Tathbit Dala'il Nubuwwat Sayyidina Mahammad 5

is also to be found there. "As for the four Gospels: one of them was composed by John (Yuhanna) and another by Matthew. Then, after these two came Mark (M.r.q.s.) who was not satisfied with their two Gospels. Then, after these came Luke (Luqa), who was not satisfied with these Evangels and composed (still) another one. Each one of them was of the opinion (wkana `inda kull wahid min ha`ula') that the man who had composed a Gospel before him, had given a correct account of (certain) things and had distorted (akhalla) others, and that another (Gospel) would be more deserving of recognition and more correct. For if his predecessor had succeeded in giving a correct account, there would have been no need for him to compose another, different from that of his predecessor. "None of these four Gospels is a commentary upon another (Gospel); (it is not a case of) someone who coming after (someone else) comments upon his predecessor's book, giving first an account of what the latter had said, and then (proposing) a commentary. Know this: (he who composed a Gospel) did this, because another man had fallen short of success (qaxxara) (at his task).

"These (Christian) sects are of the opinion that these four (Evangelists) were companions and disciples of Christ. But they do not know, having no information (on the subject), who they were. On this (point) they can (merely) make a claim. For Luke mentions in his Gospel that he had never seen Christ. Addressing (the man) for whom he composed his Gospel—-he is the last of the four (Evangelists)—- he says: "I knew your desire of good, of knowledge and of instruction (al-adab), and I composed this Gospel because I knew this and because I was close to those who had served and seen the Word (al-kalima)." Thus he says clearly in the first place that he did not see the Word—-they signify by this word Christ; thereupon he claims to have seen people) who had seen Christ. But his having seen them is a (mere) assertion (on his part). If he had been someone deserving of trust, he would not have-in view of the (kind of) information (which was at his disposal)—-composed anything at all. In spite of this he mentions that his Gospel is preferable to those of the others.

"If the Christians would consider these things, they would know that the Gospels which are with them are of no profit to them, and that the knowledge claimed (on their behalf) by their masters and the authors (of these Gospels) is not (found) in them, and that on this point things are just as we have said—-it is a well-known (fact) which is referred to here (namely the fact that they have abandoned the religion of Christ and turned towards) the religious doctrines of the Romans, prizing and (seeking to obtain) in haste the profits which could be derived from their domination and their riches.'"

"If the Christians would refer to the information (they have) and to what is written in their Gospels, they would know, as they give credence to the latter, that it was not Christ who was killed and crucified.'" Thus ends the Tathbit Dala'il Nubuwwat Sayyidina Mahammad. The following from 'Recognitions of Clement' supports what is written in this document.

"Knowing my brother, your eager desire after that which is for the advantage of us all, I beg and beseech you not to communicate to any one of the Gentiles the books of my preachings which I sent to you, nor to any one of our own tribe before trial;..."

"In order, therefore that the like may also happen to those among us as to these Seventy, give the books of my preachings to our brethren, with the like mystery of initiation, that they may indoctrinate those who wish to take part in teaching; for if it be not so done, our word of truth will be rent into many opinions. And this I know, not as being a prophet, but as already seeing the beginning of this very evil. For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my legal preaching, attaching themselves to certain lawless and trifling preaching of the man who is my enemy...."

"And these things some have attempted while I am still alive, to transform my words by certain various interpretations.... But if, while I am still alive, they dare thus to misinterpret me, how much more will those who shall come after me dare to do so!"—Recognitions of Clement

The idea of the Jews or Nazoreans not allowing their holy books to fall into the hands of the Romans is supported by the Roman Emperor Vespasian's testimony in the J. M. Roberts book 'Antiquity Unveiled.' "...with all my endeavors to get possession of the old books of the Jews, I did not succeed in getting one; for the Jews destroyed them rather than that they should be desecrated by heathens."

The following verses refer to the actual capture and execution of Jesus from the document: "Thus (the man) who was (still) in a state of perturbation, fear and anguish, was brought before Pilate. The king tried to tranquillize him and asked him as to what the Jews had asserted with regard to him, namely that he was the Christ. He denied having said this. (Pilate however) did not cease asking him and trying to make him feel at ease, so that he should give an explanation about himself and that (Pilate) should hear from him a witty saying (adab) or a precept. However, he could not allay the perturbation, fear, anguish, the weeping and the sobbing (of the man) and he sent him back to Herod, saying to the latter: "I have found in this man nothing that has been ascribed to him. There is nothing good in him. "And he explained this (by referring) to the man's deficiency and ignorance. Herod said: "It is now night. Conduct him to prison." And they conducted him (there). The next day the Jews became importunate, seized him, proclaimed his infamy, tormented him, inflicting upon him various tortures, then at about the end of the day they whipped him and brought him to a melon-patch (mabtakha) and a vegetable garden (mabqala). There they crucified him and pierced him with lances in order that he should die quickly. As for him, crucified upon a piece of wood as he was, he did not cease crying out as loudly as he could: "My God, why did you abandon me, my God, why did you forsake me" until he died.

"Then Judas Iscariot met the Jews and said to them: "What did you do with the man you seized yesterday?" They said: "We have crucified him." Judas was amazed at this, and thought (the thing) hardly credible (istab'ada). But they said to him: "We have done it. If you want to know it (for sure), go to a certain melon-patch." He went there, and when he saw him, he said: "He is an innocent man." He insulted the Jews, got out the thirty pieces which they had given him as a reward and threw them in their face. And he went to his (own) house and strangled himself.'"

The text clearly places the blame for the execution of Jesus on the Jews, but there exist many problems with the text. First, the idea that Jesus was not crucified near Jerusalem, but in some exurban agricultural region is not consistent with the scriptures. However, this idea would not be that strange as the Romans were far too sophisticted in regional political affairs to have allowed the crucifixion of a popular cult figure such as Jesus in a heavily populated site as depicted in the gospel accounts. Secondly, this account of the Jews crucifying Jesus in an agricultural region is consistent with the Lud tradition of the execution of the Essene 'Teacher of Righteousness' by Aristobulus II, c 65 BCE. More importantly, it is clear that the Romans and only the Romans carried out executions during their occupation of Israel. The idea that the Jews would have gone against the will of their Roman occupiers is incredulous since the perpetrators would have paid with their own lives. The idea of Judas strangling himself represents a latter day account and is not consistent with the earliest renditons of the gospel accounts which state that his stomach exploded. It seems that this story is a latter day conflation of the execution of the Essene 'Teacher' and the gospel crucifixion story.

Table of Contents