YouTube Transcript:
Breaking Discovery: The Islamic Dilemma Dates Back to the 700s
Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.
Share:
Video Transcript
A lot of people are under the
misimpression that the Islamic dilemma
is some like clever modern argument
cooked up by Christian apologists on
YouTube or in recent debates. What if I
told you we have new evidence of a
Syriak Christian in the 700s, barely a
century after Muhammad, he was already
making this exact same argument. That's
right. We've uncovered a manuscript
where George of Beltan, a patriarch
writing in the 8th century, lays out a
response to Islam so sharp, so
devastating that honestly it makes us
look like amateurs. And I'm not
exaggerating here. Belton might have
been a better apologist than we are
today. In this video, we're going to
dive deep into this forgotten text that
was actually just recently translated
for the first time. see how he
dismantled the Muslim claim of Tarif or
corruption of the scriptures and show
how he basically invented the Islamic
dilemma before it ever had a name. Now,
stick around because by the end of this
video, you're going to see how George
absolutely dismantles Islam's claims to
truth before it even got off the ground,
guys. And trust me, once you see how
good his cases, you're never going to
look at the Islamic dilemma the same way
again. But first, let's set the stage
here. Okay, the Islamic dilemma. It
might sound fancy, but it's actually
really simple. All right. The Quran
repeatedly points Muslims back to the
scriptures that came before it. The
Torah and the Gospel. You see this in
places like Surah 543-48 and Surah 1094
and other verses. But here's the
problem. Okay, those previous scriptures
very obviously flatout contradict the
Quran. And there are only really two
options and neither of them work. All
right, horn number one. If the
scriptures before Muhammad were
reliable, as the Quran itself implies,
then Islam collapses because those same
scriptures contradict Islamic teaching
on almost every core issue. The Old
Testament prophets, the Trinity, the
crucifixion, the deity of Christ, you
name it, it contradicts it. Horn number
two, if those scriptures were
unreliable, if they'd been corrupt or
lost, then the Quran undercuts itself.
Why? Well, because it tells Muslims and
even Muhammad himself in surah 1094 to
consult the Jews and the Christians that
were reading the previous scriptures.
That makes absolutely zero sense if the
scriptures were already unreliable. So
either way, the Quran is stuck on the
horns of a dilemma. If it affirms the
Bible, Islam is false. But if it rejects
the Bible, Islam is actually incoherent.
That's the power of this argument. It's
not some little gotcha trick. It's
actually showing that Islam by its own
standard defeats itself. Our Muslim
apologist friends will tell us that this
is a a clever new apologetic trick that
we cooked up in recent debates, right?
It's not something that goes back to the
early Christian history, the Christians
that were engaging with Islam. But
George of Beltan writing just a century
after Muhammad was already seeing this
exact tension. And that's what makes his
work actually really explosive. To
appreciate how explosive George of
Beltan's argument is, you need to
understand when and where he was
writing. We're not talking about some
medieval monk tucked away in the 1200s.
George lived in the 8th century, barely
a hundred years after Muhammad. That
means he wasn't working with centuries
of hindsight. He was looking Islam
straight in the face while it was still
in its early rise. George was the West
Syriak Patriarch from 758 to 789, which
makes him one of the highest ranking
Christian leaders in the Middle East.
And his life was anything but calm. He
was actually imprisoned in Baghdad by
the Cali for 9 years on charges of tax
fraud and refusing to honor Muhammad's
name. When he was finally released, he
didn't retire quietly. He went straight
back to defending the faith. Now, here's
why his story matters. Okay? Syriak
Christians like George were on the front
lines. They were the ones who first had
to wrestle with Islam's claims. They
heard Muslim accusations about the Bible
being corrupted, what's called Tarif,
not as abstract theories, but as live
pressing challenges threatening their
communities. So when George sat down to
write his commentary on the Gospel of
Matthew, that's our focus today. Tucked
inside is this little chapter where he
fires back at Islam. And it's in that
chapter where we find the earliest fully
developed response to Tarif. What's
more, the way he responds isn't just
some generic defense of scripture. It's
the skeleton of the very argument we now
call the Islamic dilemma. This is what
makes George's voice so uniquely
powerful. He wasn't, you know, a
YouTuber in modern-day times trying to
get clicks. He was a pastor, a
patriarch, and honestly a prisoner for
Christ, fighting to preserve the truth
of the gospel in the very century after
Islam's birth. Before we jump into the
actual manuscript of George's argument,
I want to pause for just a second. If
you believe that this kind of work that
I'm doing here matters, taking esoteric
scholarship and turning it into
accessible apologetics, then consider
supporting me on Patreon. It's linked
right in the description for you guys.
Your support literally makes it possible
for me to do this deep research to
translate jargony material into plain
English and get discoveries like this
out to the wider church. I can only do
what I do with your help. Okay, now
let's get to the fun part. Here's the
actual discovery, and trust me, it's
definitely worth the wait. So, first,
where did scholars actually find
George's proto-Islamic dilemma? Well, it
wasn't in some standalone book against
Islam. George didn't sit down to write
an anti-Muslim treaties. Instead, it's
tucked away right inside his commentary
on the Gospel of Matthew, specifically
in the introduction of chapter 49. And
that detail is actually crucial. George
wasn't out to score debate points. He
was trying to establish the reliability
of the Gospel for his Christian readers.
He's explaining why they can trust the
scriptures even when Muslims accuse them
of corruption. That's the sort of
pastoral heart of this whole thing.
Defending the truth of the gospel at a
time when his people were under enormous
pressure to abandon it. The only
surviving copy of this commentary is
Vatican Syriak 154. It's a battered
manuscript copied partly on parchment
from the 8th to 10th centuries and
partly on paper from the 13th. You can
actually access it directly on the
Vatican website. You guys can see it on
the screen here. It's sort of
incomplete. It's damaged and scattered.
But thankfully, enough of it survived
for our purposes today. For centuries,
this text sat sort of unnoticed in the
Vatican library until modern scholarship
finally brought it to light. Bert Jacobs
recently published the editio precepts
of chapter 49, giving us our first full
translation of George's words. I've got
his paper linked in the description if
you guys want to go check it out. But
now, what George argues there is
actually extraordinary. This chapter is
titled against the pagans concerning the
truth of the gospel. But make no
mistake, the pagans in view are Muslims.
George never names Muhammad or the Quran
directly. Early apologists often avoided
that for safety reasons. But he does
make it pretty obvious. He talks about
the time before the coming of their
prophet and even quotes or paraphrases
the Quran. The issue that he's
addressing is the accusation of Tarif, a
Muslim doctrine that Christians sort of
corrupted their Bibles. Faced with
claims that the Quran is false because
it contradicts the Jewish and Christian
scriptures, later Muslim commentators
argued that the Christians had corrupted
their scriptures and included false
material. By George's day, this
accusation was already circulating and
Christians in the area had to respond to
it. Before I break down George's
arguments, I'm going to put up on the
screen the full English translation of
George's commentary so that you guys can
read it for yourself. Feel free to pause
the video and read through his comments.
It's not very long or as I mentioned,
you can just click the link in the
description to the full paper. All
right, here we go. George opens with a
brilliant rhetorical move. Pay attention
here, okay? He says, "The way to answer
the charge of corruption is to ask four
questions. When, who, why, and what?" In
other words, if you're going to claim
that the gospel was falsified or
corrupted, tell us when did this happen?
Who carried it out? Why would they do
it? And what exactly was changed? It's
super simple, but it's also really
devastating to this doctrine, and it
anticipates the entire later history of
Christian responses to Tarif. Let's
break this down because this is all very
relevant for us today. Okay, first
George presses the when question of
timing. If the gospel was corrupted
before Muhammad, then he points out why
would surah 1094 instruct him or
instruct Muhammad to ask the Jews and
Christians about it. Here's exactly what
he says. So at which time I ask again,
who, why, in which words? if they should
say that it happened before the coming
of their prophet. See, he said that it
was spoken to him that he should come to
those who hold the scriptures to find
the truth. For he said, quote, "Oh those
who hold the scriptures, confirm the
things which we have brought to you in
words." And quote, "If you are doubtful,
ask those who have been holding the
scriptures before you." See, he sends
you to us. He's quoting Surah 1094.
George knew even in the 700s that the
Quran itself in surah 1094 assumes the
reliability of earlier scriptures. But
if on the other hand the corruption
supposedly happened after Muhammad,
George says that's actually impossible.
Why? Because the gospel was already
spread across the world in different
languages. He puts it really bluntly and
these are his own words. And after his
coming, there is no proof whatsoever of
a senate of all nations in which Greeks,
Arabs, Persians, barbarians, and Syrians
were gathered during which they
determine which words they would omit
and which words they would add. This is
because the gospel is the same to all of
them. Next, he pushes the what and why
question of motive. Suppose the
Christians sort of change certain parts
of the Bible. Why would Christians
falsify their own scriptures? George
points out it's not for the money since
the gospel still commands poverty, not
for spiritual advantage since, quote,
"Spiritual gain cannot be attained by
consciously spreading false ideas about
God." He even turns this into a subtle
jab at Islam, hinting that they're the
ones who used material gain to attract
followers. Then in addressing the who
question, George brilliantly appeals to
the Quran's own teaching about the
apostles of Jesus. It couldn't have been
them since the Quran itself in various
places calls them divinely chosen and
faithful. If that's the case, George
asks, "How could they possibly have
transmitted corrupted accounts from
their master?" This is a proto dilemma
move using Islam's own scripture to
shore up the authority of the gospel. So
again, George's words and advice are
still relevant for us today. The next
time a Muslim tells you that the Bible
has been corrupted, follow George's
examples and ask four questions. When,
who, why, and what? But in his
commentary, George doesn't stop there.
After dismantling the corruption charge
with his famous when, who, why, what
questions, he takes the debate one step
further. He pivots to a positive case
for gospel reliability. In other words,
he doesn't just play defense. He builds
a constructive argument for why the
gospel must be true. And you guys really
need to pay attention here because this
move that he makes here, this argument
he builds out is brilliant and arguably
something that Christian apologists need
to be doing a lot more of in the context
of the Islamic dilemma. In his
commentary, George lays out five
criteria that prove gospel reliability.
First, the gospel's teaching is sound
because it transcends earthly lusts.
Second, its commandments heal the soul's
infirmities. Third, it foretell future
events with prophetic clarity. Fourth,
it spread to all nations, not by
political power, wealth, polished
rhetoric, or manipulative tactics, but
by a message so lofty it looked like
folly to the world. And then fifth, it
is confirmed by the testimony of the
scriptures themselves. Just think about
how clever this actually is. These
criteria aren't arbitrary. He didn't
just pick these out of the thin air,
right? They they actually make a lot of
sense. A true revelation from God should
actually elevate us above our base
desires. It should bring healing. It
should reveal what is to come. Spread
without worldly bribery and harmonize
with earlier revelation. George is doing
in the 700s. What most Christians today
can't do. Lay down a rational framework
for why Christianity is true. And
remarkably, his argument holds up pretty
well. Scholars call this the true
religion apology. And in George's hands,
it's one of the earliest examples that
we actually have. So here's the big
picture. Okay. George of Beltan
dismantled the charge of Tarif through
asking his four questions and citing the
Quran itself to answer them. Then he
went further. He made a positive case
for gospel reliability. Here's the
crucial point. Pay attention to this.
Once you grant the gospels reliability,
the Islamic dilemma writes itself. If
the gospels are reliable, Islam is false
because the Quran contradicts the
Gospels. If the gospels are unreliable,
Islam is false because the Quran itself
implies that the gospels are reliable.
In surah 1094, George nailed it, 1200
years ago from a prison cell in a
commentary on Matthew trying to streng
strengthen the faith of his people. He
handed us one of the earliest versions
of the Islamic dilemma. Why does all of
this matter? You might be thinking like,
why should we care what a Syriak
patriarch in the late 700s, why why
should we care that he was already
making this argument? Well, here's why.
It shows us that the doctrine of Tarif,
the idea that the Jews and Christians
corrupted their scriptures didn't appear
in a vacuum. It was a reaction. Muslims
were confronted with the uncomfortable
fact that the Quran flatly contradicted
the Bible. And then when Christians
pointed that out, Muslims needed some
sort of escape hatch. They needed to
respond to it. And that's where Tarif
came in. George of Belan again just a
hundred years after Muhammad showed
Christians exactly how to respond. not
just by saying, "Uh, nuh-uh, we we we
didn't corrupt our scriptures," but by
flipping the charge back on Islam
itself. This discovery also blows up a
very common objection we're hearing
today, that the Islamic dilemma is just
a cheap apologetic trick cooked up by
Western apologists on YouTube. Um, no,
that's not the case at all. The evidence
actually shows that Christians in the
8th century were already spotting this
same very this this very same problem.
And they didn't just spot it. They built
apologetic defenses for their people
around it. And also it strengthens the
credibility of the dilemma itself.
Because when an argument emerges
naturally out of history, when it's not
invented by a bunch of YouTubers, but
discovered actually in the first
encounters between Christians and
Muslims, that's actually evidentially
powerful. It shows that it shows us that
this isn't us forcing something onto the
Quran. It's actually us recognizing what
Christians have always recognized. Islam
is self-defeating on its own terms. Now,
at this point, some people might object.
They might say, "Well, hold on. Georgia
Tan wasn't actually making the Islamic
dilemma. He was just arguing against
corruption of the gospel." Now, I
thought a lot about this objection, but
here's the thing. He was doing a lot
more than just that. Okay? After giving
his positive criteria for gospel
reliability, he ends his chapter with
this declaration. Quote, "Therefore,
every book in which all these things are
collected is the perfect and complete
truth." He's referring to the five
criteria for gospel reliability and
everything that is lacking from them is
either entirely false or imperfect.
That's not merely like a hey guys don't
don't worry about this. Our texts are
fine statement. That's George going a
lot further. He's affirming the gospel
accounts as the full truth and drawing a
line in the sand. If the gospels are
true and Tarif is false, then the Quran
which contradicts them cannot stand. In
other words, George supplies the bones
of the Islamic dilemma. The Quran
appeals to the Gospels as authoritative,
but their truth puts Islam on a
collision course with itself. And also
remember, we don't have all of George's
works. It's entirely possible that he
made this conclusion explicit elsewhere
in his other writings. But what we do
have is certainly enough. He already
gave us everything we need to reach that
conclusion. Another objection goes,
well, in Surah 1094, the previous
scriptures in view are only the stories
of the prophets. I actually made an
entire video response to this objection,
which I've got linked in the
description. You guys can go watch it if
you're interested. In short, this
objection doesn't work because those
stories of the prophets also contradict
the Quran. So, it doesn't help. Another
common objection is, well, corruption
solves the problem. The Bible was
altered, but George dismantled that
literally 12 centuries ago. Okay, if
corruption happened before Muhammad,
then as George points out beautifully
and you know perfectly in line with the
Islamic dilemma, surah 1094 absolutely
makes no sense. If corruption happened
before Muhammad, if corruption had
happened after Muhammad, that's actually
impossible because no universal senate
of Greeks, Arabs, Persians, and Syrians
ever got together to rewrite the gospel.
As George puts it, since the rise of
Islam, no sinned has taken place in
which the nations decided to alter the
gospel because it is the same to all of
them. That leaves us the the only
possible alternative here is what I like
to call the selective corruption
hypothesis or selective tariff that just
the wrong parts of the Bible were
corrupted. The rest are reliable. That
falls apart too guys. Okay. I I also
addressed this claim in the previous
video that I mentioned linked in the
description. But in short, this
hypothesis doesn't work because one,
it's completely unevid. There's no
historical proof that the Bible was
selectively altered in just the right
places that line up with the Quran. Two,
it's completely unfalsifiable. Any verse
that contradicts the Quran can just be
waved away as corrupt. And then three,
this is a circular argument. It assumes
the Quran is accurate in order to defend
the Quran. That's not an argument.
That's a rational dead end. So, the
objections don't work. George's argument
still stands. And in some ways, he said
it's sharper than we do today. Now,
we've covered a lot of ground. So, let
me just boil all this down. Right?
Here's what you need to remember from
this video. George of Beltan, writing in
the 700s, just a century after Muhammad
was already dismantling the charge of
Tarif and in the process sketching out
the bones of what we now call the
Islamic dilemma. In challenging Tarif,
he asked absolutely killer questions
that we still need to be asking today.
When was the gospel corrupted? Who did
it? Why would they do it? And what
exactly was changed? No Muslim could
answer them then and no Muslim can
answer them now. He showed that
corruption couldn't have happened before
Muhammad because surah 1094 assumes the
scriptures are reliable. It couldn't
have happened after Muhammad because no
worldwide sinned ever met to change the
text. And the apostles themselves
according to the Quran were divinely
chosen. So, how could they possibly have
transmitted falsehood? That's the heart
of George's case. Okay? If the Gospels
are reliable, Islam collapses because it
contradicts them. If the Gospels are
unreliable, the Quran undercuts itself,
as we see in Surah 1094. Either way, the
Quran is checkmated by its own standard.
And that's what makes this discovery so
incredible. The Islamic dilemma isn't
some like clever modern trick.
Christians in the 700s already saw it,
already argued it, and already used it
to defend the gospel. So, here's my
challenge to you. Memorize Surah 1094.
Learn George's simple for, when, who,
why, what questions, and use them. This
isn't just history. It's an argument
Christians have been making for over a
thousand years, and it still stands
today. If you want more groundbreaking
discoveries like this, hit subscribe
because we're literally just getting
started. Oh, and by the way,
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
Works with YouTube, Coursera, Udemy and more educational platforms
Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!
YouTube
←
→
↻
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc
YoutubeToText
←
→
↻
https://youtubetotext.net/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc