The Earliest Muslims Believed in Textual Taḥrīf of the Previous Scriptures: Evidence from Enemy Testimony

In his book, A History of Muslim Views of the Bible, Martin Whittingham discusses on pages 129-135 how can we clearly deduce from Christian writings in the earliest period of Islam how Muslims were raising the charge of textual taḥrīf of the previous scriptures. This is a solid rebuttal to modern-day missionaries who attempt to argue that belief in textual taḥrīf arose late in Islamic history.

I have put in bold the places I felt required emphasis.

…………………………………

4.11.2 Christian Responses

In contrast to the relative paucity of early Jewish responses to Muslim views of the Bible, there were more direct Christian ripostes to the charge of textual corruption. This indicates that it was, at least in the perception of these Christian writers, a standard Muslim assumption. There seems no reason to doubt that this perception was based on Muslim views, even if we lack extensive records of the ways the charge was made. Many though not all Christian texts mention the issue of biblical corruption.¹⁸⁷ The Disputation of the Monk of Bēt Ḥālē and an Arab Notable, one of the very earliest such texts, perhaps dating from the 720’s, does not mention the issue.¹⁸⁸ However, the following chronological survey shows how authors routinely engage with the charge of textual taḥrīf.

John of Damascus (d.c.750) was a Melkite/ Byzantine theologian who served as a financial official for the Umayyad dynasty in Damascus. Retreating to the Palestinian monastery of Mar Saba, he wrote treatises in Greek. He provides the first extended discussion of Islam in his On Heresies (De Haerisibus), the second part of his three-part work The Fount of Knowledge (Pēgē Gnoseōs). In the context of discussing the divinity of Christ, he writes of Muslims, “And some of them say that we added such things, having allegorized the prophets. But others say that the Jews, hating us, deceived us by writing things as though from the prophets so that we might get led astray.”¹⁸⁹

The charge of textual corruption is also refuted in the Dialogue of Mar Timothy (d.823), Patriarch of the Church of the East, with the Caliph al-Mahdī. This dialogue, dating from c.782 and conducted in Arabic, is preserved by Timothy in his Syriac account given in a letter he wrote to a priest of his church, and extant along with many others of his letters.¹⁹⁰ This work became a famous exemplar of Christian-Muslim exchange.

Theodore bar Koni mentions corruption in the 790’s in his Syriac Book of Commentaries, otherwise known as the Scholion (Eskolyon). In his stylised exchange between a Muslim and a Christian, the Muslim states of the New Testament, “I do not adhere to all of it, because there are many things in it that are falsified. He (i. e. Christ) did not bring them. Others have introduced and intermingled them for the purpose of deception.”¹⁹¹

The Apology of al-Kindī is an anonymous, long and influential work (the author’s name is thought to be a pseudonym), dating from around the beginning of the ninth century CE. The Apology presents itself as two epistles, by a Muslim and a Christian, each inviting the other to convert, but is thought to be entirely written by a Christian.¹⁹² Al-Kindī does not devote lengthy discussion to the topic of corruption, but towards the end of his work makes a number of clear statements refuting any such charge. He advances the argument, found in other Christian writings and later by the Muslim philosopher Ibn Sīnā, as noted above, that it would be inconceivable for Jews, who are hostile to the truth about Christ, to collaborate with Christians on corrupting the Biblical text.¹⁹³

There is also brief reference to corruption in the work of Theodore Abū Qurrah (d.820), a Melkite follower of John of Damascus and the first Christian theologian to write in Arabic.¹⁹⁴ However, it is with non-Melkite theologians that we find more extensive engagement with the charge of corruption.

Ḥabīb ibn Khidma Abū Rā’iṭa (d.c. 835) was probably an educated lay Jacobite

Christian writer from Takrit in modern Iraq.¹⁹⁵ It is possible that he was in communication with the writer of the Apology of al-Kindī, who includes an abridged passage from Abū Rā’iṭa’s First Epistle on the Holy Trinity in his work, though this cannot be proven.¹⁹⁶ This epistle, one of several works by Abū Rā’iṭa, tackles the issue of corruption directly, but only briefly, after a much longer discussion of Christian beliefs based on logic. This predominance of logic over scripture can be seen as an indication of the prevalence of the charge of Biblical corruption amongst Muslims at the time. Abū Rā’iṭa chooses to engage primarily on the basis of reason rather than scripture since he seeks ground for debate which both sides can accept. Yet at the same time his decision

to include the question of corruption clearly flags the presence of the issue in both his mind and his milieu. He cites a charge, closely based on Qur’anic verses, that Christians have “altered the words from their places” and refutes this by the argument that Jews and Christians did not conspire together. Even if the Jews had deliberately passed on corrupted copies of their scripture to the Christians, then other different (genuine) copies would also be in circulation. Yet this is not what we find; Jews and Christians share the same scripture. His emphasis on the impossibility of Jewish-Christian collaboration means that all the Biblical references he presents on this issue are from the Old Testament, so as to stress the point.¹⁹⁷

The most extensive treatment of corruption by a Christian from the first two centuries of Islam comes from ‘Ammār al-Baṣrī, a close contemporary of Abū Rā’iṭa. He was active in the early to middle decades of the ninth century. His works are better preserved than any record of his life, of which all we know is that he was associated with the East Syrian Christian community and the city of Basra. In two of his works he addresses directly the accusation of the textual corruption of the scriptures, in his case focusing on the gospels, in contrast to Abū Rā’iṭa’s use of the Old Testament. In The Book of the Proof (Kitāb al-burhān) the question of corruption is the fourth of twelve issues discussed. In a longer work, The Book of Questions and Answers (Kitāb al-masā’il wa’l-ajwiba), twenty pages are devoted to refuting the same charge.¹⁹⁸

‘Ammār focusses on the gospels specifically, but in neither book does he debate specific verses. Instead the arguments in his shorter Book of the Proof draw on the historical implausibility of a widespread conspiracy by believers, or of their widespread submission to a ruler or rulers who forced a text on them. A final argument makes very clear that corrupted interpretation is not the topic of discussion, since ‘Ammār highlights dissimilarities between the Gospels and the Qur’an to show that corrupted interpretation alone would not produce such differences. In his longer Book of Questions and Answers he argues against the charges that the gospels are lax in their teaching, or that corrupted versions were accepted because of the threat of the sword, because of financial inducements, ethnic loyalties, magic which could make signs and wonders appear

plausible, or by the persuasion of rulers.

Two other works close this survey. A ninth century CE text (exact date unknown) commonly known as the Disputation of the Monk Abraham of Tiberias with the Emir has come down to us in two forms. The shorter Melkite recension devotes a section to refuting the charge of textual corruption, as does an expanded version deriving from the Church of the East.¹⁹⁹ Secondly, the prominent Arab Christian philosopher Yaḥyā b. ‘Adī (d.974), from Takrit, also the home town of Abū Rā’iṭa, wrote a short tract against textual corruption of the Bible. He resists the charge of collusion amongst gospel writers by arguing that overly similar gospels would actually indicate collusion more than would minor differences. “If the expressions and meanings and language of the gospels were the same, then it would be possible for one to accuse the evangelists of collusion in writing them and spreading them through the world, as those who oppose us amongst the sects claim”.²⁰⁰

The foregoing discussion shows that the accusation of tampering with the Biblical text, not just its interpretation, was an issue of concern for Christian writers in the early centuries of Islam. As far back as John of Damascus, we have records of Christians believing that Muslims suspected or dismissed various texts. The Muslim sources of the specific accusations these writers engage are often not available to us, and the charge would frequently have been delivered in speech, not in words. But the consistency of the Christian concern to refute the charge clearly shows that it circulated freely. The next chapter will witness how this charge came to be powerfully promoted by significant Muslim writers.

4.12 Conclusion

Exploring the many settings in which Muslim authors engaged with the Biblical text has revealed a number of important points. One reason for using the Bible is for proving the validity of the author’s own concerns, whether those be the prophethood of Muhammad, the truth of Islam, the validity of the twelve Shia Imams or, in the case of Ismā‘īlī writers, more specific elements of their own belief system such as the harmony of all revelations. Historians draw on Biblical text for information about the Israelite people and their prophet. Qur’anic commentaries also draw on Biblical background, though they do not tend to name the source as the Bible, and are most likely drawing from traditions blending canonical and non-canonical material. The literature of Stories of the Prophets, by contrast, though discussing at length characters who also occur in the Bible, uses very little Biblical narrative except insofar as previous Muslim sources incorporate these. Legal works demonstrate a theoretical acceptance of some role for the previous scriptures, under discussions of “the law of those who came before us” (shar‘ man qablanā) but this does not lead to actual engagement with Biblical texts or laws in the formulation of Islamic law. Indeed, works of positive law are either silent or cautious about the use of the previous scriptures.

The issue of textual corruption is not a dominant note, but is often present in the background. Works refuting Christianity use the Bible extensively, but also alter it where needed, providing a form of implicit criticism of the reliability of the text. Only the philosopher Ibn Sīnā addresses the historical or logical problems inherent in exploring the case for geographically widespread corruption, and that only briefly. And yet we cannot entirely affirm the view that corruption was a minor issue at this stage in the development of Islam. It is striking how regularly the idea emerges as one of various concerns voiced by Christian writers in particular when they seek to refute Muslim ideas, even though it is not the central concern.

By the 5th/11th century a complex blend of responses to the Biblical text had developed. There is little sign of exploring the text for its own sake, but the gradual establishment of Islam through conquest, debate and gradual social change is accompanied by clear willingness to draw on the previous scriptures when necessary or convenient. Yet the balance of use and criticism was about to shift.

Footnotes:

187 I omit from the following discussion the alleged correspondence of figures using the names Leo III and ‘Umar II. Recent analysis of the origins of this material has generated many different viewpoints on it, and it adds no new detail to the overall point that Christian texts regularly refuted the charge of textual corruption. See Cecilia Palombo, “The ‘correspondence’ of Leo III and Umar II: traces of an Early Christian Arabic Apologetic Work,” Millennium 12 (2015): 231–64, who mentions all the leading views on this material.

188 See Sidney Griffith, “Disputing with Islam in Syriac: the Case of the Monk of Bêt Ḥālê and a Muslim Emir,” Hugoye 3 (2000): 29–54,who gives an account of this as yet unpublished text. For background on Christian writings of this period, see, among others, Sidney Griffith, The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque (Princeton: PUP, 2008), and his many other writings listed therein. A brief debate, which may be seventh century, touches on questions of scripture, but the dating is disputed. See Barbara Roggema, “The Debate Between Patriarch John and an Emir of the Mhaggrāyē: a Reconsideration of the Earliest Christian-Muslim Debate,” in Christians and Muslims in Dialogue in the Islamic Orient of the Middle Ages, ed. Martin Tamcke (Beirut: Orient Institut, 2007): 21–39.

189 For the Greek text and this English translation of the section on Islam from The Fount of Knowledge see Peter Schadler, John of Damascus and Islam: Christian Heresiology and the Intellectual Background to Earliest Christian-Muslim Relations, HCMR 34 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 224–25; see also Daniel Sahas, John of Damascus on Islam (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 136–37.

190 For the Syriac text and German translation see Timothy I and Martin Heimgartner, Timotheos I, sections 10.1–10.25. For an English translation see N.A. Newman, Dialogue, 212–15.

191 Addai Scher, ed., Theodorus bar Koni. Liber Scholiorum, vol. 2 (Paris: E Typographeo Reipublicae, 1910–12), 235; French translation, Théodore bar Koni, Livre Des Scolies li: Mimrè VI–XI, trans Robert Hespel and René Draguet, CSCO 432 (Louvain: Peeters, 1982), 175. English translation from Sidney Griffith, “The Prophet Muḥammad his Scripture and his Message according to the Christian Apologies in Arabic and Syriac From the First ‘Abbāsid Century,” in Griffith, Arabic Christianity in the Monasteries of 9th century Palestine (Aldershot: Variorum, 1992), 141.

192 Al-Kindī, ‘Abd al-Masīḥ ibn Isḥaq, whose work is usually known as the Apology. The full title is Risālat ‘Abdallah ibn Ismā‘īl al-Hāshimī ilā ‘Abd al-Masīḥ ibn Isḥāq al-Kindī yad ‘ūhu bihā ilā’l-islām wa-risālat al-Kindī ilā’l-Hāshimī yaruddu bihā ‘alayhi wa–yad ‘ūhu ilā’l-naṣrāniyya (The Letter of ‘Abdallah ibn Ismā‘īl al-Hāshimī to ‘Abd al-Masīḥ ibn Isḥāq al-Kindī in which he invites him to convert to Islam and the letter of al-Kindī to al-Hāshimī in which he refutes him and invites him to convert to Christianity). See Bottini, Laura, “al-Kindī, ʿAbd al-Masīḥ ibn Isḥāq (pseudonym)”, in: CMR, 1:584–97, who gives details of various Arabic editions, including London: SPCK, 1885, used here. An English translation is available in N.A. Newman, ed., Early Christian–Muslim Dialogue (Hatfield, Penn: Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1993), 382–515, although the existence of variant manuscripts means that the translation does not align exactly with the SPCK publication.

193 Al-Kindī, Apology, (London: SPCK, 1985), 138–39, trans. in Newman, 498–99. In this passage al-Kindī also calls on Qur’anic verses in defence of the Bible, including Q10:94.

194 See John Lamoreaux Theodore Abu Qurrah, LCE 1 (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 2005), 215, part of Refutations of the Saracens by Theodore Abū Qurrah, the Bishop of Haran, As Reported by John the Deacon, in Lamoreaux, Theodore Abu Qurrah, 211–27.

195 The previous assumption that he was a bishop has been replaced by good evidence that he was instead a recognized teacher. See Sandra Tonies Keating, Defending the People of Truth in the Early Islamic Period. The Christian Apologies of Abū Rā’iṭa, HCMR 4 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 40–48. See Keating 164–215, for a parallel-text Arabic edition and English translation of The First Epistle on the Holy Trinity. See also Keating, “Refuting the Charge of taḥrīf. Abū Rā’iṭa (d.ca. 835 CE) and his first Risāla on the Holy Trinity” in Ideas, Images, and Methods of Portrayal. Insights into Classical Arabic Literature and Islam, ed. Sebastian Günther, IHC 58 (Leiden: Brill, 2005): 41–57.

196 Keating, Defending, 161–62.

197 Keating, Defending, 206–09.

198 Both works are published in Michel Hayek, ed., ‘Ammar al-Baṣrī: Apologie et Controverses (Beirut: Dār al-Mashriq, 1977); see Kitāb al-burhān, 21–90; on corruption see 41–46. Kitāb al-masā’il wa’l-ajwiba, 91–266; on corruption see 128–47. See also Mark Beaumont, “‘Ammār al-Baṣrī on the Alleged Corruption of the Gospels” in The Bible in Arab Christianity, ed. David Thomas, HCMR 6 (Leiden: Brill, 2007): 241–55; and Sidney Griffith, “’Ammār al-Baṣrī’s Kitāb al-Burhān: Christian Kalām in the First ‘Abbāsid Century” Mus 96 (1983): 145–81, esp. 165–68.

199 For the Arabic text and parallel French translation of the shorter version see Giacinto Marcuzzo, Le Dialogue d’Abraham de Tibériade avec ‘Abd al-Raḥmān al-Hāshimī à Jérusalem vers 820 (Rome: Pontificia Universitas Lateranensis, 1986). For the discussion of Biblical corruption see 394–403. For the German translation of the longer (‘Beta’) version from an Arabic manuscript subsequently lost, see Kurt Vollers, “Das Religionsgespräch von Jerusalem (um 800 D),” in ZKG 29 (1908): 29–71, 197–221. For the relevant passage see 62. For background on this text see Mark Swanson, “The Disputation of the monk Ibrāhīm al-Ṭabarānī,” in CMR, 1:876–881.

200 Yaḥyā b. ‘Adī, untitled tract, in Vingt Traités philosophiques et apologétiques, ed. Paul Sbath Cairo: Maktabat H. Frīdrīkh, 1929): 171–72. The Arabic text and an English translation are also available at http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/sbath_16_yahya_ibn_adi_02.htm, accessed 10/10/

2018. For background on Yaḥyā b. ‘Adī see Sidney Griffith’s introduction to his translation of Yaḥyā b. ‘Adī’s Kitāb tahdhīb al-akhlāq, translated as The Reformation of Morals: a parallel English-Arabic Text, METI (Provo,UT: Brigham Young University Press, 2002), xiii–xlvi.