1. Addressing Muslim Criticism: Claims of Textual Corruption Due to Variations in Gospel Accounts
Matthew 22:37 states:
“Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.” (KJV)
This verse is central to Christian doctrine, summarising the greatest commandment—total devotion to God. Theologically, this reflects the covenant relationship between God and His people, echoing Deuteronomy 6:5:
“And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.” (KJV)
Christ’s words reaffirm the unity between the Old and New Testaments, demonstrating the Bible’s consistent message. The commandment to love God with all one’s being is foundational in Scripture, appearing throughout both the Old and New Testaments (Carson, New Bible Commentary, 1994, p. 942).
2. Addressing Muslim Criticism: Claims of Textual Corruption Due to Variations in Gospel Accounts
One of the primary Muslim objections to Matthew 22:37 is that the phrase “Jesus said” appears only in Matthew and is not found in Mark 12:29-30 or Luke 10:26-27. Critics argue that this discrepancy implies textual corruption, suggesting that the Gospel writers altered the text to align with later theological developments. However, a closer examination of the issue reveals that the criticism is based on a misunderstanding of textual transmission and the nature of the Gospels.
a) Eyewitness Testimony Naturally Varies
The Gospels were written from different perspectives. The Gospel writers had different audiences, purposes, and theological emphases. This diversity of perspectives is evident in the Gospel accounts, where variations in detail do not invalidate the core truth of the message. Just as eyewitnesses to an event might describe it differently, so too did the Gospel writers. These variations enrich our understanding of the events they describe but do not point to corruption.
For instance, in Matthew’s Gospel, “Jesus said” is explicitly mentioned, highlighting the personal and direct nature of His teaching. In Mark, Jesus’ answer is given without this introductory phrase, reflecting a different literary structure. Luke’s account emphasizes the interaction between Jesus and the lawyer, framing the dialogue in a different manner. All three accounts preserve the central teaching—that the greatest commandment is to love God with all one’s heart, soul, and mind—without any contradiction (Blomberg, Making Sense of the New Testament, 2017, p. 82).
b) Literary Differences Do Not Alter the Core Message
The claim that differences in phrasing imply textual corruption overlooks a crucial point: the core message remains unchanged. While Matthew directly attributes the statement to Jesus, Luke records the lawyer quoting Deuteronomy 6:5, which Jesus then affirms. The difference in phrasing between the Gospels reflects the literary approach of each writer rather than a distortion of the original teachings of Jesus. Luke’s version focuses on the dialogue aspect, while Matthew’s is more direct, underscoring the historical nature of the event. Yet both accounts present Jesus teaching the same commandment.
The suggestion that a minor change in phrasing implies corruption misrepresents the nature of ancient texts, especially in light of the fact that the message remains unchanged (Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, 1981, p. 389).
c) Double Standards: The Quran’s Variant Readings
Muslim critics often demand uniformity in the Bible while overlooking similar issues within the Quran. The Quran contains multiple variant readings (Qira’at), each with subtle differences in wording and meaning. For instance, the two primary readings of the Quran—Hafs and Warsh—contain differences in verb forms, pronunciation, and even theology. These differences do not arise from external corruption but from the natural variation in the oral tradition of transmission. In fact, many of these readings affect theological interpretations, such as the nature of salvation or the description of Allah’s attributes (Dutton, Arabic Script and the Quran, 2004, p. 123).
If uniformity were a requirement for determining the authenticity of a text, the Quran would fail the same standard Muslim critics apply to the Bible. The Quran’s textual history is far from simple, as it underwent significant standardisation under Uthman, during which alternative readings were reportedly burned to promote a unified text (Sahih Bukhari 4987; Sadeghi & Mohammadi, The Codex of the Quranic Manuscripts, 2017, p. 57).
3. Theological Consistency of the Great Commandment Across Scripture
The idea of loving God with all one’s heart, soul, and mind is not exclusive to Matthew 22:37. This central commandment is consistent throughout the Bible, particularly between the Old and New Testaments. This theological unity affirms that the Gospels do not present radically different teachings but share a common foundation.
- Deuteronomy 6:5 – “Thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.”
- Mark 12:29-30 – “Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord.”
- Luke 10:26-27 – “He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God…”
The fact that Matthew 22:37 aligns with Deuteronomy 6:5 and is reiterated in both Mark and Luke shows that Jesus’ teaching is consistent with the Old Testament and is faithfully passed down through the New Testament. Differences in wording do not imply corruption but rather highlight the richness of divine revelation conveyed in different literary styles (Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text?, 1998, p. 206).
4. The Superiority of the Bible Over the Quran in Textual Preservation
One of the more prominent claims made by critics of the Bible is that it has undergone corruption. However, the Bible’s preservation is remarkably strong when compared to the Quran’s. The Quran’s textual transmission raises several issues that undermine its reliability in comparison to the Bible:
a) The Quran’s Standardisation Under Uthman
Historical sources, including Sahih Bukhari, report that early versions of the Quran were standardised under Caliph Uthman, and alternative readings were ordered to be destroyed. This standardisation was a political act to control the spread of different recitations, and it highlights the Quran’s lack of a stable, unaltered original manuscript (Sahih Bukhari 4987; Sadeghi & Mohammadi, The Codex of the Quranic Manuscripts, 2017, p. 57).
b) The Quran’s Variant Readings
The Quran contains different readings known as Qira’at, and these variations sometimes change the meaning of verses. The most prominent recitations—Hafs and Warsh—contain differences in wording that can alter theological implications (Poonawala, The Quran: Its Composition and Preservation, 2013, p. 202). The presence of these variations calls into question the claim that the Quran is perfectly preserved.
c) The Bible’s Unmatched Manuscript Evidence
In contrast to the Quran, the New Testament has over 5,800 Greek manuscripts, many of which predate the Quran by centuries. This overwhelming manuscript evidence allows scholars to reconstruct the original text with remarkable accuracy (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 2005, p. 51).
The Quran’s textual history is far more uncertain. Even if it were preserved in one reading, the lack of early manuscript evidence complicates any assertion of its absolute authenticity.
5. The Bible’s Theological Superiority Over the Quran
The Bible presents a coherent, historically supported revelation of God’s nature and His plan for salvation. This stands in stark contrast to the Quran’s ambiguity regarding salvation and its impersonal portrayal of God.
a) The Bible Reveals a Loving, Personal God
Matthew 22:37 presents the commandment to love God with total devotion, underscoring that love for God is the foundation of Christian life. In contrast, the Quran teaches that Allah’s love is conditional, granted only to those who obey Him (Surah 3:31) (Carson, The Gagging of God, 2002, p. 331).
b) The Bible Offers Assurance of Salvation
The Bible offers a clear and comforting message of salvation. John 3:16 declares that salvation is a gift given through faith in Christ. However, the Quran lacks a clear assurance of salvation. Even the Quran’s portrayal of Paradise is contingent upon the believer’s actions, without a guarantee of eternal security (Surah 46:9) (Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, 1948, p. 167).
c) Consistency in Biblical Teachings vs. Quranic Abrogation
The Bible’s teachings are theologically consistent. In contrast, the Quran allows for the principle of abrogation (Surah 2:106), meaning that later verses can supersede earlier ones. This theological flexibility results in the Quran presenting multiple and sometimes contradictory views, undermining its doctrinal consistency (Rippin, The Quran: A Very Short Introduction, 2007, p. 82).
Conclusion
Matthew 22:37 encapsulates the essence of Christian faith: total love for God. Despite minor variations across the Gospel accounts, the core teaching remains unaltered, demonstrating the integrity of the Biblical text. The Bible’s superior manuscript evidence and consistent theological message confirm its authenticity over the Quran, which faces significant textual and theological challenges. The Bible offers a coherent, reliable, and historically verified revelation of God’s will for humanity, standing in contrast to the Quran’s uncertain textual preservation and doctrinal inconsistencies.
In defending the Bible against Muslim criticisms, we can confidently assert that the doctrinal unity of the scriptures, the historical preservation of the text, and the theological depth of the Christian revelation make the Bible not only more reliable than the Quran but also a richer and more consistent revelation of God’s eternal truth.
Bibliography and References
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Is There a Meaning in This Text?. Zondervan, 1998.
Blomberg, Craig. Making Sense of the New Testament: A Concise Introduction. 2nd ed. Baker Academic, 2017.
Carson, D.A. New Bible Commentary. 21st ed. Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.
Dutton, Yasin. Arabic Script and the Quran: From Early Islam to the Present. Edinburgh University Press, 2004.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV. Anchor Bible, 1981.
Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 4th ed. Oxford University Press, 2005.
Poonawala, Ismail. The Quran: Its Composition and Preservation. Routledge, 2013.
Rippin, Andrew. The Quran: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2007.
Sadeghi, Behnam, and Mohammadi, Uthman. The Codex of the Quranic Manuscripts: The Uthmanic Codex. Harvard University Press, 2017.
Warfield, B.B. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. 1948.
Matthew 22:37 Bible, Gospel variations, textual preservation Bible vs Quran, Muslim criticism of Bible, theological consistency Scripture, Quran manuscript preservation, historical accuracy Scripture, Jesus teachings Matthew 22:37, scriptural integrity, Bible vs Quran comparison, textual corruption debate, sacred text comparison, holy scripture authenticity