Thursday, December 15, 2011

Recent interest in Surah 4.157


In addition to my two threads on surah 4.157 (and the issues of the death and crucifixion of Jesus in the Qur'an- first; second), there seems of late, to have been a fair amount of interest in this particular ayah from the Qur'an. The following are a few of the examples I have recently come across on the internet:

At the website called, Antioch Believer!, Asf Aslan (the owner who resides in Antioch, Turkey, and describes himself as a "Minister of the Gospel"), posted the thread, What does the Quran say about Jesus death?, back on July 1, 2011. In that thread he wrote:

In the verse 4:157 please notice carefully, “WA lakin shubbiha lahum” means "He was made to resemble to them" or "it was made to resemble to them" or "a likeness of that was made for them" or "a similitude was made for them" -- not "someone was made to resemble him". In the sentences, "it" or "that" refers to the incident and not a person.

In fact, I don't see in Q 4:157-158 a denial of Christ's death, nor yet a denial of His crucifixion. Actually, I see a harmony between the text of that Surah, and John's gospel, when Jesus said; Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.- John 10.17-18.

After further commentary, Asf Aslan concludes his post with:

The Quran is not actually denying His crucifixion, nor yet His death. And to consider that He was raised up to life, and subsequently raised up to Allah, as is also in harmony with Bible (John 20.9-17; Acts 1.2-3, 9). Please click here for more details on Jesus death from the Quran.

On the site, A Christian Thinktank, a long, but very informative, response was given to a "truth-seeking Muslim", who had questions about the death of Jesus on the cross (SEE THIS THREAD). The entire thread is a must read (IMHO), but at the end of the post, the following summation is provided:

Ok, let’s try to summarize this data:

1. The non-controversial Qur’anic references to the death of Christ are clear in affirming a historical death.

2. Because of a perceived conflict with an interpretation of 4:157, these verses were re-interpreted (sometimes almost bizarrely).

3. Muslim and non-Muslim interpreters know that God caused Jesus to die—no human agency could take credit for it.

4. Muslim and non-Muslim scholars know that the passage is obscure and not clear enough to build such a ‘large’ doctrine on. (Some even add the phrase ‘And God knows best what happened’!)

5. Scholarly exegetes who were closer/truer to the text tended to reject/criticize the substitution legends.

6. It is frequently known that it is not the Qur’an that denies the historicity of the Cross, but rather some interpreters of the Qur’an who do so.

7. The range of interpretation of the verse by Muslims over the years shows that ‘denial of the Cross’ was not an early/reliable and consensus tradition.

8. Many (most?) modern Muslim scholars do not hold to the non-historicity of the crucifixion of Jesus.

9. There were several equally plausible ways of understanding the verse, which fit with the other Qur’anic witnesses and the witness of the prior Books.

10. The early Shi’i community explicitly accepted the historicity of the crucifixion of Jesus.

11. The Qur’an itself shows that the objection that “Prophets are protected by God from such deaths” is false.

12. Several Muslim intellectuals had argued over the centuries that the substitution legends were illegitimate intrusions into the interpretation, mostly coming from the unreliable Isra ‘iliyyat (from both Jewish and Christian sources). And in some cases the alleged Islamic sources were too suspect themselves to be used for establishing proper Muslim belief.

13. Several of the most learned, respected, and submitted Islamic scholars in history rejected or criticized the substitution view.

14. The grammar of the controversial passage militates against it supporting a substitution theory.

15. Some Muslim scholars/groups held (a few still hold) that Jesus was crucified, but that only His body died—His spirit was alive to God.

16. But the understanding which makes the most sense out of the passage, the other passages on death, the repudiation of the boasts of the Jews in 4:157, their uncertainty about their success in overcoming/extinguishing a Prophet of God, and the wording about the Battle of Badr (and the passage in the Zabur 44 I cited) is that God caused Jesus to die at the hands of the Jewish enemies—for His own sovereign purposes—but that He cancelled that death and exalted/raised Jesus up to honored status as a Living Teacher, Prophet, and Judge who will come again at the end of time.

17. This latter understanding agrees with the pre-Qur’anic revelation—in conformity to the claims of the Qur’an itself that it ‘confirms’ the Hebrew Bible and New Testament (as they existed at the time of Mohammed).
From the pen of Gabriel Reynolds, the Associate Professor of Islamic Studies and Theology Director, at the University of Notre Dame, we read:

This point might be taken still further. If tafsīr indeed provides an accurate explanation of the Quran’s original, intended meaning, then nowhere should the explanation be clearer than in the case of the Crucifixion. If the Prophet Muhammad announced to his companions that Jesus never died, but rather someone who was made miraculously to look like him died in his place, i.e. if he gave a historical account of the crucifixion which fundamentally contradicts that which Jews and Christians had been reporting for hundreds of years, then certainly such a revolutionary account – if any – would be well remembered and well preserved. But, quite to the contrary, the reports of the mufassirūn are inconsistent and often contradictory. They have all of the tell-tale signs of speculative exegesis.

This strikes me as reason enough for critical scholars to read this quranic passage in light of earlier (i.e. Jewish and Christian) and not later (i.e. Islamic exegesis) literature. When the Quran is read in this light, it quickly becomes apparent that the passage on the crucifixion is fully in line with Christian anti-Jewish rhetoric. A major theme of this rhetoric, of course, is the portrayal of the Jews as prophet-killers. Accordingly the Quran, in sūrat al-nisā’ (4) 155, accuses the Jews of “murdering the prophets”. When the Quran then alludes to the crucifixion just two verses later, it means to give the cardinal example of just such a murder. (The Muslim Jesus: Dead or Alive?)
Further contributions that are germane to our topic, which are available online, include the following:

Via the Reformed site Contra Mundum: The Crucifixion of Jesus in Muslim Theology

The Answering Islam site provides M.N. Anderson's, "Strike The Truth In the Cross" (Part 4 of his, Jesus The Light And Fragrance of God) - LINK

And at the blog, Religious Roundtable, the thread: The Crucifixion and the Quran.


Anyway, thought I would share some of my recent discoveries on this important issue—ENJOY!!!


Grace and peace,

David

27 comments:

Nick said...

David,

Thank you for these resources. I have not read everything, but there appears to be a solid case based on the evidence that the Substitution Theory is false.

The question is, why is this so widespread? It's almost like revisionist history. It reminds me of McGrath's claim that Luther's interpretation of Paul was a 'theological nuovum'.

If anything, this shows the danger of a lack of a Magisterium.

The only two questions I have are:

1) What did the earliest Islamic Commentators say about this? If they responded in the negative to substitution, then that should squash the theory right there.

2) What are your thoughts on the historical accuracy of the text on this verse? Ken suggest this verse was added later and not in the original manuscript.

Nick said...

That Answering Islam resource was very good, and actually highlighted the problem:

"The Muslim masses, then, for almost thirteen hundred years have been believing not only a false report claiming that a substitute died for Jesus on the cross, and a teaching that is contrary to the Qur'an; namely that Jesus did not die, before his being lifted up. For modern thinkers tell us that the Qur'an plainly asserts the death of Jesus. For thirteen hundred years, not only has the average man in the street been mistaken in his belief on this issue, but many devout Muslims have blindly accepted it, and vigorously defended it as God's truth. "

Can this not be replaced with the doctrine of Sola Fide and ask why for 1500 years nobody taught it until Luther?

David Waltz said...

Hi Nick,

Good to see you back; you posted:

==Thank you for these resources.==

Me: It is nice to hear that my contributions have been useful.

==I have not read everything, but there appears to be a solid case based on the evidence that the Substitution Theory is false.==

Me: Agreed; a bit more on this later.

==The question is, why is this so widespread? It's almost like revisionist history. It reminds me of McGrath's claim that Luther's interpretation of Paul was a 'theological nuovum'.==

Me: One can really only speculate here. I would like to suggest (following a few other scholars), that early debates between Christian and Muslims played a major role in the interpretations of the more 'thorny' passages in the Qur'an. The emphasis on the unique role that the death of Jesus has in Christian theology may have led to the speculative interpretations of 4.157.

==If anything, this shows the danger of a lack of a Magisterium.==

Me: Indeed, though many of the Shi'i sects lay claim to a 'magisterium' of sorts.

==The only two questions I have are:

1) What did the earliest Islamic Commentators say about this? If they responded in the negative to substitution, then that should squash the theory right there.==

Me: Couple of important points need to be made; first, none of the ahādith on the crucifixion of Jesus go back to Muhammad (i.e hādith nabawi), nor are any hādith qudsī (i.e. hādith that transmit the very words of Allah). Second, oldest ahādith that includes commentary on 4.157 with of the clear notion of the 'substitution theory' (that we know for sure is not a interpolation), is almost 100 years after the compilation of the Qur'an, and has 2 versions of it!

Now, 100 years does not sound like much, but one must keep in mind that there are a number of hādith nabawi and hādith qudsī that are much older. If 4.157 was deemed to be important, one would expect to find it in the older ahādith.

==2) What are your thoughts on the historical accuracy of the text on this verse? Ken suggest this verse was added later and not in the original manuscript.==

Me: I have been looking for textual evidence that 4.157 was a later interpolation, but have been unable to find ANY extant evidence for such a theory. If something does 'turn up', I will definitely let you know.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello again Nick,

In your second post, you asked:

==Can this not be replaced with the doctrine of Sola Fide and ask why for 1500 years nobody taught it until Luther?==
Me: I do not want it to seem as though I am avoiding your question, but to adequately address it, could you rephrase it, keeping in mind that more than one understanding of Sola Fide exists not only among Protestants, but also Catholics.


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

David Waltz wrote:
Me: Couple of important points need to be made; first, none of the ahādith on the crucifixion of Jesus go back to Muhammad (i.e hādith nabawi), nor are any hādith qudsī (i.e. hādith that transmit the very words of Allah). Second, oldest ahādith that includes commentary on 4.157 with of the clear notion of the 'substitution theory' (that we know for sure is not a interpolation), is almost 100 years after the compilation of the Qur'an, and has 2 versions of it!

I thought comments on 4:157 were completely missing from all the Ahadith (the 6 canonical Sunni collections:
Sahih Al Bukhari
Sahih Al Muslim
Sunan Abu Dawood
Jami'at Tirmidhi
Sunan an-Nasa'i
Sunan Ibn Majah

see also here:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/11/can-god-become-man-debate-between-dr.html

where and what is the Hadith reference you are referring to?

I raised the issue of why the Dome of the Rock does not have Surah 4:157, when it seems it should - being so close to the place where Christians believe Jesus was crucified; and on the temple mount, where the Jewish temple stood and was destroyed in 70 AD - and which Hebrews shows us that Christ's sacrifice was the final "once for all" sacrifice. Seems weird not to have it.

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/12/dome-of-rock-inscriptions-why-no.html

Ken said...

See here: The Samaqand manuscript is supposed to go all the way to Uthman, as many Muslims claim.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/samarqand.html


Notice folios 98 – 112 have Surah 4:92-4:145
Then folios 113 – 189 have Surah 5:85-7:106

4:146-5:75 are missing.
Interesting.

Ken said...

As for the charge that Sola Fide was completely unknown until Luther, these 3 articles have enough info to show us that that charge is just wrong.

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/08/alister-mcgrath-on-augustine-and.html


http://www.apuritansmind.com/justification/the-early-church-and-justification-compiled-by-dr-c-matthew-mcmahon/


http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

Ooops, my bad. I was in a hurry to get my run in before the tide got to high. To/for anyone reading my above comment, change ahādith to tasfīr. I wanted to emphasize that no commentary/exegesis of 4.157 can be attributed to Muhammad.

Thanks much for pointing out my incorrect attribution.

Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

Thank you; now that is correct - it is mentioned in some Tafsirs, (commentaries), but not in Hadiths.
very good.

Which Tafsir are you talking about?

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

Concerning the the “Qur'ān Of ʿUthmān” at Tashkent (i.e. Samarqand), Uzbekistan, the following chart (from the site you linked to) demonstrates that a number of ayāt are missing. I think an objective observation yields that we are dealing with 'chance', for it sure seems to me that no underlying motive lies behind what is extant, and what is missing.

Folios Qur'anic Surah / Ayah
1 - 32 2:7 - 2:177
33 - 34 2:179 - 2:187
35 2:213 - 2:217
36 2:231 - 2:233
37 - 42 2:256 - 2:273
43 - 45 2:282 - 2:286
46 - 57 3:36 - 3:92
58 3:97 - 3:102
59 - 67 3:105 - 3:148
68 - 89 3:154 - 4:29
- 4:2 - 4:5
90 - 92 4:33 - 4:43
93 - 94 4:72 - 4:77
95 - 97 4:81 - 4:90
98 - 112 4:92 - 4:145
113 - 189 5:85 - 7:106
190 - 204 11:47 - 11:121
205 12:19 - 12:23
206 14:39 - 14:44
207 - 213 15:7 15:86
214 - 229 16:7 - 16:101
230 16:114 - 16:119
231 - 236 17:1 - 17:48
237 - 257 17:56 - 18:77
258 - 260 18:82 - 18:105
261 - 265 19:3 - 19:44
266 - 286 19:52 - 20:135
- 21:69 - 21:76
- 21:103 - 21:111
- 22:6 - 22:12
- 22:12 - 22:17
- 23:68 - 23:75
- 25:62 - 25:74
287 - 290 26:63 - 26:117
291 26:130 - 26:142
292 - 295 26:155 - 26:202
296 - 299 27:1 - 27:22
300 27:28 - 27:34
301 - 306 27:44 - 27:80
307 - 321 36:12 - 37:75
322 - 332 37:91 - 38:29
333 39:6 - 39:8
334 40:4 - 40:7
335 40:51 - 40:57
336 - 338 40:67 - 40:83
339 - 345 41:5 - 41:39
346 - 353 42:21 - 43:11


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

Even if Muslims eventually admit that the historical Jesus was crucified (put on the cross) (Shabir Ally - but did not die) or even that he died. (his humanity died - per the Gnostic/Lawson/ Waltz hypothesis).

the only controversial part is the "it was made to appear to them". phrase

"they did not crucify him"
they did not kill him"
"they did not kill him for certain"

are still very clear phrases.

The Muslims still cannot accept the atoning significance of it; because it undermines everything about Islam's teachings about a person gets right with God.

I don't see any connection of it to John 10:18.

John 10:18 is very important in evangelism with Muslims, because they think we are saying that God the Father forces Jesus to pay for our sins; and they charge that that is unjust.

But John 10:18 teaches that Jesus voluntarily laid down His life, out of love for sinners from all nations (Rev. 5:9) took our sins upon Himself; and He raised Himself up from the dead.

The Lord caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him - Isaiah 53:6

If He would render Himself a guilt offering - Is. 53:10

John 1:29
2 Cor. 5:21
I Peter 2:24
Romans 3:25-26
Romans 5:6-11
I John 2:2
I John 4:10
I John 4:19
Hebrews 2:17

David Waltz said...

Hello again Ken,

You asked: "Which Tafsir are you talking about?"

I was/am referring to the tasfīr of Wahb Ibn Munabbih (died 732 AD). Interestingly enough, Dr. Lawson states that, "much of his exegetical and biblical tradition has been anathematized as Isrā 'iliyyāt." This is more than a bit 'odd', for Wahb's commentary on the crucifixion is far removed from the Bibical/Christian 'tradition'.

Now, with that said, one could argue that the tasfīr of 'Abd Allāh Ibn 'Abbās (died 687 AD) is the earliest that comments on 4.157. However, scholars such as Andrew Rippin believe that a good deal of interpolation has occurred in the works attributed to him.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

I had to step away from the computer; when I got back, I did a bit more perusal at the Islamic Awareness site that you linked to earlier and found that two contemporary Quranic manuscripts to the Tashkent (Samarqand), Uzbekistan manuscript (both may be a bit older), have 4.157 included!!! See the following links:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/topkapi.html

and

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/tiem457.html

This sure seems to put a big 'dent' in your theory...


Grace and peace,

David

Rory said...

David asks Nick to clarify this comment:

"Can this not be replaced with the doctrine of Sola Fide and ask why for 1500 years nobody taught it until Luther?"

Of course Nick may speak for himself at any time, but in Nick's absence, I think he is asking why Catholics would reject Luther's doctrine because it was novel, but Catholics could accept that the true meaning of the Koran could possibly be novel.

(At the risk of appearing to be dogmatic, I wish all readers to note that I am not affirming the truth of any distinctly Catholic claims. I am not proposing that the Catholic faith is true. I am proposing why it would be CONSISTENT for a Catholic, who obviously believes his faith is true, to reject Luther's doctrine as novelty, while considering the possibility of a novel interpretation of the Koran, which would appear to be a double standard.)

I would insist that there IS and MUST BE a double standard. Catholics cannot at the same time believe about the Koran and the religious institutions which follow that Mohammedan what they believe about the accepted Apostolic revelation and the single institution, the Catholic Church, which follows from it.

Also for the record, I am not proposing that Luther's doctrine was theological novelty. I am using that as an example because Nick brought it up. If I understand him correctly, he was concerned that as a Catholic, he must apply the same stanbdards to the Koran and Islam as he would to the Catholic canon and the Church.

I suggest that if the Catholic Church is true, it is totally compatible with the possibility that early Islam misinterpreted the Koran, and that it would be wrong to apply the same standards to early Islam as we do to the one true Church. Thus, the rejection of an interpretation on the basis of its novelty applies only if one is convinced that there is an authentic and divinely guided interpreter. Catholics cannot believe that about Islam.

Nick said...

I will try to get to this as soon as I can.

David Waltz said...

Hi Rory,

Thanks much for sharing your thoughts during Nick's absence. In your last post, you wrote:

==I would insist that there IS and MUST BE a double standard. Catholics cannot at the same time believe about the Koran and the religious institutions which follow that Mohammedan what they believe about the accepted Apostolic revelation and the single institution, the Catholic Church, which follows from it.==

Me: Excellent point.

==Also for the record, I am not proposing that Luther's doctrine was theological novelty. I am using that as an example because Nick brought it up. If I understand him correctly, he was concerned that as a Catholic, he must apply the same stanbdards[sic] to the Koran and Islam as he would to the Catholic canon and the Church.

I suggest that if the Catholic Church is true, it is totally compatible with the possibility that early Islam misinterpreted the Koran, and that it would be wrong to apply the same standards to early Islam as we do to the one true Church. Thus, the rejection of an interpretation on the basis of its novelty applies only if one is convinced that there is an authentic and divinely guided interpreter. Catholics cannot believe that about Islam.==

Me: Well said my friend.

I still wonder though why a Protestant, such as Ken, seems so adamant that the 'traditional' Sunni interpretation of Surah 4.157 is the only possible understanding. Would not the interpretation that I have presented (and held by an increasing number of both Muslims and Christians) seem much more in line with the Protestant principle of sola scriptura?


Grace and peace,

David

Rory said...

I need to edit a garbled sentence, especially since you quoted it. I am sure you figured it out but I don't want anybody else to see it without a correction:

I said: "Catholics cannot at the same time believe about the Koran and the religious institutions which follow that Mohammedan what they believe about the accepted Apostolic revelation and the single institution, the Catholic Church, which follows from it."

I meant: Catholics cannot at the same time believe about the Koran and the religious institutions which follow the Mohammedan writings, what they believe about the accepted Apostolic revelation and the single institution, the Catholic Church, which follows from it.

-------

I think Ken has to allow sola scriptura for the Koran. Why would any Christian think that Muslims would be better interpreters of the Koran than non-Muslims who attempt the same study?

Nick said...

I still hope to get to this, it's just been a busy week, particlularly with my computer basically broken at this point and unable to get to my emails and such.

Rory said...

No worries Nick. We'll be here.

Merry Christmas.

Rory

Rory said...

Hi Nick,

Just an update. Not speaking for others, but no need to make a post now on my account. I don't intend top continue checking anymore.

Nick said...

Hi Rory,

You don't need to "check up" if you subscribe to comments. I am sorry for the delay. After thinking about this some more, I've come to the conclusion the Substitution Theory fits exegetically (including the context, which seems ignored by most people) and theologically (the Muslim belief structure).

Here is my final breakdown:

(1) I see the 'spiritual' reading (i.e. he died physically but his spirit lives on) to be the least convincing. That philosophical approach is not how the Quaran seems to teach. The very context is that of a literal historical narrative of the sins of the Israelites with the Calf, breaking Covenant, killing prophets, etc. Verse 157 begins with "and" indicating the previous thought is continued.

(2) The situation seems to be a historical recap, so I don't see plausibility with they "they don't take my life, I freely lay it down" version either. This also makes the "but God raised him up" ending to be out of place as well, since that serves as a historical event (rescue mission) not a kind of theological lesson.

(3) I don't think the interpretation of "the Jews didn't kill him but the Romans" did fits either, for it was the Jews who asked the Romans to do it. Did the Jews really boast they performed the actual crucifixion? More likely (and according to actual Biblical/Church evidence) they boasted that they played a key role. The context is the *various* sins of the Jews, including the "lie" that they killed the Messiah.

(4) The substitution theory has a large following, fits the 'plain language' (including God 'lifting him up' as a rescue mission) and conforms to certain Muslim thought that God would stifle any attempts to put a key messenger to death. In their thought, they admit Jesus is more than a prophet, he's the Messiah, and dying a humiliating death is out of the question. The only "weakness" with this theory is explaining who got substituted and why Christians were tricked - but this is only a weakness for theological rather than exegetical reasons. It's only objected by commentators who see problems explaining Substitution.

(5) The theory that Jesus was crucified but was rescued from the Cross has slight merit, but it's main weakness to me is the claim "they did not crucify him" when this theory requires that they did. The saying "they didn't kill him with certainty" seems to be saying they either intended to or thought they did but God didn't let it happen - yet if they intended to and failed, why boast?.


I conclude by adding that the Crucifixion/Resurrection seems to be totally absent from the Quaran from the articles I'm reading - which says something considering the Crucifixion is central to the Christian message. This leads me to think the Quaran was unaware of the Christian understanding of the Cross, and thus saw the Crucifixion as a typical persecution of a prophet - an afterthought. This to me lends credence to substitution.
The context of the passage shifts to Christians in 4:172, yet the only complaint is that they say "Trinity" and this error should cease, other than that no mention of "stop saying he was crucified". Obviously, Christians would be trumpeting this, but since it's only spoken of in reference to the Jews suggests it was a damnable lie the Jews spread suggesting they killed Jesus when in fact God never let this happen.

Nick said...

Hello David,

I assume you're busy, but I wanted to tell you I wrote a blog article on this subject.

David Waltz said...

Hi Nick,

Yes, very busy...but thanks much for the 'heads-up'...will try to head over to your blog later today, the Lord willing!

Grace and peace,

David

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

This is an interesting topic as well. For example, David (please correct me if I am misrepresenting you) you seem to feel that the issue is a matter of interpretation rather than all out textual corruption.

Is it possible that the Qur'an is denying that Jesus died on a Cross, not necessarily that Jesus died, but that the prevalent story that seemed to predominate among Christians is not the correct narrative.

David as you are familiar with the Jehovah's witness position on this matter, maybe you could pose some insights.

I also find the following to be noteworthy:

http://www.amazon.com/Crucifixion-Antiquity-Significance-Wissenschaftliche-Untersuchungen/dp/3161506944.

This Evangelical scholar seems to be presenting that the predominate narrative needs to be looked at again.

Just some of my comments I hope are helpful.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Btw David you did mention year plus back about a book on the Crucifixion that I should read?

It was by a Muslim that gave a different take on the particular issue.

If you could remind me of that I would be most appreciative.

David Waltz said...

Hello again GV19,

I see you were busy last night! In this thread you posted:

==This is an interesting topic as well. For example, David (please correct me if I am misrepresenting you) you seem to feel that the issue is a matter of interpretation rather than all out textual corruption.==

Me: Yes, that is exactly my take.

==Is it possible that the Qur'an is denying that Jesus died on a Cross, not necessarily that Jesus died, but that the prevalent story that seemed to predominate among Christians is not the correct narrative.==

Me: I suppose anything is possibly, but evidence for the death of Jesus on the cross at the hands of the Romans seems to rest on very solid ground (IMHO).

==David as you are familiar with the Jehovah's witness position on this matter, maybe you could pose some insights.==

Me: JW's believe that Jesus was 'impaled' on a 'torture state', not a cross, and that he died on that 'torture state'. They believe God/Jehovah resurrected him to heaven in a 'spirit body', not a body of 'flesh and bones', and suggest that his physical body was 'dissolved', leaving an 'empty tomb'.

==I also find the following to be noteworthy:

http://www.amazon.com/Crucifixion-Antiquity-Significance-Wissenschaftliche-Untersuchungen/dp/3161506944.

This Evangelical scholar seems to be presenting that the predominate narrative needs to be looked at again.==

Me: Thanks for the link GV; will head over there right after I put this comment up.

==Just some of my comments I hope are helpful.==

Me: I always appreciate your comments and insights; thanks much for taking the time to post here.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Ooops, I almost forgot to comment on your second post:

==Btw David you did mention year plus back about a book on the Crucifixion that I should read?

It was by a Muslim that gave a different take on the particular issue.

If you could remind me of that I would be most appreciative.==

The book I recommended was by Baha'i Islamic scholar; see the following thread for details:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2009/11/does-quran-deny-crucifixion-and.html

The Muslim Islamic scholar I had in mind was Dr. Mahmoud M. Ayoub, who wrote a very interesting 2 part essay that was published in The Muslim World under the title, "Towards an Islamic Christlogy." In the above thread, I quoted the following from the 2nd part of his essay:

==The Quran...does not deny the death of Christ. Rather it challenges human beings who in their folly have deluded themselves into believing that they would vanquish the divine Word, Jesus the messenger of God. The death of Christ is asserted several times and in various contexts, see for example S. 3:55; 5:117; 19:33. (“Towards an Islamic Christology II”, The Muslim World, Vol. LXX, April 1980, #2, p. 106.)==



Grace and peace,

David