Sections > Qur’an

Influence of the Gnostics on crucifixion in the Qur’an

Some Muslims have suggested that the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was not recorded in early Christian records. The main source for Islam’s denial of crucifixions comes from a Qur’an verse:

“And for boasting, “We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” But they neither killed nor crucified him—it was only made to appear so. Even those who argue for this crucifixion are in doubt. They have no knowledge whatsoever—only making assumptions. They certainly did not kill him.” (Qur’an 4:157)

Evaluation is necessary if the denial of the crucifixion of Jesus in Qur'an 4:157 is original or can be traced to sources of the Gnostics in the time of Muhammad.

Gnosticism

The word Gnostic is derived from the Greek word γνωστικός, which means "to have knowledge." Gnosticism is the bringing together of spiritual concepts and religious structures in society within Jewish and Christian sects. The adherents of Gnosticism claim that there is a personal knowledge that is superior to the teachings and practices of the Church. It means that for Gnostics, salvation has nothing to do with Jesus' death or resurrection, but depends on knowledge and understanding of the hidden meaning of Jesus' teachings as written in one of their documents: “And he said: He who shall find the interpretation of these words shall not taste of death.” [1] Gnosticism had an important influence on Christianity in the second century. It proclaimed docetism, which means that Jesus only appeared in the form of a human being, in fact he was God all the time without a body. This means that Jesus did not actually suffer on the cross and there can be no resurrection, because Jesus as God and without a body cannot die:

“He appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, and wrought miracles. Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them.” [2] 

Gnosticism thus has the effect that Jesus cannot save people through his sacrifice on the cross, but Jesus is only the way to self-salvation. Archaeological research has discovered a Nag Hammadi library containing Gnostic documents from the 4th century in Egypt. Nag Hammadi manuscripts of the non-biblical gospel of Thomas reveal that there was a difference from the biblical gospel about the position and role of a woman:

“Simon Peter said to him: "Let Mary go out from our midst, for women are not worthy of life!" Jesus said, "See, I will draw her so as to make her male so that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who has become male will enter the Kingdom of heaven." [3]

Gnosis cults believed that a woman must become a man in order to attain eternal life in paradise. According to them, the role of mother and the care of children are second-class people. This is contrary to the teachings of Jesus in the Biblical gospel. There are more conflicts with the Bible, including a low esteem for the prophets:

“Moses was a laughingstock, a ‘faithful servant,’ being named ‘the friend,’; they bore witness of him in iniquity since in fact he never knew Me. Neither he nor those before him, from Adam to Moses and John the Baptist, none of them knew me,” . [4]

Gnostic view about crucifixion of Jesus

Basilides was a member of the Gnosis sect. He launched a proposal that Simon of Cyrene be executed instead of Jesus:

“He did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them. For since he was an incorporeal power, and the Nous (mind) of the unborn father, he transfigured himself as he pleased, and thus ascended to him who had sent him, deriding them, inasmuch as he could not be laid hold of, and was invisible to all,” [5]

The hypothesis of a near death and replacement of Jesus by another man is against all Biblical accounts and secular historical research. The Nag Hammadi documents contain many references to the self-proclaimed "superior" knowledge of Gnosticism, as a result of which they call others ignorant:

“I visited a bodily dwelling. I cast out the one who was in it first, and I went in. And the whole multitude of the archons became troubled. And all the matter of the archons, as well as all the begotten powers of the earth, were shaken when it saw the likeness of the Image, since it was mixed. And I am the one who was in it, not resembling him who was in it first. For he was an earthly man, but I, I am from above the heavens. I did not refuse them even to become a Christ, but I did not reveal myself to them in the love which was coming forth from me. I revealed that I am a stranger to the regions below. There was a great disturbance in the whole earthly area, with confusion and flight, as well as (in) the plan of the archons. And some were persuaded, when they saw the wonders which were being accomplished by me.” [6]

“Another, their father, was the one who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. Another was the one who lifted up the cross on his shoulder, who was Simon. Another was the one on whom they put the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the riches of the archons and the offspring of their error and their conceit, and I was laughing at their ignorance,” [7]

Muhammad's arguments against the crucifixion of Jesus

Support to be the last prophet

Muhammed's goal was to proclaim him the last prophet after Jesus. When Jesus was promoted with a living sacrifice for mankind with his death on the cross and resurrection, there would be no need for a prophet after Jesus. After Muhammad discovered that Gnosticism had a substitute for the crucifixion of Jesus, there was still a need for a final prophet. This was realized with the suggestion that Jesus did not actually die on the cross, but it appeared that Jesus had died on the cross.

Muhammad's problems with the Jews

Muhammad's endorsement of the Gnostic ideas about the crucifixion of Jesus was influenced by his negative reaction to the Jews. It contradicts both the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures and the apostles of the New Testament. He downplayed Jesus' position as Savior through his sacrifice on the cross and used the Gnostic Jesus as a substitute for the Biblical Jesus along with the view that the Jews were his enemies.[8] The Gnostic sects thought that Jews had no knowledge and they had a low opinion of Jews. The God of Israel in the Hebrew Scriptures is also classified as a second level being.

Possible Gnostic manuscripts adapted by Muhammad

In the time of Muhammad, the Gnostics proclaimed their teachings about an alternative to crucifixion in the Bible. This alternative was not tolerated and banned within the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire. In the area now called Saudi Arabia, the Gnostics were not limited in their teachings on crucifixion. [9] Therefore, the Judeo-Christian communities on the borders of the Roman Empire had a lot of heresy, because of contacts with Gnostic sects. [10] Saudi Arabia was part of that area during the time of Muhammad. History found evidence of Arab converts to Gnosticism since the second century. Muhammad was a salesman who traveled from Mecca to Syria. He passed through areas of Gnostic sects, where they told their stories in marketplaces. Another possibility is that Muhammad learned about the substitution of Jesus' crucifixion during his contact with Egyptians. [11] Muhammad could also have read Gnostic manuscripts. Muhammad therefore knew concepts of Gnosis sects, as they were available in his time and area. Accusing the Jews of having no knowledge and following only uncertain assumptions has been adapted from Gnosticism by Muhammad:

“And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.” (Qur’an 4:157)

One of the Gnostic manuscripts in Muhammad’s time was the Acts of John with a description of a not crucified Jesus:

“This, then, is the cross that has united all things by the Word, and marked off the transient and inferior, and then compacted all into one. But this is not the cross of wood which you will see when you go down here, neither am I he who is upon the cross,” [12]

“Therefore I have suffered none of the things which they will say of me”, “You hear that I have suffered, yet I have suffered not,” and “(they say) that I was pierced, but I was not wounded; that I was hanged, but I was not hanged; that blood flowed from me, yet it did not flow; and, in a word, those things that they say of me I did not endure.” [13]

However, it is also a Gnostic assumption in the apocryphal Acts of John that the historical Jesus died on the cross of wood, but that the apostle John had a revelation of a cross of light. This corresponds to Good Friday as celebrated by Christians. [14] Therefore Muhammad took from Gnosticism what suited him best, not the total concept of gnosis, because that has a central role for Jesus Christ. Reference has been made to Jewish Christians of a Gnostic sect, such as the Elkesaites who according to historical research are the Sabians as described in the Qur'an. [15] It is therefore possible that Gnostic ideas are the source for Qur’an 4:157 about a substitute statement of Jesus by another man. Gnosticism teaches that Jesus never had a body, but was only a spirit being. Therefore, the Gnostic concept of Jesus does not have the power like the Biblical Jesus to die as a perfect sacrifice for the sins of mankind. In the Qur'an we cannot find a divine Jesus in a direct way as in Gnosticism. However, the Qur’an copied the Gnostic view that Jesus did not die on the cross.

Result of Gnostic influence in the Qur’an

The result was that the view of the Gnostic sects about the crucifixion of Jesus has been added in the Qur’an:

“And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah ‘Îsâ (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allâh," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it appeared so to them [the resemblance of ‘Îsâ (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man)], and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. ‘Îsâ (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) عليهما السلام]:” (Qur’an 4:157-158 - Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din al-Hilali & Muhammad Muhsin Khan).

Many Muslim commentators conclude from Qur’an 19:33 that Jesus died in a natural way.

Conclusion

Qur’an 4:156 denies the crucifixion Jesus. It is likely that it is not an original concept, but can be traced to the Gnostic sect, a heresy in Christianity. When we compare the statements of the Gnostic sect with the doctrines of Islam, there are common elements. Muhammad used the arguments of Gnostic heresies about crucifixion to support his ideas. However, both Gnostic heresies and Islamic alternatives have been refuted by both Christian faith and secular historical research. That the denial of the crucifixion of Jesus in the Qur’an can be traced to earlier Gnostic sect manuscripts downplays the Qur’an as an original religious book. It confirms that the content has been taken from already existent resources. One may ask, why there is so much confusion about the crucifixion of Jesus? First Gnosticism and then their copied alternative for Jesus’ crucifixion in the Qur’an. The answer is spiritual. Jesus said: “But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” (Matthew 7:14).

Notes

  1. Gospel of Thomas, Saying 1.
  2. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 24, 4.
  3. Mark M Mattison, The Gospel of Thomas: A Public Domain Translation, Coptic text of Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2, Saying 114, 2015.
  4. Roger A. Bullard, Joseph A. Gibbons (tr.), The Second Treatise of Great Seth, The Nag Hammadi Library, Gnosis.Org.
  5. Irenaus of Lyons, Against the Heresies, Book I, Chapter Section 24, 40, in: James A. Kelhoffer, Conceptions of "Gospel" and Legitimacy in Early Christianity. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. Vol. 324. Tübingen, 2014, p. 80.
  6. Roger A. Bullard, Joseph A. Gibbons (tr.), The Second Treatise of Great Seth, The Nag Hammadi Library, Gnosis.Org.
  7. Ibid.
  8. Ibid.
  9. Denise Masson, Le Coran et la révélation judéo-chrétienne. Paris, 1958, 330–331.
  10. Hans Küng, Islam, Past, Present & Future, Oxford, 2009, 38.
  11. Gannon Murphy (ed), American Theological Inquiry, Volume Seven, Issue One: A Biannual Journal of Theology, Culture, and History, Volume 7, No 1, Minneapolis, 2014, 49.
  12. Bart Ehrman, Lost Scriptures, Acts of John, Chapter 99, 2003.
  13. Ibid.
  14. Henry Corbin, Cyclical Times and Ismaili Gnosis, 101-102.
  15. C. Buck, Exegetical Identification of the Sabi’un, Muslim World 73, 182, 95-106.