[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

Page 4 of 23
 Page 5 of 23

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."

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:

Page 5 of 23
 Page 6 of 23

"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
; 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,

Page 7 of 23
 Page 8 of 23

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.

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.

Page 8 of 23
 Page 9 of 23

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
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 .

Page 9 of 23
 Page 10 of 23

5] The sketchiness in the Mara Bars 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.

What if there is some truth:=

It is possible that Mara is writing about the Leader of Zealots during the last stages of Jewish-
Roman 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.

Page 10 of 23
 Page 11 of 23

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

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 wordsJust 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 Maras 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 prefect-
ship 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 theRomanHistorianhadnoknowledgeofeventsof

Ieosusapartfromwhathe 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) A Historical book A1 says : A did an Act B.

2) A Historical book A2says : A did not do Act B.
3) A Historical Book A3 says: A did an Act V
4) 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.1.89, 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 Talmuds 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 . This does shew that on mathematical grounds the
probability of Talmudic Iesous to be Essenic Teacher is 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

Page 19 of 23
 Page 20 of 23

the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after
his laws.

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 Maras knowledge becomes not reliable.

So this text is not consistence with Maras 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 ones belief regardless of his interest in the historical accuracy of the
event ascribed to a historical or unhistorical person,

QURANIC TEACHINGS MISUNDERSTOOD.

Although the principle historians do not prove that Iesous was Crucified or even impaled, it is incorrect
that Qura:n refuteth them in a sense that History is refuted. Qura: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.

Page 20 of 23
 Page 21 of 23

The most accepted interpretation is that they impaled an other person confusing him by Iesous.

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 Qura:n as Divine Revelation do not beleave in what Qura: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 Qura: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 Qura:n which cannot be confirmed by
intellect or Non Religious sources.

The problem with Anti Islamic Objection makers is that they declare Qura: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 Quranic 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