About 100 years ago (late 1800's and early 1900's) a common conclusion among Christian apologists was that Jews had edited the bible in order to remove Christological passages and in general to undermine Christian theology in the Old Testament. It is also the Muslim position, known as Tahrif, although the Tahrif argument is presented in a different way and thus will be addressed separately.
This claim was made due to advancements in Christian apology which admitted that many of the quotes made by New Testament authors (such as Paul or Matthew) had no foundation in the Jewish scriptures. The apologists concluded then that the Jews must have altered the old testament Hebrew so as to claim that the Christian texts were in error. Of course, this claim ignores other possibilities, such as that the verses have not been altered and the Christians misunderstand the Bible, or that in cases where the verses have been changed, it is the Christians who have changed the meaning.
Luckily, as it turns out, this can be a known issue, we can examine a finite amount of evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion based on that evidence.
The idea seems to make plausible sense at first glance; after all, would the writers of the New Testament really commit such a grave and grievous error? Would they really write something which was so obviously untrue? It would almost serve to undermine their case for Christianity. For if they were proven to be liars then obviously they would be false prophets. Therefore the claim is made that when the New Testament was originally written, the Old Testament would have read similar or exactly as written in the New Testament.
As this argument is made today it will usually hinge on the use of a translation such as the the Septuagint or the KJV. For example, Daniel 9:24-27 in the King James Version is well-known to be a remarkably poor translation; but (some) KJV-only enthusiasts (may) insist that it holds the original meaning and that (perhaps) sometime between now and 1611 the Hebrew scriptures had been altered. Even in cases where an alteration is not alleged, some people erroneously believe that the KJV is an inspired translation (see: Is the KJV inspired). Then (if the KJV was inspired, as the theory goes), the KJV could be granted ecumenical authority to alter doctrine as found in the Old Testament. This is only to admit that if and only if such a translation was authentic, preserved, or inspired, could it provide reasonable grounds for making the claim that the Hebrew scriptures had been altered instead.
It's unlikely for quite a number of reasons. First you will note that this was framed as a question often asked 100+ years ago. The reason why people stopped asking this question is because of the Dead Sea scrolls. All Christian scholars today admit that the Jewish scriptures we have today are virtually identical (99.9%+) to the text found in the Dead Sea scrolls – they have simply not been altered. Neither prior to, nor after the lifetimes of Herod, Jesus or Paul, or since then. Needless to say these texts all also concur with the Leningrad Codex and the Aleppo Codex. So we know in a very strong way now that the Jews have never added to or removed anything from the Bible.
Islam teaches the doctrine of Tahrif, which is that the Jews edited the Bible. The claim is usually made in passing, however when challenged the claim is revealed to be expansive and has a deep root in anti-semitic logic. For the benefit of the explanation of what Tahrif is we will not immediately end the discussion on grounds of anti-semitism but will explain how these views arise out of Tahrif and what this may mean for the concept of Tahrif and the concept of the arguments for or against it as a whole.
There is an understanding of the lessons taught among Jews, Christians, and Muslims, of when Moses went up on the mountain, or when Abraham took his son onto the mountain, or when Jesus took his discipled upon the mountain, that is essentially similar. In the case of Moses, the Israelites erred in worshipping the Golden Calf, and the Israelites who worshipped the golden calf were killed. When Abraham took his son up onto the mountain, he did not actually kill his son, but instead this son went on to found a great nation. And, even a Jewish believer (who does not hold that Jesus was a Prophet or a Messiah) would find nothing detestable in the belief that Jesus took his disciples up onto the mountain and said “You have read it is written, … but I say …”, even if they may take issue with the content of Jesus' words. The point is that fundamentally all religions agree, and the lesson is the same.
However, in the case of the Muslims, in each case the underlying narrative is completely different. In the case of Abraham, Muslims claim that it was Ishmael and not Isaac that Abraham took up onto the mountain. And further, when it is pointed out that it says clearly at least four times that it was Isaac and not Ishmael (ex. Genesis 22:2), then the claim is made that the Jews edited the Bible in order to change the name of Ishmael to Isaac. In the same vein, when the Islamic narrative of Moses is challenged, the claim is made that the Jews edited the story of Moses to fit with their own ideas, and that it is not true. Similarly, Muslims will say that the New Testament is also corrupted and the Christian narrative of Jesus is incorrect.
The claim is further made that there is ample evidence for this claim; we can attempt an exhaustive list of such here. Even if we cannot arrive at an exhaustive list we can examine the average quality of these claims and try to find one that makes logical sense.
By point of evidence for these claims, Muslims explain that, as proof, they have a different narrative in the Quran and therefore the narrative in the Torah is in error.
However, when pressed that this is, in fact merely a claim (We claim our narrative is correct because it is correct), Muslims will invariably claim that even “Bible Scholars” and/or “Jews” or “Rabbis” will admit that the Bible has been changed. This is also, in fact, a claim – and when pressed they will invariably give forms of evidence such as:
1. They are still making “new versions” of the Bible (ex. new translations) of the Bible all the time, therefore there is proof that the Bible has been changed.
2. There is a known list of approximately 10 to 20 places in which the name of God has been changed out of respect for God, or that minor changes to spelling or grammar were made to increase respectfulness which do not change the meaning of the words; ex. changing “God remained before Abraham” to “Abraham remained before God”.
3. There is a known list of 3 to 7 places where a letter form has been lost, and the scribes do not know which letter belongs in the word; however in this list the meaning of the word has been preserved. As a result, all Jewish people know the Bible has been changed.
4. The Jewish people are rebellious and untrustworthy and intentionally changed the Bible as an act of rebellion to God.
The strong response to all of the above forms of evidence is that the scope of the problem outweighs the evidence that has been given. First let us examine the scope of the problem.
Jewish scribes copy the Bible in a certain way; without going into too much detail, scribes copy out the characters of Hebrew on rows, a certain number of rows per page. If a mistake is made, there are checks and balances which indicate a mistake has been made and help the scribe to prevent mistakes and to know a mistake has been made; ex;
Written entirely in Hebrew, a Torah scroll contains 304,805 letters, all of which must be duplicated precisely by a trained scribe, or sofer, an effort which may take as long as approximately one and a half years. An error during transcription may render the Torah scroll pasul (“invalid”). […] Most modern Torah scrolls are written with forty-two lines of text per column (Yemenite Jews use fifty one). Very strict rules about the position and appearance of the Hebrew alphabet are observed. See for example the Mishnah Berurah on the subject.
[…]
Some errors are inevitable in the course of production. If the error involves a word other than the name of God, the mistaken letter may be obliterated from the scroll by scraping the letter off the scroll with a sharp object. If the name of God is written in error, the entire page must be cut from the scroll and a new page added, and the page written anew from the beginning. The new page is sewn into the scroll to maintain continuity of the document. The old page is treated with appropriate respect, and is buried with respect rather than being otherwise destroyed or discarded.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefer_Torah
and, for example,
The scribe prepares the parchment by scratching 43 horizontal lines on it and two vertical ones at each end. This allows for a standard 42 lines of writing. Each sheet of parchment contains three to eight columns of writing. Certain letters might be stretched within a column to justify the left margin.
There are some places in the Torah where certain letters are larger or smaller than standard, or where the text is written in a different type of column. Each deviation from the norm carries a special meaning. For example, the “Song of the Sea” (Exodus 15:1-19), which describes the parting of the Sea of Reeds, consists of three interlocking columns. The two outer columns symbolize the sea parted on either side, with the middle column representing the children of Israel marching on dry ground. Visually, this sets the section apart from the surrounding columns. Such changes were instituted by the Masoretes — scribes of the 7th-9th centuries who standardized the biblical text — to highlight the importance of certain passages. All of the writing and layout must be done exactly to specification in order for the scroll to be kosher.https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/torah-scroll/
From the above we can essentially consider that the official scrolls were written in a grid, such that any accidental insertion or deletion of a single letter – such as changing Ishmael (6 letters) to Isaac (4 letters) would offset the entire document, and a scribe would be able to find the error immediately by noticing letters which no longer lined up properly, such as using an index of the letter appearing in the upper left corner of a page, for example.
Also,
To ensure that the final product conforms to strict standards of production, the scrolls are thoroughly inspected by scribes who are specially trained in the religious laws governing the proper writing and assembling of a scroll. […]
Before the individual sheets of parchment are permanently sewn together, a scribe is required to correct any inconsistencies revealed during inspection, such as letters that are missing or touching, incorrect spacing or other human error.
If any one letter is missing, cracked, or even smudged, the entire Torah is not kosher, but such problems can be corrected by scraping off the mistake after the ink is dried. Of course, the parchment must be prepared once again in that spot to accept the ink.
If a mistake has occurred in writing the name of God, however, the entire sheet of parchment becomes invalid and the text on it must be rewritten on a new sheet.https://free.messianicbible.com/feature/sacred-labor-love-ancient-art-making-torah-scroll/
Casual mistakes are seen to be impossible. Thus all mistakes would be known (see above). This is the first aspect of the scope problem; the actual evidence given by Muslims to support their assertion that the Bible has been changed do not actually insinuate the Bible has been changed in the manner Muslims suggest; rather they indicate the opposite; that the scope by which the Bible has been changed is so small that it does not actually change the meaning of the text.
But the scope problem does not end here; the precise claims of what has been changed must be taken into account.
Given 1-4 above,
1. A new translation of the Bible does not necessarily mean the text has been changed. Changes in language do not indicate changes in meaning. For example, when Jesus cursed a fig tree there is no reason for us to believe that any particular word is in error neither the complete grammar; Stating it was Jesus, we believe it was not Matthew, stating it was a curse, we can not assume it was a blessing, stating it was a fig, we do not assume it was an orange, et cetera. Taken together, we see the meaning is very simple to understand; thus point 1 can not be used to explain the scope of what the Muslims are actually claiming.
2 and 3. For 2 and 3 we see the proof of above in the method of soferism; small inconsequential changes can not be used to say that entire narratives were changed. One expression of the admission of error (as shown above) would go like this:
By the Sofer’s meticulous work and tenacity to perfection they have kept the Torah, if copied according to the laws of STaM, virtually error free. With a world wide comparison of scrolls they are .00004 in world wide agreement with only six letters in question.https://scrolls4all.org/scrolls/the-scribe/
4. Due to 1, 2 and 3, we must re-examine the nature of what Tahrif is actually saying.
When the Muslim claims that, for example, Ishmael (6 letters) was changed to Isaac (4 letters), they are actually claiming that this change was made intentionally. Additionally, that other parts of the Torah scroll had to be altered in order to hide the change, due to the rigorous nature of how the letters are copied in the Torah.
Further, the Muslims also claim this change must have occurred at least 700 years before the Quran, since we have ancient scrolls such as Ein Gedi and so forth that show us via positioning of the letters (i.e. letters above and on the opposite side of pages being in the correct position) that the Masoretic Text of 1000 years ago is identical to the torah scrolls of 200 BC. This is how we know from a reasonably sized fragment of Leviticus that Genesis and Exodus match what we have today.
Thus the scope problem is seen to suggest that so many changes would need to be made that we must consider the actual claim to be that the Jewish people (essentially) re-wrote their entire Torah and/or created entire sections of it out of whole cloth. Intentionally. To fool people (to keep them from the truth; to prevent other people from learning the truth about God).
This does in fact the Muslim claim, as the Jewish people are continuously referred to as rebellious and stubborn in Muslim holy literature.
Thus, we note first that IFF the Muslim claim is correct, then the Muslim claim is correct. This is essentially the Muslim claim; that their holy book is correct, and therefore their narrative is correct therefore the Jews must have edited the Bible; this is borne out by:
a) The evidence that is presented does not actually show what it is intended to show (the scope problem; the scope of the changes is not borne out by the admission of minor changes), and,
b) It is seen that in every case where the Jews are accused of editing the bible it is actually in response to the challenge that the Quran differs in narrative or theology from the Torah.
Thus the argument is really that the Quran super-cedes the Torah and therefore the Torah is an unreliable document.
This is as much as I have been able to uncover in discussions with Muslims so far; what everyone assumed was the claim, was actually the proof; and the explanation of what we assumed was the claim was actually the proof; i.e. the logic was to explain their proof first, and then when you ask for proof of that they express the original claim in an attempt to correct your misunderstanding. Then when you ask for the proof they repeat the original assertion. Unless you understand this you will be running in circles due to not understanding what the Muslim is really trying to express to you.
The problem is that each item can only be illustrated separately:
1. The Quran is an inerrant document therefore in those places where the Torah disagrees, it has been changed.
2. The Torah has been changed, therefore it is not a holy document (like the Quran, which is a holy document).
In each case we see that the proof for the original claim is in fact merely a claim which is proven by repeating the original claim. This is de facto a circular argument. The point can then be made that there is no OUTSIDE evidence OTHER THAN claims which can be given in order to demonstrate this issue. Therefore the issue is an unproven claim and cannot be used to prove anything in a strong sense. It is merely a matter of belief; it is only true if you believe it; if you do not believe it then it is not true and no proof can be given.
In this situation no proof for this claim can be given, not that it may be true if proof is given – the conclusion is no proof exists that would satisfy this statement.
To try and reach a final conclusion on the matter, the above does not reach a conclusion, it only shows that no proof could possibly exist to justify the claim. It is noted in particular that the claim may in fact be true; it is just noted that it will never be able to be definitively proven.
Most (Christian) apologists don't bother with this topic anymore because the discovery of Ein Gedi, the Dead Sea scrolls and the revival of Hebrew as a spoken language in Israel has changed the landscape of apologetics. Muslim debaters in English appear to not yet be as aware of these issues as Christian apologists. The general response is to reject the modern scholarship as corrupt or inaccurate, as it strongly refutes the idea that the Bible was changed in response to any of the later developed religions.
I've discussed this with numerous Christians and their first impression is generally, no, Jews did not do this. Among Muslims the impression is yes, they did. I'll record the results of this ongoing poll here:
Christians: NVN, bbbs, VP, S_K
Christians: Rss Muslims: Muddy Atheist: Av.