A Muslim attempts to find Muhammad in the Bible

The video introduces a claim from a viewer (Alexander the Great) that Isaiah 29:12 mentions the first Quranic revelation and the cave of Hira. The presenter notes the extensive and flawed nature of the article making this claim, pointing out a 'Muslim hermeneutical approach' that prioritizes a favorable interpretation over objective research, similar to past failed attempts by Islamic scholars to critically edit Quranic manuscripts due to corruption.

The author of the article misinterprets expert opinions, particularly regarding scribal corrections. He misconstrues the terms 'negative' and 'positive' in text criticism (omission vs. addition) as 'bad' and 'good,' leading to a contradiction in his analysis of corrector CB3's work. The video clarifies that CB3 primarily removed additions and substitutions, not made 'injurious insertions' as the author suggests.

The core of the Muslim's argument is that the word 'Hira' was originally in Isaiah 29:12 but was deliberately changed in Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) by corrector CB3 to hide Muhammad's connection. The author proposes a translation implying the book being delivered 'in Hira to an illiterate man.' His theory suggests two letters were added to disguise the name of Muhammad's cave.

The video refutes the claim that two letters were added. Textual apparatus shows only one letter (epsilon) was a correction, not two. The small Sigma at the end, which the author claims was added, is shown to be an original and common scribal feature (compression) in the manuscript, not an afterthought or specific intervention by CB3 to disguise 'Hira'.

The video explains that the epsilon correction is due to an 'ittacism,' a common scribal error where similar-sounding letters are confused. Scribe B, responsible for this section of Isaiah, reportedly had a high rate of this type of error. The correction of epsilon is not unique but is seen multiple times in close proximity, making it a routine grammatical correction rather than a conspiratorial alteration.

The video highlights the absurdity of the author's narrative about a monk intentionally changing the text to obscure Muhammad's name. It then summarizes the methodological flaws: ignoring other relevant manuscripts, disregarding the wider context of Isaiah 29:12, pretending the epsilon correction is unique and conspicuous, falsely claiming the Sigma was added by CB3, assuming monks knew of and responded to Muhammad's story in the Bible, and manipulating the dating of corrections to fit the narrative.

The presenter concludes that the desperate attempts by Muslim scholars to find Muhammad in the Bible, despite Quranic affirmations of the Torah and Gospel, lead to egregious errors and contradictions. Muslims are left with the choice of admitting the Quran is wrong, contradicting it by claiming biblical corruption, or employing a 'favorable Muslim hermeneutical approach' to force an interpretation. The video asserts that Muhammad is not, and never was, in the Bible.