Q. 4:157*

Next up on my list is James R. White, What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur'an (2013). I probably got this used, somewhere in Longmont.

I am struck by p. 140f. where White claims that Q. 4:157 is nowhere in the Hadith. White observes other points in the Hadith where the Muslims tracked down verses - or "prophetical logia" if you like - that they just arbitrarily stuck in sura 33 or at the end of sura 9. Anyway sura 33 is sura 4 fan fiction as I've documented here and there, and White notes where the Muslims altered the end of sura 4 itself, so - why not v. 157 too.

I cannot rule this out of hand. I do not find where other suwar cite or spin off of Q. 4:157. Sura 4 overall is early so the qurrâ had much opportunity; also, plenty of suwar mention crucifixion either as David's righteous punishment (sura 5) or as Pharaonic sadism (7, 20, 26). Where we can affix a date to something, the Dome of the Rock's inner arcade (which quotes sura 4's conclusion) assumes that Jesus died like Muhammad died. Sura 19 will expand this to John "Yahya".

It is of interest that legal specialists didn't draw in Q. 4:157 as they quibbled endlessly over other legal means for a Muslim judge to execute a sinner. By fire or by stoning or indeed by the cross.

Mustafa Akyol notes Islamic arguments around Jesus' crucifixion but his mufassir is Razi / Arrhazes, who is late. One could also bring in Baydawi, tr. Helmut Gätje pp. 128-9. He's late too.

John of Damascus is not late. John witnesses to the vv. 157-8 doctrine: And he says that the Jews wanted to crucify Him in violation of the law, and that they seized His shadow and crucified this. But the Christ Himself was not crucified, he says, nor did He die, for God out of His love for Him took Him to Himself into heaven. Odd thing here is that John doesn't pin this to a "book" as he will for other Islamic doctrines - just on what the Prophet "said". And it's not quite the wording of Q. 4:157; which (as Akyol notes) doesn't deny the Crucifixion, denying only that the Jews did it [UPDATE 5/23: And what's up with the shadow?]. Although John and our sura agree that Jesus did not die.

Also early is the Leo / Umar correspondence, which Arthur Jeffery translated from Levond (p. 314), that "you say" no one could put Him to death. Jeffery by capitalising "Him" deemed "doubtless" that this refers to our verse-pair. Although, more-central Islamic doctrines could be adduced here, starting with some ancient slogan that "God lives eternally" (cf. "al-Hayy al-Qayyûm/âm"). We might not even need to capitalise "Him" if we're talking Divine 'iṣma for God's Apostles.

I do find a parallel to the doctrine that Jesus did not die on the Cross. It is in Gordon Newby's reconstruction of Ibn Ishaq's mubtada, Yathrib's answer to the Bible; p. 219. A convert from Christianity told Ibn Ishaq that one Sergius, the Thirteenth Disciple, volunteered to take Jesus' place. Someone else told him that Judas Ischariot was that man.

Note: the Qâric verse is not brought here, pace Newby; these traditions are attached to the verse, by the mufassirûn. More, Wahb bin Munabbih had it that Jesus was "resurrected" which I'm guessing is some b-`-th derivative. That assumes Jesus did in fact die.

It may be that the west-Syrian tradition insisted on Jesus' return, as we find in the apocalyptic tradition. This is what has informed John and Ibn Ishaq. [5/23] The Iraqis at least from Hishâm's caliphate onward are probably just using our sura 4.