Islam/About the bible
QUESTION: Why do you believe that the nowadays bibles are written by god , even tough it's full of contradictions and distortions ?
ANSWER: Peace to you!
Thanks for your good question.
The short answer to your question is because the Quran says it is trustworthy and because all the alleged contradictions have been explained on the Internet on sites like:
and many more.
The more detailed answer is given to you in the article below with references from the Quran. Please let me know your thoughts on it.
I wish you a joyful iftar tonight.
Should Muslims read the Tawrat, Zabur and Injeel?
'Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.'
Surah 5, Al Ma'idah, verse 47
What are the Tawrat, Zabur and Injeel?
Muslims are commanded in the Quran to believe in the books God revealed to the Jews and the Christians. A few such verses from the Quran confirm what the Bible teaches. They are here quoted because all truth belongs to God. This principle allows for referring to truth contained in any publications without giving them a status of perfection.
The Tawrat is the Arabic equivalent of the Hebrew word ‘Torah’. It is normally understood as the law that was revealed to Hazrat Musa. However, the Tawrat also includes the rest of the books that are found in today’s, 21st century Bible, the Old Testament, for the following reasons:
1. The Jews themselves use the term, ‘Tawrat’ sometimes in a general sense to include Jewish Scirptures in its entirety.
2. Jesus and his followers sometimes used the words, “law” and “prophets” interchangeably to refer to the whole Old Testament. When the Quran tells the Jews to follow the Tawrat, it must be doing so in the light of both, the narrow and the wider sense of how it was defined at that time by the Jews. If that was not the case it would have had to make it clear in order to not mislead them.
3. The Quran mentions that Muslims also have to believe in, ‘...that which the Prophets received from their Lord.’ Some of them are identified as Job, Solomon, Jonah, Ezekiel or possibly Isaiah and Ezra. These are biblical prophets whose books are most likely referred to as the Scripture that were taught to Jesus. They are not lost but found in the Torah, sometimes defined in the wider sense as the Old Testament.
1. ‘Zabur’ is the Arabic equivalent of the Hebrew word ‘zimra’, translated as ‘psalm.‘ It has the meaning ‘song, music.‘ When the Quran mentions the Zabur, it is probably a reference to the third division of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as ‘the Writings‘, or ‘Kethubim‘, beginning with the book of Psalms. The other two divisions are the Torah and the ‘Nevi'im‘ (Prophets). They have been recognized by Jews since about 450 BC until today. Jesus and the early church fathers also refer to the same divisions.
2. When the Quran mentions the revelations given to the people of the book, the Jews and the Christians , it normally refers to the Tawrat and the Injeel, not to the Zabur. That book, however, was also revealed by God to the Jewish prophet Hazrat Dawud . This indicates that it was included in the Tawrat as used in the wider sense of the word. Such a conclusion is supported by a hadith that tells of a similar occasion. Ka'b al-Ahbar is reported as quoting the Tawrat with sayings that find their parallels in the book of Isaiah (chapter 42) rather than the books revealed to Hazrat Musa. Isaiah is part of the Nevi'im (Prophets) the second division of the Hebrew Bible.
The Injil is the Arabic equivalent of the Greek word ‘euaggelion’. It is normally understood as the Gospel of Hazrat Isa written in Greek, the trade language of that part of the Roman Empire in the first century AD. However, the Injil also includes the rest of the books that are found in today’s, 21st century New Testament of the Bible for the following reasons:
1. “Injil” or, “Gospel” occurs about 77 times in the New Testament. The message in it, whether spoken or written, is called “the Gospel” . Hazrat Isa committed his Injil into the hands of his followers to publish throughout the world. Various historical documents clearly show that the early church used the word "Gospel" as a title for all or part of the New Testament before Islam arrived.
2. Toward the end of the second century, Irenaeus wrote: "The Word gave to us the Gospel in a fourfold shape, but held together by one Spirit". In the fourth century AD, Chrysostom wrote, “We assert, therefore, that, although a thousand Gospels were written, if the contents of all were the same, they would still be one, and their unity no wise infringed by the number of writers. -- Whence it is clear that the four Gospels are one Gospel; for, as the four say the same thing, its oneness is preserved by the harmony of the contents, and not impaired by the difference of persons”
3. F.F Bruce, Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, England, wrote: “At a very early date it appears that the four Gospels were united in one collection. They must have been brought together very soon after the writing of the Gospel according to John. This fourfold collection was originally known as "The Gospel" in the singular, not "The Gospels" in the plural; there was only one Gospel... Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, refers to "The Gospel" as an authoritative writing, and as he knew more than one of the four "Gospels" it may well be that by "The Gospel" sans phrase he means the fourfold collection which went by that name.”
About other books in the New Testament Bruce writes: “The corpus Paulinum, or collection of Paul's writings, was brought together about the same time as the collecting of the fourfold Gospel. As the Gospel collection was designated by the Greek word Euangelion, so the Pauline collection was designated by the one word Apostolos...
Augustine, one of the most famous early church fathers wrote in the fourth century, "For I ask them, is it good to take pleasure in reading the Apostle? or good to take pleasure in a sober Psalm? or good to discourse on the Gospel? They will answer to each, 'It is good'."
4. A Hadith of great reliability shows that the prophet of Islam credited wahi (Divine Inspiration) to one of the Apostle Paul's writings: “Abu Huraira told that after God's messenger had stated that God most high has said, "I have prepared for my upright servants what eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has entered into the heart of man," he added, "Recite, if you wish, 'No soul knows what comfort has been concealed for them'." (Bukhari and Muslim)
This is close to what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 2:9, a book that is part of today’s New Testament: ‘But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.’
Christian theologian B.B. Warfield sums up the whole topic under discussion well when he writes: “The earliest name given to this new section of Scripture was framed on the model of the name by which what we know as the Old Testament was then known. Just as it was called "The Law and the Prophets and the Psalms" (or "the Hagiographa"), or more briefly "The Law and the Prophets," or even more briefly still "The Law"; so the enlarged Bible was called "The Law and the Prophets, with The Gospels and the Apostles" (so Clement of Alexandria, "Strom." vi. 11, 88; Tertullian, "De Præs. Hær." 36), or most briefly "The Law and the Gospel" (so Claudius Apolinaris, Irenæus); while the new books apart were called "The Gospel and the Apostles," or most briefly of all "The Gospel." This earliest name for the new Bible, with all that it involves as to its relation to the old and briefer Bible, is traceable as far back as Ignatius (A.D. 115), who makes use of it repeatedly (e.g., "ad Philad." 5; "ad Smyrn." 7).
Have the Tawrat, Zabur and Injil been corrupted?
If a corruption of the texts had occurred one needs to ask the questions, ‘when should it have happened, how and by whom? What exactly has been distorted and why?’ There must be a reason behind such a deception. What would be the advantage or benefit from it? Muslims best look up their Quran to find out what it says about such serious charges.
1. Surah 2 , Al Bagaraah, verses 41-42, 44:
And believe in what I have sent down [= the Qur’ān], confirming what is with you [= the Tawrāt (Torah) and the Injīl (Gospel)], and do not be the first to disbelieve in it, and do not buy with My Verses [= the Tawrāt (Torah) and the Injīl (Gospel)] a small price, and fear Me and Me Alone. And do not clothe the truth with falsehood, or hide the truth – and you know.... Do you order the people in righteousness and you yourselves forget? And are you reciters of the Book? Do you not understand?
According to Tafsīr at-Tabarī, “what is with you” is the Tawrāt [Torah] and the Injīl [Gospel].
“What is with you” is described as “My Verses”, the ones of Allāh Himself. It is not possible that the Qur’ān could be confirming as God’s Word (“My Verses”) a text which has been changed. Neither is it possible to hide the truth if one does not have it any longer, or to recite books they allegedly no longer have.
Ibn Isaaq, the earliest biographer of Muhammad comments on Verse 44: ‘... do not conceal the knowledge which you have about my apostle and what he has brought you when you will find it with you in what you know of the books which are in your hands .... would you forbid men to disbelieve in the prophecy you have ... you contradict what you know to be in My book.
2. Surah 10, Yunus, verse 94:
'And if thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the book from before thee..'
‘Those who have been reading, ‘the book from before thee' are Jews and Christians! It would make no sense for Allah to command doubters to ask people for guidance whose Scriptures had been corrupted! Several verses in the Quran bear witness to the truth that the Tawrat was unchanged at the time of Hazrat Isa.
Numerous verses attest to the truth that the Tawrat was uncorrupted in the time of Muhammad, the sixth century AD. The Arabic phrase 'bain yadaihi' which is used in these references to the Torah literally means 'between his hands.' This usually is an idiom for 'in his possession,' or 'at his disposal'. Some Jewish contemporaries of Muhammad are called 'those who guide and do justice in the light of truth,' besides many others whose reputation was not so favourable. The very fact that they were commended so highly shows that they were in possession of the uncorrupted Torah.
3. Surah 3, Ali 'Imran, verse 93:
'…Say, 'Bring ye the Law and study it, if ye be men of truth.'
In this specific incident the Jews are asked to bring their own Law, the Tawrat. They are commanded by God to study it in order to find the right answer to a particular question.
4. Surah 5, Al Ma'idah, verse 43:
'But why do they come to thee for decision, when they have (their own) Law before them? -Therein is the (plain) command of Allah;....
Maududi comments on this verse: '...sometimes, when their own law did not suit them, they would take their cases to the Holy Prophet in the hope that they might obtain a more favourable decree from him than they could from their own law.'
This shows clearly that even corrupted Jews would never change the written Tawrat! They were only prepared to conceal the meaning of it. In spite of their wickedness, they did not dare to change the written form of the Tawrat! That is why, according to the Quran, Allah told them to look up their own law in which is the plain command of God!
5. Surah 5, Al Ma'idah, verse 47
'Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.'
This command is given to Muhammad's contemporaries. It is written in the 'present' tense which in the Arabic language can also refers to the future! If the Gospel (Injil) was corrupted at that time then surely Allah would never have asked the people of the Gospel, the Christians, to believe in it!
How can the “People of the Injīl” be expected to “judge” by what Allāh had revealed in it if it had been changed before the provision of the Qur’ān?
Some might argue that only some of the Injīl is God’s Word, but not all of it. However, this would still make it impossible for people to “judge” by it because they would not know which parts provide a reliable basis for judgment.
Ibn Ishaq tells us, that the prophet of Islam was delighted that he abided by the Torah in making his decision when the Jews did not: "I am the first to revive the order of God and His Book and to practice it"
6. Surah 5, Al Ma'idah, verse 69:
'If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course...'
Ibn Ishaq comments: [Four Jews came to Muhammad and said]: "Do you not allege that you follow the religion of Abraham and believe in the Torah which we have and testify that it is the truth from God?" He replied, "Certainly, but you have sinned and broken the covenant contained therein and concealed what you were ordered to make plain to men, and I dissociate myself from your sin." They said, "We hold by what we have. We live according to the guidance and the truth and we do not believe in you and we will not follow you." So God sent down concerning them: "Say, O scripture folk, you have no standing until you observe the Torah and the Gospel and what has been sent down to you from your Lord ...."
Furthermore, the fact that there were Jews and Christians 'on the right course' in Muhammad's time confirms the Torah and the Gospel to be unchanged in the 6th century AD! Certainly, they could never have been described in such an honourable way if they had 'stood fast' by corrupted Holy Books!
7. Surah 5, Al Ma'idah, verse 68
'Say: O People of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord....'
8. Surah 10, Junus, verse 64
'No change can there be in the Words of Allah. This is indeed the supreme Felicity.'
Since the Tawrat and the Injil are words of Allah it is impossible for man to change them. God has the power to watch over His word and to preserve it.
9. Surah 2, Al Bagaraah, verse 1:
That is the book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, those those who fear Allah.
The usual translation “This is the book,…” is wrong. The pronoun, ‘dhālika’ in Arabic points to a thing in some distance, not at hands. Consequently the Koran does not refer to itself, but to a book that came before it. That is the Bible.
WHAT ABOUT ‘TAHRIF’?
The Arabic word used by Muslim scholars to describe the supposed corruption of the sacred Scriptures is ‘Tahrif’. A distinction is made by them between a corruption of meaning or of words. All the most celebrated among the earliest commentators on the Quran speak only about the first corruption of meaning. Contrary to these authorities modern Muslim commentators hold the view that only parts of the Bible remained unchanged. Faith is only put in those statements which are supposed to confirm one's own opinions. Some Jews did the same in the days of Muhammad. They were condemned for doing so . There is no reason why that judgement for such a view should not apply anymore today.
DOES QURAN SAY THE BIBLE HAS CHANGED?
The Quran nowhere explicitly states the Injil (Gospel) was changed! What about the Tawrat? History shows that whenever God revealed Himself, most of His people fell into disobedience after a period of time. So it was with the Jews. In spite of this sad fact states there were always good Jews who remain true to the book God gave them:
'Of the people of Moses there is a section who guide and do justice in the light of truth.' God's word is truth and good Jews surely would never have changed the meaning or even the words of their Holy Book! (Surah 7, Al A'raf, verse 159)
1. Surah 3, Ali 'Imran, verse 78
'There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (as they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, 'That is from Allah,' but it is not from Allah: It is they who tell a lie against Allah...'
In the verse quoted above the Jews are reading parts of their Book wrongly while the written words remain unchanged. This is confirmed by the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir:
‘Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn 'Abbas said that the Ayah means they alter and add although none among Allah's creation CAN REMOVE THE WORDS OF ALLAH FROM HIS BOOKS, THEY ALTER AND DISTORT THEIR APPARENT MEANINGS. Wahb bin Munabbih said, "The Tawrah and Injil REMAIN AS ALLAH REVEALED THEM, AND NO LETTER IN THEM WAS REMOVED. However, the people misguide others by addition and false interpretation, relying on books that they wrote themselves." Then, they say: "This is from Allah," but it is not from Allah; As for Allah's books, THEY ARE STILL PRESERVED AND CANNOT BE CHANGED." Ibn Abi Hatim recorded this statement…
2. Surah 5, Al Ma'idah, verse 13
'But because of their breach of their Covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard: They change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the Message that was sent...
The meaning of the phrase, 'They change the words from their (right) places,' occurs also in Surah 5:41and is explained by Ibn Ishaq:
‘[A Jewish couple were caught in adultery. Some rabbis sent them and other Jews to Muhammad saying, if he prescribes tajbih (a lesser form of punishment) he is a king and follow him, but if he prescribes stoning he is a prophet. The apostle then went to the rabbis and asked them to bring out their learned men. He then asked] Abdullah b. Suriya, ... the most learned man living in the Torah ... as to whether the Torah did not prescribe stoning for adulterers. "Yes," he said, .... Then he [Muhammad] said: "They change words from their places, saying, If this be given to you receive it, and if it is not given to you, i.e. the stoning, beware of it, ..."
When the apostle gave judgment about them he asked for a Torah. A rabbi sat there reading it having put his hand over the verse of stoning. `Abdullah b. Salam struck the rabbi's hand, saying, "This, O prophet of God, is the verse of stoning which he refuses to read to you." The apostle said, "Woe to you Jews! What has induced you to abandon the judgement of God which you hold in your hands?" They answered: "The sentence used to be carried out until a man of royal birth and noble origin committed adultery and the King refused to allow him to be stoned. Later another man committed adultery and the king wanted him to be stoned but they said No, not until you stone so-and-so. And when they said that to him they agreed to arrange the matter by tajbih and they did away with all mention of stoning." The apostle said: "I am the first to revive the order of God and His book and to practise it." They were duly stoned ...
Furthermore, the phrase about changing the word from its right places confirms the Torah that was available at that time to have been correct. To know the difference between right and wrong words of God presupposes to have the right version in one’s possession. Hence the Jews only changed the wording of it when dealing with Muslims or Muhammad.
3. Surah 2, Al Baqarah, verses 75-85
Here is what Ibn Ishaq, the earliest biographer of Muhammad had to say about the passage:
Verse 75: "who listen to the word of God ... the Torah" [refers to the event mentioned in verse 55 where some Jewish leaders told Moses they wanted to hear God when He spoke to him. Moses took them up on to the mountain and they heard and understood God's voice]. Then he went back with them to the Children of Israel and when he came to them a party of them changed the commandments they had been given; and when Moses said to the Children of Israel, ‘God has ordered you to do so and so,’ they contradicted him and said God had ordered something else. It is they to whom God refers.
Thus God blamed them for what they were doing, He having in the Torah prohibited them from shedding each other's blood and charged them to redeem their prisoners ... they [two Jewish tribes] shed each other's blood while the Torah was in their hands by which they knew what was allowed and what was forbidden them ... When the war came to an end they ransomed their prisoners in accordance with the Torah ... God said in blaming them for that: ‘Will you believe in a part of the scripture and disbelieve in another part?’ [2:85] i.e. would you redeem him in accordance with the Torah and kill him when the Torah forbids you to do so ... (2:83-86)
4. Surah 4, Al Nisa, verse 46
The Jews are accused of changing, writing down wrongly, what Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) said. This is confirmed by the following hadith collected by Bukhari:
...No one removes the works of one of the Books of Allah Almighty, but they twist them, interpreting them improperly....
In Surah 2:2. The usual translation “This is the book – no doubt in it …” of “dhālika l-kitāb lā rayba fīhi …” is wrong. The pronoun dhālika, according to the grammar of Classical Arabic, refers to a distant object, and the verse must be translated “That is the book …”.
Thererfore, the Koran in this verse cannot refer to itself, but to something different, the Holy Bilbe!
Evidence from the Hadith
Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38 (Kitab al Hudud, ie. Prescribed Punishments), Number 4434 states:
Narrated Abdullah Ibn Umar:
A group of Jews came and invited the Apostle of Allah (peace-be-upon-him) to Quff. So he visited them at their school.
They said, ”Abul Qasim, one of our men has committed fornication with a woman; so pronounce judgment upon them” They placed a cushion for the Apostle of Allah (peace-be-upon-him), who sat on it and said, ”Bring the Torah.” It was then brought in. He then withdrew the cushion from beneath him and placed the Torah on it saying, “I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee.”
He then said,”Bring me one who is learned among you.” A young man was brought in. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition of stoning similar to the one transmitted by Malik from Nafi' (No. 4431)."
Does this not mean the Torah was accepted as not being corrupted in the days of Muhammad?
From this hadith we learn the following lessons:
1. That the prophet Muhammad had an authentic copy of the Torah which was widely used during his time. The Jews did not protest that Muhammad's copy was any different than their own. In fact, it probably was a copy from the Jews, since Muhammad or the Arabs could not read it themselves. This copy was God's infallible word. There was no corruption in the Scriptures, Allah's inerrant Word. (Surah 10:94)
2. The very fact that he called for the Scriptures for reference should be an example to every Muslim today. We notice that the prophet withdrew the cushion from beneath him and put the Torah on it. This is how every devout Muslim should treat Allah's Holy Scriptures.
3. The very fact that the prophet said, "I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee" should be an exhortation to all of us to believe in the entire Bible, following his example. Don't get silly and say, "But dear Christian Friend, we don't have the authentic, original Torah." Do you know better than Prophet Muhammad? He himself asserted his belief in the Holy Scriptures which were handed down from generation to generation.
Evidence from the earliest biographies of Muhammad
“Among the things which have reached me, about what Jesus the Son of Mary stated in the Gospel which he received from God for the followers of the Gospel, in applying a term to describe the apostle of God, is the following. It is extracted from what John the Apostle set down for them when he wrote the Gospel for them from the Testament of Jesus Son of Mary.” (Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasulallah", translated as "The Life of Muhammad", by A. Guillaume, Karachi: Oxford, 1998, pp. 103-104, bold added)
In Surah 5, Al Ma'idah, verse 48, the Quran is spoken of as confirming the Scripture that was before it and as a watcher over it. The Arabic meaning of the word "watch" (Muhaimin) can also be rendered "one who safeguards", "stands witness", "preserves" and "upholds". This clearly contradicts the view that the revelations given to the prophet of Islam allegedly abrogated the Bible! If this were the case there would be no need to confirm the Torah and the Gospel or even to watch over them in such a determined way.
The Quran makes it clear that the Tawrat, Zabur and Injil have not been changed before the time of Muhammad. Otherwise God would have demanded to believe in and follow Scriptures that were already corrupted. If we assume that changes were made during or after the prophet's time, we can simply compare a twenty first century copy with one that was written before the sixth century. The result will be that all the teaching remained the same! Muslims who say that the Bible is corrupted contradict their own book. Therefore, follow the advice of the Prophet of Islam when he said, ‘seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave’, by learning what the Torah and the Injil say.
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: Peace to you too!
And thank you for answering my question .
1- We (The Muslims) believe that Jesus Bible is written by God , not Mark's bible or Luke's or Matthew's or Johns's bible or any of the nowadays bibles , and the proof is also written in the Quran !
surah Al Nisa , verse 82
(ولو كان من عند غير الله لوجدوا فيه اختلافاً كثيرا)
The translation :
And if it was not from god they would have found a lot of Differences .
You can find so many differences between all the Nowadays Bibles , even between the New testament's four bibles .
2-About the contradictions ... i didn't find the answers of the contradictions i'm thinking about , for example :
- Matthew's Bible :
" 29 “Immediately after the distress of those days
“‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’[a]
30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[b] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.[c] 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[d] is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened "
Matthew 24:29-34 .
But so many generations has passed since that generation , and nothing has happened yet !!!
- Between Matthew's and Luke's :
" This is the genealogy[a] of Jesus the Messiah[b] the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2 Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3 Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4 Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5 Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6 and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,
7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8 Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9 Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10 Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11 and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[c] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12 After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13 Zerubbabel the father of Abihud,
Abihud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14 Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Elihud,
15 Elihud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.
17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah. "
Matthew 1:1-17 .
"23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
the son of Josek, the son of Joda,
27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melki,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
the son of Salmon,[a] the son of Nahshon,
33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[b]
the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob,
the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, 38 the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God. "
Luke 3:23-38 .
As you can see there is no match between all the sixty six names except one!
-Between Luke's and Matthew's :
" 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; "
And look here
" 27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. "
Luke 19:27 .
You would think it's a dictator talk when you hear it !
There is no way that Jesus would say something like that!
-Between Matthew's , Mark's and John's :
" 22 Immediately Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowd. 23 After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. Later that night, he was there alone, 24 and the boat was already a considerable distance from land, buffeted by the waves because the wind was against it.
25 Shortly before dawn Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. 26 When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. “It’s a ghost,” they said, and cried out in fear. "
"45 Immediately Jesus made his disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. 46 After leaving them, he went up on a mountainside to pray.
47 Later that night, the boat was in the middle of the lake, and he was alone on land. 48 He saw the disciples straining at the oars, because the wind was against them. Shortly before dawn he went out to them, walking on the lake. He was about to pass by them, 49 but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out, 50 because they all saw him and were terrified. "
Mark 6:45-50 .
" 16 When evening came, his disciples went down to the lake, 17 where they got into a boat and set off across the lake for Capernaum. By now it was dark, and Jesus had not yet joined them. 18 A strong wind was blowing and the waters grew rough. 19 When they had rowed about three or four miles,[a] they saw Jesus approaching the boat, walking on the water; and they were frightened. "
John 6:16-19 .
All the three Bibles agreed that Jesus told his students to leave him and go, and then Jesus came to them by walking on the water , but there are also some differences between the three Bibles , for example in mark's Jesus told his students to leave him and go to Bethsaida but he didn't mention a specific place in the other Bibles , and it was mentioned in John's that they were heading to Capernaum while it was not mentioned in the other Bibles , and it was also mentioned in John's that they had rowed three or four miles (here is the biggest problem)
if this bible was written by god , then why couldn't he tell if they had rowed about three miles or four ?!
God is the one who made the entire universe and he is capable of doing anything , so there is no way that he couldn't tell if it was three miles or four !
I mentioned only four contradictions , because i think these contradictions are enough to prove my point , but i can tell you about all the other contradictions i know if you want .
3- My friend, i disagree with you about the verses you explained and other few things that you wrote in your article , for example :
-we can't say that all the four new testament books are one Gospel , because there are a lot of differences between them .
-About the verse " 'And if thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the book from before thee..'"
1-At this verse Allah was talking to the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) not to all Muslims .
2-Allah told Muhammad (peace be upon him) to ask the people who read the book if he had any doubts about the Quran , because all the three religions books are written by god,even though at that time there were some distortions , but still they can tell him about things from their books , like their prophets who were also mentioned in the Quran and how they suffered to deliver the message of god ...
- About the verse number 93 from Al Imaran , please don't take a part of a verse and leave the other .
the full verse
"All food was lawful to the Children of Israel except what Israel had made unlawful to himself before the Torah was revealed. Say, [O Muhammad], "So bring the Torah and recite it, if you should be truthful."
You see the Jews said that eating the camel's meat is forbidden in the Torah , so at this verse Allah wanted the Jews to bring their book(The Torah) to prove that eating the camel's meat is forbidden in their book , but they didn't because it wasn't written in their book (they lied) .
-About verse 43 from Sura Al Maidah
'But why do they come to thee for decision, when they have (their own) Law before them? -Therein is the (plain) command of Allah;....
Yes the Jews who were mentioned in this verse didn't change their book but that doesn't mean that all the Jews are the same and that no one will ever change it .
-About the verse 47 from Al Maidah
" And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient. "
Allah didn't tell the Christians to judge by all what was mentioned in their books , he told them to judge by only what he has revealed there .
-Verse 69 from Al Maidah
" Indeed, those who have believed [in Prophet Muhammad] and those [before Him] who were Jews or Sabeans or Christians - those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness - no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve."
As you can see my friend it's in the past not in the present ,so it's obviously talking about the Christians who were existed before the Quran from the days of Jesus ( peace be upon him) , if it was talking about all the Christians including the nowadays Christians then it would be a contradiction for the first time in the Quran ! , because the nowadays Christians commit shirk (worshiping more than one god) , you worship the father , the son (Jesus) and the holy ghost , which means that the old days Christians were used to worshiping Allah only ! , which also proves that the nowadays Bibles have distortions in it because there was no such thing as the trinity in the bible at that time !
-About verse 64 from Junus
" For them are good tidings in the present life (Literally: the lowly life i.e., the life of this word) and in the Hereafter. There is no exchange for the Speeches of Allah; that is (the state) that is the magnificent triumph."
لَهُمُ الْبُشْرَىٰ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَفِي الْآخِرَةِ ۚ لَا تَبْدِيلَ لِكَلِمَاتِ اللَّهِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ هُوَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيمُ
a lot of people translate it but they put (change) instead of exchange , the Arabic word is (تبديل) , if you translate it you can tell who is right
And the meaning of the verse is that Allah won't exchange his promises with other promises , if you translate the word (كلمات) you might think it means (words) but it has two meanings .
-About the second verse from Surah Al Baqarah
" This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah - "
You see it's true that we use the Arabic word (Thalika) for the far objects , but some times it has the same meaning as (Haza) which means (this) , that means we usually use it for the far object , but we can also use it for the close object .
-About Surah Al Araf , verse 159
" 'Of the people of Moses there is a section who guide and do justice in the light of truth.' "
it doesn't say anything about the Torah , it says that some Jews guide with justice and that is true , in all religions you can find people who guide with justice and the opposite ...
-About Surah Al Imran , verse 78
" 'There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (as they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, 'That is from Allah,' but it is not from Allah: It is they who tell a lie against Allah...' "
At this verse it was confirmed that some of the Jews lie about their book and they know that they are lying , that is what Ibn Katheer said , he didn't confirm that there were no distortions in the book of the Jews at that time , he said that Wahab bin Munabbih said that , but he didn't confirm it him self , the important thing is that it wasn't mentioned in the Quran and the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) didn't confirm it him self .
-About verse 13 from Al Maidah and the verses 75-85 from Al Baqara , and the verse 46 from Al Nisa
i think the verses are obviously telling us that the Jews changed things in their books !
-About your first evidence from the book Al Hudud , i couldn't find the hadith you mentioned , are you sure from the number 4434 ?
Again thank you
you Deserve 10 in the rating :)
Peace to you! Thank you for your long message. God willing I shall answer your points in different parts.
Let me assure you that all the apparent contradictions you mentioned are answered on the Internet.
I will start with the first one you mentioned and kindly ask your input to it before we move on to the other ones. The short answer is:
Every man has two genealogies, one on his father's side, the other on his mother's. Hence we may infer that one of the two genealogies of Christ is probably that of Joseph, His putative father, the other that of the Virgin Mary, His mother. St. Matthew gives the former, St. Luke the latter. In Luke iii. 23 we find Joseph called "(the son) of Heli," doubtless because he was his son-in-law. He may have been adopted into the family lest it should die out—a common practice among the Hebrews and Romans, and one which still prevails among most nations. An old tradition represents Mary as daughter of Heli.] You must see yourself that it is a great proof, not of the corruption of the Scriptures, but of their remaining free from intentional alteration, that both genealogies occur in them. Had the Christians wished to make any change, how easy it would have been to remove all difficulties by placing Mary's name instead of Joseph's in Luke iii. 23. That they did not do so is a sign that (1) the early Christians, who knew all the facts of the case, found no difficulty in the matter, while any difficulty that now exists arises from our not knowing all the circumstances; and that (2) Christians in later times have had too much veneration for the Bible to venture to make any change in its text in order to remove opponents' grounds for objections.
But if, as both the Bible and the Qur'an (Surahs XXI., Al Anbiya, v. 91, and LXVI., At Tahrim, v. 12) assert, Jesus had no human father, what was the object of giving Joseph's genealogy in Matt. i.?
It was doubtless given for the sake of the Jews, in order that, whether they believed in His miraculous birth or not, they might see that He was descended from David, according to prophecy (Amos ix. II, &c., &c). According to Mary's genealogy in Luke iii. the same result follows.
The long answer is:
The Genealogies in Matthew and Luke
Matt. 1:1-17; Luke 3:23b-38
Both Matthew and Luke give a genealogical list for the descent of
Jesus. When these are compared, differences and difficulties appear
immediately. The most obvious difference is that Matthew's list
begins with Abraham and descends to Jesus, whereas Luke's list
begins with Jesus and ascends to Adam, the son of God. This in
itself presents no difficulty; but when comparing, it is quite
another matter. Of course only Luke gives the generations from
Adam to Abraham, and the lists of progenitors between Abraham
and David as given by Matthew and Luke are nearly identical. No
problem comes until we compare the two versions of the succession
from David to Jesus:
Matthew's list Luke's list (in inverse order)
Zerubbabel........ . Elmadam
Abiud . . Cosam
Eliakim . . Addi
Azor ? ? Melki
Zakok . . Neri
Akim . ............Shealtiel
Joseph (husband of Mary) Josech
Jesus ("the son, so it was
thought, of Joseph")
For students of a harmony of the gospels the above comparison
presents two problems; the difference in the number of generations
and the dissimilarity of names. How can the two genealogies be
harmonized without sacrificing the historical integrity of either?
Recent critical studies have generally regarded past attempts at
harmonization as just so much frustrated effort. Both H.C. Waetjen
and M.D. Johnson summarily dismiss past efforts to preserve full
historical authenticity as unconvincing, strained, and beside the
point. In any event, it is said, historicity will not effect
significantly the reader's existential response or understanding
of New Testament theology. Instead, each genealogy must be understood
individually and theologically in relation to the gospel in which
it appears and the thought of the evangelist that is intended to
express. The content and structure of each supposedly is arbitrary
to suit the evangelist's purpose. What those specific purposes were
need not occupy our attention here, for the analyses of scholars
such as Waetjen and Johnson follow the assumptions and methodology
of much recent New Testament critical scholarship. Their analyses
will be no better than their assumptions and methodology. And the
fundamental question of the historical reliability of the genealogies
cannot be bypassed in so a cavalier a fashion. Consequently we turn
our attention to the problems of harmonizing the two lists of Jesus'
The first problem, the difference in the number of generations, is
the easier to resolve. Although it is true that Matthew lists
twenty-six progenitors between David and Jesus, compared with Luke's
forty, two factors must be kept in mind. First, it is not uncommon
for the generations in one line of descent to increase more rapidly
than in another. Second, and more important, in Jewish thinking son
might mean "grandson," or, even more generally, "descendant" (as
"Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham," Matt. 1:1).
Similarly, begat (rendered by the patter "'X' [was] the father of
'Y'" in the New International Version, Matt. 1:2-16) does not
necessarily mean "was the actual (that is, immediate) father of"
but instead may simply indicate real descent. Just the fact that
Matthew casts his list in the form of three groups of fourteen
generations suggests this was a convenient though arbitrary
arrangement from which some generations may have been omitted. In
fact, it can be shown that Matthew's list has omissions (cf. 2
Kings 8:24; 1 Chron. 3:11; 2 Chron. 22:1,11; 24:27; 2 Kings 23:34;
24:6). Omission of generations in biblical genealogies is not
unique to this case, and Jews are known to have done it freely.
The purpose of a genealogy was not to account for every generation,
but to establish the fact of an undoubted succession, including
especially the more prominent ancestors.
The second problem is more difficult to resolve. In the two lists
of succession, between David and Joseph all the names are different
except Shealtiel and Zerabbabel (connected in the list by dotted
lines). How is this to be accounted for? Some exegetes unnecessarily
despair of finding an adequate solution or even suggest the lists
are in error. Others see them as redactional devices by which the
writers sought to fulfill their theological purposes in writing.
But among the attempts to harmonize the genealogies with each other,
four proposals deserve consideration.
1. Julius Africanus (d. A.D. 240) suggested that Matthew gives the
genealogy of Joseph through his actual father, Jacob, but Luke
gives Joseph's genealogy through his legal father, Heli. In this
view, Heli died childless. His half-brother, Jacob, who had the same
mother but a different father, married Heli's widow and by her had
Joseph. Known as levirate marriage, this action meant that physically
Joseph was the son of Jacob and legally the son of Heli. Jacob was
the descendant of David through David's son Solomon, and Heli was
the descendant of David through David's son Nathan. Thus, by both
legal and physical lineage Joseph had a rightful claim to the
Davidic throne and so would his legal (but not physical) son Jesus.
Matthew gives Joseph's physical lineage, Luke his legal lineage.
2. In his classic work, The Virgin Birth of Christ, J. Gresham Machen
argued for the view that Matthew gives the legal descent of Joseph
whereas for the most part (he does allow for levirate marriage or
transfer of lineage to a collateral line in Joseph's physical line),
Luke gives the physical descent. Although the physical and legal
lines are reversed, the purpose is still to establish Joseph's
rightful claim to the Davidic throne. This view holds that
Solomon's line failed in Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) (Jer. 22:30). But
when the kingly line through Solomon became extinct, the living
member of the collateral line of Nathan (Shealtiel, Matt. 1:23,
cf. Luke 3:27) inherited the title to the throne. Thus, Maechen
asserts, Matthew is tracing the legal heirship to the throne from
David, through Solomon, through Jeconiah, with transfer to a
collateral line at the point. Luke traces the physical descent
(with a possibility of jumps to a collateral line or levirate
marriages) to David through Nathan. Matthew starts with the
question, Who is the heir to David's throne? Luke starts with
the question, Who is Joseph's father?
A large number of scholars have preferred some form of this
view, including A. Hervey, Theodor Zahn, Vincent Taylor, and
Brooke F. Westcott.
3. A third view suggests that the apparent conflict between the
two genealogies of Joseph results from mistakenly assuming
Luke is intending to give Joseph's genealogy. Instead it should
be understood as Mary's genealogy. Joseph's name stands in for
Mary's by virtue of the fact that he had become son or heir of
Heli (Mary's father) by his marriage to her. This view holds
that Heli died with no sons, and that Mary became his heiress
(Num. 27:1-11; 36:1-12). The first of these passages seems to
provide for the preservation of the name of the man who dies
with daughters but no sons. In the case of Heli and his daughter,
Mary, this could have been accomplished by Joseph's becoming
identified with Mary's family. Joseph would be included in
the family genealogy, although the genealogy is really Mary's.
Thus the genealogies of Matthew and Luke diverge from David
on because Matthew traces the Davidic descent of Joseph, and
Luke the Davidic descent of Mary (with Joseph's name standing in).
Each of the three proposals discussed thus far would resolve the
apparent conflict between the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. Each
also appears to be within the realm of reasonable possibility. It must
be pointed out that all three, however, rely upon conjecture that is
possible but far from certain. In the first two views one must appeal
to levirate marriages or collateral lines to resolve difficulties. The
third view rests on the conjecture that Joseph takes Mary's place in
the genealogy. In addition, the first must explain why Luke rather
than Matthew is interested in the legal lineage of Joseph. Both the
first and second views must explain why Luke, in light of his apparent
interest in and close association with Mary, would be concerned with
Joseph's genealogy at all. Interested as he was in Jesus's humanity,
birth, and childhood, why would Luke give the genealogy of the man who
was Jesus' legal but not physical father? These questions are not
unanswerable, but they do leave the field open for a view less
dependent on conjecture, one that does not raise these questions.
4. There is such a view. Like the third proposed solution, this
fourth view understands the genealogy in Luke really to be Mary's,
but for different reasons. Here Heli is understood to be the
progenitor of Mary, not of Joseph. Joseph is not properly part
of the genealogy, and is mentioned only parenthetically,
Luke 3:23 should then read "Jesus ... was the son (so it was
thought, of Joseph) of Heli." The support for this view is
a. Placing the phrase "so it was thought, of Joseph" in
parentheses, and thus in effect removing it from the
genealogy, is grammatically justified. In the Greek text
Joseph's name occurs with the Greek definite article
prefixed; every other name in the series has the article.
By this device Joseph's name is shown to be not properly
a part of the genealogy. Jesus was only thought to be his
son. This would make Jesus the son (that is, grandson or
descendant) of Heli, Mary's progenitor, and is consistent
with Luke's account of Jesus' conception, which makes clear
that Joseph was not his physical father (Luke 1:26-39).
b. This view allows the most natural meaning of begat to stand.
In other words, begat refers to actual physical descent
rather than to jumps to collateral lines.
c. Matthew's interest in Jesus' relation to the Old Testament and
the Messianic kingdom makes it appropriate that he give Joseph's
really descent from David through Solomon - a descent that is
also Jesus' legal descent - and thus gives him legal claim to
the Davidic throne.
d. Because Luke emphasizes the humanity of Jesus, his solidarity
with the human race, and the universality of salvation, it is
fitting that Luke show his humanity by recording his human
descent through his human parent, Mary. His pedigree is then
traced back to Adam.
e. The objection that Mary's name is not in Luke's version needs
only the reply that women were rarely included in Jewish
genealogies; though giving her descent, Luke conforms to
custom by not mentioning her by name. The objection that Jews
never gave the genealogy of women is met by the answer that
this is a unique case; Luke is talking about a virgin birth.
How else could the physical descent of one who had no human
father be traced? Furthermore, Luke has already shown a
creative departure from customary genealogical lists by
starting with Jesus and ascending up the list of ancestors
rather than starting at some point in the past and descending
f. This view allows easy resolution of the difficulties surrounding
Jeconiah (Matt. 1:11), Joseph's ancestor and David's descendant
through Solomon. In 2 Sam. 7:12-17 the perpetuity of the
Davidic Kingdom though Solomon (vv. 12-13) is unconditionally
promised. Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) later was the royal
representative of that line of descent for which eternal
perpetuity had been promised. Yet for his gross sin (2 Chron.
24:8-9), Jeconiah was to be recorded as if childless, and
no descendant of his would prosper on the Davidic throne
(Jer. 22:30). This poses a dilemma. It is Jeconiah through
whom the Solomonic descent and legal right to the throne
properly should be traced. Solomon's throne had already
been unconditionally promised eternal perpetuity. Yet Jeconiah
will have no physical descendants who will prosper on that
throne. How may both the divine promise and the curse be
First, notice that Jeremiah's account neither indicates
Jeconiah would have no seed, nor does is say Jeconiah's line
has had its legal claim to the throne removed by his sin. The
legal claim to the throne remains with Jeconiah's line, and
Matthew records that descent down to Joseph. In 1:16, Matthew
preserves the virgin birth of Jesus and at the same time makes
clear that Jesus does not come under the curse upon Jeconiah.
He breaks the pattern and carefully avoids saying that Joseph
(a descendant of Jeconiah) begat Instead he refers to "Joseph,
the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus." In the
English translation the antecedent of "whom" is ambiguous.
But in the Greek text, "whom" is feminine singular in form
and can refer only to Mary who was not a descendant of
Jeconiah. As to human parentage, Jesus was born of Mary alone,
through Joseph his legal father. As Jesus' legal father,
Joseph's legal claim passed to Jesus. But because Jesus was
not actually Jeconiah's seed, although of actual Davidic
descent through Mary, descendant of Nathan, Jesus escaped
the curse on Jeconiah's seed pronounced in Jeremiah (22:30.
Thus the problem is resolved.
What we have then are two different genealogies of two people.
Probably even the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel of Matthew and Luke are
different persons. This view does not depend on conjecture, rests
with evidence within the texts themselves, fits the purposes of the
evangelists, and easily resolves the problem surrounding Jeconiah.
Of this view L.M. Sweet appropriately wrote, "Its simplicity and
felicitous adjustment to the whole complex situation is precisely
Although it is not, strictly speaking, a harmonistic problem, one
other difficulty of lesser significance found in Matthew's record
of Josephs's genealogy needs discussion here. In 1:17, Matthew
divides the generations from Abraham to Christ into three groups of
fourteen generations; from Abraham to David, from David to the
deportation of Babylon, and from the deportation to Christ. In part,
this was likely a device used by Matthew to aid memory; it does not
imply that he mentioned every progenitor. At least five names are
omitted: Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Jehoiakim, and Eliakim. As
previously stated, this procedure was not unusual and presents no
With three groups of fourteen generations, however, one does expect
to find forty two different names. But there are only forty-one.
Although one set has only thirteen different names, the problem is
only apparent. Matthew does not speak of forty-two different names
but of three groups of fourteen generations, which he divides for
himself. David's name concludes the first set and stands first in
the second set (cf. 1:17). In other words, David is counted twice
and is thus given special prominence in the genealogy that shows
Jesus' Davidic throne rights through his legal father, Joseph.
Another means used for increasing the focus on David is the title
assigned to him in Matthew 1:6. He is called King David, and is
the only person in the genealogy to whom a title is given. Possibly
the Davidic emphasis is even further enhanced by the number 14.
The sum of the numerical value of the Hebrew letters in the name
David is 14. To the modern reader this might seem overly subtle,
but it was not necessarily so in ancient Semitic thought. The
numerical value of David's name, however, is not necessary to the
resolution of this problem. Again, alleged discrepancies between
and in the genealogical lists of Matthew and Luke are shown to be
more apparent than real. Reasonable solutions to the problems exist
and even throw further light on the text.
Johnson, Marshall D. The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies: With
Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus, 1969
Machen, J. Gresham. The Virgin Birth of Christ, 1930.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, "The Genealogy
of Jesus Christ," L. M. Sweet.
Waetjen, Herman C. "The Genealogy as the Key to the Gospel according
to Matthew," Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1976): 205-230.