User:Atcovi/Islam and Jesus' crucifixion

Introduction
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful

One of the critical differences between the Christians and Muslims, on a theological level, surrounds the crucifixion of Jesus. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) is regarded as an undisputed fact and it remains a pivotal point in Christian creed, as the Christians believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) died on the cross for humanity's sins.

Sam has pointed out that this was his main issue with Islam as the crucifixion of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) is regarded as a historical fact and is the main event that separates Christianity from the other religions. Here, we will dive into this as I, myself, was not very educated on the topic and I found this to be fascinating.

What does the Quran say?
The Holy Qur'an, the last revelation sent out by God (Allah) to the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), is regarded as perfect by Muslims and is required, in order to be considered a Muslim, to believe in every letter of the Qur'an. The rejection of even a letter of the Qur'an puts one out of the pale of Islam and is regarded as a kaafir (disbeliever). So I, of course being a Muslim and a slave of the All-Mighty, believe in the Qur'an 100% with no alterations.

Chapter 4, verse 157
Chapter 4, verse 157 talks about the historic crucifixion of Jesus (peace be upon him):

And because they said, “We have killed the Messiah, Eisa the son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allah”; they did not slay him nor did they crucify him, but a look-alike was created for them, and those who disagree concerning it are in doubt about it; they know nothing of it, except the following of assumptions; and without doubt, they did not kill him. [Ahmed Raza Khan]

Explanations/Elaborations
Tafsir Maarif ul-Quran expands on this verse here.

Some takeaway points:


 * In the present verses (157-158) of Surah al-Nis-a', it has been made explicit that they did not kill nor crucify Sayyidna ` Isa (علیہ السلام) ، rather, what actually happened was that they were deluded by resemblance.
 * The story of the crucifixion: It so transpired that, following the intention of Jews to kill Sayyidna ` Isa (علیہ السلام) his disciples assembled at a given place. Sayyidna ` Isa (علیہ السلام) joined them there. It was Iblis who gave the address of Sayyidna ` Isa (علیہ السلام) to the execution squad standing ready for the mission. Four thousand men surrounded the suspected house. Sayyidna ` Isa (علیہ السلام) said to his disciples : 'Is one of you willing to go out and be killed and then be in Paradise with me?' One of them offered to do so. Sayyidna ` Isa (علیہ السلام) gave him his shirt and head-cover. Then, cast on him was the resemblance of Jesus and as soon as he came out, the Jews, believing him to be Jesus, caught him and crucified him, and Sayyidna ` Isa was lifted. (Qurtubi)

Tafsir Ibn Kathir expands on this verse here, discussing the full story behind the Jews' attempted crucifixion of Jesus (may peace be upon him).

Now, let's look at the other side of the table.

Is the crucifixion a historical fact?
Here are some quotes I've found regarding this:


 * "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts"" - James Dunn, New Testament scholar from the UK
 * "the crucifixion of Jesus is as certain as any historical fact can be" - JD Crossan, Irish NT scholar

...unfortunately, I could not find an athiest historian to confirm that Jesus was crucified - although historians of all religious backgrounds do believe that a man named Jesus did exist, with the minority of followers of the "Christ myth" considered outcasts in the research for this field. Although, worringly, according to a BBC study in 2015 done by the Church of England, 40% of people in England don't believe Jesus was a real figure (not sure where they came up with this). Me and you can 100% agree that Jesus was a real person, but his role is what we differ on.

Christian accounts
The earliest collections about a crucifixion that was tied to Jesus is in the four canonical gospels. Christians claim that John, the author of the book John, was there and was an eyewitness to the death of Jesus (that took place in AD 30 or AD 33 ) [presumably, other than the 4,000 Jews that were present at the crucifixion].

But this is simply, and to a historical point of view, not conceivable. For the following reasons:

Not only is the author of the Gospel of John disputed, but the Gospel itself came decades after the crucifixion.
 * The author of John is not solidified. In fact, it is easier to believe that the Book of John is anonymous and no author has been set in stone (as claims are that it is St. John the Apostle). Although Irenaeus is said to have identified the author as John, son of Zebedee (no, not this guy), there are significant claims rallied against Irenaeus' claim. For example, Cornell PhD professor of religious studies, Stephen L. Harris, stated that "although ancient traditions attributed to the Apostle John the Fourth Gospel, the Book of Revelation, and the three Epistles of John, modern scholars believe that he wrote none of them"undefined. Arguments for this can be seen here and here this discussion requires a whole other lecture. So much controversy surrounds the authorship of the Gospel of John - with such debate over who the author is, how can we rely on this to be historical?
 * The Gospel of John was composed around "90-100 CE", about 50-60 years after the crucifixion event . Therefore, the Gospel of John can only be regarded as a secondary source.
 * In the same reference provided above, Prof. Paula Fredriksen, an American historian of early Christianity, summarizes the Gospels as such: "what they do is proclaim their individual author's interpretation of the Christian message". In speaking of the Gospel of John, it makes sense to me that whoever the author(s) of this Gospel were only speaking of the crucifixion from their point of view/what they have been told/what they have heard of. The Qur'an affirms that the claim of "Jesus being crucified" was spread and believed by the masses (although, with no certain knowledge of the situation), so its not surprising to me that a book, being composed decades later, is re-telling the belief that Jesus was crucified.

In my viewpoint, it actually proves the Qur'an's bold claim that "those who disagree concerning it [the crucifixion] are in doubt about it".

There are so many gray areas concerning the biblical narratives of the event as well, which I will expand on later.

Non-Christian accounts
For such a historic and massive occasion, oddly enough - we do not have any primary sources of the event at hand. A reminder that a primary source is a "raw material of history — original documents and objects that were created at the time under study", whilst a secondary source is an "account that retells, analyzes, or interprets events, usually at a distance of time or place". There is not a single document that describes the crucifixion whilst or right after it was taking place. In fact, here are the three earliest, non-Christian accounts of the crucifixion:

Mara bar Serapion's Letter to his Son (>73 AD)
But the issues with this letter are best summarized by American theologian Robert E. Van Voorst in his book, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence.
 * Mara bar Serapion's letter to his son on Jesus - A Stoic, pagan philosopher named Mara bar Serapion wrote a letter to his son, Serapion, mentioning a "wise King of the Jews" who was "murdered": "Or the Jews by the murder of their Wise King" . Christian scholars have used this letter as proof that Jesus was murdered and that Mara, as a pagan, used the term "King of the Jews" - inciting that this can be used as a non-Christian testimony to the belief that Jesus was murdered on the cross.


 * "Mara's letter is not an independent witness to Jesus, for two main reasons. First, it obviously links the life of 'the wise king' with his movement and it's teachings, making it possible that Mara learned about the wise king from Christians. Second, its assertion that the Jews killed Jesus is dubious at best. [...] In sum, Mara's letter says more about Christianity than it does about Christ" (pg57-58) . Earlier than this quote, Van Voorst has more arguments and extensive analysis of this letter written by Mara - which, conclusively, seems to hold little to no value as it is ambiguious and is of little historical value due to its vagueness and hints of Mara's influence by Christian-Jewish ideologies.

Josephus (93 AD)
Another non-Christian source used by Christians to affirm that a crucifixion of Jesus took place is from the words of Flavius Josephus, a Roman-Jewish historian. The passage used as proof is the following:

''Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. '''He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross''', those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.''

-- The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XVIII, Chapter 3


 * What Josephus does is supporting my belief that Jesus was condemned to the cross... but nothing in this excerpt clearly proves that he died. It doesn't say that "Christ was executed on the cross", but rather he was "condemned", or ruled, to be executed on the cross. Nothing from Josephus directly supports Jesus being crucified on the cross, but instead that he was condemned and sought out for - to this I accept. This letter cannot be used as definite and objective proof, especially when historical studies have found that Josephus' Jewish Antiquities has been tampered with by Christian scribes.

Tacitus (116 AD)
Lastly, we have this piece by Tacitus, one of the greatest Roman historians to have ever existed:

''Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.''

First off, I do believe that this is authentic and Tacitus DID write this piece. But here are the problems with this excerpt:


 * A secondary source writing about the event 50+ years after the fact.
 * The whole excerpt from where this quote originates from Annals, his final book, where Tacitus discusses the Roman empire from AD 14-68 (Tiberius - Nero). Scholars believe he got his sources from the official Roman records (Acta Senatus), so it makes sense to conclude that Tacitus got his information from what he's heard. The idea of Jesus being crucifixed was a popular idea spread about, so Tacitus is simply reporting what he has heard.
 * There is controversy over Tactius' mentioning of Pilatus as a "procurator" when he was a "prefect". Various theories have been posed over this, but it simply shows that Tacitus, although I believe he did write this statement, is not free of mistakes himself and contains a[nother?] clear-cut error in this passage.
 * "suffered the extreme penalty" does not clearly indicate that Jesus died on the cross... it can be interpreted as "condemned", like if someone were to be condemned to the electric chair.

The Bible's Account
Even the Bible itself has differing statements on the crucifixion, including major details that, personally, would surprise me that they exist for a "historical, non-disputable fact".

Seeing these differing accounts, one could argue that this affirms the Quran in that "and those who disagree concerning it are in doubt about it; they know nothing of it, except the following of assumptions". There seems to be conflicting accounts of the event.
 * Did Jesus taste wine mixed with bile? Or did Jesus refuse to drink wine? Or was there no drink even there?
 * Was he crucified at 9 in the morning? Or was he crucified at around noon?
 * Did both rebels mock Jesus? Or did one of the rebels defend Jesus vs. the other rebel mocking him?
 * Was Jesus' last words: "My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?" or "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" ? or "It is finished" after white vinegar was raised to his lips?
 * Only Matthew mentions the earth shaking and rocks splitting apart (earthquake), though this is not mentioned in the other books.

Rebuttals
But here's my personal rebuttals:

Even athiestic historians confirm that Jesus was crucified!
Alright - they may or may not be true [I haven't found an atheistic scholar that confirms this, in fact I've found fringe researches suggesting Jesus never existed], but what value does this hold? These same athiestic historians reject the miracles of Jesus, including him speaking coherently when he was a baby & him healing the man with leprosy. Me and you both 100% believe that Jesus performed supernatural miracles no regular human being can do, but non-Christian [athiestic] historians do not believe in this.

Historians that are not Christian or Muslim and believe that Jesus was crucified only believe in what is appearant and foretold. The Qur'an does not reject that a crucifixion ever took place, it only states clearly that it wasn't Jesus, but someone that appeared to be Jesus was made to be crucified. So it makes sense that people will believe it was Jesus crucified since it was made to appear like so. People spreading the word that Jesus was crucified (as back then, cameras or expert DNA testing did not exist) is the reason why this is considered a "historical fact".

In fact, let me turn it this way:


 * The condemning of Jesus to the cross + a crucifixion taking place is 100% a historical fact, but...
 * Jesus HIMSELF being crucified on the cross is NOT a historical fact, in fact it is dubious and surely a confusing state of affair.

Don’t the Christians have the right to believe in the crucifixion, as they saw it with their own eyes?
- Answered here