Home > Arguments for the Bible's corruption
"Bart Ehrman, a scholar of the Bible, has shown through his research that the text we have today has been corrupted—changed by scribes and editors over time. He points to thousands of variations in manuscripts, like the ending of Mark (16:9-20) being added later, or words shifted to fit later beliefs about Jesus (peace be upon him). The Qur'an warned of this: ‘They distort words from their places and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded' (Surah Al-Ma'idah, 5:13). What Jesus taught—submission to Allah—got altered.
In Islam, the Qur'an stands untouched: ‘Indeed, it is We who sent down the Reminder, and indeed, We will be its guardian' (Surah Al-Hijr, 15:9). Jesus was a prophet—‘The Messiah, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger' (Surah Al-Ma'idah, 5:75)—not God, and Ehrman's work backs what the Qur'an says: the Bible's corruption strayed from his true message. Allah's final word in the Qur'an restores it."
For the sake of argument, we can assume that this is an accurate description of Bart Ehrman's position (which it of course isn't). But if certain parts of the Bible were truly added, changed or removed, how do we know that? Does Bart Ehrman have a magical sense that helps him see when some text was altered? Presumably, no — instead, he simply uses comparative analysis: by looking at different manuscripts, from different times, different regions, and different languages, we can spot errors and alterations, and thus come to a conclusion as to what the correct and original text is. Due to the large wealth of manuscript evidence, it has become easy to recognize changes, and treat them appropriately. Modern Bibles even specifically point out passages of questionable origin. Curiously, despite the large amount of evidence, never once has an authentic manuscript been discovered which would suggest doctrinal corruption. If there truly were entirely different original versions of the Bible that were closer aligned to Islam, we should have found at least one fragment of evidence for it. The fact that muslims only talk of corruption in a vague sense, without ever presenting examples in support of their claims, demonstrates that there is no evidence to support the idea of an original Bible that only views Jesus as a prophet, with tawhid as his main message.