Timothy and Wesley dismantle the “Corrupted Bible” narrative in a high-stakes clash of manuscripts

LONDON, UK — Under a grey, rain-soaked sky at Speaker’s Corner, a high-stakes theological duel erupted this week between Christian apologists Wesley and Timothy and a Muslim debater from Qatar named Abdullah. The debate, which has since gained viral traction, centered on the reliability of the New Testament, specifically the controversial “Long Ending” of the Gospel of Mark, and the fundamental disagreement over the death of Jesus.

While the Qatari debater claimed that “man-made additions” prove the Bible is corrupted, the apologists countered that the transparency of Christian textual criticism actually proves the Bible’s unrivaled historical reliability.

.

.

.

The “Long Ending” of Mark: Addition or Omission?

The debate reached a fever pitch when Abdullah pointed to the final twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark (16:9-20). He argued that because these verses are absent from the oldest Greek manuscripts, such as the Codex Vaticanus, they constitute a “distortion” added by men rather than divine revelation.

“If people add extra verses and claim they were revealed by God, how can I trust this  book?” Abdullah challenged.

Apologist Wesley delivered a technical rebuttal, arguing that the “addition” narrative is a simplification of a complex scribal history. He pointed out that while Codex Vaticanus omits the verses, it notably leaves a perfectly sized blank space where those verses would fit—a “memorial space” suggesting the scribe knew of the verses but perhaps didn’t have the original copy in front of him.

Furthermore, Timothy noted that the “Long Ending” was quoted by Church Fathers like Irenaeus and Justin Martyr long before the Codex Vaticanus was even produced. “The very fact that we can identify these variances is because we have a ‘plethora of manuscripts’ to compare,” Timothy argued. “We aren’t hiding the evidence in a basement in Yemen; we are open with our textual criticism.”

The Crucifixion: Eyewitnesses vs. 600-Year-Old Claims

The conversation took an even more dramatic turn when the topic shifted to the Crucifixion. Abdullah, following the traditional Islamic view found in the Quran, denied that Jesus died on the cross, suggesting it was merely an illusion.

Wesley responded by listing the specific historical figures who witnessed the event firsthand:

The Roman Centurion: Who declared, “Truly this man was the Son of God.”
The Jewish Sanhedrin: Who were present to heckle and ensure the sentence was carried out.
John and Mary: Who were at the foot of the cross.
The Thief on the Cross: Who spoke directly to Jesus as they both hung dying.

“Even if you take out the last twelve verses of Mark, every single Gospel—and the letters of Paul—unanimously affirm that Jesus died on the cross,” Wesley said. “How can a book written 600 years later in a different country ‘correct’ the testimony of the people who were actually standing there?”

The “John 1:18” Dilemma: God in the Flesh

In a final attempt to find a contradiction, Abdullah cited John 1:18: “No one has seen God at any time.” He argued that if people saw Jesus on the cross, then Jesus could not be God.

The apologists explained the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation—the belief that God, who is spirit and “invisible,” took on a “pre-human existence” and then manifested in the flesh.

“What people saw was the flesh,” Timothy explained. “God is spirit, and in His true glory, He is invisible to human eyes. But he came in the form of a man, Jesus Christ, to bridge the gap between us. It’s not a dilemma; it’s the core of the Gospel.”

Conclusion: Transparency vs. Standardisation

As the rain intensified, the debate ended with a handshake and a promise to continue the conversation. However, the parting message from the apologists was clear: The “errors” or “variations” that Muslim critics point to in the Bible are only known because the Christian world has allowed the most intense academic scrutiny of its texts.

In contrast, Timothy argued that early Islamic history was marked by a forced “standardization” where variant codices (like those of Ibn Masud) were reportedly destroyed or suppressed to maintain the appearance of perfect preservation.

“We are open with our evidence,” Timothy concluded. “You can assess it, you can critique it, and it only makes us stronger. That is the difference between a historical faith and one based on blind narrative.”