Because the Koran contradicts the Bible at just about every point, the modern Muslim is forced to say that the Bible had been corrupted and that it used to teach Islamic theology. They argue that the original Bible taught that Jesus (Isa in Islam) never claimed to be the Son of God and was never crucified. All these assertions are made in spite of the multiple verses in the Koran which say that the Koran is supposed to be a “confirmation” of the previous Scriptures that were currently possessed by the Jews and Christians (Surahs 2:42, 2:89, 2:91, 2:97, 2:101, 3:81, 4:87, 5:47, 5:48, 6:92, 10:37, 10:94, 12:111, 35:31, 37:37, 46:12, 46:30, etc.). Of course, theyhave to contort their own Koran into saying that the Bible is corrupt because, if they didn’t, they would have to acknowledge that the Koran is in error.
Although the charge of corruption is completely baseless according to their Koran, the charge still must be answered. This is an assertion that is made, not only by Muslims, but also by Mormons and Humanists alike. First, I will deal with the common logical fallacies made by Muslim apologists, and then, I will make a case for the accurate transmission of the Bible.
Common Logical Fallacies in Muslim Arguments
The Term “Corruption”:
Muslim apologists frequently commit the fallacy of equivocation with the word “corruption”. They will pick up a book on Bible manuscripts, and read that there are thousands of variant readings and a few scribal insertions (such as the Trinity passage in 1 John). They will then declare that the Bible has been corrupted. Of course, they are falsely equating the variant readings with full-scale “corruption”. In other words, the book is saying that there are minor variations in spelling or words left out (i.e. scribal errors), and the Muslim apologist is equating that with a complete change in the story and theology of the text (i.e. a complete text replacement). I have made an illustration below:
Original Text:
Jack went up the hill and ate.
Scribal Error (the reality of some Bible manuscripts):
J@ck went up the hill and ate.
Or
Jack went up hill and ate.
Complete Text Replacement (the false Muslim assertion):
Jack went to his mother’s house and ascended into heaven.
The Use of Liberal (i.e. Humanist)/Skeptic Scholars:
Muslim apologists will frequently use the arguments of Liberal “Christians” and say that they are “honest” Christians admitting to the reality of history. For instance, they might use the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar to say that the text of John was the opinion of later Christians in an attempt to turn Jesus into God. Of course, the methodology of the Jesus seminar is based upon the presupposition of an anti-supernatural bias (i.e. a form of circular-reasoning). Thus, since both the Bible and the Koran claim supernaturalism, then the Muslim apologists’ arguments (if they were consistent) would refute both the Koran as well as the Bible. On top of this, because the Jesus Seminar and other Liberal scholars use a faulty methodology (i.e. faulty presuppositions), the Muslim is, in turn, using the same faulty methodology to attack the Bible.
Secondly, what if Christians started quoting liberal Islamic scholars (i.e. humanistic Muslims) who didn’t believe that the Koran was inspired or Muhammad was a true prophet? The Muslims would be rightfully outraged, but this only shows their hypocrisy. While they demand that Christians only quote orthodox Muslims, the Muslim apologist will use liberal “Christians” (i.e. humanists) and their (faulty) conclusions against Christianity. The double-standard is obvious.
Proof Texting:
Because most of them have never read the Bible, Muslims will read the Bible as if it were the Koran! They will then go through the Bible and take verses out of context in order to find apparent contradictions and/or argue against the accuracy of Bible transmission. One such verse is Jeremiah 8:8. Sam Shamoun deals with it quite well here: http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/biblecorruption.htm
An Accurate Transmission of the Bible
Because
Muslims believe that Jesus was a true Prophet, this makes the case for an accurate transmission of the whole Bible much easier. It is clear that the New Testament in the hands of Christians today records that Jesus taught the accurate transmission of the Old
Testament (Matthew
Manuscripts:
In reality, the New Testament is undoubtedly the most well preserved book of the ancient world. There are approximately 5,300 copies of either fragments, single books, most of the New Testament, or entire New Testaments discovered that date back to the ancient world. Of all these copies, complete books have been found that date to within 150 years after the books were composed, and one fragment dates to within a generation or so of the book’s actual composition. Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb comment:
“Muslims make a strong point of the fact that the Qur’an has been completely preserved. While this is largely true, at least after the Uthmanic revisions, it misses the point, since the Qur’an is only a medieval book (seventh century A.D.). But most Muslims are totally unaware that for an ancient book (first century A.D.) the New Testament is the most accurately copied book in the world.”
-Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1993), p.232.
So, what do all those 5,000 or so manuscripts say about the transmission of the Bible? John W. Montgomery concludes:
“…to be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.”
-John W. Montgomery, History and Christianity (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1964), p.29.
David Dockery, Kenneth Matthews, and Robert Sloan note:
“For most of the biblical text a single reading has been transmitted. Elimination of scribal errors and intentional changes leaves us only a small percentage of the text about which questions occur.”
- David S. Dockery, Kenneth A. Matthews, and Robert B. Sloan, Foundations for Biblical Interpretation (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), p. 176.
Again, Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb note the conclusions of the world’s best manuscript experts:
“The famous textual scholars Westcott and Hort estimated that only one-sixtieth of these variants rise above “trivialities.” This would leave a text 98.33 percent pure. The great scholar A.T. Robertson said that the real concern is only with a “thousandth part of the entire text.” This would make the New Testament 99.9 percent free of significant variants…So the New Testament text can be reconstructed with over 99 percent accuracy. And, what is more, 100 percent of the message of the New Testament has been preserved in its manuscripts!”
-Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1993), pp.233, 235.
The textual scholar, Frederic Kenyon, concludes that:
“The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.”
-Frederic Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, 4th edition (New York: Harper, 1958), p.55.
Liberal Critic Retractions:
Even some liberal critics of the Bible (which Muslim apologists love to cite) have come to realize that, in light of the evidence, the New Testament was written within the lifetime of the apostles and was circulated amongst eyewitnesses of the events:
“That is why I say ‘No’ to historical-critical theology. I regard everything that I taught and wrote…as refuse. I wish to use this opportunity to mention that I have pitched my two books Gleichnisse Jesu…and Studien zur Passiongeschichte…I threw them into the trash with my own hands in 1978.”
-Eta Linneman, Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology? (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990), p.20.
Geisler and Saleeb note the new conclusion of the late Bishop John A.T. Robinson:
“Even the radical death-of-God theologian Bishop John Robinson, famous for writing Honest to God, became honest with the facts and declared that the New Testament was written by contemporaries beginning as early as seven years or so after the events and were circulated among other eyewitnesses and/or contemporaries of the events.”
-Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1993), pp.236-237.
Pagan Historians (i.e. enemies of Christianity):
Pagan historians of the first and second centuries, in their desire to mock Christians, record the beliefs of the early Christians in their records. They clearly record that Christians believed in the Crucifixion and worshipped Christ as God:
“Hence
to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called
Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator
of
-Cornelius Tacitus, Annals XV.44
“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day-the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account…You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.”
-Lucian of Samosata, The Death of Peregrine 11-13
“They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to do any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up.”
-Pliny the Younger, Epistles X.96
The Early Christians, Orthodox and Heretical:
Contrary to the claims of humanists such as Dan Brown’s The DaVinci Code, Muslims, and other unbelievers, there is not one recorded
Christian sect throughout all ancient history, orthodox or heretical, that did not believe that Jesus Christ was in some way divine. In fact, one of the first heretical groups that challenged the Christian Church in its early stage was the Gnostics who, rather than
denying Jesus’ divinity, denied His humanity! [Note: The Gnostics denied Jesus was crucified only because they believed that
He was completely ethereal (i.e. spirit). There is a good amount of evidence that stories from the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas,
such as the Islamic belief in the non-crucifixion of Jesus, made it into the Koran! See the article on the sources of the Koran.]
Here are some examples from the apostolic fathers (late first century/early second century) of the Christian belief in Jesus’ substitutionary atonement through crucifixion and His Divinity (emphasis mine):
“Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Sceptre of the majesty of God, did not come in the pomp of pride or arrogance, although He might have done so, but in a lowly condition, as the Holy Spirit had declared regarding Him. For He says, “Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? We have declared [our message] in His presence: He is, as it were, a child, and like a root in thirsty ground; He has no form nor glory, yea, we saw Him, and He had no form nor comeliness; but His form was without eminence, yea, deficient in comparison with the [ordinary] form of men. He is a man exposed to stripes and suffering, acquainted with the endurance of grief: for His countenance was turned away; He was despised, and not esteemed. He bears our iniquities, and is in sorrow for our sakes; yet we supposed that [on His own account] He was exposed to labour, and stripes, and affliction. But He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we were healed”…Let us consider, beloved, how the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a future resurrection, of which He has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead.”
-Clement of
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-05.htm#P284_43233
“My brethren, we must look on Christ as God.”
-Clement of
A Defense of the
Accurate Transmission of
The Bible
(Part 1)