Crucifixion or Crude Fiction?

Introduction

One of the main conflicts in Muslim-Christian dialogue is the crucifixion. This article primarily looks at the Qur’anic narrative and its most influential interpreters drawing a conclusion that challenges some commonly held beliefs and offering a more optimistic future for dialogue. It is written on the assumption that the reader has read the previous article Christians and the Bible in the Qur’an.

Qur’an 4:157

The crucifixion is not a central theme in the Qur’an, it only appers in one place:

{and said, ‘We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God.’ They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them (shubbiha la-hum); those that disagreed about him are full of doubt (shakkin min’hu), with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him (mā qatalūhu)} [4:157]

{God raised him up (rafa’ahu) to Himself. God is almighty and wise.} [4:158]

{There is not one of the People of the Book who will not believe in [Jesus] before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them} [4:159]

Context

These verses follow a collection criticising some historical incidents of Jewish unfaithfulness, rather than a direct criticism of Christian doctrine. In this context, it may reasonably be assumed that the primary purpose of the verse is mocking Jewish taunts as encapsulated by Ezar Pound’s poetic translation: ‘If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere, They are fools eternally.’ Similarly it could be understood as a rebuttal that they alone had killed Jesus and therefore he could not be the The Messiah (lit. anointed one), 4:159 confirming the ‘second coming’ where Jesus will return to fulfil the remaining messianic prophecies: {The Lord will be king over the whole earth. On that day there will be one Lord, and his name the only name} [Zechariah 14:9].

The main topic of the preceding verses to 4:157 is faithlessness (kufr), the universal problem of man, and reminds the reader of the triumph of God and His plan despite numerous examples of kufr and the killing of His prophets (4:155). Far from being in any way anti-Semitic this verse in fact absolves the Jews from blame, the accusation of which they have long suffered despite the Romans carrying out the crucifixion (Mark 15:15). It is possible the Gospels embellish the whitewashing of Pontius Pilate for the Roman readership (#2 pg 268) contradicting the cruel dictator of historical accounts who was disinterested in Jewish ‘superstition’ (#11, chapter 5).

The Qur’an then, as al-fur’qān (the discernment), may be seen as both confirming Jesus as Messiah, the Second Coming, Jesus on the cross and even the death of Jesus, but rejects the ‘killing’ of him directly by the Jewish conspirators and thus denies their desire to take responsibility for humiliating him with the death of a Jewish heretic.

Death of Jesus

The concept of death in the Qur’an is not as straight forward and final as the jāhilī (pre-Islamic) Arabs believed (see 45:24-26 and #4, Death, Dying and The Afterlife). The life eternal (kulūd) is the real life, this life span (ajal) is but a small part.

Jesus’ death is considered by the Qur’an: {Peace was on me the day I was born, and will be on me the day I die and the day I am raised (ub’athu) to life again} [19:33]. The raising to life again is normally interpretted as the Day of Judgement, for example the same construction is used for John (Yaḥyā) the Baptist {Peace was on him the day he was born, the day he died, and it will be on him the day he is raised to life again} [19:15], but the idea of resurrection in this life is not unacceptable from a Qur'anic perspective: {God made him die for a hundred years, and then raised him up (ba'athahu)} [2:259].

{God said, ‘Jesus, I will take you back (mutawaffi) and raise you (warāfiʿuka) up to Me} [3:55] Has been understood by some to mean raising Jesus to God miraculously without death (Jalalayn). Some said it means God caused Jesus to die and then God spiritually exalted him, since the Qur'anic usage of the root w-f-y numerously refers to death, even in reference to the death of Muhammad (40:77). Others said it was not death but the apparent death of sleep (ibn Kathir), making use of verses like 39:42. The actual death of Jesus is not what is substantially opposed to by the Qur'an, but rather his being killed; in keeping with the Gospel accounts: {Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, “Father, ‘into Your hands I commit My spirit.’ ” Having said this, He breathed His last} [Luke 23:46]. 

Death is not an end but a change, from a Qur’anic perspective, especially for God’s good servants: {Do not say that those who are killed in God’s cause are dead; they are alive, though you do not realise it} [2:154] (also see 3:169) The Prophets and Martyrs are ‘living’ in a miraculous quasi-life in the barzakh (the ‘space’ between this life and the next see 23:100) where every soul resides in felicity or torment until the Day of Judgement. However 4:157-159 states they did not kill his ultimate reality, in the mundane sense of murder, he lives in a more miraculous way than the martyr - in body and soul -and will die at his appointed time at the end of days.: ‘The Son of Mary will definitely reappear as a just ruler … before [his] death’ [Bukhari].

Substitution or Supposition?

Whilst it is true that there are and were a variety of possible interpretations (see below) for 4:157-159 the only one that cannot be condoned as authentically Qur’anic is complete denial. Diverting responsibility for the crucifixion away from the Jews is not the same as denying the crucifixion entirely. The first written claims the Qur’an denies the crucifixion are not in fact Muslim in origin, but rather from the Church Father John of Damascus (d. 749) either through mistake or as propoganda to his non Arabic speaking audience (#8 pg 11-19). It really is only between the fourteenth and twentieth centuries that there was a trend where commentators felt the need to deny the crucifixion.

The first compiler of Qur’anic exergesis Tabarī (d. 923) gives eleven narrations (#5, pg 127-131),  mostly from the successor (tabi’īn) generation, that explain ‘shubbiha la-hum’ as Jesus being substituted with someone else who miraculously appeared to look like him. This interpretation is by far the most common and has largely been repeated by commentators ever since. What is interesting is that no attempt seems to have been made to explore their origins or even compare and assess their plausibility.

Two narrations from the Muslim Biblical scholar Wahb bin Munabbih (d. 738) are recorded, one of which explains the ‘volunteer substitution’ theory:

‘Jesus went into a house together with seventeen of his companions. The Jews surrounded them but when they burst in God made all the disciples look like Jesus. The pursuers, supposing that they had bewitched them, threatened to kill them all if they did not expose him. Then Jesus asked his companions which of them would purchase paradise for himself that day. One man volunteered and went out saying that he was Jesus and as God had made him look like Jesus they took him, killed him and crucified him. Thereupon {a semblance was made to them} and they thought that they had killed Jesus. The Christians likewise thought that it was Jesus who had been killed. And God raised Jesus right away.’

The other by a different route (isnād) is lengthier and explains more elements of the ‘Passion’ that conform to the Gospels and for this reason Tabari prefers this narration. It includes: the last supper, the thirty pieces of silver and the crown of thorns but includes ‘wa kāna shubbiha ‘alay-hum’ (and a semblance had been made for them), which may possibly be understood to be a miraculous body double.  Judas Iscariot (Yudas Rakn’yayuta) is mentioned as the betrayer and is said to have comitted suicide – by hanging - because of ‘regret’. Of the nine others: two from Muhājid ibn Jabr explain the Jews crucified someone by mistaken identity; a goup of brief reports from Qatāda, ibn al-Qasim bin Abi Bazza and Ibn Jurayj agree with the ‘volunteer substitution’ theory; one version from Al Suddī that includes a reference to 3:54 as the semblance being a Divine ‘deception’ and two from Ibn Ishāq that add Jesus’ ascension to heaven when the disciples were set upon by the Jews thus explaining their confusion (of 4:157) by the numerical difference between those who entered the house and those who still remained (#5, pg 129-131). Ibn Ishāq’s narrative is more familar to the Christian reader since it includes: the number twelve for the disiciples naming ten of them (Sergius being the volunteer), the thirty pieces of silver and identifying Jesus with a kiss by Judas, but also includes the first written example of the ‘punishment substitution’ theory: ‘Some of the Christians allege that it was Judas Iscariot who was made his semblance to them and that they crucified him despite his saying, “I am not one of his companions. I am the one who pointed him out to you!” God knows best.’ Elsewhere, in his comments of 61:14, Tabarī mentions a narration attributed to the companion ibn Abbas in which a similar story is mentioned where: ‘the semblance of Jesus was projected onto him [a disciple] and Jesus was raised to heaven from a skylight in the house’.

Tabarī’s narrations are generally repeated by other commentators verbatim, however some additions to these exist that more explicitly address the ‘punishment substitution’, albeit from an unknown origin, and the identify of the victim changes from Judas, an enemy of Jesus or even Pilate. Scholars more influenced by rationalism offered less fantastical explanations of the substitution as simply mistaken identity, Bayḍāwī (d. 1286) notes that ‘it may be that [in actual fact] nobody was killed although it was falsely claimed’ (for a coprehensive anaysis see: #5 esp. Chapter 13 #8 esp. Chapter 3).

Later commentators are more polemical and favour complete denial of the crucifixion. They moved away from the Isrā’īliyyāt (Sources from a Jewish or Christian Source), ibn Kathir (d.1373) even deamonising them, perhaps due to post Crusade tensions or maybe simply because of their unknown speculative source and contradictory nature. However, bizarrely, these same commentators seemed to rely on justification from the Apocrypha: Rashid Rida (d. 1935) despite criticising the authenticity of the Gospels, is the first exegete to use the Gospel of Barnabas to argue that Jesus was not crucified, but rasied to heaven and Judas was crucified instead!? (for a comprehensive analysis see #8 chapter 4).

We have sent it down as an Arabic Qu'ran so that you [people] may understand.

The primary commentator of The Qur’an is the Qur’an itself. The language used predates lexicons and so grammatical and linguistic analysis of the Qur’anic usage of the same word or phrase are an important form of interpretation which can be lost in translation.

The central phrase for the substitution theory ‘shubbiha la-hum’ is difficult to translate not because the root sh-b-h does not appear elsewhere (see 2:70, 3:7, 13:16, 2:118, 6:99, 2:25, 39:23) (#13), but because this particular form of the verb is only used once, in 4:157. The extra textual narrations of the substitution could be argued to have been placed onto ‘subbiha la-hum’ rather than derived from it (#8 chapter 1). Al Māturīdī (d. 933) suggests the ‘walākin shubbiha la-hum’ (rather it appeared so to them) is in reference to the conflicting reports; they were single (wāḥid) and not by mass transmission (mutawātir) and so they were unsure of Jesus’ death. Zamakhsharī (d. 1143) states the verb shabbaha of shubbiha la-hum could have Jesus as its subject or the crucifixion, such that it either can mean: Jesus’ likeness was projected onto someone or some thing; or, like Al Māturīdī, the affair of the crucifixion was made obscure to them.

The early Qur’anic grammarian Al Farrā’ (d. 822) pays little attention to ‘shubbiha la-hum’ 4:157 except that he argues that ‘hu’ (him) of ‘mā qatalūhu’ (they did not kill him) refers to knowledge, not Jesus, an argument that is frequently repeated, ‘as when one says: ‘qataltu ‘ilman’ (I knew it certainly) instead of [mere] opinion, verbal report or conjecture’. Similarly ibn Qutayba (d. 889) said that ‘mā qatalūhu yaqīnan’ means ‘they did not know about the killing of the Messiah with true knowledge, thoroughly comprehending the matter, rather it was conjecture’ deferring to Arabic poetry in which death is known by the euphemism al-yaqin (certainty) (#8 chapt. 3).

The doubt of ‘shakkin min’hu’ may be read ‘doubt concerning him’ or ‘doubt concerning it’, as such it may be in reference to Christian Christological controversies over Jesus’ human/divine aspect (Qurtubī d. 1273) or it may be in reference to doubt about the entire affair (Zamakhsharī). However the last part of the verse may be understood idiomatically as ‘they did not kill [their doubt] about the matter’ so that they remained doubtful (#4, v. 4:157).

Linguistically speaking 4:157 does not deny the substitution theory, but it does offer an alternative reading in which there is confusion of the details of the crucifixion. Ironically, the source of the substitution theory, if we take Qurtubī’s interpretation of ‘shakkin min’hu', is from the same confused reports! For this reason, among others, I do not think it can realistically be said that the Qur’an primarily expounds the substitution theory.

Gnostic Duel

The substitution theory has been argued by Christian apologists and from Muslim polemicists alike to derive from Gnosticism.

Gnosticism, from Greek Gnosis meaning to know, was a diverse and complex movement that initiated in the the second century. Rather than an organised Church or theology it was rather an approach to theology, which was characterised by a strong dualist belief. Creation was the result of a primordial pre-cosmic distaster, which imprisoned divine sparks in matter, the elect few were redeemed by awakening the soul to this knowledge (gnosis) of its higher destiny and escape the material world (#1 pg 29-31 and 40-41, #3 pg 35).

Some Muslim commentators found support for the substitution theory in the teachings of second century Gnostic Christian, Basilides. Only fragments of his writings remain and even then mostly by his critics. Irenaeus (d. 202) said he taught Jesus had not suffered death but Simon of Cyrene, who bore the cross, was transfigured to look like Jesus (#11 pg64).

The Nag Hammadi Library are early Gnostic texts that was discovered in Egypt in 1945. One text The Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter (AOP) includes an eye witness account of the crucifixion by Peter. It was possibly written between 150 and 250CE however very little is known of this period (#10). Peter is speaking to Jesus as a double of Christ is being crucified. He then sees a third Christ above the cross. Confused he asks: ‘What am I seeing O lord?’ Christ replies the one above the cross is ‘the living Jesus’ and the one being nailed to the cross ‘is the physical part’. The ‘living Jesus’ has been joyfully set free and ‘laughs at their [the crucifiers] lack of perception’ (#10) Neal Robinson is so ‘impressed’ by the similarity of the Tabarī narrations and the AOP that he is inclined to think of them as true: ‘As some pre-Islamic texts such as the gnostic Apocalypse of Peter discovered at Nag Hammadi mention the crucifixion of a substitute, it is possible that the traditional commentators have interpreted this verse correctly’ (#9)

It is not clear how far Docetic and Gnostic teachings survived or were known in seventh century Arabia, but no evidence exists that it did (#5). Gnosticism flourished in the second century and by the fifth had metamorphosed into Apthartodocetism - which emperor Justinian tried to enforce - that viewed Christ’s body as incorruptible so that his suffering on the cross only appeared to be so (#11 pg 68). The links between these Docetic - from Greek Dokeĩn meaning to appear - Christian trends and 4:157 are understandable since the verbs Shabbaha and Dokeĩn are almost synonymous, however that is as far the similarity goes. Docetism holds that Christ was totally divine and that his humaness was merely an appearance (#1 pg 45-46), which is diametrically opposed to the Qur’an’s Christology. For this reason and since the connection is speculative at best, I would think it a mistake, one mainly made by polemicists, to explain 4:157 as verifying the ‘True Christianity’ of Gnosticism.

Conclusion

The substitution theory is rather unsatisfactory because it is a supposition based on speculation. The varying single reports recorded in Tabarī are not traced back from the time of Muhammad; the accuracy of the narrators nor their beliefs or knowledge of the crucifixion can be validated, some are cleary fabricated. Whilst similar ideas can be found elsewhere amongst the Apocrypha, the beliefs espoused therein are not consistently in agreement with The Qur'an's Christology. Essentially there is no compelling evidence to choose their tales over what is commonly known. The language employed in the Qur'an does not necessitate we accept them, in fact if you remove the reports altogether then the verses most likely point to Jesus dying, not by the seeming humiliation of crucifixion, but as part of God's plan to exalt him. It might be argued therefore that the accounts of the crucifixion in the Gospels are largely accurate and confirmed by the Qur’an. However, the crucifixion seen as the price of man’s redemption ‘purchased with His [Jesus’] own blood’ [Acts 20:28] is not. K. Cragg (d. 2012) argues that the Qur’an denies the crucifixion only in the soteriological sense, not in the historical sense: the Christian understanding of the crucifixion has three elements: ‘the act of men in wrong, the act of Jesus in love and the acts of God in grace’ and it is only the third element is rejected since ‘God was not in Christ reconciling the world to himself’ (#6 pg 239 – 248). The Qur'anic narrative might be thought to correct Jewish unfaithfulness and confirm Jesus as the Messiah whilst simultaneously purging beliefs not of Christian origin.

The concept of the redemptive Crucifixion can be argued to have developed inorganically, departing away from the very Jewish Jesus as the charismatic ascetic preacher described in the Synoptic Gospels to the Hellenized teachings of Paul (and beyond). Jesus is metamorphosised into the triumphant heavenly Son of God as Paul creatively tried to win over the hearts of the gentiles appealing to their sensibilities: ‘Paul transformed the God-centred religion of Jesus into a Christ-centred Christianity’ (#2). There is reason to think that some interpretations of the crucifixion are pagan (#11 esp. Chapt. 4 and 5) in origin. Fourth century pagans even accused the Church of plagiarising Easter from the Cybele cult: ‘after fasting and ‘the Day of Blood (22 March) on which Attis was mourned, sorrow was turned to joy with the Hilaria celebrating his resurrection on 25 March (#3 pg 25).

H. A. R. Gibb (d. 1971) perhaps summarises everything here best when he said that Islam ‘is distinguished from Christianity, not so much (in spite of all outward appearance) by its repudiation of the trinitarian concept of the Unity of God, as by its rejection of the soteriology of Christian doctrine and the relics of the old nature cults which survived in the relics and practices of the Christian Church’ (#12 pg 67-68)

References and Bibliography

(#1) McGrath A. E. 1998, Historical Theology, Blackwell Publishing

(#2) Vermes G. 2013, Christian Beginnings: From Nazareth to Nicea AD30-325, Penguin

(#3) Chadwick H. 1993, The Early Church, Penguin

(#4)  Nasr S. H. (edit.). 2015, The Study Qur’an: A New Translation and Commentary, Harper One

(#5) Robinson N. 1991, Christ in Islam and Christianity, State University of New York Press

(#6) Cragg K. The Qur’an and the Holy Communion in Muslim World 1959.

(#7) Bowman J. 1967, The Debt of Islam to Monophysite Syrian Christianity, Sydney University Press*

(#8) Lawson T. 2014 The Crucifixion and the Qur’an, One World Publications

(#9) Robinson N. 2018, “Crucifixion” in: Encyclopedia of the Qur’an, Brill Online Resources

(#10) Robinson J. M. 2018, “Apocalypse of Peter” in The Coptic Gnostic Library – A Complete Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices, Brill Online Resources

(#11) Ehrman B. D. 2014, How Jesus Became God, Harper One.

(#12) Parrinder G. 2013, Jesus in the Qur’an, One World Publications. (especially chapter 11)

(#13) Arabic-English Dictionary Qur’anic Usage, 2008, E.M Badawi and M.A. Haleem, Brill

* It is also worth noting John Bowman’s (d. 2006) argument that the substitution theory ‘goes beyond Nestorianism, which said that only Jesus the Messiah died: God the Son returned to God. In Monophysitism Jesus being One nature Divine and human conjoined, the Divine suffered with the human on the Cross. With Muhammad’s view (substitution) neither suffers and thus he solves the argument between Nestorianism and Monophysitism’ (#7, pg 212). Whether we really can conclude ‘substitution’ is resolving the conflict by denying both, it does at least address the contemporary Christian concerns.