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

[firedragon]

Well, either you never read the Quran, or you are attempting to commit Taqiyah. (Lie to defend Islam)

Haha. Thanks.

By the way, do you know that you just lied or someone lied to you? Because Taqiyya in Arabic means prudence or a nature of righteousness. So your lie (or someone else's lie you repeated) "commit Taqiyah. (Lie to defend Islam)" as you said is an utter lie, whoever it came from. Thats an irrelevant subject so you could as a grown up with some sense open up a new thread and call it whatever you may. I would advice you to do a little bit of research like a seeker of knowledge rather than a repeater of a lie prior to doing that.

And if you are attempting to bring something irrelevant to derail a discussion with a tad bit of bogus mixed with another bit of hatred without kindergarten knowledge of anything to discuss whatsoever, you can go ahead and open a new thread and do it there too. One day one has to grow up you see?

Cheers.

 

[oldbadger]

No, they are not the only historical sources. The NT books are historical sources. We will need to agree to disagree no doubt.

It does not matter what you or I think the Quran means other than your view of the Quran is rejected by mainstream history and my view is accepted. Being written 600 years after the fact means it has no historical validity in regards the crucifixion of Christ.

Jesus being crucified is strongly implied in both accounts.

Of course Jesus talked to the Jews. He was Jewish. He wouldn't have been talking to the Japanese. So saying He talked to Jews, claimed to be a Messiah and had a following isn't anything other than very basic knowledge. The fact Jesus was crucified is also basic knowledge and the evidence is so strong its considered a fact.

The baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion are considered to be two historically certain facts about Jesus.[71][72] James Dunn states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus.[71] Bart Ehrman states that the crucifixion of Jesus on the orders of Pontius Pilate is the most certain element about him.[73] John Dominic Crossan states that the crucifixion of Jesus is as certain as any historical fact can be.[74] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[61] Craig Blomberg states that most scholars in the third quest for the historical Jesus consider the crucifixion indisputable.[4] Christopher M. Tuckett states that, although the exact reasons for the death of Jesus are hard to determine, one of the indisputable facts about him is that he was crucified.[75]

John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader, invoking the criterion of embarrassment principle in historical research.[76] Meier states that a number of other criteria, e.g., the criterion of multiple attestation (i.e., confirmation by more than one source) and the criterion of coherence (i.e., that it fits with other historical elements) help establish the crucifixion of Jesus as a historical event.[77]

While scholars agree on the historicity of the crucifixion, they differ on the reason and context for it.

Crucifixion of Jesus - Wikipedia

As your fellow Muslim has contributed above:

"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."

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

Thanks for the discussion.

Whoa...! Don't go away......!

Whilst there is a 50% chance that Jesus was crucified (and saved by Pilate!), there is a 50% chance that he was set free.

Can I just focus upon the latter of those possibilities.??

Crucifixion is supposed to take a long time.... lots of endless torture. OK?

So it's strange to whip somebody bloody first, that is going to shorten the torture, not increase it. OK?

To thrust down a 'crown' of thorns upon a victim's head is going to completely cover their features in blood. OK?

I don't think anybody could recognise the victim.

Magdalene, Salome and other women watched from afar...... I don't think onlookers were allowed nearby. (John wrote waffle..... was never there).

Pilate liked Jesus, liked the Trouble in the Temple, disliked the Priesthood, wanted to please the crowds. The Crowds adored Jesus THE SON OF THE FATHER, and Pilate wanted him alive...... useful.

Pilate rigged this to Jesus out and away.

There is so much evidence for this info to be tried properly........ it's been too long now, so let's just look at what we've got rather than listen to a bunch of experts who don't actually agree together. They're frightened to suggest the above..... it's their meal ticket at stake.


See it this way........ nobody then had a clue who got executed, and certainly nobody today does. Your experts like Dominic Crosson...... Oh my! The waffled ideas that mind spun together, of a shuffling ragged 'magic for meal' pauper going from one village to next to impress for some grub..... let's leave out the experts and just look at the evidence. And don't mention Bart...... really. These people have been selling themselves for yonks......

 

[Vouthon]

In all honesty, I think you misunderstood Ehrman completely, yet I could be mistaken. Please read the full book you quoted from. The immediate next page he calls the logic posed in the paragraph you cut and paste as "weak". You are in fact "misquoting Ehrman". (Smiley face because the statement is ironic).

Did I? That would be a hilarious faux pas indeed, in view of Ehrman's other book "misquoting" Jesus

Thank you for noting, I must go back and read the overall context, my recollection is that the passage in question was about Ehrman discussing where he agreed and disagreed with Doherty, and I believe it was more Doherty's contention that Josephus couldn't have thought Jesus "wise" and other elements that he found particularly weak. I don't recall him explicitly refuting this part of Doherty's argument? I mean he even says before this, "As Doherty rightly notes, however, it was not at all uncommon for ancient writers (who never used footnotes) to digress from their main points..." so he isn't blanket saying Doherty has got it all wrong.

Certainly, Bond's point stands on its own that Josephus's portrayel can be construed as likely being fairly neutral - all things considered - and that a number of scholars think the original passage was more 'political'.

And the last section quoted by me from Ehrman, "The Testimonium is so restrained, with only a couple of fairly reserved sentences here and there, that it does not read like a Christian apocryphal account of Jesus written for the occasion" definetely is Ehrman's own comment and nothing to do with Doherty. And he moreover goes on to state: "The payoff is that most scholars continue to be convinced that Josephus did indeed write about Jesus, probably in something like the pared-down version that I quote above."

 

[Harel13]

Whoa...! Don't go away......!

Whilst there is a 50% chance that Jesus was crucified (and saved by Pilate!), there is a 50% chance that he was set free.

Can I just focus upon the latter of those possibilities.??

Crucifixion is supposed to take a long time.... lots of endless torture. OK?

So it's strange to whip somebody bloody first, that is going to shorten the torture, not increase it. OK?

To thrust down a 'crown' of thorns upon a victim's head is going to completely cover their features in blood. OK?

I don't think anybody could recognise the victim.

Magdalene, Salome and other women watched from afar...... I don't think onlookers were allowed nearby. (John wrote waffle..... was never there).

Pilate liked Jesus, liked the Trouble in the Temple, disliked the Priesthood, wanted to please the crowds. The Crowds adored Jesus THE SON OF THE FATHER, and Pilate wanted him alive...... useful.

Pilate rigged this to Jesus out and away.

There is so much evidence for this info to be tried properly........ it's been too long now, so let's just look at what we've got rather than listen to a bunch of experts who don't actually agree together. They're frightened to suggest the above..... it's their meal ticket at stake.


See it this way........ nobody then had a clue who got executed, and certainly nobody today does. Your experts like Dominic Crosson...... Oh my! The waffled ideas that mind spun together, of a shuffling ragged 'magic for meal' pauper going from one village to next to impress for some grub..... let's leave out the experts and just look at the evidence. And don't mention Bart...... really. These people have been selling themselves for yonks......

It's a conspiracy!

 

[oldbadger]

There is no way of corroborating these events, besides, the story appears to be a theology rather than a history.

Hi.....
Based upon the balance of probabilities, the stories of both the Baptist and Jesus are true, but with frills attached .... mostly for Christianity.

The Temple, it's Priesthood corruption, the coinage, the abuse of the peasantry, the Immerser's movement..... the lot...... and Jesus.

All there....

 

[Vouthon]

@firedragon Having consulted Ehrman's book again, I don't think he's saying that Doherty said this - rather he's 'countering' Doherty with his own argument (unless I'm reading this wrong?):

"Doherty goes on to claim that the passage does not ring true to Josephus otherwise, in part because “in the case of every other would-be messiah or popular leader opposed to or executed by the Romans, he has nothing but evil to say.”19 This is the case with all messianic pretenders of Josephus’s day: he was completely opposed to anyone who might foment an uprising against Rome (remember: he was writing as a privileged guest in the court of the Roman emperor).

But it needs to be stressed that in the possibly original form of the Testimonium...He is simply a teacher with followers, accused on unknown grounds by (specifically) Jewish leaders and then executed. Moreover, if one reads the passage without the rose-tinted lenses of the Christian tradition, its view of Jesus can be seen as basically negative. The fact that he was opposed by the leaders of the Jewish people would no doubt have shown that he was not an upright Jew. And the fact that he was condemned to crucifixion, the most horrific execution imaginable to a Roman audience, speaks for itself. Even though Jesus may have been a good teacher, he was a threat to the state, or at least a nuisance, and so the state dealt with him fairly and strongly, by condemning him...

Doherty makes many other points, but most of them, frankly, are even weaker than these and do not need to be given serious attention here"
​

Doherty was arguing that the passage doesn't ring true because its too adulatory of Jesus to fit Josephus's trend of generally maligning messianic claimants. Ehrman counters with what I quoted earlier!

So, I think you've actually 'misquoted' me correctly quoting Ehrman

 

[oldbadger]

It's a conspiracy!

Ha ha!
Many a joke was spoken in earnest.
It was a flippin' conspiracy.

But I'll say this for Christians......... they did add bits and lumps to the gospels, they did spin a religion out of this, but they kept the verses that DID NOT help their cause, it seems that they felt that they could not remove writings even if they were unhelpful or damaging to the cause.

What this must mean is that the early Christians believed utterly in their faith and could not bring themselves to make cuts, but felt that it was alright to 'help the faith along'.

Templegate!!

 

[firedragon]

Did I? That would be a hilarious faux pas indeed, in view of Ehrman's other book "misquoting" Jesus

Thank you for noting, I must go back and read the overall context, my recollection is that the passage in question was about Ehrman discussing where he agreed and disagreed with Doherty, and I believe it was more Doherty's contention that Josephus couldn't have thought Jesus "wise" and other elements that he found particularly weak. I don't recall him explicitly refuting this part of Doherty's argument? I mean he even says before this, "As Doherty rightly notes, however, it was not at all uncommon for ancient writers (who never used footnotes) to digress from their main points..." so he isn't blanket saying Doherty has got it all wrong.

Certainly, Bond's point stands on its own that Josephus's portrayel can be construed as likely being fairly neutral - all things considered - and that a number of scholars think the original passage was more 'political'.

And the last section quoted by me from Ehrman, "The Testimonium is so restrained, with only a couple of fairly reserved sentences here and there, that it does not read like a Christian apocryphal account of Jesus written for the occasion" definetely was Ehrman's own comment and nothing to do with Doherty. And he moreover goes on to state: "The payoff is that most scholars continue to be convinced that Josephus did indeed write about Jesus, probably in something like the pared-down version that I quote above."

Haha. You got the pun intended.

Yes brother, I just checked the page too. You are quoting from the section about Josephus where he quoted Doherty. Of course Doherty is correct, but his argument based on that analysis is weak. Ehrman in the next page says the rest of the arguments are even weaker and not to be taken seriously. Basically, Doherty has some bathwater to throw out, but he throwing the baby out with it. Thats the whole point of Ehrmans argument here. Ehrman is quoting Doherty in the passage you quoted and refuting his argument.

 

[Vouthon]

Yes brother, I just checked the page too. You are quoting from the section about Josephus where he quoted Doherty. Of course Doherty is correct, but his argument based on that analysis is weak. Ehrman in the next page says the rest of the arguments are even weaker and not to be taken seriously. Basically, Doherty has some bathwater to throw out, but he throwing the baby out with it. Thats the whole point of Ehrmans argument here. Ehrman is quoting Doherty in the passage you quoted and refuting his argument.

See the before, I'm not so sure now of your contention here having re-looked at the passage. Which of us is getting this sideways here?

 

[firedragon]

@firedragon Having consulted Ehrman's book again, I don't think he's saying that Doherty said this - rather he's 'countering' Doherty with his own argument (unless I'm reading this wrong?):

"Doherty goes on to claim that the passage does not ring true to Josephus otherwise, in part because “in the case of every other would-be messiah or popular leader opposed to or executed by the Romans, he has nothing but evil to say.”19 This is the case with all messianic pretenders of Josephus’s day: he was completely opposed to anyone who might foment an uprising against Rome (remember: he was writing as a privileged guest in the court of the Roman emperor).

But it needs to be stressed that in the possibly original form of the Testimonium...He is simply a teacher with followers, accused on unknown grounds by (specifically) Jewish leaders and then executed. Moreover, if one reads the passage without the rose-tinted lenses of the Christian tradition, its view of Jesus can be seen as basically negative. The fact that he was opposed by the leaders of the Jewish people would no doubt have shown that he was not an upright Jew. And the fact that he was condemned to crucifixion, the most horrific execution imaginable to a Roman audience, speaks for itself. Even though Jesus may have been a good teacher, he was a threat to the state, or at least a nuisance, and so the state dealt with him fairly and strongly, by condemning him...

Doherty makes many other points, but most of them, frankly, are even weaker than these and do not need to be given serious attention here"
​

Doherty was arguing that the passage doesn't ring true because its too adulatory of Jesus to fit Josephus's trend of generally maliging messianic claimants. Ehrman counters with what I quoted earlier!

So, I think you've actually 'misquoted' me correctly quoting Ehrman

No bro. He is paraphrasing Doherty. He is Quoting Doherty.

Anyway, this is gonna go up and down so cheers.

 

[firedragon]

See the before, I'm not so sure now of your contention here having re-looked at the passage. Which of us is getting this sideways here?

Read the whole book and maybe you will understand what I am saying about Ehrman and his book.

Cheers.

 

[Vouthon]

Read the whole book and maybe you will understand what I am saying about Ehrman and his book.

Cheers.

Hmm, I think I'm going to have to check out Doherty's original argument because I'm rather confused.

 

[firedragon]

Hmm, I think I'm going to have to check out Doherty's original argument because I'm rather confused.

Doherty's argument is that Josephus never mentions Jesus Christ, and that Jesus a Myth. Read his book neither God, neither man. He is a Mythicist.

 

[Vouthon]

Doherty's argument is that Josephus never mentions Jesus Christ, and that Jesus a Myth. Read his book neither God, neither man. He is a Mythicist. View attachment 41032

Thank you! I am aware of Earl Doherty's stance as a mythicist, its just his specific argument on this point I'd like to know more about, as it looks to me like Ehrman (from reading the passage) is countering Doherty's notion in the quote from his book that the 'reconstructed' Flavium of scholars - the 'pared-down' version, which presents Josephus's treatment of Jesus as neutral like John the Baptist - cannot be true because it conflicts with Josephus's portrayel of messianists in a negative light.

I read this as Ehrman arguing similarly to Bond that the original treatment is neutral - i.e. Jesus isn't 'bad' but his execution by the Romans on the orders of the Jewish leadership is still a sign of tumult/misfortune and this 'neutral' presentation fits with how he described John the Baptist, meaning it doesn't conflict with Josephus's overridingly negtive depiction of messianism (which Ehrman is not disputing). Earlier I stated, "Apart from the reference to the 'wisdom' of his teaching, the passage is not actually that adulatory if you take away the obvious interpolations that bear the stamp of Christian theology and contradict the other parts of the passage."

So I'm agreeing with Ehrman in contending for a neutral depiction that isn't that adulatory or overwhelmingly negative. (Where I disagree slightly with Ehrman and more with Bond is that I regard the original passage as likely being more political in nature, hence why I said that I'm somewhere "between" Ehrman and Bond.)

If I've got this wrong in any sense, I do apologise, but its not readily apparent to me based on what I'm reading from Ehrman.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Whoa...! Don't go away......!

Whilst there is a 50% chance that Jesus was crucified (and saved by Pilate!), there is a 50% chance that he was set free.

Can I just focus upon the latter of those possibilities.??

Crucifixion is supposed to take a long time.... lots of endless torture. OK?

So it's strange to whip somebody bloody first, that is going to shorten the torture, not increase it. OK?

To thrust down a 'crown' of thorns upon a victim's head is going to completely cover their features in blood. OK?

I don't think anybody could recognise the victim.

Magdalene, Salome and other women watched from afar...... I don't think onlookers were allowed nearby. (John wrote waffle..... was never there).

Pilate liked Jesus, liked the Trouble in the Temple, disliked the Priesthood, wanted to please the crowds. The Crowds adored Jesus THE SON OF THE FATHER, and Pilate wanted him alive...... useful.

Pilate rigged this to Jesus out and away.

There is so much evidence for this info to be tried properly........ it's been too long now, so let's just look at what we've got rather than listen to a bunch of experts who don't actually agree together. They're frightened to suggest the above..... it's their meal ticket at stake.


See it this way........ nobody then had a clue who got executed, and certainly nobody today does. Your experts like Dominic Crosson...... Oh my! The waffled ideas that mind spun together, of a shuffling ragged 'magic for meal' pauper going from one village to next to impress for some grub..... let's leave out the experts and just look at the evidence. And don't mention Bart...... really. These people have been selling themselves for yonks......

You’re probably made of stronger stuff than I am but I doubt if I’d last too long being nailed to a cross and having a spear thrust into my side. I’d say crucifixion was a slow painful and effective means of torturing and killing people.

 

[firedragon]

Thank you! I am aware of Earl Doherty's stance as a mythicist, its just his specific argument on this point I'd like to know more about, as it looks to me like Ehrman (from reading the passage) is countering Doherty's notion in the quote from his book that the 'reconstructed' Flavium of scholars - the 'pared-down' version, which presents Josephus's treatment of Jesus as neutral like John the Baptist - cannot be true because it conflicts with Josephus's portrayel of messianists in a negative light.

I read this as Ehrman arguing similarly to Bond that the original treatment is neutral - i.e. Jesus isn't 'bad' but his execution by the Romans on the orders of the Jewish leadership is still a sign of tumult/misfortune and this 'neutral' presentation fits with how he described John the Baptist, meaning it doesn't conflict with Josephus's overridingly negtive depiction of messianism (which Ehrman is not disputing). Earlier I stated, "Apart from the reference to the 'wisdom' of his teaching, the passage is not actually that adulatory if you take away the obvious interpolations that bear the stamp of Christian theology and contradict the other parts of the passage."

So I'm agreeing with Ehrman in contending for a neutral depiction that isn't that adulatory or overwhelmingly negative. (Where I disagree slightly with Ehrman and more with Bond is that I regard the original passage as likely being more political in nature, hence why I said that I'm somewhere "between" Ehrman and Bond.)

If I've got this wrong in any sense, I do apologise, but its not readily apparent to me based on what I'm reading from Ehrman.

You have the book right? Did Jesus exist by Ehrman. So read it. I think you quoted page 30 or 31 I checked it at that time now I can't remember I am not home. Anyway, Ehrman doesn't disagree with every single thing Doherty says. He quotes Doherty because Doherty was a hit with the Mythicists like Carrier and price, and Carrier even cowrote a book with Doherty, a few more of them refuting Ehrman. They are basically poles apart in their conclusions. Just read Ehrmans book you quoted yourself.

 

[Vouthon]

You have the book right? Did Jesus exist by Ehrman. So read it. I think you quoted page 30 or 31 I checked it at that time now I can't remember I am not home. Anyway, Ehrman doesn't disagree with every single thing Doherty says. He quotes Doherty because Doherty was a hit with the Mythicists like Carrier and price, and Carrier even cowrote a book with Doherty, a few more of them refuting Ehrman. They are basically poles apart in their conclusions. Just read Ehrmans book you quoted yourself.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying in the above.

All I was trying to say was that Ehrman is supporting the neutral reading of the pared-down scholarly reconstruction (just like Bond) over against Doherty's claim that it's too adulatory of Jesus to fit Josephus's negative portrayel of messianists and political dissidents but without denying that Doherty is right about Josephus's broader negative treatment of such people (he's actually right about that point).

Ehrman then goes on to defend a neutral reading of the passage ("moreover") in which Jesus is depicted both as wise and as someone who fell foul of the authorities. Ehrman argues (and I disagree with him on this one point) that the original passage may not be that political anyway and that, moreover (and on this I agree), it presents a basically negative picture of Jesus falling foul of the Jewish and Roman authorities. He then rebuts Doherty's "wisdom" argument to defend the neutral reading.

But where I do disagree with Ehrman - and so quoted Bond - is that I think the original passage was more political (Ehrman doesn't) as well as being fairly neutral. And I stressed this disagreement earlier by actually quoting Bond where I agreed with her over Ehrman and thus situated myself between their respective positions.

With that being said, I don't want to detract from the thread and detour the discussion over this side matter.

 

[firedragon]

I don't disagree with anything you're saying in the above.

All I was trying to say was that Ehrman is supporting the neutral reading of the pared-down scholarly reconstruction (just like Bond) over against Doherty's claim that it's too adulatory of Jesus to fit Josephus's negative portrayel of messianists and political dissidents but without denying that Doherty is right about Josephus's broader negative treatment of such people (he's actually right about that point).

Ehrman then goes on to defend a neutral reading of the passage ("moreover") in which Jesus is depicted both as wise and as someone who fell foul of the authorities. Ehrman argues (and I disagree with him on this one point) that the original passage may not be that political anyway and that, moreover, it presents a basically negative picture of Jesus falling foul of the Jewish and Roman authorities. He then rebuts Doherty's "wisdom" argument to defend the neutral reading.

But where I do disagree with Ehrman - and so quoted Bond - is that I think the original passage was more political (Ehrman doesn't) as well as being fairly neutral. And I stressed this disagreement earlier by actually quoting Bond where I agreed with her over Ehrman.

With that being said, I don't want to detract from the thread and detour the discussion over this side matter.

Ok brother. Thats great. Cheers.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The OP question: Is the Muslim Jesus cited in the Qur'an possibly historical?

No, but it does have historically correct information. Same deal with the Gospel accounts. I don’t see the purpose of the Quran as portraying an historically correct Jesus.

The purpose of the Gospel writers however was most likely to meet the urgent needs of some of the Churches, particularly with the impending Jewish-Roman conflict, and to provide a written account of the Life and Teachings of Jesus the Christ. As conflict and crisis drew near, Christ hadn’t returned as some had expected. It was now over 30 years since Christ had been crucified and eye witnesses to the Life and Teachings of Christ were becoming scarce. Some key leaders were Martyred.

The purpose of Muhammad’s Teachings OTOH was to educate His followers about Prophets that had lived beforehand. However in regards Christ it was also to highlight essential Teachings and correct misconceptions. Muhammad’s audiences unlike some of the Jews Christ taught, had little prior knowledge of Judaism. They had been pagans and often nomadic tribesmen with limited or no education. Muhammad Himself was illiterate. So the purpose of the Gospel writers and Muhammad’s aims were quite different as was the capacity of Their respective audiences.

However to answer the question of historicity we need to examine the facts concerning the Life and Teachings of Christ. That involves a critical, historical and textural analysis of all the key works including those within Christendom such as the NT books but non Christian works such as Josephus and Tacitus. The Quran being compiled six hundred years after Christ was crucified would not be considered a useful or valid source of historical information by Non-Muslim scholars

The overwhelming consensus of historians is that Jesus was an itinerant preacher who had a following, was baptised and crucified. There are a few historians who regard Jesus as purely mythical. There’s no reputable historians that I’m aware of who claims Jesus lived but He wasn’t crucified or executed.

For the purposes of the OP question, it is the crucifixion of Christ where Western historians and Mainstream Muslims most vigorously disagree in regards the historical Jesus. As one Muslim has indicated, the Quran is all important and the Quran doesn’t place value on the reliability of historical knowledge. That attitude would be a major turn off for many non-Muslim Westerners such as myself. The lights go out. The only way any significant numbers of westerners would think as Muslims do, is if they were to convert to Islam. I can’t see that happening anytime soon but at least we can have civilised discourse and agree to disagree. Thanks again for starting the thread @firedragon.

 

[oldbadger]

You’re probably made of stronger stuff than I am but I doubt if I’d last too long being nailed to a cross and having a spear thrust into my side. I’d say crucifixion was a slow painful and effective means of torturing and killing people.

That's what I said as well.
A three day death, I believe, if carried out by a pro.

So how does that refute anything I wrote? You've just helped my case

And the spear thrust could have saved his life, whoever was up there. All those fluids emptied from the lung?

Time for a review.