Four Gospels


The ninth verse of the ninth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew reads as follows: “And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.”
(Matt: 9-9)

Now, please pay close attention to this point: if Matthew himself wrote these statements, why did he use the name Matthew in the third person instead of speaking as Matthew himself? [If the author of this Gospel had been Matthew himself, he would have said, “As I was sitting at the customs place, Îsâ‘alaihis-salâm’  (Jesus peace and blessings be upon him) passed by. When he saw me he told me to follow him, to walk behind him. So I stood up and followed him, walked behind him.”]

In the Gospel of Matthew, every speech quoted from Îsâ‘alaihis-salâm’ is so long that it is impossible to say any one of them at one sitting, at one time. In fact, the advice and the directions that he gave to the apostles in the tenth chapter, his continuous words in the fifth, sixth and seventh chapters, his scolding of the Persians in the twenty-third chapter, his continuous exemplifications in the eighth chapter are absolutely not short enough to occur within one sitting. A proof of this is that these same speeches and exemplifications of his are divided into various sittings in the other Gospels. This means to say that the author of this Gospel is not Matthew, the customs officer, the faithful companion of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’.

In the Gospel of Matthew, miracles (mu’jiza) of Îsâ ‘alaihissalâm’ such as his curing the poor people who were blind, leprous or paralyzed, his feeding large numbers of poor people, are mentioned at two different places each. The Gospels of Mark and Luke, on the other hand, mention each of these events at one place. Hence, the author of the Gospel attributed to Matthew probably consulted two sources when writing the book and saw the same event in both sources. Then, perhaps, thinking the two events were different, he wrote them as such in his book. It is written in the fifth verse of the tenth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew that hadrat Îsâ commanded his messengers,  i.e. the Apostles, not to go to [call] the Gentiles [to their religion] and not to enter the city of Samaria. Further ahead it is said that he cured a pagan captain’s servant and Canaanite woman’s daughter.


On the one hand, the sixth verse of the seventh chapter says,

“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, …” (Matt: 7-6) The nineteenth verse of the twenty-eighth chapter, on the other hand, enjoins, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;” (ibid: 28-19)

While the fifth verse of the tenth chapter prohibits, “…, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samarians enter ye not:” (ibid: 10-5), the fourteenth verse of the twenty fourth chapter commands, “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” (ibid: 24-14) [This and the preceding verses are completely contradictory of each other.] Countless contradictions and oppositions of this sort are repeated in this Gospel. These additions leave no doubt as to the fact that the Gospel of Matthew was interpolated. Some important episodes contained by the other Gospels do not exist in the Gospel of Matthew. For example, the episodes such as the selection of seventy pupils by Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, his ascension in the Mala-i hawâriyyûn, his coming to Jerusalem twice for celebrating the Bayram (Holy Day), and Luerzer’s resurrection from his grave do not exist in this Gospel. Therefore, it is doubtful that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew the Apostle.



All historians agree that Mark was not one of the Apostles. Perhaps he was an interpreter to the Apostle Peter. Papias states, “Mark was an interpreter to Peter. Mark wrote the words and acts of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ as correctly as he could recollect them. But he did not write the words and acts of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ in a regular order. For he had not heard them from Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, nor had he ever been with him. As I have said, Mark was only a friend of Peter’s. In order to have a book containing his conversations with Peter and the words of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, he related the events in a haphazard way, choosing the right time and the appropriate gathering for each event he was to tell about. For this reason, Mark should not be blamed for having written some parts of his book in a manner as if he had learned them from his master, Peter. For Mark did not consider it important to write what he had heard without forgetting or changing any parts.”

The early Christian scholars wrote explanations to the Gospel of Mark daily. Iren, one of them, states: “After the deaths of Peter and Paul, Mark wrote what he had memorized before.” Calman of Alexandria says: “As Peter was in Rome yet, Peter’s pupils asked Mark to write his Gospel. He did so. Peter heard of the writing of the book. But he did not say whether he should write it or not.” Eusebius, a historian, says: “Upon hearing of this, Peter was pleased about this effort of his pupils. He ordered that it be read in the church.” Nevertheless, the Gospel of Mark appears to be an imitation of the Gospel of Matthew, rather than the epistles of Peter. Accordingly, the book that Papias says was written by Mark must be another one, other than the existing second Gospel. The seventeenth and eighteenth verses of the sixth chapter of the Gospel of Mark read: “For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John,[1] and bound him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife: for he had married her.” (Mark: 6-17) “For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for  thee to have thy brother’s wife.” (ibid: 6-18) This is completely wrong. For the name of Herodias’ husband is given clearly as Hirius, not as Philippus, in the fifth chapter of the eighteenth book of the history of Eusebius. This error exists in the Gospel of Matthew, too. In fact, the translators who wrote the Arabic version which was edited in 1821 [1237 hijri] and 1844 changed this verse by having excised the word ‘Philippus’ from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, though it exists in the translations done in other years.

Again, the two statements in the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth verses of the second chapter of the Gospel of Mark bear the following meaning: “Hadrat Îsâ said unto his pupils: Haven’t you ever read about how Dâwûd (David) and those who were with him, when they were hungry and in need, entered the home of God and he and also those who were with him ate the sacred bread, which was not permissible for anyone except the rabbis to eat, in the days of Abiathar, the head rabbis?” These statements are wrong, erroneous for two reasons:

First, at that time hadrat Dâwûd was alone. No one was with him. Second, in those days the head of rabbis was not Abiatar, but perhaps his father, Ahimlik. [Members of the Congregation of Seventies that administer the Jews’ affairs are called Rabbi. Their preachers are called Scribes.]

[1] Christians call this exalted Prophet John the Baptist.




It is a certain fact that Luke was not one of the Apostles. It is written in the beginning of the Gospel of Luke: “Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,” “Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;” “It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent The-oph’i-lus,” “That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.” (Luke: 1-1, 2, 3, 4)

This paragraph has several denotations:

First; Luke wrote this Gospel as many other people contemporary with him wrote Gospels.

Second; Luke points out the fact that there is no Gospel written by the Apostles themselves. For he distinguishes the Gospel writers from those who have seen with their own eyes, with the expression “Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; …”

Third; he does not claim to be a disciple of one of the Apostles. For in his time there were numerous publications, articles and epistles attributed to each of the Apostles; he did not hope that such a documentation, i.e. claiming to be a pupil of one of the Apostles, would cause others to trust his book. Perhaps he thought it a more dependable document to point out that he had observed every fact in its original source and learned everything by personal scrutiny. One point should be noted: recently it has become a customary practice on the part of the Protestant clergy to replace the criticised expressions with some other appropriate expressions, each time a Gospel is reprinted. In fact, with permission, registered with the date 1371 and number 572, given by the (Turkish) Ministry of Education, the British and American Bible companies transformed this paragraph, too. By substituting the expression “As I know all the facts to the most minute details….,” with “having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first…,” they adapted the meaning to their own goals. But the French versions and the versions printed in Germany retain the meaning we have translated above.

In giving the genealogy of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, the twenty seventh verse of the third chapter of the Gospel of Luke writes as follows: “Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Re’sa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of salathiel, which was the son of Neri,” (Luke: 3-27) There are three errors here:

First; the children of Zorobabel are written clearly in the nineteenth verse of the third chapter of I Chronicles of the Old Testament. There is no one by the name of Re’sa there. This writing of his contradicts Matthew’s writing, too.

Second: Zorobabel is the son of Pedaiah. He is not the son of Salathiel. He is the son of Salathiel ’s brother.

Third; Salathiel is the son of Jechonias, not the son of Neri. Matthew writes so, too.


Again, the thirty-sixth verse of the third chapter of the Gospel of Luke reads, “… Sa’la,” (Luke: 3-35) “Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad,” (ibid: 3-36) which is wrong, too. For Sala is not the grandson of Arphaxad; he is his son. This fact is stated in the first chapter of I Chronicles (nineteenth verse) and in the eleventh chapter of Genesis [in its tenth, eleventh and twelfth verses]. Also, the first and second verses of the second chapter of the Gospel of Luke, “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.” “(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria,)” (Luke: 2-1, 2) are wrong. The Romans never dominated the whole world; how could they have issued a firman concerning a worldwide taxing? In fact, the Protestant priests, in order to dodge this question as usual, changed these statements in the Istanbul-1886 edition of the New Testament and wrote it as,

“In those days a firman concerning the registering of the whole world was issued by the Kaiser Augustus.” On the other hand, in the Turkish version issued by the British society in Paris in 1243 [A.D. 1827], this passage is written as, “In those days it befell so that a firman concerning a census of the world was issued by the Ceazer Augustus.” “And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; ..,” “To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, …” (Luke: 2-2, 3, 4) Afterwards, when scrutinies on the passage about the taxing began, it was seen that neither the historians contemporary with Luke nor those a short while before him said anything concerning the taxation. As for Cyrenius; he became the governor of Syria fifteen years after the birth of Îsâ ‘alaihissalâm’; it is an obvious fact, therefore, that the so-called taxing could not have taken place in his time, supposing after all the
doubtful taxing did take place.

[1] Matt: 1-12




As for the Gospel of John; as is known, till the emergence of the fourth Gospel which is attributed to John, the religion of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was based on the principle of unity, no different from the canonical laws of Mûsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ in its fundamentals. For it is the Gospel of John that first mentioned the word ‘trinity’ and which misled the believers of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ by inserting the doctrine of trinity (believing three Gods) into their belief. For this reason, it is extremely important to search into the facts about the Gospel of John. Various quotations from the books of early Christian men of religion about the Gospel of John have been given above. This book does not belong to John the son of Zebedee. It was written by an anonymous author after the second century.

Contemporary European orientalist historians have proved this fact by various evidences.

First evidence: It is written as follows at the beginning of the Gospel of John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John: 1-1) These words are of the subtle matters of the knowledge of Word and do not exist in any of the other Gospels. If these words had been heard from Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, they would exist in the other Gospels, too. Hence, the author is not John the apostle but another person, who must have studied the Platonic philosophy of three hypostases in Roman and Alexandrian schools. As a matter of fact, this will be explicated below.


Second evidence: The writings about the adulteress, from the first verse to the eleventh in the eighth chapter of the Gospel of John, are repudiated by all Christian churches, who say that those writings are not Biblical. This means to say that the author compiled a number of Gospels he came across, adding many other things he happened to find here and there; or someone after him added these verses.

According to the first case, the author wrote a compilation without distinguishing between the true and the untrue. So the compilation he wrote consists of unacceptable things. According to the second case, it must be admitted that this Gospel was interpolated. In either case, it is of doubtful origin and does not deserve trust.


Third evidence: Some examples, occurrences and miracles narrated in the other Gospels do not exist in this Gospel, which in its turn contains a number of things non-existent in the others. Episodes such as Luazer’ s  coming back to life, the water’s changing into wine, his (Jesus) confiding his beloved disciple and his mother to each other, exist only in the Gospel of John and not in the others. Later on we shall give detailed information in this respect.


Fourth evidence: Of the early Christians, neither Papias nor Justinien mentioned seeing this Gospel. Justinien, especially, who admitted that the author of the Gospel of John was not John himself, did not say anything about this Gospel.


Fifth evidence: The way of expression in the narration of the events compiled in the other three Gospels is quite contrary to the style of discourse used in the Gospel of John. For example, in the other three Gospels Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, like a tutor who wants to train the people, disapproves the hypocritical behavior of the Pharisees. He commands to purify the heart, to approach Allâhu ta’âlâ, to love people, to form beautiful habits, and prohibits inclinations contrary to the sharî’a of Mûsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ (Mosaic laws). His teachings and advice to the people are quite clear, natural, and comprehensible to anyone. Although these three Gospels contradict one another in some of their narratives, they are apparently based on common sources in those that agree with one another. The Gospel of John, on the other hand, is quite dissimilar and uses an altogether different style both in its discourse and concerning the moral and habitual conduct of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. In this Gospel, hadrat Îsâ is represented as a person who has knowledge of Greek philosophy and whose elegant and eloquent language expresses his personal nobility rather than such values as the fear of Allahu ta’âlâ and beautiful morality. And the way of expression chosen is not the Messianic style common to the public but the lexical and syntactical dialect peculiar to Alexandrian schools. His statements, though thoroughly clear and plain in the other three Gospels, are ambiguous in this Gospel. It is full of well-organized iterations mostly with important double meanings and arranged in a singular way. The style used in John arouses one’s feelings of denial and hatred instead of alluring one’s heart. If this Gospel had appeared all of a sudden, recently, after having remained concealed somewhere, no one would believe it was written by one of the Apostles. Because it has been known for centuries, Christians cannot realize these oddities.


Sixth evidence: More mistakes are noticed in this Gospel. For instance, the fifty-first verse of the first chapter of the Gospel of John reads as follows: “And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.” (John: 1-51)

In actual fact, these words of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ took place after his baptism in the water of Erden and the descension of the Holy Spirit; after that no one saw the opening of the heaven or the descension of angels unto Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. The thirteenth verse of the third chapter of this Gospel states,

“And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” (John: 3-13) This verse is wrong in several respects:

First; the part interpreted with the phrase ‘even’

[1] was added afterwards. Thus the verse was changed. For the beginning part of the verse purported that “No one other than who descended from heaven has ascended to heaven”; but the author of the Gospel or one of its editors inserted an explanatory phrase in order to point out that mankind, i.e. Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’, is meant by this verse. Careful observation will show at once that this phrase is an addition. For when we separate the initial part of the verse from this explanatory phrase, its correct meaning, “No one other than the angels who descended from heaven has ascended to heaven,” will become clear. On the other hand, if it is insinuated that “It is mankind who descended from heaven,” the fact that hadrat Îsâ did not descend from heaven but was conceived by hadrat Maryam (Mary) through the Holy Spirit [the Archangel Jabrâîl ‘alaihissalâm’] will have been disavowed. Moreover, it will be necessary to reject that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was on earth and not in heaven as he said, “…Son of man which is in heaven…”. Furthermore, it is impossible for Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ to have uttered both expressions,

i.e. “he that came down from heaven” and “which is in heaven”, at the same moment.


Second; the initial part of the verse is wrong, too. For it is stated in the twenty-fourth verse of the fifth chapter of Genesis and in the
eleventh and twelfth verses of the second chapter of Kings II that Ahnûh (Enoch) and Ilyâ (E-li’sha) ‘alaihimus-salâm’ also ascended to heaven. There can be no doubt as to the fact that this verse has been interpolated.

[1] In Biblical English, ‘even’ means ‘that is’.





One thought on “Four Gospels”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s