Is the Quran really wrong about crucifixion?

A blog post offers a tantalizing refutation of the Quran and therefore seemingly a surefire knock down argument for engaging with Muslims.

You can read the argument here.  In short, it is that the Quran has Joseph and others talking about crucifixion, so for example the baker whose dream is interpreted is crucified instead of being hung.  This would be anachronistic because crucifixion was not introduced as a means of execution until much later. So how could a book which is meant to be inspired by an infallible God get the details wrong?

There is a problem with this argument though.  Similar accusations have been leveled at the Bible concerning the naming of places and people.  However, there is a simple and obvious response,  namely that Scripture can intentionally use later language to describe past events.  This may be simply to contextualize or to make a theological point. 

I’ve previously used the example of New Amsterdam, a city in the USm you never read references to that city because it is now known as New York.

Add in that we are dealing with English translations rather than Arabic and we may well do best to act cautiously in our critique

It is also worth noting that references to hanging in Scripture may be describing impaling rather than the use of a noose. If so,  then crucifixion would be the heir of such methods. 

Now, I’m not completely convinced that we have a definitive reason for why the Quran would opt for “crucifixion” in those cases but nor do I think we have a slam dunk here. If the Quran rather than a direct Arabic quote. We should be cautious of employing apologetic arguments in regards to other faiths which we would, rightly  not be happy to see employed against Christianity and the Bible.

There are plenty of good reasons to commend the Gospel without this argument.