Is the Muslim Jesus cited in the Qur'an possibly historical?

[February-Saturday]

Honestly, I rather doubt that Jesus existed at all. The earliest accounts we have of him are visions, and if they have anything to do with his life at all they were written decades after he supposedly lived. That's plenty of time for a John Frum figure to emerge.

Not only that, but the earliest accounts have clearly fantastical elements to them. I know that most historians believe that the New Testament texts were likely inspired by a real person, but I'm still unconvinced. I don't see it.

I definitely don't think that Muslim texts centuries later that give a completely different account are going to somehow be more historically accurate. I would argue that they do not portray the historical Jesus because I would argue that there is no good reason to believe that there ever was a historical Jesus.

Even the name "Jesus" is inconsistent; he's also called Emmanuel. Both names have metaphorical significance that make it unlikely they were talking about a real dude.

(ETA: No, really, his name was "Yahshua" which pretty much just means "God is salvation." I feel like that's pretty blatant.)

 

[Rival]

Honestly, I rather doubt that Jesus existed at all. The earliest accounts we have of him are visions, and if they have anything to do with his life at all they were written decades after he supposedly lived. That's plenty of time for a John Frum figure to emerge.

Not only that, but the earliest accounts have clearly fantastical elements to them. I know that most historians believe that the New Testament texts were likely inspired by a real person, but I'm still unconvinced. I don't see it.

I definitely don't think that Muslim texts centuries later that give a completely different account are going to somehow be more historically accurate. I would argue that they do not portray the historical Jesus because I would argue that there is no good reason to believe that there ever was a historical Jesus.

Even the name "Jesus" is inconsistent; he's also called Emmanuel. Both names have metaphorical significance that make it unlikely they were talking about a real dude.

(ETA: No, really, his name was "Yahshua" which pretty much just means "God is salvation." I feel like that's pretty blatant.)

Making him up begs the question of why you'd have him not fit any of the messianic prophecies at all, and quotemine the Tanakh and round-peg-square-hole Jesus into them. It also doesn't make sense of why they would leave in the texts all kinds of contradictions that you'd just edit out if you were making it up. IMO the Christian Testament seems too human a document to be made up. There's also a clear lineation of Jesus going from becoming God's adopted son in Mark at his baptism, to being the son of God in Matt and Luke, to just straight up being God in John. This speaks of an oral tradition, imo.

 

[Harel13]

@firedragon I was just informed that Maimonides' court version is probably based on one of the Talmudic accounts of Jesus that says:

It was taught:
On the Eve of Passover they hung Yeshu the Notzarine. And the herald went out
before him for 40 days [saying]: “Yeshu the Notzarine will go out to be stoned for
sorcery and misleading and enticing Israel [to idolatry]. Any who knows
[anything] in his defence must come and declare concerning him.” But no-one came
to his defence so they hung him on the Eve of Passover.​

In which case, yes, there's a tradition that Jesus was killed by the Jewish court, for sorcery and misleading and enticing fellow Jews (crimes punishable by death). However, just two pages prior it is said that the Sanhedrin (court) stopped judging capital crimes 40 years prior to the destruction of the Temple. In which case, if you do the math, it comes out that this Jesus couldn't have been the Jesus described in the NT, who died less than 40 years before the destruction of the Temple.

 

[firedragon]

Honestly, I rather doubt that Jesus existed at all. The earliest accounts we have of him are visions, and if they have anything to do with his life at all they were written decades after he supposedly lived. That's plenty of time for a John Frum figure to emerge.

Not only that, but the earliest accounts have clearly fantastical elements to them. I know that most historians believe that the New Testament texts were likely inspired by a real person, but I'm still unconvinced. I don't see it.

I definitely don't think that Muslim texts centuries later that give a completely different account are going to somehow be more historically accurate. I would argue that they do not portray the historical Jesus because I would argue that there is no good reason to believe that there ever was a historical Jesus.

Even the name "Jesus" is inconsistent; he's also called Emmanuel. Both names have metaphorical significance that make it unlikely they were talking about a real dude.

(ETA: No, really, his name was "Yahshua" which pretty much just means "God is salvation." I feel like that's pretty blatant.)

1. I think you are referring to the Bible. I did not address the Bible in this post brother. I addressed any historical information. And the only two of them has been discussed in this thread quite well.

2. And the post has nothing to do with using Muslim sources historical sources. It is to discuss if it "matches".

3. Just out of curiosity, who called him Emmanuelle? Could you quote the exact primary source?

4. You see, if you read Josephus, there are many many people called Jesus. It was a very common name.

Id like to hear who called him Emmanuelle anyway. Its out of topic, but to fulfill my curiosity of what you are referring to.

 

[Piculet]

This generalized account, matches up, I think, with all three versions - the NT, Quranic and Talmudic accounts. The exact details, however, are heavily disputed.

He wasn't killed by crucifixion accoring to the Quran.

 

[Vouthon]

The issue with him is that Jesus was dead 4 years before Josephus was born. Josephus is at this point going off earlier narratives.

That's why the James brother of Jesus narrative in Josephus is particularly interesting.

James was executed in 62 CE, according to Josephus, which means that it took place during Josephus's own lifetime (37 - 100 CE) and Josephus was, moreover, a Jerusalemite born and bred.

The majority of scholars regard the James passage as authentic in the form we have it - for a start, it doesn't match later Christian accounts of James's execution in Eusebius (in the manner of how they executed him or the precise date) and it disagrees with the earlier interpolated Jesus reference in referring to Jesus as one "called Christ" (meaning Josephus himself does not endorse the title but is merely reporting what others called him).

Independently of Josephus, we already learn about James from Luke's Acts of the Apostles and Paul in his letters, who knew him personally (admittedly with strained relations and some backbiting from Paul who appeared to resent, somewhat, James's preeminent authority in the early church) and gathered collections from his diaspora communities to send back to his church in Jerusalem.

 

[Harel13]

He wasn't killed by crucifixion accoring to the Quran.

Which is exactly why I wrote what you quoted, that the exact details are disputed.

 

[firedragon]

@firedragon I was just informed that Maimonides' court version is probably based on one of the Talmudic accounts of Jesus that says:

It was taught:
On the Eve of Passover they hung Yeshu the Notzarine. And the herald went out
before him for 40 days [saying]: “Yeshu the Notzarine will go out to be stoned for
sorcery and misleading and enticing Israel [to idolatry]. Any who knows
[anything] in his defence must come and declare concerning him.” But no-one came
to his defence so they hung him on the Eve of Passover.​

In which case, yes, there's a tradition that Jesus was killed by the Jewish court, for sorcery and misleading and enticing fellow Jews (crimes punishable by death). However, just two pages prior it is said that the Sanhedrin (court) stopped judging capital crimes 40 years prior to the destruction of the Temple. In which case, if you do the math, it comes out that this Jesus couldn't have been the Jesus described in the NT, who died less than 40 years before the destruction of the Temple.

Mate. Its dan 11:14.

I don't believe the Jews killed Jesus anyway so if you say they didn't it sounds about right. But my belief is not really a historical affirmation. Maybe they killed him historically. There is a minute chance that Pilate actually was pressured by the Jews which I highly doubt because Pilate was a war mongering killer who would kill Jews just for a small protest, so this Jews pressurizing him to kill Jesus for blasphemy etc are all invalid in my school.

But leaving that aside, I would like to read this Talmudic account you quoted. Could you please give me the exact reference. See, I have never read the Talmud fully, just a tad. I would like to read this episode.

Thanks and peace.

 

[firedragon]

That's why the James brother of Jesus narrative in Josephus is particularly interesting.

James was executed in 62 CE, according to Josephus, which means that it took place during Josephus's own lifetime (37 - 100 CE) and Josephus was, moreover, a Jerusalemite born and bred.

The majority of scholars regard the James passage as authentic in the form we have it - for a start, it doesn't match later Christian accounts of James's execution in Eusebius (in the manner of how they executed him or the precise date) and it disagrees with the earlier interpolated Jesus reference in referring to Jesus as one "called Christ" (meaning Josephus himself does not endorse the title but is merely reporting what others called him).

Hmm. Yep, that's right mate.

 

[David1967]

The Quran was written 600, yes SIX HUNDRED, years after Jesus. Why would anyone use it as a historical document?

I'm curious as to how the Prophet Mohammed came about this information regarding Jesus. Was it passed down by his (Mohammed) people? I would be interested to hear about this from some of my Muslim friends here.

 

[Harel13]

Mate. Its dan 11:14.

That's the verse Maimonides brings as a prophecy for the events, but that doesn't explain the details of the story. For that, we have the Talmudic account.

But leaving that aside, I would like to read this Talmudic account you quoted. Could you please give me the exact reference. See, I have never read the Talmud fully, just a tad. I would like to read this episode.

Sanhedrin 43a
The specific translation I brought is from here.
Also note Sanhedrin 41a.

 

[firedragon]

I'm curious as to how the Prophet Mohammed came about this information regarding Jesus. Was it passed down by his (Mohammed) people? I would be interested to hear about this from some of my Muslim friends here.

Sorry brother. Its not relevant to the topic. Hope you understand.

 

[firedragon]

That's the verse Maimonides brings as a prophecy for the events, but that doesn't explain the details of the story. For that, we have the Talmudic account.

Sanhedrin 43a
The specific translation I brought is from here.
Also note Sanhedrin 41a.

Thank you very much. Truly appreciate it.

 

[Rival]

I'm curious as to how the Prophet Mohammed came about this information regarding Jesus. Was it passed down by his (Mohammed) people? I would be interested to hear about this from some of my Muslim friends here.

He was a caravan trader and would likely have heard it during his coming and goings.

Not wanting to derail the thread, I won't go on further.

 

[firedragon]

When you are aching to say those usual apologetics against a religion its very difficult not to. Its a strange but an occurring phenomena.

 

[Rival]

When you are aching to say those usual apologetics against a religion its very difficult not to. Its a strange but an occurring phenomena.

I'm in it for the thrill

 

[firedragon]

I'm in it for the thrill

Yeah I understand. Its like when I see fried peanuts. Cant resist.

 

[1213]

It's in the Christian and Islamic scriptures.

Please show the scripture. By what I know, Jewish leaders wanted Jesus to be killed and helped Romans to do the job. But by the scriptures, Romans were the ones who killed.

 

[Rival]

Please show the scripture. By what I know, Jewish leaders wanted Jesus to be killed and helped Romans to do the job. But by the scriptures, Romans were the ones who killed.

The Romans killed him. According to Matthew the Jewish crowd said,

And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!”

That's pretty horrible, as well as the fact they were shouting for the Romans to crucify him. This is not something Jews would ever have done, considering this is not a halachically valid capital punishment.

 

[Dawnofhope]

So you believe the Quran is speaking of a "spirit"? But it doesn't say that right? It just says "hoo" as in "him". Thus, what do you make of it? The Quran is mistaken?

The discussion is about evidence for historical claims. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of Jesus being crucified. New Testament books have historical value regardless of the inclusion of mythological narratives such as the resurrection. Similarly the Quran has historical value. However from a purely historical perspective the New Testament books were all written within 70 years of Christ’s crucifixion whereas the Quran was compiled nearly six hundred years later. You are entitled to your religious beliefs as we all are. However the belief that Christ was not crucified despite the clear Testimony of most of the New Testament writers has no historical validity and is nothing more than religious claims. Those beliefs have no evidence whatsoever to support them.

In regards non biblical evidence we have Josephus and Tacitus:

The first and most extensive reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 18, states that Jesus was the Messiah and a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate. It is commonly called the Testimonium Flavianum.[1][3][4] Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of this passage in its present form, while the majority of scholars nevertheless hold that it contains an authentic nucleus referencing the execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to Christian interpolationand/or alteration.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] The exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear, however.[11][12]

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia

The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[5][6][7] Paul Eddy and Gregory Boydargue that it is "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8] Scholars view it as establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60: (i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time, (ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and (iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Roman Judea.[9][10]

Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia