Relationship of Nisa 4:157-159 to the Gospel

Jesus' departure (created by https://deepai.org/machine-learning-model/fantasy-world-generator)

In the last blog it became clear that the Qur'an in Al-i Imran 3:54-59 certainly does not question the account of Jesus' departure from earth as described in the Gospel, but on the contrary seems to support the Gospel account: The Jews planned Jesus' death. Jesus died according to God's plan. But God elevated Jesus to a position of honour to Himself, thereby proving Jesus' Messiahship. Nothing in the text gives reason to think that the Qur'an wants to correct the Christian version. Only by using dubious hadiths1 and flimsy reinterpretations2 of statements that are clear in and of themselves can an alternative account of Jesus' departure in the Qur'an to the Christian one be supported. The fact

that Al'i Imran 3:54-59 can most naturally be understood by Christians as a confirmation of their convictions regarding Jesus' departure from earth is actually sufficient reason to conclude that the Qur'an supports the Christian version, but does not criticise or correct it. Nevertheless, we want to prove that the other verses on Jesus' departure in the Qur'an (Nisa 4:157-159; Maide 5:117; Meryem 19:33) are not in conflict with the Christian version:

a) Analysıs of Maide 5:117:

ʻ... And I bore witness to what they did as long as I dwelt in their midst; but since Thou hast caused me to die, Thou alone hast been their keeper for Thou art witness unto everything.ʼ (Abdullah Yusuf Ali) - is not a problem in this respect. Jesus' 'being taken up' in this verse can easily be understood both from the meaning of the word teveffeytenî3 and from the context as ʻwhen you let me dieʼ. However, many Muslim interpreters believe that the death of Jesus described here will only occur shortly before the Last Judgement. The reason that Maide 5:117 cannot refer to a time shortly before the Last Judgement follows from the following considerations. Until his ʻdeathʼ, Jesus was among his followers as a witness. Only with his demise does his guardianship pass to Allah. If Jesus' death did not occur until the end of time, he would still be among his followers and would still be their witness today. According to Süleyman Ateş such an interpretation would be in clear contradiction to the general message of the Qur'an.4 This verse is silent on the details of how Jesus' death came about. Certainly, God was the active agent ('... since Thou hast caused me to die ...'), but the means He used to cause Jesus' death are not specified. Christians also believe that God's plan came to fulfilment with Jesus' execution on the cross by the Romans. God actively wanted (Isaiah 53:10) the Messiah to die (Luke 24:25-27): ʻHe said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.' The ʻhave toʼ in the verse indicates a divine necessity.5 God expressly wanted the Messiah to die suffering, but then also to rise again and ascend to God. God had already predicted this in the Torah through various prophets, making it clear that the Messiah's death was in accordance with His will.

This means that Maide 5:117 can be read without any problems as confirmation of the version in the Gospel in which God caused Jesus' death. God let him die (on the cross) at the age of about 30.

That Maide 5:117 is not merely a general confirmation of the Gospel version of Jesus' departure, but a summary of John 17:11-20 will be discussed in more detail later.6

b) Analysis of Meryem 19:33:

ʻSo peace (as-salaam) is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!ʼ This passage also offers no problems. The sequence - born, died, resurrected - corresponds exactly to the account of the Gospel. No details are mentioned about the nature of Jesus' death which could well have materialized as Jesus hanging on a cross.7

The last, most discussed passage remains:

c) Analysis of Nisa 4:157-159:

ʻand their boast, "Behold, we have slain the Christ Jesus, son of Mary, [who claimed to be] an apostle of God!" However, they did not slay him, and neither did they crucify him, but it only seemed to them [as if it had been] so; and, verily, those who hold conflicting views thereon are indeed confused, having no [real] knowledge thereof, and following mere conjecture. For, of a certainty [better: they slew him not for certain (Muhammad Pickthall ], they did not slay him: nay, God exalted him unto Himself - and God is indeed almighty, wise. [according to Muhammad Asad's translation; Nay, God exalted him in His Sight. (They had plotted thinking that crucifixion was a death of curse. But God raised him in honor. See 3:55) [According to Shabbir Ahmet's translation]]. 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.ʼ (Muhammad Asad).

It remains to be shown that this passage can also be understood as being in accordance with the Gospel.

i) Levels of attack by the Jews: The slogan of the Jews 'we have killed the Christ Jesus, son of Mary' must be understood, on the basis of our discussion so far, as a kind of shorthand for their rejection of the Christian account of Jesus' departure from the earth. The 'Talmudic' rebuttal, summarised in this slogan, contradicts the Christian account of Jesus' recall on (a) a historical level: Jews, not Romans, killed Jesus; (b) a moral level: Jesus was not condemned unjustly, but justly according to Mosaic law; and (c) above all on a theological level: Jesus cannot be the Messiah, he died as a blasphemer, a deceiver of the people and as one cursed by God, but was never justified by God afterwards.8 As already shown, Nisa 4:156-159 has Jesus' messiahship at its centre. With the boast 'we have killed the Messiah', the Jews were thus mainly attacking Jesus' messianicity, that is, they were making a moral and theological statement above all, but only a very limited historical one9: 'we have proved that Jesus is not the Messiah' is their real claim. The refutation of the Jewish slogan ('we killed the Messiah'), which we find in the words 'you did not kill him and did not crucify him', should therefore be understood as a summarised rejection of the historical, moral and above all theological provocation put forward. Understanding Nisa 4:157-159 as a theological, not historical, correction has also been suggested by Muslim exegetes.10 However, from the context, the point of criticism does not seem to be primarily the pride of the Jews (as suggested by Muhammad Ayoub), but rather their false views on Jesus' claim to be the Messiah chosen by God. It is the difficult expression ʻwa lakin shubbiha lahumʼ that led Muslim interpreters to justify their interpretations with hadith narratives that provided the basis for the substitution theory. However, with the acceptance of such a substitution theory - another died in

Jesus' place, Jesus himself was saved alive to God - the Qur'anic response to the Jews' provocation was reduced to the purely historical level, neglecting the moral and theological levels. If the statement 'However, they did not slay him, and neither did they crucify him' in the Qur'an really only refers to a historical correction of the Talmudic version of Jesus' dismissal held by the Jews, the Qur'an would not be responding to the Jews' real intention. The substitution theory - Jesus' salvation from the hands of his enemies through divine cunning - does not prove his Messianity. But if Jesus is to be the Messiah expected by the Jews, his reign would have to last for eternity11 and he could not simply disappear from the

scene by saving his own skin. It is therefore not surprising that proponents of the substitution theory find it difficult to reconcile Nisa 4:159 with the previous discussion (vv.153-158).12

Assuming that the Qur'an really merely addresses the historical level, one would have to accept the following miscommunication: the Jews' theological assertion: 'Jesus is not the Messiah', answered by the Qur'an in a completely incoherent, purely historical way: 'contrary to their perception, the Jews could not kill Jesus because God saved him from their hands with a trick'. In my opinion, such a reduction to the historical level can never do justice to the Qur'anic statement. It seems appropriate to look for a better solution than to be satisfied with such a miscommunication.

ii) The expression 'wa lakin shubbiha lahumʼ:

As a hapax legomena13 , the meaning of 'shubbiha' can only be determined with a certain degree of uncertainty14. 'ʻShubbihaʼ is the passive perfect of the 2nd stem of sh-b-h15, so that the translation should read: 'it (or: he) was made similar for them'. One variant reads the active shabbaha here: 'he has made like unto them'16, which clearly establishes 'God' as a noun. ... Manfred Ullmann's translation 'they succumbed to deception [‘sie sind einer Täuschung erlegen’]' comes closest to the Qur'anic statement and skilfully avoids the uncertainties as to who deceived whom and in what way.ʼ17

What ʻhe/itʼ in 'it (or: he) was made similar for them' refers to must be determined from the

context of the text, and this determination has led to countless discussions. (1) The common substitutionary interpretation - another person was made like Jesus and died in his place - should be rejected, as this would require the ʻheʼ to stand for a person not mentioned in the context, which constitutes a grammatical impossibility.18 In addition, Razi rejected the logical-philosophical consequences of being able to transfer the appearance of one person to that of another - one would then never know who one was dealing with and all interpersonal interaction would become dubious - as undesirable and therefore rejected the substitutionary interpretation as implausible.19 (2) The alternative that ʻheʼ = Jesus was made to resemble someone does not really

work as a justification for the substitutionary interpretation and would therefore not help to understand it.

In the sense of a rejection of the Talmudic depiction of Jesus' death, one could at best imagine the meaning of ʻJesus was made similar to someone cursed by Godʼ.

Gesteinigte Person (created by https://deepai.org/machine-learning-model/fantasy-world-generator)

(3) According to the rules of grammar, the ʻhe/itʼ must refer to something already mentioned in the context of the text. The suggestion that the aforementioned crucifixion of Jesus only appeared to the Jews as if it had happened, but in reality never did - it was not Jesus who was made similar, but ʻthe crucifixion only appeared to them as if it had happened, whereas it never didʼ - would be grammatically possible, but again fails due to the logical consequences: it would then no longer be possible to know with certainty whether any experienced reality is real or only an appearance - and there would no longer be any possibility, for example, of rationally representing the appearance of prophets as a real event. At best, one could use the last suggestion in a slightly modified form in the context of refuting a Talmudic account: It appeared to the Jews only from theological considerations that they were justified killing Jesus, but the reality was different: it was not the Jews who killed Jesus on the cross, but the Romans, and this was done by an unjust judgement. (4) Mourad observes that based on Qur'anic usage, the meaning of 'shubbiha la-hum' need not be limited to visual confusion. The term 'can also be applied to something that, if taken literally as true or correct, leads to confusion and error. As shown above, the central theme in Nisa 4:156-159 is Jesus' messiahship. It would therefore stand to reason that the deception to which Jews succumbed was somehow related to this central theme, that is, if the ʻitʼ in ʻit appeared to them soʼ referred to this central theme: 'it only appeared to them as if Jesus was not the Messiah'; ʻtheir interpretation of Jesus' death on the cross deceived them into believing that Jesus was not the Messiahʼ; ʻtheir Talmudic rebuttal deceived them into believing that Jesus died branded as a liar, blasphemer and cursedʼ, or something similar. The latter suggestions would be better motivated assumptions for the criticised deception than the grammatically and philosophically indefensible substitutionary theories.

(5) Assuming that the present passage is based on the Jews' deception regarding Jesus' messianicity, verse 157 could allude to a passage from Isaiah 53 often used in Jewish-Christian disputes about Jesus' messianicity in the light of his death on the cross:

ʻHe [the servant of God, according to Christian interpretation this is Jesus] grew up before him like a tender shoot,   and like a root out of dry ground.

He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,

    nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

He was despised and rejected by mankind,

    a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.

Like one from whom people hide their faces

Surely he took up our pain

    and bore our suffering,

yet we considered him punished by God,

    stricken by him, and afflicted.

But he was pierced for our transgressions,

    he was crushed for our iniquities;

the punishment that brought us peace was on him,

    and by his wounds we are healed.

    he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.... Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,

    and though the Lord makes[c] his life an offering for sin,

he will see his offspring and prolong his days,

    and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.ʼ (Isiah 53:2-5 + 10)

According to the Christian interpretation of these verses, people were deceived into believing that Jesus' suffering branded him as one punished by God, whereas in reality God's plan succeeded through Jesus' guilt-sacrificial death (see Isaiah 53:10). This would fit very well into the present discussion between Jews and Muhammad regarding Jesus' claim to Messiahship and the refutation of a Talmudic rebuttal: The Jews allowed themselves to be deceived by Jesus' death on the cross and came to the false assumption that Jesus was not the Messiah, but rather one punished by God. But Muhammad counters that to the contrary, God's plan was fulfilled through Jesus' death (see e.g. Al-i İmran 3:54-55) and that Jesus himself is undoubtedly confirmed as the Messiah through his exaltation to God (Nisa 4:158; see Isaiah 52:13-15). If this is the reference in Nisa 4:157, this is not only a historical correction of the facts - it was not the Jews but the Romans who killed Jesus - but

above all a theological correction21: the Jews draw the wrong conclusion from the killing of Jesus: his painful death on the cross is not proof of his damnation, but a means of fulfilling Allah's plan and, together with his exaltation, the convincing confirmation of Jesus' Messiahship. At the same time, the moral accusation would also be refuted: Jesus did not die as an evildoer convicted under the law, but as an innocent, substitutionary sin offering (see Isaiah 53:9-11).

We conclude that the theory of substitution cannot satisfactorily explain the meaning of the

expression 'shubbiha la-hum'. This theory should be rejected due to grammatical rules, undesirable philosophical implications, the logic of argumentation and the trustworthiness of its transmission history22 . A better interpretation can be achieved with Isaiah 52:13-53:12: The Jews' deception resulted from a false conclusion regardingof Jesus' claim to Messiahship based on the way in which he died. They thought they could reject Jesus

as cursed by God because of the way he died, but in reality God fulfilled his plan with Jesus and justified him with the subsequent exaltation as Messiah.

iii) Further accusations: The other accusations in Nisa 4:157 could also easily be understood as a Christian correction of a Talmudic-Jewish view of Jesus' departure that contradicts the Gospel. To this end, we will look at the following statements individually: 'and, verily, those who hold conflicting views thereon are indeed confused, having no [real] knowledge thereof, and following mere conjecture. For, of a certainty, they did not slay him  [better: they slew him not for certain (Muhammad Pickthall)]: nay [to the contrary], God exalted him unto Himself - and God is indeed almighty, wise. [according to Muhammad Asad's translation; Nay, God exalted him in His Sight. (They had plotted thinking that crucifixion was a death of curse. But God raised him in honor. See 3:55) [According to Shabbir Ahmet's translation]] (Nisa 4:157f.)

(a) ʻand, verily, those who hold conflicting views thereonʼ are, according to the context, Jews who put forward a Talmudic version of Jesus' dismissal from the earth. They do not appear to contradict each other, but rather jointly defend their criticism of Jesus' claim to be the Messiah. However, based on our previous explanations, we know that their views differed fundamentally from those of the Christians. Since no alternative view to the Christian view has been presented in the context so far, the above statement can therefore most naturally be understood as follows: 'those people who hold the Talmudic version and thus have contradictory views to the version in the Gospel ...'. There is no need at all to introduce the

theory of substitution in order to understand this statement.

In support of such a view we observe furthermore that the Qur'an exposes the weaknesses of the Talmudic version - such as are not found in the Gospel:

(b) They ‘are indeed confused, having no [real] knowledge thereof, and following mere conjecture ...’ : Yunus 10:35-36 contrasts the conjectures that are provided by idols with the truth revealed by God.23 It is difficult to understand the term 'conjecture' in the context of Allah's realizing his plan, as assumed in the substitution theory. How could Allah actively reveal conjectures - as the theory of substitution assumes - but hide the truth? Our reading provides a better understanding: Compared to the Gospel, the Talmudic rebuttal is full of untenable assertions that cannot claim historical accuracy, but merely have the purpose of a theological

rebuttal to the Gospel claim that Jesus is the Messiah. They are not devinely revealed but simply consist of obvious human distortions. The following Talmudic claims that contradict the Gospel can be categorised ʻconjectureʼ and ʻno (real) knowledgeʼ (the correction according to the Gospel is given in brackets):

+ ʻJesus was found guilty according to God's lawʼ (no, Jesus is absolutely innocent and was unjustly condemned);

+ ʻThe Jews stoned Jesusʼ (no, Jesus was not stoned);

+ ʻThe Jews crucified Jesusʼ (no, the Romans crucified Jesus);

+ ʻJesus has certainly been killed, which means he is still dead and will burn in hell for eternityʼ (no, God raised Jesus from the dead and exalted him);

+ ʻThe disciples stole Jesus' body from the tomb to fake his resurrectionʼ (see Matthew 28:11-13) (no, God raised him from the dead);

+ ʻJesus is not the Messiahʼ because of the manner of death and because he was not resurrected (no, he certainly is the Messiah because he was raised and exalted by God; even when dying he fulfilled God's plan);

+ ʻJesus has no meaning for us because he is a liar, a blasphemer and condemned by God.(no, he died as an innocent man and God did not leave him in the realm of death, but exalted him to himself, which is why every believer in the Scriptures must accept Jesus as the Messiah before his death, otherwise Jesus will bear witness against this person in the Last Judgement).

Because of all these, according to the Gospel, false assumptions, the Jews are confused about the subject of Jesus' Messiahship and come to the wrong conclusions. Again it makes more sense to understand the above statement as a rejection of the Talmudic account than to harmonise it with the theory of substitution.

(c) c) The expression ʻFor, of a certainty, they did not slay him [better: they slew him not for certain (Muhammad Pickthall ]ʼ could also mean ʻthey were not able to refute him / it in a rational senseʼ24. From the above discussion such an understanding makes perfect sense: the Jews could not refute Jesus' messianicity with rational arguments. Jesus' death - even on the cross - does not allow the conclusion that he cannot be the Messiah. It is known from the Gospel that Jesus while still visible on this earth conveyed the exacte opposite view to his disciples: the painful death on the cross is explicitly one of the Messiah's God-ordained duties, as is his subsequent resurrection on the third day and exaltation to God (e.g. Matthew 16:21; 17:22-23; 20:17-19; Luke 24:44-47): ʻHe said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."' (Luke 24:44-47).

The meaning of the expression ʻFor, of a certainty, they did not slay him:ʼ as proposed here (i.e. 'they could not refute rationally') also makes perfect sense in the further development of the argument: verse 158 begins with the word ʻon the contraryʼ25, thus directly contradicting the previous statement: ʻthe Jews could not rationally refute his messiahship with the Talmudic version of Jesus' extramarital conception and shameful death on a cross; on the contrary, Allah confirmed him as Messiah with his exaltation to Himselfʼ.

Even if the expression ʻthey certainly did not kill him [better: they slew him not for certain (Muhammad Pickthall ]ʼ were understood not in a figurative sense (ʻcould not rationally refuteʼ) but in a direct sense (not for certain killed), it would be difficult to reconcile with the substitution theory: 'ʻthey slew him not for certainʼ has been interpreted as: They did not kill him with certainty, and it is certain that they did not kill him [substitution theory]. The more correct meaning, however, is: ʻIt is not certain that they killed him; it is merely based on doubt.ʼʼ26 Thanks to this expression certain Muslim interpreters come to the conclusion that the Jews did not confuse persons (substitution), but historical events: that is, they were no longer sure whether a crucifixion had really taken place or not.27 As already explained above, however, this interpretation must be rejected because of the logical consequences of such an uncertain historical account. The Jewish uncertainty regarding the killing of Jesus could, however, relate to the continuation of Jesus' existence after his physical death as described in the Gospel. By God raising him from the dead, the finality of Jesus' death was called into question. Although he had died, Jesus was no longer dead, but resurrected. Due to the disciples' (and later Christians') testimony to Jesus' resurrection, the Jews could no longer be absolutely sure whether Jesus' death was really definitive. Their claim that Jesus was finally dead and was now serving his eternal sentence as a blasphemer was, according to the Gospel, based on

nothing more than a lie (see Matthew 28:2-4 and 11-15). The uncertainty of the Jews thus seems to stem from the resurrection claims made by Christians.

A possible Jewish uncertainty about Jesus' death can be naturally explained by the Gospel account. This interpretation also makes good sense in context: the Jews are ʻnot sure that they killed him for good; their version is merely based on doubt. On the contrary, (the Christians claim is true,) Jesus did not remain in the tomb because God raised him to himself.'

iii) Verse 158: Finally, verse 158 also points to a confirmation of the version of Jesus' departure as depicted in the Gospel: ʻRather Allâh exalted him with all honour to His presence. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wiseʼ (Abdul Mannan Omar, Nisa 4:158).That this ʻexaltationʼ could be the resurrection and ascension of Jesus mentioned in the Gospel is supported by the following considerations: Jesus' transition into the second order of creation - i.e. resurrection - proves God's power over earthly death. According to Hicr 15:25, God's wisdom is revealed in the general resurrection of humanity: 'And certainly it is your Lord Who will gather them together; verily, He is All-Wise, All-Knowing' (Abdul Mannan Omar). Since the resurrection of all mankind began with Jesus (Lokman 28:31), the mention of God's wisdom in connection with Jesus' exaltation in verse 158 is a further indication that are not talking here about a mere change of place without resurrection (as advocated by the substitution theory), but rather about the resurrection and ascension of Jesus mentioned in the Gospel. The Jews' plans were foiled by God's power of resurrection and His

wise plan to bring Jesus back to Himself as the progenitor of the second creation (Al-i Imran 3:54).

We note that a purely historical response to the Jewish claim - ʻWe killed the Messiahʼ - would completely overlook the moral and theological level of the statement contained in the claim and thus completely miss the true intention of this Jewish slogan. According to the above discussion, the Qur'anic answer ʻbut they killed him not, nor crucified him ...ʼ and '... they slew him not for certain.ʼ is more comprehensive if the above statements are understood as ʻcounter-slogansʼ encompassing all levels of the Jewish challenge. The substitutionary explanation falls short on the moral and theological level. A refutation of the Talmudic account of Jesus' departure as presented by Christians does justice to this threefold claim and is also consistent with the Qur'anic version in Nisa 4:157-159: (i) Historically: according to the Gospel, Jesus was never stoned to death. The Romans killed him on the cross, not the Jews. The words that the Jews ‘did not kill him, nor did they crucify him’ correspond to a historical correction that would also have been uttered by Christians.

(ii) Moral: Christians believe that Jesus was unjustly condemned to death, but died the Roman death on the cross according to God's plan giving the impression as if he had been condemned by God. The moral accusation put forward by Jews - that Jesus was found guilty on the basis of divine law - must also be corrected by Christians. Jesus‘ death on the cross is not proof of Jesus’ moral guilt, but rather proves the failure of Jewish and Roman justice.28 A Christian correction could take the following form: They have no real historical ‘knowledge’ concerning Jesus' condemnation and are only following 'empty conjecture'. (iii) Theological: Jews believed that Jesus' claim to be the Messiah was definitively rejected by God himself due to the manner of his death. Through his death on the cross, God branded him as cursed by God. He could not be the Messiah loved and authorised by God. Christians fundamentally disagree with this. It initially appeared as if Jesus had been condemned by God when he died unjustly on the cross, and God did not intervene to save him (see Matthew 27:39-44 29). But with the subsequent resurrection, God did confirm him as the Messiah, and did so extremely clearly. The theological claim of the slogan is also vehemently rejected by Christians: ‘it only seemed to them (as if it had been) so’ that Jesus died cursed by God. But in reality, ‘Allah ... raised him to Himself (to heaven)' and thus confirmed him as the Messiah. ‘Allah is mighty and wise’. Because of the too obvious lie, which is supposed to deny Jesus' resurrection, Jews have doubts: ʻThey did not kill him for certainʼ. From a Christian point of view, the Jews could not prove with rational arguments that Jesus was not the Messiah.

As can be seen from the above discussion, the Qur'anic response to the Jews' claim to have killed Jesus (Talmudic version of recantation) fits well within the framework of a Christian defence of the Gospel account. It is completely unnecessary to invoke dubious hadises to explain the Qur'anic statements in Nisa 4:157-159. As I. Mevorach observes, one does more justice to the statements in verse 157 if one interprets them as a rejection of the Talmudic account than if one tries to read into them a rejection of the Gospel account.30

Conclusions:

This leads to the following conclusion on the topic of Jesus' departure from the earth: We have examined all Qur'anic verses on Jesus' recall from the earth and have not found a contradiction to - let alone a correction of - the Gospel account in any verse. Since Al-i Imran obviously confirms the Gospel account and Nisa 4:156- 159 can best be understood as a Christian correction of the Jewish counterversion, we can conclude that Jesus' departure from earth as reported in the Gospel is accepted by the Qur'an without any objections.

In addition, the above discussion has made it clear that an interpretation of Nisa 4:157 that is

based on substitution hadiths and at the same time neglects the Talmudic-Jewish context leads to a misinterpretation of the Quranic passages. It is this misinterpretation that contradicts the Gospel account, not the real message of the Qur'an. The Qur'an criticises and corrects the Talmudic version of Jesus' removal from the earth, but at the same time defends the version in the Gospel.

---

1 'Research has been unable to produce any ahādīth on the crucifixion of Jesus which go back to the Prophet (ḥadīth nabawī), or of that category termed ḥadīth qudsī, i.e. ḥadīth which transmit the direct speech of God. The oldest authority for any tradition on the subject is Ibn ‘Abbās. Aside from the tafsīr attributed to him, later exegetes cite him as an authority for traditions about this verse.’ (Todd Lawson, Crucifixion, pp. 71f.). ‘For several reasons, the traditions associated with Ibn ‘Abbās are generally thought to be untrustworthy, at least as far as the ascription is concerned.' (Todd Lawson, Crucifixion, p. 78). ‘By far the most popular versions of the substitution legend are related on the authority of Wahb. He is the Yemeni scholar of the earliest times who is best known for his knowledge of Judaism and Christianity. Ground-breaking scholarship on him and his literary legacy was published by Professor Khoury of Heidelberg. Wahb is the source of many traditions dealing with other biblical subjects and in modern times much of his exegetical and biblical tradition has been anathematized as “Isrā’īliyyāt”, that is, faulty knowledge foreign to Islam. In light of this, it is somewhat ironic that the most influential traditons denying that Jesus was crucified are traced to his authority. As the author of several books on various subjects, Wahb acquired a reputation that varied from trustworthy to “audacious liar.”’ (Todd Lawson, Crucifixion, pp. 74f.).

2 See Blog 13.

3 ʻThe verb tawaffa … that appears here causes significant confusion among Muslim exegetes. Yet the Quran itself offers no cause for confusion. Tawaffa appears in twenty-five passages in the Quran, and twice in relation to Jesus (here [Q 5:117] and Q 3:55). For twenty-three of those passages the Muslim commentators generally follow the standard definition fo this term, namely God's act of separating the soul from the body, or making someone die. ... For the two verses where tawaffa is applied to Jesus, however, Muslim exegetes generally search for a secondary meaning of the term. Thus they reconcile these two verses with the doctrine of Jesus' escape from death.ʼ (Reynolds, Gabriel Said. 'The Muslim Jesus: Dead or Alive?' Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 72, no. 2 (2009): 237–58, pp. 239f.; http://www.jstor.org/stable/40379003 (visited: 22/07/2022)).

4 Süleyman Ateş: ‘Gerek Al-i İmran: 94/55’nci, gerek Maide: 110/117’nci ayetlerde İsa’nın bedeninin öldüğü, açıkça belirtilmiştir. Ama Hz. İsa’yı başkaları öldürmemiş, Allah onu eceliyle vefat ettirmiştir. ... Görülüyor ki ayetlere göre Hz. İsa’nın vefatı kesindir.’ According to Ateş, Jesus was rescued by God from the hands of the Jews, then fled to another country and died there of natural causes: ‘Demek ki âyetin dediği gibi Allah, Îsâ’ya ikram edip onu, düşmanlarının elinden kurtarmış ve Îsâ, gizlice başka bir ülkeye gidip normal hayatını yaşadıktan sonra vefat etmiş, vefatından sonra da ruhu, Allah katında yüce derecelere yükselmiştir. Bu görüş, âyetin ruhuna daha uygundur.’ (Süleyman Ateş, HZ. ÎSÂ’NIN YÜKSELTİLMESİ VE GÖKTEN İNECEĞİ SORUNU, https://www.suleyman-ates.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14&Itemid=36 (visited: 11/08/2022).

5 Luke 24:25-27 and 44-46 ‚… is not the first time Jesus has spoken about his death and resurrection as divine necessity (see Luke 9:22, 44; 18:31-33; etc.)‘ (Richard Carlson, ‚Commentary on Luke 24:36b-48‘, Working Preacher from Luther Seminary, 26 April 2009 in https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/third-sunday-of-easter-2/commentary-on-luke-2436-48-2 (visited: 01/12/2023)).

6 Maide 5:117 can be understood as a summary of the requests made by Jesus in the High Priestly Prayer in John 17:6-20 (in the following text, Maide 5:117 is printed in bold and inserted into the biblical text in [...]):

'I have revealed you[a] to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7 Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8 For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them [Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord'].. ... I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you [when Thou didst take me up]. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled [and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them].

13 “I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. 14 I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15 My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. … Sanctify them by the truth [when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things]; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified [Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord']. 20 My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message ...‘

7 The same words are also used for John the Baptist (Yahya) (Meryem 19:15: ‚So Peace (salaam) on him the day he was born, the day that he dies, and the day that he will be raised up to life (again)!’). We know of him, however, that he suffered a violent death (beheading by Herod's soldiers; see Mark 6:14-29)We know of him, however, that he suffered a violent death (beheading by Herod's soldiers; see Mark 6:14-29) (bakın: MAHMUT AYDIN, 'YAHYÂ', TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/yahya (02.03.2023)).

8 See Blog 15.

9 ʻThe 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.ʼ (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. 5).

10 ʻ… the denial of the killing of Jesus is a denial of the power of men to vanquish and destroy the divine Word, which is forever victorious. Hence the words, 'they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him,' go far deeper than the events of ephemeral human history, they penetrate the heart and conscience of human beings. The claim of humanity (here exemplified in the Jewish society of Christ's earthly existence) to have this power against God can only be an illusion ...ʼ (Ayoub, 'Toward an Islamic Christology, II,w p. 117, cited in Michael G. Fonner, JESUS' DEATH BY CRUCIFIXION IN THE QUR'ÄN: AN ISSUE FOR INTERPRETATION AND MUSLIM-CHRISTIAN RELATIONS, Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 29:3-4, Summer-Fall 1992 pp. 432-450, p. 445 in http://library.mibckerala.org/lms_frame/eBook/10.Miscellaneous/30%20CR.pdf (visited: 07/12/2022)).

11 2 Samuel 7:12ff.; Isaiah 11:1-10; etc.

12 See for example. Sayyid Qutb, Shadow of Quran, pp. 1058f..: ‘It means that the Jews who have denied Jesus and continued to deny his status, claiming to have killed and crucified him, will have this experience [before dying] which tells them that Jesus was truly a messenger from God and that his message was the truth. They will then believe in Jesus but it will be too late for their belief to be of any benefit to them. On the Day of Resurrection, Jesus will be a witness against them’ (ibid. 1059). Qutb does not succeed in convincingly explaining the nature of the experience which Jews are supposed to have and which is supposed to convince them of Jesus' true identity. Is it a direct revelation from God?, a visitation from an angel?, or is it a psychological phenomenon? Why does the conviction gained consist primarily of the realisation of Jesus' status, when the topic under discussion is the trustworthiness of Muhammad's revelation (Nisa 4:153)? Why should Allah be so concerned that the Jews realise Jesus' status before their demise, even though it will no longer benefit them for the Last Judgement? Fundamental questions that Qutb's commentary leaves unanswered and makes the verse a foreign body in the context.

13 A word that appears only once in the Koran.

14 'Die arabische Wendung shubbiha lahum gehört zu den „wohl dunkelsten und daher umstrittensten Worten des ganzen Koransʼ (Hanna and Heidi Josua, ʻNicht getötet, nicht gekreuzigt. Die Kreuzigung Jesu im Islamʼ, in Salzkorn 1; 2005 in https://www.ojc.de/salzkorn/2005/islam-christentum/kreuzigung-jesus-koran/ (02/12/2022)).

15 'Bu kelimenin asıl anlamı, nitelik açısından olan benzerliktir; renk, tat, adâlet ve zulüm gibi. شُبْهَة : İster somut, ister soyut olsun aralarındaki benzerlikten dolayı, iki şeyden birinin diğerinden ayırt edilememesidir.ʼ (Râgıb el-İsfehânî'nin el-Müfredât fî Garîbi'l Kur'ân eserinde; Ş-b-h - ش ب ه, in https://www.kuranmeali.com/Aciklama.php?id=749&islem=mufredat (visited: 30/11/2022))

16 See translation of the Koran by Abdel Theodor Khoury in https://quranunlocked.com/de.khoury/text/4/155

17 Hanna and Heidi Josua, ʻNicht getötet, nicht gekreuzigt. Die Kreuzigung Jesu im Islamʼ, in Salzkorn 1; 2005 in https://www.ojc.de/salzkorn/2005/islam-christentum/kreuzigung-jesus-koran/ (02/12/2022).

18 'It is absurd to assume that the expression indicates someone else who was made to look like Jesus and was crucified, for it clearly refers to someone or something that has already been mentioned in the verse, and here only the act (killing/crucifing) and Jesus are mentioned. And it is equally absurd to argue that Jesus was made to look like someone else.ʼ (S.A. Mourad ‘Does the Quran deny or assert Jesus’s crucifixion and death?’ in New Perspectives on the Qur'an - The Qur'an in its Historical Context 2 (edited by Gabriel Reynolds) 19. December 2011, pp.349-357, p. 153).

19 See Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-ghayb al-mushtahar bi al-tafsīr alkabīr, 38 vols. (Cairo: al-Maṭba‘a al-Bahīya, 1354-7/1935-8) XI: 99- 100 (cited in Todd Lawson, Crucifixion, p. 159). S.A. Mourad, Crucifixion, p. 353: The philosopher al-Razi (d. 606/1210), for example, in his exegesis of the Quran rejects the possibility that God could have made someone else look like Jesus.

20 ''shubbiha la-hum’ is not restircted to visual confusion. It can also be applied to something that, if accepted in its literal aspect as true or correct, leads one into confusion and error.’ (S.A. Mourad ‘Does the Quran deny or assert Jesus’s crucifixion and death?’ in New Perspectives on the Qur'an - The Qur'an in its Historical Context 2 (edited by Gabriel Reynolds) 19. December 2011, pp.349-357, p. 153).

21 Karl-Heinz Ohlig has already suggested a similar option: Nisa 4:157-159 ʻwill sagen, dass Jesus nicht wirklich und endgültig getötet wurde, weil er – wie die Auferstehung zeigt – in Wirklichkeit ja lebt und von Gott erhöht wurde; er ist also gar nicht richtig tot, das scheint der Sinn dieser Aussage zu sein. Dann würde die empirische Tatsache des Getötetwerdens „lediglich' theologisch „aufgehoben' und so zu einer Scheinwirklichkeit, eben weil er ja erhöht wurde und lebt.ʼ (Karl-Heinz Ohlig, Die Diskussion um das Kreuz - Reflexionen zur Debatte um den Kulturpreis des Landes Hessen in: imprimatur 42, 2009, 233-237 (ISSN 0946 3178) in http://inarah.de/bereits-veroeffentlichte-artikel/die-diskussion-um-das-kreuz/ (visited: 04/01/2023)).

22 See Todd Lawson, Crucifixion, ss.71ff. as cited in footnote 1.

23 'Say: "Of your 'partners' is there any that can give any guidance towards truth?" Say: "It is Allah Who gives guidance towards truth, is then He Who gives guidance to truth more worthy to be followed, or he who finds not guidance (himself) unless he is guided? what then is the matter with you? How judge ye? But most of them follow nothing but fancy: truly fancy can be of no avail against truth. Verily Allah is well aware of all that they do.' 24 ‘قَتَلْتُ كَذَا عِلْمًا : Falan şeyi ilim açısından öldürdüm/onu kesin bildim. 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; K-t-l - ق ت ل  in https://www.kuranmeali.com/Aciklama.php?id=1157&islem=mufredat (visited: 10/12/2022)). 25 "بَلْ (on the contrary), in which the latter negates the former in the same 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)).

26 ‘’Onu yakînen öldürmediler” âyetine; onlar, onu kesinlikle öldürmediler, onu öldürmedikleri kesindir, şeklinde mânâ verilmiştir. Fakat siyaka daha uygun mânânın: “Onu öldürmeleri kesin değildir; sadece şekke dayanır.” şeklinde olduğu kanısındayız.’ (Süleyman Ateş, HZ. ÎSÂ’NIN YÜKSELTİLMESİ VE GÖKTEN İNECEĞİ SORUNU, https://www.suleyman-ates.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14&Itemid=36 (visited, 11/08/2022)). Râgıb el-İsfehânî explains in his el-Müfredât fî Garîbi'l Kur'ân work: 'Yüce Allah’ın: وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينًا Onu kesin olarak öldürmediler (4/Nisâ 157) sözünde geçen يَقِينًا kelimesi, onu kesin bildikleri bir şekilde öldürmediler; aksine, tahmine ve kuruntuya dayalı olarak öldürdüklerine karar verdiler, demektir' (article 'Y-k-n - ي ق ن' https://www.kuranmeali.com/Aciklama.php?id=1634&islem=mufredat&kok=%D9%8A%20%D9%82%20%D9%86).

27 See for example Süleyman Ateş, HZ. ÎSÂ’NIN YÜKSELTİLMESİ VE GÖKTEN İNECEĞİ SORUNU, https://www.suleyman-ates.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14&Itemid=36 (visited, 11/08/2022).

28 'Darüber hinaus wird die Frage diskutiert, inwiefern die in den Evangelien zugrunde gelegte Prozessführung mit jüdischem Recht vereinbar war … . Mögliche Widersprüche werden etwa darin gesehen, dass die Verhandlung Jesu in der Nacht, an einem Feiertag und im Haus des Hohenpriesters stattfand (Mk 14,12.54), was alles nach dem späteren Recht der Mischna nicht zulässig war. Allerdings ist ungewiss, welche dieser Regelungen bereits zur Zeit Jesu in Kraft waren.‘ (Heike Omerzu, ‚Prozess Jesu‘ in Wissenschaftliches Bibellexikon erstellt: Mai 2011 in https://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/ressourcen/wibilex/neues-testament/prozess-jesu (visited: 01/12/2023 ).

29 39 Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads 40 and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!” 41 In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. 42 “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! He’s the king of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” 44 In the same way the rebels who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him. 30 ʻIf we interpret the Qur’an as totally denying Jesus’ crucifixion, we make this passage less clear and turn it into an unintentional attack on Christianityʼ (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. 13).