Refuting the Claim that Surah 2:75-76 Proves the Bible is Corrupted: An Academic Response
One of the most common arguments brought forward by Muslim apologists is the claim that the Bible — specifically the Torah (Old Testament) and the Injeel (New Testament) — has been corrupted. Many Muslims cite Surah 2:75-76 of the Qur’an as evidence for this position. However, a closer examination of these verses, their context, and relevant historical and theological sources reveals that this claim lacks substantial basis. In this article, we will explore four reasons why Surah 2:75-76 does not prove that the Bible is corrupted, drawing on insights from both Islamic and Christian scholarship.
Reason 1: The Qur’an Affirms the Torah and Gospel as Authentic Revelations
Before examining Surah 2:75-76, it’s crucial to recognize that the Qur’an elsewhere consistently affirms the authenticity and divine origin of both the Torah and the Gospel. This affirmation directly contradicts any claim that the scriptures had been irreparably corrupted before the time of Muhammad.
For instance, Surah 5:47 commands Christians to “judge by what God has revealed in the Gospel,” which implies that the Gospel at that time was still seen as trustworthy and authoritative. Similarly, Surah 5:68 says: “O People of the Book, you have no ground to stand upon unless you uphold the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.” This verse places the Torah and the Gospel at the core of the People of the Book’s religious life, signaling their continued importance.
If these scriptures had been corrupted beyond recognition, it would be odd for the Qur’an to direct Christians and Jews to follow and judge by them. The Qur’an’s implicit trust in the Torah and Gospel as legitimate sources of guidance contradicts claims of widespread textual corruption.
Scholarly Insight:
Islamic scholars such as Al-Tabari and Al-Razi also recognized the Torah and the Gospel as revelations from God, although they critiqued the Jewish and Christian communities for misunderstanding or misapplying certain aspects of their scriptures. Their acknowledgment of the authenticity of these texts during the early period of Islam suggests that claims of corruption emerged more from later Islamic theological developments than from the Qur’an itself.
Reason 2: Surah 2:75-76 Refers to the Distortion of Meaning, Not Textual Corruption
Let’s examine the key passage often cited by Muslims as evidence for the Bible’s corruption. Surah 2:75-76 reads:
“Do you covet [the hope, O believers], that they would believe for you while a party of them used to hear the words of Allah and then distort it after they had understood it while they were knowing? And when they meet those who believe, they say, ‘We have believed’; but when they are alone with one another, they say, ‘Do you talk to them about what Allah has revealed to you so they can argue with you about it before your Lord?’” (Surah 2:75-76)
At first glance, this verse may seem to suggest that the Jewish people had corrupted their scriptures. However, the Arabic word used here for “distort” is tahrif, which Islamic scholars have long debated in its meaning. The term is more accurately understood as referring to a distortion of interpretation or meaning, rather than a physical alteration of the text itself. This is a critical distinction when discussing the integrity of the Torah and Gospel.
Scholarly Insight:
Islamic scholars such as Fakhr al-Din al-Razi and Al-Tabari support this interpretation. Al-Razi clarified that tahrif in this context refers to twisting the words or misinterpreting them, not changing the text. Al-Tabari, a highly respected early Islamic commentator, also concluded that tahrif refers to misrepresentation rather than textual corruption.
This suggests that the accusation in Surah 2:75-76 is not about the physical corruption of the Torah but instead addresses how some Jewish leaders may have misrepresented or failed to live out the teachings of their scriptures. The verse critiques human behavior and the misinterpretation of the divine word, not the textual reliability of the scriptures themselves.
Reason 3: Overwhelming Manuscript Evidence Supports the Bible’s Reliability
Beyond the Qur’an’s implicit trust in the Torah and Gospel, the historical manuscript evidence overwhelmingly supports the Bible’s textual integrity. If the Bible had been corrupted as some claim, we would expect significant variations in the manuscript record. However, the evidence demonstrates remarkable consistency in the transmission of both the Old and New Testaments.
Old Testament Evidence:
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 20th century provides extensive manuscript evidence for the Old Testament, including texts of the Torah that date as far back as 100 BCE. When compared to modern versions of the Hebrew Bible, the consistency is striking. This demonstrates that the text of the Torah has been reliably transmitted over time, refuting the claim of widespread corruption.
New Testament Evidence:
The New Testament is one of the most well-attested ancient documents in history, with over 5,800 Greek manuscripts and thousands of additional copies in other languages such as Latin and Syriac. Some of these manuscripts date to the early second century, within just a few decades of the original writings.
According to Craig L. Blomberg, a Christian scholar specializing in New Testament studies, while there are minor textual variations across these manuscripts, none of them affect core Christian doctrines or teachings. The essential message of the New Testament has been preserved faithfully.
Thus, both the Old and New Testament texts exhibit a remarkable level of preservation, disproving the notion that they have been corrupted beyond recognition.
Reason 4: Early Muslim Scholars Did Not Emphasize Bible Corruption
The belief in the corruption of the Torah and Gospel is not as universally accepted within Islamic tradition as some might believe. In fact, several prominent early Muslim scholars and historians did not emphasize the corruption of the scriptures themselves, but rather the misapplication or misunderstanding of these texts by Jewish and Christian communities.
For example, Ibn Kathir, a famous Islamic historian and scholar, acknowledged that the Torah and Gospel were genuine revelations from God. His critiques of these texts were more concerned with how certain individuals had misrepresented or misunderstood them, rather than suggesting that the scriptures themselves had been physically altered.
Similarly, early Islamic biographers such as Ibn Isḥāq, the author of one of the earliest biographies of the Prophet Muhammad, did not mention widespread corruption of the scriptures. This silence on the issue suggests that the belief in textual corruption was not a central part of early Islamic thought and only became more prominent in later Islamic theology.
Scholarly Insight:
Muslim theologians such as Al-Razi and Ibn Kathir were critical of how Jews and Christians interpreted their scriptures, but they did not universally claim that these texts were corrupted beyond recognition. Their critiques were aimed at how these groups failed to live up to the teachings of the Torah and Gospel, not the integrity of the scriptures themselves.
Conclusion
The claim that Surah 2:75-76 proves the Bible has been corrupted is not supported by a thorough examination of the Qur’an, Islamic scholarly commentary, or historical manuscript evidence. To summarize:
1. The Qur’an itself affirms the validity of the Torah and Gospel.
2. Surah 2:75-76 refers to a distortion of meaning, not textual corruption.
3. The overwhelming manuscript evidence shows that the Bible has been reliably transmitted over time.
4. Many early Muslim scholars did not emphasize the corruption of the Bible.
When engaging with Muslims on this issue, it’s important to approach the conversation with respect, seeking to understand the Qur’an’s teachings and the rich manuscript tradition that supports the reliability of the Bible. By using sound reasoning and evidence, we can confidently defend the integrity of the scriptures and demonstrate that claims of corruption are unfounded.
Bibliography
Al-Tabari. Jami’ al-Bayan ‘an Ta’wil Ay al-Qur’an (Comprehensive Commentary on the Interpretation of the Verses of the Qur’an). Translated and edited by J. Cooper. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.
Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliability of the New Testament: Countering the Challenges to Evangelical Christian Beliefs. B&H Academic, 2016.
Cragg, Kenneth. The Call of the Minaret. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956.
Ibn Kathir. Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Azim (Commentary on the Great Qur’an). Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, 1997.
Reynolds, Gabriel Said. The Qur’an and Its Biblical Subtext. London: Routledge, 2010.
Razi, Fakhr al-Din. Al-Tafsir al-Kabir (The Great Commentary). Cairo: Dar al-Hadith, 1999.
Commentaires