Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All

$5.00

Historical and Cultural Background

The relationship between Islam and Christianity reaches back to the very inception of Islam in the seventh century C.E., when Muhammad’s preaching drew both adherents and fierce opposition across the Arabian Peninsula. Christian communities already existed in the Levant, Egypt, and parts of the Arabian Peninsula. These believers traced their faith back to the first-century congregations, anchored in what they regarded as the inspired Word of God. Muslims introduced a new scripture, the Qur’an, and claimed it was revealed to Muhammad through an angel. They insisted that it superseded all previous revelations, including the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures, collectively known to them as “the People of the Book.” This designation recognized that Jews and Christians had received earlier revelations from God. However, Muslim tradition also allowed that these earlier messages had been corrupted over time.

Many early Muslim scholars came into direct contact with Jewish and Christian individuals. Cultural and commercial exchanges took place in marketplaces, caravan routes, and political offices. In these interactions, Islamic theology took shape. Its proponents endeavored to ground their new revelation on a historical foundation that respected Abrahamic roots while asserting the final superiority of the Qur’an. This attempt to secure a divine pedigree necessitated addressing the claims of the Bible, which had long been regarded by both Jews and Christians as authoritative and preserved. Hence, the interplay between Islam’s view of the Bible and the established Christian conviction in biblical inerrancy became an ongoing topic of debate and apologetic concern.

Muslim communities in the earliest centuries advanced distinct claims about how the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures aligned or conflicted with the Qur’an. Some appealed to portions of the Torah or Gospels they believed confirmed Muhammad’s message. Others renounced vast sections of the biblical text as corrupted, contending that unscrupulous scribes had tampered with key passages. Still others advanced more conciliatory tones, suggesting that the major thrust of the biblical witness remained reliable, even if later centuries introduced misconceptions or doctrinal errors. Over time, conservative Islamic teaching solidified around the conviction that the Bible had been altered—at the textual or interpretive level—and thus was an inadequate guide for humanity compared with the supposedly incorruptible Qur’an.

When Christian theologians encountered Muslim arguments denigrating the Bible, they recognized a clear challenge. For centuries, Christian faith had been built upon the trustworthiness of the Old and New Testaments as revelations from Jehovah. The claim that these sacred texts were corrupted or outdated set Christians on a path of explaining and defending Scripture’s integrity. Through this protracted engagement, a vast body of apologetic literature emerged, designed to rebut the notion that the Bible contained errors, manipulations, or fundamental contradictions with the final revelation alleged in the Qur’an.

No matter how varied these encounters became, the central question remained: Did the text and teachings of the Bible originate as a genuine revelation from God, and if so, were they still reliable in the days of Muhammad and beyond? The Islamic world largely answered in the negative, while Christians answered with an unqualified yes. This article explores how these positions developed, citing biblical passages, addressing Islamic arguments, and reinforcing the conviction that the Bible’s authenticity endures unchanged through all centuries.

Islamic Assertions About Biblical Textual Corruption

Muslim theologians have repeatedly stated that the text of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures underwent corruption over time. This argument, termed tahrif in Arabic, can be expressed in two broad ways. Some allege that the biblical text itself was physically changed. Others propose that the text remains more or less intact, but that Jews and Christians misinterpret or conceal its “true” meaning. Yet throughout the Muslim world, the more dominant claim has become that Jews and Christians tampered with their own Scriptures, resulting in a text that no longer faithfully represents the original revelation given to Moses, the prophets, or Jesus.

Early commentators such as Al-Tabari sometimes hinted that the written text may have remained mostly intact, although he maintained that the meaning had been corruptly interpreted. Over time, influential figures like Ibn-Hazm took a stronger stance, insisting that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures were radically altered. According to this view, the moral failings ascribed to certain biblical characters were incompatible with Islamic conceptions of prophethood, revealing the supposedly spurious nature of much of the Old Testament. As for the New Testament, many Muslim scholars argued that the “original Gospel” revealed to Jesus had disappeared, replaced by four Gospels that, in their view, were authored by men and contained contradictory or even blasphemous ideas about the nature of God and of Christ.

The argument for tahrif arises in part from the perceived necessity of preserving the final authority of the Qur’an. If the Bible remained uncorrupted, and if it truly testified to doctrines such as the deity of Christ, his sacrificial death, and his bodily resurrection, Muslims would face a theological conundrum. Such biblical doctrines contradict the Qur’an on several key points. By alleging that the biblical text was falsified, Muslims aim to uphold the Qur’an as the only definitive and trustworthy record of divine revelation. This viewpoint allows them to affirm that the Bible originally contained certain truths but was superseded by the Qur’an once the earlier message had become unreliable.

These assertions must be tested against the biblical text and its history of transmission. Christians have responded with evidence of ancient manuscripts, scribal traditions, and internal coherence. The earliest extant biblical manuscripts predate Muhammad, sometimes by centuries. Passages attesting to Christian distinctives such as the divinity of Christ or his atoning work are consistently attested across these ancient copies. This continuity poses a direct challenge to the idea that unscrupulous scribes systematically edited out references to “the coming of Muhammad” or to purely Islamic concepts of prophethood and monotheism. If such drastic textual changes had happened, it would have been nearly impossible to coordinate them across the widespread communities of believers who held identical or near-identical Scriptures, from the Greek East to the Latin West and beyond.

Ambivalence Toward the Bible in the Qur’an

An intriguing dimension of the Muslim argument emerges in the Qur’an itself, which sometimes speaks glowingly of the earlier Scriptures as revelations from God. Certain suras reference “the People of the Book” in terms that indicate respect. The Torah is described as containing light and guidance, while the Gospel is lauded as confirming the earlier revelation. There are passages encouraging Christians and Jews to consult their own Scriptures for confirmation of certain truths. For instance, sura 5:47 calls upon the people of the Gospel to judge by what God has revealed therein. Elsewhere, Muslims find references where the Torah is named as God’s word and counsel is given to abide by its commandments.

However, a competing thread in the Qur’an alleges that some among the People of the Book intentionally misread or distort the text. Passages such as sura 2:75 speak of a group who hear the Word of God, then twist it after understanding it. These statements have led many Muslims to conclude that the Scriptures themselves underwent adulteration. Over the centuries, the second viewpoint hardened among orthodox Islamic thinkers, who found it the most effective means of reconciling the contradictory revelations in the Bible and the Qur’an.

This internal tension in the Qur’an provides a basis for various interpretive stances among Muslims. Some prefer a more irenic approach, suggesting that the actual biblical text remains valid but that believers introduced theological innovations that overshadowed simpler truths. Others go further, contending that the biblical text itself was ruthlessly changed. Still others hold that the earlier Scripture was once authentic, though now outmoded by the Qur’an’s final pronouncement, making any appeal to the Bible unnecessary. Christians note that the Qur’an itself does not explicitly spell out that the physical text of the Torah or the Gospels was altered. Instead, it typically references distortion or concealment. They argue that these charges, correctly understood, point to moral or theological distortion rather than scribal falsification. Yet the majority of Muslims throughout history have resolved the question of biblical authority by concluding that the text was compromised.

The Heart of the Dispute: Christ’s Deity, the Trinity, and Original Sin

Muslims level theological charges against the Bible that go well beyond mere textual corruption. Their primary argument is that central Christian doctrines—particularly the divine nature of Jesus Christ, the Triune understanding of God, and the concept of original sin—lack validity. They assert that these teachings arose from human speculation rather than genuine revelation. They also contend that the biblical text has been edited or misunderstood to support these untrue dogmas.

The Qur’an denounces any suggestion that God has a Son, deeming it the unforgivable sin of shirk—associating partners with God. Traditional Islamic belief holds that Jesus was a prophet, not the incarnate Son of God. Muslims see no need for a divine savior to atone for sins, since Islam’s path to forgiveness is submission to God’s will (the term Islam can be rendered as “submission”) and righteous deeds that outweigh transgressions. Thus, the Christian emphasis on Christ’s sacrificial death and resurrection appears misguided from an Islamic perspective. The Qur’an denies that Jesus was crucified, proposing that God rescued him and that the onlookers crucified someone else in his place (sura 4:157). This narrative directly contradicts the consistent biblical teaching found in all four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) and attested by the apostolic writings of Paul, Peter, and James.

Muslims also reject the Trinity as an irrational insertion that violates pure monotheism. They sometimes misconstrue the Christian Trinity to mean three gods—God the Father, Mary the Mother, and Jesus their offspring—though no credible Christian confession teaches this. The actual Christian understanding is that God is one in essence, yet three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Since the Qur’an categorically states that Christians attribute “a partner” to God, Islam sees the Trinity as a corruption. Muslim apologists often cite biblical passages referring to God’s unity but dismiss or reinterpret passages that reveal the distinctions of Father, Son, and Spirit.

Original sin likewise becomes a point of contention. Islam upholds that each person is born with a pure slate and later chooses good or evil. By contrast, biblical teachings (Romans 5:12, Psalm 51:5) affirm that humankind inherited a fallen condition from Adam’s rebellion. Muslims argue that a just God would not punish anyone for another’s misdeeds, but Christians explain that original sin describes a spiritual inheritance, not an individual condemnation prior to personal actions, though all are indeed subject to sin’s corrupting influence.

At root, these objections revolve around the identity and work of Jesus Christ, the revelation of God’s nature, and the human condition. Islam’s critique presupposes that the unaltered revelation from God would never affirm the deity of Christ, the Trinity, or a need for atoning death. From a Christian vantage point, the earliest biblical writings articulate these doctrines, as one sees in John 1:1-14, Philippians 2:5-11, and Matthew 28:19. That the Qur’an disputes them does not prove that the Bible has been changed, but rather highlights an irreconcilable conflict between these faiths on theological essentials.

Authenticity of the Bible: An Examination of Manuscript Evidence

Christian scholars responding to Muslim accusations have long pointed to the vast manuscript tradition preserving the Old and New Testaments. Even in antiquity, Jewish scribes maintained precise copying standards for the Hebrew Scriptures. The reverence for the text in synagogues ensured that variations could be easily detected. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls from around the second century B.C.E. to the first century C.E. confirmed the remarkable stability of the Hebrew text over many centuries. Core doctrinal references, historical narratives, and prophecies remain intact, contradicting any speculation of mass corruption by conspiratorial scribes.

For the Greek New Testament, the manuscript evidence is even more extensive. Fragments such as the John Rylands papyrus (P52), dated to about 110–150 C.E., contain lines from John 18, reflecting the same content found in today’s Gospel of John. Codices like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus from the fourth century C.E. present near-complete New Testament texts that align substantially with the modern printed Greek text. Because these manuscripts predate Muhammad by about three centuries, the suggestion that Christians changed their Scripture after Muhammad’s ministry collapses. The same Christological affirmations appear in these ancient copies, including references to Jesus’s deity (John 1:1, John 1:18, John 20:28), his atoning death (Matthew 27:33-50; Mark 15:25-37; John 19:16-30), and his bodily resurrection (Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20–21).

Most Important Papyrus Manuscripts

(175-225 C.E.) CPH P45
(100-150 C.E.) CPH P46
(200-250 C.E.) CPH P47
(125-150 C.E.) CPH P66
(200-250 C.E.) CPH P72
(175-225 C.E.) CPH P75

Important Majuscule Manuscript

א [330-360 C.E.] CPH Codex Sinaiticus
A [400-450 C.E.] CPH Codex Alexandrinus
B [300-330 C.E.] CPH Codex Vaticanus
C [400-450 C.E.] CPH Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus
D [400-450 C.E.] CPH Codex Bezae

All major textual variations that do exist, such as the long ending of Mark 16 or the story of the adulteress in John 7:53–8:11, are well-documented. They are not the type of variation that would erase references to Muhammad or obscure the supposed Islamic message. Instead, they reflect ordinary scribal phenomena over centuries, with no doctrinally significant passage in question. Early church writers such as Ignatius of Antioch (late first to early second century C.E.) and Justin Martyr (mid-second century C.E.) confirm that Christian communities already believed in the deity of Christ, the resurrection, and salvation by faith in Christ’s sacrifice. These beliefs did not arise out of a later corruption but formed the very core of Christian identity from the start.

Muslim apologists sometimes cite liberal Western biblical critics who question the authorship or dating of various books. Yet these same critics, motivated by a bias against the supernatural, would also doubt or deny the divine origins of the Qur’an. Moreover, their arguments regarding biblical authorship have been thoroughly countered by conservative evangelical scholarship that employs historical-grammatical methods to demonstrate coherence and antiquity. The simple fact remains: the earliest available manuscripts, spanning many languages (Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, etc.), uphold the same fundamental doctrinal content found in present-day Bibles. This uniform witness stands as an unassailable testimony that the Christian Scriptures did not undergo the sort of widespread textual revision that would be required to obscure or distort the arrival of Muhammad or to fabricate doctrines such as the Trinity and the incarnation.

Contrasting Islamic and Christian Views on Divine Revelation

Muslims ground their view of the Bible on an assumption of progressive revelation culminating in the Qur’an. They teach that God delivered the Torah (to Moses), the Zabur (to David), and the Injil (to Jesus), but that over time, these texts were either partly lost or integrated with human ideas. According to standard Islamic doctrine, the Qur’an arrived to correct these earlier revelations and provide the unchanging word of God. Sura 2:106 states that God can abrogate earlier revelations. From this perspective, even if parts of the Bible remain, the authority of the Qur’an overrides any biblical teaching deemed inconsistent with Islamic belief.

Christian theology, by contrast, recognizes progressive revelation unfolding from Genesis to Revelation, but does not posit that later revelation invalidates earlier Scripture. Instead, biblical revelation is viewed as a cohesive unity culminating in Jesus Christ, the “Word made flesh” (John 1:14). Christians adhere to the continuity between the Old and New Testaments and affirm that the final authority for doctrine rests in the completed body of Scripture. The interpretive lens for believers is that the entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, testifies about Jesus’s redemptive role (Luke 24:27). There is no open door for a subsequent revelation that would supersede or contradict what the apostles declared (Galatians 1:8-9).

Thus, a fundamental clash occurs: the Islamic claim that the Qur’an replaces the Bible cannot harmonize with the Christian conviction that the biblical canon is complete and unalterable. Attempts to integrate the Qur’an into biblical theology fail because the two contain irreconcilable claims regarding Christ’s identity, the nature of salvation, and God’s method of revealing Himself. While Muslims view the biblical record as incomplete and partly corrupted, Christians insist that the biblical record is the authoritative word of God that stands forever (Psalm 119:89, Isaiah 40:8).

Addressing the Qur’anic Charges of Distortion

Many of the suras that label Jews and Christians as “people of the book” also raise accusations of tampering or hiding the truth. Sura 2:42, sura 3:71, and sura 4:46 mention people who knowingly conceal or distort the word. Christians have responded that these charges do not necessarily refer to physical scribal alteration of the text. Instead, they can be construed as moral or doctrinal distortion, wherein the Jewish or Christian leadership wrongly applied or explained passages to resist Muhammad’s message. Indeed, some Muslims in the earliest centuries maintained that the biblical text itself remained unchanged, but that Jews and Christians refused to interpret it correctly to predict Muhammad’s advent. Even so, the prevailing line of thought in Islamic history drifted toward the more radical suggestion of textual corruption.

Another argument draws attention to the fact that the Qur’an itself praises the Torah and Gospel as “guidance and light” (sura 5:44-46) in the same era as Muhammad. If they were hopelessly corrupted, this commendation would be meaningless. Moreover, sura 10:94 instructs Muhammad to consult “those who have been reading the Book before you” if he doubted his own revelation. The plain meaning is that the Scriptures of Jews and Christians in seventh-century Arabia were sufficiently reliable to confirm divine truth. This context implies that if the biblical text at that time was valid, then the text we possess today, which predates and matches those manuscripts, must remain equally valid.

Christians highlight that if a major conspiracy to alter the Bible had occurred, it could not have gone unnoticed or unrecorded by the thriving global communities of believers. Early Christians spread from Jerusalem to Africa, Europe, and Asia. They revered Scripture too profoundly to permit the sweeping changes that Muslim theology attributes to them. The production of biblical manuscripts was widespread and decentralized, making uniform textual corruption impossible.

Prophetic Validation and the Case of Jesus

Muslims claim that Jesus was a prophet of God, worthy of respect but not divine. Christians reply that if Jesus was indeed a true prophet, then his own testimony concerning his divine identity and mission cannot be dismissed. In John 8:58, Jesus declared, “Before Abraham was born, I am,” a statement tying himself to the name God used in Exodus 3:14, “I am who I am.” In Mark 2:5-10, Jesus forgave sins and demonstrated authority that belonged to God alone. These accounts appear in the earliest Gospel traditions, further confirmed by epistles like Philippians 2:6-7, which exalts Jesus as being in the form of God and taking on the likeness of men.

For Christians, no prophet would utter false claims about his identity. If Jesus is indeed a prophet in the Islamic sense, his words regarding his union with the Father (John 10:30) must be believed. Yet Muslims deny these words are authentic or interpret them in ways that contradict the historical reading. They suggest these claims were inserted by later church leaders. The manuscript record, however, indicates otherwise. The earliest textual witnesses show the same Christological affirmations. Contrary to the frequent refrain that Paul invented a divine Jesus, scholarship recognizes that Paul’s letters, dating to within two decades of Christ’s earthly ministry, contain references to Christ’s preexistence and divine status (Philippians 2:5-11, 1 Corinthians 8:6). This tradition thus predates any supposed later corruptions or ecclesiastical conspiracies.

Common Misconceptions of Biblical Doctrine Among Muslims

Muslim critics often convey misunderstanding of Christian doctrines. For example, some suras imply that Christians regard Mary as part of the Godhead (sura 5:116). While Mariolatry developed in certain religious circles centuries after Christ’s ascension, the mainstream biblical witness does not elevate Mary to the status of deity. Christian teachers have always maintained that Mary is a blessed human vessel chosen to bear Christ but never worshiped as a god. This confusion reveals the challenge of bridging scriptural truth with the shaping influence of cultural practice in some communities.

Regarding the Trinity, Islamic sources sometimes assume that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate deities. Christianity, however, strictly confesses that there is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4) who eternally exists in three persons, a mystery but not a contradiction. This conception arises from the progressive unveiling of God’s nature as disclosed in Scripture. Passages such as Matthew 28:19—where Jesus commands baptism in the name (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—demonstrate that the earliest disciples recognized a unity of three persons within one Godhead.

Original sin is likewise misrepresented. Muslims accuse Christians of believing that every newborn bears personal guilt for Adam’s trespass. Scripture affirms, however, that all humans inherit a fallen nature rather than an arbitrarily assigned guilt (Romans 5:12). This inherited corruption inevitably leads to personal transgression in the life of each individual, confirming the universal need for a savior. While Islam holds that humans may sin but can also do meritorious deeds to balance the scale, the Bible contends that sin’s stranglehold on the heart is absolute without divine intervention (Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 3:23). The Christian remedy is not found in human striving, but in Christ’s redemptive work on the cross (1 Peter 2:24). The fact that Muslims and Christians perceive the problem of sin and its solution differently underscores why they diverge so sharply on soteriology, the doctrine of salvation.

Practical Consequences for Interfaith Dialogue

Interfaith encounters between Muslims and Christians often hinge on these foundational disagreements regarding Scripture. Muslims question the reliability of a text they suspect to be corrupted or incomplete, and Christians steadfastly maintain that the biblical revelation stands unaltered. In many dialogues, Christians produce historical and textual evidence. Muslims typically respond with the abiding belief in Qur’anic inerrancy. While good-willed attempts at mutual understanding exist, the clash over biblical authenticity rarely finds resolution through purely rational discussion because it touches on the core confessions each community holds dear.

Some Muslims who show interest in the Bible discover that its message about Jesus resonates with their spiritual longings. Others, influenced by centuries of polemic, remain convinced that the Bible is beyond repair. Meanwhile, Christians reiterate Paul’s exhortation to “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:5), confident that the Word of God is “living and active” (Hebrews 4:12). They do not rely solely on external manuscript evidence but also on the internal witness of the Holy Spirit through the Spirit-inspired Word, trusting that Scripture’s divine truth has power to move hearts. Although Christians do not believe in a literal “indwelling” of the Holy Spirit for each believer, they see His Word providing guidance and conviction (2 Timothy 3:16).

Christians thus encourage open study of the biblical text, inviting Muslims to consider the consistent witness across thousands of years of revelation pointing to the Messiah. Instead of pitting one prophet against another, biblical preaching asserts the unity of the scriptural message culminating in Jesus, the rightful heir of all promises to Abraham, the Davidic line, and the hope of all nations (Matthew 1:1, Luke 24:44). Where Islam proposes finality in the Qur’an, Christians proclaim the finality of God’s revelation in Jesus, who declared, “It is finished” (John 19:30). This finality is not an incremental textual revelation, but the culmination of God’s redemptive act in history.

The Reading Culture of Early Christianity

Testing the Claim That the Qur’an Foretells Its Own Superiority

Muslims cite qur’anic passages suggesting that it was sent down as the final dispensation, superior to all prior revelations. They emphasize that the Qur’an is preserved on a heavenly tablet (sura 85:21-22), implying that no corruption can beset it. By contrast, they claim the Torah and Injil were only for specific times and peoples and have lapsed in authority. Christians reject this premise, observing that the Scriptures repeatedly state that God’s Word “abides forever” (Isaiah 40:8, 1 Peter 1:25) and that Jesus promised the abiding presence of his words for all generations (Matthew 24:35). He never indicated any future prophet would override or correct his teachings.

Muhammad’s critics during his lifetime sometimes accused him of borrowing from Jewish and Christian sources. Had these earlier sources been fully discredited, such criticisms would lose meaning. Instead, the Qur’an defended Muhammad by claiming that his recitations were genuinely from God, not simply derived from prior scriptures. The ultimate test of authenticity in Christian thought, however, is not whether a prophet claims revelation, but whether his message aligns with the already revealed truth that came before (Deuteronomy 13:1-3, Galatians 1:8). Because the Qur’an systematically denies cardinal Christian doctrines, believers consider it a separate faith claim rather than a continuation of biblical revelation.

Apostolic Authority versus Later Claims

Christians anchor their conviction in the testimony of the apostles—direct eyewitnesses of Jesus’s ministry, death, and resurrection. The earliest Christians did not see themselves as inventors of new doctrines; they proclaimed what they heard from the risen Christ (Acts 4:19-20, 1 Corinthians 15:3-8). The canon of the New Testament formed around these apostolic writings, recognized by congregations scattered through the Roman Empire. No single council or imperial edict forced uniform acceptance; instead, believers acknowledged the self-authenticating power of the apostolic message. By the time Muhammad arrived in the seventh century C.E., the Christian canon was well established. Churches from Ethiopia to Rome, from Syria to Gaul, confessed the same essential truths.

Because this scriptural canon was widely distributed and revered, the idea that unscrupulous leaders extensively altered it is untenable. This broad community recognized only the apostolic gospel regarding Christ’s person and mission. The existence of minor heretical movements did not succeed in replacing the church’s mainstream Scripture. Gnostic or Ebionite texts survived in small sects, but they never challenged the primacy of the four Gospels recognized by orthodox believers. Islam’s claims that the Gospels lost their “true” message fails to account for the robust mechanisms by which the early church preserved and transmitted holy writ under manifold persecutions.

Jewish-Christian Relations and the Impossibility of a Conspiracy

Some Muslims have imagined a scenario where Jewish and Christian leaders agreed to alter their Scriptures to blot out references to Muhammad. This scenario collapses under scrutiny. The Jewish community and the Christian community had deep disagreements, especially concerning the identity of Jesus as Messiah. Their Scriptures, while sharing the Old Testament, had different final shapes—Jews did not accept the New Testament. The notion that these two often antagonistic groups would collaborate to remove references to Muhammad contradicts all historical reality. Furthermore, from the first century onward, communities of believers were scattered across multiple continents, using numerous languages, with no centralized authority capable of orchestrating a uniform textual alteration.

If there had been a significant textual conspiracy, it would have undoubtedly prompted public controversies. Yet no such record exists, either in Christian or Jewish sources. The thousands of surviving manuscripts from different regions and centuries exhibit remarkable textual continuity. Ecclesiastical historians like Eusebius in the fourth century C.E. meticulously documented conflicts over doctrinal and liturgical matters, but there is no hint of a massive, clandestine rewriting of scriptural texts.

The Qur’an’s Knowledge of Biblical Characters and Narratives

The Qur’an references many biblical figures: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, and Jesus. Some narratives align with the biblical account. Others diverge markedly, recounting episodes not found in Scripture (e.g., a baby Jesus speaking from the cradle in sura 19:29-34). Muslims consider these differences confirmation that the Qur’an corrects and clarifies earlier revelations. Christians, on the contrary, see these variations as an extrabiblical tradition, emerging centuries after the events. Apocryphal gospels and Jewish midrashic materials sometimes contain similarly fanciful narratives.

Many church historians and biblical scholars note that certain qur’anic retellings of biblical stories align more closely with late Jewish or Gnostic Christian sources that circulated outside mainstream congregations. This raises the possibility that Muhammad’s environment, which included Jewish clans and perhaps Christian sects in the Arabian Peninsula, transmitted such stories to him. If so, it suggests that Muhammad was more exposed to heterodox traditions than to the recognized Scriptural texts. The standard Christian approach affirms that the canonical Gospels and the recognized Old Testament writings represent the genuine account, while later or sectarian expansions reflect legendary embellishments. Islam’s assimilation of these narratives into the Qur’an has no textual precedent in the widely preserved and ancient manuscripts of canonical Scripture.

The Role of Historical-Grammatical Exegesis

Christians committed to the historical-grammatical method assert that biblical texts must be interpreted according to their immediate historical contexts, grammar, and the intent of the inspired writers. This stands in contrast to the subjective historical-critical method that often presupposes naturalistic explanations and denies the miraculous. By maintaining a literal approach, believers confirm that the Hebrew Scriptures testify consistently to Jehovah’s dealings with Israel, culminating in the expectation of a Messiah who would redeem humanity (Isaiah 53, Daniel 9:24-27, Micah 5:2). The New Testament explicitly identifies Jesus of Nazareth as that promised Messiah (Matthew 1:21, John 1:29, Acts 2:22-36). This interpretive approach never suggests a future Arab prophet would overshadow or replace the message of Christ.

Islamic polemics routinely charge that the Old Testament references to a coming prophet apply to Muhammad, not Jesus. They sometimes appeal to Deuteronomy 18:15-19, where Moses foretold a prophet like himself who would speak God’s words to the people. The New Testament cites this prophecy as fulfilled in Christ (Acts 3:22-23). Christians see no textual or contextual grounds to shift that prophecy toward Muhammad, many centuries later. Moreover, the passage references a lineage from among the Israelites, while Muhammad, being an Ishmaelite, does not fit that direct genealogical pattern. The historical-grammatical reading thus confirms the Christian interpretation rather than the Islamic claim.

Testimony of Early Church Fathers on Scriptural Purity

Long before Islam, early church fathers emphasized that Scripture was faithfully preserved. Men like Irenaeus (late second century C.E.) wrote against heresies, carefully citing the Gospels as authoritative texts that had been passed down. Tertullian, in the early third century C.E., insisted that the “rule of faith” was unchangeable, anchored in the apostolic documents. Origen labored over textual variants in the Old Testament and the New Testament, demonstrating that even minor discrepancies were meticulously compared across available manuscripts. By the fourth century C.E., Athanasius’s Festal Letter of 367 listed the canonical books of the New Testament that believers continue to use today. This stable tradition formed centuries before Muhammad’s birth around 570 C.E.

Hence, the conviction that the church collaborated to introduce doctrinal forgeries or delete references to an Arabian prophet finds no support in patristic writings. Rather, these fathers repeatedly reaffirmed that Scripture was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). The church recognized the full deity of Jesus Christ, the Triune nature of God, and the saving power of the cross. These fundamental doctrines appear consistently across the writings of the earliest ecclesiastical leaders, making the Islamic claim of later corruption historically untenable.

The Influence of Political Realities in the Spread of Islam

As Islam expanded beyond Arabia, it encountered diverse Christian communities in Syria, Egypt, North Africa, and eventually Spain. Islamic rulers granted Christians a protected status as dhimmis, requiring payment of a special tax (jizya) in exchange for limited religious freedom. Muslim scholars debated how to handle the biblical claims of these subject peoples. Some invoked the tahrif argument to diminish the spiritual authority of Christians and Jews, portraying them as possessing incomplete or erroneous scriptures. This stance helped justify the ascendancy of Islamic governance and religious supremacy in lands previously dominated by Christian or Jewish leadership.

Meanwhile, Christian communities under Muslim rule preserved their Scriptures. They continued worship in their native tongues—Coptic in Egypt, Syriac in Syria, etc. The existence of these communities, which maintained biblical manuscripts through centuries of Islamic governance, further testifies that no state-sponsored program existed to supplant or rewrite the Christian Scriptures. The textual tradition remained stable, even if at times the Christian population suffered social pressures or persecution.

Counterarguments from Muslim Reformers

In modern times, certain Muslim reformers have argued for a more positive assessment of the Bible. They maintain that the Qur’an recognizes the authority of previous revelations and that Muslims should treat the biblical text with more respect. They sometimes claim that the central teachings of the Bible align with those of the Qur’an on moral and ethical matters, such as justice and mercy. Yet even these reformers typically pause short of endorsing biblical authority regarding the deity of Christ, the Trinity, or the atonement. They prefer to see a continuum of ethical monotheism from Adam to Muhammad, with slight divergences in each era. They do not systematically accept the Bible as fully inspired in the sense that orthodox Christians do. Indeed, a few might openly read the New Testament, but seldom do they incorporate its full doctrinal claims into their faith. They may even hold that Jesus’s moral teachings remain valuable while dismissing the testimonies to his divine nature.

This partial admiration for the Bible can mask deeper objections. Most Muslim writers maintain that the Old and New Testaments were originally genuine revelations but have become hopelessly intermixed with human additions. They cite moral failings in biblical heroes or genealogical lists they regard as spurious. They point to differences in the four Gospels as evidence of confusion or contradiction. However, Christian exegetes point out that the Gospels represent four complementary portraits of Jesus’s life and work, not a single, monotone recitation. Slight variations do not imply corruption, any more than varied eyewitness testimonies of the same event are automatically contradictory. Christians see them as harmonious accounts that confirm each other rather than systematically diverging.

Confidence in the Gospel Message

Christian apologetics highlights that the good news preached by the apostles holds universal relevance. The earliest disciples were commissioned by Christ to “make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19), indicating that the biblical message was never confined to first-century Israel. Believers affirm that Scripture stands as a complete, coherent record of God’s salvation plan, culminating in the resurrected Christ, who triumphed over sin and death (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). They see no need for a later prophet to override this victory, since the biblical text repeatedly declares the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement (Hebrews 10:10-14).

The charge that Christians are ignorant of or have secretly replaced the “true” teachings of Jesus does not withstand scrutiny. Ecclesiastical history testifies that from the earliest centuries, followers of Christ were willing to die for their confession of Jesus as Lord (Romans 10:9-10). This confession entailed belief in his divine nature (John 1:1), his sinless life (Hebrews 4:15), his sacrificial death (Romans 5:8), and his bodily resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:12-23). No evidence shows that a mass forgetting or rewriting took place. On the contrary, these doctrines are so interwoven with Christian identity that to remove them would sever the faith at its core. The canon, the creed, and the worship life of believers have remained consistent on these fundamentals, transcending time, geography, and culture.

Summation of Core Apologetic Responses

Christian scholars responding to Islamic attacks on the Bible emphasize the following: first, the documented history of manuscript transmission shows that the text has been meticulously preserved, not altered. Second, internal evidence within the Qur’an praises the Torah and the Gospel in the form they existed during Muhammad’s time, which matches the core text we have today. Third, the key Christian doctrines—Christ’s deity, the Trinity, and original sin—were firmly enshrined in the earliest Christian confessions and supported by the apostolic writings, centuries before Islam. Fourth, the theological presuppositions of Islam—particularly its denial of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection—directly contradict the best-documented event in ancient history. The crucifixion of Jesus is attested by Roman historians, Jewish sources, and the earliest Christian communities. To claim it never happened flies in the face of overwhelming evidence.

When measured against the robust manuscript tradition and consistent early church witness, the hypothesis that Jews and Christians systematically falsified their Scriptures lacks credibility. Nor can the distinctive doctrines of the gospel be explained as gradual corruptions. Even the harshest higher-criticism of the Bible has not found the kind of textual manipulations that Muslims allege would be necessary to produce a purely Islamic theology from the original biblical documents. The suggestion that someone inserted the narrative of the cross or the deity of Christ centuries later is entirely refuted by second-century sources and the existing papyri containing those beliefs.

Concluding Perspectives

“How Does the Islamic View of the Bible Compare with Christian Convictions?” The answer reveals that Islam and Christianity stand on diametrically opposed foundations regarding Scripture’s authenticity and the person of Jesus Christ. Islamic tradition elevates the Qur’an as the final, untainted revelation, relegating the Bible to an altered or incomplete prior message. Christian conviction rests unwaveringly on the Bible’s divine inspiration and preservation, observing that the Old Testament and New Testament remain coherent witnesses to Jehovah’s unfolding redemptive plan.

From the standpoint of biblical chronology and the historical record, there is certainty that the Christian Scriptures have remained intact. They were already ancient and widely circulated by the time Islam arose. Muslim insistence on corruption fails to reconcile with the tangible evidence of biblical manuscripts preceding and following Muhammad’s era. Moreover, the theological differences—specifically concerning Jesus’s identity and redemptive work—are not minor doctrinal quibbles but core issues that define salvation, worship, and humanity’s relationship to God.

For Christian apologists, the centuries of debate with Islam only reinforce their confidence in the Bible’s integrity. They see God’s providence at work in preserving His Word through scribes, congregations, and countless manuscript traditions. They likewise see the consistent affirmation of Christ’s deity and atoning sacrifice as proof that the biblical testimony is not the product of a random or fraudulent process. Rather, it is the authentic voice of prophets and apostles who “spoke from God as they were carried along” (2 Peter 1:21).

In the end, the disagreement cannot be resolved by appealing to an outside authority because both faiths claim ultimate divine guidance. Each side asserts that the other’s scripture departs from the truth on the central question of who Jesus is. The Christian response, grounded in the historical manuscripts, patristic testimony, and the coherent framework of biblical theology, declares that God has not rescinded or replaced the revelation He gave. The Word He spoke through the prophets and especially through His Son (Hebrews 1:1-2) endures. From Genesis to Revelation, the biblical message proclaims a salvation that rests in Christ alone, a truth that stands unshaken despite all challenges.

You May Also Enjoy

Who Was the Real Muhammad? Understanding Historical Contexts and Beliefs

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).