Main theme in Nisa 4:156-159: Messianity of Jesus

Looking at the context of Nisa 4:156-159 we made the following observations:

- The verses are spoken in an argument between Muhammad and some Jews. - In defense of the Jews' doubts about the divine origin of his revelations, Muhammad follows a line of reasoning similar to that of Stephen in Acts 7. - Just as Stephen is not really defending himself, but rather Jesus' claim to be the divinely confirmed Messiah, Muhammad also seems to be defending not so much himself as Jesus' role in God's revelatory history.

We are therefore very much interested in how exactly Muhammad understands Jesus' role in God's history of revelation. In this blog, we turn to the question of how Muhammad defends Jesus against the Jews. What exactly is the main issue of contention in the discussion between Muhammad and the Jews in Nisa 4:156-159? The common answer given by Muslim exegetes to this question is that it is about the nature of Jesus' departure from earth: Jesus did not die on the cross, as claimed by the Jews, but was miraculously saved from death by God and taken to heaven to God in safety. In my opinion, this answer does not do justice to either the context nor the content of these verses.

When we take a closer look at the debate on the subject of Jesus (Nisa 4:156-159), it is noticeable that it follows similar lines as other discussions that took place between Christians and Jews that are familiar from other sources. The main point that separates Jews from Christians is their respective judgement of Jesus' claim to be the Messiah confirmed by God. While Christians fully support this claim - the word 'Christian' is the Greek equivalent of 'Messiah's follower' - Jews vehemently reject such a claim. As can be learnt from early testimonies of Christians and the references to Jesus in the Talmud1, the Jewish rejection of Jesus' claim to be the Messiah was mainly based on the following criticisms:

i) His illegitimate birth: Jews claimed that Jesus was the product of an illegitimate extramarital relationship between Mary and a Roman soldier. Hence, he is not a descendant from King David on his father's side - this however is required for the Messiah by the Tora - and therefore cannot be the Messiah. Jews thus used to critise Christians to cover up this shameful truth with their lie of Jesus' virgin birth;

ii) Jesus' death on the cross: Further, Jews claimed that Jesus' miracles prove that he was a charlatan and magician who therefore suffered the sentence of death as a just punishment based on divine law; Jesus' death on the cross exposes him as accursed of God and proves that he cannot be the Messiah chosen and empowered by God.

iii) No resurrection and exaltation: Finally, Jews accused the disciples of having invented untenable stories about Jesus' resurrection and exaltation to God, whereby Jesus was not in fact resurrected but will burn eternally in hell.2 Jesus was not justified by God as the Messiah even after his ignominious death.

Interestingly, it is precisely these topics known from Jewish-Christian disputes that come up in the discussion between Muhammad and the Jews in Nisa 4:156-159 regarding Jesus: i) Birth out of wedlock: ‘That they [i.e. the Jews] rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge;’ (Nisa 4:156). ii) Death as a just punishment: ‘That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ [i.e. Messiah] Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- …’ (Nisa 4:157). iii) No resurrection and no exaltation: ‘… 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:- [they slew him not for certain (Pickthall)]. Nay [instead (Rashad Khalifa)], Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-’ (Nisa 4:157-158).

As we will explain now, the Jews' intention in each of the three points raised in Nisa 4:156-158 is to question Jesus' Messiahship:

i) Violent slander against Mary (Nisa 4:156): According to the Torah-based expectations of the Jews regarding the Messiah, he must come from the lineage of David on his father's side (see, for example, Isaiah 11:1-16): 'A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit' (Isaiah 11:1). The 'shoot' and the 'Branch' stand for the Messiah, as the context makes clear; Jesse is the father of King David. After 2 Samuel 7:12b, it is further specified that this offspring will come as a descendant from David's 'flesh and blood':

When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.’ (2. Samuel 7:12-13).

Jews reject the Christian and Islamic belief in the virgin birth of Jesus. They accuse Mary of unfaithfulness in marriage. According to the Talmud, the slander against Mary by the Jews reads: 'Mary was a whore and her son a bastard'3 with a non-Jewish father. Jews claimed that Mary had betrayed her real husband with a lover and that Jesus was born out of wedlock, possibly fathered by a Roman soldier.4 Consequently, Jesus was certainly not descended from King David on his father's side and therefore did not even fulfil the basic requirement to qualify for the title 'Messiah'. The true facts are covered up with the tall tale of the virgin birth of Christians. Worse still, this untenable lie put forward by Christians would deceitfully mislead Jews into believing that Jesus was the Messiah.5 However, as an illegitimate child6 Jesus could not possibly be chosen as the centre of the new Messianic community founded by God.

Muslim commentators agree that the expression 'a grave false charge' against Mary is related to the conception and birth of Jesus and implies that Jesus was conceived as the fruit of their extramarital relationship: 'Essentially, they accused Mary, the pure, of adultery with Joseph the Carpenter.'7 Sayyid Kutb confuses here the person with whom, according to the Jews, Mary was supposed to have had an extramarital relationship: as documented in the Talmud, Jews claimed that Mary had fathered Jesus with a non-Jewish man - i.e. one who certainly could not have come from the lineage of David. As we have just seen, this Jewish accusation was clearly aimed at Jesus' claim to be the Messiah. A prophet or holy man can come from any family, but the Messiah must come from David's line. It is this claim to be the Messiah that is also fundamentally questioned by the Jews through their accusations against Mary, according to the Qur'anic testimony.

ii) 'We [i.e. the Jews] killed Christ [i.e. Messiah] Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah' (according to Nisa 4:157): What is interesting here is the outrageous claim of the Jews to have killed the 'Messiah' [= Christ] and 'Messenger of God'. For a God-fearing Jew,killing the Messiah, would certainly be one of the most terrible things a person could do. To this day, Jews wait with great longing for 'their Messiah', who, like Moses in his own time, will deliver them from foreign rule and realise the kingdom of God on earth. Surely no God-fearing Jew would ever ever want to voluntarily kill this Messiah. How do Jews of all people come to boast about such a terrible deed? In order to understand this absurdity, we must first understand the account of Jesus' departure from the earth according to a) the Gospel and then b) the Jewish assessment of the same event:

a) According to the Gospel, the Jews living at the time of Jesus did not accept Jesus' claim to be the Messiah announced by the prophets in the Torah. Rather, they condemned him for this claim as a blasphemer:

'The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God” [d.h. the Messiah from the House of David (2. Samuel 7)]. Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” “He is worthy of death,” they answered.' (Matthäus 26:63-66)

According to the Law of Moses, blasphemy was punishable by death by stoning (Leviticus 24:168). At that time, the Romans ruled over the Jews and it was therefore forbidden by law for the latter to carry out death sentences by their own. For this reason, according to the Bible, the responsible Jews turned to the Roman governor and tried to obtain a death sentence for Jesus from him. Because from the Roman point of view the claim to Messiahship did not constitute a legal offence, the Jews accused Jesus of sedition against the Roman emperor. To this end, they interpreted Jesus' claim to Messiahship in purely political terms, i.e. they accused Jesus of wanting to free himself from Roman rule by force in order to establish a Jewish kingdom (kingdom of God). The acting governor, Pilate, found Jesus not guilty of the accusation made by the Jews and wanted to acquit him. In the end, however, he had to bow to pressure from the Jewish rulers. As the Roman representative in Jerusalem, Pilate pronounced the unjust death sentence on Jesus and it was Roman soldiers who carried out the sentence by crucifying him. However, Pilate refused to accept moral responsibility for the death of Jesus, so the Jews present at the judgement accepted this responsibility for themselves and their children:

‘“What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah?” Pilate asked. They all answered, “Crucify him!” “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!” When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!” All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!” Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified. Then the governor’s soldiers took Jesus ... Then they led him away to crucify him. …’ (Matthäus 27:22-31).

Because of this acceptance of the moral responsibility of Jesus' death, the Jews were later accused by the first disciples of having killed Jesus, the Messiah.9 However, this accusation was never understood as active participation in the actual execution of the killing of Jesus, rather it was clear to everyone that the actual crucifixion had been carried out by the Roman soldiers - Jesus '... was handed over to you ...; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.' (Acts 2:23; but see also 2:36: '... this Jesus, whom you crucified, ...'). It was always only about moral responsibility. This accusation made by Christians was intended to emphasise the outrageousness of Jesus' crucifixion and to convict the Jews of their guilt for the death of the Messiah who - according to Christian opinion - was wrongly crucified. As described above, this was also Stephen's accusation against his Jewish accusers (see above, according to Acts 7:52): ‘... And now you have betrayed and murdered' the Messiah.

b) From the Jewish point of view, Jesus was never the Messiah confirmed by God. His death on the cross was always proof against his claim to Messiahship. However, the accusation that the Jews had killed the Messiah was only made by Christians for a long time. At some point in history - at the latest by the time the Babylonian Talmud was written, i.e. around the 3rd-6th century - the Jews turned the tables and now claimed themselves to have killed Jesus.10

‘But isn’t it taught in a baraita: On Passover Eve they hung the corpse of Jesus the Nazarene after they killed him by way of stoning. And a crier went out before him for forty days, publicly proclaiming: Jesus the Nazarene is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited people to idol worship, and led the Jewish people astray. Anyone who knows of a reason to acquit him should come forward and teach it on his behalf. And the court did not find a reason to acquit him, and so they stoned him and hung his corpse on Passover eve.'11

Schäfer uses the treatment of Jesus in Talmud 43 to explain how the Jews developed this alternative depiction of having killed Jesus themselves. Contrary to the depiction in the Gospels - where Jesus is hanged alive on the cross by Roman soldiers and only taken down again after his death (see Gospel) - the Talmud assumes that Jesus was first killed by Jews by stoning and only then was his dead body hanged. The reason for Jesus' stoning is explained in the Talmud as follows: 'He is led out to be stoned because he practised sorcery [kishshef] and seduced [hiddiah; to idolatry or idolatry] Yisrael and made him apostate [hissit].'12 According to the law (Leviticus 24:16), stoning is the appropriate punishment for the offences described above. By claiming to have condemned and stoned Jesus precisely in accordance with the provisions of the law, the authors of the Talmud fundamentally question the Messianity of Jesus. According to this alternative account to the Bible, Jesus can never be the Messiah confirmed by God, because he died by legal means - i.e. on the basis of the Torah according to divine judgement - as a sorcerer, blasphemer and seducer condemned by God. The subsequent hanging of a blasphemer executed by stoning no longer has the purpose of bringing about the death of the guilty party, but is rather a further humiliation and warning to those left behind: according to Deuteronomy 21:22-23. According to Exodus 21:22-2314 a hanged man is a man cursed by God. The Talmud stipulates that at least the blasphemer and the idol worshipper must also be hanged after stoning to show that the hanged person has cursed God himself.15

The Jewish claim to have hanged the Messiah is actually a theological statement: Jesus was exposed by hanging as one cursed by God. In other words, the Jews in the Talmud declare themselves morally responsible for the death of Jesus, however, not as accused by Christians as murderers of the Messiah, but as law-abiding executors of a God-ordained judgement on one who was guilty of sorcery, convicted of seducing the people and branded as cursed by God.16 Schäfer emphasises that this is a radical reinterpretation of the story of Jesus' death on the cross as found in the Gospel. In the Gospel, Jesus' messiahship is emphasised despite his unjust death on the cross: The Jewish Messiah is unjustly condemned by the Roman governor as a political insurrectionist against the occupying power on the basis of unjustified Jewish accusations and nailed to the cross by Roman soldiers. Although the Jewish rabbis must have been aware of these historical contexts17 , they ignore the 'Roman' version described in the Gospel and replace it with their own 'Jewish' version, as described in the Talmud.18 This 'Talmudic' rebuttal to the Gospel account contradicts the latter on a historical level: Jews, not Romans, killed Jesus; on a moral level: Jesus was not condemned unjustly, but rightly according to Mosaic law; and on a theological level: Jesus cannot be the Messiah, he died as a blasphemer, but was never justified by God.19 The Talmudic interpretation of Jesus' departure from this earth fundamentally contradicts the Gospel and, above all, totally calls into question Jesus' claim to be the Messiah as proclaimed by Christians.

When we take another close look at Nisa 4:152-163 with the development described above in mind, we find indications that the Jews addressed there were familiar with the result of the development described by Schäfer above20:

- They too proudly claimed to have killed Jesus: 'That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ [i.e. Messiah] Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah" ...' (Nisa 4:157).

- From the Qur'an's answer 'but they killed him not, nor crucified him' (Nisa 4:157b), it is perhaps also clear that the Jews present made a distinction between the killing of Jesus (by stoning?) and his subsequent hanging21 , just as in the Talmudic reference.22 Obviously, therefore, they consciously rejected the account of Jesus' recall as described in the Gospel and replaced it with an alternative close to the Talmudic one.

That their statement that they killed the 'Christ [i.e. Messiah] Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah' can only be understood ironically is clear from the fact that Jews who have not converted to Christianity fundamentally reject Jesus' claim to messiahship, as was already made clear in Nisa 4:156 with their 'awsome calumny' against his mother. The ironic reference to Jesus as the Messiah and "Messenger of Allah", as well as the similarity to the Talmudic rebuttal to the Gospel in their claim to have killed Jesus, and the context with the criticism of Mary aimed at Jesus' messianicity (4:156) make it clear that exactly this messianicity is also the central issue here. With their words in Nisa 4:156-157, the Jews thus make the following ironic assertion: 'Even though Christians believed that Jesus was the Messiah, they had good reasons to reject that claim: due to his conception out of wedlock, as well as his being killed and subsequently crucified by the Jews it was proven beyond any doubt that Jesus was by no means the messenger of Allah, the Messiah, but instead dismanteled as a bastard, rebel, seducer and one cursed by God'. We note that the Jewish claim to have killed the Messiah is a clear attack on Jesus' claim to Messiahship.

We conclude: The statement 'We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah' is a catchphrase or a summarising slogan of the Jewish criticism of Jesus' claim to Messiahship. With these words, the Jews in Nisa 4:157 express their moral and, above all, theological rejection of this claim proclaimed in the Gospel.

iii) ‘… 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:- [they slew him not for certain (Pickthall)]. Nay [instead (Rashad Khalifa)], Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-’ (Nisa 4:157-158)’. As for the fate of Jesus after his death, there is again a Christian view of things based on the Gospel and an independent Jewish perspective, based on some allusions in the Talmud. In order to understand the Qur'anic statement, we must first familiarize ourselves with these different views: a) According to the Gospel account, the unjustly crucified Jesus died on the cross. He was laid in a tomb after his death. However, on the third day after his crucifixion, God raised him from the dead and thus justified him as the Messiah. Forty days after his resurrection, God raised his Messiah to heaven, where he reigns at the right hand of God with divine authority over God's kingdom, i.e. exercises his messianic functions. The resurrection and exaltation to God justify Jesus' claim to Messiahship, which had been called into question by his shameful death.

b) In order to maintain the Jewish or Talmudic counter-narrative of Jesus' death, he must of course not have been later justified as Messiah by God through his resurrection. Even after his death, he must continue to burn in hell as cursed by God. According to the Jewish counter-narrative to the Gospel, Jesus was not resurrected but will continue to serve his sentence in hell for eternity. We even read in the Gospel about a conspiracy between the Jews and the Roman soldiers to discredit Jesus' resurrection:

'… some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened [i.e. Jesus' resurrection]. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.' (Matthäus 28:11-15).

According to the Gospel, the empty tomb cannot be denied by the Jewish council either, so they resort to the trick of covering up the facts with a lie. Their rebuttal is: Jesus did not rise from the dead, the disciples stole his body from the tomb to fake a resurrection. According to the Gospel, this false rumor was still being passed on among Jews even years after the event.23 Schäfer explains a Talmudic report about the imposition of the death penalty on five of Jesus' disciples and sees a connection to Jesus' condition after the crucifixion.24 He recognizes in the argument based on various Torah verses a theological refutation of the resurrection of Jesus as advocated by Christians and its consequences for the Jews and humanity. According to Schäfer, the Talmud holds the following views: - Jesus is not blameless, as Christians claim.25 His death is not a guilt offering to justify sinners, but the death of a blasphemer. His death honours God because it represents the just punishment for his sacrilegious actions.26

- Jesus is dead for good, he will suffer forever in the realm of the dead and never rise again. His name will be forgotten and he will have no followers.27

- Jesus was not resurrected and his followers will not be resurrected either and they will never reign over the world. Jesus' teaching is dead.28

- Jesus and his followers have not replaced the Jews as God's firstborn son, but are the firstborn of God's arch-enemy.29

- Finally, Schäfer explains his theory that, according to the Talmud, the Jews could have held the view that Jesus is serving his never-ending punishment in boiling excrements in hell. This picture proves his eternal damnation.30 As can be seen from this summary, the claim that Jesus remained dead for all eternity - with absolut certainty - was important for the Talmudic view of Jesus' faring after his departure from earth, i.e. that he had not been resurrected and rewarded by God with a place of honour, and would in all eternity never be resurrected either. Quite apart from the fact that the Talmudic rebuttal contradicts the Gospel in historical terms, it also makes the theologically devastating statement that Jesus' claim to Messiahship was definitively refuted with his death and hanging on a cross.31 This Jewish rebuttal to the Gospel directly targets Jesus' claim to Messiahship. Jesus was not justified by God as the Messiah even after his death.

It is this last point in the Jewish criticism, in which the Jewish side of the argument is least

clearly explained in the Qur'an, but in whose answer the Qur'an most explicitly refutes the Jewish view: 'Nay [to the contrary!!! (own translation)], Allâh exalted him with all honour to His presence [and he is in the heavens (Muhammad Musin Khan)]. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.' (Nisa 4:158; Abdul Mannan Omar). Shair Ahmet explains in his translation: 'They had plotted thinking that crucifixion was a death of curse. But God raised him in honor. See 3:55.' It must be clarified to what extent this Quranic rebuttal of the Jewish views concerns the Messiahship of Jesus.

That the Qur'an refers here to the Jewish view of Jesus' fate after his death is possibly hinted at in the words at the end of verse 157: - From the words '... and they killed him not for sure..'32 (4:157; Muhammad Ali Shakir) can be detected that the Jews held the view that Jesus was eternally dead and would perish an eternal punishment in hell, in the sense of: 'we have finally eliminated (or: killed) the Messiah (for good) and thus proved that he is not the Messiah, but one cursed by God'. The words in the Qur'an would then contradict this view: the Jews can not be so sure that Jesus has been eliminated for good and thus lull themselves in a false sense of security - 'they do not know with absolute certainty that Jesus has been eliminated for good'. And the Qur'an then responds with the harsh rebuttal: 'Nay [to the contrary!!! (own translation)], Allâh exalted him with all honour to His presence'. In any case, the original claim of the Jews at the beginning of verse 157 - 'That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ [i.e. Messiah] Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- …’ (Nisa 4:157), and thus definitively refuted his claim to be the Messiah - is relativised with 'and they killed him not for sure.'. The Qur'an thus corrects the Jews in the sense of 'they do not know with certainty what they claim - namely that Jesus is not the Messiah'. - The false view that Jesus was not resurrected, based on the lie that the disciples had taken Jesus' body from the tomb (see Matthew 28:11-13) as explained in he Gospel, is also mentioned in the Qur'an, '... with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow...'.

Even if the Qur'an does not present the Jewish view of Jesus' condition after his death in detail, it can be assumed that the Jews interpreted the Qur'anic answer within their framework of understanding. This understanding included the view that Jesus was not resurrected and certainly not elevated to God. The counter-argument in the Qur'an directly addresses this Jewish view and fundamentally corrects it: 'Nay [to the contrary!!! (own translation)], Allâh exalted him with all honour to His presence [and he is in the heavens (Muhammad Musin Khan)]. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.' (Nisa 4:158; Abdul Mannan Omar). Even if Muhammad had not intended to defend Jesus' Messiahship with this words, the Jews would have understood this statement as a correction of their conviction that Jesus was not justified by God as Messiah after his death.That this last statement is not just an accidental but a deliberate defence of Jesus' Messiahship against Jewish criticism is, in my view, supported by (a) the grammar, (b) the context (see verse 159) and finally (c) reports of similar argumentation in apostolic and church history: (a) Verse 158 starts with the strong statement 'to the contrary'33 and thus contradicts what was claimed in verse 157. As shown above, in verse 157 Jews criticise Jesus' Messiahship with the statement 'we killed the Messiah'. In verse 158, the Qur'an refutes this Jewish claim: 'you boast to have definitively proven Jesus' claim to be false, but on the contrary, Allah has exalted him to Himself'. According to grammar, Jesus' exaltation to Allah thus functions as a refutation of the Jewish argument against Jesus' Messiahship.

(b) In verse 159 the conclusion follows from the knowledge gained through Jesus' exaltation to God: 'Yet there is not one of the followers of earlier revelation who does not, at the moment of his death, grasp the truth about Jesus; and on the Day of Resurrection he [himself] shall bear witness to the truth against them' (Nisa 4:159, Muhammad Asad). Jews (and all other similarly minded possessors of scripture) must believe in Jesus, whom they disqualify, and, contrary to their belief that he will burn eternally in hell as God-cursed, he will appear as a witness against them before God at the Last Judgement. The truth that has to be believed by the 'People of the Book' (Yusuf Ali) is 'the truth stated above in 4:157-158' (Shabbir Ahmed) - i.e. the fact that Jesus is the Messiah, the Messenger of God (v. 157). The statement of Nisa 4:159 only really makes sense if the Jewish rejection of Jesus as Messiah and God's messenger (see v. 157) has been completely refuted with verse 158, and the exact opposite has been proven. In order to come to this radical conclusion in the light of verse 157, verse 158 must be about the Messiahship of Jesus.

(c) In his very first sermon, Peter defends Jesus' claim to Messiahship to his Jewish listeners with the same argument - the exaltation of Jesus to Allah: On the basis of David's prophecy in Psalm 16:10 - 'because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, nor will you let your faithful one see decay' - Peter discusses Jesus' resurrection and exaltation: king David did not make this statement concerning himself, rather it is a prophecy concerning the Messiah. David,

'Seeing what was to come, ... spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’ “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”' (Acts 2:31-36).

For Peter, the exaltation of Jesus, who died on the cross, to God is the final confirmation of Jesus' Messiahship: all of Israel can now know with absolute certainty that Jesus is the Messiah confirmed by God. The argument 'Jesus was exalted to God' is repeatedly used by Christians in the course of church history as absolute proof of Jesus' Messiahship (see Acts 3:15ff; (4:10); 5:30-32; 7:55-56; 9:3-5; (10:39-41); Romans 1:3-4; Hebrews 1:5-13; etc.).

Finally, it also follows clearly from the context of Nisa 4:156-159 that the subject of the dispute is Jesus' claim to Messiahship: the whole discussion between Muhammad and the Jews since Nisa 4:150 has been on the subject of faith in God's messengers:

'Those who deny Allah and His messengers, and (those who) wish to separate Allah from His messengers, saying: "We believe in some but reject others": And (those who) wish to take a course midway,- They are in truth (equally) unbelievers [kâfirûne]; and we have prepared for unbelievers [kâfirîne] a humiliating punishment. To those who believe in Allah and His messengers and make no distinction between any of the messengers, we shall soon give their (due) rewards: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.' (Nisa 4:150-152)

In Nisa 4:156, the Jews are then specifically accused of unbelief in connection with their rejection of Jesus as God's Messenger:

'And for their disbelief [kufr] and for their uttering against Mary a grievous calumny; And for their saying, `We did slay the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of ALLAH;' ...' (Nisa 4:156f.; Maulvi Sher Ali). This verse links their disbelief to their accusations against Mary and their claim to have killed Jesus. As explained above, these Jewish accusations only work in the context of Jesus' claim to Messiahship: only the Messiah must be descended from David's line, and only the Messiah must live forever. Other prophets had been killed by Jews, as mentioned in verse 155, but did not lose their title of prophet: 'they slew the Messengers in defiance of right'. At the same time, Nisa 4:159 makes it clear why the Qur'an contradicts the Jewish accusations: 'Yet there is not one of the followers of earlier revelation who does not, at the moment of his death, grasp the truth about Jesus; and on the Day of Resurrection he [himself; i.e. Jesus] shall bear witness to the truth against them (Nisa 4:159, Muhammad Asad). So the intention is precisely to persuade these unbelieving Jews to believe in Jesus. Because their unbelief is in Jesus' claim to be the Messiah, they must be specifically convinced of this. The Qur'an thus clearly places the entire discussion in Nisa 4:156-159 within the framework of the Jewish rejection of Jesus as Messiah.

To summarise, we observe: It is clear that the argumentation between Muhammad and the Jews in Nisa 4:156-159 centres on Jesus' claim to be the Messiah. This claim is questioned by the Jews in three respects: the illegitimate birth ('false charge against Mary') casts doubt on the Davidic descent necessary for the Messiah; the stoning and hanging of Jesus proves in the Jewish view that Jesus is not the messenger of Allah but rather a blasphemer condemned by Allah ('We [i.e. the Jews] killed Christ [i.e. Messiah] Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah'). Finally, from the answer - '... 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:- [they slew him not for certain (Pickthall)]. Nay [instead (Rashad Khalifa)], Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-’ (Nisa 4:157-158) - it can be concluded that the Jews also questioned Jesus' resurrection. They wanted to ensure that

God did not justify Jesus as the Messiah even after his death. The Qur'an presents the main argument in support of Jesus' claim to Messiahship in verse 158 - Nay [to the contrary] Allah raised him up unto Himself - and then comes to the resulting conclusion in verse 159: all possessors of Scriptures must accept Jesus as the Messiah.

We note that the central theme of the dispute between the Jews and Muhammad in Nisa 4:157-159 is Jesus' claim to messiahship.

It must now be analysed how the Qur'an takes up the Jewish criticism and how it reacts to it.

---

1 Schäffer, Jesus in the Talmud.

2 See Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud. Schäfer finds in the Talmud 'polemical counternarratives that parody the New Testament stories, most notably the story of Jesus’ birth and death' and according to the Talmud there is also no resurrection, neither of Jesus nor for his followers (P. Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, p. 9). 'In his Against Celsus [A.D. 248], Origen provides an idea of the caliber of the insults: Jesus, illegitimate son of Panthera, a Roman legionary, was a charlatan and a magician killed by the Jews; after His death, marvels were invented by His disciples concerning Him. Other tales of a still lower grade circulated, in which Jesus figured as a bandit and one possessed.' (Flannery, Edward H. The Anguish of the Jews (2004 ed.). p. 37. found in Wikipedia contributors. Toledot Yeshu [Internet]. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia; Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledot_Yeshu&oldid=1102036263 (visited: 18/07/2022).

3 Accusation: ‘Mary was a whore and her son a bastard’ (Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, pp. 98-99).

4 In the Talmud, the Jews even claim to know who the human father of Jesus was: 'Incidentally, the Gemara asks: Why did they call him [Jesus] ben Stada, when he was the son of Pandeira? Rav Hisda said: His mother’s husband, who acted as his father, was named Stada, but the one who had relations with his mother and fathered him was named Pandeira. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t his mother’s husband Pappos ben Yehuda? Rather, his mother was named Stada and he was named ben Stada after her. The Gemara asks: But wasn’t his mother Miriam, who braided women’s hair? The Gemara explains: That is not a contradiction. Rather, Stada was merely a nickname, as they say in Pumbedita: This one strayed [setat da] from her husband.' (Shab 104b in https://www.sefaria.org/Shabbat.104b.5?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en (visited: 01/11/2022). According to Schäfer, these passages were introduced into the Talmud in the 3rd and 4th centuries (see Wikipedia contributors. Jesus in the Talmud [Internet]. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia; 2022 Oct 26, 13:31 UTC. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus_in_the_Talmud&oldid=1118340576. (visited 01/11/2022)).

Schäfer mentions Celsus to confirm that the quote in question is about Jesus: 'in the pagan philosopher Celsus’ polemical treatise Alethe¯s Logos, written in the second half of the second century C.E.24 and preserved only in quotations in the Church Father Origen’s reply Contra Celsum (written ca. 231–233 C.E.). There, Celsus presents a Jew as having a conversation with Jesus himself and accusing him of having “fabricated the story of his birth from a virgin.” In reality, the Jew argues, he [Jesus] came from a Jewish village and from a poor country woman who earned her living by spinning. He [the Jew] says that she was driven out by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, as she was convicted of adultery. Then he says that after she had been driven out by her husband and while she was wandering about in a disgraceful way she secretly gave birth to Jesus.' (Schäfer, pp. 18f.)

5 ‘This powerful counter narrative shakes the foundations of the Christian message. It is not just a malicious distortion of the birth story (any such moralizing categories are completely out of place here); rather, it posits that the whole idea of Jesus’ Davidic descent, his claim to be the Messiah, and ultimately his claim to be the son of God, are based on fraud. His mother, his alleged father (insofar as he helped covering up the truth), his real father, and not least Jesus himself (the would-be magician) are all impostors that deceived the Jewish people and deserve to be unmasked, exposed to ridicule, and thereby neutralized. Most striking, this counter–New Testament in a nutshell has been preserved in rabbinic sources only in the Babylonian Talmud,43 and there almost in passing.’ (Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, p. 22).

6 ’No one misbegotten - *misbegotten Meaning of Heb. mamzer uncertain; in Jewish law, the offspring of adultery or incest between Jews - shall be admitted into the congregation of יהוה; no descendant of such, even in the tenth generation, shall be admitted into the congregation of יהוה.’ (https://www.sefaria.org/Deuteronomy.23.3?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en (visited: 01/11/2022)). According to this provision, Jesus should even have been excluded from the church, that is, from the assembly of the people chosen by God (Deuteronomy 23:2).

7 Sayyid Qutb, In the Shadow, p. 1057. Taberi Tefsiri: 'Yahudilerin inkhar etmeleri ve hiçbir delil olmaksızın Meryem'e zina inad ederek büyük bir iftirada bulunmaları ...’

Suyuti Tefsiri: ‘İbn Cerîr ve ibn Ebî Hâtim'in bildirdiğine göre ibn Abbâs: "...Meryem'e büyük bir iftirada bulunmalarıdır" buyruğunu açıklarken: "Burada, Meryem'e ... zina iftirasında bulunmaları kastedilmektedir" dedi.’ (Durul Mensur Cilt 5 p. 96).

8 3. Mose 24:16: 'anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.'

9 'The first public sermons by baptized Jews to unbaptized Jews in Jerusalem implicate their addressees in Jesus' death in order to offer them salvation and enable them to turn back to God (Acts 2,23): 'This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[d] put him to death by nailing him to the cross ...'; Acts 3:15: 'You killed the author of life ...'; Acts 5:30: 'The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead—whom you killed by hanging him on a cross.' At the same time, they affirm that the perpetrators acted out of ignorance (Acts 3:17): 'Now, fellow Israelites, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders.' These statements are an integral part of the proclamation of the Gospel. (see „Gottesmord“. In: Wikipedia – Die freie Enzyklopädie. Bearbeitungsstand: 10. Oktober 2022, 09:10 UTC. URL: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gottesmord&oldid=226913984 (visited: 28. November 2022, 14:42 UTC)). Similar accusations are also known from Christians who lived later: 'The centrality of Jewish guilt became an article of faith in late antique Christianity. The enormously influential John Chrysostom (d. 407), in his screed against Judaizing Christians in Antioch in the late fourth century, quoted Lk. 21:24, “Jerusalem will be trodden down by many nations, until the times of many nations be fulfilled,” in order to prove that Jews would never be able to restore the temple there. He said that the Jews rejected this prophecy of Jesus: “What does the Jew say? ‘The man who said this is my foe. I crucified him (εγώ αυτόν εσταύρωσα), so how am I to accept his testimony?’ But this is the marvel of it. You Jews did crucify him (ὦ Ἰουδαῖε, ὅτι ὃν ἐσταύρωσας). But after he died on the cross, he then destroyed your city.”37 Jacob of Serug (d. 521) likewise complained about Jews rejecting the virgin birth, and with regard to Jesus said, “O Jew, woe to thee, through him, because thou didst crucify him.”' (Juan Cole, "‘It was made to appear to them so’: the crucifixion, Jews and Sasanian war propaganda in the Qur’ān.” Religion 51, 3 (2021): 404- 422, p. 416 in https://doi.org/10.1080/0048721X.2021.1909170 (02/12/2022)).

10 'What we then have here in the Bavli is ... a creative rereading, however, that not only knows some of its distinct details but proudly proclaims Jewish responsibility for Jesus’ execution.' (Schäfer, Jesus in Talmud, p. 74).

11 In Bsanhedrin 43a: (https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.43a.20-21?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en (visited: 03/11/2022)).

12 Sanhedrin 43a in Talmud Bavli, https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.43a?lang=bi (visited: 03/11/2022).

13 3. Mose 24:16: 'anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.'

14 'If someone guilty of a capital offense is put to death and their body is exposed on a pole, you must not leave the body hanging on the pole overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a pole is under God’s curse. You must not desecrate the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.' (5. Mose 21:22-23).

15 'All who are stoned are also hanged (nitlin) [afterwards] [on a tree]:21 (these are) the words of R. Eliezer. However the Sages said: only the blasphemer (ha-megaddef) and the idolater (ha-´oved avodah zarah) are hanged. … That is to say, on what account has this [man] been hanged? Because he cursed the Name, and the Name of Heaven turned out to be profaned.' (Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, ss. 66f.).

16 Schäfer observes that the author of the Babylonian Talmud 'adopts and interprets the version of the trial before the Sanhedrin, combining it with the mishnaic law: the accusation and condemnation of a blasphemer and idolater, who leads astray all of Israel. We, the Jews, he argues, have put him on trial and executed him for what he was: a blasphemer, who claimed to be God and deserved the capital punishment according to our Jewish law. With this deliberate “misreading” of the New Testament narrative, the Bavli (re)claims Jesus for the Jewish people—but only to fend off once and for all any claim by himself or his followers. Yes indeed, the Bavli admits, Jesus was a Jewish heretic, who was quite successful in seducing many of us. But he was taken care of according to the Jewish law, got what he deserved—and that’s the end of the story.’ (Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, pp. 71-72).

17 'To answer this question, the rabbis were certainly aware that crucifixion was the standard Roman death penalty, that Jesus was indeed crucified and not stoned and hanged. Hence, why their stubborn insistence on the latter? Because this is precisely the core of their polemical counternarrative to the Gospels.' (Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, p. 82)

18 'What we then have here in the Bavli is a powerful confirmation of the New Testament Passion narrative, a creative rereading, however, that not only knows some of its distinct details but proudly proclaims Jewish responsibility for Jesus’ execution. Ultimately and more precisely, therefore, it turns out to be a complete reversal of the New Testament’s message of shame and guilt: we do accept, it argues, responsibility for this heretic’s death, but there is no reason to be ashamed of it and feel guilty for it. We are not the murderers of the Messiah and Son of God, nor of the king of the Jews as Pilate wanted to have it. Rather, we are the rightful executioners of a blasphemer and idolater, who was sentenced according to the full weight, but also the fair procedure, of our law. If this interpretation is correct, we are confronted here with a message that boldly and even aggressively challenges the Christian charges against the Jews as the killers of Christ. For the first time in history, we encounter Jews who, instead of reacting defensively, raise their voice and speak out against what would become the perennial story of the triumphant Church.' (Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, p. 74).

19 'The Bavli’s claim of direct Jewish agency in the killing of Jesus is in glaring historical disagreement with the Gospels – but their most important differences are moral and theological rather than historical. The moral counter-claim is that Jesus was killed justly. The theological counter-claim is that the story ends with his death, not his resurrection.' (Ian Mevorach, “Qur'an, Crucifixion, and Talmud: A New Reading of Q 4:157- 58” in Journal of Religion & Society 19 (2017): ss.1-21. Moss, Candida, s. 5).

20 ''Katsh’s hypothesis' that Muhammad and the Jews in Medina were familiar with the Talmud, 'has been confirmed by subsequent studies (Mazuz; Newby). Hans Küng reports that Medina was one-third Jewish: “there was even a Jewish clan of goldsmiths and there were armorers and scholars familiar with the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud”. The fact that al-Nisa’ (Women) is a Medinan surah further supports the thesis that Q 4:157-58 emerged out of an encounter between Muhammad and Talmudic Jews of Medina.’ (Ian Mevorach, “Qur'an, Crucifixion, and Talmud: A New Reading of Q 4:157- 58” in Journal of Religion & Society 19 (2017): pp.1-21. Moss, Candida, p. 3).

21'salebûhu', the same word is used in Maide 5:33 (yusallebû): The reward of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and are eager for mischief (everywhere) in the land (? yas`auna fie l-ardi fasaadan) shall be that they shall be killed or crucified, or that their hands and feet shall be cut off alternately (right and left), or that they shall be expelled from the land. That will be their dishonour in this world. And in the Hereafter they will have to expect a tremendous punishment.

Maide 5:33 seems to confirm the statement of Deuteronomy 21:22-23.

22 Ian Mevorach points out the connection between Talmud Sanhedrin 43a and Nisa 4:157: 'The sequence of events in Jesus’ execution in the Talmud, first stoning and then hanging, can be read as corresponding to the Qur’an’s double-denial that the Jews “did not kill him, nor did they crucify him” (4:157). If the Qur’an were denying that the Jews crucified Jesus as presented in the New Testament (indirectly, by prompting the Romans to crucify him), its separate mention of killing and crucifying would need to be read as a parallelism (reinforcing its rebuttal by saying the same thing twice using different words). However, if the Qur’an is denying the account elaborated in the Talmud, where Jesus’ execution by stoning is followed by the desecration of his corpse by hanging, then it makes sense for it to deny both the stoning and the hanging, both the killing and the crucifying. Again, while the phrase makes sense in either case, the double-denial tracks better to the Talmudic counternarrative than to the New Testament version of Jesus’ death. When one attempts to apply the Qur’an’s denial that the Jews killed Jesus to the New Testament story it does not fit so well, especially because the Jews in this story do not kill Jesus. (Ian Mevorach, “Qur'an, Crucifixion, and Talmud: A New Reading of Q 4:157- 58” in Journal of Religion & Society 19 (2017): pp.1-21. Moss, Candida, pp. 12f.).

23 For example, in Toledoth Yeshu a Jewish legend is reported that is supposed to prove Jesus' certain death. The story comes from a work written around 1500, but according to the experts 'this tradition was not compiled before the fifth century A.D., it undoubtedly echoed an earlier Jewish tradition that was widespread among the Jewish circles after the resurrection of Christ (Matthew 28:11-15).' (Sam Shamoun, JESUS IN THE RABBINIC TRADITIONS, in https://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/talmud_jesus.htm (visited: 08/03/2023). This view is also held by Peter Schäfer in Jesus in the Talmud. So here is the legend in Toledoth Yeshu: ‘At eventide, they came to take him down, on account of that Scripture which saith: Thou shalt not suffer his corpse to remain on the tree (Deut. 21:23). So did they bury him, and his following began to weep again at his tomb while saying: "Ye have become liable to the death penalty, because ye have slain the Messiah!" Yet, those of Israel retorted by saying: "Ye, yourselves, have become liable to the death penalty, because ye have believed in a false prophet!" His following then said to themselves: "Come and let us take him out of his tomb." They opened the tomb, but did not find him there, and so did they go unto Helena the queen. They said unto her: "Consider, your Majesty, the Queen, how many signs he hath wrought, and how that now he hath gone up into heaven." At this declaration, she did send unto the Sages, and inquired of them: "Where is it that ye have buried Jesus?" They answered: "Near unto the waters of Siloam." She then returned answer unto them: "If ye do not bring him unto me, I shan't leave off from harassing a single one of you." They sought him, but could not find him. They then said unto her: "Give us time." She gave them time, and meanwhile, the people of Israel had all taken upon themselves a fast of affliction until the appointed time had expired, yet still they did not find him, by reason of which they began to flee from before the queen. Rabbi Tanḥum did also flee unto the field, and there found a certain gardener eating. He said unto him: "Thou wicked man! All of Israel hath undertaken fasting and they art in sorrow, but thou sittest here eating!" He then replied: "My lord, on what occasion hast this sorrow come over the nation?" Rabbi Tanḥum then told him the account of the matter. He furthermore said: "If they shall perchance find him, Israel shall find some relief." The same man (i.e. the gardener) answered: "I have stolen him and buried him in my own garden, so as not to give an opportunity for the wicked to steal him away." Rabbi Tanḥum, at hearing this, returned unto the city and exclaimed: "This day is a day of good tidings!" So those of Israel went and took him out of his tomb, and did tie a rope around his leg, and began to drag him along the city lanes of Jerusalem, until they brought him unto the queen. Forthwith did she praise the Sages and became wroth with the following of Jesus, banishing certain of them – three to a mountainous place, three to Greece, and thirteen of their number to Rome, while the rest were scattered among the nations. Then did the Most Holy, blessed be He, demand his judgment in every place. But, even so, those in Israel who stood up to make this breach in faith, got themselves up and opposed openly the Sages, and said: "He is the Deliverer." Thus, there was a schism in Israel.’ (Wikisource contributors. Translation:Story of Jesus [Internet]. Wikisource ; 2021 Apr. 19, 16:47 UTC [cited 2023 Mar 8]. Available from: https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Translation:Story_of_Jesus&oldid=11203814.).

24 Our Rabbis taught: Jesus the Nazarene had five disciples, and these are they: Mattai, Naqqai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah. When they brought Mattai (before the court), he [Mattai] said to them [the judges]: Mattai shall be executed? It is written: When (matai) shall I come and appear before God? (Ps. 42:3). They [the judges] answered him: Yes, Mattai shall be executed, since it is written: When (matai) will he die and his name perish? (Ps. 41:6). When they brought Naqqai (before the court), he [Naqqai] said to them [the judges]: Naqqai shall be executed? It is written: You shall not execute the innocent (naqi) and the righteous (Ex. 23:7). They [the judges] answered him: Yes, Naqqai shall be executed, since it is written: From a covert (be-mistarin)6 he executes the innocent (naqi) (Ps. 10:8). When they brought Netzer (before the court), he [Netzer] said to them [the judges]: Netzer shall be executed? It is written: An offshoot (netzer) shall grow forth out of his roots (Isa. 11:1). They [the judges] answered him: Yes, Netzer shall be executed, since it is written: You shall be cast forth away from your grave like an abhorred offshoot (netzer) (Isa. 14:19). When they brought Buni (before the court), he [Buni] said to them [the judges]: Buni shall be executed? It is written: My son (beni), my firstborn is Israel (Ex. 4:22). They [the judges] answered him: Yes, Buni shall be executed, since it is written: Behold I will execute your firstborn son (binkha) (Ex. 4:23). When they brought Todah (before the court), he [Todah] said to them [the judges]: Todah shall be executed? It is written: A psalm for Thanksgiving (todah) (Ps. 100:1). They [the judges] answered him: Yes, Todah shall be executed, since it is written: He who sacrifices the sacrifice of Thanksgiving (todah) honors me (Ps. 50:23). (b Sanh 43a–b. cited in P. Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, pp. 75f.).

25 'Also Naqqai can easily be applied to Jesus: Pilate in his trial explicitly declares him innocent (naqi) and does not want to execute him, but the Jews demand his death. So Naqqai is actually Jesus, claiming to be innocent and righteous, who is pleading for his life (quite in contrast to the Gospels where he does not defend himself ). The Jews, however, do not accept his plea for innocence, arguing that he is not “innocent” but simply called by the name “Naqqai.”' (P. Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, p. 78).

26 'As the last “disciple” learns: not the cultic sacrifice but the execution of Todah/Jesus honors God and becomes the ultimate vindication of the Jewish faith. Jesus was rightly killed, and there is nothing that remains of him and his teachings after his death.’ (P. Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, p. 81).

27 'Against this background, Mattai/Jesus in the Bavli story could be understood as saying: You can do with me whatever you want, and even if you execute me—I will soon appear before the face of God in heaven, in other words: I will rise from the dead! And the answer of the judges is: No, Mattai/Jesus will definitely die, and not only this—his name will perish, that is, he will be completely forgotten. There is no resurrection and accordingly no community of followers that will continue to believe in him. A most devastating verdict indeed.' (P. Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, p. 78).

28 '… for the Bavli [Babylonian Talmud], Jesus’ disciples are executed because of Jesus’ guilt and that their hope to be resurrected is futile, as futile as Jesus’ own expectation was. They will never arise and possess the earth as Matthew has Jesus promise his disciples after his resurrection: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.” [Matta 28:18-20] No, our Bavli narrative maintains, neither was Jesus the Messiah nor does his message live among his followers. They are all dead.’ (P. Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, p. 79).

29 'Therefore, when Buni maintains he is God’s (beloved) son, his (true) firstborn, he expresses the claim of the Christian Church to have superseded the “old Israel” of the Jews. And it is to this supersessionist claim that the judges reply: You fool, you are not God’s but the Pharaoh’s firstborn, the son of the wicked, who tried in vain to destroy Israel. The self-appointed Messiah turns out to be the descendant of the worst of all of Israel’s oppressors, the archenemy of Israel.’ (P. Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, p. 80).

30 P. Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, pp. 82-94.

31 Ian Mevorach, “Qur'an, Crucifixion, and Talmud: A New Reading of Q 4:157- 58” in Journal of Religion & Society 19 (2017): pp.1-21. Moss, Candida, p. 6.

32 'Allah buyurur ki: وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينًا : Onu yakînen öldürmediler (4/Nisâ 157); yani kesin bir şekilde onun çarmıha gerildiğini bilmediler.’ (Râgıb el-İsfehânî'nin el-Müfredât fî Garîbi'l Kur'ân eserinde; Eintrag: K-t-l - ق ت ل in https://www.kuranmeali.com/Aciklama.php?id=1157&islem=mufredat (visited: 08/03/2023)). Here the author interprets 'they did not know for certain that they had hanged him on the cross'. However, the wording is not about the cross, but about killing. A better interpretation would be: 'They did not know for certain that they had killed him'. Sher Ali/Zimmermann translates this sentence as 'and they have no certainty about it'; Sadr-ud Din translates: 'since they had not killed him for certain'). 33 " بَلْ (on the contrary), where the latter negates the former in one sentence". (Râgıb el-İsfehânî'nin el-Müfredât fî Garîbi'l Kur'ân eserinde; Eintrag Bel Harfi - بَلْ in https://www.kuranmeali.com/Aciklama.php?id=144&islem=mufredat&kok=%D8%A8%D9%8E%D9%84%D9%92 (visited 02/01/2024)).