Therefore, it is necessary to keep this information in mind in order to understand and appreciate the contents of the Old Testament.

There is reason to believe that revelation was mixed into the writings of the Old Testament. But in the condition in which we have now received the work, there is room for doubt as to whether that revelation still remains. For, as we have already seen, the original account was altered many times and many writers intervened. Thus, it may readily be assumed that they preserved only what they considered good according to their respective environments, circumstances, and preferences, and that only this has reached us.

If these objective facts are compared with the accounts given in the prefaces to the various currently published editions of the Bible, it will be seen that the actual facts and truth have been presented in an entirely different manner. Complete silence has been maintained about the history involved in the composition of various books. Matters that could create confusion because they are ambiguous have been left exactly as they are. Information has been reduced to a minimum in order to create the false impression that untruth is truth. Thus, most prefaces to the Bible conceal truth and reality and present a different picture. In the case of books that have been altered several times, such as the Pentateuch, instead of saying so directly, it is merely stated that some minor details were added later; yet where lengthy explanation is actually needed, silence has been maintained even about highly important matters. It is truly regrettable that Bibles printed and circulated in vast numbers for the general public contain such erroneous and inaccurate information.

The Torah or Pentateuch

The name Torah is Semitic. In Greek it is called the Pentateuch, meaning a work completed in five volumes. The five volumes are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. These five constitute the central subject matter of the collection of twenty-nine volumes in the Old Testament.

This work contains an account of the period from the beginning of the creation of the world until the Jews entered Canaan. It may be recalled that, after the Jews had been exiled in Egypt, or more precisely after the death of Moses, they were promised that this land would be given to them. Along with accounts of various events from beginning to end, the work also contains various ordinances for the religious and social life of the Jews. For this reason, it is also called the Law or the Torah.

For many centuries, Judaism and Christianity regarded Moses as the author of the Torah. The basis of this belief was probably that Allah said to Moses, “Write this event (the defeat of Amalek) in the Book as a memorial.” (Exodus 17:14). Or, concerning the Israelites’ departure from Egypt, it says, “Moses recorded the names of the places from which they set out.” (Numbers 33:2), and, “Moses wrote down this law.” (Deuteronomy 31:9). Since the first century BCE, Moses has been regarded as the author of the Torah. Flavius Josephus of Alexandria and Philo held the same view.

Today, however, this view has been completely abandoned, and everyone has agreed on this matter. Nevertheless, the New Testament again describes Moses as the author. In his letter to the Romans (10:5), quoting Leviticus, Paul said, “Moses wrote that the person who does what is prescribed in the law…” and so forth. In his Gospel (5:46–47), John put these words into Jesus’ mouth: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me too, because he wrote about me. But if you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe my words?” Here there are signs of editing—alteration in translation and expression. For in the original Greek account, the word “episteuete” was used, meaning that the statement was attributed to Jesus. Yet here it is presented as though he himself said it. This is entirely wrong. I shall explain how.

I took the framework and example for this explanation from Father de Vaux, head of the Jerusalem Bible School. In the introduction to his 1962 French translation of Genesis, he provided a valuable and reasoned presentation of the Pentateuch. He did not accept the identification made by the Evangelists of Moses as the author of the Torah; rather, he said the opposite. He reminded us that “the Jewish tradition followed by Jesus and his Companions” was accepted until the end of the Middle Ages. The only person who strongly opposed this doctrine was the twelfth-century Aben Ezra. Then, in the sixteenth century, Karlstadt pointed out that Moses could probably not have written in Deuteronomy (34:15–12) an account of his own death. He also quoted several critics who refused to accept, even if not the whole Torah, at least portions of it as the work of Moses. However, the role of Father Richard Simon of the Oratory was probably the most important in this matter. In his book Critical History of the Old Testament (Histoire critique du Vieux Testament, 1678), he presented in detail the inconsistencies in the sequence of events in the Torah, the many repetitions of the same subject, the lack of coherence in its narratives, and the diversity of its styles. After this book was published, an embarrassing situation arose everywhere. But at the beginning of the eighteenth century, Simon’s line of reasoning was no longer followed to any significant extent in historical works. At that time, concerning ancient events, people continued to say, “Moses wrote.” Earlier we saw that Jesus himself supported the view in the New Testament that Moses wrote the Torah. Thus an ancient legend was further strengthened. It can easily be imagined how difficult it was to oppose it in these circumstances. Yet the physician of Louis XV, Jean Astruc, probably put forward the strongest argument.

In 1753, his book Conjectures on the Original Writings Which It Appears Moses Used to Compose the Book of Genesis (Conjectures sur les mémoires originaux dont il paraît que Moyse s’est servi pour composer le livre de la Genèse) was published. In it he showed in detail that the Pentateuch, or Torah, is a collection of writings gathered from many sources. Many people may have noticed this before him, but he was the first to have the courage to state it publicly. Quoting passages, he showed that two writings appear side by side in Genesis: in one, Allah is called Yahweh, and in the other, Elohim. Therefore, these two writings could never have come from a single source. Eichhorn (1780–83) discovered similar evidence in the case of the other four books. Then Ilgen (1798) observed that the writing described by Astruc, in which Allah is called Elohim, was itself divided into two parts. Thus the foundation of the Pentateuch was literally torn apart.

During the nineteenth century, more extensive investigations into the sources were conducted. In 1854, a total of four sources came to be recognized. These were the Yahwist version, the Elohist version, Deuteronomy, and the Sacerdotal version. It even became possible to determine their dates:

(1) The Yahwist version is considered to date from the ninth century BCE (written in Judah).

(2) The Elohist version probably dates from somewhat later (written in Israel).

(3) Regarding Deuteronomy, some consider it to date from the eighth century BCE (E. Jacob), while others assign it to the reign of Josiah (Father de Vaux).

(4) The Sacerdotal version dates from the period of the sixth-century BCE exile or from a later period.

Thus it appears that the period covered by the writings of the Pentateuch extends over at least three centuries. But the problem is actually more complicated. In 1941, A. Lods found that the Yahwist version contained three sources. Similarly, the Elohist version contained four, Deuteronomy six, and the Sacerdotal version nine sources—not even counting the “eight different authors whose writings were combined,” as Father de Vaux noted. More recently, it has been thought that “most of the laws or regulations in the Pentateuch are found elsewhere outside the Bible, and date from an even earlier period.” Moreover, “the stories described in the writings of the Pentateuch are actually from a much earlier period and a different setting than the period and setting from which the documents—that is, the writings—are assumed to have originated. Consequently, interest has arisen in how the legends were created.” In other words, the problem has become so complicated that it is difficult even to find its beginning or end.

The existence of many sources has produced not only differences but also repetitions. Father de Vaux showed by examples that there are differences and inconsistencies among the various accounts of the Flood, Joseph’s abduction, and his activities in Egypt. Moreover, the same person is called by different names, and contradictory accounts are given of important events.

Although the Pentateuch was thus a collection of various sources and legends, its authors were able to assemble and arrange it with reasonable skill. Sometimes they placed two accounts side by side; at other times they blended two accounts and presented them as a single account. Nevertheless, the improbabilities and contradictions remained. As a result, the modern age felt the need to examine the original sources deeply and objectively.

An examination of the original composition of the Pentateuch, or Torah, makes it very easy to recognize it as the work of human hands. This book was produced on the basis of oral stories, legends, and writings preserved through the generations during various periods of Jewish history. The account begins with a Yahwist tradition from the beginning of the tenth century BCE, describing Israel’s own destiny. In Father de Vaux’s words, this destiny is “the return of humanity to its proper place in Allah’s great plan.” It ends with a Sacerdotal tradition from the sixth century BCE, in which dates and genealogies are stated with complete precision. In the next chapter we shall see that the accounts in the Sacerdotal version concerning the arrival of human beings in the world, their position as time evolved, and the process of creation are entirely wrong when compared with modern scientific facts. Clearly, this condition resulted from writing over the original.

Father de Vaux wrote: “In the stories of this tradition, the question of legal validity has been given priority. For example, resting on Sunday after completing creation; the covenant with Noah; the covenant with Abraham and circumcision; and the purchase of the cave of Machpelah, by which the priests acquired land in Canaan.” We must remember that this tradition dates from the Babylonian exile until the return to Palestine in 538 BCE. Thus a completely political problem has become intertwined here with the religious problem.

In the case of Genesis, it has now been established and recognized that the contents of the book were collected from three sources. In his analytical discussion of his translation, Father de Vaux provided a list showing which source served as the basis for each passage of Genesis. On the basis of this evidence, it is possible to determine with near accuracy how much of each source’s material appears in each chapter. For example, in the first eleven chapters of Genesis, the accounts of creation, the Flood, and the period from the Flood to the time of Abraham show that one part was taken from the Yahwist version and the following part from the Sacerdotal version. This situation persists from the beginning to the end of the entire account. These first eleven chapters contain no material from the Elohist version. It is nevertheless quite clear that the Yahwist and Sacerdotal narratives have become interwoven. In the first five chapters, in the accounts of creation and the period up to Noah’s time, a Sacerdotal passage is placed after a Yahwist passage successively from beginning to end. In the account of the Flood, especially in chapters seven and eight, this arrangement is made even more frequently: a short passage from one narrative is followed by a short passage from the other, and this arrangement can even be noticed within individual sentences. At one point, the narrative is changed seventeen times in a total of one hundred lines. This is why, when we read Genesis, the improbabilities and internal contradictions become so conspicuous. The following table is noteworthy in this connection.

End of the Yahwist and Sacerdotal narratives in chapters 1 to 11 of Genesis.

* The first number is the chapter number.

* The second number in parentheses is the column number. Because some columns are divided into two parts, they are shown as A and B.

* Y denotes the Yahwist narrative, and S denotes the Sacerdotal narrative.

* Example—the first line of the table indicates that the material from column 1 of chapter 1 of the Bible currently in circulation through column 4-A of chapter 2 was taken from the Sacerdotal narrative.

Chapter — Column from — Chapter — Column — Source

1 — (1) — 2 (4-A) — S

2 — (4-B) — 4 — (26) — Y

5 — (1) — 5 — (32) — S

6 — (1) — 6 — (8) — Y

6 — (9) — 6 — (22) — S

7 — (1) — 7 — (5) — Y

7 — (6) — – — – — S

7 — (7) — 7 — (10) — Y

7 — (11) — – — – — S

7 — (12) — – — – — Y

7 — (13) — 7 — (16-A) — S

7 — (16-B) — 7 — (17) — Y

7 — (18) — 7 — (21) — S

7 — (22) — 7 — (23) — Y

7 — (24) — 8 — (2-A) — S

8 — (2-B) — – — – — Y

8 — (3) — 8 — (4) — S

8 — (6) — 8 — (12) — Y

8 — (13-A) — – — – — S

8 — (13-B) — – — – — Y

8 — (14) — 8 — (19) — S

8 — (20) — 8 — (22) — Y

9 — (1) — 9 — (17) — S

9 — (18) — 9 — (27) — Y

9 — (28) — 10 — (7) — S

10 — (8) — 10 — (19) — Y

10 — (20) — 10 — (23) — S

10 — (24) — 10 — (30) — Y

10 — (31) — 10 — (32) — S

11 — (1) — 11 — (9) — Y

11 — (10) — 11 — (32) — S

The table makes it very easy to understand how the Bible was arranged by human hands.

Historical Books

In these books we find the history of the Jewish people. This history extends from the time they entered their promised land until the time they were exiled to Babylon. They most probably entered the promised land in the latter part of the thirteenth century and were exiled to Babylon in the sixth century BCE.

Here emphasis has been placed on what is called a “national event,” and the event has been presented as the fulfillment of Allah’s promise. Historical truth and accuracy, however, have been disregarded in the account. With this in mind, E. Jacob said that, regarding the alleged destruction of Ai and Jericho, the central theme of the Book of Judges is the defense of the chosen people against surrounding enemies and Allah’s support for them. Father and A. Lefèvre-Crampon stated very objectively in the introduction to the Bible that this book has been altered several times. Evidence of this is found in the many prefaces to the original book and the addition of various appendices. The story of Ruth was also added to the original account.

The Book of Samuel and the two Books of Kings are essentially biographical books about Samuel, Saul, David, and Solomon. Their historical value is open to debate. On historical grounds, Jacob found numerous errors in these books, because there are multiple contradictory accounts of the same event. The prophets Elijah, Elisha, and Isaiah are also mentioned in these books. In other words, history has become mixed with legend. Other critics, such as Father Lefebvre, nevertheless believe that these books possess “fundamental historical value.”

First and Second Chronicles and the Book of Ezra, or the Book of Nehemiah, were written in the fourth century BCE by the same author, known as the Chronicler. He described the history of creation up to that time, although his genealogy extends only as far as David. In reality, however, he took his information from the Book of Samuel. E. Jacob said, “Without paying attention to inconsistencies, he copied it word for word.” Nevertheless, he provided some new information that has been confirmed as accurate by archaeological evidence. E. Jacob said, “The author sometimes wrote history according to the needs of religion. Although King Manasseh was an unbeliever and tyrant, he ruled for a long time in peace and prosperity. To explain this, he said that the king converted while staying for some time in Assyria (2 Chronicles 33:11). But neither the Bible nor any extra-biblical book mentions this event. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah have also been subjected to severe criticism. It has been said that the two books are full of obscure and difficult matters. The period whose events they describe—the fourth century BCE—is itself not well known, and there are hardly any extra-biblical documents from that period.”

The Book of Tobit, the Book of Judith, and the Book of Esther are also regarded as historical books. Yet in these books history has been utterly disgraced. Names of people and places have been changed for religious purposes, and characters and events have been invented. In reality, these are fictional, moralizing stories blended with historical falsehoods and improbabilities.

The Books of the Maccabees are somewhat different. The events described in these books belong to the second century BCE. They provide the most accurate account of the events of that period. For this reason, these books are very important.

Thus it appears that the books classified under the name of history have no resemblance to one another. In some books, history has indeed been described accurately, but in others it has been related according to whim.

The Books of the Prophets

Under this heading we find accounts of the teachings of those prophets who, in the Old Testament, have been classified separately from major prophets such as Moses, Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha. The teachings of those major prophets are found in other books.

The Books of the Prophets contain accounts of events from the eighth to the second century BCE.

In the eighth century BCE, books by the prophets Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah are found. The Book of Amos is famous for condemning social injustice. Hosea is known for his religious aberration. Because he was forced to marry a servant of a nature-worshipping community—that is, a sacred prostitute—he fell ill and suffered physical pain. In explaining this event, it has been said that the situation was similar to this: when people are sinful, Allah suffers, yet still loves them. Isaiah was a figure in political history. Kings accepted his advice and acted accordingly. He lived a highly lavish life. In addition to his own preaching activities, his followers published his answers to various questions up to the third century BCE. His teachings include protest against injustice and fear of Allah’s judgment. He also described the liberation of the Jews after their departure from Egypt and their return to Palestine. In the cases of Second and Third Isaiah, it is almost as clear as daylight that their prophetic activities were politically motivated. The teachings of Micah, Isaiah’s contemporary, were broadly similar.

In the seventh century BCE, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Nahum, and Habakkuk became known for their religious preaching. Jeremiah was martyred, and Baruch collected and compiled his teachings and sayings. Baruch was probably also the author of Lamentations.

At the beginning of the sixth century BCE, while the Jews were exiled in Babylon, the activity of the prophets increased considerably. Ezekiel played the most important role among them. He consoled his fellow believers and conveyed messages of hope. The Book of Obadiah describes the misery and distress of conquered Jerusalem.

After the exile ended in 538 BCE, the activities of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah began. They called for the rebuilding of the Temple. After this rebuilding was completed, some writings were published under the name of Malachi. These writings consisted primarily of explanations and analyses of spiritual matters.

Although the Old Testament contains no significant passage concerning it, no reasonable explanation can be found for how the Book of Jonah came to be included among the books of the prophets. The main lesson found in the Book of Jonah is the necessity of surrendering to Allah’s will.

The Book of Daniel is written in three languages: Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. Christian critics believe that, judged from a historical perspective, the book does contain good tidings, but that they are disordered and self-contradictory. The book probably belongs to the Maccabean period of the second century BCE. E. Jacob believes that, by saying that the day of salvation was very near, the author sought to preserve the faith of his compatriots.

Books of Poetry and Wisdom

The books classified under this heading provide evidence of unquestionable literary coherence.

The finest among them is the Psalms, which are also the greatest example of Hebrew poetry. Most of the psalms were composed by David. The remainder were composed by various priests. The subjects of these songs, used in prayer and worship, are praise, meditation, devotion, and supplication.

The Book of Job (Job, the Prophet Ayyub), written between 400 and 500 BCE, is an excellent book of wisdom and profound subject matter.

The book called Lamentations, written after the fall of Jerusalem around the beginning of the sixth century BCE, was probably authored by Jeremiah.

It is also necessary to mention the names of several books again. The Song of Songs is a collection of allegorical songs of divine love; the Book of Proverbs is a collection of sayings by Solomon and other wise men of his court; and Ecclesiastes, or Koheleth, is a collection of writings concerning the essence of worldly pleasure and wisdom.

Thus it appears that the writings produced by different authors on different subjects, using different sources, over at least seven centuries, were gathered together, blended, and made into a single book. In such circumstances, how can one part of this book serve as a complement to another, and how could this book have been regarded as complete and self-sufficient for century after century? But more importantly, on what grounds is this book regarded as a revealed book of the Jews and Christians? There are, of course, some differences of opinion on this matter among certain communities, but disagreement on the main issue is not particularly pronounced. Because it expressed the idea of the unseen, the book was called “Canon” in Greek.

The collection of these writings did not begin in the Christian era; it began in the Jewish era. The initial work probably began as early as the seventh century BCE. At the first stage, some books were selected for this compilation. The remaining books were added later. It is noteworthy, however, that the five books included in the Torah, or Pentateuch, were always given the highest position. Once the prophets’ proclamations—their predictions of punishment corresponding to misconduct—came true, there was no further obstacle to including accounts of their teachings in the original collection. The same applied to their messages of hope. By the second century BCE, the prophets’ “Canon” had taken a definite form.

Because they were used in worship, other books, such as the Psalms, were integrated with books such as Lamentations, the Book of Wisdom, and the Book of Job.

In its early stages, Christianity was mixed with Judaism. Later we shall see that modern learned writers such as Cardinal Daniélou have conducted extensive research on this subject. Before Christianity took on a new form under the influence of Saint Paul, it unhesitatingly accepted the heritage of the Old Testament. The Gospel writers adhered strictly to the tradition of the Old Testament. Later, although the Gospel was revised by rejecting the Apocrypha (religious legends), the Old Testament was not similarly revised. Almost everything there was retained.

Before the end of the Middle Ages, at least in the Western countries, no one had the courage to object to this strange compilation. Not a single person. From the end of the Middle Ages until the beginning of the modern age, one or two critics were seen to speak out, but the church authorities always silenced them. Today, of course, there is no shortage of critical writings; yet although religious experts have conducted profound research on many subjects, they have refrained from going deeply into what they themselves call “difficult” matters. They have not even been eager to examine them in the light of modern knowledge. Wherever there is a resemblance between historical facts and the biblical accounts, they have worked hard to prove and establish that resemblance; but they have carefully avoided comparing the biblical accounts with modern scientific facts. For they realized that such a comparison would cause ordinary people to doubt the truth of the Jewish and Christian scriptures and to raise questions. Yet these scriptures had long been considered beyond all doubt and all questioning.

The Old Testament and Science: Some Established Facts

There are certain matters in the Old Testament and the Gospel that conflict with facts established by modern knowledge. When this conflict is with science, it becomes clear that the matters involved are very important.

We have already seen that the Bible contains many historically erroneous statements. We have also cited several such errors identified by Jewish and Christian scholars. They minimized these errors for very understandable reasons. For it seemed natural to them that religious writers presented historical facts in accordance with their religion and wrote history to fulfill the needs of religion. Later we shall see that the truth was similarly distorted in the Gospel written by Matthew, and that the same kind of explanation was offered to make that distortion acceptable as truth. But neither side can accept this process.

If the matter is considered on the basis of reason, many contradictions and improbabilities will be found. If different authors used different sources when writing an account of an event, it is quite natural for the same event to be described in different ways. But this is not the only reason. Some scholars have pointed out plainly that the same event was recast in several forms, additions were made to the original account, and an explanation was written first, after which the original account was prepared to support it. As an example, in the case of the Torah, Father de Vaux mentioned many such inconsistencies and contradictions in the introduction to his translation of Genesis (pp. 13–14). We shall present several examples later. Nevertheless, if, after reading the original account, a reader feels that what he has read is not credible at all, he can hardly be blamed. For now, we present several examples:

In Genesis (6:3), it is stated that, immediately before the Flood, Allah decreed that human life would henceforth be limited to 120 years—“his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” But later, in Genesis itself (11:11, 10:32), we find that the ten descendants of Noah lived between 148 and 600 years (see the lifespans of Noah’s ten descendants down to Abraham in the list added later). The inconsistency between these two accounts is very clear. But what is its cause? The reason is that the first account (Genesis 6:3) was taken from the Yahwist document of the tenth century BCE, while the second account (Genesis 11:10–32) was taken from the Sacerdotal version of the sixth century BCE. This version is the principal source of the genealogy. Although the lifespan of each prophet is expressed by a definite number in this genealogy, the matter seems impossible when considered as a whole.

It is in this same Genesis that we find the clearest example of conflict with modern science. This conflict concerns the following three important matters:

(1) The creation of the world and its various stages.

(2) The date of the creation of the world and the date of humanity’s arrival on the earth.

(3) The account of the Flood.

We shall now discuss these three matters one after another.

The Creation of the World

Father de Vaux has pointed out that “at the very beginning of Genesis there are two consecutive accounts of the creation of the world.” We shall now examine these two accounts one after another to determine whether they accord with modern scientific facts.

The First Account

This first account appears in the first chapter of Genesis and the first verse of the second chapter. From a scientific point of view, it is easy to see that nowhere else is there such a concentration of error and falsehood. Each paragraph therefore needs to be examined separately. The quotation given here is taken from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible (Revised Standard Version; published for the British and Foreign Bible Society by W. M. Collins and Sons, 1952).

Chapter One, verses 1–2:

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”

It is possible to accept that what we now call the celestial sphere was immersed in darkness before the creation of the world. But the statement that water existed at that time is pure fantasy. Later we shall see that there is considerable evidence that gas or smoke existed during the initial stage of the formation of the celestial sphere. The presence of water there is entirely mistaken.

Verses 3–5:

“Then God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.”

The light that flows through the celestial sphere is the result of the complex interactions of the stars. We shall discuss this matter in detail later. According to the Bible itself, the stars had not yet been formed at this stage of creation. In fact, “lights” are not mentioned before verse 14. It is in that verse that the creation of light on the fourth day is described—“to separate the day from the night” and “to give light upon the earth.” This account is correct. But since the sources of light were created three days later, mentioning light on the first day is illogical. Moreover, mentioning evening and morning on the first day of creation is also imaginary; for the concepts of evening and morning could arise only after the earth had been created and, illuminated by its own luminary, the Sun, had completed one rotation on its axis.

Verses 6–8:

“Then God said, ‘Let there be a firmament between the waters to separate water from water.’ So God made the firmament and separated the water under the firmament from the water above it. And it was so. God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.”

Here too there is that account of the waters, and it is stated that the sky divided the waters into two. As a result of this division, while describing the Flood, it became possible to say that the waters above had crossed the sky and fallen upon the earth.

But the idea that the waters were divided in this way is scientifically unacceptable.

Verses 9–13:

“Then God said, ‘Let all the waters under the celestial sphere be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear’; and it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the gathered waters he called Seas; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, ‘Let the earth produce vegetation: plants yielding seed and fruit trees bearing fruit according to their kinds, with their seed in them, upon the earth’; and it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with their seed in them according to their kinds; and God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the day came.”

The idea that, while the earth remained submerged, land gradually emerged is scientifically acceptable. But the idea that, before the creation of the sun, an orderly system of vines, shrubs, and trees arose, together with a process of reproduction through seeds, cannot be considered rational; for the same reason, the development of day and night is also unacceptable. It is noteworthy that, according to Genesis itself, the sun was not created before the fourth day.

Verses 14–19:

“Then God said, ‘Let there be lights in the firmament of the celestial sphere to separate the day from the night; and let them serve as signs, and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the firmament of the celestial sphere to give light upon the earth’; and it was so. God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. God placed them in the firmament of the celestial sphere to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.”

Although this account is broadly acceptable, it contains a major inconsistency. We know that the earth and the moon were formed from fragments of their parent celestial body, the sun. Therefore, the idea that the sun and the moon were created after the earth is completely contrary to the universally recognized and widely accepted view of the formation of the solar system.

Verses 20–23:

“Then God said, ‘Let the waters teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the celestial sphere.’ So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters teem, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God blessed them, saying, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, fill the waters in the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.’ And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.” This paragraph contains some statements that are unacceptable. It says that the animal world began with the appearance of marine life and winged birds. And this happened on the fifth day. But the very next verse says that animal life on earth began on the following day, that is, the sixth day. Shortly afterward we shall quote the verse concerning the sixth day. It is correct that life began in the sea and that life spread onto the earth from there, but we shall discuss this matter later. For now, we wish to confine ourselves to the content of the verse. It is generally assumed that birds evolved from a species of reptile of the Mesozoic Era, an animal that lived on land. This assumption is considered possible because the two species share certain bodily characteristics. In the Bible, however, the appearance of life on land is mentioned on the sixth day, after the birds. Therefore, this sequence—according to which other land animals appeared after the birds—cannot be accepted.

Verses 24–31:

“And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind’; and it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over every creature that moves along the ground.’ So God created humankind in his own image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’ Then God said, ‘I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that bears fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life—I give every green plant for food’; and it was so. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.”

The account of creation ends here. The author has listed here the creatures that were not mentioned earlier and has also described the food of humans and animals.

We have already mentioned that it was erroneous to place the appearance of other animals before that of the birds. However, it was correct to state that humans appeared after the other animals. Following the first chapter of the Bible, the account of creation ends in this manner in the first three verses of the second chapter:

Chapter 2: Verses 1–3

“Thus the celestial sphere and the earth and all their host were completed. By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.” This matter now requires some discussion.

According to a customary translation of the Hebrew word “Shabbat,” it becomes “he rested.” That is what has been done here as well. But in reality, the account of God taking rest is merely a legend.

The account quoted here is taken from the Priestly version of the Bible. This version was written in the sixth century BCE. But the Yahwist version, written several centuries earlier, contains no mention of God taking rest. Those who wrote about the day of rest said, with the aim of creating faith and reverence in the minds of ordinary people, that God himself had observed that day first. Moreover, they described the creative work of the other six days in considerable detail and in sequence. But when this sequence is judged in the light of the facts about creation discovered by science, it becomes clear that their sequence is not correct at all; it is merely fanciful.

The idea that the successive stages of creation could be confined to a period of only one week is unacceptable from a scientific point of view. For we now know with certainty that the formation of the celestial sphere and the earth took place successively over many ages—that is, over long periods of time. (We shall examine the Qur’an’s account of this matter later.) Even if the account of creation is considered to end with the account of the sixth day, without mentioning a day of rest, and even if the days are not taken as actual or literal days but as long periods, as in the Qur’anic account, the biblical account still cannot be accepted scientifically because the sequence of events is impossible. That account is imaginary and fabricated. It was composed and transmitted for some purpose other than revealing the truth.

The Second Account

Immediately after the first account ends, without any comment or intervening statement, the second account of creation begins in Genesis, or the Book of Genesis. Here, however, there is no opportunity for objections of the same kind to be raised. It should be remembered, though, that this account is another three centuries older and very brief. Here, more time is devoted to the creation of humans and their habitable environment than to the creation of the earth and the celestial sphere.

Chapter 2: Verses 4–7

“When Yahweh God made the earth and the celestial sphere, no plant of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no herb of the field had yet grown. For Yahweh God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no human being to cultivate the ground. But a flood rose from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. Then Yahweh God formed a human being from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the human being became a living creature.”

This Yahwist account is found in the Bible of the present day. The Priestly account was added later. However, a question remains as to whether the account was originally this brief. No one can say with certainty whether it was abridged over the course of time. Nor can it be known with certainty whether what is available now is the original account.

This account contains no detailed description of the creation of the earth and the celestial sphere. It merely says that when God created humans, there was no vegetation on the earth (nor had it rained), although water had risen from the ground and moistened the entire surface of the earth. It then immediately says that, at the same time as humans were created, “God planted a garden.” Thus humans and vegetation were created at the same time. Of course, we do not know how many millions of years elapsed between these two creations.

In any case, only that objection can be raised against this account. The Priestly account states that humans and the earth were created in the same week, but the Yahwist account says nothing of the sort. Consequently, there is no room for any particularly serious objection to this account.

The Date of the Creation of the Earth and the Appearance of Humans There

Both dates are precisely mentioned in the Jewish calendar compiled on the basis of the information given in the Old Testament. According to that calculation, the 5,736th year of the earth began in the second half of 1975 CE. In other words, in 1975 the earth reached the age of 5,736 years. Human beings were created a few days after the creation of the earth. Therefore, the age of humanity is the same.

A slight correction seems necessary in this connection. In ancient times, time was calculated on the basis of lunar years, whereas today time is calculated in the Western world on the basis of solar years. This correction is necessary for an exact calculation, but if it is not made, the discrepancy is only three percent. Therefore, for ease of calculation, we are disregarding this discrepancy. If a calculation covering one thousand years is off by thirty years either way, our main argument will probably not be greatly mistaken. Thus, on the basis of the Hebrew calculation, we may say with reasonable accuracy that the earth was created approximately thirty-seven centuries before the birth of Christ.

But what does modern science say about this? It is difficult to give a direct answer to this question. However, some information may be obtained concerning the formation of the solar system. A reasonable estimate can also be reached on this matter. It is generally assumed that four and a half billion years have elapsed from the formation of the solar system to the present. Thus, the difference between this universally accepted calculation and the calculation given in the Old Testament can easily be determined. We shall discuss this matter in detail a little later. Before that, we shall shed some light on the method of calculating dates from the Bible.

This calculation can be obtained by carefully examining the biblical account. In Genesis, or the Book of Genesis, precise information is available about how much time elapsed from Adam to Abraham. But the information available for the subsequent period—that is, from Abraham to the beginning of Christianity—is inadequate. Therefore, other information is needed to supplement it.

From Adam to Abraham

Chapters 4, 5, 11, 21, and 25 of Genesis, or the Book of Genesis, provide a precise genealogy of all Abraham’s ancestors back to Adam. The lifespan of each person and the father’s age at the birth of his son are also given. Thus, it is easy to determine how many years after Adam’s creation each person was born or died. The information used in the table below has been taken from the Priestly version of Genesis, and this information is found only in the Bible. This calculation shows that Abraham was born 1,948 years after Adam.

The Genealogy of Abraham

—- Date of birth after Adam’s creation — Lifespan — Date of death after Adam’s creation

1) Adam — – 930 — 930

Seth — 130 — 912 — 1042

Enosh — 235 — 905 — 1140

Kenan — 325 — 910 — 1235

Mahalalel — 395 — 895 — 1290

Jared — 460 — 962 — 1422

Enoch — 622 — 365 — 987

Methuselah — 687 — 969 — 1656

Lamech — 874 — 777 — 1651

10) Noah — 1056 — 950 — 2006

Shem — 1556 — 600 — 2156

Arphaxad — 1658 — 438 — 2096

Shelah — 1693 — 433 — 2122

Eber — 1723 — 464 — 2187

Peleg — 1757 — 239 — 1996

Reu — 1787 — 239 — 2026

Serug — 1819 — 230 — 2049

Nahor — 1849 — 148 — 1997

Terah — 1878 — 205 — 2983

20) Abraham — 1948 — 175 — 2123

From Abraham to Jesus

The Bible provides no numerical information for this period. Therefore, we must look for another source to determine the time from Abraham to Jesus. At present, Abraham’s period is generally considered to have been approximately eighteen centuries before Jesus. If we calculate on the basis of the time between Abraham and Adam given in Genesis, we find that Adam was a man who lived approximately thirty-eight centuries before Jesus. This calculation is clearly erroneous, and the error arises from the Bible’s calculation of the period from Adam to Abraham. Yet the Jewish calendar is still based on this calculation. On the basis of the discrepancy between the estimates of the Jewish priests of the sixth century BCE and modern information, we can very easily confront the traditional guardians of biblical truth. Yet for many centuries the dates of ancient events in the life of Jesus have been determined on the basis of this calculation.

Before the beginning of the modern era, an introduction was appended to every edition of the Bible. It explained the chronology of events from the creation of the earth to the time when that edition was edited. The dates varied considerably among different editions. For example, the 1621 Clementine Vulgate edition placed Abraham’s era even earlier and stated that the earth was created approximately in the fortieth century BCE. By contrast, Walton’s Bible, written in several languages in the seventeenth century, gave an account of the era of Abraham’s ancestors in a form resembling the genealogy presented here. Almost all calculations agree with this genealogy. Editors of modern Bibles, however, have stopped providing this calculation and introduction. They realized that modern scientific discoveries had established that the creation of the earth occurred much earlier; therefore, the old calculation would no longer be acceptable to anyone. At the same time, they should have clearly told readers that the biblical account had become obsolete and did not contain the actual truth. But they did not say this. Instead, through verbal maneuvering they created such a mysterious veil that the biblical account, without any alteration, could apparently be accepted everywhere exactly as it stood.

For this reason, the genealogy described in the Priestly version is still accepted, although in this twentieth century such a fable-based calculation cannot be acceptable at all. On the basis of the information obtained through modern scientific discoveries, it is impossible to determine an exact date for the appearance of human beings in the world. At most, some indications may be obtained. However, we can be almost certain that human beings appeared after a definite period had elapsed since the creation of the earth. It may be mentioned that there are, or may be, other creatures with a form similar to that of human beings. But it is their capacity for work and intellect that distinguishes human beings from them. From the oldest human bones discovered so far, it may be inferred that human beings appeared millions of years ago.

This estimate is based on the latest discovery of prehistoric human bones. In the language of specialists, these people are called Cro-Magnon humans. Very ancient bones of creatures with a form similar to that of human beings have indeed been discovered in various parts of the world, and they clearly belong to an earlier period. But there is room for doubt as to whether they are actually human bones.

However, there is no doubt that the scientific evidence points to a much earlier period than the time mentioned in Genesis for the appearance of human beings. Thus, it is evident that there is a clear difference and conflict between the Bible and modern science.

The Flood

The sixth, seventh, and eighth chapters of Genesis contain an account of the Flood. There are actually two accounts, but instead of presenting them side by side, they have been blended into a single account, and the blending was done in such a way that, in terms of chronology and coherence, it naturally appears outwardly to be one account. There are clear contradictions among these three chapters. The reason is the same: the material was taken from two sources. One is the Yahwist version, and the other is the Priestly version.

Paragraphs or sentences from the accounts of these two versions have been placed one after another in such a way that, within approximately one hundred lines of the English translation, a change of source can be detected at least seventeen times.

In any case, the account is roughly as follows: because human sin had become limitless, Allah decided to destroy humanity along with the other creatures. He warned Noah and told him to build an ark. He told Noah to take into that ark, along with the other creatures, his wife, his three sons, and their wives. From this point, a difference between the two accounts becomes apparent. One account, the Priestly, says that Noah was told to take one pair of every species of animal. But in the very next paragraph, the Yahwist account says that Noah was told to take seven males and seven females of every species of the so-called ‘clean’ animals, and one male and one female of every species of ‘unclean’ animals. Later, however, it is said that Noah actually took one pair of every species of animal with him. Specialists such as Father de Vaux believe that this paragraph is a corrupted form of the Yahwist account.

The Yahwist paragraph states that the Flood was caused by rain. The Priestly paragraph, on the other hand, mentions rain and water rising from the ground.

The entire earth, even the tops of the mountains, was submerged in water. All living creatures died. After a year, when the water had receded, the ark came to rest on Mount Ararat, and Noah disembarked.

It is noteworthy that there is also a discrepancy in the calculation of the duration of the Flood. The Yahwist account says forty days, whereas the Priestly account gives one hundred and fifty days.

The Yahwist account says nothing about what stage of Noah’s life the Flood occurred. But the Priestly account says that Noah was then six hundred years old. This account also gives Noah’s genealogy, showing his relationship to Adam and Abraham. A calculation based on the information given in Genesis shows that Noah was born 1,056 years after Adam (see the genealogy). Thus, the Flood occurred 1,656 years after Adam was created. In relation to Abraham, Genesis says that the Flood occurred 292 years before his birth.

According to Genesis, the entire human race and all the other animals on earth were destroyed by the Flood. Later, Noah’s three sons and their wives repopulated the world. In other words, humanity was rebuilt. Thus, when Abraham was born approximately three centuries later, humanity had been reconstituted into various communities. But how was this reconstruction possible in such a short time? This single question eliminates the possibility that the account is true.

Moreover, that account is not consistent with modern historical knowledge. Abraham’s birth is considered to have occurred between 1800 and 1875 BCE. Yet if the Flood occurred three hundred years before him, then his birth should have been between the twenty-first and twenty-second centuries BCE.

Modern historical knowledge tells us that civilization developed in several regions of the world at that time, and its ruins can still be seen.

In Egypt, that ancient civilization belongs to the period before the Middle Kingdom (2100 BCE). That period roughly coincided with the First Intermediate Period preceding the Eleventh Dynasty. In Babylon, it was the period of the Third Dynasty of Ur. We know with certainty that there was no interruption in the continuity of these civilizations, and that the entire human race was not destroyed. Yet that is precisely what the Bible says.

Therefore, we cannot accept that these three biblical accounts contain the truth. Judging impartially, we have no choice but to admit that the text of the Bible now before us has no connection with reality. In this situation, we must ask ourselves whether it is at all possible for anything other than truth to be revealed by Allah. It is also impossible to suppose that what Allah has made known to humanity is not only unreal but contradictory as well. Thus, we naturally arrive at the conclusion that the original text of the Bible has been corrupted, and that the corruption was caused by human beings. It occurred either as the text was passed orally from one generation to another, or when, after being written down, it was copied or edited. When it is known that a book like Genesis was edited and revised at least twice within approximately three hundred years, it is perhaps not strange that it should contain unrealities and impossibilities. These unrealities and impossibilities have become apparent to us now because, as a result of modern research and investigation, we are learning at least a portion of the truth, even if not the whole of it, and have the opportunity to compare it with ancient accounts. There is no other reasonable explanation for the errors in the Bible than to hold human beings responsible, and perhaps there can be none. Yet, astonishingly, most commentators from both the Jewish and Christian communities do not wish to accept this argument. They have their own arguments and statements on the matter. These need to be examined carefully.

Christian Commentators’ Statements Concerning Errors in the Bible

It is astonishing to see the various statements and explanations offered by Christian commentators concerning the errors, improbabilities, and contradictions found in the Bible when examined in light of scientific evidence. Some commentators acknowledge certain errors and try to solve certain difficult problems. Others avoid the errors and support the meaning of the original text. By spreading a smoke screen of irrational arguments, they perhaps hope that people will easily forget what cannot reasonably be accepted.

Father de Vaux did acknowledge the existence of such controversial statements in the introduction to his translation of Genesis, but instead of explaining their invalidity, he explained their validity. He did not, however, encourage a rational reconstruction of the ancient events. In his view, ‘the memory of one or two terrible floods in the Tigris and Euphrates valley, gradually spreading by word of mouth until it took the form of a worldwide flood and was written in the Bible in that form’ has no significance in itself. ‘The real significance of this event is Allah’s justice toward human wickedness and His mercy toward righteous people. The author of the biblical account has presented this significance beautifully.’

In this way, the justification for conferring heavenly sanctity upon a popular legend has been established. On the grounds that the author used the legend to explain his religious teaching through an example, the legend itself has been presented as part of human belief. If this kind of argument is accepted as valid, then in a work described as sacred and containing the word of Allah, any kind of impossibility can easily be passed off as possible. And if it is admitted that human beings have interfered in the word of Allah in this way, then a reasonable basis is found for all kinds of human interference and alteration in the biblical text. If alteration of the original text becomes permissible merely because of a religious purpose, then there is nothing more to say. We have already seen how the Priestly writers of the sixth century altered the original text according to their whims. There would then be no way to object to them either.

Many Christian commentators explain the errors, improbabilities, and contradictions in the biblical account by saying that the biblical authors expressed their ideas against different social backgrounds of culture or mentality; consequently, discrepancies are not unusual. This explanation gave rise to the notion of different ‘literary styles.’ In other words, a universal remedy for the problem has been found. Whenever an inconsistency is found between two texts, it is explained by referring to those different social backgrounds and different styles. Not everyone accepts this argument. Nevertheless, its use and application have not yet ceased. Later, in the case of the New Testament, we shall see that precisely this argument has been applied to explain clear contradictions. Another technique is used to make something unacceptable to reason appear acceptable. Various excuses or explanatory matters are introduced around the central issue. As a result, the reader’s attention is diverted from the main issue.

Cardinal Daniélou adopted precisely this approach when discussing the Flood. In an article entitled ‘Flood Baptism Judgment,’ published in the French periodical of Living God, ‘Dieu Vivant’ (No. 38, 1974, pp. 95–112), he says, ‘The oldest legend of the Church says that the religious significance of the Flood contains an image of Jesus and the Church. It is an especially significant event, a judgment upon all humanity.’ Then, quoting from ‘Oxygen,’ he says in his work entitled ‘Homily on Ezekiel,’ ‘The shipwreck of the whole world is saved at the summit.’ He then explains the significance of the number eight, saying, ‘Eight people are saved on the summit of the mountain: Noah, his wife, and his three sons and their wives. For this reason, the number eight is very important.’ Applying to his own case the argument advanced by Justin in his work entitled ‘Dialogue,’ he says, ‘Eight people are saved on the summit of the mountain. Those eight are merely symbols of Jesus, who rose from the dead on the eighth day. Noah is an image of Jesus. He is also the first-born after the Flood. Noah merely foreshadowed what Jesus actually did.’ In making this comparison, he further says that Noah’s

ark was made of wood, and Jesus’ cross was made of wood. It is supposedly because of the great significance of this similarity and correspondence that the religious value of the Flood has been particularly enhanced. In other words, the Cardinal seems to be saying that anything having no connection or similarity with Jesus has no significance at all.

Much could be said about this kind of self-serving comparison. But we must remember that this comparison is merely a commentary, and one concerning an event that cannot even be established on the basis of the Bible as a universal event. Even if we accept it as correct in terms of time, at most we arrive at the Middle Ages, and the Middle Ages were an era when no kind of discussion about the Bible was possible except supportive discussion.

Fortunately, a rational attitude had been adopted and expressed before that forbidden age. Saint Augustine may be mentioned in this connection. His thinking was clearly quite advanced for his time. In that period, during the age of the Fathers of the Church, problems must certainly have arisen in discussions concerning the original text of the Bible. For Saint Augustine mentioned such problems in his eighty-second letter.

He said: ‘I hold the canonical books in the deepest reverence, and I have absolutely no doubt that when they were written, the authors wrote correctly and made no mistakes. But whenever I find in these books an account that contradicts reality, I have no doubt that either there is an error in my copy, or the translator was unable to translate the original correctly, or I myself have not understood the matter properly.’

Saint Augustine could not even imagine that there might be an error in scripture. He emphatically asserted that scripture was infallible. But when confronted with an account contrary to truth and reality, among the possible causes of error he mentioned, he did not include any error by the original author. This is the attitude of a curious believer. If the problems between the Bible and science arising in his time are examined with an inquiring mind like his, most of them are solved very easily.

Modern specialists, by contrast, do not wish to admit that there are any errors in the Bible. They pay no attention whatsoever to this allegation and use all their strength to support whatever is in the Bible. In the introduction to Genesis, Father de Vaux explained why it is necessary to support the biblical account even though it is clearly contrary to history and science: ‘The rule currently followed for the study of history,’

According to that rule, he has urged that the history described in the Bible not be studied. In other words, in his view history can apparently be written through different processes. It is universally acknowledged that when history is incorrectly described, it becomes a historical novel. In that case, truth or facts are never the principal consideration. Yet commentators still refuse to compare the biblical account with any geological, paleontological, or prehistoric information. They say: ‘There is no need for the Bible to correspond to the information or principles of any of these disciplines. Anyone who seeks such a correspondence will be engaging in an unreal confrontation and an artificial comparison.’

(Introduction to Genesis, p. 35). Clearly, this comment was made with the contents of the first eleven chapters in mind, particularly those matters in Genesis that contradict scientific truth. But when some details in that very Bible were proven true by modern research, Father de Vaux did not delay in expressing his pleasure.” Those who had doubted the truth of these details can now see that support for them has been found in historical and ancient archaeological evidence.” (Introduction to Genesis, p. 34).

In other words, if science supports the Bible, that may be accepted as valid evidence; but if such support is not found, no comparison at all can be made. This is the line of reasoning followed by commentators and specialists.

Modern theologians, however, have discovered a way to resolve this problem, which cannot be resolved. They have taken steps to alter the very notion of eternal truth. This new theory is explained in the book What Is the Truth of the Bible? (Quelle est la vérité de la Bible), written by theologians and Lorez and published in Paris by La Centurion in 1972. It is not possible to give its detailed account within the limited scope of the present discussion. It will probably be sufficient here to quote only the judgment given by this new theory concerning science: “The Second Vatican Council refrained from laying down rules for determining the truth or falsehood of the biblical accounts. On considering the fundamental issues, it will be seen that formulating such rules is altogether impossible. For the scientific method by which the truth of the biblical accounts is to be determined cannot determine its own validity or invalidity.

Clearly, the Church is not able to pass judgment on the validity of the “scientific method” as a means of arriving at truth. But that is not the question here. The question concerns established facts, not any theory or method. According to the Bible, the earth was created thirty-seven or thirty-eight centuries ago. But one need not be very learned in this age to know that this is not true at all. We know that human beings had not appeared at that time, and the calculation derived from the genealogies of the Bible has been conclusively proven to be wrong. The author Lorez is surely aware of this. It is precisely to avoid confronting the main problem that he made that evasive comment about science.

The fact that Christian specialists make such differing comments when confronted with scientifically proven errors in the Bible itself proves that the matter is truly uncomfortable for them; and it also proves that these statements in the Bible were written by human beings, not revealed by God.

This discomfort in the Christian world became most pronounced at the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965). After eleven long years of discussion and five drafts, they were able to agree on a declaration concerning revelation. In the introduction to the fourth conciliar document on revelation, published in Paris by La Centurion in 1966, His Grace Weber said: “Thus, at last, the painful situation that had almost engulfed the Council came to an end.”

That document frankly acknowledges the incompleteness and inconsistency of the Old Testament (Chapter 4, p. 53): “Before Jesus Christ established salvation, the books of the Old Testament played an important role in the human situation. From these books everyone learned who God is and who man is, and how God deals with human beings through His justice and mercy. Although the books contain some subject matter that is incomplete and obsolete, these books nevertheless remain the vehicles and proof of true heavenly teaching.

The subject matter to which the adjectives “incomplete” and “obsolete” have been applied is plainly open to criticism, and one day those passages may even be discarded. But whatever happens in the future, the fundamental principle has now been acknowledged and proclaimed quite clearly.

The comment quoted above is part of the general declaration approved by the Vatican Council. The declaration was adopted by 2,344 votes, with only 6 votes against it. Nevertheless, it can hardly be said that the declaration was completely unanimous. In fact, in explaining the approved declaration, His Grace Weber himself made a comment that effectively altered the original declaration. He said, “Some books of the Jewish Bible may be accepted only temporarily, and those books contain some subject matter that is incomplete.”

Where the original document says “obsolete,” the explanation says “temporarily acceptable”; but can these two expressions be understood to mean the same thing? Moreover, by using the word “Jewish,” Weber sought to convey the impression that the original document had criticized the Hebrew Bible itself. But the word “Jewish” was not used at all in the original document. In fact, the book criticized by the Council as partly incomplete and obsolete is the Christians’ own Old Testament.

Conclusion

The Bible should be examined exactly as it exists. If one is aware of this process of development and successive alteration, it becomes possible to believe that the Old Testament may contain different accounts of the same event, as well as contradictions, historical errors, improbabilities, and inconsistencies with scientifically established facts. Such errors in an ancient book written by human beings are quite natural. The same errors will be found in any other book written at the same time and under similar circumstances.

When it was not yet possible to raise questions based on scientific facts, and personal rational thought was the only means of identifying improbabilities and contradictions, Saint Augustine understood that God could not teach human beings anything inconsistent with reality. He therefore established the principle that anything opposed to truth could not be claimed to have come from God. On the basis of this principle, he favored removing from the Bible everything that deserved to be discarded.

Later, however, when some passages of the Bible were found to be inconsistent with modern knowledge, that attitude was no longer followed. This refusal to accept truth simply became so entrenched that numerous books were written to explain the justification for retaining in the Bible those passages that were incompatible with truth and reality.

The Second Vatican Council, however, considerably weakened the force of this uncompromising attitude. For they expressed doubt about certain books of the Old Testament, saying that those books contain some subject matter that is “incomplete and obsolete.” The question now is whether this view will remain merely a view, or whether steps will be taken to remove those passages from the Bible. In fact, the situation is that until they are removed, those very passages continue to remain “vehicles and proof of teaching coming from God.”

The Gospels: Their Sources and History

While reading the Gospels, many readers have felt embarrassed, and even ashamed, when they grasped the meaning of certain accounts. They find themselves in the same situation when they read different accounts of the same event in different Gospels. Father Roset made this comment in his book Initiation to the Gospels (Initiation à l’Évangile; publisher: Éditions du Seuil, Paris, 1973). He came to understand how concerned and anxious ordinary Christians were about this through his long association with a Catholic weekly, where he answered readers’ letters. These readers were people of different levels of education and means from all sections of society, and he observed that the passages or subjects about which they sought explanations were, even when not contradictory, ridiculous, or scandalous, “vague, hazy, and incomprehensible.” If a Christian reads the entire Gospel attentively, there is truly no way to avoid becoming deeply distressed and anxious.

Father Roset’s book was published in 1973. Thus, his comment is very recent. Until only a short time ago, most Christians knew only those portions of the Gospel that priests read or explained during church worship or religious ceremonies. Apart from Protestants, Christians generally never read the entire Gospel. Religious textbooks contained only quotations. The complete text was never quoted. In a Roman Catholic school I saw books by Virgil and Plato, but I did not see the New Testament. A Greek edition of the New Testament could also have been very useful. But I understood only much later why that book, or any other work concerning Christianity, had not been kept there. If such books had been available, we students might have asked questions that would truly have placed the teachers in an awkward position when answering them.

It was from this realization that Church authorities gave Christian Bible readers advance warning. In Father Roset’s words: “Most Christians need to receive training in how to read the Gospels.” Whether or not one agrees with his explanation, one thing cannot be denied: he at least confronted this delicate situation. However, attempts to provide explanations in this way have not been made for a very large number of revelations.

The introductions written in Bibles printed for wide distribution never give any indication that there is room for doubt about the original text of the accounts, their truthfulness, or the identity of their authors. Concerning authors whose identities are not known at all, or cannot be known, these introductions provide much “accurate and detailed” information. Often mere conjecture is presented as established fact. Or it is said that a certain priest was an eyewitness to a certain event, whereas specialists have said exactly the opposite. They portray the interval between the completion of Jesus’ preaching and the appearance of the relevant writings as very short. They try to create the impression that a single author wrote down all the biblical accounts after hearing them from a contemporary eyewitness and direct listener of Jesus Christ. Yet specialists have said that there can be no doubt that the original text was altered many times. Some introductions do mention the problem of explaining one or two passages, but the contemptuous manner in which they try to evade the problem only strengthens the doubts of an attentive reader. Appendices, especially notes, are added to such introductions. In these notes, ingenious explanations of every kind of improbability, contradiction, and obvious error are used in an attempt to hide the fish with vegetables. But to alert and inquisitive readers who wish to uncover the truth, nothing remains hidden.

I am now introducing a subject that will astonish the reader even more. Those who are not familiar with such problems will be genuinely stunned.

Matthew and John say nothing about Jesus’ ascension. Luke, on the other hand, says in his Gospel that the ascension took place on the day of the Resurrection. Again, the book called Acts of the Apostles says that it took place forty days later. Yet the amusing point is that Luke himself is known as the author of that book. Mark does mention the ascension, but gives no date. Consequently, his account is no longer regarded as accurate. In this situation, it is clear that there is no way to accept Jesus’ ascension as an established fact on the basis of any scripture. Yet religious commentators do not wish to attach any importance at all to this lack of foundation.

Tricot makes no mention whatsoever of the ascension in his book Little Dictionary of the New Testament (Petit dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament; publisher: Desclée & Co., Paris, 1960). Yet this book was written and published precisely for wide circulation and dissemination. On the other hand, Father Benoit and Father Boismard, teachers at the Jerusalem Bible School, said on pages 451–452 of the second volume of their book The Synopsis of the Four Gospels (Synopsis des quatre Évangiles; publisher: Éditions du Cerf, Paris, 1972) that, regarding the difference between the accounts in Luke’s Gospel and Acts of the Apostles, understanding what “literary device” actually means is probably not such an easy task.

At least, there can probably be no doubt that Father Roset did not understand this and did not accept that argument. But the explanation he himself gave is of exactly the same kind. In his book Initiation to the Gospel (1973, p. 187), he said: “As with many other events, in this case too, if the biblical account is accepted only in its literal sense, without grasping its religious significance, no explanation can be found at all. In fact, this is not a matter of expressing a real event through an incoherent symbol. We must direct our attention to the religious purpose of those who revealed this mystery to us. As embodied human beings, they conveyed these mysterious events to us precisely in the form that we were capable of accepting through our feelings and understanding.”

But how can this explanation be accepted? Yes, if one can adopt the attitude of accepting everything unconditionally and without question, then perhaps there is no problem at all.

Another noteworthy point in Father Roset’s commentary is that he acknowledged the existence of “many other events” of this kind. It is therefore necessary to examine the matter deeply, objectively, and comprehensively. It seems reasonable and relevant to seek explanations and solutions within the circumstances that existed when the Gospels were written, particularly within the religious environment of that time. The original oral tradition eventually took written form, was then altered from age to age, and underwent many changes by the time it reached our era. If this is kept in mind, there is perhaps little reason to be astonished by accounts that are obscure, difficult to understand, contradictory, or ridiculous. The same may be said of those accounts that appear inconsistent with the scientifically established truths of the present age. This line of reasoning proves that the original composition and its alterations were carried out by human beings.

In recent decades, research into religious writings, and especially objective research, has attracted everyone’s attention, and the change that this research has brought about in religious ideas can also be clearly observed. Father Kannengiesser, a professor at the Catholic Institute in Paris, said in his book Faith in the Resurrection, Resurrection of Faith (Foi en la résurrection, résurrection de la foi; publisher: Beauchesne, Paris, 1974): “Believers are not very aware of the revolution that has taken place in the process of interpreting the Bible since the time of Pope Pius XII.” Pius XII was pope from 1939 to 1959. Thus, the “revolution” mentioned by the author is a very recent event, and influenced by this revolution, some specialists have also begun teaching ordinary Christians accordingly. Father Kannengiesser said: “With the arrival of this revolution in the process of interpretation, the established ancient tradition has begun to be abolished.”

He warned: “The reports about Jesus given in the Gospels should not be accepted in their literal sense. For they were actually composed on the occasion of some event, either in support of or in opposition to him, and the authors merely wrote down the legends about Jesus current in their respective communities.” Regarding Jesus’ Resurrection, he emphatically stated that not one of the Gospel authors claimed that “he had seen that event with his own eyes.” He further said that the same applies to the rest of Jesus’ public life. For the Gospel accounts themselves show that, apart from Judas Iscariot, none of the apostles remained with Jesus from the time he began preaching until the last day of his life.

We have now come a long way from the ancient doctrine that was supported and approved at the Second Vatican Council only ten years ago. Of course, that ancient doctrine is still being propagated in many modern writings. Nevertheless, truth is gradually making its way forward.

Yet bringing that truth to light is not an easy task. The resistance of the doctrine that has been vigorously defended and supported since ancient times is not weak. To overcome this resistance, its roots must be cut completely. In other words, the indications of the emergence of Christianity must be examined first of all.

Historical Evidence: Jewish Christianity and Saint Paul

Most Christians believe that the Gospels were written by those who were directly associated with Jesus’ life. These writings are therefore regarded as incontrovertible evidence of his life and teachings. There is no reason for doubt. Thus, once this certainty of their originality and authenticity is accepted, there is no further opportunity to discuss Jesus’ teachings. Moreover, since the Church is engaged in issuing and enforcing the commandments given by Jesus himself, there can be no doubt about its legitimacy as an institution. The popular editions of the Gospels being published nowadays promote precisely this kind of idea in the name of introductions or commentaries.

The claim that the Gospel authors were eyewitnesses is always presented as self-evident proof. In other words, they do not consider it necessary to establish the truth of that claim through testimony, evidence, or information. Moreover, in the middle of the second century Saint Justin called the Gospel “the memoirs of the apostles.” It consequently becomes difficult even to express any doubt about those apostolic authors. It is said of Matthew that he was a prominent person, a customs officer in Capernaum, and proficient in Aramaic and Greek. Mark can easily be identified as Peter’s associate and was evidently also an eyewitness. Luke was a physician, and Paul said much about him. Thus, detailed information about him is available. Then there is John. He was a fisherman on the Sea of Galilee, the son of Zebedee, and Jesus’ constant companion.

Recent research into the circumstances surrounding the emergence of Christianity shows that it was not at all possible at that time to present information in such detailed accounts. We shall see shortly who the authors of the Gospels really were and what kind of people they were. But one point should be made clear at the outset: the events said to have occurred after Jesus began preaching did not actually occur in the way described; nor was the foundation of the Church laid as a result of Peter’s going to Rome. On the contrary, from Jesus’ departure from this world until the latter half of the second century, there was conflict and disagreement between two factions. One faction supported Paul’s Christianity, while the other supported Jewish Christianity. In time, Paul’s Christianity prevailed and Jewish Christianity disappeared.

Many books have been written about recent discoveries concerning the origins of Christianity. Among the authors, the name of Cardinal Daniélou is especially noteworthy. In December 1967, an important article by him was published in a French journal called Études (Studies). Its title was “A New Representation of the Origins of Christianity: Judeo-Christianity.” In this article, he reviewed history and showed that the background to the Gospels presented in popular books and pamphlets is completely different from the actual situation. In this connection, we present the principal points of his article.

After Jesus’ departure from this world, the small group of apostles formed a Jewish sect and remained faithful to the worship practices customary in the Temple

.” Later, when the pagans were converted, some elements of their ancient worship practices were incorporated and “a special system” was devised for them. Then, at the Council of Jerusalem in 49 CE, they were exempted from circumcision and several other Jewish practices. But “many Jewish Christians” refused to accept this exemption. This group was entirely separate from Paul’s group, and the two groups disagreed concerning those who became Christians from among the pagans (the incident at Antioch in 49 CE). Paul’s position was that even for Jews, circumcision, the Sabbath, and the Temple worship regulations were extremely old-fashioned and reactionary. Christianity had to be opened to respectable society by freeing it from this political and religious allegiance to Judaism.”

To the Jewish Christians who were “loyal Jews,” he was a traitor. In their documents he was identified as an “enemy,” and he was accused of following a “double policy.” “Until 70 CE, Jewish Christians were the majority within the Church, and Paul was completely an isolated individual.” The leader was James, a relative of Jesus, accompanied by Peter (at first) and John. “James was the spokesman for the Jewish Christian group, and in opposition to Paul’s Christianity this group deliberately remained loyal to Judaism.” Jesus’ family played an important role in the Jewish Christian Church of Jerusalem. After James, the leader was Symeon, son of Clopas, and Clopas was Jesus’ nephew.

Cardinal Daniélou quoted several passages from Jewish Christian writings that express views about Jesus. These writings include the Gospel of the Hebrews (obtained from the Jewish Christian community of Egypt), Clement’s Homilies and Recognitions, the Hypotyposeis, the Second Apocalypse of James, and the Gospel of Thomas. (It should be noted here that all these writings were later regarded as apocryphal. In other words, after Paul’s victory, they were concealed by the Church that was established on his side. Later, after abridgment and alteration, only the four canonical Gospels were retained.) Cardinal Daniélou said: “The oldest books of Christianity were written by Jewish Christians.” He also gave a detailed account of them.

“During the first hundred years of the Church, Jewish Christianity predominated not only in Jerusalem and Palestine, but everywhere. This situation continued until Paul’s victory. This is the reason for and explanation of the opposition Paul mentions in his letters.” In Galatia, Corinth, Colossae, Rome, and Antioch, Paul encountered opposition everywhere.

That the Syrian–Palestinian coast from Gaza to Antioch was under the influence of the Jewish-Christian religion is mentioned in the writings of the Ebionites and Clement. There are indications that the same influence existed in Asia Minor in Paul’s letters to the Galatians and Colossians. Papias’s writings provide information about its presence in Phrygia. Information about Greece, particularly the area of Apollos, is found in one of Paul’s own letters, his First Letter to the Corinthians. Clement’s letter and The Shepherd of Hermas show that Rome was “an important center” of the Jewish-Christian religion. In Suetonius and Tacitus, Christians were understood to be a sect of the Jews. Cardinal Daniélou believes that the Jewish-Christian religion was initially also propagated in Africa. The Hebrew Gospel and Clement’s writings contain indications of this.

To understand correctly the background in which the Gospel—that is, the Bible, that is, the New Testament—was written, it is particularly necessary to know these facts about the conflict between the two communities. After the original writings had undergone various alterations, the version of the Bible that we see today emerged after the Jewish War of 70 CE and the fall of Jerusalem, when the Christians became dominant. Cardinal Daniélou explained the matter as follows: “After the Jews’ status had been undermined, the Christians adopted a policy of keeping away from them. Then the Greek Christians gained predominance, Paul achieved posthumous victory, and Christianity, separated politically and socially from Judaism, became a third nation. Nevertheless, until the Jewish revolt of 140 CE, Jewish Christianity was able to retain cultural predominance.”

The Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John appeared between 70 and 110 CE. However, they were not the first written religious ordinances, for Paul’s letters had been written long before them. O. Cullmann believes that Paul probably wrote to the Thessalonians in about 50 CE. He probably disappeared several years before the composition of the Gospel of Mark was completed.

Paul is the most controversial person in Christianity. The members of Jesus’ family and the apostles supporting James, who was in Jerusalem, regarded him as a traitor to Jesus’ thought. Paul invented Christianity, excluding those whom Jesus had chosen and drawn to himself for the propagation of religion. He had never seen Jesus in his lifetime, yet he was able to establish the legitimacy of his preaching by saying that, while he was once traveling to Damascus, the resurrected Jesus had appeared to him on the road. It is quite reasonable to ask what would have become of Christianity if Paul had not existed, and many possible situations can be imagined in answer to this question. Regarding the Gospel, however, it can at least be stated emphatically that the work would never have been produced had that contentious situation not arisen among several communities. The work was produced during a period of intense disagreement and conflict between the two Pauls. Father Kannengiesser therefore called the Gospel “a work of warfare.” A compilation was prepared by selecting from the numerous works about Jesus produced by both sides at that time. Paul’s Christianity won the victory, and as a result the writings were built around him. These writings are called the “canon” and are recognized by the Church. All the other writings were then condemned as unreliable and rejected.

Thus Jewish Christianity disappeared. It now has no influence anywhere. Yet “Judaistic” still refers to that religion. Describing its disappearance, Cardinal Daniélou said: “As the Church freed itself from all Jewish contact, Jewish Christianity became completely isolated and rapidly disappeared in the West. In the East, however, faint traces of its existence can be found in the third and fourth centuries, especially in Palestine, Arabia, Transjordan, Syria, and Mesopotamia. All the other regions joined the mainstream Church, although their cultures retained a strong Semitic influence. This influence can still be seen in the Ethiopian and Chaldean Churches.”

The Four Gospels: Their Origin and History

No mention of the Gospel is found in any writing from the early period of Christianity. The first mention appears long after Paul’s writings had been published. From the middle of the second century, that is, after 140, information began to emerge about a collection of religious writings. Nevertheless, it is said: “From the beginning of the second century, many Christian writers stated that they were familiar with several of Paul’s letters.” This comment appears in the introduction to the book An Ecumenical Translation of the Bible—New Testament, published in Paris in 1972. It should be noted that this book was the product of the combined efforts of more than one hundred Catholic and Protestant experts.

Although the Gospel later accepted as canonical, that is, official, had been completed at the beginning of the second century, it remained unknown to everyone for a long time. The Ecumenical Translation says that around the middle of the second century, some stories described in that Gospel began to be quoted elsewhere. Nevertheless, it cannot be stated with certainty whether the stories were quoted from the original book or whether the authors quoted them from memories of oral legends.

The introduction to that translation of the Bible says: “No such collection could be identified before 140.” This comment is precisely the opposite of what Tricot said in the introduction to his translation of the New Testament (1960). He said: “From the beginning of the second century people used the word ‘Gospel,’ and by Gospel they then meant the work which, around 150, Saint Justin called ‘The Memoirs of the Apostles’ (the sayings of the apostles).” Unfortunately, such statements and comments have created mistaken ideas in the minds of ordinary people about the time and date of the Gospels.

There are other misconceptions as well. It is not at all correct to say that the four Gospels existed in complete form from the beginning. In reality, the Gospels did not reach completion until more than a century after Jesus. According to the Ecumenical Translation, the Gospels were completed around 170 and attained the status of official accounts.

Saint Justin referred to the authors of the Gospels as apostles (companions). But his opinion is not at all acceptable. For, as we shall see shortly, none of the authors was an apostle.

Tricot said that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written before 70. But this statement is acceptable only perhaps in Mark’s case. Like many other authors, he also described the Gospel writers as companions of Jesus. For this reason, he determined the probable time of composition of the Gospels in such a way that it could be close to the period of Jesus’ life. Regarding John, Tricot said that he lived until 100 and that Christians were accustomed to seeing him present in close proximity to Jesus during various religious ceremonies. Nevertheless, it is difficult to prove that the Gospel circulating under his name was actually written by him. Like many other commentators, Tricot also believes that John (and Matthew) himself was the most qualified witness to all the events he described. But most critics do not accept this. Indeed, they do not even acknowledge him as the author of the fourth Gospel. But if the four Gospels cannot reasonably be accepted as the “memoirs” of Jesus’ companions, where did these books come from?

In the book The New Testament (Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1967), the author O. Cullmann said: “The ancient Christian communities wrote down stories that had circulated orally, and the evangelists arranged the stories according to their own beliefs and wishes. They established links between the accounts of events and the sayings, and tried to create coherence where there was inconsistency. By inserting words such as ‘then,’ ‘when he,’ and so forth, they established relationships between two sayings of Jesus and showed the sequence and continuity of events. In other words, the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke (these three are known as the Synoptic Gospels) were not written on the basis of history; structurally, they are merely pure literary efforts.”

He further said: “What is particularly noteworthy in this connection is that, when the orally transmitted stories about Jesus’ life and activities were written down for the first time, the authors were more concerned with the need for preaching, worship, and teaching than with the need to write a biography, and they wrote all the accounts accordingly. In support of the belief they preached, they quoted examples from Jesus’ life. In fact, their own teaching was the real substance. They brought in examples from Jesus’ life as supporting material. They sometimes quoted Jesus’ sayings as well, but for the same purpose. In other words, their primary purpose was not to write a biography or history, but to preach religion.”

The commentators of An Ecumenical Translation of the Bible also stated the same thing when describing the history of the composition of the Gospels: “The orally transmitted stories were mixed with the speeches of Jesus’ disciples, and this mixed material was written into the Gospels. Since the Gospels were written by different authors, different viewpoints were naturally reflected, and different kinds of legends were described in the work of each.”

More than one hundred experts, both Catholic and Protestant, collectively accepted this view concerning the interpretation of the New Testament. It is noteworthy that the decision reached by the Second Vatican Council concerning the Bible between 1962 and 1965 was greatly inconsistent with that view. We have already mentioned the Council’s document once, while discussing the Old Testament. Regarding the Old Testament, the Council said that the book contains “material that is incomplete and obsolete.” But they expressed no such doubt about the Gospels. On the contrary, they said: “No one can ignore the fact that, among all religious writings, including the New Testament, the Gospels hold the highest place. For the Gospels represent the distinguished witnesses to the life and teaching of our Savior. The Church has always said, and still says in every context, that the four Gospels came from Jesus’ companions. What they preached at Jesus’ own command, they wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and their writings are the foundation of the faith. These writings are the Gospels written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Our Holy Mother Church unhesitatingly approves these four Gospels and still declares, as before, that they are historically authentic and that they faithfully record all that Jesus, the Son of God, did and taught before his ascension, for humanity’s eternal salvation. So that we may always obtain truthful and candid information about Jesus’ life, the sacred writers wrote the Gospels precisely in this way.”

There is no hesitation or doubt in this statement. It emphatically asserts that Jesus’ life, works, and teachings are correctly reflected in the Gospels.

It is therefore clear that the official opinion of the Vatican Council has no agreement whatsoever with the opinions of the authors we quoted above. In particular, Father Kannengiesser’s statements on this matter may be recalled once again. He said that the Gospels “should not be taken literally; they were written with particular occasions in view” and are “merely wartime compositions.” The authors of the Gospels “merely wrote down the legends of their respective communities about Jesus.”

The comment written in An Ecumenical Translation of the Bible may also be recalled in this connection. The Gospels were composed to suit various circles, to meet the needs of the Church, and to explain certain statements in the religious scriptures. In some cases they were composed to correct errors, and in others to answer opponents. The evangelist authors selected the material they preferred from the orally transmitted stories and composed their works from it.

Thus we find ourselves faced with two mutually contradictory opinions. On one side is the opinion of the Vatican Council, and on the other is the recent opinion of the experts. The Council says that the Gospels contain accurate accounts of Jesus’ works and sayings. But it is utterly impossible to reconcile this statement with the contradictions, improbabilities, natural impossibilities, and statements contrary to proven facts found in those very Gospels.

On the other hand, if it is assumed that the authors selected material from legends and composed the Gospels according to their own viewpoints, or if the works are regarded as having been written for particular occasions or as wartime compositions, then the reasons for the contradictions and improbabilities found in them can easily be understood. In fact, the errors themselves are the greatest proof that the Gospels were written by human beings and composed under the circumstances described. The authors may be assumed to have been very faithful; but they wrote without suspecting that any information or account contained an error. Consequently, their accounts may be assumed to have been influenced by the competition among contemporary communities. And their accounts cannot be found to agree with those of other authors. In reality, they presented the story of Jesus’ life from a viewpoint completely different from that of their opponents.

We have already shown that, historically, the modern opinion of experts concerning the Gospels is correct. The Gospel accounts themselves support this.

The Gospel of Matthew (The Gospel Written by Matthew)

The Gospel of Matthew appears first in the New Testament. The other three Gospels come after it. The Gospel of Matthew is essentially an extension of the Old Testament. In that respect, its position is entirely appropriate.” The commentators of An Ecumenical Translation of the Bible observed that “this Gospel was written precisely to prove that Jesus fulfilled the history of Israel.” For this reason, Matthew frequently quoted from the Old Testament. These quotations show that Jesus acted like the Savior (Messiah) whom the Jews were awaiting.

This Gospel begins with Jesus’ genealogy. (We shall later show that this genealogy contradicts the genealogy given by Luke.) Matthew traced Jesus’ lineage through David back to Abraham. We shall mention shortly the error in the original account. Most commentators, of course, silently overlook this error. Nevertheless, it was clearly Matthew’s intention to establish the work’s fundamental tone at the outset by tracing the lineage back to Abraham. To serve the same purpose, he consistently presented Jesus’ attitude toward Jewish law. The basic principles of Jewish law—worship, fasting, and charity—are briefly described here.

Jesus gave his teachings primarily to his own people. He spoke to the twelve apostles as follows: “Do not go along the road of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:4–6). (The Torah, or Pentateuch, was the religious scripture of the Samaritans. They observed most Jewish rituals and practices and expected the coming of the Savior. But they had built a temple in opposition to the Temple of Jerusalem.) “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24). But immediately afterward, at the end of his Gospel, Matthew extended the mission of Jesus’ first disciples to all nations. He put this command into Jesus’ mouth: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19), but the primary target was certainly the house of Israel. Regarding this Gospel, Tricot says: “Beneath its Greek covering, the bones and flesh of this book are Jewish, and so is its spirit; the tone of the entire book is Jewish, and its unmistakable marks are found in the book itself.”

On the basis of these proofs and comments alone, it can be said that Matthew’s Gospel and the like were composed on the basis of the legends of the Christian community. O. Cullmann said that this community “was trying to emerge from Judaism, but at the same time was trying to preserve continuity with the Old Testament. An effort to maintain such a balance can be sensed in the central message and general tone of this Gospel.”

Moreover, political statements can also be found in the original text. Because Palestine was under Roman occupation, it naturally wanted independence, and for this reason its people prayed for Allah’s help. Claiming to be Allah’s chosen nation among all nations, they expected Allah, as the Almighty, to help them directly. For he had provided such help many times in the past.

Let us now consider Matthew’s identity. What kind of man was he? It is best to say directly at the outset that he is no longer acknowledged as one of Jesus’ apostles. Nevertheless, Tricot presented him as such in his commentary on his translation of the New Testament (1960). He said: “When Jesus called him to become one of his final disciples, Matthew, also known as Levi, was employed as a customs officer at the tollhouse or customs house of Capernaum.” The Church Fathers Origen, Jerome, and Epiphanius also held this opinion. But this opinion is no longer accepted as correct. For there is no disagreement at all on one point: Matthew “did write for Greek speakers, but he knew Jewish rites and the Aramaic language.”

The commentators of the Ecumenical Translation probably think that this Gospel originated as follows: “It is generally assumed that this Gospel was written in Syria, probably in Antioch or Phoenicia, because many Jews lived there.” (It is noteworthy that Alexandria may also have been inhabited by members of the Jewish-Christian community to which Matthew belonged. Like many other commentators, Cullmann has mentioned this possibility.) “A synagogue assembly took place at Jamnia in 80, and we have found signs of such a debate against the synagogue and the strict Judaism of the Pharisees.” In these circumstances, many authors believe that the first Gospel was written between 80 and 90, or perhaps somewhat earlier. Nothing precise can be said about this; it is impossible to say. Since we do not know the authors’ real names, the only resource available to us is the evidence and indications found in the Gospel itself—for example, we have to identify our author from his profession. We learn that he was highly learned in Jewish writings and traditions. He knew and respected the religious leaders of his people, but challenged them severely. He was highly skilled in preaching and in making Jesus understandable to the public. Moreover, he placed great emphasis on ensuring that his teachings would be reflected in people’s practical lives. This description gives us a picture of an educated Jew who later became a Christian; a householder “who brings out of his treasure new things and old” (Matthew 13:52). This description does not fit the customs officer; nor does it fit the Matthew whom Mark and Luke call Levi and who was one of the twelve apostles.

Everyone agrees that Matthew, like Mark and Luke, wrote his Gospel using the same source and material. However, as we shall see shortly, his account differs somewhat on several important points. Nevertheless, Cullmann believes that Matthew drew extensively from the Gospel of Mark, although Mark was not at all a disciple of Jesus.

Matthew also altered the original text of the Old Testament. We shall see this alteration when we compare the genealogy he gives at the beginning of his Gospel with the account in the Old Testament. He included in his book an account that is “literally unbelievable.” Father Kannengiesser applied this very description to the role of the guards in connection with Jesus’ resurrection. Referring to the improbability of the story that military guards were stationed at Jesus’ tomb, he said: “These foreign guards reported to the chief priests without informing their superior officers, and the priests paid them to tell a lie. However, it is better not to laugh contemptuously at Matthew for this, because his purpose was serious and important. He inserted legendary material into his book in his own way. As a result, the scene that emerged was suitable only for the American film Jesus Christ Superstar.”

It should be mentioned that the person who made this comment is a distinguished theologian and a professor at the Catholic Institute of Paris.

Matthew’s account of the events surrounding Jesus’ death provides another example of his fertile imagination.

“And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom, the earth shook, and the rocks were split; the tombs were opened, and the bodies of many sleeping holy people were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs, entered the holy city, and appeared to many people.”

This event, described by Matthew (27:51–53), is not mentioned in any other Gospel. It is truly difficult to understand how the bodies of the holy people became alive at the time of Jesus’ death (according to the other Gospels, this event occurred on the eve of the Sabbath) and came out of the tombs after his resurrection (according to the other Gospels, this occurred the day after the Sabbath). But that is not all. The most notable impossibility is perhaps found in Matthew’s Gospel itself. Of all the statements that the Gospel writers claim were spoken by Jesus himself, this account of Matthew is the most difficult to explain. Concerning the sign of Jonah, he said in verses 38–40 of chapter 12: “When Jesus was with the scribes and Pharisees, they said to him, ‘Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.’ He answered them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah the prophet. For just as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish for three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.’”

Thus it appears that Jesus said he would remain beneath the earth for three days and three nights. For this reason, Matthew, like Luke and Mark, placed Jesus’ death and burial on the eve of the Sabbath. Consequently, Jesus’ time in the tomb may amount to three days, but not three nights; in reality, it is two nights. Matthew mentions this matter elsewhere as well (16:1–4), but there he does not specify any particular duration. Luke also does not mention a duration (11:29–32). Later we shall see that, in Mark’s account (8:11–12), Jesus is said to have stated that no sign would be given to that generation.

The commentators on the Gospels habitually ignore this point. Nevertheless, Father Rosset, noting this improbability, has said that Jesus was in the grave for only three days—one full day and two nights. He explained this, however, by saying, “This is merely a particular manner of speaking, but the actual meaning is three days.” One would hardly expect the commentators to employ such a meaningless argument. Their conduct is truly regrettable. If they had said that this inconsistency resulted from an error by the author or copyist, it would have been more morally satisfactory and acceptable.

But apart from all these inconsistencies and improbabilities, Matthew’s Gospel has one particularly notable feature. It is that, although the Jewish-Christian community is becoming separated from the original Jewish religion, it nevertheless continues to maintain allegiance to the Old Testament; this outlook and mood are dominant throughout the book. From the standpoint of the history of the Jewish-Christian community, this feature is highly important.

Mark’s Gospel (The Gospel According to Mark)

Of the four Gospels, this one is the shortest and the oldest. But this book was not written by an apostle. At most, the author may have been a disciple of an apostle.

Cullmann has said that he does not regard Mark as a disciple of Jesus. However, for those who doubt that Mark deserves credit for writing this Gospel, he has pointed out that “if Matthew and Luke had known that this book was not based on the teaching of an apostle, they would not have used it in the way they did.” But no final conclusion can be reached from this argument. In support of his own doubts, Cullmann has said that he frequently quotes a person named “John, also called Mark” from the New Testament. Yet none of these quotations mentions the name of a Gospel author, nor does the original text of Mark’s work mention any author’s name.

Because of the lack of information on this matter, the commentators have introduced details that are plainly superfluous. Mark’s Gospel contains the following account: “And a young man followed him, wearing nothing but a linen cloth; and they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and fled naked.” (Mark 14:51–52). Since this incident is found only in Mark’s Gospel, the commentators have assumed that the young man must have been Mark himself—the faithful disciple who tried to follow his master. (Ecumenical Translation). According to other commentators, this incident is “a personal memory, proof of authenticity, an anonymous signature, and evidence that he was an eyewitness.”

Cullmann believes that “the assumption that the author was of Jewish origin is supported by many words and phrases.” But from the Latin words and phrases used in the work, it may be inferred that he composed this Gospel in Rome. He addressed Christians who did not live in Palestine and carefully explained the Aramaic words he used.

The idea that Mark was Peter’s companion in Rome has long been current. The final paragraph of Peter’s First Letter is the basis of this idea (provided, of course, that the letter is assumed to have been written by Peter). Peter wrote: “The community in Babylon, likewise chosen, sends you greetings, and so does my son Mark.” The commentary of the Ecumenical Translation says: “Babylon probably refers to Rome.” From this assumption, the commentators have concluded that, since Mark is believed to have been in Rome with Peter, Mark must have been the author. In other words, one assumption upon another. The same kind of argument used by Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, in 150, when he claimed Mark as the author of this Gospel and referred to him as “Peter’s interpreter” and possibly “Paul’s associate,” has simply been applied here as well!

Judged from this standpoint, the date of composition of Mark’s Gospel falls after Peter’s death—that is, between 65 and 70 according to the Ecumenical Translation, and in 70 according to Cullmann.

There is, however, considerable confusion in the original text. No chronological sequence of events has been maintained anywhere in the work. At the very beginning (1:16–20), Mark speaks of the four fishermen who abandoned everything and became Jesus’ companions at a single word from him. They did not know Jesus, but as soon as he said, “I will make you fishers of men,” they immediately followed him. Mark apparently did not consider that every event has to possess some degree of plausibility.

According to Father Rosset, Mark is a “disorderly writer,” the “weakest and most immature writer” of the four. He does not even know how to narrate an event. In support of this judgment, Father Rosset quoted the account of the selection of the twelve apostles. It reads: “Then he went up the mountain and called to him those whom he desired, and they came to him. And he appointed twelve, to be with him, and to be sent out to preach and have authority to cast out demons. So he appointed the twelve and gave Simon the name Peter” (Mark 3:13–16).

Father Rosset believes that it would never be possible to choose companions in this manner.

It has already been mentioned that, concerning the sign of Jonah, Mark said something entirely contrary to Matthew and Luke. Regarding Jesus’ showing the people a sign (proof of prophethood) during his preaching, Mark gives an account that is wholly unbelievable. He says: “Then the Pharisees came out and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven, to test him. And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, ‘Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to this generation.’ And he left them, got into the boat again, and went to the other side.” (Mark 8:11–13)

Here Jesus himself appears to support his resolve to perform no act that could seem supernatural. Consequently, the commentators of the Ecumenical Translation have expressed astonishment. For whereas Luke says that Jesus would show one sign—the sign of Jonah, as Matthew also says—Mark says that no sign would be shown at all. Luke, however, gives a more detailed account, saying that Jesus “himself performed certain supernatural acts as signs” (Luke 7:22 and 11:20).

The entire Gospel of Mark is recognized by the Church as original and authentic. Yet modern commentators believe that the final section (16:19–20) was added later. The commentators of the Ecumenical Translation are particularly outspoken on this matter.

Neither of the complete fourth-century Gospel manuscripts known as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus contains that final section. Cullmann said: “At a later time, this conclusion was added to some Greek manuscripts and several other versions, and its contents were taken from the other Gospels.” In fact, several versions of this added conclusion can be found. There is a long version and also a short version, and both kinds of text were included in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible published in 1952. Some of the long versions contain additional material as well.

Commenting on this matter, Father Kannengiesser said: “The very community that certified Mark’s Gospel as authentic omitted these final verses when the book was officially placed in its hands. Matthew, Luke, and John had not seen these verses. But everyone felt that something was missing, something that ought to be there, and that the gap should be filled. Much later, when similar works by Matthew, Luke, and John were widely circulated, a suitable final section was composed for Mark’s Gospel, using material from the other Gospels. But the fact that this addition does not fit the original can easily be detected by reading Mark 16:9–20. This incident provides a clear idea of the extent to which the Gospel writings were freely interfered with up to the first part of the second century.”

Here we have an unreserved admission, from a famous theologian himself, that people altered a religious scripture.

Luke’s Gospel (The Gospel According to Luke)

According to Cullmann, Luke is a “historian,” while Father Kannengiesser considers him a “true novelist.” In the preface addressed to Theophilus, Luke says that, following those who had previously written accounts about Jesus, he too is going to write an account of the same subject, using for this purpose the information preached by the apostles as well as the information and accounts of eyewitnesses. In other words, he himself was not an eyewitness. Therefore, the account may be expected to be carefully planned and well organized. He wrote the preface to this account as follows:

“Many have undertaken to compile and arrange an account of the events that have taken place in our religious history and of the information and accounts that have come to us through eyewitnesses and preachers. Since I consider myself thoroughly informed about all these matters, I thought it would be good to write the account for you myself, in sequence and in an orderly manner, so that you may know the true account of the matters about which you have been informed.”

The difference between Luke and Mark can be perceived from the very first sentence of this preface. Luke’s Gospel is an outstanding literary work written in classical Greek and free from crude material.

Luke was converted to Christianity as a cultured and learned aristocrat. His attitude toward the Jews is very clear. Cullmann has shown that Luke omitted most of Mark’s passages concerning the Jews, emphasized the Jews’ disbelief in Jesus, and portrayed Jesus as having a good relationship with the Samaritans, whom Jesus disliked. Matthew, on the other hand, says that Jesus always told the apostles to keep away from the Samaritans. That the Gospel writers put words into Jesus’ mouth according to their own personal attitudes is one of innumerable examples. They may have done so in simple faith. After this evidence that the Gospels are “wartime writings” or “written for a particular occasion,” is there any way to deny it? A comparison of the mood and voice of Luke’s and Matthew’s Gospels will make this point even clearer.

But who exactly was Luke? An attempt has been made to show that the physician of that name whom Paul mentioned in several of his letters was the same person as Luke the Gospel writer. The commentators of the Ecumenical Translation believe that “the precise and exact language in which he described afflicted persons has led some commentators to conclude that the Gospel writer’s profession was that of a physician.” This comment is exaggerated and superfluous. Luke did not actually provide any such “descriptions.” The language he used was the language of the educated people of the society of that time. There was a traveling companion of Paul named Luke, but was he that person? Cullmann thinks so.

The date of Luke’s Gospel can be estimated on the basis of several events: Luke used Mark and Matthew’s Gospels. From the account in the Ecumenical Translation, it appears that he may have witnessed the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus’s army in 70. He probably wrote his Gospel after that time. Some, however, state that it was written earlier.

Luke’s various accounts do not at all agree with those of his predecessors. A general idea of this has already been given. Beginning on page 181, the Ecumenical Translation provides examples of these discrepancies over several successive pages. In his book entitled The New Testament, on page 18, Cullmann also quotes several accounts from Luke’s Gospel that are found in no other Gospel, and these do not concern trivial details.

The account of Jesus’ childhood is a distinctive feature of the Gospels. Matthew describes it differently from Luke, while Mark does not mention Jesus’ childhood at all.

Matthew and Luke each provide a different genealogy of Jesus. From the standpoint of reason and science, the differences and improbabilities between these two genealogies are so great that they are discussed in detail in a separate chapter of this book. Since Matthew wrote for the Jews, it is easy to understand why he began the genealogy with Abraham and included David; similarly, since Luke was an educated person who converted to Christianity, it is readily understandable why he began his genealogy further back. We shall soon see that these genealogies contradict each other from David onward.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke have given different accounts of many aspects of Jesus’ teaching and preaching. Luke’s account of the Eucharist—such an important event in Christianity, the Passover meal, the final eating of bread and drinking of wine by Jesus and his disciples—also does not agree with the accounts of Matthew and Mark. (It is impossible to compare it with John’s account, because he makes no mention of the Eucharist as a religious rite instituted at the time of the Passover meal.) Father Rosset says on page 75 of his book Introduction to the Gospel that the language used in the account of the institution of the Eucharist (22:19–24) is completely different from the language of Matthew (26:26–29) and Mark (14:22–24), whereas the language of Matthew and Mark is almost identical.” By contrast, Luke’s characteristic use of words is almost like that of Saint Paul (First Letter to the Corinthians 11:23–25).

We have already seen how what Luke says in his Gospel about Jesus’ resurrection is exactly contradicted by what he says in the Acts of the Apostles. He is known and recognized as the author of this book, which is an integral part of the New Testament. In the Gospel, he says that the resurrection took place on Easter Day, but in Acts he says—what strange explanations had to be invented—we have already seen.

Those among the commentators of the Ecumenical Translation who tried to be objective were compelled to admit that, in principle, “accurate composition consistent with the actual circumstances was not Luke’s primary aim.” Comparing Luke’s account in Acts of Jesus’ rising from the grave with Paul’s account, Father Kannengiesser said: “Of the four evangelists, Luke is the most emotional and literary. He possesses all the qualities of a true novelist.”

John’s Gospel (The Gospel According to John)

John’s Gospel is completely different from the other three Gospels. The difference is so strong and conspicuous that, after commenting on the other three Gospels in his book Introduction to the Gospel, Father Rosset’s comment on John’s Gospel produces an immediate shock in the reader. He says, “This is a separate world.” Indeed it is. This book is distinctive in its selection of material, manner of arrangement, narration, and style of conversation. Its literary style, geography, and chronology of events are also distinctive. According to Cullmann, it is different and distinctive in its religious outlook as well. John recorded Jesus’ sayings differently from the others. Father Rosset observed that in the other Gospels Jesus’ sayings “seem like oral conversation, lively and real,” whereas in John’s Gospel the whole thing has the language of meditation, and this mood is so strong that at times “one wonders” whether these are really Jesus’ sayings, or whether John, unconsciously, expanded the idea of Jesus through his own thoughts and ideas.

But what was John’s identity? Who was he? The answer to this question is highly controversial. Various people have said various things about it. Father Rosset and A. Tricot belong to a school that has no doubts about John’s identity. They say that John’s Gospel was written by an eyewitness, that John was the son of Zebedee and the brother of James. Much information about him is well known and has also been printed in widely circulated books. According to portrait experts, John appears beside Jesus in almost all portraits, such as those depicting the Last Supper. The apostle John was such a well-known person that it is perhaps impossible even to imagine that the Gospel was not written by him.

Although that fourth Gospel was written so late, the delay can perhaps not be presented as a serious argument against John. This book was composed probably toward the end of the first century after Jesus’ departure. If the time of composition is taken to have been sixty years after Jesus’ departure, it is quite consistent with the fact that John was a young man during Jesus’ time and lived to the age of one hundred.

In his study of Jesus’ rising from the grave, Father Kannengiesser concluded that, except for Paul, none of the New Testament writers can claim to have witnessed the event with his own eyes. Yet John appears to say that Jesus first appeared to an assembly of several apostles, excluding Thomas (possibly including John) (20:19–24), and eight days later appeared again to all the apostles gathered together (20:25–29).

But O. Cullmann could not accept this event as true in his book entitled The New Testament.

The Ecumenical Translation states that most commentators are unwilling to accept this Gospel as having been written by John. Of course, the possibility that it was not written by John cannot be completely dismissed. For all the evidence suggests that the text of this Gospel as we see it today was probably the work of several authors. The book further says: “The form in which we now see this Gospel was probably circulated by the author’s disciples, who themselves added chapter 21 and very probably certain notes (4:2 and 4:1; 4:44; 7:37e; 11:2; 19:35). Everyone agrees, regarding the story of the adulterous woman (8:2–11), that its source is unknown and that the story was inserted later. Nevertheless, the Church authorities have recognized this story as part of the original book.” Cullmann believes that “verse 19:35 has entered the book as the statement of an eyewitness.” It is the one clear signature in the entire Gospel, although the commentators believe that it was inserted later.

Cullmann believes that the later addition is particularly clear in this Gospel, as in chapter 21. This chapter was probably “the work of a disciple, who may also have made minor alterations to the original text.”

There is no need here to give a detailed account of all the conjectures experts have made about the author of this Gospel. The comments of the prominent Christian writers quoted above provide sufficient evidence of the obscurity and uncertainty on this subject.

Many questions have been raised about the historical value of the various stories narrated by John. Their difference from the accounts in the other three Gospels is very clear. Cullmann has offered an explanation for this difference. In contrast to the other three evangelists, he found in John a distinct religious outlook, and from this outlook John “selected his stories, words, and manner of narration.” As a result, his account became longer, and as a historical figure he made Jesus say what the Holy Spirit himself had revealed to him. This is why his account differs.

It may be assumed that, because John wrote his Gospel last of all, he selected the stories that supported his own ideas. There is no need to be surprised that some accounts in the other Gospels are absent from John’s Gospel. The Ecumenical Translation, on page 282, cites several examples of such accounts. But it seems unusual that certain events are not mentioned at all. For example, the institution of the Eucharist is not described in the slightest. Yet this rite is a fundamental matter in Christianity and serves as the basis of religious gatherings. For a distinguished thinker such as John, who placed so much emphasis on meditation, failure to mention this event is inconceivable. The fact is, however, that he confined his account to the Last Supper, the washing of the disciples’ feet, the prediction of Judas’s betrayal, and Peter’s denial.

On the other hand, John’s Gospel contains many stories that are absent from the other three Gospels. The Ecumenical Translation mentions this on page 283. In this case, it may perhaps be assumed that the others did not consider the stories important, whereas John did. But what is astonishing is that in John’s account (21:1–14), Jesus is seen, after rising from the grave, appearing to the disciples on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias. This incident is nothing more than an exact copy of Luke’s account of the miraculous catch of fish, although John has added many details. Luke’s account (5:1–11), however, says that the fishing incident occurred while Jesus was alive. This account contains an indication that John was present at the scene, and tradition says that John was then a preacher. Since John’s account appears in chapter 21 of his Gospel, and it has been acknowledged that this chapter was added later, it can easily be assumed that the story was inserted into John’s Gospel because John’s name was mentioned in Luke’s Gospel—that is, in order to describe an event from Jesus’ life long afterward, a Gospel writer did not hesitate even to alter the text.

John’s Gospel differs from the other three Gospels on another matter. It concerns the duration of Jesus’ preaching. Matthew, Mark, and Luke say that Jesus preached for one year. John says two years. Cullmann has specifically mentioned this difference. The commentators of the Ecumenical Translation say on this matter: “The first three say that Jesus remained in Galilee for a long time; then he set out toward Judea, and many days passed on the way. Finally, he stayed in Jerusalem for only a short time. John, on the other hand, says that Jesus frequently traveled from one area to another. Then he remained for a long time in Judea, especially in Jerusalem (1:19–51; 2:13–3:36; 5:1–47; 14:20–31). He also mentions several Passover festivals (the Jewish festival of eating and drinking; the anniversary of the event in which the angels destroyed the settlements in Egypt but left the Jews’ homes unharmed). Thus, according to him, the duration of Jesus’ preaching was more than two years.”

In these circumstances, whose account are we to believe? Matthew’s, Mark’s, and Luke’s? Or John’s?

The Sources of the Gospels

From the general description of the Gospels already presented, and especially after examining the text, the impression arises that the writings are “disconnected and lacking continuity” and clearly “incapable of reconciliation and self-contradictory.” This verdict was given by the commentators of The Ecumenical Translation of the Bible. It is important to cite these distinguished experts, because the subject is so sensitive that an objective assessment of it could provoke a serious reaction. We have already seen how answers to the questions that arise in the minds of thoughtful readers concerning certain disturbing features of Gospel literature can be found in certain ideas relating to the religious history of the period in which the Gospels were written. It is now necessary to learn what modern books say, especially what they say about the sources used by the evangelists when composing the Gospels. It may also be investigated whether answers to the questions raised today can be found in the history of the period following the completion of these writings.

In the time of the Church Fathers, the question of the sources was accepted very simply. In the early days of Christianity, “the source” meant only the complete manuscript of the Gospel written by Matthew. The matter became a problem in connection with Mark and Luke. There was no problem concerning John, since he was regarded as an author of a different kind. Regarding Mark, recognized as the second author of the Gospels, Saint Augustine said that, inspired by Matthew’s work, he had merely prepared an abridgment of Matthew’s book. Regarding Luke, the third author, his view was that Luke had collected information from the books of both Matthew and Mark. We have already mentioned that support for this view can also be found in Luke’s own preface.

In other words, the similarity and resemblance among the accounts in the different Gospels had been noticed even by readers of that period, like us. In modern times, the commentators of the Ecumenical Translation have examined the matter and arrived at the following figures:

1) The three Gospels contain 330 identical verses.

2) Matthew and Mark contain 178 identical verses.

3) Mark and Luke contain 100 identical verses.

4) Matthew and Luke contain 230 identical verses.

Again, each Gospel contains certain verses that are absent from all the others. The numbers of such verses are: Matthew, 330; Mark, 53; and Luke, 500.

For fifteen hundred years, from the time of the Church Fathers until the latter part of the eighteenth century, no one concerned himself with the sources of the Gospels. Everyone accepted legends and tales as truth. After these facts were uncovered in the modern period, a new understanding began to emerge, and it became possible to determine how one evangelist took information from another and composed his own account according to his personal views. In this connection, particular importance was attached to collecting information for the composition of the accounts. This information came, on the one hand, from the oral traditions of the societies concerned and, on the other, from written Aramaic documents. There is no way to know whether these documents were readily available in a collected form. It is certain, however, that each evangelist used only those portions that served his own purposes.

During the past hundred years, even more extensive research has been conducted on this subject, giving rise to several theories. These theories are broad and detailed, and may gradually become increasingly complex. The first theory is known as “Hochmann’s Two-Source Theory” (1863). Cullmann and the commentators of the Ecumenical Translation have explained that this theory holds that Matthew and Luke may, on the one hand, have been inspired by Mark and, on the other, may have used a common document that was later lost. In addition, each may have had separate sources of its own. The following diagram can be derived from this account:

Cullmann made the following comment on this subject:

1) The work of Mark used by Matthew and Luke was probably not his Gospel, but may have been an earlier work.

2) Insufficient importance has been given here to oral tradition. Yet this subject should have received the greatest importance, because the accounts of Jesus’ thirty or forty years of preaching and activity had been preserved only in this oral tradition, and each evangelist was merely the spokesman of the Christian community that had written down this tradition. Thus we may perhaps conclude that whatever various ancient Christian communities knew about the life and preaching of Jesus is reflected in the Gospels now before us. Their beliefs and religious ideas are reflected there as well. The evangelists were spokesmen of those very communities.

More recently, while examining the text in an effort to investigate the sources of the Gospels, an even more complex process by which that text was formed has been discovered. In the book entitled Synopsis of the Four Gospels (1972–73), written by Fathers Benoit and Boismard, two professors of the Biblical School of Jerusalem, it is emphasized that, alongside the gradual development of oral reports and traditions, the text itself likewise developed in successive stages. Father Benoit’s introduction to the section written by Father Boismard describes the results of this development. He said: “As a result of the long development of tradition, the wording and style of narration have assumed their present form, which is evidently and understandably not the same as the original. Some readers may be surprised or embarrassed to learn that certain sayings and parables of Jesus, or prophecies concerning his own fate, were not spoken by him exactly in the form in which we read them today. Those who transmitted these words to us altered or transformed them according to their own views. To those unfamiliar with this kind of historical investigation, this truth may appear astonishing and even scandalous.”

Father Boismard explained the alteration and transformation of the original text through a complex diagram. This diagram derives from the so-called “Two-Source Theory” and was composed on the basis of examining and comparing various texts. Since the subject is extremely complex, no summary of it can be given here. Curious readers may consult the original work, Synopsis des Quatre Évangiles, published in Paris by Les Éditions du Cerf.

Four types of original documents were taken as symbols of the primary sources of the Gospels and named A, B, C, and D.

A—the document came from a Jewish-Christian source. Matthew and Mark were inspired by this document.

B—the document is a reinterpretation of document A. This reinterpretation was prepared for use in churches where ancient idol worship and Christian worship were practiced simultaneously. All the evangelists except Matthew were inspired by this document.

C—the source of the inspiration of Mark, Luke, and John.

D—the symbol of most of the sources used by Matthew and Luke. This document is the common document of the “Two-Source Theory.”

But the text of the Gospels as we see it today was not composed directly on the basis of any of those four original documents. There was an intermediate text or version in between, known as intermediate or secondary Matthew, secondary Mark, secondary Luke, and secondary John. The final versions of the four Gospels were composed from these four secondary documents, which also inspired the composition of other similar Gospels. The complex relationship between one document and several others is shown in a diagram below. This research into the Scriptures has particular significance. It shows that, just as the Gospel text has a “history,” it also has, in Father Boismard’s words, a “history-of-the-account.” In other words, an intermediate version was prepared before the final version. A familiar event in the life of Jesus—the miraculous catch of fish—is written in Luke’s book as having occurred during Jesus’ lifetime. This inconsistency is plainly enormous. But if the use of various sources and the preparation of various versions are kept in mind, a reasonable explanation may perhaps be found. This situation compels us to conclude that when we read the Gospels, there is no certainty that we are reading Jesus’ own words. Father Benoit intended to say precisely this, although in a somewhat indirect way. He warned the reader but also offered consolation: “Although the reader must abandon the hope of hearing directly the words spoken by Jesus himself, he should know that he is hearing the Church’s words, and should believe that the Church is the divinely appointed spokesman and interpreter of the Lord Jesus. He should also know that the Lord Jesus spoke with us on this earth long ago, and now speaks with us in his glory and majesty.”

How can the formal declaration that the text of the Bible is not Jesus’ own words be reconciled with the contrary declaration of the Second Vatican Council? The Council stated: “The Church unhesitatingly affirms and approves these four Gospels as historically genuine and authentic; for whatever Jesus, the Son of God, did, said, and taught during his earthly life for the eternal salvation and redemption of humanity until his ascension into heaven has been accurately and faithfully recorded in these books.”

Clearly, the book of the Biblical School of Jerusalem, Synopsis of the Four Gospels, directly denies the truth of this declaration.

Father M. E. Boismard

Synopsis of the Four Gospels

General Diagram

Documents A, B, C, D = original documents used in compiling the text

Secondary = secondary version of the text

The History of the Text

It would be wrong to suppose that, after the Gospels had been written, they became the foundational scripture of the new religion of Christianity and were referred to in the same way as the Old Testament. At that time, the principal vehicle and source of Jesus’ words and the apostles’ teachings was oral tradition. In written form, Paul’s letters had already been in circulation for a long time. These letters had been written several decades before the Gospels.

We have already seen that there is no evidence of the existence of any collection of Gospel writings before 140. Some commentators, of course, still write the opposite. We have also seen that the Gospels had not acquired the status of sacred literature before 170.

In the early period of Christianity, many writings about Jesus were in circulation. But later they were not retained, being considered inauthentic and spurious; and by order of the Church, all such writings were concealed. For this reason they were called “Apocrypha.” Although they were concealed or removed, some writings were carefully preserved. According to the commentators of the Ecumenical Translation, this was because “they were generally regarded as important and valuable.” The same view was also held concerning the Letter of Barnabas; but other writings were “ruthlessly removed,” and as a result only portions of them are now available. Since these writings were regarded as carriers of error, they were removed from the sight of believing Christians. Nevertheless, as far as can be known from quotations by the Church, the Bible of the Nazarenes, the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Bible of the Egyptians were closely consistent with the original Bible. The same may be said of the Bible of Thomas and the Bible of Barnabas.

Some of the writings that were concealed contain fancifully detailed accounts of certain events. These are merely popular legends. The authors presented these bizarre accounts with considerable satisfaction. Such legends are, of course, also found in all the other Bibles. In this connection, one may recall Matthew’s fanciful account of the alleged events at the time of Jesus’ death. In fact, some triviality and frivolity can be found in all the writings from the early period of Christianity. This truth should be honestly acknowledged.

When the Church became organized, the authorities made certain selections because of the abundance of writings concerning Jesus. Probably about a hundred Bibles were rejected and only four retained. These four Bibles are now regarded as “canonical,” or authoritative.

In the middle of the second century, Marcion of Sinope exerted strong pressure on the religious authorities to make a decision on this matter. He was a bitter enemy of the Jews and regarded the entire Old Testament, all writings related to the Old Testament composed after the appearance of Jesus, and all writings based on Jewish-Christian tradition as invalid. He regarded only Luke’s Gospel as authentic, because he believed that Luke was the sole spokesman for Paul and his writings.

For this reason, the Church declared Marcion a heretic. It nevertheless approved the letters of Paul along with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Other writings, such as the Acts of the Apostles, were added to this list. The list, however, was never regarded as final, because it was continually altered during the first few centuries. Writings later regarded as rejected had once been included in the approved list; conversely, writings now included in the approved New Testament were regarded as rejected at that time. This uncertainty continued until the Council of Hippo Regius in 393 and the Council of Carthage in 397, although those four Gospels were always included in the approved list.

Father Boismard has expressed regret that a vast number of writings were destroyed because they were declared rejected by the Church, despite their historical importance. We too wish to share his regret. He nevertheless tried to correct, to some extent, this rashness of the Church. In his book entitled Synopsis of the Four Gospels, he included some of those rejected writings alongside the four recognized Gospels. He noted that these books could still be found in various libraries until the end of the fourth century.

The various books and writings of that century were rigorously organized and classified. The oldest manuscripts of the Gospels also date from that period. Of the earlier writings, only a small portion of third-century papyri and of another book from the second century has reached us. The two oldest manuscripts written in Greek on parchment were produced in the fourth century. One of them is the Codex Vaticanus. This book is now preserved in the Vatican Library; however, nothing is known about where or how it was found. The other is the Codex Sinaiticus. This manuscript was found on Mount Sinai and is now preserved in the British Museum in London. It includes two writings declared rejected by the Church.

The Ecumenical Translation states that a further two hundred and fifty manuscripts, written on parchment, are known to exist in various parts of the world, the most recent of which was produced in the eleventh century. “However, the copies of the New Testament that have reached us are not all alike. There are many significant differences among them in content, and the number of these differences is large. In some cases the differences are grammatical, lexical, or syntactical. Elsewhere, however, the differences have taken such a form that the meaning of an entire passage has consequently become different. Anyone wishing to see examples of these differences may consult the book Novum Testamentum Graece (Nestle-Aland, United Bible Societies, London, 1971). This book contains the so-called ‘middle’ text in Greek, as well as examples of differences among all versions, including notes and marginal annotations.

No matter how ancient or honored a manuscript may be, the accuracy of its text is always disputed. The Codex Vaticanus is an excellent example of this. In 1965, a facsimile edition of this book was published under the direction of the Vatican, and the editors stated in their introduction: “Several centuries after this manuscript was copied (it is thought to have been copied in the tenth or eleventh century), a scribe went over it again with a pen to clarify the writing; but he did not go over those portions of the writing that he considered erroneous.” As a result, although the color of the portions not retraced is very pale, the writing can still be seen indistinctly. However, there is no indication that the work of clarifying the original writing with fresh ink was carried out with complete fidelity. The editors stated: “The precise identities of those who corrected this manuscript or wrote notes in its margins over several centuries have still not been established. There is no doubt, however, that some corrections were made when it was retraced.” Various religious books state that this text was copied in the fourth century. But an investigation at the Vatican itself shows that, over several centuries afterward, the text was altered at different times by different hands.

Some may say that the correct and incorrect readings can be determined simply by comparing them with other texts. Yes, that is true; but when the meanings of different texts themselves become different, how can one choose one text as the original and authentic basis for comparison? Moreover, it is now known that a correction made in ancient times by one scribe going over another’s writing is now regarded as correct. Later we shall see how, in a passage written by John, the use of a single word concerning the “Paraclete” completely changes its meaning and implication from a religious standpoint. (Paraclete is a Greek word meaning comforter, greatly praised, bearer of truth, and so on. In the Bible, this word is used to prophesy the coming of the final Prophet, Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him. John 16:13. There are clearer indications elsewhere in the Bible. Bengali translator.)

Regarding the differences among the various texts, Cullmann wrote in his book The New Testament: “The differences found in later texts arose in some cases through carelessness. A copyist may have omitted a word, written it twice instead of once, or, if the same word occurred twice in a sentence, may have omitted the phrase between the two words altogether. All this may have happened by mistake. In some cases, however, he may have made deliberate corrections, or corrected the text in a conscious effort to reduce differences and harmonize it with another text. Later, as the writings of the New Testament gradually became distinct from ancient Christian literature and came to be regarded as sacred, the copyists also became more careful. Instead of making mistakes or exercising independent thought like earlier copyists, they copied the sacred text exactly, thereby preserving the earlier differences word for word. In addition, some copyists wrote marginal notes to explain an obscure passage. A later copyist might suppose that the note had been written outside the text by mistake, and consequently include it in the text. Through this process, the new text actually became even more obscure.”

The copyists of some manuscripts made extensive alterations to the text. Which is more reliable: Latin translations such as Jerome’s sixth-century Vulgate or the still earlier Vetus Itala, or the Syriac and Coptic translations? These translations may have been made from the manuscripts mentioned above, which later disappeared. We know nothing for certain.

The texts of these various versions can be divided into several distinct classes on the basis of certain common characteristics. According to Cullmann, these classes are as follows:

First class: the so-called Syrian text. Most ancient Greek manuscripts may have been prepared on the basis of this text. Through the benefits of printing, it was widely circulated throughout Europe from the sixteenth century onward. Specialists say, however, that this text is probably the poorest.

Second class: the so-called Western text. This class includes the ancient Latin versions and the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in both Greek and Latin. According to the commentators of the Ecumenical Translation, a clear characteristic of this text is the provision of explanations, expressing the same meaning through different wording, giving incorrect information and statistics, and attempting to reconcile contradictions.

Third class: the so-called neutral text. The Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus belong to this class. This text is said to possess considerable purity and accuracy. Modern editions of the New Testament mainly follow this text, although according to the Ecumenical Translation it too contains considerable errors. The only thing modern critics can do in this matter is, in the words of the Ecumenical Translation, to try to reconstruct “a text that may at least come close to the original.” Yet, whatever the circumstances, there is no way to recover that original.

The Four Gospels and Modern Science

There are very few events in the four Gospels that can withstand comparison with modern scientific facts.

Let us first consider miracles. There are many accounts of such events, but it is not possible to make any scientific comment about a miracle. There are two kinds of miracles. The first kind concerns human beings, particularly the healing of the sick—for example, healing the insane, the blind, the paralysed and lepers, and bringing Lazarus back to life. The second kind concerns the behaviour of things in ways contrary to the laws of nature—for example, Jesus walking on water or water being turned into wine. Sometimes, however, purely natural events have been viewed from an extraordinary perspective because the interval of time was very short—for example, a storm ceasing instantly, a fig tree becoming leafless and withering, or catching a huge quantity of fish all at once, as though all the fish in the sea had gathered beforehand at the place where the net was cast.

Since Allah is Almighty, He can easily bring about all these events, and there is nothing to be surprised at in them. What seems difficult or impossible to human beings is not so at all for Allah. But this does not mean that one who believes in Allah can disregard the laws of nature. There is no contradiction whatsoever between believing in Allah’s miraculous power and believing in the laws of nature. For these are actually different manifestations of the same supreme power.

Personally, I am willing to believe that Jesus healed a leper. But when a text describing an interval of only twenty generations between the first man and Abraham is declared to be correct and inspired by Allah, I cannot accept it. Luke said precisely this in his Gospel (3:23–28). A little later we shall explain why Luke’s account, and the Old Testament account on the same subject, are merely human inventions.

The Bible gives the same account as the Qur’an regarding the birth of Jesus. The natural law common to all humanity did not apply to Jesus’s conception in the womb. The event occurred outside the scope of that natural law. The ovum formed in his mother’s ovary did not need to unite with a sperm. Under the ordinary laws of nature, however, a child can be born only after the mother’s ovum unites with a male sperm. Of course, in some cases the natural birth of an organism may occur without male intercourse; in scientific terminology this process is called “parthenogenesis.” This process is occasionally observed in some insects, invertebrates and birds. Such occurrences, however, are certainly rare. Experiments on certain mammals, especially female rabbits, have shown that a very early-stage embryo can develop from an ovum without male intercourse. But it goes no further than that. Further development has not been possible, and a complete birth without male intercourse—whether through a natural process or in a laboratory—is not yet known. Jesus’s case is unique. Mary was a virgin mother. Her chastity remained intact, and she had no other child besides Jesus. Jesus is therefore an exception to the laws of biology.

The Bible sometimes speaks of Jesus’s brothers and sisters (Matthew 13:46–50 and 54–58; Mark 6:1–6; John 7:3 and 2:12). The two Greek words used are “adelphoi” and “adelphai,” meaning full brothers and full sisters. The Semitic word in the original means relatives, and was probably used to mean cousins and other relations. The translation into Greek was clearly erroneous.

The Genealogy of Jesus

There are many questions concerning the truth of the contents of the two genealogies in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and their conformity with scientific facts. In other words, there are serious reasons to doubt the accuracy of both genealogies. Christian commentators are greatly embarrassed by this matter, because they are unwilling to admit that these genealogies are actually products of human imagination. In the sixth century BCE, the authors of the Priestly text of Genesis used their imagination to prepare a genealogy of the earliest human beings. Matthew and Luke took much information from this genealogy and combined it with the account in the Old Testament to prepare their own genealogies.

It should first be made clear that a male genealogy has no value whatsoever in Jesus’s case, because he had no father. Therefore, if anyone wishes to prepare his genealogy, it must actually be the genealogy of his mother, Mary.

The genealogy given by Matthew is quoted below from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, published in 1952. It is noteworthy that this genealogy appears at the very beginning of Matthew’s Gospel:

The Genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham

Abraham — was the father of Isaac

Isaac — was the father of Jacob

Jacob — was the father of Judah and his brothers

Judah — was the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar

Perez — was the father of Hezron

Hezron — was the father of Ram

Ram — was the father of Amminadab

Amminadab — was the father of Nahshon

Nahshon — was the father of Salmon

Salmon — was the father of Boaz by Rahab

Boaz — was the father of Obed by Ruth

Obed — was the father of Jesse

Jesse — was the father of King David

David — was the father of Solomon by Uriah’s wife

Solomon — was the father of Rehoboam

Rehoboam — was the father of Abijah

Abijah — was the father of Asa

Asa — was the father of Jehoshaphat

Joram — was the father of Uzziah

Uzziah — was the father of Jotham

Jotham — was the father of Ahaz

Ahaz — was the father of Hezekiah

Hezekiah — was the father of Manasseh

Manasseh — was the father of Amos

Amos — was the father of Josiah

Josiah — was the father of Jeconiah and his brothers

This was the situation at the time of the exile to Babylon. After the exile:

Jeconiah — was the father of Shealtiel

Shealtiel — was the father of Zerubbabel

Zerubbabel — was the father of Abiud

Abiud — was the father of Eliakim

Eliakim — was the father of Azor

Azor — was the father of Zadok

Zadok — was the father of Achim

Achim — was the father of Eliud

Eliud — was the father of Eleazar

Eleazar — was the father of Matthan

Matthan — was the father of Jacob

Jacob — was the father of Joseph; Joseph was the husband of Mary, and Jesus was born from Mary’s womb, and he was called Christ.

Thus, there were fourteen generations from Abraham to David, fourteen generations from David to the exile in Babylon, and fourteen generations from the exile in Babylon to Christ (Matthew 1:1–17). The genealogy given by Luke (2:23–38) differs from Matthew’s. The following passage is quoted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible:

“And Jesus himself, when he began his work, was about thirty years of age, being the son, as was supposed, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.”

This genealogy can be understood more clearly if it is divided into two parts and shown in two separate lists. The first list extends to David, and the second covers the period after David.

Before David

Matthew’s account —————————– Luke’s account

—– ——- —————————– 1) Adam

—– ——- —————————– 2) Seth

—– ——- —————————– 3) Enos

—– ——- —————————– 4) Cainan

—– ——- —————————– 5) Mahalaleel

—– ——- —————————– 6) Jared

—– ——- —————————– 7) Enoch

—– ——- —————————– 8) Methuselah

—– ——- —————————– 9) Lamech

—– ——- —————————– 10) Noah

—– ——- —————————– 11) Shem

—– ——- —————————– 12) Arphaxad

—– ——- —————————– 13) Cainan

—– ——- —————————– 14) Shelah

—– ——- —————————– 15) Eber

—– ——- —————————– 16) Peleg

—– ——- —————————– 17) Reu

—– ——- —————————– 18) Serug

Matthew mentions no name before Abraham ——————19) Nahor

No name is mentioned. ————– 20) Terah

1) Abraham ——————————– 21) Abraham

2) Isaac ——————————– 22) Isaac

3) Jacob ——————————– 23) Jacob

4) Judah ——————————– 24) Judah

5) Perez ——————————– 25) Perez

6) Hezron —————————— 26) Hezron

7) Ram ———————————— 27) Arni

8) Amminadab ————————— 28) Admin

9) Nahshon —————————— 29) Amminadab

10) Salmon —————————— 30) Nahshon

11) Boaz ——————————- 31) Sala

12) Obed ——————————– 32) Boaz

13) Jesse ——————————– 33) Obed

14) David ——————————– 35) David

After David

Matthew’s account —————————— Luke’s account

14) David ——————————– 35) David

15) Solomon —————————– 36) Nathan

16) Rehoboam ———————— 37) Mattatha

17) Abijah ————————- 38) Menna

18) Asa —————————– 39) Melea

19) Jehoshaphat ——————– 40) Eliakim

20) Joram ————————— 41) Jonam

21) Uzziah —————————- 42) Joseph

22) Jotham —————————- 43) Judah

23) Ahaz —————————– 44) Simeon

24) Hezekiah ————————- 45) Levi

25) Manasseh ————————— 46) Matthat

26) Amos —————————– 47) Jorim

27) Josiah —————————– 48) Eleazar

28) Jeconiah ————————- 49) Joshua

Exile to Babylon ———————– 50) Er

29) Shealtiel ————————- 51) Elmadam

30) Zerubbabel ———————– 52) Cosam

31) Abiud —————————– 53) Addi

32) Eliakim ————————- 54) Melchi

33) Azor —————————- 55) Neri

34) Zadok —————————— 56) Shealtiel

35) Achim ——————————- 57) Zerubbabel

36) Eliud —————————– 58) Rhesa

37) Eleazar ————————– 59) Joanan

38) Matthan ——————————— 60) Joda

39) Jacob —————————— 61) Joseph

40) Joseph —————————– 62) Semein

41) Jesus ———————————- 63) Mattathias

——————————————— 64) Maath

——————————————— 65) Naggai

——————————————— 66) Esli

——————————————— 67) Nahum

——————————————— 68) Amos

——————————————— 69) Mattathias

——————————————— 70) Joseph

——————————————— 71) Jannai

——————————————— 72) Melchi

——————————————— 73) Levi

——————————————— 74) Matthat

——————————————— 75) Heli

——————————————— 76) Joseph

——————————————— 77) Jesus

Differences in the Manuscript’s Agreement with the Old Testament

Besides differences in spelling, the following points concerning the two Gospels are noteworthy:

The Gospel of Matthew

The extremely important sixth-century manuscript called Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, written in both Greek and Latin, contains no genealogy. The genealogy has disappeared from the Greek manuscript, and has even largely disappeared from the Latin manuscript. The opening pages were probably lost altogether.

It is particularly noteworthy how Matthew distorted the Old Testament in this matter. In order to make a spectacular display of numbers, he began pairing the names listed in the genealogy, but, as we have already seen, he ultimately failed to complete it.

Luke’s Gospel

Before Abraham, Luke mentions twenty names, whereas the Old Testament mentions only nineteen (see the previously given list of Adam’s descendants). After the name of Arphaxad (No. 12), Luke added the name of Cainan (No. 13), although Genesis does not mention him as Arphaxad’s son.

From Abraham to David—manuscripts contain between fourteen and sixteen names for this period.

From David to Jesus

The most notable example of a difference is found in the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis. The reason for this difference is that Luke took information from Matthew’s genealogy and prepared a fanciful genealogy of his own, while the scribes added five more names to it. Unfortunately, however, Matthew’s genealogy was lost from this manuscript. Consequently, there is now no way to compare them.

Criticism of the account

The two genealogies before us share one common feature: both lines run through Abraham and David. To examine the matter, we shall divide the genealogy into three sections: (1) Adam to Abraham, (2) Abraham to David, and (3) David to Jesus.

(1) Adam to Abraham

Matthew began his genealogy with Abraham. Therefore, his account does not exist here. Only Luke gives the names of Abraham’s twenty ancestors back to Adam. Yet, as we have already seen, Genesis contains only nineteen names (chapters 4, 5, and 11).

But is it credible that only nineteen or twenty generations existed before Abraham? This problem was examined in the discussion of the Old Testament. If we consider the list of Adam’s descendants given in Genesis and the periods of time stated in the Bible, it appears that approximately nineteen centuries elapsed between the first appearance of human beings on earth and the time of Abraham’s birth. It is currently assumed that Abraham lived around 1850 BC; on that basis, the Old Testament’s information indicates that human beings first appeared on earth approximately in the thirty-eighth century BC. We have already seen the decisive historical reasoning that he made an explicit false statement in copying this calculation and arriving at this conclusion.

Everyone acknowledges that the information in the Old Testament is no longer acceptable today. At the Second Vatican Council, such information was declared “obsolete.” The view that the Gospels used precisely this scientifically inconsistent information is highly significant, and this argument can be used against those who support the historical accuracy of the Gospel accounts.

The commentators did not delay in recognizing this danger. Thus, they seek to escape by saying that the genealogy is incomplete and that Luke omitted some names. They claim that he omitted the names deliberately, because his “sole aim was to establish, on the basis of historical reality, a general line of descent possessing the essential features.” (A. Tricot, Little Dictionary of the New Testament, Paris.) But there is no justification whatsoever for saying this on the basis of what the account contains. For the account states that A was B’s father, or that B was A’s son. This is particularly true of the period before Abraham, where Luke relied entirely on the Old Testament, which gives the details in this form: when A was P years old, he became the father of B; when B was D years old, he became the father of G. Thus, there is no possibility of a gap.

On the basis of all the information collected in the modern age, Luke’s account of Jesus’ genealogy before Abraham cannot be accepted in any way.

(2) Abraham to David

For this period, the two genealogies almost agree, apart from one or two names. The names that do not agree can easily be explained as copyists’ errors.

But does that mean we must assume that the Gospel writers Matthew and Luke provided accurate accounts?

According to historians’ calculations, David lived around 1000 BC, while Abraham lived around 1800–1850 BC. If Matthew’s or Luke’s account is to be accepted as accurate, it must be acknowledged that fourteen to sixteen generations lived during a period of approximately eight hundred years. But is this credible? In the Gospel account concerning this period, the limits of probability and credibility have almost been exceeded.

(3) The period after David

When we try to reconcile the genealogy from David to Joseph—that is, to Jesus—we find that Matthew’s account does not agree with Luke’s at all.

Leaving aside for the moment the obvious forgery concerning Luke in the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, we can compare what is stated in the two most highly regarded manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.

Luke’s genealogy contains a total of forty-two names after David (No. 35) and up to Jesus (No. 77). By contrast, Matthew’s genealogy contains a total of twenty-seven names from David (No. 14) to Jesus (No. 41). The names of the (fictitious) ancestors of Jesus listed after David differ in the two accounts. Moreover, the names given are not the same in the two accounts. But that is not the end of the matter.

Matthew told us that he had discovered how the fourteen names in Jesus’ genealogy after Abraham were divided into three sections. The first section runs from Abraham to David, the second from David to the exile in Babylon, and the third from the exile to Jesus. His account does indeed contain fourteen names in each of the first two sections—but only thirteen in the third, not fourteen. His list shows Shealtiel at number 29 and Jesus at number 41. No version of his account can be found in which the third section contains fourteen names.

Matthew extensively altered the Old Testament account in order to make the number of names in his second section fourteen. The names of David’s six descendants (numbers 15 to 20) agree with the Old Testament account, but he concealed the names of the three descendants of Jehoram (number 20) given in the Second Book of Chronicles: Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. Elsewhere Matthew says that Jeconiah (number 28) was Josiah’s son, but the Second Book of Kings in the Old Testament shows that another person stood between Josiah and Jeconiah, whose name was Eliakim.

Thus, it is evident that Matthew altered the genealogy given in the Old Testament in order to present an artificial list of fourteen names for the period from David to the exile in Babylon. Moreover, one name is missing from Matthew’s third section. In other words, none of the currently circulated versions of the Bible contains exactly fourteen names. An attempt might be made to dismiss the missing name as an ancient copyist’s error, but that is not really the main issue. The main issue is that every commentator has remained silent about it without saying a word. What could explain their silence? W. Trilling destroyed this pious conspiracy of silence by writing only one sentence in his book The Gospel According to Matthew (publisher: Desclée, Paris). The matter is highly important, because various commentators on this Gospel, including the Ecumenical Translation and Cardinal Daniélou, have strongly emphasized the great symbolic significance of Matthew’s calculation of 3 × 14. In other words, this significance was so important to Matthew that, in order to arrive at this calculation, he did not hesitate to conceal names given in the Old Testament.

There is no doubt that the commentators can produce one excuse or another to defend what Matthew did. But how can they avoid the fact that, by concealing names, Matthew’s very purpose in presenting the calculation was defeated?

Commentary and Observations by Modern Experts

Cardinal Daniélou stated in his book Gospels of Childhood (Éditions du Seuil, Paris) that Matthew’s “numerical design” has a special symbolic significance, because Jesus’ lineage is established by this very arrangement and Luke also supports it. In his view, Matthew and Luke were in fact historians, they completed “historical research,” and they “collected” this genealogy “from Jesus’ family documents.”

It is worth noting that no trace of Jesus’ family documents has ever been found. The author says that he learned of the existence of these documents from the Ecclesiastical History written by Eusebius Pamphilius. But there is much that can be said about Pamphilius’s own qualifications and reliability. Besides, why would Jesus’ family documents contain two genealogies of two different kinds? Is it necessary to discover two different genealogies in those documents simply because two so-called “historians” provided two different genealogies?

He attacked all those who criticized Cardinal Daniélou’s viewpoint: “In interpreting the Gospel, many experts have lost their way because of a Western mentality, ignorance of the Judeo-Christian religion, and a lack of a Semitic outlook. They have imposed on that interpretation their own perspectives, influenced by Plato, Descartes, Hegel, and Heidegger. It is therefore easy to understand that they have mixed together various kinds of material.” Yet what connection could there be between adopting a critical attitude toward that fictitious genealogy and philosophers such as Plato, Descartes, Hegel, or Heidegger?

In seeking the meaning of Matthew’s 3 × 14 theorem, the author put forward and analyzed an absurd proposition. His own words may be quoted here: “In fact, what is spoken of here is the ten ordinary weeks of Jewish revelation. The first three weeks must be excluded for the period from Adam to Abraham; then seven weeks of years will remain. The first six of these weeks will be six times seven, which is related to the three groups of fourteen; and the remaining seventh week began with the time of Jesus, because the seventh age of the world began simultaneously with Jesus.” Such an interpretation is plainly unworthy of comment.

The commentators on the Ecumenical Translation—New Testament have also offered a similarly ridiculous numerical interpretation. They explained Matthew’s 3 × 14 theorem as follows:

(a) The number 14 may be the numerical sum of the consonants in the Hebrew name David: D = 4 and V = 6; therefore, 4 + 6 + 4 = 14.

(b) 3 × 14 = 16 × 7, and Jesus arrived at the end of the sixth week of the sacred history that began with the appearance of Abraham.”

In Luke’s case, the book gives seventy-seven names from Adam to Jesus, and the number seven is brought in again in this way: 77 is divided by 7, that is, 7 × 11 = 77. Clearly, the seventy-seven names throughout, created by adding or subtracting words to produce a numerical difference, are entirely artificial and fictitious. It is noteworthy, however, that the theorem fits this numerical game quite well.

On the basis of the two genealogies of Jesus found in the Gospels, Christian commentators have displayed the same kind of intellectual gymnastics as the imaginations of Matthew and Luke.

Contradictions and Improbabilities in the Accounts

Each of the four Gospels contains accounts of many events that appear in perhaps one Gospel, several Gospels, or all the Gospels. When an account of such an event is found in only one Gospel, certain serious problems arise. Sometimes a highly important event is found to have been described in only one Gospel. The ascension to heaven on the day of Jesus’ resurrection may be cited as an example. Elsewhere, various events are described very differently in two or more Gospels. Christians generally overlook these contradictions; but if they ever discover such differences among several Gospels, they are genuinely astonished. The reason for their astonishment is that they have long been assured that the authors of the New Testament personally witnessed every event they described.

Some instances of this kind of improbability and contradiction have already been mentioned. However, differences and contradictions in the accounts are found most frequently in the events of Jesus’ final days, especially in what happened after he suffered persecution.

The Account of the Persecution

Father Roguet himself observed that the Passover event (the festival commemorating the Jews’ liberation from slavery in Egypt) is said to have taken place at different times in different Gospels in connection with Jesus’ Last Supper with his disciples. John says that the Last Supper took place “before the Passover festival,” whereas the other three evangelists say that the meal took place during the festival itself. This difference creates a clear improbability: because of its relation to the Passover festival, the meal itself becomes impossible. For those familiar with the importance of Passover in Jewish history and the importance in Christian history of the meal at which Jesus took leave of his disciples, how is it possible to believe that the evangelists completely forgot the sequence of these two events?

Likewise, each evangelist gave a different account of the Passion (Jesus’ persecution and crucifixion). John’s account in particular is completely different from those of the other three. Moreover, John’s account of the Last Supper and the Passion is very long—almost twice as long as Mark’s and Luke’s accounts and about one and a half times as long as Matthew’s. John’s Gospel contains a lengthy speech by Jesus to his disciples extending over four chapters (14–17). In this speech, he says that he is giving his final teaching and has delivered his final religious testament. Yet there is not the slightest trace of this speech in the other three Gospels. Conversely, John makes no mention whatsoever of Jesus’ prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, which Matthew, Luke, and Mark describe.

There Is No Account of the Eucharist in John’s Book

When reading the account of the Passion in John’s book, the point that stands out most clearly to the reader is that he makes no mention whatsoever of the Eucharist (becoming one with Jesus by eating holy bread and drinking wine) at the Last Supper of Jesus and his disciples.

Probably not a single Christian can be found who is unfamiliar with the painted representation of the Last Supper. In that picture, Jesus is seen sitting at a table with his disciples for the last time. Nearly all the world’s famous artists have painted this picture, and it shows John sitting beside Jesus. It is noteworthy that we are accustomed to regarding this very John as the author of the Gospel traditionally known by that name.

Although it may seem astonishing to many, it is true that most experts do not consider John the author of the Fourth Gospel. And this Gospel contains no mention of the Eucharist. Yet the event in which bread and wine are sanctified and become Jesus’ body and blood is an indispensable part of Christian worship. Although in different ways, the other evangelists mention it; but John says nothing about it. Only two matters are consistent in the accounts of the four: Peter’s denial and the prophecy concerning a disciple’s betrayal (only Matthew and John mention Judas Iscariot by name). And the fact that Jesus washed his disciples’ feet before that meal appears only in John’s account.

But why is the Eucharist not mentioned in John’s book? If we think impartially, the first answer that comes to mind is that, if the story in the other three books is true, this portion of John’s book may have been lost. But Christian commentators have not reached such a conclusion. Some of their views on the matter may be examined.

In his book The Little Dictionary of the Testament, under the heading “Last Supper,” A. Tricot said: “Jesus ate the last meal with the twelve disciples, and at that time he instituted the Eucharist. The first three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) contain an account of this, and the Fourth Gospel (John) gives a detailed account.” But under the heading “Eucharist” he wrote: “The first three Gospels contain a brief account of the institution of this rite; it is an important part of the Prophet’s method of religious teaching. In connection with the account of Jesus’ discourse on ‘the bread of life,’ John (6:32–58) added much information and detail to that brief account.” Yet, surprisingly, he did not mention at all that John gives no account of the institution of the Eucharist. The information and details he referred to have no connection with the institution of the Eucharist, because John essentially described the washing of the disciples’ feet. The reference made by the commentator Tricot to “the bread of life” is an entirely separate matter. It has no connection with the Last Supper. Jesus merely referred in his speech to the manna that the Jews received daily from God while staying in the wilderness after escaping from Egypt under Moses’ leadership, and only John’s book records this reference. In speaking of bread, Jesus incidentally mentioned the Eucharist, and John also recorded this in the following passage, but the other three books contain no reference to it.

Thus, it appears that John said nothing about what the other three said; conversely, they said nothing about what John said—the alleged prophecy of Jesus. Truly astonishing!

The commentators of the Ecumenical Translation of the New Testament Bible have acknowledged that John’s book contains no account of the Eucharist. They say: “The general public is not particularly interested in the legends or customs of ancient Israel. This is probably why he did not describe the institution of the Eucharist.” How can this argument be accepted? John may not have been interested in the ancient customs of the Jews, but how could he overlook such an important rite of the new Christian religion?

Christian experts are so embarrassed by this matter that they want to discover in John’s writings an event in Jesus’ life containing an account or indication resembling the Eucharist. Oscar Cullmann may be cited as an example. In his book The New Testament, he said: “The transformation of water into wine and the feeding of five thousand people with five loaves contain a foreshadowing of the Last Supper, that is, of the Eucharistic rite.” It may be recalled that, when there was a shortage of wine at a wedding feast in a place called Cana, Jesus transformed water into wine. In his book (2:1–12), John describes this event as Jesus’ first miracle; of the four evangelists, he alone mentions it. Five barley loaves miraculously multiplied in such abundance that five thousand people could easily be fed. John made no special comment while describing these two events, and the supposed indication that modern experts claim to have found in similar events can at most be called an abnormal expansion of their imagination. Cullmann offered further arguments of this kind. He said that Jesus’ healing of a paralytic and a blind man contains “a prophecy of baptism,” and that, after Jesus’ death, “the water and blood that flowed from one side of his body provide evidence that baptism and the Eucharist are rooted in the same source.” What further comment can be made on such arguments?

In his book Initiation to the Gospel, Father Roguet described another strange argument by Oscar Cullmann as follows: “Some theologians, such as Oscar Cullmann, regard the washing of the disciples’ feet (by Jesus) before the Last Supper as a symbol of the institution of the Eucharist.”

It is truly astonishing to observe the kinds of arguments to which theologians have resorted, descending to any level, in order to make the absence of any mention of the Eucharist in John’s book easily acceptable to ordinary Christians.

Jesus’s Appearance After His Death

An example of the unrestrained flight of imagination employed in Matthew’s account of an alleged miraculous event at the time of Jesus’s death has already been mentioned. The four Gospel writers have given four different, that is, mutually contradictory, accounts of the events following Jesus’s resurrection from the grave. On page 182 of his book Initiation to the Gospel, Father Roguet has cited several examples of these contradictory and even absurd accounts.

He said: “The number of women who gathered at the grave is given differently in the first three Gospels. John’s Gospel speaks of only one woman, namely Mary Magdalene. Yet he again speaks in the plural: ‘We do not know where he was buried’—so it seems that she was not alone. In Matthew’s account, an angel prophesies to the women that they will see Jesus in Galilee. But shortly afterward Jesus appears to them beside his grave. Luke, perhaps anticipating this contradiction, alters the account slightly in his own book. The angel said: ‘Remember how he told you while he was still in Galilee …’ In fact, Luke speaks of Jesus appearing three times. John also speaks of three appearances—twice in an upstairs room in Jerusalem, a week apart, and once on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. Matthew speaks of only one appearance in Galilee.”

Father Roguet excluded Mark’s corresponding account from his examination because he considers that passage “probably the work of someone else.”

All these facts prove that the statement in Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians (15:5–7)—that Jesus appeared to more than five hundred people, appeared to James, appeared to all the apostles, and appeared even to Paul himself—has no basis whatsoever.

In these circumstances, it is astonishing that in the same book Father Roguet has severely criticized the pompous descriptions of childish imagination found in certain writings concerning Jesus’s resurrection. Yet this comment applies most of all to Matthew and Paul, because their statements on the subject are completely contrary to those of the other apostles.

Moreover, Luke’s account in Acts of the Apostles concerning Jesus’s appearance to Paul differs considerably from Paul’s own account of the matter. Observing this situation, Father C. Kannengiesser emphatically stated in his book Faith in the Resurrection, Resurrection of Faith (1974) that Paul was “the only eyewitness of Jesus’s resurrection, and no other writer of the New Testament can claim that distinction; through his writings his testimony has come directly to us.” Yet Paul never stated that he had personally met the risen Jesus. Of course, “he introduced the subject three times with great caution, but never gave any account of it.”

The contradiction between the Gospel accounts and that of Paul, who supposedly was an eyewitness yet said nothing clearly, is therefore unmistakable and manifest.

Oscar Cullmann also noted contradictions between Luke’s and Matthew’s accounts in his book The New Testament. Luke said that Jesus appeared in Judea, whereas Matthew said that he appeared in Galilee.

In this connection, the contradiction between John’s and Luke’s accounts may also be noted. John says (21:1–14) that, after rising from the grave, Jesus appeared to the fishermen on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias, enabling them to catch so many fish that carrying them away became difficult. This story is in fact nothing more than a repetition of the story of a miraculous catch of fish at the same place, which Luke describes (5:1–11) as an event during Jesus’s lifetime.

Commenting on these appearances of Jesus, Father Roguet reassuringly stated in his book that the “disjointed, obscure and confused character of the events rather produces faith.” For these facts supposedly prove that there was no collusion among the Evangelists on this matter; otherwise they would certainly all have given a single account. But was collusion among them even possible? This argument is truly strange. In reality, they may have merely recorded the legends current in their respective communities, and imagination had expanded in all the legends, without their knowing it. Because the accounts contain so many contradictions and improbabilities, there is no alternative but to reach this conclusion.

Jesus’s Ascension

There are still more contradictions, right up to the very end of the account. For neither John nor Matthew mentions Jesus’s ascension at all; only Mark and Luke mention it.

Mark says (16:19) that Jesus “was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God,” but he says nothing about how many days after the event of Jesus’s emerging from the grave, which he describes, the ascension occurred. It is noteworthy that this sentence appears in the final passage of Mark’s Bible. Father Roguet considers the passage “spurious,” but according to the Church it is entirely authentic.

Now for Luke’s account. Luke alone gives an uncontested account of the ascension (24:51). He says: “He parted from them and was taken up into heaven.” “Them” here refers to the eleven apostles, because the twelfth apostle, Judas, had already died. The ascension is mentioned after the account of Jesus’s emergence from the grave and his appearances to the apostles; thus it seems that the emergence from the grave and the ascension occurred on the same day. In Acts of the Apostles, Luke—whom everyone considers its author—describes Jesus’s appearances to the apostles between the Passion and the ascension as follows: “After suffering, he showed himself alive to them, with many proofs. He appeared to them over forty days and spoke of the kingdom of God” (chapter 1:3).

It is on the basis of this account that the Feast of the Ascension is celebrated forty days after Easter (the festival commemorating Jesus’s rising from the grave). Thus it appears that the date of this festival directly contradicts the account in Luke’s Gospel. No other Gospel provides any other rationale for this date.

Every Christian acquainted with this discrepancy feels troubled by it. The Ecumenical Translation does address the matter, but gives no explanation. It merely says that these forty days may perhaps have some connection with Jesus’s mission.

However, commentators who wish to explain everything and reconcile all inconsistencies have offered some strange explanations on the subject.

The book The Synopsis of the Four Gospels, edited in 1972 by the Biblical School of Jerusalem (Volume II, p. 451), contains one such strange explanation. In criticizing the word “ascension,” it says: “In fact, no ascension took place in a physical sense, because just as God is not below, so he is not above.” It is extremely difficult to understand the meaning of this comment. For if Luke did not mean an ascent into the upper world, what did he mean? Elsewhere in the book it is said: “The account in Acts of the Apostles that the ascension took place forty days after the resurrection is a literary device; it was employed to emphasize that Jesus’s appearances in the world had come to an end. In Luke’s Gospel, however, the ascension is said to have taken place on the evening of Easter Sunday. For when describing the various events following the discovery of the empty grave on the morning of the day of the resurrection, Luke allowed no interval between the two events. This is certainly a literary device. It was adopted to allow some time to pass between Jesus’s resurrection from the grave and his appearances to the disciples.”

What this explanation actually means is not at all clear. It is not difficult, however, to understand that the commentator has woven a web of words in an attempt to free himself from an embarrassing and uncomfortable situation. Father Roguet’s explanation of the matter in his book makes his own predicament even more obvious. He speaks of the ascension not once but twice—the rising and the ascension are two parts of the same event from Jesus’s perspective, but from the disciples’ perspective the ascension did not occur until his appearances to them had ended. In order that the Church’s era might begin, he completed his appearances to them and ascended only after inspiring the disciples.

Warning readers who are unable to grasp the meaning or significance of this profound argument, which has no scriptural basis, Father Roguet said: “As in many other cases, here too, if the biblical account is taken literally while its religious significance is ignored, the problem will appear impossible to solve. This is not a matter of expressing a real event through an inconsistent symbol. What we have here is that religious writers have revealed the mystery through things and objects of precisely the kind that we can understand through the perceptions and intelligence of our earthly life, and their religious and spiritual purpose must always be kept in view.”

In fact, when trying to explain matters that cannot be explained, commentators spread such webs of meaningless words. Of course, when one tries to support something that cannot be supported, there is no other way.

Jesus’s Final Conversation and the Paraclete of John’s Gospel

John alone mentions Jesus’s final conversation with the disciples. This event took place after the Last Supper and before Jesus was arrested. The event concluded with a long speech by Jesus. John’s Gospel contains an account of this event and speech spanning four chapters (14–17). None of the other Gospels makes even the slightest mention of it. The matters described in these four chapters are highly important and significant for the future course of action and outlook of Christians. The event is described in an atmosphere of solemnity and holiness appropriate to the farewell of a highly revered master from his disciples.

Yet this moving farewell scene, which contains evidence of Jesus’s spirituality, is completely absent from the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke. What could be the possible explanation for this absence? One may ask—did those first three Gospels originally contain this account? Was it later removed? Why? There is no answer to these questions. No answer can be found anywhere. The matter is truly shrouded in mystery and difficult to understand.

The principal subjects of this event, as found in Jesus’s speech, are the future condition of humanity as described by Jesus; his particular eagerness to address the gathering of disciples; presenting the truth to all humanity through them; identifying the guide whom people must necessarily follow after they leave this world; and clearly stating his own instructions and recommendations on this matter. In John’s Gospel, this guide is called Parakletos in Greek, and is called the Paraclete in English. The relevant original passages of that Gospel are as follows:

“If you love me, you will keep all my commandments. And I will petition the Father, and he will give you another Helper (Paraclete).” (14:15–16) But what does the word Paraclete mean? In the currently accepted text of John’s Gospel, the word is explained as follows:

“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and remind you of everything I have told you.” (14:26)

“He will bear witness concerning me.” (15:26)

“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you and lead you into all truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me.” (16:13–14)

The four chapters of John (14–17) have not been quoted here in full. Yet the passages that have been quoted express the central argument accurately.

It is noteworthy that in the text, “Paraclete” and “Holy Spirit” have been used in the same sense. This is not easy to notice, especially because the subtitles of the text are generally used in translations, and commentators strive to present the ancient conception in their works. Nevertheless, if anyone has the slightest doubt about the meaning, they may read the explanation of any other specialist. A. Tricot explained the word Paraclete as follows in his book Little Dictionary of the New Testament:

“This word is translated from Greek, and John alone used this name or title in the New Testament. In the account he gave of Jesus’s speech after the Last Supper, he used the word four times (14:16 and 26; 15:26; and 16:7). He used it once more in his First Letter (2:1). In the Gospel the word is applied to the Holy Spirit, and in the Letter to Jesus. The word Paraclete was current among Greek-speaking Jews during the first century after Christ’s birth. It means advocate, supporter, intercessor, mediator. Jesus prophesied that the Father and the Son would send the Spirit. The Spirit would take the place of the role that the Son had played during his mortal life for the benefit of his disciples. In place of Jesus, he would act as the Paraclete, or powerful mediator.”

According to this commentator, then, it appears that after Jesus’s departure from the world, this Holy Spirit would be humanity’s final guide. Does this view accord with the text of John? It is necessary to raise this question, because effects proceed from causes. Judged on this basis, the following words do not properly fit the Holy Spirit: “He will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.” It is inconceivable that the Holy Spirit should possess the ability to speak and hear. This question ought to be raised in the interests of logic and coherence, but as far as I know no commentator has raised or considered it.

To gain a correct understanding of this matter, it is necessary to examine the original Greek text. For everyone acknowledges that John wrote in Greek, not in any other language. I have read the Greek Bible entitled Novum Testamentum Graece (Nestle and Aland, United Bible Societies, London, 1971).

When criticizing a text, one must first look for variants. Among all the manuscripts of John’s Gospel that have been found, only the famous Syriac palimpsest contains, in passage 14:26, a variant that could change the meaning of the sentence. This manuscript was written in the fourth or fifth century and discovered on Mount Sinai in 1812 by Agnes S. Lewis. Another text had been written over the first text, and the original was found after this second text was removed. For this reason the manuscript was called a palimpsest. Here the words “Holy Spirit” do not appear; only “Spirit” is used. Did the copyist accidentally omit the word “Holy,” or did he deliberately leave it out after noticing the absurdity of attributing to the Holy Spirit the ability to speak and hear? This manuscript contains some other variants, but they are mainly grammatical and do not alter the meaning, so there is no need to discuss them further. What is important here is that the verbs “to speak” and “to hear” are used in precisely the same sense in all the other manuscripts of John’s Gospel.

The verb “to hear” is a translation of the Greek verb akouō, meaning “to perceive sound.” The word “acoustics” comes from this same word.

The verb “to speak” is a translation of the Greek verb laleō; its general meaning is to produce sound, and its specific meaning is to speak. This word is used frequently in the Greek text of the Gospel, and it is used whenever Jesus made an important proclamation while preaching. Thus it appears that this particular word is not used when speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but rather in the ordinary context of normal human speech. In Greek, this word is used for the emission of sound in a purely casual sense.

Therefore, the two verbs akouō and laleō can be applied only to living beings that possess organs suitable for speaking and hearing. They cannot be applied to the Holy Spirit at all.

For this reason, the passage in the Greek manuscripts of John’s Gospel (14:26) that contains the two words “Holy Spirit” is wholly unintelligible: “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit…” The verbs cannot be applied to the Holy Spirit at all.

If the two words “Holy Spirit” are omitted, the meaning of the entire text becomes clear and intelligible. John himself expressed this intelligible meaning in his First Letter, where by Paraclete he meant Jesus, and this Paraclete is a mediator on God’s behalf (in many translations and commentaries on the Gospel, especially the older ones, the word Paraclete has been translated as “comforter”; but this translation is completely wrong). According to John, Jesus says (14:16): “And I will petition the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete,” meaning that just as in this worldly life he himself was a mediator on God’s behalf for humanity, in the same way “another” mediator would be sent.

Thus, when judged in the light of logic and consistency, it appears that the Paraclete described by John is a human being like Jesus, with the ability to speak and hear. Therefore, what Jesus prophesied was that God would later send another human being into the world, who would fulfill the role described by John. In other words, if the words used of a prophet are understood in their proper sense, this is the logical explanation of the text.

The two words “Holy Spirit” found in the current text were probably added deliberately at a later time. This measure was adopted in order to alter the original meaning, which contained a prophecy of the coming of another prophet after Jesus. For when the Christian Church was formed, one of its principal teachings was that Jesus was the last prophet and that no prophet would come after him.

Conclusion

The four Gospels are historically accurate, original and genuine, and what Jesus did and taught has been faithfully transmitted through these Gospels. This traditional doctrine of Christians was also endorsed by the most recent Council of the Vatican. Yet the information recorded in this book and the views quoted from distinguished Christian theologians directly invalidate that claim of accuracy and genuineness.

Several kinds of arguments may be presented on this matter.

The accounts of the same subject in multiple Gospels contradict one another, and two mutually contradictory events cannot both be credible. Moreover, many Christians fail to notice claims, improbabilities and inconsistencies that contradict facts established by modern knowledge. When they happen to notice them, they are astonished, because their minds have already been influenced by the imaginary, mystical and poetic explanations of priests and commentators. Several examples have already been mentioned of the unnecessary webs of words that commentators spread in order to explain matters they call “difficult.” In addition, the Gospels contain some passages acknowledged to be spurious, yet the Church declares them authentic.

According to Father Kannengiesser, modern textual criticism has brought to light information that is “revolutionary for the religious presentation of the Bible”; as a result, it is no longer necessary to accept literally the information and events concerning Jesus recorded in the Gospels, because those accounts were composed for particular occasions—in other words, they are “wartime writings.” Modern research has provided detailed knowledge of the history of Judaism and Christianity and of the hostility and antagonism among different communities. Accounts of events written against that background are therefore highly embarrassing to the modern reader. Although many Christians still believe that the Gospel writers, the Evangelists, were eyewitnesses of the events they describe, that belief has now been proved entirely baseless. Research conducted at the Bible School of Jerusalem (by Fathers Benoit and Boismard) has clearly proved that the Gospels were written, revised and corrected several times. Moreover, the two Fathers warned readers not to expect to find in the Gospels “any saying of Jesus accurately or directly.”

Nevertheless, there is no denying that the Gospels have a historical character. Through the accounts concerning Jesus, we can learn from these books about the identity and character of their authors; we can learn that they were spokesmen for the traditions and legends of their respective early Christian communities; and, in particular, we can learn about the disputes and conflicts between Paul and the Jewish-Christian community. Cardinal Daniélou’s book is a reliable compendium on all these matters.

Why should it be surprising that some Evangelists distorted certain events in Jesus’s life in support of their own doctrines? Why should it be surprising that they omitted certain events? And why should it be surprising that some of the events they described are entirely fictional?

All these questions naturally arouse in us an interest in comparing the Gospels with medieval narrative poetry. The most appropriate comparison would perhaps be with the poem called the Song of Roland (Chanson de Roland). This poem describes a true event in the light of imagination, and it is the most famous of its kind. The event was that, while Roland was commanding King Charlemagne’s rear guard, he was suddenly attacked by the enemy in a mountain pass on the battlefield. According to historians, the event took place on August 15, 778 (Eginhard), and was not particularly important. But in the poetic account this minor event has been elevated to the status of a glorious chapter in a holy war and the supreme achievement of military strategy. The poem certainly contains a wide expansion of the imagination, but that has not made the true event false. For it is true that Charlemagne had to wage many wars to defend his country from enemy attacks, and the event concerning Roland was one part of them.

The same thing may be said about the Gospels. Matthew’s imaginative tendencies, the contradictions among the various Gospels, their improbabilities, their discrepancies with modern scientific information, and the repeated distortion of the text all prove that the Bible contains many passages and chapters whose sole basis is human imagination. But that does not make Jesus’ mission false. There is no doubt at all about Jesus’ mission. The doubt concerns its nature and the way it was carried out.

The Qur’an and Modern Science

Introduction

The relationship between the Qur’an and science is astonishing in the logical sequence of cause and effect, especially when it is seen to be one of agreement rather than disagreement. Nowadays many people think that the confrontation between religious scriptures and the secular concepts of science is a particular labyrinth. With only a few exceptions, most scientists today are trapped within the confines of materialism. They regard religion as nothing but legend and are either indifferent to religious matters or directly hostile toward them. Moreover, when religion and science are discussed in the West, people mention only Judaism and Christianity; Islam is never even considered. In reality, such widespread misconceptions about Islam have been disseminated on the basis of false information that it is genuinely difficult there to obtain any correct understanding of true Islam.

Before undertaking any comparative discussion of Islam and science, it is especially necessary to give a brief introduction to Islam. For this religion is very little known in the West.

In the West, various erroneous statements and comments about Islam are made, sometimes out of ignorance and sometimes with the intention of denigrating it. Among such statements, those concerning facts are the most serious; errors of conception may perhaps be forgiven, but presenting fabricated information in place of actual facts is unforgivable. Many learned and distinguished Westerners have included such outright falsehoods in their writings that one feels genuinely outraged on reading them. I quote one such example from the sixth volume of the Universalis Encyclopaedia. In discussing the heading “Gospel,” the author, comparing the Bible with the Qur’an, said: “As was done in the case of the Qur’an, the evangelists did not claim in the case of the Bible that they were merely conveying the autobiography that God had miraculously narrated to the Prophet.” But the Qur’an is not an autobiography. If the author had even examined one of the poorest translations of the Qur’an, he would have understood that the Qur’an is in fact a book of instruction, a book of guidance. But he did not do so, and made that false statement without knowing or hearing the facts. Yet he is a learned professor at the Jesuit Faculty of Theology in Lyon. It is such false statements that have created erroneous ideas about the Qur’an and Islam.

Meanwhile, new hope has of course arisen. For the various religions are no longer as inward-looking as before. They are trying to create understanding among themselves. Everyone, I hope, will be pleased to hear that Roman Catholics are trying to establish contact with Muslims at the highest levels of their religious institutions. They are also trying within their own community to remove ignorance about Islam and dispel misconceptions.

I mentioned in the introduction to this book the great change that has taken place in recent years, and I also referred to a booklet published by the Vatican’s Office for Non-Christian Affairs entitled Orientations for a Dialogue Between Christians and Muslims. This booklet is a highly important document because it describes the new attitude adopted toward Islam. The third edition of the booklet, published in 1970, called for “a revision of our attitude toward Islam and an objective examination of our hostility.” It stated: “We must begin by gradually changing the way our Christian brothers have been viewed. This first step is the most important of all. The old image we have inherited from the past, distorted by hostility and condemnation, must be removed; and we must acknowledge the injustice we have committed against Muslims in the past. We must also acknowledge that the West, educated in Christian teaching, is responsible for this injustice.”

It may be mentioned in this connection that there was a time in the past when the highest-ranking leaders of the Catholic Church gladly supported opposition to or hostility toward Islam in any form, even when it came from declared and recognized enemies of the Church. As an example, one may cite Pope Benedict XIV, known as the greatest ecclesiastic of the eighteenth century. When Voltaire dedicated to the Pope a work he had written, Muhammad or Fanaticism (Muhammad or Fanaticism; in French, Mahomet ou le fanatisme, 1741), the Pope readily sent him his blessing, even though the work was an extremely poor tragedy, full of mockery and sarcasm, such as any clever person capable of writing and motivated by malicious intent could have produced on any subject. The play was not very successful on stage, but Christian audiences nevertheless supported it enthusiastically, and for that sole reason it was ultimately included in collections of French tragedies.

That Vatican booklet contains a total of 150 pages and presents the truth by disproving the old Christian doctrines about Islam.

Under the heading “An Attempt to Free Ourselves from Our Worst Hostility and Prejudice,” the authors addressed Christians: “Here too we must submit ourselves to a thorough purification of our outlook. In particular, we must examine the ‘preconceived conclusions’ that are often and very casually adopted about Islam, so that we do not harbor any such cause in the innermost recesses of our hearts. Devout Muslims regard such notions of ours as misleading.”

One example of such a notion is that Christians invariably use the word Allah to convey the Muslims’ “God,” as if to suggest that the God in whom Muslims believe is an entity entirely different from the Christian God. In Arabic, the word Allah means divinity, the heavenly Being. The significance of that Arabic word can be expressed by the English word God alone, meaning the one and unique God. The One whom Muslims call Allah is none other than the God of Moses and Jesus.

The document prepared by the Vatican’s Office for Non-Christian Affairs strongly emphasizes this fundamental point: “It is entirely unreasonable to hold the view that Allah is not really God. Yet some circles in the West do hold this view. The documents of the Christian councils have refuted this misconception and presented the true meaning in its proper place. The following statement from Lumen Gentium (the name of a document prepared by the Second Vatican Council of 1962–65) may provide an excellent example and explanation of the Muslims’ belief in God. It states: ‘The Muslims profess the faith of Abraham and worship with us the one merciful God, the sole judge on the Day of Judgment.’”

It is therefore easy to understand why Muslims object to writing Allah as God in various European languages. For the same reason, learned Muslims praised D. Masson for using the word Dieu (God) instead of the word Allah in the French translation of the Qur’an.

The Vatican document states: “Arabic-speaking Christians have only one word for God, and that is Allah.”

Muslims and Christians worship one and the same God.

The document then objectively examines other erroneous doctrines concerning Islam.

A widespread misconception is that Islam teaches predestination. The document refutes this idea and, citing the Qur’an, shows that human beings have personal responsibility and will be judged on the basis of their deeds. It also opposes the prevailing notion that Islamic principles permit forcing people to accept Islam through coercion, stating that even believing in such a principle is contrary to Islam. In this connection, the following two verses of the Qur’an are quoted, and it is stated that there is much confusion in the West about these two verses:

“There is no compulsion in religion” — Surah al-Baqarah, verse 256.

“He [Allah] has not imposed upon you any hardship in religion.” — Surah al-Hajj, verse 78.

In response to the notion that Islam is a religion of fear, the document states that Islam is in fact a religion of love. Loving one’s neighbor on the basis of faith in Allah is the teaching of Islam. Regarding the Jewish and Christian notion that Islam has no morality but only fanaticism, the Vatican document states that this idea is entirely baseless and false: “Islam was never more fanatical than Christianity was when Christianity acquired political importance in history.” In this connection, citing the Qur’an, it shows that the word jihad is mistranslated in the West: “In Arabic the expression is al-jihad fi sabilillah, that is, striving in the way of Allah. This striving is for spreading Islam and for protecting Islam from its attackers. This jihad is not the Bible’s ‘herem’; it is not conducted for destruction, but for establishing the rights of Allah and human beings in new countries. In the past, force and bloodshed did occur during jihad, but this was not because of jihad; it occurred according to the ordinary rules of warfare. Moreover, during the Crusades, it was not only Muslims who committed atrocious massacres.”

It should be noted in this connection that translators of the Qur’an, even those who are famous in this field, have inserted into their translations many things that are not present in the original Arabic text, because they have not abandoned their secular habits and tendencies. Even without changing the original text, a heading can often be added that alters the general meaning of the passage. For example, one may cite Blachère’s famous translation (published by Maisonneuve and Larose, Paris, 1966). On page 115 he inserted a heading, “The Duty of Holy War,” that does not occur in the Qur’an. Beneath this heading he placed a passage that certainly calls for taking up arms, but the character imposed by the wording of the heading is found nowhere in the passage. Therefore, if someone who has not read the original Arabic and reads only this translation assumes that Muslims are always obliged to wage holy war, he perhaps cannot be blamed too much.

Another important misconception is refuted in the Vatican document. It is generally believed in the West that Islam is a religion that always confines Muslims within the limits of the Middle Ages and makes them incapable of keeping pace with the progress of the modern scientific age. Comparing this with the corresponding situation in Christian countries, the document states: “Within the traditional expansion of Muslim thought, we can nevertheless see the evolution of a progressive society.”

I am certain that many believers—whether Muslim, Jew, or Christian—will be surprised by this Vatican support for Islam. For such honesty and open-mindedness had never before been seen at the Vatican. The attitude in the past had always been oppositional and hostile. Yet very few people in the West are aware of this new outlook of the highest authorities of the Catholic Church.

Those who knew about it, however, were not at all surprised by the next step. For example, the president of the Vatican’s Office for Non-Christian Affairs officially visited Saudi Arabia and met King Faisal; afterward, a delegation of Saudi scholars visited the Vatican, and Pope Paul VI himself officially received them. Both events took place in 1974. If this background is kept in mind, the spiritual significance of another important event can easily be understood. The Bishop of Strasbourg, His Grace Elchinger, received the scholars in his cathedral and invited them to perform their prayers there. The scholars accepted the invitation, and the church’s prayer altar was placed before them facing the Kaaba in the direction of the qiblah, in their honor. Thus, representatives of the highest levels of the Muslim and Christian worlds agreed to a dialogue, because they believe in the same one Allah and respect each other’s differences. In this situation, it is natural to compare the scriptures of both sides on all other matters, one with the other. One relevant task of this comparison is to examine the truth of the accounts in both scriptures—that is, the Qur’an and the Bible—in the light of modern scientific facts and knowledge.

The relationship between religion and science has changed from country to country and from age to age. But no principle of any monotheistic religion has ever opposed science. It is nevertheless true that some religious authorities have often placed scientists in difficult situations. In the Christian world, religious authorities opposed scientific progress for many centuries through sheer force, without seeking the actual news of revelation. We are also aware of the harsh punitive measures taken against scientists. It is no longer unknown that those who refused to change their views, stop their research, and apologize were burned to death, and that many scientists, out of fear, fled into secret exile. Galileo may be mentioned in this connection. Church authorities severely punished him for accepting as true Copernicus’s discovery concerning the rotation of the Earth. Clearly, they took this action on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of the Bible, because they could not directly use any verse of the Bible against Galileo.

(Note by the Bengali translator: The Roman Catholic authorities in the Vatican recently acquitted Galileo after 350 years and said: “The tribunal that sentenced Galileo was mistaken. The Sun does not revolve around the Earth; the Earth revolves around the Sun.” For the crime of supporting Copernicus’s view in writing and emphatically, the Italian scientist Galileo was sentenced by the Roman Catholic Church in 1633 at the age of 69, and he subsequently served nine years under house arrest. In 1980, Pope John Paul II formed a commission of scientists, historians, and theologians to reexamine the evidence of that trial. On the basis of the commission’s recommendation, the official judgment of acquittal was recently published [Weekly Time, March 12, 1984].

Islam’s view of scientists, however, is entirely different. The Hadith gives clear instructions on this matter: “Go even as far as China to acquire knowledge.” Another Hadith states that seeking knowledge is an obligatory duty for every man and woman.

A little later in this discussion we shall also see that the Qur’an itself calls for the study of science. Moreover, the comments and detailed explanations concerning various natural phenomena in the Qur’an have been shown to be consistent with modern scientific facts. No such subject matter or example exists in the scriptures of revelation of the Jews and Christians.

Of course, in the history of Islam some believers have also held different, that is, unfavorable, views about science. It is true that in some periods the responsibility of acquiring and imparting education was neglected. It is likewise true that, as elsewhere, attempts were sometimes made in the Muslim world to obstruct scientific progress. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that during Islam’s glorious age, from the eighth to the twelfth century, when scientific restrictions were in force in the Christian world, extensive research and discoveries in science were being carried out at Islamic universities. The notable resources of civilization and knowledge of that age were also preserved there. The Caliph’s library in Córdoba contained 400,000 books. Abu Rushd taught there, and arrangements were made there for teaching Greek, Indian, and Persian sciences. For this reason, students and scholars from all over Europe went to Córdoba, just as everyone today goes to the United States to complete their education. At that time the Arabs served as bearers of the civilizations and cultures of the countries they conquered, and because of their scholarly and humane outlook we received through them countless ancient manuscripts. We are also particularly indebted to the Arabs for mathematics (algebra was their invention), astronomy, physics (optics and the science of light), geology, botany, medicine (Abu Ali Sina), and other fields. Science and the practice of science first acquired an international character and status in the Islamic universities of the Middle Ages. Compared with today, people at that time were much more inspired by religion; yet this did not prevent them in the Islamic world from being both believers and scientists. Science was then an ally of religion, and the change from that condition was never justified.

For the Christian world, the Middle Ages were an age of confinement and rigid devotion to religious formalities. But it must be stated emphatically in this connection that the slowing of scientific research at that time was not caused by the Jewish-Christian revelation; it was caused by those who claimed to be its servants. After the Renaissance this situation changed, and scientists, as a natural reaction, began taking revenge on their former enemies. That revenge is still continuing, and in the West it has now reached such a stage that anyone in scientific circles who speaks of Allah is viewed with suspicion. This attitude particularly affects all university-educated young people, including Muslims.

Since prominent scientists hold extreme views, one can hardly expect their young followers to hold a different attitude. A Nobel Prize-winning medical scientist has spent the past few years trying to convince everyone that living matter or living organisms could arise by chance from certain basic elements. He has also written a book on the subject. He has said that, under the influence of environment and circumstances, well-formed and organized animals develop from that original organism and ultimately become the complex living being called man.

The novelty of this modern scientific knowledge about the creation of life can certainly lead a thoughtful person toward the opposite conclusion. The more one studies the laws and techniques governing the creation and preservation of life, the more complex they appear, and the more knowledge increases, the more full of praise the knowledgeable person becomes. He can realize that the possibility of something occurring by chance in this long and subtle process is extremely small. The more minute details and processes he discovers, the stronger his argument becomes in favor of the existence of a Creator. Yet there are people who, instead of bowing their heads in awe and reverence, become arrogant in pride and defiance. At the mention of Allah they turn up their noses; considering this idea an obstacle, they contemptuously cast it aside, just as they disdainfully ignore any interruption to a moment of entertainment. This is a reflection of the triumph of the materialist society in the Western world.

Many modern scientists today are bearers and transmitters of this distorted and corrupted way of thinking. Some spiritual force may be applied to confront and correct them.

Judaism and Christianity almost openly acknowledge that they have no power to resist the current of materialism and atheism that has arisen in the West today. Both religions are now completely helpless before that tide, and their power of resistance is diminishing further from one decade to the next. The tide is gradually becoming all-consuming everywhere. To a materialist atheist, the form of traditional Christianity today is a system developed over the past two thousand years for the purpose of maintaining the power and authority of a small group over the majority. He does not even think that its language has any similarity to his own. For the descriptions contained in that language are so full of improbabilities, contradictions, and inconsistencies in the face of modern scientific facts that he considers them entirely unworthy of attention; yet most theologians call for accepting those descriptions in their entirety as self-evident truths.

When Islam is mentioned to a materialist atheist, he gives a knowing smile. Yet he has no correct understanding of Islam at all. Like most Western intellectuals of every religious affiliation, the notion of Islam that he holds is false and misleading.

There are, of course, sound reasons for this situation. Leaving aside the signs of a new outlook recently appearing at the higher levels of Catholicism, condemnation of Islam is generally what is propagated in the West. Those who have been able to acquire a deep knowledge of Islam there are aware of how distortedly its history, principles, and aims have been presented. Moreover, although many books about Islam have been published in European languages, with a few exceptions they are not particularly easy for the general reader to understand.

Judged from this perspective, it becomes clear that presenting the content of the Qur’an to them accurately and in an intelligible form is extremely important. Unfortunately, some verses of the Qur’an, particularly those containing scientific information, have been translated so inadequately and explained so clumsily that scientists apparently criticize it with good reason. Yet the Qur’an in no way deserves such criticism. Special attention must be given to this matter from now on. For errors in translation or confusion in interpretation (the relationship between the two is often profound) that might not have surprised anyone one or two centuries ago now directly alienate modern scientists. If, because of inadequate translation, the content becomes unacceptable from a scientific point of view, no scientist will be willing to examine it with sincerity and concentration. An excellent example of such an error will be presented in the chapter on human birth.

But why do such errors occur in translation? One reason may be that modern translators accept the explanations of ancient commentators without proper consideration. Where an Arabic word has several meanings, the ancient commentators may have selected one of them, and as a result their interpretation may have become unsuitable. They can probably not be blamed very much for this, however. A word whose meaning may have become very clear now through modern scientific discoveries was not necessarily so in ancient times. Thus, the need has arisen to revise the translation and interpretation. In the past, such revision was never possible, because the knowledge and information now available to us had not yet been discovered. This issue of translation and interpretation applies only to the Qur’an. It has no relevance whatsoever to the Bible.

The distinctive nature of this scientific consideration of the Qur’an initially astonished me greatly. I had never imagined that a text compiled nearly fourteen centuries ago could contain accounts of so many diverse subjects and be so completely consistent with modern scientific information. At first, I had no belief at all in Islam. Nevertheless, I began examining the text of the Qur’an with an open mind and a completely impartial attitude. If any influence was operative upon me, it was the influence of the education I had received in my youth. People did not call them ‘Muslims’; they called them ‘Muhammadans.’ In other words, it was implied that since this religion had been initiated by a man, it could have no value whatsoever in relation to God. Like many Westerners, I may then have held this false notion about Islam. This false notion has now spread so widely in the West that I am genuinely surprised to see anyone other than a specialist speak correctly about Islam. I therefore admit that, until I encountered a view of Islam different from the one prevalent in the West, I was completely ignorant of it.

I came to realize that the Western conception was false through certain exceptional circumstances. I first received an indication in Saudi Arabia that this conception might be mistaken.

My debt of gratitude to the late King Faisal is very great, and I respectfully salute his memory with profound reverence. I continue to cherish the memory of the rare honor he granted me of hearing his views on Islam and of having the opportunity to ask him about certain problems in interpreting the Qur’an in relation to modern science. I had the rare opportunity to gather much valuable information from him personally and from his companions.

After becoming aware of the vast discrepancy between the actual condition of Islam and the Western conception of it, I felt particularly strongly the need to learn Arabic. Arabic is not my mother tongue, yet the language of the original scripture of the religion that is so greatly misunderstood is Arabic. My first aim was to read the Qur’an in its original language and analyze every sentence in the light of the explanations written by various commentators. My second aim was to examine particularly the accounts of various natural phenomena in the Qur’an. These accounts contain many details that, when read in Arabic, appear accurate and precise at first reading, and to me seemed from the outset to be entirely consistent with modern knowledge. It also seemed to me that no human being living in the time of Muhammad (peace be upon him) could possibly have known such information. Later I read several books by Muslim writers on the scientific information in the Qur’an and benefited considerably from them. But I have still not learned of any research on this subject in the West.

What first strikes a reader of the text of the Qur’an is that many subjects are discussed in this scripture: cosmology, astronomy, certain explanations concerning the Earth, the animal world, the plant world, human reproduction, and so on. On all these subjects I found much incorrect information in the Bible, but I found not a single error in the Qur’an. I therefore stopped and asked: if the Qur’an was written by any human being, how was it possible for him in the seventh century to record information that we now find consistent with modern scientific knowledge? And there is absolutely no room for doubt that the text of the Qur’an now in our hands is from precisely that period (I shall discuss this in detail in a later chapter). ‘Then what explanation could human beings possibly give for this?’ I believe there is no explanation, nor can there be one.

It seems to me that there can be no reasonable explanation, in terms of human intellect and judgment, for the fact that scientific knowledge which even in our twentieth century is regarded in some respects as at least a thousand years ahead was possessed by an inhabitant of the Arabian Peninsula contemporary with the reign of Dagobert, King of France (629–639).

The Qur’an was revealed over approximately twenty years, around the beginning of the Hijri era (622 CE). It is now an established fact that, for several centuries before that time, there had been no progress in scientific knowledge, and that the period of activity of Islamic civilization, including scientific inquiry, began only after the completion of the Qur’anic revelation. Those who are unaware of this make many impossible and ridiculous statements. I myself have heard one such statement several times. It is as follows: if the Qur’an contains any astonishing account of a scientific nature, the reason is that Arab scientists were highly skilled and advanced, and Muhammad (peace be upon him) was influenced by them. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of Islamic history will understand that this comment is not only ridiculous but fanciful as well. They know that the medieval period of cultural and scientific advancement in the Arab world began after Muhammad (peace be upon him). Moreover, such a comment is inconsistent and baseless for another reason: the scientific information to which the Qur’an alludes or which it describes specifically and clearly has been confirmed precisely by the investigations of the modern age.

For this reason, Qur’anic commentators for centuries, including the commentators of that glorious age of Islamic culture, inevitably made mistakes in interpreting certain verses. Clearly, they were then unable to grasp their true meaning. It was only much later, nearly in our own time, that accurate translations and interpretations of those verses became possible. In other words, linguistic knowledge alone is not sufficient for understanding the Qur’anic verses correctly. Adequate knowledge of the various branches of science is also necessary. In fact, understanding the Qur’an requires knowledge of many different subjects; in this respect, one might even say that an encyclopedic store of knowledge should be readily available. As we proceed with this discussion and examine various subjects, we shall see that different kinds of scientific knowledge and information become indispensable for grasping the meaning of certain verses.

But explaining the laws and principles governing and regulating the universe is not the Qur’an’s aim. Its primary aim is entirely religious. The account of Allah’s sovereignty inspires people to reflect on the mystery of creation. Alongside this account come references to phenomena observable by human beings and laws they can understand, because Allah is the sole Governor and Regulator of the universe comprising humanity and nature. One part of this statement may perhaps be readily understood, but scientific knowledge is indispensable for understanding the other part. For this reason, in earlier times people could derive only the apparent meaning from certain verses, and the knowledge needed to prevent them from reaching erroneous conclusions had not yet been discovered, so they could not have known it.

Many people have considered the number of verses that need to be examined for their scientific content to be small. Those who focused on this subject before me probably thought so. I myself have selected somewhat fewer verses than those Muslim writers. However, I have chosen certain verses that had not previously been regarded as particularly important from a scientific point of view—or so it seemed to me. If I have inadvertently selected any verse already chosen by earlier writers, I hope they will not take offense. I have seen scientific interpretations of the Qur’an in some books, but they did not seem entirely accurate to me. With an open mind and a clear conscience, I have tried to offer my own interpretation of those verses.

Similarly, I searched the Qur’an for subjects that are intelligible to people but are not supported by modern scientific information. I believe I have found in the Qur’an a reference to the existence in the celestial realm of other planets like our Earth. Many scientists do acknowledge the possibility, but no scientific information has yet been found that would permit a definitive statement. There is still ample room for doubt; nevertheless, I consider it my duty to mention the matter.

If this book had been written thirty years earlier, it would have been necessary to mention another fact foretold by the Qur’an—an astronomical fact concerning humanity’s conquest of outer space. After the initial tests of long-range missiles, people could roughly imagine that one day they might possess the means and equipment to travel bodily from Earth and conduct exploration in outer space. They also knew then that a Qur’anic verse foretold that humanity would one day conquer outer space. That prophecy has now been proved true.

In the present confrontation between scripture and science, the accounts of both the Bible and the Qur’an are being examined against truths established by scientific methods. In this case, however, the scientific truth must be established completely soundly and consistently, with absolutely no room for doubt. Those who do not acknowledge the need for scientific assistance in understanding the meaning of scripture believe that science cannot formulate any reasonable and valid conception with which religious accounts can be compared, and that this applies equally to both the Bible and the Qur’an. But we have already seen that the biblical account cannot withstand comparison with scientific truth, whereas the Qur’anic account corresponds exactly. They say that science is continually changing: what is accepted as true today may be rejected later. That may be correct; there is something to be said for this point as well.

Theories change, but truth does not. In confronting scripture, we are speaking of truth, not theory. A theory is merely a supposition, whereas truth is a conclusion tested and proved. The aim of a theory is to make comprehensible an event or phenomenon that is not readily understood. Thus, after new information about that event or phenomenon is discovered, the earlier theory may be revised or rejected and replaced by a new theory. But once truth has been tested, proved, and established, it does not change. Its definition merely becomes easier to determine than before. It has now been proved and established that the Earth revolves around the Sun and the Moon revolves around the Earth. This truth will not change, although in the future those orbits may perhaps be determined more precisely.

A Muslim physicist drew my attention to a Qur’anic verse and said that it foretold the concept of antimatter. But I could not agree with him, because every theory is subject to change and the theory concerning antimatter remains controversial. There is, however, ample reason to give serious attention to the Qur’anic verse describing the creation of life from water. We may never be able to prove that description experimentally, but there are many arguments in its favor. In the case of observable matters such as the human embryo, however, complete consistency and harmony become evident when the various stages of its development described in the Qur’an are compared with the findings of modern embryology.

This comparison of the Qur’an with science has been carried out on the basis of two further comparisons. First, its information has been compared with the Bible’s information in confrontation with science; second, the information in the Qur’an, the scripture of revelation, has been compared with the information in the Hadith concerning Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) words and deeds.

In the final part of this discussion, the accounts of the Bible and the Qur’an concerning a particular event have been compared and the results presented. The condition of the two accounts under scientific examination and criticism has also been shown. For example, the subjects of the creation of the universe and the great flood have been examined, and the inconsistency of the biblical account with scientific information has been demonstrated. The complete consistency found between the Qur’anic account of the same subjects and scientific information has also been presented. Thus, we can correctly understand which scripture’s account is acceptable in the present age and which is not.

This matter is particularly important, because in the West Jews, Christians, and atheists jointly claim, without any evidence, that Muhammad wrote the Qur’an himself in imitation of the Bible or had someone write it for him. They also claim that all the stories of religious history in the Qur’an are merely repetitions of the Bible’s stories. To say this is an indication of extreme foolishness. It would be equally foolish to say that Jesus, while preaching his religion, took inspiration from the Old Testament in order to deceive his contemporaries, although we have already seen that Matthew’s Gospel was written entirely in continuity with the Old Testament. But could any theologian imagine depriving Jesus of his status as a prophet of Allah for that reason? Yet this is precisely how Muhammad (peace be upon him) is judged in the West. It is said, ‘He did nothing but copy the Bible.’ At most, this comment may be called a layman’s verdict. Those who make it fail to examine deeply the fact that the Bible and the Qur’an give different kinds of accounts of the same events; therefore, the question of copying does not arise at all. They do not wish to discuss this difference, however, and assume that the two scriptures contain accounts of the same kind. Consequently, they see no need for comparison with science. We shall discuss this matter further when considering the creation of the universe and the great flood.

The relationship of Jesus to the Gospels is exactly like the relationship of Muhammad (peace be upon him) to the Hadith. Both are merely accounts of the words and deeds of the two prophets. In neither case were the authors eyewitnesses. In the case of the Hadith, of course, there were also many eyewitness transmitters. Those who compiled the Hadith long after Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) lifetime are nevertheless regarded as highly reliable. Neither the Hadith nor the Gospels is a scripture of revelation. They are not the word of Allah, but merely the words of the prophets. These widely read books contain some accounts that are erroneous from a scientific point of view, particularly as remedies for diseases. We have excluded religious problems from consideration, because we have not discussed them in this book in the context of the Hadith. The authenticity and reliability of many Hadith reports are doubtful, and Muslim specialists themselves have discussed this matter. Scientific content from certain Hadith reports has been mentioned in this book because there is no scientific account in the Qur’an that is unacceptable to specialists. We shall see that its difference from the Hadith is quite astonishing.

Those who claim that Muhammad was the author of the Qur’an can no longer make any acceptable argument against this reasoning. How could an illiterate man become, judged by literary quality, the most important author in the entire world of Arabic literature? And how could he, in that age, proclaim scientific truths that no other human being could possibly have discovered then—and do so without making a single error?

The various lines of thought in this book have been developed from a purely scientific point of view. As a result, the conclusion has been established that it is inconceivable that a seventh-century man could have given in the Qur’an accounts of various subjects that did not belong to his own age, accounts whose truth was only discovered centuries later. For this reason, at least, I believe that the Qur’an cannot have a human explanation.

The Authenticity of the Qur’an: How It Was Written

Because there is no disagreement about the Qur’an’s authenticity, it occupies a distinctive and unique position among the various scriptures of revelation. This characteristic is found neither in the New Testament nor in the Old Testament. We described in the first two chapters how these two scriptures underwent changes and eventually reached their present form. Nothing of that kind occurred in the case of the Qur’an, because it was written down during Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) lifetime. We shall shortly describe how it was written, that is, what the process was.

It should be mentioned in this connection that the difference between the Qur’an and the Bible is in no way fundamentally related to the question of the dates on which the two scriptures were revealed. Some people do raise such a question, but they do not consider the circumstances and conditions prevailing when the Jewish-Christian scriptures and the Qur’an were written. They say that a seventh-century scripture was more likely to survive unchanged to our time than a scripture fifteen centuries old. That is true, but it is not sufficient as an explanation. This is said as an excuse for the changes that occurred in the Jewish-Christian scriptures; it does not acknowledge the fact that there was no real danger of the Qur’anic text being altered by human beings.

Since many authors related the same story in the case of the Old Testament, and since certain books were revised many times from the pre-Christian era onward, precisely that many opportunities for errors and contradictions arose. In the case of the New Testament, that is, the Gospels, no one can claim that the words of Jesus or accounts of his deeds were recorded accurately and realistically in these scriptures. Moreover, we have already seen that none of the successive versions of the text prepared at different times was original, and not one of their authors was an eyewitness.

In this connection, it is necessary to understand properly the difference between the Qur’an and the Hadith. The Qur’an is the written scripture of revelation, whereas the Hadith is a compilation of accounts of Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) words and deeds. Several of the Prophet’s companions began writing down these accounts immediately after his death. But accounts were also written down later. [Some accounts, of course, were written during the Prophet’s lifetime by him himself and by his Companions.] Human beings are naturally liable to err in matters of oral transmission or memory. For this reason, all such writings were accepted only after rigorous criticism and examination. Like the biblical accounts, however, the authenticity of different Hadith reports may vary. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that none of the biblical accounts was written during Jesus’s lifetime; they were written much later. The Hadith was not compiled during Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) lifetime either, but the work of compilation began immediately afterward.

The situation was entirely different in the case of the Qur’an. As soon as a revelation was sent down, the Prophet and his companions memorized it, and his followers and appointed scribes wrote it down. Thus, the Qur’an began with two distinctive features—memorization and writing down—and both are evidence of its authenticity. The Bible possesses neither such features nor such evidence of authenticity. This process of memorizing and writing down the Qur’an continued until Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) death. At that time, when many people were uneducated, that is, unable to write, but everyone could memorize and recite, there was a rare advantage: when the revelation was compiled in written form, it could be checked against the recitations of several people.

The Qur’anic revelation was sent down to Muhammad (peace be upon him) through the angel Gabriel. This revelation continued for more than twenty years. The first revelation consisted of several verses of the ninety-sixth surah, al-‘Alaq; then no further revelation came for three years. After three years, revelation began again and continued for about twenty years, until the Prophet’s death in 632 CE. The first ten years of these twenty were before the Hijrah (Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) migration from Mecca to Medina in 622 CE), and the remaining ten years were after it.

The first revelation was as follows (Surah 96, al-‘Alaq, verses 1–5):

“Read in the name of your Lord who created—created man from a clot of blood.

Read, for your Lord is Most Noble, who taught by the pen—taught man what he did not know.”

Muhammad (peace be upon him) was completely overwhelmed by this revelation. We shall later interpret this revelation particularly against the background that he could neither write nor read.

Professor Hamidullah states in the introduction to his French translation of the Qur’an that one subject of this first revelation is ‘praise of the pen as a means of human knowledge’ and that ‘for this reason the Prophet took care to preserve the Qur’an in written form.’

The text of the Qur’an itself provides formal proof that, before Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) migration from Mecca to Medina, the revelations sent down up to that time had already been written down. We can see immediately that the Qur’an is authentic in this respect. For later revelations themselves mention that the early revelations had been written down. We know that Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his companions were accustomed to memorizing the text of the revelation, that is, reciting it from memory. Therefore, when a later revelation mentioned that an earlier revelation had been written down, it was very easy to verify its truth. That proof could be obtained simply by asking those who had been appointed to record the Qur’an.

Four surahs from that period mention that the revelations sent down up to that time had been written down before the Hijrah.

—Surah ‘Abasa (80:11–16): “No indeed, this is an admonition; so whoever wills may remember it. It is recorded in honored, exalted, purified scriptures, by the hands of noble and righteous scribes.”

Allama Yusuf Ali stated in his commentary on his translation of the Qur’an, published in 1934, that when this surah was revealed, forty-two or forty-five surahs (out of a total of 114) had already been written down, and the Muslims preserved them in Mecca.

—Surah al-Buruj (85:21–22): “Indeed, this is a glorious Qur’an, inscribed in a Preserved Tablet.” —Surah al-Waqi‘ah (56:77–80): “Indeed, this is a glorious Qur’an, which is in

a protected Book; none may touch it except those who are purified. It is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds.”

—Surah al-Furqan (25:5): “They say, ‘These are merely the tales of the ancients, which he has had written down; they are dictated to him morning and evening.’”

Here the accusation of the Prophet’s enemies is mentioned. They regarded him as an impostor. They spread the allegation that ancient tales were recited to him and that he had them written down. Thus, it is evident that even Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) enemies mentioned that written records were being prepared.

In a surah revealed after the Hijrah, mention is made for the last time of written pages containing the heavenly teachings.

—Surah al-Bayyinah (98:2–3): “A Messenger from Allah, reciting purified pages containing upright laws.”

Thus, the Qur’an itself provides evidence that it was written down during the Prophet’s lifetime. It is well known that several of his followers were scribes, the most famous among them being Zayd ibn Thabit.

In the introduction to his French translation of the Qur’an (1971), Professor Hamidullah describes the conditions that existed up to the time of the Prophet’s death

and during which the text of the Qur’an was written. He said: “All specialists agree that whenever a revelation was sent down, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) would call one of his literate Companions and have it written down, telling him where this new revelation should be placed in the sequence of revelations previously sent down. … After it had been written, he would ask the scribe to read it back to him and would correct any mistakes in the writing. … Another report tells us that every year, during Ramadan, the Prophet would recite to the angel Jibril all the revelations sent down up to that time. … In the Ramadan before his death, Jibril had him recite the entire Qur’an twice. … It is universally known that, in addition to reciting the Qur’an in the five daily prayers, Muslims have been accustomed, since the time of Muhammad (peace be upon him), to recite the entire Qur’an with special care during Ramadan. Several specialists have stated that Zayd, Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) scribe, was personally present when the final compilation of the revelation’s text was made. Elsewhere, the presence of many other distinguished persons is mentioned.”

At first, the Qur’an was written on various materials. Leather, wooden boards, the shoulder bones of camels, stones, and many other materials were used. At the same time, Muhammad (peace be upon him) instructed his Companions to memorize the Qur’an, and they did so. Consequently, many people memorized the entire Qur’an, became known as hafizs, and spread its message in different countries. Thus, the preservation of the Qur’an in both written and memorized form gradually proved extremely valuable and important.

A short time after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in 632 CE, Abu Bakr, the first caliph of Islam, asked Zayd ibn Thabit, the Prophet’s former chief scribe, to copy the Qur’an into a single volume. Under the supervision of Umar, the future second caliph, Zayd began collecting material in Medina. He gathered Qur’anic text written on various materials in the possession of different people, consulted the hafizs, and compared it with what they had memorized before preparing a complete copy. In this way, an accurate and wholly reliable compilation was prepared.

According to specialists, Caliph Umar (who became caliph in 634, after Abu Bakr) later prepared and preserved a single-volume copy of the entire Qur’an. Before his death, he entrusted this volume to his daughter, Hafsah, the Prophet’s widow.

The third caliph, Uthman, ruled from 644 to 655 CE. He formed a commission of specialists to improve and standardize the compilation. The commission began its work on the basis of the compilation prepared during Abu Bakr’s time and then kept in Hafsah’s custody. They listened to the accounts memorized by the hafizs and took their testimony. They conducted a meticulous examination and investigation to establish the authenticity of several passages. The strictest precautions were taken, and even in the slightest doubtful case, no passage was accepted as authentic and accurate until the testimony of all witnesses agreed. It is universally known that, in some Qur’anic verses, certain instructions were superseded by other verses. This can be easily explained if we remember that Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) prophetic mission extended over more than twenty years. When the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) recited the entire Qur’an during Ramadan, he followed a particular sequence; the commission followed exactly the same sequence, arranging the surahs accordingly and completing its work.

Some may wonder why the collection and compilation of the Qur’an became necessary during the time of the first three caliphs, especially Uthman. But the answer is very simple. During the first few decades after the Prophet’s death, Islam spread rapidly, and the peoples among whom it spread did not have Arabic as their mother tongue. Therefore, before translations into other languages were made, it was necessary to ensure that the text in the original language remained pure and unaltered. This was the purpose and objective of Uthman’s commission.

Caliph Uthman sent copies of the Qur’an compiled in this way to various centers of the Islamic state, and for this reason Professor Hamidullah stated that Qur’ans from the Uthmanic compilation can still be found in the ancient collections of Tashkent and Istanbul. The oldest Qur’ans currently found in different parts of the Islamic world are all alike, apart from one or two minor copying errors. The same applies to Qur’ans preserved in various parts of Europe. (Specialists believe that the portions of an ancient Qur’an preserved in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris date from the eighth or ninth century CE, that is, from the second or third century AH.) In any case, the essential point is that all the copies of ancient Qur’ans discovered so far are alike. There may be minor differences in some cases, but the general meaning of their text is not changed at all. If a passage appears to allow more than one interpretation, this may be because the Qur’an’s style of writing is simpler than that of modern writing. For example, because vowel marks indicating pronunciation—kasrah, fathah, dammah, and so forth—were absent, a verb could be understood as transitive or intransitive, and a grammatical gender could be understood as masculine or feminine. But since the meaning becomes clear from the context of the sentence, this is not really a difficulty.

The 114 surahs of the Qur’an are arranged with the longer surahs followed by the shorter ones according to length; but this rule also has exceptions. Although in most cases the chronological order of revelation is maintained, this is not so everywhere. Many accounts of the same subject occur in different parts of the text, creating the impression of repetition. Often, a detailed account of a subject appears in one passage while it is described incompletely in another. Like many other subjects mentioned in the Qur’an, various facts concerning modern science are scattered throughout the Book. There is no classification by subject.

The Creation of the Heavens and the Earth

Similarities and Differences between the Biblical Account and the Qur’anic Account

Whereas the Old Testament contains a single long, continuous account of the creation of the universe in one place, the Qur’an contains no such single account. Instead of one continuous narrative, there are many passages in different parts of the Qur’an that illuminate certain aspects of creation and provide various details about subsequent events in its development. These details are sometimes extensive and sometimes brief. To gain a clear understanding of how those events are described, it is necessary to collect and bring together verses from numerous surahs.

This situation is not limited to the creation of the universe. The Qur’an contains many important subjects about which different facts and contexts are described in different places. Examples include various matters relating to the earth or the heavens, and various matters relating to humankind, which may interest or arouse the curiosity of scientists. In each case, considerable effort has been made to collect the relevant verses.

Many European commentators believe that the Qur’anic and Biblical accounts of creation are alike, and therefore they present the two accounts side by side. But I believe this view is entirely mistaken, because there are clearly many differences between the two accounts. The Qur’an contains accounts of many matters that are by no means insignificant from the scientific point of view, yet the Bible has no counterpart to them. Conversely, the Bible contains accounts for which there is no counterpart in the Qur’an.

The apparent similarity between the two texts is universally known. At first sight, this similarity seems to show that in both cases the work of creation was completed in six stages. The Bible speaks of six days, and the Qur’an also speaks of six days. But the matter is not actually so simple; it is quite complex, and therefore requires some examination.

The Six Periods of Creation

According to the Biblical account, creation was completed in six days, and the seventh was the Sabbath, or day of rest. These seven days correspond to the seven days of the week. There is no ambiguity in this Biblical account. The account cited here is from the Priestly version of the Bible, which has already been discussed. The account of the Yahwist version has now been condensed into only a few lines and is therefore not at all worthy of consideration in this context. Because the priests of the sixth century BCE followed this account, ordinary people were encouraged to observe the Sabbath. Just as God rested on the seventh day after working for six days, the Jews were likewise expected to rest on the Sabbath day (the Hebrew word Sabbath means rest).

As the Bible explains it, the word ‘day’ means what it means to an inhabitant of the world: the period between two sunrises or two sunsets. In this sense, however, when the earth had not yet been created, the sun had not yet been created, and there had been no opportunity for the earth to rotate on its axis or around the sun, where did that ‘day’ come from? How could days have been counted? Thus, when measured against reason and consistency, the Biblical account cannot be accepted at all. Earlier in this book

this improbability has been discussed.

A comparison of most translations of the Qur’an shows that, like the Bible, the Qur’an is also said to describe creation as having been completed in six days. The translators probably cannot be blamed too much for adopting the most common meaning of the relevant Arabic word. Verse 54 of Surah 7 (al-A‘raf) is generally translated as follows:

“Your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days.”

Only a very small number of Qur’anic translations and commentaries state that ‘day’ should actually be understood as ‘period’. It is also sometimes said that the word ‘day’ appears in the Qur’anic text simply to avoid direct conflict with the belief then widely held among Jews and Christians.

Without rejecting this view, we can perhaps seek a solution to the problem in the Qur’an itself and, more generally, examine the meaning and significance of the word in the language used at that time. The word that many translators have translated, and continue to translate, as ‘day’ is, in Arabic, ‘yawm’, plural ‘ayyam’.

The word’s ordinary common meaning is ‘day’. But it should be noted that in this sense it more often denotes the period from sunrise to sunset than the period from one sunset to the next. The plural word ayyam means not only ‘days’, but also ‘a very long period’. It denotes an indefinite period, but always a long one. Elsewhere in the Qur’an there is evidence that the word carries the meaning of a ‘period of time’. See verse 5 of Surah 32 (al-Sajdah):

“…a day (yawm) whose length, according to your reckoning, is a thousand years.”

It is noteworthy that the immediately preceding verse mentions the completion of creation in six periods.

Again, see verse 4 of Surah 70 (al-Ma‘arij):

“…a day (yawm) equivalent to fifty thousand earthly years.” The early commentators understood that yawm denoted a period of time completely different from what is meant by ‘day’. But they did not possess the knowledge we now have concerning the length of the various stages in the process of the creation of the universe. For example, it was impossible for Abu al-Su‘ud in the sixteenth century to have the astronomical knowledge of what is meant by a day on the basis of the earth’s revolution. Nevertheless, he believed that the time of creation was divided into different periods, but that those periods were not ‘days’ in the usual sense. Rather, the periods of creation were divided into various ‘events’ (nawbah in Arabic).

Modern commentators also hold this same view. In his commentary (1934), Yusuf Ali strongly emphasized in explaining each verse concerning the various stages of creation that it is incorrect to interpret the significance of the word yawm as ‘day’; its true significance is ‘a very long period, or ages upon ages, even a period of hundreds or thousands of millennia.’

Thus, it may be said that the Qur’an describes six very long periods as having elapsed in the work of creation. Although modern people possessing scientific knowledge cannot establish the six stages traversed in the complex process of the creation and formation of the universe, it is certainly established that several extremely long periods elapsed in that process, and it would be absurd to estimate those periods as ‘days’ in the sense in which we understand the word.

In one of the Qur’an’s longest passages, while describing the work of creation, an event relating to the heavens is mentioned alongside several events relating to the earth. Verses 9–12 of Surah 41 (Ha Mim al-Sajdah) state: (Allah said to the Messenger)

“Say: ‘Do you indeed disbelieve in Him Who created the earth in two days, and do you set up equals with Him? He is the Lord of the worlds.’”

“He placed firm mountains upon it, blessed it, and apportioned its provisions within four days, equally for all who seek them. Then He turned to the heaven, which was smoke. Thereupon He said to it and to the earth, ‘Come, willingly or unwillingly, in obedience to My command.’ They said, ‘We come willingly obedient.’”

“Then He fashioned them into seven heavens in two days and revealed to each heaven its command. He adorned the nearest heaven with lamps and made it secure. Such is the ordaining of the Almighty, the All-Knowing.”

The matters mentioned in these four verses require detailed discussion. In particular, the primordial gaseous nature of the celestial bodies and the symbolic significance of the number seven for the heavens deserve special investigation. We shall be able to understand the inner meaning and significance of this number. The conversation between Allah and the heavens and the earth is also symbolic.

Here, of course, what is expressed is the submission of the heavens and the earth to Allah’s command after they had been formed.

Critics, however, have found here a contradiction with the six periods of creation. They say that the two periods of the creation of the earth, the four periods of providing food for its inhabitants, and the two periods of the creation of the heavens make eight periods in all. Thus, with the six periods mentioned earlier

there appears to be a clear contradiction.

But this text encourages people to recognize Allah’s sovereignty, and it is actually divided into two parts. The first part concerns the earth and the second the heavens. These two parts are connected by the Arabic word thumma. The word may mean ‘further’, ‘in addition’, or ‘then’. It may therefore indicate the sequence of the events described or the sequence in which people understand them. Alternatively, it may simply describe events without intending to convey any idea of sequence. In any case, it can easily be integrated with the two periods of the creation of the heavens. We shall shortly see how the process of the creation of the universe is presented in the Qur’an, and by examining and comparing it we shall also see that this process applies jointly to the creation of the heavens and the earth and is consistent with modern science. We shall then properly understand how reasonable it is to regard the events described in these four verses as occurring simultaneously.

Thus, there is no contradiction whatsoever between this account and the account elsewhere in the Qur’an describing the creation of the universe in six periods.

The Qur’an Gives No Sequence for the Creation of the Earth and the Heavens

The two surahs of the Qur’an cited above contain accounts of creation. Verse 54 of Surah al-A‘raf mentions the creation of the heavens and the earth, whereas verses 9–12 of Surah Ha Mim al-Sajdah mention the creation of the earth and the heavens. Thus, the Qur’an gives no sequence concerning which of the heavens and the earth was created first.

There are very few surahs—only two—in which the earth is mentioned first. Verse 29 of Surah al-Baqarah and verse 4 of Surah Ta Ha state: “He Who created the earth and the lofty heavens.” By contrast, the number of surahs in which the heavens are mentioned first is much greater, nine in all: verse 54 of Surah al-A‘raf, verse 3 of Surah Yunus, verse 7 of Surah Hud, verse 59 of Surah al-Furqan, verse 4 of Surah al-Sajdah, verse 38 of Surah Qaf, verse 4 of Surah al-Hadid, verses 27–33 of Surah al-Nazi‘at, and verses 5–10 of Surah al-Shams.

In fact, apart from Surah al-Nazi‘at, no specific sequence is given anywhere. Elsewhere, the two subjects are connected by the word wa, meaning ‘and’, or the word thumma, meaning ‘moreover’ or ‘further’. Thus, it may indicate merely a connection, or it may indicate sequence.

It seems to me that only one surah of the Qur’an describes a definite sequence of the various events of creation. Verses 27–33 of Surah al-Nazi‘at state:

“Are you a more difficult creation, or the heaven? He built it; He raised it high and fashioned it.

He darkened its night and brought forth its daylight; then He spread out the earth. From it He brought forth its water and pasture, and He firmly anchored the mountains—for your enjoyment and that of your cattle.”

This description of Allah’s blessings for people in the world is given in language suited to the farmers and Bedouins of the Arabian valleys. But before it, they are invited to reflect on the creation of the heavens. The stage at which Allah spread out and made the earth fertile after completing the alternation of night and day has been placed very appropriately in the chronological sequence. Thus, two classes of events are mentioned here: one relating to the heavens and the other to the earth, and their positions in the sequence of time are specified. The way the context is presented indicates that the earth certainly existed before it was spread out; therefore, when Allah created the heavens, the earth existed. Moreover, the expansion and mutual connection of the heavens and the earth also suggest that they coexisted. Therefore, there is no need to seek any special significance in the Qur’anic verses’ mentioning the creation of the earth first or the heavens first. Unless it is explicitly stated, the sequence of creation cannot be affected by the order of words.

The Fundamental Process of the Formation of the Celestial Bodies and the Resulting Formation of Planets and Satellites

A brief account of the fundamental process of the creation of the celestial bodies is given in two Qur’anic verses.

Surah al-Anbiya, verse 30: “Then He turned to the heaven, which was smoke. Thereupon He said to it and to the earth, ‘Come, willingly or unwillingly, in obedience to My command.’ They said, ‘We come willingly obedient.’”

We shall discuss later the emergence of life from water, along with the other biological issues mentioned in the Quran. For the present, it is necessary to keep the following two points in mind:

(a) The description of the presence of a cloud of smoke containing small and minute particles; the Arabic word “dukhan” denotes such a substance. Smoke is generally formed by a vaporous substance, with fine particles suspended in it in a reasonably stable state. At higher or lower temperatures, these particles may remain in a solid or even a liquid state.

(b) The mention of the process by which the components of the single mass of smoke, which had first been joined together (the Arabic word ratq), were separated (the Arabic word fatq). It is noteworthy that the Arabic word “fatq” means crushing, splitting apart, and separating, while “ratq” means combining or dissolving several components to prepare a single substance.

In other verses of the Quran, in connection with celestial bodies and satellites, there is the idea of dividing an original substance into several parts. At the very beginning of the Quran, immediately after the opening invocation, “In the name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful,” the very first verse of the first surah states: “Praise belongs to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.”

The word “worlds” is mentioned many times in the Quran. Similarly, the heavens are referred to in the plural, not merely because they are numerous, but also because of the symbolic number seven.

This number (seven) is used 24 times in the Quran to indicate various numerical quantities. It often conveys the meaning “many”; why it does so, we do not know. It is said that the Greeks and Romans used the number seven to indicate an indefinite plural. In the Quran, the number seven itself denotes the heavens (samawat). Indeed, this number alone denotes the heavens. The seven paths of the heavens are mentioned once:

“He created for you all that is on the earth; then He turned toward the heaven and arranged it into seven heavens, and He has full knowledge of all things.” (Surah al-Baqarah, verse 29)

“We have created above you seven ways, and We are never heedless of creation.” (Surah al-Mu’minun, verse 17)

“He created seven heavens, one above another. You will not see any flaw in the creation of the Most Compassionate; look again—can you see any defect?” (Surah al-Mulk, verse 3)

“Have you not considered how Allah created seven heavens, one above another, placing the moon therein as a light and the sun as a lamp?” (Surah Nuh, verses 15–16)

(It is noteworthy that in the Bible both the moon and the sun are called “light.” But in the Quran the moon is called a light (nur), while in this verse the sun is called a lamp that gives light (siraj). Later we shall see that other descriptions are also applied to the sun.)

“We built above you seven firm heavens and created a blazing lamp.” (Surah al-Naba, verses 12–13)

Here “blazing lamp” means the sun. Quranic commentators agree that the number seven signifies nothing other than a plural. Apart from the Quran, it can also be seen that in other writings from the time of Muhammad (peace be upon him), the number seven was used to signify a plural. The same meaning is also found in written hadiths from the first century after his time.

Thus, there are many heavens and many earths. A reader of the Quran may therefore be astonished that there might be other earths like ours. Up to our time, this fact has not yet been proved by human beings, but the following advance information appears in verse 12 of Surah 65 (al-Talaq):

“Allah is He who created seven heavens, and likewise the earths. His command descends through all levels of the heavens and the earth, so that you may know that Allah is Powerful over all things and that Allah encompasses all things in knowledge.”

Since we have already seen that the number seven denotes an indefinite plural or a multitude, it is possible to conclude that the Quran’s description suggests that many other earths like ours exist in the universe.

The twentieth-century reader will be surprised to find that the Quran mentions three categories of created things: (1) things in the heavens, (2) things on the earth, and (3) things between the heavens and the earth.

The following verses of the Quran are noteworthy in this connection:

“To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens, the earth, whatever is between them, and whatever is beneath the soil.” (Surah Ta-Ha, verse 6)

“He created the heavens, the earth, and everything between them in six days.” (Surah al-Furqan, verse 9)

“Allah—He created the heavens, the earth, and everything between them in six days.” (Surah al-Sajdah, verse 4)

“We created the heavens, the earth, and everything between them in six days, and no fatigue touched Us.” (Surah Qaf, verse 38)

[The statement that the act of creation did not tire Allah may be regarded as a response to a biblical account. That account says that after working for six days, Allah rested on the seventh day.]

Besides the verses cited above, the following verses also mention “everything between the heavens and the earth”: Surah 21 (al-Anbiya), verse 16; Surah 44 (al-Dukhan), verses 7 and 38; Surah 78 (al-Naba), verse 37; Surah 15 (al-Hijr), verse 85; Surah 46 (al-Ahqaf), verse 3; and Surah 43 (al-Zukhruf), verse 85.

It is very difficult to imagine created things beyond the heavens and beyond the earth. To understand the meaning of these verses, it is necessary to proceed from the simple to the complex: first, one must learn what human beings have been able to determine about objects beyond the Solar System, and then learn the conclusions reached by modern science concerning the structure of the universe. We shall discuss this later.

Before turning to purely scientific matters, we may look once again at what the Quran says about creation. The following information is obtained from the verses quoted above:

1) In general, creation took six periods.

2) The heavens and the earth were connected with one another at different stages of creation.

3) The universe was created from an original mass of smoke after it was split apart.

4) The heavens and the earth are numerous.

5) Created things exist between the heavens and the earth.

Some Facts of Modern Science Concerning the Structure of the Universe

The Solar System

The Earth and the planets revolving around the sun form such an immense and orderly system that it seems gigantic by human standards. Yet the Earth is situated approximately 93 million miles from the sun. By human reckoning this distance is undoubtedly very great, but it is much less than the distance of the planet farthest from the sun, Pluto. Pluto is 3.672 billion miles from the sun, or approximately 40 times farther away than the Earth. Doubling this distance gives an idea of the maximum extent of the Solar System. Sunlight takes about six hours to reach Pluto, although its speed is 186,000 miles per second. Thus, the light from the stars at the edge of the Solar System known to us takes millions upon millions of years to reach us.

The Stars

Our Earth is merely a satellite of the sun. The sun and the various planets revolving around it are very small in size and nature compared with the billions of stars. On summer nights the entire sky appears filled with stars, and this host of stars is called the “Milky Way.” The Milky Way is enormous and gigantic. If the speed of light in the Solar System is measured in hours, light would take about 90,000 years to travel from one edge of the densest cluster of stars to the other. The star system to which our Earth belongs is incredibly vast, yet it is only a very small part of the heavens. Moreover, beyond our star system there are many star clusters like the Milky Way. As a result of advances in astronomy, it became possible to discover these star clusters only a little more than fifty years ago, after precise and powerful telescopes such as the one at Mount Wilson in the United States had been built. They are so numerous and so far apart that a special unit of measurement called the “light-year” had to be established to measure those distances. The distance traveled in 326 years at a speed of 186,000 miles per second is called a light-year.

The Formation and Development of Stars, Star Clusters, and Planetary Systems

What existed originally where the stars now occupy space? Modern science has no answer to this question. It may perhaps speak of some period in the course of the universe’s development. But there is no way to say how long that period lasted according to our present reckoning.

The earliest information obtainable from modern science is that the universe was formed from a mass of vapor. This vapor, composed mainly of hydrogen and some helium, was rotating slowly. It later broke apart into many enormous fragments. Physicists have estimated that each fragment was as large as the sun’s present volume, which is 300,000 times the volume of the Earth. Star clusters were formed from these fragments.

The fragments then broke apart again, forming individual stars. The fragments were rotating at continually increasing speeds. At a certain point the cooling process began, and they were affected by pressure, gravity, magnetism, and radiation energy. As a result of contraction, and of rotational energy being converted into heat energy, the stars became luminous. Then, as the action of heat and nuclear energy began, heavy atoms were formed from the combination of light atoms. Thus the process of evolution began: hydrogen became helium, then carbon and oxygen, and ultimately metals and metallic residues were formed. In this way the stars acquired their own process of birth, and in modern astronomy they are classified according to their present stage of evolution. Stars also have a death. After reaching the final stage of evolution, the internal explosion of some stars has been observed, and as a result they have in fact become “corpses.”

It has already been stated that the original vapor separated and broke apart, producing various planets, especially the Earth. For more than the past twenty-five years, there has been no disagreement at all about the fact that the sun became concentrated within a single fragment of the vapor mass, while the other planets became concentrated within the fragmented vapor masses surrounding it. In this connection, it is important to emphasize that in the formation of a heavenly body such as the sun or a non-luminous body such as the Earth, there is no question of chronological sequence or of one preceding the other. There is an equality and contemporaneity in their origin and development.

Science attempts to provide some information about when all these events occurred. The age of our star system is estimated at 100 billion years, and it is said that the Solar System formed 50 billion years later. According to radiological tests by specialists, the Earth and the sun were formed 4.5 billion years ago. Thus it appears that astrophysicists have been able to acquire considerable knowledge concerning the general process of formation of celestial bodies. The summary of this knowledge is that a rotating mass of vapor became dense and contracted, then broke into fragments, from which the sun and various planets were formed and took their respective positions. Our Earth in the heavens was among them. Regarding the moon, everyone now accepts the possibility that, as the rotational motion slowed, the moon gradually separated from the Earth. The knowledge scientists have acquired about the process by which the original vapor mass and the countless stars divided into different classes were formed leaves no room for doubt about the possibility of multiple worlds. But this does not mean that other earths like ours have been established or proved to exist.

The Concept of Multiple Worlds

Nevertheless, specialists in astrophysics believe that it is quite possible for other planets like Earth to exist. However, considering the general condition of celestial bodies, it is thought unlikely that an environment resembling Earth’s exists there. Therefore, in searching for another Earth, one must look beyond the Solar System, where the existence of other earths is considered quite possible for the following reasons.

Scientists believe that at least half of the 100 billion stars in our star system have satellite systems like the sun’s. Those 50 billion stars truly rotate slowly like the sun, and this characteristic suggests that each has more than one satellite of its own. The stars are so far from the Earth that their satellites cannot be seen. However, because the stars’ orbital paths are somewhat curved and wave-shaped, the existence of satellites is considered quite probable. Barnard’s Star has at least one companion satellite much larger than Jupiter, and may even have two satellites. P. Guerin wrote about this: “All the evidence indicates that satellite systems are widely distributed throughout the universe. Such systems do not exist only in the Solar System and on Earth.” Consequently, “life is naturally spread throughout the universe, just as it is on life-supporting planets, especially wherever material and chemical environments suitable for the development of life exist.”

Interstellar Matter

We have already seen that the original vapor condensed and broke apart, giving rise to stars, planets, and satellites. But the vapor that remained afterward now occupies the spaces between the various stars. As a result, starlight is reflected from it. Some of the vapor is dark and relatively less dense, and is known to obstruct astronomers’ survey work. This matter remains as a connecting link among the various star systems. Considering the immense distances between the star systems, it seems that although this matter is relatively less dense, its total amount is probably much greater than the amount of all the star systems. This writer has placed great emphasis on the condition of this matter, saying that the concept of the universe’s evolution may be considerably changed solely “because of this matter.”

We can now consider the Quran’s conception of the creation of the world in the light of these modern scientific facts.

In Contrast with the Quranic Information

We shall examine the information given in the Quran about creation in five areas.

1) According to the Quran, the work completed during the six periods of the creation of the heavens and the earth consisted of the formation of the celestial bodies and the Earth, together with all the events described in the Quran that occurred on Earth until it became habitable for human beings, including food. These events took four periods. These four periods correspond to the four geological periods of modern science. We know that human settlement began in the final period. However, science’s division into these periods is merely an estimate. No one can provide exact information.

It is noteworthy that Surah Ha-Mim al-Sajdah of the Quran (verses 9–12) states that the formation of the celestial bodies and the Earth took place in two stages. If we take the sun and its offspring, the Earth, as an example—the only example understandable to us—we see that science tells us that the original vapor condensed and later separated, forming the sun and the Earth. The Quran says precisely the same thing. It clearly states that the sun and the Earth were formed after the “smoke” condensed and then separated. Thus, in terms of factual information, there is complete harmony between the Quran and science.

2) Modern science speaks of a connection between the two stages in the formation of a star, such as the sun, and its satellite, such as the Earth. The Quranic verse we have examined explicitly mentions this connection.

3) The “smoke” whose existence at the beginning of the creation of the universe is mentioned in the Quran is clearly the “original vapor” of modern science.

4) Modern science unequivocally supports the Quran’s statement that there is more than one heaven. This support is found in astrophysicists’ views concerning the multiplicity of stars and their vast numbers. On the other hand, the Quran gives an indication that many other earths exist, at least in some respects like ours, but modern science has not yet established the truth of this idea. Specialists, however, believe that the existence of multiple earths is quite possible.

5) The Quran mentions an “intermediate creation” in the space between the “heavens” and the “earth.” Modern science has acknowledged the existence of an “unknown bridge of matter” outside the organized celestial bodies. It is true that not all the matters introduced in the Quran’s description have been fully substantiated by scientific facts, but there is no conflict whatsoever between the Quran’s information about the creation of the universe and modern knowledge. It is especially necessary to emphasize this Quranic information because the information on the same subject in the present-day Old Testament is scientifically unacceptable. The account on the same subject in the Priestly version of the Bible was written by the priests themselves during the Babylonian exile, and its main purpose was to give their religious doctrines a covering of legitimacy. The account in the Yahwist version is so brief and obscure that it is not at all suitable for scientific consideration. It is necessary once again to stress and draw attention to this great difference between the Quranic and biblical accounts. For since the earliest days of Islam, the baseless accusation has been made against Muhammad (peace be upon him) that, regarding the biblical account, he copied it. This accusation is entirely false and baseless. How could a man fourteen hundred years ago discard information that was scientifically incorrect and correct the account of his time? And how could he, through his own efforts, add information and descriptions whose truth could be determined and established only by modern science? Therefore, the accusation that he copied or revised the Bible is completely irrational. The Quranic account of creation is entirely different from the biblical account.

Answers to Some Objections

There is no disagreement, however, about the similarity between the Quran and the Bible in other matters, especially in accounts of religious history. A notable and amusing point in this connection is that, despite the agreement of many facts and teachings with the Old Testament, no one raises the accusation that it was copied. Yet precisely because of this agreement, Muhammad (peace be upon him) is called a fraud in the West—God forbid—and it is said that, although he copied from the Bible, he passed off that copied teaching as revelation. The accusation that he learned from Christian priests and then passed off the same material as revelation is equally baseless. I request those who make this accusation to read once again the book written by R. Blachère, The Problem of Muhammad (Le Problème de Mahomet, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1952). He called all these accusations “fantastic legends.”

It is also suggested that some of the Quran’s other accounts resemble many earlier beliefs found in the Bible.

Religious scriptures generally seek support for creation myths. For example, among the Polynesians there is a widespread belief that the primordial water was immersed in darkness and, after the emergence of the god, it separated. In this way the heavens and the earth were formed. This myth is compared with the account of creation in the Bible. There is indeed a similarity between them, but there is no reason to accuse anyone of writing the biblical account by copying that myth.

Similarly, the claim that the Qur’an borrowed from various legends the idea it contains concerning the initial separation of the primordial elements of the universe, an idea supported by modern science, and inserted it into the Qur’an, is baseless. Nevertheless, these legends and mythological tales may be examined closely. They often contain an initial idea that appears reasonable and, if the fanciful descriptions are set aside, seems consistent with what we now know—or think we know—to be true. This idea is that, in the beginning, the heavens and the earth were joined together and later separated. But when, in Japan, an egg, a seed within it, and chaos all around are added to this idea, the whole matter loses its significance. In other countries, a sapling is added instead of an egg. The sapling gradually grows, and at the same time the heavens separate and rise above the earth. Here too, this fanciful elaboration is the distinctive feature of the legend. Nevertheless, the basic idea is found everywhere.

Human imagination has created ornamentation and embellishment in various ways, and the Qur’an’s

description is fundamentally different; the legends have been mentioned here precisely to demonstrate this difference. The Qur’an’s description contains no fanciful details; its language and choice of words are restrained and consistent with modern scientific facts. No human explanation is possible for how such an accurate account of creation came into the Qur’an fourteen centuries ago.

Astronomy in the Qur’an

The Qur’an contains many thoughts, ideas, and directions concerning the heavens. In our earlier discussion of creation, we saw that it mentions multiple heavens and multiple earths, and speaks of an intermediate creation in the space between the heavens and the earth. Modern science has found evidence of this intermediate creation. The verses concerning creation provide a general idea of what exists in the heavens—that is, beyond the earth.

In addition to the specific verses concerning creation, the Qur’an contains about forty other verses with information relating to astronomy. They provide guidance for reflection and thought concerning the created bodies of the celestial sphere. In some verses, there is nothing beyond an invitation to recognize the greatness of the Creator as the organizer of the stars and planetary systems. In any case, we know that the stars and planetary systems are in a perfectly balanced state, and Newton explained in detail, through his principle of the mutual attraction of planets, that this state is permanent and stable.

The verses we shall quote first contain little information for scientific analysis; nevertheless, they need to be quoted to draw attention to Allah’s omnipotence. Moreover, they are necessary for understanding the realistic description given in the Qur’an fifteen hundred years ago concerning the organization of the universe.

In the case of revelation, all these facts and contexts form a complete whole. For this subject of the organization of the universe is found neither in the Old Testament nor in the Bible. Some ideas are mentioned, but we saw, when discussing the biblical account of creation, that they are entirely erroneous and merely fanciful. In the Qur’an, however, this subject is described deeply and in detail. What is stated is very important, but what is not stated is also sufficiently important. For example, the Qur’an makes no mention of the theories concerning the organization of the celestial sphere that were current when the Qur’an was revealed.

Later, scientists proved all those theories to be completely wrong. A specific example of this will be presented later.

Although the matter is entirely negative, it is very important to mention it. For many of those who scour heaven and earth to provide a human explanation—no other explanation, merely a human explanation—for the information given in the Qur’an, I have heard say: “If the Qur’an contains remarkable descriptions relating to astronomy, the reason is that the Arabs were highly knowledgeable in that field.” But they do not notice that the study of science generally developed in Muslim countries after the Qur’an was revealed, and that even the scientific knowledge of that age was not sufficient for anyone to compose the relevant verses of the Qur’an. Later, we shall establish the truth of this statement with facts and examples.

General Guidance for Thought and Reflection Concerning the Heavens

“Do they not look at the sky above them—how We have built it and made it free of fissures?”—Surah 50 (Qaf), verse 6: A general matter for people.

“He created the heavens without pillars—you can see them…” Surah 13 (al-Ra’d), verse 2.

“Allah has raised the heavens above without pillars—you can see them. Then He established Himself upon the Throne and subjected the sun and the moon to regulation………”

These two verses refute the prevailing belief that the heavens are set upon pillars and therefore do not fall and destroy the earth.

“He raised the sky high……” Surah 55 (al-Rahman), verse 7.

“He holds the sky in place so that it does not fall upon the earth except by His permission.”—Surah 22 (al-Hajj), verse 65.

It is now universally known that the balance of the various planets and satellites in the celestial sphere is determined and maintained on the basis of their immense mutual distances and their sizes and volumes. The greater the distance, the weaker the force of mutual attraction. When the distance is smaller, the force of attraction is greater.

Since the moon is close to the earth, it affects the waters of the earth’s oceans according to the law of gravitational attraction, and this

phenomenon is known as the tides. If two planets come very close to each other, a collision is inevitable. But the reason collisions do not occur is that all planets and satellites are subject to a governing order. The Qur’an mentions in many places that Allah has subjected them to this order.

Allah said to the Prophet: “Ask, ‘Who is the Lord of the seven heavens and the Lord of the Mighty Throne?’”—Surah 23 (al-Mu’minun), verse 86.

We have already explained that the seven heavens does not mean only seven heavens, but an indefinite multitude of heavens.

“He has subjected to you whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth, all from His grace. Surely in this are signs for a people who reflect.”—Surah 45 (al-Jathiyah), verse 13.

“The sun and the moon move according to a determined orbit.” Surah 25 (al-Rahman), verse 5.

“He created the night for rest, and the moon and the sun for reckoning.” Surah 6 (al-An’am), verse 96.

“He has subjected the sun and the moon to you, both continuously following the same order, and He has subjected the night and the day to you.”—Surah 14 (Ibrahim), verse 33.

Here one verse complements the other. It is because the planets and satellites have been subjected to the same order that they regularly revolve in their appointed orbits. The Arabic word ‘da’ib’ has been used to express this meaning. Its basic meaning is ‘to work with devotion and eagerness for something.’ But as the word is used here, its meaning and significance are ‘to continue doing something devotedly and unchangingly on the basis of an established pattern of behavior.’

Surah 36 (Ya-Sin), verse 39: Allah said: “And for the moon We have determined phases, until it returns like an old, curved date palm branch.”

A date-palm branch dries, contracts, and takes the shape of a curved crescent. The matter will be explained further later.

Surah 16 (al-Nahl), verse 12: “He has subjected to you the night, the day, the sun, and the moon; and the stars are subjected to His command. Surely in this are signs for a people who understand.”

The subject has been considered from the practical perspective of the important role of the celestial sphere as an aid to people’s travel by land and sea and to keeping track of time. If we remember that the Qur’an’s message was addressed to people who understood the simple language of daily life, it will be easier to understand the meaning of this statement. That is why the following verse uses even simpler language.

Surah 6 (al-An’am), verse 97: “He is the One who created the stars for you so that you may find your way by them through the darkness of the land and the sea. We have explained the signs in detail for people who know.”

Surah 16 (al-Nahl), verse 16: “And He created landmarks, and by the stars they find guidance.”

Surah 10 (Yunus), verse 5: “It is He who made the sun radiant and the moon luminous, and determined its phases so that you may know the number of years and the reckoning of time. Allah did not create this except with purpose. He explains these signs in detail for people who know.”

It should be noted here that in the Bible both the sun and the moon are called ‘lights,’ with one described as ‘greater’ and the other as ‘lesser.’ In contrast, the Qur’an highlights not merely a difference in degree but a fundamental difference, calling them ‘radiant’ and ‘luminous.’ This difference might be regarded as merely verbal, but how else could it have been made clear, without causing confusion, that the two are not the same kind of light?

The Nature of the Celestial Bodies: The Sun and the Moon

The sun is a radiant glow (diya) and the moon is a light (nur). This translation seems more accurate. In translations made differently by some, the two words carry almost the same meaning. The word ‘diya’ comes from the root d-w-a. In the Arabic-French dictionary written by Kazimirski, its meaning is given as ‘to shine,’ ‘to become illuminated’ (like fire). The word ‘light’ has also been used. Consequently, the difference in the essential nature of the sun and the moon does not appear very significant in terms of meaning. However, to determine this difference, we can turn to the Qur’an itself.

Surah 25 (al-Furqan), verse 61: “Blessed is He who created the heavens, placed in them constellations, and placed therein the sun and a luminous moon.”

Surah 71 (Nuh), verses 15–16: “Have you not seen how Allah created the seven heavens, one above another, and placed the moon therein as a light and the sun as a lamp?”

Surah 78 (al-Naba), verses 12–13: “We built above you seven firm heavens, and created a blazing lamp.”

The blazing lamp clearly refers to the sun. The moon, on the other hand, is described as a celestial body that gives light (munir). The word munir comes from the root nur. Thus, the light (nur) is applied in the case of the moon (munir). The sun, however, is compared with a lamp (siraj) or a blazing (wahhaj) lamp.

It was very easy for anyone living in Muhammad’s time to understand this difference. For the inhabitants of the desert, the sun’s radiant, blazing form and the moon’s cool light were very familiar. Thus, the comparison used in the Qur’an to describe these two celestial bodies was entirely natural. It is noteworthy, however, that the comparison uses nothing that existed at that time but no longer exists. Consequently, even after all this time, we have no difficulty understanding the matter.

We know that the sun is a star that is intrinsically incandescent and therefore radiates heat and light. The moon, on the other hand, emits no light of its own; rather, as an inert body—at least as regards its outer surface—it merely reflects the light received from the sun.

Thus, it can be seen that whatever we now know about the sun and the moon through science, there is nothing in the Qur’an contrary to it.

The Stars

Like the sun, stars are celestial bodies. Many natural phenomena occur in these bodies; among them, the most readily observable is the production of light. In other words, a star produces its own light.

The word ‘star’ occurs thirteen times in the Qur’an. The Arabic word najm, plural nujum, comes from a root meaning ‘to appear’ or ‘to become visible.’ The word conveys only the meaning of a visible celestial body; it gives no indication whether the body itself produces light or reflects the light of another. However, the Qur’an uses an adjective to make clear that the celestial body is a star.

Surah 86 (al-Tariq), verses 1–3: “By the sky and the night visitor; and what will make you know what the night visitor is? It is the piercing star!”

In the Qur’an, saqib is used as an adjective for the evening star. The word means ‘that which pierces something.’ Here it is used in the sense of piercing the darkness of night. The same word is also used to indicate meteors in Surah al-Saffat (Surah 37, verse 10). It is noteworthy that meteors result from fiery phenomena involving stars.

The Planets

It is difficult to say whether the various planets are identified in the Qur’an in exactly the same way that planets are identified by specific names in the present age.

Planets have no light of their own; they revolve around the sun. The earth is such a revolving planet. Planets may also exist elsewhere, but all the planets known so far are located in the solar system.

In ancient times, people knew of the existence of planets other than Earth. These five planets were Mercury (Budh), Venus (Mangal), Mars (Mangal), Jupiter (Brihaspati), and Saturn (Shani). In recent times, three more planets have been discovered—Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. In the Qur’an, the word kawkab, plural kawakib, denotes the planetary sphere, but the number of planets is not stated. Eleven planets are mentioned in Yusuf’s dream (Surah 12, Yusuf), but that description is imaginary as a definition.

A good definition of the meaning of kawkab seems to be given in a famous Qur’anic verse. The spiritual nature of the deeper significance of this definition is very evident, and religious experts also debate the subject. Nevertheless, the metaphorical description of the word in that verse suggests that it may refer specifically to a ‘planet.’

Surah 24 (al-Nur), verse 35: “Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth. The likeness of His light is as a niche containing a lamp; the lamp is in a glass, and the glass is like a brilliant star.” Here the matter concerns the projection of light onto an object—the glass—which reflects that light and itself becomes luminous, just as the moon is illuminated by the sun’s light. This is the Qur’an’s only explanatory description of the word kawkab.

The word also occurs in other verses. But in several of them it is difficult to determine which celestial body the word denotes. For example, Surah 6 (al-An’am), verse 76, and Surah 82 (al-Infitar), verses 1–2.

However, when considered in the light of modern science, it seems that in at least one verse the celestial object mentioned specifically points toward the planets known to us.

Surah 37 (al-Saffat), verse 6: “We have adorned the lowest heaven with the stars.”

Does the Qur’an’s ‘lowest heaven’ mean the solar system? It is now well known that among the celestial bodies nearest to us, there are no permanent bodies other than planets, and that the sun is the only star in the solar system with a proper name. Therefore, if planets are not meant, it is difficult to determine what else could be meant. The translation presented for the verse thus appears correct, and it seems that the Qur’an probably refers to what we now understand by the word planets.

The Lowest Heaven

The Qur’an mentions the lowest heaven several times. At the same time, it mentions the celestial bodies and says that they are located in the lowest heaven. We have already seen that among the various celestial bodies, planets must be given first place. When purely spiritual and natural descriptions in the Qur’an are connected with the concepts of objects that we have come to know through modern science, we cannot always grasp their meaning with complete clarity.

For example, we can easily understand the meaning of the verse quoted earlier (Surah 37, al-Saffat, verse 6: “We have adorned the lowest heaven with the stars”). But the very next verse of the same surah (verse 7) says: “And We have protected it from every rebellious devil.” The protection is also mentioned in Surah al-Anbiya (Surah 21, verse 32): “And We made the sky a protected roof,” and in Surah Ha-Mim al-Sajdah (Surah 41, verse 12): “And He adorned the lowest heaven with lamps and made it protected.” But here we encounter an entirely different significance.

Moreover, verse 5 of Surah al-Mulk (Surah 67) says: “We have adorned the lowest heaven with lamps and made them missiles against the devils, and We have prepared for them the punishment of the blazing Fire.” What could be meant here in the lowest heaven by ‘missiles against the devils’? Are those lamps themselves the missiles? (We know, of course, that when a meteor reaches the upper layers of the atmosphere, a luminous phenomenon occurs, as though a star had been hurled.)

But these matters perhaps lie beyond the scope of our present discussion. Nevertheless, they have all been mentioned here in the interest of presenting a complete picture. Since these matters remain beyond the limits of human comprehension, it is probably impossible to obtain an intelligible explanation with their help.

The Organization of the Celestial Sphere

The information in the Qur’an on this subject relates mainly to the solar system. There are, of course, many references to objects beyond the solar system as well, and those objects were discovered only very recently. The Qur’an contains two extremely important verses concerning the orbits of the sun and the moon.

Surah 21 (al-Anbiya), verse 33: “It is He who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. Each floats in its own orbit.”

An important fact is given here: the sun and the moon have their own orbits. We also learn that these two celestial bodies move in their own motion. The two verses also provide a negative piece of information. It is stated that the sun moves in an orbit, but, in relation to the earth, what this orbit is is not stated. At the time the Qur’an was revealed, it was believed that the sun revolved and the earth remained stationary. This belief prevailed from the time of Ptolemy in the second century BCE until the time of Copernicus in the sixteenth century CE. People held the same belief during Muhammad’s time, yet the Qur’an makes no mention of it anywhere.

The Orbits of the Moon and the Sun

The Arabic word falak has been translated here as ‘orbit.’ Many Persian translators of the Qur’an have assigned the word the meaning ‘sphere.’ Its primary significance does indeed appear to be that. Hamidullah, however, translated it as ‘orbit.’

Earlier translators of the Qur’an were quite confused about the word, because they could not conceive of the orbits of the Moon and the Sun as circular. Consequently, they imagined the shape of those paths to be either approximately correct or completely wrong. While mentioning various interpretations of the word in his translation of the Qur’an, C. Hamza Boubakeur said: “A special axle like an iron rod, around which a wheel revolves; the sphere of the celestial bodies; an orbit; the signs of the zodiac; motion; waves.” At the same time, however, he quoted this comment by the famous tenth-century Qur’anic commentator Tabari: “When we do not know, we should remain silent.” Thus, if the concept of an orbit had been known or familiar in Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) time, understanding the meaning of those two Qur’anic verses would not have been so difficult then. Therefore, a completely new concept had appeared in the Qur’an, whose correct significance became possible to understand only several centuries later.

The Moon’s Orbit

The idea that the Moon is a satellite of the Earth and revolves around it once every twenty-nine days is now widely accepted. However, its orbit is not perfectly circular; in modern astronomy it is described as somewhat curved. Thus, the distance of the Moon from the Earth—240,000 miles—is an average distance.

We have already noted the importance that the Qur’an places on observing the Moon’s motion for calculating time. (Surah 10, Yunus, verse 5, quoted earlier.)

When the Qur’an was revealed, during the Julian calendar period, the inhabitants of that region were accustomed to measuring time on the basis of the Moon’s movements. Moreover, since the Qur’an was initially revealed for them, it was appropriate to speak in a language referring to the signs and indications in the heavens and on Earth that they could understand, without disrupting their customs. In addition, their lunar method of measuring time was precise and practical. It is now universally known that desert people were highly skilled in observing the sky; they navigated ships by the positions of the stars and measured time by the Moon’s phases. In that era, this process was the easiest and most reliable for them.

Apart from specialists, many people know that there is complete harmony between the Julian (solar) and lunar calendars: 235 lunar months amount to exactly 19 Julian years of 365.25 days. But even our calculation of a year as 365 days is not exact, because it must be corrected every four years (a leap year). In the lunar calendar, this discrepancy appears every 19 years (recall the 19 years of the Julian, or solar, calendar). This is the Metonic cycle, named after the Greek astronomer Meton, who discovered this precise relationship between solar and lunar calculations in the fifth century BCE.

The Sun’s Orbit

The idea of the Sun’s orbit is more difficult to conceive. We are accustomed to seeing the entire solar system arranged around the Sun. To understand the Qur’anic verse, we need to use our imagination.

There are countless stars in our galaxy. The galaxy as a whole is shaped like a disk: the stars are very densely concentrated at its center and become sparser toward the edge. In this disk, the Sun is located far from the center. Celestial bodies revolve around their own center. Consequently, the Sun also revolves in an orbit around that same center. Modern astronomy has made it possible to prepare a detailed account of this process. In 1917, a scientist named Shapley determined that the distance from the Sun to the center of the galaxy was 10 kiloparsecs, that is, as many miles as there are after placing 17 zeros after the number 2. The galaxy and the Sun take approximately 250 million years to complete one revolution around their own center, and during this journey the Sun travels at about 150 miles per second.

This is precisely what the Qur’an said fourteen centuries ago about the motion of the Sun in its orbit. Modern astronomy has succeeded in demonstrating and proving, through practical observation, the existence and detailed mechanism of this process, and this achievement is only one among many.

The Movement of the Moon and the Sun through Space by Their Own Power

This concept is absent from the translations of the Qur’an made by learned men. Since they knew nothing about astronomy, they selected one of the several meanings of the relevant Arabic word—“to swim”—and translated it accordingly. This is the case in all the French translations, and the same thing occurred in the otherwise highly commendable English translation by Allama Yusuf Ali (published by Sheikh Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, Pakistan). (Note by the Bengali translator: Mr. Bucaille’s comment also applies to the Bengali translation of the Qur’an published by the Islamic Foundation.)

The Arabic verb sahaba (yasbahun in the two quoted verses) conveys the meaning of moving by one’s own power. All the meanings of the word suggest that the force driving the motion comes from the body of the moving object itself. If the motion occurs in water, it means “swimming”; if it occurs on land, it means “walking,” that is, moving by the power of the feet. But if the motion occurs in space, there seems to be no alternative but to apply the basic meaning of the word: moving by one’s own power. Therefore, it may not be said that the translation was mistaken. First, while the Moon revolves around the Earth, it also rotates on its own axis, taking an average of 29.5 days. Consequently, the same side of the Moon always faces us. Second, the Sun takes approximately 25 days to rotate once around its own axis. There are some differences in this motion between the equatorial and polar regions (we will not go into a detailed explanation of this now), but overall, the energy of this motion is generated by the Sun’s own body.

Thus, it appears that the semantic significance of the word used in the Qur’an refers precisely to motion generated by the Moon’s and the Sun’s own power. This truth has been supported by facts discovered by modern science. There seems to be no way to explain how a seventh-century man, however learned he may have been at that time, could have arrived at this idea. Moreover, Muhammad (peace be upon him) certainly cannot be regarded as knowledgeable in the field of astronomy.

Some people do not accept this argument. They say that many learned people in ancient times made predictions that have now been proved true by modern scientific experiments. Surely, they did not rely on scientific facts, but on philosophical ideas. In this connection, the example of the Pythagoreans is cited: they strongly supported, as early as the sixth century BCE, the theory that the Earth rotates on its own axis and that the planets revolve around the Sun. Later, modern scientific experiments proved this to be true. Similarly, the gifted thinker Muhammad (peace be upon him) may have imagined something that was established as true many centuries later. In presenting this argument, however, they forget to mention that those philosophical rationalists also made extremely serious errors. As an example, it may be recalled that the Pythagoreans also emphatically asserted that the Sun was stationary in space, that the Sun was the center of the universe, and that the galaxy was likewise heliocentric. It is very common to find a mixture of true and false ideas about the universe in the writings of ancient philosophers. These gifted people did indeed bequeath ideas far ahead of their age, but at the same time they also passed on many mistaken ideas. From the standpoint of sound scientific judgment, this is where they differ from the Qur’an. The Qur’an contains many references and descriptions concerning the universe, and every one of them has been proved true by modern scientific experiments; not one has been shown to contradict scientific fact.

The Succession of Day and Night

When the Earth was regarded as the center of the universe and it was thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth, why was the Sun’s motion not mentioned at all when discussing the succession of day and night? The Qur’an does not address this matter in exactly those terms, but it describes it as follows:

Surah 7 (Al-A‘raf), verse 54: “He covers the day with the night, each pursuing the other swiftly…”

Surah 36 (Ya-Sin), verse 37: “And a sign for them is the night: We strip the daylight from it, and behold, they are plunged into darkness.”

Surah 31 (Luqman), verse 5: “Do you not see that Allah causes the night to enter into the day and the day to enter into the night?”

Surah 39 (Az-Zumar), verse 5: “He wraps the day over the night and wraps the night over the day.”

The first quoted verse requires no explanation. The second presents a picture. In fact, the third and fourth verses provide intriguing information about day turning into night and night into day. The best way to translate the Arabic verb kawwara is probably to use the words “to wrap” or “to wind around.” Arberry and Rashid Rida have done so in their French translations. The basic meaning of the verb is to “wrap” a turban around the head, and this idea is reflected in all the meanings of the word.

But what actually happens in space? American astronauts observed the phenomenon from their spacecraft while on the Moon, far from the Earth, and also photographed it. They saw that the Sun always—except during an eclipse—illuminates half of the Earth’s surface, while the remaining half is dark. The Earth rotates around its own axis, while the lighting pattern remains the same. Thus, just as the illuminated half of the globe rotates once every twenty-four hours, the dark half also rotates once during that period. This continuous alternation of day and night is clearly described in the Qur’an. Since we now know about the Earth’s rotation and the Sun’s relative stability, it is easy for us to conceive and understand the matter. This perpetual wrapping process, and the passage of one half of the globe into the position of the other half, is described in the Qur’an as though the concept of the Earth’s roundness were already known at that time; but clearly that is not correct.

In connection with the succession of day and night, it is also necessary to mention the concept of multiple easts and multiple wests. Since this matter depends on ordinary observation, it is purely descriptive. The Qur’an says:

Surah 70 (Al-Ma‘arij), verse 40: “Lord of the points of sunrise and the points of sunset.”

Surah 55 (Ar-Rahman), verse 17: “He is the Lord of the two easts and the Lord of the two wests.”

Surah 43 (Az-Zukhruf), verse 38: “Here, ‘the distance between the two easts’ is mentioned, expressing the idea of an immense distance between two places.”

If sunrise and sunset are observed carefully, it will be seen that they do not always occur at exactly the same place. The location changes according to the season. The two extreme points in the east at which the Sun rises may be called the two easts. At various intermediate points, the Sun rises and sets at different times of the year. This phenomenon is so ordinary that it can be seen with the naked eye, and no scientific experiment is needed to prove its truth.

The Evolution of the Heavens

In describing the modern concept of the creation of the universe, it has been stated that celestial bodies, stars, the Sun, and other planets and satellites were gradually formed from an initial nebula. According to modern science, this evolution and development are still continuing in the solar system and, generally, throughout the universe.

Those familiar with this concept may be interested in comparing it with several Qur’anic verses. These verses mention manifestations of Allah’s sovereignty.

The Qur’an repeatedly reminds us: “(Allah) has subjected the Sun and the Moon; each travels for a specified term.”

This statement appears in Surah Ar-Ra‘d, verse 2; Surah Luqman, verse 29; Surah Fatir, verse 13; and Surah Az-Zumar, verse 5.

In addition, Surah Luqman, verse 38, combines the idea of a destination with that of a specified place: “The Sun travels toward its appointed course. This is determined by the Almighty, the All-Knowing.”

“Appointed course” is the Bengali translation of the Arabic word mustaqar. There is no doubt that the idea of a specific place is associated with this word. What do we find when we compare all these descriptions with the facts of modern science?

The Qur’an mentions a boundary and a destination for the Sun’s orbit. It also speaks of an appointed course for the Moon. To understand the meaning of this description, it is necessary to know the modern scientific concept of the galaxy in general and the Sun’s orbit in particular. It is also necessary to know about the orbits of the celestial bodies, including the Moon, that follow the Sun’s motion.

According to astrophysicists, the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. Like other stars, it is possible to determine a stage in the Sun’s evolution. At present, the Sun is in its initial stage. The conversion of hydrogen atoms into helium atoms is characteristic of this stage. This stage will continue for another 5.5 billion years, because the total lifespan of stars of this type is considered to be 10 billion years. In the case of other stars of this type, it has been observed that a second stage begins after the first. At that point, the conversion of hydrogen into helium comes to an end, the star’s outer covering expands, and the amount of heat from the Sun decreases. In the final stage, its light diminishes considerably and its density increases greatly. This condition is observed in stars of the white-dwarf type.

The approximate figures for years given above are intended to provide an idea of the duration of time; the important point, however, is to highlight the process of evolution. On the basis of modern scientific observations, it is now possible to estimate that after 30 to 50 billion years, the present condition of the solar system will no longer exist. From the fate of other stars whose radiation processes and evolution have been recorded through their final stages, it is possible to predict that the Sun, too, will one day come to an end.

It may be recalled that Surah Luqman, verse 38, speaks of the Sun moving toward its own destination.

Modern astronomy has made it possible to identify that place precisely and has given it the name Solar Apex. The solar system is indeed moving through space toward a particular region among the stars of Hercules, whose position has now been accurately determined; its speed has been calculated at approximately 12 miles per second.

It is necessary to mention these astronomical facts in connection with the Qur’anic verse quoted above, because it appears that the facts of modern science completely correspond to the Qur’anic description.

The Expansion of the Universe

The most astonishing discovery of modern science is that the universe is continually expanding. This concept is now proven and established, although there is some disagreement about how it occurs.

This concept first arose from the theory of general relativity and later received support from the study of galaxies in physics. As each galaxy gradually moves away from its own center, its distance from the other galaxies increases. The size of the universe will increase in the same proportion. Along with this process of expansion, the galaxies are advancing at a speed greater than the speed of light.

This modern concept may be compared with verse 47 of Surah Adh-Dhariyat. Allah said: “We built the heaven with Our power, and indeed We are expanding it.”

“Heaven” is a translation of the Arabic word sama, which refers to the world situated above the Earth. The present-tense plural form of the Arabic verb awsa is musi‘un. The word awsa means to widen, expand, extend, broaden, or enlarge. The meaning of musi‘un is: “We are expanding it.”

Some translators, failing to grasp this significance, produced translations that seem incorrect to me. For example, in the French translation, R. Blachère rendered it: “We give generously.” Other translators understood the meaning but lacked the courage to express it. Hamidullah did mention the expansion of the heavens and outer space, but added a question mark. Many translators, however, after becoming aware of the correct scientific facts, adopted the meaning presented here in their commentaries. This meaning is given in the commentary called Muntakhab, edited by Cairo’s Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs. There, the expansion of the universe is stated explicitly.

The Conquest of Space

From this perspective, it is necessary to focus closely on three Qur’anic verses. One verse clearly states what success human beings can and will achieve in this field. The other two verses, referring to the disbelievers of Mecca, say that if they were able to ascend into the heavens, they would look at the scene there and be overwhelmed with astonishment. A subject is introduced here that those disbelievers could not have understood.

The first verse is Surah Ar-Rahman, verse 33: “O company of jinn and mankind, if you are able to pass beyond the regions of the heavens and the Earth, then pass beyond them; but you cannot pass beyond them without power.”

This translation requires some explanation and analysis. First, the word “if” indicates that the success of the proposition depends on a possible or impossible condition. In Arabic, however, it is possible to convey that condition much more clearly. The word idha may be used to express possibility, in for an action that can be accomplished, and law for an action that cannot be accomplished. Since the word in is used in the verse under discussion, the action is understood to be feasible. In other words, it is genuinely possible for human beings to pass beyond the boundaries of the heavens and the Earth. The purely philosophical interpretations offered by some commentators are thus shown to be wrong by this very feature of the wording.

Second, Allah addressed jinn and human beings, not imaginary creatures. Third, the verb nafadha is followed by the preposition min, translated here as “to pass beyond.” According to Qazi Mirsky’s dictionary, the word means “to enter inside an object and emerge through the other side” (as an arrow enters one side of an object and comes out through the other). Thus, deep penetration and going beyond the penetrated area are implied.

Fourth, it appears that the power (sultan) required for this human undertaking will come from the Almighty Himself, because the very next verse calls people to recognize Allah’s mercy.

Thus, this verse gives a clear indication that human beings will one day conquer space. It is noteworthy that the verse hints not only at conquering the heavens, but also at passing through the Earth—in other words, conquering the underworld.

The other two verses are verses 14 and 15 of Surah Al-Hijr. From the context, it is clear that Allah is speaking here about the disbelievers of Mecca: “Even if We opened for them a gate in the heavens and they continued ascending through it during the day, they would still say, ‘Our eyes have been dazzled; rather, we are a bewitched people.’”

These words express astonishment at seeing an unprecedented scene—one that human beings had never even imagined.

It may be noted that the sentence begins with “if,” the Arabic word law. This means that the proposition is made conditional upon a circumstance that the people mentioned in the verse could never fulfill.

In the verses concerning the conquest of space, we saw that human beings will one day conquer space through the intelligence and capacity for invention granted by Allah. But this verse describes a scene that the disbelieving people of Mecca could never see. Others, however, can see this scene, and the verse describes the feeling it will produce in them (the astronauts): their vision will become confused, as it does when one is intoxicated or bewitched.

Since astronauts first traveled around the Earth in outer space in 1961, they have had precisely this experience, and in describing it they have said exactly this. It is now universally known that, when viewed from above the Earth’s atmosphere, the sky no longer appears blue. Because the atmosphere absorbs sunlight, the sky appears blue when viewed from beneath it. After rising above the Earth’s atmosphere, people see the sky as black and, for the same reason—the atmosphere’s absorption of sunlight—see it as covered with a blue tint. Since the Moon has no atmosphere, the completely novel and unprecedented sight of a black sky in that condition, and photographs of it, are now very familiar to people of the present age.

Here too, when the Qur’an’s description is compared with the findings of modern science, one is overwhelmed and stunned with amazement. The Qur’an’s description therefore cannot in any way be the description of a person from fourteen hundred years ago.

The Earth

Like the other subjects discussed so far in this book, the verses concerning the Earth are scattered throughout the Qur’an. Classifying all these verses is difficult, and the way I have classified them here is entirely my own method.

For a correct understanding of their meaning, one may first select those verses in which several subjects are mentioned together. These verses have a general applicability and call upon people to understand Allah’s greatness on the basis of the examples described.

Other verses introduce more specific subjects, such as the water cycle and the sea, the nature of the Earth’s surface, and the Earth’s climate.

Verses of General Description

Although the verses in this category generally provide grounds for recognizing the Creator’s mercy and greatness toward creation, they sometimes contain descriptions that are intriguing from the perspective of modern science. This is particularly significant in relation to the people of that time, when the Qur’an was revealed. Later, on the basis of scientific facts and knowledge, these ideas and beliefs were proven erroneous.

Conversely, those verses express certain simple concepts that were readily understandable to the Arabs. For geographical reasons, the Qur’an was initially addressed to them. They were the inhabitants of Mecca and Medina and the Bedouins of the Arabian Peninsula. Yet those verses also contain ideas of a general nature from which people at any time and in any place who are more advanced can derive deeper knowledge, and this is a sign of the Qur’an’s universal and international character.

As I said earlier, the verses have no classification. Therefore, here we are following the sequence of the surah numbers.

Surah 2 (Al-Baqarah), verse 22: “It is Allah who made the earth a bed for you and the sky a canopy, and sent down water from the sky, thereby producing fruits for you. So do not knowingly set up anyone as an equal to Allah.”

Surah 2 (Al-Baqarah), verse 164: “Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth, the alternation of night and day, the ships that sail through the sea with what benefits people, the water Allah sends down from the sky with which He revives the earth after its death, the spreading of every kind of creature throughout it, the changing of the winds, and the clouds controlled between the sky and the earth, there are signs for a people who understand.”

Surah 13 (Al-Ra‘d), verse 3: “It is He who spread out the earth and placed mountains and rivers in it, and created every kind of fruit in pairs. He covers the day with night. Surely in this are signs for a people who reflect.”

Surah 15 (Al-Hijr), verses 19–21: “And the earth We have spread out, and placed upon it mountains, and created in it every thing in due proportion. And We provided in it sustenance for you and for those whose provision you do not provide. There is no thing whose stores are not with Us, and We send it down only in a measured amount.”

Surah 20 (Ta-Ha), verses 53–54: “It is Allah who made the earth a bed for you and made pathways for you in it. He sends down water from the sky and thereby brings forth various kinds of plants. Eat and pasture your cattle; surely in this are signs for those who possess understanding.”

Surah 27 (Al-Naml), verse 61: “It is Allah who made the earth a dwelling place, caused rivers to flow through it, set firm mountains in it, and placed a barrier between the two seas. Is there another deity alongside Allah? Yet most of them do not know.”

Here the general solidity of the Earth’s surface layer is being discussed. We know that during the first stage of the Earth’s formation, that layer was not solid before it cooled. Even now, however, the layer is not equally solid everywhere, because there are many areas where earthquakes occur frequently. Regarding the barrier between the two seas, it may be recalled that the water of great rivers does not mix with seawater at the mouths of their gulfs.

Surah 67 (Al-Mulk), verse 15: “He made the earth manageable for you; so travel throughout its regions and eat from His provision. To Him is the return after the Resurrection.”

Surah 79 (Al-Nazi‘at), verses 30–33: “After that, He spread out the earth; He brought forth from it its springs and pastures, and firmly anchored the mountains. All this is for your enjoyment and that of your livestock.”

Many such verses emphasize the importance of water and the benefit of water in the soil, namely, the soil’s fertility. There is no doubt that in desert countries human life and death depend on water. But the Qur’an’s treatment of this subject is not limited to this narrow geographical significance. According to modern science, Earth is the only planet in the solar system that has water, and the Qur’an emphasizes precisely this characteristic. Without water, Earth would have become a dead planet like the Moon. Among the various matters concerning the Earth, the Qur’an mentions water first. Moreover, the water cycle is described in the Qur’an in a precise and accurate manner.

The Water Cycle and the Sea

If the Qur’anic verses concerning the role of water in human life are read one after another, it will be seen that they contain statements that are very easy for us to understand. This is because, in the present age, nearly all of us are more or less familiar with the natural water cycle.

Considering the ideas that prevailed in ancient times on this subject, it can be seen that they were essentially based on conjecture and imagination. Although those ideas were current when the Qur’an was revealed, they found no place in the Qur’an itself. Even if some of the knowledge necessary for this purpose could be acquired through conjectural reasoning, such ideas are no longer acceptable in the present age.

It was easy to suppose that underground water seeped down from above. In ancient times, Vitruvius Pollio Marcus, a Roman who lived in the first century BCE,

believed this theory. But many considered this idea exceptional. Thus, it appears that for many centuries—and this included the period when the Qur’an was revealed—people held completely mistaken notions about the movement of water.

Two specialists, G. Paschini and B. Blavoux, have given an excellent history of the problem in an article in the Encyclopaedia Universalis. They said: “In the seventh century BCE, Thales of Miletus held the view that seawater, driven by the wind, moved toward the land, and that after falling on the ground it entered the soil. Plato believed this theory and thought that the water returned to the sea through some deep underground passage, Tartarus. This theory had many supporters until the eighteenth century, one of them being Descartes. Aristotle thought that underground water became vapor, froze in the cold of mountainous regions, and formed underground lakes, from which the water flowed in the form of springs. Seneca, in the first century, Volger, and many others held this theory until 1877. In 1580, Bernard Palissy developed a clear understanding of the water cycle. He said that the water beneath the ground came from rainwater seeping down from above. In the seventeenth century, Mariotte and P. Perrault supported and confirmed this theory.”

But the following various verses of the Qur’an contain not the slightest trace of the diverse erroneous ideas prevalent during Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) time.

Surah 50 (Qaf), verses 9–11: “And We send down blessed rain from the sky, with which We produce gardens, grain crops, and tall date palms bearing clustered dates, as provision for My servants. With the rain We revive a dead land; thus will be the resurrection.”

Surah 23 (Al-Mu’minun), verses 18–19: “And We send down water from the sky in due measure, then We cause it to remain in the earth—and We are certainly able to take it away. Then with it We produce for you gardens of date palms and grapes, in which you have abundant fruits, from which you eat.”

Surah 15 (Al-Hijr), verse 22: “And We send the fertilizing winds, then send down water from the sky and give it to you to drink; you do not possess its stores.”

This verse may have two possible interpretations. The meaning of rain-bearing or fecundating winds is that many seeds and pollens of fruits and flowers are carried by the wind. Another meaning may be that the wind can transform many rainless clouds into rain-bearing clouds. The role of the wind is mentioned in many cases, as in the following verses:

Surah 35 (Fatir), verse 9: “Allah is the One who sends the winds, which then stir up the clouds. He drives them toward a lifeless land and thereby revives the earth after its death. Thus will be the resurrection.”

It is noteworthy that the first part of the verse is descriptive, and then, without any intervening pause, a declaration directly from Allah is conveyed. This sudden change in the narration is frequently seen in the Qur’an.

Surah 30 (Al-Rum), verse 48: “Allah is the One who sends the winds, which then stir up the clouds. He spreads them across the sky as He wills, breaks them apart, and you see rain emerge from them. When He causes it to fall upon whichever of His servants He wills, they rejoice.”

Surah 7 (Al-A‘raf), verse 57: “He sends the winds as bearers of good news before His mercy. When they carry heavy clouds, We drive them toward a lifeless land, then send down rain from them and bring forth every kind of fruit by it. Thus We revive the dead, so that you may take heed.”

Surah 25 (Al-Furqan), verses 48–49: “He sends the winds as bearers of good news before His mercy and sends down pure water from the sky, so that We may revive a dead land with it and give drink to many animals and people.”

Surah 45 (Al-Jathiyah), verse 5: “There are signs for those who reflect in the alternation of night and day, in the water Allah sends down from the sky with which He revives the earth after its death, and in the changing of the winds.”

Here, the emphasis placed on the role of the wind in changing the rain cycle is particularly noteworthy.

Surah 13 (Al-Ra‘d), verse 17 (part): “He sends down rain from the sky, so the valleys flow according to their capacity, and the flood carries the scum floating above it.”

Surah 67 (Al-Mulk), verse 30: “Say, ‘Have you considered: if your water were to sink into the earth beyond your reach, who could bring you flowing water?’”

Surah 39 (Al-Zumar), verse 21 (part): “Do you not see that Allah sends down water from the sky, then channels it as streams through the earth, and thereby produces crops of various colors?”

Surah 36 (Ya-Sin), verse 34: “In it We produced gardens of date palms and grapes and caused springs to gush forth.”

The last three verses emphasize springs and the process by which they are replenished by rainwater. This matter deserves deep reflection, and it should be recalled in this connection that during the Middle Ages it was believed—even by learned men such as Aristotle—that spring water came from underground. Professor M. R. Réméniéras of France’s National School of Agronomy, in his article on hydrology in the Encyclopaedia Universalis, described the principal stages of the water cycle and mentioned the excellent irrigation systems of ancient times, especially in the Middle East. He observed that, because the ideas and theories of the time were erroneous, ordinary people relied mainly on their practical experience in irrigation. He says: “Until the Renaissance (1400–1600 CE), purely philosophical theories prevailed. Then, as research began on the basis of objective observation, those theories were abandoned. Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) protested against Aristotle’s theory. In the book entitled ‘A Wonderful Discourse on the Nature of Water and Fountains, Both Natural and Artificial’ (Paris, 1570), Bernard Palissy presented the factual explanation of the water cycle and the replenishment of springs by rainwater.”

It is precisely this matter—the penetration of rainwater into the ground and its use as the source—that is described in verse 21 of Surah Al-Zumar.

Verse 43 of Surah Al-Nur speaks of rain and hail: “Do you not see that Allah drives the clouds, then brings them together and piles them up? Then you see rain emerge from them. He sends down hail from mountains of hail in the sky, striking with it whomever He wills and turning it away from whomever He wills. The flash of its lightning nearly takes away the sight.”

In this connection, special attention should be paid to the content of three verses of Surah Al-Waqi‘ah (68–70):

“Have you considered the water you drink? Is it you who bring it down from the clouds, or are We the One who sends it down? If We willed, We could make it salty. So why are you not grateful?”

The same point is recalled by mentioning Allah’s power to turn fresh water into salt water, affirming that Allah is Almighty and can do whatever He wills. In the modern age, people have indeed become capable of producing rain by artificial means. Therefore, can anyone refute or oppose the Qur’an’s description concerning human ability to produce rain?

The answer to this question is: no, it is not possible. However, the limitations of human power in this matter must certainly be acknowledged. M. A. Facy, an expert at the French Meteorological Office, wrote under the heading ‘Rain’ in the Encyclopaedia Universalis: “It will never be possible to cause rain to fall from a cloud that has not matured for rain or has not acquired the corresponding characteristics.” In other words, unless natural conditions are favorable, humans can never accelerate the process of rain by applying technical knowledge. Otherwise, drought or lack of rain could never occur. Yet in reality, drought and lack of rain occur frequently. Thus, the possibility of controlling rain or the weather will remain only a dream for humanity.

People cannot simply violate the permanent natural laws governing the movement and cycle of water whenever they wish. According to modern hydrological understanding, these natural laws are as follows:

Because of the calories from solar radiation, the water in the sea and on the Earth’s surface evaporates. This vapor rises into the atmosphere, condenses, and becomes clouds. The wind carries these clouds various distances. The clouds may then disperse without producing rain, or combine with other clouds and become more condensed, or disperse and produce rain at some stage of the cycle. After this rain falls into the sea—which covers 70 percent of the Earth’s surface—the work of the cycle begins again. When rain falls on the ground, plants may absorb it, and in this way it helps their growth and development. Some water returns from the plants to the atmosphere. The remaining water enters the soil and from there returns through the underground layers to the sea, or flows into springs and rivers.

When the Qur’anic verses quoted in this chapter are compared with modern hydrological knowledge, a remarkable correspondence and similarity between the two becomes apparent.

The Sea

The matter of the sea is somewhat different. The Qur’an contains no description of the sea that can be compared with modern scientific information. However, it is important to mention that the theories, legends, or superstitions about the sea that prevailed when the Qur’an was revealed receive no support anywhere in the Qur’an.

Several verses concern the sea and navigation. They provide food for thought so that Allah’s absolute power may be understood from things generally visible. The following verses may be cited as examples:

Surah 14 (Ibrahim), verse 32: “He has subjected ships to you so that they may sail through the sea by His command.”

Surah 16 (Al-Nahl), verse 14: “It is He who subjected the sea so that you may eat fresh fish from it and extract from it ornaments that you wear. You see ships plowing through it, so that you may seek His bounty and be grateful.”

Surah 31 (Luqman), verse 31: “Do you not see that ships sail through the sea by Allah’s grace, so that He may show you His signs? Surely in this are signs for everyone patient and grateful.”

Surah 55 (Al-Rahman), verse 24: “To Him belong the ships sailing through the sea, like mountains.”

Surah 36 (Ya-Sin), verses 41–44: “Another sign for them is that We carried their forefathers in the laden ship, and We created for them similar vessels on which they ride. If We will, We can drown them, and then they will have no one to help them, nor will they be saved—unless by mercy from Us and enjoyment for a while.”

This clearly refers to carrying people in a ship—that is, carrying Noah, along with the other passengers, in the ship and taking them to dry land.

Another visible feature concerning the sea readily attracts attention because of its unusual nature, and this feature is also visible at the mouths of large rivers and the sea. The Qur’an clearly mentions this feature.

This feature is that the fresh water of a river does not mix with the salt water of the sea. This can be seen where the Tigris (Dajla) and Euphrates (Furat) rivers meet. That estuary is a body of sea more than one hundred miles long, called Shatt al-Arab. When waves from the sea enter this gulf, they push the river’s fresh water toward the dry land and thus assist irrigation. To understand the meaning of the Qur’anic wording in this matter, it should be understood that the Arabic word “bahr” denotes a large quantity of water; in that sense it refers not only to the sea but also to large rivers such as the Nile, the Tigris, and the Euphrates. The English word “sea” carries this general meaning as well.

The feature that fresh water and salt water do not mix is described in the following three verses:

Surah 25 (Al-Furqan), verse 53: “It is He who has released the two seas: one fresh and sweet, pleasant to drink, and the other salty and bitter. He has placed between them a barrier and an impassable boundary.”

Surah 55 (Fatir), verse 12: “The two seas are not alike: one is fresh and sweet, pleasant to drink, and the other is salty and bitter. From each you eat fresh fish and extract ornaments for your use.”

Surah 55 (Al-Rahman), verses 19, 20, and 22: “He has released the two seas, meeting each other, yet between them is a barrier that they cannot cross. From both emerge pearls and coral.”

After describing the main event, mention is made of what is obtained from both kinds of water, namely fish, pearls, and coral. The failure of fresh and salt water to mix is not an isolated or unique phenomenon in the case of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. It occurs elsewhere as well. Although the Qur’an does not mention the names of the Tigris and Euphrates, it is generally thought that these two rivers are being indicated. Their fresh water does not mix with salt water until they reach the farthest depths of the sea.

The Earth’s Surface

The structure of the Earth is very complex. It is now possible to make a general estimate that the Earth was formed from an extremely thick layer under intensely hot conditions. At its center, rocky material is still molten and hot, while the upper layer has cooled and become solid. The upper layer, or the Earth’s crust, is very thin; its thickness is measured in miles, or at most in units of ten miles. The distance from the Earth’s center to its circumference is somewhat more than 3,750 miles. Thus, on average, the thickness of the crust is not even one-hundredth of the circumference of the sphere. Yet all geological events have occurred on this crust. The mountain ranges were formed as a result of the folds that arose in the Earth’s crust at the beginning of this process. This process is known to geologists as ‘orogenesis’ and is very important. For the very folds that formed the mountains caused the Earth’s crust to sink proportionately, thereby creating a firm foundation for the mountains.

The distribution and proportion of sea and land on the Earth’s surface have been established only recently, and even in the most recent and known period our knowledge of the matter remains incomplete. It is thought that the seas were probably formed fifty million years ago. In the initial stage, the entire landmass was probably in the form of a single block, which later broke apart and assumed the form of various continents. Some continent or part of one—the North Atlantic continent and parts of Europe—was formed because mountains arose in marine regions.

According to modern ideas, the formation and development of mountains played the principal role in the formation of the land. From the initial stage through the fourth stage, the formation of the land influenced various balances. Some parts of the land rose anew, and in this way the distribution and proportion of sea and land changed over millions of years. Through these changes, the amount of land on Earth has now become only three-tenths of the amount of sea.

It may now be possible to give a general description of the changes that have taken place over the past several hundred thousand years.

In connection with the Earth’s surface, the Qur’an describes only the process of mountain formation. The verses below speak of Allah’s mercy toward humanity in connection with the formation of the Earth. From the scientific point of view, there seems to be little more to say on this subject.

Surah 71 (Nuh), verses 19–20: “And Allah has made the earth an expanse for you, so that you may travel along its broad paths.”

Surah 51 (Al-Dhariyat), verse 48: “I have spread out the earth, and how beautifully I have spread it out.” The earth is described as being spread out like a carpet. This carpet is the Earth’s crust, an extremely hard shell on which we live. Without this crust, the Earth could not have been suitable for any living creature to inhabit, because its interior is molten, hot, and destructive to life. The Qur’an’s account of the strength and reinforcement of the mountain ranges and the Earth’s surface as a result of folding is very important.

Surah 88 (Al-Ghashiyah), verses 19–20: “And how the mountains have been set up like tents, and how the ground has been leveled?” The details of how the mountains have been rooted in the land are given in the following verses.

Surah 78 (Al-Naba), verses 6–7: “Have We not made the earth a bed and the mountains like pegs?” A peg is a stake driven into the ground for tying the ropes of a tent (awtad, the plural of watad). Modern geologists acknowledge that the folds of the land serve as the foundations of mountains. In their view, an individual fold may be from one to ten miles in size. These folds also strengthen the Earth’s crust. Against this background, the following verses may be considered:

Surah 79 (Al-Nazi’at), verse 32: “And He firmly fixed the mountains.”

Surah 31 (Luqman), verse 10: “He has placed mountains in the earth so that it may not sway with you.”

The same statement is made in verse 15 of Surah Al-Nahl, and the same idea is expressed in this way in verse 31 of Surah Al-Anbiya: “And I have created on the earth firm mountains, lest it should sway to and fro with them.”

These verses express the idea that the way the mountains have been placed ensures stability. This idea is entirely consistent with modern geological knowledge.

The Earth’s Atmosphere

We have already examined the Qur’an’s various descriptions of the sky. Now we shall examine verses concerning some phenomena of the atmosphere. We shall see that the information described in these verses does not conflict in any way with modern science.

Altitude

When people ascend upward, they feel discomfort. As altitude increases, the discomfort also increases. This familiar feeling is described in verse 125 of Surah Al-An’am: “When Allah wishes to guide anyone, He opens his heart to Islam; and when He wishes to lead anyone astray, He makes his heart constricted, so that following Islam becomes as difficult for him as ascending into the sky.”

Some commentators have claimed that, in Muhammad’s time, the Arabs did not know about the discomfort of ascending to high altitudes. But this claim is not true at all. There were already mountains in the Arabian region more than two miles high; therefore, they could hardly have been unaware that breathing becomes difficult at such elevations. During the Prophet’s time, Sana’a, the capital of Yemen, was inhabited, and the city’s elevation above sea level was approximately 7,900 feet. Some commentators have also found in this verse a prophecy of the conquest of outer space, but that too is not true. There is no prophecy of the conquest of outer space in this verse, at least.

Electricity in the Atmosphere

The following verses speak of the presence of electricity in the atmosphere and of lightning and hail resulting from it:

Surah 13 (Al-Ra’d), verses 12–13: “He is the One who shows you lightning, inspiring fear and hope, and He produces heavy clouds. The thunder glorifies His praise, and the angels too, in awe of Him; and He sends thunderbolts and strikes with them whom He wills. Yet they dispute about Allah, although He is mighty in power.”

Surah 24 (Al-Nur), verse 43: “Do you not see that Allah drives the clouds, then joins them together and piles them up? Then you see rain emerging from them. He sends down hail from mountains in the sky, striking with it whom He wills and turning it away from whom He wills. The flash of the clouds’ lightning nearly takes away the sight.”

These two verses clearly describe the formation of rain clouds or hail clouds and their relationship with lightning. In the case of clouds, they inspire hope because of their benefit; in the case of thunder, they inspire fear because when it strikes, it does so only by the will of Allah, the Almighty. The relationship between these two phenomena has been established and supported by modern scientific knowledge concerning the presence of electricity in the atmosphere.

Shadows

The existence of shadows and the fact that they can move are now very easily explained. This subject is described in the following verses:

Surah 16 (Al-Nahl), verse 81: “From what He has created, Allah has provided you with shade.”

Surah 16 (Al-Nahl), verse 48: “Do they not observe the things Allah has created, whose shadows incline humbly in prostration to Allah, to the right and to the left?”

Surah 25 (Luqman), verses 45–46: “Do you not see how your Lord extends the shadow? Had He willed, He could have made it stationary; rather, He has made the sun its guide. Then He draws it back gradually.”

These verses mention the humility toward Allah of all His created things and their shadows, and that Allah can withdraw all the signs of His power whenever He wishes; they also mention the relationship between the sun and the shadow. It should be remembered in this connection that in Muhammad’s time it was believed that the movement of shadows was controlled by the sun’s movement from east to west, and this principle was applied in sundials to measure the time from sunrise to sunset. Without mentioning this prevailing explanation of the time, the Qur’an describes the phenomenon in a manner that could easily be accepted for many centuries after Muhammad, although it was ultimately proved wrong. The Qur’an speaks of the sun only as the guide of the shadow. Clearly, there is no conflict between modern knowledge and information on this subject and the way the Qur’an speaks of the shadow.

The Animal and Plant Kingdoms

This chapter brings together many verses concerning the origin of life. It also includes some verses containing certain general and specific characteristics of the plant and animal worlds. The verses on this subject are scattered throughout the Qur’an. I hope that the way I have attempted to classify these verses will provide a general understanding of the information described in the Qur’an.

Because of certain inherent difficulties in the meanings of words, examining the Qur’an’s text in this chapter and the next has sometimes created a very delicate situation. However, it has been possible to overcome this problem with the help of modern scientific information on the relevant subjects. This assistance has seemed particularly necessary in the cases of the animal world, the human world, and the plant world; without it, it would not have been possible to arrive at the true meaning and significance of the Qur’an’s descriptions.

From this perspective, it will be clearly seen that the translations of the Qur’an produced by scholars will necessarily be judged incorrect by scientists. The same applies to the commentaries written by those without the necessary scientific knowledge.

The Origin of Life

People have always asked questions about the origin of life—not only about their own lives, but also about the various forms of life moving around them. We shall examine this question from a general perspective. Since the appearance and increase of human beings on Earth require a lengthy discussion, we shall discuss them in the next chapter.

Where the origin of life is described generally in the Qur’an, the description is very brief. The verse containing this description also describes the process of the formation of the universe:

Surah 21 (Al-Anbiya), verse 33: “Have those who reject the truth not considered that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then We separated them, and We made every living thing from water? Will they not believe?”

There is no doubt in the idea that something can be obtained from something else. In this light, the verse may mean that every living creature was created using water as an essential component; or that life originated in water itself. Both meanings are consistent with modern scientific information. Life did in fact originate in water, and water is also the principal component of all living cells. Life cannot exist without water. When considering whether there is life on another planet, the first question asked is whether there is water there.

Modern information indicates that the earliest life belonged to the plant world. Marine algae appeared before the Cambrian period, that is, during the period of the earliest known land. Animal life—that is, the living cells of the animal world—probably appeared somewhat later, and it too came from the sea.

The word water, the English translation, is used as a translation of the Arabic word ‘ma”. The word ‘ma” may refer to water from the sky, seawater, or any kind of liquid. Water in the first sense is essential for all life in the plant world.

Surah 20 (Ta-Ha), verse 53: “He sends down water from the sky and thereby produces various kinds of plants in pairs.”

This is the first mention of pairs in the plant world; we shall discuss this subject later. In the other sense, when water means simply a liquid without specifying its kind, one type of the water thus understood is the fundamental basis of the formation of life in all living beings. Surah 24 (Al-Nur), verse 45: “Allah created every living creature from water.” We shall later see that the word water is also applied to semen.

Whether concerning the origin of life in general, the emergence of plants from the soil, or the semen of animals, all the descriptions in the Qur’an are entirely consistent with modern science. The Qur’an does not mention even one of the legends or myths about the origin of life that were current when it was revealed.

The Plant Kingdom

It would be possible to quote in full all the verses that mention Allah’s mercy concerning the growth of plants and creepers as a result of rain. Here, however, we quote only three verses:

Surah 16 (Al-Nahl), verses 10–11: “He is the One who sends down water from the sky; from it you have drink, and from it grow plants on which you pasture your animals. With it He produces for you crops, olives, date palms, grapes, and all kinds of fruit.”

Surah 6 (Al-An’am), verse 99: “He is the One who sends down water from the sky, and by it He brings forth the shoots of every kind of plant. Then He brings forth green foliage from it, and from it produces grains clustered together. And from the date palm’s spadix He brings forth hanging clusters; and He produces gardens of grapes, olives, and pomegranates, similar yet different. Look at their fruit when they bear fruit and when they ripen. Surely in this are signs for a believing people.”

Surah 50 (Qaf), verses 9–11: “From the sky We send down blessed rain, and by it We produce gardens, grain crops, and lofty date palms bearing clustered bunches as provision for My servants. By the rain We revive a dead land; thus will be the resurrection.”

Along with such information of a general nature, the Qur’an also contains information on specific subjects.

Balance in the Plant World

Surah 15 (Al-Hijr), verse 19: “I have created every thing on the earth in due proportion.”

The Diversity of Qualities in Different Foods

Surah 13 (Al-Ra’d), verse 4: “There are adjoining tracts of land, vineyards, fields of grain, and date palms, with several trunks or a single trunk. They are watered with the same water, yet We make some of their fruits superior to others. Surely in this are signs for people who understand.”

The existence of these verses is particularly noteworthy because they describe fundamental truths in extremely simple language and make no mention of the legends or myths of the time. However, it is the Qur’an’s description of reproduction in the plant world that particularly attracts our attention.

Reproduction in the Plant World

There are two types of reproduction in the plant world—sexual and asexual. Strictly speaking, only the first type may be called reproduction, because in this case a physical process is active whose purpose is the emergence of a new organism resembling the parent.

Asexual reproduction, on the other hand, is merely an increase in number: a separated part of the parent plant develops through the properties of the parent plant itself. Guilliermond and Mangenot called this process “a special kind of birth.” A simple example of this process is grafting, or cutting a branch from a tree, planting it in the soil, and causing new roots to grow from it. Not all trees can be propagated by cuttings; some are especially suitable for this method. Some plants produce shoots or aerial roots that can be used like seeds. It is noteworthy that seeds are produced as a result of the sexual process.

In the plant world, reproduction takes place sexually through the combination of the male and female parts of the same plant or of several plants. The Qur’an mentions only this process.

Surah 20 (Ta-Ha), verse 53: “He sends down water from the sky and thereby produces various kinds in pairs.”

The word ‘zawj’ means one of a pair. The plural of this Arabic word is ‘azwaj’. The basic meaning of the word is something that joins with something else to form a pair. In this sense, the word is also used for a married couple and a pair of shoes.

Surah 22 (Al-Hajj), verse 5: “You see the land dry; then, when We send down water upon it, it becomes green, stirs, swells, and produces every kind of beautiful plant in pairs.”

Surah 31 (Luqman), verse 10: “He produces on the earth every kind of beneficial plant in pairs.”

Surah 13 (Al-Ra’d), verse 3: “He created every kind of fruit in two types, in pairs.”

We know that in higher plants the final product of the reproductive process is the fruit. The organization of such plants is highly developed and complex. The stage preceding the fruit is the flower, and the flower has male and female organs. After pollen is deposited on the female organ, the fruit forms; then, after the fruit ripens, seeds are produced. Thus, every fruit demonstrates the existence of male and female organs. This is what the Qur’an states. It is noteworthy that in some species fruit can develop from unfertilized flowers, without the union of male and female pollen, such as bananas, several types of pineapple, figs, oranges, and grapes. These fruits can also develop from fertilized flowers.

Germination occurs after the outer covering of the seed, which is often very hard, opens, and this is when the final stage of the reproductive process is reached. Once the outer covering opens, roots can grow; these roots then draw nourishment from the soil and help a new seedling emerge.

The Qur’an describes this process of germination as follows:

Surah 6 (Al-An’am), verse 95: “Allah causes the grain and the seed-stone to split open and germinate.” By mentioning the existence of pairs in the plant world, the Qur’an applies this idea in an even broader and more general context.

Surah 36 (Ya-Sin), verse 36: “Glory be to Him who created pairs of all things: plants, human beings, and those they do not know.”

In Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) time, there may have been various guesses and speculations about “those they do not know.” But we now know with certainty that pairs exist throughout the living and nonliving worlds, from the smallest to the largest levels. It is noteworthy that all these Qur’anic concepts are entirely consistent with modern knowledge and science.

The Animal Kingdom

There are several subjects in the Qur’an whose interpretation and analysis need to be compared with modern science. However, if anyone considers the verse quoted below with deep attention, he will not be able to fully understand what the Qur’an actually says about the subject concerned.

This verse describes the creation of certain elements of the animal world in order to make people realize Allah’s mercy toward them. Describing various elements as having been created in accordance with human needs is a general characteristic of the Qur’an, and it is chiefly as an example of this characteristic that we quote the verse here in particular. The verse is addressed to the inhabitants of rural areas, and there is no scope for considering it in any other way than from this perspective.

Surah 16 (An-Nahl), verses 5–8: “And He created livestock; in them you have warmth and many benefits, and from them you eat. And when you bring them home in the evening from the pasture and take them out to pasture in the morning, you enjoy their beauty. And He created horses, mules, and donkeys for you to ride and for adornment, and He creates what you do not know.” Alongside this general description, the Qur’an provides certain specific facts. These are: (1) reproduction in the animal world; (2) the existence of societies in the animal world; (3) descriptions of bees, spiders, and birds; and (4) an account of the source of the constituents of animal milk. We shall now discuss these matters successively.

1) Reproduction in the Animal World

The matter is described very briefly in verses 45–56 of Surah An-Najm: “And He creates the two mates, male and female, from a drop of fluid emitted.” Here, “the two mates” means what was described as “pairs” in the verse concerning the plant world. We discussed this earlier. It is noteworthy, however, that the sexes of the pair are mentioned here. The statement that only a small quantity of fluid is needed for reproduction is accurate, precise, and entirely worthy of praise. A word conveying the meaning of “semen” is used in Arabic. We shall discuss the relevance of this description later.

2) The Mention of the Existence of Societies in the Animal World

Surah 6 (Al-An‘am), verse 38: “There is no creature that moves on the earth, nor any bird that flies with its wings, but they are communities like you. We have not neglected anything in the Book; then they will all be gathered to their Lord.” Several aspects of this verse require discussion. First, its wording seems to contain guidance about what will happen to animals and birds after death. Yet apparently Islam provides no guidance on this matter. Second, it appears to refer generally to predetermined destiny (taqdir). We discussed earlier, at the beginning of the third part of this book, what is meant by taqdir in the case of human beings. Taqdir may be understood as an absolute power or a conditional power. By conditional, or contingent, taqdir, we mean behavior controlled by structural or functional characteristics; for example, an animal acts in a particular environment according to its particular sensations. These sensations are produced by the environment outside its body.

Blachère says that the commentator Razi of earlier times believed this verse referred to animals worshipping Allah through actions arising from an inner feeling. Sheikh C. Boubaqier Hamza, in his commentary on his translation of the Qur’an, said: “As a result of feelings created by heavenly knowledge, all animals live in societies and claim that the activity of each member will be conducted in the interests of the whole class.”

Extensive and thorough investigations into animal and bird behavior have been conducted in recent decades, and they have shown that these creatures really do live in societies. After the functioning of some such societies had been observed for a long period, it was established that they possessed definite structures and organizations. In the case of certain animal species, the existence of officials within their social organizations has only recently been discovered. Undoubtedly, the greatest amount of work has been done on bees, and the study of bee behavior is associated with the name of von Frisch. For this work, Frisch, Lorenz, and Tinbergen received the Nobel Prize in 1973.

3) Descriptions of Bees, Spiders, and Birds

When specialists in the nervous system wish to give a notable example of the nervous mechanisms that direct and control animal behavior, they mention bees, spiders, and birds—especially migratory birds—first. In the case of these three animals, undeniably highly advanced forms of social organization are found. The prominence given to these three animals by their mention in the Qur’an is entirely consistent with the scientific perspective. Their characteristics and behavior are truly distinctive. We shall now discuss these three animals one after another.

The Bee

The Qur’an gives its longest description specifically of the bee. Surah 16 (An-Nahl), verses 68–69: “And your Lord inspired the bee: ‘Make homes in the mountains, in the trees, and in what people build. Then eat from every kind of fruit and follow the ways made easy for you by your Lord.’ From their bellies comes a drink of varying colors, in which there is healing for people.”

It is noteworthy that this is the Qur’an’s only mention of a remedy for disease for human beings. Honey is indeed beneficial in the case of certain diseases. Whatever may be said to the contrary on this matter, nowhere else in the Qur’an is any other remedy for disease mentioned.

It is difficult to determine exactly what is meant by following the way of the Lord; however, the instruction may perhaps be understood in a general sense. On the basis of the information discovered so far about bee behavior, all that can be said is that all their behavior is controlled by their nervous system. The same is equally true of spiders and birds. The dance of bees is a means of communication with other bees: in this way they inform one another from which flowers honey can be collected, and how far away and in what direction those flowers are located. Moreover, von Frisch’s research established what kinds of bodily movements convey information among worker bees.

The Spider

The spider is mentioned in the Qur’an specifically to illustrate the temporary nature of its home. Nothing can be more light, temporary, and fragile than a spider’s home, its web. The Qur’an says that the home of the spider is like the homes of those who have taken masters other than Allah.

Surah 29 (Al-‘Ankabut), verse 41: “The example of those who take protectors besides Allah is that of the spider, which makes a home for itself; and indeed, the weakest of homes is the spider’s home, if only they knew.”

They build their homes with the help of a kind of saliva secreted from the spider’s glands. This silk-like thread is extremely fine and light. A spider’s web is so weak and ephemeral that it is utterly impossible for humans to produce anything like it. Natural scientists have been astonished by the web’s remarkable and extraordinary artistry. It is noteworthy that such geometrically perfect weaving results from the varied positions of the spider’s nerve cells.

The Bird

Birds are mentioned in many places in the Qur’an. Birds are also mentioned in connection with events in the lives of the prophets Ibrahim, Yusuf, Dawud, Sulayman, and Isa. But those references have no relevance to the subject we are discussing here.

The following verse of the Qur’an mentions the existence of animal societies on earth and bird societies in the sky. Surah 6 (Al-An‘am), verse 38: “There is no creature that moves on the earth, nor any bird that flies with its wings, but they are communities like you. We have not neglected anything in the Book; then they will all be gathered to their Lord.”

Two other verses mention the birds’ complete submission to Allah’s power.

Surah 16 (An-Nahl), verse 79: “Do they not observe the birds that move easily through the expanse of the sky? Allah keeps them suspended there.”

Surah 67 (Al-Mulk), verse 19: “Do they not observe the birds above them, spreading and folding their wings? None holds them up except the Most Merciful.”

Translating even one word in either of these two verses is extremely complicated. The translation given here conveys the idea that Allah holds the birds up by His own power. The original Arabic verb is ‘amsaka’, whose basic meanings are ‘to place a hand, restrain, seize, or hold someone.’

The Qur’an mentions the birds’ complete dependence on Allah’s command. This condition may be compared with modern scientific findings showing that certain bird species follow a fixed pattern in their routes of movement. These birds, even their inexperienced young, cross extremely long and complicated routes with perfect ease and accuracy, and return to their place of departure on a specific date. This proves that the program for this journey is pre-installed in their nervous systems. There can be no other possible explanation for this. In his book Power and Fragility (La Puissance et la Fragilité), published by Flammarion, Paris, in 1972, Professor Hamburger cites the famous example of a Pacific-dwelling bird, the muttonbird. In six months this bird travels more than 15,500 miles and returns to its place of departure no more than a week late. It must be admitted that the complex instructions for this journey are installed in the bird’s nervous system. Certainly, this itinerary is predetermined—but who predetermined it?

4) The Source of the Constituents of Animal Milk

The definition given in the Qur’an on this subject (Surah 16, An-Nahl, verse 66) corresponds exactly with modern scientific information. The translation and explanation of this verse that I have given here are my own, because even the most recent translations of this verse by translators assign it a meaning that, in my opinion, is wholly unacceptable. Let me give two examples:

Blachère’s translation (published by G. P. Maisonneuve-Larose, Paris, 1966): “Indeed, in livestock there is a lesson for you. We give you pure milk to drink, which is agreeable to those who drink it, and which comes from something situated between the digested food in their bellies and their blood.”

Professor Hamidullah’s translation (published by Club Français du Livre, Paris, 1971): “Indeed, in your livestock there is a lesson for you. From what is in their bellies, from between their excrement and blood, We give you pure milk to drink, which is agreeable to those who drink it.”

If these two translations were shown to a physiologist, he would say that the matter was unclear and difficult to understand. The reason is that, even at a basic level, the concepts presented in the translations do not correspond at all with modern understanding, although both translators are highly distinguished Arabic linguists. Everyone knows that even if a translator is an expert in translation, he may make mistakes in translating a scientific description if he is not an expert in the relevant science. In my own view, the correct translation of the verse would be: “Indeed, in livestock there is a lesson for you. We give you pure, agreeable milk to drink, produced from what is within their bodies through the combination of the contents of the intestines and the blood.”

An explanation of this verse is given in a work called Muntakhab, edited by Cairo’s Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs and published in 1973; this explanation is very close to mine. It is noteworthy that the Supreme Council relied on modern physiology for its explanation.

Regarding the wording, I can say in support of my interpretation that I used “within their bodies,” whereas Blachère and Professor Hamidullah translated it as “within their bellies.” I have observed that the Arabic word ‘batan’ can mean “the middle” or “the interior of something,” and can also mean “belly.” Here the word has no specific anatomical meaning. In context, however, “within their bodies” seems quite suitable and consistent.

The concept of the “primary source” of the constituents of milk is derived from the Arabic word ‘min’ (English ‘from’ and Bengali ‘from’), while the idea of combination comes from the Arabic word ‘bayna’. ‘Bayna’ can mean “among” (English ‘among’), or “between” (English ‘between’). The word is also used to mean that two substances or two people have been brought together.

To understand the meaning of the verse from a scientific perspective, it is necessary to draw on physiology. The essential material for the body’s general nourishment comes from the chemical changes occurring throughout the designated area or pathway in the body for digestion. This essential material comes from the contents of the intestines. After reaching the intestines at the appropriate stage of the chemical-change process, the material passes through the intestinal wall toward the area designated for circulation. This movement or flow takes place in two ways: directly through vessels known as lymphatic vessels, or through the major circulatory route. The material then reaches the liver and, after being modified there, joins the circulatory process. Thus everything passes through the bloodstream.

The constituents of milk are secreted by the mammary glands. Those constituents receive nourishment from the digested food material that reaches them through the bloodstream. Thus the blood acts as a collector and carrier of this essential material, and that material nourishes the milk-producing mammary glands. Of course, this essential material nourishes all the body’s other organs as well.

The primary process that sets everything in motion here is the coming together, at the level of the intestinal wall, of the intestinal contents and the blood. Chemical and physiological investigations into digestion have established precisely this concept. In the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), the matter was completely unknown and has only recently become understandable to human beings. It is noteworthy that the circulation of blood in the body—that is, the fact that blood is constantly flowing through the body—was discovered by Harvey nearly ten centuries after the Qur’an was revealed.

Therefore, I believe that there can be no human explanation for the presence of all this information in the Qur’an.

Human Reproduction

Whenever reproduction was discussed in the oldest human writings, an incorrect account was given. In the Middle Ages, and even more recently, the subject was covered in legends and superstition. There was, of course, no other possibility, because to understand the complicated process of reproduction, people first had to acquire knowledge of the body’s organs, invent the microscope, and discover the fundamental knowledge and science underlying anatomy, embryology, obstetrics, and various other fields.

The situation is completely different with the Qur’an. In various places, this Book mentions the precise process of reproduction, gives accurate descriptions of the different stages of development, and contains not a single incorrect account. Everything is described simply, in language understandable to human beings, and in exactly the manner that people discovered only much later.

Human reproduction is mentioned in several dozen verses in different contexts. In some cases, one or more specific stages are explained. Therefore, it is necessary to bring the verses together in order to understand the entire matter. As with the other subjects discussed in this book, an attempt has been made here to explain and analyze the matter by bringing together the relevant verses.

Some Basic Concepts

Before proceeding to a detailed discussion, it is necessary to recall several basic concepts. These facts were unknown to humanity at the time the Qur’an was revealed and for many centuries afterward.

The process of human reproduction is the same as that of all other mammals. It begins when an ovum released from the ovary is fertilized. This fertilization occurs in the uterus around the middle of the woman’s menstrual cycle, and it is brought about by the male sperm—or, more precisely, a spermatozoon. A single spermatozoon is sufficient for this task. Thus only a very small quantity of sperm or semen is needed for fertilization, since that quantity of semen contains millions of spermatozoa. The male testes produce sperm, and secretions from glands connected with the urethra and from other glands located alongside the cells and ducts also mix with the sperm.

The fertilized ovum settles in a specific place in the woman’s womb. After descending into the womb through the uterine passage, the embryo forms and takes up a position among the muscles and vessels. If the fertilized ovum ever settles in the uterus instead of in the womb, pregnancy is obstructed.

When the embryo becomes visible to the naked eye, it looks like a tiny piece of flesh, and the human form at its center is not initially visible. The various stages through which the embryo gradually grows are now universally known. During these stages, bones, muscles, nerves, blood circulation, intestines, and other structures form.

We shall now compare the Qur’an’s description of human reproduction with all these established modern facts.

Human Reproduction in the Qur’an

Understanding the Qur’an’s statements about reproduction is not very easy. The first difficulty is that descriptions of the subject are scattered throughout the Qur’an. I have mentioned this difficulty before. An even greater difficulty, however, is the problem of word meanings, which can easily confuse an inquisitive reader.

In fact, many translations and commentaries of the Qur’an currently in circulation can easily give a scientist an entirely wrong idea about this subject. For example, most translations state that human beings were formed from “clotted blood” or “adherent blood.” Such a description is wholly unacceptable to a scientist who specializes in this subject. We shall see, in the discussion of the section on the ovum’s implantation in the mother’s womb, why distinguished Arabic linguists made such errors because they lacked a scientific background.

This observation itself indicates how essential scientific knowledge, alongside knowledge of language, is for understanding the Qur’an’s statements about reproduction.

The various stages of development through which an embryo passes before reaching maturity in the mother’s womb are described in the Qur’an with considerable emphasis.

Surah 82 (Al-Infitar), verses 6–8: “O man! What has deceived you concerning your Lord, who created you, then fashioned you and proportioned you, and shaped you in whatever form He willed?”

Surah 71 (Nuh), verse 14: “He created you in successive stages.”

Alongside this general description, the matters to which the Quran draws attention concerning reproduction may be listed as follows:

1) Fertilization can be achieved with a very small quantity of semen.

2) The constituents of semen.

3) The location of the fertilized ovum.

4) The progressive development of the embryo.

We shall now discuss these matters one after another.

(1) Fertilization can be achieved with a very small quantity of semen

This concept is mentioned eleven times in the Quran in the following wording. Surah 16 (An-Nahl), verse 4: “He created man from a small quantity (of semen).”

Since there is no precisely equivalent word, the Arabic word ‘nutfa’ has here been translated as “a small quantity (of semen).” The verb from which this word derives means “to fall drop by drop, to drip,” and the word is also used for what remains at the bottom after a bucket has been emptied—the residue. Thus, the word denotes a small quantity of liquid. Here the liquid means semen, because in another verse the word is associated with semen.

Surah 75 (Al-Qiyamah), verse 37: “Was he not merely a drop of emitted semen?” Here the Arabic word “mani” denotes semen. Another verse states that this “mere drop” is placed in a firm, secure receptacle (Arabic “qarar”), and the receptacle is clearly the sexual organ.

Surah 23 (Al-Muminun), verse 13: “Then We placed him (man) as a drop (of semen) in a firm, secure receptacle.”

It should be mentioned in this connection that it is almost impossible to translate the Arabic word ‘makiin,’ used as an explanation of “a firm, secure receptacle.” This word conveys the idea of a firm, secure, and honored place. However it is expressed, it refers to that place in the mother’s womb where the human being grows. Special emphasis should be placed on the fact that only a drop of semen is needed for fertilization, because modern scientific knowledge has now taught us precisely this fact.

(2) The constituents of semen

The language used in the Quran to describe the fertilizing liquid is quite intriguing.

(a) “Semen”—specifically—Surah Al-Qiyamah, verse 37.

(b) “Man was created from an emitted liquid”—Surah At-Tariq, verse 6.

(c) “An ejected liquid”—Surah As-Sajdah, verse 8, and Surah Al-Mursalat, verse 20.

The word “despised” (Arabic “mahin”) is used for the liquid (Arabic “amsaj”): “Indeed, We created man from a drop of mixed liquid”—Surah Ad-Dahr, verse 2. Many commentators, such as Professor Hamidullah, have understood “mixed” to mean a mixture of the male and female liquids. Many earlier commentators said the same, because they were unable to acquire a correct understanding of the physiological origin of fertilization, particularly the biological condition in women. They assumed that “mixed” meant only a mixture of male and female liquids.

Modern authors, however, like the commentator of the work ‘Muntakhab,’ edited by Cairo’s Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, have corrected this idea and stated that the “drop of semen” is composed of various constituents. The commentator of Muntakhab gave no detailed description, but in my opinion what he said is sufficiently sound and objective.

What are the constituents of semen?

The liquid known as semen is composed of secretions from the following glands.

(a) The testicles: The spermatozoa in the secretion from this location are actually elongated cells with a tail-like extension, and they remain suspended in a kind of thin liquid.

(b) The seminal vesicles: Semen is stored in these sacs, located near the penis. These sacs also secrete their own liquid, but it contains no fertilizing component.

(c) The penile glands: The secretion from these glands gives semen its density and odor.

(d) Glands connected to the urethra: The three glands present here are known, after three scientists, as Cowper’s glands, Mary’s glands, and Littré’s glands. The first two glands secrete a sticky fluid, while the third secretes a mud- or grease-like fluid.

These are the sources and constituents of the “mixed liquid” mentioned in the Quran.

There is certainly more to say on this subject. Where the Quran speaks of the fertilizing liquid composed of various constituents, it also says that the human race will be perpetuated through a constituent taken from that liquid. This is the meaning found in verse 8 of Surah As-Sajdah:

“Then He produced his offspring from an extract of a contemptible liquid.”

The Arabic word ‘sulala’ has been translated as “extract.” Its significance is “the best part of something taken from one thing and derived from another.” However it is expressed, the word denotes a particular part of an entire substance.

The cell by which the ovum is fertilized, that is, through which reproduction occurs, is elongated. Its size is one ten-thousandth of a millimeter. During normal sexual intercourse, a man produces several crore cells, and generally one ovum enters among them. The rest remain along the way. It has been calculated that a man ejaculates several cubic centimeters of semen during one intercourse, and that one cubic centimeter of semen contains 25 million spermatozoa. Thus it can be seen that reproduction is accomplished by an extremely minute portion of this liquid, which is formed through a highly complex process from diverse constituents. In this situation, we cannot help being astonished at the complete agreement and harmony between the Quran’s description and the scientific information obtained through modern research.

(3) The fertilized ovum’s establishment in the female sexual organ

After the ovum is fertilized, it descends into the uterus and settles there. This matter is described in the Quran as follows:

Surah 22 (Al-Hajj), verse 5: “We place in the womb whatever We will for a specified period.” The ovum becomes elongated and attaches itself, like the roots of a tree in soil, to the fleshy part of the uterus (the womb), receiving nourishment from it. Because of this shape, the ovum literally clings to the uterus. This fact was discovered only recently.

This matter of clinging is described in five places in the Quran. Surah 96 (Al-Alaq), verses 1–2: “Read in the name of your Lord who created; He created man from that which clings.”

“That which clings” is the translation of the Arabic word ‘alaq.’ This is the original meaning of the word. Another meaning is given as “clotted blood” or “blood clot,” and this meaning is used in many translations. But this usage is incorrect and requires caution, because at no stage in the process of human birth does a “clotted blood” or “blood clot” stage occur. The same applies to another translation.

That translation is “adhesive” or “attachment,” and it too is not accurate. The original meaning, “that which clings,” agrees precisely with modern verified facts. This concept occurs in four other verses, where development up to the complete form of the sperm-drop is described.”

Surah 22 (Al-Hajj), verse 5: “We created you … from that which clings.”

Surah 23 (Al-Muminun), verse 14: “We transform the drop into that which clings.”

Surah 40 (Al-Mumin), verse 67: “He created you … from a drop, then from that which clings.”

Surah 74 (Al-Qiyamah), verses 37–38: “Was he not an emitted drop? Then did he not become that which clings? Then did Allah not shape him and proportion him?”

The word used in the Quran for the organ in which pregnancy occurs is still used in Arabic to mean the uterus. In some surahs it is also called a “secure receptacle,” and it seems that the womb is meant; this mention occurs in precisely that context, and it seems that the womb is meant. Personally, I believe this is the meaning of the verse, but I shall not explain it in detail here because the discussion would become lengthy. Another verse requires very careful interpretation. Surah 39 (Az-Zumar), verse 6: “He creates you in successive stages within threefold darkness in your mothers’ wombs.”

“Darkness” is the translation of the Arabic word “zulumat.” Modern commentators of the Quran believe that this refers to the three coverings that protect the child while its body is forming. The three coverings are the abdominal wall, the uterus, and the fluid surrounding the embryo.

It was not necessary to quote this verse for my main discussion, but I have quoted it for the sake of completeness. I have no reasonable argument against the explanation given here from the standpoint of anatomy, but is this precisely what the Quran means by these words?

(4) The progressive development of the embryo in the uterus

The Quran’s description of certain stages in the embryo’s development is completely consistent with our modern knowledge, and there is not a single description in the Quran that could be subjected to criticism by modern science. After describing “that which clings,” the Quran informs us that at one stage the embryo takes the form of “chewed flesh.” Then bones are created and covered with flesh. Surah 23 (Al-Muminun), verse 14: “Then We transform that which clings into a lump of chewed flesh, then We transform it into a skeleton, which We later cover with flesh.”

The Arabic word ‘mudghah’ is translated as chewed flesh, while ‘lahm’ means ordinary or unchewed flesh. This distinction should be noted. At the beginning, the embryo is in the form of a small lump of flesh. At one stage of development, to the naked eye it looks like chewed or minced meat. The skeletal structure develops within this flesh, and the bones are later covered by muscles; it is in this context that the word ‘lahm’ is used.

People now know that during the embryo’s development, certain organs become fully formed. This must surely be the meaning of the word ‘mukhallaq’ (given complete form) used in Surah Al-Hajj.

Surah 22 (Al-Hajj), verse 5: “We transform the drop into that which clings … and We transform them into lumps of flesh, fully formed or incompletely formed.”

The Quran also describes the appearance of the senses and the intestines within the abdomen. Surah 32 (As-Sajdah), verse 9: “He gave you eyes, ears, and intestines.”

The formation of the sexual organs is also mentioned. Surah 53 (An-Najm), verses 45–46: “He creates the pair, male and female, from an emitted sperm-drop.”

Surah (Fatir), verse 11: “Allah created you from dust, then from a sperm-drop, then made you pairs, male and female.”

Surah 5 (Al-Qiyamah), verse 39: “Then did He not create from it the pair, male and female?”

As mentioned earlier, all descriptions in the Quran must be compared with established and accepted modern facts and ideas. It will then be seen that there is complete agreement and harmony between them. At the same time, the Quran’s descriptions must be compared with the ideas prevalent among people when the Quran was revealed; this is very important. It will then be seen how incompatible and opposed those ideas were to the Quran’s descriptions. People at that time certainly could not interpret and analyze the Quran as we can today, because they had no access to the assistance of modern knowledge and science that we have today. In fact, it was only in the nineteenth century that people began to gain some clear understanding of these matters.

Throughout the Middle Ages, various ideas and theories were developed on the basis of unfounded legends, fantasies, and myths, and they remained current for several subsequent centuries. Then, when Harvey stated in 1651 that “all life comes first from an egg,” a fundamental chapter in the history of embryology began. Although the invention of the microscope accelerated scientific progress at that time, people were still arguing over the separate roles of the egg and the spermatozoon. The famous naturalist Buffon supported the ovist theory, whereas Bonnet believed in the theory that the seed was “nested together.” According to this theory, all the seeds of humanity were nested one within another in the ovum of Eve, the mother of humankind. This theory gained favor in the eighteenth century.

More than a thousand years before our era, when these bizarre theories were widely prevalent, people became aware of the Quran. It took humanity several centuries to discover the important fundamental truths that are expressed simply in this Book.

The Quran and sex education

It is often said that the modern age has witnessed numerous discoveries in every possible field. Revolutionary discoveries are also believed to have been made in sex education, and the storehouse of knowledge opened before children on this subject is regarded as a great achievement of the modern world. In the past, deliberate obscurity was imposed on this subject, and some say that religion was responsible. Of course, they did not name which religion was responsible.

The information described above proves that theoretical matters concerning human reproduction were brought to people’s attention fourteen hundred years ago. Since anatomy and biology were not available at that time for further explanation, only as much information as possible was given. It should also be remembered that the subject was described in simple language with consideration for the understanding of the listeners of that time.

Nevertheless, practical realities were by no means ignored. The Quran contains many instructions concerning people’s daily lives and how they should behave in those circumstances. Sexual science was not omitted either.

Sexual intercourse is discussed in two verses of the Quran. The precision and propriety of the language of the verses are clearly expressed. Yet one cannot help being truly astonished at the differences found in the various translations and interpretations of these two verses. I have thought about this matter extensively and read many translations. In the end, however, I found the translation by Dr. A. K. Gird, former Professor of Medicine at the University of Beirut, to be correct, and I acknowledge my indebtedness to him for this reason. His translation is as follows:

Surah 86 (At-Tariq), verses 6–7: “Man was created from an emitted liquid. It emerges as a result of the union of the male sexual regions.”

In the Quran, the word ‘sulb’ (singular) indicates the male sexual region, and the word ‘tara’ib’ (plural) indicates the female sexual region. This translation seems to me the most satisfactory. English and French translators have translated it quite differently: “Man was created from an emitted liquid that emerges from between the backbone and the ribs.” This seems more like an interpretation than a translation. Nevertheless, the matter remains incomprehensible.

A man’s conduct in intimate relations with his wife has been clearly described. Concerning the wife’s menstruation, Allah commanded His Messenger:

Surah 2 (Al-Baqarah), verses 222–223: “They ask you about menstruation. Say: It is a pollution. So keep away from women during menstruation and do not have intercourse with them until they are clean. When they have purified themselves, then go to them exactly as Allah has commanded you. Allah loves those who repent and those who keep themselves pure.”

“Your wives are your fields. So go to your fields as you wish. And send forth something good for yourselves beforehand.”

The meaning of the first part of the verse is very clear. Men are formally forbidden to have intercourse with their wives during menstruation. The second part describes the process of cultivating land, what a farmer does before sowing the seed. The seed germinates and a new plant is born. Through this analogy, emphasis is placed on remembering the purpose of sexual intercourse, namely reproduction. Blachère’s translation of the final part of the verse seems to indicate preliminary preparation before intercourse.

The instruction given in this verse is general in nature. The question of contraception is raised in this connection, but it is not mentioned either in this verse or anywhere else.

There is also no mention anywhere of inducing abortion. If the verses quoted above are understood, it becomes clear that human beings develop from the embryo as a result of the development of “that which clings.” Thus, the prohibition and condemnation of abortion naturally follow from the complete respect and honor repeatedly accorded to the individual human being in the Quran. This view is now held by all monotheistic religions. During fasting in the month of Ramadan, sexual intercourse is permitted at night.

Surah 2 (Al-Baqarah), verse 187: “Sexual relations with your wives are made lawful for you on the nights of fasting. They are a garment for you and you are a garment for them. … So have relations with them and seek what Allah has prescribed for you.”

But during the pilgrimage in Mecca, intercourse with one’s wife is prohibited. Surah 2 (Al-Baqarah), verse 197: “Whoever undertakes the pilgrimage in these months, then there shall be no sexual relations during the pilgrimage.” This prohibition also applies to hunting and quarrelling. In connection with divorce, the Quran again mentions menstruation.

Surah 65 (At-Talaq), verse 4: “As for those of your wives who no longer expect menstruation, if you are in doubt about their waiting period, know that their waiting period is three months; and likewise for those who have not yet menstruated. The waiting period of pregnant women is until they give birth.”

The term ‘iddah’ means the waiting period from the announcement of divorce until it takes effect. “Those who no longer expect menstruation” refers to women whose menstruation has permanently ceased. Nevertheless, as a precautionary measure, they are instructed to wait for three months. After that, they may marry again.

Those who have not yet menstruated are also instructed to wait for three months, while pregnant women are to wait until they give birth. These rulings are entirely consistent with the principles of modern physiology. The Quran contains similarly just rulings concerning widowhood.

Thus it can be seen that none of the theoretical details concerning reproduction and the practical instructions and guidance concerning sexual life found in the Qur’an are inconsistent with any fact of modern science.

The Qur’an and the Bible: Common Features

Many subjects described in the Bible are also described in the Qur’an. Among these common subjects are, first, the stories of the prophets—Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Elijah, Jonah, Job and Moses—and the stories of the Israelite kings: Saul, David and Solomon. There are also specific descriptions of important events such as the creation of the heavens, the creation of humankind, the Flood and the Exodus, and supernatural powers were involved in these events. Finally, there are also accounts of Jesus and his mother Mary according to the New Testament.

If, in the light of the modern knowledge we have acquired from sources outside the revealed books, we consider the subjects described in those two revealed books, what reaction is produced in our minds? What do we find?

Common Subjects: The Qur’an, the Gospel and Modern Knowledge

At the outset, in connection with the common subject matter of the Qur’an and the Gospel, it is necessary to remember that not one of the subjects in the Gospel that was criticized from a scientific perspective at the beginning of this book is mentioned in the Qur’an.

Jesus is mentioned many times in the Qur’an—announcing to Mary the miraculous birth of her son, Mary’s proclamation of this news, Jesus’s high status as a prophet, his role as savior, his conveying to people the revelation he received, that revelation’s confirmation and correction of the Torah, his preaching, his Companions, successors and miracles, his ascension to Allah, his role on the Day of Resurrection, and so forth.

The Qur’an contains a lengthy account of Jesus’s family in Surahs Al ‘Imran and Maryam. It describes the birth of his mother, Mary, her youth and her miraculous motherhood. Jesus is always referred to as “the son of Mary,” and his lineage is given solely through the maternal line. In this situation, the natural and logical reason is that biologically he had no father. We have already seen that on this point the Qur’an differs from the accounts of Matthew and Luke in the Gospel, because they give Jesus’s paternal lineage and provide two different accounts.

The Qur’an places Jesus, through his maternal family tree, in the lineage of Noah, Abraham and Mary’s father—named Imran in the Qur’an.

Surah 3 (Al ‘Imran), verses 33–34: “Indeed, Allah chose Adam, Noah, the family of Abraham and the family of Imran above all the worlds; they were descendants of one another……”

Thus Jesus was a descendant of Noah and Abraham through his mother Mary and through Mary’s father Imran. The Qur’an also contains none of the errors in the names of Jesus’s ancestors found in the Gospel. We discussed this matter in detail at the beginning of this book.

Nevertheless, for the sake of objectivity, this matter should be considered once again. Moreover, it is important to understand its significance in response to the baseless claim that Muhammad (peace be upon him) wrote the Qur’an himself and chiefly copied it from the Bible. If Muhammad (peace be upon him) had truly written the Qur’an himself and copied the Bible, why did he not copy the Bible’s account of Jesus’s ancestors? Instead, how could he have inserted an account that, in the light of modern knowledge, is beyond all dispute?

It is noteworthy in this connection that the accounts in the Gospel and the Old Testament on this subject contradict each other, and therefore neither of them can be accepted.

Common Subjects: The Qur’an, the Old Testament and Modern Knowledge

Some of the common subjects of the Qur’an and the Old Testament have already been discussed. It may be recalled that, while discussing the Old Testament, the creation of the earth was examined and it was shown that the Old Testament account is entirely consistent with scientific facts. Since the matter has already been examined and discussed once, there is no need to repeat it.

Both the Qur’an and the Old Testament contain accounts of the kings of Israel. But historical and archaeological information and accounts on this subject are so scant that it is not at all possible to determine the truth or falsehood of those accounts on their basis. Modern knowledge is truly inadequate in this matter.

Nearly the same can be said about the prophets. Both books contain accounts on this subject. But the matter can be considered in the light of modern knowledge only after it has been accurately determined how much information concerning the places, times and persons involved in those events has reached us.

However, both books contain two subjects that can and should be examined in the light of modern knowledge. These are the Flood in Noah’s time and the Exodus in Moses’s time.

The Flood can be examined because it left no trace in the history of human civilization that could be cited in support of the Old Testament account. On the other hand, modern knowledge contains no information on the basis of which the Qur’anic account could be criticized.

The Exodus can be examined because, in general, the accounts of it in both books are clearly complementary to each other, and the information available in modern knowledge supports both.

The Flood in Noah’s Time: The Old Testament Account

At the beginning of this book, while discussing the Old Testament, we examined the event of the Flood in detail, and it may be recalled that we reached the following conclusion—

There are not one but two accounts of the Flood, written in two different periods. The first is the Yahwist account, dating from the ninth century BCE. The second is the Priestly account, dating from the sixth century BCE. It is called the Priestly account because it was written by priests of that period.

These two accounts cannot be identified separately. They are blended together. Some paragraphs from one are also found in the other. Father de Fox, a professor at the Bible School of Jerusalem, described in detail, with examples, how paragraphs from one account were inserted verbatim into the other in his commentary on his translation of Genesis. One account contains a total of ten Yahwist paragraphs. There are Yahwist paragraphs at the beginning and end, while between two Yahwist paragraphs in the middle, one Priestly paragraph has been inserted. Since the two accounts sometimes contradict each other, neither account will seem logical or meaningful unless it is read with attention to the sequence of events. Father de Fox himself said: “The two accounts make it appear that the Flood occurred through two different processes; its duration is also given differently, and the number of animals Noah took into his Ark is likewise different in the two accounts.”

Judged from the perspective of modern knowledge, it can be seen that the Bible’s account of the Flood is wholly unacceptable for the following reasons:

(1) The Old Testament describes the Flood as having occurred worldwide.

(2) The Yahwist account gives no date for the Flood; the Priestly account, however, gives a date, and it specifies a time when such a catastrophe was entirely impossible.

The Reasoning Behind This View Is as Follows

The Priestly account clearly states that the Flood occurred when Noah was 600 years old. From the genealogy described in the fifth chapter of Genesis (taken from the Priestly text and quoted at the beginning of this book), it can be seen that Noah was born 1,056 years after Adam. Thus, the Flood should have occurred 1,655 years after Adam was created. On the other hand, from the genealogy of Abraham given in the same Priestly text of Genesis (11:10–32), it can be seen that Abraham was born 292 years after the Flood. We learn from the Bible itself that Abraham lived approximately in 1950 BCE. It can therefore be established that the Flood occurred in the twenty-first or twenty-second century BCE. This calculation is consistent with the information given in ancient versions of the Bible. At that time, people had no knowledge of the matter, so no contrary argument could be raised. Consequently, everyone accepted the chronology given by the Bible without hesitation. But now that a clear understanding of the chronology of ancient events has become generally accepted, the imaginary dates given by the authors of the Priestly text of the Old Testament have lost their credibility. As a result, those dates have been removed from later editions of the Bible. However, the serious error is easily detected simply by calculating on the basis of the genealogies that have not yet been removed. Modern biblical commentators, of course, do not draw the reader’s attention to this error, or are unable to do so.

How is it possible today to suppose that, in the twenty-first or twenty-second century BCE, there was such a catastrophe that all living creatures on earth, except those aboard Noah’s Ark, were destroyed? At that time, human civilizations had already developed in several parts of the world, and their remains have reached us. For example, at that time the Old Kingdom was followed by the end of the First Intermediate Period and the beginning of the Middle Kingdom. In the light of the knowledge of history that we have acquired today, the claim that all human civilization was destroyed in that Flood seems absurd.

Thus, from a historical perspective, it can be seen that the Bible’s account of the Flood is entirely contrary to modern knowledge. Moreover, the fact that the biblical text was altered by human hands is formally demonstrated by the existence of two texts on the same subject.

The Qur’anic Account of the Flood

The Qur’an contains a general account of the Flood. This account is entirely different from the biblical account and raises no historical question or criticism.

The Qur’an contains no continuous narrative of the Flood. It merely states in various surahs that punishment befell Noah’s people. The most complete account is found in verses 25–29 of Surah 11 (Hud). Surah 71 (Noah) and verses 105–155 of Surah 26 (Al-Shu‘ara) primarily contain the account of Noah’s admonition. Before considering the actual course of events, we shall first consider the Flood described in the Qur’an against the general background of Allah’s wrath descending upon societies that disobey Allah’s commands.

The Bible speaks of a worldwide Flood as punishment for all humanity that disobeyed Allah’s commands. The Qur’an, on the other hand, speaks of various punishments descending upon certain specific societies. For example, verses 35–39 of Surah 25 (Al-Furqan) state: “Indeed, We gave Moses the Book and appointed his brother Aaron as his helper, and We said, ‘Go to the people who rejected Our signs.’ Then I utterly destroyed that people. And when the people of Noah denied the messengers, We drowned them and made them a sign for humanity. For the wrongdoers We have prepared a painful punishment. We destroyed ‘Ad, Thamud, the people of the Well, and many generations between them. We warned each of them with examples, and We utterly destroyed them all for their disobedience.”

Similarly, verses 59–93 of Surah 7 (Al-A‘raf) recall the punishments sent down upon the people of Noah, ‘Ad, Thamud, the people of Lot (Sodom) and Midian.

Thus it can be seen that the catastrophe of the Flood is presented in the Qur’an specifically as a punishment for Noah’s people. This is the first fundamental difference between the Qur’anic and biblical accounts.

The second fundamental difference is that the Qur’an gives neither a date nor a duration for the Flood, whereas the Bible does.

The causes of the Flood are described in roughly the same way in both books. In the Bible’s Priestly account (Genesis 7:11), two causes are said to have operated at the same time: “On that day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and all the windows of heaven were opened.” In contrast, verses 11–12 of Surah 54 (Al-Qamar) of the Qur’an state: “So We opened the gates of heaven with pouring rain and caused springs to gush forth from the earth; then the waters of heaven and earth met for a purpose already ordained.”

The Qur’an’s account of the passengers of the Ark is specific. The command Allah gave Noah was carried out precisely. The command required the following:

Surah 11 (Hud), verse 40: “Take aboard it a pair from every species, along with your family—except those against whom the decree has already been issued—and those who believe.” But only a few believed with him.

The one excluded from the family was one of Noah’s sinful sons. Despite Noah’s plea, Allah’s decision concerning him did not change (Surah Hud, verses 45–46). In addition to Noah’s family, excluding that son, the Qur’an mentions among the passengers of the Ark certain people who had believed in Allah.

The Bible, however, mentions no such people. In fact, the Bible contains three separate accounts concerning the passengers of the Ark.

First account—in the Yahwist text, a distinction is made between “clean” and “unclean” animals and birds. Seven pairs of every “clean” species—seven males and seven females—and one pair of every “unclean” species—one male and one female—were also taken into the Ark. (It is noteworthy that in all Semitic languages of that period, “seven” generally meant “many.” That is how it should be understood here as well.)

Second account—according to the revised Yahwist account (Genesis 7–8), only one pair of every species was taken into the Ark, whether “clean” or “unclean.”

Third account—according to the Priestly text, Noah was in the Ark, with none of his family excluded, along with one pair of every species.

The main account of the Flood is found in verses 25–49 of Surah 21 (Hud) and verses 23–30 of Surah 23 (Al-Mu’minun) of the Qur’an. The biblical account is of nearly the same kind; there is no particularly significant difference.

The place where Noah’s Ark came to rest is called Mount Ararat in the Bible (Genesis 8:4), and Judi in the Qur’an (Surah Hud, verse 44). This mountain is said to be the highest mountain in Armenia’s Ararat range, but there is no evidence that people did not change its name to reconcile the two accounts. Blachère supports this view, saying that there is a mountain called Judi in Arabia. However, this similarity of names may also be artificial.

In conclusion, the principal differences between the biblical and Qur’anic accounts of the Flood can be identified accurately and precisely. Some differences, however, cannot be examined because of the lack of objective information. But judged in the light of recognized and universally accepted facts, the biblical account is inconsistent with recently discovered facts and knowledge; this applies especially to the date and geographical extent of the Flood. On the other hand, there is nothing in the Qur’anic account against which any objective criticism can be raised. Someone might nevertheless ask whether, during the period between the revelation of the Bible and the Qur’an, it was possible for people to acquire knowledge that enabled them to know the correct facts about the event. The answer is no. For from the time of the Old Testament until the time of the Qur’an, people had no evidence concerning this ancient story other than the Bible. Thus it can be seen that human beings had no role in the subsequent changes in the meaning and significance of the account aimed at making the event consistent with modern knowledge. Another explanation or cause must therefore be accepted for this change, namely revelation sent down after the biblical account.

The Exodus

The Exodus of Moses and his followers from Egypt—the first stage on the way to Canaan—is an extremely important event. Although it is sometimes alleged to be essentially a legend, the event is an established fact set within a familiar context.

This event is described in the second book of the Pentateuch of the Old Testament—that is, the Torah—the Book of Exodus. It contains an account of the journey through the wilderness and the covenant made with Allah at Mount Sinai. The Qur’an also gives a lengthy account of this subject. More than ten surahs, including Al-A‘raf, Yunus, Ta-Ha and Al-Shu‘ara, contain a lengthy account of the relationship between Pharaoh and Moses and his brother Aaron, and of their departure from Egypt. The event is also mentioned elsewhere briefly or as a reminder. To my own knowledge, the name of Pharaoh, the principal figure on the Egyptian side, is mentioned seventy-four times in twenty-seven surahs.

When the accounts in the Qur’an and the Bible are compared, it can be seen that, unlike the Flood, the two accounts of this event have many similarities. There are certainly differences, yet we shall see that the biblical account has considerable historical value. For it is from this account that the Pharaoh concerned—or, more precisely, the two Pharaohs concerned—can be identified. The process of identification began with the Bible and was completed by information given in the Qur’an. When recently discovered information is added and the matter is examined and analyzed, the event can be placed within a historical context.

The Exodus Described in the Bible

The biblical account begins by recalling Jacob’s entry into Egypt with the Jews. Jacob met Joseph there. Then, according to Exodus 1:8: “Then a new king arose over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.”

Then the persecution began. Pharaoh ordered the Jews to be used as laborers in the construction work in the cities of Pithom and Rameses (Exodus 1:11). And so that their numbers would not increase, he ordered every newborn Jewish boy to be thrown into the river. After Moses was born, his mother managed to hide him for three months, and then placed him in a basket by the riverbank. Pharaoh’s daughter happened to see the child, took him home and entrusted his care to a servant woman. This servant was in fact Moses’s mother. Moses’s sister watched from a distance as the princess took her brother, and, pretending not to know the child, offered to find a good nurse, thereby arranging for the child’s own mother to do the work. The child was raised as one of Pharaoh’s sons, and he was named Moses.

In his youth, Moses went to a country called Midian (Madyan). He married there and lived for many years. At this stage, the Bible gives important news (Exodus 2:23): “At that time the king of Egypt died.”

Allah commanded Moses to go to Pharaoh and lead his people out of Egypt (in the Bible, this command appears in the story of the burning bush). Moses’s brother Aaron helped him carry out this responsibility. After returning to Egypt, Moses went to Pharaoh with Aaron. This Pharaoh, during whose reign Moses had been born, was the successor to his predecessor.

Pharaoh did not permit the Jews who followed Moses to leave Egypt. Allah sent revelation again and commanded Moses to repeat his request to Pharaoh. According to the Bible, Moses was eighty years old at this time. He demonstrated to Pharaoh, through magic, that he possessed miraculous powers. But this had no effect. Allah sent down His wrath upon Egypt in the form of plagues. The river water turned to blood; countless frogs, gnats and flies spread throughout the settlements; boils appeared on the bodies of people and animals; domestic animals died; hail fell frequently; locusts covered the land; darkness descended everywhere; and the firstborn began to die. Yet Pharaoh still did not permit the Jews to leave Egypt.

As a result, they set out from the city of Rameses. Excluding women and children, they numbered six hundred thousand (Exodus 12:37). Later we shall see that this number is exaggerated. Pharaoh had his chariot prepared and took his people with him. He also took six hundred chosen chariots, together with the officers appointed over them. Thus the king of Egypt pursued the children of Israel; at that time the children of Israel were departing with raised hands.” (Exodus 14:6 and 8). Pharaoh’s army went to the seashore and caught up with Moses’ people. Moses raised his staff, the sea divided into two, and he crossed to the other side with his people without wetting his feet.” Then the Egyptians, with all Pharaoh’s horses and chariots and horsemen, pursued them and entered the sea after them. (Exodus 14:23) “The water returned and covered their chariots and horsemen; not one of them remained. But the children of Israel walked through the sea on dry ground, and the water was like a wall to them on their right and left. (Exodus 14:28–29)

The account in Exodus is very clear. Pharaoh was at the head of his army and drowned in the water. For the account says, “Not one of them remained.” This event is also described in the Bible’s Psalms, Psalm 106, verse 11, and Psalm 136, verses 13 to 15. There, thanks are offered to Allah because “He divided the Sea of Reeds and led Israel through it, but thrust Pharaoh and his army into the Sea of Reeds.” Thus, according to the Bible, there is no doubt that Pharaoh drowned in the sea and died. But the Bible gives no information about what happened to his body.

The Exodus as Described in the Qur’an

The account of this Exodus in the Qur’an is broadly similar to the biblical account. However, it is spread across different surahs, so it must be read together as a single account.

The name of the reigning Pharaoh at the time of the Exodus is not mentioned in the Qur’an. Consequently, he cannot be identified. The Bible also gives no name, though it tells us only that one of his ministers was named Haman. He is mentioned six times in the Qur’an (Surah al-Qasas, verses 6, 8, and 38; Surah al-Ankabut, verse 39; and Surah al-Mu’min, verses 24 and 36).

Pharaoh was the persecutor of the Jews. Surah 14 (Ibrahim), verse 6: “Moses said to his people, ‘Remember Allah’s favor to you when He subjected you to grievous suffering, slaughtering your sons and sparing your women alive.’”

The same persecution is described in verse 141 of Surah al-A‘raf. The Qur’an does not mention the name of the city that the Jews built while living as slaves in Egypt. The Bible does mention its name.

The incident of Moses being left on the riverbank as an infant is described in verses 39–40 of Surah Ta-Ha and verses 7–13 of Surah al-Qasas. According to the Qur’anic account, Moses was taken in by Pharaoh’s family. Surah 28 (al-Qasas), verses 8–9: “Pharaoh’s people picked him up. The consequence was that he would become their enemy and a source of grief. Pharaoh, Haman, and their armies were sinners. Pharaoh’s wife said, ‘This child is a delight to my eyes and yours. Do not kill him; he may benefit us, or we may adopt him as a son.’ In fact, they did not understand the consequences.”

According to Muslim legend, Pharaoh’s wife, Asiya, raised Moses. The Qur’anic account shows that it was not Pharaoh’s wife but members of his household who found Moses by the riverbank.

Verses 13–28 of Surah al-Qasas describe Moses’ youth, his stay in Midian, and his marriage. In particular, the incident of the burning bush is described in the first part of Surah Ta-Ha and in verses 30–35 of Surah al-Qasas.

The Qur’an does not mention ten heavenly plagues descending upon Egypt, as the Bible does; it briefly mentions five plagues—flood, locusts, lice, frogs, and blood (Surah al-A‘raf, verse 133).

The Qur’an contains an account of the Exodus from Egypt, but it does not contain the geographical details or the mention of vast numbers of people found in the Bible. The biblical account of six hundred thousand men, with their families, remaining in the desert for a long period does not seem credible. The Qur’an describes the death of Pharaoh, who pursued the Jews, as follows: Surah 20 (Ta-Ha), verse 78: “Then Pharaoh pursued them with his armies, but the sea overwhelmed them completely. The Jews crossed over. Pharaoh died, and his body was found.” The Bible does not mention this important event—the discovery of the body.

Surah 10 (Yunus), verses 90–92: “We took the Children of Israel across the sea, and Pharaoh and his army pursued them out of hostility and transgression. When drowning overtook him, he said, ‘I believe that there is no deity except Him in whom the Children of Israel believe, and I am among those who submit.’”

“Now? Yet earlier you disobeyed and were among those who spread corruption. Today We shall preserve your body on the shore so that you may be a sign for those who come after you. Yet many people are heedless of Our signs.”

Two matters need to be explained in this connection.

First, Pharaoh’s hostility and transgression against justice must be understood in the light of Moses’ efforts to guide him; and second, preserving or rescuing Pharaoh must be understood as preserving or rescuing his body, because the Qur’an itself states that Pharaoh was punished. Surah 11 (Hud), verse 98.

“On the Day of Resurrection he will lead his people, and he will bring them into the Fire.”

It is noteworthy in this connection that, in accounts of events that can be tested in the light of history, geography, and architecture, the Qur’an and the Bible differ as follows:

—The Qur’an does not mention the names of the city built by the Jews who followed Moses or of the places they passed through on the route of the Exodus.

—The Qur’an does not mention that any Pharaoh died while Moses was staying in Midian.

—The Qur’an does not state how long Moses had been alive when he attempted to guide Pharaoh.

—The Qur’an gives no number for Moses’ followers, whereas the Bible clearly exaggerates by stating six hundred thousand men and their families—that is, more than two million men and women in all.

—The Bible does not mention the recovery of Pharaoh’s body after his death. The following common features of the accounts in both books are noteworthy for our present consideration:

—The Qur’an supports the biblical account of Pharaoh’s persecution of the Jews who followed Moses.

—Neither the Qur’an nor the Bible mentions the name of the king of Egypt.

—The Qur’an supports the biblical account that Pharaoh died during the Exodus.

Confronting the Book’s Information with Modern Knowledge

The accounts in the Bible and the Qur’an concerning the duration of the Children of Israel’s stay in Egypt and the process by which they left Egypt contain some information that can be compared with modern knowledge. However, this comparison is necessarily uneven, because some of the information creates numerous problems, making it difficult to discuss the remaining information at all.

1) Consideration of Some Information Presented in the Book

The Children of Israel in Egypt:

It can be said with virtually no risk of error that, according to the biblical account (Genesis 15:13 and Exodus 12:40), the Jews stayed in Egypt for 400, or rather 430, years. Despite this slight discrepancy between the accounts in Genesis and Exodus, it may be said that the period of the Jews’ stay in Egypt began when Joseph, the son of Jacob, went to Egypt with his brothers, long after Abraham. It should be noted, however, that this information is found only in the Bible. The Qur’an merely mentions the journey to Egypt, without giving any date or year, and we have no other evidence that could shed light on the matter.

Modern commentators, from P. Montet to Daniel-Rops, believe that when Joseph and his brothers reached Egypt, probably in the seventeenth century BCE, the Hyksos were also heading toward Egypt, and that a Hyksos ruler probably welcomed them at Avaris in the Nile Valley.

But there is no doubt that this assumption is completely contrary to the biblical account. For the Bible says (1 Kings 6:1) that 480 years before the construction of Solomon’s temple, in 971 BCE,

the Jews made the Exodus from Egypt at approximately 1450 BCE, and that their entry into Egypt must have occurred between 1880 and 1850 BCE. Yet Abraham was supposedly alive at precisely that time, and other biblical information indicates that 250 years separated his era from that of Joseph. Therefore, considered in chronological sequence, this biblical account cannot be accepted at all. We shall later examine Father de Fox’s explanation of the matter. As for the modern commentators’ assumption, the only basis for objecting to it is this account in 1 Kings, although we have already seen that the account is not at all acceptable.

Apart from the account in the Book, there is scarcely any other evidence or trace of the Jews’ stay in Egypt. Ancient Egyptian inscriptions do mention a class of workers called Apiru, Hapiru, or Habiru, who have been identified—rightly or wrongly—as Hebrews, that is, Jews. Among them were construction workers, agricultural laborers, and others. But there is no indication of where they came from. Father de Fox said: “They are not local people; they do not claim to belong to any class of the local society, nor do they have occupations or status like those of the local people.”

A papyrus document from the reign of Thutmose III, king of Egypt, refers to them as “stable workers.” In the fifteenth century BCE, Amenophis II is said to have captured 3,600 of them from Canaan and brought them back. Father de Fox noted that many of them were inhabitants of Syria-Palestine. During the reign of Seti I, around 1300 BCE, the Apiru caused considerable disturbance in the Beth-Shean region of Canaan. During the reign of Rameses II, some of them were employed as mine workers, while others were used to carry stones for the construction of the lofty gateways of temples. From the Bible we also learn that, at the same time, they were employed in building Egypt’s northern capital city. Egyptian writings mention the Apiru once in the twelfth century BCE, during the reign of Rameses III.

The word Apiru was not used only in Egypt, so it is difficult to say whether it referred exclusively to the Hebrews. It may originally have meant forced laborers or slaves and later have become the name of an occupation. In this connection, one may recall an example of the use of a modern word. In French, the word Suisse has several meanings: an inhabitant of Switzerland, a mercenary soldier from that country serving under an ancient French king, a guard at the Vatican, or an employee of a Christian church.

Whatever the circumstances may have been, there is no doubt that the work imposed on them during the reign of Pharaoh Rameses II was forced labor or compulsory labor. There is also no doubt that he persecuted the Jews. The cities of Rameses and Pithom mentioned earlier in the biblical Book of Exodus were located in the eastern part of the Nile Valley. The modern cities of Tanis and Qantir are located in the same area, and they are about fifteen miles apart. The capital built by Rameses II was also in this area, and he was the one who persecuted the Jews.

It was in this setting that Moses was born. The account of his rescue from the river’s waters has already been given. He also has an Egyptian name. In his book Egypt and the Bible, P. Montet (published by Delachaux and Niestlé, Neuchâtel, 1959) showed that the list of common personal names in Rank’s dictionary of hieroglyphic language includes the names Mesu or Mesi. The Qur’an, however, uses only the name Moses.

The Plagues in Egypt

Under the heading “Plagues,” the Bible states that ten kinds of scourges were sent upon Egypt by Allah and gives a detailed account of each one. Some of the plagues are also described as having miraculous features. The Qur’an mentions only five plagues, most of them natural disasters: a widespread flood, locusts, lice, frogs, and blood.

The Bible describes the rapid multiplication of frogs and locusts. It also says that the river water became blood and flooded the entire country. The Qur’an mentions blood only, without any further detail. Clearly, various fictions could be introduced on the basis of this mention of blood. The other plagues mentioned in the Bible are poisonous insects, swarms of flies, boils, hail, darkness, the death of the firstborn, and the death of livestock. Like the beginning of the flood, these plagues also began in various ways and are described in different parts of the Bible.

The Route of the Exodus

The Qur’an gives no indication whatsoever of the route of the Exodus. The Bible, on the other hand, provides a detailed account. Father de Fox and P. Montet have both reopened the way for discussion of this subject. The journey probably began in the Tanis-Qantir region, but no trace has been found of the remaining route described in the Bible. Moreover, it has not been possible to determine precisely where the water divided to allow Moses and his people to cross.

The Miraculous Division of the Water

Some commentators believe that the miraculous division of the water may have been caused by the tides or by an eruption in a distant volcano. The Jews may have crossed at low tide, and the Egyptians may have drowned when the tide came in. But all this is mere speculation.

The Place of the Exodus in the History of the Pharaohs

It is possible to determine more reliable evidence concerning the period of history in which the Exodus occurred. The idea that Merneptah, the successor of Rameses II, was the Pharaoh of the Exodus has long been held. Maspero, the famous Egyptologist of the early twentieth century, wrote in his book Digital Guide to the Cairo Museum (1900): “According to the Alexandrian legend, Merneptah was the Pharaoh of the Exodus and drowned in the Red Sea.” I have not seen the evidence on which Maspero based this statement. But the assertion of such a distinguished and renowned commentator deserves to be considered with the utmost seriousness.

Apart from P. Montet, no other Egyptologist or biblical scholar has conducted much research either for or against this idea. Many theories have indeed been devised over the past few decades, but their sole aim has been to focus on a single feature of the account, without paying proper attention to it. And by “the account” they do not mean only the biblical account. Moreover, the originators of these theories have not paid sufficient attention to the need for each theory to accord with historical and archaeological evidence.

The strangest theory, however, was proposed by de Miceli in 1960. He specified an exact date, saying that the Exodus took place on April 9, 1495 BCE. He calculated the date on the basis of the calendar and claimed that Thutmose II was Pharaoh of Egypt at that time. He therefore was the Pharaoh of the Exodus. In support of this claim, he said that the mummy of Thutmose II showed marks on the skin and that these marks were lesions caused by leprosy. He did not, however, explain how the marks had occurred or why they could not have had another cause. One of the ten plagues described in the Bible is boils. He considered these boils to have been caused by leprosy and reached that conclusion. In particular, the biblical mention of the construction of the city of Rameses proves, he argued, that the Exodus could not have occurred before a Rameses became Pharaoh.

Moreover, Thutmose II cannot be identified as the Pharaoh of the Exodus merely by observing the marks on his skin. Similar marks were found on his son Thutmose III and his grandson Amenophis II, and they can still be clearly seen on their mummies preserved in the Cairo Museum. Commentators believe that the marks were caused by some hereditary disease. Thus, Miceli’s theory is not acceptable at all.

Daniel-Rops’s theory is likewise unacceptable. In his book The People of the Bible (published by Desclée de Brouwer, Paris, 1970), he declared Amenophis II to be the Pharaoh of the Exodus. His father, Thutmose III, had a strongly nationalistic outlook. On this basis, he declared Amenophis II to be the persecutor of the Jews and said that his stepmother, the famous Queen Hatshepsut, had raised the infant Moses.

Father de Fox identified Rameses II as the Pharaoh of the Exodus, and his reasoning seems largely sound. What he said in his book The Ancient History of Israel (published by J. Gabalda & Co., Paris, 1971) is not consistent with the biblical account in every respect, but one piece of evidence he presented is very important. The cities of Rameses and Pithom were built during the reign of Rameses II, and the Bible itself reports this construction. Therefore, it can no longer be said that the Exodus occurred before Rameses II ascended the throne. According to the chronology given by Drioton and Vandier, the construction of these cities took place in 1301 BCE; according to Bütton’s chronology, in 1290 BCE. The two theories mentioned above are also unacceptable for another reason: according to the biblical account, Rameses II himself was the Pharaoh who persecuted the Jews.

Father de Fox believes that the Exodus occurred during the first or middle part of the reign of Rameses II. This dating is not precise. It seems that he fixed the date in this way to allow time for Moses and his followers to settle in Canaan and for Merneptah to make peace with the Jews. It is noteworthy that an inscription from the fifth year of Pharaoh Merneptah’s reign indicates that, after ascending the throne upon the death of his father, Rameses II, he reached an understanding with the Jews and established peace on the border. But two strong arguments can be raised against this theory:

(a) The Bible shows that the king of Egypt died while Moses was staying in Midian (Exodus 2:23). Elsewhere in the Bible, this same king is identified as the builder of the cities of Rameses and Pithom through the forced labor of the Jews. This king was Rameses II. Therefore, it is natural that the Exodus occurred during the reign of his successor. But Father de Fox has stated that he doubts the source of this account in verse 23 of the second chapter of the biblical Book of Exodus.

(b) It is even more surprising that, despite being director of the Biblical School of Jerusalem, Father de Fox made no mention in his theory of the Exodus of two important passages in the Bible. Yet both passages say that the king of Egypt died while pursuing the fleeing Jews. This account proves that the Exodus could have occurred only near the end of a king’s reign, and at no other time. But Father de Fox theorized that it occurred during the first or middle part of the reign. It should be mentioned again that there is no room for doubt that Pharaoh lost his life while pursuing the Jews. The Bible itself gives a specific account of this.

“Then he prepared his chariot and took his people with him (Exodus 14:6). (Pharaoh, king of Egypt) pursued the children of Israel, who were departing.” (Exodus 14:8). And “the water returned and covered the chariots and horsemen, so that not one of Pharaoh’s soldiers who had entered the sea after them remained” (Exodus 14:28–29). The Psalms also mention Pharaoh’s death and call for praise of God, saying in Psalm 136:15, “He thrust Pharaoh and his army into the Sea of Reeds.”

Thus it appears that two Pharaohs died during Moses’ lifetime. One Pharaoh died while Moses was in Midian, and the other died by drowning in the sea during the Exodus. Clearly, these were two different Pharaohs. In these circumstances, it cannot be accepted that there was only one Pharaoh in Moses’ time. Yet Father de Vaux spoke of only one Pharaoh (Ramesses II). Since the existence of only one Pharaoh does not provide satisfactory answers to all the related questions, Father de Vaux’s assumption cannot be accepted as correct.

3) The Pharaoh of oppression was Ramesses II, and the Pharaoh of the Exodus was Merneptah. This distinction is quite clear. P. Montet used very astutely the Alexandrian legend mentioned by Maspero. It is worth noting that, during the golden age of the Ptolemies, ancient historical documents were preserved in Alexandria, and were destroyed at the time of the Roman conquest. Everyone has now become deeply aware of that loss.

In any event, the same account is also found in much later Islamic and Christian legends. (It is noteworthy that histories written in the first part of the twentieth century for religious instruction, as well as the history written by the Arab H. Lester, state that the Exodus took place in Egypt during Merneptah’s reign.) Montet presented the same view in his book Egypt and the Bible (publisher: Delachaux and Niestlé, Neuchâtel, 1959). There are other arguments supporting it, particularly its support in the Qur’anic account, although the famous archaeologist Montet did not cite the Qur’an. Before considering all this information, however, we shall first turn our attention to the Bible.

Although the name of the Pharaoh concerned is not mentioned in Exodus, the word “Rameses” is used. The Bible describes a city built by the Hebrews through forced labor as “Rameses.” We now know that these cities were situated in the Tanis-Qantir region of the eastern Nile Valley. There had already been some buildings in the area where Ramesses II built his northern capital. Archaeological excavations over the past several decades, however, have proved that it was Ramesses II who turned the site into an important city, using the Hebrews’ forced labor for this work.

In the present age, no one is surprised on encountering the word “Rameses” in the Bible. One hundred and fifty years ago, Champollion discovered how to decipher hieroglyphics and established the use of this word; since then it has become familiar to everyone. We have become accustomed to pronouncing, reading, and understanding its meaning. It should be remembered, however, that the meaning of hieroglyphics had disappeared by the third century BC, and that the name has been preserved nowhere except in the Bible and in a few Greek and Latin books. Even in those books, the name is found in more or less corrupted forms. Tacitus used the word in his Annals as “Rhampsitis.” Only in the Bible is the word found in its correct form, namely “Rameses.” The word is mentioned in five places in the Old Testament, that is, the Torah: Genesis 47:11; Exodus 1:11 and 12:37; and Numbers 33:3 and 33:5.

In Hebrew, the word Rameses is found written in two ways: “Raamses” and “Raïamses” (the English letter “i” is used as equivalent to the Hebrew letter ayin). In the Greek version of the Bible, the word is written “Ramesse,” and in the Latin version it is written “Rameses.” The French Clementine text (first edition, 1621) likewise uses the form “Rameses.” This was the French version in circulation during Champollion’s research, and in his work Summary of the Hieroglyphic System of the Ancient Egyptians (second edition, 1828, p. 276), he mentioned the spelling used for the word in the Bible.

It thus appears that the name Rameses has been miraculously preserved in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin versions of the Bible. What is surprising, however, is that the commentators of the ancient versions of the Bible were unable to understand the meaning of the word at all. For example, the meaning assigned to it in the 1621 French Clementine Bible is ridiculous. It states that the word Rameses means “the thunder of a ferocious animal.”

The following conclusions can easily be drawn from the foregoing discussion:

(a) The Exodus did not, and could not, have taken place before a Pharaoh named Rameses occupied the throne of Egypt. It is noteworthy that there were eleven kings named Rameses in Egypt.

(b) Moses was born during the reign of the Pharaoh who built the cities of Rameses and Pithom—that is, during the reign of Ramesses II.

(c) Ramesses II died while Moses was in Midian, and the subsequent events of Moses’ life took place during the reign of Merneptah, Ramesses II’s successor.

Moreover, the Bible contains some further important information on the basis of which it may be possible to determine precisely at what point in the history of the Pharaohs the Exodus took place. The Bible states that Moses, at the age of eighty, tried to persuade Pharaoh to free his people. “When Moses was eighty years old and Aaron eighty-three, they spoke to Pharaoh” (Exodus 7:7). Elsewhere, the Bible (Exodus 2:23) states that the Pharaoh who was on the throne at the time of Moses’ birth died while Moses was in Midian. It is noteworthy that the Bible mentions no change in the king’s name in its account of the subsequent events. These two accounts indicate that the combined reigns of the two Pharaohs during Moses’ stay in Egypt lasted at least eighty years.

It is known with considerable accuracy that the reign of Ramesses II lasted sixty-seven years. According to the calculations of Drioton and Vandier, this period extended from 1301 to 1235 BC, while according to R. A. W. Rauton’s calculations it extended from 1290 to 1224 BC. In the case of Merneptah, the successor of Ramesses II, Egyptologists are not able to give any exact dates. There is no doubt, however, that his reign lasted at least ten years, since Father de Vaux states that documentary evidence for ten years is available. Drioton and Vandier have proposed two possibilities: ten years, from 1234 to 1224 BC, or twenty years, from 1224 to 1204 BC. Egyptologists cannot provide any definite indication of how Merneptah’s reign ended, but it can probably be said that serious internal disorder continued in Egypt for twenty-five years after his death.

In any event, even though no exact information is available concerning the lengths of these reigns, no pair of Pharaohs other than Ramesses II and Merneptah can be found whose combined reigns reached or exceeded eighty years and whose history accords with the biblical account. Moses was eighty years old when he rescued the Hebrews; in the Bible, this fact accords only with the combined lengths of the reigns of Ramesses II and his successor Merneptah. It is worth mentioning that the combined reigns of Sethos I and Ramesses II are also said to have lasted approximately eighty years. That period, however, cannot be relevant to our consideration. First, Sethos I’s reign was very short and therefore cannot accord with Moses’ prolonged stay in Midian during his youth. Second, since Moses spent those long years in Midian during the reign of the first of the two Pharaohs of his lifetime, that first Pharaoh cannot have been Sethos I. Rather, the evidence establishes that Moses was born at the beginning of Ramesses II’s reign; that while Moses was in Midian, Ramesses II died after ruling for sixty-seven years; and that, after Ramesses II’s son Merneptah ascended the throne, Moses returned to Egypt and raised with this new Pharaoh the matter of freeing the Hebrews. If Merneptah is assumed to have reigned for twenty years, Moses’ request to him to free the Hebrews must have occurred during the second half of his reign. Rauton considered this possibility credible. Moses may therefore be assumed to have led the Exodus toward the end of Merneptah’s reign. Nothing appears to have occurred otherwise, for both the Bible and the Qur’an tell us that Pharaoh was killed while pursuing the fleeing Hebrews.

The account found in the Scriptures of Moses’ childhood and his being taken into the Pharaoh’s palace accords exactly with this sequence of events. It is universally known that Ramesses II died at a very advanced age. He was between ninety and one hundred years old at the time of his death. It follows that he became Pharaoh between the ages of twenty-three and thirty-three and reigned for sixty-seven years. He may have married before becoming Pharaoh. Thus, there is nothing in the account of a member of his family finding Moses (according to the Qur’an), or of Pharaoh’s wife asking her husband’s permission to keep the child in the palace after finding Moses on the bank of the Nile, nor is there any account anywhere contradicting this event. The Bible says that Pharaoh’s daughter found Moses. Given Ramesses II’s age when he became Pharaoh, it would not have been unusual for him to have had a teenage daughter at the relevant time. Thus it appears that there is no contradiction between the Qur’anic and biblical accounts on this matter.

This proposal is entirely consistent with the Qur’anic account and contradicts only one biblical account. The account we have already seen is written in 1 Kings 6:1: “And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.” It is noteworthy, however, that this book is not part of the Torah. This account is widely disputed, and Father de Vaux has explicitly rejected the historical information in this part of the Old Testament as unacceptable.

It is noteworthy that the date of the Exodus was determined in the account by relating it to the construction of Solomon’s place of worship. Since the account is disputed and doubtful, it cannot be accepted as an argument against the sequence of events of the Exodus described above.

The Problem of the Inscription

The critics believe they have found an objection to the account of the Exodus, in which the pursuit of the Jews is described as the final act of Merneptah’s reign. They base this objection on an inscription from the fifth year of Merneptah’s reign.

The inscription is very important. For among the hieroglyphic texts, it is the only document that mentions the word “Israel,” accompanied by an adjective that clearly shows it was applied to a “human group or community.” The inscription was discovered in the Pharaoh’s mortuary temple at Thebes, and its account of events begins in the early part of Merneptah’s reign. Toward the end of the inscription, after mentioning Pharaoh Merneptah’s victories over Egypt’s neighboring countries, a particular victory is described: “Israel is destroyed; its seed is no more.” On the basis of this account, it is said that the use of the word “Israel” shows that the Jews had already settled in Canaan—that is, by the fifth year of Merneptah’s reign. Thus, their Exodus from Egypt must already have been completed.

This proposal is not acceptable at all. To accept this objection, one would have to admit that the Jews had never lived in Canaan before and had always been in Egypt. The objection therefore cannot be accepted. Although Father de Vaux was among those who accepted Ramesses II as the Pharaoh of the Exodus, in his book The Ancient History of Israel he wrote concerning the Jews’ settlement in Canaan: “The date of the settlement in the Kadesh region, south of the communities associated with the Israelites, cannot be determined precisely, and this settlement dates from before the Exodus.” Thus he acknowledged the possibility that some people had left Egypt before Moses and his companions. People known as Apiru or Habiru (sometimes identified as Israelites) had lived in Syria-Palestine long before Ramesses II and the Exodus, and we have documentary evidence that Amenophis II brought 3,600 prisoners back to Egypt as forced laborers. Moreover, there were more such people in Canaan during the reign of Sethos I, and they caused disorder in the Beth-Shan region. P. Montet mentioned this matter in his book Egypt and the Bible. It may therefore be assumed that Merneptah took harsh measures against these rebels on the frontier, while those inside the country united under Moses’ leadership and later fled the country. This assumption is in no way inconsistent with, nor contradictory to, the account of the inscription from the fifth year of Merneptah’s reign.

Furthermore, the mention of the word “Israel” in the history of the Jewish people has no connection whatsoever with the idea that Moses and his followers had settled in Canaan. The origin of the word Israel is as follows:

According to Genesis (32:29), Israel is the second name of Jacob, the grandson of Abraham and the son of Isaac. The commentators of the Ecumenical Translation of the Bible—Old Testament (1975) believe that the word probably means “God manifested Himself in His strength.” Since this name was given to a person, it is not strange that his descendants should have been called by that name in his memory.

Thus the name “Israel” was already in use several hundred years before Moses. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that the Exodus had taken place before the fifth year of Merneptah’s reign merely because the name appears in an inscription from Pharaoh Merneptah’s time.

The inscription merely speaks of a group of people described as “Israel.” It cannot refer to any politically organized community, because the kingdom of Israel had not yet been formed before the tenth century BC. The inscription must therefore have referred to a small community of people. It is noteworthy in this connection that Father B. Couroyer, professor at the École Biblique de Jérusalem, stated in his commentary on his translation of the Book of Exodus (published by Éditions du Cerf, Paris, 1968, p. 12): “The word ‘country’ is used with the other names in the inscription, but ‘community’ is used with the name Israel.”

We now know that, after a preparatory period of eight or nine centuries, “Israel” entered history. During that period, many semi-nomadic communities, particularly Amorite and Aramaean communities, settled throughout the area. At the same time, many tribal patriarchs emerged, including Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob Israel. Jacob’s tribe became known by his other name, “Israel,” and much later, long after Merneptah’s reign, this tribe developed into a political entity. For the kingdom of Israel existed from 931 or 930 to 821 BC.

4) The Scriptural Account of Pharaoh’s Death during the Exodus:

The death of Pharaoh during the Exodus is an important matter in the Qur’anic and biblical accounts. It appears prominently in the original text of both books. In the Bible, it is mentioned not only in the Pentateuch or Torah, but also in the Book of Psalms; this point has already been mentioned.

It is surprising that Christian commentators have completely ignored the event. Father de Vaux said that the Exodus from Egypt took place in the first half or middle of Ramesses II’s reign. But he apparently failed to notice that this Pharaoh died during the Exodus itself. In other words, this event proves that the Exodus took place toward the end of his reign. Yet the head of the École Biblique de Jérusalem and author of The Ancient History of Israel showed no concern that his statement was entirely inconsistent with the information given in the Torah and the Psalms.

In his book Egypt and the Bible, P. Montet stated that the Exodus took place during Merneptah’s reign. But he said nothing about the death of the Pharaoh who pursued the Hebrews.

This extremely astonishing attitude of the Christians is completely opposed to the Jewish viewpoint. Psalm 136:15 gives thanks to Allah because He “overthrew Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea.” This psalm is regularly recited in Jewish prayers. Christians also know that this account in the Psalms fully agrees with Exodus 14:28–29: “The waters returned, and covered the chariots and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them.” Thus they should have no doubt whatsoever that Pharaoh and his army were completely annihilated, and these words are found in their own Bible.

Yet, contrary to all the evidence, Christian commentators deliberately ignore Pharaoh’s death. Some of them go a step further and, by mentioning the event described in the Qur’an, lead readers toward fanciful notions. In the Bible translation approved and published by the École Biblique de Jérusalem (L’Exode—Exodus, 1968, p. 73, published by Les Éditions du Cerf, Paris), Father Couroyer wrote in his commentary on Pharaoh’s death: “The Qur’an (Surah 10, verses 90–92) mentions this event (Pharaoh’s death), and there is a popular legend that the drowned Pharaoh, together with his army (of whom there is no mention in the Holy Text), lives beneath the sea and reigns there as king of the people, that is, the seals.”

By “Holy Text” or sacred text, the commentator clearly meant the Bible, and he made a deliberate false statement by saying that this book contains no mention of Pharaoh’s drowning with his army. Second, he referred to the Qur’anic account in such a way as to make it appear completely opposed to the Bible. Third, immediately after mentioning the Qur’anic account, he introduced a fanciful story in the name of a so-called popular legend, creating the false impression in the minds of unwary readers, especially readers unfamiliar with the Qur’an, that this fanciful story is connected with the Qur’anic account. Yet the matter to which the commentator alluded has no connection whatsoever with the content of the Qur’anic verses. The Qur’an states in Surah 10 (Yunus), verses 90–92, that while Pharaoh and his army were pursuing them, the Children of Israel crossed the sea, and as Pharaoh was drowning he cried: “I believe that there is no deity except Him in whom the Children of Israel believe, and I am among those who submit.” Allah replied: “Now? Whereas before this you disobeyed and were among the corrupters. Today We shall preserve your body in the open land so that you may be a sign for those after you.”

This is all that the Surah says about Pharaoh’s death. Neither this Surah nor anywhere else in the Qur’an is there the fanciful tale described by the biblical commentator. The Qur’an clearly states that Pharaoh’s body would be preserved, and this information is highly significant.

When the Qur’an was revealed, the bodies of all the Pharaohs currently considered, rightly or wrongly, to be associated with the Exodus had been buried in the Theban necropolis across the Nile from Luxor. But no one knew this at the time, and the tombs were discovered much later, toward the end of the nineteenth century. As the Qur’an states, the body of the Pharaoh of the Exodus was indeed recovered, and whatever his name may have been, anyone can now see that body in the royal mummy room of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. Thus the true facts are entirely different from the tale that Father Couroyer tried to attach to the Qur’an.

(5) The Mummy of Pharaoh Merneptah:

All the evidence indicates that Loret discovered in 1898, in the Valley of the Kings at Thebes, the mummified body of Merneptah, son of Ramesses II and the Pharaoh of the Exodus, and that it was taken from there to Cairo. On July 8, 1907, Elliot Smith removed the mummy’s wrappings, and in his book The Royal Mummies (1912) he gave a detailed account of this procedure and of his examination of the body. Although it was damaged in several places, the mummy was then in satisfactory condition, and since that time it has been kept in the Cairo Museum for visitors to see, with the head and neck uncovered and the rest of the body covered with cloth. Probably for fear of further damage, the covering of the body is no longer removed, and the museum has no complete photograph of the body apart from the photographs taken by Elliot Smith in 1912.

In June 1975, the Egyptian authorities kindly gave me permission to uncover and examine the covered part of the body and to take photographs. A comparison of the mummy’s present condition with its condition sixty years ago clearly shows that it has deteriorated, and that some fragments are now completely missing. Much of the tissue of the mummified body has been damaged, in some places by human hands and in others by the passage of time.

This damage is quite natural as a result of changes in preservation methods since its discovery at the end of the nineteenth century. Before its discovery, the mummy had lain buried in the Theban necropolis for more than three thousand years. At present it is kept in an ordinary glass case, and is therefore not protected from external influences such as air and fine particles. In addition, fluctuations in temperature and seasonal changes in air humidity are constantly affecting it. The present environment is entirely different from the environment in which the mummy remained completely intact for nearly three thousand years. The protection provided by the wrapping around it is no longer present. While it was in the tomb, treasure-seeking thieves in ancient times may have caused some damage, and it may also have suffered insect attacks; but its condition suggests that the mummy was then in a much more favorable environment than the one in which it is now kept.

During my visit in June 1975, the authorities, following my recommendation, arranged for a special examination of the mummy. Dr. Al-Meligi and Dr. Ramses took X-ray photographs of it and recorded their opinions on the basis of them. Dr. Mornialabi examined the abdomen and, through an opening near the throat, examined the inside of the chest. This enabled us to see the condition of the interior of the body more clearly and to photograph it. In addition, Professor Sicaldi began a general medical and forensic examination. The entire process will be completed after the fragments of covering that spontaneously fall from the mummy’s body have been examined under a microscope. Professor Minot and Dr. Duri will conduct this examination.

When this book was sent to the press (the first French edition, November 1975), the examination process had not been completed. Therefore, it has not been possible to record its results here.

However, it has already been possible to determine that there are marks of lesions in various places on the bones, and that parts of the bones are missing in certain places. It has not yet been possible to determine whether this condition occurred before or after the Pharaoh’s death. His death may have resulted from drowning in water, as described in the Scriptures; or it may have resulted from a severe, fear-induced psychological shock immediately before drowning; or it may have resulted from a combination of both causes.

The difficulties in preserving the mummy described above, particularly the damage to the bones, may become increasingly serious. Consequently, unless improved measures to prevent deterioration and preserve it are adopted immediately, the mummy may perhaps not remain intact for much longer. It should be remembered that this mummy is the testimony and proof that the Pharaoh’s death during the Exodus and the recovery of his body occurred by Allah’s command. It is therefore especially necessary to ensure that this testimony and proof are not lost with the passage of time.

It is a natural human duty to preserve historical relics. But in the case of this mummy, that duty has assumed a far greater and broader importance. For this mummy is the actual remains of a man who knew Moses, rejected his guidance, pursued him during his flight, and lost his life in the process. According to the Qur’anic account, his body was saved from destruction by Allah’s command so that it might be a sign for later generations.

Like the mummy of Merneptah, the mummy of Ramses II, another eyewitness to the story of Moses, has also recently been examined. In this case too, similar measures of protection and preservation need to be adopted.

[Note by the English translator—in 1975, after receiving the results of the examinations conducted in Cairo, the author, Dr. Maurice Bucaille, read them at meetings of several French learned societies, including the National Academy of Medicine, in the early part of 1976. On the basis of the information obtained from these examinations, the Egyptian government decided to send the mummy of Ramses II to France for treatment. Accordingly, the mummy arrived in Paris on September 26, 1976.]

Those who seek modern evidence supporting the truth of the scriptural account need only visit the Royal Mummies Room of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo to see the tangible reality of the Qur’anic verses concerning the Pharaoh’s body.

The Qur’an, Hadith and Modern Knowledge

In Islam, the Qur’an is not the only source of laws and regulations. During Muhammad’s lifetime and after his death, supplementary information concerning regulations was sought in his words and actions.

Although there was a practice of recording Hadith in written form from the beginning, many Hadith also came through oral transmission. Those who collected and compiled the Hadith investigated past events in detail before committing them to writing and worked rigorously to establish accurate information. In every reliable collection of the Prophet’s words, the names of all the successive transmitters are given continuously, beginning with the person who first heard the statement from a member of his family or from one of his Companions—that is, his associates. This fact alone demonstrates the collectors’ devotion, honesty and hard work.

In this way, many accounts of Muhammad’s words and actions were collected. These are known as Hadith. The word Hadith means “statement,” but it has also become customary to call accounts of his actions Hadith.

Some such collections were published in the decades following Muhammad’s death. Some important collections were not published until two hundred years later. The most accurate and reliable information and accounts are found in the collections known as al-Bukhari and Muslim, and these two collections too were published two hundred years after Muhammad’s death. Recently, Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan of the Islamic University of Medina prepared an Arabic-English parallel edition of this collection (publisher: Sh. M. Board Mills (Conversion) Limited and Ta’lim-ul-Qur’an Trust, Gujranwala Cantonment, Pakistan; Sahih al-Bukhari, first edition, 1971). After the Qur’an, al-Bukhari’s collection is generally considered the most reliable. Houdas and Marcais translated this collection into French under the title Les Traditions Islamiques (Islamic Traditions) (1903–1914). As a result, Hadith became accessible to those who do not know Arabic. However, some caution is necessary concerning this French translation and certain translations made by Europeans. They contain errors and inaccuracies that arose not from translation difficulties but from interpretation. In some cases, the meaning of the relevant Hadith has been changed in such a way that the translation imposes an idea absent from the original Hadith.

There is a similarity regarding sources between certain Hadith and the Gospels. It is that none of the collectors was an eyewitness to the events described, and they wrote down the accounts long after the events had occurred. As with the Gospels, not all Hadith were accepted as accurate. Only a small number received general approval from the experts. Consequently, apart from al-Muwatta, Sahih Muslim and Sahih al-Bukhari, one finds elsewhere in the same book, alongside Hadith approved as accurate, Hadith that are doubtful or even directly rejectable.

Although modern questions have been raised about the canonical Gospels, the higher Christian authorities have never questioned their accuracy. By contrast, from the earliest period of Islam, experts subjected even the Hadith considered most accurate to detailed criticism. Of course, no one has ever questioned the Qur’an, the original book that serves as the criterion of judgment.

I have tried to delve deeply into Hadith literature to see how Muhammad could have expressed, outside the written revelation, matters about which explanations and information were obtained later through scientific progress. Although Sahih Muslim is accurate, I chose al-Bukhari, which is considered the most accurate, for my examination. I have always tried to remember that those who collected the Hadith had to rely partly on the oral accounts of others, and that they recorded those accounts together with the transmitters’ errors or accuracy. Thus, a written Hadith transmitted by many people concerning the same subject is undoubtedly accurate. (In Sahih Muslim, Hadith of the first class are called zanni, or doubtful, and those of the second class qati, or certain.)

I compared the accounts in the Hadith with the conclusions I had reached by comparing the Qur’an with modern science. The result was very disappointing. In comparison with science, the Qur’anic accounts were always found to be accurate. But, in general, the accounts in Hadith concerning scientific matters appeared doubtful when compared with scientific facts. Here I examined only Hadith concerning scientific matters.

In the case of Hadith explaining certain verses of the Qur’an, interpretations have sometimes been given that are not acceptable at all in the present age.

We have already noted the importance and particular significance of the account concerning the sun in verse 38 of Surah Ya-Sin. The verse says: “The sun travels within its prescribed orbit.” Yet a Hadith explains this matter as follows: “When the sun sets, it … reaches the place beneath the Throne, prostrates itself, and asks permission to rise again, and it is granted permission. Then a day will come when it will be about to prostrate itself … It will ask permission to follow its own course again (to rise) … Then it will be ordered to return by the route along which it came, and it will then rise in the west…” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab Bad’ al-Khalq, or the Book of the Beginning of Creation, volume 4, p. 283, section 54, chapter 4, number 421). The original text is obscure and difficult to translate. Nevertheless, the allegorical story in this account conveys an idea of the sun’s circling the earth. This idea conflicts with modern scientific discoveries. Therefore, the authenticity of this Hadith is doubtful.

In the same book (Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab Bad’ al-Khalq, or the Book of the Beginning of Creation, volume 4, p. 283, section 54, chapter 6, number 430), the stages of the embryo’s development in the womb are described in terms of time. Forty days for the elements of the human body to be formed, another forty days for the “thing that clings,” and a third forty days for the “chewed flesh” stage. Then, after its destiny has been determined through the mediation of the angels, the spirit is breathed into it. This account of the embryo’s development does not correspond to scientific facts.

Apart from one comment concerning the possible use of honey as an aid to healing, without naming the disease (Surah al-Nahl, verse 69), the Qur’an gives no advice at all concerning remedies for disease. In the Hadith, however, detailed advice and guidance are given on this subject. An entire section of Sahih al-Bukhari (section 76) concerns medicine. In the French translation by Houdas and Marcais, this section extends from pages 62 to 91 of volume 4, and in Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan’s bilingual Arabic-English edition, from pages 395 to 452 of volume 7. There is no doubt that this lengthy account contains many Hadith based on conjecture. Nevertheless, it has one significance: it gives an indication of the ideas that could have been held at that time concerning various aspects of medicine. The relevant Hadith concerning medicine found in other chapters of al-Bukhari may also be added to this.

In the same way, we find accounts concerning the evil eye, possession by spirits and exorcism. It is, of course, forbidden to use the Qur’an for money in this connection. One Hadith says that a particular kind of date acts as a protection against magic, and that magic may be used against venomous snakes. In this regard, however, it should be remembered that when medicines and the possibility of using them appropriately were unavailable, all kinds of folk remedies naturally prevailed. Bloodletting, cauterization, shaving the head because of lice, and the use of camel’s milk and various animals and plants were quite popular. To stop bleeding, a palm-leaf mat was burned and its ashes applied to the wound. In emergencies, action was taken in the light of the contemporary intellect and experience. However, advising people to drink camel urine was probably not a particularly good practice.

It is difficult today to accept as accurate the information found in the Hadith concerning various diseases. A few examples may be given:

The origin of fever: “Fever comes from the heat of Hell.” There are four accounts supporting this statement (al-Bukhari, Kitab al-Tibb, volume 7, chapter 28, p. 416).

—There is a remedy for every disease: “Allah has not created any disease without also creating its remedy” (ibid., chapter 1, p. 395).

This idea is illustrated by the Hadith concerning flies: “If a fly falls into any vessel, immerse the whole fly, because one of its wings carries disease and the other carries the remedy for disease” (ibid., chapters 15–16, pp. 452–453, and Kitab Bad’ al-Khalq, section 54, chapters 15–16).

—A snake’s gaze causes miscarriage (and may also cause blindness). (ibid., Kitab Bad’ al-Khalq, volume 4, chapters 13–14, pp. 333–334)

—Bleeding between two menstrual periods: There is a Hadith on this subject (ibid., Kitab al-Hayd, volume 6, section 6, chapters 21 and 28, p. 490). One Hadith gives a brief description of the bleeding and says that it comes from a blood vessel. Another Hadith mentions a woman suffering from this illness for seven years, but it is impossible to know what reasoning supported the cause assigned in that manner. The cause may nevertheless have been correct. This disease is known as menorrhagia.

—Disease is not contagious: In addition to general statements on this subject in various places (ibid., Kitab al-Tibb, volume 7, section 76, chapters 19, 25, 30, 31, 53 and 45), several specific diseases are mentioned—leprosy (p. 408), plague (pp. 418 and 422), and camel scabies (p. 447). Yet although it is said that disease is not contagious, there is also advice not to go to areas afflicted by plague and to keep away from lepers.

For this reason, it is possible to conclude that there are some Hadith that are not scientifically acceptable. There is also room for doubt concerning the authenticity of such Hadith. Nevertheless, it is necessary to mention these Hadith. When they were compared with the Qur’anic verses mentioned above, it was found that not a single word in those Qur’anic verses is wrong and not a single account is incorrect. Clearly, this observation is very important.

It should be remembered in this connection that after the Prophet’s death there were two sources of guidance from his teachings—the Qur’an and the Hadith.

—The first source was the Qur’an. Many Muslims had memorized the entire Qur’an and, like the Prophet, recited it countless times. Moreover, the Qur’an already existed in written form. For it had begun to be recorded during the Prophet’s lifetime, even before the Hijrah (in 622 CE, that is, ten years before the Prophet’s death).

—The second source was the Hadith. The Prophet’s close associates (the Companions) and other Muslims who had witnessed his words and actions remembered these matters, and when spreading the new ideal they relied on their own memories in addition to the Qur’an.

After the Prophet’s death, the Qur’an and Hadith were collected and compiled. Hadith were first collected about forty years after the Hijrah. Some of the first compilation of the Qur’an had already been completed during the caliphate of Abu Bakr, and especially during the caliphate of Uthman. During his caliphate—between twelve and twenty-four years after the Prophet’s death—Caliph Uthman issued a standardized text of the Qur’an.

We wish to emphasize and attach particular importance to the difference between the Qur’an and the Hadith in terms of content and literary characteristics. It is impossible even to imagine comparing the style of the Qur’an with that of the Hadith. Moreover, when their content is considered in the light of modern scientific discoveries, one is astonished by the differences and contradictions between them. I hope I have been able to prove that:

—On the one hand, although the Qur’anic accounts often appear extremely general, they contain meanings and information that were later discovered, or will be discovered, through scientific research.

—On the other hand, although some accounts in the Hadith are fully consistent with the ideas of their time, they have now been shown to be scientifically unacceptable. This situation is not found in the case of Hadith concerning Islamic principles and regulations whose authenticity is beyond doubt.

It is particularly noteworthy in this connection that Muhammad did not hold exactly the same view concerning his own statements as he held concerning the Qur’an. He declared the Qur’an to be the Word of Allah. We have already seen that over a long period of twenty years he classified the Qur’anic surahs and verses with the utmost care and caution. The Qur’an had been recorded during his lifetime, many people had memorized it, and it was constantly recited in prayer. The Hadith, by contrast, are essentially said to be accounts of his actions and personal opinions. He himself left no instructions on this matter—anyone who wished could seek examples for personal conduct in his words and actions and publicize them. He himself left no statement on the subject.

Since only a very small number of Hadith reflect Muhammad’s own ideas, the other Hadith—particularly those concerning the various subjects mentioned here—clearly reflect the ideas of people of his time. A comparison with the Qur’an makes it easy to see how far these doubtful or fabricated Hadith are removed from it. One difference becomes especially clear in this comparison, if any further demonstration is needed: the Hadith, that is, the writings of that period, contain much scientifically erroneous information and description, whereas the written revealed book, the Qur’an, contains no such error.

From a religious point of view, the authenticity of the Hadith is beyond doubt. But in the case of Hadith concerning worldly matters, there is no difference between the Prophet and other people. In one Hadith, Muhammad’s own statement is reported as follows: “If I give an instruction concerning religion, follow it; but if I give an instruction based on my own judgment, remember that I am only a human being.” Al-Sarakhsi records this statement in his Principles (al-Usul) as follows: “If I bring anything concerning your religion to your attention, act accordingly; but if I bring anything concerning this worldly life to your attention, you have better knowledge of your worldly affairs.”

General Conclusion

As we reach the final part of this book, one point has become very clear: the view now most prevalent in the West concerning the various religious scriptures in circulation is not at all consistent with reality. We have seen the circumstances, times and forms in which the accounts and materials of the Old Testament, the Gospels and the Qur’an were collected and written. The circumstances in which these three revealed books were compiled are completely different from one another, and this difference has greatly affected the accuracy of their accounts and certain features of their content.

The Old Testament contains numerous literary works written over approximately nine hundred years. The many fragmentary and separate writings in this book were altered by human hands over different centuries. In some cases, new writings were added to existing ones. As a result, it is now very difficult to determine the source of any particular writing.

An attempt was made to convey to people, through the Gospels containing accounts of Jesus’s words and actions, the teaching he wished to leave behind after completing his worldly mission. Unfortunately, however, the authors of the Gospels were not eyewitnesses of the information and events they recorded. They merely wrote down the reports and stories about Jesus’s life that circulated in various Jewish-Christian communities, based on oral traditions and some writings that have now disappeared. In other words, they did not obtain information directly from the original sources. They relied on second- and third-hand accounts.

We must now consider the Jewish and Christian scriptures in this light and, in the interests of objectivity, reject completely all the ancient doctrines held by Jewish and Christian religious experts.

Self-contradiction and mutual contradiction naturally resulted from the abundance of sources, and we have already cited many examples. When writing about Jesus, the authors of the Gospels displayed exactly the same tendency toward exaggeration that medieval French poets displayed in their narrative poems. Consequently, each event was presented from the viewpoint of the particular author concerned, and the few accounts concerning modern knowledge in the Jewish-Christian scriptures described above need to be examined by the strictest methods.

When judged against this background, the real reasons for the contradictions, improbabilities and inconsistencies can be found very easily. Christians are greatly surprised when they recognize this situation. They are even more surprised when, after having been captivated and overwhelmed for so long by the verbal evasions, argumentative ingenuity and poetic language used by Christian commentators to conceal the results of modern discoveries, they finally come to understand it. In this connection, one may mention the two genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and Luke, considered separately. It should be remembered that these two genealogies contradict each other and are unacceptable from a scientific point of view. Many other examples capable of astonishing Christians have already been described. It is noteworthy that we have paid somewhat more attention to the Gospel of John because it has many important differences from the other three Gospels. In particular, John’s Gospel contains no account of the Eucharist ceremony, a fact that many people do not know.

The history of the revelation of the Qur’an is completely different from the corresponding history of the other two religious scriptures. The Qur’an was revealed over approximately twenty years, and whenever the angel Gabriel conveyed any portion of it to Muhammad, the believers memorized it immediately. Moreover, it was recorded during Muhammad’s lifetime. The final and definitive compilation of the Qur’an was completed during the caliphate of Uthman, between twelve and twenty-four years after the Prophet’s death. Those who had memorized the Qur’an immediately when it was revealed and later recited it daily in prayer examined that compilation. We now know that from that time onward the Qur’an has been correctly preserved without alteration. Its authenticity has never been questioned.

The Qur’an begins where the two preceding revealed books ended. There is no contradiction in its account, and, unlike the Gospels, there is no sign here of human intervention or alteration. An objective examination makes a unique literary characteristic evident throughout the Qur’an. And when it is examined from a scientific point of view, it becomes clear that the Qur’an’s information and accounts are entirely consistent with modern scientific discoveries. Moreover, the Qur’an contains accounts concerning science, as we have already seen, that cannot even be imagined to have been supplied by any human being of Muhammad’s time. For this reason, with the help of modern scientific knowledge, we can understand the meaning of those Qur’anic verses that have so far been possible to interpret.

When the Biblical and Qur’anic accounts of the same subject are compared, a fundamental difference is immediately apparent. The Biblical account is not at all acceptable from a scientific point of view, whereas the Qur’anic account is entirely consistent with scientific facts. The creation and the Flood may be cited as examples. Concerning the history of the Exodus, however, an important point of agreement can be found between the Biblical and Qur’anic accounts, and this agreement is entirely consistent with modern archaeological information concerning the dating of the time of Moses. Apart from this one point of agreement, there are important differences between the Bible and the Qur’an on every other subject. The differences themselves directly prove to be baseless the accusation, made without any evidence, that Muhammad copied the Bible and wrote the Qur’an.

When the accounts in the Hadith concerning science are compared with the Qur’anic accounts, the difference is so stark that the possibility of both having come from the same source is immediately ruled out.

These hadiths may have been reported as sayings of Muhammad (peace be upon him), but there is serious reason to doubt the truth of this claim. However, it may be assumed that such hadiths reflected the general ideas and conceptions of that era.

Judging in the light of the level to which human knowledge had advanced during Muhammad’s time, it is utterly impossible to suppose that the Qur’an’s scientific descriptions were the work of any human being. Therefore, it is not appropriate to regard the Qur’an merely as a revelation from God; rather, because the Qur’an itself guarantees its authenticity, and because its scientific descriptions cannot be explained by any human agency, it is reasonable, in their light, to accord this book a position of special distinction.

— End —