I don’t believe that I need an authority beyond the Qur’an to dictate what to believe about the alleged crucifixion. The Qur’an is far more concerned about affirming Jesus’ humanity and rejecting any sort of Divine characteristics that have been associated with him. So, for me, the crucifixion is a rather minor point. A relevant point, to be sure, but not nearly as important as the point that he was merely a man.
I understand why you would think these things. However, NO ONE involved with the writing of the Qur’an was an eyewitness to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.
On the other hand, the authors of the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were all either direct eyewitnesses or had access to eyewitnesses.
Further, various books contained in the New Testament actually challenge readers of their day to confirm what the books say by speaking with those eyewitnesses who were still alive.
This appeal to living witnesses seriously undermines the common claim that the New Testament has been corrupted. It would have been very difficult for the authors to write something that was not true or for changes to have been made to the texts later without living witnesses objecting immediately to those “corruptions”.
Additionally, because there are nearly 6,000 manuscript copies of the original autograph gospels still in existence and scattered around in libraries from Cairo to Moscow to London, etc, we can compare them to determine what “corruptions”, if any, exist.
Ask yourself this question, how would it be possible for someone to change a story in the New York Times once that edition of the paper has been delivered into circulation?
Similarly, it would have been impossible for anyone to change ALL 6,000 manuscripts simultaneously and in the same way once they were distributed to the Churches scattered across the Mediterranean and into Europe. And if anyone tried to change or “corrupt” a text early in the copying process, this would have to have occurred in the earliest decades - but this was the same period in which the living eyewitnesses would have been around to object to the error being introduced.
Would any Muslim today allow the Qur’an to be changed without strenuous objection? The early Christians were just as serious about protecting and preserving their holy writings as you might be about yours. Sound reasonable?
So, from this, you should be able to conclude that the common Muslim argument that the Bible is “corrupted” is a charge that is easily disproved by scientific research into the matter.
If the text is not significantly corrupted and the eyewitnesses were in a position to record accurate history, then the claim of Jesus’ death and resurrection must be taken far more seriously than a simple dismissal without cause seems to warrant.
