|
On the 13th/October/2009, I gave a presentation to a group of postgraduate students and members of staff at the School of Philosophy, Theology, and Religion of Birmingham University, UK. The talk, which was part of their postgraduate seminars in Islamic Studies, was titled The Crucifixion of Jesus: History or Fiction? It was based on my book The Mystery of the Crucifixion: The Attempt to Kill Jesus in the Qur’an, the New Testament, and Historical Sources.
In my presentation, I reviewed problems in the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus, the few references to this event in historical sources, and the Qur’an’s rejection of the crucifixion. Among the topics that I covered was the claim of the Gospels that one of the charges that the Jewish authorities laid against Jesus was blasphemy for claiming to be the son of God. Let me quote here what the four Gospels say about this:
But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." And the high priest tore his garments and said, "What further witnesses do we need? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death. (Mark 14:61-64; ESV) But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy. (Matthew 26:63-65; ESV) So they all said, "Are you the Son of God, then?" And he said to them, "You say that I am." Then they said, "What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips." (Luke 22:70-71; ESV) The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God." (John 19:7; ESV)
The problem with all of these quotes is that the claim to messiahship and/or sonship of God was not an act of blasphemy or a religious crime in Judaism. Many Christians do not know that the term “son of God” is used in the Old Testament but never to mean any form of divinity. On the other hand, claiming divine dignity was blasphemous. In other words, the Gospels’ unanimous claim is unhistorical.
What we have here is a case of anachronism, as the concept “son of God” is given a meaning that it had not acquired yet at the time of the reported event. By the time the Gospels’ were written, the divinity of Jesus had become an established belief, even though not for all who believed in Jesus. So, the Gospels present Jesus’ claim to the sonship of God as how he announced his divinity to people. They then go on to use this claim as the reason for the Jewish high priest and Sanhedrin’s charging of Jesus of claiming to be divine and, accordingly, blasphemy. In other words, the Christian authors of the Gospels attributed their later understanding of the meaning of the son of God to the Jewish authorities at the time of Jesus. The Gospels’ account is unhistorical.
During the Q&A session that followed my presentation, one member of staff argued that the Jewish authorities did not accuse Jesus of claiming to be divine only because he said he was the son of God — a term that I had already shown did not mean any form of divinity. He suggested that the Jewish leaders quoted to Pilate other sayings of Jesus that clearly confirmed that he claimed to be divine, but he could not provide a reference.
Actually, the Jewish authorities are not reported to have provided any evidence to support their accusation of Jesus that he claimed divinity other that their suggestion that he called himself the son of God. This fact represents another argument against the suggestion that Jesus claimed divinity. Let me explain. There are certain sayings that the Gospel of John attributes to Jesus that can be seen as suggesting that he claimed divine attributes. The problem, however, is that none of these sayings is quoted by the Jewish authorities when accusing Jesus of claiming to be divine! Instead, the religious authorities are said to have accused him of blasphemy only on the basis of his claim to the sonship of God. Had Jesus uttered any of those reported sayings in John, or indeed any other sayings that could be understood as meaning that he was divine, the Jewish authorities would have quoted them and used them in their attempt to seek his crucifixion. In their attempt to show that the Jewish authorities were aware of Jesus’ claim to divinity, which they thought would serve as proof that he did indeed make that claim, the Gospel authors ended up making up a scenario that can only be unhistorical.
But this is only one of many historical and consistency problems that permeate the Gospels. For many, including those liberals who do not believe that every word in the Gospels is inspired, these books recount the history of Jesus more or less as it happened. Yet as soon as one starts examining the accounts closely, that sense of history evaporates, leaving one with the inevitable conclusion that these sources are no different from numerous ancient documents that confused history and myths and propagated a version of history that never managed to happen. They became the canonical Gospels and other books were ignored, forgotten, burned, or banned by the Church because certain early fathers of the Church managed to make their views win the influence and popularity battle with their rivals’.
But is it possible that only four writers — Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John — could have dictated what billions of people over many centuries should believe Jesus said and did and what happened to him? To answer this question we only need to remember that it was only one individual, Paul, who did not meet Jesus or witness any of his sayings and doings who developed much of Christian theology!
Copyright © 2009 Louay Fatoohi
All Rights Reserved
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites        |
In the third paragraph above you wrote "The problem with all of these quotes is that the claim to messiahship and/or sonship of God was not an act of blasphemy or a religious crime in Judaism." You are suggesting that Jesus was not Crucified for claiming to be the Son of God or the Messiah because the Jewish leaders would not consider this a crime, I disagree with that notion. The Jews did in fact consider Jesus to be a blasphemer because they did not agree with Jesus' claim that He was the Messiah, let alone the Son of God. Throughout Jesus ministry He pointed out the errors of the Religious Authority, mostly due to their hypocrocy and misunderstanding of scripture and therefore He did not fit into their idea of the Messiah. They actually accused Jesus of performing His miracles with the power of the devil rather than the power of God, otherwise they would have no excuse for not believing him. They were fixated in proving that He was not who He claimed to be and so they looked for inconsistencies in anything they could find.
For example: The Gospel of John reads" Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus earlier and who was one of their own number (the Pharisees), asked, "Does our law condemn anyone without first hearing him to find out what he is doing? They replied, " Are you from Galilee, too? Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee" John 7:50-52.
The Jewish religious leaders were judging Jesus based on their understanding of who the Messiah would be. Prophecy stated that the Messiah was supposed to come from the town of Bethlehem, Jesus was raised in Nazerath of Galilee but was born in Bethlehem because His father Joseph was also from Bethlehem and of the house of King David. So Jesus did fulfill the prophesy of the Messiah but they did not see it. Honestly, some of the Religious Authority did not see the truth and some did not want to see it.
Amazingly, even though Jesus was raising people from the dead, the leaders still would not trust Him about anything.
In the sixth paragraph above you wrote "There are certain sayings that the Gospel of John attributes to Jesus that can be seen as suggesting that he claimed divine attributes. The problem, however, is that none of these sayings is quoted by the Jewish authorities when accusing Jesus of claiming to be divine!"
My answer to this is that most of what Jesus said in public was not regarding his divinity. He never spoke plainly about His divinity unless He was speaking in private with His disciples. When He eluded to His divinity in public, it was always in a way that frustrated the Jewish Religious leadership which were looking for a way to arrest Him for blasphemy, Jesus knew this so he had to be careful in the way he described Himself when the Authorities asked Him who He claimed to be. Also, when Jesus did reveal the truth of His identity to His disciples, He often instructed His disciples to tell no one about it.
For example: After Peter, James, and John saw a vision while on Mount Tabor, it is written: "As He was praying, the appearance of His face changed, and His clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning. Two men, Moses and Elijah, appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus. They spoke about His departure, which He was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem. Peter and His companions were very sleepy, but when they became fully awake, they saw His glory and the two men standing with Him. As the men were leaving Jesus, Peter said to Him, "Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters- one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah." While he was speaking, a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. A voice came from the cloud, saying, "This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to Him." When the voice had spoken, they found that Jesus was alone. The disciples kept this to themselves, and told no one at that time what they had seen. Luke 9:28-36.
Speaking of the same incident in the Gospel of Mathew it is written: Jesus instructed them, "Don't tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead." Matthew 17:9
For example: in the Gospel of Matthew it is written "Jesus asked "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets". "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered. "You are the Christ, the son of the living God" Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven." Verse 20 says "Then He warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ. Matthew 16:13-20.
Based on scriptures like these I am not surprised that the Jewish Religious leaders did not bring more specific accusations about Jesus' claims of divinity since His most specific references about His divinity were revealed in private to His disciples who were told not to tell anyone. You might ask, If the disciples did not tell the authorities about Jesus' private claims to divinity, then how could they accuse him of claiming divinity?...Simply due to the fact that the Jewish Authorities did understand Jesus when He would elude to His divinity in public, but He never just came out and said to them in a sermon "I am the Son of God or I am the Messiah."
For example: It is written...The Jews gathered around Him saying, "how long will you keep us in suspense? if you are the Christ (Christ is Greek for Messiah), tell us plainly." Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one." Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, " I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blashpemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." John 10:24-33
Therefore the Jews did understand who Jesus claimed to be but bringing these accusations against Him was hard since He never told them plainly but always in figures of speech.
In the same paragraph you have written "Had Jesus uttered any of those reported sayings in John, or indeed any other sayings that could be understood as meaning that he was divine, the Jewish authorities would have quoted them and used them in their attempt to seek his crucifixion. In their attempt to show that the Jewish authorities were aware of Jesus’ claim to divinity, which they thought would serve as proof that he did indeed make that claim, the Gospel authors ended up making up a scenario that can only be unhistorical."
I may have already replied to this in my previous paragraph but I will also refer to more scriptures to examine this issue a little deeper...John 18:33-40 which is when Jesus is speaking to Pontius Pilate the Roman Govenor before His crucifixion. It is written, "Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked Him, "Are you the king of the Jews? Is that your own idea, Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?" "Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?" Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place". "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."
The Jews had no right under Roman Law to kill anyone for blasphemy so they had to say that Jesus claimed to be a king which would oppose Ceasar's kingship. This was the only way to get Pontius Pilate to inforce the Crucifixion of Jesus. They did not have the right under Roman law to kill anyone for anything, especially when it regarded their own Jewish Laws which the Romans did not acknowledge. John 18:31 says...Pilate said, "Take Him yourselves and judge Him by your on law." "But we have no right to execute anyone," the Jews objected.
John 19:6-7 says: But Pilate answered, "You take Him and crucify Him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against Him." The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law He must die, because He claimed to be the Son of God." John 19:12 states: From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jews kept shouting, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar." John 19:14-16 writes: It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour. "Here is your king," Pilate said to the Jews. But they shouted, "Take Him away! Take Him away! Crucify Him! "Shall I crucify your king? Pilate asked. "We have no king but Caesar," the chief priests answereed. Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be
crucified.
As a fellow believer in God, I hope that my comments do no offend you in any way.
Thank you for your comment. I make it clear in my writings that I write from the perspective of the Qur'an and that a 100% objective approach is impossible. This is what I wrote at the beginning of my book on "The Mystery of the Historical Jesus":
"This book does not claim to be a dispassionate, neutral study of Jesus' history. I am not sure that such an attempt is possible at all anyway. Nevertheless, I will ensure that I make my assumptions clear and differentiate between facts and their interpretations, allowing the reader to decide whether the arguments of the book are likely or unlikely, credible or absurd."
So as far as comparing the Bible and the Qur'an goes, all I am saying is that the Qur'an's account of history is always more credible and, unlike the Biblical narrative, is not riddled with inconsistencies.
A person may take the view that the Qur'an — or to that matter any book or doctrine — is flawed or completely accurate. But making the assumption does not say much about the approach of that person or the subject of the assumption. The mind has to use assumptions to reach conclusions. Even science works in this way, but of course as we move away from material sciences and the present to subjects such as history or metaphysic and the past, more assumptions will have to be used. This is not a matter of choice; it is a must have. So the fact that the person makes assumptions is the way things have to be anyway. What really matters, however, is how these assumptions and their conclusions are tested.
So it is not a problem that a person might believe that the New Testament or Qur'an has no errors, as long the implications of such an assumption are properly tested.
Louay
I too agree that Jesus never claimed that he is son of God. He always said that he is son of MAN. Even in the presence of the high priest Mark 14 he said yes I am when he was asked " Are you son of the "Blessed". In the other two occasions he was asked if he was son of "God" and he DID NOT Answer "Yes" But he said " You told SO" and again repeated that "SON OF MAN" not SON OF GOD"
Have you thought why I have an answer and that would end this controversy for ever;