93 |
THE MOHAMMEDAN CONTROVERSY
|
|
suspicion on the Mussulmans, must have produced forged manuscripts, and
declared they were older than the time of Mohammed. It is moreover very
unlikely that the character of such a manuscript could be even deciphered by
any one nowadays (pp. 448, 449).
|
To Pfander's account of the ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, the
Vatican, Alexandrine, etc., and his explanation of their value, Ali Hassan
makes the following reply:
|
It is evident that the Padre
Sahib is not on terms of intimacy with any of the distinguished gentlemen
who preside in our Courts, otherwise he would have known that if contending
parties adduce ancient documents in favour of their claims, Do reliance
whatever can be placed on the mere ancientness of the paper, and of the
date. If then in worldly matters the oldness of the paper is no test of the
age of the writing, how shall, it become a test in religious affairs ? And,
especially, is this to be doubted, when we recollect that the heads of the
Christian religion in those days, were not such as we find the English
gentlemen now to be, but were very perfidious and deceptive in their faith,
such as they whom they call "Pope" and "Papa."
Therefore, until due proof be advanced, I cannot concede the ancientness of
these manuscripts, as assumed by the Padre. And the more so, as such a
conclusion would be in opposition to the commentators of the Bible, Urbanus
VIII., etc., for if these ancient manuscripts be really genuine, whence and
how came the corruptions of the text, which they admit to exist. But all
this reasoning would only then be necessary, if it were really admitted,
that the Padre spoke the truth, and that these manuscripts really do exist,
bear the date of completion inscribed on them, and are clearly legible;
otherwise, the whole statement seems to me to be unfounded (pp. 454, 455).
|
With respect to the writings of the fathers, and the quotations from the
Scriptures contained therein, the following is one of his replies:
|
It is evident, from the way in which the Reverend gentleman speaks, that
these books are not written like our commentaries in which the entire text
is quoted verse by verse; but that the words of Jesus appear in them as in
our scientific or religious works, where the Coran and the traditions are
often referred to. But have I ever held that the whole of the Old and New
Testaments has been altered, or that the pure Gospel was not written by some
of the apostles? Thus even admitting, which I do not, that these books are
really true and correct, and the authority of their writers acknowledged,
their correspondence with the manuscripts handed down, would neither injure
my argument nor benefit yours (pp. 458, 459).
|