In this article I look at the scholars appealed to by Blogging Theology (videos here and here), in favour of the idea that the Qur’an teaches that the previous scriptures have been textually corrupted. I discuss what we actually mean by the idea of textual corruption, and how this could plausibly differ between how Muslims use the term and how western academics might use it (a similarity could be seen between how Christian scholars and sceptics mean different things when talking about ‘textual corruption’).
I spend a lot of time diving in to these scholars and exactly what they mean. Many of them clearly do have in view a strong charge of textual corruption. With a couple of them (Camilla Adang and Gordon Newby), I am not so sure what they are actually intending to say. This is understandable given that these are encyclopaedia entries trying to briefly introduce a reader to many of the facets of a topic, rather than arguing for their own view in greater detail (as per Sidney Griffith).
In my next post, I intend to see whether those who do believe the former scriptures are textually corrupted (according to the Qur’an) are indeed the ‘consensus’ view.