De Tribus Impostoribus
a critique of Abrahamic religions
Introduction
The Treatise of the Three Impostors (De Tribus Impostoribus) was a purported book rejecting the Abrahamic religions—Christianity, Judaism, and Islam—by labeling Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad as "impostors." Stories of this controversial work began circulating in the 13th century and persisted through the 17th century. Its origins were attributed variously to Jewish, Muslim, and Christian sources. Over time, fabricated versions surfaced clandestinely, including the notable Traité sur les trois imposteurs, published in the French underground in 1719.
Below is a chronological account of references to the work and attempts to identify its authorship:
10th Century
Abu Tahir al-Jannabi employs a "three impostors" slogan for political purposes.
13th Century
1239: Pope Gregory IX accuses Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, of espousing "three impostors" views. Frederick denies heresy via Pietro della Vigna.
Later: Thomas de Cantimpré attributes similar views to Simon of Tournai (c. 1130–1201).
14th Century
Opponents of Averroism claim Averroes originated the "three impostors" idea.
c. 1350: Boccaccio's Decameron alludes to religious relativism and the "three impostors" theme.
17th Century
1641: Hugo Grotius states:
"From that time [medieval period] no one has seen it [that book], which is why I believe it to be a fable."
(Appendix to the Interpretation of the New Testament Passages, which are thought to concern Antichrist, Amsterdam 1679, cited in Schröder 1999).
1643: Thomas Browne attributes the idea to Bernardino Ochino.
1656: Henry Oldenburg reports politicized theories of "three impostors" at Oxford.
1669: John Evelyn publishes Three Impostors, targeting Sabbatai Zevi, Padre Ottomano, and Mahomed Bei.
1680: Christian Kortholt publishes De tribus impostoribus magnis, attacking Edward Herbert, Thomas Hobbes, and Benedict Spinoza.
1680s: The Traité sur les trois imposteurs is likely drafted by Spinozan publicists and circulated in the Netherlands.
1688: Johann Friedrich Mayer declares:
"I do not believe, kind reader, that there is anyone among mortals whose spirit is not stirred with indignation and whose hair does not stand on end at the mention of that most infamous book, 'De Tribus Impostoribus.'"
(Comitia Thaboritica, 1688, cited in Schröder 1999).
18th Century
1693: Bernard de la Monnoye writes to Pierre Bayle, stating that no authentic treatise exists.
1709: John Bagford notes John Toland’s attempt to pass Giordano Bruno’s Spaccio as the Treatise.
1712–1716: De la Monnoye’s letter is reprinted, sparking a hoax treatise attributed to Rousset de Missy.
c. 1725: Johann Heinrich Schminckius writes:
"I know the English, the French, the Italians, and the Germans, collectors of prohibited books, who have sifted through almost all the treasures of books from the East and the West and have acquired various other such dreadful books at a mad price for themselves... But to them, it was never allowed to see the book 'De Tribus Impostoribus'... And what is widely spread about this little book, they rely mostly on the faith of hearers, not the testimony of eyewitnesses."
(Letter, in: J. Chr. Colerus, Anthologia or letters of various subjects collected to illustrate ecclesiastical and literary history, Leipzig 1725, vol. I/1, p. 196, cited in Schröder 1999).
1765: Archibald Maclaine attributes the Traité to ideas from Giordano Bruno and Spinoza, shaped by later compilers.
1769: Voltaire writes:
"To the author of the book of the three impostors,
Dull writer, who believes in your readers,
Sketching the portraits of your Three Impostors,
Why, without wit, do you become the fourth?..."
(Complete Works, Vol. 10, Paris 1877, pp. 402–405).
De Tribus Impostoribus
Many argue that God exists, that He should be worshipped, before understanding what God is, and what existence is, inasmuch as this is common to both bodies and spirits, as their distinction requires. They assess the worship of God according to the measure of the ostentatious worship of humans.
They describe what God is according to the confession of their ignorance: for, how it differs from other things, they express through the negation of just concepts. They say it is an infinite being, that is, whose limits they do not know, cannot comprehend; they say He is the Creator of heaven and earth, but they do not say who His Creator is because they do not know, because they do not understand.
Some say He is His own beginning, and contend that He exists from nothing but Himself; similarly, they say what, which they do not understand. 'We do not grasp His beginning,' they say, 'therefore it does not exist.' (Why not this: 'We do not grasp God Himself, therefore He does not exist'?) And this is the first rule of ignorance.
There is no infinite process. Why not? Because the human intellect must subsist in something. Why must it? Because it is accustomed to, because it cannot imagine anything beyond its limits, as if it should follow, 'I do not understand the infinite; therefore it does not exist.'
And yet, as experience shows, among the Sectarians of the Messiah, some posit infinite processes of divine attributes or persons, about whose limits there is still dispute, and thus they establish processes in infinity altogether. For the Son is generated from infinity, the Holy Spirit proceeds from infinity.
Generated into infinity, the procession proceeds. For if this generation, this procession had begun or had ceased once, the concept of eternity would be violated.
But even if you agree with them on this, that human procreation cannot extend to infinity, yet they conclude in this way due to their finite understanding, it is not yet clear whether there have been other generations among the heavenly beings in their own way, and whether they were as numerous as humans on Earth, and who from such a number should be chosen as the principal God? For all religions concede that Mediators are given by God, although not all under equal conditions. Hence the principle: An entity above humans, elevated by its nature, should be one, seems to be undermined. And from the diversity of generated Gods, the diversity of religions and the variety of cults could later be said to have arisen. This is what the devotion of the heathens mainly relies on.
As for the objection about the adulteries or the cohabitation of pagan Gods, besides the fact that these were already shown to be mystically understood by the wisest heathens long ago, similar things are found in others: the massacres of so many nations ordered by God through Moses and Joshua; human sacrifice, God of Israel also had commanded it to Abraham. The effect did not follow in ordinary cases. However, God could not command, or seriously command, anything that would be contrary to His nature. Mahomet promises the whole world as a reward for his superstition. And Christians everywhere predict the slaughter of their enemies and the subjugation of the Church's foes, which indeed has not been insignificant since Christians took over the reins of public affairs. Was not polygamy allowed through Mahomet, Moses, and, as some argue, even in the New Testament? Did not God the Holy Spirit generate the Son of God through a special union with a betrothed virgin?
The remaining objections concerning ridiculous idols and the abuse of heathen worship are not so significant that they cannot be equaled by other sects. Nevertheless, it can be easily shown that these abuses have stemmed more from ministers than from rulers, more from disciples than from masters of religions.
Returning to the earlier points, this Entity which terminates the process of understanding, some call nature, others God. Some agree on these, others differ. Some dream of worlds existing from eternity, and they call the connection of things God; some consider a separate Entity, which cannot be seen or understood, although even among these, contradictions are not infrequent. They want this to be God. Regarding religion, as far as it concerns worship, some place it in the fear of invisible powers, others in love. If the powerful invisible beings are false, idolatry arises, with one part mutually accusing the other, according to their own principles.
They want love to arise from benevolence and attribute it to gratitude, although it primarily originates from the sympathy of humors. Acts of kindness from enemies stimulate hatred most intensely, although no hypocrite dares to confess it. But who could assert that love arising from benevolence is in the one who implanted in humans particles of lions, bears, and other fierce beasts, to introduce a nature contrary to the Creator's inclination? Who, knowing the weakness of human nature, set the tree where they would certainly drink the retribution, they and all their descendants (as some wish) to be fatal. And yet these people, as if they were under significant obligation to worship or express gratitude, are astonished at such a thing. Let's say Ithacus wants this, etc.
Take mortal weapons, e.g., a sword, if you are sure of prescience (which, however, others argue does not exist in God concerning contingent things). By this, you would snatch the one you put before your eyes and, in the process, kill yourself and all your progeny with a pitiable death, if you still have any trace of humanity left. Horrified at such deeds, which God would foresee and permit, if He exists. What is the point of imposing a prohibition if this is not it? And yet God should have commanded this.
They want God to be worshipped because, they say, if God exists, He must be worshipped. In a similar way, the Indians conclude, the Great Mogul exists, therefore He must be worshipped. They also worship their own, but why? To satisfy, namely, their impotent vanity and that of all great men, nothing more. For He is worshipped primarily out of fear of visible power (hence it wanes with His death) and the hope of reward afterwards. The same reasoning applies to the worship of parents and other heads. And since invisible powers are considered greater and mightier than visible ones, they want them to be worshipped even more. And these people say God must be worshipped out of love. But what kind of love is it to attribute infinite guilt to innocent posterity because of the foreseen and predetermined fall of one person? But you say, they must be redeemed. But how? Will a father condemn one son to extreme misery, thus delivering another to not lesser torments, for the redemption of the first?
The Barbarians know nothing lighter. But why is God worthy of love? Why must God be worshipped? Because, they say, He created us. To what end? So that we would fall. Because He surely foreknew that we would fall and proposed the forbidden fruit, without which we could not fall. And yet, they add, He must be worshipped because everything depends on Him in becoming, and others also claim in being and preservation.
To what end must God be worshipped? Is God in need of worship or is He appeased by worship? Indeed, this is the case: parents and benefactors are worshipped among us. But what is this worship? Human society takes care of mutual needs and worship is due to the belief in a greater and closer power to help us. No one helps another without mutual assistance for his own needs; this, because this part does not need it, is called the acknowledgment of the benefit and is called gratitude. Because it does not need it, it demands greater recognition of its own benefit, and as a result, the other must be like a servant to him, so that it even raises his crest like the peacock, to arouse both fame and suspicion of magnificence among others. Indeed, the opinion of others about our power to help their particular or common needs titillates us and raises our crests, so that magnificence is among the virtues. But who does not see the imperfection of our nature?
But who would say that God, the most perfect of all, needs anything? And if He is perfect and already content and honored within Himself, without any honors from outside, who would say otherwise except those who need Him? The desire for honor provides evidence of imperfection and impotence.
Some argue that all nations agree on this point, although they have hardly spoken to their own people, let alone examined three or four books regarding the testimony of the whole world. However, they do not consider that not all good authors were aware of this. Nevertheless, concerning worship, the foundation lies in God and His works, not merely in the interests of a particular society. This question arises: is it from use that such a practice exists, mainly among rulers and the rich in society, to have some external form of religion to soften the fierceness of the people? No one fails to understand this.
Concerning the previous reasoning, who in the principal seat of the Christian Religion, Italy, believes that so many Libertines, and to say something more serious, so many Atheists are hidden? And if someone believes this, who would say that there is a consensus among all nations: God exists; He must be worshipped? Certainly, because the more reasonable people say so? Who are these more reasonable people? The Supreme Pontiff, the Augurs and Auspices of the ancients, Cicero, Caesar, Princes, and the Priests adhering to them, etc. But where is the evidence that they say and establish such things as they claim, and not because of their own interests? These individuals, sitting at the helm of affairs, threatening the highest invisible power and revenge based on the people's credulity, and fabricating their intimate connection and collaboration with them, gain suitable or even excessive benefits for themselves. It is not surprising that priests teach such things because this is the rationale for sustaining their own lives. And these are the dicta of the more reasonable ones.
Let this universe depend on the direction of the First Mover; indeed, this will be the primary dependence. What prevents such a first order of God that everything, once set in motion, continues until the predetermined end, if He so wished to ordain it? There will be no need for new care, dependence, or sustenance since He could have bestowed enough strength on each one from the beginning. And why shouldn't we assume that He did so? For it is not to be believed that all the elements and parts, like a doctor visiting a patient, need to be attended to.
So what should be said about the testimony of conscience, and from where does the fear of wrongdoing in the soul arise if it were not clear to us that a spectator and avenger stands above, disapproving of such acts, as they are entirely contrary to His worship? The soul is not a judge of the nature of good or evil, nor is it capable of deeply investigating the dangers of prejudices and the vanities of most fears originating from preconceived opinions. I only say this much: these fears and anxieties originate because all wrongdoings tend toward the corruption and disruption of mutual support, which sustains the human race. Furthermore, the opinion of the one who seeks to promote rather than assist this need, makes him detestable. Hence it happens that he himself fears either incurring the aversion and contempt of others or an equal denial of assistance to his own neediness. Or he may lose his power to help both others and himself, considering that he must fear the deprivation of the power to harm from others.
And so, they say, those who lack the light of Holy Scripture, according to the natural light dictated by their conscience, can argue with certainty that God has given sparks of His knowledge and will, according to which their actions can be deemed right. And what other reason could there be for worshipping God than this? But whether even animals act according to the guidance of reason is disputed by many reasons, although this has not been settled. Who told you that this is not so or that the polished brute does not surpass the rude man in some intellectual faculty? However, as things stand, many idle people, who have indulged in subtle reflections surpassing common understanding, have devised many subtle rules to satisfy their vanity and utility, which Thyrsis and Alexis, hindered by their pastoral and rustic care, could not engage in. Therefore, these people gained the trust of idle speculators, as if they were wiser and more adept at imposing insipid beliefs. Hence, good Alexis! Go away, worship Pan, Sylvans, Satyrs, Dianas, etc., for these great philosophers will share with you the vision of Pompeian dreams and narrate their encounters with the Nymph Egeria. By this, they will bind you to their worship, and in return for their work, they will desire your sacrifices, juice, flock, and your sweat for their sustenance. And hence, since Titius worshipped Pan, Alexis worshipped Fauns, Rome worshipped Mars, and Athens worshipped unknown Gods, it must be believed that these good people knew something from the light of nature; what idle speculators discovered and attributed, I will not say anything harsh about other religions.
And why did this rationale not also assert that they deviated in worship and foolishly worshipped signs and stones as the abodes of their Gods? Or is it to be believed that because good women honor Francis, Ignatius, Dominic, and the like with such great reverence, this dictates that some rationale for worshipping certain holy men and recognizing the worship of some superior power, although no longer visible, is not evident from the light of nature? However, these are inventions of our idle priests for the more lavish increase of their livelihood.
Therefore, is there no God? Let's assume there is; is He to be worshipped? But this does not follow because He does not desire worship; instead, the one who inscribed it on their heart desires it. Let this also be inscribed on the heart; what then? Let us follow the guidance of our nature. But it is acknowledged that this is imperfect in us: in what respect? For it suffices for human society to be conducted quite peacefully in this way. For other religious people following revelations do not lead their lives more happily. But what God requires of us is greater, primarily a more exact knowledge of God. But you, who promise this, no matter what religion you belong to, do not fulfill it. For what God is, is far more obscure in any revelation than before. And how will you present to the intellect concepts that terminate all understanding? What do you think about these things? No one has ever known God; similarly, eye has not seen, similarly, He dwells in unapproachable light, similarly, even after revelation, it is still in enigma? But how clear an enigma is, I believe everyone knows. But from where do you know that God demands these things? Is it from the desire of the intellect to surpass the limits of its capacity and to conceive everything more perfectly than it does, or from elsewhere?
From special revelation, you say? Who are you to say this? Good God! What a medley of revelations! Are you revealing the oracles of the pagans? Ancient times have already ridiculed these. Do you offer testimonies of Your priests? I present to You contradictory priests. You fight against each other: but who will be the Judge? What will be the end of the controversy? You produce the writings of Moses, the Prophets, and the Apostles; the Koran opposes You, which boasts of divine miracles, claiming to have corrected the corruptions and disputes of the Christians by the most recent revelation, just as Moses did for the pagans. For Mahomet, like Moses, subjugated Palestine through force, both equipped with great miracles. But the followers of these sects, like the collected texts of the Vedas and the Brachmans from 14,000 years ago, present obstacles, not to mention the Chinese. You, who are hiding in a corner of Europe, neglect and deny these things, how well you see yourself. For they deny these with the same ease. And what would remain of miracles to convince the inhabitants of the world if it were known that the world was created from a scorpion's egg and was born, and the earth was placed on the head of a bull, and the first foundations of things were established from the first three books of the Vedas, unless some envious son of the Gods had stolen these first three volumes. Ours would laugh at this; but it would be a new argument for establishing their religion, yet only having its foundation in the brains of their priests. And whence came so many immense volumes about the Gods of the pagans and the wagons of lies? Moses was wiser, who, by the hidden arts of the Egyptians, that is, by the worship of the stars and magic, and then by the ferocity of the weapons of the kings of Palestine, drove the petty rulers from their seats, and, trusting in the form of Pompeian dialogue, led his army into the possessions of idle men; namely, so that he himself would be the Great Leader and his brother the High Priest, so that he would be the Prince and Dictator; but at what cost to the people? Others, through sweeter ways and the allurements of the people under deep Sanctity (I shudder to say the rest) and their followers, through pious frauds in secret meetings, first took the ignorant crowd of the pagans and then, fearing the violence of the growing new religion, seized the detested princes of the people. Finally, another lover of war, taking the fiercer peoples of Asia who had been ill-treated by the Christian Emperors, admitted them to himself through fictitious miracles, under the promise of so many benefits and victories, following Moses' example, and subdued the discordant and idle princes of Asia and established his religion through the sword, being regarded as the restorer of both paganism and Judaism, namely, to see who will be the Mahomet of Mahometanism is yet to be seen.
Certainly, human credulity is susceptible to frauds, the misuse of which, under the guise of some utility, is rightfully called IMPOSTURE. To delve extensively into the nature and species of this genre would be too lengthy and tedious.
However, it must be observed that it is necessary for us to consider that any Prince of a new religion, even one granted by natural religion and divine worship as dictated by nature, is already suspected of IMPOSTURE, especially considering the extent of frauds that have occurred in propagating any religion, evident from both past and present events.
Therefore, the initial supposition remains unshaken: that the religion and worship of God must align with the dictates of natural light, consistent with truth and equity. Anyone wishing to establish something different regarding religion, be it new or discordant, and claiming the authority of a superior invisible power to reform, must clearly demonstrate his power to reform, unless he wishes to be regarded as an impostor by everyone who opposes the consensus, not within a closed system of natural reasoning or the authority of special revelation.
Additionally, such an individual must lead a life of such virtue and moral rectitude that he is worthy of belief by the multitude, embodying a figure so supreme and sacred that no impurity has ever pleased him; neither his own confession nor a life lived in sufficient sanctity nor any extraordinary miracles can prove this: for these things are more common among artful deceivers, liars, and hypocrites who seek personal gain or glory from such actions. Nor should we consider that some have gone to the point of madness, even desiring death willingly, believing that in doing so, they would be considered superior to everything and victorious, as seen among various ancient philosophers; for it is not to be believed that they were supported by special divine powers in their actions, which they committed due to their empty imagination and a delusion about mountains of gold, a result of their impaired judgment. For they neither judged the matter properly, nor did they examine the experts, as I mentioned before, not only will their own testimony not suffice, but it will also be necessary to compare them and their testimonies with one another and with others, both those known and familiar to them, as well as strangers, friends, and enemies. Then, with all testimonies collected, both from each Doctor about themselves and from the others, the truth of the matter should be discerned. Moreover, if the witnesses themselves are unknown to us, testimony upon testimony must be sought, and so on. Furthermore, an examination of their judgment should be conducted: whether you are capable of distinguishing falsehood wrapped in such or other very plausible circumstances from the truth, and an inquiry into where you drew these criteria for recognizing the truth. Then, after comparing the judgments of others, what these individuals conclude from such demonstrations or testimony. From this, one can infer whether the person is a true messenger of the divine will, what he purports to be, and whether his dictate should be followed without reservation. But let us not fall into a circular argument here; extreme caution must be exercised.
Indeed, the nature of primary religions often presupposes one another, such as Moses presupposing Paganism, the Messiah presupposing Judaism, and Muhammad presupposing Christianity. They do not always reject the prior religion entirely, but only in specific parts, while they still base themselves on the prior religion for other aspects, as asserted by both the Messiah and Muhammad. Thus, it will be necessary to thoroughly examine not only the last, middle, or first but each and every one of them, especially since every sect is accused of imposture, such as Christians accusing the ancient Jews of corrupting the law, or Muslims accusing Christians of corrupting the Gospel. Concerning these, there is no wonder, for one sect accuses the other of corrupting the New Testament, so that it can be established whether the one who is presented as an example is a true guide of religion and, to what extent, those who claim to be appointed should be listened to. No sect should be overlooked in this examination, but all should be compared, without any prejudice, for if one is omitted, it might be the one that is truer. Therefore, if I assume that I am ignorant of the true path of salvation, and in the meantime, I follow the Brahmins or the Quran, will not Moses and the others say: "What harm has it done you if we reject you, for we are better and truer!" What will we reply? I believed in Muhammad or the Gymnosophists, in whose doctrine I was born and brought up, and from which I understood that your religion, along with that of the Christians who follow you, has long been abolished and corrupted, or that they are the corruptors. Will they not say that they know nothing about them, and that they lack the true guidance to salvation, and that they know that they are corruptors and impostors, deceiving the people with false miracles and lies? Not so simply, faith should not be given to one man or sect without a thorough examination, rejecting all others. For the same reason, one could say that an Ethiopian, who has not seen men of any other color than black, cannot acknowledge the existence of men of any other color under the sun.
Furthermore, it should be considered in the examination of the other sects that equal diligence should be applied in investigating each of them, and not one sect should be illuminated with immense effort while the others are scarcely touched with a light hand, just because one or two positions seem unjust at first glance or because of bad rumors about the Prince of that sect. One should not immediately take for dogma or indubitable testimony whatever the first person who opposes another religion asserts. For with the same right, the common opinion at first and the mere mention of the name horrified others about the Christian religion; to some, it appeared that they worshiped the head of an ass, and to others, that they ate and drank their own gods, etc., so that being considered a Christian was regarded as the enemy of both God and man. However, such stories, either misunderstood or blatant lies, were used to confirm these impressions. These arose partly because the enemies of that religion either did not engage at all or did not engage correctly with the Christians and with those more knowledgeable among them, and instead believed the first fools or deserters or enemies of that religion.
Considering that the method of examination proposed is so difficult, what will we say about infants, women, and the majority of the common people? All infants will now be excluded from the certainty of their own religion, and the majority of women, to whom even those things that are most clearly deduced from the principles of any religion are darkness. And from their way of life, you can see clearly that they do not have such a precise faculty for understanding such mysteries. Let me not speak of the infinite number of the common people or the peasants, for whom the primary concern is the acquisition of their sustenance. Thus, there remains only a small part of the world that can weigh all religions, thoroughly compare their own, accurately assess the reasons for truth or fraud, in which indeed they might be deceived by subtleties, discern them correctly, but the greater number follows the faith of others, mainly the professors of sacred things, whose knowledge and judgment in sacred matters are well known.
This, in any religion, is especially true for those who cannot read or write, or those who lack access to written materials. It is worth noting that relying solely on the judgment and professed experience of religious authorities is insufficient. They should not only have the ability to distinguish truth from falsehood but also the willingness to demonstrate this ability, backed by a clear intention. We must be certain that those who claim such knowledge and willingness are not deceived and do not wish to deceive others.
How shall we choose among the vastly different leaders within a single sect? When we observe colleagues and associates who disagree on many points but are otherwise friendly, one of them dissents due to some deficiency, either in understanding the matter correctly and thus lacking the judgment, or because they refuse to yield and therefore lack the willingness to admit the truth. Although this might only occur in secondary matters, they become suspect in other aspects as well. In both cases, there is one truth, and someone who deviates from it in one part due to a lack of judgment or a corrupted will becomes suspect in other matters. Thus, to assess the competence and integrity of a religious teacher, you must be as capable as they are; otherwise, you might easily be deceived. Additionally, if the teacher is not well-known to you, they will need the testimony of others, who, in turn, require the testimony of still others, leading to an infinite regress. Not only should they demonstrate having taught the truth but also that they have done so sincerely, without fraud. Hence, an examination of sincerity and statements is essential. Where will you draw the line? Moreover, it is not enough that such matters have been discussed by others; it must be evaluated how well this has been done. Common demonstrations published in books are neither certain nor evident, often proving dubious matters through even more dubious means, so much so that, like those running in a circle, you always return to the starting point from which you began to run.
To ascertain whether someone is a true teacher of religion or an impostor, three avenues exist: personal experience, which is unavailable to us concerning the major figures of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, given their distance in time and their having lived long before us; the testimony of others, if someone is willing to share it with us; and finally, studying someone through their writings, allowing us to evaluate their own testimony about themselves. However, in the case of Christ, there are no direct writings. Regarding Moses, it is uncertain if any such writings exist. For Muhammad, there is the Quran. Testimonies come from friends or enemies. There is no third option here, following the well-known truism: "He who is not with me is against me." As for someone's personal testimony about themselves, Muhammad in his writings claims divine authority as much as Moses and others do. As for the rest, Muhammad's friends and followers have written about him in the same manner as followers of other religions have written about their leaders. Meanwhile, enemies of these leaders have spoken ill of them, much like Muhammad's detractors have done. However, relying solely on these self-assertions is fragile and inconclusive, serving merely to confuse inattentive listeners. Assertions from friends are of the same ilk, as they speak in unison with their subject. As for enemies, they should not be trusted since their interests are opposed.
Nevertheless, even with these considerations, followers of each of these three figures draw their conclusions about imposture and truth from similar flimsy reasons. They rely on their own glory, their friends' affirmations, or their enemies' detractions, none of which provide a solid foundation. Nevertheless, unquestionably, Muhammad is considered an impostor among our people. But why? Not based on his own testimony, not based on his friends' testimony, but based on the testimony of his enemies. Conversely, among the Muslims, he is regarded as the Most Holy Prophet, primarily due to the testimony of his friends. Those who regard Moses either as an impostor or a saint proceed in a similar fashion. Consequently, there is an equal rationale, both for accusation and defense against imposture in Muhammad, just as in the others. Yet, despite this, some consider them saints while others consider them charlatans, contrary to what justice demands.
Therefore, applying the scholastic method, the conclusion is firm:
Whenever an equal rationale for accusation or defense against imposture applies to anyone as it does to Muhammad, justice demands that their case be treated in the same category.
For example, the same rationale applies to Moses; therefore:
Justice must be demanded equally in the case of Moses and Muhammad; neither should be considered an impostor.
This reasoning holds for all similar cases, ensuring fairness and impartiality in judgment.
The argument for the defense against imposture can be made based on the favorable testimonies of both Moses and Muhammad about themselves, as well as the favorable testimonies of any ruler's friends. Therefore, it follows logically:
I.
The strength of the defense arguments made by Moses's friends must also be applicable to Muhammad's defense against imposture.
But the power of self-exoneration through favorable testimonies remains constant, etc. Therefore, etc.
II.
The same purpose served by Moses's books will also apply to the Quran.
But. Therefore.
Additionally, consider that Muslims draw various arguments in favor of Muhammad from the New Testament books (despite believing them to be significantly corrupted), especially Christ's prediction of the coming Paraclete, which they interpret as referring to Muhammad. They argue that Muhammad exposed the corruption of Christians, instituted a new covenant, and that the Quran reveals this truth. Although the Quran is criticized for containing many inept, fabulous, and even impious accounts, Muslims believe these can be explained and mitigated through spiritual interpretations or other methods. Moreover, regarding the criticism of the Quran promoting excessive carnality and filling eternal life with bodily pleasures, Muslims argue that these criticisms can be addressed. For example, they claim that wine, while considered a gift from God, can also be seen as poison and therefore should not be consumed. Furthermore, polygamy, which is allowed in Islam, is defended by citing Moses' acceptance of it. Also, references in the New Testament, such as "You will recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, etc." and "I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom," are interpreted as indications of a similar life after death. Criticisms against the Song of Solomon are dismissed, as these verses, when interpreted in a spiritual sense, are believed to contain nothing objectionable, just like the Quran when similarly interpreted. If we are too strict in our judgment of the Quran, the same strictness should apply to Moses and others' writings. The arguments presented in favor of Moses to deflect accusations of imposture do not seem to carry sufficient weight and necessity.
I. The divine transactions of Moses rely on his own testimony or the testimony of his friends and therefore cannot carry more weight than similar arguments made by Muslims regarding Muhammad's conversation with Gabriel. Moreover, these transactions of Moses, if everything attributed to Moses is indeed his (as commonly believed), raise suspicions of imposture, as will be discussed below.
II. Achieving sanctity like Moses's is not easily attainable. No one can rightfully claim this, especially when the most serious crimes committed by Moses are known. Such crimes include:
a) Robbery, which only his friends excused. However, these friends are not just judges of the matter, and they do not contradict the favorable account given by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles. There remains a dispute about this witness's honesty and truthfulness.
b) Incitement to rebellion, which, if attributed to God, cannot be proven and may even be contrary to God's will, as resistance against tyrants is prohibited elsewhere.
c) Wars, despite Moses's own commandments in the Fifth and Seventh Books, involving killings, violence, and plunder. Similarly, the Pontiff in the Indies or Muhammad in his territories, abusing the noble title of God, drove out the ancient inhabitants from their territories. Moses killed many and exterminated them to ensure the safety of himself and his people.
d) The doctrine of taking things from others under the guise of a loan.
e) Moses's obligation to God, where he was willing to die eternally for his people, requesting from God things that contradict His essence. See Exodus 32:31-32.
f) Neglecting the divine commandment regarding circumcision. See Exodus 4:24-26.
g) Finally, Moses's primary flaw: his extreme and blatant disbelief, despite being reported to have performed such great miracles through God's power. Yet, due to his shaky faith, he was strongly rebuked and threatened with punishment by God Himself. See Numbers 20:12.
As for the proof of the other argument, namely the accusation of imposture, it can be said: regarding Muhammad being an imposter, we do not have personal experience, as mentioned earlier, but we rely on the testimony not of his friends but of his enemies. All non-Muslims fall into this category due to the saying, "he who is not with me is against me," and from both sides, the following conclusion is drawn:
Whatever strength the testimony of enemies has in one person's case, it must also have in another's case. Otherwise, we would be unfair by condemning one based on the testimony of enemies while not doing the same for another. In such a scenario, all justice would collapse.
However, the testimony of enemies in Muhammad's case has the power to label him as an imposter. Therefore, etc.
I further state that suspicions of Moses's imposture can be sought not only from external sources but also from internal arguments. Through these, testimony can be deduced both from his contemporaries and his successors. Although there is still a debate about whether:
I. the books attributed to Moses are indeed his;
II. they are compilations;
III. they were written by Ezra in particular;
IV. they are in the Samaritan script;
V. they were originally written in genuine Hebrew language; and if not,
VI. whether this language can be understood by us.
All of these points could be challenged by many, especially the fact that it can be demonstrated that the earlier chapters of Genesis cannot be accurately interpreted by us. However, I confess my reluctance to engage in these discussions and state my intention to argue based on human reasoning.
I. From Moses's own testimony, specifically:
α) About his life and character, as discussed earlier, which, if applied to Muhammad (especially considering his aggressive use of warfare against innocents), seems somewhat equivalent and doesn't entirely deviate in other aspects.
β) Regarding the authority of his teachings. This relates to Moses's divine transactions, which he indeed boasts about, although it seems overly generous. Anyone who claims such transactions with God, which cannot be, makes their dealings with God suspicious by right. But Moses claims it. Therefore, it is suspect.
This is proven because he boasts of seeing what is frequently mentioned in the Old and New Testaments: what no eye has seen, that is, God face to face. Exodus 33:11, Numbers 12:8. Thus, he saw God 1) in His own form, not in a vision or a dream; 2) face to face, like a friend speaking with a friend, mouth to mouth. Such a vision 1) is like friendly discourse, face to face, mouth to mouth; 2) as described for the blessed in the afterlife. This precise and direct vision of God is what is described. Moses claims it. Therefore, etc.
The minor premise is proven from the previously mentioned verses and the Apostle's statement. The same face-to-face concept occurs in Moses's passages as in the Apostle's statement. However, it is certain among Christians that no one can see God in this life. Furthermore, in Exodus 33:20, it is explicitly stated, "you cannot see my face." These words are spoken by God to Moses and directly contradict the previously cited passages. Hence, these can't be explained away unless you say they were added by a thoughtless compiler. This very doubt renders the entire account questionable.
γ) About Moses's doctrine, whether it is legal or evangelical, among the laws, which for the sake of brevity I can't enumerate entirely. The Ten Commandments, also known as the special work and covenant of God on Mount Horeb, stand out.
However, it seems that it was invented by Moses before being written by God because these commandments don't inherently reflect God's perfection. Since 1) some are superfluous, namely the last three, as they are already covered by Christ's sayings in Matthew 5, or shouldn't be separated and would make 10; 2) others are defective. For instance, where are the commands like "you shall not covet another's house, field, or property," or the prohibition against desiring to harm one's parents and similar things? Is it to be presumed that God would prohibit lesser desires such as violating someone's house, land, or property in specific, singular, and extraordinary terms but not greater ones? As for Moses's evangelical doctrine, it is noted to be rather precarious and fragile in Deuteronomy 18:21-22 because this note suspends faith in prophecy for a long time. Following this saying, the prediction by Christ about the destruction of Jerusalem shouldn't be considered authentic until it's fulfilled (similar to Daniel's prophecies before they came true). Hence, those Jews who lived from Christ's time until the destruction couldn't be blamed for not believing in him, even though Paul anathematizes those who don't adhere to Christ before the destruction.
Therefore, any note allowing freedom for a long time concerning secure belief in the Messiah or disbelief cannot originate from God but is rightly considered suspicious. Yet, this note is given. Therefore, etc.
Notwithstanding what is said about other prophecies being fulfilled. For this is the most specific and genuine mark of that great Prophet: that what he predicts shall come to pass. Hence, by the nature of things, he could not be considered a prophet for such before.
Another absurd consequence that seems to follow from this passage is the following: that this criterion, which ought to have been the divine criterion for all prophets, should not be found in certain prophets, namely, in an indefinite way, but allowing through words of moral latitude (such as "soon," "quickly," "near," etc.) could not possibly find any place. For example, many have predicted the final day of the universe, and Peter says that that day is imminent. Therefore, until it arrives, he cannot be considered a true prophet. This is explicitly what Moses requires in the cited passage.
δ) Concerning the histories of Moses. If the Quran is accused of many fables, surely in Genesis, there are many things that will raise suspicion for the curious reader. For instance, the creation of man from the dust of the earth, the inspiration of breath, Eve made from the rib of a man, talking serpents seducing the wisest of men, and the fact that the serpent, the father of lies, was hiding in the tree of knowledge. The eating of the forbidden fruit, which makes one of God's attributes (though these are identified with His essence), namely, His mercy, limited, just as the restoration of the fallen brings God's anger and thus makes God finite. For God's anger is God Himself. People living 800 or 900 years, the journey of animals into Noah's Ark, the Tower of Babel, the confusion of languages, etc. These and a thousand other things, upon close inspection, cannot fail to seem similar to the tales, especially those of the Rabbis, because the Jewish people are most inclined to fables. Nor is there a total disagreement with Ovid, the Vedas, the Chinese and Indian Brahmins, who also tell tales such as the beautiful daughter born from an egg who gave birth to the world. In particular, Moses seems to stumble upon the fact that he placed God in contradiction with Himself: namely, everything was good, yet it was not good for Adam to be alone. Hence, it follows that there was something outside Adam that was not good, and therefore, it could harm Adam's goodness, even though Adam's solitude was also God's work, because He had created not only the essences but also the goodness of qualities. For everything was good in the quality in which God had created them.
I argue: Whatever is a created work of God cannot fail to be good. But Adam's solitude, etc. Therefore, etc.
ε) Those who are interested in the study of the Old Testament genealogies find many difficulties in Moses. I won't present all of them here. At least this one is exempted, that Paul, in 1 Timothy 1:4, taught that genealogies are useless and the pursuit of them is unfruitful, even to be avoided. Then what is the use of Moses's so numerous and distinct, or even frequently repeated, genealogies? And what singular example of suspicion is there, at least of corruption or oversight by compilers, in the wives of Esau and their different narratives?
Esau's Wives
Genesis 26:34: Judith, daughter of Berith the Hittite.
Genesis 28:9: Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nebajoth, in addition to the first two mentioned.
Genesis 36:2: Ada, daughter of Elon the Hittite.
Genesis 36:3: Basemath, daughter of Elon the Hittite.
Genesis 36:3: Aholibamah, daughter of Anah, daughter of Zibeon the Hivite.
Genesis 36:3: Basemath, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nebajoth.
Esau's Wives: A Discrepancy in the Texts
In Genesis 36, Ada is mentioned as the daughter of Elon the Hittite. However, in Genesis 26, a woman named Basemath is identified as the daughter of Elon the Hittite. Furthermore, in Genesis 36, Basemath is referred to as the daughter of Ishmael and the sister of Nebajoth. The name Mahalaad is also mentioned in Genesis 28 as the sister of Nebajoth. The reconciliation of these discrepancies remains unclear. It appears that Mahalaad is stated in Genesis 28 to have been married after Judith and Basemath, who were mentioned in Genesis 26. These inconsistencies raise suspicions that the writings attributed to Moses, as we have them, might have been constructed by compilers, and errors might have crept in during the writing process.
Excessive Repetition and Tautology in Moses' Writings
ζ) Finally, another point that can be argued against Moses is the excessive use of tautology and redundant repetition in his texts. This repetitiveness appears varied, as if different authors had compiled disparate passages.
II. Moses Questioned by Others' Testimony:
Moses' credibility is also challenged by the suspicions raised not only by his enemies but also by those who openly professed to be his successors and followers. Among these critics are:
Peter, who referred to the laws of Moses as an unbearable yoke in Acts 15:10. If Moses' laws were truly divine, then either God would be a tyrant (which is unthinkable), or Peter spoke falsehood, or Moses' laws are not divine.
Paul, who consistently spoke disparagingly of the laws of Moses, which he would not do if he considered them divine. For example:
He called them captivity in Galatians 4:3-4. Who would refer to God's laws in such a way?
He termed them miserable precepts in Galatians 4:9.
He wrote in Galatians 4:30: "Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." Hagar is the slave woman, representing the covenant from Mount Sinai, which is the law of Moses according to verse 24. Who would tolerate this expression: "Expel God's law along with its followers"?
He called the law a letter that kills and stated that it lacks glory worthy of estimation in 2 Corinthians 3:6, 10. Who would say such things about God's holiest law? If it is as divine as the Gospel, it should have equal glory.
These testimonies from individuals outside the Jewish or Christian community should be noted for further consideration. Among them, Tacitus stands out, who treated Moses with no less praise than magicians or impostors.
THAT'S ALL!
FINIS