[TYPE THE COMPANY NAME]
IMPALEMENT ,HISTORIANS AND MUSLIM PERSPECTIVE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS HUSAM
A DISCUSSION ON THE CLAIM OF IMPALEMENT OF IESOUS
Page 2 of 23
Crucifixion or Impalement and Historians : Muslim Response How do Muslims respond to the fact that other than in the Quran, which was written nearly 600 years after the death of Jesus, nearly every other historical source about him affirms his crucifixion? STUDY OF THE CASE
There are three types of so called evidences of alleged Crucifixion or impalement /Impaleing of Iesous.
1] NT Books. NT is not a single book but a collection of different books or booklets or epistles by different authors. We may call it Christian NT
2] Apocrypha of New Testament. Apocryphal works in regard to Iesous and His teachings. But they are given no historical weight neither by Christian scholars nor by secular historical scolars. There existence and non existence are equal in this regard.
3] Secular Historical Books. There are almost n works in this regard often used to prove the historicity of Iesous. 1] Testamoniun Flavianum by Iosephus [Originally pronounced as Yocephus and often pronounced as Jozefuz,J as a consonantal Dephthong] (37CE-100CE). Page 2 of 23
Page 3 of 23 2] Book Of Pliny Younger (62CE-113CE) 3] Annals by Tacitus (56CE-120CE) 4] Caicus Suitonius (70CE -130CE) 5] Annihilated Book of Thalus () 6) Monarch Harian (117CE-138CE) 7) Lucian Of Samosata (170 CE time of writing) 8) Mara Bar Serapian (Letter written in 70CE) There are some Talmud and Mishna works which are about Iesous. But Talmud is not accepted by Christians . So why to argue from a book which are rejected by Christians. These works are often use to prove Historicity of Iesous Kristos. Some time used to prove the act of crucifixion as well which is an event in the life of Iesous if it really occurred. Discussion on the nature of claims and evidences. In the matter of History the existence of a historical character is one type of thing and the occurrence of an event of a historical character is an other type of thing. Each require of different type of proof. For example the existence of German Dictator Hitler is one thing and different events ascribed to this Dictator is an other type of thing. For example scholars still differ whether he committed suicide or he escaped some where, but no one differ on the Historical Existence of Hitler. An other Example. Scholars may differ on certain events ascribed to Alexander the Great yet no one differ on the historical existence of Alexander. This is a basic difference. In general the existence of Iesous is one thing and Crucifixion or impaling of Iesous is an other thing. So the books which report his Historical Existence are only reliable as for as his historicity is concern but in regard to different events ascribed to a historical character it they are less reliable. The reason is that the Historical Existence is conveyed to Historians with certainty and certitude but the Events are conveyed to them either by Probability or by improbability. This is the actual difference. Many books may be used to prove the historical existence of a Person who so ever he may be but cannot be used in the case of proof of an event. Where one examines the source of Information in regard to their respective authors as well.
Page 3 of 23
Page 4 of 23 In Islamic Criticism there are two types of Historical Reports: 1]Mutva:tir Report 2] ‘Ah:a:d Report. Mutva:tir [Consecutive] means a report which is certain and cannot be contradicted by any one. For example a man living in New Delhi who has never been in United Kingdom Of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland does know with certainty that London exists. He cannot deny the very existence of London. Since the report is certain. Similarly a man in Ne Delhi after 1947CE cannot denied that India was a British Colony during 1858CE and 1947CE. The reports are certain. But one may differ on certain events which occurred in during the British Dominion of Indian Subcontinent during this period if the reports are not certain. Re metioning the Islamic point of view in modern terms we may say: There are three levels of Probable reports. 1] AL Most Certain 2] Most Probabale 3] Just Probable. All of them are probable can be denied It must be nother that Neither “Almost Certain” is Certain nor “Most Probable is Certain” . They are included in Uncertainties with varying degrees of Uncertainty. Similarly there are three types of improbabilities. 1] Almost Impossible 2] Most Probably Impossible 3] Just improbabale. Although these are the standards of Traditions of ‘Ah:a:di:th: but can be safely applied to Traditions of History. Majority of ‘Ahlussunnah apply these principles to the Books of Muslim Historians and even to the books of Biographies of Holy Prophet himself. These principles can be used with some modifications to general history where one categorizes different reports of a historical book. A number of book stating the general existence of a person jointlydo prove the existence with almost certainty that he existed. But the very same books cannot prove the events in regard to the very same person. Since there is an essential difference between the existence of a person and the events in regard to the person. Now we come to different issues in regard to the alleged crucifixion or even to the act of impailing. Some of the authors and their works are discussed below
Josephas says :[ Iosephus] "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works-a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." Page 4 of 23
Page 5 of 23 The Complete Works of Josephus , Translated by William Whiston, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Mich
This is the first passage which may be used as an evidence of Crucifixion . Note that Iosephus is not the eye witness of the act. He is reporting the one the just the belief about Iesous probably after 60 years. So this part not an eye witness account. It is just like you are reporting an account about Gandhi of India or Jinnah of Pakistan . There historical existences are certain yet the accound of respective events may be disputable. To dispute an event does not imply to dispute the historical existence . But there are likely some interpolations in the Text. It is not conserved with certainty. So if Iuphesus did write some thing about Iesous there are probable interpolations by Christian sects whether Heretic according to present Christianity or not. An argument in support of this is that Iusephus was not a Christian but a Jew. So he cannot write against the Jewish view of Iesous. If he was indeed a Jew and he was indeed a Jew then he must have written some thing analogous to those passages of Talmu:d which many Christians claim refer to Iesous. Even if it is granted some probability of originality then the act of Crucifixion of impaling is just a Probability. So it cannot be used to prove the disputed event with any historical certainty. To prove a Certainty with a Probability is incorrect and a fallacy. As a basic principle unless and otherwise the entire book does exists , it is not correct to argue just from a quotation of a single person. Even if Iusephus is writing about Iesous then he is writing by accepting Christian Traditions Of Evangelion which were conveyed to him independent of New Testamental Gospels. But what is the Credibility of these Traditions? But let it be granted that Iusephus is writing Christian Traditions which pre exist Gospels, even then it is very unlikely that Iusephus being a Jew was ACCEPTING the traditions instead of Jewish view about Iesous. As it may be the case that some sentences were added by some one else and even if it is improbable for the sake of an argument it is historically possible that such a manipulation was done. So this passage cannot be used. A version in “Arabic of Testamonium says:
"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive Page 5 of 23
Page 6 of 23
; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders. " [Pines, Shlomo. An Arabic Version of the Testamonium Flavianum and its Implications, Jerusalem Academic Press, 1971.] This version of Testamonium is probably correct. But still there are issues. 1] Jews did no believe in Messiah-hood of Iesous. They were certain that he was not their Promised Messiah. If Iosephus was Jew then he cannot write:=
“He was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders�. So this sentence is probably an interpolation. 2] Iusephus is not writing the event of Cricifixion but he is writing that Pontious Pilate issued the degree of his execution by impaling or by crucifixion. He does not report the event of cricifxion. He does not say whether he was crucified or impaled or both. He is just narrating the order of the Roman Prefect. The Roman Prefect might have issued a degree of his crucifixion or impaling but was his order executed or not, the passage is silent. 3] The passage reports the saying of some followers of Iesous. In more strict sentence : Iesephus is reporting a report of some followers of Iesous. A secondary report. 4] It is argued that:
It is very unlikely that a Christian in the second or third century would describe Jesus as "perhaps the Messiah." Since Christians believed that Iesous, is Messiah with Certainty. So this sentence cannot be a Christian Interpolation. But Jews could not did not and believe in Messiah-hood of Iesous. So Iosephus cannot write this sentence as well. Iosephus was one of those Jews who faced the Might of Roman Empire for sake of Judaism. His sincerity for Judaism is beyond all shadow of doubt. Therefore, it is very unlikely that a person would describe Iesous using this equivocal term. Even if it is supposed that he had some sympathies with Iesous , he could not and would not doubt that Iesous was not the Promised Messiah of Judaism. During the period Iosuphus was in Galilee Iosephus had very little information on what WAS OCCURRING on in Ierusalem. His description of events there is sketchy, with some confusion of chronology and apparent duplication of stories (such as the two accounts of the election of a new high priest by the rebels). His accounts of Jerusalem in the period of 67-69 CE are not nearly as detailed as those of Galilee under his own command. The sketchiness continues until the arrival there of his foe John of Gischala. So if Iosephus had little knowledge of events in Ierusalem is is very likely that his knowledge about Iesous must also be very little and besed on some oral traditions, and not based on Reliable sources. So he cannot be trusted much in the events ascribed to Iesous.
Page 6 of 23
Page 7 of 23
The Non Existing Book Of Thallus. The book of Thallus does not exist. So it is impossible to accept this book which does not exist, and has ceased to exist since ages. Only some quotations of this book are found. Iulius Africanus a Chrisrtian Scholar alleged to quote some thing in support of Crucifixion. But to say some thing just due to a quotation from a Christian Scholar cannot be a proof. Unless and other wise the book is studied and is criticized , no one can say what was written in the book, and is Iulius quoting faithfully? Also is he quoting out of context? With out reading and studying the original book one cannot claim that it refers to the Crucifixion of Iesous.
Mara Bar-Serapion Mara Bar-Serapion was a Syrian by nationality and a stoic philosopher, A epistle is ascribed to him allegedly sent t ohis son from prison sometime after 70 C.E.
"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from their executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."
Critique of arguments from Mara Bar Serapion But the basic problem with the text is that it does not mension any Proper Noun of the Person Who so ever he be. Was it Iesous? New Testamental Gospels report that King of Jews was written on a plate over the Cross or Torture Stake what so ever it be. But Iesous was never called as Kings Of Jews by Jews. If Iesous was called so, he was called by Pontious Pilate . Or perhaps some Christians called him so. But Jews never called him as their kings, rather mainstream of Judaic Sects rejected Iesous as their Messiah, and they still do. So it is very unlikely that Mara Bar-Serapion would use the term wise king for a person who was never a Monarch in any Meaning. 1] He Judaism rejected him . 2] He was not a Monarch in earthy meaning and never ruled any country.
Page 7 of 23
Page 8 of 23 If Mara Bar Serapion is talking about Iesous , it is very likely that he would have used the Proper Noun “Iesous / Iesus” instead of a Title “Wise King” of Jews. Using New Testament to shew that Iesous was said to be “King Of Jews” cannot prove the case that Iesous was in the mind of Mara Bar Serapion. Arguments :=
1]The writer is not a Christian because he places Jesus on a par with Pythagoras and Socrates. A Christian cannot do so. 2] As the Author of the Epistle was not a Christian the he cannot be described as biased in his reference to Jesus and the church. Therefore, it is a valuable historical reference regarding the historicity of crucifixion of Jesus.
Analysis of above stated arguments. If the author was not a Christian then why he is writing Iesous as Wise King Of Jews. Jews did not accept him as their Promised Messiah. Jews did not accept Iesous as their Spiritual King. Iesous never ruled any Country or territory of Jews as a Monarch. So in what meaning this author is calling Iesous as Wise King of Jews. So it is very unlikely that he is referring to Iesous. Now the question is to whom he is referring to? But this is an other problem. Who so ever is being referred in the passage , he must be a some one else. So this argument is incorrect when these facts are considered. 1]The method of Killing the Wise King is not Stated. Was it crucifixion or some other method. It is not known. So to identify the method of killing by crucifixion is nothing but begging the question. 2] If Mara was neither Christian nor Jew then he is likely to be a neutral person. But in this case no neutral person can claim that Iesous was the Wise King of Jews. Since a) If Iesous is believed to be a King he is a King only in theology of Christianity and one who is not a Christian cannot say that Iesous is King. Paricularly when the Roman King was ruling all the territories of Jewish population. b) No historian who so ever he may be can say that Iesous was a Poletical and Non Theological King as we know. So he cannot write some thing according to Christian Theology and Believes and not according to Jewish Theology and Believes unless and other wise he was himself a Christian or he had unnecessary Christian Tendencies. If he was a Christian or he did have Christian Tendencies he could only then call Iesous a King or a Wise King of Jews. If this person was a Jew or he had Page 8 of 23
Page 9 of 23
Jewish Tendencies he must not have called Iesous as a Promised Messiah, king is more obsure to be said. Some Hidden Problems 1] If it is attempted to prove Iesous as the King of Jews with Secular Sources Only then this is not an independent proof. On the contrary “This requires an other evidence whether secular or non-secular [asecular] to prove that the Wise King was Iesous”. So it is neither a self contained nor a self sustained piece of Evidence.;Neither on Secular level nor on religious or Non Secular levels. 2] Although this appears to be a secular evidence yet it depends upon Non Secular Books of New Testaments in order to DEFINITIZE and DETERMINE the Wise King whose Proper Noun Is Not Given. The task is to prove that Iesous was the King Of Jews without any New Testamental Book what so ever. If tried then it shall be discussed. But with New Testamental Works the argument is Semi Secular and Hemi New Testamental. This is not a pure secular proof. Almost all those who present this passage as a Secular proof of the claim that Iesous was the Wise King use Books of New Testament . So in this case it ceases to be a Pure Secular proof. 3] There are some Historical Errors in the Epistle and this implies that the auther of Epistle Mara Bar was not writing Historical Events from proper sources with historical accuracy but just writing inaccurate infrormations received by him. In this case once again it depends upon some New Testamental Traditions which some how was conveyed to him and not from secular sources.So it is very controversial in its Secularity . The letter implies Pythagoras was killed by his countrymen. On the contrary "Pythagoras left the Island of Samos in 530 B. C.E and went to Croton in Southern Italy ,which was a Greek Domanion. He died in Metapontum, ( Metaponto in Italy).Mara Bar-Serapion's information about Athens and Samos is probably wrong.
4] Mara Bar did not took the Proper Noun Of Iesous. There may be more then one reason for his silence about the Proper Noun of the Wise King who so ever he may be, and who so ever he might be in the mind of th Mara Bar. But one of the irrefutable possibility is that he did not know the Proper Nown. Although this is a possible reason but this possibility is sufficient to prove that his informations may not be correct . 5] The sketchiness in the Mara Bar’s Epistle to his son is irrefutable .This implies that
there was sketchiness in the information of Mara Bar . It is further marred by his lack of objectivity, evidenced by his relentless hostility and acidic comments about the pro-war parties. Page 9 of 23
Page 10 of 23
What if there is some truth:= It is possible that Mara is writing about the Leader of Zealots during the last stages of JewishRoman Wars which continued for some period of time or about Ananias/Ananus in Ierusalem. The leader who so ever he may be was the chief executive and the powerful orderer and commander during the period in Masada . He might not be called a King but he had all the powers of small king. But the candidate to be appointed against the post of Wise King in the present article is presented as Ananus. During the Jewish War of Independence (66CE) Ananius/Ananus Ieraselum became independent of Roman Empire . Now Roman Monarch was not the king of Ierusalem . There was no Person who clained to be the Jewish King of all Jews either. There were leaders of Different Jewish Fractions. But Ierusalem was the Certer of Judaism and all Jews. Ananias/Ananus was almost the Chief Executive of Jerusalem/Ierusalem. Therefore he may be called a King due to his powers. He was killed by Idumaeans and the followers of Menahem in 68CE. Iosephus dates the downfall of the Jewish state to this day, when the Jews "beheld their High Priest, the Chief of their salvation, butchered in the heart of Ierusalem." So it may be the case that Mara Bar is referring to Ananas/Ananias.
Calling him as a Jewish King, not because he was known by the Term King among Jews but due to his Powers of a Chief Executive in Ierusalem. Since one who holds the powers of Chief Executive may be called as a King , if not in the Literal Meaning then in the Virtual Meaning. A more powerful meaning then a theological meaning of the word King of a Non Jewish religion. Some more candidates for the wise King may be found but with the possibility of each candidate , the argument of certainty for a single person ceased at best and become weaker and weaker at worst. Consider the sentence of Mara Bar. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that their Kingdom was abolished. If Iesous disappeared from the pages of History in 33CE, the fall of Holy City of Ierusalem is in
Page 10 of 23
Page 11 of 23
70 CE. The war of First Jewish Indipendence began in 66CE, thirty three years after the controversial event of Crucifixion. So it is not correct to say “Just After that” , since there is approximately 37 Solar years , between the disappearance of Iesous in 33 CE and the in the year 67CE . Mara on the contrary sis say the said words“Just After” in the his sentence in his epistle to his son. These two words “Just After” implies ,that there is a short period of time between the killing of Ananas/Ananias and the fall of Ierusalem. [It is reported that the Proper Noun of the father of Ananas/Ananias was also Ananas/Ananias. So he was Ananas Son Of Ananas or Ananias Son Of Ananias]. On the contrary it is possible that some teachings of Ananas would have continued to exist and to conveyed in Jews who followed him and did survived all the battles in the War of Independence 66CE , and continued to exist after the war was over. In this case it is probable that the teachings of this high priest would have been conveyed to different places from Ierusalem by his followers before the beginning of the War of 66 CE. Not some thing impossible for a person like Ananas. An other possible candidate is the Menahem Ben Iahuda . Although he was considered as a Sacarii , and the noble in the Holy City Of Jerusalem became his opponents but When he entered Ierusalem he was dressed as a king as if he was the King, quarreled with the High Priest Ananas stated above, and worshipped God in the Temple. One must be certain that Menahem Ben Iahuda considered himself not only worthy to be the sole ruler of Iesusalem but also the only leader of Ierusalem and even the whole Israel. He did escape from Ierusalem and was finally killed reached Ophla where he was killed. If he was not killed or slained he would have gathered power once again since his doctrine continued as Masada , the final place of Jewish resistance in the Firt War of Jewish Independence 66CE. If Mara was of the opinion of Ierusalem authorities who were against him then Ananas is a powerful candidate, if he had inclinations of Sicariis then this person Menahem is the candidate of of Mara’s Wise King. Perhaps he was considered as Wise by Mara , since downfall of Ierusalem did occurred after he was killed at a distant place Nounly [namely] Ophla. Generally Sicariis are considered as a fraction of Zealots but it is more likely to be an other fraction other than Zealots, but due to their relations with Zealots they are confused as a part of them.
Page 11 of 23
Page 12 of 23
Tacitus Cornelius Tacitus ( 52-55 C.E), was a senator in the Roman government under Emperor Vespasian. He was promoted to governor of Asia. Writing in the year 116 C.E., in his Annals, he wrote:-
"Therefore, to scotch the rumor (that Nero had burned Rome) Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue�. There are some problems in the given text. 1] It is assumed that Christus means Chirstos. It is just a spelling problem. 2] There is no mentioning of the method of killing. At least if Iesous was killed , the death by Impaling or Crucifixion or both is not stated. So one requires additional evidences for the definization of the act of crucifixion or impaling or both. 3] The person is writing in 116 CE after the Jewish War of Independence ended. So his source of information must be Christian Traditions and not reports of eye witnesses. 4] With the destruction of the Holy City of Ierusalem their could not have been any eye witness to the alleged event of crucifixion or even impaling. So it is historically very improbable to assume that he received a correct and an accurate information about the method of killing of Iesous if he was killed. 5] It is highly improbable rather historically impossible that all the reports of events during the prefectship of Pilate were saved in Ierusalem and some how Tacitus got access to them after the War. What so ever he is writing is eighty three years after the alleged act of impaling or crucifixion or both. 6] Was there a detail or brief account of acts of Pilate in Rome? Is there any evidence? 7] Tacitus is a reliable historian in general and generally tries to write things from reliable sources , yet he at times write things from unreliable sources say rumors ,as well.
Besides relaying on rumors as his sources which he could/ did not know falsehood with certainty, Tacitus reported a rumor or report that he knew was false.
Page 12 of 23
Page 13 of 23 So in this case he might have considered Christian Traditions about the founder of Christianity as reliable , without looking into the matter. But as after the destruction of Ierusalem there was no possible source available to him he must be compelled to write what he received from Oral Traditions which were conveyed to him.
How ever it must be noted that this passage is may not be trustworthy in particular yet it may be trustworthy in general and with some argument can be used as an evidence for the historicity of Iesous.
Can a Passage Be Used To Prove the Historicity of a Person even if some events ascribed to the person are not trustworthy. The passage under discussion can be used for the Historicity of Iesous even if the event of Crucifixion ascribed to Iesous stated in the passage cannot be used for its historicity. There are three Logically and Absolutely Contingent cases for any portion of a historical book. 1=] A real event is ascribed to a real person of past. 2] An Imaginary event is ascribed to a real person of the past. 3] An Imaginary event is ascribed to an imaginary person supposed to be in past. As this part of the book is in the second type it can be used for the Historicity of the person of Iesous and not for the event ascribed to him. As the proof of the second types of works there are many cases when an incorrect event is ascribed to a historically certain person. Ao it is not an empty set. Logically if a given portion of Tacitus belongs to the second category then the event ascribed to the person is imaginary and the person is real. In this case the passage or paragraph provides a proof of the historicity of existence Iesous but not for the proof of the occurrence of the event ascribed to Iesous. Tacitus does not mention his sources of information about the existence of Iesous and about the occurrence of the event of impaling or crucifixion. It is Not Impossible that the information of two things were conveyed by two or more different means. Page 13 of 23
Page 14 of 23
It is a very strong probability that the Roman Historian had no knowledge of events of Ieosus apart from what he had heard from his followers. But the Knowledge of the existence of Iesous must have been conveyed to him not only from Christians, but from Jews and Pagans alike. Secular scholars have made some objections on the passage to discard it as a proof of real existence of Iesous. But they neglect some points of importance. 1] Law of accumulation of similarly not strong evidences. If there are some evidences each with some weaknesses , even then together they becomes strong. Invigoration of Weak evidences. In this case together with all proofs of Iesous, the common point of them is his existence, so they become a very strong proof of His Existence. How ever this law is in the case of Existence of a Person but not in the case of events ascribed to the person. Since events require more strong evidences. If each evidence is improbable to be true, but all together the invigorate and become an evidence. This may not be accepted as a Mathematical Probability, but history is not Mathematics. We do not need Mathematical Or Logical Certainty in History, but Historical Certainty. For example:= 1) 2) 3) 4)
A Historical book A1 says : A did an Act B. A Historical book A2says : A did not do Act B. A Historical Book A3 says: A did an Act V A Historical Book A4 says : A was acted upon by an act K. These evens in regard to the Suppositum A may disagree but they do agree that A is a Historical Figure , hence one can /must argue for the Real Existence of the Person A in History. The same case is with Iesous. Different sources disagree upon different events ascribed to Iesous , even some time the Semi-Biographies of Iesous do disagree on certain issues but they all agree that Iesous has a Real Existence in past and he does not have an Imaginary Existence in past.
2] The period from the disappearance of Iesous and Tacitus is not so long that an Imaginary figure is invented and he accepts Iesous as a Real Person. In such a period it is a very great improbability that such an imaginary person can be invented. But the period is sufficient enough to invent some imaginary events for the Real Person. It is a common practice. It ios very wrong to neglect the difference between the Real Existence of a Person and Imaginary Occurrences of Events ascribed to the Real Existing Person. Page 14 of 23
Page 15 of 23
3] It is highly improbable that if Iesous did not have any Real Existence in History then Tacitus would have ascribed the Christians to an Imaginary person. But as for as the event of crucifixion or impalement or the act may be a central dogma of Christian Theology but it has nothing to do with the foundation of the religion of Iesous. Since it is implied that there was no founder of Christianity and Christianity was founded by itself with out a founder. It is obvious that Christianity was still a newly born religion and a new religion cannot come into existence out of itself without a founder . So this implies that Historical Reality of Iesous yet the event ascribed to him cannot be used to prove the Real Occurrence of the Event. Raither it can be used as a refutation . Since Christianity must exist during the life of Iesous before his disappearance , and to claim that Christianity became to exist after his Impalement or crucifixion but not before the said event is very problematic. 4] There is a difference between an argument to prove historicity of Iesous from the portion of book of history and the very text without the argument. Those who use this text for the Real Existence of Iesous and those who declare it for the imaginary Existence of Iesous miss the point that even in reliable books of history some not reliable reports come side by side of reliable reports. So things are equired to be discussed more critically. A NEGLECTED INVIGORATED EVIDENCE. We can even use the apocryphal works about Iesous that the do constitute a Valid Evidence for Iesous , even if many of them may contain many imaginary events in regard to the Person Of Iesous. Since in such a period of time it is historically impossible to invent such books about and around a single person who is imaginary and virtual. Such a thing is historically possible only and only if there is a person who is Real. This point is often not used even by those who belive in the Real Existence of Iesous.
Problem Of Censored Passages of Talmu:d Talmu:d is a Jewish book and Oral Traditional Part of Torah. But it is far more then that. In some of its passages there are apparent references to Iesous. But it is not certain. Infact such passages were so disliked by Christian Monarchs that they were censored. Jews were not allowed to publish those passages. Jewish scholars did argue that these passages were not about Iesous of Christianity. But they were not listened. Today the very same passages are used by some christian scholars to prove Iesous. Page 15 of 23
Page 16 of 23 This is a very strange part of religious history. Any how in one of the passage. "On (Sabbath eve and) the eve of Passover Jesus the Nazarene was hanged and a herald went forth before him forty days heralding, 'Jesus the Nazarene is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and instigated and seduced Israel to idolatry. Whoever knows anything in defense may come and state it.' But since they did not find anything in his defense they hanged him on (Sabbath eve and) the eve of Passover. Ulla said: Do you suppose that Jesus the Nazarene was one for whom a defense could be made? He was a mesit (someone who instigated Israel to idolatry), concerning whom the Merciful [God]says: Show him no compassion and do not shield him (Deut. 13:9). With Jesus the Nazarene it was different. For he was close to the government." But
This passage of Sanhedrin cannot be of Iesous , if the Gospels of New Testament are correct. Since this passage says: 1] Babylonian Sanhedrin 43a-b -"on the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus the Nazarene"
(Editions or MSs: Herzog 1, Karlsruhe 2) 2] Babylonian Sanhedrin 43a-b – "Jesus the Nazarene is going forth to be stoned" (Editions or MSs: Herzog 1, Firenze II.1.8–9, Karlsruhe 2) If they are about Iesous then they makes doubts in the crucifixion or impaling and instead of proving them. It does appear that Iesous was not impaled on any stake what so ever if these passages are about Iesous. Jeshu/Iesous was a Proper Noun commonly used. In some old copies of the Gospels Barrabas is also called Jesus Barrabas. This was taken out for obvious reasons but there is probably a deeper mystery there. Barrabas means Bar Abba or Son of Father. He is a Possible Candidate of the Tamudic Iesous. It is equally possible that these passages are about the Person whom Essence called Teacher Of Righteousness. A Phrase of (PP 37-IV) says ... the Wicked (Prie)st who la(id hands on the Priest, the Teacher of Righteousness,) to put him to death.... And God will not let (the Wicked Priest go) un(punished for the blood which) he has shed, but (God will) pay him his (re)ward by delivering him into the hands of the violent of the nations to execute (vengeance) upon him". (PP 37-IV)
Page 16 of 23
Page 17 of 23
"... the Wicked Priest who persecuted the Teacher of Righteousness, swallowing him up in the anger of his fury in his place of exile. But at the time of the feast of rest of the Day of Atonement he appeared before them to swallow them up and to cause them to stumble on the Day of Fasting, their Sabbath of rest". (PH-XI) The phrase "swallow up" in the next passage usually means, in Hebrew, to do away with, or to kill. The implication in this passage is that the Wicked Priest captures the Teacher on the Day of Atonement and eventually sees him killed. Some people do try to equate Iesous and the teacher of righteousness. But it is not only possible but probable that this person is the “Teacher of Righteousness”. As it is obvious that if Essence were heretic they must have viewed the orthodox Judaism as Some thing which has gone astray and their teacher as the reformer, while the Jewish scholars of Orthodoxy must have considered this person as a Heretic. The Man of Lies or the Wicked Priest may not be considered as Wicked or Liar at all. These may be considered as inter-sectarian terms used by rival sects for one another, and the leaders and the scholars of the rival sects. If this is the case or even it is possible any possible argument becomes invalid for the execution of Iesous by any method. Unfortunately the Essene were in a habit of not writing the proper nouns but using Pseudo Nouns as it is still practiced in some religious circles. The teacher of righteousness me be an unknown person and it may be the case that it is wrong to equate this person with any figure of known mainstream of Judaic History. The only objection is that Essene observed a different Calendar , and the other sects of Judaism observed an other Calendar. So it is not possible that Sabath in both cases did occur on same day. But this can be the case that hence may be the case that after the tragic execution of the Teacher of Essences , they adopted an other Calendar , since they did not want to observe Sabbath on the date of execution of their beloved teacher. An other possibility is that although the themselves observed an other calendar , but also recognize the popular Jewish Calendar and hence they are saying according to Normal Judaic Calendar and not in regard to the Calendar which they themselves used for Sabbath. To use a Calendar for religious purposes ,ceremonies and celebrations is one thing and to recognize an other calendar is an other thing. In fact it does appear that The Qumra:m community did not denounced the common calendar of Judaism but they did consider both of them as valid calendars. How ever they considered to observe Sabbath permitable according to any chosen Calendar. So they did chose the one which was not used in general for some reasons not necessary conserved in History. If so then the Text may be equally applied in perfect accordance to the Talmud’s report.
The Proper Noun Of The Teacher Of Essenes. The Essene community of Qumran developed the habit of using Pseudo Nouns given by them selves instead of using the Proper Nouns. Page 17 of 23
Page 18 of 23 What so ever was the reasons , it is beyond the scope of this work, yet it is Possible that the Proper Noun of the person who was called “Teacher Of Righteousness� was Iesous or Yasua or Yasu or Yesu . If so then the Qumran Texts and Talmud Texts can be brought in Hormony. How ever they both are from different perspectives, Talmud against the person and Qumran Works in support of the person. But the person is same in both cases. How ever he may not be a person who was reported in works like Iosephus , however the very same person is reported in Talmud. Perhaps the Teacher of Righteousness is not mentioned outside the Zadokite and Qumran literature and must be thought of as an otherwise unknown religious leader who had his following in or after the time of the Hasmonean dynasty. If, as is not unlikely, it is his voice that can be heard speaking in the first person in some of the Qumran *Thanksgiving Psalms , they throw further light on his devotion and struggles.
Assuning that Teacher Of Righteousness/Truth as a Known figure several theories are made about his alleged identification. Several persons are suggested identity and date, suggestions range from 1) Ezra 2) Nehemiah ( L. Rabinowitz, in JBL, 73 (1954), 11ff.) at one end, and 3) Menahem son of Judah the Galilean (or his kinsman and successor, 4) Kinsman and Successor of Eleazar b. Jair 5)Onias III 6) Onias the rain-maker and the circle drawer 7)Judah b. Jedidiah The mention of "the house of Absalom" in 1Qp Hab. 5:10ff. does not help much, because, even if "Absalom" be a real name of the period and not a figurative one, an "Absalom" can be produced from contemporary history to suit almost every suggested identification of the Teacher. 8) Iesous 9) James One may add Iesous of Talmud as the Essene Leader.
Page 18 of 23
Page 19 of 23
If there are more than one Possible Candidates then some of them may be more probable then others , but the possibility of each one of them make the certainty of any one of them to cease once for all eternities. A Pssibility is Possibility even if it is an improbability. In logical form either The Teacher Of Righteousnes is either unknown or known. The Probability whether it the Teacher is Known is 0.5 or Unknown is also 0.5. But the probability of each one of the known one is 1/18. Where if we consider Iesous of Talmud as an unknown person due to very little amount of Information available about him then the probability of this teacher to be Iesous of Talmud is 1/4 and not to be him is also Âź. This does shew that on mathematical grounds the probability of Talmudic Iesous to be Essenic Teacher is Âź which is for more great then the individual probabilities of known persons of Judaic History. If unknown then all of his informations are annihilated with passage of Time. If The Teacher of Righteousness of the Dead Sea Scrolls is mentioned in the Talmud, then he was stoned to death and hung on a tree in Lud /Lyddia. There is no impossibility neither mathematical impossibility nor logical impossibility nor historical impossibility that either the Essene Teacher or Talmudic or both were Nazarene or Nazareth or both.
Lucian Work "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day-the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account... You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the Gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property." Lucian, The Death of Pregrine 11-13.
The substance of the above is as follow:= The Christians ... worship a man to this day – the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.... [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.
Page 19 of 23
Page 20 of 23
Mara- Lucian Inconsistencies The substance of the above is as follow:= 1] Christians Worship a Man. This implies Jews do not worship this man. So this means that even Mara should know that Iesous was a King and a Messaih according to Christians and Neither a King Nor a Messiah according to Jews. Otherwise Mara’s knowledge becomes not reliable. So this text is not consistence with Mara’s Text if considered as according to some. 2] Distinguished Personage, implies that they were Distinguished from Jews. So if this is correct then why Mara is writing Iesous as a Wise King. Were Christians Not Distinguished From Jews according to Mara. This is an other evidence that if rendered like this Mara and Lucian do become inconsistent with each other.
Problem Of Law Iesous according to Pauline Christianity was the Law Abolisher , and not a Law Giver. Abolisher in the sense that after him many Laws of Torah/Taurah needed not tobe practices and still not practiced under the name of Completeness Of the Laws Of Torah. So if this person is referring correctly then Iesous did presented Laws . It is possible that he is making a satire of Christian belief about the Impaling or Crucifixion. He is not investigation or researching about the actual event which had once occurred. It is just like a person who is making an objection on some one’s belief regardless of his interest in the historical accuracy of the event ascribed to a historical or unhistorical person,
QUR’ANIC TEACHINGS MISUNDERSTOOD. Although the principle historians do not prove that Iesous was Crucified or even impaled, it is incorrect that Qur’a:n refuteth them in a sense that History is refuted. Qur’a:n claimeth that Iesous was neither Killed nor (even) impaled on S:ali:b [Cross/Torture Stake/Stake]. How ever It saith that it was a Miracle and those how tried to Kill him ( by Impaling or any other method were) became dubious. They were in doubt that they had killed him, or they assumed wrongly that they did kill him. There are several interpretations of the Quranic Sentence/Verse. The most accepted interpretation is that they impaled an other person confusing him by Iesous.
Page 20 of 23
Page 21 of 23 Others are that Omnipotent Deity Did Make them to see what they wanted to do, or a body was created which they attempted to Kill or Impale etc. But if they really took another person instead of Iesous even then the reports of historians about this event are not convincing. As for as Muslims are concern their belief on this event does not rely on historians but on Divine Revelations. So What did say is to be believed since He is Omniscient. How ever those who do not believe Qur’a:n as Divine Revelation do not beleave in what Qur’a:n saith. They consider it as false and untrue. But this is an implication of their disbelief. It is just like the case that if a person does not believe in Gospels as words of Deity he is not going to consider the accounts stated in them as true. There are some things in Holy Qur’a:n which are believed due to the believe in Divine Omnipotence, Divine Omniscience ,Divine Revelation, and they do not require any independent Non Religious source. Muslim scholars have made it clear that there are Pure Reports in Qur’a:n which cannot be confirmed by intellect or Non Religious sources. The problem with Anti Islamic Objection makers is that they declare Qur’a:nic Informations as Wrong or False or both just because they are neither confirmed nor verified by Non Religious sources. Muslim scholars have known this thing and do believe that Qura:n neither require Confirmation nor verification from Non Religious sources. Since Divine Revelation is an Independent Source Of Knowledge.
WHAT IF A MIRACLE DID OCCUR What is a Miracle. The laws of Physics , Biology, Nature are annihilated for some time either for one person or for more than one persons. If Iesous was made to ascend to heavens and some one was crucified or impaled instead of Him then this is a Miracle and Miracles are Absolute Possible [Absolutely Possible] since the Supreme Existent [Supreme Being] is Omnipotent and Omnipotence is one of His Absolute Attributes [Absolute in itself and Semi Relative]. So Divine Existent [Deity] Hath Potency /Power to save Iesous . If a Transfiguration did occur and some one became in his likeness or some other thing did occur, it must have been impossible for all reliable historians to observe the Miracle . Their writing and based on five human senses and not on the Miracle which requires some additive things. Secular Historians are likely to discard reports of Miracles of the persons they do not believe in. Similarly if they got some report they are not likely to write them in secular history.
Page 21 of 23
Page 22 of 23 Similarly the historians who are the followers of other religion are not likely to accept reports of Miracles and are likely to discard them . They are likely to accept those reports which are of normal acts instead of Super Normal , Hyper Normal , Para Normal Events AND Acts.
Can Divine Being Correct Historians. If the Supreme Being is Omnipotent and Omniscient , He Can Correct Historians if they had ever erred . So it is not Impossible that when Divine Supreme Being Willed he Corrected the errors of Historians by an independent source of Knowledge and Information known as Aspiration or Revelation. How ever Divine Supreme Existent Doeth not Contradict a true News/ Report/Tradition/Sentence ETC. SINCE this is to speak a false sentence. Now the Deity Of Tanakh and the Deity Of NT Who is believed to be Omnipotent , and Can Shew Miracle Cannot be so Impotent that He is believed unable to correct historians if they committed some errors and mistakes. So any one who believes in NT cannot claim that Supreme Being does not Have sufficient Power to correct the records of History of some Historians. How ever it is in the case if the Historians did write with Human Accuracy of what they saw or received from reliable sources with the human limitations, and limitations of reliability , but in the case when historians are not reporting from the desired reliable sources , things become more different. Even if the Omniscient Deity the Supreme Being informs of an Event that is not reported in any History , Supreme Being must be trusted since ceasing of Credibility Of Divine Revelation is Impossible .An Atheist or a person who believes in Deity yet denies either his Omniscience or His Omnipotence or Both can deny the ability of Supreme Being to correct historians, but a person who believes that Supreme Existent is Omnipotent and Omniscient cannot deny at least this possibility i.e possibility to correct historians in the case some of them did err. How ever the historical evidences are different and they can be corrected by Divine Essence Who is Omnipotent. There are some theological question about the Qur’anic information that Iesous was ascended alife with out being impaled, but these theological questions do not pertain with the above problem.
Note: There is a problem with the letter “J” in English. In Hebrew, Greek and Latin this sound is not found. J in Latin sound like Y when it begins a syllable. Other wise it sounds like I. But it is always written as I since it is the letter “I”. So I have tried to revert the original shape of the letter since in English it has a Sound of Consonantal Diphthong . We do not need this sound. Page 22 of 23
Page 23 of 23
Jerusalem in Greek is pronounced as Hierousalem, in Hebrew Hebrew Yerushalayim, In Arabic Yarushalam. In Latin it is Ierusalem. It is the correct way to revert to letter I instead of putting in the beginning. For the word Jew see late 12c., Giw, Jeu, "a Jew (ancient or modern), one of the Jewish race or religion," from Anglo-French iuw, Old French giu (Modern French Juif), from Latin Iudaeum (nominative Iudaeus), from Greek Ioudaios, from Aramaic (Semitic) jehudhai (Hebrew y'hudi) "a Jew," from Y'hudah "Judah," literally "celebrated," name of Jacob's fourth son and of the tribe descended from him. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=jew Anglo Frenh is Iew or Ieu , since w is a latter invention. In “Arabic Yahu:di: [Pl :Yahu:d] Judaism : c. 1400 (attested in Anglo-Latin from mid-13c.), from Old French Judaisme and directly from Late Latin Judaismus, from Greek Ioudaismos, from Ioudaios "Jew" (see Jew). http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=judaism
[NOTE : J MAY BE CHANGED BY I , SUGGESTION BY THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE] JESUS personal name of the Christian Savior, late 12c.; it is the Greek form of Joshua, used variously in translations of the Bible. From Late Latin Iesus (properly pronounced as three syllables), from Greek Iesous, which is an attempt to render into Greek the Aramaic (Semitic) proper name Jeshua (Hebrew Yeshua, Yoshua) "Jah is salvation." This was a common Jewish personal name during the Hellenizing period; it is the later form of Hebrew Yehoshua (see Joshua).
[NOTE : J MAY BE CHANGED BY I , SUGGESTION BY THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE]
Page 23 of 23