-A Question of Identity (Courtesy Dr. Jerald Dirks – Doctor of
Divinity)
That they said (in boast), "We killed
Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah"-but they killed him
not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who
differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only
conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not-nay, Allah raised him
up unto Himself; and Allah is exalted in power, wise-1 (Ref. Qur'an 4:157-158)
There are very
few issues, which separate Muslims from Christians as sharply as that of an alleged crucifixion,
which ~ reportedly occurred on the outskirts of
Jerusalem in the first half of the first century CEo That the crucifixion was
little noted at the time, cannot be doubted. Besides the books of the New Testament of the Bible (authored
during the second half of the first century and the first half of the second
century CE), as well as other early Christian literature, the only
near-contemporary mention of the crucifixion is found in just two places. A
mention of the event occurs briefly in the works of the Jewish historian,
Josephus bin Matthias, (during the second half of the first century) who wrote:
At this time there was a wise
man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous...
Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his
disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared
to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he
was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. (2 Ref. Josephus F (1988). Josephus
F (1988): Jewish Antiquities. In Maier PL (trans.): Josephus: The Essential Writings: A Condensation of Jewish Antiquities
and The Jewish War. Grand Rapids, Kregel Publications. Pages 264-265)
The other writer who
reported the event in passing was the Roman historian, Tacitus, who lived from
around 55 to 115 CE. He stated:
Christus...had
undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius,
by sentence of the procurator
Pontius Pilate... 3 (Tacitus: Annals. In Pagels
E (1979): The Gnostic Gospels. New York, Random House.. Page 70)
Certainly, there are other
issues, that separate and divide Islamic from Christian belief, most
conspicuously the Christian doctrine of the trinity. However, the doctrine of
the trinity is so ephemeral and so complex that the average Christian does not
even begin to understand the doctrine. If asked to define it, he would probably
provide a definition of the trinity, which the church has long since declared
to be heresy. But, the crucifixion is an issue that does matter to the average
Christian, who sees the crucifixion of Jesus, peace be upon him 4
(Ref.
Use of the phrase "peace be
upon him" to the names of the prophets of Allah in this article.), as an historical event about which there really can
be no doubt. Indoctrinated throughout childhood by years of listening to Bible stories
of the crucifixion, and by instruction in how the Bible is to
be read and understood, the average Christian is often rather incredulous that
anyone can even doubt that Jesus Christ was crucified. Most Christians believe
that one can question the virgin birth, one can question the post-crucifixion
resurrection of Jesus, one can question the trinity, but how can one even start
to question the historical event of the crucifixion of Jesus?
In
marked contrast, the Qur'an explicitly states that "they killed him not, nor
crucified him". However, the Qur'an does not say that there was no
crucifixion. Rather, the Qur'an states that it was not Jesus Christ who was crucified,
even though it was made to appear that he was. In short, the chasm, which
separates Islam and Christianity in regard to the crucifixion, is not whether
or not there was a crucifixion at the time and place the New Testament maintains,
but only whether the person so crucified was Jesus. Given this consideration,
the present chapter ignores the myriad of debates within Christianity as to the
place 5( Ref. Vigorous debates can be generated among Christians, as
to whether the site of the crucifixion was Gordon's Calvary or the site
presently hosting the Basilica of the Holy Sepulcher.) and actual date 6 (Ref. There are two issues regarding the date of the
crucifixion. First, in what year during Pontius Pilate's government was the
crucifixion? Second, is the chronology ofthe Synoptic or Johanine tradition to
be followed in placing the crucifixion in relation to the Jewish Passover?) of crucifixion. Instead, it focuses on just one
point, i.e., was it Jesus who was crucified?
In
raising this question, the author proposes to show that the Christian
literature and scripture, in and of itself, provide several reasons to accept
the Qur'anic statement that it was not Jesus, the prophet of Allah 7(Western
Christians are used to the word "God", and typically find the word
"Allah" somewhat mysterious and troubling. They do not understand
that "Allah" is nothing more than the contraction of two Arabic
words, which mean "the God", or by implication "the One
God". As such, it is not surprising that Arab Christians commonly use the
word "Allah" when speaking of the deity.) , who was crucified. In so
doing, it is readily acknowledged that one is traveling down a path "with
no (certain) knowledge", and with only the signposts of "conjecture to
follow". However, it
is not the purpose of this essay to show
what really took place that long ago day in Jerusalem. Rather, it is to
demonstrate that the early Christians were quite confused and uncertain about
what actually happened during the crucifixion event.
The very fact that such confusion existed
is sufficient evidence, to doubt the crucifixion of Jesus, and should cause
Christians to ponder on the Qur' anic statement that Jesus Christ was not
crucified; and the essential similarity between the Qur'an and various
branches of the early Christian church.
The Evidence
Three basic classes of information are
utilized in what follows. First, information regarding the crucifixion is
presented from the so-called apostolic fathers of the early Christian churches.
Second, information is taken from the so-called apocryphal books of the New
Testament of the Bible. Third, information regarding the crucifixion
is based on the socalled canonical gospels of the New Testament. Hence,
it can be seen that all the evidentiary information is from early Christianity,
and not from Islam. Thus, early Christian literature and scripture is used to
cast doubt on official Christian doctrine.
The
Apostolic Fathers Before proceeding to
examine apocryphal books, a brief word ought to be mentioned about the evidence
to be found in the writings of the socalled apostolic fathers of the early
Christian churches. The apostolic fathers frequently noted that there were
"heretical" sects (i.e., Christian sects, which did not agree with
the particular dogma being espoused by the apostolic father in question), which
taught that the "passion" or suffering of Jesus on the cross was
untrue and/or illusory. In that regard, such references are found in the
writings of Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus.
Together, these apostolic fathers form a veritable Who's Who of the
early Christian churches. 8 (Ref. Pagels E
(1979): The Gnostic Gospels. New York, Random House.).
A)
Canonized as a saint by the Roman Catholic Church, Ignatius or Ignatius Theophoros was the bishop ofAntioch (Syria). In 107 or 108 CE,
Ignatius was arrested by the Romans, and transported to Rome. Between that time
and his death around 110 CE, Ignatius wrote a series of letters in which he
attacked the proposition that Jesus' suffering and death were an illusion.
Beiler JG (1998).
B)
Canonized as a saint by the Roman Catholic Church, Polycarp was a 2nd century CE bishop of Smyrna. His writings included Letter to the Philippians, in which he vigorously attacked the argument that Christ's suffering and death
were illusory. ---(19981):
Saint Polycarp. In Encyclopaedia Britannica CD 98..
C) Canonized
a saint by the Roman Catholic Church, Justin was a 2nd century CE Christian philosopher. His works include Apologies and Dialogue with Trypho. ---(1998k): Saint Justin Martyr. In Encyclopaedia Britannica CD 98.).
D)
Canonized as a saint by the Roman Catholic Church, Irenaeus was the late 2nd century CE bishop of Lyon. Irenaeus is best remembered
for his five-volume Adversus
Haereses, which was basically an attack against Christian
Gnosticism. Wingren G (1998).
E)
Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullianus (Tertullian) was a
late 2nd and early 3rd century CE Christian theologian, who later defected to the Montanist heresy. His written works included Apologeticum, Adversus Marcionem, Ad Uxorem, De
Patientia, Adversus Hermogenem, AdversoValentinianos, De Resurreaione Camis, De
Baptismo, De Animo, and numerous other
books. Wilkin RL (1998).
F)
Canonized as a saint by the Roman Catholic Church, Hippolytus was born around 170 CE and died around 235 CE. He was
a Christian martyr, and was the
first anti-pope. He is remembered for his voluminous writings
against heresies, including Philosphunrena. ---(1998j):
Saint Hippolytus of Rome. In Encyclopaedia Britannica CD 98.)
A particular example may be
of interest. In his Trallians, Ignatius, the
bishop ofAntioch (who died around 110 CE, and who wrote during the first decade
of the second century CE), was quite eloquent in his attack against the early Christians who denied that
the crucifixion of Jesus was anything more than an illusion. The following quotation from Ignatius
(italics added for emphasis by the present author) is directly to the point:
But if, as some say.. .his suffering was only an appearance, then
why am I a prisoner, and why do I long to
fight with the wild beasts? In that case, I am dying
in vain. 9 ( Ignatius: Trallians
10:1. In Pagels E (1979): The
Gnostic Gospels. New York, Random House..
Page 83 )
One cannot attack as heresy a belief or doctrine that does not yet
exist. The theology of Ignatius notwithstanding, his attack against those early
Christians who believed that Jesus' crucifixion was only illusory, demonstrates
the existence of that belief among the early Christians. Further, the fact that
Ignatius even bothered to attack this doctrine suggests that the belief in the
illusory nature of the crucifixion was quite widespread by 110 CE. Clearly, the
doctrine of or belief in the illusory nature of the crucifixion was perceived
by Ignatius to be a threat to what would much later become the orthodox
position of the Christian church regarding the crucifixion. As it would take
some years for such a belief to become widespread across the vastness of the
Roman Empire, it can be deduced that the origin of the doctrine of the illusory
nature of the crucifixion must be dated well back into the first century CE,
and quite possibly right back to the time of the crucifixion itself.
When considering the above, it must be
remembered that Ignatius was attacking Christians, not non-Christians, although
the particular Christians being attacked shared a specific belief system at
odds with that of Ignatius when it came to the particulars of the doctrine of
the crucifixion. To millions of Christians raised with a Sunday School
interpretation of Christianity, the above may come as something of a shock.
However, for those Christians, the shocks are only just the beginning. Indeed,
the shocks dramatically increase in voltage when one considers the early
Christian scriptures, both apocryphal and canonical.
Apocryphal Books In what follows, information from the apocryphal
books of early Christianity are examined to assess the Qur'anic statement that
Jesus Christ was not crucified. This examination is necessarily incomplete, as
the apocryphal literature is simply too vast and voluminous for someone to
review it all. However, the following discussion and presentation do illustrate
that at least some of the apocryphal books clearly state that Jesus was not
crucified. In each presentation, the format utilized is to identify the
apocryphal book being referenced, comment on the provenance of that book, and
then present the relevant evidence from the same source. However, as most readers,
whether Muslim or Christian, have very little understanding of the New Testament apocrypha, a brief digression is in order.
There is a prevalent myth among both Christians and
Muslims that the early Christian church was monolithic. This myth is far from
the historical truth. In fact, each church (e.g., at Alexandria, Antioch,
Damascus, Jerusalem, Rome, Lyons, etc.) was fairly independent from every other
church. Each and every church had its own bishop or leader, its own doctrinal
and theological preferences, and its own set of recognized scripture. In that
sense, there was no "orthodox" set of Christian beliefs in the first
few centuries of Christianity. Likewise, several centuries would pass before
there was a universally accepted canon of scripture within Christianity. Early
on, each church determined its own dogma and recognized its own scripture,
independently from what any other church had decided. However, beginning in the
fourth century CE, this state of affairs began to change quite radically, with
such change being ushered in by the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. 10
(Danielou J, Marrou H (1964): The
Christian Centuries: Volume I. The
First Six Hundred Years. New York,
McGraw-Hill Book Co.) )
At
Nicaea, orthodox doctrine and creeds began to be established, and steps were
taken to begin an authorized canon of scripture, which later became known as
the New Testament. The process of arriving at a set and universally
accepted canon of scripture was filled with rancor and dispute, and consumed the
early Christian churches for the next couple of centuries. At the end of this
process, the canon of New Testament scriptures that finally emerged represented only a
very small selection of the voluminous Christian writings that were regarded as
scriptural by this or that early Christian church. As presently constituted,
the New Testament consists of 27 books, of which four are classifIed as
gospels. Those books, which were not included within the New Testament canon,
but which were once part and parcel of early Christianity, were dubbed
apocryphal. To give the reader an indication of just how much early Christian
writing came to be regarded as apocryphal, the author has included in Table 1
below, a partial listing of apocryphal gospels, not all of which continue to
exist. 11 ( In many cases,
the emerging orthodoxy of Christianity did its utmost to suppress and destroy
all copies of these gospels. In some cases, the destruction of these books by
the emerging orthodoxy of Christianity succeeded. In such cases, one knows of
these books only because they were mentioned by an early Christian writer.) The list, obviously does not include apocryphal
epistles, acts, apocalypses, etc., but only apocryphal gospels. Table 1 would
have been greatly enlarged if these other types of apocryphal writings were to
be included.
Table 1: A list of Apocryphal Gospels 12 ( This list
is compiled from the following sources: A) Platt RH, Brett JA. B) Cameron R
(1982). C) Pagels E (1979). D) Robinson 1M (1990). E) Hennecke E, Schneemelcher
W, Wilson RM (1963).)
The Dialogue of the Savior
The Gospel ofAndrew
The Gospel ofApelles
The Gospel
ofBardesanes
The Gospel ofBarnabas
The Gospel
ofBartholomew
The Gospel ofBasilides
The Gospel ofthe
Birth ofMary
The Gospel of
Cerinthus
The Gospel ofEve
The Gospel ofthe Ebionites
The Gospel of the
Egyptians
The Gospel ofthe Encratites
Gospel of the Four Heavenly Regions
The Gospel of the
Hebrews
The Gospel ofHesychius
The Gospel ofthe Infancy ofJesus Christ
The Gospel ofJudas Iscariot
The Gospel of Jude
The Gospel ofMarcion
The Gospel ofMani
The Gospel ofMary
The Gospel ofMatthias
The Gospel ofMerinthus
The Gospel According to the Nazarenes
The Gospel
ofNicodemus
The Gospel ofPerfection
The Gospel ofPeter
The Gospel ofPhilip
The Gospel ofPseudo-Matthew
The Gospel ofScythianus
The Gospel of the Seventy
The Gospel ofThaddaeus
The Gospel ofThomas
The Gospel of Titan
The Gospel ofTruth
The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles
The Gospel of Valentinus
The Protevangelion ofJames
The Secret Gospel of Mark
Thomas's Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ
As noted earlier, Table 1 (above) lists 41 books, and is still not
a complete listing of even the apocryphal gospels, much less of other types of
apocryphal books. In marked contrast, the New Testament canon includes
only four gospels, i.e., Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The
contrast is quite dramatic, and illustrates the wealth of early Christian
scripture, which the early Christian church found convenient to ignore, ban, or
destroy, once it began its campaign to construct a unified dogma, theology, and
set of beliefs. In short, only four of over 45 gospels found their way into the
New Testament, a meagre 9% of what was possible.
With this introductory background to the
apocrypha of the early Christian churches, one can now move to consider the evidence from five different
apocryphal sources: Gospel of Barnabas; Two Books of Jeu; Apocalypse of Peter;
The Second Treatise of the Great Seth; and the Acts of John.
Gospel of Barnabas
Provenance
Muslim authors have
occasionally made extravagant and highly unsupported claims regarding the Gospel
of Barnabas. 13 (The
Gospel of Barnabas. In Ragg L, Ragg L
(1974) ) Wishing to spare embarrassment to these
authors, whose intentions and motivations were presumably quite good, the
present author refrains from referencing these claims. However, among the
claims made for the Gospel of Barnabas are that it: was considered
canonical by the Alexandrian church until 325 CE; was quoted extensively by
Irenaeus, the second century CE bishop of Lyon; and served as the basis for
Jerome's Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Bible, as
authorized by the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, none of these claims is accurate.
The first claim appears to be
based on a simple confusion, in which the claimant is merging the identities of
two separate books, i.e., the Gospel of Barnabas and the Epistle of
Barnabas. It was the latter book, which was considered canonical by the
Alexandrian church, or at least which was read in their services, and it was
the latter book, which was mentioned by a variety of early church fathers 14
( (A) Platt RH, Brett JA. B) ---(1998e): Letter of Barnabas. In Encyclopaedia
Britannica CD 98.. C) Sundberg AC
(1971). D) Koester H (1982)) , including Clement of Alexandria 15 (Canonized
a saint by the Roman Catholic Church, Titus Flavius Clemens (Clement) was a 2nd and 3rd CE century president of the
Christian catechetical school at Alexandria. His written works include: Protreptikos; Paidagogos; Stromateis; A Discourse
Concerning the Salvation of Rich Men; Exhortation to Patience or Address to the
Newly Baptized; Excerptaex Theodoto; EclogaePropheticae; and Hypotyposeis.
Fredericksen LF et al. (1998)), Origen 16 ( Oregenes Adamantius
(Origen) was a 3rd century CE president of the Christian
catechetical school at Alexandria. He was a pupil of Clement of Alexandria (see
immediately preceding footnote), and was the author of Hexapla, DePrincipiis, Contra Celsum,On Prayer, and numerous commentaries on various books of the Bible. Chadwick
H (1998)) , Eusebius 17 ( Eusebius
Pamphili was a 4th century
CE bishop of Caesarea. He was the author of the monumental Ecclesiastical History, Chronicle, and various apologies and commentaries. ---(1998c):
Eusebius of Caesarea. In Encyclopaedia Britannica CD 98) , and Jerome 18 ( Canonized
a saint by the Roman Catholic Church, Eusebius Hieronymus (Jerome) was a
Catholic priest, private secretary to Pope Damasus, monastery founder, and
translator. His written works include the VulgateBible, Liber Locorum, Liber lnterpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum,
Liber Hebraicarum Quaestionumin Genesim, and various commentaries. Burghardt WJ (1998))) , In fact, the Epistle
of Barnabas is even found in the Sinaitic Syriac, a fourth century
version of the Bible.
As to the second
claim, there is no mention of the Gospel of Barnabas .in any existing
writings of Irenaeus. How did this erroneous claim come to be so frequently
made? There are two possible answers. First, Irenaeus did refer to the Epistle
of Barnabas. The second possible answer is more complicated and complex,
and begins by noting that the claim, is that Irenaeus quoted extensively from
the Gospel of Barnabas. A simple procedure of checking quotes should
have shown the fallacy of this claim, if the relevant portions of the writings
of Irenaeus existed. The problem is, however, that this claim is reportedly
based on the statements of a 16th century Father Marino, the person who
allegedly stole the manuscript of the Gospel of Barnabas from the
library of Pope Sixtus V.
In an attempt to reconstruct the genesis
of the claim, it is hypothesized that Father Marino alleged that he had access
to "hidden" or "suppressed" writings of Irenaeus, wherein
Irenaeus quoted from the Gospel of Barnabas. Thus, the whole claim can
be seen to be based on the word of a reportedly self-confessed thief who
claimed that he had access to a secret manuscript of Irenaeus. This manuscript,
which no one else can attest to,in turn attests to the provenance of the Gospel
of Barnabas. for which the only source is Father Marino. Clearly, this
claim for the provenance of the Gospel of Barnabas is little short of
being laughable.
As to the third claim, this author is
absolutely perplexed as to how anyone with any familiarity with the Latin Vulgate
could possibly associate it with the Gospel ofBarnabas. The only
association perhaps, is that Jerome was responsible for the Vulgate, and
he referenced the Epistle ofBarnabas in some of his writings. After all,
the Vulgate was one of the sources for the King James translation of the
Bible, and bears much more in common with the modern Bible than
it does with the Gospel ofBarnabas.
So,
what is the provenance of the Gospel of Barnabas? The earliest reference
to it that this author can identify, is in the Decretum Gelasianum de Libris
Recipiendis et non Recipiendis (Decree ofGelasius ofAccepted and non-Accepted
Books), where it is listed as an apocryphal and rejected book. 19
( (A) Schneemelcher W: General
Introduction. In Hennecke E, Schneemelcher W, Wilson RM (1963). B) Platt RH,
Brett JA) The Decree of Gelasius is a precursor of the
Roman Catholic Church's Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Prohibited
Books), and is often attributed to Pope Gelasius I, who died in 496 CE, but the
actual provenance of the Decree of Gelasius cannot be traced back beyond the
sixth century CEo Be that as it may, the fact that the Gospel ofBarnabas was
banned in the Decree of Gelasius establishes that there was a Gospel
ofBarnabas by at least the sixth century.
However,
it remains an open question as to whether or not the book that is presently
identified as being the Gospel of Barnabas is the same Gospel of
Barnabas identified in the Decree of Gelasius. The reported
provenance of the book currently identified as the Gospel of Barnabas is
as follows: 1) in 383 CE, Pope Damasus I secured a copy of the Gospel of
Barnabas, and kept it in his private library; 2) apparently, it was then
passed down within the private libraries of the various popes; 3) in the late
16th century, a Father Marino stole the manuscript from the personal library of
Pope Sixtus V; 4) the manuscript then passed through the possession of a
variety of unnamed persons; 5) around the start of the 18th century, the
manuscript came into the possession of a J.E. Cramer, reportedly a counselor to
the King of Prussia; 6) in 1713, Cramer reportedly gave the manuscript to
Prince Eugene of Savoy; and 7) in 1738, the manuscript passed from the prince
to the Hofbibliothek in Vienna, where it reportedly remains to date. 20
( A) Rahim MA (1974). B) Abdullah M (1996)
)
What
of the above information can be confirmed from independent sources?· (1) Damasus I
was pope from 366-384 CE. (21---(1998h): Saint Damasus I. In Encyclopaedia Britannica CD 98.) (2) Sixtus V was pope from 1585-1590 CE. (22 ---(1998m):
Sixtus V.
In Encyclopaedia Britannica CD 98). (3) Prince Eugene of Savoy lived from 1663-1736 CE.23
( Lernet-Holenia AM (1998) )
) (4) The prince's library of over 10,000
books was given to the Hofbibliothek in Vienna. 24
( Lernet-Holenia AM (1998)) However, even with such confirmation, intellectual
honesty compels the admission that the Gospel of Barnabas, as currently
received, cannot be traced in unbroken provenance prior to around the start of
the 18th century. Quite simply, it mayor may not be the same book referred to
in the Decree of Gelasius. The reader is urged to keep this caution in
mind when considering material from the Gospel of Barnabas.
Evidence
The
basic tenet of the Gospel of Barnabas is that when Judas Iscariot led
the soldiers into the Garden of Gethsemane to arrest Jesus and bring him to
trial, the appearance of Judas was miraculously changed, and Jesus ascended
into heaven. With Jesus safe in heaven, Judas took on the appearance of Jesus
Christ. According to this source, Jesus was never arrested, was never tried,
and was never crucified. Instead, it was Judas, the traitorous disciple, who
was arrested, tried, whipped, mocked, and crucified. The relevant portions of
the Gospel of Barnabas are quoted below.
When the soldiers with Judas drew near to the place where Jesus was...God, seeing the danger of His servant, commanded
Gabriel, Michael, Rafael, and Uriel, His ministers, to take Jesus out of the
world. The holy angels came and took Jesus ...and placed him in the third
heaven in the company of angels blessing God for evermore Judas was so changed
in speech and in face to be like Jesus the soldiery entered, and laid their
hands upon Judas, because he was in every way like to Jesus ...The soldiers
took Judas and bound him, not without derision ...Then the soldiers lost their
patience, and with blows and kicks they began to flout Judas, and they led him
with fury into Jerusalem ... 25 Gospel of Barnabas 215-217. In Ragg L, Ragg L (1974) )
In
Jerusalem, Judas was variously questioned by the Jewish high priests and
Sanhedrin, by Pontius Pilate, (who is identified as being a secret follower of
Jesus), and by Herod the tetrarch. Judas kept arguing in vain that he was not
Jesus, but Judas. Arriving back before Pilate for the second time, Judas was
whipped, clad in an old purple garment, crowned with thoms, and mocked.
Finally, Pilate condemned Judas to death by crucifixion, assigning him to be
crucified with two robbers. 26
( Gospel of Barnabas 217. In Ragg L, Ragg L (1974) )
So
they led him to Mount Calvary, where they used to hang malefactors, and there
they crucified him naked, for the greater ignominy. Judas truly did nothing
else but cry out: "God, why hast thou forsaken me, seeing the malefactor
hath escaped and I die unjustly?" Verily I say that the voice, the face,
and the person of Judas were so like to Jesus, that his disciples and believers
entirely believed that he was Jesus; wherefore some departed from the doctrine
of Jesus ...for Jesus had said that he should not die till near the end of the world; for that at that time he
should be taken away from the world. But they that stood firm in the doctrine of
Jesus were so encompassed with sorrow, seeing him die who was entirely like to
Jesus, that they remembered not what Jesus had said...Those disciples who did
not fear God went by night (and) stole the body of Judas and hid it, spreading
a report that Jesus was risen again; whence great confusion arose. 27
(Gospel of Barnabas 217-218. In Ragg L, Ragg L (1974) )
Post
crucifixion, the angels transported Jesus back to earth from the third level of
heaven, in order that Jesus might make an appearance to his mother and her two
sisters, to Martha, Mary Magdalene, and Lazarus, and to John, James, Peter, and
Barnabas. A later appearance was then made to the seven (of the 12?)
"faithful disciples", Nicodemus and Joseph(of Arimathea?). Finally, Jesus again ascended into heaven, with
this ascension being witnessed by 47 of the greater 72 disciples. 28
(Gospel of Barnabas 219-221. In Ragg L, Ragg L (1974))
The Vatican, under Pope Benedict XVI, is said to want to see the recently re-discovered Bible
The Vatican, under Pope Benedict XVI, is said to want to see the recently re-discovered Bible
Conclusion
While the shakiness of the provenance of
the Gospel of Barnabas must be noted, this book does clearly state that
Judas Iscariot was the one crucified in place of Jesus Christ. As such, the Gospel
of Barnabas supports the Qur'anic account of the crucifixion, while
refuting the orthodox Christian position.
Two Books of Jeu Provenance
The Two
Books of leu are found in the Codex Brucianus, which has been dated to
anywhere between the third and the tenth centuries CEo The Two Books of Jeu were
mentioned in the Pistis Sophia (Faith-Wisdom), a third century CE Coptic
and Gnostic text 29 (---(1998d):
Gnosticism. In Encyclopaedia Britannica CD 98.), and were probably composed in Egypt around the
third century CE. 30 (Hennecke E,
Schneemelcher W, Wilson RM (1963))
Evidence
The statement from this apocryphal source
is probably the weakest of any in supporting the Qur'anic account, in that the
relevant statement from this manuscript is somewhat ambiguous. However, the reader
may judge for him or herself, by reviewing the following quotation.
Jesus, the living one, answered and said to his apostles:
"Blessed is he who has crucified the world, and has not allowed the world
to crucify him." 31 ( Two Books of Jeu. In Hennecke E, Schneemelcher W, Wilson RM (1963). Page
261 )
Conclusion
According to the Two Books of leu, the
blessed one is he who has not allowed the world to crucify him. The clear
implication is either that Jesus Christ was not blessed, or that he was not
crucified. As the former option is unthinkable to both Christians and Muslims,
the latter option is the only one remaining.
Apocalypse of Peter
Provenance
The Apocalypse of Peter was one of the many exciting books
of early Christianity, which were brought to light in 1945 by the immeasurably
important archaeological discoveries at Naga Hammadi, Egypt. These
discoveries
unearthed a library of fourth century CE papyrus manuscripts, many of which
were in the Coptic language. Given this provenance, the latest possible
creation for the Apocalypse of Peter would be the fourth century CEo
However, extensive literary analysis of the manuscript indicates that the
Apocalypse of Peter was originally authored at some point probably in the third
century CE. 32 ( BrashIer J
(1990).)
Evidence
In the following quotation from the
Apocalypse of Peter, italics have been added by the present author, in order to
highlight crucial words and phrases, which illustrate that this apocryphal work
maintains that Jesus Christ was only crucified in appearance, not in reality.
Jesus was only seemingly seized by the soldiers, while in reality he remained
by the side of Peter, where he guided Peter to a true understanding of the
crucifixion event. (However, later in the passage, it is stated that Jesus was
initially seized, and then released, a point that will be explored more fully when
examining the canonical gospels.) The crucified victim is a substitute or
simulacrum of Jesus, a substitute who came into being in the likeness of Jesus,
and who appears to be identified as a demon.
When he had said those things,
I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said, "What do I see, 0
Lord, that it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or
who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose
feet and hands they are striking?" The Savior said to me, "He whom
you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one
into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is
the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his
likeness. But look at him and me." But I, when I had looked, said,
"Lord, no one is looking at you. Let us flee this place." But he said
to me, "I have told you, leave the blind alone! And you, see how they do
not know what they are saying. For the son of their glory instead of my servant
they have put to shame." ...And he said to me, "Be strong, for you
are the one to whom these mysterieshave been given, to know them through
revelation, that he whom they crucified is the first-born, and the
home of demons...But he who stands near him is the living Savior, the
first in him, whom they seized and released, who stands joyfully looking at
those who did him violence, while they are divided among themselves.” 33
( Apocalypse ofPeter 81:4-32; 82:1-3,17-23,27-33. In Robinson IM (1990) )
Conclusion While the above quoted text is somewhat
difficult to follow and to interpret in places, the Apocalypse of Peter can
be seen as clearly rejecting the notion that Jesus Christ was crucified, even
though it appeared that way to most onlookers. In that regard, the Apocalypse
of Peter supports the Qur'anic presentation of the crucifixion event, and
differs radically from traditional Christian orthodoxy.
The Second Treatise of the Great Seth
Provenance Like the Apocalypse of Peter, this book was
discovered in 1945 at Naga Hammadi, Egypt. As such, its provenance remains
unquestioned between its burial in the fourth century CE, and its discovery in
1945. However, the origins of this work can probably be pushed back further in
time than the fourth century CEo A theological analysis of its account of the
crucifixion indicates a core taken from Basilides 34 ( Gibbons
JA (1990)) , who was a second century,
Egyptian Christian of the Gnostic persuaslon. 35 (---(1998b):
Basilides. In Encyclopaedia Britannica CD 98.) (In order not
to reveal prematurely some of the surprises to be found within the accounts of
the crucifixion found in the canonical gospels, this point will be elaborated
later. ) At this juncture it would suffice to say that the provenance of The
Second Treatise of the Great Seth traces to anytime between the second and
fourth centuries CE., with the earlier date being most probable.
Evidence The
presentation of the crucifixion in Seth is reported in the reputed words
of Jesus, who is the speaker in the passage quoted below. The passage clearly
states that Jesus died only in appearance, and that it was someone other than
Jesus who was nailed to the cross, who drank the gall and vinegar, and who wore
the crown of thorns. Throughout this whole procedure, Jesus was miraculously
altering his form or physical appearance at will, and was witnessing the entire
series of events. (In the following passage from Seth, italics have been
added by the present author to highlight relevant issues.)
And the plan which they devised
about me to release their error and their senselessness-I did not succumb to
the mas they had planned. But I was not afflicted at all. Those who were there
punished me. And I did not die in reality but in appearance, lest I be put
to shame by them because these are my kinsfolk...For my death which they think happened,
(happened) to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death .. .for they were
deaf and blind...Yes, they saw me; they punished me. It was another; their father; who drank the gall and
the vinegar; it was not l. They
struck me with the reed; it was
another; Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. It was another upon whom
they placed the crown of thoms...And I
was laughing at their ignorance...For I
was altering my shapes, changing from form to form. 36 (The Second Treatise of the Great Seth 55:10-20,30-35; 56:1-13,18-19,23-25. In Robinson IM (1990).
Page 365)
Conclusion
Once again, the message is clear. While
Jesus Christ appeared to be crucified, this was mere illusory appearance. In
reality, Jesus was not crucified. Rather, it was Simon who was crucified in
substitution for Jesus Details of this appear later on in the chapter.) In
short, Seth clearly rejects the concept of the
crucifixion of Jesus Christ, being thus consistent with the Qur'anic
presentation of the crucifixion. Once again, the traditional Christian
orthodoxy is outrightly rejected by an early Christian text.
Acts of
John
Provenance
The Acts of John is
found in a solitary Greek manuscript from Vienna unearthed in 1897 CE, but
there is a notation which states that the manuscript may have been the work of
a scribe who lived in 1324 CEo However, its provenance does not stop there. The
Acts of John was condemned as heretical at the Second Nicene
Council of 787 CE, indicating its existence in the eighth century CE. Moreover,
Augustine 37 (
Canonized a saint by the Roman
Catholic Church, Aurelius Augustinus (Augustine) was bishop of Hippo (Africa)
from 396 to 430 CE, and is generally acclaimed by the traditional church as being
the greatest Christian theologian of the early era. His literary works include Confessions,
De Trinitate, De Civitate Dei, etc. Burnaby J (1998)) quoted a fragment from it in a letter written in the
fifth century CE. The quotation from Augustine matches the manuscript of 1897
CE, establishing that the Acts ofJohn found in 1897 is the same book that was in circulation
in the fifth century CE. However, literary analysis suggests a composition date
in the first half of the second century CE. 38(Cameron R (1982) )
Evidence
The passage quoted below from the Acts of John takes place after the supposed arrest of
Jesus. The author of the manuscript claims to be a
disciple of Jesus Christ, i.e. John, the son of Zebedee. (Since the account
is written in the first person, the reader is to assume that the first person
pronoun refers to John, unless it is part of a statement enclosed in quotation
marks, in which case it refers to Jesus, who is talking to John.)
John narrates in the quotation that
follows, how he and the rest of the disciples scattered and fled near the time
of crucifixion, and how he had sought refuge by hiding in a cave on the Mount
of Olives. While hiding in the cave, Jesus appeared to him during the time of
the crucifixion, and explained to John that the crucifixion was illusory, and
that Jesus was not the one being crucified. While explaining this to John,
Jesus reminds him of a symbolic dance, which Jesus allegedly had performed with
his disciples earlier, to predict and depict the illusory crucifixion event
that was to take place later. Jesus categorically states to John that he is
suffering none of the things that will later be said about him, e.g. that he
was pierced with a lance and wounded, that he was hung on the cross, that blood
flowed from him, etc., (In
the passage quoted below, italics have been added by the present author to
highlight relevant statements.
And we were like men amazed or
fast asleep, and we fled this way and that. And so 1saw him suffer, and did not
wait by his suffering, but fled to the Mount of Olives, and wept at what had
come to pass. And when he was hung (upon the Cross) on Friday, at the sixth
hour of the day there came a darkness over the whole earth. And my Lord stood
in the middle of the cave and gave light to it and said, "John, for the
people below in Jerusalem 1 am being crucified and pierced with lances and
reeds, and given vinegar and gall to drink. But to you1am speakingand listen to
what1speak ..."And whenhehad said this he showed me a Cross of Light
firmly fixed, and around the Cross a great crowd, which had no single form; and
in it (the Cross) was one form and the same likeness. And 1 saw the Lord
himself above the Cross..."this is not that wooden Cross which you shall
see when you go down from here; nor am
I the (man) who is on the Cross. (I)
whom now you do not see but only hear (my) voice. 1was taken to be what 1am
not, 1who am not what for many others 1was; but what they will say of me is
mean and unworthy of me ...So then I
suffered none of those things which they will say of me; even that suffering which 1 showed to you and to the
rest in my dance, 1 will that it be called a
mystery ... You hear that I suffered,
yet I suffered not; and that I suffered not, yet I did suffer; and that I was pierced, yet I was not wounded; that I was
hanged, yet I was not hanged; that blood flowed from me, yet it did not flow;
and, in a word, that what they say of me, I did not endure, but what they do
not say, those things I did suffer... "39 (
Acts ofJohn 97-99,101. In Cameron R (1982). Pages 94-96 )
Conclusion
The Gnostic flavor of this passage from the Acts of John may be confusing for some readers who are not well versed in
Gnostic doctrine and philosophy. However, the relevant verses leave no doubt
that the crucifixion of Jesus was only an illusion. Once again, an apocryphal
writing of early Christianity totally refutes traditional Christian orthodoxy
about the crucifixion event, and is consistent with the Qur'anic position on
that issue.
Summary and
Conclusions
Whether or not one accepts the Gospel of Barnabas as predating the beginning of the preaching of Prophet Muhammad,
there is no denying that much of the apocryphal literature within the early
Christian churches maintained that Jesus was not really crucified. Quite
simply, the early Christian churches did not unanimously hold that Jesus died
on the cross. There were many divisions within the early Christian churches,
and some sections of early Christianity clearly believed that Jesus'
crucifixion was illusory and/or that someone else was crucified in his place.
By examining the provenance of these apocryphal books, one can demonstrate that
this belief in the illusory and/or substitute nature of the crucifixion was
quite prevalent in the early Christian churches during the second and third
centuries CEo Further, by reference to the polemics against this position by
the so-called apostolic fathers, one can trace this position back to the first
decade of the second century CE. Allowing reasonable time for such a belief
system to have spread to the point that the apostolic fathers felt the need to
attack it, it becomes clear that the belief that Jesus was not really crucified
was well represented in the early Christian churches during the last half of
the first century CE. In short, this belief was common at a time prior to, or
concomitant with, the authorship of the canonical gospels of the New Testament!
Canonical Gospels
Provenance
Having digressed to examine the
provenance of the apocryphal books, it is only fair to present a brief
statement about the provenance of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Without
getting into a detailed and lengthy discussion of source and text criticism, it
is worth noting that: Matthew, Mark, and Luke frequently present
a united front that is at variance with John, which is why the earlier
three are referred to as the Synoptic Gospels. Further, all four gospels
are based, at least in part, on prior written sources, such as Q, proto-Mark,
M, L, and other hypothesized documents and none of these four canonical
gospels were actually written by a disciple of Jesus. Morevover, the order
of composition of these gospels is usually held to be Mark, followed by Matthew,
followed by Luke, and finally followed by John. It should be further noted that both Matthew and Luke
based part of their accounts on Mark. In their initially completed
form, none of the four gospels can be dated earlier than about the last quarter
of the first century CE, with John being dated to the first quarter of
the second century CE. Editing of the four canonical gospels continued
throughout the first few centuries CEo The sum total of the above proves that
none of the authors of the four canonical gospels was an actual eye-witness to
the events of the crucifixion, although their respective books may seem to
include such first-hand accounts, which in reality were only stories of news
happenings as told to them, either directly or though intermediaries. 40 (
A) Moffat J (1929). B) Robertson AT
(1929). C) Burch EW (1929). D) Peritz II (1929). E) Scott EF (1929). F) Davies IN (l929b) G) Davies IN (1929a). H) Findlay JA (1929). I) Garvie AE (1929). J) Kee HC (1971). K)
Pherigo LP (l971).L) Baird W (1971). M) Shepherd MH (1971). N) Wilson RM
(1971). 0)
Filson FV (1971). P) Sundberg AC (1971).
Q) Duncan GB (1971). R) Marsh J (1972). S) Caird GB (1972). T) Nineham DE
(1973). U) Fenton JC (1973). V) Hamilton W (1959). W) Mack BL (1996). X)
Koester H (1982). Z) Robinson IM, Koester H (1971). ZZ) Cameron R
(1982). )
In what follows, different crucifixion
stories in the canonical gospels are examined. In each case, a careful
reading would clearly suggest that the person who was crucified may not have
been Jesus at all.
Evidence: The denial of Peter
The Heroic Peter
All four of the canonical gospels are
in unison on various issues concerning the arrest of Jesus. All four agree that
Jesus and his disciples ate a common meal together in Jerusalem on the night of
the arrest (although Matthew, Mark, and Luke portray this meal as
being the Passover meal, while John portrays it as being the day
prior to the Passover) 41 (Shepherd MH (1971).
Page 722. This issue ofthe exact chronology of the crucifixion in relation to the Jewish
Passover, as well as the chronology of John vs. the chronology of the synoptic
gospels, has divided Christian theologians for centuries, and lies outside the
scope of the present article). Further,
all see eye-to-eye on the fact that Jesus was arrested the night before the
crucifixion, and that his arrest took place outside the walls of the city of
Jerusalem (which was consistently, but variously, identified as the Garden of
Gethsemane, a place on the Mount of Olives, and a garden on the far side of the
Kidron Valley from Jerusalem). They are also of a-common opinion, that in the
course of the arrest, one of Jesus' disciples drew his sword and attacked, in
order to attempt to defend Jesus. While John identifies this disciple to be
Peter (Simon bar Jonah) (42
A) Matthew 26:17-56. B) Mark 14:12-51. C)Luke 22:7-54. D) John 13:21-30;
18:1-11.), Matthew, Mark, and Luke are silent about this name
After Jesus had spoken these
words, he went out with his disciples across the Kidron valley to a place where
there was a garden, which he and his disciples entered. Now Judas, who betrayed
him, also knew the place, because Jesus often met there with his disciples. So
Judas brought a detachment of soldiers together with police from the chief
priests and the Pharisees, and they came there with lanterns and torches and
weapons. Then Jesus, knowing all that was to happen to him, came forward and
asked them, "Whom are you looking for?" They answered, "Jesus of
Nazareth." Jesus replied, "I am he." Judas, who betrayed him,
was standing with them. When Jesus said to them, "I am he," they
stepped back and fell to the ground. Again he asked them, "Whom are you
looking for?" And they said, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus
answered, "I told you that I am he. So if you are looking for me, let
these men go." This was to fulfill the word that he had spoken, "I
did not lose a single one of those whom you gave me." Then Simon Peter,
who had a sword, drew it, struck the high priest's slave, and cut off his right
ear. The slave's name was Malchus. Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword
back into its sheath. Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given
me?" So the soldiers, their officer, and the Jewish police arrested Jesus
and bound him. (43 John 18:1-12)
In the above account from John, Judas
Iscariot, the disciple who reportedly betrayed Jesus, leads a group of armed
men to arrest Jesus. John identifies these armed men as being "a detachment
of soldiers" and "police from the chief priests and the
Pharisees." 44 (A) Luke 22:47
refers to the arresting force as "a crowd". B) Mark 14:43
refers to the arresting force as "a crowd with swords and clubs, from the
chief priests, the scribes, and the elders", implying the temple police
force. C) Matthew 26:47 refers to the arresting force as "a large
crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the
people", implying the temple police force.) The former identification implies that Roman legionnaires were put
under the direction of the Jewish officials, in order to assist in the arrest
of Jesus. The latter identification clearly refers to the Temple police force.
In the face of this numerically superior and armed authority, one disciple
stood his ground. Peter bravely drew his sword, and single-handedly attacked
the armed multitude of professional soldiers and police arrayed against him. He
had to have known that his act of heroism would lead to his immediate death,
yet he was more than willing to sacrifice his life in his desperate attempt to
save Jesus. However, Peter was able to get in only one thrust of his sword,
thus cutting off the ear of Ma1chus, the slave of the high priest, before Jesus
intervened. Stopping the fight before it could really begin, Jesus surrendered
himself to the arresting force, and his disciples then fled into the night. (45 On
the flight of the disciples see Matthew 26:56 and Mark 14:50-2) (Luke adds
that Jesus healed the ear of Malchus. 46 ( Luke 22:50-51)
The Cowardly Peter
Following his arrest, Jesus was
taken either: to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest,
and then to Caiaphas 47 ( John 18:13-16);
or directly to Caiaphas 48
(
Matthew 26:57; Mark 14:53;
Luke 22:54) Unlike all of the other disciples, the
ever-faithful and heroic Peter followed at a distance, and gained entrance to
the outer courtyard 49 (Matthew 26:57-58;
Mark 14:53-54; Luke 22:54-55; John 18:15-16). There the intrepid Peter waited for word on the
fate of Jesus. However, while Peter was standing in the courtyard, the authors
of the four canonical gospels would have the reader believe that Peter
did a complete about-face. They would have the reader believe that the heroic
Peter, who had single-handedly attacked the Roman legionnaires and Temple
police, and who had risked his life in even following Jesus into the outer
courtyard, had suddenly become a coward, because he three times denied any
association with Jesus before the cock crowed that morning. Because the exact
wording of Peter's denials is so important, all four gospel accounts are
presented immediately below.
Matthew's account of Peter's denials: Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. A
servant-girl came to him and said, "You also were with Jesus the Galilean." But he denied it before all of them, saying,
"I do not know what you are talking about." When he went out to the
porch, another servant-girl saw him, and she said to the bystanders, "This
man was with Jesus of Nazareth." Again he denied it with an oath, "I
do not know the man." After a little while the bystanders came up and said
to Peter, "Certainly you are also one of them, for your accent betrays
you." Then he began to curse, and he swore an oath, "I do not know
the man!" At that moment the cock crowed. Then Peter remembered what Jesus
had said: "Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times." And
he went out and wept bitterly. 50 (Matthew 26:69-75)
Luke's account:
When they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and
sat down together, Peter sat among them. Then a servant-girl, seeing him in the
firelight, stared at him and said, "This man also was with him." But
he denied it, saying, "Woman, 1 do not know
him." A little later someone else, on seeing him, said, "You also are
one of them."ButPeter said, "Man,1amnot!"Then about an hour
later still another kept insisting, "Surely this man also was with him;
for he is a Galilean." But Peter said, "Man, 1 do
not know what you are talk ing about!" At that moment, while he was still
speaking, the cock crowed. The Lord turned and looked at Peter. Then Peter
remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said to him, "Before the cock
crows today you will deny me three times." And he went out and wept bitterly. 51(Luke 22:55-62)
Mark's narration:
While Peter was below in the
courtyard, one of the servant-girls of the high priest came by. When she saw
Peter warming himself, she stared at him and said, "You also were with Jesus, the man from Nazareth." But he denied it, saying, "1 do not know
or understand what you are talking about." And he went out into the
fore-court. Then the cock crowed. And the servant-girl, on seeing him, began
again to say to the bystanders, "This man is one of them." But again
he denied it. Then after a little while the bystanders again said to Peter,
"Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean." But he began
to curse, and he swore an oath, "1 do not know this man you are talking
about." At that moment the cock crowed for the second time. Then Peter
remembered that Jesus had said to him, "Before the cock crows twice, you
will deny me three times." And he broke down and wept.52 (Mark 14:66-72)
Finally, the account of John:
The woman said to Peter, "You are not also one of this man's
disciples, are you?" He said, "1 am not." Now the slaves and the
police had made a charcoal fire because it was cold, and they were standing
around it and warming themselves. Peter also was standing with them and warming
himself...Now Simon Peter was standing
and warming himself. They asked him, "You are not also one of his
disciples, are you?" He denied it and said, "1 am not." One of
the slaves of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut
off, asked, "Did 1 not see you in the garden with him?" Again Peter
denied it, and at the moment the cock crowed.
53 (John 18:17-18,25-27)
What Peter denied
In considering these four
versions of what is reportedly the same event, one needs to begin by carefully
considering what is it that Peter is denying. In that regard, Table 2 is
presented below.
Table 2: The Accusations (A) that Peter
denied CD)
Mtl A: You were with
Jesus the Galilean.
D: I do not know what
you are talking about.
Mt2 A: This man was
with Jesus of Nazareth.
D: I do not know the
man.
Mt3 A: You are one of
them, for your accent betrays you.
D: I do not know the man.
Ll A: This man also was with
him.
D: I do not know him.
D: Man, I am not.
D: I do not know what you are
talking about.
D: I do not know what you are
talking about.
M2 A: This man is one of them.
D: But again he denied it. M3 A: You are one of them; for you are a Galilean.
D: I do not know this man.
L2 A: You also are one of them.
L3 A: This man also was
with him.
Ml A: You were with
Jesus from Nazareth.
JI A: You are one of
this man's disciples.
D: Iamnot.
12 A: You are one of
his disciples.
D: Iamnot.
13 A: Did I not see you
in the garden with him.
D: Peter denied it. Mtl, Mt2, & Mt3 = 1st, 2nd, and 3rd accusations and denials
reported by Matthew. L1, L2, & L3 =1st,
2nd, and 3rd accusations and denials reported by Luke. M1,M2, &M3 = 1st 2nd and 3rd accusations and denials
reported by Mark. JI, 12, & 13 =1st, 2nd, and
3rd accusations and denials reported by John.
As a brief digression, it should be noted that the four canonical
gospels agree that Peter made three denials, and they agree in reporting
three accusations. However, the canonical gospels do not agree as to
what those accusations were. Be that as it may, the data presented in Table 2
can be summarized into the following accusations: (1) Peter was with Jesus, the Galilean (Mt1); (2) Peter was with Jesus
of Nazareth (Mt2,M1); (3) Peter was with "them", where the context
indicates that them "refers" to Galileans and/or to the disciples of
Jesus of Nazareth (Mt3,M2,M3); (4) Peter was with the disciples of the man
being tried (L2,JI,J2); (5) Peter was with the man being tried (L1,L3); and (6)
Peter was in the garden with the man being tried (13). In making the summary
list of six accusations, care has been taken not to pre-judge the outcome, i.e, one cannot assume that Jesus of Nazareth is the one being tried,
but one must look directly at the statements involved.
As can be seen Luke and John present a united front,
in which Peter's denials are specifically directed towards the man being tried
or interrogated. Quite simply, Peter is denying any association with the man
being tried or interrogated. What if that man were not Jesus Christ? What if
Judas were seized instead of Jesus Christ (Gospel ofBarnabas), or what
if some other substitute for or simulacrum of Jesus Christ were seized in place
of Jesus Christ (Apocalypse of Peter, The Second Treatise of the Great Seth,
and Acts of John)? In that case, Peter's denials are totally
truthful. In that case, there exists no bewildering contradiction, reportedly
occurring within a matter of mere hours, between: Peter's willingness to fight
single-handedly Roman soldiers and Temple police, which implies his heroic
bravery and unwavering faith; and Peter's denials, which imply cowardice and
lack of faith. In short, the
hypothesis exists that a superficial reading of the canonical gospels misrepresents
Peter's denials into being a denial of Jesus Christ, when, in fact, Peter is
simply stating "I do not know this man", where "this man"
may not be Jesus Christ. Read in the light of maintaining the consistency of
Peter's portrayal within the canonical gospels, Peter's denials reflect
a denial that the man being tried and/or interrogated was Jesus Christ.
However, what about the accounts of Matthew
and Mark? Here one encounters the denials within the context of such
phrases as "Jesus the Galilean", "Jesus of Nazareth", and
"Jesus, the man from Nazareth". One option is to dismiss these
phrases as later and erroneous elaboration of an earlier account, as preserved
in Luke and in John. Certainly, this option has much to recommend
it, and is not to be dismissed out of hand. However, a second option also
exists, which is based upon examination of the key words "Galilean"
and "Nazareth". In that regard, it is noted that most superficial readers of the Bible
equate "Galilean" with "a man from the geographical area of
Galilee", which the Bible indicates Jesus Christ was. Likewise,
most such readers equate "Nazareth" with a town in Galilee, which the
Bible indicates was the town, in which Jesus Christ was raised. However,
both of these terms had radically alternative meanings during the first half of
the first century CE.
Judaism in the First
Century CE
During the first half of the
first century CE, Judaism was divided into numerous religious and political
sects. A partial listing of such sects and their various divisions
inc1uded:Sadducees (Zadokites); Hasidim (the root group for both the Pharisees
and the Essenes); Pharisees (Perishaiya); Zealots; Hasmoneans; Sicarii;
Essenes; Herodians; Nazoreans (Nazarites or Nazirites); and Galileans.54
(A) Danielou J, Marrou H (1964). B) Asimov
I (1969). C) Leon-Dufour X (1983). D) Schonfield HJ (1967). E) ---(1998p): Zealots. In Encyclopaedia Britannica CD
98.. F) Bornkamm G (1998)) It is only within this context that terms such as
"Jesus the Galilean", "Jesus of Nazareth", and "Jesus,
the man from Nazareth" can be properly and fully understood.
Galileans
If
one were to rank these different Jewish
sects and sub-sects along a cultural-political dimension, the left-right axis
would be anchored as follows. The far left would indicate acceptance of and
accommodation with Hellenistic culture and with Roman rule, and the far right
the complete rejection of Hellenistic culture and Roman rule, coupled with
extreme nationalistic aspirations. Given this axis and definition, the
Sadducees would occupy the far left, the Pharisees would occupy the middle
ground position to the right side of the fulcrum, and the Zealots and
Hasmoneans would occupy the far right.55 (A) Josephus F
(1988). B) Leon-Dufour X (1983)) It was
the far right, which consistently gave birth to revolutionary movements against
Roman authority. Typically, the groups of the far right are referred to as
Zealots, where Zealot becomes an umbrella word, covering various groups and
sub-groups, including the Sicarii (from the Greek word "sikarioi'',
meaning "dagger men", and indicating a sub-group of Zealots, who were
assassins 56 (A) ---(1998p): Zealots. In
Encyclopaedia Britannica CD 98.. B)
Asimov I (1969)) and the Galileans. The Bible indicates
that at least two of Jesus' disciples were from the far right ofthe
cultural-political spectrum: Simon, the Zealot57 (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13)) and Judas Iscariot (the Sicarii).58 (Matthew 10:4; 26:14; Mark
3:19; 14:10; Luke 6:16; 22:3; John 6:71; 12:4; 13:2; 13:26.)
As noted above, the Zealot
movement represented the far right of the cultural-political axis within first
century CE Judaism. However, identification of a person as a Zealot said very
little about that person's actual religious orientation. Some Zealots were
quasi-secular, and others were deeply committed to the Jewish religious
tradition. Among the latter group of Zealots, there is a sub-group known as the
Galileans- 59 (A)
Dupont-Sommer A (1967). B) Leon-Dufour X (1983).)
The origin and history of the Galileans are as follows:
In
six CE, Quirinius, a Roman senator of consular rank, was appointed governor of
Syria by Caesar Augusrus 60 (Josephus F
(1988).) One of his first tasks was to
administer a census in Palestine for the sake of registering property for the
construction of a proper tax roll. 61
(A) Luke 2:1-3. B) Josephus F
(1988). C) Bornkamm G (1998). ). While most Jews in Palestine acquiesced to this
census, a dissident faction of Jews, led by Judas of Gamala (a.k.a. Judas, the
Galilean) entered into open revolt against the authority of Rome, claiming
that: the end purpose of the census would amount to slavery for the Jewish
people; adherence to the census was an agreement by Jews that pagans had the
right to rule Palestine; and that it was time for the Jews to establish their
own theocratic state. 62 (A) Acts 5:37. B) Josephus F (1988). C) Bomkamm G (1998).
D)Leon-Dufour X (1983)). The revolt of Judas, the Galilean, was short-lived,
Judas was killed, and his followers were scattered for a while. 63 (Acts 5:37). However, the
uprising of Judas, the Galilean, was the birth of the Zealot movement, and
particularly of that part of the Zealot movement known as the Galileans.64
(A) Josephus F (1988). B) Leon-Dufour X
(1983)).
Following
the aborted uprising of Judas the Galilean, the Galileans continued to engage
in isolated acts of guerrilla warfare against Rome, which steadily increased in
intensity across the decades between 6 and 70 CE. In 44 CE, such revolutionary
and paramilitary activities on the part of the Galileans led to the
crucifixions of James and Simon, the sons of Judas, the Galilean, by order of
Tiberius Alexander, procurator of Judaea. Finally, in 66 CE, Menahem, another
son of Judas, the Galilean, led the Galileans and Zealots in open revolt
against Rome. Menahem and his followers seized the armory at Masada, and then
marched on Jerusalem. Taking most of Jerusalem, Menahem, who had pretensions of
being king, established a despotic rule, and assassinated Ananias, the Jewish
high priest. However, Menahem was then assassinated by Eleazar, the son of
Ananias, in the Temple of Jerusalem. Menahem's followers then fled back to
Masada, under the command of another Eleazar, who was a descendant of Judas,
the Galilean. At Masada, the Jewish revolt continued until 73 CE, when the
besieged inhabitants of Masada committed mass suicide, in order not to be
captured by the Roman army, which surrounded them.65 (A)
Josephus F (1988). B) Bomkamm G (1998))
Given the above account, one can readily
see that the identification of "Jesus the Galilean" cannot automatically be equated with
"Jesus from the geographical region of Galilee". Given the context of
the times, the more likely identification would be "Jesus, a member of the
Galilean party of paramilitary insurrectionists". Such a Jesus would
obviously not be Jesus Christ, and Peter's denial of such a Jesus would be
truthful.
The Nazorean
Among
the accusations leveled against Peter, one refers to "Jesus of Nazareth" 66 (Matthew 26:71)
, and
one refers to "Jesus, the man from Nazareth”. (67
Mark 14:67). The former statement is, in fact, a misleading
translation of the Greek word "Nazorean"
68 (A) Matthew 26:71.
See footnote "0" in ---: The
Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 1989. B) Stegemann H (1998). C) The statement
of Matthew 2:23, in which Nazorean is linked with someone from
Nazareth, is "farfetched" and confuses the Hebrew "Nazir"
(consecrated, holy, abstainer) with the Hebrew "Netzer" (sprout or
shoot). Kee HC (1971).) , and the latter statement a misleading translation of
the Greek "Nazarene". 69
(Stegemann H (1998)) The Greek word
"Nazorean" or "Nazarene" is a transliteration (Nazarenoi or
Nazoraioi) of the Aramaic word "Nasren" or "Nasraya", which
means "the preservers". 70 (Stegemann H (1998))
In turn, the Aramaic word can be traced to the Hebrew "Nazir",
meaning "consecrated", "holy", or "abstainer". (71 A)
Leon-Dufour X(1983) ---(1998f): Nazirite.
In Encyclopaedia Britannica CD 98) If the Jewish sects
and sub-sects of the first century CE were aligned on an religious axis, in
which the left pole represented Jewish liberalism, and in which the right pole
represented religious conservatism, then the Pharisees would fall in the
middle, and the Essenes and Nazoreans would fall on the far right. So, who
were, and what were, the Nazoreans? Quite simply, they were the same group
referred to in the Old Testament as Nazarites or as Nazirites. A
Nazarite or Nazorean was a person, who took a vow of abstinence and of severe
adherence to the Mosaic Law, where such vow could be for life or for a
specified amount of time. 72 (A) Schonfie1dHJ
(1967). B) ---(1998f): Nazirite. In Encyclopaedia Britannica CD 98. ) The specific
rules governing the period of being a Nazarite or Nazorean are enumerated in Numbers
6:1-21 in the Bible, and are not repeated in this chapter. However,
it is noted that the Nazarites or Nazoreans were characterized by refusal to
cut their hair, by absolute abstinence from alcohol and from any derivative of
the grape, by absolute refusal to be anywhere near a corpse, etc. Prominent
Biblical figures who have been identified as being Nazarites or Nazoreans
include: Samson 73 (Judges 13:1-24; 16:13-17);
Samuel (74 I Samuel 1:1-22); probably John (Yahya), the Baptist 75
(A) Strugnell J (1998). In discussing John
the Baptist, John Strugnell states: "His dress of an austere camel's hair
garment was the traditional garb of the prophets, and his diet of locusts and
wild honey represented either strict adherence to Jewish purity laws or the
ascetic conduct ofa Nazirite (a Jew especially vowed to God's service)."
B) Schonfield HJ (1967) ) , possibly James, the first head of the Christian church
at Jerusalem 76
(Acts 21:17-26); and temporarily Paul.77
(Acts 21:17-26).
However, the Biblical portrayal of Jesus Christ is mutually exclusive with that
of a Nazorean, as a Nazorean could never have taken from the fruit of the
grape, and could never have come anywhere close to the departed Lazarus, whom
Jesus, through the power of Allah, reportedly raised from the dead. 78
(The story of the raising of Lazarus from
the dead is told in John 11:38-44. As that narrative makes clear, Jesus was in
too close of a physical proximity to the corpse to have been a Nazorean..)
Given the above discussion, Peter's denial of being associated
with Jesus, the Nazorean, appears to have been a truthful statement, although
Jesus, the Nazorean, was not Jesus Christ. Of note, a Nazorean might also have
been a Galilean, but would not have to have been. (As an aside, it is noted
that in the passage quoted earlier from John 18:1-12, the phrase "Jesus of
Nazareth" should read "Jesus, the Nazorean", thus raising the
possibility that Jesus Christ may never have been arrested in the first place.)
The Name 'Jesus'
During the first century CE,
Jesus (the Greek rendition of Joshua) was a very popular name in Palestine. For
example, of the 28 high priests of Judaism from the time of Herod the Great to
the destruction of the Temple, four were named Jesus (Jesus son of Phabet or
Phiabi, Jesus son of Sec or Sei, Jesus son of Damneus, Jesus son of Gamaliel).79
(A) Josephus F (1988). B) Schonfield HJ
(1967). C) Wilson I (1985)). Using this
list of Jewish high priests as a representative sample of male names in
Palestine in the first century ·CE, one can expect about 14% of the male
population to have been named Jesus. Clearly, it is not too much to imagine
that a second Jesus was being interrogated the night before the crucifixion,
that it was this man that Peter denied, and that it was this man who would be
crucified the next day.
Summary
The denial of Peter presents the canonical
gospels with two mutually exclusive options. 1) Within a matter of just a
few hours, Peter went from being a heroic figure of unlimited bravery to being
a coward, who verbally denied his affiliation with Jesus Christ at three
separate times in rapid succession. Quite frankly, this portrayal of Peter
tends to strain the imagination. 2) Peter was straightforward and honest in
denying his affiliation, either with an unknown man, or with a paramilitary
insurrectionist and extreme right-wing adherent of Judaism, who happened to be
named Jesus. Assuming that the man was unknown, Peter's denial was quite
consistent with the evidence from the apocryphal books presented previously.
Assuming that the man was a paramilitary insurrectionist named Jesus, Peter's
denial is in keeping with the story of the release of Barabbas, recounted
below.
Evidence: The Release of Barabbas
From the Arrest to Barabbas
Before moving directly to the story of the
release of Barabbas, It IS instructive to chart the supposed movements of Jesus
Christ from the time of his alleged arrest until the time of the release of
Barabbas. Using the four canonical gospels as the source for this
information, a quick comparison of these four gospels reveals significant
disagreement among them. This information is presented in Table 3, and the reader
is free to draw his own conclusions about the reliability of the gospel
accounts of the various movements of Jesus Christ, during these events.
Table 3: Sequence of the reported
movements of
Jesus Christ between his arrest and the
release of Barabbas
Matthew
|
Mark
|
Luke
|
John
|
To Annas
|
|||
To Caiaphas
|
To Caiaphas
|
To Caiaphas
|
To Caiaphas
|
To Sanhedrin?
|
To Sanhedrin
|
To Sanhedrin
|
|
To Pilate
|
|||
To Herod
|
|||
To Pilate
|
To Pilate
|
To Pilate
|
To Pilate
|
The
Matthean sequence is dependent on
Mahew 26:57; 27:1; 27:1-2.
The
Markan sequence is dependent on
Mark 14:53, 15:1, 15:1.
The
Lukan sequence is dependent on
Luke
22:54; 22:66; 23:1; 23:6-8; 23:11.
The
Johanine sequence is dependent on
John
18:12-13; 18:24; 18:28.
The Release of Barabbas
The release of Barabbas is reported by all
four canonical gospels 80.( Matthew 27:11-26; Mark 15:6-15; Luke 23:13-25;
John 18:38-40), and many
of the details are the same across the four narratives. In each account, Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judaea, gives
the Jewish crowd a choice between the release of two prisoners, one of whom has
been traditionally presented as Jesus Christ, and the other of whom has been
presented as a notorious outlaw, who is known only as Barabbas. The agitated
crowd selects Barabbas to be released. Pilate thus releases Barabbas, and Jesus
Christ is supposedly crucified. However, as will soon be seen, this Sunday School interpretation of the gospel portrayal is
less than accurate, primarily because the most ancient and accurate texts of
the gospels have been kept away from the laity until very recent times. Of the
four accounts, that of Matthew
is by far the most
illuminating and detailed, and it is this narrative that is reported below:
Now Jesus stood before the governor; and the governor asked him,
"Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus said, "You say
so."... Now at the festival the governor was accustomed to release a
prisoner for the crowd, anyone whom they wanted. At that time they had a
notorious prisoner, called Jesus Barabbas. So after they had gathered, Pilate
said to them, "Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas or
Jesus who is called the Messiah? For he realized that it was out of jealousy
that they had handed him over. While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his
wife sent word to him, "Have nothing to do with that innocent man, for
today I have suffered a great deal because of a dream about him." Now the
chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to
have Jesus killed. The governor again said to them, "Which of the two do
you want me to release for you?" And they said, "Barabbas."
Pilate said to them, "Then what should I do with Jesus who is called the
Messiah?" All of them said, "Let him be crucified!" Then he
asked, "Why, what evil
has he done?" But they shouted all the more, "Let him be
crucified!" So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but rather that a
riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd,
saying,"I am innocent of this man's blood ; see to it yourselves."
Then the people as a whole answered,"His blood be on us and on our
children!" So he released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed
him over to be crucified. 81 (Matthew
27:11,15-26.)
As
a slight digression, it is noted that apocryphal writings consistently identify
Pilate's wife's name as ProcIa. 82 (Procla is
identified as the wife of Pilate in the following apocryphal writings, all of
which can be located in Platt RH, Brett JA. A) Letter of Herod to Pilate
the Governor. B) Letter of Pilate to Herod. C) The Trial and
Condemnation ofPilate, also known as The Paradosis ofPilate)
The Identity of
Barabbas
The
text quoted above from Matthew, as found in The Holy Bible: New
Revised Standard Version (NRSV), clearly identifies Barabbas as having the
given name of Jesus. In making this identification, the NRSV utilizes the most
ancient texts 83 (The identification of Jesus as the given name of Barabbas
appears in various ancient texts of Matthew, including Greek versions, Syriac,
and others. It
was also reported by Origen, the third
century apostolic father. A) Fenton JC (1973). B) ---(1998a): Barabbas. In Encyclopaedia Britannica CD 98.., in order to correct the deletion of Barabbas' given
name, i.e., Jesus, which happened in earlier versions of the Bible. As a
point of fact, Biblical scholars have long known from these ancient texts of Matthew
that Barabbas' name was Jesus. However, this information was typically not
presented to the laity. In the King James Version of the Bible of
1611, there is absolutely no mention of Barabbas' name as being Jesus. In the Revised
Standard Version (RSV) of 1946, this information finally makes it into the
text as an obscure footnote. Finally, in the New Revised Standard Version
(NRSV) of 1989, the earliest and most complete information regarding
Barabbas is presented directly in the text, where it originally was supposed to
be, and the previously unknown Barabbas has once again become Jesus Barabbas.
However,
the Biblical translators are still holding out on the laity. They have still
not completed their job of educating the Christian laity, and of making the
Biblical text accessible to the average Christian. They have now presented
Barabbas as Jesus Barabbas, but they are still not pointing out that
"Barabbas" is not a given name, but is a patronymic. 84
(A) ---(1998a). ): Barabbas. In Encyclopaedia
Britannica CD 98. B) Leon-Dufour X
(1983). C) Asimov I (1969). D) Schonfie1dHJ (1967). E) Fenton JC (1973). F)
Pherigo LP (1971).)
A patronymic is an identifier, whereby the
person is stated to be the son of X. Thus, in the New Testament, one finds the
disciple Simon Peter also called Simon bar Jonah, i.e., Simon the son of Jonah.
(85 Matthew 16:17.
In the NRSV, the translators have gone all the way, and have endered
the name "Simon son of Jonah". In the earlier RSV, the
translators have simply said "Simon Bar-Jona".). However, Biblical translators have consistently run
together the Aramaic words "bar" and "Abbas", thus
rendering "Jesus bar Abbas" as "Jesus Barabbas", or,
worse yet, only as "Barabbas". With this in mind, and realizing that
"bar" merely means "son of', one can now identify Barabbas as
"Jesus the son of Abbas". However, even taking the translation to
this point, it would still be somewhat misleading, because "Abbas" is
not a given name. The word "Abbas" still needs to be translated from
the Aramaic. "Abbas" means "father", and Barabbas is
directly and unambiguously identified in Matthew as being "Jesus, the son
of the Father"! 86 ( A)---(1998a): Barabbas. In Encyclopaedia Britannica CD 98. B) Leon-Dufour X (1983). C) Asimov I (1969). D) Fenton
JC (1973). E) Pherigo LP (1971.) Now, if
one were to ask 100 randomly selected Christians the identity of "Jesus,
the son of the Father", one would get 100 positive identifications of
Jesus Christ.
Barabbas
was none other than Jesus, the son of the Father (87 For
the sake of Muslim readers, the author notes that the phrase "son of the
Father" does not imply any "begotten" status. In that regard,
see the chapter entitled "The Baptism of Jesus".) ! This is not an identification based upon some
apocryphal book, which mayor may not have a provenance back to the early
Christian churches, such as the case with the Gospel ofBarnabas. This is
not even an identification based upon apocryphal books, which can be directly
traced to the early Christian churches, such as the case with the Two Books
of Jeu, the Apocalypse ofPeter, The Second Treatise ofthe Great Seth, or
the Acts of John. This is an identification that is directly made by the
canonical gospel ofMatthew. However, it is an identification that can
only be made once: the earliest texts of Matthew are finally the
acknowledged ones, as in the case of the NSRV;
and the reader has completed the
translation of two words, which the Biblical translators are still refraining
from translating, thus keeping the laity in the dark as to the actual statement
of Matthew. Understanding this passage of Matthew is similar to peeling
an onion. There is layer after layer that needs to be removed, before one gets
to the actual core. While one can see that the Biblical translators have begun
peeling that onion for the laity, the peeling process has been awfully slow,
and is still incomplete. These various layers are presented in Table 4 below:
Table 4: The Layers of Identity of
Barabbas
Layer Identity Revealed Version of the Bible
Layer
|
Identity
revealed
|
Version
of the Bible
|
1
|
Barabbas
|
King James Version, 1611
|
2
|
Jesus Barabbas as footnote
|
Revised Standard Version, 1946
|
3
|
Jesus Barabbas
|
New Revised Standard Version, 1989
|
4
|
Jesus bar Abbas
|
|
5
|
Jesus, son of Abbas
|
|
6
|
Jesus, son of the Father
|
----------
|
Based on the above discussion,
we can see that as per Matthew Pilate offered to release one of the two
captives that day viz., "Jesus, the son of the Father" or "Jesus
who is called the Messiah." (88 Matthew 27:17)
According to the Matthean narration, the crowd selected "Jesus, the
son of the Father" for release. Pilate met their request, releasing
"Jesus, the son of the Father", and condemning "Jesus called the
Messiah. " (89
Matthew 27:17-26)At the very
least, the Matthean account indicates that there was marked confusion
regarding who was released and who was crucified. Oscillating between the two,
"Jesus, the son of the Father" and "Jesus who is called the
Messiah", how is one to decide who is who?
The answer is
available, but takes a bit of sleuthing. Prior to Pilate asking the crowd whom
they want released, Matthew has Pilate asking a single, pointed question
to Jesus, i.e., "Are you the King of the Jews?".(90
Matthew 27:11). This was the only thing in which Pilate appeared to be interested.
Was Jesus laying claim to being the King of the Jews, and thus leading an
insurrection against Rome? Pilate had no concern about internal bickering among
the Jewish religious establishment. Whether or not someone claimed to be a
religious figure such as the Messiah was not his concern. He wanted to affirm
the claim of kingship, since this encompassed temporal and secular authority,
posing a challenge to the imperial rule of Rome. Hence, he did not ask Jesus if
Jesus were the theological Messiah, because Pilate didn't care about this
issue. However, Pilate did care if Jesus were claiming to be King of the Jews.
Claiming to be the theological Messiah was not a crime under Roman law, while
claiming to be the King of the Jews certainly was.
Here, one needs to examine what
is meant by "Jesus who is called the Messiah". Generations of Sunday
School-attending Christians have been indoctrinated with a theological concept
of the Messiah, which dates from the time of the early Christian churches. However,
the Hebrew word "Mashiah", which is rendered "Messiah" in
the Bible, simply means "anointed". Likewise, the Greek word
"Christos", which is rendered Christ in the Bible, is simply a
Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Mashiah". Thus, even if
Pilate's words were "Jesus who is called the Messiah", all he was
saying was "Jesus who is called the anointed." Who were the anointed
of Israel? The answer is the kings and high priests of Israel. In that regard,
any insurrectionist who was laying claim to being the king of Israel, and there
were many such people in the first century CE, would have had himself anointed
as king of Israel, and could have been referred to as "Messiah". (91 A) Leon-Dufour X (1983). B) Schonfield HJ (1967).)
Having established Pilate's
concern, and thus having established the actual charge against Jesus, i.e.
claiming to be King of the Jews, and having established the actual meaning of
the word "Messiah", one now turns to the parallel passage of the
release of "Jesus, the son of the Father" in Mark.
So the crowd came and began to
ask Pilate to do for them according to his custom. Then he answered them,
"Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?" ... But the
chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release Barabbas for them instead. (92 Mark 15:8-9,11)
Note the subtle, but
all-important change. The choice is between "Jesus, the King of the
Jews" and "Jesus, the son of the Father"! Given this version,
there is no ambiguity or confusion as to identity. Jesus, who claimed to be the
King of the Jews, and had thus been anointed as such, i.e. had become a
Messiah, was turned over for crucifixion, while Jesus, the son of the Father,
was released. What could be simpler or more straightforward than that? Now, who
was this Jesus, who claimed to be King of the Je~s?
He was probably a person already
encountered in this chapter, i.e., "Jesus, the Galilean", i.e., the
paramilitary insurrectionist, whom Peter denied knowing. (93.
Matthew 26:69-70)
It was this Jesus, who was the actual murderer
and insurrectionist, whose charges were falsely being attributed to Jesus, the
son of the Father, simply through the confusion, deliberate or otherwise,
created by the writers of the gospels or their renderers, redactors, or
editors. (94 A) Mark 15:7.B) Luke 23:18-19.C) John
18:40.D) “Bandit”and “Robber”were terms frequently used by the Romans for an
armed insurrectionist.
Summary
The story of the release of Jesus, the son
of the Father, is of enormous significance. Even if the reader rejects the
reconstruction of the Matthean passage suggested by this author, which
was based upon Pilate's question to Jesus and upon the parallel Markan narrative,
the reader of the canonical gospels is still left with confusion and
ambiguity. The respective identities of who was released (Jesus, the son of the
Father) and of who was crucified (Jesus who is called the Messiah) are
confusing and unanswered questions. That confusion and ambiguity is sufficient,
in and of itself, to serve notice that at least one viable answer to the above
questions from the canonical gospels supports the Qur' anic account of
the crucifixion. Further, if one accepts the reconstruction of the Matthean account
as proposed by this author, then it is clear that Jesus, the King of the Jews
(a.k.a. Jesus, the Galilean), was crucified, while Jesus, the son of the
Father, was released. Here, one has total vindication of the Qur'anic account
of the crucifixion, as though one were needed, based solely on the canonical
gospels.
By
this point, the Christian reader, indoctrinated by a childhood of Sunday School
lessons, may be thinking that this whole line of argument is preposterous. Never
mind what Matthew actually said about Jesus, the son of the Father, it's
easier just to ignore the whole thing. However, before taking that step, one
more piece of information should be considered. IfPilate
did, indeed, sentence Jesus Christ to death by crucifixion, how should the
early churches have viewed Pilate and his associates? Would not Pilate have
been vilified to the ends of the earth by the early Christian churches? Might
not Pilate have been formally condemned by the early churches to eternity in
hell? One would certainly think so. However, the facts are radically different.
On October 28th, the Eastern Orthodox Church calendar lists the feast day of
Saint Procla, the wife of Pontius Pilate.
(95 Platt RH, Brett JA.) On June 25th, the Coptic Christian Church lists the feast day of Saint
Procla and of Saint Pontius Pilate !
(96 A) Hennecke E, Schneemelcher W, Wilson RM (1963). Page
484. B) Platt RH, Brett JA. Page 279. C) ---(1998g):
Pontius Pilate. In
Encyclopaedia Britannica CD 98. )
Procla
was canonized as a saint by both the Eastern Orthodox Church and by the Coptic
Christian Church, while Pontius Pilate was canonized as a saint by the Coptic
Christian Church. How did the early Coptic Christian Church ever justify canonizing
as a saint the man, who condemned Jesus Christ to death by crucifixion? This
just defies all reason and all logic. What did these early Christians know that
modem Christians don't know? Perhaps, they knew that Pontius Pilate, their
beloved saint, was the man who released Jesus Christ. Perhaps, they had a
better understanding of Matthew, than do most modem Christians.
At this point, it is very tempting to say
"case closed, court adjourned." However, there is one more piece of
evidence from the canonical gospels, which needs to be examined.
Evidence:
The Recruitment of Simon of Cyrene The traditional Christian interpretation of
the crucifixion has Jesus Christ moving from the sentencing before Pontius
Pilate to the site of crucifixion, i.e. Golgotha (Calvary in the Latin). This
journey is ritualized by the Roman Catholic Church as part of its 14 Stations
of the Cross, of which the fifth station is of special interest. The fifth
Station of the Cross refers to an event that is narrated in the" three synoptic
gospels, but not in John. It is at
the fifth Station that Simon of Cyrene was reportedly enlisted to carry the
cross of Jesus: (97 ---(1998n): Stations of
the cross. In
Encyclopaedia Britannica CD 98..)
As they went out, they came
upon a man from Cyrene named Simon; they compelled this man to carry his cross.
And when they came to a place called Golgotha (which means Place of a Skull),
they offered him wine to drink, mixed with gall; but when he tasted it, he
would not drink it. And when they had crucified him, they divided his clothes
among themselves by casting lots; then they sat down there and kept watch over him. (98 Mathew 27:32-36)
They
compelled a passer-by, who was coming in from the country, to carry his cross; it was Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and
Rufus. Then they brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means
the place of a skull). And they offered him wine mixed with myrrh; but he did
not take it. And they crucified him, and divided his clothes among them,
casting lots to decide what each should take. (99
Mark 15:21-24.)
As
they led him away, they seized a man, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming from the
country, and they laid the cross on him, and made him carry it behind Jesus ...
Two others also, who were criminals, were led away to be put to death with him.
When they came to the place that is called The Skull, they crucified Jesus there
with the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. (100 Luke 23:26,32-33.)
Now,
two points need to be made with regard to the above narratives. First, the
gospels never have the cross being transferred back to Jesus from Simon.
Second, in the passage from Mark and in the passage from Luke, the
present author has italicized the word "Jesus" in one place. In each
such place, the NRSV footnote to the text clearly states that the Greek
reads "him", not "Jesus". In other words, the translators
were concerned that the average reader would read "him" as referring
to Simon of Cyrene, if it weren't for their insertion of "Jesus" for
"him". In that regard, the translators are absolutely correct. The
average reader would read "him" as referring to Simon of Cyrene,
indicating that it was Simon of Cyrene, who was crucified. In the above
passages, Matthew, Mark, and Luke all seem to be saying that
Simon of Cyrene was crucified in the place of Jesus. It should be emphasized that the above interpretation
of the synoptic tradition is not limited to the present author. In fact, that very interpretation was widely held by
segments of the early Christian churches. Readers of of this chapter have
already encountered that interpretation in The Second Treatise of the Great
Seth, the apocryphal book of the early Christian churches, where it stated,
"it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder." As a
point of fact, the substitution, of Simon of Cyrene (as the crucifixion
victim), for Jesus was a cardinal tenet of belief among those early Christians
known as Basilidians (101 Norwood FA (1971)),
who were prominent in the middle of the second century CEo They congregated in
Egypt and continued in existence through the fourth century CEo Their lineage
can be traced back to people who were the followers of Basilides, claimed to be
the receiver of certain secret traditions from Glaucias (an interpreter of
Peter, the disciple of Jesus). (102 --(1998b: Basilides.
In Encyclopaedia Britannica CD 98.)
http://www.islamicbulletin.com/free_downloads/new_muslim/the_cross.pdf The Cross & The Crescent - An Interfaith dialogue between Christianity and Islam (By Doctor Jerald Dirks Doctor of Divinity from Harvard Divinity School)
No comments :
Post a Comment