This is one of the most controversial passages in the Quran. I am going to be very thorough here, since this is such an important passage.
Verses 153-154 describe a demand of the Jews in the time of Moses: they wanted Allah to cause a book to descend to them from heaven. There is nothing in the Scriptures to support this; it looks like Muhammad, in his desire to appear to be a prophet, invented a scenario for Moses which resembled Muhammads own situation. Except for this new feature, the text here basically echoes 2:55, 2:58, and 2:63.
Verse 155 continues to describe the Jews: they rejected Allahs signs, they killed the prophets, and they said, "Our hearts are wrapped" and so Allah "has set a seal upon their hearts because of their disbelief." (This phrase superficially resembles Song of Songs 8:6, where it is said, "Set me as a seal upon your heart;" in the Song of Songs this is a good thing but in the Quran the "seal" represents Allahs disfavor.) Once again, the text claims that individuals who died long ago did things which are similar to the deeds of some individuals encountered by Muhammad.
There is a strange hadith associated with verses 154-155: In Sahih-Bukhari, Vol. 4, #615, Abu Hurairah said that Muhammad said that Bani Israel (i.e., the children of Israel, the Israelites) were told, "Enter the gate (of the town) bowing with humility and say Repentance," but they changed the word and entered the town crawling on their buttocks and said, 'A wheat grain in the hair.'
In this hadith, the part about entering a town orbits 4:154 (which echoes 2:58), where the town is clearly one of the cities of Canaan-land (the Hilali-Khan translation has "Jerusalem" in parentheses but Jericho is historically less problematic), and the setting is in the days of Moses and Joshua. However, theres nothing in Scripture to support the scenario described in the hadith; the Jews entered Jericho in a military onslaught, and later (in the days of David) they similarly conquered the fortress at Jerusalem.
There is no evidence in Scripture that the Jews ever entered a town as Muhammad described in this hadith. However, there /is/ evidence that the Jews who interacted with Muhammad mocked his instructions by slightly mispronouncing some words. This hadith, like the contents of v. 154, could support a case that Muhammad occasionally employed a strategy of inventing a precedent when he wanted to reinforce his teachings.
In v. 156, the Jews are reprimanded for another offense: uttering a grave false charge against Mary. There is no mention of this in the Bible. In the Protevangelium of James, though (in ch. 15-16, which can be read at www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf08-67.htm ), there is a description of such an incident. It hardly seems fitting to take the entire Jewish nation to task for the understandable assumption of a few people (as related in the Protevangelium of James) that Mary had committed fornication. This, too, had a parallel in the lifetime of Muhammad, when his wife 'Aisha was under suspicion of this very crime. (More on that later, God willing.)
The controversial part about Jesus begins in v. 157. But first I want to emphasize that point about Invented Precedent. In the Bible, the Jews did not demand that Moses cause a book to descend from heaven. But the Jews made that demand of Muhammad. In the Bible, the Jews did not say that their hearts were wrapped (though an observation to that effect was made about them, in Isaiah 44:18). But the Jews, it seems, said that to Muhammad. In the Bible, the Jews did not accuse Mary of fornication. But on one occasion, some people suspected 'Aisha of fornication. Theres a pattern here: events in the lifetime of Muhammad are being transported to the lifetimes of prophets who came before him. Consider that as we examine v. 157 and some events at the Battle of Uhud.
At the Battle of Uhud, the Meccans thought that they had killed Muhammad. An account of this battle, from an Islamic point of view (based in part on various hadiths, not all of which are reliable), may be read at alislaah3.tripod.com/alislaah/id8.html . According to the Islamic report, during the battle Muhammad was wounded; two of his front teeth were lost. As Muhammad was recovering from his wound, fellow-soldiers positioned themselves around him to protect him. Ten Muslims were killed protecting Muhammad. Some of the Meccans (and some Muslims) thought that Muhammad had been killed. But Muhammad had not been killed. The Meccans had killed other men, and mistakenly thought that they had killed Muhammad. But as it turned out, Muhammad survived, recovered, and proceeded to reorganize his army.
Now lets turn to verse 157. Im going to use the Hilali-Khan translation, even though it is heavily tinged:
"And because of their saying (in boast), We killed Messiah Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah, but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Isa was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e., Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)."
Taking this translation as it stands, it says that the Jews thought they had killed Jesus, but had actually killed someone else. This fits the pattern of *Invented Precedent* -- similarly at the Battle of Uhud, the Meccans thought they had killed Muhammad, but had actually killed someone else. It also resembles, vaguely, something found in a Gnostic text known as the Second Treatise of the Great Seth, one of the Nag Hammadi texts discovered in 1945. The relevant portion of this little-known text can be read at www.pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepigrapha/2seth.html (in the ninth paragraph). It describes the crucifixion from the perspective of the Logos. It says that at the crucifixion, it only looked like Jesus was crucified. It says that the Jews senses were deceived, and it was another man ("their father") who drank the gall and the vinegar, not Jesus, while Jesus Himself was rejoicing in the heights, laughing at their ignorance.
The Second Treatise of the Great Seth is not easily decipherable. The Coptic Apocalypse of Peter (not to be confused with the similarly-titled Apocalypse of Peter), which can be read at www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apopet.html , contains similar material and is somewhat less opaque. This text alleges to be Peters account of his reception of secret knowledge given to him by Christ. Toward the end of the text, the lesson is interrupted. You can use the link to read a formal translation of the text; here is a paraphrased selection:
"When Christ had said these things [in Gethsemane], suddenly He was seized by His enemies or so it appeared.
I said, What is this I see, O Lord? They are taking you away and yet, here you are grasping me!
[And as events unfolded] I said, Who is that man, laughing on the tree?
[And I asked] They are hitting someones feet and hands. Is that the same man?
Then the Savior said to me, The man on the tree, laughing, is the living Jesus. The one whose hands and feet they strike is Jesus fleshly part the substitute, being put to shame. The substitute came into being, in the likeness of Jesus. But as you can see, he is there and I am here.
I looked, and said, Lord, no one is noticing you. Lets leave.
He replied, Like I told you before, Leave the blind alone. Observe how they do not know what they are saying. They have not put my servant to shame; they have shamed the son of their glory.
Then I saw someone the one who was laughing on the tree about to approach us. He was the Savior, filled with Holy Spirit. He shone with a powerful light, and a multitude of angels were blessing them. When I looked at him, the Praise-giver was revealed.
He said to me, be strong, for you have been given secret knowledge. The crucified one is the First-born, and the home of demons . . . . . The one who stands near him is the living Savior, the First in him. They seized him and released him, so he stands joyfully looking at his enemies, as they dispute with one another. He laughs at their ignorance, knowing that they were born blind.
So the one who can suffer shall come; the body is the Substitute. But they released my incorporeal body."
Both the Second Treatise of the Great Seth and the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter seem descended from a Gnostic school of thought that originated with Basilides, in the second century. Irenaeus (Christian bishop of Lyons), in "Against Heresies" Book One, chapter 24, helpfully described the teachings of Basilides in about A.D. 180. (His comments can be read online at www.ccel.org/fathers/ANF-01/iren/iren1.html .) Irenaeus said that Basilides taught that the physical world was formed by angels, one of whom masqueraded as God in the Old Testament. Basilides identified Christ as the Mind of the true God. Irenaeus writes, describing the teachings of Basilides: "The unbegotten and unnamed Father, perceiving that they [i.e., the Jewish nation, misled by the masquerading angel] would be destroyed, sent His own first-begotten Mind who is called Christ to grant deliverance to those who believe in him, from the power of those [angels] who made the world. He appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers [the powers = the angels who formed the physical world], and wrought miracles. 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. Meanwhile, Jesus Himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them. As an incorporeal power, being the Mind of the unborn Father, He transfigured Himself as He pleased, and thus ascended to Him who had sent Him, deriding them, inasmuch as He could not be laid hold of, and was invisible to all."
It seems likely that Basilides concept of Christ as the incorporeal Mind of God survived into the era of Muhammad, having been adopted and adjusted by Gnostics in Egypt, and by Manichaeans elsewhere. (To read a Manichaean statement about the crucifixion, read the page from Tisdalls book at www.muhammadanism.org/Tisdall/sources_quran/p184.htm .) It would not be surprising if an Arabian caravan-driver in the early 600s in Arabia encountered someone with this sort of view about Jesus crucifixion. Nor would it be surprising if such a person failed to grasp that Basilidean/Gnostic/Manichaean theology taught that the deity who gave the Law to Moses was merely a masquerading angel, and that Jesus was not born of Mary, and that Jesus was not truly physical.
There appears to be a fairly good basis for asserting that Muhammad derived his view of the crucifixion from pseudo-Christians in Arabia who promulgated Gnosticism or Manichaeanism. The pseudo-Christians had gotten the idea from Basilides, who concocted it as part of an elaborate Gnostic-View-of-the-Universe which denied a wide variety of points which the Bible and the Quran affirm. Verses 153-156 indicate that Muhammad wanted to appear comparable to the prophets by claiming that his experiences were comparable to theirs. After the Battle of Uhud, when looking for something in the careers of previous prophets that would resemble his own brush with death, Muhammad may have found just what he was looking for in a recollection of the Gnostic-Manichaean presentation of the crucifixion.
On the other hand, another approach to this text is feasible. Verse 157 has been translated in quite different ways. (A short article at www.mostmerciful.com/editing.htm discusses this.) The Ahmadiyya cult asserts that the Quran means that Jesus did not die on the cross, but merely swooned away, and was revived by Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, and went on to live a long life until he died in Kashmir! One of their websites features a list of citations of various pieces of evidence which are pertinent to the question of the meaning of 4:157 (it can be accessed at www.muslim.org/islam/deathofj.htm and www.muslim.org/islam/deathj-h.htm but also consider the anti-Ahmadiyya material at www.allaahuakbar.net/qadianism/index.htm ). Their view is rejected by the major Muslim denominations, but even among Sunni and Shiite Muslims, there is a question about exactly what happened at Calvary: many Muslims insist that Jesus did not die and was not crucified, and was taken up to heaven; however there is disagreement about who /was/ crucified: some say it was Simon of Cyrene; others echoing the Gospel of Barnabas forgery say that it was Judas; still others are content only to say that Jesus soul was taken before his body was crucified.
And many Muslims have said that Jesus *did* die. How can such a view be held in light of v. 157s explicit statement that the Jews did not kill Jesus? The answer has something to do with the fluidity of the Arabic of v. 157. Where it says, in the Hilali-Khan translation,
they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Isa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), the phrase can also be rendered as follows:
Sale: "They slew him not, neither crucified him, but he was represented by one in his likeness."
Rodwell: "They slew him not, and they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness." (With an extensive footnote which begins, "Lit, one was made to appear to them like (Jesus),")
Pickthal: "They slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them."
Shakir: "They did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa)."
Yusuf Ali: "They killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them."
Khalifa (from www.submission.org ) "They never killed him, they never crucified him - they were made to think that they did."
Another translation could say, "They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, although it looked to them like they crucified him." If that is the basic meaning of this phrase (and if the rendering of the Hilali-Khan translation is an inaccurate rendering that is the result of someones acceptance of the "Gospel of Barnabas"), then it can be easily harmonized with the New Testament account of the crucifixion.
A Christian can agree that from a certain perspective, the Jews did not kill Jesus. Jesus Himself said, in John 10:18. "No man takes it [His life] from Me; I lay it down at my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again. This command I received from My Father." And, in John 18:31, the Jewish leaders plainly admit that under the Romans, they had no authority to kill or crucify anyone. It was Pilate (a Gentile, not a Jew) who issued the command to crucify Jesus, and it was Roman soldiers (not Jews) who carried out Pilates command. Moreover, the New Testament teaches that each component in the scenario the Jewish leaders, Pilate, the soldiers was part of Gods plan.
So, verse 157 does not have to be interpreted to mean that Jesus was never crucified and never died. It may be taken to mean that the individuals who actually crucified and killed Jesus were Romans, not Jews, and that the Jewish leaders plot against Jesus was a component of a greater plan which God Himself had planned. This interpretation of v. 157 interlocks easily with the statements in the New Testament about Jesus death. It also interlocks with the Qurans statement, in 3:55, in which Allah is depicted telling Jesus "I will take you and raise you to myself," using a term (tawaffa) that is capable of meaning "I will cause you to die" (and is so translated by Rodwell).
Also, if one replaces the word "kill" in v. 157 with the phrase "put an end to," the resultant text, again, harmonizes with the record of the New Testament: the Jews did not put an end to Jesus, because Jesus proceeded to rise from the dead. The New Testament states that after Jesus rose from the dead, He appeared to His disciples over the course of 40 days, and then ascended to heaven. This is easy to harmonize with the contents of 19:33, which presents Jesus (as an infant) saying, "Peace be upon me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive." (This resembles 19:15, where Gabriel is said to have said something similar about John the Baptist, who was killed during Jesus earthly ministry.)
On to verse 158. It says that Allah "raised up" (rafaa) Jesus to Himself. Muslims who insist on adhering to the "Gospel of Barnabas" (which can be read online, and is critiqued at answering-islam.org.uk/Gilchrist/Challenge/chap6.html ) interpret this to mean that Allahs angels snatched away Jesus and made Judas look like Jesus right before the Roman soldiers arrived to carry him off to trial. Others interpret it to mean that Jesus soul was taken, and transported to heaven, at some point prior to the crucifixion (leaving it an open question as to what happened next on Calvary). However, without any adjustments whatsoever (since the text says nothing about the timing of the raising up of Jesus) it is in harmony with the Biblical account of Jesus ascension to heaven at the Mount of Olives, 40 days after the resurrection.
Finally, verse 159 says that "There shall not be one of the people of the Book but shall believe in him before his death, and in the day of resurrection, he will be a witness against them." There is disagreement and indecision about the meaning of this verse (see the conservative Islamic comments at www.abc.se/~m9783/fiqhi/fiqha_e80.html for a review of some interpretations. Another nice, though somewhat length, discussion from an Islamic perspective is at www.islamicperspectives.com/ReturnOfJesus.htm ).
One interpretation is that all Jews and Christians will believe in Jesus before they die. The problem with this is that it is manifestly untrue in regard to the Jews, and superfluous in regard to the Christians. Another interpretation is along the following lines:
(1) Jesus never died on the cross; he was taken up to heaven before the Roman soldiers arrived to arrest him.
(2) Before Judgment Day, Jesus will descend to earth, endorse Islam, kill Al-Dajjal (the Anti-Christ; more about that later, God willing), and perform various other acts, and then die.
(3) All Jews and Christians will then believe that Jesus is only a messenger of Allah.
The main basis for this interpretation is not in the Quran, but in a Hadith: in Bukhari (3:425) and in Sahih-Muslim (1:p. 255), Muhammad is said to have said, "By him in whose hands my soul is, the son of Mary will descend amongst you shortly as a just ruler and will break the cross and kill the pig and abolish the jizyah-tax. Wealth will flow, so that nobody will accept gifts of charity."
Muslims who view this hadith as authentic embrace a theory of eschatology in which Jesus' death is yet to occur. It is expected to happen in the future, just before Judgment Day. So they interpret 4:159 so as to fit into a future scenario just before Judgment Day in which there will be a conversion of all Jews and all Christians to Islam, led in person by Jesus, who will die then.
The concept of the Messiah dying after He comes in the last days is not an original Islamic idea. It is enunciated in the Apocalypse of Ezra. This text is better known as chapters 3-14 in the apocryphal book of Second Esdras. It is also known as Fourth Esdras. (For an introduction, with links to English translations of the text, see www.earlyjewishwritings.com/2esdras.html .) It is a Jewish composition from about the end of the first century. Its easy for modern readers to assume that the writer identified Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, but that is not a given (though later Christian copyists of the text may have expanded or replaced parts of the text to favor their own beliefs).
In the Apocalypse of Ezra 7:28-33, God is said to say that in the last days, "My son Christ [Jesus in the KJV] shall be revealed with those who are with him, and those who remain shall rejoice four hundred years. After these years my son Christ shall die, and all who draw human breath. The world shall be turned back to silence for seven days, as it was at the first beginnings; so that no one will remain. And after seven days, the world, which is not yet awake, shall be roused, and that which is corruptible shall perish. And the earth shall give up those who are asleep in it . . . and the Most High shall be revealed upon the seat of judgment."
Two things are notable here: first, the Apocalypse of Ezra states that Judgment Day will be preceded by the return of Christ, who will die. Second, after His death and the death of everyone else, there will be seven days of silence, followed by the resurrection of those who died. Lets put that second point aside for the time being; I hope to return to it later.
The period of the reign of Christ after his return is known in some Christian schools of thought as the Millennium, a period lasting 1000 years, as described in Revelation 20:4-6 (though it is an open question whether these years should be interpreted literally or figuratively). The number 400 in the Apocalypse of Ezra is probably based on an eschatologically focused interpretation of Psalm 90:15 and Genesis 15:13.
Was this text known in Arabia in the early 600s? At www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T3186 an International Standard Bible Encyclopedia article about this book states, "There are Syriac (Peshitta), Ethiopic, Arabic, Armenian and yet other VSS [i.e., Versions] but all depend on the lost Greek except one of the two extant Arabic translations. The number and variety of versions show that 2 Esdras was widely circulated."
The material in this passage of the Quran which states, or seem to state, that (1) the Jews did not kill or crucify Jesus, (2) another man was crucified in Jesus place, (3) Allah took Jesus up to heaven at some point before the crucifixion, and (4) Jesus will return in the last days, at which time he will die, did not originate with Muhammad. Each of these teachings had been taught previously in sources which could have influenced Muhammad.
As I mentioned already, one does not have to insist on interpreting this passage to mean all four of those things. It is possible to interpret verses 157-158 to mean simply that the Romans, not the Jews, crucified Jesus, and that Allah raised Jesus up, as the New Testament says, after Jesus died on the cross. And it is conceivable that in v. 159, the People of the Book in view are only Christians, not Jews, in which case it goes without saying that they will believe on Jesus before they die.
However, I think that the following scenario is more likely: Muhammad, after his experience at Uhud, wanted to reinforce his claims of authentic prophethood by citing similar incidences in the lives of earlier prophets. He adopted the Basilidean-Gnostic-Manichaean Substitute-Crucifixion story merely because it served his purpose, and abbreviated it so as to include /only/ the part of the story which served that purpose.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
Verses 153-154 describe a demand of the Jews in the time of Moses: they wanted Allah to cause a book to descend to them from heaven. There is nothing in the Scriptures to support this; it looks like Muhammad, in his desire to appear to be a prophet, invented a scenario for Moses which resembled Muhammads own situation. Except for this new feature, the text here basically echoes 2:55, 2:58, and 2:63.
Verse 155 continues to describe the Jews: they rejected Allahs signs, they killed the prophets, and they said, "Our hearts are wrapped" and so Allah "has set a seal upon their hearts because of their disbelief." (This phrase superficially resembles Song of Songs 8:6, where it is said, "Set me as a seal upon your heart;" in the Song of Songs this is a good thing but in the Quran the "seal" represents Allahs disfavor.) Once again, the text claims that individuals who died long ago did things which are similar to the deeds of some individuals encountered by Muhammad.
There is a strange hadith associated with verses 154-155: In Sahih-Bukhari, Vol. 4, #615, Abu Hurairah said that Muhammad said that Bani Israel (i.e., the children of Israel, the Israelites) were told, "Enter the gate (of the town) bowing with humility and say Repentance," but they changed the word and entered the town crawling on their buttocks and said, 'A wheat grain in the hair.'
In this hadith, the part about entering a town orbits 4:154 (which echoes 2:58), where the town is clearly one of the cities of Canaan-land (the Hilali-Khan translation has "Jerusalem" in parentheses but Jericho is historically less problematic), and the setting is in the days of Moses and Joshua. However, theres nothing in Scripture to support the scenario described in the hadith; the Jews entered Jericho in a military onslaught, and later (in the days of David) they similarly conquered the fortress at Jerusalem.
There is no evidence in Scripture that the Jews ever entered a town as Muhammad described in this hadith. However, there /is/ evidence that the Jews who interacted with Muhammad mocked his instructions by slightly mispronouncing some words. This hadith, like the contents of v. 154, could support a case that Muhammad occasionally employed a strategy of inventing a precedent when he wanted to reinforce his teachings.
In v. 156, the Jews are reprimanded for another offense: uttering a grave false charge against Mary. There is no mention of this in the Bible. In the Protevangelium of James, though (in ch. 15-16, which can be read at www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf08-67.htm ), there is a description of such an incident. It hardly seems fitting to take the entire Jewish nation to task for the understandable assumption of a few people (as related in the Protevangelium of James) that Mary had committed fornication. This, too, had a parallel in the lifetime of Muhammad, when his wife 'Aisha was under suspicion of this very crime. (More on that later, God willing.)
The controversial part about Jesus begins in v. 157. But first I want to emphasize that point about Invented Precedent. In the Bible, the Jews did not demand that Moses cause a book to descend from heaven. But the Jews made that demand of Muhammad. In the Bible, the Jews did not say that their hearts were wrapped (though an observation to that effect was made about them, in Isaiah 44:18). But the Jews, it seems, said that to Muhammad. In the Bible, the Jews did not accuse Mary of fornication. But on one occasion, some people suspected 'Aisha of fornication. Theres a pattern here: events in the lifetime of Muhammad are being transported to the lifetimes of prophets who came before him. Consider that as we examine v. 157 and some events at the Battle of Uhud.
At the Battle of Uhud, the Meccans thought that they had killed Muhammad. An account of this battle, from an Islamic point of view (based in part on various hadiths, not all of which are reliable), may be read at alislaah3.tripod.com/alislaah/id8.html . According to the Islamic report, during the battle Muhammad was wounded; two of his front teeth were lost. As Muhammad was recovering from his wound, fellow-soldiers positioned themselves around him to protect him. Ten Muslims were killed protecting Muhammad. Some of the Meccans (and some Muslims) thought that Muhammad had been killed. But Muhammad had not been killed. The Meccans had killed other men, and mistakenly thought that they had killed Muhammad. But as it turned out, Muhammad survived, recovered, and proceeded to reorganize his army.
Now lets turn to verse 157. Im going to use the Hilali-Khan translation, even though it is heavily tinged:
"And because of their saying (in boast), We killed Messiah Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah, but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Isa was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e., Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)."
Taking this translation as it stands, it says that the Jews thought they had killed Jesus, but had actually killed someone else. This fits the pattern of *Invented Precedent* -- similarly at the Battle of Uhud, the Meccans thought they had killed Muhammad, but had actually killed someone else. It also resembles, vaguely, something found in a Gnostic text known as the Second Treatise of the Great Seth, one of the Nag Hammadi texts discovered in 1945. The relevant portion of this little-known text can be read at www.pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepigrapha/2seth.html (in the ninth paragraph). It describes the crucifixion from the perspective of the Logos. It says that at the crucifixion, it only looked like Jesus was crucified. It says that the Jews senses were deceived, and it was another man ("their father") who drank the gall and the vinegar, not Jesus, while Jesus Himself was rejoicing in the heights, laughing at their ignorance.
The Second Treatise of the Great Seth is not easily decipherable. The Coptic Apocalypse of Peter (not to be confused with the similarly-titled Apocalypse of Peter), which can be read at www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apopet.html , contains similar material and is somewhat less opaque. This text alleges to be Peters account of his reception of secret knowledge given to him by Christ. Toward the end of the text, the lesson is interrupted. You can use the link to read a formal translation of the text; here is a paraphrased selection:
"When Christ had said these things [in Gethsemane], suddenly He was seized by His enemies or so it appeared.
I said, What is this I see, O Lord? They are taking you away and yet, here you are grasping me!
[And as events unfolded] I said, Who is that man, laughing on the tree?
[And I asked] They are hitting someones feet and hands. Is that the same man?
Then the Savior said to me, The man on the tree, laughing, is the living Jesus. The one whose hands and feet they strike is Jesus fleshly part the substitute, being put to shame. The substitute came into being, in the likeness of Jesus. But as you can see, he is there and I am here.
I looked, and said, Lord, no one is noticing you. Lets leave.
He replied, Like I told you before, Leave the blind alone. Observe how they do not know what they are saying. They have not put my servant to shame; they have shamed the son of their glory.
Then I saw someone the one who was laughing on the tree about to approach us. He was the Savior, filled with Holy Spirit. He shone with a powerful light, and a multitude of angels were blessing them. When I looked at him, the Praise-giver was revealed.
He said to me, be strong, for you have been given secret knowledge. The crucified one is the First-born, and the home of demons . . . . . The one who stands near him is the living Savior, the First in him. They seized him and released him, so he stands joyfully looking at his enemies, as they dispute with one another. He laughs at their ignorance, knowing that they were born blind.
So the one who can suffer shall come; the body is the Substitute. But they released my incorporeal body."
Both the Second Treatise of the Great Seth and the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter seem descended from a Gnostic school of thought that originated with Basilides, in the second century. Irenaeus (Christian bishop of Lyons), in "Against Heresies" Book One, chapter 24, helpfully described the teachings of Basilides in about A.D. 180. (His comments can be read online at www.ccel.org/fathers/ANF-01/iren/iren1.html .) Irenaeus said that Basilides taught that the physical world was formed by angels, one of whom masqueraded as God in the Old Testament. Basilides identified Christ as the Mind of the true God. Irenaeus writes, describing the teachings of Basilides: "The unbegotten and unnamed Father, perceiving that they [i.e., the Jewish nation, misled by the masquerading angel] would be destroyed, sent His own first-begotten Mind who is called Christ to grant deliverance to those who believe in him, from the power of those [angels] who made the world. He appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers [the powers = the angels who formed the physical world], and wrought miracles. 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. Meanwhile, Jesus Himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them. As an incorporeal power, being the Mind of the unborn Father, He transfigured Himself as He pleased, and thus ascended to Him who had sent Him, deriding them, inasmuch as He could not be laid hold of, and was invisible to all."
It seems likely that Basilides concept of Christ as the incorporeal Mind of God survived into the era of Muhammad, having been adopted and adjusted by Gnostics in Egypt, and by Manichaeans elsewhere. (To read a Manichaean statement about the crucifixion, read the page from Tisdalls book at www.muhammadanism.org/Tisdall/sources_quran/p184.htm .) It would not be surprising if an Arabian caravan-driver in the early 600s in Arabia encountered someone with this sort of view about Jesus crucifixion. Nor would it be surprising if such a person failed to grasp that Basilidean/Gnostic/Manichaean theology taught that the deity who gave the Law to Moses was merely a masquerading angel, and that Jesus was not born of Mary, and that Jesus was not truly physical.
There appears to be a fairly good basis for asserting that Muhammad derived his view of the crucifixion from pseudo-Christians in Arabia who promulgated Gnosticism or Manichaeanism. The pseudo-Christians had gotten the idea from Basilides, who concocted it as part of an elaborate Gnostic-View-of-the-Universe which denied a wide variety of points which the Bible and the Quran affirm. Verses 153-156 indicate that Muhammad wanted to appear comparable to the prophets by claiming that his experiences were comparable to theirs. After the Battle of Uhud, when looking for something in the careers of previous prophets that would resemble his own brush with death, Muhammad may have found just what he was looking for in a recollection of the Gnostic-Manichaean presentation of the crucifixion.
On the other hand, another approach to this text is feasible. Verse 157 has been translated in quite different ways. (A short article at www.mostmerciful.com/editing.htm discusses this.) The Ahmadiyya cult asserts that the Quran means that Jesus did not die on the cross, but merely swooned away, and was revived by Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, and went on to live a long life until he died in Kashmir! One of their websites features a list of citations of various pieces of evidence which are pertinent to the question of the meaning of 4:157 (it can be accessed at www.muslim.org/islam/deathofj.htm and www.muslim.org/islam/deathj-h.htm but also consider the anti-Ahmadiyya material at www.allaahuakbar.net/qadianism/index.htm ). Their view is rejected by the major Muslim denominations, but even among Sunni and Shiite Muslims, there is a question about exactly what happened at Calvary: many Muslims insist that Jesus did not die and was not crucified, and was taken up to heaven; however there is disagreement about who /was/ crucified: some say it was Simon of Cyrene; others echoing the Gospel of Barnabas forgery say that it was Judas; still others are content only to say that Jesus soul was taken before his body was crucified.
And many Muslims have said that Jesus *did* die. How can such a view be held in light of v. 157s explicit statement that the Jews did not kill Jesus? The answer has something to do with the fluidity of the Arabic of v. 157. Where it says, in the Hilali-Khan translation,
they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Isa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), the phrase can also be rendered as follows:
Sale: "They slew him not, neither crucified him, but he was represented by one in his likeness."
Rodwell: "They slew him not, and they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness." (With an extensive footnote which begins, "Lit, one was made to appear to them like (Jesus),")
Pickthal: "They slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them."
Shakir: "They did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa)."
Yusuf Ali: "They killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them."
Khalifa (from www.submission.org ) "They never killed him, they never crucified him - they were made to think that they did."
Another translation could say, "They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, although it looked to them like they crucified him." If that is the basic meaning of this phrase (and if the rendering of the Hilali-Khan translation is an inaccurate rendering that is the result of someones acceptance of the "Gospel of Barnabas"), then it can be easily harmonized with the New Testament account of the crucifixion.
A Christian can agree that from a certain perspective, the Jews did not kill Jesus. Jesus Himself said, in John 10:18. "No man takes it [His life] from Me; I lay it down at my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again. This command I received from My Father." And, in John 18:31, the Jewish leaders plainly admit that under the Romans, they had no authority to kill or crucify anyone. It was Pilate (a Gentile, not a Jew) who issued the command to crucify Jesus, and it was Roman soldiers (not Jews) who carried out Pilates command. Moreover, the New Testament teaches that each component in the scenario the Jewish leaders, Pilate, the soldiers was part of Gods plan.
So, verse 157 does not have to be interpreted to mean that Jesus was never crucified and never died. It may be taken to mean that the individuals who actually crucified and killed Jesus were Romans, not Jews, and that the Jewish leaders plot against Jesus was a component of a greater plan which God Himself had planned. This interpretation of v. 157 interlocks easily with the statements in the New Testament about Jesus death. It also interlocks with the Qurans statement, in 3:55, in which Allah is depicted telling Jesus "I will take you and raise you to myself," using a term (tawaffa) that is capable of meaning "I will cause you to die" (and is so translated by Rodwell).
Also, if one replaces the word "kill" in v. 157 with the phrase "put an end to," the resultant text, again, harmonizes with the record of the New Testament: the Jews did not put an end to Jesus, because Jesus proceeded to rise from the dead. The New Testament states that after Jesus rose from the dead, He appeared to His disciples over the course of 40 days, and then ascended to heaven. This is easy to harmonize with the contents of 19:33, which presents Jesus (as an infant) saying, "Peace be upon me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive." (This resembles 19:15, where Gabriel is said to have said something similar about John the Baptist, who was killed during Jesus earthly ministry.)
On to verse 158. It says that Allah "raised up" (rafaa) Jesus to Himself. Muslims who insist on adhering to the "Gospel of Barnabas" (which can be read online, and is critiqued at answering-islam.org.uk/Gilchrist/Challenge/chap6.html ) interpret this to mean that Allahs angels snatched away Jesus and made Judas look like Jesus right before the Roman soldiers arrived to carry him off to trial. Others interpret it to mean that Jesus soul was taken, and transported to heaven, at some point prior to the crucifixion (leaving it an open question as to what happened next on Calvary). However, without any adjustments whatsoever (since the text says nothing about the timing of the raising up of Jesus) it is in harmony with the Biblical account of Jesus ascension to heaven at the Mount of Olives, 40 days after the resurrection.
Finally, verse 159 says that "There shall not be one of the people of the Book but shall believe in him before his death, and in the day of resurrection, he will be a witness against them." There is disagreement and indecision about the meaning of this verse (see the conservative Islamic comments at www.abc.se/~m9783/fiqhi/fiqha_e80.html for a review of some interpretations. Another nice, though somewhat length, discussion from an Islamic perspective is at www.islamicperspectives.com/ReturnOfJesus.htm ).
One interpretation is that all Jews and Christians will believe in Jesus before they die. The problem with this is that it is manifestly untrue in regard to the Jews, and superfluous in regard to the Christians. Another interpretation is along the following lines:
(1) Jesus never died on the cross; he was taken up to heaven before the Roman soldiers arrived to arrest him.
(2) Before Judgment Day, Jesus will descend to earth, endorse Islam, kill Al-Dajjal (the Anti-Christ; more about that later, God willing), and perform various other acts, and then die.
(3) All Jews and Christians will then believe that Jesus is only a messenger of Allah.
The main basis for this interpretation is not in the Quran, but in a Hadith: in Bukhari (3:425) and in Sahih-Muslim (1:p. 255), Muhammad is said to have said, "By him in whose hands my soul is, the son of Mary will descend amongst you shortly as a just ruler and will break the cross and kill the pig and abolish the jizyah-tax. Wealth will flow, so that nobody will accept gifts of charity."
Muslims who view this hadith as authentic embrace a theory of eschatology in which Jesus' death is yet to occur. It is expected to happen in the future, just before Judgment Day. So they interpret 4:159 so as to fit into a future scenario just before Judgment Day in which there will be a conversion of all Jews and all Christians to Islam, led in person by Jesus, who will die then.
The concept of the Messiah dying after He comes in the last days is not an original Islamic idea. It is enunciated in the Apocalypse of Ezra. This text is better known as chapters 3-14 in the apocryphal book of Second Esdras. It is also known as Fourth Esdras. (For an introduction, with links to English translations of the text, see www.earlyjewishwritings.com/2esdras.html .) It is a Jewish composition from about the end of the first century. Its easy for modern readers to assume that the writer identified Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, but that is not a given (though later Christian copyists of the text may have expanded or replaced parts of the text to favor their own beliefs).
In the Apocalypse of Ezra 7:28-33, God is said to say that in the last days, "My son Christ [Jesus in the KJV] shall be revealed with those who are with him, and those who remain shall rejoice four hundred years. After these years my son Christ shall die, and all who draw human breath. The world shall be turned back to silence for seven days, as it was at the first beginnings; so that no one will remain. And after seven days, the world, which is not yet awake, shall be roused, and that which is corruptible shall perish. And the earth shall give up those who are asleep in it . . . and the Most High shall be revealed upon the seat of judgment."
Two things are notable here: first, the Apocalypse of Ezra states that Judgment Day will be preceded by the return of Christ, who will die. Second, after His death and the death of everyone else, there will be seven days of silence, followed by the resurrection of those who died. Lets put that second point aside for the time being; I hope to return to it later.
The period of the reign of Christ after his return is known in some Christian schools of thought as the Millennium, a period lasting 1000 years, as described in Revelation 20:4-6 (though it is an open question whether these years should be interpreted literally or figuratively). The number 400 in the Apocalypse of Ezra is probably based on an eschatologically focused interpretation of Psalm 90:15 and Genesis 15:13.
Was this text known in Arabia in the early 600s? At www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T3186 an International Standard Bible Encyclopedia article about this book states, "There are Syriac (Peshitta), Ethiopic, Arabic, Armenian and yet other VSS [i.e., Versions] but all depend on the lost Greek except one of the two extant Arabic translations. The number and variety of versions show that 2 Esdras was widely circulated."
The material in this passage of the Quran which states, or seem to state, that (1) the Jews did not kill or crucify Jesus, (2) another man was crucified in Jesus place, (3) Allah took Jesus up to heaven at some point before the crucifixion, and (4) Jesus will return in the last days, at which time he will die, did not originate with Muhammad. Each of these teachings had been taught previously in sources which could have influenced Muhammad.
As I mentioned already, one does not have to insist on interpreting this passage to mean all four of those things. It is possible to interpret verses 157-158 to mean simply that the Romans, not the Jews, crucified Jesus, and that Allah raised Jesus up, as the New Testament says, after Jesus died on the cross. And it is conceivable that in v. 159, the People of the Book in view are only Christians, not Jews, in which case it goes without saying that they will believe on Jesus before they die.
However, I think that the following scenario is more likely: Muhammad, after his experience at Uhud, wanted to reinforce his claims of authentic prophethood by citing similar incidences in the lives of earlier prophets. He adopted the Basilidean-Gnostic-Manichaean Substitute-Crucifixion story merely because it served his purpose, and abbreviated it so as to include /only/ the part of the story which served that purpose.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
