Please define this "historical Jesus".
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is the Muslim Jesus cited in the Qur'an possibly historical?
- Thread starter firedragon
- Start date
firedragon
Veteran Member
Sorry I missed your question. You mean about the Mishneh Torah? Well, I have only read one version which is said to be the original version without any deletions. There is another version where there are some deletions or censorship which has taken out the negative narratives about Jesus.
The problem here is that then there's no evidence for Jesus whatsoever, and we severely limit what we class as historical sources. Most of what we consider historical sources are little more than propaganda, victor's narratives or embellished according to royalty/culture/etc. We'd only have a very small sample from which to draw if our main criterion is 'Must be historically verifiable or verified by other sources'. These writers weren't interested in real history as much as they were in making their point.
Last edited:
firedragon
Veteran Member
Lol. Brother. That is too wide a subject and will need a book. I am only picking a few things the Quran speaks of for the sake of this topic. If you wish to get into the whole subject of "Historical Jesus" that is way way too big and is not relevant here.
Anyway, by historical Jesus I mean what we can identify as "Historical" from what ever historical documents or narratives that we may deem valid as "historical", not theological or faith based belief statements.
Yeah, I'm looking at the uncensored version (which, interestingly, also mentions Muhammed in the same chapter...). I just didn't understand what you meant by "repetitions"?
By the way, yes, you're right, Maimonides does say he was killed by the court. However it's very vague as to what court he refers - Jewish or non-Jewish. In any case, he says this very matter-of-factually, not in some egotistic way.
I would think that if you're trying to understand whether the Quran depicts the historical Jesus or not, you'd be able to, at the very least, supply a short, concise description.
Are there any such documents?
firedragon
Veteran Member
Well, it is a plausible idea to say that the Josephus account of Jesus is historical. The reason is because it is not "propaganda" or a "Victors boast" but a passing comment. Just a passing comment. Josephus is not talking about Jesus the Messiah, he is talking about James the brother and he identifies him by saying "the brother of Jesus they called Messiah" as if he doesn't care who this Jesus is but is just making an identification.
Thats why scholars believe it is historical and is a valid record that verifies a man called Jesus existed.
The issue with him is that Jesus was dead 4 years before Josephus was born. Josephus is at this point going off earlier narratives.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Lol. Yes. It does mention Muhammed in the same chapter.
Wait, doesn't Mishneh mean repetition? We always refer to it as repetition because it means repetition. Maybe a Hebrew speaker would understand it differently. Trust me, we always, always refer to it as repetition.
Even people like me just say 'mishneh' in Hebrew. It's basically a word in English now.
Weird. Wikipedia indeed translates it as Repetition of the Torah. I always thought it was like "sub-Torah", "second-to-the-Torah", like Mishneh La'melech, second-to-the-king.
Mishnah (precursor to the Talmud), does mean repetition.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Yep. You are right. But Josephus is a historian. He is quoting history. And he is the earliest yet comprehensive historian. But your argument has weight since he could be speaking out of folklore, but then we have to negate everything Josephus says that date back to this time. Well, even that is fine with me if you wish.
The problem in analyzing Josephus is that in this account he does not speak from folklore. He is quoting James, who was also a historical character in the early 1st century. If Josephus was making a theological claim or making false praise or something then one could assume that its just legend, but this is a passing comment. Thats the reason scholars take it as a historical narrative.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Well, of course its an English word now. Just like other books. We don't use the meaning of the words, but we use the Jewish name like the Tanakh, naviim, Ketuviim etc etc. Yet we use the prophets, writings, and similar translations referring to those books all the time. Its pretty common. Maybe because we don't speak Hebrew at all. Well actually I have a Jewish friend who also uses the translation repetition quite frequently. Maybe since he relates with others in discussion.
Well, that's that.
Tacitus (the early second century Roman historian) in his Annals explicitly states that this 'Christus' (Jesus Christ) was the recipient of the 'supreme penalty' (crucifixion) under Pontius Pilate:
Tacitus on the Christians - Livius
Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.
Historians and source-critical scholars accept this as a genuine account by Tacitus, so he had some knowledge of this account.
As the scholars I cited in my past post explain, 'crucifixion' was the supreme form of capital punishment that the Roman state could issue - reserved for the most dangerous class of criminals (i.e. rebellious 'slaves', after the Spartacus uprising every Roman magnate was terrified that their slave-based economy would again be disrupted by an insurrection of enslaved people; 'brigands' that is highway robbers who disrupted travel on the Roman roads (critical for the free-flow of trade throughout the empire) and finally 'sedition', those who in some way were deemed to have resisted Roman rule).
Scholars can deduce that Jesus was evidently not a slave or a brigand and the criteria in the gospels fits the definition of the crime of 'sedition' (i.e. Jesus spoke of a 'kingdom of God' which would have disturbed the Roman authorities).
Jesus's forerunner, whose movement he had originally himself been a part of, John the Baptist's, had also directly challenged the Herodian-client regime and foreign relations of Tetrarch Herod Antipas in Galilee, by denouncing his marriage (as both the gospels and Josephus independently affirm). As Josephus informs us:
Josephus on John the Baptist - Livius
[18.116] Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God as a just punishment of what Herod had done against John, who was called the Baptist.
[18.117] For Herod had killed this good man...
[18.118] Now many people came in crowds to him, for they were greatly moved by his words. Herod, who feared that the great influence John had over the masses might put them into his power and enable him to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it best to put him to death
[18.116] Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God as a just punishment of what Herod had done against John, who was called the Baptist.
[18.117] For Herod had killed this good man...
[18.118] Now many people came in crowds to him, for they were greatly moved by his words. Herod, who feared that the great influence John had over the masses might put them into his power and enable him to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it best to put him to death
We also need to remember that Paul's letters were written in the 50s CE, and he testifies to having met (and had a rather strained relationship) with Jesus's brother James and his leading apostle Peter (with whom Paul boasts about having rebuked him to his face in Galatians as if to say to his readers, "hey, I even stood up to him").
And the crucifixion of Jesus is already assumed in Paul's letters as a fact the early Christian community knew and had already made the centre of their belief system. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-8. Paul tells us he received the tradition (paredōka = “I delivered”; parelabon = “I received”), of Christ’s death on a Roman cross and burial. He reiterates this in 1 Corinthians 2:2, Galatians 3:1, 2 Corinthians 13:4, and many more occasions.
This is only a decade or so after Jesus's lifetime, when people who actually had known him were still alive. Jesus's brother James, for example, wouldn't be executed until 62 CE as described by Josephus:
Josephus on James
But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done;
Here, we find again the Sadducees targetting the early Christian community in Jerusalem and executing Jesus's brother James. However, many other Jews who are not of the Sadducee persuasion - scholars regard references to 'equitable' in Josephus's works as referring to Pharisees given that he himself identified as a Pharisee - were outraged by his execution, according to Josephus.
James's execution took place during Josephus's actual lifetime (37 - 100 A.D.), so he wasn't here describing something that took place prior to his birth as with Jesus's execution and Josephus was actually a Jerusalemite (born and bred).
Paul could have and did speak personally (by his own admission) with James before his death. If he had any doubts that James's brother had been executed by crucifixion, he could have asked him at any time. He doesn't, because there was no doubt about the fact of Jesus's crucifixion in the early Christian community.
Last edited:
firedragon
Veteran Member
Well brother, I am no Hebrew expert so you know better. One day maybe I could learn Hebrew. One day.
What I know is that Mishneh means "to repeat" or "say it again" or rather the action of it. What it connotes is that this is the subordinate to something. But the meaning is that.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Read the whole chapter. He is talking about the rare occasion of Nero persecuting Christians (Christiani) which he says is a name coming from the Christus who got the 'Choicest Penalty' in the hands of Pilate. But I must say that this account is believed to be a historical record and to be valid since Annals is not an apologetic book and is cliticising Christians like they are a plague. So yes, its valid.
And indeed, no Christian is going to call their religion a "mischievious superstition" and "evil" that needs stamped out because it has spread like a virus from Jerusalem to Rome.
So, needless to say, scholars unanimously accept that Tacitus wrote this in the context you describe above (the burning of Rome in the 60s and Nero's blaming of it on the Christians) and he was of the clear mind that one of 'our' procurators had disposed of this dissidant founder of the Christian sect by giving him the 'supreme penalty' (crucifixion).
firedragon
Veteran Member
Exactly. And no one would ever even when mindnumpingly dumb would think Tacitus is Christian.
Cheers.
firedragon
Veteran Member
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?
SA Huguenot
Well-Known Member
Is the Muslim Jesus cited in the Qur'an possibly historical?
Not at all, and let me prove it.
The Quran say this Jesus was not killed on the cross, someone else was made to look as if it was Jesus.
In this case the Quran accuses Jesus as a false messiah who made someone else die in his place, and the witnesses who saw the crucifiction was deceived by Allah.
Now, if the Witnesses to the crucifixion saw "a" Jesus die on the cross, and it looked like Jesus, how on earth were they to know it was a false Jesus.
Muhammad had a real predicament placed on the shoulders of the leaders of Islam with this revelation from Allah.
He Made Allah a deceiver, and Jesus a liar in pretending that he was crucified.
I as a christian are in full agreement with the Torah, Nebium and Ketuvium.
I can take the NT and place the OT within it and believe in it all.
One thing no one can do is to take the Quran and paste it in the Bible as Christians calls it.
This will create the worst contradictive scriptural collection ever devised.
Not at all, and let me prove it.
The Quran say this Jesus was not killed on the cross, someone else was made to look as if it was Jesus.
In this case the Quran accuses Jesus as a false messiah who made someone else die in his place, and the witnesses who saw the crucifiction was deceived by Allah.
Now, if the Witnesses to the crucifixion saw "a" Jesus die on the cross, and it looked like Jesus, how on earth were they to know it was a false Jesus.
Muhammad had a real predicament placed on the shoulders of the leaders of Islam with this revelation from Allah.
He Made Allah a deceiver, and Jesus a liar in pretending that he was crucified.
I as a christian are in full agreement with the Torah, Nebium and Ketuvium.
I can take the NT and place the OT within it and believe in it all.
One thing no one can do is to take the Quran and paste it in the Bible as Christians calls it.
This will create the worst contradictive scriptural collection ever devised.
firedragon
Veteran Member
No. The Quran does not say that.