Injil is the Arabic name for the Gospel of Jesus. This Injil is described by the Quran as one of the Holy books revealed by God, Including the Tawrat (Torah) and the Quran itself. The word Injil is also used in the Quran, the Hadith and early Muslim documents to refer to both a book and revelations made by God to Jesus.
However Muslim scholars have resisted identifying the Injil with the New Testament Gospels. Some have suggested the Injil may be the Gospel of Barnabas or the Gospel of Thomas. More commonly, Muslim scholars have argued that the Injil refers to a text now lost or hopelessly corrupted.
For example,
Abdullah Yusuf Ali wrote:
The Injil spoken of by the Quran is not the New Testament. It is not the four Gospels now received as canonical. It is the single Gospel which, Islam teaches, was revealed to Jesus, and which he taught. Fragments of it survive in the received canonical Gospels and in some others, of which traces survive (e.g., the Gospel of Childhood or the Nativity, the Gospel of St.Barnabas, etc.)
The following verse is often interpreted as implying that the Injil is preserved, but instead many Muslim scholars interpret it as Allah warning the Christians not to enforce the law contrary to the law sent by Allah:
And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel [Injil] wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah ] - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil). Let the People of the Gospel [Injil] judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein....".
Quran 5:46-47
Scholars such as Gabriel Said Reynolds have maintained Injil refers specifically to the Gospel of the
New Testament in the possession of the
Christians being addressed in such passages, which is none other than the Gospels of the
Bible as known today and in copies that predate the lifetime of Muhammad.
Adapted from:
Gospel in Islam - Wikipedia
So is the Gospel of Jesus referred to in the Quran the New Testament Gospels? Or does it refer to a Gospel that is now hopelessly lost, meaning the New Testament Gospels are corrupted? What evidence would support your conclusion?
Hello, Adrian.
Concerning the Corruption of the New Testament:
The Arabic word ‘ʾInjīl’ is translated ‘Gospel’ by those writing in English. However, in the Qur’an the word is
always in the singular, and is
never used to describe the four gospels of the New Testament.
The Exalted says: ‘We sent Yeshua, son of Mary, in their footsteps, to confirm the Torah that had been sent before him: We gave him the Gospel (ʾInjīl) with guidance, light, and confirmation of the Torah already revealed - a guide and lesson for those who take heed of Allāh.’ (Al-Ma’ida: 46).
There is no doubt that the New Testament gospels were written decades after the lifetime of Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām); by anonymous authors who never met him (that of ‘Mark’ being the first). These narratives cannot possibly be the ‘ʾInjīl’ mentioned in the Qur’an.
It is quite clear from Al-Ma’ida 46 that Yeshua was given the ʾInjīl complete; how else could it have been ‘a guidance, light and confirmation of the Torah’?
The ʾInjīl is no longer extant. However, I have no doubt that elements of this Book are to be found in the synoptic gospels; in the ‘Sermon on the Mount’, for example; or in the words: ‘I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’ (Matthew 15:24).
First example of NT corruption:
The King James Bible (including the American Version); the King James 2000 Bible; the Jubilee Bible 2000; the Douay-Rheims Bible; the Webster’s Bible Translation; and the Young’s Literal Translation contain what is known as the ‘Comma Ioanneum’. This is shown below in capitals:
‘For there are three that bear record IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.’
Anthony and Richard Hanson write: ‘It (the ‘Comma Ioanneum’) was added by some enterprising person or persons in the ancient Church who felt that the New Testament was sadly deficient in direct witness to the kind of doctrine of the Trinity which he favoured and who determined to remedy that defect . . . It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament.’ (‘Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith; page 171).
The ‘Comma Ioanneum’ is spurious, and yet for centuries the Church insisted it be included in 1 John 5: 7-8; on the grounds that it had become official Church teaching.
In 1927, the Holy Office (Guardian of Catholic orthodoxy; and once named the ‘Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition’) declared: ‘After careful examination of the whole circumstances that its genuineness could be denied’ (Ludwig Ott: ‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’, page 56).
This is why one of my Bibles (the Jerusalem Bible - a Catholic version) reads: ‘So there are three witnesses, the Spirit, water and blood; and the three of them coincide.’ Another Catholic version of mine – the Douay-Rheims – does contain the ‘Comma Ioanneum’. So which of these two is the uncorrupted: the former or the latter?
Second example:
The story of the woman caught in adultery (found in John 8) has been a source of much controversy for decades. Is it authentic; or is in a later insertion into the text?
The King James Version (based on the Textus Receptus) includes the ‘pericope adulterae’ as an original part of the gospel. On the other hand, more modern translations – such and as the ESV, NIV, RV; NRVS; and GNB – include the ‘pericope adulterae’, but bracket it as not original; while others print it in a smaller font (TNIV), or place it at the end of the gospel (REB), all with notes of explanation. This is because the story is not found in the earliest Greek manuscripts.
It certainly seems as if, somewhere along the way, a scribe added this story into 'John' in a place he thought it would fit well. Most likely, the story had been circulating for a long time – as an oral tradition – and a scribe (or scribes) felt that, since it was already accepted as truth by consensus, it was appropriate to include it in the text of Scripture. The problem is that truth is not determined by consensus (witness the ‘Comma Ioanneum’ debacle).
The omission of the ‘pericope adulterae’ from the early manuscripts has been explained as an attempt by early church leaders to prevent scandal; to prevent the impression that adultery is acceptable (for Yeshua is said to have forgiven the woman). Concerned for the moral welfare of their flock these leaders are said to have ordered the story’s removal. If this is true, then they tampered with the Gospel!
The fact remains that the ‘pericope adulterae’ is not supported by early manuscript evidence (and some might say, the best manuscript evidence); there is, therefore, serious doubt as to whether it should be included in the Bible at all.
Third example:
Mark 16: 9-20: ‘Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it. After these things he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.” So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs.’
Some manuscripts end 'Mark' with 16:8; others include verses 9-20 immediately after verse 8. At least one manuscript inserts additional material after verse 14; some manuscripts include, after verse 8, the following: ‘But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.’ These manuscripts then continue with verses 9-20.
Conclusion:
An acknowledged spurious text – justifying the belief in a Trinitarian deity – and still present in at least six current versions of the Bible; the insertion of the ‘pericope adulterae’; and the changes to Mark.
Perhaps now you can understand why scholars (both Christian and Muslim) speak of a corrupted New Testament!
A far more pernicious form of corruption is that which arises from textual interpretation.
About fifty years ago I had an older colleague who was a Biblical Unitarian (I was a Catholic). We discussed (often) both the trinity and incarnation. On one occasion I became angry with him (I was fiery in those days!). I grabbed my Bible and thrust it under his nose. ‘This is
my Book’, I hissed. ‘What’s yours?’
He smiled, and gently removed the book from my hand. ‘This!’, he replied. I was stunned. How could this man read the very same book as I, and yet reach conclusions so opposed to my own? He was no fool; neither was he perverse. He was both genuine and honest; a decent man who lived his faith according to his conscience. And yet, he did not,
could not, believe what I believed.
Here is a quote by Cliff Reed, a Unitarian minister:
‘Unitarians believe that Jesus was a man, unequivocally human. It has long been our view that to talk of him as God is unfaithful to his own understanding of himself. The New Testament accounts describe a Jewish man, chosen, raised up, adopted and anointed by God. They claim that the divine purpose was that Jesus should reconcile first the Jews and then all humanity to each other and to God. This would prepare the way for the Messianic age of peace.’ (Sourced from a Unitarian website).
Two groups of people read the very same scriptures. One group interprets these scriptures in a way that makes God a Trinity, and Jesus ‘wholly God, and wholly Man’. The other group sees absolutely no justification for the notion of a trinity; and regards Yeshua as just a man; in no way divine. Which interpretation is the uncorrupted?
Have a good day, and very best regards.
