Medieval Christians argued the Gospel’s omissions disproved Muslim claims of textual corruption

Evidence

Ricoldo treated the subject very seriously. He rendered the supposed text, ‘I announce to you that the Messenger of God will come after Me and his name will be Muhammad’, and commented, ‘But because this is not written in the Gospel, they do not receive the Gospel and say that we have corrupted it.’ He urged historical arguments which echoed his forerunners: why should the name of Muhammad have been omitted if those of Herod and Annas and Caiaphas and Judas were retained?2? His treatment was a little more elaborate, a little less accurate, than that in the reprobatio. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 311

Categorization

• SHARE: The counterargument ‘why would the Gospel keep Herod and Caiaphas but omit Muhammad’ is a genuinely clever ancient apologetic move worth sharing with anyone interested in religious polemic.