Early Assumptions of an Intact Torah
Order Narratives of Tampering
Muslim scholars in the first three centuries of Islam were very reluctant to accuse the Bible of textual corruption. I researched the exegesis of Muqatil ibn Sulayman (died 767) and the great classical commentator al-Tabari (d. 923) on a group of 25 verses which Muslim polemicists have tended to cite when they accuse the Bible of corruption and/or falsification. Muqatil's commentary is the earliest extant complete Muslim commentary on the Qur'an. Perhaps my most interesting discovery was that both Muqatil's and Tabari's interpretations of most of these verses assume an intact Torah in the hands of the Jews of Medina during Muhammad's career there. For example, verses of "concealment" outnumber verses of "alteration" in the group of 25, and the exegetes consistently find the Jews to be hiding materials in an intact Torah. The most common object of "hiding" is alleged prophecies of Muhammad in the Torah (often connecting with Q7:157). None of Muqatil's interpretations of the four "harrafa" verses (from which the term tahrif comes) accuses of textual corruption or falsification. Accusations of falsification appear in the interpretations of Q2:79 and Q3:78. These accusations, however, tend to concern tampering with alleged references to Muhammad in the Torah. The scenario is not of an extensive pre-Islamic corruption of the Torah and Injil, but rather a tampering by Jews with the alleged references to Muhammad in the Torah in response to Muhammad's appearance in Medina.
I explain in my book that the exegetes are more interested in a story of (mainly) Jewish resistance to the truth claims of Islam (that the recitations are from God, that Muhammad is a true prophet, that Islam is God's true religion). In this overarching "narrative framework" it seemed more useful to the exegetes to have prophecies about Muhammad still existing--and accessible--in an intact Torah. This made the Jews more clearly culpable--and worthy of punishment--for denying what was understood to be in their own scriptures. The striking support for this explanation is that the Sira of Ibn Ishaq (d. 767), the earliest and most famous Muslim biography of Muhammad, contains no accusation of textual corruption or falsification, even though it offers extensive material on the resistance of the Jews of Medina to the truth claims of Islam.
I concluded that accusations of falsification in these early commentaries are virtually lost amid "narratives of tampering" which assume an intact Torah. But the few isolated accusations of falsification themselves must be carefully qualified. The falsification which these early exegetes pictured was done by Jews in Medina during the first half of the seventh century, and the critical materials were alleged prophecies of Muhammad. This is significantly different from the Muslim accusation which one frequently hears from Muslims today.
The interpretations of Muqatil and Tabari on all 25 "tampering verses" are described in detail and carefully analyzed in Narratives of Tampering. My research discoveries are essential for an informed discussion of Muslim accusations of the falsification of the Bible.
Pleasant readings while probing the Islamic accusation of falsification
A German journal named "Islam and Christianity" gave me an opportunity to explain some of the contents of my book. I added some material on the possible dating of the Islamic accusation of falsification. This pdf includes a German translation of my article. Special bonus here is a second article by scholar Keith Small comparing manuscripts of the New Testament and the Qur'an!
Tales of texts intact