Evidence · Case 10 · Islam
The response that the corruption was only of meaning
One exhibit from the free evidence repository at apologetics.pro.
The strongest Muslim response is that the Qur’an affirms the original revelation, not the manuscripts in circulation, and that the corruption was of interpretation rather than of the text. On this view, Christians misread a genuine revelation rather than rewriting it.
Sources
Objections & responses
- Corruption of meaning is the position most Muslim scholars historically held, and it dissolves the dilemma. So why call the dilemma genuine?
Because the meaning horn shifts the burden rather than removing it. If the text is uncorrupted, then its plain content stands: the crucifixion narrated four times, the resurrection, Thomas calling Jesus my Lord and my God. The Muslim must then show that those are misinterpretations of a text that actually agrees with the Qur’an, which is hard to do with passages as explicit as John 20:28 or 1 Corinthians 15. The dilemma is genuine in the sense that the interpretive route leads straight into the exegesis of the New Testament, where the Christian reading is the natural one.