Channel: Jamal Badawi
Series: Jamal Badawi - Jesus
© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.
Sure we have our 50 programming Jesus, beloved messenger of Allah and our 17th on sin atonement Amba sacrifice inshallah, we will continue with the crucifixion.
I'm your host beside the nation here once again from St. Mary's University is Dr. De Macedo.
For the benefit of our viewers like we usually like to do have a summary of last week's code. Okay, last week was the eighth section dealing with the analysis of the study of crucifixion. And we use the chart in which we explained the seven basic differences in the events of crucifixion, preparation for crucifixion, who carried the cross, what was given to Jesus before crucifixion? What was the reaction of the two robbers who were crucified with him? What was the physiology of the crime on the cross? What, how did the inscription on the cross read,
and also the events relating to the things that happened immediately after the crucifixion,
we also discussed some of the problems that are related to that, which included the appearance of the engine to strengthen him. And we indicated Of course, God incarnate does not need strengthening from anyone.
And even then, if we were to interpret that strengthen, it means that the angel was assuring him that God will save him from from crucifixion, which would be a reasonable interpretation to. Secondly, we discussed the prayers attributed to Jesus in the moment of despair,
speaking that this cup will be taken away from him, which we saved according to the belief, introduced by poor this will be a negation of the basic mission of Jesus, and that is to die as ransom for mankind. The third issue was the running away of the disciples, who and as such, we lost the most important and authentic eyewitnesses were very close to Jesus. And most of the narration say that they were looking from a distance or at a distance.
And finally, we ended up with the discussion of the breaking of the legs
of Jesus, or, sorry, the two robbers crucified around Jesus. And we indicated that this is very curious type of order, which is described in john chapter 19, that Jesus was crucified in the middle, the two robbers were on either side of him. And then it says, They broke the lid of the first rubber, and then went on to the second Reverend then came again, to Jesus. And he said that that's very strange, because Jesus is right there in the middle, why skip him? or skip him? And come back? And he said that this does not seem to really click. And this raises a question actually, as some scholars believe that this part actually was a later addition
to the, to the story, I'm gonna have to you have to be asked to explain that order of the breaking of legs by going How would you explain that? What I think there's one of two alternatives, one of two possibilities, either that it did happen, or it didn't happen.
If it did, it did happen, it seems, then that it would be up to the author of the Gospel According to john to explain, I can't explain it for him. He described it but he didn't get any reason why the soldiers for that as change orders of breaking the legs. So it's up to him to explain it has been fixed, and I cannot take that trophy. But if we say that it probably did not happen, which I believe is the case, then
perhaps you must find convincing these must be able to supply reasons, which makes the study really
doubtful. In fact, so far, I'm not aware of any writer who particular best that point they may be that I didn't read for but I reflected on this issue, try to find out
what could be the possible reasons.
First of all, none of the Synoptic Gospels, the first reason of the Gospels
mentioned this is perfect.
Killer events. And obviously breaking the legs is something which can be easily or more easily visible from a distance, much more so than identification of the identity of the those who are put on the cross. Especially due to the fact that no mention is made not only in the three synoptic gospels, but more importantly in the oldest of them. That is the Gospel according to Mark.
Secondly, according to the same gospel word, that story is mentioned, because we are credited to john, more specifically, Chapter 19, verse 30, we are told that Jesus said, bear with his head first of all, and he said, It is finished and give up his spirit, that's quotation and give up his spirit. And then later on, it says that the soldiers started to break the legs. Now, if the soldiers were able to see Jesus bowing his head and saying this is all finished, and we're able to see him giving up the spirit, as verse 30 indicates, then, how come they just discovered that he was dying? When they came to break the legacy in verse 33, from the same chapter, it says, but when they came to
Jesus, and so that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. So please, the just like, we just discovered that that was not the case. We should have known that before. So it doesn't seem to be consistent. Surely, the story could have been more believable. For example, if the text in john said that the Jews demanded the breaking of the to the legs of the tour robbers, because they already saw Jesus giving up the spirit. So there was no need really, to break his leg, and that the soldiers broke the legs of the two robbers. And because they saw Jesus giving up the spirit, they did not break his leg if the story appeared like that.
Perhaps it might have appeared more relatable.
On the other hand, it says also that the jurors asked the pilots
to give the permission to break the legs of all three. Now, how much time did it take for the Jews to go from the site of crucifixion to Jerusalem, to arrange to meet with pilots who would not just be available very readily like any other government, and to take the permission, and then to go back to carry this instruction to the soldiers?
Unless we say that pilot was present at the moment of crucifixion, if pinit were present, at the time of crucifixion, is it reasonable that all gospel writers totally ignored his presence? There is no mention at all of that.
Another reason? First reason
is that the writer of the Gospel According to john seems to be conscious that some people may not accept his report, we seem to be worried about that. In verse 35, of the same chapters 19, he says, and because he who saw it has borne witness, his testimony is true. And he knows that he tells the truth, this is one of the most problematic
statements in the Bible.
Because most Bible scholars, as we mentioned before, believes that the writer of that gospel in all likelihood, is not one of the disciples of Jesus, not john, the son of zippity, who was one of the disciples, but that the writer of that particular verse seemed to be referring to another person. It says, He who saw
a witness, it did not say, for example, I
live by virtue of being a disciple of Jesus and I witness I saw it or simply say, I saw that happening, you say he who saw it? Why is he referring someone else? That's very curious. And if john actually was referring, or were referring to himself, as a witness, john the disciple,
why doesn't he say, for example, and I know I am setting that source. Why he says, and he knows he tells the truth. So why is this ambiguity in the expression that's quite a problem?
Another reason is that the writer of the Gospel According to john could not help.
But mentioned the reason for that incident.
He had a particular purpose in mind which he could not hide. You find him stating later
in verse 36, code for these things took place, that the scriptures might be fulfilled,
not a born of him shall be broken. In fact, what john here is referring to perhaps as we discussed in
A previous program on the prophecies about crucifixion in the New Testament, as believed by some is actually referring to the psalm of David some number 34, verse 20, which says that a born of Him will not be broken. And we have already indicated before that, in discussing these songs, in totality, in the context in which these verses appear, not a bone of him will be broken actually mean that he will be totally saved to the point that no bone even will be broken, not that you will be killed and stabbed in the side. But still his bones are not broken, because what difference does it make if you're dead, whether your bones are intact, or intact or not, it talks about salvation.
And this is more so more clear. When you examine best, Sam, as we did in a previous program, some number 64, the same person who said that his bones will not be broken, says that God has listened to my prayer, it talks about God says in him, it talks about the angels of God in camping around that righteous person. Well, that
all of these reasons, when we reflect upon them, seem to lead us to the conclusion that this, in fact was perhaps a later addition,
even though the other synoptic gospels didn't mention anything about that. So the only explanation possibly would be theological reasons. Regardless of historicity, as has been the case, in many other narrations in the gospels,
there was no examine the issue of resurrection. Now, how did this event
come to be known?
Well, it appears that the news about resurrection began to spread very slowly, among early Christians.
There is ample evidence, and we've come to that in the gospels that Peters, and the disciples denied that rejected it and suspected it when they heard it.
And above all, even after, according to the Gospels, they became sure that it did happen.
They never talked about that as the foundation of faith. And God's didn't take this notion of resurrection and prescription as the basis for
for salvation. In fact, one famous biblical scholar who mentioned his name before the show, as you can see, ai rd says that the first witness about resurrection
does not really come from the Gospels. In other words, it was written before that, in letters by Paul, in the Corinthians is finished with it to the Corinthians, in chapter 16, verses three and four, which is believed by biblical scholars to have been within about 10 years before the writing of the oldest of the Gospels, Mark.
And in that,
Paul even says that this is what he received.
Again, we stopped at the word received, what does it mean, received by way of information from other
disciples of Jesus or other eyewitnesses, or received by way of Revelation, as he claimed several times that he now is receiving direct Revelation, this is not very clear.
But in any case, the story of resurrection, like the story of crucifixion also does not really appear inconsistent in a consistent way in the, in the four Gospels. Now, maybe at this time, I'd like to go back to the chart that you prepared, in particular, to see how does police compare in the pour glass and things of the factual information? Exactly, and I think it'd be better if painted with the visual effect of the chart.
We have on the chart, six areas of comparison beginning with the box number 28.
And the first question is, who went to the top?
Now, according to Mark,
there were three people,
Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James,
and salon, or Salome, and he, they all gone through two or three of them. So the number here according to Mark is three, Chapter 16, verse one,
and the Gospel according to Matthew, there were only two Mary's It simply says Mary Magdalene, another and another, Mary or the other Mary. That's chapter 28. Verse one, okay. In the Gospel, according to do, several women went not three or two several of them.
It speaks about the two Mary's
And Jana and the other women also
who came with, with Jesus from Galilee. This reference is has to be put together, it appears in chapter 23, and Luke, verses 27 and 55 256. And also in chapter 24, verses 123 and verse 10. And if you put all these pieces together, it is obvious that there were several women who went.
In the Gospel According to john, only one person went to the tongue, and that is Mary, the magazine. That's chapter 20, verse one. So here again, we have a great variation in a very simple incidence as to who went or arrived at the, at the tongue. The only common denominator in all of those variant stories is Mary Magdalene,
of which are from which it is said that Jesus has driven seven demons. And that would leave us with that woman as the most important or fundamental source of all that has been said, about, about resurrection.
You've come up with a number of observations here on the resurrection. Are there any other before we? Yes, if we move, for example, two, to 2929. The question arises as to when did this women go?
In the Gospel according to Mark, it was after sunrise 16. According to Matthew, it was towards Dawn 28 one, according to Luke, it was at early dawn 24 verse one, according to john, it was while it was still dark, Chapter 20 verse one,
well, you might be able to reconcile in Matthew, Luke and john, it is about around dawn time, but mark is quite different. He specifically say that they went after sunrise. This, again, are factual things that should not really be different. In books number 13.
Speaking about the stone,
and how the stone was removed, that was blocking the graveyard or the tongue.
According to Mark, it says that they saw the stone rolling back.
According to Matthew, it series, an earthquake happened and an angel came down, rolled the stone and set upon it outside.
Chapter 28 verse two,
according to Luke, and john, both, they found that the stone was rolled away or taken away. 24 two and lo and 20, verse one in john, again, things doesn't seem to match in a very simple description like that, in books 31. Another question is, who was this? What did the woman See?
in the trunk or outside? Well, according to Mark, it says that they saw a young man sitting inside the young man in a white robe.
According to Matthew, it was an angel sitting outside doing it too. according to Luke, it was two men who stood behind them.
24 verses four and five. According to john, there is no mention of anyone be excited when the disciples came. But it says that when Mary stays, there's continued to cry. Then she saw two angels.
One as the head where Jesus was buried, and the other at
his feet. And then when she turned around, she found Jesus standing but did not recognize him. Again, the story is quite obvious, whether it's one young man, one engine, two men, two engines, there's, you know, pieces of information that doesn't seem to match really, in books 32.
The question is, what where's the instruction given to the, to the woman or the woman who came to see?
Well, according to Mark,
it simply said that Jesus is going to meet you. Chapter 16, verses six and seven. It's similar story is giving an se i think it's reconcilable that Jesus is going to meet you. That's in chapter 28, verses five to seven.
But Luke, however, gives us a different version. It doesn't say that the angels asked the women to do any particular thing they simply the engine reminded them only Why are you seeking for the living among the dead
You should remember what he told you and all that. But they didn't simply give any instruction.
JOHN, on the other hand, doesn't say much about that, in the box 33.
Whether this instructions were carried out or not, we find again variations.
In the Gospel according to Mark, it indicate that they said nothing to anyone. He didn't say anything. They didn't carry out the instruction given by whoever told them. Angels are individuals. That's chapter 16, verses eight, verse eight.
According to Matthew, they told the disciples that he mentioned other than the disciples 28 verse eight.
And the gospel according to do, they thought, the 11 and all the rest of the disciples plus
and the Gospel According to john, they thought Peters, and the disciple who was loved by Jesus, preferably, perhaps, john, the son exhibiting in the case of Lucas chapter 24, verse nine, in the case of john chapter 22, a biblical scholars, George cairde.
Notice also that according to Luke, and the Gospel according to Luke, the appearance of Jesus took place in Jerusalem, and its surrounding and according to Mark, it took place in Galilee. So like the events of crucifixion also, we find that the narratives pertaining to resurrection are quite different. That's a big discrepancy. It is a big discrepancy, one cannot simply say that somebody was describing parts of the events and the other is describing the other part.
The story seems to be really to be trustful, of a very doubtful authenticity.
Are there any other observations that maybe you'd like to tell us about the resurrection? There are a few for example, according to another biblical scholars Denis nine, when he said that it is very difficult really to have any certitude about the reason why these women visited the town where Jesus was supposedly supposed to be buried.
Some of the Gospels say that they went to anoint him. And nine ham indicates that many commentators agree with one theory, that the reason for this reason is, is very, very improbable. There are a number of observations here. First of all, according to Mark, the body of Jesus was not anointed at all, after his death on the cross.
However, according to john chapter 19, verse 14, it says that Joseph or Artemisia, and Nicodemus took the body of Jesus after crucifixion. And it says, according to the customs of the Jews, they bound it in linen cloth with spices.
The question is, is this if Mary Magdalene, or Mary Magdalene and the other women went to anoint Jesus on Sunday morning, or Sunday early? The question here is this was this really a custom of the Jews to anoint the body after it has already been buried? For one one day and two nights? Definitely not the best of our knowledge? I don't know of any people who do that. The second question is that a body which has already been there,
for one day and two nights, would be expected scientifically to begin to decay? And the smell, of course, would not be very pleasant. Did Mary the magazine expect to do the anointing of the body which has already begun, supposedly to be decomposed?
And if we were to take the the version of the Gospel According to john, how would you expect expect a lonely woman, Mary Magdalene, I don't because he didn't say other women went just say, Mary Magdalene alone, simply a woman, to go to the tongue in the darkness once the dark in order to unearth a dead body.
And if we accept the version of Matthew, who alone mentioned this
notion that there were guards already guarding the grave of Jesus and that this the rock was already sealed, so there will be no way of tampering with it. Which by the way, is john symptom believe that we're all edition of the unworking of Matthew. But even if we take that virgin, had, how did Mary Magdalene or others for that message expect to gain any access to the grave in order to anoint Jesus knowing that the soldiers are standing guard there and that the rock is sealed? Okay.
That is, of course on the assumption that they knew
Exactly where Jesus was placed, and there was no problem or error whatsoever in identifying where he was buried. No one that we find some biblical scholars like Frank Morrison, in his book, who moved the stone, comment on this variation of the of the story about the women visiting the tongue. And he said that this matter seemed to have been forgotten in the early days, because the disciples and the followers of Christ were busy with more difficult and more important problems. But as soon as things became to sit down and listen, the story appeared again and was incorporated or added to the teachings of the church, and then began to spread in the churches of Asia and Europe. And out of
those a variety of versions that spread in various churches, it appears that Matthew and Luke
based their narrations,
how about the reports of the psyche of Jesus, after the resurrection? Okay, let's just go back again to what biblical scholars have said about the order of writing the Gospels. And we mentioned that in a previous program that the oldest of the Gospels, according to them, is the Gospel according to Mark, which was actually the basis for the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Now, it is interesting to notice that the report about citing Jesus after resurrection, which appeared in some of the older manuscripts of the gospel, according to Mark is believed by some biblical scholars, not to be of the work of Mark but rather some edition that was introduced later on after this gospel was written. In
fact, they say that this addition probably took place about the year 180, which means about 120 years after Mark was supposed to have written his gospel. For that season. If you check the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, you'll notice that
chapter 16, verses nine through 20, has been already dropped from the body of the of the chapter just relegated to a footnote,
biblical scholars very famous one, Dennis Langham series, in fact that the Revised Standard Version of the Bible was quite correct in considering Matthew 19, on chapter 13, verses nine to 22, consider it unauthentic and relegated to a footnote. And he bases that also on the opinion given by the famous Catholic scholar like Ranch, in which he says that the disk particular section 9020
is not of the work of Mark. There are a number of reasons given one the best and most authentic copies of the Gospel according to Mark. And with chapter 16, verse eight, there is nothing verses 19 to 20, is not there, which speaks about the appearance of Jesus peace be upon him. Second reason is that even some of the other manuscripts that does not end at verse eight, like the best coffee is
the Gospels, which even give a different conclusion. To that chapter 16 still agrees with the best coffees in dropping verses nine through 20. In other words, they might have different kinds of conclusion, but nothing to do with the, with the Jesus being cited by others. A third reason is that many of the very famous scholars of the fourth century, like Jerome, have clearly stated that this verses nine through 20, is not, or was not in his time, in existence in the best Greek manuscripts available to them, or known to them. And it was not quoted except once or twice and everything that was written that say outside the Gospels, until the year 325.
The fourth reason is an analytical reason. The biblical scholar has noted that the style of this
section, verses nine to 20, is quite different from the style of the rest of the gospel, that the vocabulary used in that particular section
is more like the vocabulary of the second century rather than nearly the middle of the first century at the time when, when Mark wrote his his gospel, no wonder if we find a biblical scholar like john senton, NT Rn, says that the appearance of Jesus to people according to Matthew, is of the addition of Matthew and that's even the gospel that speaks about
reciting of Jesus are quite questionable. We have no time to explore why. Perhaps we can get to that. Maybe Thank you very much. And thank you all for joining us here once again and as always, your comments and your questions will be appreciated from all of us.