Appendix 3: Islam and the Resurrection of Jesus
Appendix 3
Islam and the Resurrection of Jesus
From the time of the church’s beginning, believers down through the centuries have offered many defenses of the central tenet of Christian apologetics: the historicity of Jesus’s resurrection from the dead. It is not surprising, therefore, to find knowledgeable Muslim efforts that attempt to counter this essential message, usually by offering more general responses to these Christian approaches.
In this essay I will address what are perhaps the two most common sorts of Muslim critiques of the resurrection. Perhaps most frequently, the rather immediate response is to point out many apparent contradictions, conundrums, inconsistencies, and copyist errors in both the New Testament records themselves as well as in the thousands of existing Greek manuscripts. These objections also address what Christians think is the best and most commonly utilized of the contemporary translations.
The second path taken habitually by Muslim apologists is to directly address the historical center of the Christian gospel claim, both that Jesus died by Roman crucifixion and that he was raised from the dead and appeared in a bodily manner just a short time later. Though we will attempt to keep these two responses separate, these paths often coalesce for Muslims into a very similar or even the same point. We will respond to each of these Muslim critiques, supplying responses and suggestions.
The Minimal Facts Argument for Jesus’s Resurrection
Though I will not be able to provide here anything beyond a very cursory description, I will be employing throughout what I have termed the minimal facts method of arguing for the resurrection of Jesus. I have elucidated, clarified, and explicated this methodology in much detail in literally dozens of readily available publications.
Briefly, I have explained that the minimal facts argument makes use of only those historical facts that have two characteristics:
Each event had to be established by more than adequate scholarly evidence, and usually by several critically-ascertained, independent lines of argumentation. Additionally, the vast majority of contemporary scholars in relevant fields had to acknowledge the historicity of the occurrence. Of the two criteria, I have always held that the first is by far the most crucial, especially since this initial requirement is the one that actually establishes the historicity of the event. Besides, the acclamation of scholarly opinion may be mistaken or it could change.
This core collection of historical facts might be viewed as a species of the lowest common denominator approach. It builds a historical wall from the bottom up, adding facts to the structure like bricks, one at a time. The data are rarely disputed even by unbelieving scholars and are willingly acknowledged by essentially all critical scholars in germane areas of study.
To avoid misunderstanding, the reliability and inspiration of Scripture are not at all being questioned here. For the record, I have also defended these latter positions on many occasions. Rather, this method simply points out that, since the historical data that are utilized in the minimal facts argument are conceded by critics, the historicity of Jesus’s resurrection should not be denied. It makes the point that even the skeptic’s notion of an unreliable New Testament still recognizes and allows the existence of abundant data by which the facticity of the gospel message is established and follows. This approach is especially helpful, for example, when briefer discussions are required.
Philosopher Angus Menuge sums up the matter well: “Habermas’s ‘minimal facts’ approach is not without its critics (some say it concedes too much to tendentious principles of biblical criticism), but it does explain why, over time, one skeptical alternative after another to the historical fact of the resurrection has been abandoned, leaving critics with shrinking cover to hide from Christ’s claim on their life.”
In short, this approach actually concedes no ground at all, and certainly does not treat the skeptic’s views as if they are in any way correct. It simply points out that even critical positions on the nature of the New Testament texts still do not preclude the establishment of the resurrection.
Contradictions and Discrepancies in the New Testament Accounts?
When responding to Christians, perhaps even the most popular tradition within Islamic apologetics is to discount the New Testament writings by pointing out what are considered to be highly corrupted textual copies as they were duplicated down through the ages. We are not referring so much here to the factual or other claims made by the individual authors themselves, but more commonly to the many acknowledged variant readings that have accumulated through the years during the copying process.
It has often been pointed out that the nature of this initial Muslim claim often sounds very odd indeed, especially to those who are acquainted with the actual particulars. Christians have acknowledged freely for over 200 years that there are many alternative readings in the New Testament. For example, Norman Geisler and William Nix in their standard textbook on this general subject, published by the conservative Moody Press, addressed this subject almost 50 years ago. These authors reported almost without comment that of the more than 5,000 Greek New Testament manuscripts that had been discovered up until that time, there were more than 200,000 variant readings in existence! The authors added the comment that “this figure will no doubt increase in the future as more manuscripts are discovered.”
Their prediction of course proved to be the case, as the number of newly discovered Greek manuscripts has grown to almost 6,000 with the number of variants being placed presently at some 200,000 to 300,000. Some scholars have estimated an even higher number.
The point to be made clearly here is not only that the Muslim charges are largely already acknowledged by Christian scholars, at least in principle, but further that these variant numbers do not trouble Christian scholars at all due to these same variations paradoxically being among the best indicators that allow the texts to be reconstructed to a high degree. This general textual accuracy is even recognized by non-Christian scholars like Bart Ehrman as well as other skeptical New Testament specialists.
But there are other aspects to these Muslim responses as well. The objections often indicate an almost complete misunderstanding of the subject altogether, even to an embarrassing degree, and in areas that have nothing to do with the truth of Christianity. One of the best examples of this tendency is manifest repeatedly in the writings of Ahmed Deedat, especially since he has more or less become the specific, influential pattern for other Muslim apologists.
For instance, in discussing what he terms “the extravagant and conflicting claims of the Jews and the Christians,” an initial example provided by Deedat is his self-incriminating charge that the New International Version “unceremoniously expunged” the “According to” as the title of each Gospel, which he apparently views as a problem indicating that Christians changed their texts almost on a whim! Yet he seems to be unaware that these words as well as each of the four authors’ names did not at all originally appear or circulate on any of the original Gospels! So how could it be any kind of a problem whatsoever? Who or what is this criticism aimed at?
Another instance of severe confusion is provided by Deedat when he states assuredly that “the Gospels, any Christian scholar will confirm, were first penned decades and centuries after Jesus.” Actually not a single Christian scholar, liberal or conservative, will date the initial writing of the Gospels to centuries after Jesus. There is an absolutely huge difference between the Gospels being written “decades” and “centuries” after Jesus! In factual terms, this is a totally mistaken statement. Could it possibly be the case that Deedat apparently thinks the 5,000 extant New Testament manuscripts represent “original” texts, as he actually calls them? He seems to miss that the later texts are only copies of the originals.
These examples are not the only embarrassing claims. In another book, Deedat charges the early church with choosing just the four Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—“out of over four thousand differing manuscripts the Christians boast about.” We are told that Christians chose these four Gospels because these volumes are the ones that supported “their prejudices.” Once again, like the problem above, Deedat is not only confusing the manuscript copies of these four texts but including copies of other New Testament books in his total as well, writings that are already found in the New Testament canon.
Finally, Deedat appears to think that new translations that differentiate from the King James Version are actually evidence of Christians continually corrupting the original writings. Here are a couple of Deedat’s charges that he thinks follow from this point: when different translations change words like “virgin” in Isa 7:14 to “young woman” and “begotten Son” in John 3:16 becomes “only Son,” these also betray textual corruptions! But as Norm Geisler and Abdul Saleeb point out, the Hebrew and Greek terms here have not changed one bit, so nothing has been corrupted. These are simply translational choices in English for these foreign words.
Blatant confusions like these only serve to indicate that Deedat is unaware of the Christian claims and nuances in the first place. Repeated charges that confuse original works with their own copies, and the same copies with new texts, are simply illegitimate critiques altogether.
There is also the claim that the authors of the original writings themselves or later Christians often contradicted themselves or each other, with several specific examples being given. Many substantial and detailed responses have been made to this charge on a case-by-case basis, though many volumes of material cannot be duplicated here. Examples throughout the New Testament are available, even specifically directed to the Gospel accounts of Jesus’s resurrection appearances.
We will limit ourselves to one specific example that is far from a straw man argument. It may be the single most-common question of all with regard to the Gospel resurrection narratives. Namely, how many women discovered the empty tomb on the initial resurrection morning—who were they?
In Matthew’s narrative, Mary Magdalene and another Mary made the walk to the tomb (Matt 28:1). Mark names two women named Mary and Salome (Mark 16:1). Luke also mentions two women named Mary and adds Joanna (Luke 24:10), while John names only Mary Magdalene (John 20:1).
Even leaving the list of names just like this by no means signifies the existence of a contradiction. Further, each Gospel contains additional caveats that clearly indicate that it was not the author’s intention to be exhaustive in naming each of the women in attendance. For instance, when Luke identifies the women, beyond the three names mentioned, he plainly states that there were “other women with them” but without naming any more (24:10). How much clearer could Luke be? Mark alone includes Salome along with the two named Mary, but while naming the same three women just several verses earlier during the burial account, he specifically states that there were several other women there as well (Mark 15:41).
Similarly, Matthew also names the women at the burial just a few verses earlier, and includes a third one, the unnamed mother of Zebedee’s sons, James and John (Matt 27:56). But by not providing a proper name for this additional woman, he likewise indicates that it was not his purpose to identify all of them, or this could easily have been done. True, John mentions only Mary Magdalene by name, but when she goes to tell the disciples in the very next verse, she states that “we” do not know where Jesus’s body was located (John 20:1–2). Why should she speak in the plural if she was the only one present?
That this may well be the most commonly raised objection in the Gospel burial and resurrection accounts is simply amazing. Each of the four writers either explicitly or implicitly acknowledges the presence of one or more additional, unnamed women. Combined with the normal rule of literary criticism not to blame an author for something that they never intended to do in the first place, there is no conflict between the lists of women from one Gospel account to the next.
Over the past century or so, there have also been many sophisticated responses from scholarly Muslim apologists. For example, Maulavi Sayid Amir Ali charges that Jesus never claimed to be a deity in any way. Rather, he was a great prophet whose story was changed by the Christian Gospel writers. Following our earlier point, he also contends that the crucifixion and resurrection accounts contain discrepancies.
Another scholar, Mauliv Muhammad Ali, indicts the Gospel records for exaggerating their reports, including particularly Jesus’s miracle claims, which he regards disdainfully as “clearly pure inventions or exaggerations made to compensate for the apparent failure” of Jesus’s message to change his contemporaries, in spite of the Quran’s recognition that Jesus performed miracles and was a prophet.
In a surprising admission, Salih-ud-din Khuda Bukhsh freely acknowledges a number of problems in the Quran, such as Islam being an eclectic religion that borrowed freely from other religious traditions, including Christianity, as well as reporting falsehoods. Nonetheless, Bukhsh still recounts Mohammed’s rejecting the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion, though still holding that Jesus was a prophet. He concludes his essay by calling for greater cooperation between Muslims and Christians.
Again, these challenges by Muslims or other scholars may be answered on a case-by-case basis, usually with surprisingly minimal effort. Still, it is at these points that the minimal facts argument is also very helpful, as it calls for using only those historical data that are freely recognized by critical scholars. Since these few facts admittedly meet the demands of historicity, the charges of discrepancies in disputed areas do not dislodge the force of the commonly held material. After all, if these well-grounded details are sufficient in themselves to establish the crucifixion and even the resurrection as historical events, then disagreements in other areas are simply beside the point of whether these events themselves occurred.
The Death and Resurrection of Jesus
Perhaps a fair place to begin here is to note that according to the teaching of the Quran and Islam as a whole, Jesus (or Isa) is a very important and lofty figure, one of the most exalted of the Muslim prophets. The Quran often lists Jesus among other well-known Jewish prophets (QS 2:136; 6:86; 42:13). Jesus is also referred to as having been born of a virgin (3:47; 19:20–21) and as being the Jewish Messiah (3:45; 4:171; 5:75; cf. 6:90). He was also sinless (19:19) and performed miracles during his ministry (3:49; 5:110). Of course, he is not believed to be the Son of God in any sense of deity (4:171; 5:72; 19:35) and Allah alone is God (3:62–64; 4:171; 5:116–18) rather than there being a trinity of beings (4:171; 5:72–73, 116).
When it comes to the crucifixion, Muslims generally agree that Jesus did not die by crucifixion. However, several different options are chosen by various commentators as to what may have happened instead of the Gospel depictions. For example, Maulavi Ali points out that the orthodox Muslim position is that Jesus was “saved by divine agency . . . that [Jesus] was translated to heaven.” In his volume Jesus in the Qur’an, well-known comparative religions expert Geoffrey Parrinder seems to agree here, pointing out, “Traditional Islam has thought that Jesus was rapt to heaven, in a fleshly body, though the Qur’an does not say so.”
According to Bukhsh, another popular view is one that he ascribes to Mohammed’s teaching that “Judas was substituted for Him and nailed to the cross, while the Christ himself ascended direct to heaven.” A recent English translation and commentary on the Quran at 4:157 comments, “It was Judas Iscariot, who sought to betray Jesus, who was arrested instead, and crucified instead of the Prophet Jesus, upon whom be peace.”
Deedat prefers to cite the Gospels except when he disagrees with them, so it is difficult to know precisely which option he holds. However, he is clear that, whatever happened, Jesus definitely did not die by crucifixion. Yet, Deedat seems to leave open the option as to whether Jesus was at least initially crucified without dying by this method of execution. He concludes his small book with the affirmation of the bottom line: he believes the Quran (4:157) that Jesus did not die by crucifixion, but it only appeared that way.
However, quite intriguingly, the very next verse in the Quran (4:158) states that Allah took Jesus up to himself. Similar teachings are affirmed elsewhere too. Allah caused Jesus to ascend to him (3:55). Jesus would die and be raised again (19:33–34). What do these intriguing texts indicate?
Parrinder cites Muslim scholar Baidāwi to point out that Muslim commentators have differed on the interpretation of these latter texts concerning Jesus ascending or being taken up to heaven. Some Muslims thought that Jesus was raised to heaven bodily, only to be sent back to earth seven days after this ascension in order to send out his disciples before being taken up to heaven again. Parrinder comments that the New Testament accounts of Jesus’s ascension seem to be in view here. But he notes further that regarding the idea that Jesus returned to earth seven days later in order to send out his disciples, as in the Gospels, “then the parallel is rather with the resurrection appearances of the Gospel.” Parrinder continues: “These are not mentioned in the Qur’ān, but they are not denied, and they agree with the common interpretation.”
Going further, Parrinder cites Muslim authorities Bukhāri and Baidāwi, who note another traditional Muslim interpretation that Jesus will return someday to restore God’s order in the world, citing texts concerning Jesus’s exaltation and eschatological significance such as 3:45; 4:159; and especially the intriguing text in 43:61. Incredibly, the English translation and commentary of the Quran mentioned earlier at 43:61 reads, “And (the second coming of Jesus shall be) a sign of the Hour.” A textual note there indicates, “There is indication to Jesus’s descension before the Day of Judgement.”
Parrinder is not alone in his hint that the Quranic teaching of Jesus’s lack of death by crucifixion, followed by his potential return to commission his disciples in ministry and his ascension, seem to parallel the New Testament accounts of Jesus’s appearances to his disciples after the crucifixion. After all, Jesus’s commissioning of these men came after his resurrection and before his ascension (as in Matt 28:18–20; Luke 24:46–51; and Acts 1:1–11).
Another Muslim specialist, Donald Rickards, contends that the meaning of QS 4:157 is not to deny Jesus’s death by crucifixion but to assert that such did not come from human hands. In the context of Allah’s sovereignty, the verse points out that Jesus did die by crucifixion but by Allah’s will rather than by human will. Further, Rickards points out that, in the Quran, Jesus (or Isa) predicted his own resurrection ahead of time (as in 19:33–34), with Allah confirming that Jesus’s resurrection would occur (3:55; 4:158–59; 5:117).
Granted, Rickard’s interpretation is not the normal angle on this particular Quranic text, but it is intriguing nonetheless. Moreover, texts such as QS 19:33 that do refer to Jesus’s death must also be explained. While the majority of commentators place his death in the end times after Jesus returns, the view that it happened at the crucifixion needs at least to be considered. Further, whatever is concluded regarding Jesus’s crucifixion, the issue of Jesus’s resurrection and ascension are also keys here, especially given the various options among even Muslim interpreters.
But it still must be noted that the Quran presents no strictly historical grounds for rejecting the Gospel’s teaching of Jesus’s crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. As many Muslim commentators usually report outright, their commitment to the position that Jesus did not die by crucifixion is almost always said to be their faith in their holy book. In other words, holding their position is not due to there being such good evidence against this Christian teaching. Rather, it is their faith in a book that determines their position, even though the book was written almost exactly 600 years after the crucifixion event itself. But unless one grants total commitment to their holy texts, what is there to oppose the vast amount of evidence that favors the crucifixion?
Speaking historically, a document from 600 years after the earliest reported data is not usually counted as a historical document. Strangely enough, even the popular Muslim commentator Deedat concedes exactly that! He states, “The Christian objects, ‘how can a man (Muhummed pbuh) a thousand miles away from the scene of a happening, and 600 years after the event, pronounce as to what transpired?’” Deedat’s surprising and incredible answer is, “The Christian plea is valid. Their logic is good.”
Instead, Deedat’s immediate response is to go to the Christian texts to attack them. This is an exceptionally common move on the part of Muslims. If one’s own text has no historical provenance whatsoever, then let’s question their texts! And right away, he opts to discuss contradictions in the Gospel texts, the very subject we addressed above.
But we have seen that this tactic fails for at least three reasons. (1) These claims of contradiction regarding the New Testament texts can all be answered anyway. Many scholarly volumes and thousands of pages have shown that this is the case in both general as well as specific cases.
(2) Claimed contradictions and other such problems virtually never disprove events anyway. Ask any police officer, lawyer, physician, or journalist if conflicting stories indicate that a particular accident, crime, disease, or football game never occurred. Highly trained professionals are experts at sorting out likely scenarios even in situations where the claims are far from unanimous.
(3) Finally, as pointed out above, using the minimal facts method bypasses this issue with claimed contradictions altogether because it utilizes only those facts which are exceptionally well established historically, to the point where virtually all critical scholars concede them. If they are sufficient to establish Jesus’s death and resurrection, then the basic case for these events is shown to be true.
Notes
Some of my publications on this argument include Gary R. Habermas, “The Minimal Facts Approach to the Resurrection of Jesus: The Role of Methodology as a Crucial Component in Establishing Historicity,” Southeastern Theological Review 3 (2012): 15–26; The Risen Jesus and Future Hope (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003), chap. 1; Habermas with Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004).
Habermas, “Minimal Facts Approach,” 16.
For an excellent example from a very recent dialogue, British New Testament specialist and self-described “agnostic unbeliever” James Crossley acknowledged the half dozen historical facts that I enumerated. Further, he freely commented that they were among the very strongest facts in the New Testament. See Gary Habermas and James Crossley, “Do the Minimal Facts Support the Resurrection?,” July 31, 2015, in Unbelievable, produced by Premier Christian Radio, podcast, http://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Do-the-minimal-facts-support-the-resurrection-Gary-Habermas-James-Crossley.
Such as Habermas, Risen Jesus, chap. 10; Gary R. Habermas, “Jesus and the Inspiration of Scripture,” Areopagus Journal 2, no. 1 (2002): 11–16; Habermas, “Recent Perspectives on the Reliability of the Scriptures,” Christian Research Journal 28 (2005): 22–31.
Angus Menuge, review of Debating Christian Theism, ed. J. P. Moreland, Chad Meister, and Khaldoun A. Sweis, Philosophia Christi 16 (2014): 451–56.
Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody, 1968), 360–67.
Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), esp. 442–50.
Ehrman, New Testament, 443, 447, 449. Cf. also Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 2:15–21; John A. T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 37–38, 41–42.
Ahmed Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction? (Jedda: Abul-Qasim, 1984), 6–7.
Deedat, 64 (emphasis added).
Deedat, 7.
Ahmed Deedat, Is the Bible God’s Word? (Chicago: Kazi, 1990), 24.
Deedat, 7–11.
Norman L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 301–2.
Deedat also argues this way (Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction?, 6–7, 16, 19–21, 39–40, cf. 76).
For both general as well as specific examples of these works, see Norman L. Geisler and Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook of Bible Difficulties (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1992); Gleason L. Archer Jr., New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982); Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament: Countering the Challenges to Evangelical Christian Beliefs (Nashville: B&H, 2016); Peter J. Williams, Can We Trust the Gospels? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018); Steven L. Cox and Kendall H. Easley, eds., Harmony of the Gospels (Nashville: B&H, 2007); John Wenham, The Easter Enigma: Are the Resurrection Accounts in Conflict? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984).
Maulavi Saiyid Amir Ali, “Christianity from the Islâmic Standpoint,” in Christianity: Some Non-Christian Appraisals, ed. David W. McKain (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), esp. 226–29, 232, 237.
Mauliv Muhammad Ali, “Muhammad and Christ,” in McKain, Christianity, particularly 279, 282, 287–88.
Salih-ud-din Khuda Bukhsh, “A Mohammedan View of Christendom,” in McKain, Christianity, 243–45, 254.
According to QS 2:87, 136, 253; 3:45; 4:171; 5:111; 6:86, 90; 19:30; 42:13. Unless otherwise noted, Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall’s well-known volume is being used: The Meaning of the Glorious Koran: An Explanatory Translation (New York: New American Library, 1953).
Ali, “Christianity from the Islâmic Standpoint,” 231–32.
Geoffrey Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur’an (Oxford: Oneworld, 1995), 122.
Bukhsh, “Mohammedan View of Christendom,” 244–45.
The Glorious Qur’an with English Translation and Commentary, 18th ed. (Piscataway, NJ: Why Islam?, 2003), QS 4:157 plus comment.
Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction?, 31, 78.
Deedat, 88.
Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur’an, 122.
Parrinder, 123–24.
Glorious Qur’an, QS 43:61 and commentary on 493. For a more detailed note along these same lines, see QS 4:157 in this translation, plus the commentary afterward at 4:159.
Donald R. Rickards, “The Contextualization of the Gospel in the World of Islam,” Liberty Baptist Theological Lecture Series 1 (1984): 40–83, esp. 63–67.
Glorious Qur’an, QS 4:159, esp. the commentary on 102.
Again, see Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction?, 88.
Deedat, 6.
Deedat, 6; also, this same technique is found on 6–7, 16, 19–21, 39–40.