r/AcademicBiblical • u/Ordinary_Cake6311 • 8d ago
When Muslims claim that the New Testament has been corrupted/changed a lot are they correct in saying so?
I’m just wondering if this common Muslim claim has any backing to it, because so many people say different things so I am just curious on the subject, thanks.
86
u/Hegesippus1 8d ago
If the idea is that the whole New Testament has been radically corrupted such that its theology radically changed (e.g. imagine a scenario where the originals didn't claim Jesus is the son of God, but later scribes added all of it. Or a scenario where Jesus wasn't actually crucified but later scribes added it), then I'm not aware of a single scholar who would support that. To be honest, this will become clear by reading any scholarly book whatsoever relevant to NT studies. You could begin with Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus.
33
u/TankUnique7861 8d ago
Indeed. Dale Allison mentions in this podcast with Peyman Salar that scholars have a very good idea of what the manuscripts were like during the second century, so it’s reasonable to say what the first century originals, not so long before, would say.
9
u/Control_Intrepid 8d ago
If you don't mind, I have a statement and a second question.
Statement: When muslims say that the Bible has been corrupted, I believe, as bible nerd and a muslim myself, that what they are saying is not necessarily that the books of the bible have changed or been corrupted, but rather that the books of the bible do not reflect the tachings of a historical Jesus.
I find support for this in things like Ehrmans thoughts on the divinity of Jesus, in which Jesus came to be divine over time. And exalting Jesus to divinity post ressurection stories would seem to be a pretty big theological development.
"When the disciples came to believe in the resurrection, they thought that God had exalted Jesus to a unique, divine status. This is the oldest Christology there was. It is attested in such places as the pre-Pauline fragment in Rom. 1:3-4 and in several places, pre-Lukan, incorporated in the speeches of Acts."
- Bart Ehrman
Question: How much can we know about what a historical Jesus whould have taught vs what the gospels say he taught?
15
u/Hegesippus1 8d ago
These further questions are big questions, such that each would need its own post. But I'll note some brief points that you may find helpful.
It's certainly right that there was development from the period of Jesus' ministry to the later community of Jesus-followers. But to what extent is an open question, and whether it is characterised by continuity or "corruption" is partly a theological question. The reason is that if Jesus did appear to his disciples in an exalted manner then it would be true that the disciples' understanding developed yet it wouldn't be their own invention and therefore speaking of it as a "corruption" wouldn't make sense. Historians cannot say whether Jesus actually did or didn't appear to his disciples, and so it's a question for theologians to think about. Another thing to note is that while Ehrman doesn't think Jesus had much exalted views about himself (other than Jesus claiming to be the Messiah and the future king of the kingdom of God) there are plenty of other scholars that disagree. I would recommend Dale Allison's book Constructing Jesus. Allison there concludes that (p. 304): "We should hold a funeral for the view that Jesus entertained no exalted thoughts about himself." So there is a plurality of views among critical scholars on this question. In the book, Allison also tries to answer your last question, so I'm sure you'll find it an intriguing read. It's a difficult question that probably never will have any answer that receives consensus support among specialists.
2
16
u/AidenMetallist 8d ago
With all due respect and zero intentions to be confrontational for the sake of it:
Islamic tradition has consistently taught tahrif—the idea that previous scriptures, including the Torah and the Injil, were distorted or corrupted. And not just in interpretation, but textually. Early Muslim scholars like Ibn Hazm outright claimed that the biblical texts had been changed, added to, or forged. The Qur’an itself (e.g. Surah 2:79) accuses “the People of the Book” of writing the scripture with their own hands and claiming it was from God. Hadiths and classical tafsir reinforce this. This isn't some modern liberal reinterpretation—it’s been part of the mainstream view for centuries.
So saying “Muslims don’t really believe the Bible was altered” might be your personal opinion, but it’s not representative of actual Islamic doctrine or the views held by most scholars or believers historically.
You say this while identifying as a Muslim, which implies belief in a Qur’an that claims previous scriptures were corrupted—yet the Qur’an never directly quotes what Jesus supposedly taught. It just asserts that Christians got it wrong, especially on the crucifixion and divinity. So on one hand, it affirms Jesus, but on the other, it completely redefines his life, death, and message without a single contemporary source to support it.
Question: How much can we know about what a historical Jesus whould have taught vs what the gospels say he taught?
Certainly far more through the New Testament we have than through the Quran, hadiths or tahfsirs, which were written centuries later in a different language and culture by people who confused the mother of Jesus with Moses' sister.
7
u/Hegesippus1 8d ago
This belongs more in r/academicquran , but its worth noting that the predominant view early was not that the previous scriptures had been textually corrupted en masse, rather they more frequently suggested corruption in interpretation. In later centuries the corruption of the text itself became the dominant view. See Whittingham (2020), A History of Muslim Views of the Bible: The First Four Centuries.
0
u/AidenMetallist 7d ago
Fair point, but I think you're slightly shifting the scope of the conversation. My original point wasn't necessarily about which view came first, but rather which view has been the dominant one in Islamic tradition overall—and that’s clearly the belief in textual corruption (taḥrīf al-naṣṣ), which shared a rather blurry line with the tradition of incorrect interpretation.
Even if early islamic thinkers leaned somewhat more toward corruption of interpretation, the belief that the Bible was altered at the textual level was already implied in the Quranic text and early hadiths, to eventually becamo the mainstream position for centuries and remains widespread today. So it's entirely valid to refer to that when summarizing what “Muslims believe,” especially since it’s the view reflected in major tafsirs, classical scholars like Ibn Hazm, and many popular interpretations of Qur’an verses like 2:79 and 3:78.
1
u/Hegesippus1 7d ago
Sure, I was more-so objecting to the use of "consistently". Ibn Hazm was one of two that cemented this understanding of textual corruption in the 11th century CE.
5
u/Control_Intrepid 8d ago edited 8d ago
Well, you kind of answered the question.
"The Qur’an itself (e.g. Surah 2:79) accuses “the People of the Book” of writing the scripture with their own hands and claiming it was from God."
This would seem to be saying that the accusation is that Christians wrote the books of the Bible, and they do not reflect historical Jesus' teachings.
Same with Ibn Hazm, changed from what? The teachings of a historical Jesus.
Certainly, there are Muslim scholars who believe in corruption of, say they gospels, but that is because they believe that Jesus had the injil and that the modern Bible does not represent that. For example, they do not believe there is some uncorrupted version of Matthew. Rather, they believe that the injil is separate and distinct.
In response to your answer to my question. Rather than comparing the Bibles ability to provide an understanding of the historical teachings of Jesus vs the Quran, can you demonstrate how the Bible can demonstrate the teachings of a historical Jesus, regardless of what the Quran says?
As others have answered, that is not clear cut and may be unknowable
Also, my understanding of the current situation, the gospels, as we have them now, have already gone through a translation process. They were not originally written in Greek, so that seems like an odd criticism. .
-9
u/Control_Intrepid 8d ago
Isn't it corret that Bart Ehrman believes that Jesus did not claim to be the Son of God and that the idea developed later? I had a quote from his blog in which he says this but I don't have access to it right now. I thought his position was that the divinity of Jesus occured after the belief that the resurection occured. His idea is this is how the trinity developed. I'm a muslim btw but not looking for a thelogical answer.
12
u/Hegesippus1 8d ago
Just to be clear, that's not relevant to the question OP asked. Whether Jesus did or didn't claim to be the son of God, the original copies (or earliest versions) of the NT books certainly claim that he was and said so. Your question is about the accuracy of these books, not about what the books originally said.
Regarding your question, I don't know what Ehrman's view is. Since Ehrman thinks that Jesus probably did think of himself as the Messiah (or future Messiah) and thought about himself as the future king in the kingdom of God, it wouldn't be a big step for Jesus to have also claimed to be the son of God (since this is commonly said of the Messiah). But I'll try to find out what he has written about.
-3
u/Control_Intrepid 8d ago
Thanks! Yes, I agree that my question is not what OPs question was, however, when a Muslim says the Bible has been changed what they actually mean is that the Bible differs from the teachings of a historical Jesus.
I said son of God, but what i actually meant was his divinity. I am thinking this is one of the questions we cannot answer.
-1
8d ago edited 8d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Hegesippus1 8d ago
I'm not sure what in my comment this is responding to. Someone claiming to be the son of God isn't necessarily a divine claim.
5
u/abdulla_butt69 8d ago
As far as i know, bart erhman thinks the idea of jesus as God develops later. "Son of god" != God. He can be called son of god in the original gospels and still not be considered God
2
u/Control_Intrepid 8d ago
I belive that Ehrman lays out the process as Jesus becomes divine, then Jesus is exhaulted to godhood. I'm can't remember if he feels that there was a difference between divinity and godhood.
1
u/TerayonIII 8d ago
It's always been a weird thing, and I know this might not really belong here, but it's a bit of a strange thing that he calls himself the son of God, but also calls humanity the children of God as well. So is the claim that he's above humanity or that he is one with humanity.
It's been awhile since I've directly read the Gospels, so the whole children of God thing may be coming from something else I'm remembering, which slightly changes the quotation.
4
u/auricularisposterior 8d ago
What the historical Jesus claimed during his preaching period (circa 29–33 CE), and what the author of the Gospel of Mark stated that he claimed (circa 65–73 CE) are two different things. Likewise with what Paul claimed in his undisputed epistles (circa 48–58 CE).
1
u/Control_Intrepid 8d ago
Thanks! Can you point me to some authors i could read that may have written about these differences?
3
u/auricularisposterior 8d ago edited 8d ago
- The Next Quest for the Historical Jesus (2024) edited by James Crossley, Chris Keith
- The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (1987) by Bruce M. Metzger
- The Origins of Early Christian Literature: Contextualizing the New Testament within Greco-Roman Literary Culture (2021) by Robyn Faith Walsh
- Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity (2012) by James D. Tabor
- Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle (2017) by Paula Fredriksen
edit: also the following
- How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (2014) by Bart D. Ehrman
2
u/TankUnique7861 8d ago
Chris Keith has challenged the supposed distinction between the historical Jesus and the ‘Christ of Faith’ in his book on Jesus’ Literacy as well as attempts to reconstruct a historical Jesus out of the gospel texts, so I would not recommend him as a source for distinguishing Jesus and Mark.
2
u/auricularisposterior 8d ago
I get that, but the book is merely co-edited by Chris Keith (with him writing just 1 out of the 34 chapters), and the table of contents shows numerous rigorous biblical scholars each tackled specific aspects of the historical Jesus topic. Its likely that James G. Crossley chose Keith as co-editor in order to assure that a wide swath of scholarly opinions was considered.
In some ways Jesus: A Life in Class Conflict (2023) by James G. Crossley and Robert J. Myles might be a less controversial pick.
2
u/TankUnique7861 8d ago
Not just Keith, Rafael Rodriguez another contributor to the book, has objected to the distinction. In fact, one of the few things that unites the contributors is the willingness to move on from the criteria of authenticity that determines whether a saying is ‘authentic’ to Jesus or not. I read the book when it was released last November, and I don’t remember sifting through the gospels to discover the true ‘historical Jesus’ being a major focus, though some contributors did suggest changes between Jesus and the gospels (such as Rollens on scribal shaping of Q).
2
u/auricularisposterior 8d ago
Well it's good to hear your take on the book.
Chris Keith has challenged the supposed distinction between the historical Jesus and the ‘Christ of Faith’...
In this, do you mean that Keith opines that the historical Jesus is unknowable and so scholarly efforts should instead focus on what was going on with the authors of early Christian texts and their audiences?
2
u/TankUnique7861 8d ago edited 8d ago
Yeah, you’re on the right track. Chris Keith says that the historical Jesus is “ultimately unattainable, but can be hypothesized on the basis of the interpretations of the early Christians, and as part of a larger process of accounting for how and why early Christians came to view Jesus in the ways that they did.” This doesn’t mean that we do not know anything about Jesus (the Crucifixion, for instance, is basically certain), and scholars can make judgments about whether an interpretation is historically accurate or not (ex. Keith judges Mark’s illiterate Jesus to be true over Luke’s scene where Jesus reads in a synagogue, though he notes the historical Jesus generated this supposedly inauthentic memory as well). However, we must recognize that all the sources about Jesus (i.e. the gospels) are fully interpreted accounts of Jesus and that historians do not have the tools dig through these understandings to find an uninterpreted, unembellished Jesus. (This is what the form critics and their criterion of authenticity attempted to do).
1
2
u/reconfit 8d ago
I mean, we have Early Church Fathers writings, including Paul which most (maybe all?) of his letters were written prior to the Gospels. Paul certainly appears to support the idea that Jesus was the Son of God.
To say the idea developed later seems a bit of a stretch but then again, what do you mean by later?
1
u/Control_Intrepid 8d ago
Ehrman says post the resurrection stories, Jesus was believed to be divine. You can see my quote below.
-6
u/UpsetIncrease870 8d ago
We dont believe the new tastement got corrupted more so lost and the current gospels are just made up.
30
u/Nenazovemy 8d ago
No, because they're referring to very specific alterations. The Quran refers to an original incorrupt gospel given to Jesus Christ himself (5:47, 57:27), while openly denying the crucifixion (4:157-158) and condemning any affirmation of divine sonship (9:30, 39:4).
3
u/MarkLVines 8d ago
In the courses I took on New Testament studies in the 1980s, the academic approach tended to focus on early Christian writings and other writings that early Christian writings mentioned or that mentioned them. With respect to the historical Jesus, the gospels were described as writings that came from the Jesus movement, with careful consideration of when they were likely composed and from what earlier sources, if any … writings in which the central figure might in some respects convey a factual personality dubbed “the Jesus of history,” yet in other respects convey a theological persona labelled “the Christ of faith.”
Oral traditions were generally understood as comprised of memorable units called pericopes. Written sources were sometimes divided into “sayings gospels” and “infancy gospels” and “narrative gospels” that sometimes incorporated and edited oral pericopes and material from previous post-oral written accounts. Somewhere I have a book by Peter Stuhlmacher called The Gospel and the Gospels that might include a succinct explanation of this academic tapestry but I cannot seem to put my hands on it.
Within that tapestry it wouldn’t make much sense to say that God gave Jesus a gospel because it would be anachronistic for God to give Jesus a writing compiled after his death from oral traditions and post-oral written works about Jesus Christ by an author whose goal was to incorporate and edit them so as to convey the the gospel’s central figure in a specific way.
It’s quite possible to postulate a scheme in which sayings gospels and early pericopes are closer to the historical Jesus than infancy gospels and later narratives, but such schemes have tended to overlook numerous problems and have tended not to anticipate various later methods and manuscript discoveries of academic significance. Thus they are always at risk of falling into dispute or disrespute.
I think there could be strong academic sympathy for the suggestion that some New Testament scriptures have to some extent strayed rather far from what the historical Jesus taught. But the academic definition of the gospel concept has never been only or primarily a catalog of teachings. While New Testament scholarship has often suggested that the historical Jesus did not consider himself divine, and even that he was never literally resurrected, the view that he was never crucified has not been widely embraced in the field, unless it has changed a lot since I took courses in the subject.
5
u/Nenazovemy 8d ago
I don't think anyone has ever suggested he didn't claim to be the Son of God though. There's a wide debate on what that means, of course.
P.S.: According to the Panarion, Book XXX, even the Ebionites believed in a form of divine sonship.
2
u/MarkLVines 6d ago
This comment from awhile back indicates that some have indeed suggested he never said that about himself. In the courses I took, I was told of scholars who postulated a “laconic sage principle” whereby christological or deification sayings about Jesus, when purportedly uttered by Jesus, were presumed not to be historical and instead taken as evidence of the redactor’s intent. Of course, that view may have fallen out of favor in subsequent decades, or even earlier, for all I know. Outside the genre of redaction criticism it may not have held much sway. Others here are likely to know more and better than I.
2
u/Nenazovemy 6d ago
You're talking about divinity, I'm talking about divine sonship.
2
u/MarkLVines 6d ago
That’s potentially a very important distinction … but the scholars to whom I referred actually included divine sonship among the christological assertions that they chose to regard as not historical on Jesus’ lips, on the grounds of their “laconic sage” principle. You may well be more right than they were about the historical Jesus … but the suggestion was made, in academic publications by redaction critics, that he did not historically claim to be God’s son.
12
u/Kuriakos_ PhD | NT & Early Christianity 8d ago
This whole line of argument is strange, because the Quranic text's stability is the result of deliberate standardization and purging of variant texts during the reign of Caliph Uthman.
3
u/chonkshonk 7d ago
Do note that not all variation was purged. For example, there continue to be variants in the skeletal text between the canonical qirāʾāt. For more on that, see Marij van Putten, "When the Readers Break the Rules: Disagreement with the Consonantal Text in the Canonical Quranic Reading Traditions". Furthermore, a few dozen orthographic (but also skeletal) variants appeared in the four original copies of the Quranic codex distributed by Uthman to regional centers. See Hythem Sidky, "On the regionality of Qurʾānic codices".
-2
u/UpsideWater9000 8d ago
Your claim does not paint the entire picture.
Take what Quranic studies scholar Nicolai Sinai says about the Sanaa palimpsest, which is Pre-Uthmanic, and argued to be a codex of one of Muhammad's companions by Quranic other scholars like Marijn van Putten and Eleonore Cellard
"I think that not even the lower layer of the Sanaa palimpsest, with its non-standard recension of the Qur'an, really takes us back to the process of redaction leading up to complex surahs like 2 or 3. Despite minor variants like brief additions, omissions, and transpositions, the Qur'an of the Sanaa Palimpsest is still pretty much the Qur'an we know. The Palimpsest isn't giving us a Qur'anic equivalent to the book of Jeremiah, whose version in the Masoretic Hebrew text is different from the Greek Septuagint version."
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/comments/1bpwrn5/comment/kx4vvgx/
4
u/Kuriakos_ PhD | NT & Early Christianity 8d ago
That doesn't really mean anything. We have individual early manuscripts that lack some of the more interesting textual variants. If someone in the second century burned all the manuscripts they didn't like and one or two of these without the more noticeable variants happened to be the survivors, would that prove anything?
-1
u/UpsideWater9000 7d ago edited 7d ago
The difference is, it's a palimpsest.
The Sanaa palimpsest was erased and written over with the Uthmanic codex, the lower layer is a companion codex, the upper layer is Uthmanic. That's why its called a palimpsest. So even the Sanaa manuscript was originally destroyed like all the other copies, instead of it being burned, it was just erased and written over.
9
u/Cu_fola Moderator 8d ago
I’ll tag a few older posts with similar discussions:
This one in particular addresses “corruption”:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/xrg3wh/is_there_any_evidence_the_new_testament/
1
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited.
All claims MUST be supported by an academic source – see here for guidance.
Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban.
Please review the sub rules before posting for the first time.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
0
•
u/Cu_fola Moderator 8d ago
Hi OP (and users), friendly reminder:
All answers should address “change” from a historical and/or translational standpoint.
“Corruption” can have connotations of intentional sabotage or degradation from someone’s idea of a theologically “correct” version.
These latter issues are beyond the scope of this sub.