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

[oldbadger]

1. The Jews claim they killed Jesus (Doesn't say Romans), yet they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him says the Qur'an - 4:157

Fair enough.
That seems about right.

2. Jesus was called the "Messiah". - 3:45

At the time it probably seemed that way to some.

3. Jesus had followers, him, and his followers preached a theology - 61:14

OK. No problems with that.

4. He spoke to the Jews - 5:46, 72

Yes he did.

What you have to say?

Not bad.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

Muhammad hung around with a lot of Jews and Arian Christians and was influenced by their beliefs. Undoubtedly, however, he had his own ideas as well. The Quran was a mixture of all this.

 

[February-Saturday]

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.

Sure, I'll grant that it raises questions, but I disagree that the New Testament is too human of a document to be made up simply because it has contradictions. Actually, some of the contradictions are so bizarrely against what eye-witness contradictions are actually like that they come across more as folkloric differences. Early Christianity wasn't making anything up, it formed in a highly eclectic group of various budding religions and spiritual traditions interacting and being formed in a way that was hitherto unprecedented. I doubt that the stories were "made up" at all in a way that they would care about the contradictions. It wasn't really until the Council of Nicaea that anyone seemed to really care about creating and maintaining a coherent narrative about Jesus.

The later gospels are probably based on Mark, a sayings text, and maybe a Q gospel (or a variety of other texts or stories). Mark itself is loosely based on the Pauline epistles. So if we're going to argue about the historical Jesus, we should be going back to the Pauline epistles and arguing it there like most historians do. It's at the very beginning and most later legends trace back to it.

No serious historian is claiming that Jesus rose from the dead or walked on water, so much of the later gospels are pretty much irrelevant to the question of a historical Jesus because they're obviously mythical. The idea that there's a root behind the myth would, again, pretty much solely depend on the Pauline epistles because they're the only probable contemporary texts we have of Jesus. And the epistles themselves are still describing miracles and describe Jesus as showing up to Paul in visions, not as a physical person. That's in the only contemporary text we have of him.

The question about whether Jesus was a real person is more akin to asking whether King Arthur or Robin Hood was a real person. It's not a straightforward task and it's quite messy. I don't know much about the historicity of Robin Hood, although I'm a bit of an Arthurian fan, but I do know too much about the historicity of Jesus.

 

[February-Saturday]

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

Josephus has been edited by Christians. Both Josephus and Tacitus were repeating what Christians at the time believed, neither of which would have been contemporary with Jesus. They're not really evidence that Jesus existed at all, and in fact both writings on Jesus may have come after gospel texts which already described the crucifixion. They were both written quite some time after the Pauline epistles.

 

[February-Saturday]

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.

1. The Bible has all of the earliest accounts of Jesus in it, so any understanding of a historical Jesus will rely on texts that were later compiled into the Bible. I don't think there's really a way to avoid that.

2. I'm not discussing the Muslim's story as history, I'm just pointing out that it's very different from the earlier accounts. Since the earlier accounts are closer to the actual event, later contradictions are likely to be less accurate. So the Muslim story of Jesus definitely does not match the actual history. If Jesus existed at all, it would be quite likely that he really was crucified. I'm simply not convinced that he really did exist.

3. Earlier versions of Matthew 1.

4. You're right, it was a common name. It's still a common name. However, when the main character of a Christian film is named something like "Joshua" or "Christian" or they have a last name like "Carpenter" I still think it's pretty on the nose despite those being real names.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

1. The Jews claim they killed Jesus (Doesn't say Romans), yet they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him says the Qur'an - 4:157

2. Jesus was called the "Messiah". - 3:45

3. Jesus had followers, him, and his followers preached a theology - 61:14

4. He spoke to the Jews - 5:46, 72

Rather than considering the theological points and all the apologetics on the internet and TV, it would be interesting to just think of these simple historical claims and wonder if it is actually historical objectively.

What you have to say?

Don't all 4 Gospels agree Jesus was crucified? Wouldn't that be historical

1. The Jews claim they killed Jesus (Doesn't say Romans), yet they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him says the Qur'an - 4:157

2. Jesus was called the "Messiah". - 3:45

3. Jesus had followers, him, and his followers preached a theology - 61:14

4. He spoke to the Jews - 5:46, 72

Rather than considering the theological points and all the apologetics on the internet and TV, it would be interesting to just think of these simple historical claims and wonder if it is actually historical objectively.

What you have to say?

If we purely look at historical narratives, they are in favour of crucifixion of Jesus as described in Bible.
But, if you say, Quran is divine revelation, and God knows what happened to Jesus better than anyone else, sure, let's consider the possibility that what Quran is true by examining it.
What do you believe happened to Jesus as per Quran?

A) He was killed by Romans (not by the Jews)
Or
B) He was neither killed nor died at all, but God took Him up to Himself physically?

If you say "A". My question is, what difference does it make if Jesus was killed by Jews or by some others? Why should God be so concerned who actually killed His messenger?
Or
If you say "B", my question is, why didn't God allow Jesus to die, but He allowed Muhammad to die? Or even other Prophets were killed or died before Jesus, so, why this exception for only Jesus?

After all, a divine claim, must logically make sense, doesnt it?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Josephus has been edited by Christians. Both Josephus and Tacitus were repeating what Christians at the time believed, neither of which would have been contemporary with Jesus. They're not really evidence that Jesus existed at all, and in fact both writings on Jesus may have come after gospel texts which already described the crucifixion. They were both written quite some time after the Pauline epistles.

They corroborate the Gospel accounts as well as NT apostolic letters. Only one section of Josephus's account is considered to have been edited by Christians. So the combination of Josephus, Tacitus, the Gospel accounts and the Apostolic letters make up as much evidence for the historic Jesus as most other notable historic figures from this period. For that reason most historians are of the opinion Jesus did exist, that He was an itinerant preacher, He was baptised and crucified. To me, a mythologised historic character certainly make more sense in explaining the development and spread of the Christian Church than a totally mythical character.

 

[Link]

I don't think Quran considers history a means to knowledge of facts and if you study history in University, they'll teach you it's unreliable in general.

 

[February-Saturday]

They corroborate the Gospel accounts as well as NT apostolic letters. Only one section of Josephus's account is considered to have been edited by Christians. So the combination of Josephus, Tacitus, the Gospel accounts and the Apostolic letters make up as much evidence for the historic Jesus as most other notable historic figures from this period. For that reason most historians are of the opinion Jesus did exist, that He was an itinerant preacher, He was baptised and crucified. To me, a mythologised historic character certainly make more sense in explaining the development and spread of the Christian Church than a totally mythical character.

That's not really as much evidence for the historic Jesus as most other notable historical figures from that time period. Tacitus and Josephus are not contemporary with Jesus, only Paul is, and again Paul's information on Jesus seems pretty heavily mythologized already.

Compare this with a figure like Plato, who had at least three contemporaries write about him (Aristotle, Xenophon, Aristophanes) and none of them really have mythical elements. Pontus Pilate himself had contemporaries with Philo and Josephus, also without mythical elements, and some archaeological evidence. Jesus isn't even in the same ballpark as these figures as far as historical evidence goes.

 

[firedragon]

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

Josephus and Tacitus have already been discussed extensively in this thread and yes they are the only historical sources we have to make some assessment.

1. But you see, does the Quran say that Jesus was never crucified by anyone? Where does it say that? You have not understood the Quran. You have seen the Quranic discourse with the same lens of those Muslims who wanted to defy the Bible. It says about the Ahlul Kithab claim that they killed him, and says no they did not.

2. Josephus does not mention anything about the Crucifixion.

3. Tacitus doesn't either. Yet we make the probable assumption.

Again, this is not about Quran having a historical value. You should read the OP. Its calling to question if it matches the historical Jesus. Not if Quran has historical authority.

Hope you understand.

 

[firedragon]

Fair enough.
That seems about right.


At the time it probably seemed that way to some.


OK. No problems with that.


Yes he did.


Not bad.

Haha. Good one.

 

[firedragon]

Muhammad hung around with a lot of Jews and Arian Christians and was influenced by their beliefs. Undoubtedly, however, he had his own ideas as well. The Quran was a mixture of all this.

Assumption or historical fact?

 

[firedragon]

That's not really as much evidence for the historic Jesus as most other notable historical figures from that time period. Tacitus and Josephus are not contemporary with Jesus, only Paul is, and again Paul's information on Jesus seems pretty heavily mythologized already.

Compare this with a figure like Plato, who had at least three contemporaries write about him (Aristotle, Xenophon, Aristophanes) and none of them really have mythical elements. Pontus Pilate himself had contemporaries with Philo and Josephus, also without mythical elements, and some archaeological evidence. Jesus isn't even in the same ballpark as these figures as far as historical evidence goes.

Josephus and Tacitus may not be evidence to the whole story of Jesus as depicted in the New Testament. But it is only evidence that there was a man named Jesus (among many others) who was called the Christ or Messiah.

These historians marry the name Jesus to the calling "messiah". Thats it.

Scholars make probabilities out of the setting in history about what would have occurred. As usual practice of the Romans if they did actually catch hold of Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah they would have crucified him for sure because they have crucified many many others for the same Messiah claim. This is in their eyes "Sedition". So this is a probability matter. Yet, its not a historically confirmed matter.

 

[firedragon]

I don't think Quran considers history a means to knowledge of facts and if you study history in University, they'll teach you it's unreliable in general.

You are right brother. But this thread is to understand what historical sources people come up with and see what they have to say. You may have a point, but its not relevant to this thread.

In fact, my opinion is that Quran and History in this matter is in harmony. It is not about relying upon history, it is an exploration of the two.

 

[firedragon]

Don't all 4 Gospels agree Jesus was crucified? Wouldn't that be historical

If we purely look at historical narratives, they are in favour of crucifixion of Jesus as described in Bible.
But, if you say, Quran is divine revelation, and God knows what happened to Jesus better than anyone else, sure, let's consider the possibility that what Quran is true by examining it.
What do you believe happened to Jesus as per Quran?

A) He was killed by Romans (not by the Jews)
Or
B) He was neither killed nor died at all, but God took Him up to Himself physically?

If you say "A". My question is, what difference does it make if Jesus was killed by Jews or by some others? Why should God be so concerned who actually killed His messenger?
Or
If you say "B", my question is, why didn't God allow Jesus to die, but He allowed Muhammad to die? Or even other Prophets were killed or died before Jesus, so, why this exception for only Jesus?

After all, a divine claim, must logically make sense, doesnt it?

Can you show me this historical evidence? If its the Bible, sorry that's not historical evidence. If you wish to discuss if the Bible is historical you could always do that in a new thread. I am not considering there Quran or the Bible or any other book on theology as a historical evidence. This is just to see if the Quran matches with the Historical Jesus.

Anyway, if there are any historical sources that say Jesus was crucified for sure I would like to see that. And as claimed throughout these 20 or whatever centuries if you could produce some evidence to Jews being the murderers let's see some historical evidence. It will be nice. Thanks.

 

[February-Saturday]

Josephus and Tacitus may not be evidence to the whole story of Jesus as depicted in the New Testament. But it is only evidence that there was a man named Jesus (among many others) who was called the Christ or Messiah.

These historians marry the name Jesus to the calling "messiah". Thats it.

Scholars make probabilities out of the setting in history about what would have occurred. As usual practice of the Romans if they did actually catch hold of Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah they would have crucified him for sure because they have crucified many many others for the same Messiah claim. This is in their eyes "Sedition". So this is a probability matter. Yet, its not a historically confirmed matter.

I don't think either of them provide evidence that there was a man named Jesus who was called the messiah. Tacitus, for instance, was specifically writing about Christians and their beliefs, not a person or historical figure. We can dismiss Tacitus entirely because it provides no evidence that there was a man named Jesus who was regarded as the messiah, it only describes a group of people who already believed that.

Josephus would be a more compelling case if it wasn't so thoroughly doctored and forged, if Josephus was contemporary with Jesus, and if his writings on Jesus weren't just taken from what Christians were saying at the time like Tacitus. There are so many historical arguments discounting the usefulness of Josephus that I'm not mentioning, too. It's a very unreliable source. Even if it were reliable, it's at best a second-hand account of what early Christians believe. To me, Josephus seems like evidence for Jesus in the same way that Annales Cambriae is evidence for King Arthur, which is to say not really evidence at all.

I agree that if Jesus was a real person he likely would have been crucified. I just don't think there's compelling evidence that he existed, and I think there is compelling evidence that he came out of folklore and legend. I think the evidence for a historical Jesus is in the same category as the evidence for a historical John Frum or Robin Hood. There's no real guarantee he actually existed.

 

[firedragon]

I don't think either of them provide evidence that there was a man named Jesus who was called the messiah. Tacitus, for instance, was specifically writing about Christians and their beliefs, not a person or historical figure. We can dismiss Tacitus entirely because it provides no evidence that there was a man named Jesus who was regarded as the messiah, it only describes a group of people who already believed that.

Josephus would be a more compelling case if it wasn't so thoroughly doctored and forged, if Josephus was contemporary with Jesus, and if his writings on Jesus weren't just taken from what Christians were saying at the time like Tacitus. There are so many historical arguments discounting the usefulness of Josephus that I'm not mentioning, too. It's a very unreliable source. Even if it were reliable, it's at best a second-hand account of what early Christians believe. To me, Josephus seems like evidence for Jesus in the same way that Annales Cambriae is evidence for King Arthur, which is to say not really evidence at all.

I agree that if Jesus was a real person he likely would have been crucified. I just don't think there's compelling evidence that he existed, and I think there is compelling evidence that he came out of folklore and legend. I think the evidence for a historical Jesus is in the same category as the evidence for a historical John Frum or Robin Hood. There's no real guarantee he actually existed.

Tacitus says that the Christians are named as such because of the Christus who these Christians are named after. And he says that during the rule of Tiberius, the uprising of Jesus or Christus was given the most preferred punishment ruled by Pilate. It is not about a Christian "belief" we spoke of. He clearly states his historical knowledge of a Christus and an uprising that was crushed by Pilates hand. Thats a historical claim, not a statement about other peoples faith. This is book 15, chapter 44 of Annals.

The parts that were "doctored" in the Josephus and the antiquities are the parts where he makes Jesus a miracle man. Everyone knows this. Not the part where he speaks of James, the brother of Jesus this guy who they called a messiah.

This is established scholarship.

There are good scholars who make arguments which you may align with who some people call mythicists, but you should also consider the arguments of most scholars who make these conclusions based on Josephus and Tacitus.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Assumption or historical fact?

This is what I learned at the university, so I trust that it is backed by scholarship.

 

[firedragon]

This is what I learned at the university, so I trust that it is backed by scholarship.

You learned in the university that "1. Muhammad hung around with a lot of Jews and Arian Christians 2. and was influenced by their beliefs. 3. Undoubtedly, however, he had his own ideas as well. 4. The Quran was a mixture of all this."?

Can you please quote the textbook that taught you this exact points?

 

[Dawnofhope]

That's not really as much evidence for the historic Jesus as most other notable historical figures from that time period. Tacitus and Josephus are not contemporary with Jesus, only Paul is, and again Paul's information on Jesus seems pretty heavily mythologized already.

Compare this with a figure like Plato, who had at least three contemporaries write about him (Aristotle, Xenophon, Aristophanes) and none of them really have mythical elements. Pontus Pilate himself had contemporaries with Philo and Josephus, also without mythical elements, and some archaeological evidence. Jesus isn't even in the same ballpark as these figures as far as historical evidence goes.

I do not deny there is better historical documentation for some historical characters around the era of Christ. However Josephus and Tacitus were reputable historians for their era and their accounts were not mythologised. Although they were not contemporaries of Jesus their accounts were written within a century of Christ's crucifixion. Paul of Taurus is an historic character that even a hardened sceptic such as Richard Carrier accepts as being real. He was a contemporary of Jesus though never met Him face to face. Acts of the apostles has verifiable historicity and the author almost certainly wrote the Gospel. We have evidence of collaboration between the authors of Mark, Luke and Matthew. James the brother Jesus is mentioned in Josephus, the Gospels, Acts and by Paul. The first Gospel to be written, Mark, was most likely written between 66 - 70 AD. Based on the synoptic Gospel accounts, Acts and the Pauline letters we have some basis of other important biblical characters and likely authors of NT books. Then we have a wealth of documents from Christians in the second and third century. So it all holds together for a compelling narrative for most historians and scholars, atheists included.