Concerning the Crucifixion:
These are the relevant ʾāyāt:
‘And so, for breaking their pledge, for rejecting Allāh’s revelations, for unjustly killing their prophets, for saying: “Our minds are closed” – Nay! Allāh has sealed them in their disbelief, so they believe only a little – and because they disbelieved and uttered a terrible slander against Mary, and said “We have killed (‘qatalnā’) the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allāh.” They did not kill him (wamā qatalūhu), nor did they crucify him (wamā ṣalabūhu), though it was made to appear like that to them (wa-lākin shubbiha lahum); those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him – Nay! (‘bal’), Allāh raised him (‘rafaʿahu’) up to Himself. Allāh is almighty and wise.’ (Al-Nisa: 155-158; my emphases).
There are tafâsîr (interpretations of the Qur’an) by Wahb Ibn Munabbih; Ṭabarî; Makkî Ibn Abi Ṭâlib; Qurṭubî; Ibn Kathîr; Suyûṭî; Ṭabâṭabâ’î; and Jazâ’irî. All of them (apart from Ṭabâṭabâ’î) claim that Yeshua was not crucified, but that another was made to resemble him – and to take his place. The text provides no justification for this claim.
Muhammad Asad writes:
‘There exist, among Muslims, many fanciful legends telling us that at the last moment God substituted for Jesus a person closely resembling him (according to some accounts, that person was Judas), who was subsequently crucified in his place. However, none of these legends finds the slightest support in the Qur’ān or in authentic Traditions, and the stories produced in this connection by the classical commentators must be summarily rejected. They represent no more than confused attempts at “harmonizing” the Qur’anic statement that Jesus was not crucified with the graphic description, in the Gospels, of his crucifixion.
‘The story of the crucifixion as such has been succinctly explained in the Qur’anic phrase wa-lākin shubbiha lahum – implying that in the course of time, long after the time of Jesus, a legend had somehow grown up (possibly under the then-powerful influence of Mithraistic beliefs) to the effect that he had died on the cross in order to atone for the “original sin” with which mankind is allegedly burdened; among the latter-day followers of Jesus that even his enemies, the Jews, began to believe it – albeit in a derogatory sense (for crucifixion was, in those times, a heinous form of death-penalty reserved for the lowest of criminals). (‘The Message of the Qur'an).
I opine that these ʾāyāt are addressing the narratives found in the ‘Talmud Bavli’ (‘Babylonian Talmud’), rather than those of the Gospels (whose narratives are rejected by default).
Here’s why:
Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) does not identify those Jews who ‘uttered a terrible slander against Mary’; nor the period in which they lived. However, there are clues to their identity in the writings of Origen, and in the Talmud.
Celsus, a polemic writer against Christians, produced his ‘Logos Alēthēs’ (‘The True Word’) between the years 175 and 180 CE. Around 240 CE, a copy was given to Origen of Alexandria, one of the most influential scholars in the early Church.
The original text of ‘Logos Alēthēs’ has been lost, but scholars have been able to reconstruct much of it, thanks to Origen’s many citations.
Origen writes (my emphases):
‘He (Celsus) also introduces an imaginary character (a Jew) who addresses childish remarks to Jesus and says nothing worthy of a philosopher’s grey hairs…. After this he represents the Jew as having a conversation with Jesus himself and refuting him on many charges, as he thinks: first, because he (Jesus) fabricated the story of his birth from a virgin; and he reproaches him because he came from a Jewish village and from a poor country woman who earned her living by spinning. He (Celsus) says that she was driven out by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, as she was convicted of adultery.’ (‘Contra Celsus – Book 1; Chapter 28’).
In Chapter 32 of his work, Origen writes:
‘Let us return, however, to the words put into the mouth of the Jew, where the mother of Jesus is described as having been turned out by the carpenter who was betrothed to her, "as she had been convicted of adultery and had a child by a certain soldier named Panthera”’.
Henry Chadwick, in his translation of the ‘Contra Celsus, writes:
‘The title Jesus ben Panthera is not uncommon in the Talmud……. Eusebius, commenting on Hos. v. 14 (‘Return, Israel, to the Lord your God. Your sins have been your downfall!’) says: ‘The text may be quoted against those of the circumcision who slanderously and abusively assert that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was born of Panthera Epiphanius’
When preparing his book ‘Jesus in the Talmud, Peter Schäfer – a noted scholar in the field of ancient Judaism and early Christianity, and one-time Ronald O. Perelman Professor of Judaic Studies at Princeton University – drew on fourteen Talmud manuscripts (both censored and uncensored); along with two printed versions; the Soncino (1484-1519) and the Vilna (1880-1886).
For our purposes, the uncensored tracts are of particular relevance. The oldest used by Schäfer are the Firenze II-I-7-9; an Ashkenazi manuscript of 1177 CE; and the Herzog 1; a Yemeni manuscript of c1565 CE.
Schäfer writes:
‘The (Babylonian) Talmud seems to be convinced that (Yeshua’s) true father was Pandera, his mother’s lover, and that he was a b*****d in the full sense of the word.’ (‘Jesus in the Talmud’).
Could this be the ‘terrible slander against Mary’ that Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) refers to? I know of no other.
Referring to the tractate ‘Sanhedrin 43’, Schäfer continues:
‘With the sixth chapter (“Jesus’ Execution”) we return to the fate of Jesus himself. Here, a quite elaborate story – again only in the Babylonian Talmud – details the halakhic procedure of Jesus’ trial and execution: Jesus was not crucified but, according to Jewish law, stoned to death and then, as the ultimate post-mortem punishment reserved for the worst criminals, hanged on a tree. This took place on the eve of Passover, which happened to be Sabbath eve (Friday). The reason for his execution was because he was convicted of sorcery and of enticing Israel into idolatry.’ (‘Jesus in the Talmud’; my emphasis).
Continued:
- - - Updated - - -
Dr. David Instone-Brewer, of the Faculty of Divinity at the University of Cambridge, writes:
‘The Talmud is an edited and severely abbreviated record of discussions by rabbis over a period of 300 years, starting in about AD 200 when the document they were discussing was edited.
‘The traditions about the trials of Jesus and his disciples which were censored from b. San.43a were brought into the Talmudic discussions early in the Third Century and removed in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries.
‘External evidence gives independent witness that the earliest core in this tradition was: ‘On the Eve of Passover, they hung Jesus of Nazareth for sorcery and enticing Israel (to idolatry).’ (‘Jesus of Nazareth’s Trial in the Uncensored Talmud’).
The Qur’an denies the Talmud Bavli narratives (my emphases):
‘They did not kill him (wamā qatalūhu), nor did they crucify him (wamā ṣalabūhu), though it was made to appear like that to them (wa-lākin shubbiha lahum); those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him – Nay! (‘bal’), Allāh raised him (‘rafaʿahu’) up to Himself. Allāh is almighty and wise.’
There was no deception of the part of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) – no ‘substitution’. The Bavli narrative is a lie; one that gained the appearance of truth through a process of repetition over time.
According to the Qur’an, Yeshua was not executed. The language of the Text reveals, beyond doubt, that he did not die:
‘Allāh raised him (‘rafaʿahu’) up to Himself.’
The word ‘raise’ renders ‘rafa‘a’ (‘to raise’) rather than ‘ba‘atha’, which is used elsewhere in the Qur’an to mean ‘to resurrect’ after death.
Commenting on this, Abu Musa al-Ash'ari writes:
‘There is a consensus among the community of the faithful that the Prophet Jesus (as) was raised alive to the heavens.’ (‘al-Ibana 'an Usul al-Diyana’).
Hasan Basri Cantay writes: ‘Allah raised and lifted up the Prophet Jesus (as) in both body and soul.’ (‘Tafsir of the Qur'an’).
Imam ibn Taymiyya writes: ‘The verse "He raised him to His Presence" … explains that the Prophet Jesus (as) was raised in both body and soul.’ (‘Majmu' Fatawa’).
Zahid al-Kawthari affirms that the ascension of Yeshua is beyond doubt:
‘That is because the basic meaning of the word rafa'a in the verses is transportation from below to above. There is no element here that could be used to interpret the verses metaphorically. Therefore, there is no evidence for seeking to produce a meaning in the sense of ascension in honour and station.’ (Nazra 'Abira fi Maza'im’).
The argument that Yeshua was not killed is strengthen by the use of the word ‘bal’ in ʾāyah 158.
‘…they certainly did not kill him – Nay! (‘bal’),
By way of explanation, Sheikh al-Islam Mustafa Sabri writes that if the term ‘bal’:
‘Comes after a sentence expressing a negativity, then, according to the rules of Arabic linguistics, the sentence following it must mean the exact opposite of the one preceding it. The opposite of death is life. This is a requirement of the rules of linguistics.’ (‘Position of Reason’).
Continued:
- - - Updated - - -
The Qur’an does not say that Yeshua died a natural death. It says that he will die a natural death.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines ‘death’ as: ‘A permanent cessation of all vital functions – the end of life.’; and this is what most people understand whenever they hear the word, or see it written. However, the
Qur’an uses two different terms when referring to death: ‘tawaffâ’ and ‘mawt’. Only ‘mawt’ accords with the Merriam-Webster definition.
A major point of distinction between ‘mawt’ and ‘tawaffâ’ is that only the former is associated with killing, murder or manslaughter (‘qatala’).
‘Mawt’ stems from the trilateral root ‘mīm wāw tā’ – ‘māta’.
Abdur Rashid Siddiqui reminds us that:
‘Māta means to die, to perish, to lose life. Mawt from this root means death or demise. This is the opposite of life. The word Mawt is used for absence of life in living creatures as well as plants and metaphorically for inanimate objects like stone where there is an absence of greenery (Qāf 50: 11). When a person dies he loses all sensation and consciousness whereas during sleep one only suffers loss of consciousness; even this is described figuratively as death (al-Zumar 39: 42; al-Anʿām 6: 60).
‘Death is something that is inevitable: it is the most predictable event. In the Qur’ān it is referred to as Yaqīn (certainty) (al-Ḥijr 15: 99; al-Muddaththir 74: 47). It is stated that “every soul shall taste death” (Āl ʿImrān 3: 185).’ (‘Qur'anic Keywords: A Reference Guide’).
Here are the relevant ʾāyāt:
‘She (Mary) went back to her people carrying the child, and they said: “Mary! You have done something terrible! Sister of Aaron! Your father was not an evil man; your mother was not unchaste!” She pointed at him. They said: “How can we converse with an infant?” (But) he said: “I am a servant of God. He has granted me the Scripture; made me a prophet; made me blessed wherever I may be. He commanded me to pray, to give alms as long as I live, to cherish my mother. He did not make me domineering or graceless. Peace was on me the day I was born, and will be on me the day I die (‘amūtu’) and the day I am raised to life again.’ (Maryam: 27-33; my emphasis).
Note that Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) uses the word ‘amūtu’ and not ‘qatalūhu’; and from this it is clear that he is foretelling his natural, biological, death, and not a violent death at the hands of others.
You will know that Islam does not consider Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) to be divine. This means that he must share in human mortality.
Shaykh Sayyid Hussein Nasr writes:
‘Islamic tradition holds Jesus will return near the end times to fight the Antichrist (al-Dajjāl) and will thereafter eventually die and be resurrected with the rest of humanity.’ (‘The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary’; my emphasis).
Continued:
- - - Updated - - -
The overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars are in agreement that the gospels were written by anonymous authors, decades after the events they portray. Most certainly, they are not eyewitness accounts.
The gospels were first mentioned – in Christian literature – sometime around 120 CE–150 CE. Justin Martyr – a Christian apologist – refers to them as ‘Memoirs of the Apostles.’ (‘First Apology’ – 155 CE; and ‘Dialogue With Trypho’ – 160 CE). It was not until 180 CE – or thereabouts – that names were attached to these works. The person responsible for this deception was Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyon.
Dorothy Milne Murdock (Acharya S) writes:
‘Irenaeus is the first to name the canonical gospels and give reasons for their inclusion and number in the New Testament.
‘The remarks by Irenaeus represent the first mention of all four canonical gospels together. In fact, prior to the end of the second century, there is no clear evidence of the existence of the canonical gospels as we have them. (‘Who Was Jesus? - Fingerprints of The Christ’).
The gospel attributed to Mark was the first to be written. This was sometime after 70 CE – and perhaps even later.
This gospel became the foundation of both Matthew (its author plagiarised some 90% of Mark) and of Luke (its author plagiarised around 50% of Mark).
Concerning the trial narratives:
Since the 18[SUP]th[/SUP] century – at least – Jewish scholars have highlighted problems with the gospel accounts of Yeshua’s trial.
Haim Cohn (one-time Attorney-General of Israel and later Justice of the Israeli Supreme Court) is especially scathing.
In his book ‘The Trial and Death of Jesus’, Justice Cohn reminds us that the Gospel writers get their facts wrong time and again. The trial violates well-established provisions of Jewish law, for example:
That the Sanhedrin convened on Passover eve; that the trial was conducted at night; that the trial was held in secret, and in a private home; that the High Priest act as interrogator, and even struck the accused; and that the accused was mocked and beaten.
Any one of these violations should have resulted in a mis-trial.
There is no doubt that the Gospel accounts are intended – not to portray the truth – but to portray the Jewish religious leaders as stereotypical villains.
Robert M. Price writes:
‘Many see the difficulties with the Sanhedrin trial as so insuperable that they erase all Jewish involvement from the record, placing the whole initiative and responsibility on the shoulders of the Romans. But isn't the Pilate story even more outrageous? Why retain it as evidence of any Roman involvement at all? It is a tenuous link.’ (‘Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition?’).
The Evangelists portray Pilate as something of a wimp, a pushover, eager to placate the Jewish priests.
In truth, Pilate was an arrogant, ruthless despot; described by Philo of Alexandria as ‘naturally inflexible and stubbornly relentless’; a man who committed ‘acts of corruption, insults, rapine, outrages on the people, arrogance, repeated murders of innocent victims, and constant and most galling savagery.’ (‘Legatio ad Gaium’).
Josephus describes Pilate as ‘extremely offensive, cruel and corrupt.’ (Quoted in ‘Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible; David Noel Freedman – editor’).
Josephus records one particular incident, when soldiers – disguised in local dress and armed with daggers – slipped into a crowd of protestors and, on Pilate’s signal, killed a ‘great number’, including innocent bystanders. (‘Antiquities, vol. 18.2’).
When Pilate was finally recalled to Rome (in 36 C.E.) it was not because of any reluctance to kill his master’s enemies. No. It was for the slaughter of a procession of Samaritan pilgrims on their way to the sacred Mount Gerizim. (‘The Trial and Death of Jesus’).
The Evangelists have the Jewish priests waste no time in telling Pilate how to do his job; going so far as to threaten him (John 19:12).
Justice Cohn writes:
‘Any Jew who dared to remind the governor of his duty toward the emperor, or to hint at more fervid patriotism would not be let live another hour.’ (‘The Trial and Death of Jesus’).
Justice Cohn drawers our attention to other flaws in the story:
That the Jews brought Yeshua to Pilate for execution, on the pretext that: ‘It (was) not lawful for (them) to put any man to death” (John 18:31) – this is untrue.
That there was a need to investigate Yeshua’s alleged behaviour (by means of a ‘pre-trial’) before turning him over to the Romans. Cohn notes: ‘There is not a single instance recorded anywhere of the Great or Small Sanhedrin ever acting as an investigatory agent of the Romans.’
That Jews entering the Praetorium would be defiled (John 18:28). Cohn assures us that: ‘Nothing in Jewish law or ritual, however, would support the contention that by entering the king’s – or anybody’s – place or a courtroom a Jew could become unpure.’
By the way, the Sanhedrin would not have asked Pilate to crucify Yeshua. They would have asked for death by stoning, as the Taurat required (‘Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:4h and i’).
Continued:
