Excerpt from Available for purchase here.
.One notable inconsistency in the Quranic narrative concerning Jesus Christ revolves around his fate. The Quran appears to present contradictory accounts regarding whether Jesus died, was resurrected, or ascended to heaven without experiencing death. Chapter 4, “The Women,” verses 157-158 state:
And their saying, ‘Surely we killed the Christ ‘Isā, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.’ And they did not kill him, and they did not crucify him, but it was made to appear to them, and surely those who disagree about him are in doubt of him. They do not have any knowledge of him except following the conjecture, and they did not kill him for certain. Yet Allah raised him up to himself. And Allah was dear, wise.1)The Generous Quran (Trans. Usama Dakdok), Usama Dakdok Publishing, LLC (Venice, FL: 2009), p. 62
This passage explicitly conveys the message that Christ was not killed or crucified; rather, it merely appeared so to those who hold conjectures about Jesus. The narrative asserts that, in reality, Jesus was raised to Allah in heaven—an ascension or, one might say, a rapture similar to the biblical accounts of Enoch and Elijah.2)Josephus also has a tradition of Moses being raptured in Antiquities 4.326.
The Quran’s depiction that Jesus Christ only appeared to be crucified resonates with the Gnostic doctrine of Docetism, which is reflected in various extant Gnostic texts. For instance, a Valentinian text titled “The Second Discourse of Great Seth” asserts:
I was not hurt at all. Though they punished me, I did not die in actuality but only in appearance, that I might not be put to shame by them, as if they are part of me…. I would have become bound by fear, but I suffered only in their eyes and their thought, that nothing may ever be claimed about them. The death they think I suffered they suffered in their error and blindness. They nailed their man to their death. Their thoughts did not perceive me, since they were deaf and blind…. As for me, they saw me and punished me, but someone else, their father, drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They were striking me with a scourge, but some else, Simon, bore the cross on his shoulders. Someone else wore the crown of thorns. And I was on high, poking fun at all the excesses of the rulers and the fruit of their error and conceit. I was laughing at their ignorance.3)“The Second Discourse of Great Seth” (55,9-56,20); in The Nag Hammadi Scriptures: The Revised and Updated Translation of Scared Gnostic Texts, (ed. Marvin Meyer), HarperOne (New York, NY: 2007), p. 480.
Moreover, the same text later recounts, “They bound this one with many bonds and nailed him to the cross, and they secured him with four bronze nails.”4)“The Second Discourse of Great Seth” (58,13-59,19); in The Nag Hammadi Scriptures: The Revised and Updated Translation of Scared Gnostic Texts, (ed. Marvin Meyer), HarperOne (New York, NY: 2007), p. 481.
Another Gnostic text, “The Revelation of Peter,” similarly portrays the notion of a mere “appearance” of suffering:
When he said this, I saw him apparently being arrested by them. I said, “What do I see, Lord? Is it really you they are seizing, and are you holding on to me? And who is the one smiling and laughing above the cross? Is it someone else whose feet and hands they are hammering?”
The Savior said to me, “The one you see smiling and laughing above the cross is the living Jesus. The one into whose hands and feet they are driving nails is his fleshly part, the substitute for him. They are putting to shame the one who came into being in the likeness of the living Jesus. Look at him and look at me.”
When I looked, I said, “Lord, no one sees you. Let’s get out of here.”
He answered me, “I told you they are blind. Forget about them. Look at how they do not know what they are saying. For they have put to shame the son of their own glory instead of the one who serves me.”5)“The Revelation of Peter” (81,3-82,3); in The Nag Hammadi Scriptures: The Revised and Updated Translation of Scared Gnostic Texts, (ed. Marvin Meyer), HarperOne (New York, NY: 2007), pp. 495-496.
Moreover, this text further states:
When the one who glorifies was revealed, I myself saw him.
He said to me, “Be strong, for these mysteries have been given to you so that you might know clearly that the one they crucified is the firstborn, the abode of demons, the stone vessel in which they live, the man of Elohim, the man of the cross, who is under the law. But the one who is standing near him is the living Savior, who was in him at first and was arrested but was set free. He is standing and observing with pleasure that those who did evil to him are divided among themselves. And he is laughing at their lack of perception, knowing that they were born blind. The one capable of suffering must remain, since the body is the substitute, but what was set free was my bodiless body. I am the spirit of thought filled with radiant light. The one you saw approaching me is our fullness of thought, which unites the perfect light with my holy spirit.6)“The Revelation of Peter” (82,3-83,15); in The Nag Hammadi Scriptures: The Revised and Updated Translation of Scared Gnostic Texts, (ed. Marvin Meyer), HarperOne (New York, NY: 2007), p.496.
The church father Irenaeus, in his treatise Against Heresies, critically engaged with the tenets of Gnosticism, specifically addressing this aspect within the broader framework of his argument. He writes, “Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them.”7)Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.24.4; in The Ante-Nicene Father (ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson), Hendrickson Publishers (Peabody, MA: 2012), Vol. 1, p. 349. The Gnostics were among the earliest to repudiate the historical reality of Jesus Christ’s death, and it appears that Mohammed embraced this heretical belief, thus aligning with the denial of historical truth.
Examining Quranic Interpretations: Denying the Historical Death of Jesus Christ
The Quranic passage in Surah 4:157, asserting “And they did not kill him, and they did not crucify him, but it was made to appear to them… and they did not kill him for certain,” not only reflects Gnostic theological perspectives but also constitutes a rejection of a widely attested historical event. This narrative departure is significant, as it diverges from the consensus of historical accounts regarding the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
The earliest extant records acknowledging Christ’s death are found in the Gospels of the New Testament, believed to have been composed in the early 40s A.D.,8)
On the subject of dating the Gospels, Jonathan Bernier’s comprehensive analysis in Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament: The Evidence for Early Composition, Baker Academics (Grand Rapids, MI: 2022). While the precise dating of the individual texts constituting the New Testament has been a subject of scholarly debate for centuries, Bernier presents compelling arguments. He suggests that the Gospel of Mark was likely composed between A.D. 42-45 (p. 77), while Matthew’s Gospel could have been written as early as A.D. 45, with the latest possible date extending to A.D. 59 (pp. 80-84).
While I personally advocate for Matthaean priority based on our earliest extant historical sources and internal evidence, a thorough discussion of this position would exceed the scope of this discussion. a mere decade following the events they describe. Among these, Matthew’s Gospel stands out, particularly addressing a Jewish audience in Israel who likely had direct exposure to eyewitnesses of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection.
Paul’s earliest epistle, 1 Thessalonians, likely composed between A.D. 50-52, contains numerous references to Christ’s death and resurrection.9)See 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 4:14; 5:9-10. Moreover, Paul’s discourse in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 is widely recognized by scholars as conveying a tradition that predates his own writing, enjoying a near-universal consensus in academic circles. This tradition likely reflects the teachings of the Jerusalem disciples, formulated within 3-8 years following Christ’s death and resurrection.
The entirety of the New Testament should be situated within the confines of the first century, replete with references to Christ’s death, thus firmly establishing it as a historical event.10)Matthew 27:35-50; Mark 15:24-37; Luke 23:33-46; John 19:16-37; Acts 2:23-24, 36; 3:15; 4:2, 10; 5:30; 13:28-31, 34-37; Romans 1:4; 4:24; 5:6, 8; 6:3-10; 7:4; 8:11, 34; 10:9; 11:26; 14:9; 1 Corinthians 1:17-18, 23; 2:2, 8; 8:11; 15:3, 12-16, 20; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15; 13:4; Galatians 1:1; 2:20-21; 3:1; 6:12, 14; Ephesians 1:20; 2:16; Philippians 2:8; 3:10, 18; Colossians 1:18, 20; 2:12, 14, 20; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 4:14; 5:9-10; 2 Timothy 2:8, 11; Hebrews 2:9, 14; 9:15-10:14; 12:2; 13:20; 1 Peter 1:3, 21: 2:24; 3:18; Revelations 1:18. This is by no means an exhaustive list of passages identifying Christ’s death in the New Testament. To dismiss this wealth of early and well-established historical evidence in favor of Mohammed’s denial, which occurred six centuries subsequent to these events, particularly in light of his potential influence from Gnosticism, would be considered a scholarly misstep.
Moreover, testimonies from hostile witnesses are often accorded greater credibility than those from biased sources. Josephus, a Jewish author writing in the first century, though not sympathetic to Christianity, acknowledges that Christ was “condemned to the cross” by Pilate.11)Josephus, Antiquities 18.64; in The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded edition by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 590. Tacitus, a Roman historian, attests that Christ “suffered the extreme penalty,”12)Tacitus, Annals 15.44; in Complete Works of Tacitus (Trans Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodibb, ed. Moses Hadas) Random House, (New York, NY: 1942), p. 380. a phrase understood within the context of the early Roman Empire to refer to crucifixion. Additionally, Mara bar Serapion, a Syriac author writing sometime after A.D. 73, mentions that “the Jews killed their wise king.”13)See comments in Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (Grand Rapids, MI: 2000), pp. 53-58. Lucian, who lived around A.D. 115-200, refers to Christ as “that crucified sophist.”14)See comments in Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (Grand Rapids, MI: 2000), pp. 58-64. Even the Babylonian Talmud admits that the Jewish nation “hanged” Jesus,15)Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a; see comments in Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (Grand Rapids, MI: 2000), pp. 114, 118-119. employing a common Hebrew expression that would have been translated as “crucified” in the Septuagint.16)Gunnar Samuelsson contends that the terminology for crucifixion was originally used in a broader sense, encompassing various methods of “suspension” such as hanging, impaling, and crucifixion itself. It was only after Christ’s crucifixion that the Greek terminology became closely associated with this specific form of execution. This suggests a widespread understanding in antiquity that Christ died by crucifixion, as his death played a significant role in refining the meaning of the term to denote crucifixion specifically, rather than a more general “suspension” method of death. For further exploration of this topic, refer to Gunnar Samuelsson, Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background and Significance of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion, Mohr Siebeck (Tübingen, Germany: 2011).
Contemporary historians widely concur on this matter, with virtually unanimous consensus that Christ’s death occurred through crucifixion. Even scholars skeptical of the Gospel accounts, such as atheist Gerd Lüdemann, acknowledge the historical certainty of Jesus’ crucifixion. Lüdemann himself concedes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable.”17)Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry, Prometheus (Amherst, NY: 2004), p. 50. Similarly, Michael Grant, a notable author, affirms that “Pilate condemned him to the Romans penalty of crucifixion.”18)Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels, Charles Scribner’s Sons (New York, NY: 1977), p. 175. Even John Dominic Crossan, known for his critical stance on biblical narratives, unequivocally rejects “the slightest doubt about the fact of Jesus’ crucifixion under Pontius Pilate.”19)John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, HarperCollins (New York, NY: 1991), p. 375. He further emphasizes the certainty “about the fact of the crucifixion…” with his inclusion of italics in both quotes. Numerous other historians echo these sentiments, further solidifying the historical veracity of this event.20)See, especially Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: a New Historiographical Approach, IVP Academic (Downer Grove, IL: 2010), pp. 302-318, provides significant insight with extensive citations. Licona regards Christ’s death by crucifixion as a fundamental historical “bedrock” fact.
Another historical datum incongruous with the purported denial of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection is the anomaly of an empty tomb.21)On the empty tomb, refer to Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: a New Historiographical Approach, IVP Academic (Downer Grove, IL: 2010), pp. 183-184, 461-463, 470, 629-632; N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 3, Fortress Press (Minneapolis, MN: 2003), pp. 686-696; J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, Baker Book House (Grand Rapids, MI: 1987), pp. 160-172. While the absence of a body alone does not substantiate the resurrection without accompanying appearances of the risen Christ, the historical fact of the empty tomb would be untenable if someone else had been crucified in Christ’s place, as the Quran suggests. Jewish scholar Geza Vermes depicts the empty tomb as “the only conclusion acceptable to the historian[.]”22)Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels, Fortress Press (Philadelphia, PA: 1981), p. 41. Michael Grant stated, “the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty.”23)Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels, Charles Scribner’s Sons (New York, NY: 1977), p. 176.
The earliest historical rejection of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion, as previously noted, originated from specific branches of Gnosticism. What complicates the Quranic account is its alignment with the Gnostic narrative, particularly the doctrine of docetism. Docetism emerged within certain Gnostic sects due to their belief in Christ as a divine being, leading them to reject the notion of his assuming a material body. Harold Brown posits that “Gnosticism produced docetism because it considered it intolerable to think that a pure spiritual being, Christ, could suffer as a man. Hence he must have been human in appearance only.”24)Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church, Hendrickson Publishers, (Peabody, MA: 1984, 1988), p. 52.
The Quran’s portrayal of Christ reflects the conclusion of docetism (i.e., that Christ was not crucified) while diverging from the underlying rationale behind it. Moreover, Gnosticism’s acceptance of Christ’s deity stemmed from its polytheistic orientation, a factor that complicates the monotheistic theology presented in the Quran (despite the Quranic mention of Allah having daughters). Adding to the complexity, the Quran denies Christ’s death but paradoxically affirms his demise and subsequent resurrection, leading to an apparent contradiction.
Available for purchase here.
.References