Analy­sis of the Qur’an and the Bible : Response to Samuel Green’s Crit­i­cisms of Islam

I. Intro­duc­tion

Samuel Green’s arti­cle, ​“Under­stand­ing and Answer­ing Islam­ic Crit­i­cisms of the Bible,” endeav­ors to defend the Bible against wide­spread crit­i­cisms regard­ing its authen­tic­i­ty and preser­va­tion . This response sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly address­es Green’s argu­ments by draw­ing from pri­ma­ry and sec­ondary sources, crit­i­cal­ly ana­lyz­ing the integri­ty of both the Bible and the Qur’an, and high­light­ing the eth­i­cal, moral, and the­o­log­i­cal dimen­sions of this dialogue.

II. Mus­lims’ Famil­iar­i­ty with the Bible

A. Samuel Green’s Assertion

Green asserts that many Mus­lims are knowl­edge­able about the Bible and often engage in quot­ing it to sup­port their claims .

B. Crit­i­cal Analysis

Mus­lims’ famil­iar­i­ty with the Bible is well-doc­u­ment­ed, often stem­ming from a desire to engage in informed crit­i­cal analy­sis. This engage­ment is not sole­ly based on reli­gious instruc­tion but is under­pinned by exten­sive schol­ar­ly research and his­tor­i­cal evi­dence. Such an approach allows Mus­lims to iden­ti­fy and address spe­cif­ic incon­sis­ten­cies and tex­tu­al vari­a­tions with­in the Bible, con­tribut­ing to a more nuanced under­stand­ing of its evolution.

C. His­tor­i­cal Context

The Islam­ic tra­di­tion places a strong empha­sis on the study of pre­vi­ous scrip­tures to under­stand their orig­i­nal mes­sages and the sub­se­quent alter­ations they may have under­gone. The Qur’an (3:3) acknowl­edges the Torah and the Gospel, urg­ing respect for these texts in their orig­i­nal forms. How­ev­er, it also warns against the dis­tor­tions intro­duced by human hands (Qur’an 2:79), neces­si­tat­ing a crit­i­cal and schol­ar­ly exam­i­na­tion of the cur­rent Bib­li­cal texts.

III. Com­mon View on the Bible

A. Samuel Green’s Assertion

Green posits that it is com­mon­ly believed among Mus­lims that the Bible has been cor­rupt­ed and replaced by the per­fect­ly pre­served Qur’an .

B. His­tor­i­cal and Schol­ar­ly Evidence

This belief is sub­stan­ti­at­ed by a wealth of his­tor­i­cal evi­dence and tex­tu­al crit­i­cism. Schol­ars like Bart D. Ehrman, in his sem­i­nal work ​“Mis­quot­ing Jesus,” have exten­sive­ly doc­u­ment­ed the alter­ations made by ear­ly Chris­t­ian scribes. These changes, often moti­vat­ed by the­o­log­i­cal or doc­tri­nal con­sid­er­a­tions, high­light the human influ­ence on the text of the Bible. For instance, the sto­ry of the woman tak­en in adul­tery (John 7:53 – 8:11) is wide­ly rec­og­nized as a lat­er addi­tion, under­scor­ing the dynam­ic and evolv­ing nature of the Bib­li­cal text.

C. Per­spec­tive on Tex­tu­al Integrity

From the Islam­ic per­spec­tive, the Qur’an (15:9) asserts its own preser­va­tion, claim­ing divine pro­tec­tion against any alter­ation. This con­trasts sharply with the his­to­ry of the Bib­li­cal texts, which have under­gone sig­nif­i­cant mod­i­fi­ca­tions over cen­turies. The Qur’an’s asser­tion of its own integri­ty is not a mere the­o­log­i­cal claim but is sup­port­ed by his­tor­i­cal evi­dence, such as the ear­ly man­u­scripts like the Birm­ing­ham Quran man­u­script, which dates back to the time of the Prophet Muhammad.

IV. Qur’an’s Ref­er­ences to Bib­li­cal Scriptures

A. Samuel Green’s Assertion

Green sug­gests that the Qur’an acknowl­edges pre­vi­ous scrip­tures and does not dis­tin­guish between them, imply­ing the Bible’s validity .

B. Con­tex­tu­al and Com­par­a­tive Analysis

While the Qur’an (3:3) acknowl­edges the Torah and the Gospel, it is crit­i­cal to under­stand these ref­er­ences in their prop­er con­text. The Qur’an respects these texts in their orig­i­nal, unal­tered forms. How­ev­er, it also explic­it­ly states that these scrip­tures were sub­ject­ed to human alter­ations (Qur’an 2:79). The respect accord­ed to the Torah and the Gospel is thus con­tin­gent upon their adher­ence to the orig­i­nal rev­e­la­tions giv­en to Moses and Jesus, respectively.

C. The Role of the Qur’an as Muhaymin

The Qur’an describes itself as ​“muhaymin” (مُهَيْمِنًا) over pre­vi­ous scrip­tures (Qur’an 5:48), a term that sig­ni­fies its role as a guardian and cri­te­ri­on. This des­ig­na­tion implies that the Qur’an has the author­i­ty to con­firm, cor­rect, and clar­i­fy the mes­sages con­tained with­in ear­li­er scrip­tures. The term ​“muhaymin” encom­pass­es var­i­ous mean­ings, includ­ing ​“trust­wor­thy,” ​“a wit­ness,” and ​“dom­i­nant.” It indi­cates the Qur’an’s com­pre­hen­sive and author­i­ta­tive role over pri­or scrip­tures. Ibn Kathir explains that ​“muhaymin” means the Qur’an is ​“entrust­ed” over pre­vi­ous scrip­tures, act­ing as their guardian and ver­i­fi­er. This inter­pre­ta­tion is sup­port­ed by numer­ous schol­ars, includ­ing Sufyan al-Thawri, Ibn ​‘Abbas, and Ibn Jurayj. The pri­ma­cy of the Qur’an is thus estab­lished through its role as the final and unal­tered rev­e­la­tion, safe­guard­ing the divine mes­sage from human corruption.

D. Addi­tion­al Mean­ing of Muhaymin

The con­cept of ​“muhaymin” as explained by Ibn Kathir includes sev­er­al key aspects :

• Trust­wor­thi­ness : The Qur’an is seen as trust­wor­thy over pre­vi­ous scrip­tures, ensur­ing that what­ev­er agrees with it from ear­li­er texts is true, and what­ev­er oppos­es it is false. This view is sup­port­ed by Ibn Jurayj, who empha­sized the Qur’an’s role in ver­i­fy­ing the authen­tic­i­ty of ear­li­er revelations.
• Wit­ness : The Qur’an acts as a wit­ness over pre­vi­ous scrip­tures, con­firm­ing their orig­i­nal mes­sages while high­light­ing sub­se­quent alter­ations. This per­spec­tive is echoed by schol­ars like Mujahid, Qataadah, and al-Suddi.
• Dom­i­nance : The Qur’an is dom­i­nant over pri­or scrip­tures, embody­ing the most com­plete and final form of divine guid­ance. This view is high­light­ed by Al-‘Awfi, who not­ed that the Qur’an is a hakim (ruler) over ear­li­er texts.

These inter­pre­ta­tions under­score the mul­ti­fac­eted role of the Qur’an as a guardian, wit­ness, and cri­te­ri­on over pre­vi­ous scrip­tures, rein­forc­ing its author­i­ty and comprehensiveness.

V. Qur’an’s Endorse­ment of the Bible

A. Samuel Green’s Assertion

Accord­ing to Green, the Qur’an instructs Chris­tians to judge by what God has revealed in the Gospel (Qur’an 5:47), sug­gest­ing that the Bible is still valid .

B. Crit­i­cal Examination

The Qur’an’s instruc­tion for Chris­tians to judge by the Gospel must be under­stood in light of the orig­i­nal, unal­tered rev­e­la­tions. The cur­rent Bible, from the Islam­ic per­spec­tive, con­tains ele­ments of divine truth inter­wo­ven with human alter­ations. There­fore, the Qur’an calls for a dis­cern­ment of the divine mes­sage amidst the changes intro­duced over time. The role of the Qur’an as Muhaymin fur­ther rein­forces its func­tion in clar­i­fy­ing and cor­rect­ing these texts.

C. Schol­ar­ly Perspectives

Schol­ars like Bruce M. Met­zger, in ​“The Text of the New Tes­ta­ment : Its Trans­mis­sion, Cor­rup­tion, and Restora­tion,” have high­light­ed the exten­sive vari­a­tions in the Bib­li­cal man­u­scripts. These vari­a­tions under­score the need for a text that can serve as a reli­able cri­te­ri­on. The Qur’an ful­fills this role by pro­vid­ing a con­sis­tent and unal­tered mes­sage, free from the his­tor­i­cal and tex­tu­al dis­crep­an­cies that char­ac­ter­ize the Bible.

VI. Muham­mad’s Appeal to the Bible

A. Samuel Green’s Assertion

Green con­tends that Muham­mad claimed the Qur’an con­firmed the teach­ings of the Bible and that the Bible fore­told his coming .

B. Under­stand­ing of Prophecies

The Qur’an (7:157) asserts that Muham­mad is men­tioned in the Torah and the Gospel, indi­cat­ing that the orig­i­nal rev­e­la­tions con­tained prophe­cies about his com­ing. Mus­lims believe that these prophe­cies were either omit­ted or mis­in­ter­pret­ed in the cur­rent Bib­li­cal texts. Pas­sages such as Deuteron­o­my 18:18 and the Song of Solomon 5:16 are often cit­ed as ref­er­ences to Muham­mad. The absence of explic­it ref­er­ences in the present Bible sup­ports the argu­ment of tex­tu­al alterations.

C. Com­par­a­tive Analysis

A com­par­a­tive analy­sis of the prophe­cies con­cern­ing Muham­mad in the Torah and the Gospel with the Qur’anic claims reveals a pat­tern of sig­nif­i­cant the­o­log­i­cal diver­gence. The Qur’an (61:6) specif­i­cal­ly men­tions Jesus proph­esy­ing the com­ing of a mes­sen­ger named Ahmad (anoth­er name for Muham­mad), a prophe­cy not found in the cur­rent New Tes­ta­ment. This dis­crep­an­cy high­lights the need for a crit­i­cal reassess­ment of the Bib­li­cal texts in light of the Qur’anic revelations.

VII. Dis­crep­an­cies between the Qur’an and the Bible

A. Samuel Green’s Assertion

Green argues that the Qur’an does not con­firm the teach­ings of the Bible as it claims, cre­at­ing a prob­lem for Islam­ic leaders .

B. Role of the Qur’an in Address­ing Discrepancies

Dis­crep­an­cies between the Qur’an and the Bible are to be expect­ed, giv­en the his­tor­i­cal alter­ations to the lat­ter. The Qur’an’s role as the final and unal­tered rev­e­la­tion is to cor­rect and clar­i­fy the mes­sages that have been dis­tort­ed over time. For exam­ple, the Qur’an’s nar­ra­tive of Jesus (Isa) sig­nif­i­cant­ly dif­fers from the Chris­t­ian account, par­tic­u­lar­ly regard­ing his divin­i­ty and cru­ci­fix­ion. The Qur’an (4:157 – 158) denies the cru­ci­fix­ion of Jesus, pre­sent­ing an alter­na­tive account that chal­lenges the Chris­t­ian the­o­log­i­cal framework.

C. Schol­ar­ly Evidence

The sig­nif­i­cant num­ber of tex­tu­al vari­ants in the New Tes­ta­ment, esti­mat­ed between 300,000 and 400,000, under­scores the extent of these mod­i­fi­ca­tions. Mod­ern tex­tu­al crit­ics, includ­ing Kurt Aland and Bruce M. Met­zger, have metic­u­lous­ly doc­u­ment­ed these vari­ants, pro­vid­ing evi­dence of the evolv­ing nature of the Bib­li­cal text. The Qur’an, by con­trast, has been pre­served with remark­able con­sis­ten­cy, as evi­denced by ear­ly man­u­scripts and the oral tradition.

D. Detailed Evi­dence of Tex­tu­al Variants

Notable exam­ples of tex­tu­al vari­ants in the New Tes­ta­ment include :

• The Johan­nine Com­ma (1 John 5:7 – 8): This pas­sage, which sup­ports the doc­trine of the Trin­i­ty, is absent from the ear­li­est Greek man­u­scripts and is con­sid­ered by many schol­ars to be a lat­er addi­tion. Its pres­ence in lat­er Latin man­u­scripts has raised ques­tions about the the­o­log­i­cal moti­va­tions behind such insertions.
• The End­ing of Mark (Mark 16:9 – 20): The ear­li­est man­u­scripts of the Gospel of Mark end at 16:8, with lat­er man­u­scripts includ­ing vers­es 9 – 20. These addi­tion­al vers­es include appear­ances of the res­ur­rect­ed Jesus and instruc­tions to the dis­ci­ples, sig­nif­i­cant­ly alter­ing the nar­ra­tive’s conclusion.
• The Peri­cope Adul­ter­ae (John 7:53 – 8:11): This sto­ry of Jesus and the woman tak­en in adul­tery is absent from the ear­li­est man­u­scripts and appears to have been added lat­er. Its absence from ear­ly man­u­scripts like Codex Sinaiti­cus and Codex Vat­i­canus sug­gests it was not part of the orig­i­nal Gospel of John.

These exam­ples demon­strate the extent of tex­tu­al vari­a­tions and the influ­ence of the­o­log­i­cal and doc­tri­nal devel­op­ments on the New Tes­ta­ment text.

VIII. Islam­ic Lead­ers’ Response to Discrepancies

A. Samuel Green’s Assertion

Green asserts that Islam­ic lead­ers argue Jews and Chris­tians changed their scrip­tures to explain the lack of con­fir­ma­tion in the Qur’an .

B. His­tor­i­cal Doc­u­men­ta­tion of Changes

This asser­tion is sup­port­ed by exten­sive his­tor­i­cal doc­u­men­ta­tion. Ear­ly Chris­t­ian schol­ars like Ori­gen and Jerome acknowl­edged the tex­tu­al vari­a­tions with­in the Bib­li­cal man­u­scripts. Mod­ern schol­ar­ship, as high­light­ed by Bart D. Ehrman in ​“The Ortho­dox Cor­rup­tion of Scrip­ture,” fur­ther sub­stan­ti­ates these claims. Ehrman’s work reveals how the­o­log­i­cal dis­putes and doc­tri­nal devel­op­ments influ­enced the tex­tu­al trans­mis­sion of the New Tes­ta­ment, result­ing in sig­nif­i­cant alterations.

Ori­gen
Ori­gen, an ear­ly Chris­t­ian schol­ar, acknowl­edged the exis­tence of tex­tu­al vari­ants and active­ly engaged in tex­tu­al crit­i­cism. In his work, he states, ​“The dif­fer­ences among the man­u­scripts have become great, either through the neg­li­gence of some copy­ists or the per­verse audac­i­ty of oth­ers ; either they neglect to check over what they have tran­scribed, or, in the process of check­ing, they make addi­tions or dele­tions as they please“¹.

Jerome
Jerome, who trans­lat­ed the Bible into Latin (the Vul­gate), was well aware of the tex­tu­al vari­a­tions in the man­u­scripts. He remarked, ​“If we are to pin our faith to the Latin texts, it is for our oppo­nents to tell us which, for there are almost as many forms of texts as there are copies“².

Augus­tine
Augus­tine also acknowl­edged tex­tu­al vari­a­tions. He advised that in cas­es of uncer­tain­ty, mul­ti­ple trans­la­tions should be con­sult­ed : ​“If we are per­plexed by an appar­ent con­tra­dic­tion in Scrip­ture, it is not allow­able to say, the author of this book is mis­tak­en ; but either the man­u­script is faulty, or the trans­la­tion is wrong, or you have not under­stood“³.

C. Eth­i­cal and Moral Dimensions

The eth­i­cal respon­si­bil­i­ty of pre­serv­ing and trans­mit­ting sacred texts can­not be over­stat­ed. Tex­tu­al integri­ty is not mere­ly a schol­ar­ly con­cern but a pro­found moral oblig­a­tion. The dis­tor­tions and alter­ations intro­duced into the Bib­li­cal texts reflect a breach of this sacred trust. The con­se­quences of such alter­ations are far-reach­ing, impact­ing reli­gious beliefs, prac­tices, and doctrines.

The Qur’an, by assert­ing its role as the Muhaymin, address­es this eth­i­cal imper­a­tive. It serves as a cor­rec­tive mea­sure, restor­ing the integri­ty of divine mes­sages and pro­vid­ing a reli­able cri­te­ri­on for eval­u­at­ing pre­vi­ous scrip­tures. The moral respon­si­bil­i­ty of pre­serv­ing divine rev­e­la­tion is a cen­tral theme in Islam­ic the­ol­o­gy, empha­siz­ing the need for accu­ra­cy and authen­tic­i­ty in reli­gious texts.

IX. Chris­t­ian Response to Criticisms

A. Denial of Corruption

Samuel Green’s Point : Chris­tians deny the cor­rup­tion of the Bible, cit­ing ancient copies and trans­la­tions that con­firm the text.

B. Crit­i­cal Exam­i­na­tion of Tex­tu­al Variants

While ancient copies and trans­la­tions exist, they also reveal sig­nif­i­cant tex­tu­al vari­ants and his­tor­i­cal mod­i­fi­ca­tions. For instance, the crit­i­cal edi­tions of the New Tes­ta­ment, such as the Nes­tle-Aland Novum Tes­ta­men­tum Graece, doc­u­ment thou­sands of tex­tu­al vari­ants. The claim that the New Tes­ta­ment has only 1438 vari­ants is mis­lead­ing ; the actu­al num­ber of vari­ants is much high­er, reflect­ing the exten­sive man­u­script tra­di­tion and the metic­u­lous work of tex­tu­al crit­ics. Schol­ars like Ehrman have point­ed out that these vari­ants, while often minor, include sig­nif­i­cant the­o­log­i­cal dif­fer­ences that impact the inter­pre­ta­tion of the text.

C. Preser­va­tion of the Qur’an

Green’s Point : Chris­tians cri­tique the preser­va­tion of the Qur’an by high­light­ing dif­fer­ent col­lec­tions and autho­rized versions.

D. His­tor­i­cal and Tex­tu­al Consistency

The Qur’an has been pre­served with remark­able con­sis­ten­cy. The stan­dard­iza­tion under Caliph Uth­man was aimed at pre­serv­ing the oral and writ­ten rev­e­la­tions with­out errors. The exis­tence of dif­fer­ent recita­tions (qira’at) reflects the rich­ness of the oral tra­di­tion, not con­tra­dic­tions. Unlike the Bible, the Qur’an’s vari­a­tions are most­ly in pro­nun­ci­a­tion and do not affect the core mes­sage. His­tor­i­cal man­u­scripts, such as the Birm­ing­ham Quran man­u­script, which dates back to the time of the Prophet Muham­mad, fur­ther sup­port the Qur’an’s preservation.

X. Use of Qur’an to Defend the Bible

A. Samuel Green’s Assertion

Green sug­gests that the Qur’an instructs Mus­lims to defend the Bible .

B. Qur’anic Perspective

The Qur’an’s endorse­ment of the orig­i­nal rev­e­la­tions calls for respect towards pre­vi­ous prophets and their mes­sages. How­ev­er, Mus­lims main­tain that the cur­rent Bible con­tains both truth and human alter­ations, neces­si­tat­ing the guid­ance of the Qur’an to dis­cern the divine mes­sages. The Qur’an’s role as the ​“Muhaymin” over pre­vi­ous scrip­tures means it acts as the ulti­mate cri­te­ri­on for eval­u­at­ing their authen­tic­i­ty and integrity.

C. Com­par­a­tive Approach

A com­par­a­tive approach to the Qur’an and the Bible reveals the extent to which the Qur’an seeks to clar­i­fy and cor­rect the mes­sages con­tained with­in the pre­vi­ous scrip­tures. This approach is cru­cial for under­stand­ing the the­o­log­i­cal and moral foun­da­tions of both Islam and Chris­tian­i­ty, and for address­ing the eth­i­cal impli­ca­tions of tex­tu­al integrity.

XI. Quran is the Muhaymin Over Pre­vi­ous Scriptures

A. Per­spec­tive

The Qur’an is described as ​“muhaymin” (مُهَيْمِنًا) over pre­vi­ous scrip­tures (Qur’an 5:48), mean­ing it acts as a guardian or cri­te­ri­on. There­fore, it gains pri­ma­cy over what Chris­tians claim to be the Torah (Tawrat) and the Gospel (Injeel). From this per­spec­tive, the Tawrat and Injeel men­tioned in the Qur’an are not equiv­a­lent to the cur­rent Bible.

B. Bib­li­cal Support

As stat­ed in Jere­mi­ah 8:8, ​“How can you say, ​‘We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,’ when actu­al­ly the lying pen of the scribes has han­dled it false­ly?” This verse sup­ports the Mus­lim view that human hands have altered pre­vi­ous scrip­tures. The Qur’an cor­rects and clar­i­fies these alter­ations, ensur­ing the preser­va­tion of the orig­i­nal divine messages.

C. The­o­log­i­cal and Eth­i­cal Implications

The the­o­log­i­cal impli­ca­tions of the Qur’an’s role as muhaymin are pro­found. It estab­lish­es the Qur’an as the defin­i­tive source of divine guid­ance, free from the dis­tor­tions that have affect­ed pre­vi­ous scrip­tures. This role also car­ries sig­nif­i­cant eth­i­cal respon­si­bil­i­ties, empha­siz­ing the impor­tance of pre­serv­ing the integri­ty of divine rev­e­la­tion and uphold­ing the moral prin­ci­ples con­tained with­in it.

D. Furqan Over Pre­vi­ous Scriptures

In addi­tion to being a ​“muhaymin,” the Qur’an is also described as a ​“furqan” (فُرْقَان), mean­ing a cri­te­ri­on or dis­tin­guish­er between right and wrong. This fur­ther empha­sizes its role in clar­i­fy­ing and dis­tin­guish­ing the true mes­sages of pre­vi­ous scrip­tures from the alter­ations intro­duced over time. The Qur’an (2:185) states, ​“Ramadan is the month in which the Qur’an was revealed as a guid­ance for human­i­ty and clear proofs of guid­ance and the cri­te­ri­on (al-Furqan).” This rein­forces the Qur’an’s role in pro­vid­ing defin­i­tive guid­ance and cor­rect­ing misunderstandings.

XII. Invi­ta­tion to Read the Bible

A. Green’s Assertion

Samuel Green con­tends that Chris­tians should invite Mus­lims to read the Bible so the Holy Spir­it can tes­ti­fy to them the truth­ful­ness of its message .

B. Crit­i­cal Engagement

Mus­lims are encour­aged to read the Bible crit­i­cal­ly and con­tex­tu­al­ly, com­par­ing it with the Qur’an. The goal is to iden­ti­fy the orig­i­nal divine mes­sages while rec­og­niz­ing human alter­ations. This approach helps in under­stand­ing the rea­sons behind dif­fer­ing inter­pre­ta­tions and the need for the Qur’an to clar­i­fy and cor­rect pre­vi­ous scriptures.

XIII. Con­clu­sion

Samuel Green’s argu­ments high­light com­mon points of con­tention between Islam­ic and Chris­t­ian views on the Bible. From a schol­ar­ly per­spec­tive, the belief in the Bible’s tex­tu­al alter­ations is sup­port­ed by sub­stan­tial evi­dence from tex­tu­al crit­i­cism, his­tor­i­cal doc­u­men­ta­tion, and man­u­script dis­cov­er­ies. The Qur’an’s role in con­firm­ing and clar­i­fy­ing pre­vi­ous scrip­tures is cru­cial in under­stand­ing these crit­i­cisms. As the ​“Muhaymin” and ​“Furqan,” the Qur’an holds pri­ma­cy over pre­vi­ous scrip­tures, under­scor­ing the need to crit­i­cal­ly assess the cur­rent Bible. By address­ing these points with schol­ar­ly rig­or, the chal­lenge to the Chris­t­ian response to crit­i­cisms of the Bible is effec­tive­ly pre­sent­ed, affirm­ing the Qur’an’s role as the ulti­mate guardian of divine revelation.

1. Ori­gen, Com­men­tary on Matthew, Book XV, 14[↩]
2. Jerome, Pref­ace to the Four Gospels[↩]
3. Augus­tine, City of God, Book XI, Chap­ter 5[↩]