| 
        
          
            | 91 | THE MOHAMMEDAN CONTROVERSY |  | 
| 
    
  original text is here proved! This is what I call corruption (tahrîf) (p.
  336).
    | 
  | 
  In treating of the variations, or, as he will have it, corruptions of the MSS.
  of the Bible, such arguments as the following frequently occur:
     | 
  | 
    
    Urbanus VIII., of the Romish
    Church, Sergius Harûnî, and other learned Christians, admit that in the
    original manuscripts, both Hebrew and Greek, some degree of corruption has
    crept in, and that words and modes of construction, opposed to the genius of
    the original languages, are found in these books. See now, how my case is
    proved even by confession of the defendants!. There is this attempted
    explanation, indeed, that these errors originated in the carelessness of the
    writers, or want of ability in the translators. But such a fanciful theory
    cannot impugn the confirmation afforded by the concession to my claim.
    Again, they say that the Holy Ghost, and the prophets themselves, were
    accustomed to write in the same strange and erroneous manner (ghalat
    palat). But this is in effect my very argument, that (in the words of
    the Coran) "they write passages with their hands, and then say this is
    from the Lord," i.e. they say of what they themselves composed, that is
    the word of God. Now to attribute such errors to the Holy Ghost and to the
    prophets, is the same as attributing them to God (p. 433).
     | 
  | 
  He endeavours to rebut Pfander's argument, that the Bible being from an early
  date in the hands of multitudes throughout the world, it was impossible all
  should have united in corrupting it, in the following manner:
     | 
  | 
  
    Twelfth proof. It is evidently possible, that any book, say the Shah
    Nameh, might be in the hands of every man throughout the whole world,
    and that every man might, in his own place, make the same alteration
    therein. This is not an intellectual impossibility; at the very most it
    would be a miracle. Seeing, then, that this is not a logical impossibility,
    the proof of it might be established by the same species of evidence as that
    by which the mission of Moses or Jesus is established:that is to say, by
    him (Mohammed) who was endowed with prophecy and showed evident miracles,and
    as the last of the prophets hath evidenced both facts equally by an inspired
    declaration. Copies of the Bible, however, at that early epoch, were not
    spread abroad to so great an extent as is now the case, but remained for the
    most part in the hands of those alone whose perfidy was foretold by Jesus
    and his apostles; and since these afterwards reached you through the hands
    of people whom you yourselves testify that for centuries they held an
    undivided power and authority over the book; it results that its
    corruption would not amount even to a miracle, and must |