Monday, July 21, 2025

IS THE INJEEL CORRUPTED? ACADEMIC CONCLUSION (Part 7 of 7)

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

This concluding chapter synthesizes the theological, logical, and historical evidence presented in this investigation into the Islamic claim that the Injeel (Gospel) has been corrupted. Drawing on Quranic affirmations, manuscript traditions, theological doctrines of divine preservation, and rational-critical analysis, this final section evaluates the plausibility of textual corruption and reaffirms the integrity of the Injeel within the framework of Abrahamic faiths and historical-critical scholarship.

1. Introduction

Throughout this seven-part investigation, we have sought to examine, with both academic rigor and theological sensitivity, the oft-repeated Islamic assertion that the Injeel has been corrupted. This question is not only theological in nature but also bears immense implications for interfaith dialogue, epistemology, and the historicity of sacred texts.

To assess this claim, we have approached it from multiple dimensions: Quranic testimony, the internal witness of the Injeel and other Scriptures, logical coherence, and the manuscript history of the New Testament.

2. Quranic Affirmation of the Injeel’s Integrity

The Qur’an, far from suggesting corruption of the Injeel, emphatically affirms its divine origin and continued authority:

Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:46 – “And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Injeel, in which was guidance and light…”
Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:47 – “So let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.”
Surah Al-Baqarah 2:136 and Surah Al-Imran 3:84 command Muslims not to distinguish between revelations, acknowledging the Torah, Psalms, Injeel, and the Qur’an as equally inspired by God.
Notably, there is no Quranic verse that explicitly declares the corruption (تحريف) of the Injeel as a whole. While there are references to certain individuals misinterpreting or concealing scriptures (e.g., Surah 2:79), these do not amount to doctrinal claims of total textual corruption.

3. Theological Analysis: Can God's Word Be Corrupted?

All three Abrahamic faiths agree on a fundamental attribute of God: His sovereignty and omnipotence. From this flows the theological axiom that God’s Word cannot be thwarted or nullified by human interference.

Psalm 119:89 – “Forever, O LORD, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens.”
Isaiah 40:8 – “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.”
Matthew 24:35 – “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.”
Qur’an 6:115 – “And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can change His words.”

Therefore, from both Christian and Islamic theology, it is inconsistent to assert that mere mortals could corrupt the very revelation God has willed to preserve.

4. Logical Reasoning: Interrogating the Claim

Let us now apply the principle of logical inquiry to the claim of corruption. Any such claim must answer the following five critical questions:

4.1 Who corrupted the Injeel?

There is no historical or textual evidence pointing to a person, group, or empire capable of coordinating a global revision of Scripture. Christianity by the 2nd century had already spread across Europe, North Africa, and parts of Asia. No ecclesiastical body wielded such totalitarian control.

4.2 Why was the Injeel corrupted?

There is no coherent or compelling motive proposed by Islamic traditions. What gain would early Christians have achieved by fabricating a Messiah who died and rose from the dead—only to be persecuted and martyred for such a message?

4.3 When was it corrupted?

Was it before or after Prophet Muhammad?

Before Muhammad? – Then why does the Qur’an affirm the Injeel in its existing form? Why does it instruct Christians to judge by it?
After Muhammad? – Then why does the Qur’an not warn of this future corruption? Why is there no abrogation of the verses that promote belief in the Injeel?

4.4 Which parts were corrupted?

If only parts of the Injeel were allegedly corrupted, then:

Which verses exactly?
Who made that determination?
Where is the uncorrupted version?

Muslim scholars historically have not presented a reliable, objective method to discern genuine from spurious verses—leaving the claim largely unsubstantiated.

4.5 Where is the original Injeel?

According to textual scholars, the Gospels we possess today—particularly in codices such as Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Alexandrinus—reflect what was written in the 1st century. There is no manuscript trail, archaeological evidence, or historical record suggesting an alternative "original Injeel."

5. Historical Analysis: The Transmission of the Injeel

As explored in Part 6, the Injeel was written by eyewitnesses and their close companions between ~50–95 AD. The process of transmission involved:

Geographical dispersion: From Jerusalem to Antioch, Alexandria, Corinth, Rome, and beyond.
Extensive copying and citation: By the 4th century, thousands of manuscript copies, in Greek and various translations (Latin, Coptic, Syriac), were in circulation.
Church Fathers’ Quotations: Early theologians like Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen quoted the Injeel extensively—providing secondary verification of its content.

Given this diffusion and attestation, it would be historically and logistically impossible for anyone—church or empire—to collect, alter, and re-distribute all these copies without historical trace or protest.

6. Martyrdom and Testimony

The suggestion that the disciples fabricated the Gospel narratives collapses under scrutiny. The apostles:

Claimed to witness Jesus’ life, death, and bodily resurrection.
Were imprisoned, tortured, and executed—yet never recanted.
Did not gain wealth or political power but suffered rejection, exile, and martyrdom.

People may die for what they believe is true. But no one dies for what they know to be a lie.

7. Final Conclusion

After examining the theological testimony, logical framework, historical manuscript evidence, and the human cost paid by the original followers of Jesus, we arrive at a conclusive assessment:

There is no credible basis—textual, historical, theological, or logical—for asserting that the Injeel has been corrupted.

This claim remains unsupported by:

Quranic revelation
Historical documentation
Textual criticism or manuscript evidence
Rational analysis

Instead, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the preservation of the Injeel as the authentic record of Jesus’ message. To assert corruption is to deny the ability—and promise—of God to protect His Word.

8. Implications for Interfaith Dialogue

This conclusion holds profound significance for both Muslims and Christians. If we affirm that:

The Injeel has not been corrupted,
The Qur’an affirms the Injeel,
The Gospels accurately preserve Jesus’ message,

Then the path is open for mutual dialogue rooted in historical honesty, textual integrity, and theological consistency. Rather than division, such inquiries can lead to deeper understanding and respect between the two faiths.